Vol. 31 No. 1
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £19,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Costaisí fén Acht Timpeal Toghachán, 1923, agus fé Acht na nGiúirithe, 1927.
That a sum not exceeding £19,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenses under the Electoral Act, 1923, and the Juries Act, 1927.
I regret very much that the Minister did not turn a considerate and merciful ear to the plea which came from his back benches for an adjournment. I thought I heard a plaintive voice saying "Surely that will be all now; there will not be another one." I am glad to see that Cumann na nGaedheal apparently have got enough of these all-night sittings.
Not at all —you are under a delusion.
I except the Deputy with a young heart. I know that he is not going to cry quits. There are other members of that Party who have not possibly enjoyed themselves just as much as they expected.
They are not on the Vote.
There are some things on the Vote which I think the House should have some explanation of. The Vote is a not inconsiderable one. The total sum to be expended is £19,000. The sum is required in respect of portion of the registration expenses payable out of monies provided by the Oireachtas under the Juries Act, 1927, Section 12 (1). The Minister might explain that somewhat cryptic reference. What does this section imply? I do not see exactly why the registration expenses should be provided by the Oireachtas under the Juries Act. Has it any relation to the compilation of the jury panel—this secret and invisible document which, under the new dispensation, is going to figure in all the criminal trials in this country?
It has nothing to do with that.
I am glad to have that assurance. There is another item—recoupment of postage incurred by registration officers in university constituencies, Rule 17 of the Second Schedule of the Electoral Act, 1923. There are a considerable number of matters that would warrant inquiry in connection with the general administration of the Act, and the methods under which contests for university constituencies are conducted. First of all, I think that, despite the provisions of the Electoral Act, a considerable amount of dual voting takes place at these elections. I presume the registration officers in these cases are also the returning officers, and I should like to know from the Minister what steps they take in order to secure that elections for university constituencies are conducted in accordance with the law. I know, as a matter of fact, that a considerable number of people have voted in university constituencies as well as in county and borough constituencies at one and the same election.
That particular illegality does not arise under this Vote.
Possibly not. What we are anxious to know is whether any proper supervision is exercised over these registration officers in the discharge of their duties, and whether any steps are taken by them to see that the votes recorded are votes actually cast by people entitled to vote.
What is this incurred for?
In connection with the compilation of the register—it has nothing to do with voting.
I should like to know how that register is compiled, and what steps the registration officers take to see that every person entitled to vote appears on the register. I went through one of these university registers immediately preceding the election of 1927, and there were a considerable number of graduates entitled to vote whose names did not appear on the register.
They were on the tombstone.
They had neither gone to Heaven nor any place else nor left the country—they were still here. Apparently no trouble had been taken to convey to these people that they were entitled to vote, or have their names inscribed on the University register. In view of that, I do not think we are justified in allowing the Vote to pass, unless we get some information as to the steps which registration officers take in order to see that every person who is entitled to have his name inscribed on the register of voters for University constituencies, has his name inscribed, in fact.
In view of the fact that this panel of jurors will be formed under this Vote—
No, not a panel—the register.
Is not the register the very basis of the panel? Is it not done under this section of the Juries Act, 1927? It is for the purpose of the formation of juries that reference there is made and that the money is used. For that reason, it raises a principle upon which we must either accept or reject this particular Vote, and as it is connected with the application of the Juries Act, obviously we are obliged to vote against the Estimate, because it raises the whole question of the new Juries Act, as it will come into operation, I presume.
Surely not, on the face of this.
It certainly seems clear to me that if the Estimate is based upon a section of an Act of Parliament which prepares the way for the creation of a panel, it is the fons et origo of the jurors list which will be formed later on and, therefore, it cannot be dissociated from the Act which is about to come into existence.
It is not an Act at all—it is only a Bill.
After all, we cannot assume that it will not become an Act.
I am quite clear that it is not an Act at this moment of time, and that is the important question.
That is so, from your point of view.
My point of view is the all-important one in this particular instance.
So far as our consciences are concerned——
Where did you get that at this hour of the morning?
That is all that is left to us. We must form our own line of conduct upon what we anticipate is going to happen in the course of the next year, and if we find a sum of money voted now which is, in all human probability, going to be used for a particular purpose in the course of the next year, obviously we must vote against that particular Estimate.
As a matter of information, I should like to know by which of the clocks in the Dáil are we to adjourn?
I am going to adjourn by the particular clock that I see in front of me.
There is one point upon which I would like to have some information.
In view of the fact that Deputies opposite are so muddled, I think that we ought to adjourn.
Are you aware, a Chinn Comhairle, that there is a difference between the two clocks in the Chamber? One registers five minutes to eight at the moment and the other ten to eight o'clock.
I am only cognisant of one clock.
As it has been suggested from the benches opposite that I am muddled, may I say that I might have less cause for being so than some Deputies have? There is a point upon which I desire information. I want to know whether this particular Vote has anything to do with the drawing up of jurors' lists and if so what control the Minister for Justice or any other Minister has over the registrars. In view of the fact that £20 was the valuation throughout, I believe, 25 counties for being put upon the jurors' list and that £40 is the valuation in the County Wexford, is it considered that in Wexford a man is not respectable enough to be a juror except he has a valuation of £40? Who makes the regulation? I would be glad if the Minister would give me information on that point.
There is a clause in the Juries' Act which enables the Minister to fix the valuation.
Which Minister?
The Minister for Justice.
Can he inform us why he fixes it at £40 in one county?
That is a different matter. I move that the question be now put.
