This debate was adjourned upon a note——
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT No. 10) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE (Resumed).
Of interrogation?
Both sides were going to get closer to defining what their differences were and upon what grounds there might be a basis of agreement. Frankly, it must be confessed that the average man feels that he has been fooled to such an extent about Articles 47 and 48 that he is not in a mood for accepting mere statements across the House by way of guarantee. It would take a considerable amount of reassuring to make us feel that the offers made by President Cosgrave and the Minister for Finance were not merely an attempt at sending the fool further. I regret this myself. I think it is one of the most tragic results of what has gone before that there is not some sort of a basic understanding upon real national principles. I do not believe this country is going to go ahead until it does what every other country does, until it has certain basic agreement upon questions of, for instance, progress towards complete unity and freedom in the country. These, everybody will admit, are the real interests in Irish life, and they cannot be dismissed as mere matters of formula or abstract questions any more than title to property can be dismissed as an abstract question when the people who hold the title to property are inflicting certain injuries upon the tenants who happen to be occupiers of that property. In national life the question of principles and the question of individual interests are absolutely intertwined, and to such an extent as to lead to the old saying that patriotism is enlightened selfishness. It is the selfishness of the whole community that realises that by standing together on the big principles of national independence and unity they are really serving their own purpose best as individuals.
The way in which we have been treated reminds one very much of a story which Standish O'Grady wrote at one time. He said he pictured before him two persons playing a game of chess, playing it earnestly at a table. One of the players was an Irish leader at any time in Irish history. He was symbolic. He played the game with this other man, and as the game went on it became clearer and clearer that the Irish leader was winning, and when the game was very near the end a figure stepped out from behind a curtain and swept away the chess-board. That old analogy applies very well to the present situation and to the sweeping away of the Articles 47 and 48 immediately they cease to be an adornment and are being put to the use of making a step towards the freedom of this country. The President admitted as much. He blamed Deputy de Valera for having obliged his Ministry by presenting the petition—obliged him to remove these Articles. So long as these were ornaments and were not put to use they could remain there for ever. But the minute they became an instrument in making a step further in the direction of the freedom of the country, then the chess-board had to be swept away. We were winning the game, and the game could not be allowed to continue. In that atmosphere it is very hard to see how any promise or any pledge can be accepted from the people who had swept away the chess-board. When Republicans were at war every effort was made by high dignitaries of the Church, by spokesmen of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and others trying to induce Republicans, saying that if they would only lay down their guns and have recourse to the machinery of the Constitution that they would get an opportunity of freeing their country step by step. The analogy of the valve and the trap has been used. There is, I believe, a system by which that trap is used in countries where there is big game. They put a bleating lamb or a goat inside the palisade and they leave the door open until the lion or the tiger comes inside, and then they close the door; they have a convenient trap-door by which they let out the bleating lamb or goat. Now the trap-door is being opened and the bleating lambs of Article 47 and Article 48 are being let out by the trap-door because they think they have trapped the wild beast of Republicanism in their constitutional trap. Well, if they think that a Government or a country can be run upon these tricks they are making very grave mistakes. Even if nothing else happens, a Ministry in this country which thinks it is going to depend upon public opinion after doing that sort of thing is making a great mistake, because the sheer contempt which any Irish public will have for tricks like that will mean the end of that Government in a very short time. It was put very strongly by the Minister for Justice that the only object of our using Articles 47 and 48 was to wreck the Constitution. Well, let us look at it from his point of view. Supposing he does regard the removal of Article 17 of the Constitution as a wrecking of the Constitution—which, of course, I submit is nonsense—but suppose he thinks that, is it not time enough to say good-morning to the devil when he meets him?
Shocking language to use.
Deputy Mark Antony must not expect the same eloquence from me as from himself. But to say that because one Article of the Constitution may be used for some purpose which a particular party does not like, that therefore that Article is to go, is simply an exercise of tyranny. To say that because the Minister for Justice does not like the idea of getting rid of Article 17 of the Constitution, that therefore Articles 47 and 48 must go, is simply to say that we are going to stop any exercise of judgment by the Irish people for fear that they may exercise that upon the particular matter which we object to. The amendment has nothing in it as to the wrecking of the Constitution. Its terms are:—"That the Bill should not be further considered, as it is the opinion of the Dáil that Article 47 and 48 should be retained until the people by direct vote have expressed their will on the question of deletion." That I submit is fundamental to any constitution—that where a question involving the powers of the people is at stake, that the people should be directly consulted on that particular issue. As has already been pointed out, the Referendum is not a protection for the minority. It is a protection for the people. You could not get a better example of a place where it should be used than here. When people argue that other countries have not got a Referendum and that in some countries it has not been altogether a success, that has no bearing upon the Irish situation at all. The fact is that the powers are here. The rights of the people have been, I would not say established, because the people's rights are always established, but, they are here given an opportunity of expression, and this opportunity of expression is suddenly and very rapidly swept away from them. The Referendum, as it is here in the Constitution adumbrated, because that is all it is, the full machinery is not there, may be a good thing or may not be a good thing. It is only by trying whether it suits Irish conditions or not that we are going to be fully convinced whether it is good or not, and the argument is put forward that if in large countries it has not been a success, it will not be a success here. That may be so. We are not a large country. We are a very small country, and I think in point of population we are not as large a country as Switzerland. The argument is put forward that in Switzerland you have direct government by the cantons and in the communes and you have the cantonal system as well. I for one would welcome a development in the direction of direct government. I think that whatever may be said for other forms of government, representative government as exemplified in England to-day is a wash-out. The whole Party system becomes either a corrupted force, as it is in England, of gain between two or three parties, or else supporting all the time a plutocracy against the ordinary people, and that is what it is in England; or else, on the other hand, it becomes something in the nature of a sort of civil war as in Ireland, because there is no fundamental understanding upon big national issues. Therefore the arguments put forward by the Minister for Justice carry, I must say, very little weight with me, because I think the more we get back to the people, the more we educate the people through direct government if necessary on a communal system such as exists in Switzerland, and even with the cantons, the more I would welcome it for one.
There are two big difficulties raised by this Bill in connection with Article 50 of the Constitution. That Article states:—
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,
Mark those words, "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 as such shall be subject to the provisions of Article 47 hereof.
Notice that the terms of this Bill merely repeal the last two lines of that Article, namely: "and as such shall be subject to the provisions of Article 47 hereof." It does not eliminate the element of the Referendum higher up in this Article, so that you will be in the extraordinary position if you want to change the Constitution afterwards, of having to create the Referendum for the purpose, or else of saying that it is impossible to change the Constitution because the Referendum has been ruled out. The effect of that would also be that, if we happened to come into power within the next two years, the minority in this country would not even have the machinery in Article 47 to protect them.
That would be very serious.
It is not, I submit, exactly what they intended to do; to leave themselves without protection from the wild beasts that they thought they had trapped in the palisade. I suppose it would have been a case of falling into the trap themselves, of being in bad company. I believe that in the minds, not of the Government front bench, but in the minds of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party generally, and in the minds of many of the independent members, there is a lurking fear that perhaps in some way or other, if Article 47 and 48 were put into force, that they would have no reference to Article 17, and that if Article 17 were removed there would be a grave element of danger in dealing with England. Now it is absolutely necessary to remove that fear. It is expressed shortly by the words of the Minister for Justice when he said that it was going to lead to the wrecking of the Constitution.
By the people?
Yes, by the people. From their point of view it is not going to lead to any element of wrecking, even of the Constitution or anything else. It is a normal and natural change for any Irishman to take into consideration. Of course, I can understand a frank Unionist regarding it as a breach of law and order and of the Constitution in the old-fashioned sense before 1916; but I cannot understand anyone now not assuming it as natural and inevitable that, in the course of time, the Irish people will march towards freedom, and that Articles 47 and 48 supply an easy way for that march. Suppose, for instance, that Article 17 were abolished by means of the petition, and suppose you had a sensible Ministry in power, even if they were not Republicans, and that they saw the situation was shaping in such a way that they had to bend to the storm, what would their natural attitude be? They would have a vote of the people to see if they wanted to get rid of Article 17. They would have a large party in the House pressing for the removal of Article 17, and, on the other hand, they would have the British Government beginning to give out dark hints and trying to bluff this country into disobeying the mandate of the people.
The Deputy cannot go on to discuss Article 17.
I am trying to deal with Article 17 itself. I think you will admit that there is at the back of the minds of the people who use phrases about wrecking the Constitution and the danger of Article 47 and 48, a legitimate matter which, I think, you should allow one to refer to at least. Our attitude on this has been all along that while there is the Oath in the Treaty—this has been carefully considered by lawyers who could not make a mistake in the matter—it does not make that a matter of obligation in the Constitution.
The Deputy cannot go on to develop that point on this amendment.
I do not want to go any further, except to point out——
The Deputy must leave it there.
—that there is no danger in retaining Articles 47 and 48 by making use of Article 17. There is no element of danger, and there is a very strong case to be made for a united House achieving what we desire to achieve by means of it. I do not think that even if this particular Bill becomes an Act that it entirely meets the situation.
Article 48 of the Constitution says:—
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.
The words used here are "it shall on petition." It does not say that it may. When the petition is presented it says that "it shall on the petition." The petition has been signed and, therefore, as far as Article 48 is concerned, everything which should be done has been done, if the law is to be kept and worked automatically. The next and only step which can be taken at this stage is to examine the evidence as to the reliability of the petition. That objection has been safeguarded by the fact that those who took the signatures went before the Peace Commissioners and made a statutory declaration before these officers of State. You cannot go behind their bona fides. You must accept them unless you are going to indict them for breaking their oath to carry out their duties. You cannot go behind these statutory declarations. All you can do is to examine them and see that they are correct. We have supplied the necessary machinery for bringing evidence that that petition is a correct petition. Article 48 does not even say that the petition is to be presented. Further, it does not say that it is to be accepted by the House. It says “on petition.” I submit that 96,000 people have made that petition. The petition is there, and on that petition the House is bound to act. All the legislation in the world cannot get away from what has happened. Even Deputy Thrift's motion is a breach of the Constitution, because it delayed what should be the automatic action of this House. So, too, this Bill does not get the Government out of their difficulty. It is still, so far as that petition is concerned, breaking the law by not putting Article 48 into operation, so that if they pass this law they still continue to be unconstitutional, for on the advice which they have received from the “Irish Times” they have not succeeded in doing what it suggested they should do, namely, establish a dangerous principle which may be followed by the Republicans afterwards when they come into power. That precedent is there, and has been there since Deputy Thrift's motion was accepted by the House, and it will be further there by neglecting to act on the petition of 96,000 voters of this country. The argument was put forward by the President that we cannot rely on that petition because some of those who signed it are dead. Does he contend that 20,000 or 25,000 have died? The number required is only 75,000. We have 96,000 who signed, and even if they are dead that does not affect the matter. They signed in good faith.
I think the Deputy is wandering from the amendment. I refused to allow other Deputies to discuss the petition or Deputy Thrift's amendment which has already been discussed and decided by the House.
The point I was making is that this Bill, even if it is passed, would be ineffective to do what it is intended to do.
resumed the Chair.
It is a wonder how the Minister for Finance woke up like a Rip Van Winkle to find that two Articles of the Constitution were fantastic. Of course it is the consequence of what might be called the spirit of counterrevolution, which is getting away from the people. Up to a certain date there was a national fervour in this country out of which we were getting the very best the people could give, and that led to confidence in the people. After that time, after the passing of the Treaty, apparently confidence in the people was lost, and the last stage was arrived at when it was discovered that to accept the decision of the people on any matter such as the broad issues of a measure of legislation is fantastic, frills, mere ornaments, and that the minute any attempt was made to use them they break down and are found to be impossible. I suggest that we should reverse the engines and that we should go in the direction of trusting the people. Only by trust and by such institutions as the Referendum will the people be educated to the use of the Referendum, and above all, even if it is thought advisable to get rid of the Referendum, it is essential that the people, having been given that power, should themselves be called upon to relinquish that power, and that any other conduct in connection with the clauses of the Referendum is a tyrannical use of—I will not say the majority in this House, because it is not a majority party but a minority party which by various means has gathered up a following sufficient to give it a temporary majority on this motion.
Táim in aghaidh an Bhille seo chun Airtiogal 47 agus 48 do chur ar neamhní. Ar an gcéad dul síos is contabhartach an rud é. Do mholas do mhuinntir na Gaillimhe, agus go háirithe do na h-ógánaigh, triall do bhaint go mór mór as Airtiogal 48, chun an méid saoirse atá againn do leathnú agus seans do thabhairt do chúrsaí polaitíochta. Bhí súil agus dóchas acu—agus bhí an ceart acu—go bhféadfaí feidhm a bhaint as an airtiogal san chun an Bunreacht do leasú. Cad a dearfad leo anois? Déarfaidh siad nach raibh an ceart agam— go raibh mé ag iarraidh dalla puicín do chur orra. Níl fhios agam cén freagra a thabharfaidh mé dóibh nuair a rachaidh mé ar ais go Gaillimh. Má glactar leis an Bhille seo, má déantar reacht de, an móide an meas a bhéas ag na daoine ar an mBunreacht féin ar no ar chúrsaí polaitíochta. Nách dócha go mbeidh éadóchas ortha agus ní dhéanfaidh sin aon mhaith don Dáil seo no don chúrsaí polaitíochta. Táim cinnte nach rachaidh sé chun thairbhe ná chun síochána don tír seo. Cad é an deithneas atá san scéal so anois. Níl fhios agam an bhfuil de chomhacht againn na hairtiogail seo de bhaint as an Bhunreacht in aon chor.
Do réir Airtiogal 48, tá sé de dhualgas agus d'oblagáid ar an Dáil glaca le hathchuinge na ndaoine. Do cuireadh isteach athchuinge ar a raibh 100,000 ainmneacha nách mór curtha leis. Bhí an athchuinge sin ós cóir na Dála sul ar cuireadh an leasú so agus is dóigh liom fhéin ná raibh aon dul as ach glacadh leis. Cé an fáth nach leantar den tairisgint atá istigh ag an Teachta Thrift. Nách féidir dul ar aghaidh leis sin agus gan an Bille seo do thabhairt ós cóir na Dála? Dá ndéanfaí sin agus an Bille seo do tharrac siar b'fhearrde é an náisiún agus b'fhearrde an Dáil é agus thiocfhadh linn dul ar aghaidh le gnáth-obair na Dála—le Meastacháin na bliana, le cúrsaí oideachais agus leis na nithe eile a bhí ós ar gcóir coicís ó shoin. Deirtear ag cuid des na hAirí gur rud beag suarach é seo. Más mar sin atá an scéal, cad 'na thaobh ná fuilid sásta é leigint ar lár go ceann tamaill. Dubhradh ag cuid des na hAirí gur deineadh tagairt don scéal seo leathbhliain ó shoin—go raibh an cheist ós cóir na ndaoine. Bhíos ag éisteacht le n-a lán daoine—Airí agus Teachtaí —ag labhairt nuair a bhí an Mór-Thogha ar siubhal agus níor chualas duine aca ag déanamh tagairt don scéal so. Níor thrácht siad air in aon chor. Bhí a lán ceisteanna os cóir na ndaoine gan dabht, ach ní dhéarnadh aon tagairt don cheist seo. Níor thuig na daoine go raibh an scéal seo i gceist. Níor thuig aon duine gur ar a shon an ruda so a fuair Cumann na nGaedheal 67 Teachtaí. Deir an tAire Airgid nach ceist táchtach an rud so. Más mar sin atá an scéal, mholfainn dó iarraidh ar an Uachtarán an Bille seo do leigint ar lár no a tharraing siar. Ba mhaith an rud é na haltanna san a fhógairt sa Bhunreacht. Sciath cosanta atá ionta dá mba rud é nach mbainfi úsáid asta.
Deirtear go bhfuil baol ann go mbainfí feidhm as an airtiogal san ag muinntir na tíre nuair a bheadh furmhór na ndaoine in a aghaidh. Ach nách é sin an cúis go bhfuil an t-airtiogal ann—i dtreo go mbeadh comhacht ag muinntir na tíre. Deirtear go mb'fhéidir go mbainfí úsáid as chun an mhóid do bhaint amach as an mBunreacht. Ná fuil cead ag muinntir na tíre é sin do dhéanamh. Is dócha go dtiocfadh síocháin don tír as agus ní rud suarach é sin. Pé scéal é, ba mhaith liom a chloisint ón Aire Airgid —agus is mór an truagh é nar míníodh an scéal san dúinn seachtain ó shoin— gur mian leo a thuille aimsire do thabhairt lasmuigh de na hocht mbliana mar a bhí beartuithe ina an mBunreacht, chun an Bunreacht do leasú ins an Dáil. Dá mhíneochadh siad dúinn cad é an scéim atá aca chun é a dhéanamh b'fhéidir go mbeimís in án dul ar aghaidh leis an gnáth-obair. Ba mhaith liom a thuille do chloisint ón Uachtarán ar an gceist seo.
Cad é an tuille is féidir leis an Uachtáran a rádh?
Thiocfadh leis é do scríobhadh síos no bille beag do thabhairt isteach go dtabharfaí cúig bliana eile agus na trí coiníollacha.
Cad iad na trí coiníollacha?
Ní féidir liom-sa iad do shocrú agus bhféidir nách féidir leat-sa. D'fhéadfadh an Dáil no fó-choiste den Dáil é do shocrú.
An ndéarfaidh an Teachta go mbeidh sé sásta glacadh leis an mBille seo—má thugann an t-Uachtarán Bille eile isteach ag leathnú na haimsire go ceann chúig mblian eile in alt a caogad.
Ní abráim é sin ach dá mbéinn sásta go mbeadh sé chó furus annsin an Bunreacht do leasú agus mar tá sé anois bhéinn sásta an Bille seo do leigint thart.
Ná dubhairt an tUachtarán go raibh sé toilteanach san do dhéanamh?
Ach, dá ndéanfadh sé sin do scri síos. Mholfainn don Rialtas an Bille seo do leigint ar lár go dtí go mbeidh an Bille eile chun na haimsire do leathnú ós cóir na Dála. Tuigfidh an tAire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí nach leor Bille do thabhairt isteach ag leathnú na tréimhse go ceann chúig mblian eile. B'fhéidir go gcuirfaoi a lán coiníollacha isteach ann. B'fhéidir nach mbeadh an tAire in án gach líne den Bhille do chur ós ar gcóir ach thiocfadh leis furmhór de na mórchoiníollacha a chur romhainn.
Dá dtabharfaí isteach Bille ag síne na n-ocht mblian tré chúig mblian eile do chur leo—is furas san do thuigsint agus níl gá le n-a lán líne chun chun é do dhéanamh—an mbeadh an Teachta sásta glaca leis an mBille seo.
Ní dó liom go mbéinn sásta leis an méid sin— muna mbeadh sé chó furus an Bunreacht do leasú agus mar atá anois?
Cuig blian eile agus é a bheith mar tá sé anois, taobh amuigh de sin?
Cúig bliain eile agus é a bheith chó furus an Bunreacht do leasú agus mar tá anois.
I rith na gcúig mblian?
Seadh. Is dó liom go mbeadh sé chó furas don Rialtas é sin do dhéanamh le deich mBille do thabhairt ós cóir na Dála an Bunreacht do leasú i rith seachtaine. Bheadh sé chó furas Bille eile do cheapa le sin do dhéanamh.
Sé rud ná tuigim fós. An mbeidh an Teachta sásta le sin?
Bhéinn sásta dá bhfaghainn cúig bliana eile agus é chur síos go soiléir go mbeadh sé chó furas an Bunreacht do leasú ar feadh na gcúig mblian san agus mar atá sé anois.
Dá gcuirfí cúig bliana eile isteach gan aon athrú eile do dhéanamh, an ndéanfadh sé an gnó?
Trí bliana déag in ionad ocht mbliana.
Trí bliana déag gan aon rud eile do chur isteach.
Caithfidh mé machtnamh a dhéanamh ar sin.
Dá gcuirfí isteach 13 bliana in ionad 8 mbliana bheadh an scéal mar a bhí sí ón bhliain 1922.
Dá gcuireadh an tUachtarán é sin síos ar pháipéar thiocfadh linn a fheicsint i gceann leath-uaire a' chluig ar mbeimís sásta nó ná mbeimís. Ní mór an méid aimsire leath-uair a chluig agus an t-am atá caithte againn ar an mBille seo. D'fhéadfá Bille do cheapa agus gan ach cúpla líne bheith ann.
Ní thuigim conus mar atá an scéal anois. Dá gcuirimís 13 bliana isteach agus an fuirse céanna a bheith ann an nglacfadh na Teachtaí ar an dtaobh eile leis an mBille atá ós ár gcóir? Má chuirimíd isteach Bille nua cad a bheidh le fáil againn ós na Teachtaí ar an dtaobh eile?
Ní féidir liom labhairt ar son an pháirtí ach is féidir liom é seo a rádh: dá mbeadh an Bille os ar gcóir amáireach d'fhéadfaimís an cheist do shocrú i gceann leath-huaire a'chluig. Ní bhead aon chailliúint aimsire ann. Ní ceart a iarraidh orm-sa an scéal do shocrú ar an bpoinnte.
It is very hard for anybody on these benches to introduce anything in the way of a Bill that would find favour with the Government, as far as I can see from the attitude adopted throughout the whole discussion. There are, however, a few points that I would like to refer to. I should like briefly to refer to the history of this Bill and to mention a few of the ideas and views I have got as a result of the situation. The Minister for Justice might have left out the statement that the Constitution contained flaws, the flaws being particularly Articles 47 and 48. If they were flaws, they received no attention for quite a considerable time and it was only on the introduction of the Petition that the flaws were taken note of at all. Some of the Deputies, arguing on the introduction of the Petition, gave the impression clearly that the Petition, joined as it was with the matter relating to Article 17. was such that it could not be accepted on account of its repugnance to the Treaty. I do not agree with that view, but I am trying to fathom how a Deputy who conscientiously believes that a Petition such as this could not be accepted because of its repugnance to the Treaty is justified in voting for the abolition of Articles 47 and 48. If he feels he is correct in that attitude, and if the majority of the members of this House agree with him, has he not sufficient assurance that our Petition is not going to do any damage from his point of view. Evidently that is not the real reason because otherwise he could not conscientiously vote for the deletion of Articles 47 and 48 of this Constitution where this Petition cannot be accepted from his point of view. The Minister for Justice referred to an attempt on two occasions in Germany to introduce the referendum. He pointed out that on both occasions these attempts failed, but he did not tell us that as a result of their being fiascoes the German Government deleted the referendum clause from their Constitution. I think if he had pointed out to us an instance of any country that had such a clause in their Constitution, and that, as a result of an effort being made to make use of it, it turned out to be a fiasco, and the country removed the referendum from its Constitution, I might then feel that I could be impressed with that suggestion. The Minister went on to deal with countries like Switzerland and America, forgetting all the time that these countries have not got the political situation confronting them that we have got here. We are quite frank and open about our attitude as regards the national situa- tion. Those countries have no such international difficulties or differences at all. They have no outside power, even indirectly, governing their advancement towards freedom and independence. They have their freedom and their independence. Any difficulties they might have would be purely domestic, and there would be no interference from an outside source. I do not know if the Ceann Comhairle would allow the discussion of a new Article of the Constitution, that is Article 83, the very last Article of the Constitution. As far as I can read that Article, and I would like Professor Thrift to read it, we have no power in this Dáil to make any laws whatever which affect the rights of the people as far as their making laws is concerned. This Dáil is only the custodian of certain powers to work under this Constitution. Article 83 states:—
"The passing and adoption of this Constitution by the Constituent Assembly and the British Parliament shall be announced as soon as may be, and not later than the sixth day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two by Proclamation of His Majesty, and this Constitution shall come into operation on the issue of such Proclamation."
If you take Article 83 in conjunction with Article 2, I do not see how we can in any way alter the Constitution without submitting whatever alteration we want to make either by way of Referendum or by way of Petition on the part of the people themselves. Article 50 has been dealt with, to a certain extent, by Deputy Little, and when the Government try to make out that Articles 47, 48, and 50 slipped in by accident, without any thought, slipped in just as a flaw, I imagine that a legal mind at least could judge that these Articles were put in after a great deal of thought. One has a bearing on the other, and they all go back to Article 2. If you remove these Articles, or alter them in any way, what effect do you give to Article 2 of the Constitution? How could the people be ever classed or recognised as those who make the laws, or from whom the laws of the country are derived? I contend that while the Government has certain powers of administering laws under this Constitution, and is the custodian of the Nation's march in any direction, they have no right whatever to interfere in any way with the Articles of the Constitution, which are paramount in the interests of the people. Article 2 will have no power whatever; it might as well be taken out with the others. Article 2 definitely states one thing. The means by which the people can work Article 2 are those very Articles which it is now being thought to delete or alter. How they can afterwards argue the Constitution as a Constitution, beginning at Article 2 and ending at Article 83, is something that I cannot understand. I do not intend to make any appeal to the Government in this matter, but I do wish to state that I, in common with the members on these benches, recognise that it is the will of the people that will make or mar the country in any direction. We have to stand over what the people want. But the attitude taken up now means reversing the situation. The people will have to take what this Dáil decides and, constitutionally, there will be no way out of it if there is going to be this class of action. A good deal of talk went on for quite a long time by certain people before Republicans came into the Dáil to work towards the Republican ideal. It was said to them: "Come into the House and you can work towards your ideal constitutionally." Now we are here given abuse for trying to work the Constitution constitutionally. That is what we meet with. Afterwards if things happen which are not desirable we certainly cannot be blamed, we certainly cannot be told that we did not make an honest effort to work towards what we frankly came in to say we were going to do. I ask the Independent Deputies again to try to explain to themselves why they used arguments on the introduction of the Petition stating that it could not be accepted on account of its repugnancy to the Treaty, and why they are now turning around and are going to support the abolition of the Articles under which this Petition, according to themselves, could not be accepted.
I confess that I find it very difficult to convince myself that President Cosgrave, who has introduced this Constitution Amendment Bill No. 10, is the same President Cosgrave whom we have all heard so much about during the last five years. Probably my difficulty in that respect is due to the fact that I have not yet reached that high standard of intellectual ability which is the proud boast of the Front Bench, that high standard of intellectual ability which enables Ministers to roll glibly off their tongues such classical terms towards Deputies as "Shut up!" and "Put a sock in it!"
Will the Deputy come to the Bill?
I have no doubt——
Will the Deputy come to the Bill now?
I am explaining my difficulty in recognising the promoter of this Bill as the individual who we are told is the same President Cosgrave whom we had known some years ago. Whether we like it or not we have to face the fact that this Government, which now sponsors a Bill for the abolition of Articles 47 and 48, is the same Government which, a few years ago, sponsored a civil war in defence——
It has already been ruled that that was out of order on this Bill, and the Deputy will have to keep to that ruling.
I did not intend to enter into a discussion on the civil war——
The Deputy intends to have permission to state his view, and then say there should be no discussion. That is impossible. There must be discussion. The Deputy must keep to the Bill.
Well, at any rate, the Government has used all the resources of the State in an effort, we were told, to establish supreme and unchallenged the will of the people. In the discussion that took place on the Initiative Ministers assured us that they were determined to see that the people would not be tricked into the removal of the Oath. The President, the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, and the Minister for Education told us repeatedly that that petition motion was a trick. No doubt their honest hearts were stirred to indignation at the thought of the poor, simple Irish people being tricked into something they did not desire and something that they did not understand. In that connection I submit that their fears are absolutely groundless, because so far as this Party is concerned, if I have interpreted their policy correctly, I think I can challenge contradiction of the statement that on every conceivable occasion they made it clear that they were determined, as far as they possibly could, to get rid of Article 17. Where, then, does the trick come in? Those who are talking of the people being tricked evidently have very short memories. They are the very same people who tricked the electorate into the acceptance of a Constitution which was only published on the morning of the election of 1923, and, of course, the Constitution in 1923 contained Articles 47 and 48. It was the whole Constitution then. The people were told all about this great charter of liberty which was to bring peace and prosperity, and within its clauses there was full and ample opportunity for the people to work towards the national goal. Of course, there was no trickery on the part of the Executive Council in that connection. There was no trickery in connection with the manner in which they put through the Boundary Agreement, nor in the manner in which they abolished——
Just once more: If the Deputy intends to make a speech on this Bill I am prepared to allow him. If he does not begin his speech on this Bill he cannot make a speech on something else.
I submit I am at liberty to discuss the Constitution. I submit——
No, you certainly are not.
In so far as perhaps this is the last opportunity that we will have to recognise the Constitution as we once knew it, and I should like, with your permission, to refresh the minds of Deputies as to what the Constitution was when it was accepted and as to what it will be if and when this Bill is put through.
The Deputy must be relevant to the proposals in the Bill. None of the things he has mentioned so far seems to be relevant. They seem to be a preamble.
Very well, then. I want to know if it would not be more honest on the part of the President to admit that his opposition to the Initiative and his reason for the introduction of this Constitution No. 10 Bill is really that if Articles 47 and 48 were allowed to remain and become operative, his fear is that such action would bring upon him the censure of His Majesty King George? I can see no other reason for it. Deputy Boland stated this afternoon that it was because we on these benches felt that the Government is not engaged in Irish business, that this is business purely in the interest of the Empire, that we have taken up our attitude of opposition to these Bills and why we intend to continue our opposition to them. I think it is a feasible assumption that the President has suddenly come to the conclusion that the giving effect to Article 48, and the power of the Initiative and the Referendum, would place him in a very serious position so far as the British Empire is concerned. In that connection I would like to ease the President's mind. I submit that he could go over to London and state to His Majesty King George—he could even go in full court dress, and he need not send a letter of apology, as he felt constrained to do on a previous occasion—he could go over and tell His Majesty King George that this Article——
This House is discussing the abolition of Articles 47 and 48 of the Constitution. There is no necessity for the President to go anywhere else to get authority for deleting these Articles or for keeping them in. The Deputy need not proceed on that line of argument at all. The Deputy is again simply introducing another matter which is not relevant to the Bill. He is entitled to do that in certain places, but he is not entitled to do it here.
Is it not a fact that when we introduced the motion for the Initiative we were told here that it would lead to a breach of the Treaty and would bring us into a clash with the British Government?
The Deputy is confusing the position with regard to that and the position with regard to Articles 47 and 48 of the Constitution. It is not the same.
The point I wish to make is that the reason for getting rid of Articles 47 and 48 is because if they were allowed to remain the power of the Initiative would remain also, and would have to be given effect to. I was going to point out that the President could challenge the British Cabinet to deny that they were responsible for the inclusion of Articles 47 and 48 in the Constitution. He could state that the Constitution had been submitted to the British Cabinet——
The Deputy must keep to Articles 47 and 48 without telling us about the British Cabinet.
—that Articles 47 and 48 had escaped the blue pencil of British Ministers who were responsible for the final draft. It is common knowledge to all of us unfortunately that they were responsible for sending it over here in the form, which amounted to a declaration—and it is on the official records of this House that there are certain clauses in that Constitution which cannot be altered to the extent of a comma.
On a point of order I submit that the Deputy is out of order and is not speaking to the motion before the House. I have been ruled out of order for a mere reference to the Constitution. The Deputy has been referring to the Constitution for the last ten minutes.
I called the attention of the House to the fact that Deputy Cooney was irrelevant, and I called the Deputy's attention to the fact that he cannot discuss the Constitution generally. That is what he has been doing. I think I would be quite justified in asking him to resume his seat and not to continue his speech, but I am giving him another chance to come to the Bill, without coming to the Constitution in general.
If I am not at liberty to deal in a general manner with this question——
With the Constitution?
With the Constitution——
You are not.
—with the Constitution Bill, and the situation that this motion gives rise to, I do not know where exactly I have erred from the path of order, in so far as I am dealing with statements made on the one hand, that on the occasion when we on these benches introduced a motion to give effect to Article 48 we were told that it was a trick, we were told that the setting up of such machinery, and the giving effect to the Article would lead to a breach of the Treaty. Am I not in order then in pointing out how President Cosgrave could defend his actions in another place, and before people who would accuse him of a breach of the Treaty?
I am not in order?
It would be in order in another connection, but not now. We are not discussing the Petition under Article 48 now; we are discussing Article 48 itself.
There is another point which I want to make. I want to submit for the consideration of Deputies another fact. The Minister for Finance said that the will of the people was now more generally accepted, and as a proof of that he pointed to the occupany of these benches by Republican Deputies. Deputies are going, by defeating this amendment, to indicate clearly to Republican thought in this country that, if and when we attempt to use this Constitution to further the march towards independence, we are to be met on every occasion by the full force of the majority vote in this House, and they are going to close down the safety valve. We shall then see who are the guardians of peace and order in the country. We honestly believed that there were certain clauses in this Constitution which by honest effort could be used in the interests of the people, and to my mind the most fundamental clause from the national standpoint was Article 48, in view of the present situation in this country. Take that away and you leave very little hope in the minds of many of us who thought that constitutional action could serve our aim. As I said before, that aim has never been in any way muddled. It has been kept clearly before the people of the country, and before Deputies on every occasion. I think it would be well if the Government would clearly indicate if that is their intention. Are they really determined to close down the safety valve? If so, I would like them to make a declaration to that effect. I would like the Minister for Finance to add to the statement which he made some months ago with reference to the attitude of the Government towards the Republican ideal. I would like to know if the Government are now prepared to announce that they will oppose the use of this Constitution to enable this country to obtain any further reforms, nationally or economically? I think such a declaration would clear the air very much.
I should like also to submit for the consideration of Deputies the question as to what effect this will have on the country. Will it not be held as another British victory, and lend further proof to the impression, which is almost becoming a conviction, that behind this Ministry there is operating a powerful secret force. That secret force may be represented here by a few Deputies, and, I believe, as I said on a previous occasion, there are a few people in this House who hold the Government in the hollow of their hands. At the eleventh—or perhaps I should say at the twelfth—hour, I appeal to any member on the Government Benches, to anybody who has the least national instinct left; there is still hope if he is prepared to go out honestly and face the country on an issue of this kind. We challenge such Deputies here and now, if they are serious in saying that they are doing this in the interest of the people, to prove that. They can prove it by passing this amendment unanimously, and the passing of this amendment will not lead to the position which the passing of Deputy Thrift's amendment led to. It will not lead anybody into a trap. It will enable all of us to go before that final court of appeal and have their verdict on what I consider to be a real fundamental clause of the Constitution.
Táim i gcoinne an Bhille, toisc gur abé mo thuairim nach dtiocfaidh aon mhaitheas don naisiún as agus go gcuirfidh sé cose le dul ar aghaidh na tíre.
I contend that one of the principal reasons why Articles 47 and 48 should be retained is that they leave the road open to national unity. By their abolition, you put the King's imprimatur for all time on the Constitution and the King's seal in this country has always been the fan that fed revolution. No matter what the President said about threats from this side of the House, he cannot get away from the fundamental fact that as long as this country is unfree there will never be peace. As the Bishop of Limerick said, “While grass grows and water runs there will be men ready to die and dare for this country so long as she is unfree.” If the country were free, from Antrim and Derry to Cork and Kerry, you might, as in Germany, have a reason for the abolition of the Referendum, but we were told, when this Constitution was being set up, that it would be used as a lever to freedom, and none of the original framers of the Constitution ever contended that it was all that was to be desired. As long as you have the country unfree there can be no economic progress, because there is an inherent belief that there is no stability. The Minister for Agriculture to-night said that there were not two Deputies on these benches who knew what a republic was. Our definition of a republic is——
Surely that is irrelevant to the Bill. I do not know what the Minister said or why he said it.
I was going to submit that Articles 47 and 48 could be implemented for getting a republic, and I was going to give him my definition of a republic. It is this: "Ireland her own and all therein from sod to the sky; the soil of Ireland for the people of Ireland, to have and to hold without rent, or render, fee, or service to any power under heaven." Nobody could contend that a country with a lien on the land of Ireland of three and a half millions tribute——
The Deputy's argument is not relevant.
Such a land is in no sense of the word free, and if we desire these things for the people they can only be obtained by a national effort which, in itself, is obtained by a vigorous national spirit. That can only come about by the unity of the national elements which are separated at present, and if you close the door by the passing of this Bill you do away for all time with any chance of that unity. You are trying to stop the volcano of Irish nationality and you will not succeed. The President said on one occasion here that he yields to nobody in things national. I suppose he spoke for the executive, and, if he yields to nobody in things national, the personal animus that is on the other side should be replaced by a broad national outlook which believes that the national elements will come together in this country and go forward for complete independence. Every avenue and every means of obtaining that complete independence should be left open. Is it a Micawber hope, a pious belief, that somehow, somewhere, sometime, we will attain independence unless we endeavour to obtain it? I submit that these Articles which are about to be abolished would tend to unite the whole people. Consequently the Dáil should hesitate before passing this Bill. Like Deputy Cooney, I do not appeal to Independent Deputies. "Independent" is a misnomer. They are like the souls in Limbo, as they never will get out of the position they are in. The other day we honoured the memory of Wolfe Tone, and it would be well to ask ourselves was that all a hollow mockery, and are these people who talk about Tone actuated by a selfish dog-in-the-manger policy?
Tone put down as his principal doctrine, his principal plank, to "break the connection with England, the never-failing source of all our evils," but it appears that that has been forgotten, that where we are now we are going to stay, and that there is going to be no national advance as far as we can help it in our day. In pursuing this course, in destroying the Constitution which I believe anyway was intended by the framers to be used as a lever towards national advancement, we are consciously or unconsciously doing the work of the Empire, and we are getting into a quagmire. When we are done with, as far as they can use us, they will kick us out like old shoes. There is a lot of talk about the will of the people. You can talk about the will of the people, and play on their temerity. You can appeal to their baser instincts and their cowardice. but we expect that people pretending to be national leaders ought to show courage and steadfastness for national ideals and lead the people. If they do that I believe the people will follow them. A lot of sophistry has come about of late, and we are full of materialistic arguments, but we realise that there can be no economic progress, that things materially will not progress unless you have sound national principles and a nation led by men who are prepared to stand for these national principles.
The Deputy does not appear to be saying anything at all about the Bill.
I was attempting in my argument to show that the primal purpose of these Articles, as intended by the drafters of the Constitution, was that they should be used as a lever for the forward advance of this country from the basis we have here, a Government for twenty-six counties, and that the promoters of this Bill had, although they say they followed the drafters of that particular Constitution, got another idea in their heads that "So far shall we go and no farther." I was trying to bring back to their minds what apparently they have forgotten. By retaining Articles 47 and 48, as I said, you make way for national unity. I know very well that there are elements on the opposite side and elements on this side that will never come together, but I also know that the common people of Ireland will come together, and that when this animus and this spleen are all forgotten, the nation will progress, and that we in our day——
The Deputy must conclude that particular line—I do not want to call it argument —of speech.
It has been said that in advocating the abolition of Articles 47 and 48, that that may be used for the abolition of Article 17. Supposing the people used it for the abolition of Article 17, what about it? Are not the people supreme? Suppose they used it for the tearing up of the whole Treaty, are they not supreme, and have they not a perfect right to tear the whole damn Treaty to pieces?
Yes, when they are in the majority.
The majority would not be able to do it now under this.
Therefore why put impediments in the way? Why not leave the way open? If there is anything to be feared, why should 60 or 70 Deputies take the whole fear on their shoulders? If the people are prepared to advance, let them advance, and they fully realise what they are doing.
They are getting tired of war.
It is, let us assume, the desire of all the national elements to have a free, independent country, with all the implications that the words "free and independent" mean. Let us, as I said before, look at things in a broad national way, in the way that Pearse and Connolly used to look at them, and let us not put impediments in the way of the progress of the people. Let us hesitate in abolishing these Articles, so that they may be retained for the use they were originally intended for.
I move that the question be now put.
rose.
I am accepting the motion that the question be now put. When anybody claims to move that the question be now put and the Ceann Comhairle accepts the motion it must be put.
Will the Ceann Comhairle tell us why he is accepting the motion?
I will not. I am accepting the motion that the question be now put, and I will put that motion.
Question put: "That the question be now put."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 47.
Tá
- William P. Aird.
- Ernest Henry Alton.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Bourke.
- Michael Brennan.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- John James Cole.
- Mrs. Margaret Collins-O'Driscoll.
- Martin Conlon.
- Michael P. Connolly.
- Bryan Ricco Cooper.
- William T. Cosgrave.
- Sir James Craig.
- James Crowley.
- Peter De Loughrey.
- Eugene Doherty.
- James N. Dolan.
- Peadar Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- Osmond Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- D.J. Gorey.
- Alexander Haslett.
- John J. Hassett.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Michael Joseph Hennessy.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Myles Keogh.
- Hugh Alexander Law.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Finian Lynch.
- Arthur Patrick Matthews.
- Martin McDonogh.
- Michael Og McFadden.
- Joseph W. Mongan.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- James E. Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- John Thomas Nolan.
- Richard O'Connell.
- Bartholomew O'Connor.
- Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
- Daniel O'Leary.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Gearoid O'Sullivan.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- Patrick Reynolds.
- Vincent Rice.
- Martin Roddy.
- Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
- William Edward Thrift.
- Michael Tierney.
- Daniel Vaughan.
- John White.
- Vincent Joseph White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Frank Aiken.
- Richard Anthony.
- Neal Blaney.
- Gerald Boland.
- Patrick Boland.
- Daniel Bourke.
- Seán Brady.
- Robert Briscoe.
- Henry Broderick.
- Daniel Buckley.
- Frank Carney.
- Frank Carty.
- John Goulding.
- Seán Hayes.
- Samuel Holt.
- Patrick Houlihan.
- Stephen Jordan.
- Michael Joseph Kennedy.
- James Joseph Killane.
- Mark Killilea.
- Michael Kilroy.
- Seán F. Lemass.
- Patrick John Little.
- Ben. Maguire.
- Archie J. Cassidy.
- Patrick Clancy.
- James Coburn.
- James Colbert.
- Eamon Cooney.
- Frederick Hugh Crowley.
- Eamon de Valera.
- James Everett.
- Frank Fahy.
- Hugo Flinn.
- Andrew Fogarty.
- Patrick J. Gorry.
- Thomas McEllistrim.
- Seán MacEntee.
- Séamus Moore.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Thomas J. O'Connell.
- Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
- William O'Leary.
- James Ryan.
- Timothy Sheehy (Tipperary).
- Patrick Smith.
- John Tubridy.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Killilea.
Question declared carried.
Question put:—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the motion."
The Dáil divided:—Tá, 69; Níl, 49
Tá
- William P. Aird.
- Ernest Henry Alton.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Burke.
- Michael Brennan.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- John James Cole.
- Mrs. Margaret Collins-O'Driscoll.
- Martin Conlon.
- Michael P. Connolly.
- Bryan Ricco Cooper.
- William T. Cosgrave.
- Sir James Craig.
- James Crowley.
- Peter de Loughrey.
- Eugene Doherty.
- James N. Dolan.
- Peadar Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- Osmond Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- D.J. Gorey.
- Alexander Haslett.
- John J. Hassett.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Michael Joseph Hennessy.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Myles Keogh.
- Hugh Alexander Law.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Finian Lynch.
- Arthur Patrick Mathews.
- Martin McDonogh.
- Michael Og McFadden.
- Joseph W. Mongan.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- James E. Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- John Thomas Nolan.
- Richard O'Connell.
- Bartholomew O'Connor.
- Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
- Daniel O'Leary.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Gearoid O'Sullivan.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- William Archer Redmond.
- Patrick Reynolds.
- Vincent Rice.
- Martin Roddy.
- Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
- William Edward Thrift.
- Michael Tierney.
- Daniel Vaughan.
- John White.
- Vincent Joseph White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Frank Aiken.
- Richard Anthony.
- Neal Blaney.
- Gerald Boland.
- Patrick Boland.
- Daniel Bourke.
- Seán Brady.
- Robert Briscoe.
- Henry Broderick.
- Daniel Buckley.
- Eamon de Valera.
- James Everett.
- Frank Fahy.
- Hugo Flinn.
- Andrew Fogarty.
- Patrick J. Gorry.
- John Goulding.
- Seán Hayes.
- Samuel Holt.
- Patrick Houlihan.
- Stephen Jordan.
- Michael Joseph Kennedy.
- James Joseph Killane.
- Mark Killilea.
- Michael Kilroy.
- Frank Carty.
- Frank Carney.
- Archie J. Cassidy.
- Patrick Clancy.
- Michael Clery.
- James Coburn.
- James Colbert.
- Eamon Cooney.
- Fred. Hugh Crowley.
- Thomas Derrig.
- Seán F. Lemass.
- Patrick John Little.
- Ben. Maguire.
- Thomas McEllistrim.
- Seán MacEntee.
- Séamus Moore.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Thomas J. O'Connell.
- Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
- William O'Leary.
- James Ryan.
- Timothy Sheehy (Tipp.).
- Patrick Smith.
- John Tubridy.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Killilea.
Question declared carried.
I claim to move: "That the main question be now put."
Question put—"That the main question be now put."
The Dáil divided:—Tá, 69; Níl, 49.
Tá
- William P. Aird.
- Ernest Henry Alton.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Bourke.
- Michael Brennan.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- John James Cole.
- Mrs. Margaret Collins-O'Driscoll.
- Martin Conlon.
- Michael P. Connolly.
- Bryan Ricco Cooper.
- William T. Cosgrave.
- Sir James Craig.
- James Crowley.
- Peter de Loughrey.
- Eugene Doherty.
- James N. Dolan.
- Peadar Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- Osmond Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- D.J. Gorey.
- Alexander Haslett.
- John J. Hassett.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Michael Joseph Hennessy.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Myles Keogh.
- Hugh Alexander Law.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Finian Lynch.
- Arthur Patrick Mathews.
- Martin McDonogh.
- Michael Og McFadden.
- Joseph W. Mongan.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- James E. Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- John Thomas Nolan.
- Richard O'Connell.
- Bartholomew O'Connor.
- Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Daniel O'Leary.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Gearoid O'Sullivan.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- Patrick Reynolds.
- Vincent Rice.
- Martin Roddy.
- Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
- William Edward Thrift.
- Michael Tierney.
- Daniel Vaughan.
- John White.
- Vincent Joseph White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Frank Aiken.
- Richard Anthony.
- Neal Blaney.
- Gerald Boland.
- Patrick Boland.
- Daniel Bourke.
- Seán Brady.
- Robert Briscoe.
- Henry Broderick.
- Daniel Buckley.
- Frank Carney.
- James Everett.
- Frank Fahy.
- Hugo Flinn.
- Andrew Fogarty.
- Patrick J. Gorry.
- John Goulding.
- Seán Hayes.
- Samuel Holt.
- Patrick Houlihan.
- Stephen Jordan.
- Michael Joseph Kennedy.
- James Joseph Killane.
- Mark Killilea.
- Michael Kilroy.
- Frank Carty.
- Archie J. Cassidy.
- Patrick Clancy.
- Michael Clery.
- James Coburn.
- James Colbert.
- Eamon Cooney.
- Fred. Hugh Crowley.
- Thomas Derrig.
- Eamon de Valera.
- Seán F. Lemass.
- Patrick John Little.
- Ben. Maguire.
- Thomas McEllistrim.
- Seán MacEntee.
- Séamus Moore.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Thomas J. O'Connell.
- Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
- William O'Leary.
- James Ryan.
- Timothy Sheehy (Tipp.).
- Patrick Smith.
- John Tubridy.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. Doyle. Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Killilea.
Motion declared carried.
Question: "That the Bill be now read a second time," put.
The Dáil divided:— Tá, 70; Níl, 49.
Tá
- William P. Aird.
- Ernest Henry Alton.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Bourke.
- Michael Brennan.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- John James Cole.
- Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
- Martin Conlon.
- Michael P. Connolly.
- Bryan Ricco Cooper.
- William T. Cosgrave.
- Sir James Craig.
- James Crowley.
- Peter de Loughrey.
- Eugene Doherty.
- James N. Dolan.
- Peadar Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- Osmond Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- D.J. Gorey.
- Alexander Haslett.
- John J. Hassett.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Michael Joseph Hennessy.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Myles Keogh.
- Hugh Alexander Law.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Finian Lynch.
- Arthur Patrick Matthews.
- Martin McDonogh.
- Michael Og McFadden.
- Joseph W. Mongan.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- James E. Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- John Thomas Nolan.
- Richard O'Connell.
- Bartholomew O'Connor.
- Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Daniel O'Leary.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Gearoid O'Sullivan.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- William Archer Redmond.
- Patrick Reynolds.
- Vincent Rice.
- Martin Roddy.
- Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
- William Edward Thrift.
- Michael Tierney.
- Daniel Vaughan.
- John White.
- Vincent Joseph White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Frank Aiken.
- Richard Anthony.
- Neal Blaney.
- Gerald Boland.
- Patrick Boland.
- Daniel Bourke.
- Seán Brady.
- Robert Briscoe.
- Henry Broderick.
- Frederick Hugh Crowley.
- Thomas Derrig.
- Eamon de Valera.
- James Everett.
- Frank Fahy.
- Hugo Flinn.
- Andrew Fogarty.
- Patrick J. Gorry.
- John Goulding.
- Seán Hayes.
- Samuel Holt.
- Patrick Houlihan.
- Stephen Jordan.
- Michael Joseph Kennedy.
- James Joseph Killane.
- Mark Killilea.
- Daniel Buckley.
- Frank Carney.
- Frank Carty.
- Archie J. Cassidy.
- Patrick Clancy.
- Michael Clery.
- James Coburn.
- James Colbert.
- Eamon Cooney.
- Michael Kilroy.
- Seán F. Lemass.
- Patrick John Little.
- Ben. Maguire.
- Thomas McEllistrim.
- Seán MacEntee.
- Séamus Moore.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Thomas J. O'Connell.
- Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
- William O'Leary.
- James Ryan.
- Timothy Sheehy (Tipperary).
- Patrick Smith.
- John Tubridy.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. Doyle. Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Killilea.
Motion declared carried.
Committee Stage fixed for Tuesday, 26th June, 1928.