I felt sure the Minister would put down an amendment restoring Poynings' Law.
Short Titles Bill, 1961—Report and Final Stages.
I would have certainly have put down an amendment if it had been deemed necessary. The Deputy will recall that he questioned the propriety of the short title, Poynings' Act, 1495, provided for in the First Schedule. I have looked at the matter again. I should like to emphasise that we are not proposing in this Bill to interfere in any way with the title of what is popularly known as Poynings' Law. In the First Schedule the Deputy will see that the statute to which we are assigning the short title, Poynings' Act, 1495, is Chapter 22 of 10 Henry the Seventh. This statute provided for the application to Ireland of certain English statutes. The Poynings' Law of our history books is an entirely different statute, namely, Chapter 4 of 10 Henry the Seventh. That statute provided that no Irish Parliament could be held until the legislation proposed to be enacted by that Parliament had been sent to the English Council and returned under the English great seal. The terms Poynings' Law and Poynings' Act have in the past been employed ambiguously both by historians and by lawyers.
Lawyers are never ambiguous.
By assigning the short title, Poynings' Act, to one of the statutes which has sometimes been confused with the real Poynings' Law, we are in fact doing no more than clearing up that ambiguity. I can assure the Deputy that the term Poynings' Law will still be perfectly valid to use in connection with the other statute.
The Minister and I must agree to differ but I appreciate the courtesy of his explanation.