Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jun 1928

Vol. 24 No. 7

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT—REGULATION OF DEBATE.

Mr. BLYTHE

I beg to move:—

"That not more than four hours be given to the Committee Stages of each or any of the following Bills, that is to say, the Constitution (Amendment No. 6) Bill, 1928, the Constitution (Amendment No. 10) Bill, 1928, and the Constitution (Amendment No. 13) Bill, 1928, and that the proceedings in Committee in each or any of the aforesaid Bills, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the expiration of the aforesaid period of four hours, and that any amendments to each or any of the aforesaid Bills not disposed of shall forthwith be put from the Chair and be decided without further amendment or debate;

"That not more than two hours be given to the Report Stages of each or any of the aforesaid Bills, and that the proceedings on the Report Stages of each or any of the aforesaid Bills, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the expiration of the aforesaid period of two hours and that any amendments to each or any of the aforesaid Bills not previously disposed of, shall be put forthwith from the Chair and decided without further amendment or debate and that the question, `That the Bill be received for final consideration' or `That the Bill as amended be received for final consideration,' as the case may be, shall be put forthwith from the Chair and decided without debate."

I venture to hope that this motion will commend itself to all parties. Our Standing Orders at present make no provision for dealing with such a thing as deliberate obstruction or members speaking at great length or with great frequency for the purpose of taking up the time of the Dáil. We have a provision which we have found useful, particularly during the last two or three days, for the closure, but that provision is not really sufficient to meet the circumstances that have arisen. It was intended for use merely when Deputies who had something to say in a debate and were anxious to say it, and were not, at the same time, anxious to delay the business of the Dáil, but that time would not admit of their being heard. That provision exists, therefore, for bringing the debate to a close. During the last two days we have, in my opinion——

Mr. LITTLE

On a point of order, according to Article 20 of the Constitution, I submit that the Minister has no power to introduce this resolution into the House at all. Article 20 says: "Each House shall make its own rules and Standing Orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate." and so on. It does not empower the House to make Standing Orders to curtail the freedom of debate. That is a serious legal point, and one which I contend should be submitted to the Law Officers of the Government. To take an analogous point, namely, the power of attorney which gives positive powers that so-and-so may do certain things. That power is of no use for negative purposes, for not doing certain things. I submit that until you change Article 20 you are acting ultra vires in accepting this resolution, and I suggest further that the matter should be submitted for decision to the Law Officers of the Government.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

On the question that this matter should be submitted to the Law Officers of the Government for decision, I am not prepared to agree that a decision of the Law Officers would constitute a decision in this matter, which is a matter of order. The Deputy asked me to rule that no motion and, in fact, no standing order intended to curtail debate in the House can be discussed in the House because of the provision in Article 20. I am not prepared to decide in that particular direction that the Constitution means that the House is debarred from making any Standing Order which it thinks fit for the conduct of its own business. The meaning of the Article seems to me to be that the House has power to make any Standing Order under that Article which it pleases within the limits of that particular Article. There are other Standing Orders which restrict debate and I think this motion is in order.

Mr. FLINN

Would I be in order in submitting that question to a Court? The difficulty is that there is a sort of omnibus Order which says that the Ceann Comhairle is the sole judge of order. That is a very powerful Order. If we submit this to the courts and they hold that the legal interpretation given by a lawyer in this House of that legal provision of the Constitution is, as Deputy Little stated, we are going to be in a very curious position in relation to our powers to pass Standing Orders which give a power that would be contrary to the express judgment of a court in a matter of law. It seems to me that we are getting into a very serious position in relation to Standing Orders. As I understand it, you have a sort of hierarchy in this matter.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Would the Deputy put the point of order?

Mr. FLINN

Yes, the point I am putting is that the Constitution overrides Standing Orders, that Standing Orders over-ride precedents, and that precedents over-ride rulings and that they must be taken in that order, that you could never plead a ruling against a precedent, plead a precedent against a Standing Order, or plead a Standing Order against the Constitution. Deputy Little appealed to the highest authority and nothing that is customary, nothing that is in a Standing Order is of the same or even an analogous authority to the Constitution which Deputy Little has pleaded. The Standing Orders, precedents and rules derive authority, if they have any authority, from the Constitution, and when an appeal is made to the Constitution against even the more probable meaning in a legal sense of a legal phrase in a legal document, which is the Constitution, I suggest that we are doing a rather reckless thing, from the legal point of view and from the point of view of constitutional procedure, if we attempt even to suggest that Standing Orders, precedents or rulings can stand for a moment against even the most——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Would the Deputy submit the point of order?

Mr. FLINN

Yes, the point of order was put much more briefly, but not as clearly as Deputy Little.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

A brief and, I hope, a clear decision has been given.

Mr. BLYTHE

As I was about to say, there has been during the past two or three days what most members of the House regard as absolutely deliberate obstruction and waste of time of the House. The Standing Orders, as I have said, do not provide for dealing with such a line of action. We do not propose at the moment to amend Standing Orders. We think it is better, if it can be managed, to retain Standing Orders and allow freedom of debate, even though that freedom may be abused.

Mr. AIKEN

Will the Minister read Standing Order number 46? The Minister said that there is no way of dealing with obstruction. Had he Article 46 before him when bringing in this motion?

Mr. BLYTHE

There are different sorts of obstruction.

Mr. AIKEN

I think he brought in this before——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy cannot interrupt in that way.

Mr. BLYTHE

It seems to me that the talk indulged in for the purpose of wasting the time of the House ought not to be tolerated. As a Deputy on the other side earlier in the evening said, it is necessary for the efficient conduct of Parliament that its membership should include people who have other interests outside the work of the House, that it is necessary that we should have in the House experienced professional and business men.

Mr. MacENTEE

Independent members.

Mr. BLYTHE

It is as great a strain as these people could bear to attend and do their duty in the House if there was no waste of time and no obstruction, but if obstruction and deliberate waste of time were to be allowed to continue such Deputies would find it impossible to attend and to do their duty.

Mr. LEMASS

And to keep the Government in office.

Mr. BLYTHE

We are taking some steps to remedy that. There are drastic motions which we could put down.

Mr. G. BOLAND

Withdraw the legislation.

Mr. FLINN

Why not abolish the Dáil?

Mr. BLYTHE

The Deputies are asking questions which will take a good while to answer. We have set down a motion which is extremely moderate. I have another one or two in draft in case they are necessary, but I hope they will not be necessary. As I say, this motion is extremely moderate. It allows four hours on the Committee Stage. That is more than ample time if Deputies speak briefly and only when they have some arguments to advance. The Committee Stage would be got through in less than four hours and every point would be adequately debated. We have, as I say, allotted four hours to the Committee Stage and the motion proposes to allow two hours to the Report Stage. That also will permit ample discussion if there is no unnecessary talk and if Deputies put their points as briefly as possible. The fixing of a definite time is in itself an advantage as it restores freedom of debate. While obstruction is going on Deputies who are anxious to have the business discussed as quickly as possible feel bound to refrain from intervention and sometimes they are unable to put the point of view which they desire to put and which they ought to have a reasonable opportunity of putting. When a definite time has been fixed as is proposed by this motion, every Deputy who wishes to intervene and to take part in the debate, as soon as the previous speaker has sat down can take his chance of catching the Speaker's eye. We have not had that freedom of debate during the last few days. I do not want to speak at all on the question of obstruction. It seems to me that the Deputies who indulged in it have been misled by the false analogy of their political predecessors, who thought that if they held out in the Four Courts it would have the same effect as the action of those who held out in the G.P.O.

Mr. G. BOLAND

I thought that had been ruled out of the discussion.

Mr. BLYTHE

I will not go any further into it except to say that these Deputies thought a day or two ago that by carrying on the tactics which the old Irish Party carried on in the British House of Commons it would lead to certain results and perhaps that they would obtain support in the country as a result. I believe that they were entirely misled, but in any case it seems to me that it is incumbent on the House if necessary to amend Standing Orders and to pass drastic Standing Orders to prevent the time of Deputies and of the House being wasted and to prevent public business being dealt with with reasonable dispatch. There is no doubt that a certain amount of debate must take place.

Mr. MacENTEE

Unfortunately for the Government.

Mr. BLYTHE

The idea that some Deputies have that the longer a thing is talked about the better it is discussed is entirely wrong, and I think it certainly would be foolish to have taking place here debates of the type that took place on the Treaty, when everybody who spoke made set speeches which had no reference to the course of the discussion prior to that. I think it would be very foolish to allow that. I propose a motion that is a very mild and moderate motion, and I hope it will suffice. If it does not suffice of course we can pass some others.

Mr. LEMASS

The resources of civilisation are not yet exhausted.

Mr. BLYTHE

The resources of civilisation are not exhausted.

Mr. MacENTEE

On a point of order, what is the usual procedure in relation to Standing Orders, particularly in regard to the enactment of a Standing Order?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

This is not a Standing Order.

Mr. MacENTEE

It has reference to a matter which I propose to put afterwards. I would like to know what is the usual procedure in proposing new Standing Orders to the House before I make the point I propose to make.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is the Deputy putting a point which arises out of the motion?

Mr. MacENTEE

I am asking you, as Ceann Comhairle, to supply me with information which is not already included in the Standing Orders. That is to say, what is the usual procedure when a new Standing Order is being proposed to the House? I have searched the Standing Orders very carefully and I cannot find anything which would guide me in regard to that matter.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I want to know what connection that matter has with the motion before the House.

Mr. MacENTEE

I think I am entitled, with all respect to you, A Chinn Comhairle, to reserve that till I have your answer. You are in the position of a judge, and I am asking you to direct me in respect to a point of procedure. I do not wish to say anything which would prejudice your decision one way or another.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am quite prepared to give the Deputy any information he requires. I just want to say, on the general question, that the Deputy is not entitled to ask the Ceann Comhairle a question at large and insist on having an answer.

Mr. MacENTEE

This is the question——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy has no right, no Deputy has the right, to get up in the course of a debate on a particular matter and ask the Ceann Comhairle to supply him with information which, so far as he has gone, does not seem to have any relevance to a point of order that is to be made in a matter before the House. The Ceann Comhairle, if he is to be asked questions, must be asked questions relevant to the matter before the House. If he is to be asked questions at large, he should, in the ordinary way, have some notice of such question. The question the Deputy asked is a very easy one to answer, but I am very anxious that the occupant of the Chair should not be given an intolerable and an impossible task, and I refuse to accept the principle that a Deputy can get up and ask a question which has no relevance to the motion before us. If it has any relevance the Deputy should explain it.

Mr. MacENTEE

The point I submit to you is that this resolution could never be introduced as a proposal for a specific Standing Order, as it, in effect, proposes to apply the closure in anticipation, and there is no power under Standing Orders which permits you to decide that the closure shall be applied at a certain specific time in the debate. That would be in itself a new Standing Order. That would be introducing, in itself, what is known as the guillotine in another place, and there has been no specific provision in the Standing Order for a measure of that description. If they intend proposing to adopt that process as part of the ordinary rule of debate in this House, as part of the rules of debate which are going to govern a particular measure, it can only be introduced. I submit, as a new Standing Order. That is the point of order I am putting.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy's point of order is that the motion on the Order Paper is, in fact, a Standing Order, and should be subjected to the processes to which Standing Orders are subjected. That is one point. The other point is that there is no power in the Standing Orders to enable any Deputy to move a motion such as this, to make a rule such as it is proposed to make.

Mr. MacENTEE

Without due notice having been given beforehand, that this is a Standing Order, that it cannot be introduced as it is at present, and that in view of the fact that it has not been introduced as a Standing Order it cannot now be considered, that notice of motion has been given but not notice of a new Standing Order, and so the ordinary rules in regard to a motion do not apply, that if what the Minister for Finance is proposing has to be considered in this House at all that the motion must be withdrawn, and introduced again as a Standing Order. That is the point I wish to make. I would specifically also like to stress this particular point, that, as I said before, you cannot under the Standing Orders anticipate the application of the closure or you cannot apply the closure in advance.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy's point is that this is a proposal for a new Standing Order. That is not so. It is a proposal for an Order of the House relating to the Committee and Report Stages of particular Bills. It is not an Order which would apply to business generally. It is a motion which, if adopted, would become an Order of the House and would have validity only with regard to these particular Bills.

That is on the point of the Standing Orders. The other point, I think, is that this is a proposal for an Order of the House for which he finds no authority under the Standing Orders, that, in fact, it applies the closure in anticipation, and that the closure can only be applied under the provisions of Standing Order 52. We do not require specific authority under the Standing Orders for making Orders of the House. The power of the House to conduct its own business must be regarded as altogether unlimited, and unless the Deputy can point to a Standing Order which would specifically exclude this kind of motion, then this kind of motion would be in order. Unless something in the Standing Orders or in the general procedure of the House, can be cited as being against this particular type of motion, then this motion is in order. The matter was, in fact, considered, and I think it does not require a specific Standing Order giving authority for the making of this kind of Order of the House. Therefore, this is not a proposal for a Standing Order. It is a proposal for an Order of the House, which, it must be assumed, the House is competent to make, and there appears to me to be nothing in Standing Order 52 which would prevent the House from making this particular kind of Order on any Bill.

Mr. MacENTEE

Again I submit that you are bound by Standing Order 52 in so far as Standing Order 52 states—at least it does not specifically state it, but it implies—that the closure cannot be moved until after a question has been proposed from the Chair, either in the Dáil or in Committee of the whole Dáil, when a Deputy may claim to move, "That the question be now put." It restricts the closure to questions which have been already proposed from the Chair. The point I have made I think still stands, that this is an attempt to closure the debate in advance. Now, with regard to that, there is no Standing Order under which that can be done, at least I contend that there is not.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I think there is an onus on the Deputy to quote a Standing Order which would prevent it from being done.

Mr. MacENTEE

I submit that we are bound to conduct the business in accordance with this Standing Order, and that no specific Order of the House, beyond one to suspend the Standing Orders, can set these Standing Orders aside in respect of any Bill, proposal, or motion put before the House; that nothing except a motion to suspend Standing Orders can set Standing Orders aside, and that, until Standing Orders have been so set aside, the business in this House must be conducted in accordance with them, and that no motion or order in relation to any one particular Bill or proposal can be introduced validly unless the Standing Orders have been suspended for the purpose.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Will the Deputy say what Standing Order would require to be suspended for the purpose of this motion?

Mr. MacENTEE

I should say the whole of them—the whole procedure would have to be suspended for that purpose.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

What Standing Order?

Mr. MacENTEE

A motion would have to be introduced for the suspension of the Standing Orders to consider a matter of extreme urgency. According to Standing Order 129, any Standing Order or Orders of the Dáil may be suspended for the day of sitting and for a particular purpose. I think that that is very important. I think that the power to suspend or over-ride the Standing Orders by any special Order or motion is very strictly limited. I think there is only one way in which it can be possibly done, and that is by giving due notice that on the day when it is proposed to take these Bills, a motion will be introduced to suspend the Standing Order or Orders in regard to these particular measures. I think that is a relevant point. I think that in considering that point you must also take into consideration Article 20 of the Constitution, that each House shall make its own rules and Standing Orders. Rules are not mere temporary, ephemeral things introduced as the exigencies of Party procedure require. Rules are something that have to be carefully considered and defined and decided upon, and when once decided upon must stand until revoked. You cannot introduce a rule ad hoc simply for the purpose of permitting you to do something which, under the Standing Orders, you are forbidden to do.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

If that is so, will the Deputy explain under what Standing Order this particular procedure is forbidden?

Mr. MacENTEE

The procedure is forbidden under the whole Standing Orders, in so far as no provision for the conduct of debate upon these lines has been included in the Standing Orders.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

On that definite point, I am prepared to decide without any difficulty. The House is entitled to direct its own procedure, bound by the Standing Orders. But to say that, because the Standing Orders make no express provision for this particular procedure, it is a procedure which it would be disorderly for the House to discuss and decide upon, is not valid. On that point, I am ruling quite clearly against the Deputy. This is not a Standing Order. It is an Order of the House dealing with a special thing, and it is not in contravention of any Standing Order. The Deputy has not quoted any Standing Order which, it may be argued, is contrary to it. For that reason, the motion is in order, as far as the points the Deputy raised are concerned. The position about Standing Orders is, that the House has power to make any regulations which it may deem proper for the conduct of its own business, and that without any limitation whatsoever. When it makes Standing Orders, it cannot make other regulations in contravention of these Standing Orders without suspending a particular Standing Order or Orders. In this case no suspension of any particular Standing Order or Orders appears to be necessary. Therefore, this particular motion is in order without the suspension of any Standing Order. The House may, by resolution, decide any question of procedure. This particular motion does not suspend Standing Order 52.

Mr. FLINN

On a point of order, you used the words "no limitation whatever." You say that the House has power to decide its own procedure. I am speaking from recollection—"no limitation whatever." Does that mean no limitation whatever of Standing Orders? If there is a Standing Order in contravention, would that be a limitation? I want to have that clear.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

A Standing Order in contravention of what?

Mr. FLINN

Your statement was that the House has power to decide its procedure without any limitation whatever. You did not carry the sentence any further. I am asking whether you really meant, with no limitation whatever, including an existing Standing Order to the contrary.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I made it clear that I did not. I said that the House had power to fix its own procedure, and that the Standing Orders are binding upon the House, and if the fixing of any particular procedure involved the suspension of a Standing Order, that Standing Order would have to be suspended. Here I find that it is not necessary to suspend any Standing Order, and I am ruling this motion, as far as Deputy MacEntee's points are concerned, as being in order.

Mr. FLINN

When we all speak in practice of the House having power to decide with no limitation whatever, we mean that a majority of the House has power to decide with no limitation whatever. If that does include that it has power to do something which is in contravention of the Standing Orders—

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is simply persisting in saying something which is a misrepresentation of what was said. Standing Orders are binding upon the House. The House can decide its own procedure. If the House decides on a particular procedure, and if that is in contravention of the Standing Orders, it must suspend the Standing Orders. That has been made abundantly clear. I have decided on Deputy MacEntee's points, and that decision is now quite final.

Mr. FLINN

Will you permit me to submit that under Article 52 it is contemplated that the Chair, in the exercise of the power which it has to put the closure, has to be satisfied after the event that the matter has been adequately discussed——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

No.

Mr. FLINN

I am submitting that for the moment. The suggestion here, "shall have been adequately discussed," seems to me to be the most probable meaning there. If there was no power to suspend the Standing Orders I could see the Chair possibly using a more or less probable meaning in relation to the Standing Order, but in so far as the apparent meaning of the Standing Order is "shall have been after the event satisfied that adequate discussion has taken place" there is a perfectly orderly procedure to get over that doubt by suspending the Standing Orders. The most regular way would seem to be to suspend the Standing Orders and then bring in this resolutions in the way that the Standing Order seems to specifically say—that is, the one of adopting Deputy MacEntee's suggestion that you shall first suspend, as you have the power to do, the Standing Order, and in so doing you have suspended the apparent obligation that is on you.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I have already ruled that no Standing Order need be suspended for the purpose of this motion. Standing Order 52 is not suspended by that motion. The procedure contemplated under Standing Order 52, in which the Chair is given a discretion to accept or refuse a particular type of motion, is not in this particular procedure at all. This motion is in order.

Mr. BLYTHE

Might I put a point of order in reference to the amendments?

Mr. MacENTEE

Before you proceed to that, I would ask is it in order for members who may be called to decide this question by their votes to be in this House and not be in a condition to attend to the debate? I notice on the Government Benches a number of members asleep. I do not suppose, if they were wakened up, it would have any effect.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Will the Deputy put his point of order?

Mr. MacENTEE

The point of order is: Is it orderly for members to sleep in this House?

Mr. A. BYRNE

May I draw your attention, A Chinn Comhairle, to the fact that both sides of the House are equally culpable? There are three members on the Fianna Fáil side of the House asleep, and three on the other.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The position is that when a Deputy's eyes are shut the Deputy is not necessarily asleep.

Mr. MacENTEE

Could we test that?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I want to draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that instead of discussing the motion we are discussing a point of order which appears to me to be decided.

Mr. LITTLE

May I draw your attention to Standing Orders 59 and from that onward, which provide very specifically for procedure on Committee and subsequent stages of Bills. This Standing Order and subsequent Standing Orders imply, I submit, full freedom of debate, which is curtailed by the resolution now proposed, and it would be necessary to suspend those Standing Orders before you could introduce this motion.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I do not think so.

Mr. BRISCOE

In the event of this motion being carried, would it not then, in fact, be Standing Orders so far as the Bills referred to are concerned?

Mr. BLYTHE

Would it be in order to move that the question be now put?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

On the question of amendments, there are on the Order Paper four amendments, and there have been circulated five other amendments. Of these A on the Paper circulated, in typescript, is the widest, and that will be taken first. It is to delete the first part of the motion.

Mr. BLYTHE

With reference to the amendments circulated to-day, I take it, from the fact that they were only circulated to-day, that they were not handed in in time. Ordinarily, I would not raise any question with regard to amendments on such a ground, but as I believe these amendments are put in for obstructive purposes I wish to object to their being taken, if they were not handed in in time, and if due notice was not given.

Mr. MacENTEE

I suggest, before the Minister alleges certain amendments were handed in for obstructive purposes, he ought to analyse them and show that their sole intention is for obstructive purposes and not to definitely improve the motion.

Mr. BLYTHE

I was talking about my own belief.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The point of order concerns notice.

Mr. LEMASS

If a motion is tabled so that it reached Deputies on Monday, is it usual that amendments to that motion would be refused if they reach the office on Thursday? Was the motion in time?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is not unusual. It is usual that there is a great deal of give and take in these matters. The Standing Order prescribes that motions shall be handed in on the fourth preceding day, and amendments on the second preceding day. The typescript amendments to this motion were only handed in on Tuesday evening about 5 o'clock, and did not reach Deputies until Wednesday morning. The objection that they were late in accordance with the strict interpretation of the Standing Order is valid, and unless there is an agreement that objection will be upheld.

Mr. FLINN

Would it not be in your discretion to accept them if you thought they were reasonable amendments?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is in the discretion of the Ceann Comhairle to accept motions, and that includes amendments, on a shorter notice than is prescribed.

Mr. G. BOLAND

We had not four days' notice of the motion?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The motion was received in time.

Mr. G. BOLAND

On Monday.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Standing Order 25 says: "All motions to be put on the Order Paper for any day shall reach the Clerk not later than 11 a.m. on the fourth preceding day." That was Saturday in this case. "Any amendments to such motion shall reach the Clerk not later than 11 a.m. on the second preceding day"—that was Monday in this case—"provided that by permission of the Ceann Comhairle motions may be made on shorter notice." The amendments received before 11 o'clock on Tuesday were in order and were printed on the Order Paper. If these amendments now in typescript were received in time to be printed on the Order Paper I would be inclined to agree the point should not be raised. In the circumstances they were received too late to be printed on the Order Paper, and I am not prepared, in all the circumstances, to hold these amendments can be moved. Strictly speaking, notice has not been given of them.

Mr. BOLAND

Then the notice required for these amendments should have been on the day that the motion had been put in. It would be absolutely impossible to have amendments to the motion on the very day we got the motion.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am accepting the amendments received on Tuesday. But the amendments received on Tuesday evening were late, and, strictly speaking, they were out of order on the ground that they were late.

Mr. BOLAND

The motion was late too.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

No, the motion was not late; it was strictly in time. It was received before 11 o'clock on Saturday, and was circulated on Saturday.

Mr. LEMASS

Does Sunday count? Is it not a dies non?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

No.

Mr. AIKEN

According to Standing Order 28, the question cannot be received on a Saturday. The Standing Order says that no question shall be handed in on Saturday, Monday, or a public holiday.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

If we take the amendments handed in, there are four on the Order Paper, and there are five others. In my judgement there are two ways of discussing the amendments to this motion. Amendment 1 (a) is to delete the first part of the motion, lines 1 to 10 inclusive. That is the widest amendment, and if I accepted this amendment, I would put the question first: "That these words stand part of the motion." Amendment 2 (d) is to delete the second part of the motion, the part which deals with the Report Stage. That is the next amendment that would be put. That is one way of putting the question on these amendments. The other way of putting the amendments would be this: Amendment 1 by Deputy Lemass is, I think, out of order, because it proposes a suspension of the Standing Order, which should be done by substantive motion. Amendment 2 proposes to delete the word "hours" and substitute "sittings." That is in both the case of the Report and Committee Stages. Amendment 3 proposes to delete the word "four" and substitute the word twelve, and to delete "two" and insert "eight." It seems to me that the question of these two amendments could be most usefully put by dividing the Committee Stage and the Report Stage, and by putting the question relating to four hours in the first part of the motion and then putting the question in regard to the word "two" in the second part of the motion. Either of these amendments would decide the question at issue. The amendments on the Order Paper which were in time and are in order are quite satisfactory to get a decision on the question.

Mr. FLINN

I think if the Minister would defer this motion until to-morrow the whole difficulty would be got over. I know he is anxious—I take him as speaking quite sincerely—to facilitate the House in every possible way, and he is anxious to get agreement with the motion put forward. The simplest way for him to do it would be to defer this motion until to-morrow.

Mr. BLYTHE

I am disappointed in the attitude of the House.

Mr. FLINN

As an alternative, if we arrange to leave this motion until to-morrow, then these amendments will automatically come into the Paper.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

They would not.

Mr. FLINN

Or we could discuss them for a couple of days.

Mr. LITTLE

To-day is really to-morrow.

Mr. FLINN

Are they not in order now, considering we have passed on to another day?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The amendments are not in order. It seems that adequate discussion on all the amendments can be got by taking the question on part one, that the words "four hours" should stand. Deputies could argue what amount of time should be given, whether it ought to be four sittings or four hours. By taking the question on whether "two hours" should stand the Dáil could then divide upon that.

Mr. MacENTEE

I understood you to refer to Standing Order 25, which states: "All motions to be put on the Order Paper for any day shall be in writing, signed by a Deputy, and shall reach the Clerk not later than 11 a.m. on the fourth preceding day. Any amendments to such motion shall be in writing, signed by a Deputy, and shall reach the Clerk not later than 11 a.m. on the second preceding day." I understand that Sunday is, for the purpose of this Order, as in regard to all legal business, a dies non. If that is so, this motion was handed in, I understand, on Saturday at 11 a.m.

Mr. BLYTHE

On Friday evening.

Mr. MacENTEE

According to the Ceann Comhairle, who is responsible to the House in this matter, it was handed in on Saturday at 11 a.m.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

No.

Mr. MacENTEE

Before 11 a.m. I submit Saturday was only the third preceding day. Tuesday was one preceding day. Wednesday could not be a preceding day; it could not precede itself.

Mr. LEMASS

Q.E.D.

Mr. MacENTEE

Tuesday was the first preceding day. Monday was the second; Sunday was a dies non and does not count, and Saturday was the third preceding day, so that the motion, in order to be in order and to be permitted to be discussed here in accordance with the ruling which you have given relative to the amendments to that motion, should have been handed in before 11 a.m. on Friday. For the reason, and in accordance with the ruling which you have already given relative to the amendments which were proposed to that motion and which could not, by reason of the fact that Sunday was a dies non, have been handed in in time to comply with Standing Order 25, I submit that the motion is out of order and cannot be considered to-day on account of insufficient notice. I do not submit that it is out of order, but it should not appear, and it is improperly on the Order Paper on the grounds of insufficient notice.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy's point appears correct. The motion was circulated and the amendments were circulated; the amendments which arrived on Tuesday, strictly speaking, should have arrived on Monday. We circulated the amendments received on Tuesday. Other amendments were received too late on Saturday. This particular motion was received after 11 o'clock on Friday. In its final form it was not there until Saturday, and for that reason the motion has not four days' notice. None of the amendments is in order from that point of view, but the motion and the amendments are in order on the basis that they are all one day late, and they are all subject to the same position from that point of view.

Mr. FLINN

Do I understand you now to say whatever may happen from the orderliness or disorderliness of the previous amendments the motion itself is not now available for presentation? Do I understand that is the ruling and that we cannot proceed? We take it as a courtesy, I will not even press it as a right for the moment, if the Minister would prefer to do it as a matter of courtesy. It looks as if we are going to get it as a right. There is a desire, however, to have a good feeling within this House, and we prefer it as a matter of courtesy rather than compulsion. I am quite sure that the House will willingly accept that as a courtesy if the Minister would defer this motion until to-morrow.

Mr. BLYTHE

I understood you to rule that Sunday, for the purpose of this motion, is a dies non. I understand it has never been treated so. Is it in the Standing Orders that it has been so treated? For this purpose it has never been so treated.

Mr. FLINN

The Minister is asking for his pound of flesh. We are very unwilling to ask for a pound of flesh, or ask in any spirit of that kind, that the Ministry especially might resent. If the Minister is asking for his pound of flesh he must be prepared to abide the issue that he has raised on the standard which he himself has set. I am trying to avoid clashing by giving the Minister an opportunity to do something courteous, to do something that apparently a minority in the House could claim as a matter of right.

It is in the interest of co-operation and good feeling, and a desire to get through in an orderly and rapid manner, the work before the House, that we are suggesting to the Minister that he should make a gesture as distinct from being pushed.

Mr. BLYTHE

I would like to press you for a ruling on the question of Sunday being treated as a dies non. There is nothing, I understand, in the Standing Orders to show that that is so. It has never been treated for the purpose as a dies non, and you would be ruling something which would be quite novel if you did so rule——

Mr. FLINN

He has already ruled.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not think so.

Mr. MacENTEE

Have you not already ruled that it is a dies non?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I will hear the Minister.

Mr. BLYTHE

I am passing away from the point which I might raise with regard to the fact that we have already passed into a new day, and that this is Thursday, and if Sunday were to be treated as a dies non there are still four days' notice.

Mr. FAHY

And only two days' notice of the amendments.

Mr. BLYTHE

It is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle to rule. There is no doubt that for a very considerable time it has been the practice to give notice on Saturdays and to have that business definitely on the following Wednesday. If it were now to be ruled that that was wrong, it would mean certainly that the ruling and that the general practice of this House for a very considerable period has been entirely wrong. There might be arguments for treating Sunday as a dies non, but there is no order with regard to it. There is a precedent that it should not be so treated, and I suggest to you, sir, that it would be wrong in definitely ruling that now.

General MULCAHY

In support of the Minister's point. I draw your attention to Standing Order 28, where, dealing with the matter of questions, it says: "but no question shall be handed in on a Saturday, Sunday, or public holiday." I take it that there is no suggestion that Saturday is a dies non in any way, or that a public holiday is a dies non, and by implication Sunday is put in specially there to put it in the ordinary category with Saturday or a public holiday. If it were either implied or specifically stated anywhere in the Standing Orders that it was a dies non, Sunday would not appear in that category there.

Mr. LEMASS

As an actual fact Sunday is a dies non so far as Deputies are concerned, in so far as notices handed in on a Saturday would not reach them until Monday under the present postal arrangements. If the Post Office arrangements were so that these notices would reach them on Sunday, that would be a different matter.

Mr. LITTLE

Therefore, if the argument of the Minister for Local Government is tenable, this motion must be ruled out because it was handed in on Saturday.

Dr. RYAN

Can you hand in a motion on Sunday?

Mr. GOREY

I submit that the meaning of the word relative to questions is merely that questions are something that involve employing the office staffs and the different branches of the office staffs that are necessary in order to answer questions. That machinery is closed up on Sundays and holidays, and the word "question" is meant specially to deal with that. It is a different question altogether with regard to a motion when it is handed in at a certain time on a Saturday, and where it is in time to catch the post, and where it reaches the Deputies in sufficient time. The word does not apply to a motion like this.

Mr. AIKEN

It applies in the same way, as the Minister's staff have to reply to questions.

Mr. GOREY

This is a different matter. It is four days, and it gives an opportunity for the post working on the ordinary deliveries to take place.

Mr. BLYTHE

I would urge that if we are to take Standing Orders 25 and 28 together, the clear meaning is, that so far as motions are concerned, they might even be put down on a Sunday, and that for the purpose of any notice for motions Sunday is to count. The wording of the two Standing Orders is very similar. Standing Order 25 says: "And shall reach the clerk not later than 11 a.m. on the 4th preceding day" Standing Order 28 says that the "questions must be in writing and must reach the Clerk not later than 4 o'clock p.m. on the second day preceding that on which they are to be asked, but no question shall be handed in on a Saturday, Sunday, or public holiday." I think you said, sir, that these words were taken out of the Standing Orders with reference to motions. I had not remembered that they were in. But if they were in and they were taken out, then obviously the clear intention of the Dáil was to provide that for the purposes of notices of motions, Sunday should count, and that they might even be handed in.

Professor THRIFT

May I suggest that this question is really settled by Standing Order 25? Is not this Order prepared under your supervision? Then I take it from the fact that the motion and certain amendments appear on the Order Paper that you have been satisfied that notice has been given, and that therefore you were satisfied with the notices given and that they complied with the last sentence of the Standing Order 25. The last sentence of Standing Order 25 says:—"Provided that by permission of the Ceann Comhairle motions may be made on shorter notice." My point is this, that these notices appear on the Order Paper, and that therefore the Ceann Comhairle has satisfied himself that the motion may be moved by his having it inserted on the Order Paper, because the Order Paper is prepared under his supervision.

Mr. MacENTEE

In reply to Deputy Thrift, I submit that his points and the points made by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government have been already ruled on; and that Sunday is a dies non for the purpose of considering all legal documents whatsoever. Sunday, unless specifically stated otherwise in a particular document, is a dies non. You are bound, I submit, to be guided by that ordinary rule. Secondly, in reply to the point made by Deputy Thrift, I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that on account of the fact that Sunday is for all practical purposes and business a dies non, certain amendments which we proposed to hand in with this motion reached the office too late to fulfil the conditions prescribed by Standing Order 25, and reached the office too late, because the real intention of the Standing Order in respect of the motion was not itself fulfilled, in so far as the notice as to this particular motion did not reach Deputies in time to permit those interested in the matter to table amendments which they thought advisable. On account of the insufficiency of the notice given in regard to that particular motion, these amendments reached the office too late. You have ruled that in view of the fact that they reached the office too late— that the condition relative to the two days' notice was not complied with— they could not be considered. I submit that your ruling in regard to the motion must be in accordance with the ruling you have already given relative to the amendments which we propose to table, and that since these amendments have been ruled out of order on the ground of insufficient notice, the motion itself is out of order, that it is not due to-day for consideration, and should be taken at a later stage.

Mr. BLYTHE

In reply to the points raised, I would like to suggest that a motion cannot be ruled out of order after it has been moved. It seems to me a motion must be ruled out of order before it is moved. If it could be ruled out of order after it had been moved it could quite easily be ruled out of order when passed. When called on to propose the motion, I did so, and I was allowed to conclude my remarks and no objection was taken.

Mr. FAHY

No objection was taken because the matter of the amendments not being in time had not then been raised.

Mr. AIKEN

I think that Deputy Thrift made the point that because this motion was on the Order Paper it could be discussed. I think it would be a very dangerous precedent to establish that every motion appearing on the Order Paper is by that very fact in order. That is exactly what I think Deputy Thrift said—that any motion appearing on the Order Paper could be discussed and that the fact of its appearing on the Order Paper has to be taken that you have ruled that it could be discussed. As to the point raised by the Minister for Finance that once a motion is moved it cannot be ruled out of order, I submit that that is ridiculous. Under the Standing Orders the Ceann Comhairle is the sole judge of order. If at any time a Deputy rises in his place and draws his attention to the fact that a motion is not in order, the Ceann Comhairle is entitled to decide whether or not the motion moved is in order.

Mr. FLINN

I desire to call attention to a previous ruling given by you in the matter, that up to the time a motion is actually presented to the House you had power to say it was out of order. The point seems to me to be that technically the Standing Order has not been complied with in relation to the time limit on the motion itself. I would suggest to you that you should exercise your discretion to align an irregularity in relation to the amendments. I mean that was in the interest of one side of the House that you decided that you would not exercise your discretion to align the amendments——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

To do what with the amendments?

Mr. FLINN

As a matter of fact, for once in my life I am trying to find the word I want. The suggestion is there is an irregularity as to the time of the presentation of the amendments.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Certain of the amendments.

Mr. FLINN

And when it was put to you that you could exercise your discretion and include these, you decided not to exercise your discretion in favour of the amendments. In exactly the same way the point is that it has been put to you now that you should exercise your discretion in favour of the other side in order to get over some irregularity in the presentation of the main motion. I mean the feeling you have which decided you not to exercise that discretion in favour of the plaintiff will also prevent you exercising your discretion in favour of the defendant.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The question is at what point a motion or amendment can be ruled out of order. Until the question is put from the Chair for decision, a question on a point of order may be raised on it, and, on the point of order being accepted by the Chair, the motion or the amendment may be withheld by the Chair from the decision of the House. With regard to the motion and the amendment, there is a motion and there is a set of amendments on the Order Paper, as well as a set of amendments which have been circulated in typescript. Standing Order 25 prescribes that a motion should reach the Clerk not later than 11 o'clock on the fourth preceding day. That particular provision when the Dáil is meeting on Wednesday, or even on Tuesday, has been pretty uniformly applied as to the motion reaching the Clerk in time for circulation on Saturday. Naturally the result of that practice has been that the second part of the Standing Order, which refers to amendments, has been construed to allow amendments to reach the Clerk up to 11 o'clock on Tuesday, or up to the time on Tuesday that the Order Paper is going to the press. That is without prejudice as to whether or not Sunday is dies non. If we are going to argue the matter purely on technicalities it will be quite arguable that since provision is made in one Standing Order to exclude Sundays, and since Sunday is not excluded in this particular Standing Order it must be counted.

But, apart altogether from technicalities, if the Standing Order were interpreted in practice so as to compel Deputies to give notices of motion before 11 o'clock on Friday for the following Wednesday, and if the second part of the Standing Order with regard to amendments were construed strictly in that way, Sunday being taken to be a dies non, the result would be that the motion would be circulated from the office on Friday evening to reach Deputies on Saturday morning, and amendments to that motion would have to reach the Clerk's office before 11 o'clock on Monday. Deputies will realise that from the point of view of people who want to put in amendments, that would be very difficult; in fact, an almost impossible task, particularly if the 11 o'clock rule was construed strictly. Therefore, it has been the practice to put motions received on Saturday on the Order Paper, and to accept amendments, not only up to 11 o'clock on Tuesday, but up to whatever time on Tuesday the Order Paper is sent to the press. The time at which it is sent varies slightly, but it is never later. I think, than four o'clock. In this particular instance that exact procedure was followed. This motion was received on Saturday, and, as often happens, the motion was received in a particular form on Friday and in the final form on Saturday. That happens to most motions presented to the Chair. The motion was circulated on Saturday, and as it did not reach Deputies until Monday amendments were accepted on Monday —very late on Monday—and on Tuesday. While it would be quite possible to argue that even the amendments on the Order Paper were not received in time, that argument would not be admitted by the Chair. As regards the other amendments which we received late on Tuesday evening and then circulated, it could be argued that within the ordinary practice which the House allows, and if you wanted to be strict on the matter, you could rule these particular amendments out.

The situation appears to me to be that if the Standing Order may be construed quite properly to include Sunday, which is a point to be decided in any event, the common practice which has been followed has proved to be for the convenience of Deputies, and it is that motions for Wednesday are circulated on Saturday, and that amendments are accepted up to Tuesday evening. I propose to allow the motion now to be discussed on that basis. With regard to the amendments, I am not sure if there is any technical difficulty at all arising from them, for it seems to me that the framers of the amendments may have questions which they desire to be discussed. In accordance with the general practice, which is for the convenience of the proposers of motions and the movers of amendments, motions are accepted on Saturday for Wednesday, and amendments have been accepted on Tuesday for Wednesday. Therefore, I am accepting the motion and the amendments that I received on Tuesday in time for the Order Paper on Wednesday. I suggest that the amendments to the motions should be taken in a particular form. I think that two of the amendments on the Order Paper, Nos. 2 and 3, give an opportunity for a discussion of all the amendments and an opportunity for a decision by the House on the matters arising from all the amendments.

Mr. MacENTEE

Arising out of the statement you have made, I would like to represent to you, so far at least as one Deputy is concerned, that the present practice of circulating amendments handed in at the office on Saturdays is certainly not to the convenience of Deputies, in so far as it shortens the time they have for consideration of particular motions. Compensation is not afforded to them by the fact that certain amendments received up to a certain hour on Tuesdays are allowed to appear on the Order Paper, because it means that a Deputy has something less than one day to consider the motion handed in on Saturday. While your ruling may be based literally on the practice, I certainly think that the Standing Order ought to be rigorously observed, and that henceforth notices of motions handed in on Saturday should not appear on Wednesday's Order Paper.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The question, of course, does not arise, but the result of what the Deputy has stated would be that notices of motions appearing on Wednesday's Order Paper would have to be handed in on Friday, and that amendments received after 11 o'clock on Monday would be late, but that, I think, would be very serious for the movers of amendments. I now propose to take the amendments, and I want to get a decision as to what amendments Deputies want taken.

Mr. LEMASS

In respect of the amendment in my name which you have decided is out of order, I would like to point out this amendment seeks to get from the Dáil an expression of opinion that in the discussion of the Committee Stage of these Bills the Standing Order referring to the closure should not be operative. If it was proposed to suspend a Standing Order I would have moved an amendment that it be suspended. Instead of that, I tabled an amendment to the motion that the Dáil, instead of passing the motion, should come to a different opinion, and that the closure should not be operative.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I think that is not a relevant amendment.

Mr. DE VALERA

With reference to the suggested decision you have indicated—I mean the decision that you would possibly come to with respect to amendments—there is one very fatal objection to dealing with them in the manner which you have suggested. The whole point of procedure as far as I can see is to give an opportunity on the Committee Stage so that each particular point in the Bill can be properly dealt with and the decision of the House taken on them. If you bulk all these amendments and give only four hours for the whole thing, and after a certain time the closure is moved while perhaps only one amendment has been dealt with, that would be an unfair procedure. The question, I think, you should put to the House is the one dealing with the time limitation, if there is to be a limitation of time, on each amendment. It is quite unfair to say that it is wasting time. Now apparently the Government are going to take a hand in wasting time after their talk about the Opposition wasting time.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is the Deputy talking on the motion or the suggestion?

Mr. DE VALERA

You suggest a way of dealing with the question that does not really cover the point. Some of the amendments, I think, were aimed at seeing that if there was limitation of discussion at all it should be a limitation with respect to each particular amendment. That is to say, a certain time should be given to each amendment, and the closure could be moved on each amendment after a certain period.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is the Deputy now alluding to amendment No. 4?

Mr. DE VALERA

Yes.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It seems to me that the motion on the Order Paper is in two parts. One part deals with the Committee Stage of these Bills, and the other with the Report Stage of them. If on part one of the motion the decision is taken that the words "four hours" stand or that "four hours" become six, ten, twelve or any number of hours whatever, and similarly in the second part of the motion that the words "two hours" stand or that "two hours" become any other number of hours, that would be conclusive, and it would be impossible to move a further amendment which would prolong that period. The essence of the motion is the period has to be decided. Amendment 4 will be out of order no matter what decision had been previously reached with regard to the number of hours' discussion it gets, a certain number of hours on the Committee Stage and a certain number of hours on the Report Stage.

Mr. DE VALERA

My point was not precisely with respect to amendment No. 4. I felt your ruling with regard to other amendments being out of order was apparently suggested by your feeling that the question could be adequately dealt with by the amendments on the Order Paper.

There is an aspect of the whole question which is not covered by that. It is the aspect I have indicated, namely, that it really upsets the whole arrangement which has gone on for some years with respect to the discussion of Bills so that each particular section would be properly dealt with and amendments could be discussed by the House. This idea of bulking the whole time for amendments and moving the closure, whether certain amendments are good or not, is a most unreasonable way of dealing with it. For instance, these amendments that you are ruling out of order aim at omitting or excepting certain Bills from the general rule. Three Bills are mentioned here. It is quite possible that there may be a decision by the House to limit the debate to one of these three Bills, a decision which you are ruling out of account.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The first amendment, in the name of Deputy Derrig, would be in order.

Mr. DE VALERA

A person might be inclined to vote against the complete deletion, and would be prepared to take two of the three Bills that are mentioned. That is one of the things that was intended to be covered by the amendments that have been ruled out.

Mr. MacENTEE

I submit that there is a practical difficulty also arising out of Standing Order 86 in considering this matter. The Standing Order states that a Bill must be considered section by section. What would be the position if the whole of the four hours were to be devoted to considering, say, Section 1 of Amendment (No. 10) Bill?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The effect would be that a separate question would be put on each section.

Mr. MacENTEE

Without discussion.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Bill would be considered section by section by putting each section separately.

Mr. MacENTEE

There is no definition of the word consideration, but I certainly think that it does imply discussion and debate of some sort.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am not accepting that. We will have to get the discussion begun. I will take Deputy Derrig's amendment, or I will take amendment 2 and part of amendment 3 together, namely, that the words "four hours" stand, and let the matter be debated on them.

Mr. DE VALERA

I wish to oppose this motion in toto.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We will have to get an amendment moved.

Mr. DE VALERA

Why?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

When the amendments have been discussed the question of the motion will arise.

Mr. DE VALERA

Either this morning or last night I spoke myself before an amendment was moved. I spoke against a particular proposition. I think it is only right that we should have liberty to do that. I am opposed altogether to this particular motion.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is depriving Deputies who have amendments on the Paper of their rights.

Mr. DE VALERA

No.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Supposing the motion is discussed for some time and the closure is applied to it, the Deputies' amendments would fall without any discussion. If the motion that the Deputy speaks of was a motion on the Second Reading of a Bill, the amendment was a special amendment for Second Reading debates—that the word "now" be deleted and this day twelve months substituted. That raises exactly the same type of debate as the motion itself. The debate proceeds on the motion and amendment. In this particular case, the amendments are specific, and I think the Deputies who have amendments down to the motion must get an opportunity of proposing them.

Mr. DE VALERA

Deputies may prefer to keep in reserve the question as to whether or not they will move their amendments. They may prefer to withdraw them, if the case is proceeding in a certain way, without putting the motion before the House definitely at all. These are only notices of motions—notices of intention to move amendments. Surely the Ceann Comhairle ought not to attempt to compel a Deputy to move his amendment except at the time that pleases himself?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am only preserving for Deputies their right to move amendments. If Deputy Aiken does not move amendment No. 2, I have no power to compel him. I have no power to compel a Deputy to move a motion or an amendment. I will allow a discussion on the motion, or I will allow an amendment to be moved, but I will not allow a discussion on the motion now and guarantee that amendments may be moved afterwards at any particular moment that a Deputy chooses. I will allow a discussion on the motion now, but Deputies must remember that they may get no discussion on their amendments.

Mr. FLINN

You may have a motion and a man may be definitely and irrevocably hostile to it. The arguments adduced on that motion may convert him to the opinion that it is not destruction, but modification of the motion that is required. It may not be possible for him to come to that conclusion intelligently until he has heard the arguments. When he has heard the arguments he may say that this is not a motion to be thrown out holus bolus. It is a motion to be dealt with by one of the amendments on the paper. That light he would receive during the debate. Then he might have three or four amendments down and he would decide, as a result of the discussion, that it was not No. 1, 2, or 3 amendment that would meet the difficulty, but rather No. 4.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is a well-known rule of procedure that amendments down to a motion must be moved first and then the main question is put to the House.

Mr. LEMASS

In a discussion we had here recently on the motion to receive a Petition, an amendment was received when the discussion had been in progress a couple of days. You, sir, maintained that you were perfectly entitled to receive an amendment at any time up to the putting of the question.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That was an amendment which was not on the Paper. I will now take a discussion on the main question.

Mr. DE VALERA

Am I to take it that this discussion is not going to prejudice the rights of Deputies who have amendments down and who may desire to move them later?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I will have to decide that later, in the light of all the circumstances. I will hear the Deputy on the main question now.

Mr. DE VALERA

I do not wish, any more than the Chair, in any way to prevent any Deputy who may wish to move an amendment from doing so. The only point is that I prefer to speak to the motion as it is than to speak to the amendment. If the amendment is moved I will be taken rather as speaking to the amendment than to the motion itself. I do not wish, as I said, to deprive any Deputy of the right to move an amendment that he has tabled, and unless I can get some assurance from the Chair that my speaking at this stage is not going to deprive the Deputy of his right, I would prefer to let the matter go, and let whoever wishes to propose an amendment do so.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Does Deputy Aiken wish to propose the amendment? I think it would be better to keep to the question of the four hours if the question of the Committee Stage was taken first.

Mr. FLINN

Would not this be a good moment for the President to move the adjournment?

Mr. AIKEN

I move:—"To delete the word `hours' wherever it occurs, and substitute the word `sittings.' " I reserve my speech until afterwards.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Does the Deputy say that he will reserve his speech?

Mr. AIKEN

Yes.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

He cannot do that.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. AIKEN

What I wish to say about the amendment and the motion is that I think the Government could save a good deal of public money by carrying out their policy to its logical conclusion, and doing with this Parliament what they did with the Parliament that was in existence in June, 1922— suppress it altogether. They would save a lot of time. Let them bring in a motion and get the majority to steam-roll it through inside five minutes, if they like, or within as short a time as possible, by having a Closure Division, and then a Division on the motion to give them complete and absolute power. I suppose that there is nothing in the Constitution or in the Standing Orders to prevent them doing that if they like to do it. If they did that, if instead of keeping the majority up all night, and making them walk through the Division lobbies four times on every motion, they did it all in the one motion, and got the majority to give them complete and absolute power for a couple of years, it would save a lot of time. I saw a letter the other day in a paper which stated that it cost something like eight shillings a column to print the Official Debates, and I suppose it takes something to print the Official Divisions. So that if the Government are going to have no real discussion on these motions I suggest to them that, in order to save public money, they should bring in one motion to set themselves up as a dictatorship for a few years.

We will look with great interest at the actions of the minority that holds the balance of power here. We will look with great interest to see if this minority is going to stand for the using of the guillotine on the temporary majority on this side of the House. The President, or his Party, caused a statement to be issued to the papers the other day that the Evil Literature Bill was being delayed because of our action here. No opposition has been offered by Fianna Fáil in this assembly to any motion that we considered was for the good of the people as a whole, and even since the Government brought in these ten Constitution Amendment Bills a couple of Bills went through the Dáil without any undue delay whatsoever. They had the Bill regulating mutual assurance to cover up the mistakes that were made by the Government some time ago. These mistakes were hurting the local public bodies, and when they brought in a Bill to correct them we offered no opposition whatever to it. It got a First Reading without a debate, and without a division. There is another Bill on the Order Paper regarding the Trades Loans Act that has been printed. If the Government would bring in Bills like that, instead of bringing in Constitution Amendment Bills to do away with the democratic clauses of the Constitution, they would have absolutely no opposition from us; they would get all the help we could give them in framing proper measures, measures that would be in the best interests of the people. Perhaps the President is afraid to introduce the Evil Literature Bill. Perhaps he is afraid that it might get a very fast passage through the Dáil, and that it would be put into operation against these ten Constitution Amendment Bills that he has brought in. I think that they are the most evil literature that has been circulated in this country for a long time.

Mr. T. SHEEHY (West Cork)

That is very funny.

Mr. AIKEN

I am glad you like it.

Mr. J. WOLFE

On a point of order, has the Evil Literature Bill anything to do with the reporting of the proceedings in the Dáil? Does it come under the heading of the cost of reporting?

Mr. AIKEN

If you want to hear the relationship between the Evil Literature Bill and the motion that is before the House it is this, that this motion, introduced by the Minister for Finance——

Mr. ANTHONY

On a point of order, we are not discussing the speeches of the Fianna Fáil Deputies.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I do not think Deputy Aiken said anything about the speeches of the Fianna Fáil Deputies.

Mr. AIKEN

I would like Deputy Anthony to show me how I was discussing the speeches.

Mr. ANTHONY

I know very little about evil literature.

Mr. AIKEN

I am glad to hear it.

Mr. ANTHONY

Deputy Aiken appears to be an authority on questions of procedure.

Mr. AIKEN

Deputy Anthony is sitting in Deputy O'Connell's seat, and Deputy O'Connell made an allegation here that I asked him to justify. That was that both the big Parties in the Dáil simply want to score points off one another. We do not want to score points off the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.

Mr. ANTHONY

Oh dear!

Mr. AIKEN

We want to score the one point, and that is to prevent from being representatives of the people men who have brought in the Bills that they brought in the other day. That is the point we wish to score. We are taking full advantage of the parliamentary machinery that is here to try to oppose the Government in putting through these ten Constitution Amendment Bills. We are doing our utmost to prevent the Government from doing away with the democratic clauses of the Constitution, and we would appeal to the Labour Party for full and absolute co-operation in our efforts to block the Government in doing away with these democratic clauses. We say to the President again that he need not be telling the country we are here simply and solely for the purpose of obstructing.

The PRESIDENT

I have not told them that yet.

Mr. J. WOLFE

He knows it.

Mr. AIKEN

Since we came into this assembly we have forced the President to do things for the people that they did not do for the last four or five years. They were crying poverty, poverty, all the time. They were too poor to return the shilling to the old age pensioners, and we made them do it (interruptions).

Mr. ANTHONY

Stealing the Labour Party's thunder.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Order. Surely the Deputy is wandering from the motion now.

Mr. AIKEN

The Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party combined made them do it.

Mr. ANTHONY

You were accessories after the fact.

Mr. AIKEN

If the Labour Party would only stand with us, we might make them do more for the people. Instead of abolishing the democratic clauses of the Constitution we might even make them implement the democratic clauses.

Mr. ANTHONY

And then we would teach our grandmothers to suck eggs.

Mr. AIKEN

There are many things that we could be discussing here, if we had 24 hours to spare, other than the motion that the Minister for Finance has introduced. If the Government want to get on with the work they should introduce Bills to do the work of the people. For 18 months they have been dealing with the question of bringing in a Bill to deal with evil literature, which they told the people is greatly needed.

They have also delayed bringing in a Bill to deal with co-operation. That Bill is most necessary to restore order in the chaos into which the co-operative movement has fallen in this country. That Bill is at least six years behind the time. If they want to build with both hands let the Government bring in Bills for the purpose of building up this country, and instead of getting obstruction they will get every support that we can give them.

Mr. J. WOLFE

Who has delayed the bringing in of these Bills?

Mr. AIKEN

The Government.

Mr. WOLFE

No.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Aiken will have to be allowed to make his own speech.

Mr. AIKEN

I would like to know from Deputy Wolfe——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Aiken will know nothing from Deputy Wolfe. The Deputy must make his speech to this motion.

Mr. LITTLE

He need not expect to get a reason from him.

Mr. AIKEN

Who has delayed the bringing in of these Bills but the Government?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

We cannot discuss on this amendment Bills that have not been brought in. I want the Deputy to discuss the amendment.

Mr. AIKEN

The excuse the Government is giving for passing this motion is that they want to save Parliamentary time for constructive Bills. What constructive work have the Government brought in that has been opposed by the Fianna Fáil Party? Are we opposing a co-operative Bill, or are we opposing the Evil Literature Bill that the Government prate so much about at the street corners? Let them bring in these Bills and see what will happen. There is absolutely no justification for bringing in the motion that the Minister for Finance has introduced. When introducing it he said that the Fianna Fáil Party was adopting what he called the Four Courts tactics. I believe that in introducing this motion the Government are introducing in another form the tactics which they adopted on the 29th and 30th June, 1922. They are going to curtail the rights of the people's representatives here to discuss Bills and subjects which vitally affect the lives of the people. I believe that if Bills which vitally affected the lives of the people had been properly and adequately discussed in June, 1922, we would not have had the bloodshed that occurred in 1922 and 1923. Instead of rushing through Constitution Amendment Bills they should give them proper and due consideration. Instead of trying to rush them through, they should be delayed, and the people's representatives should be given plenty of time to think what exactly these constitutional amendments meant to the life of the country in the future. They would then be doing very good work for Ireland. If they want to put them through, and if they think there is justification for doing so, there is no justification whatever for rushing them through. If they are going to justify the abolition of Articles 47 and 48 they should justify it in a manner that we can appreciate. There is no good trying to justify the abolition of Articles 47 and 48 by giving a promise of what is going to happen in the future to another Article of the Constitution. If they are going to justify the abolition of Articles 47 and 48 by promising to amend Article 50, Article 50 should be amended in the way they promise before they abolish Articles 47 and 48.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Surely we have got away from Articles 47-48 when the Bills got a Second Reading.

Mr. AIKEN

If we knew what was going to happen to Article 50, and if there was going to be some way by which the people could get out of the trap into which they have been put by England, then it might not require a guillotine motion to discuss an amendment of other Articles in the Constitution. Certainly when the Government intends to abolish them, or is closing up the escape which the people have in the Constitution——

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

Is the Deputy in order in discussing the Constitution?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The motion which the Minister for Finance moved deals with three Bills to amend the Constitution. The Deputy is in order. The Deputy would not be in order in discussing the Constitution as a whole, but he will be in order in discussing it in so far as the motion affects particular Articles.

Mr. AIKEN

I think the Government are introducing Bills to close up the escape which the people have in the Constitution from the trap into which England has put them. If they are going to provide an escape in the future they should provide that escape before closing up the only one that exists at present. We object to the closing up of any escape that the people of this country have from the clutches of England, and we object more forcibly to the closing up of the only means of escape that the people at present have. Articles 47 and 48 are practically the only means of escape that the people have.

General MULCAHY

On a point of order, I submit that the Deputy, who has been speaking for twenty minutes, has not yet touched either the motion or the amendment, that is as to the adequacy or otherwise of four hours for discussing the Committee Stage of any of these Bills.

Mr. DERRIG

May I ask on what grounds the Minister for Local Government based his statements? Are we to take it that there is a studied routine by which, after a certain time elapses, the Minister gets up and makes a statement like a parrot without giving any grounds to justify it?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

As regards the point of order put by the Minister, I do not admit that the Deputy has not touched the motion. He has, but I think the Deputy has wandered a long way from it during the greater portion of his speech. In the remainder of his speech the Deputy ought to confine himself strictly to the amendment which stands in his name.

Mr. AIKEN

The amendment which stands in my name is "to delete the word `hours' wherever it occurs and substitute the word `sittings.' " The word "hours" occurs in the motion of the Minister for Finance, which says that not more than four hours shall be given to the Committee Stage of any of the following Bills, namely, the Constitution Amendment Bills Nos. 6, 10 and 13. The motion also says that not more than two hours be given during the Report Stage to each of these Bills. I am moving to delete the word "hours" so that it would read that not more than two sittings be given to each of the Bills on Report Stage, and not more than four sittings be given to them in Committee. I submit that four hours is too little time to give consideration in Committee to any of these Constitution Amendment Bills, which are three of the most important Bills that have been introduced into this Dáil since its inception. I believe that we should give a full and adequate consideration to them. I do not know that it will require four sittings to give them adequate consideration, but I say that, if it is necessary to give four sittings to consider them, four sittings should be given. Anyone who has read the Orders of the Day will notice that there has been circulated a large number of amendments to the Constitution Amendment No. 6 Bill. That was the only one of these Bills that had got a Second Reading until to-day. If those amendments are going to receive adequate consideration it will require much more than four hours. I say if it requires four days to be given, they should be given.

This Constitution is supposed to be the fundamental law by which we all guide our Governmental actions here, and it should not be rushed through like a mere Standing Order, that it could be changed from day to day without hardly any notice. As the Constitution stands at present, in another two years it will require a two-thirds majority to amend it. As was pointed out here during this present sitting, if it requires a two-thirds majority to amend the Constitution, the minority that now holds the balance of power will be in a position to dictate the Constitution of this country and will be in a position to prevent it being amended; that is, of course, being amended in a constitutional way. They cannot prevent it being amended in an unconstitutional way, the way in which England always prevented the Irish people from framing their Constitution. We hold that before the minority which holds the present balance of power in this country, because of the disagreement in national ranks, is given the power in their hands to keep the Constitution as it is, that Constitution should be very carefully discussed and certainly no amendment to it should be passed through the Committee Stage in four hours. That is, if Deputies want to devote more than four hours to it, and I believe that if they are doing their duty to the country they will devote more than four hours to the Committee Stage of any one of these Bills.

The first Bill to which the Minister for Finance proposes on the Committee Stage to devote only four hours is the Constitution Amendment No. 6 Bill, and the second is the Constitution Amendment No. 10 Bill. I think that there should be four sittings devoted to each of these Bills and that Deputies should have a fair chance of keeping awake during the discussion. Deputies should have a good night's sleep, and they should have nothing on their minds, only the consideration of the work before them. These Bills are important enough for that, and when they are being discussed their discussion should not be interrupted by loud yawns. Would any Deputy tell the House how all the amendments that have been put down to the Constitution Amendment No. 6 Bill could be adequately discussed in four hours? The amendments that have gone in are, quite possibly, only a few of the amendments, which might be doubled before the Bill comes up for discussion.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Quite probably.

Mr. AIKEN

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary for Posts and Telegraphs might put in a few more, and might want to discuss these amendments at great length in the interests of his constituents and in the interests of the farmers of the country.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I put down many amendments before the Deputy was here to do anything.

Dr. RYAN

That is when you represented the farmers.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Yes.

Mr. AIKEN

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, the representative of the Farmers' Party that was—

Mr. HEFFERNAN

And is.

Mr. AIKEN

That is and forever more shall be.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Farmers' Party has nothing to do with this motion.

Dr. RYAN

We shall not go back to 1922.

Mr. ANTHONY

It leaves an aching void.

Mr. AIKEN

Perhaps Deputy Heffernan may want to move several amendments to Amendment Bill No. 6. He may want not to give into the hands of the present Seanad absolute control over the Co-operative Bill that is to come in the near future. Perhaps he may have more interest in the farmers than to be giving into the hands of the Seanad, that is proposed to be elected, the power of veto over a Bill that is very necessary to the economic welfare of the farmers. If Deputy Heffernan wants to introduce other amendments along those lines, how can he have them discussed adequately considering the number of amendments that already have been tabled and I think as Deputy Heffernan is always out to do what he can for the farmers that he will—

Mr. DONOVAN

When you were not here to do it for them.

Mr. AIKEN

When I was not where to do it for them?

Mr. DONOVAN

Anywhere.

Mr. ANTHONY

Is the Deputy discussing Deputy Heffernan, the Farmers' Party or the motion?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

If Deputy Aiken would confine himself to the motion, perhaps he would be subject to less interruption.

Mr. AIKEN

I am confining myself to the time that it is proposed to give here to the discussion of the Committee Stages of No. 6, No. 13, and No. 10 Constitution Amendment Bills. I submit that the time is altogether inadequate, apart altogether from whatever amendments Deputy Heffernan or anybody else may have to introduce. We may have amendments here designed to prevent people, who are biased in favour of foreign rule in this country, from having a veto over laws that the people's representatives here may make in the interest of the people. We want to see these amendments adequately discussed and if we cannot carry them, we want to show to the people that we at least have put forward reasons why they should be carried. If there are any Deputies going to give the power of veto to a section, a few dozen people who are known to be biased in favour of English domination, we can say to the people they did it with their eyes open and they did it after receiving a warning from us as to what they were doing. Four hours is not sufficient in order to do that. If it requires four days, they should be given and there should be four ordinary sittings at which Deputies would be ordinarily awake.

Mr. DE VALERA

May I ask whether the original motion has been seconded?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

It does not require it.

Mr. DE VALERA

The Standing Order says that no motion can be debated until it has been seconded.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Will the Deputy refer me to the Standing Order?

Mr. DE VALERA

It will take you some time to get it because I have not the number now.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I might say for the Deputy's information, that the practice has been that when the leader of a party moves a motion it is taken as seconded and it is not necessary formally to second it.

Mr. DE VALERA

It may be, but we are getting so particularly keen on getting Standing Orders carried out, that we might as well have them carried out rigorously. I suggested on one occasion at least, when I was here, that the motion was not formally seconded and I thought according to the Standing Orders it should be.

The PRESIDENT

If it requires a seconder, I second it.

Mr. MacENTEE

I think you cannot override the Standing Orders.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Will the Deputy refer to the Standing Order?

Mr. MacENTEE

Standing Order 39 says that a motion shall not be debated until it has been seconded.

Mr. ALTON

It was formally seconded.

Mr. MacENTEE

You may take it that when the Minister for Finance proposed the motion there was no seconder, formally or otherwise, for the motion, and the name of no seconder appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. RICE

Is it in order, after the matter has been debated at length, for a Deputy to raise the point that the motion has not been seconded?

Mr. DE VALERA

I have been told by the Ceann Comhairle that a point of order may be raised at any time.

Mr. FLINN

I submit that there is no question before the House, that we have been discussing a motion which purports to have been brought into this House and which has not, in fact, been brought into this House, which cannot have been brought into this House in the way in which the House's rules are capable of recognising its existence unless it is brought within the rules of the House and the rules of the House prescribe that a motion must be proposed and seconded. We have been, I protest, blamed and libelled with the aid of the Press for wasting time, for obstruction and what not, but it looks as if we had been, either through the folly, the ignorance or the refusal of the Government to carry out the Standing Orders of the House——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Is the Deputy making a point of order or a speech?

Mr. FLINN

I am suggesting that there is nothing before the House, and that there cannot be anything before the House, until the motion has been seconded, and that we have been talking in vacuo.

Mr. RICE

You are always doing that.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Standing Order states that a motion shall not be debated until it has been seconded, and that the seconder may reserve his speech until a later stage of the debate. The motion has been debated. I am informed now that the motion was not seconded, but the practice has been in the House that when the leader of the House, or the leader of a Party, moves a motion, it is assumed that it is seconded. The Standing Order, I admit, is very clear and very explicit on the point, and I am prepared, in order to put the motion in order, to allow somebody to second the motion now.

The PRESIDENT

I formally second the motion.

Mr. MacENTEE

In view of the fact that an irregular debate has already proceeded for one hour and twenty minutes on the motion, I submit that the motion ought now to be re-introduced afresh, that in fact it has not been put properly before the House.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

If the motion was not in order because it was not seconded, it has now been put in order by being seconded.

Mr. FLINN

I submit that you have no cognisance whatever of Deputy Aiken's speech—that he has been speaking in a House which has not been a House constituted or carrying on according to Standing Orders; that we have been discussing something which we had no right to discuss, and that every speech that has been delivered since, whoever it was foolishly and ignorantly started out——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The motion is in order.

Mr. AIKEN

Now that the motion is in order, I want to move my amendment.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy already moved his amendment and spoke to it.

Mr. AIKEN

The motion was not then in order, and I want to move——

Professor TIERNEY

The Deputy's previous speech was only a nightmare.

Mr. MacENTEE

Look at the daydream.

Mr. AIKEN

The motion, as you have ruled, was not properly before the House.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy may continue his speech on his own amendment which he moved.

Mr. AIKEN

The amendment which I am now moving, since the motion is now in order, is to delete the word "hours" wherever it occurs, and substitute the word "sittings." The reason I want to move that is that I want to have it recorded in the House in a strictly orderly manner. The reasons for it are that it would be impossible for the House to give adequate consideration to Constitution Amendment Bills Nos. 6, 13 and 10 in four hours, and that it may possibly require four sittings. If it requires four sittings, the four sittings should be given. Four sittings are a very short time in the life of this country, and if we give four sittings to each of these Bills——

Mr. HEFFERNAN

How long are the sittings to be?

Mr. AIKEN

As long as Deputy Heffernan likes—as long as I like. I want to have them as long as we will require to discuss the Bills adequately. I want time to discuss adequately all the amendments tabled by the Fianna Fáil Party, and, in addition to that, to discuss whatever amendments may be introduced by other Deputies.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Is it in order for a Deputy to read a newspaper while the proceedings are going on? I call attention to the fact that Deputy Flinn is reading a paper.

Mr. FLINN

I desire to apologise to the House for an oversight in having done so.

Mr. T. SHEEHY (Cork)

Come to business.

Mr. AIKEN

I come to business, and I want to know from any Deputies on the Government Benches who are awake and in a position to answer me——

Mr. SHEEHY

We will wait for you until this time to-morrow.

Mr. AIKEN

I want to know why they are rushing these Bills through in four hours, and what is the great necessity for it. Why particularly should Constitution Amendment Bill No. 10. which deals with the Referendum and the Initiative, be rushed through? Deputy Thrift's motion has been passed, and he has another motion down whereby a special committee shall be set up to consider how petitions are to be presented and received. It will take some months to reach Deputy Thrift's motion, and if the Government set up the Joint Committee, I suppose they can keep that Committee in session for some months. Why then is it necessary to introduce this Bill to abolish these two Articles, and rush it through the House in four hours? Several months will have to pass before we will be in a position to catch President Cosgrave napping again. We caught him napping once, and Deputy Thrift stepped in to save him. Deputy Thrift has another motion down which will save the President from our catching him napping for another few months. Why then the necessity for rushing the Bills through at this time of the Session? If the Government have good reasons, which they can stand over, to give for the abolition of Articles 47 and 48, they could have plenty of time to give them next Autumn, and they could devote the time from now until the Summer Recess in discussing the Estimates, the Co-operative Bill, the Evil Literature Bill, or any other Bill which they may think fit to introduce for the benefit of the people. Why are they spending the time of the House in doing a thing which is not necessary, particularly in view of the fact that there are many urgent things that could be done here in the time that has been wasted in discussing the Constitution Amendment Bill No. 10? Why not introduce the Co-operative Bill, the Evil Literature Bill, and any other Bill that may be for the good of the people?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy ought to come to the motion and the amendment.

Mr. AIKEN

If the Government want to do work for the people of this country, there is no necessity for the introduction of this motion, and the Dáil should reject it and tell the Government to bring in Bills here that would obtain general agreement from the Nationalists of this country and from the people who want to see the Irish nation survive the attacks made upon it by England and her tools in this country. We are opposing the four hours closure. The closure is a weapon which should only be used by the Ceann Comhairle after due deliberation, and after he has seen that any motion before the House has been adequately discussed. There is a Standing Order empowering the Ceann Comhairle or the Chairman for the time being to silence any Deputy whom he may think is speaking for the purpose of obstructing the business of the Dáil. Surely that Standing Order plus the power that the Ceann Comhairle has to accept a motion to closure a whole debate on any motion that he thinks has been adequately discussed, is sufficient without bringing in this motion which, on the face of it, is in direct contravention of Article 20 of the Constitution. Article 20 of the Constitution was quoted here during some discussion that took place on a point of order. Now that we are strictly in order in discussing this motion, I want to quote the Article. It says:—

"Each House shall make its own rules and Standing Orders with powers to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate."

Surely there is no freedom in a debate which is going to be limited beforehand without knowing how much time it will require to debate the motion under discussion in a proper manner. That is not securing the freedom of debate that is guaranteed to all Deputies under the Constitution. We shall be very much interested in seeing whether the majority that happens to hold the balance of power here for the moment will stand for putting the closure and for using the guillotine on Deputies on this side of the House. We hope that all Deputies will reject this motion introduced by the Minister for Finance—a motion of which all Deputies have got very little notice. This notice of motion was only in the hands of most of us on Monday evening. I am sure that if a large number of independent Deputies and Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies consider that motion in a proper manner they will not vote for it. I hope that before they take this step of flouting Article 20 of the Constitution by passing this motion, they will look a second time, that they will pause before they take that step, and if the Minister for Finance insists upon putting this motion before 8 o'clock this morning that in order to give the principle involved due consideration they will reject this motion. As I said before, and I do not want to repeat it, it will require perhaps four sittings to discuss these Constitution Amendment Bills adequately, and if it requires four sittings they should be given. I hope all Deputies, Cumann na nGaedheal, Independent and Labour, will stand with us in demanding that if it requires four sittings to discuss these Constitution Amendment Bills we should get these four sittings.

Mr. DE VALERA

I am opposed, as I indicated earlier, to this motion in toto. It is a vicious motion, vicious in its purpose and equally vicious in the manner in which it proposes to effect its purpose. The purposes, of course, is to prevent adequate discussion in the Committee Stage of these three named Bills. It is completely at variance with the whole spirit of the Standing Orders with reference to the stages of Bills and the discussion of Bills. It is altogether unnecessary if the purpose was to confine debate within reasonable limits, because the Standing Order dealing with the closure proposes a method of doing that which I hold is quite sufficient and is not at all open to the abuses which the method proposed by the Minister for Finance is. Standing Order 52, I hold, is as I have said, sufficient. By Standing Order 52: "After a question (except a question already barred from debate under the Standing Orders) has been proposed from the Chair either in the Dáil or in a Committee of the whole Dáil, a Deputy may claim to move: `That the question be now put,' and unless it shall appear to the Ceann Comhairle that such a motion is an infringement of the rights of a minority or that the question has not been adequately discussed or that the motion is otherwise an abuse of those Standing Orders the question `That the question be now put' shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate."

Now there is power in that to keep the debate within proper limits. It is a power that has been used if not abused already, but at least this can be said of it that it gives the Ceann Comhairle an opportunity of seeing that an amendment to sections of a bill or any other questions which in his opinion ought to be discussed, should be discussed and that a proper time for their discussion should be given.

Now remember this is proposed with reference to the Committee stage. I think this article 87 or number 87 of the Standing Orders indicates quite clearly what ought to be the procedure in the case of a Bill in Committee. In Committee Standing Order 87/(1), says:—"When an amendment is offered proposing to insert a new section in a Bill such amendment may be moved when the number of the section, before which it is proposed to insert a new section, is read from the chair, and the question on such amendment shall be first decided." Sub-section (2) of the same Standing Order says:—"When the amendments (if any) offered to a section have been disposed of, the Chairman shall put the question, `That such section (or such section as amended) stand part of the Bill.' " Now the portion of that section which I have just read "when the amendments (if any) offered to a section have been disposed of," indicates that when the Standing Orders were being drawn up and when the Dáil was assenting to these Standing Orders, the importance of dealing with each amendment and disposing of it in a regular manner, was clearly before their minds, and this motion of the Minister for Finance is to put that aside. The idea in this motion is to allot a certain time and to see that no matter where we have reached in the discussion of the amendments at that time, irrespective of what amendments we have to discuss and irrespective of their importance, that the closure should be put in operation and that the debate should cease.

We have had experience already in the case of the Estimates of the futility to attempt to prepare a time-table in advance in matters of that particular kind, and I believe it has not been merely our experience here for the last six or eight months, but it has been the experience of previous Dala, that you cannot set a time-table in advance for a whole block of business and expect to do the business efficiently in that way. What happens is: there is a certain amount of latitude allowed for the earlier questions quite irrespective of their importance relatively, and when the time is occupied these other questions which are relevantly far more important have to be scamped through, and no proper attention paid to them at all. It is on that account that I have indicated my opposition to any attempt to limit debate in the way in which it is indicated in this motion. Though I shall vote for the four sittings as against four hours, I, for one, am not satisfied with a limitation of four sittings—I do not know until the discussion has proceeded whether four days would be sufficient. We expect they ought to be, but we cannot be sure. There is a disposition, as was indicated by the Minister for Finance, on the part of the Government to try new methods to prevent proper discussion from our side on these amendments, but they themselves will occupy a great portion of the time which is going to be allotted. Apparently they think that the method they have used up to the present, that is, not to intervene in the debate at all, has not been so effective, and that it would be more effective if they did get a certain time fixed and occupy a major portion of that time themselves putting their views and blocking out the Opposition altogether.

Well, it has been bad enough up to the present, but if these tactics are going to be used it seems to me that being here and calling this a deliberative assembly is all a farce, and I will begin to agree with Deputy Aiken that they might as well do what they did before, and bring in a Bill to suppress the Dáil, and constitute themselves dictators. We hear a good deal, and I think we had it from the Minister for Justice early to-night, about a representative assembly. If one section of this House is going to be deprived of its rights to put forward amendments and to discuss in detail everything put forward by the Government, then this House ceases to be in any sense a representative assembly. These Bills we intended discussing. We are prevented from discussing them by these people who talk about this being a representative assembly, and representative government, instead of being improved, is hindered by the sending of certain questions to the people outside.

These persons have no hesitation themselves in interfering with its liberties and handing over the power of veto to a body that cannot be called, in any sense of the word, a representative institution. We will be able to see the full effects of this motion by examining the thing in detail and how it is likely to operate upon the several Bills that are mentioned here. We have this No. 6 Bill amending the Constitution. Let us look for a moment at the scope of that Bill so as to see the various things that are covered in it, and the things to which naturally an Opposition that objects to in these Bills in principle would be likely to move in detail upon them. We have been beaten, so to speak, at this stage on the main question about these Bills. But we want to have them examined in detail and prevent greater harm that might be inflicted upon the country.

No. 6 Bill is one that abolishes the present system of election and substitutes instead election by the Dáil and Seanad combined. There is, first of all, the question in detail. I take it the main principle of the Bill was to set aside the present system of election and that on Committee it would be open to consider the question of the alteration that is proposed here. Now the alteration that is proposed here is an election by the Dáil and Seanad combined. Is it not natural that there should be an amendment to delete the portion that refers to the Seanad and have a definite decision of the Dáil on the question whether the Seanad should be any part whatever of the electorate? Suppose the question of giving the Seanad a part in the election should appear to be proper to the majority, is there not another question as to the manner in which the Seanad should participate in the election?

What about the suggestion that was made? I think it was made and later withdrawn. I am not quite certain, but I have a recollection that the matter cropped up in the Joint Committee proceedings. The suggestion was that a certain proportion of the Senators should be elected by the Seanad itself and a certain proportion by the Dáil. Then comes the question whether this should be by secret ballot or by open vote. Each one of these is a separate and distinct question which ought to be separately considered. It would be most unfair because a certain amount of time was occupied with the discussion of the question as to whether the Seanad should participate in the election, that the time occupied in that discussion should be used to limit the time that might be given to the question, for example, of alternative ways in which the Seanad might participate; or, again, you might have the question of the manner of voting.

The manner of voting is a most important one, if that other Article of the Constitution is not going to be scrapped. I will admit that it is of very little use, but there is no other way of putting it into operation. If that is the test, it stands condemned immediately. That is the Article which suggests that the Senators should be people who have served the country in some particular way. Who is going to judge that? It is one of these dressings that will try to get certain men of standing in the Seanad. It is a futile Article except as a mere sort of gesture. If it were to be given effect to the only way we could do it would be to have public opinion focussed on the electorate, and on those who nominate and vote for Senators.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

What has this to do with the matter under discussion?

Mr. DE VALERA

I am trying to show that we are going in this motion, if it is passed, to apply the closure in the worst possible manner, in a way that is unnecessary, on account of the fact that there is already provision here for the closure in a way which would be reasonable. In this particular case it is going to be applied in such a way as to end all real discussion. I was trying to show its dangers by taking this particular Bill, No. 6, indicating in advance the type of question that was likely to be considered in the Committee Stage, and showing how the operation of this would cut out. perhaps, consideration of some of the most important questions that would remain once the general principle had been decided upon, as apparently it has been by this Second Reading. That is the very reason why you have this Committee Stage discussion at all. It is to enable detailed amendments to be moved, and each particular matter to be discussed and a proper, deliberate decision of the House taken upon them.

Let us look similarly at how it would operate on the next one of the Bills, No. 10. No. 10 proposes to delete Articles 47 and 48 and make other certain changes in Articles 14 and 50. Article 47 deals with the Referendum and Article 48 deals mainly with the Initiative. These are two distinct types of questions. In fact, they are types of questions which you will find great differences of opinion upon. One is regarded as more or less a conservative or blocking or restrictive Article in a sense. The other is one which is a progressive Article, and the progressive parties here are naturally more interested in the Initiative, whereas those who are more conservative are interested in Article 47. There is no attempt whatever to bulk these two together for the time being unless you divide between the two, and the second, as well as the first, is going to mean inadequate discussion and bad business from the point of view of having this Bill properly considered and thought out and properly decided on.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. DE VALERA

That is as far as No. 6 and No. 10 are concerned. Now let us look at No. 13. When we look at No. 13 we see that there is likely to be a variety of amendments and valuable amendments with respect to all the periods that are mentioned there. Apart altogether from the general idea of giving the Seanad this power of obstruction, which this Bill is going to do, each one of these periods is distinct. They have different influences on the power of obstruction which is being given to the Seanad, and on every one of them you would want to have separate discussion and a separate decision. I need only point to the amendments that have been tabled on No. 6 to show that what I have said is a fair anticipation. As we have them actually here in black and white, they are the best ones to be considered—much better than merely talking by way of anticipation. As I have been on some of the others, looking at them here and analysing them, we can see the variety of different questions that have to be dealt with separately in connection with the Committee Stage of this particular Bill. I say this now from the point of view of having adequate discussion and doing our work in a business-like manner, apart altogether from the fact that the Standing Orders are explicit on the point that each particular section has to be properly discussed, and that each particular section has to be put separately.

Now, putting all these separate sections can have only one effect if this time limit is adopted. It means again that the first couple of sections may receive adequate consideration if the Executive does not try new tactics, endeavouring to monopolise the whole of the time and preventing any discussion or any view being expressed except their own. Apart from that, we can, in examining these Bills here, see if there are reasonable amendments, not amendments from the point of view of occupying the time, but amendments that deal with aspects of the question that will arise of necessity in the Committee Stage. For instance, there is the first one in my own name. It deals with the question of whether the Seanad should be a part or not of the electorate. The next one is from Deputy Fahy, and it refers to the question of eliminating certain members of the Seanad. It suggests substituting, instead of the words "the Seanad as a whole,""such members of the Seanad as have been elected to the Seanad by popular suffrage."

You can easily see that that amendment is a reasonable amendment from the point of view of representation of the people, or getting, so to speak, an election one step removed from the people. Those who have been elected on a popular suffrage could in some sense be regarded as representing the people who voted on their behalf, and I hold that to eliminate discussion on a question of that particular kind would be altogether wrong. I am going through all these amendments to show that serious points are raised by each one of them. To cut off discussion on them, by any such process as that indicated by the Minister for Finance, is practically to make a farce of the whole business. You might as well say "Let there be one vote, and let the majority have that one vote, and let there be no such question as an opposing point of view being presented to the point of view put forth by the majority Party." The next amendment proposes to insert the words "with the exception of retiring members nominated for re-election." There is another principle. It is quite distinct from any of those which we have up to the present been dealing with. I think that any reasonable member of the Dáil will admit that these are matters that ought to be considered separately, and that this particular matter requires a certain amount of consideration. When you have 60 members coming down here to water this House and to prevent it from being regarded as the popularly elected one, the question of the right of members who are retiring to vote should be carefully considered and discussed. I know it was discussed before the Joint Committee. If the question was regarded as being of sufficient importance to be discussed before that Committee, I imagine it ought to be regarded also as of sufficient importance to be considered here.

Mr. MOORE

Not at all.

Mr. DE VALERA

Then as regards the next question, it is altogether distinct from any of the points raised by the previous ones. This deals with the question of leaving a certain proportion of vacancies to be filled by the Seanad and the remainder to be filled by the Dáil. There, again, you have a separate and a distinct idea which is worthy of a separate debate. In the next one, still another principle is involved, the question at issue being that no person who holds the office of Lord Lieutenant or Deputy-Lieutenant for any county, or any other office of honour or profit under the British Crown, should be allowed to vote at such elections. I hold that it is a very serious matter that there should be in the legislature in this part of Ireland people who have very definite personal attachments to a foreign state.

Mr. CONLAN

Is it in order for the Deputy to go into the merits of each amendment on the Order Paper? I submit that the proper time to deal with these points is when the various amendments are under discussion. All these amendments have been circulated and we have all read them.

Mr. DE VALERA

Perhaps I might explain precisely what I have been doing. You were not here, sir, when I started on this particular line of argument. What I have been trying to do all the time is this: to show the Deputies who are going to vote on this motion what the effect of the motion will be when the Committee Stage of the Bill is reached. I am not going into the merits of these amendments, but I am pointing out the principle that is in each one of them. I am trying to make the point that they are all distinct and separate principles, that none of them is frivolous, and that every one of them merits separate attention from the Dáil, and that the effect of this motion, moved by the Minister for Finance, is to prevent anything like a separate discussion upon them.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is in order.

Mr. DE VALERA

I was pointing out that in this particular amendment there is a very important principle involved, whether we should tolerate there being in any part of the legislature here an office-holder appointed from outside. I have heard many statements from the other benches as to the independence of this House, for example. I think if we want to have any feeling of confidence in the legislature here or any real respect for it as representing the will or the viewpoint of the Irish people, then we must have time, and time should be given for a discussion of this particular question. I now come to amendment 6, which, I admit, has a certain amount of relation to amendment No. 5. All the previous amendments, that is, up to amendment No. 5, dealt with distinct and separate things, but I admit that amendment No. 6 is more or less related to amendment No. 5. This amendment comes under the general idea that we ought to have representatives who in no sense can be regarded as having any particular allegiance to a foreign state—that is to say, a person who is a soldier or an officer in an army outside of Saorstát Eireann, whether he is serving full-time, on half-pay, or in an honorary capacity.

I say that that amendment has an important bearing on the independence of these institutions in so far as they are claimed to be independent by the Executive opposite. I think that when these questions come to be discussed the Executive, if it is consistent, will admit that a case can be made for these amendments, and I think that we should not now by means of this guillotine motion prevent a proper discussion or a proper decision by the Dáil upon them. The next amendment is the one which says that no member shall vote in any election unless he is certified as having voted in not less than one half the divisions taken in the House. You can easily see the idea that is behind that amendment. The effect of it will be to try and see that those who exercise the franchise will be people who have thought it worth their while to be present when decisions affecting the interests of the country were being taken here. Again, that is one of the amendments that ought not to be ruled out or prevented from being discussed by a motion of this sort.

The next amendment is more or less related to amendments 5 and 6, which I have already referred to. It deals with the independence of the electors. It is provided that no member of either House shall vote who is the holder of a title of honour conferred by the King of England. We have, I think, in the Constitution, a reference to titles of honour. It was made a point in the Constitution that no titles of honour should be conferred on citizens of this State except with the advice or consent of the Executive Council. I have not got the exact words of the Article beside me, but the effect of it is that the Executive Council is to have the right of veto on any titles of honour which it might be proposed to confer upon the citizens of this part of Ireland. This putting into the Constitution a limit on titles of honour shows that the Executive regarded it as important that they should have the right to veto these titles.

They were thought as being the means of corrupting, seducing or otherwise interfering with the patriotism of the persons on whom the titles were conferred. If that be so, I for one would like to go further than is proposed in the Constitution on that matter. If that be so, and if there is a fear, and a right fear, that these titles might be used to seduce Irish citizens from loyalty to their country, then it becomes a serious matter if the holders of titles veto here legislation in the Second House, and it is proposed to give them important powers. Again I make the point, that is a separate and distinct question, and it ought to be differently and distinctly discussed here, and we ought to have a separate decision on it. To prevent us doing that is to make futile all the machinery devised in the Standing Orders for the proper consideration of measures brought before this House.

The next and final one is the question as to whether this election is to be by secret ballot or by open voting. There again you have another principle, and a very important one. If that particular Article in the Constitution is going to be given any sanction whatever, the only sanction I have indicated as available is the sanction of the backing up of public opinion—public opinion to be used as an effective means of getting proper Senators for the Second House, who will be there from the point of view of having an independent judgment on matters of national importance.

If you are going to have public opinion used as a means of enforcing that particular viewpoint, then the Parties and individuals who take responsibility for voting for these Senators should be able to have their names and votes down on the records just as you have when we are taking any other important decision here. In taking important decisions there may be unpopularity attached, and there are personal interests sometimes alleged to be attached to them, and none of us should say we ought to hide from the public how we vote on these matters. That being so, can you not see that a good case can be made for having this voting open, and an individual record kept of the votes and not merely having the total vote lumped together? I do not propose to deal with this subject any further except to say I, for one, am altogether dissatisfied with the tactics of the Executive Council in connection with all these matters.

There are some of us anyhow that these midnight treaties or midnight pressures are not going to affect, and whether we have all-night or all-day sittings, or day and night sittings, we have a feeling that we can very easily manage so as to keep our wits about us. If we are not completely prevented by the guillotine from expressing our views, we do not care how long the sittings are. I have spoken to some about it, and we do not care how long the sittings are, or whether you have day or night sittings, or whether you sit Sunday and Monday, but what we do care for is, that we get adequate opportunity for those who have views on matters to express them, so that they may be able to convert those who may have open minds on the matters, and so that if the Press put them to the country the public may be able to form an opinion. A lot of people wished that we should come in here, not because they agreed with our policy, but they believed that the presence of a strong Opposition would cause questions to be discussed in a manner in which they would not be discussed in if there was no such Opposition. An Opposition is very little use here if the arguments that are put forward on the shortcomings of the Executive, on the things it does not do, and on the things it does badly, and on the things it neglects doing, are not taken out to the people. Then it is quite obvious that the Opposition is no use, for where you have disciplined parties, as we have, to oppose us here, the result of all argument, the result of everything you show as being wise or foolish is obliterated by the simple process of calling for a division, going into the division lobby, and getting a few votes of a majority.

The value of opposition is ended unless you are able by means of it to inform public opinion and get it alive to the pros and cons of questions that come up here for discussion. You prevent that absolutely by a motion such as that of the Minister for Finance. Personally, I am not surprised at the numbers of things that come from the opposite side, but the Minister for Finance, at any rate, has tried occasionally—I have been sometimes wondering, sitting here looking at some of the men on the opposite side, watching their tactics, but the plausibility of the Minister for Finance and the apparent reasonableness with which he tackles some of the questions, is more or less impressive, and I am surprised to find that above all the others he should have brought in a measure of this kind. All I can say is that if the one person who tries to give a semblance of reasonableness to his attitude is going to act in this particular manner, anybody who is opposing the present majority might as well not be here at all. There is no value to the country when it is predetermined the moment the Government brings in a Bill and whips up its majority; then discussion is vain and you do not even get it to the country. These are my reasons for opposing the Bill, and I hope members of the House who think in this matter will see what they are doing, and that they will oppose putting the closure in this particular manner. It is provided for sufficiently in a manner far more reasonable, and which will give better results so far as discussion is concerned, in its application, and will save time. If the object of it is to save time, it will save time just as effectively as this particular motion.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move that the question be now put.

Mr. FLINN

I should like to continue the debate, if I might.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am accepting the motion.

Question put—"That the question be now put."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 46.

Tá

• William P. Aird.
• Ernest Henry Alton.
• James Walter Beckett.
• George Cecil Bennett.
• Ernest Blythe.
• 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.
• James Crowley.
• Peter de Loughrey.
• Eugene Doherty.
• James N. Dolan.
• Peadar Seán Doyle.
• Edmund John Duggan.
• James Dwyer.
• Barry M. Egan.
• Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
• Denis 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.
• Frank Carty.
• Archie J. Cassidy.
• Michael Clery.
• James Colbert.
• Eamon Cooney.
• Fred. 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.
• Michael Kilroy.
• Seán F. Lemass.
• Patrick John Little.
• 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.

Question declared carried.

Question put: "That the words `four hours' stand part of the question wherever they occur."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 46.

Tá

• William P. Aird.
• Ernest Henry Alton
• James Walter Beckett.
• George Cecil Bennett.
• Ernest Blythe.
• 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.
• James Crowley.
• Peter de Loughrey.
• Eugene Doherty.
• James N. Dolan.
• Peader Seán Doyle.
• Edmund John Duggan.
• James Dwyer.
• Barry M. Egan.
• Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
• Denis 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.
• Frank Carty.
• Archie J. Cassidy.
• Michael Clery.
• James Colbert.
• Eamon Cooney.
• Fred. 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.
• Michael Kilroy.
• Seán F. Lemass.
• Patrick John Little.
• 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.

Question declared carried.

Mr. LEMASS

I move the next amendment:—

To delete the words "two hours" wherever they occur.

I would suggest to the Dáil the advisability of passing this amendment. It is, of course, clear that the words "two hours," if deleted, would be substituted by some other words to provide that a longer discussion than that contemplated by the motion would be permitted to take place upon the Report Stage of the Bills in question.

It will be remembered by Deputies that on the Second Reading of these Bills the provision of the closure was outlined and discussion was terminated before many Deputies had an opportunity of expressing their views on the principles of the Bill. As these Bills are important Constitution amendments, I think to curtail the discussion on the Report Stage, as the discussion on the Second Reading was curtailed, is undesirable, and that while we of course would much prefer that there should be no limit of this nature placed on the discussion, if there is to be a limit it should be for a much longer period than the two hours suggested. The introduction of a motion of this kind is of course, from the nature of it, just what would be expected from the Government. It has been pointed out that when a certain section of the people proposed to avail of the Constitution to achieve their particular objects the Constitution was altered. Similarly when a Party in the Dáil proposed to exercise the powers given them in the Standing Order, in order to make effective their position on certain measures, the Standing Orders were altered. Throughout the whole business under discussion during the past few days, there is the same underlying motive. The Government is relying on its power to alter the rules of the game for want of ability to play the game. They take advantage of the power they have, whenever the game is going against them, to alter the rules so as to put their opponents off-side. That is what is behind this motion. When they find the Opposition efforts to their proposals are not to their liking they proceed to curtail the liberties of private Deputies, so as to ensure that that opposition will be restricted. As I said the Bills on which it is proposed to limit discussion are all important Bills. I will refer particularly to Constitution Amendment Bill No. 10, the Second Reading of which was passed either last night or this morning. As I said the discussion on the Second Reading was arbitrarily terminated by the use of Standing Order 52—the provision of the closure. The use of the closure in that manner was objected to by a number of Deputies and we are anxious to express views concerning that Bill which had not been expressed before the closure was applied. The only opportunity we will have to speak upon the Bill as a whole will be when that Bill comes before the Dáil on the Report Stage. I take it that the amendment already carried is an indication that the Dáil is not prepared to alter this motion in respect to the previous effect of the Committee Stage.

The motion as a whole of course will come before the Dáil, and I trust it will be rejected. Certainly if there was any spirit of sportsmanship amongst members of the Government Party it would be rejected; it would never have been introduced. That spirit is not there and we have long since given up any hope of finding even a shadow of it. If the discussion on the Committee Stage is to be curtailed, as apparently it is—the discussion on the Second Reading having been already curtailed—we think the restriction should be taken off when the Report Stage comes along, and the House given an adequate opportunity of discussing these Bills as they emerge from Committee, so that the fullest possible light might be thrown on their implications. The introduction of a motion of this kind at this time is not really designed to facilitate the business of the Dáil or to ensure that that business will be put through in a rapid manner. That may be the ostensible purpose of the motion, and the reason why the movers come for it, but the real effect will be the opposite. It will result in increased delay in getting through work of the Dáil that is of real importance. It is a matter of real importance that no serious amendment to the Constitution shall be effected without full consideration.

It will result in increased delay in getting through the work of the Dáil. That is of great importance, and it is a matter of real importance also that serious amendments to the Constitution should not be effected without the fullest consideration. In the long run it would save time. We know that the Government in the past have jumped to conclusions and have taken hasty action which they had afterwards to endeavour to undo. We will have under discussion in the near future a Bill the purpose of which is to repair one mistake of that nature—that is, the Public Bodies Mutual Assurance Bill. If we take our time now, if we hasten slowly, we can make sure that every step we take is the right step before we take it, and as I said, in the long run it will result in a saving of time and possibly in a saving of considerable expense to the people. Therefore, we strongly resent any proposal to curtail the time for the discussion of these Bills on the Report Stage. Two hours is certainly inadequate. There is every reason to believe that the purpose of this motion is to enable the Government to do a little obstructing of its own. If the discussion upon the Report Stage of any one of these Bills is limited to two hours, the Minister moving the Bill can speak for the entire two hours, and it will not be possible for any other Deputy to express his views on the Bill at all. As Deputy de Valera pointed out on the discussion on the previous amendment, the provision of the closure is a much fairer and a much better method of curtailing discussion than that suggested here. It does provide that it cannot be applied unless a reasonable case can be made, through the Ceann Comhairle, to show that no injustice is being done by its application. But there is nothing whatever to prevent an injustice being done by the application of this motion. In fact, it is almost certain that injustice will be done, that important minority sections in the House will not be given an opportunity to speak on these Bills at all, and will have to give silent votes on them. I suggest that for that reason the motion should be rejected and the amendment carried to provide that a much longer period than that suggested would be given for discussion on the Report Stage of these Bills. The period suggested in amendment No. 3 is eight hours. I do not think it will be necessary to take eight hours on each of the Bills, but the limit fixed should be wide, so that if a debate of considerable magnitude should be necessary it should be possible that this guillotine motion would not be put into operation. I, therefore, move the amendment.

General MULCAHY

I move: "That the question be now put."

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I will put that question now.

Mr. MacENTEE

Do you propose to put the question now?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I do.

Dr. RYAN

We are surprised at nothing now.

Mr. LEMASS

We have lost hope.

Question put: That the question be put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 45.

Tá

• William P. Aird.
• Ernest Henry Alton.
• James Walter Beckett.
• George Cecil Bennett.
• Ernest Blythe.
• 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.
• James Crowley.
• Peter de Loughrey.
• Eugene Doherty.
• James N. Dolan.
• Peadar Seán Doyle.
• Edmund John Duggan.
• James Dwyer.
• Barry M. Egan.
• Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
• 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.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
• Denis 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.
• Vincent Rice.
• Martin Roddy.
• Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
• William Edward Thrift.
• Michael Tierney.
• Daniel Vaughan.
• 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.
• Michael Clery.
• James Colbert.
• Eamon Cooney.
• Fred. 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.
• Michael Kilroy.
• Seán F. Lemass.
• Patrick John Little.
• 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.

Question declared carried.

Amendment proposed: "To delete the words `two hours' wherever they occur."

Question put: "That the words `two hours' stand."

The Dáil divided: Tá 65; Níl 45.

Tá

• William P. Aird.
• Ernest Henry Alton.
• James Walter Beckett.
• George Cecil Bennett.
• Ernest Blythe.
• 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.
• James Crowley.
• Peter de Loughrey.
• Eugene Doherty.
• James N. Dolan.
• Peadar Seán Doyle.
• Edmund John Duggan.
• James Dwyer.
• Barry M. Egan.
• Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
• John F. O'Hanlon.
• Daniel O'Leary.
• Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
• Gearoid O'Sullivan.
• John Marcus O'Sullivan.
• Patrick Reynolds.
• Vincent Rice.
• Martin Roddy.
• Denis 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.
• Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
• William Edward Thrift.
• Michael Tierney.
• Daniel Vaughan.
• 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.
• Michael Clery.
• James Colbert.
• Eamon Cooney.
• Fred. 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.
• Michael Kilroy.
• Seán F. Lemass.
• Patrick John Little.
• 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.

Question declared carried.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The main question, therefore, not amended, stands.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move that the question be now put.

Mr. LEMASS

On the main question——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am accepting the motion by the Minister for Finance that the question be now put.

Mr. MacENTEE

I submit that you cannot accept the closure for that motion.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

If the Deputy wishes to urge a point of order on the closure I cannot hear him, but I will hear him on the question of the time.

Mr. LEMASS

I submit that the motion for the closure cannot be taken ten minutes after the adjournment of the Dáil.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Standing Order No. 19, paragraph 4, states:—

If at the time appointed for the interruption of business as provided in sub-section (2) of this Standing Order, the closure is moved or proceedings under the closure are in progress, the Ceann Comhairle will not effect such interruption until the proceedings under the closure, and on any such further motion as is specified in the Standing Order as to closures (S.O. 52), have been completed.

Standing Order 52, paragraph 2, page 2, states:—

When a motion "That the question be now put" has been carried, and the question consequent thereon has been decided, any further motion may be made (the assent of the Ceann Comhairle, as aforesaid, not having been withheld) which may be requisite to bring to a decision any question already proposed from the Chair, and such motion shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

Mr. MacENTEE

In reference to the Standing Order which you quote, I beg to point out, first of all——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

At this particular moment in the proceedings I am quite clear as to the Standing Orders, and I rule that they provide that such a motion can be taken at this particular hour. I will therefore put the motion: "That the question be now put."

Mr. MacENTEE

You are ruling in violation of Standing Orders——

DEPUTIES

Chair, Chair.

Question put: "That the question be now put."

The Dáil divided: Tá 65; Níl 45.

Tá

• William P. Aird.
• Ernest Henry Alton.
• James Walter Beckett.
• George Cecil Bennett.
• Ernest Blythe.
• 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.
• James Crowley.
• Peter de Loughrey.
• Eugene Doherty.
• James N. Dolan.
• Peader Seán Doyle.
• Edmund John Duggan.
• James Dwyer.
• Barry M. Egan.
• Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
• Denis 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.
• 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.
• Michael Clery.
• James Colbert.
• Eamon Cooney.
• Fred. 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.
• Michael Kilroy.
• Seán F. Lemass.
• Patrick John Little.
• 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.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the chair.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I shall now put the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Finance on the Order Paper.

Main question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá 65; Níl 44.

Tá

• William P. Aird.
• Ernest Henry Alton.
• James Walter Beckett.
• George Cecil Bennett.
• Ernest Blythe.
• 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.
• James Crowley.
• Peter de Loughrey.
• Eugene Doherty.
• James N. Dolan.
• Peadar Seán Doyle.
• Edmund John Duggan.
• James Dwyer.
• Barry M. Egan.
• Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
• Denis 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.
• 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.
• Michael Clery.
• James Colbert.
• Eamon Cooney.
• Fred. 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.
• Michael Kilroy.
• Seán F. Lemass.
• Patrick John Little.
• Thomas McEllistrim.
• Seán MacEntee.
• Séamus Moore.
• 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.