Criticism of the Chair—Motion.

General Mulcahy

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.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I formally second the motion.

The Taoiseach

I beg to move as an amendment:

To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute the following:—

"the Dáil is of opinion that it is desirable that the obligations and privileges of members should be more adequately defined, and that appropriate action to that end should be taken without delay;

that in view of the fact that, prior to the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle on 29th instant, there has been no rule or resolution of the House or ruling of the Ceann Comhairle which declared it to be a breach of privilege for a member to criticise, outside the House, the conduct of the Chair, the Dáil does not agree that the speech of the Minister for Local Government can, in the circumstances, be held to constitute such a breach;

that the Dáil accepts the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle, above referred to, and decides that, henceforth, adverse criticism of the conduct of the Chair, made outside the House, shall be a breach of privilege."

The Deputy who has moved the motion gave expression to very admirable sentiments. My only regret is that they did not cover a wider field than the institution here. We have here three or four great institutions of State. We have the President, we have the two Houses of the Oireachtas——

General Mulcahy

On a point of order. Are we discussing the Presidential office?

An Ceann Comhairle

I want to hear the sentence finished. We are discussing one matter.

The Taoiseach

I am not discussing the Presidential office. I am mentioning a number of important institutions in the State. I said that we have a number of important institutions in the State upon whose prestige generally the well-being of our nation depends. I think, a Chinn Chomhairle, I may be permitted to enumerate them.

General Mulcahy

Again on a point of order. If the enumeration of the various institutions of the State is for the purpose of discussing the kind of attacks that can be made on these and the importance of their prestige in relation to the country's business generally, is that in order on a matter that is concerned with the net point of the Chair here?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach has not started to debate any attack on such institutions. That is not the purpose of the amendment, I presume.

The Taoiseach

I have simply regretted that the Deputy's sentiments in regard to the position that this House should occupy and the respect which members of the Dáil and of the public generally should give to the Chairman of this Assembly had not covered a wider field.

General Mulcahy

Again on a point of order.

——by the Leader of the Opposition who moved this motion and by other Deputies. I do believe that we ought to respect our own institutions——

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

What is before the House? Is there not an amendment as well as a motion?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, and I understand the Taoiseach is speaking to the amendment.

General Mulcahy

Is the Taoiseach in order, in speaking to the amendment, in discussing the attitude of news-papers or persons, other than Deputies, to the Chair?

Mr. Moran

He is entitled to speak on the question of a breach of privilege.

An Ceann Comhairle

If every such reference in every speech were ruled out of order, the Chair would have a busy time. I think the trend of the Taoiseach's speech is in order.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Even when discussing a matter which has been decided already by this House?

An Ceann Comhairle

I would like to refer to one thing, and that is that for two years past the Chair has not given a ruling on any matter, if one of two Deputies was present, without his ruling being canvassed.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Now we know where we are.

The Taoiseach

I say, therefore, in support of this amendment, that it is desirable that the obligations and privileges of members should be more adequately defined and that appropriate action to that effect should be taken without delay. The appropriate action can follow if we get co-operation from other Deputies, Deputies in the Opposition Benches, in regard to setting up the committee which the Dáil decided should be set up.

I now come to the second paragraph which says:—

"that in view of the fact that, prior to the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle on the 29th instant, there has been no rule or resolution of the House or ruling of the Ceann Comhairle which declared it to be a breach of privilege for a member to criticise, outside the House, the conduct of the Chair, the Dáil does not agree that the speech of the Minister for Local Government can, in the circumstances, be held to constitute such a breach."

In this Parliament, that question may have to be asked. In Parliaments over which a different kind of Prime Minister presides, the matter never arises.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Aiken)

The Prime Minister does not preside.

Mr. Dillon

As Leader of the House, he ought to. In this House, he habitually abrogates that duty.

Mr. Aiken

The Ceann Comhairle presides.

Mr. Dillon

I shall oppose the third paragraph of the amendment because the third paragraph envisages a new ruling made by the Ceann Comhairle on the 29th April. No such new ruling was made. On yesterday, the Ceann Comhairle, by implication, ruled that a breach of privilege had been committed. That was not a new ruling. It was a reference by the Ceann Comhairle to the paragraph which I have read out from Erskine May. It is a well-established practice and privilege of this and every other Parliament that members, no matter on which side of the House they sit, shall not libel or slander the Ceann Comhairle, the Speaker or the President of the House of Representatives, or whatever the presiding officer may be called in the legislature over which he presides.

Mr. Aiken

Or the Chief Justice.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Make a record of it.

Mr. Aiken

I am recording it.

Sir, are speakers in the House going to have your protection against this?

An Ceann Comhairle

I approach this whole problem, however, from a different aspect to the approach made by Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Dillon. I think that there are some problems in this world that are not capable of solution, and I think that the problem confronting this House to-day is one that is not capable of solution so long as the present Minister for Local Government is a member of the House. I do not think votes of censure on the present Minister for Local Government will change his attitude in the slightest or affect the slightest improvement in his manners or his respect for order, his respect for dignity or his respect for the decorum of the House. I do not think rebukes by the Taoiseach have the slightest effect on the Minister for Local Government. I do not think the fact that he is known as an abusive public representative throughout the country makes the slightest impression on the Minister for Local Government. He will run, I think, his rough rude course to the end of time.

For myself, as I have said, I have often been the subject of abuse and vilification by the present Minister for Local Government, and I probably will occupy a prominent place in his next litany of abuse whenever he cares to go to a céilidhe and make whoopee on a Saturday night. I do not mind that in the slightest. I regard that particular kind of criticism by the Minister for Local Government, from one with his tortuous mind, as a recommendation of a reasonable standard of rectitude. So far as I am concerned, I do not mind in the slightest what the Minister for Local Government says about me. It does not mean a thraneen to me because my views of that gentleman, the Minister for Local Government, are well known.

Mr. Lemass

We have had, however, raised in this discussion matters of importance which it is necessary to settle. Of the many foolish propositions which have come, from time to time, from Deputy Dillon, I do not think that we have ever had any one that was so completely ridiculous as his suggestion that the obligations and privileges of members in this House are to be found defined in some privately produced work of reference and not in the rules of the House, adopted by resolution. Let me say, for my part, that I do not regard myself as bound by any rules in regard to my conduct in the Dáil or outside it, except those made by this House as interpreted and applied by the Chair. I do not think there is any other member of the House bound by any other rules than those. I cannot understand the mentality of a Deputy elected to this House who considers that these rules are to be applied subject to some principles defined by a student of the rules and Standing Orders of other Parliaments.

There is provision in the Standing Orders which makes the Chair the sole judge of order in the House. Whenever a matter of procedure arises which is not covered by an existing Standing Order, the ruling of the Chair upon that point is accepted unless and until a new Order is made governing that matter. It is a fact, whether Deputies like it or not, that there has been no rule of this House, no resolution of the House, no ruling of the Chair, on the subject of criticism outside this House of the conduct of the Chair by a member or by any other person. I think there should be such a rule. The fact is, however, that there was no such rule and consequently there can be no question here of a breach of the rule. We will define for ourselves what our rules are to be, what our procedure is to be, what the privileges and rights and obligations of our members are to be. We think that the time has come when all that question of privileges and obligations should be considered anew. We brought a proposition to that effect here and we got from the Deputies opposite, not merely a debate which touched a new low level in personal abuse, but a refusal on their part to co-operate.

I think Deputy Mulcahy knows quite well that his motion is groundless, that there is no rule of the House or ruling of the Chair which has been broken, because he made it quite clear that he was not appealing to rules. He was appealing, he said, to our self-respect, to our sense of decency and fair play. I am very glad to have Deputies opposite appealing to our self-respect and to our sense of decency and fair play. It is a welcome reformation on the part of Deputy Mulcahy. I hope that his appeal to us to conduct ourselves here with a sense of decency and fair play, and the endorsement of that appeal by Deputy Dillon, indicate an intention on their part so to behave themselves in future. But it is not so long since we had an illustration of Deputy Mulcahy's conception of decency and fair play.

Mr. D. Morrissey

On a point of order. Are we discussing the motion or the amendment or what Deputy Mulcahy or Deputy Dillon say? Can the Minister for Local Government cease prompting, even on a point of order? He is only embarrassing his colleague. His colleague is well able to speak.

Mr. Lemass

What exactly is the point of order?

Mr. Lemass

I was not quoting that for the purpose of reopening the discussion on the scandalous behaviour of the Deputies opposite last week. I am coming now to the ruling of the Chair and Deputy Mulcahy's attitude to it. The Taoiseach intervened at that stage to ask:—

"Is this an attack on the Chief Justice?"

General Mulcahy replied:—

"Certainly and a deserved attack on the Chief Justice."

After some further interchanges between the Taoiseach, Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Dillon the Chair intervened, his intervention being in the form of a question:—

"Was there not a rule that members of the judiciary could be attacked only in this House in a definite way by resolution?"

Deputy Mulcahy continued, showing his respect for the rulings of the Chair and his high sense of decency.

General Mulcahy

Given by way of question.

Mr. Lemass

Is the Deputy criticising the manner in which the Chair did its work?

General Mulcahy

Are rulings of the Chair to be in the form of question and can anything put in the form of a question by the Chair be regarded as a ruling?

Mr. Dillon: Shame on the man who did it.

An Ceann Comhairle: I do not think the Deputy is justified in stating that the Chief Justice entered into a conspiracy.

Mr. Dillon: What am I to say?"

General Mulcahy

On a point of order, Sir. It was ruled before that these matters were not to be discussed on this and if the Minister wants to pretend that he is going to discuss a ruling of the Chair I submit on a point of order that he should quote the ruling of the Chair first and have it accepted by you that it is a ruling and that it is in order to discuss it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would ask the Minister to get away from the subject of last week's debate.

Mr. Lemass

I am not discussing the issue of the debate last week. We are discussing now the question of the authority of the Chair, the respect due to the rulings of the Chair, the exhortations we have had from Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Dillon that we should conduct our proceedings here in accordance with decency and fair play and with due respect for the rulings of the Chair. I say that that is the most utter hypocrisy on the part of both Deputies.

General Mulcahy

On a point of order. I asked that if we are discussing these matters it will be mentioned what are the rulings of the Chair and that you will rule on whether they are rulings and whether it is in order to discuss them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If there are rulings of the Chair they do not need any further confirmation from me on this point. I would ask the Minister to desist and to confine himself either to the motion or the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

Yes, Sir. There is nobody in this House who has shown more consistent respect for the rulings of the Chair or more consistently endeavoured to govern his conduct by the rulings of the Chair than I have. I have been perturbed, as other Deputies have been perturbed, by the persistent undermining of the prestige of the House and the general lowering of the standard of debate here by Deputies Dillon, Morrissey, McGilligan and some other Deputies during recent months.

I think I am entitled to claim the right to speak to the amendment. So far as Deputy Mulcahy's motion is concerned, I do not know whether it was some conception of political advantage or just sheer audacity which prompted the members of the Party opposite to submit a motion behind which they could pretend to stand as the defenders of the authority of the Chair. If the authority of the Chair has been reduced in this Dáil, they and their would-be associate, Deputy Dillon, have done more to that end than any other group in this House. Everybody in the House knows that to be true. They can only hope to deceive people outside the House who have little knowledge of what takes place here. In so far as there was criticism of the conduct of the Chair outside the House by the Minister for Local Government, there was no rule against it and it is, consequently, impossible for the Dáil to decide that in voicing that criticism a rule was broken. There never was until yesterday a ruling of the Chair on that matter, or any indication to members of the Dáil as to what their conduct should be in that relation.

An indication has been given by the Chair now and we are not merely willing but very anxious that that indication should be accepted by the Dáil in a formal and definite manner and that is why the amendment to this motion which the Taoiseach has moved concludes by an indication of the willingness of the Dáil to accept the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle and to decide that henceforth adverse criticism of the conduct of the Chair made outside this House should be a breach of privilege. We know that criticism of the conduct of the Chair within the House is a breach of privilege. We do not get criticism expressed in so many words, but we see it in the attitude of Deputy Morrissey, Deputy Dillon, and a few other members opposite. I think this debate will serve one good purpose if these Deputies will make a mental resolve to conduct themselves in future in this House with a sense of decency and fair play and with respect for the rulings of the Chair. It will be a very welcome change.

I think there are other matters in respect to which the existing rules and precedents of the House are inadequately defined. Might I remind Deputies opposite that their co-operation is desirable, if not necessary, if we are to make good that deficiency? Might I remind them, however, that they refused to co-operate in making good that deficiency, refused to associate themselves with other Parties in the House in an attempt to define in a precise and clear way what the obligations and privileges are? Why? Because they know that any definition of the obligations of members of the House would limit their power to slander individuals in the House under the cover of existing privileges. It is a fact that the privilege of members of the Dáil has been abused by these Deputies, particularly by the two Deputies I have mentioned, to attack individuals who are not here to answer for themselves and who could not reply in a corresponding manner outside this House without taking risks which these Deputies do not take, risks against which they are protected by the absolute privilege accorded to them. I say that these Deputies have abused the privileges of the House and that that persistent abuse of the privileges of the House, together with our experience of the inadequacy of the existing rules, makes it very desirable, as the amendment asks, that those obligations and those principles should be more adequately defined and that appropriate action should be taken to that end without delay.

Do Deputies opposite agree to that? Of course they do not. They do not want the obligations and privileges of members more adequately defined. The vaguer they are the freer they are. They have no sense of responsibility in this matter. They are moving the motion solely for the purpose of getting some little political advantage out of this incident. I may state, from my knowledge of public opinion in this country, that it never was more grossly outraged and annoyed than it was last week by the slanderous and scandalous attacks which they made here upon a high officer of this State who could not reply to them. I do not mind any man being attacked to his face when he can reply with equal freedom if he wants to do so, but to attack, under cover of privilege of this House, men who could not reply here is not my conception of decency and fair play. I think that those who did it have exceeded the limits of audacity, even in referring to decency and fair play here this evening.

Therefore, the amendment which the Taoiseach has moved is complete and logical. We think there should be adequate definition of the obligations and privileges of members and that that definition of the obligations and privileges of members should be undertaken without delay, and, if possible, by agreement with all Parties. We put as a fact before the House that there has been no rule and no ruling concerning criticism of the Chair outside the House, and because there was no rule and no ruling, there could have been no breach, and we ask the House to accept on that issue the ruling of the Chair made yesterday and to make it binding henceforth so that members can have no doubt as to what their obligations are in that regard.

That is a constructive approach to the issue that this House is deciding. But Deputies opposite do not want a constructive approach. They are concerned only with making a personal attack on an individual. That has been their political form at all times. They have seen their Party shrink to its present dimensions, and they have not realised even yet that it is this campaign of personal abuse, which seems to be their only political stock in trade, that is the cause of all their political misfortunes, and that they will never recover from their present insignificant position in Irish political life until they discard that type of campaign and until they learn some elementary principles of decency upon which to base their political activities.

Mr. Blowick

I think every Deputy in the House deplores the speech that the Minister for Local Government made last Saturday night. He made a premeditated and deliberate attack on the Chair. A man who has been in public life as long as the Minister for Local Government can scarcely be excused on the ground that that statement was a slip of the tongue. If it were a newly-elected Deputy or a young man thrown suddenly into public life, it is quite understandable that he would easily make a slip or would not understand the rules of debate. But in the case of the Minister for Local Government, he could not be excused on such grounds. As a matter of fact, it is notable that no new Deputy has made such a blunder; no inexperienced Deputy has made such a grievous blunder as the Minister for Local Government made. He deliberately undermined this House when he attacked the Chair in the manner in which he has attacked it.

The Tánaiste's argument, so far as I can gather, is that simply because members of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Mulcahy and some other members and Deputy Dillon, made certain attacks on the Chief Justice, the Minister for Local Government was perfectly justified in knocking the legs, so to speak, from under the dignity of the Chair. Was not that the Tánaiste's argument?

Mr. Butler

You admit they have made the attacks?

Mr. Blowick

I am not prepared now to deal with that aspect of the matter. The Tánaiste says they have attacked the Chief Justice, and because they have done so, the Minister for Local Government was perfectly justified in attacking the Chair. That is the Tánaiste's viewpoint in a nutshell. The Taoiseach is going to throw a protective mantle over the blackguardly attack made on the Chair by the Minister and the Tánaiste has appealed to this side of the House for decency. Put things right in your own house first. We expect a lead in the matter of decency from that side of the House. You are the Government. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste occupy responsible positions.

I think when Deputy Mulcahy raised this matter yesterday, and even before he had time to raise it—when the Minister for Local Government had read the report of his own speech and realised the blunder he had committed —it was then his duty to stand up and act a gentleman's—or at least a man's —part and apologise to the Chair. He should have done so before any member of the Opposition or any member of the Government Party could have a chance of bringing the matter to the notice of the House, and demanded an apology from him.

The argument submitted by the Taoiseach is that because no rule has been established, no breach has been committed. I will give my view of the matter. Any breach of discipline in this House pales into insignificance when compared with the breach that the Minister has committed for this reason, that any breach committed will be committed when the House is in session and when there is an occupant in the Chair who will get the full backing of the House to enforce his authority. When the Minister for Local Government was in the Engineers' Hall and when he made this shocking statement, he knew he was quite safe, that nobody could call him to order; he knew he was in the bosom of his Fianna Fáil friends and that he had perfect immunity in making that statement. It is only right and proper, no matter how bitter the pill may be for the Government, that the Minister should be brought to the bar of justice in this House for the breach he has committed.

The Taoiseach comes along with an amendment which simply means that we must overlook what the Minister for Local Government said because there was no previous rule. If the Minister had any glimmer of decency in him he would not have made that attack on the Chair. One of the first things any decent person recognises is that a man must not be attacked when he is not present to defend himself. That is an elementary rule of decency.

Mr. D. Morrissey

The Minister for Industry and Commerce forgot that.

Mr. Blowick

The Taoiseach demands in his amendment that rules should be set down governing the conduct of members inside and outside the House. I think if the Chair had demanded an apology yesterday, when this matter was brought to the attention of the House, and if that apology were given by the Minister for Local Government, the precedent thus established would be better than any rule or any agreement laid down by the House. That is all that was demanded. On one occasion, a little over 12 months ago, I made, in the course of a heated argument, a certain slip of the tongue. I did not realise at the time the full implications of my words. It was a statement against the Minister for Local Government. When the Ceann Comhairle brought it to my attention, I had the courage of my convictions, and I offered my apology to the Minister, through the Chair, for what I had said. I would do the same thing again if I committed a breach, deliberately or otherwise, or even if it was a slip of the tongue in a heated debate. It is a man's duty to apologise; it is only a coward who does not. I hold that the Minister, in not having the manliness to stand up and apologise for his blunder, is guilty— and I accuse him deliberately of it—of cowardice in this matter.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Let us get away from all this frothy abuse to which we were treated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That line was taken deliberately by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is the line which the Taoiseach sought to take when introducing the amendment. It is not a new line. Those of us who have been in this House for years are quite conversant with the technique over there. When they are embarrassed, when they are in the wrong, or in a hole, they will talk about anything except the net point before the House. The Minister for Industry and Commerce was responsible for the remarkable performance of speaking for 25 minutes without once referring to the motion.

What are we supposed to be discussing? We are supposed to be discussing a dirty attack made on the Chair by a Minister of this House, and all the excuses which are sought to be made about rules and privileges and so on, either by the Taoiseach, the Minister for Industry and Commerce or anybody else, cannot get away from that. I want Deputies to apply this test. I want them to answer this at least honestly. If the three references made by the Minister for Local Government on last Saturday night to the Chair had been made by myself, by Deputy Dillon, by Deputy Commons, by Deputy Cafferky or Deputy Flanagan, does anybody doubt for one moment that before Questions were taken yesterday, there would be a motion by the Taoiseach himself demanding the suspension of myself or any other Deputy who might be guilty of the conduct of which the Minister was guilty, until such time as that Deputy made a suitable apology? Is there one member of this House on the Fianna Fáil side or on any other side of the House, or one person in the country who believes that that would not have happened? Of course, it would have happened and the Taoiseach would be acting properly and rightly.

No rules! Look, there is one even though it is not reduced to writing. The Minister for Industry and Commerce talked a lot about decency and fair play and claimed there was a complete absence of it on this side and a monopoly of it on the other side. This matter would never have arisen if the man who made this contemptible attack on the Chair on Saturday night was guided by any rules, written or unwritten, by any sense of decency or fair play. The statement would not have been written, much less uttered.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce waxes eloquent here about attacks that are made on people who are not in a position to reply. The Minister for Local Government took great care that he attacked a person or an institution which was not in a position to reply in a place where it could not be dealt with immediately. Fair play and decency! The Minister for Industry and Commerce has been talking for 25 minutes about members of Opposition Parties and particularly of the main Opposition Party, about their want of decency, and he made the allegation that their contributions to this House for years have consisted of nothing but personal abuse. I wish he had given as much of his own speech to the motion as he gave to personal abuse. He talked about the Chair and the disregard of the rulings of the Chair by people on this side of the House but was, in effect, doing what the Taoiseach was prevented from doing and making under cover of that a veiled attack on the Chair, adding to the charge spoken and written by the Minister for Local Government.

Those of us who have been sitting in this House for some years past, know that last Saturday night was not the beginning of this. Have we not watched the Minister for Local Government day after day trying to intimidate the Chair in this House? Have not every one of you seen it? Have you not heard him growling there, whispering criticism at the Chair? Last Saturday night was merely the cowardly culmination of it. He said at a Fianna Fáil cumann what he had not the courage to get up and say here where he knew it could be dealt with. Why was the attack made on the Chair and why is it supported by the Government? Because the Chair has refused to be the willing tool for the Party in office and because the occupants of the Chair have refused to answer the whistle, the beck and call of the Minister for Local Government or any other Minister. That is the reason they are attacked.

The Taoiseach

Of course, it is not true.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Of course, it is true.

The Taoiseach

There is not a scintilla of truth in it.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Absolutely. You want nobody in any position in this House or in this country who is not prepared to be your tool, and to submit to your Party.

Dr. O'Higgins

On a point of order, is it a fact that there can be only one interpreter of truth in this Assembly, that is the Taoiseach, who is so notoriously inaccurate himself?

Mr. Derrig

Is that a point of order?

Mr. D. Morrissey

It does not matter. The Taoiseach may say it is not true; the only thing that surprised me was that he did not say it was a lie. Whether he says it is true or untrue, it is true and the mere fact of the Taoiseach saying that it is not true does not take away from the truth of it. I have here watched the Minister for Local Government, times beyond number, trying to intimidate the Chair into muzzling the people on this side of the House and into holding with him on every point of view. We saw to-day an exhibition of respect for the Chair by the man who was talking about respect for the Chair—the Minister for Industry and Commerce. How did he show his respect? By insisting on delivering a speech along lines which the Ceann Comhairle had prevented the Taoiseach from following and deliberately flaunting a ruling to which he had listened, as he was sitting in his place when the Ceann Comhairle gave it.

Mr. Butler

You mean Deputy Dillon.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I do not mind the sanctimonious old humbug of a T.D. sitting up there on the back bench.

Mr. Butler

It is a pity.

Mr. B. Brady

People in glass houses should not throw stones. Is it in order for a Deputy to call another Deputy a "sanctimonious old humbug"?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think I have any precedent to guide me in the matter so I cannot rule on it.

If I may say so with respect, I think I have kept closer to the subject matter of this motion than any speaker who has preceded me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I quite appreciate that, but I am asking the Deputy to come to the point.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I will not be allowed to finish even a sentence. I want to say that I am not a bit surprised that the people over there, who yesterday were engaged in taking away from the ordinary citizen the protection of the courts, are to-day, by their action, taking away from the minority, and from the ordinary Deputy, the protection of the Chair, the only protection we have, and putting us completely at the mercy of the majority. Surely that is a legitimate point to make? I know, of course, that it is hurting them and I know the reason they squeal. You can always know when you are getting home on the people over there. It is like pressing a rubber doll—when you press it, you hear a squeak.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce had the audacity—like the Minister for Local Government his neck is not the weakest part of him—to talk about what was said here to and about the Chair and to talk about decency. I am not going to weary the House with examples—I suppose it would not serve any useful purpose—but there are Ministers now sitting opposite who stood and sat in these benches, and the only thing I can say about them is that I am sure that now they are ashamed of some of the things they said about the Chair and the occupants of the Chair in 1927. I am not going to quote them, but I invite anybody interested to read them in the Library.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Anyway, that was 20 years ago.

Mr. D. Morrissey

May I suggest that you can be as irrelevant a week ago as 20 years ago? I am not going into it; I am just making that very brief, and, may I say, very charitable, reply to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Let me again remind the House that the matter before it is not a question of what Deputy Mulcahy said yesterday or yesterday week, what Deputy Dillon said the week before or what anybody else said. What is before the House is the net point that the Minister for Local Government on Saturday night made a dirty attack on the Chair, and the net point we have to decide is whether the Minister is going to be censured for that, or whether we are going to have a vote of censure on the Chair itself. You are not going to get away from it by saying the rule was not there. There are certain rules which were always there and, I hope, always will be there.

Mr. Keyes

A good deal of heat has been engendered in this discussion, but I consider the occasion of sufficient importance to call for a very calm and dispassionate examination of the issues involved. We are faced with a motion in the name of Deputy Mulcahy which has its origin in an incident of last Saturday night, when the Minister for Local Government cast certain aspersions on the control of the House by the Chair. Deputy Mulcahy, acting in the interests of Deputies, has tabled a motion calling for the censure of the House upon the Minister for his strictures, in the absence of the necessary suitable apology to the Chair. To that, we have an amendment tabled by the Taoiseach, which, to my mind, is more to be regretted than the attack by the Minister, because one would have thought, having read the exhaustive report in the Press of the Minister's attack, that it was the result of the heat of the moment and that, on calmer reflection and in consultation with his Ministerial colleagues, respect for the House and its institutions would override any personal feelings between Minister and Minister, and that if he did not feel like making the apology himself, he would have been advised by his colleagues that to do the big thing was the right thing, that the preservation of the democratic institutions of the House would be superior to the interests of the Minister and that the obvious course to adopt would be to tender an unqualified apology for the slip made.

The presentation of the amendment, however, aggravates the offence very considerably because it substitutes a buffer, and not even an astute buffer, in an effort to save the Minister from the effects of his own action, pledges the Government and its members to support of that action and makes it a matter of the considered opinion of the Government and its Party that they must defend the Minister's statement. The only justification for the amendment is that, up to that night, there was no known rule which prevented such attacks being made on the Chair, so long as they were made outside the precincts of the House. Ministers can hold Cabinet office and be so innocent of their responsibilities to the Chair in this House that they make wild and indiscriminate attacks because of the absence of Standing Orders or rules, when we know, as has been said by Deputy Morrissey, that if the youngest member of the House, whether in the Fianna Fáil or any other Party, had been guilty of the same breach or slip, he would get scant mercy and would be dealt with and punished summarily. Personally, I regard the amendment as more serious, from the point of view of the preservation of democratic institutions, than was the Ministerial speech on Saturday night. Anybody who knows the Minister would have said that that was a characteristic statement. We are used to these ebullitions by the Minister from time to time— sometimes in the heat of the moment and sometimes dispassionately. I do not know what the circumstances of his statement on Saturday night were— whether the speech was a prepared one or whether it was made without preparation in celebration of the coming-of-age of the organisation. Coming-of-age did not mean coming to the use of reason, so far as the Minister was concerned. He availed of that opportunity to strike a fell blow at what I consider the keystone of the democratic institutions of the country.

We have seen the characteristics of democracy, as laid down in the Constitution, slipping from us from day to day with the connivance of the Government. The discussions of last week were utilised to strike a fell blow at the keystone of those institutions by accusing the Chair of partiality. The Chair is entitled to respect from every Deputy, irrespective of Party. If the Minister is to be supported in that attitude and in the making of that statement, it means that respect for the Chair has gone by the board. It will not be saved, in my opinion, by the qualifying clause so innocently put in by the Taoiseach—that up to the 29th April there was no rule to guide us. There was no offence before the 29th April, but there will be an offence after the 29th April. It was perfectly permissible to attack the Chair of Dáil Éireann on any day since the Dáil was established up to the 29th April but it is an offence to do so since then. Therein lies another very serious question.

In my opinion, it is not the function of the Chair to defend itself. That should be the function of this House. Dáil Éireann is the Supreme Assembly and it is for Dáil Éireann to protect its Chair. I do not think that it is right that the Chair should be asked to make a pronouncement in defence of itself. According to the ordinary procedure—this has happened many times during my term here—if a Deputy offends against the Chair, it is the duty of the Leader of the House to move the suspension of that Deputy. If a reflection be made upon the impartiality of the Chair, it is left to be dealt with by the House. Now we are told that, when a Minister or a Deputy makes an attack upon the Chair, the Chair must make a pronouncement in its own defence and that pronouncement will be accepted as the rule henceforth. That raises a definite problem. There is nothing to prevent the Chair making more and more rulings. What I argue is that an offence offered to the Chair should be dealt with by this House and should not be altered, mitigated or governed by a subsequent decision by the Chair.

Any Deputy coming into the House is supposed to make himself conversant with Standing Orders and rules of procedure so that he may comport himself correctly. A Deputy should know that his responsibility is not confined to the House—that he must comply with certain rules outside the walls of the House as well. The speech that was made had serious repercussions, because it undermined respect for the Chair. If the Minister was entitled to get away with that reflection on the Chair, it would be difficult to restore confidence, and other Ministers and other Deputies might be so short-sighted on future occasions as to show equal disrespect for the rulings of the Chair.

A case was mentioned by Deputy Mulcahy of a Minister who made an accusation against the Chair. I am old enough to remember the incident. That Minister was big enough to come back and apologise. He lost nothing in status or prestige by doing so. He saw that he had made a mistake; he made amends and showed his respect for the institutions of the country. If Deputy MacEntee would get up and say that he was carried away on the occasion and make the necessary apology, it would meet the position. He was entitled to criticise the Leaders of the chief Opposition and other Opposition Parties. I have no objection to his criticising Deputy Mulcahy or Deputy Donnellan or Deputy Cogan. He was perfectly entitled to do that, but he should have had sufficient common sense and sufficient responsibility to draw the line there and not attack the Chair, which is not a person in the accepted sense. The occupant of the Chair is entitled to respect. At election times he has not to contest his seat. The occupant of the Chair enjoys certain immunities. When a Minister attacks the Chair, there is only one way to make good the damage. I say this not in the interest of any Party but in the interest of this House as a State institution. The only way to repair the damage is for the Minister to get up, withdraw what he said and express regret for having said it.

The amendment put forward by the Taoiseach is not a cure. It is going to lay the foundations of a greater evil than the incident of last Saturday night. It is not going to remedy the matter in any shape or form. Certain reactions may flow from it which I do not like to think about. If the Government puts its weight against the motion, it will place the Chair in an ambiguous position. The Taoiseach's amendment does not solve the problem. There is only one way back—the way of any decent man, or any gentleman. I appeal to the Minister for Local Government to say that he made a mistake, that what he said does not represent his conviction or studied thought, that he does not agree with it, that he considers that this House, as an institution, has been conducted fairly, and that the proceedings have been carried on impartially. He can undo the damage that was done in a moment and he alone can undo it. The Taoiseach cannot help. I ask the Minister for Local Government to make the necessary reparation by standing up and expressing in a few words regret for what he stated and thus restore the confidence of every member in this institution.

Mr. Costello

I have found it a matter of extreme difficulty to restrain both my feelings and my language at the utterance which I was obliged to listen to this afternoon by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He made an attack upon certain of the leading members of the Party to which I have the privilege to belong and he coupled with their names the name of Deputy Dillon. Throughout the whole course of his speech, he never on one occasion that I can recollect made one single reference to the subject matter of the motion or the amendment. He attacked members of this Party and Deputy Dillon. That was an obvious political manoeuvre, just as obvious as the fact that the amendment was put down here by the Taoiseach as a piece of Parliamentary tactics and another political manouvre to try to hide from the country the real issue involved in this discussion. An effort was made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to make it clear that certain members of the Fine Gael Party, if not each and every member of that Party, were engaged in some sort of planned attack upon the institutions of this State. One of the fundamental institutions of the State is the position of Ceann Comhairle. That institution was created, fashioned and moulded by the first Government and the first Parliament of this State. The men who sit beside me here on these benches are merely the survivors of those who fell murdered and killed and who died to create, fashion and mould these institutions and this State and create public respect for them.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should keep away from the civil war.

Mr. Costello

I did not intend to mention it and I have no intention of continuing to do so, but when the Minister for Industry and Commerce makes an attack on my colleagues I am entitled on their behalf to reply. When we are told that and a deliberate effort is made to make it appear throughout the country that this Party and the men who make up this Party are endeavouring to undermine the institutions of the State, then I throw that back in the teeth of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who refers to the fondness of some people on this side of the House for a dirty debate, as being an ebullition on his part and the initiation of a dirty debate in this House. It is for that reason that I said, when I started the observations I had to make, that I found the greatest difficulty in retaining my self-control during this speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and that I find it even now almost impossible to refrain from saying what I would like to say. I must emphasise and reiterate and cast back in the teeth of that Minister the foul charge he has endeavoured to make, in order to divert public attention from the real issues, that the men here on these benches are endeavouring to undermine the institutions of this State—which they have created and built up from the very foundation. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is not going to be let away with that. He is not going to be let have that brought forward in an effort to divert the attention of the people from the real, vital issues involved in this particular debate and any other problems that confront this Parliament and the country.

This debate was brought about by reason of a criticism by a Minister of one of the institutions of the State. What is the reply to that by the Government? Is it a reasoned amendment, calling upon Deputies to recognise the dignity and authority of the Chair and pledging this Parliament and future Parliaments to uphold the rulings and the authority of the Chair? Is it a censure upon a person in a position of responsibility for something he had said outside this House? In effect, it is; but neither the Prime Minister nor any member of the Government nor of his Party has the courage or the decency to say what is implicit in this amendment. The amendment really is a vote of censure upon one of their own colleagues, although they have not got the decency or the courage to say so. That is the real interpretation of the amendment. It was conceived and devised as an effort, a piece of Parliamentary tactics, to get the Government out of a difficulty created by a speech outside the House by one of their own Ministers, but what it really does is to censure that Minister implicitly, though they have not the courage to do so explicitly.

This amendment says that there is no ruling of the Chair, no precedent laying it down as the rule of the House, that a Deputy is doing something which is called in this amendment "a breach of privilege" when he criticises a central institution of Dáil Éireann outside the House, and because there is no such ruling we ought to have a ruling, or that we got one yesterday, and having got one yesterday, henceforth anyone who does that is to be guilty of contempt, guilty of a breach of the privilege of the House. The end of the second paragraph of this amendment says that there has been no rule or resolution of the House prior to yesterday, or ruling of the Ceann Comhairle which declared it to be "a breach of privilege for a member to criticise, outside the House, the conduct of the Chair."

Look at the way the phrase following is devised. For that reason, because there is no ruling of the Chair,

"the Dáil does not agree that the speech of the Minister for Local Government can, in the circumstances, be held to constitute such a breach."

Because the speech of the Minister was made at a time when there was no ruling of the Chair that a Deputy could not criticise the Chair outside the House, in those circumstances, and only in those circumstances, can it not be held to be a breach of the privilege of the House. Implicit in the very argument contained in that paragraph of the amendment is the suggestion that the Minister's action, if the ruling that the Chair gave yesterday had been given, say, a fortnight ago, would have been a breach of privilege. The last paragraph goes on then to make it perfectly clear that implicit in the very amendment is a criticism of the Minister's speech, as it says that the Dáil accepts that ruling and decides that, henceforth,

"adverse criticism of the conduct of the Chair, made outside the House, shall be a breach of privilege."

Only for the fact that it was yesterday the precedent was created, the amendment says the Minister's speech was a breach of privilege. All that saves the Minister from the consequences of the speech he made was the fact that there was no explicit ruling from the Chair. What he did last Saturday in the Engineers' Hall would to-day be held to be a breach of privilege. That is what the amendment itself says and anybody who does it in the future—the Minister for Local Government is to get away with it but no one else may get away with it—will be guilty.

I want to direct the attention of the House to the fact that there is not a single word in the motion put down in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy General Mulcahy, about privilege. The conduct of Deputies is only referred to for its propriety or otherwise as "privilege", merely as one particular method of measuring its propriety or impropriety. Privilege is not the sole method by which the propriety or impropriety of a Deputy can be measured. There is a standard of decency, a standard of conduct, that should be expected from every Deputy, irrespective of precedent or of rulings or of explicit statements of privilege. This motion says that the conduct expected from a Deputy has been departed from in a very serious and very explicit way by a Minister of the Government and a responsible Minister of this House. It is not a question of privilege, but a question of a breach of decent conduct such as would be expected from an ordinary back-bencher and even more so from a Minister. This motion condemns the Minister for Local Government for an action which is not to be measured by whether it is an express breach of privilege or against an express ruling of the Ceann Comhairle or not, but to be measured by the standard of conduct that no Deputy, whether on the Front Bench or on a back bench, on the Government side or on the Opposition side, should be guilty of.

I say that is the way the House should approach the consideration of this proposal and the amendment. The amendment will, presumably, be passed by the Government and its supporters, and will, in effect, do what was intended to be done by Deputy Mulcahy's motion—criticise and censure the Minister for Local Government. At least the people will take it that way when they properly understand the political tactics embodied in the amendment. The only reasonable and proper interpretation of the amendment is that the Minister for Local Government did on last Saturday what no back-bencher of the House can do to-morrow. If he did he would be guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House and would be censured for it. The Minister escapes censure merely because of a technicality. Listening to the speeches which have been made here to-day we now find ourselves in a position that is becoming increasingly constant in this House— that every single Party, and Independent Deputy, are lining up against the Government, whatever the differences between themselves may be.

I find it difficult to restrain myself when talking about my colleagues. The Minister for Local Government has been saved by a technicality. The Government, with all their trained officials, were unable to extract the Minister for Local Government from the position in which he found himself except by saying that by a technicality, a ruling of the Ceann Comhairle yesterday, "we are saved; we cannot criticise and cannot censure the Minister for Local Government because there was no ruling". Nobody can say there was a ruling, and nobody can say that decency is something that you can find in a book, or that proper conduct can be found written up in the precedents in the office of the Ceann Comhairle. Therefore, the Minister can get away here.

The Minister made three statements which, I think, were read by the Leader of the Opposition. The Minister for Local Government said that the assembly of the people, Dáil Éireann:—

"was becoming a place where Parliamentary immunity was availed of to license slander and where the coarse tongue of a corner boy could precipitate a brawl with but the weakest of intervention from the Chair."

Could there be a more explicit insult to one of the greatest institutions of this country than that made by the Minister? The others were on an equally low level. I would have regarded the bona fides of the Government with a greater degree of respect if this amendment and the proposals that are contained in it were prefaced by an apology from the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government, and if the censure—explicit instead of being implicit in the amendment—were moved on that Minister by the Prime Minister of this Government which is at the moment governing the affairs of the State.

Dr. O'Higgins

This particularly unfortunate situation arises because of a particularly unfortunate speech made by a member of the Government. Speeches are often made thoughtlessly, recklessly and in heat—on a tide of emotion. There is no member of the House of any experience who will not agree on that, but the speech that gave rise to the motion we are discussing had all the appearance of being a carefully prepared document, delivered at a fixture prearranged by day and hour, where the speaker would be unlikely to be interrupted, heckled or roused to heat. I think it was one of the most discreditable speeches that was ever delivered or printed in the long political history of this country. Many years ago, at times of high controversy, acute bitterness and great tensity of political strife, the politics of this country was associated with that kind of improper, hysterical pot-boiling type of speech that appeared in the newspapers on a Monday morning. Throughout the civilised world, during those particular periods, such speeches got the people of the country a bad name and a doubtful reputation with regard of how a neighbour should deal with a neighbour. We got the reputation of being foul, abusive and slanderous on our platforms, of not knowing how to conduct ourselves with decency in public life.

The speeches made during those periods of controversy and tension can be explained by the circumstances of the time, by, perhaps, rowdyism at a meeting, by the clash of forces and by heckling and interruptions, but the particular speech under discussion was coldly and calmly and deliberately uttered behind closed doors, every precaution being taken to see that there could not be, and would not be, any interruption. It was a cold-blooded, foul, political attempt by a Minister of State to saw the legs from under the Chair of Dáil Éireann, leaving aside the scandalous, false and slanderous references to other political Parties.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise on this.

Dr. O'Higgins

Leaving that to one side, it is nauseating to read them or to repeat them. It is disgusting for any Irishman to think that they are even on record. On a par with the deliberate foulness that was applied to others are the cold-blooded, untrue and malicious references to the Chair of this Assembly. And that was the action of a Minister of State, one of the high officers of this Assembly.

The reputation of a people, nationally and internationally, and the respect due to a people is measured by the amount of respect they attract to themselves, by the amount of respect they themselves pay to their own State, to the institutions of their own State.

Mr. MacEntee

Including the Chief Justice.

Dr. O'Higgins

Including the Chief Justice, and if Ministers of State so far forget themselves as to make a creature of any high officer and to include him in a Bill and make him the centre of controversy, then it is very regrettable.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not discussing that Bill.

Dr. O'Higgins

But, whether we include the Chief Justice or not, certainly we cannot exclude the Parliament of the people. The Ministerial grin is the same grin that propelled the insult on the Chair of our Irish Parliament on Saturday night—that inane grin and that volcano of abusive gibberish that was hurled at the Chair. One of the greatest institutions of every country is its Parliament. Parliament in every country, through its members, is the delegated assembly of the people. It is, in fact, in tabloid form the people, the nation, and the respect that is due to any Parliament is the respect that is paid to its officers. The officers in Parliament in order of precedence are the Chairman, the Leader of the House, the members of the Government, the Leaders, in order, of the various Opposition Parties.

How do we subscribe to respecting that Parliament of ours? How do we subscribe to inducing others to respect that Parliament of ours? What example do we set the world? What example do we set the vile little slanderers that crawl around this country trying to undermine and sabotage every one of the great institutions of the State? How do even the officers of this Parliament pay service and tribute to the greatness of the institution? A Minister so far forgets himself, so far degrades himself and so far forgets the high office he holds that, when shaking a leg at a Fianna Fáil céilidhe, he utters a vile speech of that nature, a vile speech in which he tells the world that rapidly this Parliament is becoming a Parliament of guttersnipes. A Minister of this Parliament, a Minister of State, stands up on a platform at a Fianna Fáil céilidhe and with all the publicity he can command as a Minister, and a senior Minister, of the Irish Government and as an officer, and a senior officer, of an Irish Parliament, with 22 years of Parliamentary experience behind him, he tells us that this Assembly is becoming a Parliament of guttersnipes and he tells our brothers and our cousins and our sons and daughters away in America, with all that experience behind him, that this Parliament is becoming a Parliament of guttersnipes.

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order. May I say this, that I did not say that this Parliament was becoming a Parliament of guttersnipes? I said that certain gentlemen wanted to make this Parliament a Parliament of guttersnipes.

Dr. O'Higgins

That certain gentlemen wanted to make this Parliament a Parliament of guttersnipes and that they were aided by the weakness and supineness of the Chair. That is the message an Irish Minister has for the Irish abroad. That is the message an Irish Minister has for our friends abroad, and that is the weapon he puts into the hands of our enemies abroad —that foul-mouthed phrases are allowed here, foul-mouthed phrases resulting in fisticuffs between certain Deputies aiming or aspiring to make this a Parliament of guttersnipes, aided and abetted by the Chair—foulmouthed expressions resulting in scenes degrading to any Parliament—and that all that is taking place through the weakness or with the connivance of the Chair. That is the statement of the Minister opposite and that is the statement for which he refuses to apologise.

We know the amount of respect with which to treat the utterances of the Minister for Local Government. We know that when he stands on his feet he loses his head. We know that he is not to be measured by ordinary standards when we are talking about responsible utterances. But the people outside this House do not know it. The references to the Chair may have been serious, they may have been despicable, contemptible, unworthy and un-Irish but, having made those references, 24 hours later, when the scandal of those references must have hit him in the eye when he looked between eggs at breakfast at the paper, when he had ample time for considering the effect of his utterances and the damage done by this statement, without any challenge, he was given an opportunity to apologise. A man that had given offence to another, unprovoked and without cause, on any occasion, with or without rules, inside or outside Parliament, if there were any decent instincts in the make-up of the individual, having given the offence recklessly or thoughtlessly, would at least be stimulated to apologise. The Minister was asked to apologise and that would have been the end of it. But the Minister would not apologise. He would not apologise for the wrong done to Parliament, for the insults and offence offered to the Chair. Then the responsibility fell on the shoulders of the Taoiseach, the Leader of the House, the person who, next to the Ceann Comhairle, is the responsible guardian and custodian of the good name of this Parliament. What does the Taoiseach do when, apparently, he finds himself powerless to compel or induce his Minister to do the decent thing, the proper thing, the gentlemanly thing, the honourable thing? He shares in the guilt. He shares in that guilt with the knowledge that he is participating in something unclean and he brings in this amendment that, on the face of it, carries evidence that the Taoiseach was convinced that the utterances made should never have been made. What in fact does the amendment state? Standing in the name of the Taoiseach, in the name of the Minister's Leader—what does it state? It states that if any inexperienced back-bencher from this day onwards follows the example of his Minister and so misconducts himself as to attack and criticise the Chair from outside of this House that that inexperienced Deputy will be suspended from the service of the House until he apologises. That is the Taoiseach's opinion — that if any Deputy of Dáil Éireann follows the example set the other night by the Minister for Local Government that that Deputy will be punished by the rule that we are called on to make as a result of the Minister's misconduct. Is not that a clear statement to the effect that the Minister's statement should never have been made—that it was unworthy and unfair? If that statement was unworthy and unfair surely the gentlemanly thing would be to tender an apology.

Reference was made to an episode which occurred in this House in 1926, before the Minister would condescend to recognise this House as an Irish Parliament, when a Minister of the then Government, which, like the present Government, had an over-all majority, so far forgot himself as to misconduct himself in reference to the Chair. Was the Parliamentary majority of that time used by the Government to cast the cloak of a Parliamentary majority over the erring Minister? Was the Leader of the Government at that time so weak as to share in the guilt of his Minister at the expense of the Chair and at the expense of the good name of Parliament? Was that what happened then? What happened was: the Dáil was adjourned by the Leader of the House to give the erring Minister an opportunity to consider the gravity of his error and to come back here into Dáil Éireann and apologise to the Chair. Those were the standards set. That was the trail that was blazed and made easy and smooth for the successors to follow. We have new standards being raised now, new standards wherein a Minister can go outside to a céilidhe, make a foul and unworthy attack on the Chair, and then come back and say, and have his Leader say: "Because there was no rule against that type of misconduct my Minister was free to misconduct himself". Is the new headline that is set for Parliament and people that we have only got to conduct ourselves when there is a rule laying it down that we must, that we are free to misconduct ourselves, even to the gravest extent, if there are not written rules defining what our conduct should be and what constitutes misconduct? Is that the new headline that this Parliament is proposing to set, 25 years after it came into being? Are there to be no unwritten rules of decency? Are there to be no unwritten rules of good conduct generally respected?

Now the predicament that this House is faced with is this: An insult has been offered to the Chair. There was no rule previously governing the conduct of Deputies when outside this House in relation to the Chair. No sane person would ever think it would ever be necessary to have such a rule. If I had a rule-making authority sitting here for a year it would never strike that rule-making authority that it would be necessary to have a written rule governing the conduct of Deputies outside this House in relation to the Chair. It would never strike any Deputy or any group of Deputies that any member of this House would go outside the House, address a public meeting, heap insult and offence on the Chair of Ireland's Parliament and then come frisking back to that Parliament to take his seat as one of the highest officers in that Parliament and, trotting behind his Leader's heels come in and say: "You cannot make me apologise, I will not apologise. You cannot make me apologise because there is no written rule to that effect, but, nevertheless, we will put down an amendment that will express so clearly our disgust for such behaviour that if any Deputy presumes ever again to follow my example there will be a rule staring him in the face and, by Jove, he will be very well punished." There is the position—political malevolence, and a political team spirit that puts politics above State, partisanship above Parliament. There is the position that confronts this Assembly to-night.

At some point the bells will ring and at the same point the boys will march. Look at the filthy standard they have erected under which to march to-night. Is there anything that is not foul and discreditable in it? The speech was bad; the aftermath of that speech is worse. What was the alternative? Merely that a Minister or an individual who behaved in a foul manner to a high officer should apologise. The whole thing arises because an apology has been refused and the Minister is to slink away through a rat hole, because there was no written rule governing such a scandalous type of misconduct. We know there was no written rule, because it was inconceivable to ordinary minds that it would ever be necessary to have a rule to prohibit such misconduct.

The Minister's action the other night was scandalous; the Minister's action yesterday in refusing to apologise was probably unequalled in the history of Parliaments in its continued disrespect. The Minister has not only attempted to degrade the Chair, but he has degraded by his refusal to apologise, not only the Irish Government of which he is a member, but the Irish people and the Irish race. An illiterate Somali who misconducted himself with reference to another who deserved better would have enough decency to apologise to the individual who was wronged. We here, the occupants of an island that used to claim to be an island of saints and scholars, have much to learn from the aborigines and from the illiterate Somalis with regard to decency of conduct. But the really degrading thing is that, when an individual misbehaves in that manner, the head of the Government and the Leader of Parliament should subscribe to that shameless piece of truculence, should subscribe to and share in the crime by trying to cover up and to cloak the wrong done and the damage inflicted.

It is 15 years ago since the present Government took office. It is 15 years ago since the present Ceann Comhairle was elected to that office by the votes of the Party opposite in opposition to the votes of this Party here. Those 15 years have been hard, long and trying Parliamentary years. During those 15 years one House of the Oireachtas was completely destroyed and later resurrected. A Constitution was torn up and another hammered out. There were periods of heat and controversy and the most difficult office in any Parliament is the office of Chairman. During all those years, in face of all those difficulties, the nominee of the Party opposite carried out his duty as Chairman, and the assistant with him, in a way that was gradually but surely and steadily making this little Parliament of ours a bright example to the whole world. It was attracting the attention and the praise of visitors from all the countries in the world.

At the end of those 15 years, we have a Minister of an Irish Government saying that Deputies here are endeavouring to make this Parliament an assembly of guttersnipes and that in attempting to do that they were being aided and abetted by the distinguished Deputy and his assistant who occupy the high positions of Ceann Comhairle and Deputy Ceann Comhairle. In the absence of any word of regret, either from the culprit in question or the culprit's Leader, let it at least be said that members of every other Party in Dáil Éireann express their apology to the Chair that any Deputy should so far forget himself outside the precincts of the House as to hurl the insults at the Chair that were hurled at it by the Minister for Local Government the other night.

Mr. P. Burke

It was very nice to hear some of the pious ejaculations to-day from the benches opposite. When listening to Deputy Dillon I had to rub my eyes because I could not really believe that it was the same Deputy Dillon of Thursday and Friday. The Deputy Dillon of Thursday and Friday and a few other Deputies when the Chair calls them to order try to side-track the Chair and get in by some other door. Those people who are talking about order and decency in this House are the very people who started a campaign of vilification against the chief institution of this State.

An Ceann Comhairle

That matter is out of bounds; it is not in order.

Mr. P. Burke

I am very sorry that I am not able to develop that, but I will accept your ruling. We have been told here time and again that we should accept some standard of decency. I say that we should at least have a decent standard in this House. Personal attacks should not be made on people. I heard to-day a Deputy who was defending a certain policy starting off by making a personal attack on the Minister for Local Government. This Parliament is 25 years in existence and surely we should have got away from all these personalities. Certain Deputies, when they get an opportunity to indulge in personalities, never fail to do so. I have heard the pious ejaculations of Deputy Dillon. He was so pious that I really thought he had gone over to the Church altogether. We were treated to the usual dramatic art of his. Deputy Mulcahy, when the Tánaiste started to read quotations from the Deputy's speeches, raised points of order because he was ashamed of some of the language that he used on that occasion.

If we are to give the Chair any co-operation at all, we should adopt certain standards of decency. We should not put the Chair in an awkward or invidious position. That is what has been done here on a number of occasions. It is up to us to co-operate with the Chair. These people who condemn the action of the Minister for Local Government are responsible for that action themselves; they are the originators of it. Surely, in any Parliament in the world, the conduct that has been carried on by these people could not be accepted as in accordance with ordinary standards of decency. We have been told that there are certain Standing Orders and Rules governing our procedure. Erskine May's book was brought in to-day— his book dealing with Parliamentary procedure in other countries. Erskine May's book was not brought in last Thursday or Friday; it was forgotten then.

An Ceann Comhairle

What was done last Thursday and Friday has little relation to what is under discussion now.

Mr. P. Burke

I am sorry, and I wish to apologise. Personally, I have nothing against any member on the opposite side. So far as I am concerned, they are all right, but I must say that some of their speeches do not do them justice because they show them up. The speeches are the speeches of arch-hypocrites. If that remark is uncharitable, I will withdraw it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy discussing the motion or the amendment?

Mr. P. Burke

We have under discussion the following amendment:—

"To delete all words after the word `That' and substitute the following—

`the Dáil is of opinion that it is desirable that the obligations and privileges of members should be more adequately defined, and that appropriate action to that end should be taken without delay;' "

That is very necessary, in view of the history of this House, especially during the past week or fortnight.

" `that in view of the fact that, prior to the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle on 29th instant, there has been no rule or resolution of the House or ruling of the Ceann Comhairle which declared it to be a breach of privilege for a member to criticise, outside the House, the conduct of the Chair, the Dáil does not agree that the speech of the Minister for Local Government can, in the circumstances, be held to constitute such a breach;' "

We are only dealing with the facts in this case. I have here the book containing our Standing Orders and I have been perusing them and I do not see any rule which the Minister has transgressed one way or the other.

" `that the Dáil accepts the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle above referred to, and decides that, henceforth, adverse criticism of the conduct of the Chair, made outside the House, shall be a breach of privilege.' "

Henceforth, of course, it will be a breach of privilege. The only thing I have to say is that I hope the Opposition will examine their consciences and that something good will really come out of this debate.

Mr. Blowick

I hope there will.

Mr. P. Burke

Deputy Blowick is very anxious that some good will come out of it. We have listened to Deputy O'Higgins, who made a number of points. He said there was no written rule. He said also that Deputies were using their powers wrongly. He spoke of filthy standards and various other things. His ejaculations were so profuse that I failed to follow him. All the times Deputy O'Higgins, as well as his colleagues, proved themselves most uncharitable, so uncharitable and so unchristian that they used their office here and the privileges of the House to attack the chief institution of our State.

Mr. Everett

Judging by the speeches delivered, it would seem that on all sides of the House Deputies are anxious to retain the dignity of the Chair and the House. I expected that some members on the Government Benches would offer an explanation or give some expression of regret because of the necessity for this motion. I suggest the Dáil will cease to hold the respect of the people of Ireland and will only be respected in accordance with the amount of respect that Deputies themselves show to the House. The words the Minister for Local Government is reported to have said, when he accused the occupant of the Chair of weakness, are actually proof that the Chair has acted impartially towards all Parties in the House and has given consideration and fair play to each Deputy..

It was very unfair of him to make such a charge against the Chair. He charged the occupant of the Chair with weakness. That remark would not be permitted under the rules of the House and, if it is not permitted inside the House, it should not be permitted outside. We would not be allowed here to charge the occupant of the Chair with weakness and without acting in a strictly impartial way. If we cannot do that here, in order to retain the dignity of the House we should not be allowed to express it outside.

I can well appreciate the feelings of men on the opposite side when statements are made against them. Sometimes I regret the speeches that are made by Deputies; in my opinion, uncharitable remarks have been made against individuals and that is to be deplored. But I would expect from members of the Government an example, not alone in the House but outside it. If men have mistaken views and make charges that may not be quite true, Ministers should endeavour to educate them so as to make them realise that they had the wrong viewpoint.

During my period as a Deputy for almost 25 years—and in all that time I did not take up much of the time of the House—I have had no reason to complain of the occupant of the Chair. I have been under the present Chairman for the past 15 years and I think I can speak for other members of the Dáil when I say that we received nothing but fair play and strict impartiality from him. I think other members of the Dáil will agree that the present Ceann Comhairle, since he was first elected, has displayed great dignity in the Chair, has used common sense in his decisions, and has given every consideration to members of the House who have sought his protection. That is what is required of the Chair, and I think the present occupant is deserving of the highest praise from all sides of the House for the manner in which he has conducted our proceedings.

I would have expected the Minister for Local Government, knowing that, to tell us that he regrets as much as we do the statements that were made, that he deplores those statements and that probably the meaning that is taken from them was not intended. I would have expected that when attention was drawn to it, he would have been the first to get up to express regret for the statements and so avoid obliging members of the House to take action which they believe is necessary in the interests of the House. I think it is not too late yet to get some expression of regret from the Government side. We could then get together to help to maintain the institutions of this State, recognising that outside this House there are certain foreign influences working to try to get people's minds away from constitutional means. If we give them the slightest excuse, by attacking this House or the individuals who constitute it, I think we are doing work for which we were not elected. We were elected by our constituents to serve their interests in a constitutional way. I do not think any Deputy was elected to pour personal abuse or slander, under the protection of the licence afforded by this House, on any individual.

For the 25 years which I have been a member of this House, although I do not address the House very often, I tried to refrain from doing things which I would not be allowed to do on any of the public bodies with which I have been associated. I say all credit to these public bodies. I have been a member of them since 1917, since my young days when Sinn Féin and Labour were first organised in strength. The instructions we received at that time were to instil respect in the people for the public representatives they had elected. I have tried to carry out these instructions always, and I am often surprised at some of the speeches made in this House, even though the Ceann Comhairle does try to maintain order. These speeches could not be made at public bodies. As I say, I regret the speech which the Minister has made, and I see in the amendment no excuse at all for his conduct. The kernel of the amendment is contained in the last few lines. If it was not correct to make that speech to-day, it was not correct last week. I suggest that, before further attempts are made at propaganda outside arising out of the attack on the Chair, Deputies should not try to justify the action of the Minister for Local Government. No matter what attacks may have been made on other institutions, they did not give the Minister any justification for criticising the Chair at a political meeting. I appeal to the Minister to be generous and to express his regret, not alone to this House but to the Chair, the occupant of which, we recognise, has acted in a most fair and impartial manner towards all sections of the House on all occasions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. Moran

It came as a surprise to me here to-night to hear it laid down by Deputy Dillon that our Rules of Procedure incorporated the Rules of Procedure of the British House of Commons. I wonder if we follow that line of thought, where we are going to end? If the grand vizier of the King of Siam prohibits any reference to the king's dress, are we to be prohibited here from referring to the colour of the gown of the Ceann Comhairle? It came as a complete surprise to me, to hear that we had embodied the Rules of the British House of Commons in the Rules of this House. I think that possibly the Shakespearean theatre has lost a great actor in Deputy Dillon, a great Othello, but his jealousy on this occasion was not so much for the alleged disrespect to the Chair of this House but seemed to be based on the fact that he discovered that we here were not prepared to accept his contention that we had incorporated in the Rules of this House, the procedure, lock, stock and barrel, of the British House of Parliament. Deputy Dillon argued at length that there was a definite rule laid down in the British House of Commons that there should be no criticism of the Chair outside the boundaries of that House, and because it was laid down there, Deputy Dillon, with his usual mentality, proceeded to put the proposition that naturally we had to accept it here. His chief worry seemed to be that it was even questioned in this House that any Rule of the British Parliament was not automatically taken over here.

I respectfully submit that I am discussing the obligations——

Mr. Blowick

What about the word "forcibly"? Do you withdraw it?

Mr. Moran

If the Chair says that these Deputies were not forcibly removed, I will withdraw it, but I say that I was present when Deputies Cafferky, Commons and Finucane of Deputy Blowick's Party were asked by the Chair to leave the House for disorderly conduct and for refusing to obey the ruling of the Chair.

One of the matters with which I was dealing was the suggestion that this House is of the opinion that it is desirable that the obligations and privileges of members should be more adequately defined and that proper action towards that end should be taken without delay, and, in submitting that that principle should be accepted, I surely am entitled to state some of the obligations that should be imposed upon Deputies and some of the privileges of members of the House that should not be abused by them. One of the matters which should be dealt with immediately is that it should not be open to Deputies to attack people outside.

Mr. Davin

I hope that the Minister who has just gone out will come back again.

Mr. Moran

I am entitled to put that point in urging acceptance of the first part of the amendment. I think it most unfair that grossly slanderous attacks should be made in this House on people outside.

General Mulcahy

May I ask if the Deputy is in order in discussing attacks on people outside the House by people in the House, as part of this motion?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Before Deputy Mulcahy raised the point of order, I was about to inform Deputy Moran that he must take this amendment as a whole. He cannot discuss the first paragraph which is merely a preamble leading up to the point dealing with the criticism outside this House of the conduct of the Chair. That is the vital point in the amendment, as it is in the motion. The Deputy is confined to that. It is not a matter of general rules of conduct for members inside the House, except in so far as it bears on the particular criticism outside of the Chair.

Mr. Moran

I listened to Deputy Dillon giving separate reasons in respect of each of these three matters as to why he proposed to vote against them. That was allowed by the Ceann Comhairle, and I therefore understood that I was entitled to take the three sections of the amendment in turn and give my reasons for their acceptance by the House. If the Chair rules against me on that point, I can go no further, but I submit that the House is entitled to hear the reasons why certain obligations should be imposed on members of the House, and I do not see how I or any other Deputy can otherwise urge the reasons why that portion of the amendment should be accepted. When it has already been allowed, I submit that I am entitled to state my reasons why these obligations should be imposed and to give the facts in respect of some of these attacks by members of the House on people outside. May I take it that I am entitled to go into that?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am ruling that you are not. We are dealing specifically with a certain matter which has given rise to this whole controversy, that is, a criticism of the Chair by a Minister of the Government outside the House, and both the motion and the amendment must be taken as relating to that particular circumstance.

Mr. Moran

In accepting your ruling, I want to say, in conclusion, that I urge the acceptance of the first part of the amendment for the reasons I have given. With regard to the second part, now that it has been decided and laid down that the Chair cannot be discussed outside the House, I therefore urge on Deputies that we accept that position and we will all know where we are so far as that is concerned in the future.

I only regret that we could not also impose some bridle on the tongues of some of the Deputies outside and inside the House and prevent them from using some of the language they use on occasions outside the House dealing with Deputies of this House and with Ministers of State who serve this House. I do not see any reason why we should accept any precedent from any outside Parliament in connection with this matter. We are quite capable of dealing with our own business and, if it is now found expedient by the House to apply this rule, we shall do so without delay and further debates of this kind will not be necessary.

Mr. Corish

I should like to state very briefly my view on this motion and on the amendment. To me, at 3 o'clock yesterday, the issue at stake was very simple indeed. After a four or five hours' debate, it has become very confusing and I think we have lost sight of the motion; I have no particular interest in the amendment. Yesterday, it was a question as to whether the Minister for Local Government was, or was not, insulting to the Chair in this Assembly. The issue was very simple, indeed, because, to my mind, the Minister for Local Government had insulted the Irish people by insulting the Ceann Comhairle who presides over this Assembly, which is representative of all sections of the Irish people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister did not mention the Ceann Comhairle; he mentioned the Chair.

Mr. D. Morrissey

The occupants of the Chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He made no specific personal reference: That ought to be emphasised.

Mr. Corish

The Minister for Industry and Commerce created confusion by bringing in matters that had no bearing on the motion or the amendment. These are the usual tactics on the Government Benches when they are accused in matters of this kind. Their defence is to make accusations against the Opposition Party concerned, no matter which Party that may be. They cloak up the attack made on the Government or on a particular member of the Government by making the main issue an attack on the Opposition Parties. The amendment suggests that there should be some written rules regarding the privileges, obligations and general conduct of Deputies in this House. You cannot write down with pen and ink any such code because the code involved in this case is a code of decency and honour. The Minister for Local Government was insulting to the Irish people. This is a democratic Assembly, presided over by the Ceann Comhairle or Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and to my mind, at least, the Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle are the true symbols of Irish democracy. Did the Minister insult the Chair or did he not? That is the issue. If he did and if he were a man, he would apologise to the Chair and we would now be engaged in the discussion of Estimates or legislation instead of wasting time and money by trying to get out of the Minister for Local Government a simple apology. I am sure that the Minister knows he did wrong and that the Taoiseach knows he did wrong. They knew that without any written rule or regulation as to what was right and what was wrong. If the amendment is accepted and we sit down and try to write a code by which Deputies' behaviour inside and outside this House will be governed, we shall not be able to include everything and we shall have incidents of this kind coming up, with suggestions from the Taoiseach or somebody else that we make further provision to deal with them. If we are to lay down rules and regulations, can they embrace everything? Should it be necessary to have rules or regulations to govern behaviour of this kind? Let the Taoiseach be honest and straight about this matter.

The Minister for Local Government has neither admitted nor denied that he made these statements. Since he does not deny making them, we may assume that he did make them. From what I understand, his was a deliberate insult to the Chair. His speech was not spontaneous. It was not made on the spur of the moment. I think I am right in saying that the speech was supplied to the newspapers. I am beginning to think that this statement by the Minister for Local Government was engineered so that the Government could get a crack at the Opposition regarding their remarks about the judiciary.

Mr. Cogan

This debate has gone on for a long time. If there had been any spark of public decency in the mind or character of the Minister for Local Government, there would have been no debate upon this matter, because the Minister would have come into this House yesterday and publicly apologised for the statement he made. The burden of the story told to this House on behalf of the Minister by members of his Party has been that there was no written rule prohibiting members of this House from criticising or condemning the Chair. Was it really necessary to have a written rule on so simple a matter? Surely, our ordinary sense of justice and fair play should dictate to us that we have no right to attack the administration of an office which is, by its very nature, impartial and the occupant of which cannot defend himself in public debate. Criticism of the Chair and of the rulings of the Chair may be put in the same category as the grumblings and complainings of the bad loser in a football game —the man who cannot either attack or defend on the field and afterwards puts all the blame for his failure on the referee. The Ceann Comhairle and the other occupant of the Chair here are in the position of referees. It is the duty of the occupant of the Chair to see that there is justice and fair play between the various Parties which represent the people in this democratic Assembly.

On the judgment and sense of fair play of the occupant of the Chair depends whether we are to have fair and impartial discussion here and fair and just decisions. If the Government build their defence on the ground that there is no written rule prohibiting attacks on the Chair by members of this House when speaking outside the House, is it not strange that, until the Minister for Local Government ran amuck at a Fianna Fáil dance, no attack had been made on the Chair during the past 25 years? I have, certainly, not heard of the occupant of the Chair or his administration being criticised outside the House by a Deputy during the past 15 years. That is as it should be. Deputies have a sense of justice and fair play. We may make mistakes in the House, and some Deputies may have to be ordered out occasionally, or some Deputies may try the patience of the occupant of the Chair from time to time, but no Deputy ever went outside to attack the administration of the Chair, until that happy and desirable record was broken by one member of the Government Party.

One would have thought that, reading his remarks in the Irish Press the next day, the Minister would have repented and realised the mistake he had made, the serious wrong he had committed to this Parliamentary institution, to the occupants of the Chair and to democratic principles generally, and that, before any move was made by any member of the Opposition, he would have come into this House and publicly apologised. Even assuming that he was not big enough to do that, one would have thought that the Taoiseach or the members of the Government would have beaten some sense into his head, that they would have told him he was acting altogether against all principles of democratic government and in defiance of all rules governing Parliamentary institutions.

Instead of that, we have had an attempt by the Government to cloak the Minister's offence and lead this House to believe that all this occurred because there were no definite rules and regulations, because the bad, wild, irresponsible Opposition Parties had refused to sit down with Fianna Fáil and draft rules and regulations governing the conduct of members of the House. There was no rule or regulation during the past 25 years to compel Deputies to realise that they should not attack the administration of the Chair. The speeches made here to-day would rather confirm the opinion of the Opposition Parties that what Fianna Fáil wanted, when they talked about drafting rules and regulations governing procedure here, were rules that would curb the liberty of ordinary Deputies. An attempt was to be made to muzzle the various Opposition Parties, through a series of rules dictated by the Government Party, which has a majority over all Parties. That is not a situation into which Opposition Parties would be easily led. It is essential that each member of this House should have the widest possible liberty to express his views on all matters of national importance without restriction, provided that he keeps within the ordinary rules of decency and the Standing Orders of the House. Deputies accept that without reservation or qualification, but they will never accept the view that the officer who presides over our deliberations here should be exposed to criticism, ridicule and contempt by Deputies when speaking outside.

It is unfortunate that we should be called upon to devote a very considerable amount of Parliamentary time to this discussion. It is not a matter which required any discussion. It is a matter in which the ordinary common sense of the people would have guided us, if that ordinary common sense had been allowed to operate. However, Party feeling, the narrow Party prejudice so frequently displayed by the Government Party, has shown itself and the Minister has neither been asked nor compelled to climb down.

The Government Party, with their overwhelming majority, are standing behind him, determined to defy the laws of decency, the laws of justice and the laws of fair play. We have had some strange speeches delivered to-day from the Government side. We had the Minister for Industry and Commerce, followed by Deputy Moran, glorying in the fact that this House is not guided by the precedents or traditions established by other Houses. That will deceive nobody. It is intended to be an appeal to the narrow patriotism of the more ignorant section of the community. We all know that the human race has progressed down the ages, that democracy has progressed in every country down the years, and that the people in this country, in Great Britain, in the United States and in other countries, have contributed to the progress of democracy and to the establishment of precedents governing the liberty of the people and their elected representatives. With these facts before us, we can only deplore that a Minister of an Irish Government has so forgotten the dignity of his position and of this House as to imitate the conduct of the bad loser on the football field who blames the referee. I had the honour to be classed with the occupant of the Chair in the Minister's attack last Saturday night.

I regard that as a lasting honour. It is an honour for any Deputy to be attacked in a personal way by the Minister for Local Government, and it will be an honour to this House if we repudiate the assertion of the Minister for Local Government that he has the right to condemn and criticise the Chairman of this House. It will be an honour to this House if the ordinary members of the Fianna Fáil Party refuse to allow themselves to be marshalled into the Division Lobby to support this infamous amendment. It will be an honour to those members of the Fianna Fáil Party if they resurrect their consciences, which they have referred to on frequent occasions here and act upon them, instead of being driven like dumb cattle by a Government Party Whip.

This is a bigger matter than an issue between the Minister for Local Government and the occupant of the Chair. It is a matter which concerns the future development of democratic government in this country. If a majority in this House, no matter how it is constituted, considers that it has a right to dictate to the Chair how he is to conduct the business of the House, then we shall have an end to democratic government here for all time.

It is possible that the Minister for Local Government, when he spoke at this Party celebration of Fianna Fáil, was intoxicated by the exuberance of his own verbosity, as he frequently is, but surely since he spoke and since his words were recorded in the columns of the Irish Press he has had plenty of time to examine his conscience, and the members of his Party will have plenty of time to examine their consciences. There is an easy way to end this debate once and for all, and that is for the Minister for Local Government to come into this House and admit that he made a mistake and apologise to the Chair.

Mr. Coogan

There is a tradition attaching to the Chair in most Parliaments, one that is founded upon long practice in Parliamentary procedure. That tradition is that the Chair in the exercise of its authority is independent of Party control of any kind whatever: that the Chair, in the exercise of its functions, is doing so not on behalf of the Government in power for the time being, but on behalf of the House as a whole, and irrespective of the political constitution of the House itself. That tradition in the nearest country to us, Great Britain, was so enshrined in the British Constitution that the Speaker of the British House of Commons was not only regarded as being above Party in the exercise of his functions, but the tradition grew up there that Speakers, irrespective of their Party affiliations, were continued in that office by successive Governments which in Party politics differed from the politics of the Speaker. You had over the years the tradition there whereby a Conservative Government continued in office a Liberal Speaker or vice versa, a Liberal Government continued in office a Conservative Speaker.

But unhappily here, 15 years ago, that grand tradition was broken when a political nominee for the office was installed by a majority of this House. However, I am not going to dwell any further on that beyond saying that I think it was a mistake that the office of Speaker could not have been an office which, at all times, would be over and above politics. During the past 15 years a member of the Government Party has held that high office in this House, and over the 15 years he has discharged his functions impartially and with due respect to the feelings of all Parties in the House. He has built up a tradition for himself in the House, and even if he is a member of a political Party we can say of him at least that he was an honest partisan, and that never did he allow Party considerations to influence him in the exercise of his office. It is regrettable, therefore, that the first aspersion to be cast upon the Chair should have come from a Minister of the Government and a Deputy of his own Party. It is regrettable in the extreme that when that animadversion was cast on the Chair the Minister did not take the obvious course of tendering his apologies to the Chair and of withdrawing whatever he had said outside the House.

Whenever the Minister for Local Government makes a speech he reminds me of Dan O'Connell and of the time he went to hold his argument with Biddy Moriarity. He sets out in the same spirit that O'Connell sets out in the to twit and thwart Biddy Moriarity. We all know that, when Dan O'Connell engaged in these famous altercations with the famous Biddy whose tongue was so well known in every street and lane of the Dublin of the time, he did so in a spirit of fun, merely for the purpose of seeing whether he could by twitting Biddy loosen her tongue to such an extent as to get her to lose her temper. I often wonder whether, when the Minister for Local Government gets on a public platform, he sort of feels that he is twitting some mythical Biddy Moriarity, because off a public platform he is credited with being a decent sort of man. In social life he moves in the highest circles— the darling of the drawing-room, the bon vivant if ever there was one. He plays the drawing-room game according to the rules, but when he gets on a public platform he is a different personality—a Jekyll and Hyde. I do not know whether he adopts a dual personality for political purposes. I do not know whether he is put up by the Party he represents in the House as the mud-slinger of that Party.

Mr. Davin

With prepared speeches.

Mr. Coogan

I do not believe for one moment that he is so senseless and so devoid of all instincts of decency that, when he gets up on a public platform, he loses all sense of decency and loses his head. I believe that he is the political mud-slinger of Fianna Fáil and that he is put up deliberately by Fianna Fáil to do the mud-slinging for Fianna Fáil. For that reason it is quite clear to me that that is the reason why we have this amendment introduced—the official mud-slinger cannot be deserted or let down.

Deputy Burke stood up to defend the Minister. He made a speech which, from beginning to end, I failed to follow. Apparently, he was put up to echo the ejaculations previously made by the Minister for Finance—"Chief Justice", "Chief Justice", "Chief Justice"—like a repeating gramophone record. When the chair put him off that particular line he had nothing further to say. The only thing I can conclude is that, being a servant of the Minister for Local Government, he felt that it would be a good thing for him to go into the ring and show, at least, that Paddy Burke was behind him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Deputy is right in referring to the private avocation in life of any Deputy.

Mr. Coogan

I will not say any more on that.

Deputy Moran was brought to order by the Chair for his extension of that matter.

Mr. Coogan

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is right. It is a different matter.

Mr. Coogan

But he did break the ordinary standards of decency in this country.

Mr. Beegan

Where?

Mr. Coogan

In the Engineers' Hall on Saturday night.

Mr. B. Brady

Who is the judge of standards of decency?

Mr. Coogan

Ordinary standards of decency should have dictated to the Minister for Local Government a very obvious course which anybody in his peculiar circumstance would have taken, to tender on the first possible occasion his apology to the Chair and let the matter end there. Instead of that, we are forced to debate this matter for a whole day of public time when we might be devoting our attention to the serious problems confronting the country.

The amendment seeks, in the first paragraph, to introduce in substance a matter which has already been decided by the House, a matter which we opposed in this House and in which we refused to co-operate and in which all Deputies on the Opposition side, irrespective of Party, have refused to co-operate, a matter which the Minister for Local Government, in his own statement on Saturday night, admitted had been killed by the opposition put forward to it from this side of the House. Yet, we have that matter resurrected to-day as the first paragraph of the Taoiseach's amendment and ruled upon by the Chair as in order because it is, as the Chair ruled, by way of preamble to the other paragraph in the amendment. With all due respect to the Chair, I do not hold that it is a preamble. It is a substantive motion reintroducing in substance, not in exact words, the motion already decided here in the matter of procedure and privilege, and that motion is deliberately brought in here in this form to cloak and cover the simple issue involved.

In the second paragraph we had a reference to a ruling that was made by the Chair yesterday. In express words no ruling was made by the Chair yesterday. The only ruling that was made by the Chair yesterday was that the motion in the name of Deputy Mulcahy would be put down for to-day and that the discussion on the motion would take place to-day, but the Chair did say that in accepting the motion they implicitly censured the Minister for Local Government but, so far as there was an express ruling, there is no such thing. In the third paragraph we are asked to accept that ruling as if it were an express ruling. What is the effect of that ruling, if it is a ruling at all? The effect is that as from to-night when the machined majority gets going what the Minister for Local Government said on Saturday night cannot in future be said by any Deputy outside the House. We have this whole travesty, this hypocritical performance going on in a vain attempt to save the face of the Minister for Local Government. The case made for the amendment by the Taoiseach is that he would not introduce any ex post facto or retroactive legislation. He would not introduce any Statutory Rule or Order in this House which would have retrospective effect, though the whole week and though the whole of last year he and his Ministers have been introducing Bill after Bill with retroactive effect and though the whole of his argument yesterday and last week on the Sinn Féin Fund Bill has been in favour of legislation with retroactive effect. It all boils down to this. It was not an offence for the Minister to make this wild statement on Saturday night but it will be an offence to-morrow night. If the Taoiseach thinks he can deceive the country by tactics of that kind, by a mere technicality, by mere verbiage, to cover the offence of the Minister, he is very much mistaken in the country's reaction at the moment.

The Taoiseach made the case that because the Standing Orders had not specifically provided for this particular offence there was no offence. Many, many Statutes have been passed through this House and through other Houses to create new offences but there are many matters, even at present, which have not and are not likely to be legislated upon which are offensive. Offences against common decency and the ordinary decencies of debate and public life are, if not specific offences in the sense of breaches of by-laws of this House, certainly offences in the social sense. Because there was no specific Order in the Standing Orders the argument has been put forward that there are no grounds upon which to censure the Minister and that, therefore, we must have this extraordinary provision brought in by which we are going to find a square peg for every little hole and gap that may likely be discovered in the future years. Does anybody think for a moment that we can, by Order, legislate for every conceivable type of happening that may arise in the future as between Deputy and Minister, Minister and Minister, or between any Deputy of this House and the Chair? Does anybody think for a moment that we can cover all the gaps? I venture to prophesy that we will have many square pegs for the round holes of the future but that the Taoiseach and his Party will eventually discover many holes for which they cannot find pegs. The Taoiseach further said that he would not agree with Deputy Dillon when he suggested that there was precedent elsewhere which might be followed. Erskine May must not be followed here! We all know that the officers of this House and the Taoiseach himself have time out of number followed precedents laid down in that well-known authority. I know that Erskine May is not a binding authority upon this Parliament or upon any other Parliament but I do say this much, that where there is no precedent here to govern the particular happening Erskine May is a persuasive authority which should be consulted and followed. The country will not be deceived by any of the tactics resorted to here by the deliberate attempt of the people on the other side to hurl mud and insult on the Deputies here who have, during the past few weeks, been trying to resist certain forms of legislation, certain encroachments by the Executive, upon other Departments of State.

I do want to say this, in conclusion, that what was a very simple issue between the Minister, Deputy MacEntee, and the officers now holding the office of Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle, has been very much widened by the introduction of this amendment and that it is no longer a matter of a simple apology between the Minister and the particular occupants of the Chair but that the passing of this amendment is calculated to undermine the authority of the Chair—that the passing of this amendment is a deliberate attempt to sap the independence of the Chair and in their effort to sap and undermine the independence of the Chair, there is a deliberate attempt by the Taoiseach and his colleagues to sap and undermine the independence of Parliament. There is a deliberate effort being made, particularly in paragraph 1 of this amendment, to gag and bind the Deputies on this side of the House to silent opposition. I appeal to all Deputies, irrespective of Party, not to lend their support to a measure of this kind which has as its objective the silencing of criticism in this House. This particular paragraph is deliberately calculated to aim at the independence of Deputies. It is deliberately calculated to withdraw from Deputies the absolute privilege they have of speaking in this House. As I have said already, we on this side of the House will fight to the death against that type of thing. We will resist all efforts at silencing criticism here. I have said, and I will say it until I am no longer a member of this House, that our business here is opposition, opposition all the time, constructive where possible. Our business is to endeavour to put the Government right when we see the Government are going wrong. Deputy Burke charges us with being arch-hypocrites when we stand up in defence of principles.

Mr. P. Burke (County Dublin)

Personal abuse is what I took exception to.

Mr. Coogan

You said that Deputies on this side were all decent fellows, in your opinion, but that when they stood up to speak on certain political subjects they were arch-hypocrites.

Mr. P. Burke

Personal abuse. That is true.

Mr. Coogan

I have never personally abused anybody at any time in this House and I never intend to abuse anybody. I do say that when we stand up in defence of liberty we are not hypocrites. Time will tell whether we are hypocrites or not in these matters. We are entitled to our views in these matters and to express those views here. We will express those views as long as we have the breath of life in us, when we are resisting encroachments on principles, when we are defending the rights of citizens or the rights of Deputies, when we are resisting the encroachment of the Executive upon the judiciary or, in this particular case, when we are resisting the encroachment of the Executive upon the authority of the Chair.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I think that the House ought to accept this amendment. There is no use in saying that it is a subterfuge. The fact is that it is necessary to have Standing Orders, apparently, dealing with conduct outside the House as well as conduct inside the House. I can say, and I am sure I am speaking for every member of the Government, that, if there were such a Standing Order, no Minister or Deputy would have made any reflection on the Chair outside and that, if he did, no member of the Government would stand over it. Therefore, I say the House ought to accept this amendment. I think this debate will do a lot of good. It was edifying to find some Deputies who have shown very little respect for the Chair standing up for the Chair in the way they did.

When I saw Deputy Dillon coming in here this afternoon I said: "Surely he is not going to speak." I was certain he was not going to speak because he had his overcoat on. I thought he was going to listen. It was only a couple of weeks ago, when you, Sir, were in the Chair, that I saw the Chair being treated with such contempt by Deputy Dillon as I have never seen it treated in my 20 years of experience in the House. So bad was it that it evoked protests from Deputies of three different Parties — Deputy Blowick, Deputy Keyes and a Deputy from my Party. The Deputy referred to the ruling of the Chair as nonsense. He then turned his back on you, Sir, and carried on as if you had not drawn his attention to the fact that he was out of order. If any quotation is required in support of that, I have it here.

Deputy Dillon started his speech this afternoon by declaring that the Taoiseach was an audacious man. Was there ever such audacity displayed in this House as was displayed by that Deputy who as recently as about three weeks ago referred to your ruling, Sir, as nonsense and actually went to the trouble of spelling out the simple word "crime" as if you, Sir, were too dense to understand it and then ostentatiously turned his back on you and addressed the House as if you were not worth consideration. It is a very good thing to see Deputy Dillon now one of the foremost advocates of respect for the Chair. Let us hope that he will continue in that attitude. I may be wrong, and I hope I am wrong because I do not want to do him an injustice, but I had a feeling that Deputy Dillon from the day he came into this House deliberately put himself out to defy the Chair by taking advantage of the well-known indulgence of the Chair towards members of the Opposition, because it is proper that the minority in the House should get more latitude than the majority Party.

Mr. Davin

Were you in the House when that happened?

It is regrettable the thing happened, but if the rule is there in the way we propose in the amendment, then there would have to be regret expressed and nobody would stand over any transgression.

Mr. Cafferky

For the past seven or eight days this Assembly has been engaged in the discussion of the Sinn Féin Funds Bill, and this motion to my mind, has been a waste of time. If the people down the country who have elected us knew that we were coming to Dublin, to a certain extent at their expense, and that we were spending our time in such discussions as we have had to-day, apart altogether from the discussions early this week and last week, I wonder what they would do with us. I would not like to have their verdict or to stand before them for an expression of their opinion. It is a disgrace to have the whole of this day spent discussing the conduct of a Minister whom we all know, no matter what may be said here, will not be requested by the Government to apologise, and who will scarcely be asked by the Chair to leave the House.

We have here a motion and an amendment. The motion states:

"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 at the Engineers' Hall, Dublin, and reported in the daily Press on Monday, 28th April, 1947."

That has been put down by the Opposition. Then the Government Party put down what really seems to be a motion, though they term it an amendment. All they accept of the main motion is the one word "that". The amendment goes on to say:

"To delete all words after the word `that' and substitute the following:—

" `the Dáil is of opinion that it is desirable that the obligations and privileges of members should be more adequately defined, and that appropriate action to that end should be taken without delay;' "

That is the important part of the amendment. The House will remember that on one occasion a question arose as to whether it was parliamentary or otherwise to accuse another Deputy of telling a lie or an untruth. The Chair ruled that Deputies were not to use that expression directly or indirectly. That ruling has been accepted by the House. I was unaware of it and I came into the House after a short absence and with very good reason I said a Minister was telling an untruth or a lie. I saw where the Taoiseach got away here with a similar statement and I felt it was in keeping with the Standing Orders and, unaware of the ruling, I followed in his footsteps. But I had a greater reason for my accusation than the Taoiseach had. Anyhow, the Chair took care that I would either withdraw my accusation or leave the House.

I think the Chair will admit I was not removed from the House compulsorily. I went through the ordinary channels available to every Deputy and I demanded a decision of the House as to whether I should leave or remain. I knew the result beforehand. I left the House when I was called upon, and so did my colleague, Deputy Commons. On two occasions since I entered the House in 1944 that has happened to me.

An Ceann Comhairle

What about the motion and the amendment?

Mr. Cafferky

This is leading up to the motion. The reason I mentioned it is that it has been said we refused to leave and were removed forcibly. You know that is not true. What I cannot understand is the need for this amendment. If it has been accepted that the Minister for Local Government acted unwisely when delivering his speech in this particular hall, and if he apologised this afternoon and the Chair accepted his apology, or if he did not apologise and if you demanded of him as you demanded of me, that he should leave the House for a week, two weeks or a month, there would be no need for this amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair does not demand of anybody that he should leave the House for a week. The House does. The Chair can only name a Deputy and it is the House that decides.

Mr. Cafferky

If the House desired the Minister to leave there would be no necessity for this discussion or for this amendment. We all at times make mistakes. I am no immune from such mistakes. For the short time I have been in public life I have not yet found any reason, either inside or outside the House, to make an attack upon the Ceann Comhairle or the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. In fairness to these two gentlemen, I will say they have discharged their duties very reasonably and I think it is no credit to any Deputy who gets on a public platform and indulges in the type of criticism which we have seen in the daily papers. Certainly it is no credit to a Minister with such long experience as that of the Minister for Local Government, a Minister who holds very high office and who is at the head of an important Department.

As Deputy Blowick pointed out, he once made a nasty slip but he was manly enough to come back here and apologise—and it takes something to do that. It was already a week after the event when it was drawn to his notice. He came back and apologised to the Minister and to you, Sir. But the Minister for Local Government is determined on not apologising and the Government, in my opinion, are determined in seeing that he will not be asked to apologise. Because of that, we have this amendment brought forward as a kind of smoke-screen to try to cover him up. The Opposition in this House have been accused of not carrying on debate in this House according to the standards which one would expect. The Minister is aware that if Deputies, while speaking in this House, use unparliamentary expressions and if the Chair demands the withdrawal of these expressions, they must be withdrawn or else the member concerned must leave the House. I cannot understand for the life of me, why the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the other members of the Front Bench of the Government Party should try to justify their action and the action of the Minister by quoting from the Official Debates certain statements made by Opposition Deputies during the debate on the Sinn Féin Funds Bill. There can be no analogy between such statements and the statements made by the Minister in his speech at the Engineers' Hall. If Deputies have made statements here, these statements have arisen out of the fact that the Bill which was under discussion and the Minister responsible for the introduction of that Bill, forced these Deputies to criticise the chairman of the board mentioned in that Bill. There was no other way out and anything that was said was accepted as Parliamentary otherwise the Chair would have asked the Deputies——

An Ceann Comhairle

That debate is out of bounds, as the House has been informed.

Mr. Cafferky

It has been discussed.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have not heard it discussed.

Mr. Cafferky

I have been informed that it was ruled out. I shall accept that.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

It has been in it, though.

An Ceann Comhairle

Possibly. I am ruling for myself. I am quite certain it was not very much discussed without objection from the Chair, no matter who the occupant was.

Mr. Cafferky

If we accept this amendment it is the first step towards muzzling Deputies inside this House and perhaps, at a later stage, outside the House. For that reason alone we cannot accept the amendment because this is the one institution where the representatives of the people can discuss the interests of the people. If the people feel that they have been unjustly treated by the Government of the day the public representatives in this institution, the first Assembly of the land, have the right to debate the matter here. If we are going to be muzzled in the way in which the Taoiseach cunningly proposes, through this amendment, then in my opinion it is the first step on the road towards the introduction of a dictatorship and interference with Parliamentary representatives. It may suit some Deputies that a motion should be tabled and accepted for the muzzling or the bridling of Deputies inside and outside this House. Naturally enough there are some members who are not active inside or outside the House and who have very little interest in the welfare of the people. If they could get their colleagues muzzled, things would be very suitable for them. For that reason I am opposed to the amendment. In my opinion there is no necessity for it. If the Minister did what he should have done, this discussion would have ended about a quarter past three and we could have passed on to some other business which would be more appropriate to the House and more beneficial to the interests of the people as a whole.

Mr. Hughes

The most discreditable, degrading and reprehensible aspect of this disgusting action on the part of an individual who is supposed to be a responsible Minister of State, is to my mind, the attitude of the Government Party. I listened to every speech made from the Government Benches this evening, from the Taoiseach down, and every speech was made in justification of the Minister's action. No attempt has been made by anyone from that side of the House to offer an apology to the Chair. I feel that is a most extraordinary situation. The Taoiseach whom one would expect to uphold the dignity of the House and, above all, the dignity of the Chair, led off and tried to find a loop-hole and an excuse for the Minister's action last week. One would expect where the dignity of the House is concerned, to get an example from the Government Benches or from a member of the Government. At least there is a responsibility on a member of the Government, over and above that of an ordinary Deputy, to set a good example in that respect, but the reaction to this motion was simply to drag a red-herring across the motion and to refer to the attitude of Deputies in this House to the Chair as a justification of the Minister's action outside the House. So far as any disrespect to the Chair here, or any action of a Deputy here which is contrary to dignity and decorum of this House is concerned, the Ceann Comhairle can take the necessary action and if necessary have a motion moved to suspend the Deputy from the service of the House. The Deputy in that case pays the penalty. The motion suggests a simple penalty, so far as the Minister is concerned.

Any man with the spirit of manhood in him, having committed an offence of this sort, would be the first to spring to his feet and offer an apology, but the whole Fianna Fáil Party comes in here and tries to justify the disgusting and scurrilous attack on the conduct of the Chair here. I was rather amused by the Minister for Justice who, in recommending the amendment to the House, advised us that it was a genuine attempt to deal with this matter. I think he said they were in a rather awkward dilemma in respect of it. He made no reference, good, bad or indifferent, to the matter before the House—the action of a Minister of State and his contemptuous and degrading reference to the Chair and the dignity of the Chair in Parliament. He intervened on another occasion, while Deputy Coogan was speaking, to say that the Chair had actually ruled that the Minister had committed a breach of privilege, that the ruling of the Chair implied that a breach of the privileges of the House had been committed. If that is so, why does the Minister not apologise? It is a most illogical attitude which the Party has taken up. If that Minister is right in saying that the Ceann Comhairle has ruled that a breach of the privileges of the House has been committed by the Minister, I see no reason for the Government's not accepting the motion. It is a natural consequence of a member committing a breach of privilege that he should apologise to the Chair and to the House, but the Government and the members of the Party have spent the whole evening attempting to justify the scurrilous attack made by the Minister for Local Government on the Chair last week.

As I say, it is a most extraordinary attitude on the part of the Government, and particularly the Taoiseach. The only excuse the Taoiseach could offer is that there was no breach of any rule, and, because there was no breach of any rule, no offence had been committed. Is it suggested that we are free to misconduct ourselves in every conceivable way, provided we are not offending against any particular rule?

I do not want to take up the time of the House and, in expressing my views, I do not want to be abusive or to use unparliamentary expressions. To anybody who studies the position impartially, it is evident that this amendment represents approval of the speech delivered—certainly, not condemnation. It warns the man who made the speech that, if he repeats it, he will get the same dose of medicine as any other member of the House. The Minister for Justice who speaks as he thinks—quite sincerely—and in a language that any ordinary Deputy can understand, came very near to saying that he personally disapproved of the type of speech and the nature of the criticism of the occupants of the Chair delivered last Saturday night. I admit that it is next door to impossible to expect a colleague of the Minister for Local Government to condemn him publicly in this House but this whitewashing type of amendment is a curious way of dealing with a situation which should never have arisen.

If a member of this House committed an offence against the Chair by making a speech of this kind, it would not be half as bad as in the case of the Minister, because a Minister, as a man and a gentleman, is supposed to give good example. He is supposed to give good example to bad members of the House like myself and to new members who do not understand much about procedure and relevancy, as old members like myself are supposed to do. Good example should be given by the Minister and those who sit on the Government Benches.

Mr. Briscoe

And people who come from the South Circular Road, like myself.

Mr. Davin

I quite agree with the Minister when he says that this debate may not do any harm. It may do a great deal of good, even under the terms of the amendment, if carried, if it brings the Minister for Local Government to a sense of decency. The amendment puts the occupant of the Chair and his deputy in a mosthumiliating position. It amounts to tacit approval of a speech delivered in which the Chair was severely and unfairly criticised. The only value that can be seen in it is that it is a warning notice to the Minister and to all others that in the future anyone who repeats the offence will be dealt with very drastically.

Amongst those sitting on this side of the House—and, perhaps, amongst some of those on the other side, but they dare not say it—there is a sort of idea that the Taoiseach considers himself infallible and, therefore, those sitting behind him and around him must be infallible also. That is, of course, in a political sense only. It is regrettable that the time of the House should be taken up, at this time of the year, in dealing with this, and I do not want to take it up any longer. The next time the Minister for Local Government wishes to attack his political opponents, as he is quite entitled to attack them, let him do so at some function other than a Fianna Fáil céilidhe. Let it be fairly and decently done, in a plain straightforward way, in the way that I know the Tánaiste has been in the habit of attacking. The Tánaiste has been chasing me in my constituency in every general election. I do not know whether he likes the place or not, but he feels it his duty and his obligation as a member of the Government Party to visit it, and deliver five or six speeches there in every general election. I am bound to say that the Tánaiste does his job for his own Party and does it in a very clean and straightforward way, although his criticism of the Labour Party, and naturally of myself in particular, when he is in my constituency, is fairly strong and fairly convincing, because he is a man who can use the English language in a very convincing way. I would take off my hat to him, even if he were responsible for defeating me in the next election. He fights the fight for Fianna Fáil in my constituency in a way unlike that of the Minister for Local Government, in a clean, straightforward way.

I hope no member of this House, whether it be a Minister or a Deputy, inside or outside the House, at a Fianna Fáil céilidhe or at any public function or on any public platform, will repeat the type of language that was used regarding the Chair and the occupant of the Chair by the Minister for Local Government last Saturday night.

Mr. Bennett

It is regretted that, for a quibble, we should be forced to sit the whole day discussing the irresponsible utterances of the Minister for Local Government. There is a dividing line between right and wrong and the Minister stepped over on the wrong side, in making certain criticisms of the occupant of the Chair, outside this House. The Minister knew he was wrong and the Taoiseach and his colleagues on the Government Benches knew he was wrong; but, for a quibble, they have forced us to spend a day discussing that wrong attitude. Had the Minister adopted the attitude pursued by any ordinary person, had he taken the opportunity to make a gentleman's gesture, there would be no need for the discussion to which we have listened all this day. The Minister did not make that gesture and, therefore, the Taoiseach and other Ministers were forced to make some sort of case to the House to-day for the absence of an apology from the Minister.

The deplorable position is that the Taoiseach and the Ministers know definitely that they are wrong. This amendment by the Taoiseach is an admission that they are wrong. The Taoiseach admits that the Minister made an adverse criticism of the Chair, outside the House, and that he was wrong in doing so. The Minister for Justice followed later and spoke in the same tone. He admitted it in clearer language than did the Taoiseach in his amendment. The amendment says:

"...that in view of the fact that, prior to the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle on 29th instant, there has been no rule or resolution of the House or ruling of the Ceann Comhairle which declared it to be a breach of privilege for a member to criticise, outside the House, the conduct of the Chair..."

There is no rule or ruling and because there was no clear dividing line between right and wrong, the Minister was at liberty to step over on the wrong side, as he did, and the Government were within their rights in backing up the Minister because he stepped on the wrong side knowingly. It continues:

"...that the Dáil accepts the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle, above referred to, and decides that, henceforth, adverse criticism of the conduct of the Chair, made outside the House, shall be a breach of privilege."

They accept the position that adverse criticism by outsiders shall be a breach of privilege. If the Taoiseach was not convinced in his own mind that the action of the Minister constituted a breach of privilege, he would not have so readily accepted the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle that it was a breach, nor would he have brought in this amendment. As Deputy Dillon said to-day, the Taoiseach is well advised. If he himself was not familiar with the work of Erskine May, there were officials in this House wise enough and clear enough in their knowledge to advise the Taoiseach that the Minister had stepped over the ordinary decent lines pursued in similar circumstances in any Parliament in the world.

It is still not too late for the Taoiseach to request the Minister to take up the attitude of any decent, ordinary civilian man or woman, if knowingly or even unknowingly, they made an adverse criticism of the occupant of the Chair. He could have pursued the ordinary course a Deputy or any decent citizen would have pursued and made a gentleman's gesture. Then there would not have been this discussion all this day. Evidently, the Minister is not bound by the rules of ordinary decency, the rules that ordinary people with a gentlemanly instinct would pursue in a case of this kind. Because the Minister is not imbued with those instincts, the Taoiseach feels it incumbent upon him to present us with this quibble, to get out of the difficulty in which the Minister has placed him.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Mulcahy to conclude.

General Mulcahy

There are only two points to which I want to draw attention. Does the Taoiseach stand over the action of the Minister in criticising the Chair outside the House in the way in which he did, then completely refusing to take any step to redress a gross and serious attack on the Chair and its vital functions? That is apart altogether from any attitude the Chair itself may take of the occurrence.

The second point is that it is definitely accepted by the Taoiseach and by the Government that the decision of the Chair was right in accepting my motion dealing with this matter—that this was an expression of opinion on the part of the Chair that an offence had been committed. Yet, in face of that comment or judgment by the Chair on the occurrence, the Taoiseach was still quite unmoved in so far as the occurrence itself was concerned, but yet he was moved to introduce the amendment that we received ten minutes before the Dáil sat. Naturally, it is going to be accepted as an offence in the future. There has been a considerable amount of argument that because there was not a rule no offence was committed. I do not accept the argument brought forward that Erskine May's rule was the procedure here. It describes the procedure that has developed elsewhere, and it is useful to have his record in regard to other cases mentioned here so that we can measure our performance here from the point of view of public dignity, decorum and respect for the Chair by what has happened elsewhere.

Those who mentioned Erskine May brought to our notice that in the case of the British House of Commons there have been many occasions upon which members have offended, even against the accepted rules there, in criticising the Chair outside. In the whole of our Parliamentary history over the past 25 years there has not been a case of a single person offending in the way that the Minister for Local Government offended on Saturday night. During all that period, since the establishment of the State, it was not a rule that prevented an offence taking place, but the natural understanding, the natural intelligence and dignity of our people—our natural respect for this institution, and for the position that the Chair occupies and its vital function here. We had to wait until Saturday night to see, for the first time in our Parliamentary history, the Chair insulted in the way in which it was.

Now we are to get a rule. The implications of the attitude of the Taoiseach, of the Minister and of the Government on this matter are that nothing matters if there is not a rule. The theory is now put forward that we must have a set of rules to keep us straight. What rules are we going to have to uphold the justice, the prudence and the charity that we put in such a prominent way in the preamble to our Constitution? Are we going to have no prudence except the prudence that is dictated or covered by a rule, no justice that is not covered by a rule, and no charity that is not covered by a rule? We do not want to get ourselves into the strait-jacket of rules to teach us how to be either self-respecting citizens or responsibleminded Christians. The suggestion that you must have a rule now is only just hypocrisy, humbug and deceit. We had to wait until the Minister's Party was celebrating its 24th birthday to have our standard of conduct here, and the conduct of members of the House in their respect for the Chair outraged in the way it was on Saturday night. I regard the Taoiseach's amendment as just a way of escape, a way in which he hopes to be able to cover over the simple terms of this motion by a wide excursion into all kinds of irrelevancies.

Deputy Norton, when he was speaking, seemed to suggest that the Minister for Local Government was encouraged. He may have been, but that is no reason why we should shut our eyes to a serious offence against the order and dignity of this House, or why we should hesitate to put down whatever motion was necessary to discuss and face this fact straightly and honestly, and take the decisions that our sense of responsibility dictates. Whatever weakness individuals, Miniisters or Deputies may have that would prevent them keeping to proper standards of conduct, or keeping within rules, we cannot, if we are going to preserve our institutions and our people, forget our responsibilities, or shut our eyes to actions that are injurious to our institutions here. If any member of any Party other than a member of the Government Party had made statements critical of the Chair, such as the Minister for Local Government made the other night, we would not have to wait very long until the mover of the amendment to-night would have moved a motion such as we are moving.

It is, of course.

The Taoiseach

I have been gravely concerned to see that no institution of the State should suffer in any way. I have done my best to bring about a situation which would prevent any damage being done to any institution of the State. It is not of any design of the Minister's that he has been late in making his statement.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 61.

Tá.

Anthony, Richard S.
Beirne, John.
Bennett, George C.
Blowick, Joseph.
Browne, Patrick.
Cafferky, Dominick.
Coburn, James.
Cogan, Patrick.
Commons, Bernard.
Coogan. Eamonn.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave. Liam.
Costello, John A.
Davin, William.
Dockrell, Henry M.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Everett, James.
Giles, Patrick.
Halliden, Patrick J.
Hughes, James.
Keating, John.
Keyes, Michael.
MacEoin, Seán.
McFadden, Michael Og.
McMenamin, Daniel.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Mulcahy, Richard.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Reilly, Thomas.
O'Sullivan, Martin.
Redmond, Bridget M.
Reidy, James.
Reynolds, Mary.
Roddy, Martin.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Sheldon, William A.W.
Spring, Daniel.

Níl.

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Blaney, Neal.
Boland, Gerald.
Brady, Brian.
Brady, Seán.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Breen, Daniel.
Brennan, Martin.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Buckley, Seán.
Burke, Patrick (County Dublin).
Butler, Bernard.
Carter, Thomas.
Colley, Harry.
Corry, Martin J.
Crowley, Honor Mary.
Derrig, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Moylan, Seán.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Connor, John S.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
O'Rourke, Daniel.
O'Sullivan, Ted.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
De Valera, Eamon.
De Valera, Vivion.
Flynn, Stephen.
Fogarty, Andrew.
Furlong, Walter.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Harris, Thomas.
Healy, John B.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Kilroy, James.
Kissane, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little. Patrick J.
Loughman, Frank.
Lynch, James B.
McCann, John.
McCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Ryan, Robert.
Shanahan, Patrick.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
Walsh, Laurence.
Walsh, Richard.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.

Question declared negatived.

Motion, as amended, put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 39.

Tá.

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Blaney, Neal.
Boland, Gerald.
Brady, Brian.
Brady, Seán.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Breen, Daniel.
Brennan, Martin.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Buckley, Seán.
Burke, Patrick (County Dublin).
Butler, Bernard.
Carter, Thomas.
Colley, Harry.
Corry Martin J.
Crowley, Honor Mary.
Derrig, Thomas.
De Valera, Eamon.
De Valera, Vivion.
Flynn, Stephen.
Fogarty, Andrew.
Furlong, Walter.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Harris, Thomas.
Healy, John B.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Kilroy, James.
Kissane, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick J.
Loughman, Frank.
Lynch, James B.
McCann, John.
McCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Moran, Michael.
Moylan, Seán.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Connor, John S.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
O'Rourke, Daniel.
O'Sullivan, Ted.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Shanahan, Patrick.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
Walsh, Laurence.
Walsh, Richard.

Níl.

Anthony, Richard S.
Beirne, John.
Bennett, George C.
Blowick, Joseph.
Browne, Patrick.
Cafferky, Dominick.
Coburn, James.
Cogan, Patrick.
Commons, Bernard.
Coogan, Eamonn.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, John A.
Davin, William.
Dockrell, Henry M.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Redmond, Bridget M.
Reidy, James.
Reynolds, Mary.
Roddy, Martin.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Everett, James.
Giles, Patrick.
Halliden, Patrick J.
Hughes, James.
Keating, John.
Keyes, Michael.
MacEoin, Seán.
McFadden, Michael Og.
McMenamin, Daniel.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Mulcahy, Richard.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Reilly, Thomas.
O'Sullivan, Martin.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Sheldon, William A.W.
Spring, Daniel.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 30 Apr 1947

Criticism of the Chair—Motion.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Apr 1947