Very good. I beg to move the motion standing in my name:—
That the Minister for Local Government be suspended from the service of the Dáil until such time as he shall have made suitable apology to the Dáil for the adverse criticism of the conduct of the Chair made publicly by him in his speech at the Engineers' Hall, Dublin, and reported in the daily Press on Monday, 28th April, 1947.
The motion concerns one net point, that is, in what circumstances and in what fashion the conduct of the Chair here can be criticised by a member of the House? From our point of view there are two principles involved. First, a decision of the Chair must be obeyed. Secondly, a decision of the Chair can only be questioned in the most formal manner here by a motion put down and discussed in this House. Over the last 25 years, since the establishment of this Dáil, we have carried on here through difficult times with remarkable order and with remarkable achievement in that matter, and we have been able to do so because during those 25 years these two principles have been accepted that, whether we like the Ceann Comhairle or not, or whether we like his rulings or not, or whether his rulings are right or wrong, when the Ceann Comhairle rules, we accept his ruling and that, where any objection is taken to his rulings, the only way in which objection can be expressed and the only way in which the opinion of the Dáil can be taken on his rulings or his conduct is by the moving of a motion here. Now, the attitude of the Government seems to challenge these two principles. I think it must be unprecedented in any kind of democratic kind of Parliament and, as far as I can see, if it is so and if the Government do reject these two principles, then the results for this House and for the individual members of this House and for the country's business which depends upon the orderly and effective carrying out of this House, are really unforeseeable.
This Assembly is one for discussion and deliberation leading up to decision in matters that in a sovereign and supreme way affect not only the actual details of the lives of our people in many ways but affect the atmosphere in which they work. The Constitution establishes the Legislature. When issuing their new version of the Constitution the Government put in a Preamble in order to lift to a high and lofty plane our whole approach to our public and political work. The Preamble says:—
"In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution."
The Legislature here is based upon the will expressed by vote of every citizen of 21 years of age and upwards and the electoral scheme provides for proportional representation so that even small sections of our people may be adequately represented here and may have their voice heard. So that many voices blend here to express our national feelings, our national desires, our national will with regard to the ordering of our people's lives politically, socially and economically. When establishing the position of Ceann Comhairle, the Office of the Chair, to preside over the discussions, deliberations and the formal taking of decisions here, one Deputy of the House is selected and asked to undertake that vital function and those onerous duties. From the very beginning it has been accepted here that his ruling went unchallenged until such time as by formal action here, by formal motion, he could be criticised. Now we are apparently asked to believe that because no written rule of some kind or another can be found anywhere to show that there may not be done outside the House what may not be done inside the House, there is no need for a Deputy who has vehemently and critically attacked the conduct of the Chair to come in here to the House and to say that he is sorry for it.
I am not appealing here to privilege. I am not appealing here even to precedent. I am appealing to our sense of our responsibilities here, to our sense of how business should be carried on here, to our sense of the responsibilities that are borne by the Chair. I am asking, how can we with any sense of our own personal dignity and responsibility or of the dignity of this sovereign and supreme institution in the minds of our people, preserve ourselves and our sense of responsibility and do our work if not only an individual Deputy but a Minister of State can go outside and before public audience in a most studied way challenge and criticise the conduct of the Chair here?
In the earliest days of this House, when on the 29th February, 1924, a Minister refused, inside the House, to obey the orders of the Chair, Mr. Cosgrave, as then President, spoke these words — column 1605 Official Report, 29th February, 1924:—
"The Ceann Comhairle respects and protects the liberty of every member of this House, and this House must be the guardian and the protector of the rights of the Ceann Comhairle, and this House must interpret, and ought to interpret, whether or not a matter which a member, be he Minister or otherwise, makes use of in this House, reflects or not upon the Ceann Comhairle. We ought not to put him in the position that he must, of himself, defend his office. His office is a high and an important office in this State."
On the very threshold of the beginning of our work here when inside the House the Minister was refusing to accept the ruling of the Chair Mr. Cosgrave spoke these words and, in order to make it clear what he meant by them and what he stood for, he adjourned the House for an hour so that everybody, including the Minister in question, might be able to consider what it meant to the House to have the House respected here, to have the Chair protected here. I am asking now that the implications of what are said outside the House be taken into consideration here by every member of this House and that we face our responsibility in protecting the Chair here because, in protecting the Chair here, we are protecting ourselves and our own individual right in the fullness of discussion—discussion which is a contribution to deliberation and to subsequent decisions. We may have all the freedom that we require restricted only by the opinion of the Chair as to whether we are exceeding the freedom necessary to have proper and full deliberation and true and effective decisions. We are not going to defend that by a rule if we cannot defend it now by our own decision here. We are not going to defend it next week if we have no opinion as to whether it was right last week to attack the Chair in the degrading way in which the Chair was attacked. Speaking at the Engineers' Hall the Minister for Local Government attacked the Chair on three occasions during his speech. As I said yesterday, I am concerned here only with the Minister's criticism of the Chair. First he said — I am reading from the Irish Press of Monday last, 28th April, 1947:—
"As it is, the Assembly is becoming a place where Parliamentary immunity is availed of to license slander and where the coarse tongue of a corner-boy can precipitate a brawl, with but the weakest of intervention from the Chair."
—"with but the weakest of intervention from the Chair"! Later on:—
"I cannot help reflecting how regrettable it is that those responsible for controlling the proceedings of Dáil Éireann should have permitted him and his friends to cover their contempt for the courts with the privileges that attach to proceedings of that Assembly."
And finally:—
"Unfortunately, those responsible had been allowed too much licence by those sitting in the Chair."
Yesterday morning, towards 11 o'clock, I gave notice through the Government Whip to the Taoiseach and the Minister that I proposed to raise this matter at Question Time yesterday. I really did feel that it was only necessary to mention the matter to have an apology forthcoming. I did not know yesterday where we were likely to be led and I do not know now where we are likely to go when the Minister by his attitude and the Government by their support of him have led us to the position that this matter has to be discussed by motion. The Ceann Comhairle is the sole custodian of order in the House. His rulings must be obeyed. We can only criticise or challenge the Chair by a motion formally put down here. There is no more vital function served by any official or by any person or by any officer of State in this State than the function served here by the man who sits in the Chair. He is the whole linchpin of order here and, being so, he is the whole linchpin of anything like independent discussion.
Many voices, as I have said, are sent here to represent the many aspects of our national life, to represent every single citizen of this nation and to see that their natural rights and every possible freedom that can be guaranteed for them for their own development and the development of this nation are safeguarded. They can only be safeguarded here by discussion and by deliberation. Because of the many channels into which discussion can run, and because of the many side issues that may arise, we require one experienced and responsible mind to say from time to time what is in order in discussion and what is not. If that mind can be either ruled against by the majority of this House or controlled by a committee whether either directly or by orders laid down, then this House can have no life and we cannot make use to the best of our ability of the intelligence and the various outlooks and experience that we all bring here to pool together in discussion and deliberation for the general good of the country. The motion which stands in my name is an appeal to decency. It is an appeal to intelligence. We cannot carry on our business here, we cannot do our business here to the full extent of our powers and to the most ultimate clearness of our minds unless we realise what the position of the Ceann Comhairle is. If, yesterday as well as to-morrow, the man who occupies the Chair and fulfils the vital functions the Chair does for us can be insulted in a deliberate, systematic and sustained way in the way in which the Chair has been insulted by the Minister for Local Government in his speech on Saturday night last, then we are not a Parliament at all, and all we can say about order, all we can say about the dignity of the individual, all that we ought to express here in a Catholic country in our institution is mere hypocrisy.
I hesitate even yet to think that the Minister, if he calmly and impartially and humbly considers the matter, will decline to apologise for his action on Saturday night last. I think that, in spite of the difficulties that for him, as for us, have arisen by the delay there has been since the matter was mentioned—and I realise that grave difficulties have been created for him—it would be a great achievement for the nation and no one would think a scrap less of him; on the contrary, they would feel that the Minister was capable of realising even at a late hour the importance of certain fundamental things. If, even now, he would say that he appreciates what the Government appreciates in the last part of the amendment to my motion, if he would end this matter by offering an apology for the critical words spoken, in the way in which they were spoken and published in the Press in the way in which they were published, in the Engineers' Hall on Saturday night last, I feel it would be proof that there was something in the Irish people and something in this Assembly that could rise above our present difficulties, that could face, in a Parliament where order was understood and appreciated, any difficulties, whether nationally or internationally, we may be facing in these difficult days and in the difficult years that seem to be in front of the world.