In case the Seanad should decide on an address in reply to the Governor-General's speech, I thought it best to put down a motion, so that Senators might have time to consider the matter, as it was important. Except to find that my motion was not down on the agenda, I heard no more about it, and had no idea of the reason. On entering the Seanad I heard someone say there might be no address in reply. Not knowing what the procedure would be, and anxious about the fate of my resolution, I asked the following question, certainly with no desire to embarrass any one:—
"On a point of order, I handed in an amendment which, I am informed, is objected to because there is to be no vote of thanks. In principle I am quite in agreement with that. I do not want to object to that in any way, but I acted upon last year's arrangement when the Cathaoirleach suggested that there should be a vote of thanks."
I was stopped at this point by the Chairman. I intended to suggest "if the Senate decided to have no address or resolution in reply to the Speech, my amendments might be taken as a separate resolution." This proposal might have been unacceptable, I am not disputing that; the Chairman might have refused. I asked a simple question, as I understand any Senator has a right to do. I have read the question, and I think Senators will admit it was not a provocative question; certainly it was not so meant. The Chairman ruled my proposal out of order because he said it had already been decided to have no resolution. With that I have nothing to say, except that I did not so understand the Senate's vote. He added:—
"Really, it is too bad that the Senator does not pay attention to what takes place in the Senate."
And he went on to say:
"I must say I think it very unfortunate that any Senator should now seek to go behind it (i.e., the decision of the Senate) because it puts his colleagues in a very unpleasant position before the public and the country."
Here are two distinct charges launched at me in answer to my simple and unprovocative request, only half of which was listened to. The first is a comparatively small matter, which, though undeserved, I could afford to pass over; the second is a very serious imputation on my character, which has gone all over Ireland, with headlines in the papers, "that I was seeking to go behind the decision of the Senate so as to put my colleagues in a very unpleasant position before the people of Ireland."
How this simple question, or request, of mine could have such direful results for my colleagues is far beyond the reach of my intelligence or my imagination. We have heard of a mountain in labour bringing forth a ridiculous mouse, but we have here a poor little mouse of a question made to mother a monster to destroy my colleagues. Rather ludicrous it seems to me.
With regard to the minor charge of negligence and lack of attention, I may say this: I listened carefully to the discussion on the 3rd; I was not content with my memory; I read carefully the official report; I also found that the Dáil had an Address in reply before it. I pursued the matter further and referred to last year's proceedings, when, at the recommendation of the Chairman, an Address of thanks for the Governor-General's speech was passed. I found that a certain Senator Moore had put down a motion at that time to discuss a matter concerning the Governor-General's speech, but it was ruled out of order, very properly—the Chairman saying:
"The only other business is a notice in the name of Senator Colonel Moore. I will be compelled, I am afraid, to rule it out of order, and I want Colonel Moore to understand why I do so. It is quite natural he should have put this down in its existing form, but if he looks at the Standing Orders, under which we are at present working, he will find that a Standing Order has been expressly framed to avoid discussions of what I may call a barren nature—discussions on things that lead to nothing. In other words, he will find a Standing Order which provides that every motion must take the form of a resolution, and it must ask the Seanad to resolve something. It is not to be merely sterile, and it is not to call for a mere expression of views; it is to ask the Seanad to take action in some respect. That is the object of that Standing Order, and as long as we have that, this motion of Colonel Moore's contravenes it. It does not ask for any action, or suggest the passing of any resolution. It simply says he wishes to call attention to certain things."
It seemed to me that decision precluded a discussion without a resolution unless Standing Orders were suspended, but Senator Moore is wrong both ways: wrong when he thought there could be a discussion without a resolution, and wrong when he thought the opposite. I went further still. I went to the Senate to enquire from the Chairman if my motion had been accepted, and not finding the Chairman, phoned to his house, but did not get him. I heard no more of the matter till I entered the Senate. What more could an uninformed Senator do, except ask the Chairman, when proceedings began, for guidance. That other Senators are of my opinion may not prove we are right, but surely that question which I have read did not deserve to be made the basis of a charge of dishonourable conduct; at least we might expect a simple negative. The Chairman complained that I had said, "I take your ruling, but I do not agree at all." These accusations were wrapped in the ruling. How could I agree with them? It seems to me I made a very mild protest. Serious accusations of this sort, if made across the House, can be answered at once. Is it fair that they should be made by a Chairman who cannot be answered at once? Every honest man should repudiate such a charge, but it goes out to the country unanswered. That is why I asked for leave to make a personal explanation, and I leave the matter to the House.