The idea that this Oath business should receive final consideration now is, I am afraid, very optimistic. The cat has come home again. This Bill will not put an end to the Oath any more than the last Bill put an end to the Oath. I look forward to many happy introductions of further Bills by the Government to endeavour to drown this cat which refuses to be drowned. I do not think the efforts made by the Government to attempt to drown this cat have been successful or are likely to be successful for many years to come. The President, who has been in the last couple of days in a bad temper, has endeavoured repeatedly to put an end to the Oath which has to be taken by members of the Oireachtas. I remember some years ago the Minister for Agriculture and, I think, the Minister for Defence coming down this gangway carrying something which looked like one of the great pyramids of Egypt—a great pile of documents appealing for the abolition of the Oath. That did not work. The many efforts of the Government since then to abolish the Oath have not been successful, and this will not be successful. There are further provisions in the Constitution and in the Treaty which have not been repealed and, I think, as time goes on, the Government will find that they will have to bring in further legislation. It is unfortunate that the Government will not realise that this cat, which is a boomerang cat, is really a weapon, not in the hands of our enemies, but in the hands of the Irish nation. As it stands, the Oath which we are supposed to take is obviously an anachronism—actually a lie. We are asked to swear that Ireland is a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. That is not true. The Vice-President might as well hang up on Nelson Pillar every time a new Dáil meets a notice to the effect that "England expects that every Irishman this day shall swear a lie," because the Oath as it stands is untrue. That being so, it is obvious that the retention of this Oath is not to our disadvantage, but to the disadvantage of the neighbouring country. I foresee the day when the British Government will be very anxious to persuade us at all costs not to take this Oath. Unfortunately, the Government do not realise that fact, and they continue to try to drown the cat. The cat comes back, and I shall have pleasure in speaking on the next occasion when the cat comes back again.
Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1933—Final Stages.
Yesterday, I think that, the Vice-President, speaking on this, obviously—again I do not want to misrepresent him—misunderstood the situation which would exist if this Bill was passed. Section 2, I think it is, provides that the deposit shall be paid back. The Vice-President regarded the withholding of the deposit as a sort of political test. The phrase, "political test," as used by the present Government, is a thing which has either no meaning at all, or some meaning the words do not simply. As was pointed out to him yesterday, when this Bill passes anyone can go up for election who can hand in a deposit of £100, and if elected he can claim the £100 and £360 per year and does not need to be in this country at all. The Vice-President regards it as something unfair and in the nature of a political test to say that a man should not get the £100 back merely because he refuses to recognise the right of the Irish people to elect a Government. At the same time, in order that this pure-minded patriot should not have to pay for his patriotism, we take every precaution to see that he does not lose his £100, and as a result of our taking that precaution he is to get £360 from the Irish people, whose right to have a Government, he refuses to recognise I should like to know from the Vice-President is that an unfair interpretation of the position that is going to exist when the Bill passes. That seems to me to be the case. I do not see what there is in the way of a political test. The man goes up; there is no oath to be taken; he can go up and claim the right to come in here to legislate and to make laws binding on the conscience of the Irish people, but the Government thinks it would be a scandalous thing that his own conscience should be in any way bound. He must not risk losing £100 if he puts down a deposit. Consequently, we change the law to decide that such a man should draw £360 a year for the five years or whatever time the Dáil may last. It seems to me a perfectly ridiculous situation.
This Bill is consequential on the passage of the Bill by the Oireachtas abolishing what was known as the Oath or test. This simply seeks to make operative, so far as the necessary procedure is concerned, the consequences of the passage of that previous measure. This Bill is not a Bill, as Deputy Esmonde suggested, to put an end to the Oath or test. It is merely the implementing of the Act already passed by the Oireachtas abolishing the test imposed by the Constitution. I do not agree that there ought to be any kind of test for any member elected by a constituency to sit in this House.
He draws £360 a year.
If he gets enough people in a constituency to vote for him that should be sufficient for us. I do agree that if he does not take his seat and attend this House he should not be able to draw whatever emoluments come from being a member of the House, and a Bill will be introduced at an early date to deal with that aspect of the matter.
Will the Minister indicate what he means by an early date?
Not before the adjournment.
Before Christmas?
Yes, before Christmas. If that Bill is passed by this House the question that Deputy Fitzgerald mentions about paying people for services they do not render will not arise. I do not see any point in Deputy Esmonde's speech so far as this Bill is concerned. This Bill is merely implementing an Act already passed. If it be found necessary at any time to introduce further measures for this purpose such Bills will be introduced. If it is at any time found that there is any flaw that will be done, and Deputy Esmonde has not suggested that any flaw is likely to be found in that Act. It is quite possible that in some future time somebody may propose a further test, and further changes of the nature of what I had the privilege of introducing here may have to be made. All this particular Bill is doing is merely giving practical effect to and implementing an Act which has already been passed by this House.
Any test for the Communists?