The following Reports were submitted:—
(Interim Report of Committee on Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution and suggested appointments and remuneration of Officers of the Seanad.)

Do ceapadh an Coiste seo do réir na rún so leanas do cuireadh i bhfeidhm ag an Seanad ar an 13adh Mí na Nodlag, 1922:—

This Committee was appointed by re- solutions of the Seanad adopted on the 13th December, 1922, in the following terms:—

(a) Go gceapfar Coiste de Sheanad Eireann chun beartuithe do réir Airtiogal 21 agus 23 den Bhun-Reacht agus chun tuarasgabháil do dhéanamh ar an socrú a mholfaid chun Oifigigh an tSeanaid do cheapa, agus do dhíol, etc.

(a) “That a Committee be appoin- ted from Seanad Eireann to find in accordance with Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution and to report on their suggested arrangements for appoint- ments, remuneration, etc., of Seanad Officials.”

(b) Go mbeidh ar an gCoiste seo:— Sir T. Grattan Esmonde, A. Jameson, Sir John Griffith, J.J. Parkinson, O. St. J. Gogarty, T. Farren, T. Westropp Bennett, Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh, M. O'Dea, Muiris O Mórtha, Eamonn Mac Giollaiasachta.

(b) That the Committee so called be composed as follows:—Senators Sir T. Grattan Esmonde, A. Jameson, Sir John Griffith, J.J. Parkinson, O. St. J. Gogarty, T. Farren, T. Westropp Bennett, Mrs. Wyse Power, M. O'Dea, Col. Moore, E. MacLysaght.

Do réir na rún so do tháinig an Coiste le chéile ar an 13adh Mí na Nodlag, agus do shocruíodar ar na molta so leanas do dhéanamh:—

In pursuance of these resolutions the Committee met on December 13th and decided to make the following recom- mendations:—

(a) Gur mar a chéile an díoluíocht a bheidh ag dul don Chathaoirleach, don Leas-Chathaoirleach agus do Bhaill Sheanad Eireann agus an díoluíocht a socróidh an Dáil do Cheann Comhairle, do Leas-Cheann Comhairle agus do Theachtaí na Dála.

(a) That the remuneration payable to the Cathaoirleach, the Leas-Chath- aoirleach, and the Members of Seanad Eireann shall be the same as may be fixed by the Dáil for the Ceann Comh- airle, Leas-Cheann Comhairle and Members of the Dáil.

(b) Go ndéanfar deimhnithe no ticéidí saosúir den chéad chéim go dtí agus ó thighthe na Seanadóirí do sholáthar.

(b) That first-class vouchers or sea son tickets to and from the homes of Senators be provided.

An Coiste a dhin na molta so, chuadar i gcomhairle leis an Uachtarán MacCos- gair, Aire Airgid, a bhí chó lách san agus bheith i láthair ag Cruinniú an Choiste

The Committee making these recom- mendations acted in consultation with President Cosgrave, Minister of Finance, who kindly attended the meeting of the Committee.









Ar an 14adh Mí na Nodlag do chuir rún an tSeanaid ainmneacha Lord Glenavy agus James G. Douglas le liosta ball an Choiste, agus do comóradh cruinnithe den Choiste méaduithe sin ar an 14adh Mí na Nodlag, an 29adh Mí na Nodlag, 1922, an 4adh Eanair, an 5adh Eanair, agus an 9adh Eanair, 1923.

On December 14th the resolution of the Seanad added the names of Lord Glenavy and James G. Douglas to the list of members of the Committee, and meetings of the Committee thus en- larged were held on December 14th, De- cember 29th, 1922; January 4th, Jan- uary 5th, and January 9th, 1923.

Do socruíodh na molta so leanas do chur go dtí an Seanad:—

It was decided to make the following recommendations to the Seanad:—

(a) Go gceapfar Cléireach, Fo- Chléireach, agus Dara Fo-Chléireach, An Dara Fo-Chléireach do bheith leis mar Rúnaí don Chathaoirleach, agus gurb é an díoluíocht tosnuithe a bheidh ag dul do sna hoifigigh seo ná:—

(a) That a Clerk, Assistant Clerk, and Second Assistant Clerk, the latter to act also as Secretary to the Cath- aoirleach, be appointed, and that the commencing remuneration to these officials be as follows:—


£1,000 sa mbliain.


£1,000 per annum.


700 sa mbliain.

Assistant Clerk

700 per annum.

Dara Fo-Chléireach

500 sa mbliain.

Second Assistant Clerk

500 per annum.

(b) Go gceapfar an Maor-Thaoiseach Daltún mar Chléireach, go gceapfar Domhnall T. O Súilleabháin mar Fho- Chléireach, agus Diarmuid O Cobhth- aigh mar Dara Fo-Chléireach agus mar Rúnaí don Chathaoirleach.

(b) That Major-General Dalton be appointed Clerk; that Donal J. O'Sul- livan be appointed Assistant Clerk; and Diarmuid Coffey Second Assistant Clerk and Secretary to the Cathaoir- leach.

(c) Go bhfágfar fén gCathaoirleach agus an Leas-Chathaoirleach ceapa agus téarmaí oifige aon mhion-oifigeach go mbeidh gá leo, agus gur i gcóir bliana amháin a déanfar na hoifigigh uile atá ainmnithe do chéad-cheapa.

(c) That the appointment and terms of office of any minor officials that may be required be left to the Cath- aoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach, and that the appointment of all the above-named officials be in the first instance for one year only.

(d) Go ndéanfar socrú leis an nDáil i dtaobh tuairisceoireacht imeachta an tSeanaid, agus go mbeidh Co- Eagarthóir ar Thuarasgabhála Oifigiúla an Dá Thigh. Beidh ar an Eagarthóir agus an Fhuirinn, i dtaobh nithe a bhainfidh le tuairisceoireacht imeachta an tSeanaid, oibriú fé smacht Cléireach an tSeanaid.

(d) That the reporting of the pro- ceedings of the Seanad be arranged jointly with the Dáil, with a joint Editor of the Official Reports of both Houses. The Editor and Staff, in matters concerning the reporting of Seanad proceedings, to act under the control of the Clerk of the Seanad.

NOTA.—Do shighníodar na Seanadóirí Maurice Moore agus Thomas Farren gan dochar dá n-easaontas leis an mola i dtaobh na Cléireachta.

NOTE.—Senators Moore and Farren signed subject to their dissent from the recommendation as to Clerkship.












9th January, 1923.



The first business on the agenda is to receive the Report of the Committee to deal with Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution, and with the suggested appointments and remuneration of officers of the Senate. The report of that Committee is before you, but I wish to make two observations in regard to it so that you may understand the form in which it comes before you. There are two reports, and that arises in this way: the Committee, in the first instance, dealt with the question of the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach as well as with the question of the remuneration of Senators and facilities for travelling. It was obvious that on that Committee neither the Cathaoirleach nor the Leas-Chathaoirleach should be members, nor should they take any part in the proceedings, and, accordingly, that first report is a report from that first Committee. Subsequently, when the other Reports came before the Seanad, they were asked to deal with the second matter, namely, the suggested appointments and the remunerations of officers of the Seanad. The Seanad thought it right to add to that Committee the names of the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach, and consequently, you will find that while their names do not appear to the first Report, they do appear to the second Report. The only other matter I wish to mention is, that this is an interim Report, and for this reason: we have not completed the task that the Seanad allotted to us. The appointments, according to the determination of the Seanad, were to be for one year only. It would be necessary for the Committee that you have appointed to deal with the duties and remuneration, in so far as increments of salaries and pensions are concerned, in the cases of permanent officials, and consequently the Committee has still got to go into that matter and report to you upon it. It has also to consider the question of appointment of an Advisory Counsel to the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach, who will also act as the examiner of Public and Private Bills, and will be available to assist the members of the Seanad and its Staff on any questions of law procedure that may arise, so that these two matters still stand over, and, consequently, the present Report comes before you as an interim Report only. It is now before the Seanad, and perhaps to make matters regular, some member of the Seanad will formally move, and some other member will formally second, the adoption of the Report.

I beg formally to move the adoption of the Report.

I beg to second.

Is it understood that there are some objectors, including myself.


That is stated on the face of it.

Before you put this Report, I think it right to say that at our last meeting, when this subject came up before us, you pointed out that the Committee that you had appointed had exceeded its powers, and you administered a slight rebuke to them for doing so. In doing that you had with you the approbation of the majority of the members of this Seanad. Then, what must have been the astonishment of the Senators to hear you speak in that way when they found, a few days afterwards, that the same Committee had apparently flagrantly violated its privileges in putting an advertisement into the daily papers asking for applications for these positions? I think, before that had been done, this Committee should have brought its Report before this Seanad, and this Seanad should have gone into those various appointments, and then this advertisement should have been put into the daily papers. You pointed out to them that they actedultra vires in certain recommendations they made, and I think now they have gone beyond that and acted in a more flagrant manner in exceeding their powers by putting in this advertisement.


I think that the Senator is under a mistake. In order to give to this Committee the powers which they thought they possessed in the first instance a second reference given to them was to consider and make suggestions as to the appointments, and also recommendations as to the remuneration of officials. It was put in that form deliberately, in order to make this Committee to have the power which they thought they possessed on the first reference. On that second reference, they considered it was their duty to take all the necessary steps in order to ascertain the names of suitable and eligible candidates, and then to investigate the qualifications of all these candidates. They interviewed at least a dozen of the gentlemen who sent in their names, and they took very considerable care and spent days over the matter. The Report now before you is the result of their labours. They were of opinion it would not be right or proper for them to make recommendations as to particular names unless and until they had publicly advertised that those positions were vacant so that anyone who wished to apply might have the fullest opportunity. That was the reason why they published the advertisement.

I understood that this Committee was empowered only to report to the Seanad, and not to take any action in the matter.


That is all we have done. You are not bound by this. If you look at the report, you will see that these are only recommendations of the Committee.

In what manner did they actultra vires in the first case?


Because, in the first case they were asked only to report as to the number of the staff that would be required. It was in consequence of the narrowness of that reference that the Seanad on the second occasion thought it was desirable to enlarge the reference. That was the reason they sent it back to the Committee. This report now before you does not purport to appoint anybody or to fix anything. It makes recommendations to the Seanad, which they are at liberty either to adopt or reject.

I accept your explanation, still I protest against their action as beingultra vires.

Bhíos láithreach gach aon úair a tháinig an coiste seo le céile, ach amháin gur theip orm a bheith ann an úair deireannach. Dá mbéinn ann do chuirfinn m'ainm leis, ach ní misde dom a rádh nach ceart dhúinn fear do cheapadh mar Cléireach gan an Ghaedhealg a bheith aige. 'Sí teanga oifigiuil na Éireann an Ghaedhealg anois, buidheachas le Día, agus is ait an rud é, agus cúis náire dhúinn, dréir, mo thuairim-se leis, fear a bheith i mbun na h-oibre ná tuigeann cad a bhíonn ar siubhal an fhaid a's a bhíonn sí á labhairt. Airighim go bhfuil an fear seo atá ceapuithe againn ar aigne tabhairt fúithi go fuinniúil anois. Má seadh, molaim é. Is fearr deidheanach ná choíche. Beidh toghadh eile ar siubhal tréis bliadhana, agus geobhamuís feiscint annsan an bhfuil sé i ndá ríribh nó ná fuil. Níl mórán Gaedhilgeóírí sa tSeanad anois, ach ní bhíonn ar aon rud ach tamall; ní bheidhmíd-ne annso go deo, agus beidh an Ghaedhealg ar aon leibheula amháin leis an mBeurla sa tigh seo fós, le congnamh Dé.

I agree with the remarks of Senator MacLysaght. I think it is unfortunate that our Chief Clerk would not understand any discussion which arises here in the Irish language; apparently he does not. I understand that our Assistant Clerk has a very good knowledge of the Irish language, and our second Assistant is also very highly qualified in the Irish language. That is very gratifying. However, I think it is unfortunate that our Senior Clerk is not qualified in Irish, but I hope he will acquire it before the end of the probationary year.

What is the position? Do we adopt the report as a whole?


The motion before the Seanad is the adoption of the report, as a whole. Of course, it is open to any Senator to move the rejection of any part of it.

The adoption of this report is hardly justifiable. I do not think we should place the selection of any officials of the Seanad or the appointment of any officials of the Senate in the hands of any individuals. For that reason I move that Clause (c) of the report be omitted.

I second that proposal.


It will be necessary for us to appoint officials, such as the messenger, the typist, and, perhaps, a shorthand clerk. But we do not think that these matters are big enough or important enough to be dealt with by the Seanad, and minor appointments like that should be left as in paragraph (c). Practically all the important officials will be subject to appointment by the Seanad. As regards the minor appointments, we do not think the Seanad would care to be troubled with them.

If you once deviate from having the appointments made by the Senate it would be a very dangerous course. As far as paragraph (c) of the report goes you do not specify what the minor appointments are. As I read that paragraph you could appoint anybody you like to any position you like.

We have a recommendation for the appointment of two chief officers of the Seanad, and, as far as I know, the great majority of Senators have not seen any qualifications in respect of either of those officers, or, indeed, any of the other applicants. It is rather awkward for us to have to vote, and have, perhaps, to carry this recommendation without knowing anything of the men we are voting for. I understood there would be no names submitted here in the first instance. I thought we would first have the terms of the position specified, and that afterwards qualifications would be brought forward, and that the applicants would have to conform with those before being appointed. We are asked to vote here in complete ignorance of the qualifications of the persons we are voting for. I have no doubt the Committee went very carefully into the qualifications, and probably selected the very best men; but I am not certain of that. I do not know that I may be asked to vote for a man who may not have the necessary qualifications to entitle him to occupy the position. Before we are asked to carry this report we ought to get some information of the number of applicants and what their qualifications are. I have only been handed the Committee's report; I do not know anything about it or the men recommended in it. I would like if the Chairman would tell us more about the report. I am not at all opposed to the appointments, but I never like to vote straight out for things I know nothing about. If there is a motion made for sending back this report, or any part of it, I would feel bound to vote for that motion. I would like to know whether there were other applicants, and to get some idea of their qualifications.


This is really a question of whether or not you have confidence in a Committee you nominate. The Seanad as a whole could never possibly have done the work that we did, because we interviewed at least a dozen candidates. We had applications from probably a dozen more. We spent five days exhaustively going through those applications, criticising and discussing them. In regard to the appointments, what we did was this: We selected a certain number ruled out some as being unsuitable, and left others in whom we thought had proper qualifications. We had to weed them out, and interviewed all that were available, and having interviewed them we finally came to a conclusion as to the individuals who, in our opinion had the best qualifications. We accordingly determined to recommend those individuals to the Seanad. It comes to this: we have delegated this Committee, and are you now satisfied with the work that the Committee have done. How the Seanad as a whole could ever have taken this task and done what we did I am at a loss to understand.

Your explanation clarifies the position very much. What puzzled me was Senator MacLysaght's protest against the first appointment.

Then I must not have understood your Irish very well.

I expressed a faint disapproval.

Faint disapproval coming from a member of the Committee encouraged me to think that the man recommended had no Irish. That sort of thing mixes up one new to this kind of work.


The amendment proposed by Senator Fitzgerald, and seconded by Senator Butler, is before the Seanad.

I formally moved the adoption of this report, and I was not aware that the point Senator Fitzgerald makes was going to be made. The mistake apparently has arisen because this Clause C is really a mixture of two ideas. What I would suggest is that we defer the first portion of the clause until you make a report to the Seanad.

I entirely approve of that.


I do not follow what you mean.

Might I explain further. As I read the first part of Clause C it is "that the appointment and terms of office of any minor officials that may be required be left to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman." What I would suggest is that you would bring up a report to us of the minor officials you suggest. That can be done to-morrow or the next day.

As I understood the matter, Sir Thomas, you were allowing the matter with reference to the words "tenure of office" to be left in, and the matter with reference to appointments of officials to be deferred.

Certainly, that is what I would suggest.


May I suggest to Senator Fitzgerald that I cannot really see what effective purpose is going to be obtained by this. Of course, if the Seanad disapproves of it it is gone, but if they do not disapprove of it, why should it go back to the Committee to make the same report over again, because the Committee were unanimous in the view that in reference to these subordinate officials, these small posts, it would not be right or proper to impose upon the Seanad the duty and task of selecting them.

If it could be defined what the small posts are.


I think it is quite right that the mistake in this draft should be corrected. That is to say, it should be made plain that the portion of "C" dealing with the appointments being only for a year is a separate paragraph, and applies to all the officials. I think that that is quite right. The material matter of the amendment is that the first part of that paragraph "C" be struck out.

I understood Senator Fitzgerald to agree to defer the matter.

I would respectfully suggest that in view of the additional information that you have given to the Seanad as to the infinity of trouble the Committee had in going through the candidates for these appointments, interviewing them, and rejecting them, and going into their merits, and having regard to the fact that we deliberately appointed the Committee to deal with this matter, we should be stultifying ourselves now if we rejected their recommendations. It is manifestly impossible for the Seanad to discuss the qualifications of these gentlemen like the small Committee did. We asked them to do such and such a thing. They did that thing, and in view of the additional information which the Chairman has given us, and which did not appear in the report, I would ask Senator Fitzgerald to withdraw his amendment and let the matter go through.

I think that the question raised by Senator Fitzgerald might be met by leaving the appointment of these minor officials to this Committee that has already been entrusted with the furnishing of this report, and I would suggest to him that he accept the provision substituting for the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach, the Committee already appointed to deal with the whole of the appointments.


Perhaps you will permit me to say that that was not, in any way, either of my seeking or that of the Deputy Chairman. It was imposed upon us by the Committee. For myself I have no anxiety to have any part in the selection of these officials.

I never suggested you had. I only suggested it would meet the point raised, and, perhaps, relieve any anxiety that might be in the minds of any Senator, in a desire to be very democratic, if these appointments are left to the Committee, and I would earnestly suggest that course to the Senator.

I entirely approve of the suggestion, which is a most admirable one.

I think in sending back this to the Committee you are asking the Committee to reverse their decision, and to deal with the whole matter from the beginning. To have the whole lot of us threshing out these appointments would be a thing that is not wanted. I think there is something behind Senator Fitzgerald's amendment which we could easily meet. I think when we settled it in the Committee we did believe them to be really minor appointments and that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman would settle them definitely. I think from what the Senator said he has an idea that there is something more in it than small appointments, and that being so it would meet the thing entirely if a list of these appointments, before they were made, was submitted to the Seanad. I believe that would meet all the objections and get over the trouble. There seems to be some idea that somewhere or another, which certainly I do not believe anybody in the Committee knew, there is some appointment in this that was out of the class we thought we were dealing with when we dealt with the matter in Committee.


Perhaps the simplest way to relieve the minds of the Senators would be to put it in this way: "That the appointment and terms of office of any minor officials that may be required be left to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, subject to the ratification of the Seanad."

Would it meet the point if "minor clerks and typists" were inserted? I think we really would make ourselves a laughing stock as a Seanad if from time to time you have to get a report that a junior typist has resigned or been dismissed, and, therefore, the Committee will meet, interview the persons, and make a report again to the Seanad. I do not think that is done anywhere in the world, and I do not think it looks like efficiency. It looks far more like suspicion and distrust. The intention here was "minor clerks and typists," and I think if these words were inserted it would meet the case.

If you will allow me I will suggest to add the words "subject to the approval of the Seanad."

Amendment put "That the appointment and terms of office of any minor officials that may be required be left to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, subject to the approval of the Seanad."



Would some Senator also move, and another second, that the last three lines of the paragraph be made a separate paragraph "D," because that was the intention of the Committee.

Motion made and question put "That the last three lines of paragraph C be altered by omitting the word ‘and,' and that the last three lines appear as a separate paragraph ‘D,' as follows:—

"(D) The appointment of the above-named officials shall be in the first instance for one year only."


A point to which I wish to call attention, and which seems to me to be rather an omission, is that there does not seem to be any provision made for maintaining order in the Seanad.


We have nothing to do with that. That was not referred to us at all. Our Standing Orders deal with that, and there is at present another Committee engaged upon the Standing Orders. In the Standing Orders we are providing for that, but they are not ready for you yet. I hope they will be soon.

I have only seen the paper recently, but in the last line of paragraph "A" I see the word "commencing." I happen to be on a public body which rather got into trouble by using the words "commencing salary" without further definition. I should like to suggest that the word might be either defined or cut out. The case I had in mind was one where the word was used, and it subsequently transpired that the ideas of the officials concerned as to when the increases should commence and the ideas of the public body did not coincide, and it created a good deal of difficulty and of heartburning. The body to which I refer, in a fit of economy, did not carry out the implied obligation of increasing the salaries after the lapse of whatever period it was—one year or two—and I thought it might be possible in this case, as the appointments are for one year only, that the word might be left out or more clearly defined.


Might I explain what exactly the Committee meant by that. You see that the officers proposed are only to hold office for one year, so that it will be essential for this Committee, and one of the duties that still remains to be discharged by them, to draw up a scheme, which they intend to do, and which will regulate the increments, if any, which these officers are to get, their pension rights, and matters of that kind, their duties and so forth. The reason we did not approach that as yet is that a scheme is being prepared by the Dáil regulating such matters in regard to their officers, and our Committee thought it would be desirable that we should run on parallel lines with them, and we are waiting to see what their proposals are, as they may affect our consideration. But we have not lost sight of the matter mentioned by the Senator who has just spoken. It is one of the things we have still to discharge, and that will explain why it is the report appears in that shape. We did not like the officials to believe, or to think, or that it should go out to the public that these salaries were fixed at these figures for all times. We thought that it should appear to them, by inference, that these salaries would be subject to increments or increases according to the scheme we would ultimately agree on. We have not yet had time to approach that scheme.

The difficulty might be met if we bear in mind that, in the first instance, it is only for one year, and if you add the words, instead of "commencing,""in the first instance," that would imply that it was only for a year, and would be liable to an increase. In the first instance the remuneration should be stated.


That is very like the word "commencing."

It is better English, I think.


I think we should merely state the remuneration and leave it "commencing in the first instance." Apparently that is the wish of the House.

Agreed to.


Now the motion is still before the House that this Report of the Committee, as amended, be adopted.

I shall be compelled to vote against this Report for the reason I gave at the meeting of the Committee. I have not signed the Report. I dissented from one portion of the Report in regard to the appointment of the Clerk. I do not intend, in this House, to go over the grounds I gave to the Committee, but I am compelled to be consistent, and I must vote against the Report.

I am in the same position.


I might point out to the Senators that they have signed the Report, and the only subject matter of qualification is as regards one item in it.

That is the only difference.


I understand that the object of Senator Farren and Senator Moore is as regards one particular in which they dissent. But it must be understood that inasmuch as they signed the Report, that, as regards the rest of the Report, they are in agreement with their colleagues.

Question put, "That the Report be adopted."

I would like to say that I cannot find, in the terms of reference, any justification for the Committee having recommended certain names for these appointments. The terms of reference were explicit, and I do not see from your remarks, Mr. Chairman, on the last occasion that there is any warrant for the Committee taking that course. You definitely confined them to the original terms of reference.


Oh, no, the Senator is completely mistaken. The second reference was much wider. It was that they were to suggest appointments and to suggest the remuneration of the officers. It was done deliberately in order to relieve the Committee from the difficulty they were in on the first occasion.

The terms of reference on the first occasion were to report on appointment and remuneration. These were the original terms of reference, but they went outside them and they named certain individuals to fill these appointments, and you very properly said they had exceeded the terms of reference, and sent them back. They have come forward again now and gone one better, and, so far as I can see—I am subject to correction—they come forward again and rename the persons for these appointments, and I have also seen in the Press where they have advertised.


I thought I explained all that. Perhaps I may say we have been labouring here since we started under the greatest difficulty, because we have had no official Staff, and there has been great difficulty in getting recorded the various resolutions arrived at by the Seanad. In fact, we had to depend largely on the notes I took myself. That is the reason we came forward with an interim Report, because we were anxious to have our Clerks appointed at the earliest possible moment in order that things would be reduced to regularity and not left in this haphazard way. My recollection is quite distinct, viz., that the reference to the first Committee was simply to report in regard to Sections 21 and 23 of the Constitution as to the number of the Staff to be required. It was in consequence of that restriction upon their powers that in making the second reference the Seanad deliberately stated that they were to suggest the appointment and to suggest the remuneration, and that is what we are entitled to carry out.

Yes, to suggest the appointment and remuneration, but not to name the person. I find nothing in your remarks that they are to actually name the people to fill the appointments, and other members of the Seanad are in the same position as I am. If the Committee exceeded their duty in the first instance they have more than exceeded it in the second. You said you could not possibly allow the report to come up for discussion because the Committee seemed to have completely misconceived the subject matter of the reference, which was not a reference to appoint Officers, and you said the Committee had not considered the qualifications necessary, and that the Committee should consider them.


You see exactly the difficulty. They were to suggest recommendations as to the appointments and made recommendations as to the appointments and remuneration.

Yes, but not to suggest the names?


You may give me credit that I was satisfied that the first Committee exceeded their powers so far as was in my power to see. The second did not do anything of the kind. If the House thought they exceeded their powers they could have rejected the Report, but I have no hesitation in saying, so far as I have any voice, that their action is strictly within the terms of reference.

I have the report before me, and there is not a single thing in it to justify them in that. On the second occasion they were confined to the terms of reference equally as on the first. There was nothing to justify them in naming anyone to fill any of those appointments, and I go further and say I and others received applications. I have no fault to find personally with the present Clerk. I do not know what his qualifications are. I see that he has distinguished himself as a military man, and surely our Army is a sufficiently large and important service to find a fitting position for him if he has distinguished himself in that way. You yourself stressed the qualification that would be required for a Clerk of the Seanad. Whether the present Clerk has these qualifications or not I am not prepared to say, or whether the Committee are as satisfied as you think, but the Seanad had no means of knowing. The Committee should have come back to the House and reported the Staff required, and reported on the extent of the qualifications of the applicants, and they should have submitted these to the House and appointed a special Committee to go into these qualifications.


This motion for the adoption of the Report has been carried, and we must now proceed to the second business on the Order Paper.