This debate, as many of the speakers have remarked, has been in more ways than one a remarkable debate. It has been the first debate for a long time in my recollection in this House which has successfully provided a star turn capable of attracting the attendance of at least 100 Deputies. It has been a debate which started in the presence of 16 Deputies, and before ten minutes had passed the benches on all sides of the House were filled up, thus disproving the assertion made from every quarter of the House that no section of the people was interested in this Bill except the comparatively small section of the licensed trade. If they were not, why this tremendous interest on the part of Deputies who otherwise would not bother their heads? If there was not the demand in the country for something of this nature, why is it, alone amongst all the debates here in recent times, that the Liquor Bill is the one debate to take the pencils out of the pockets of nearly every Deputy who sat in the House? In the course of it it has been remarkable also for the fact that through it, and as a consequence of it, we were shown the emergence of a prohibition tendency in many quarters of the House, remarkable for the emergence of magnificent agreement on the part of Fianna Fáil and Labour on one specific question, that is, that one section of the trading community shall not, under any circumstances, be given even a sop; remarkable also for the fact that Deputy Davin, Deputy Fahy and Deputy Derrig agreed on one essential question, and that was that Section 3 of the Act was a retrograde step, and a step which involved going back to drunken orgies on St. Patrick's Day.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1931—Second Stage (Resumed).
That is an entire misrepresentation of anything I said in the debate.
It is correct.
I am sorry if it is a misrepresentation, but I understood that was what the Deputy referred to.
You were not in the House when I was speaking.
I was here during the whole course of the debate.
You have your orders.
Deputy Davin cannot get away from the fact that in his statement last night he lined up with those accepting this prohibition tendency, and no amount of camouflage will delude anybody into believing otherwise. There was no question of misrepresentation on my part. There certainly is a great question of misrepresentation on my actual limitations of this Bill on the part of many members of the House. The Bill itself is useless. I do not think that there is any Deputy in the House who can honestly stand up in the House and say it is a great concession to the licensed trade. Hence my amazement when listening to this remarkable outburst of Volsteadism from the extreme left side of the House. The Bill is not worth talking about in heat; it is not worth worrying about, because it is a Bill which is undoubtedly sectionalised. As some of the Deputies said, it is based in Sections 6 and 9 on legislation for one particular class of the people. The fact remains that the Bill is before the House and must be discussed. Long, long ago, so long ago that it is very difficult for many members to remember, away across the sea, about 3,000 or 4,000 miles in another country, there was a man called Volstead. This is not a fairy story. Volstead engineered a coup d'etat on the Constitution of the United States and incorporated a thing called the 18th Amendment. Anybody who reads the newspapers, and who has any knowledge of international affairs, will know what Volstead's 18th Amendment has done for that great country. Lo, and behold, here, in this piece of what was once known as Ireland, we have emerged four or five prospective Volsteads, four or five prospective leaders of a campaign to deny the democratic right of a man to drink if he wants to drink, four or five perspective leaders of a prohibition campaign which will probably put this country, if it is allowed to continue, in the same plight in which the United States of America is to-day.
The one thing that strikes me more forcibly than any other, as a result of this debate, is the hypocrisy of the whole thing. You have here in this country a trade described as the licensed trade, a fine body of men, decent, respectable, law-abiding citizens. The licensed trade has been more misrepresented probably, and have received less consideration in this country, even than the few who still believe in the existence or the securing of the Republic of Ireland. I want to add my voice to the voices of those who have protested against what I think anyhow is an insult to the mentality and the intelligence of the Irish people given here last night by the prohibition alliance of Fianna Fáil and Labour, the insult that if the Irish people are allowed to take a drink on St. Patrick's Day they will make beasts of themselves and indulge in an orgie of dissipation.
There is no use in the Deputy protesting.
I characterise Deputy Mullins' statement as a deliberate falsehood as far as I am concerned.
No, it is not.
You are an expert at it.
I would propose to disregard Deputy Davin's disorderly statement that Deputy Mullins is guilty of a deliberate falsehood, but there is no possibility of the Chair preventing any Deputy giving his view of what another Deputy said. It cannot be done.
The truth is very bitter. I have listened to others and I am going to have my say now.
The Independent Republican.
Yes, what about it? You never were one. The debate has also been remarkable for the emergence of another issue, and that is the power or the authority of outside bodies to influence legislation in this House. This morning, in common with other Deputies I presume, I received from the Catholic Total Abstinence Federation of Ireland a typed document unsigned, in which it was stated that they made a vehement protest against any alteration in the existing liquor legislation. They say that no section of the people, except the liquor interests, demands any interference with the law passed by the deliberate vote of the legislature in 1927. It was not, so far as I can understand, passed by the deliberate vote of the legislature. The section put in by the Seanad was sent back to the Dáil, and rather than hold up the Bill for nine months it was allowed to be inserted in the Bill.
On the other hand, we have from the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Protection Association of Ireland, Commercial Buildings, Dame Street, Dublin, a magnificent two-page epistle giving their point of view on the question, quoting two of the founders of this State in support of their claim, and winding up with the statement—"In all the circumstances, my Executive ask you, with respectful confidence, to support the section in the Bill before the Dáil which proposes that the law for licensed houses on St. Patrick's Day should be the same as on Sundays." These are the two points of view on this question. The licensed trade, as I said, are a decent, respectable body of men, but they are no use, they have no backbone. If they had, they certainly would not allow themselves to be the football of everybody with a prejudice against drink. Neither would they allow themselves to be the catspaw of any political party that decided it was good tactics to introduce legislation which, while on the surface pretending to give concessions to the trade, does not give any concession worth a curse. Therefore, I say that the licensed trade, from that point of view, deserve very little, if any, consideration from this House.
I am not intimidated by the licensed trade, the Catholic Total Abstinence Federation, Deputy Davin, or anybody else, but I certainly am interested in what the people desire. Not from the point of view of the licensed trade, or any other organisation of that nature, but from the point of view of the ordinary common people, who, I believe, are demanding that they should be allowed facilities of this nature, I propose to support the Bill, rotten and all as it is, and to attempt to amend it in Committee on certain sections which I think could be improved.
Coming back to the comments made last night, we find that this unfortunate licensed trade, who were all right when there were subscriptions required for churches, cathedrals, and political parties, who were all right when the Dáil Eireann Loan was required by the Republican Government, and whose money is always all right when it is a question of providing charitable donations or bequests, are alone amongst the trading community in this State to receive no consideration in this House. There are tariffs suggested for every other important section of the community. There are advocates demanding concessions for different branches of industry. But this branch of industry, which provides the State with a considerable amount of revenue, is to receive no consideration. The Minister for Justice, by introducing this Bill, makes an attempt to make very small restitution for the rights which were taken away from that trade in 1925 and 1927. As a consequence of the introduction of the measure, we find a campaign of what I might describe as terrorism on the part of the Total Abstinence Federation, one of whose speakers remarked that circulars would be sent to branches of the Association in the constituencies of all Deputies who voted in favour of the Bill.
The comments made in the course of the debate struck me as being very interesting, so interesting, in fact, that I should like to take them one by one. Deputy Fahy and Deputy Derrig gave a clearer indication of the mind of Fianna Fáil on this matter than Deputy Clery. Deputy Fahy described it as national retrogression, and was afraid it was the thin edge of the wedge; that as a consequence of the passing of the Bill more would be sought for next year. I hope that this Bill is only the first step. It is a very small step, and I hope it is only the first step, and that the Minister for Justice will take his courage in his hands, forget all about these threats and criticism and sneers, and go ahead with a decent Licensing Bill, which will really give some concession, not alone to the trade, but to the people, because after all the people deserve some consideration at times, even though they do not get it very often.
This Bill, which we had hoped would give some fair play as a result of the investigation by the Licensing Commission, contains only one section of any consequence—Section 3—and because that section is in the Bill it is described as a backward step and as national retrogression. I do not agree with that. I consider it, as I said before, an insult to the mentality of the Irish people that anybody should attempt to dictate to them, and to let the idea get abroad that on one day in the year Irishmen will go crazy if they are allowed to drink. There are several other holidays as to which a much better case could be made out for closing publichouses than can be made for St. Patrick's Day and yet no mention is made of them. Why single out St. Patrick's Day?
Deputy Fahy gave an indication, and Deputy Derrig supported him, that certain grievances of the licensed trade were justified and could be remedied. I hope to introduce the Bill as a consequence of these statements, and I hope to see Deputies Fahy and Derrig, and the other Deputies who profess consideration for this important section of the people, supporting it in the division lobby. Deputy Davin stated that there was no general demand for the Bill, and that he believed a plebiscite of the people would turn it down. I am afraid that Deputy Davin is living in the clouds when he thinks a plebiscite will turn down any Bill which would give the people facilities for refreshment on St. Patrick's Day.
If Deputy Davin goes to a football match under any code, which is held on a Sunday when the 2 to 5 opening is in force, he will find after the match is over that the comments of most of the spectators are directed to the fact that, having travelled long distances, they would not be able to get a little light refreshment before they go home. He will find if a plebiscite were taken on this that his idea would prove to have been mistaken. The plebiscite, in my opinion, would reveal a big majority in favour of decent legislation which would give a fair chance, and not legislation of a camouflage nature, such as this Bill undoubtedly is.
Deputy Daly seemed to be under a tremendous misapprehension also. He seemed glad to think that the publichouses could be opened throughout the country on St. Patrick's Day, which is not a day of mourning. Deputy Daly forgets that the publichouses will not be open, and that all the noise that has been made here with regard to the terrible retrogression which has been set on foot by the Minister for Justice when he introduced this Bill has no basis in fact. The publichouses will not be open in the country apart from certain county boroughs where the publichouses will be opened from 2 to 5 on St. Patrick's Day if this Bill is passed. But for the ordinary general citizen of Saorstát Eireann, unless he becomes a traveller within the meaning of the Act, he cannot obtain a drink on St. Patrick's Day. This Bill is no use to him, and it is no use to anyone except the people of the five cities, and those who can indulge in the luxury of motor cars and who can journey for a few miles in order to get a drink, or people who take a bus and take a ride beyond the three-mile limit. Deputy Daly should realise that so far as that part of the Bill goes it gives no concession to the ordinary citizen.
I think it is to be regretted that the Minister for Justice, when he gave the terms of reference to this Commission, did not give them carte blanche to inquire into the whole workings of the Licensing Act, not alone its operation in connection with St. Patrick's Day and clubs, but in reference to endorsements and the question of compensation and other grievances that the country traders suffer from under the existing Act, such as not being able to get exemptions on fair mornings to open before the regular hours. It is a pity that terms of reference of that nature were not given to the Commission. Since they were not given this Bill is produced and it is so far short of the type of Bill one would expect to be introduced as a comprehensive measure to deal with the situation created by the legislation of 1927.
Deputy Haslett said that only in Dublin did he hear any demand made for the opening of publichouses on the 17th March. He said no one would contemplate large expenditure on drink at the present moment in view of the unemployment and distress without feeling that something was wrong. I am afraid the Government would not agree with him in that, because they get a very good slice of revenue out of it. I am afraid that Deputy Haslett did not get out of his train on his journey from Monaghan to find out what were the views of a very large section of the people. There may be in his district an unanimous opinion against the opening of publichouses on St. Patrick's Day, but I would tell the Deputy that there is in other parts of the country besides Dublin a very big demand amongst the people for facilities on St. Patrick's Day and which were not contained in this Bill.
The "tit-bit" speech was delivered by Deputy Clery. He gave it as his opinion that the Fianna Fáil Party desired to give fair play to the licensed trade. I am very glad and delighted to hear this, and I hope when the Bill I intend to introduce is introduced Deputy Clery will also lend his powerful influence and authority to the passing of the Second Reading and to the final stages of it through this House. I must also express my amazement at the comments of Deputy Rice. Deputy Rice, as far as I can understand, professed very strong allegiance to the interests of the licensed trade in 1927. He has been in this House three years, and so far as I can understand he has made no move to introduce a good comprehensive Bill. I am very sorry that Deputy Rice did not indicate to the Minister for Justice, in no uncertain manner, the lines upon which a comprehensive measure should be introduced and passed through this House. I shall also look for Deputy Rice's support on the introduction of my comprehensive Liquor Bill.
Deputy Derrig followed Deputy Fahy into the by-ways of retrogression and he described the Bill as a political move. Personally I am of opinion that the Bill is a political move and that it is a Bill introduced in haste without serious consideration on the part of the Government. Undoubtedly it bears the mark of haste; it is a Bill by which the Government hope to secure a good deal of political capital. Who would blame them? I do not. If they are capable of generalship and tactics and are able to get away with it then by all means it is the licensed trade's funeral and the funeral of the people of the country. But if the licensed trade are such fools as to believe that this Bill gives them any concessions and if they again, as in former years, pledge their influence and support to the interests of any political party, whether Government or anybody else which deliberately pulls their legs, then it is good enough for them and they deserve all they get. I personally have not much sympathy with them. I suggest that the ideal type of legislation to deal with this matter could easily be introduced by the Minister for Justice despite the fact that comments were made that there were more important matters which ought to be dealt with. Certainly there are many more important matters than this, but that is also an important matter and it affects a very large number of people and must receive the consideration of any Party claiming to represent the people and of any Party claiming to be a democratic Party. That is the thing that amazed me during the course of this debate last night. We heard so much of what would happen if this Bill is passed. Lurid pictures were painted of the scenes enacted in Deputy Fahy's boyhood days. I am sorry I was not around at that time, but one thing I do know, and that is, that the price of drink at the present moment is a greater deterrent than all the early closing, and all the threat of prohibition that Deputy Davin and Deputy Fahy and others introduce in this House. The price of drink is so high that no one need be afraid even if the publichouses were opened, that there is going to be any tremendous orgy of drunkenness. My opinion about licensing legislation in general is that the less you have of it the better and that if temperance people, and all advocates of prohibition, really desire to make this a prohibition State, their best way would be to abolish all licensing legislation, to have the publichouses open day and night and very little drunkenness would result.
The thing that was evidently forgotten by most people in this debate last night was one of the phychological characteristics of the Irish people who, like the horse, can be brought to the water but cannot be made drink.
Perhaps if you offered him something else——
If you attempt to make the Irish people do things which they do not want to do, then they can be very nasty and they can turn very nasty. This Bill is not a satisfactory Bill. It is, in fact, most unsatisfactory. I agree entirely with the Deputies who said that no more facilities should be given to clubs or restaurants. They have got enough already. If you are legislating in favour of the classes who can afford to go into a hotel or restaurant, purchase a meal and have a drink during closing hours, then it is certainly unfair to the ordinary type of individual who goes into a publichouse and whose lunch consists of a bottle of stout and a sandwich. If certain people are in this way entitled to get a drink during closing hours, that is to say, people who can indulge in the comfort of a meal in a first-class restaurant, if such people are entitled to consideration, consideration should also be given to the people who cannot afford that luxury. I suggest that the sections of this Bill dealing with that are sections which I would be very much in favour of amending.
I think that too much noise has been made about the terrible consequences of this Bill if it is passed into law. I think too much notice has been taken of the unsigned threats of the Catholic Total Abstinence Federation. I suggest that the House should lay aside its prejudices for the moment and give cool and calm consideration to this matter. Deputies would find then that instead of opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, the commonsense thing to do, and the straight and decent thing to do would be to amend Section 3 of the Act and allow publichouses, not alone in the five boroughs of the Saorstát to open from two to five o'clock, but to allow publichouses throughout the Saorstát to open from one o'clock until seven on St. Patrick's Day. I will support the Bill, but I hope I will be able to assist in amending it in Committee. I hope that before the debate closes we will get an indication from those who have given expression to prohibitionist tendencies as to whether, if proper licensing legislation is introduced here, they will support it.
I suppose this Bill is one of the blows for liberty, religion, honour and public morality that President Cosgrave asked the people to strike at Kilkenny before the last General Election. We are sorry that he has not seen fit to attend this debate to show how this Bill fits in with such blows. Deputy Mullins has said that the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party have exhibited prohibitionist tendencies. I do not think any sane man is a prohibitionist, particularly any man who happened to be in the United States and saw there the working out of the Prohibition Act. I remember arriving in New York on New Year's Eve. There may have been some man, woman or child in these millions of people sober, but I did not see one. We have seen in the other big cities of the United States that it was impossible to make people sober by such drastic restrictions as that.
Drink in itself is not an immoral act, and there is no one but a fool who will condemn it as such, but we must realise that it is open to abuse. Here as the representatives of the people we should try to minimise this abuse, consistent, as far as possible, with the liberties of the subject. The Minister for Finance, perhaps, will come along before the end of the debate and express his deep sympathy with the publicans. The Minister has shown a sympathy with the publicans by starving them out, a process with which we do not in any way whatsoever agree. We as ordinary human beings have great sympathy with people who are engaged in the licensed trade. We have suggested already that the Minister when he saw fit to destroy the living of those people by putting on a big tax, should instead have come to their rescue and helped by Government funds the closing of the redundant publichouses. The Act which was introduced and passed here several years ago was allowed to fall into abeyance and the large number of people who knew no other business but the one they were engaged in from their youth, the people who had no other opening were struck at in this matter of publichouses and their living was altogether taken from them. The Minister for Finance stood idly by and made no effort to relieve the distress amongst the publicans just as he stood idly by and made no effort to relieve the distress amongst the coachbuilders or flour-millers. We have the same sympathy with the people engaged in the licensing trade as we have with the coachbuilders and flour-millers. We want to see everybody in this country given an opportunity of earning a decent living.
I am convinced that it is not of their own free will that a large number of people are engaged in the liquor trade. I know thousands of decent men in the trade, and there are none of them who are in it just for the pleasure of serving out drink to the people. They are engaged in the liquor trade because they know no other, and they are there in order to get a decent livelihood. It is impossible for the number of people who are engaged in the liquor trade to-day to earn a livelihood. That is because of the high price of drink, the general state of the country and the growth of temperance, which we are all delighted to see. These things render it impossible for them to eke out a decent livelihood in the licensed trade of the country. The Ministry recognised that, but instead of coming forward and assisting by Government funds the closing-up of redundant publichouses, enabling the publicans to get out and engage in some other trade, they have stood by and starved the publicans out. We condemn that, just as we condemn the starving-out of the coachbuilders, the flour-millers and the agricultural community. We believe that every man who is an Irish citizen should be entitled to get a decent livelihood here.
We believe this Bill is a sop, and the Ministry, in a political difficulty, want to have people fighting over something. What will the few shillings the publicans may earn on one day out of three hundred and sixty-five do to get them a decent livelihood? Absolutely nothing. We know that this is not going to do much for those engaged in the licensed trade. We would like to see the redundant people, those who could never hope to get a decent livelihood in the business, getting out on terms which would be sufficient to enable them to engage in some other business. It was interesting to see the combination of Deputy J.X. Murphy and the Minister for Justice and a few others supporting this sop and holding out the hope that by opening the publichouses for a few hours on one day in the year they would be doing something to cure the economic ills of the public. We were told that this would confer a great deal of additional happiness on the people. Deputy J.X. Murphy did not see why the people should not have their little drink on St. Patrick's Day. If the Deputy and those with him who are controlling this country would do something to enable the people to afford a drink, or something to eat on St. Patrick's Day, it would be much better.
It is unfortunate that the time of the House is being wasted considering these matters when we could be engaged in discussing how to build up the economic side. Those who support this measure know very well that this is not going to do the publicans any good. They know there is no great section of the community that desires this, if we except the people who have been unfortunately condemned, by economic circumstances, to engage in the licensed trade. If people in the country had an opportunity of earning a decent livelihood at any other business, they would not interest themselves in the licensed trade. I am perfectly certain the publicans who have to stay up practically all night giving drink to people in certain places, would much prefer to be in bed after a day's work on the farm or in the factory, if they could be so employed. I am sure that publicans do not look forward with any great pleasure to seeing their children engaged in the trade, particularly if the circumstances are going to be anything like those now existing. If the redundant publichouses were closed and those who owned them were enabled to get a decent livelihood elsewhere, the remaining houses would be enabled to carry on the trade in a decent way. The whole tendency is that, seeing there is not enough profit to go round, the publicans break the law by serving drink outside the ordinary hours. I hope the President will see fit to take part in this debate. We would like to know where he stands in the matter.
Mr. Byrne
We know where he stands.
Where?
Mr. Byrne
It is on the records.
We know he stands for the Bill because the Minister for Justice stated that this was a Government measure. We would like to know what argument he has to bring forward, and what argument, also, the other members on the Government Benches have to present in favour of the Bill. Are the Government asking the House to support the Bill as a blow for liberty, freedom, religion, honour and public morality? Are they asking support because the Minister for Finance, who has starved out the publicans, has great sympathy with them? Those are questions we would like the Government to answer.
I have listened to this debate for several hours and the speech we have just heard impresses me more than ever with the view that this Bill is misunderstood. Most speakers, certainly most on the Fianna Fáil Benches, and even some of the speakers on the Government Benches, would have us understand that this is a publican's Bill and not a Bill for the benefit of the public. I hope that is not the Minister's intention. In reading the Bill I have come to the conclusion that it is a Bill instigated by the feeling that the public of this country have certain rights which have been filched from them by a snap division in the Upper Chamber. Deputy Davin, when opposing this measure, asked who ever suggested that licensed premises should be opened on St. Patrick's Day. My answer to him is: who ever suggested that they should be closed? After all, they were closed on a vote taken in the Seanad in a very meagre assembly by a majority of one. Was there any demand at that time either throughout the country or expressed in the Dáil for the entire closing of publichouses on St. Patrick's Day? If there was no such demand—I contend there was not; it was not proposed in the original Bill by the proposer, the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, and it was not proposed seriously in this House—and if this proposal were passed as it was by the minimum possible majority in the Upper House, I say that until there is such a demand for the closing of publichouses on St. Patrick's Day we should revert to the system whereby individuals would be able to exercise their right, even if that is to be a limited right, to partake of liquor upon that day.
We also heard from Deputy Davin and others of the plight of publicans' assistants. After all, are not cinemas open on St. Patrick's Day, are not restaurants open and do not trains and trams run on St. Patrick's Day? We have not heard much about the plight of the employees in these various occupations and it is not compulsory on citizens to take trams or trains or go into restaurants or cinemas any more than it is compulsory on them to partake of intoxicating liquor. I have not been approached by any body of grocers' assistants with a view to opposing this measure. If they have a grievance in view of the fact that St. Patrick's Day is a national holiday and that they might have to work upon that day, surely they would be able to find some means of accommodation with their employers whereby they could get other days off or, at any rate, could receive, perhaps, additional remuneration?
But let the House remember that it is only in large centres, like the City of Dublin and other boroughs, that there are many grocers' assistants at all and, in reality, the publican himself throughout the country may have a distinct grievance if he has to open his publichouse or attend to bona-fide travellers upon that day. I approach this Bill, not from the point of view of the publican, but from the point of view of the individual citizen, and I strongly support Deputy Murphy's suggestion when he asks why should not the individual have a right to partake of intoxicating liquor on St. Patrick's Day. I quite agree that it is almost humiliating to hear speeches from the Fianna Fáil and Labour Benches suggesting that we are not able to control ourselves sufficiently in this country, while in Scotland they are able to celebrate St. Andrew's Day, and in England and the rest of the British Commonwealth Irishmen are able to celebrate St. Patrick's Day without loss of self-respect and selfcontrol, whereas the Free State is to be the one place in the world where Irishmen are not to be entitled to partake of intoxicating liquor on that day.
I think it is distinctly humiliating, it is unfair, to have the suggestion made that we should possibly revert to a state of orgy which may have existed in days long ago. I think that deep down in the hearts of those who make that suggestion they do not believe it, because they cannot. They know that the price of intoxicating liquor is prohibitive. What Deputy Mullins and other Deputies said, of course, is perfectly true, that the greatest preventative to-day against insobriety is the price of liquor. That is one of the main arguments which the Minister for Finance has often used in this House against a reduction of both the beer and spirit duties. I am not saying that I am in agreement with him on that, that they could not be somewhat reduced, and at the same time, that the country would not be as sober as it is to-day. There is no doubt that the fact of the prices being high renders it impossible for a system of wholesale drunkenness to take place on St. Patrick's Day, or on any other day, for that matter.
Compulsion seems to me to be the order of the day. Deputy Haslett last night almost stated that you could not get a meal on St. Patrick's Day and I interrupted him by saying that it had not come to that yet. In my opinion, however, it is getting very close to it when an ordinary citizen is not entitled to partake of intoxicating liquor on that day provided he conducts himself in a proper way. Deputy Fahy rightly said that there were omissions from this Bill. Of course every Bill introduced into every Parliament, I suppose, has omissions as well as commissions. There are omissions from this Bill and one of the principal ones to my mind is the fact that it is not proposed to do away with what is known as the split hour. I desire to endorse what Deputy Bennett said yesterday, especially in regard to districts like the City of Limerick and the City of Waterford. The majority of licensed houses in the City of Waterford are what are known as mixed houses, where mixed trade is carried on, and undoubtedly it is a great hardship to the proprietors of those establishments that for one hour in the course of the afternoon they must close their premises. I certainly think that something should be done in that direction, but this whole Bill seems to hang upon the question of partial opening on St. Patrick's Day.
The whole issue is whether there should be any opening on St. Patrick's Day or not. I cannot understand why, if Deputies like Deputy Fahy are not disposed to disagree with other portions of the Bill, they should vote against its Second Reading because they disagree with the proposed alterations in Section 3 in regard to St. Patrick's Day. Why should they not allow the remaining portions of the Bill to go through if they so desire? If they have anything against those sections let them propose additional sections, making up for the omissions to which Deputy Fahy has referred and with some of which I agree, particularly that relating to the endorsement clause. Let them propose to negative Section 3 and Section 8 and let them vote on them and allow the remaining portions of the Bill to go through. If they succeed in defeating Section 3 I presume that they would succeed in defeating the Bill, but if they do not succeed in defeating that section, at least they would get the other portions of the Bill with which they say they are in agreement and other possible amendments to make up for the deficiencies and omissions which have not been provided for in the Bill. I would desire especially to impress on the House that we should not be considering this Bill from the point of view of the licensed trade. As Deputy Aiken said, what would two or three hours for one day do to put the publicans on their feet? Of course, they will do nothing or next to nothing. It is not, therefore, for the benefit of publicans that this particular clause is being introduced. I submit in all seriousness that it is for the benefit of the individual citizen of the State. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say, as Deputy Aiken said: "This is a sop to the publicans," and in the same breath you cannot say: "It will not do them any good." Personally, I am not concerned whether this Bill will put the publicans on their feet or not. I am concerned with the proposal in the Bill that this slur should be removed from our statute, that it should not be said outside this country in all corners of the world that there is only one place where Irishmen will not be trusted, and that is the Irish Free State.
There has been a great deal of talk in connection with this Bill and a great many speeches have been made, but I do not believe that one single speech has altered a single vote in the House, nor do I suggest that anything I am going to say is going to alter the mind of any individual here. The reason I am speaking is to make my own position clear. I was a member of the Liquor Commission, and before that Commission was appointed I had spoken very strongly in this House as to the evil effects of intoxicating liquor. I pointed out that so far as working men were concerned, it had come under my notice time and again, that many of them spent half their wages on intoxicating liquor, with the result that their wives and children were half-starved. I want to make it clear that, so far as I am concerned, and the same applies to other members of the Commission, we approached the matter as temperance people. It is now suggested, apparently, that any of us who support the proposal in Clause 3 are to be accused of encouraging drinking orgies on St. Patrick's Day. A Commission was appointed consisting of nine people who, I consider, were absolutely temperate, and who were distinctly imbued with the desire of encouraging temperance.
After careful consideration and receiving evidence, they came to the conclusion that publichouses might be opened for the sale of intoxicating drink on St. Patrick's Day as they were on Sundays. This decision was come to after taking the evidence of very fair-minded men, men of experience. The evidence these men gave suggested a principle which has time and again been expressed, that the more attempts we make to curtail the sale of intoxicating drink the more we are likely to drive it underground and the more illegality it will lead to. I want to say that as far as this clause is concerned the case of the publican was not considered. The matter was not considered from his point of view, nor with a view to doing him any benefit. Deputy Davin was led away here by the exuberance of his own verbosity, and he actually suggested that this Bill was introduced for the benefit of the publican. I, as a member of the Commission, want to disclaim that entirely. There is not a scintilla of truth in it. We came to a unanimous decision that we ought to repeat the recommendation that we had formed in 1925, that St. Patrick's Day should be regarded as Sunday. That was the conclusion come to, I wish to say definitely, without any regard to any benefit that would accrue to the publican. It was done, as we thought, for the sake of the freedom of the individual. I am not going to take any drink on St. Patrick's Day— I take it very seldom, indeed—but I do not think it is fair to every individual that we should take away his right to ask for refreshments on that day if he wants them.
I want to clear up some other points in regard to which there was some disquiet. The first is, that it is not possible on St. Patrick's Day for a bona fide traveller to get drink. I think it was Deputy Mullins stated that a man with a motor car had only to go a certain distance and that he would be able to get any refreshments he might require.
Under this Bill.
Under this Bill, but not under the present Act. At present, the bona fide traveller is not entitled to get any refreshment anywhere on St. Patrick's Day. If I might be allowed to refer to my own attitude again, I may say that I was very much opposed to continuing facilities for bona fide travellers in the Act of 1927. I wanted this traffic abolished. When it was decided that we would have to allow it I did my best to get the area extended to a twelve-miles radius instead of the five-mile radius as provided in the present Act. Another matter is that it was pointed out to us that very many licensed traders do not open their houses on Sunday and that there is no compulsion upon them to open their houses either on Sunday or, if we pass this Bill, on St. Patrick's Day. There will be no compulsion on them to do it, and many people do not do it. I am very glad that Deputy Davin has entered the House again, because I want to assure him that there was not a scintilla of truth in the statement he made about making this recommendation for the benefit of publicans. What did we do? We went outside our terms of reference and suggested that not only should St. Patrick's Day be regarded as a Sunday for the purposes of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, but we suggested also that for other holidays there should be a clause making the conditions the same as those in regard to Sunday.
What about bank holidays?
I will ask the Minister is not that so?
That is so.
I never said one word during the few remarks I made on this matter which could be regarded as condemnatory of the Liquor Commission.
I quite admit that the Deputy did not say the Liquor Commission, but in what other way could the matter arise? This matter was referred to the Commission, and the Commission made a unanimous recommendation. The Minister endeavoured to put this unanimous recommendation into the Bill.
He has not done so.
That is because we went outside our terms of reference. I am pointing out that by going outside our terms of reference we were showing that we were not trying to benefit the publicans by asking that all houses should be closed on holidays as on St. Patrick's Day. May I say it seems to me an extraordinary thing that when a unanimous decision of a Commission comes before the Executive Council, and when they form a Bill on that recommendation, that Fianna Fáil and Labour Deputies should set themselves deliberately to vote against it? It is only a few days since Fianna Fáil took up the attitude that the Government were in an extraordinary position because they had adopted the majority recommendation of a Commission. This was a unanimous recommendation. I am going to support the recommendation of the Commission upon which I sat. I have gone a little further than I intended to do by showing my own attitude, which is the temperance attitude—the attitude of every member of that Commission—and to show that there was no desire on that Commission to do anything that would benefit publicans.
I think too much of the time of the Dáil has been wasted on this subject. I have heard various views expressed here from various people in the last few days as to how this Bill came to see the light. I think I will give my view, which will be rather nearer the truth, as to how this Bill came to see the light of day. During the past few years we have been constantly asking the Minister for Justice about various Bills, particularly about the Town Tenants Bill. We got a guarantee in regard to that Bill that it would see the light of day on the 19th January and would be circulated among Deputies on that day. The Minister worked hard, worked overtime, to keep that pledge. Of course, he gave pledges that he would also bring it in in 1928 and 1929, but we will leave that. He worked hard and late one night he folded up 30 pages of foolscap and said: "Thank God, my labours are over. My Town Tenants Bill is finished. I can go back to the Dáil and circulate the Bill to-morrow. I have kept my pledge." On the following morning he opened his Bill to read the different clauses in it, and it turned out that it was an Intoxicating Liquor Bill instead of a Town Tenants Bill.
That is how the Bill came to be here at all—due to overstrain from a man overworked. He followed that up by throwing it away in disgust until he went to the next Party meeting. There, there was a regular frenzy in the ranks of Cumann na nGaedheal when it was found there were no funds to fight the general election that is to take place before next July. At that meeting members trotted out all the interests that would be against them—the town tenants, the publicans and the farmers. He said the publicans would not be against them. Various sops were to be proposed to meet the wishes of the various interests. Dope was to be prepared to keep them going in view of the rushed general election. The publicans, he said, will not be against us. I will give them a sop with the Bill which I thought was a Town Tenants Bill, but which now turns out to be a Liquor Bill. That is how this Bill came to be here. It is a mistake for a Town Tenants Bill.
This Bill is for city publicans. It is remarkable for its many omissions. We have heard various statements to-day about the price of intoxicating drink. I want to know from those concerned why it does not contain a clause to control the price of drink. That is one of the omissions in it. Why is such a clause omitted in view of the fact that a few years ago 52/-a barrel was paid for barley?
This debate, I suggest, is going very far outside the scope of the Bill. I have made no objection so far, but I now venture to suggest that to discuss the price of barley as having something to do with the closing hours of publichouses is going a little too wide altogether.
I am dealing with the omissions in the Bill.
The Deputy is wandering a long way from the Bill before the House.
I will make myself relevant very soon. At present the price of barley is 14/6 or 15/- a barrel.
That has nothing to do with the Bill.
Who has collared the difference between 14/6 and 52/-?
I have already told the Deputy that has nothing to do with the Bill.
I am showing the Minister how, if he were to bring in a Bill to reduce the price of drink, he could benefit the publicans.
The Deputy must address himself to the Bill before the House and not talk about the Bill that he would like to have introduced.
I respectfully submit that I have not gone nearly as wide as those who brought the Land Bill into the debate last night. I have the greatest sympathy for the Minister. If I were bringing in a Bill I would see that it would be an honest and a decent Bill, and that the publicans and people of the country would be given the same privileges as you give yourselves. I would have the publichouses open until two o'clock in the morning, the same as the Dáil publichouse.
That is a statement that should not be made in this House. First of all, it is not true.
Question?
The statement is absolutely untrue, and it is also a very improper one to make, apart from the fact that it has nothing whatever to do with this Bill.
If we are prevented from alluding to the privileges enjoyed by other publichouses as compared with the privilege it is intended to give by this Bill to the publichouses of the country, then I suppose I must bow to your ruling.
The Deputy is not going to be prevented from making any statements which he is entitled to make on this or any other Bill, but he has made a statement that he is not entitled to make.
May I say this, that the greatest benefit that could be bestowed on the publicans of the City of Dublin would be to close the greatest opposition they have to meet and that at present exists in Dublin City—a publichouse that pays no licence duty.
I think the Deputy ought to have a little more regard for his position in the House and deal with the Bill that is before the House.
The Bill is of no benefit to anyone except the publicans in the four cities. It is true that provision is made in it for bona fide travellers. Deputy Sir James Craig alluded to that some time ago. He told us of his extreme anxiety to extend the area for bona fide travellers so that the privileged class we have at present would get still more privileges. The Deputy was anxious that the gentlemen with the motor cars could, by travelling ten or twelve miles on a Sunday, get drink. He was not so concerned about the unfortunate farm labourer who has to be up on a Sunday morning at six o'clock. He has to work like a slave until nine or ten o'clock and then get ready for Mass. Even under this Bill if he is to get a pint on St. Patrick's Day you will see him rushing out before Mass is over and going to the local publichouse to snatch it before the local sergeant can come on him.
That is a very bad character you are giving the labouring men of the country.
That is how that clause is going to work. Deputies who are publicans and who live in towns are anxious to have this clause dealing with travellers in the Bill. In this House out of the six Deputies that represent Cork four are publicans.
They are good men and true and they do not see ghosts.
Deputy Corry will have to deal with the Bill. I do not intend to warn him again.
To my mind that is an unfair provision in the Bill. The so-called bona fide traveller can get all the drink he wants on St. Patrick's Day. The unfortunate man who cannot travel can get none. I regard that as a class clause. This Bill shows right through it that it is brought in to benefit one specific class, and I object to that. With regard to the compensation that has been referred to, I know how that has worked out in my constituency. An unfortunate publican, three miles from the nearest publichouse, only got £30 for the taking away of his means of livelihood. Why was that? Because the Civic Guards were down on him day and night until they got a couple of endorsements on his licence, so that they could get him closed down. In my opinion the section dealing with endorsements should be removed from the statute. I know cases that occurred in which the District Justice said it was unfair to the publicans to have the endorsements made. Yet, according to law, the Justice had to make the endorsements. These were cases in which it would have been inhuman if the publicans had not broken the law.
That is another matter that might have been remedied in this Bill. All this shows that the Bill was brought in without getting any thought for those concerned. The unfortunate labourer will still have to walk three or four miles if he wants refreshments on St. Patrick's Day, or else he will have to steal out and watch the movements of the local sergeant of the Civic Guards if he is bent on getting into the local publichouse. I would like to see a section in the Bill doing away with this bona fide question altogether. You have a certain amount of class distinction in this Bill, and I object to that. The rich man who can travel in his motor car can get all the drink that he wants, while the poor man, who has to walk, can get none. I am prepared to play fair with everyone, with publicans as well as everybody else.
Even with the four Cork ones?
Yes. Apparently this Bill is the first shot in the general election campaign. It is a sop to the publicans, and they are to be the first to get one. I suppose it will be followed by some insignificant sop for the farmers, which, I hope they will not take. These will be followed by, I suppose, a promise of a Town Tenants Bill, or maybe by a Town Tenants Bill if agreement can be come to between the gentlemen whom I named a few days ago. I hope that that agreement will not be what I may call another Miss Dunbar case.
I am not seriously interested as to whether publichouses open on St. Patrick's Day or not. There is, however, one thing that I have been continually asked to bring before the House in the event of a Liquor Bill being introduced. It deals with the closing hour between half-past two and half-past three, and, so far as the City of Limerick is concerned, it causes a great deal of inconvenience and hardship. It is at about that hour that the country people are thinking of returning home after doing their shopping. As most Deputies know, mixed trading is carried on by the business people in the City of Limerick, and as the Guards are pretty severe in enforcing this closing hour the country people are inconvenienced a good deal in getting their parcels from the shops. People in horse-drawn vehicles and in motor lorries travel long distances to the City of Limerick, and it is just at about the closing hour that they are ready to take their departure. The closing is the cause of a lot of inconvenience, and if that restriction in the statute were removed it would go a long way to meet the wants of the people.
As Deputies know, drink cannot be supplied between nine o'clock on a Saturday night and one o'clock on a Sunday afternoon. In Limerick City the chief auctions are held about eight o'clock in the morning. That means that men are travelling with cattle during the night. These unfortunate men may have 1/- or 1/6 in their pockets and may be badly in need of refreshment, but under the present law they cannot get any. When these poor men get to their destination they may take a pint or two of stout. They are seen by the Guards, are arrested and charged with drunkenness. Really the men are not drunk at all, but are suffering from the effects of fatigue, hunger and want of rest. I think these are the things that should be looked into. A lot of the dangers spoken of, a lot of the misery and distress that prevail in cities are caused by clubs or brothels, as I would call them. These are the places that are responsible for iniquity of all kinds, and not the country publichouses, where very little ever happens. At all times I am prepared to give my wholehearted support for the closing of these clubs. The people of the country never gave authority for their existence. I support the Bill as it stands.
I will support the Bill, not because I am in the licensed trade, but because a certain section of the community has from time to time advocated the insertion of a certain clause which would allow bona fide travellers to get refreshments on St. Patrick's Day. Many arguments have been put up against this Bill, but they have not been as convincing as those advanced in favour of it. Vintners in rural districts are at present allowed to serve bona fide travellers between the hours of one and seven during the winter, and between the hours of one and eight in the summer. In the cities complete opening is allowed between the hours of two and five on Sundays. Objection has been taken to the extension of that privilege to St. Patrick's Day. To my mind, the position should be reversed, because Sunday is Our Lord's Day, while St. Patrick's Day is only one holiday in the twelve months. Why should St. Patrick's Day be treated differently and be put on a higher plane than Our Lord's Day, Sunday? If there are restrictions in the selling of intoxicating liquor on Sundays, it is only fair that the same law should be extended to St. Patrick's Day. We have been told that the use of drink is being abused. That is not so. The price of drink is sufficient to prevent abuse. In addition the people of the rising generation are of temperate habits. There is no doubt about that. The argument has been put forward that the worker will not have the same facilities for obtaining refreshments on St. Patrick's Day as other classes will have. In my opinion that is not so. The labouring class travel as much as any other class on Sundays, and it is unfair to suggest that they spend their time lolling around the corners waiting for the publichouses to open. That is not the case at all. As far as my constituency is concerned, the labouring class travel as much as any other class of citizens. They have bicycles, and they avail of the good roads. The labouring class is a very respectable class, and they do not give trouble when they take drink. I believe that the section proposing to permit bona fide travellers to be supplied with refreshments in rural Ireland on St. Patrick's Day is not going too far.
We have not at any time heard from any association a word raised about the granting of licences to clubs in cities and towns, in many cases where there is not what you might call any proper control. A publichouse is under the gaze of every citizen, and if there is loud talk in a publichouse the attention of the whole street is drawn to it. In the last 15 years I am happy to say nothing has happened in the licensed trade to raise an objection to this clause in the Bill brought forward by the Minister for Justice. The licensed trade are giving an amount of employment, from the growing of the barley to the retailing of the liquor over the counter. It is wrong to say that bar assistants get only two days in the year holidays. They get 14 days as well. Apart from that, there is no serious difficulty whatsoever in having an agreement between the employer and the employees as far as St. Patrick's Day is concerned. I remember years ago when I was a bar tender going around publichouses and asking them to close on St. Patrick's Day. They did so and let us off. The publicans are not seriously anxious about opening on St. Patrick's Day. Down my way they leave off the assistants and work themselves, myself included. We do not open specially to cater for anyone. If people want to come along and go into Carey's, or Corry's, or anywhere else, that is a matter for themselves. We do not look for the trade that is passing. With regard to St. Patrick's Day especially people on bicycles and in motor cars or other vehicles tour the country, and it is only right that these people should have refreshments. I see no reason why objection should be raised. After all, we are common sense people and know how the country is going on. We know that there is no citizen in the State at present who will in any way infringe the rules of decent society in the taking of liquor.
In gazing down upon the Minister when he was introducing this Bill, I could not help thinking of the famous sonnet of Shelley, which began: "I met a traveller from an antique land who said he could not get a drink on Patrick's Day." The Minister seems to be, in my mind, that traveller from the antique land. He is like Rip Van Winkle. He has apparently been unaware of the place in the course of the national struggle which the question of not drinking on Patrick's Day has always taken. All through the struggle of the Gaelic League, all through that struggle which established some of the ideals of Irish Ireland, the question of drinking on St. Patrick's Day was one which was advocated with enthusiasm and one which, in the end, achieved a victory. When we deal with this Bill we regard the principle of the Patrick's Day drinking as the principle of this Bill, and the strongest reason for opposing that principle is because one of the series of ideals, some of which have been achieved, some of which have not been achieved, was that we should honour St. Patrick's Day as a national festival after this fashion.
Anyone who says this is a slur upon the nation misunderstands the feeling of sentiment on this matter. Anyone who says it does not redound over the world to our credit that we abstain on St. Patrick's Day does not understand the position at all. In various parts of the world I regret to say Irishmen do get drunk on St. Patrick's Day, and it is well known, not merely to Irishmen, but everyone else in the community, who will tell you about it in South Africa and in other countries. Take Scotland. The Scottish, I regret to say, have a way of honouring St. Andrew's Day somewhat in a similar manner. Now, if the Scottish movement for independence should to-morrow combine with that movement——
In Lansdowne Road.
Deputy Jordan does not know anything about the particular movement I am referring to or he would not go to Lansdowne Road to see it.
Mr. Jordan
I am not going.
The movement for independence, if it combined with it ideals similar to the Irish ideals, do you think that we would not admire them if they succeeded in the movement in Scotland in abstaining from drink on St. Andrew's Day? Do you think anyone would consider that a slur on the Scottish people?
It is easy to abstain from Scotch whiskey.
It all depends on the particular taste you have developed. I am surprised at a man like Deputy Anthony, with such wide sympathies, being so prejudiced nationally.
There is Paddy Flaherty.
But the argument I am trying to meet is that it is in some way a slur upon Ireland that we chose to abstain from drinking on St. Patrick's Day, when we have always taken up the attitude that we honoured that day as a national festival and chose to honour it by abstention from drink.
The question of publicans really does not arise in this, as it has been emphasised from almost every part of the House that no publican is ever going to make a fortune or save himself from bankruptcy or poverty by the drink he is going to sell on St. Patrick's Day. Everyone realises that if instead of the idle gesture on the part of the Government, they had carried out in the proper spirit the terms of the Act of 1927, if they had given proper compensation to the publicans who were going out of business so that there would be no redundant publichouses, they would have been doing a great deal more for the trade generally than this measure, which is an idle measure. It is wasting our time; it is a measure which we would not pay very much attention to except that it involves what amounts to a matter of national sentiment. Then again, as Deputy Derrig has already said, the vintners' assistants are a body of young men in this country who have taken an active part in Gaelic sports, and they are going to be deprived of their holiday on that day. I suppose it will be some consolation that on St. Patrick's Day between the hours of 2 and 5 o'clock the town tenants will be able to drown their sorrows, those town tenants who are groaning under their rents, which are being multiplied by four when the leases fall in on estates like the Lord Longford estate. The slum-dwellers waiting for a proper housing scheme will be able to forget their residences where twelve live in a room by getting drunk between the hours of 2 and 5 o'clock. The farmers groaning under the weight of overhead charges and waiting for de-rating will be able to walk three miles and as bona fide travellers drown their sorrows and forget about the conditions under which they live under the present Government. And so on through the various categories of citizens, the coachbuilders, the fish-barrel-makers, the flour-millers, and all the other people who have been trying to persuade the Government to give them some chance of living in this country.
And the solicitors.
All these people will have an opportunity under the benevolent regime of the Minister for Justice of forgetting for the moment the existence of the present Government and of the unbearable conditions which that Government is maintaining in the country. It is a dangerous thing to have a Government in power which has overstayed its welcome, because it is forced, like the drowning man, to grasp at straws, and so this Government, in the hope of drawing funds from certain interests in the country, are introducing this legislation for the purpose of increasing their war chest to fight a futile fight, in which they are certainly going to be defeated in the next election.
I rise to support this measure and to answer a few points made by speakers whose opposition was founded chiefly on what they call this act of national retrogression, because the licensed houses in four boroughs, on the 17th March, can open between certain hours and supply drink to bona fide travellers outside of those boroughs. Before I go into the general case I should say that nobody would appear to have remembered that in the year 1929 St. Patrick's Day and the conditions appertaining to it were exactly as those proposed to appertain to it in this measure. In the year 1929 the 17th March fell on a Sunday, and the licensing laws for that particular day were those which are proposed in the measure now introduced. As a nation we did not retrograde very much on that Sunday. I am afraid that the persons who talked about the coachbuilders, the flour-millers and the farmers getting drunk—I think the solicitors would not—were not aware that they did not get drunk on that St. Patrick's Day.
Their troubles were not so great as they are now.
I am sorry that their troubles have increased since, but as regards the Deputies opposite, whose troubles certainly have increased since that day, I would be very glad to see them on St. Patrick's Day being led by their leader from one publichouse to another to get them over their troubles which have increased since that date.
If you could get him to do that it would be a good day for your Party.
I do not know what the Deputy means, but I think it would be a very good day for this country if we could get him to do that.
Pub crawling is not a national pastime.
The Deputy knows more about it than I do, so I cannot speak on that subject.
I will not be personal. I might.
Of course, the Deputy spoke as if all the notions and traditions and outlooks, and all those other terms and suggested ideals of what is national, sprang from his side of the House and from what he calls the old Gaelic League. The late President Griffith had notions of nationality that I would not be ashamed to follow, and he was always an ardent advocate of what he called the right of the people to have their drink on St. Patrick's Day. The late General Collins followed on the same lines. Their notions of nationality, I take it, were not of the standard that would suit Deputy Corry or Deputy Fahy.
I worked with Griffith for the closing on St. Patrick's Day. He never stood in favour of it until 1922.
Why should he?
He was for closing.
Deputy Little, I think, put the case properly when he said that if the Scotch make up their minds that they will get freedom by abstaining from drink on St. Andrew's Day they have the right to do it, and if anybody in this country feels that he is honouring the national apostle by abstaining from drink on St. Patrick's Day nobody, I hope, will suggest that he should be prevented. But if there are persons who believe that taking a drink on St. Patrick's Day is the way in which the national holiday should be celebrated I believe that it is not wrong and that it should not be prevented. Wine makes the heart of man glad, and associated with all celebrations and festivities is some measure or other of intoxicating liquor. There is no use in Deputies not facing the fact that it is so, and the talk about national retrogression if the same thing happened this year or next year as happened in Dublin and throughout the country in 1929 is all nonsense.
A matter which really does require some attention is the abuse of drinking. There is no doubt that even at the present time in the County of Dublin there are certain happenings which are a disgrace. Improvements have taken place of late. These abuses have taken place, especially in the village of Clondalkin. I suggest that these things have happened because of the absence of a set of hours in which publichouses could supply drink to bona fide travellers. Perhaps what the Minister should introduce in some Bill is a proper and satisfactory definition of what "bona fide traveller" means. I am sure everybody will agree with me in this.
Deputy Corry talked about class legislation because some people could use motor cars to travel while others would have to walk. None of these suggestions will meet the situation of the person who does insist on drinking, whether it is Saturday, Sunday or Monday, and I would remind Deputy Little when he talks of the tenants with twelve living in one room that if these persons are prevented from going out on St. Patrick's Day to have a drink between these two or three hours, there is an alternative; they can go to a publichouse the night before and bring the drink to their houses. Instead of one person consuming drink on St. Patrick's Day you will have drink brought into these homes which are already miserable enough.
The argument put forward by Deputy Davin that the assistants should have that day free is very reasonable. I do not know of any section of the community who do not deserve some day or another free. But, after all, what about the other services in the country? What about the railwaymen, the tram conductors and drivers, the bus men, the hotel employees, domestic servants, farm labourers, and all the others who have to work on that day? There is no reason why they could not get an alternative day off. If persons think that there is only one day in the year on which they can play some game, and that happens to be St. Patrick's Day, these persons, I suggest, should choose some other avocation that will not prevent them from playing their particular game on that day, because, after all, if games are going to interfere with their work they should give up their work. I think that this Bill has been, if I may say so, "over-talked." It is suggested that it is a political measure. It was suggested by Deputy Corry that it is the first shot in a general election. Deputy Little thought it was like a drowning man grasping at the last straw. The Deputy should be very careful about the straw he will grasp at, because it is extraordinary that drowning men have grasped last straws and have lived many years afterwards.
Is that your hope?
The Deputy should remember that some straws are not strong enough to bring drowning men to the shore. The Deputy should remind his leader and Party of the last straw that the land annuities meant to them.
I had not intended to say a word on this Bill, because I had not thought that any Irishman with respect for his country or himself, or even for the poor working man for whom this opening of the publichouses is supposed to be a concession, would advocate their opening on St. Patrick's Day. We have all been concerned for the interests of the working man. Now we seem to be interested in putting a great temptation in his way. We all know that when England was in control in this country and when there was any sign of the country prospering, that England deliberately increased the number of publichouses here, or, at least, advocated their increase and condoned the increased consumption of drink. With what object? With the object of degrading the country and its people and making it easier to keep us in subjection. When the publichouses were closed on St. Patrick's Day the self-respect of the public increased very much. The civic spirit and the public life of the country have improved immensely in consequence. Why do we want to undo that? Why should we want to revert to the state of affairs which existed before the publichouses were closed on that day? I can only see in this Bill the thin edge of the wedge, so as to open publichouses not only for a couple of hours and in some special cities, but throughout the country, and perhaps later on to have them open all day on St. Patrick's Day. Are we going to improve the state of the country or of the people by so doing? I say we are not.
Deputy Redmond said that the people of Scotland celebrated St. Andrew's Day, and in order to do that allowed the publichouses to open on that day. Does Deputy Redmond not know how the people of Scotland —I was going to say celebrate— degrade St. Andrew's Day because publichouses are open and the people can get as much drink as they want? Surely it ought to be our object to preserve the spirit that is in the country at present, the spirit of decency and self-respect? If we want to earn respect from the other countries of the world we must respect ourselves first, and we cannot do that if we encourage the people to drink on St. Patrick's Day. I hope that this Bill will be defeated by a large majority.
I have only a few remarks to make on this Bill. My main objection, in common with the majority of Deputies on these benches, is to the St. Patrick's Day clause. I have tried to find out the reason for introducing this particular clause, but I have failed. Various explanations have been given by Deputies. I should like to ask, as Deputy Davin asked, from whom did this demand come? Do the publicans want the change? If so, it is a very strange thing that although there has been, for the past few days, a number of County Dublin publicans in the precincts of this House, not one of them has asked me to vote for the opening of publichouses on St. Patrick's Day. Not one single publican of County Dublin has taken so much interest in this particular question as to walk from one end of the corridor in this House to another to ask me to support this particular clause, or to ask me what my mind was upon the question. On the other hand, I have been approached by the assistants of County Dublin, and have been informed by them that they speak on behalf of 1,500 assistants in the city and county of Dublin. I do respect the demand put forward by these young men, because I know the type of men they are. I realise that these young men are men with a Gaelic outlook and with certain Gaelic traditions behind them, because of the fact that they produced men like Patrick Moran in County Dublin.
Deputy Bennett, I think it was, on the Government Benches, said that they had tested the country by consulting their members. That, I submit, is an insult to the back benches of Cumann na nGaedheal. Does the Minister for Justice mean to tell us that Deputy Peadar Doyle came into the Party meeting and demanded that the publichouses should be opened on St. Patrick's Day? I do not believe that for one moment. But even if that were so, if they got their information by consulting the members of the Party, they should at least have gone a step further and consulted Deputies' wives as well, and then perhaps they would come to a different conclusion.
I tried to find out why this Bill was being introduced. Deputy Bennett said it was introduced to satisfy the mild demand of those carrying on the licensed trade in this country. Deputy Daly and Deputy Rice agree with him. But Deputy Redmond says that it was not for the benefit of the publicans, but for the benefit of the people. Whom are we to believe? I know that this change is not a popular change with the ordinary people. It has been said that we, on account of our opposition, have slurred the Irish character by suggesting or insinuating that the reason we do not want the publichouses opened upon St. Patrick's Day is that there are sure to be abuses. I say the Government policy is a slur on Irish character when they say there is a demand on the part of the Irish people to have the publichouses opened on St. Patrick's Day. The Irish people do not want them opened on St. Patrick's Day. They were closed by the demand of the Irish people, and that demand still exists, especially amongst the women and the clergy of the country and should be respected.
What is the explanation of the Bill? Is it that we are to expect the General Election on the 17th March next and that the Minister for Justice wants to take advantage of the Bill for the imported voters brought into the city and county of Dublin on that day? I believe in the interests of the people, and in the interests of the publicans themselves this change should not be agreed to by the House. The people are quite satisfied with the law as it stands at present for St. Patrick's Day. I believe, if a change is made, an agitation will be started in this country, and will grow to the detriment of the trade. The publicans will have trouble from their assistants, and trouble from the temperance advocates, and in the end it will do more harm to the trade than the closing of the publichouses as at present on St. Patrick's Day. We were told during the progress of the debate that the character of the Irish people has changed in respect to the taste for drink. I am glad character has so changed, but what was once called the national failing has not yet, unfortunately, been crushed out from our people. I know full well that in the county Dublin there are still scenes of a most disgraceful character owing to the drinking facilities. Even if a case were made for the opening of publichouses on St. Patrick's Day, in my experience certainly the time has not come yet when that change should take place.
I do not want to suggest, if this clause did pass, and if the publichouses were opened on St. Patrick's Day, that immediately we would have a recurrence of the scenes that we all witnessed in our boyhood days. I do not at all suggest, for instance, that next St. Patrick's Day we would see Deputy Sir James Craig linking Deputy Esmonde and Deputy Redmond through O'Connell Street singing "For he's a jolly good fellow." I do not at all mean to suggest it would make such a change in our national character. The real thing I am concerned about is the point made by Deputy John Daly that this is only the thin end of the wedge. He says "We are only using this to break the ice." We are all aware that the trade has a powerful organisation behind it and that it employs astute lawyers in order to guide it carefully within the four corners of the law. We are all aware that Deputy Rice has been selected as a most eminent lawyer in the Free State in order to guide its members and keep them within the law. Perhaps as a result of the last by-election the trade will make a different selection in the near future.
A Deputy
Perhaps they will select Deputy Geoghegan.
The last by-election, not the second last?
I saw the Deputies returned at the last by-election and the second last by-election walking in the Hall this morning arm-in-arm in the most friendly manner — Longford-Westmeath, and Co. Dublin, arm-in-arm.
A most desirable state of affairs.
It would be well for the farmers if they could copy that example.
The reason they were so friendly was because they are both temperance men. The Minister for Finance, in introducing his last Budget, gave us, perhaps, some explanation for this extraordinary Bill. He told us that he found that the epidemic of "flu" prevalent during the past year would not recur, and that the Exchequer was going to suffer in that direction; that he feared the drinking habits of the people had decreased so much that we were on the danger line. Perhaps that is the explanation of this Bill, that the Minister for Finance wants to have extra time for drinking in order to fill the Exchequer.
No matter what reasons are put forward. I think that we would be acting in a very bad way if we changed the law on this particular point. As some Deputies of this Party have already stated, there are things in the licensing law which should be altered. Perhaps those of us who are strictest on this drink question are in the end the best friends of the trade. While I would like to see the law carried out in a very strict fashion, I realise, on the other hand, that there are very many publicans who are carrying on a most difficult trade under very hard conditions. If the Minister thought fit to bring in a new Bill on this particular question, he should have examined the whole situation much more closely and brought in changes which would not be objected to by anybody and which would bring greater benefit to the publicans than the Bill which he now seeks to pass through the Dáil.
I have listened with very great interest to the speeches which have been delivered both for and against this Bill. I have listened carefully to the speeches which have been delivered for it from the Government Benches and from the Independent Benches. I have also listened to the speeches which have been delivered for it from the chief Opposition Benches. I have listened to the speeches delivered against it from the Labour Benches and the chief Opposition Benches. The speeches which impressed me above all others were the speeches which we have had from three or four of the chief Opposition Party, all of whom spoke in favour of the Bill. The last speaker tells us that there is need for amendment in the Intoxicating Liquor Act. Deputy Fahy was strong in telling us the many good points which this Bill has, and I am not sure that Deputy Davin, keen as he is for prohibition, would not accept some sections of this Bill. I am sure he has a warm corner in his heart for some of them.
This debate opened with a very pathetic appeal from a very prominent Deputy on the chief Opposition side, who asked that this be left to a free vote of the House, that he wanted a free vote.
No.
He wanted, not a free vote of the House, only a free vote of the Government Party. That is all the chief Opposition Party ever asked for.
The Deputy who makes that statement was not present. A simple question was asked—was this a Government measure, and were the Government Whips going to be put on. It was a simple question. No attitude and no wish was expressed.
We are all sufficiently intelligent to know the object of a simple question. If it was not to be considered in that way I do not know what other construction it bore. It is too much for me. The position is that at present: Are we to understand that the chief Opposition Party have the courage and pluck to give to their own Party a free vote on this Bill? If they have you can get the real view of the House on the Bill, a thing which I think would be most important to get. I think the same applies to the Labour Party.
And to the Government Party.
I am not at all clear that it does not apply to the Government Party. Deputy Brady has complained that no single publican in the County Dublin had asked him for a vote on this Bill, and they did not ask him for his views on the Bill. I presume the publicans in the County Dublin have some intelligence, and they know that he is not allowed to have views of his own on this business. They know that he is voting not according to what his own views might otherwise be and that he is not speaking according to what he is thinking about it.
That is absolutely wrong.
They know that he is speaking as he has been ordered. He is not free to vote on the Bill as he wishes. If I might quote the opinion of Deputy Flinn, the members of the chief Opposition Party will go into the Division Lobby on this question "like dumb driven" sheep. The expression is Deputy Flinn's, not mine. As a result we will be as far as ever from getting the views of this House on this very important question—on how we are to deal with this intoxicating liquor business. I hold views that may not be in agreement with those of many members on the other side of the House. My views are largely those given expression to so well by Deputy Haslett. Like Deputy Haslett. I have since my earliest years supported so far as I could the temperance movement. That is, I have supported any course where the best interests of the temperance movement were to be served. That brings us, I think, to a discussion on the question as to what the Intoxicating Liquor Act of 1927 really did. Before doing that I wish to join with Deputy Haslett in the tribute which he paid to the late revered Father Mathew, one of the two greatest temperance reformers which the last two centuries produced.
What about the "Irish Times"?
Mr. Wolfe
Father Mathew was one of the greatest temperance reformers which the last two centuries produced. But the greatest of these two temperance reformers has not been referred to by any section or Party in this House. That is a grave omission, and before this debate closes I would like to pay a grateful tribute to the real temperance reformer of this century, the Right Honourable David Lloyd George. We all know that where Father Mathew tried and failed the Right Honourable David Lloyd George stepped in and won in a canter. I do not know if the rumour that has been going around will prove true—I hope it will—and that Deputy Esmonde will bring in a motion so that any spot that may become vacant in Leinster Lawn will be made available for the erection of a monument to the greatest living temperance reformer—the Right Honourable David Lloyd George.
That brings us back to consider a question of fact, as we must consider this question of fact—the Intoxicating Liquor Act of 1927. The first question to be considered is what has been the effect of that Act? Does it need amendment? If it needs amendment it ought to get that amendment. True enough, there are things in the Bill brought in by the Minister for Justice with which I do not agree. I say at once if the Bill brought in by the Minister for Justice was a Bill against the interests of temperance I would not support it. What has the Act of 1927 done? Let us get to common ground, a ground on which there will be no disagreement between any section in this House or between any two intelligent persons in the country.
There is no doubt that the Act of 1927 has been responsible for a large increase in law-breaking in this country. The penalties that have been put on and the procedure for the recovery of those penalties have been of such a nature as inevitably to lead to making a large number of men lawbreakers who would otherwise be peaceful and law-abiding citizens. It has added largely to our calendar of crime. I wish I could stop there, but I am ashamed to confess that there is another matter I must mention. It is one with which I am sure all of you will agree—those of you who have any intimate experience of the administration of the Act, which, unfortunately, I have week after week and almost day after day. I must say that this Act has led to a regular stream of perjury such as no Act that is on the Statute Book of this country or any affiliated Acts have ever led to before. I am definitely against perjury. I am against the breaking of the licensing laws, but, as between perjury and a breach of the licensing laws, I would rather break the licensing laws than commit perjury.
I wonder will the day ever come when I can look upon the taking of an oath as something more than a mere empty formula. I want every section in this House to remember that beyond any doubt the Act of 1927 has led to an accumulation of perjury such as has never been seen in this country before. So long as the Act remains in its present unamended form, that stream of perjury will continue. Anything I can do or say, even at the risk of being gravely misunderstood as I am sure I will be misunderstood by people with whom I have been associated all my life-time. I will say it in the fervent hope that as a result I will have done something to lessen the flow of that stream. I do not wish to go into any controversial matters, but there are certain matters that everybody must admit. I have told you some of the effects of the 1927 Act.
[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]
I will tell you what it did not do, and it is all nonsense to say anything to the contrary. It did not decrease drunkenness. Nobody who has followed the workings of the Act will suggest to you, for one moment, that it did anything in the way of decreasing drunkenness. It did other most extraordinary things. I am glad to have from the chief Opposition Party, even though they are not free to vote in favour of this Bill as they would otherwise be inclined to do—I am glad to have from more than one of them a denunciation of the present law regarding endorsements on licences. Under the present law the District Justice may come to the conclusion that a conviction which he has made is one that, having regard to the circumstances of the case or the nature of the case, ought not to be endorsed on the licence, but the most illogical and most futile and most ridiculous section of any Act of Parliament compels them to endorse the licence and compels the publican to go to a higher court to get it removed. It is there removed as a matter of course. The only effect of that section while it remains on the book—and I am afraid I am speaking against my own profession in this matter because it is a very profitable section to us as it gives us the costs of an appeal which we otherwise would not have—is that it brings the law into ridicule.
I say that the chief Opposition Party would have been well advised if they allowed the Second Reading of this measure to pass and subsequently made an effort to eradicate those manifest inducements to perjury and those manifest inducements to law-breaking that exist in the Act of 1927. I agree with Deputy Mullins that this Bill does not go very far; it does not go as far as the constituents whom he and I represent would like it to go. I was hoping that from the ranks of the chief Opposition Party we might hear something of the policy of that Party on the question of licences. I think, with the exception of Deputy Clery and Deputy Little, who let a little of the cat out of the bag, the other Deputies were singularly silent. I think they were as far from decision on any point as that leader of prohibition, Deputy Davin.
Or the leader-writer of the "Irish Times," Deputy Wolfe.
Mr. Wolfe
We had the advantage of hearing from Deputy Clery the main plank of the chief Opposition Party programme in regard to licences. He spoke in favour of the reduction of the spirit duties. I am not with him in that. I wonder is all this talk we hear about an increase in drunkenness mere humbug? If it is not, in what more effective way do you want to decrease drunkenness? Reduce the price of drink and throw overboard Mr. Lloyd George? If you want to increase drunkenness, adopt the first plank in the chief Opposition Party programme. We have it from Deputy Little that he is going to saddle the man in the street with the task of extinguishing the licences in this country. He is going to shove over on him the task of paying the compensation. He wants to put on the man who does not get a drink from one year's end to the other the task of extinguishing licences. That is the second plank in the programme of the chief Opposition Party. I am against that also. I am aware that the provision which is found in the Act of 1927 as regards the extinction of licences has broken down, as it was always destined to break down. It was conceived with the best of intentions, but it was conceived without the full knowledge of the existing circumstances and without a knowledge of the conditions to which the publicans in this country have been brought, owing to the increased licence duty and the increased burdens under which they labour.
We come now to the vexed question of St. Patrick's Day. There is one question which I would like to ask those of you who have experience of country towns such as I have. Has the Act of 1927 stopped the consumption of drink on St. Patrick's Day in the country towns? I do not profess to speak for the cities, but I can say that in the country towns it has not. I know my own constituency from end to end, and I am aware that the Act has not decreased the consumption of drink on St. Patrick's Day. There is not a man in a country town who, if he wants a drink, cannot get it.
Question!
Mr. Wolfe
He may have to break the law for it, and possibly commit perjury, but he will get the drink, nevertheless, if he wants it. There is the additional incentive that under the present circumstances the drink is to him, like stolen fruit, all the sweeter.
Whose fault is it?
Mr. Wolfe
It is the fault of the legislature. As Deputy Mullins reminded us, you can bring an Irishman to the water but you cannot make him drink. I say that you cannot take him away from the drink if he wants to get a drink. I cannot understand the position which prompted the introduction of this section originally. I am as keen on the observance of St. Patrick's Day as anybody else.
In addition, I am keen on the observance of the Sabbath, and it appears to me, in this country, which calls itself civilised and Christian, to be a strange position for the legislature to take up to tell me that if I do an act on Sunday it is moral, but if I do it on St. Patrick's Day it is immoral. No Christian or civilised country can stand over that principle. I could well understand, and would have sympathy with, a proposal to increase restrictions on Sunday, but one thing we must do, or else lie down under the suggestion that we are treating the Sabbath with disrespect, and that is, let us put St. Patrick's Day on no higher level than Our Lord's Day.
In his opening remarks, which, unfortunately, were the only portions of his speech which I heard. Deputy Redmond wished to give us to understand that Deputies on the Fianna Fáil and Labour Benches, and even some speakers on the Government Benches, were under a totally wrong impression as to the reasons for the introduction of this Bill, that these misguided people seemed to think that its introduction was due to a certain amount of pressure on the part of or sympathy with the licensed trade. Deputy Redmond would have us believe and, in fact, was quite sure of it, that the demand for it came not from the licensed trade but from the public, that the Bill was for the benefit of the public. That ought, of course, to be obvious to anyone going in and out through the corridors here during the last two or three days. They have been approached, I am sure, from many representative persons who have nothing to do with the licensed trade, while those who are engaged in that trade have been notably absent from the corridors. I do not know whether that has been Deputy Redmond's experience, or that of any other Deputy.
I have not been approached by anyone.
Mr. O'Connell
Anyone who did not know what Deputy Redmond was referring to must be forgiven if he formed the impression that the licensed trade were not an entirely uninterested party. There is one thing that has not yet been made clear, and I hope that the Minister will endeavour to make it clear. It was raised by many speakers, especially by Deputy Davin, and that is the point as to the origin of this measure. Any speakers on the Government Benches who attempted to give an explanation said that it was the report of the Commission, but nobody has so far told us how that Commission came into being, why it had come into being, what was the special urge that induced the Minister for Justice or the Government to call together the members of that Commission to examine these particular questions. and why they were called on to examine these questions and not others. Was there special agitation on the part of anyone, and, if so, on the part of whom in regard to these particular questions? Was that agitation so strong that the Minister found that there was nothing for it but to call the Commission together again to have their opinion on these questions?
I would have been glad if I heard a little more about the Commission itself and who were the particular parties and the particular interests who made the claims which are set out in the report of the Commission advocating these particular measures, especially those which are before us to-day. Various Deputies have spoken of representations which have been made to them and which have not been made to them in their own constituencies. Deputy Wolfe advanced a reason for that, or rather thought that he discovered a reason for it, so far as one particular Deputy is concerned. I must say, and I do not know that the same reason would apply to the Minister for Justice who represents the same constituency as I, that I have not had representations from anybody, publicans or otherwise, during these two or three years with regard to the necessity for a measure of this kind. Even since this measure was introduced and came to be written about in the newspapers, not one person in my constituency has shown sufficient interest in the matter to make the slightest representation to me. I will say that I got representations from some quarters urging me to oppose the Bill, but certainly there has been no rush to enlist support for it. It may be, perhaps, that the parties engaged in the licensed trade thought that they would do better by making representations to the Minister for Justice who, as I say, also represents my constituency.
Although I can claim to know the country fairly well, as well as the average Deputy, I have seen no evidence of any great public desire for the introduction of a measure of this kind. That is why I say that I am at one with Deputy Davin and others who asked the Minister to give a fuller explanation than has been vouchsafed from the Government benches as to why we should be asked to pass this Bill. Generally speaking, we have to look at the Bill from this point of view, and it is the point of view from which we have to judge it, namely, that it is a Bill designed to extend facilities for the purchase of drink and for drinking. I maintain that the question we have to ask ourselves is whether there is anything that would justify us in extending those facilities. Are there not at present sufficient facilities for the sale and partaking of intoxicating drink in this country? We have heard from some Deputies that on St. Patrick's Day and, indeed, on other days, people grumble because they cannot get a drink. That is quite natural. We are all inclined to grumble and feel annoyed when any regulation irks us in this way and comes up against our personal convenience. We feel annoyed, for instance, if we are driving along the street that the traffic should hold us up for a few minutes and prevent us from reaching our destination earlier. That is one of the fruits, as Deputy Haslett said, of our modern civilisation, but with regard to this particular matter I am quite satisfied, while the ordinary respectable working man who may be out on St. Patrick's Day may feel very much annoyed because he was prevented from getting a drink, in his more sober moments, especially on the following day, he will feel pleased rather than otherwise that there was a law which saved him from drinking on St. Patrick's Day. He will have a few more shillings in his pocket, will feel far better so far as his health is concerned and, in the end, will be really thankful that the law did protect him from himself.
We have heard a good deal during the debate about freedom, freedom for everybody to consume drink who likes it and to sell drink if they like to sell it. If the proposition were carried to its logical conclusion that there should be no restriction whatever on the sale of drink, why should there be any restriction on the sale of drugs? If a person wanted to take drugs why should he not be allowed to take them? You can carry that argument to a totally absurd length. We have heard a great deal about hardships to the licensed trade, and that certain restrictions are imposed on them which are not imposed on other people, but remember this fact, which does not seem to be always remembered or taken into account, that those who are engaged in the sale of drink are put by the people in a privileged position. They are given in their own particular area a monopoly to a certain extent. For instance, we say to a man who holds a licence: "You are at liberty to sell drink and make such profits as you may out of the sale of drink." We say to several hundred others in his immediate vicinity: "You cannot sell drink; you will not be allowed to sell drink." To that extent the person who is engaged in this particular trade is undoubtedly placed in a privileged position. If he has to pay taxes, special licence duties and all that, it is all part of the price which he pays for the privilege conferred on him by the general public.
I have come to the conclusion that this Bill will be, in the main, whatever it is intended to be, a city Bill. Any advantage that will be got from it will go to those who are engaged in the sale of drink in the cities and who now open their premises on Sundays from 2 till 5. I think that is quite clear. Deputy Sir James Craig made the point that publicans in the rural areas need not open if they wish, and that there was no compulsion on them to do so.
In any area.
Mr. O'Connell
That is quite right, but surely Deputy Sir James Craig knows well that if a publican sees his neighbour's house open or knows that his neighbour may keep his house open, he will say: "I will keep open, too." He could not afford to close his premises if his neighbour's premises were open, because he would not keep his trade.
May I say that the evidence we got from certain members of the trade was that they do not open on the Sabbath?
Mr. O'Connell
I am quite sure that there are some traders who could afford to do that, and who can say: "I am not worrying about the few miserable shillings I can make on Sunday during the few hours I may open," or who can say, "I am not going to waste my whole day waiting here for a bona-fide traveller to come along to sell him a drink." There are some who can afford to ignore that liberty, but there are others who are making a precarious livelihood and who cannot afford to take up that attitude. Even though they are anxious to close and get away from their business on the one day in the year, they feel they could not do that because their neighbours would be open and they might lose their ordinary customers, who would feel annoyed if they came to their doors when they would not be able to let them in. I think before we are asked to pass this measure we should have some evidence, and some very material evidence, that there has been great public inconvenience during the past three, four or five years during which this provision regarding the closing on St. Patrick's Day was in existence. I agree with Deputy Mullins in that there is only one section of the Bill that would have any real consequence, that the Bill hangs on that, and that the real origin of the Bill is to get the publichouses open on St. Patrick's Day. The others are comparatively minor matters in any case.
I think it is on the question of opening on St. Patrick's Day that most Deputies will make or have made up their minds. I would like that some evidence should be brought forward to show that there is great public inconvenience caused during the years that this particular provision has been in existence. I have not seen any evidence of that, any great public movement or agitations towards removing a disability which is supposed to exist because the publicans cannot open their houses on St. Patrick's Day. I admit quite freely that people will feel a certain amount of inconvenience, but that equally applies after 9.30 on Saturday night or after 10 o'clock on other nights, or during any of the hours the publichouses are closed. You will find people who will say: "I wish the publichouses were open so that we could get drink. Isn't it a shame that they are closed." You will have that kind of feeling certainly, but the people who say that will not, in their hearts, mean it. They will be glad that the opportunity is not there for them to indulge their tastes.
The question of the closing on St. Patrick's Day is the kernel of the whole Bill. I think Deputy Little, although he wrapped it up in a great many coverings, put his finger on the real kernel of the question when he said that it was national sentiment more than anything else that was behind the movement for closing on St. Patrick's Day. I do not agree with Deputy Fahy if he suggested—I am not taking it that he did—that there was any likelihood that the opening of publichouses would lead to anything like the scenes that some of us unfortunately saw when we were young. I do not believe that could happen now for various reasons, one being Deputy Wolfe's new-found saint, David Lloyd George, though when he was paying a tribute to Lloyd George he was careful not to extend the argument and say that it was the restricted facilities which Lloyd George put on the sale of drink that led to the success which Deputy Wolfe attributed to him. This closing on St. Patrick's Day was an ideal. It was a protest and, in my opinion, a rightful protest against the scenes associated with the celebration of St. Patrick's Day. It was one of the things taken up by those who wanted to build up a new and a self-respecting Ireland, and, while I will go as far as saying that there will be no fear that such things will happen in the future, I agree that it would be a step in the wrong direction if we were now to open the publichouses on St. Patrick's Day. I do not think there is sufficient need for it. I do not think there is sufficient public demand for it, and I do not think there is such public inconvenience caused that we should go back, as it were, and sacrifice what a great many people in this country believe to be an ideal that ought to be maintained. I think there is no case made for the extension of facilities that are now available for the sale of drink. These are the reasons that have induced me to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.
As my views are pretty well known to the House, I thought I might let this debate pass without giving any expression of opinion upon it, but certain questions were put to us in the course of the debate, and I think we would be just as bad as the Executive if we did not make our position clear upon them. The members of the Executive Council think it is particularly good policy at the present time to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. We do not propose to do anything of the sort. I think the speakers on our side made it quite clear to everybody, both to Deputies and to any interests outside, that, so far as any injustice is being done to those who are engaged in the licensed trade, we are prepared to consider all these questions on their merits.
One of the questions that was mentioned was that dealing with the endorsement of licences. My view on that is much the same as my view on the maximum penalty in the case of any evasion, or anything that would be regarded as evasion, of excise duties. I believe that if we have a popular judiciary in this country— and if we have not we ought to exercise our rights to get rid of those who are unworthy, if there are such— we ought to depend upon them to hear all the relevant facts and give them as much discretionary power as is possible to impose punishment in accordance with the offence. Therefore, speaking for myself, unless an exceptional case, which I have not seen made up to the present, were made against it, I would not oppose the repeal of this enforced endorsement. I would do it on the principle of fair play and justice. If a case was made for it—and as I have said, I have heard no case made up to the present —such for example as the Minister for Finance tried to make out for the enforcement of the maximum penalty in the case of evasion of excise duties, I would have an open mind and would consider whether the case made warranted what I would regard ought to be an exception to the general practice. But a case has not been made, and, in my frame of mind at present, I would certainly not oppose the repeal of that particular clause. I approach that from the point of view of justice and fair play for the individual.
The next question that was mentioned was put by Deputy J. Wolfe, that of compensation where there was any closing of publichouses. On that particular question, which is an economic one, my attitude would be this, that in so far as a monopoly was given to the remaining members of the licensed trade, and in so far as the privileges of that monopoly would enable them to meet the compensation for those who are deprived of their licences, you should balance the privileges and the advantages they gained against the compensation, and put upon them a reasonable portion of it. If they were not able to bear it all and if it were found in justice that they could not bear it all, then I see no reason why, if there had to be a closing down of redundant and uneconomic publichouses in the interests of the community as a whole, the State should not bear its fair share of the compensation.
Deputy Wolfe, speaking about the Land Bill the other night, referred to the question of compensating the landlords. Private property and the rights of landlords were then a very sacred thing. I see no reason why we should differentiate here in favour of the landlords as against the licensed traders, and, as far as I am concerned, when a question of that sort comes before the House, I would consider it, and, having an open mind, would consider it on the basis of justice.
Another matter raised was the question of lightening the duties. That is a question upon which I spoke in this House before. My views on it have not altered by one whit. As long as the necessities of life have to be taxed, as long as the necessary food for children and others has to be taxed in order to provide the money necessary for the Government services, and for the services of the community as a whole, I am not going to move one inch from the position that luxuries should be taxed before necessaries. Before I would vote for any lightening of the liquor duties I would have to see all duties on the necessaries of life removed. Because we took up that attitude we heard about Volstead and about prohibition; other things were bandied about the House. I am not a prohibitionist. Like Deputy Aiken, I have experience of a country where there is prohibition. My view of it is not quite the same as that of Deputy Aiken. There are two sides to the question to-day, even in America. Notwithstanding all the abuses—and they are horrible—that have grown up about the enforcement of prohibition in America, still a large number of American citizens, very many of them of our own race, hold that with all its disadvantages the present position is not as bad as the position from which it relieved the country.
We had a curious example here of the way in which people approach this question. We had Deputy Wolfe talking about Father Mathew and contrasting the result of his work, as he put it, with that of Mr. Lloyd George. What does it prove to us if the conclusions are right? If, as a matter of fact, the present state of temperance in this country is due more to the increase in the price of liquor than to the efforts of the reformers, are we going to conclude that legislation can have no effect in bringing about necessary reforms in the habits of the people? Who is going to say that we must put aside all legislative efforts and depend altogether on moral appeals when we have, at the same time, I would say, a majority of Deputies convinced—taking this House as a sample of the country as a whole —that in practice the increase in the price of drink duties has done more than the appeals of the moral reformers. It is a sad thing to think that it should be so. I would very much prefer if we could, by moral appeals, do away with the necessity of trying to get reform in any other direction. It would say more for our humanity as a whole. We would be an exceptional and a wonderful people indeed, if by these appeals we were able to bring about the reform required.
It was wonderful, some years ago, when the power did not lie in the hands of the people themselves, that there was sufficient spirit in the young people, and in the members of the Gaelic League, to bring about reforms. It was a magnificent example, and it would be a shame for us to-day if we were to go back and to take any step which would tend to undo that work. Has it not worked well? What grievance can anyone show to exist as a result of the closing of the publichouses? That closing was brought about by the Gaelic League. There has not been a single argument put forward for the opening of the houses. Deputy Wolfe asked us if we were going to put St. Patrick's Day above the Lord's Day. If Deputy Wolfe means by that that the restrictions which it was thought wise to bring in for St. Patrick's Day should be extended to Sundays I am prepared to consider that question. But the Deputy must remember that if it was proposed to extend the restriction that applies to Good Friday, Christmas Day and St. Patrick's Day to Sunday I would have to consider that there are 52 of them in the year on which there might be certain hardships put on people travelling, whereas in the case of St. Patrick's Day there is only one day affected.
There was a special reason for singling out that one day. It was a national holiday. Our people are given to national rejoicing on that day. It was a day, all will admit, of greater temptation than other days, and the fact was that a lot of our people did succumb to the temptation. We could not afford in the position in which we were put by British propaganda before the world to allow our enemies to hold us up to odium because certain people on this day of National rejoicing were not able to control themselves as well say as Deputy J. Wolfe, Deputy Craig and Deputy J. X. Murphy. When I heard these Deputies saying how temperate they are, and what their attitude is, it reminded me of the lady preacher telling how she was converted. "When I found that my silks and satins were taking me to hell then I took them off and gave them to my sister." I see no reason whatever why we should close our eyes to the temptations that are there simply because we ourselves are able to stand up against them. These temptations are there. We know that. It is our duty not to put more temptations in the way of those who may succumb to them, but try, in so far as we can, to prevent that. We have a certain duty in that respect.
I do not believe in imposing restrictions by law if that can be avoided. I believe there is no right in fact in the community to impose laws interfering with liberty except this: when the liberty of one person becomes a licence to injure others the moment that liberty is abused, and it can be abused in the case of an individual, then society and the community as a whole have a perfect right to step in and say: "this liberty if used is going to injure us." We all know that the opening of publichouses and the temptation to drink did result in national injury. I am glad that Deputy O'Connell pointed to the fact that from our side we approach this as a national question—more from the point of view of it being a national question than from any other.
I feel that if I were to vote for this particular Bill I would be going back on the work of comrades during the last fifteen or twenty years. I feel it is due to these comrades, to men like Cathal Brugha who tried to get the Volunteers to be sober and to set an example of sobriety in this country— I believe that we would be going back on these people by voting for this Bill. No case has been made for the Bill.
I pointed out that our opposition to the Bill is not due to prejudice on our part against the licensed trade. I said on one occasion that they are powerful. There is probably no other interest in the State—in saying this Deputies know that I am stating the truth—who are so numerous on the one hand, so well organised and at the top have such wealthy individuals who are able to provide the necessary funds to conduct a campaign. They are very powerful, and they extend to all sections of the community. Their power is increased by the fact that present economic conditions have put a large number of them with their backs to the wall. I am sorry for their condition. I believe, if it is in the interests of the State and of the community as a whole to do away with redundant licensed houses, that we have a duty to the section of the community which we put out of business. I sympathise with them, but I do not think it is to their interest and certainly not to the interest of the country that we should go about it in this particular fashion.
We are told: "Oh, you are prepared to amend this Bill: there are amendments to this Bill that you are prepared to accept. Why not give it a Second Reading?" As I have said, we regard this as a St. Patrick's Day Opening Bill, and because of that we are going to oppose it. To us that is the principle of the Bill. If there is a Bill dealing with other matters let it come in on its own. There is no difficulty about the Government doing that. They are at perfect liberty to do so. Private Deputies like Deputy Mullins are at liberty to bring forward other Bills. We do not think that the only opportunity that is given to us here to deal with these matters is given in this particular Bill.
We are against this Bill because it is a St. Patrick's Day Opening Bill. We regard it, and it is intended to be a test of strength to see whether the influence of the licensed trade is sufficiently strong to break the ice, as Deputy Daly stated. It is to be only the breaking of the ice. It is the thin end of the wedge, as other people said. Very well, in whatever direction there is to be a break, we do not want a break in the national direction. We are not putting it above the Lord's Day at all, but the very same sentiment which would make a Christian ashamed and feel sorry if he saw even only a few men drunk on Good Friday or Christmas Day is there to operate in our hearts who dislike seeing people drunk on the national holiday, and it is from that point of view that we are going to vote against this particular measure. We have been asked also why not let the members of the Party have a free vote. We regard it as a national question. We believe that as a Party it is our duty to take a Party attitude upon it. We have discussed it thoroughly at our Party councils, and everyone who had any opinion on it was there to express that opinion. We have come to a decision as a Party decision in the national interests, and we are going to vote as a Party against the Bill on the Second Reading. We put our cards on the table. I have far more friends personally and politically in the licensed trade than I have in any temperance movement. The people who will vote for us in an election for the most part are not going to come from those who are in the temperance movement. We are doing this not because there is one Party strongly for it and another Party against it. We are doing this because we have come to the decision that it is in the best national interests that it should be done. We are putting our cards upon the table, and we take full responsibility for it before the people. Those who like it can vote for us, and those who think we are doing wrong can vote against us.
The Intoxicating Liquor Bill, from the view of an impartial outsider, I think, has gone to the heads of the men who have already addressed the House on the subject. I never, in my experience of the House, heard coming from one side of the House or another more confused or inebriated thinking and speaking than I have heard on this measure. To take the last speaker first, we find that Deputy de Valera is quite prepared to deal with a Bill having for its purpose the deletion of the enforced endorsement clause in the Bill. In the public interest he does that. Now, to whom does this apply? Does it apply to the general public? Is it anything to the advantage of the public? Does it not apply to people who are convicted in court—people who conduct a business that the State has control of— for misconducting themselves in their houses or in the conduct of their business, and the Fianna Fáil Party are prepared to back a Bill for the purpose of removing convictions which, in the public courts, have been proved against these people.
As a matter of explanation, may I make it clear to the Deputy that what I said was that the judge was compelled, whether he liked it or not, to endorse the licence?
He is not compelled if the offence is trivial.
If I am wrong in the law it is all right, but my understanding was that the judge, on a certain conviction, would be compelled to endorse the licence.
Not if it were a trivial offence.
I thought it was compulsory in all cases. If it were compulsory, my view was that the judge ought to be able to adjudge the penalty.
At any rate, the chief opposition to this Bill is prepared to back the people who have transgressed the law as against allowing some little freedom to the subject to get a drink on St. Patrick's Day. Deputy Aiken said that when he arrived in New York of the 6,000,000 people in New York he did not find one sober person. Deputy de Valera gave us another proof of the most extraordinary thinking that this Bill has produced in the House. He got up after Deputy Aiken. Both Deputies have vast experience in America. Deputy de Valera had been from one end to the other of the States, and he said here that in his opinion prohibition in America has been rather beneficial to the country as a whole.
I did not say that.
Whom are we to believe from the Opposition? I get back to what I said before, that for party reasons or otherwise those who are in opposition to this Bill have made the best case for bringing in here a far more comprehensive measure than the Bill that is before the House to-day. Deputy Fahy, who is generally sound in his arguments, was one of the enforcement of the endorsement clause. While he was prepared to amend the licensing laws he stressed that the Government Party had forestalled him in the matter.
Deputy de Valera cast a terrible reflection on his own men when he said that the closing of houses on St. Patrick's Day was done in an effort to get the Volunteers sober. I think that was a terrible reflection.
That is wrong. Withdraw.
He did not say that.
I stand corrected then.
It does not matter. Deputy O'Hanlon can twist anything he wants.
He stated here that Cathal Brugha was the principal advocate of temperance in the Volunteers and this was following the footsteps of Cathal Brugha, who tried to get the Volunteers sober.
They were too temperate for you.
If I have misinterpreted Deputy de Valera, let him correct me himself. I do not want to be unfair to Deputy de Valera. I only want to quote what he said. I was not in the Volunteers, and for that reason I do not want to have it suggested that the Volunteers were first an organised, drunken mob. They were no such thing. Deputy de Valera ought to be the first to contradict anyone who would suggest it. (Interruptions.) I was fighting for this country when a lot of you were somewhere else, though I did not take up a gun. Perhaps I was at the wrong end of the gun on a few occasions, but I was not afraid to stand in front of it. I move the adjournment of the debate.