I assume that this Bill deals only with the Constitution and any retrospective legislation will have to be introduced separately.
Constitution (Amendment No.22) Bill, 1933—Committee and Final Stages.
Bill passed through Committee without amendment and reported.
With reference to the remarks made by the Deputy now and earlier in to-day's proceedings, I have only to say that if any appeal be made before this Bill becomes law we will take whatever steps may be necessary, whether by legislation or otherwise, to nullify and render ineffective any finding of the Privy Council purporting to reverse a decision of the Supreme Court, or to alter such a decision in any way.
Question—"That the Bill be received for Final Consideration"—agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Nunc dimittis.
The President has made a statement of his intention. It has been the practice in this House during the last ten years that whenever the Privy Council endeavoured to give advice with reference to a decision of the Supreme Court the Dáil should take action by way of legislation to confirm or declare the law as being the law in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court. There has been a case recently—it occurred during the last few weeks—in which the Privy Council has once again given permission to appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court of this country. Unless the legislation is introduced immediately it is quite possible that the Privy Council may decide the matter and give advice before this Dáil has had time to take legislative action, particularly in view of the President's announcement that the House is going to adjourn for a month.
I have had occasion to study the political activities of the Privy Council for the last ten years. I have noticed that on many occasions their Lordships have adopted, with reference to the politics of this country, a very mischievous attitude. I would not be surprised if they tried on this occasion to create unnecessary complications by postponing the action of this Assembly. For that reason I would like the President, if possible, to introduce legislation immediately in order that we should not have to introduce retrospective legislation after the fait accompli had been brought about by the action of the Privy Council. It might have been done in this Bill by a retrospective clause stating that the Bill would have effect as from the date of its introduction, but that is, as we all admit, a bad Parliamentary principle. I would like the Executive Council to forestall any action of the Privy Council and to act now instead of waiting until the Privy Council have carried out what can only be described as provocative action on their part in order to try to complicate the political and constitutional relations between the two countries.
In the past, with regard to this country, the Privy Council has acted in a very irresponsible manner. It has been aided and abetted by a few politicians both in this Oireachtas and in the House of Commons. The claims of the Privy Council to interfere with the supremacy of our courts has long ago ceased to exist. That position was brought about by the action of the late Vice-President, Kevin O'Higgins. To a certain extent, one might say this Bill is an attempt on the part of this Government to take credit for the work done by the late Kevin O'Higgins. As far as I remember, there was only one member of this Dáil, that is, the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Norton, who ever supported this appeal to the Privy Council against the decision of the Supreme Court of this country. He is the only member, past or present, of this Assembly who ever stood up in the Dáil to support appeal to the Privy Council; so that this Bill must be a bitter pill for him to swallow. Otherwise there is unanimity amongst all parties in the determination to uphold and maintain the supremacy of the Supreme Courts of this country. We are now witnessing the final abrogation of the claim made by certain members of the Privy Council who acted, I think, generally from a semipolitical standpoint. I certainly have no regret at the passage of this Bill. I do not want that their last action should cause any further complications and, therefore, I would sooner that the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Executive Council, would introduce immediately legislation validating the decision of the Supreme Court of this country in a case which is under consideration at the moment. That would be the logical method to adopt and, also, it would be in conformity with the precedent of this House. I think to wait until these members of the Privy Council have made more trouble would only be playing into their hands and, therefore, causing unnecessary disturbance. I urge the Attorney-General to introduce immediate legislation to deal with the particular case before the Privy Council at the moment.
In connection with this form of abolition of the Privy Council's jurisdiction which has practically been in existence now for a number of years, I should like to know from the President whether there is any idea in his mind, and that of the Executive Council, as to enlarging the number of judges who at present constitute the Supreme Court. I think it is unsatisfactory and undesirable to have the laws of this country definitely laid down, as in a good many cases they have been, by two out of three members of the court.
Deputy Esmonde does not often speak in this House, apart from the silly annual harangue which he makes upon the effigy of the lady which adorns the front avenue of Leinster House. One would expect therefore that he had plenty of time to be accurate in the speech which he has made to this House. As far as I understand the Deputy, I think he suggested that I supported in this House appeals to the Privy Council or made some defence of such appeals. The Deputy made that statement and so I would like him to produce any volume of the records of this House which would in any way identify any speech of mine that would amount to an endorsement of continuing the right of appeal to the British Privy Council by citizens of the Saorstát. So far as the Privy Council is concerned, and many other trappings and trimmings of the Treaty are concerned, I always stood for their abolition. I think the President was quite right in telling Deputy MacDermot that he could give no guarantee that this was the last Constitution (Amendment) Bill. I should like to see many more introduced in order to ensure that many other objectionable features of the Treaty would be removed so that it could be used, as many prominent people who originally defended it indicated that it would be used, as a stepping-stone to the something greater and better to which we are entitled.
Deputy Esmonde in his speech referred, presumably, to the Wigg-Cochrane case, affecting two civil servants, and which came before the Supreme Court to settle certain declarations of the High Court. Most people think that appeal would have been unnecessary if the Cumann na nGaedheal Government at that time had been prepared to play the game and to honour their bonds—a practice which Deputy Cosgrave so frequently told us was the national characteristic. There never would have been any action by these two civil servants in the High Court were it not for the fact that the Cumann na nGaedheal Minister for Finance of the day wanted to dispose of their Treaty rights which the Minister's Party had declared in 1922 that they would honour. Perfectly prepared they were to honour it in so far as it meant paying huge sums of money to the British, but not to the extent of guaranteeing to anybody, such as these civil servants, that their conditions of service would not be interfered with. And if the Cumann na nGaedheal Government of that day had not resorted to those miserable tactics there never would have been occasion for an appeal by Wigg and Cochrane to the Privy Council.
What did the Irish courts decide?
If the Deputy will have a little patience I shall tell him. The Irish courts, in the Wigg-Cochrane case, decided definitely all the points in favour of Wigg and Cochrane. Does Deputy Esmonde deny that? The Supreme Court decided against Wigg and Cochrane by a majority of two to one. The position, therefore, as the case left this country, was that two Irish judges decided in favour of Wigg and Cochrane and two against. These two civil servants, therefore, decided to prosecute their appeal to the Privy Council, but they had no authority whatever, and no endorsement whatever, by me or by any union with which I am associated. These two civil servants pursued that course all through and no Irish organisation was committed to the course they adopted. They went to the Privy Council and the Privy Council restored the judgment of Mr. Justice Meredith, which the Cumann na nGaedheal Government appealed against. The only thing that case established was that Judge Meredith's judgment was upheld by the Privy Council as a much better judgment than that of the Supreme Court. It would have been better for the Cumann na nGaedheal Government if they had honoured Mr. Justice Meredith's judgment. If they had not adopted the mean and miserable course, in the first instance, which they did there never would have been any need for those two civil servants to go to the High Court here or to the Privy Council in Great Britain. But they got no endorsement from me and there never has been any endorsement by me of such action. If Deputy Esmonde says that I defended the Privy Council, here or elsewhere, Deputy Esmonde is making a statement which, if he has any regard for facts, he must know to be a deliberate misstatement and a deliberate misrepresentation. So far as I am concerned I support the Bill wholeheartedly. If it had been introduced the day after the Treaty was signed and the Constitution passed I would have supported it in the same way. Deputy Esmonde, even if he is not very voluble in this House, should at least endeavour to be accurate.
On a point of personal explanation; the Deputy who has just sat down stated that I made a deliberate misstatement. I can only say that his speech has completely proved exactly what I wished to say— that he has approved of the repudiation of the authority of the Supreme Court. He has upheld a decision in the High Court as against a decision of the Supreme Court.
Am I entitled to reply to this?
That is not a point of personal explanation.
I only rise to say one word elicited by what Deputy Norton has just said. Deputy Norton has expressed the hope that these measures would be only the forerunners of a long series of measures for, as he expressed it, changing anything in the Treaty that we dislike. I do not think that ought to be allowed to pass entirely without comment, because I cannot conceive a policy more entirely stupid and disastrous. There may be something to be said, from the point of view of Deputies opposite, for ignoring and repudiating the Treaty and declaring a republic straight away, but I cannot imagine anything less intelligent or less patriotic than to keep the Treaty in existence for the purpose of chipping bits off it whenever you want to create popular excitement in your favour.
I had no intention of making any speech on this matter, but certain things have been said which might leave my attitude liable to be misunderstood, and therefore I do wish to make a few remarks. It is not the case that the steps which have been taken on various occasions to alter certain things which were laid down in the Constitution have not been objected to. On every occasion when this particular part of the Constitution was attacked protests, were made by the Independent Party, and by almost all its members. Speaking for myself, that was not from any predilection for this particular proviso. I attach no value to it. I cannot imagine myself as being a party to any appeal to the Privy Council, but the fact remains— and it is a very simple fact—that this is part of a bargain. I do not refer to the bargain made with the British people; I do refer to the bargain made with your own nationals. The support of those nationals was obtained to the Treaty very largely because certain concessions were made by those who were going against the British Government at the time. This was one of those concessions. It was unpleasant to those who agreed to it, but when concessions are made in a bond it is not an honest way of dealing with that bond immediately to set yourself out to remove from the bargain—because you have the power —anything that you do not like in that bargain. That is not the way I understand a bargain at any rate.
I am speaking as a national of this State and it is a fact which I cannot prove, but which I know, and which everyone in this House probably knows equally well, that the acquiescence in the Treaty of a very considerable number of people in this country was obtained because certain concessions, of which this was considered by some to be an important part, were included. That acquiescence, I think, has been honourably adhered to by them ever since. They have done their best, whatever it may have been worth, to make the Treaty position a workable one. Ever since then attempts have been made to whittle away the concessions which were made in order to secure their acquiescence, or at any rate without which that acquiescence would not have been obtained. You probably know that lack of that acquiescence might have led to no settlement being reached in 1921. I cannot say whether it would or not, but it is probable. I am not to be taken as agreeing with this measure. I think I speak in that connection on behalf of the Independents. I did not intend speaking on this at all. I was prepared to let things pass, but when it was said definitely that I had never opposed this before or that no opposition had been offered to it, I did not wish that to be understood by the members of this House. I do not want to stand here in any false colours. I oppose this Bill because it shows that we do not know what a bargain means. Of course a great majority of the House is in favour of passing it. Every step you take in that direction —I say this merely as a warning—puts further from you what I believe is your ideal, a united Ireland by consent of the members of all Ireland. Whittle away this concession and every other concession until you get the Treaty to the form in which you want it, and what chance have you of making any bargain in the future with those who disagree with you? I want to be quite clear on this point. I do not agree with this Bill, not because I myself care anything for this particular proviso, but because it is removing from a bargain a definite part of it which secured the consent of the other parties to that bargain. I am not talking about a bargain with another country at all; I am talking about a bargain amongst ourselves.
The President to conclude.
With regard to the statement which was made by Deputy Esmonde, I can assure him that we are not unmindful of the circumstances which he has mentioned. I think that the expression of intention which I have made ought to be sufficient. Should it not prove so, to make good that intention it may be necessary to summon the Dáil at an earlier period than the period intended. If that course should be necessary it will be taken, but I hope it will not be necessary.
With reference to increasing the numbers in the Supreme Court, that matter is also being considered by the Executive Council. I do not think I am exactly in a position to say what action will finally be taken, but it has been the subject of consideration, and the point of view expressed by the Deputy has been taken into account. The Courts of Justice Bill will, I think, be before the Dáil in a short time, and that matter will be dealt with under that Bill. With regard to the remarks of Deputy Thrift, I have heard a reference to some bargain. I wish members on the opposite side who know more about this than I do would speak on it. I myself have never seen at any time any evidence of such a bargain as has been mentioned.
I am sure the President knows of it. It took place in London at the time when the Treaty was agreed on.
I can honestly tell the Deputy I do not know of any such bargain. I did hear of some guarantees with reference to the Second House or something of that sort. I heard of these at one period, but I heard of no bargain of any kind that touched the question of the Privy Council. As far as we are concerned, at any rate, we have gone to our people on a definite programme. We came into office having gone to our people on that programme. We put it clearly before them. All our actions are taken in consonance with that programme and in consonance with the mandate which we got from the people. This Bill was introduced here in accordance with that mandate. Further, as far as we are concerned—and it has already been suggested by members of the House— the action we are taking now is action that was contemplated by our predecessors. They took action by legislation which did, in fact, make the Supreme Court here sovereign. Consequently, I do not think it is right to suggest that we are parties to breaking any bargain.
May I point out that I did not make any Party speech? I referred to the action of what was practically the whole House.
At any rate, as far as we are concerned, we are representing the people of this country. We believe that our people have a right to be completely free and that no outside body has any right whatever to dictate to them in regard to internal policies. We intend, as long as we are in office, to proceed along these lines. If there are any bargains standing in the way of the sovereignty of our people they have got to go. That is our attitude, at any rate, and that is the spirit in which I move that the Bill do now pass.
Question put.
I do not challenge a division but it is not agreed.
Does the Deputy wish to have his dissent recorded?
If that is the only way of doing it, yes.
I also wish to add an expression of my dissent.
Question declared carried.