Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Nov 1923

Vol. 2 No. 5

PERSONAL EXPLANATION OF A SENATOR.

I desire to ask the leave of the Seanad to make a personal explanation with regard to an incident which occurred at the meeting on the 10th October. I have no intention to question any ruling of the Chairman. I regret so long an interval has passed since the meeting on the 10th when the incident took place. I had asked the Chairman for permission to bring it up at the next meeting after the 10th, but the circumstances under which we met prevented it, and I adjourned it. At all events time prevents heat. Senators cannot be expected to remember the details of what happened on the 3rd and 10th instant, so I will re-state them in a few words. On the 3rd, a discussion arose as to the best form of procedure to be followed with regard to the Governor-General's Address, and Senator Bennett moved:

"That we adjourn the consideration of the Address to this day week, to give us time for the consideration of it."

No amendment was proposed, and after some discussion it was passed. I understood this to mean that the whole procedure with regard to the Governor-General's speech would be adjourned, and that the decision whether there should be an Address in reply, or a resolution in reply to it, would not be prejudiced.

That is what I understood and voted for. I put all discussion on this aside, merely saying that was my impression, and that I am not alone in that opinion. Some Senators who have read the proceedings carefully agree with my view; it cannot, therefore, be called an absurd view. I merely say that was my honest opinion.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I cannot allow that. This is a personal statement of your own. Please do not travel outside it.

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.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I very much regret that the Senator should have thought it necessary to bring up this matter before the Seanad, because it compels me very shortly to state the position, a position which I think will satisfy the Seanad. Certainly, though I may not have stated enough, I did not say any more than the occasion justified. On the 3rd October we discussed the question as to what our proceedings would be with reference to the Address of His Excellency, the Governor-General, and I made a suggestion to the Seanad which was received without objection, of any sort or kind, from any quarter of the Seanad, that perhaps the best and wisest course would be simply to have a discussion on the Address. So much did it agree with the sense of the Seanad as a whole that when the Committee retired five minutes afterwards into my room to frame a Standing Order to regulate the procedure for future occasions they adopted precisely the suggestion I made that day, and which, as I have said, was received without objection from any quarter of the Seanad. Senator Colonel Moore has told us what his intentions, understandings, and thoughts were. I need hardly remind him that I cannot say what are his thoughts and intentions. They are wrapt up in his own breast.

I can only act upon Senators' acts and words, and accordingly after that understanding, arrived at by the tacít consent of the entire House, I found, when we met on the following Wednesday, the 10th, the Senator got up and complained that he was not allowed to move an amendment, I felt that he was putting the House and his colleagues in a very false position. I did not say, as he has suggested I said, that he did it for that purpose; I never said anything of the kind. What I did say was that an action of that kind was calculated to put his colleagues in a false position before the country, and I say so still. There is one matter, perhaps, to which the Senator has not thought it worth while to allude, but I cannot allow it to pass in silence because it affects the position and status of the officials of our House. On that day, the 10th of October, in order to justify his interpretation of what I had stated at the previous meeting on Wednesday, he made the following statement:—

"I carefully read over all the statements made the other day in consonance with the Clerk of the Seanad, and it was quite agreed that no such arrangement had definitely been come to."

I wish to say that I deprecate in the strongest way the introduction of any reference to any advice received from any officials of the House. These officials are ready and willing to give their advice to Senators who consult them, but if that advice is always to be quoted in the House and relied upon as a justification for quarrelling with the ruling of the Chairman, it puts our officials in a very false position, indeed, because it brings them into direct conflict with the Chair and in conditions under which they cannot either reply or defend themselves. But what are the facts with regard to this —I mean as I am informed by the officials, as, of course, in accordance with my duty I consulted them about it? The Clerk of the Seanad tells me that Senator Colonel Moore never opened his lips to him on the subject, never mentioned it or discussed it with him, directly or indirectly. The Assistant Clerk tells me that Senator Colonel Moore did consult him, but that he expressly warned Senator Colonel Moore that he would be out of order in attempting to move any amendment, owing to the agreement arrived at, at the previous meeting, that there was to be no resolution, no amendment, and no discussion.

I cannot suggest a better illustration of the impropriety or the undesirability of any Senator introducing in debate in this House any reference to advice given him by one of our officers than the unpleasantness caused in this particular case. It is not for me to determine whether the recollection of the Senator or the recollection of the officers is right, but the very fact that this conflict of recollection has arisen illustrates in the strongest way how undesirable it is that the names of our officers should be introduced in this way, and for the future I shall unhesitatingly rule out of order any such references. I have no more to say upon that; that ends the discussion, and we will now pass on to the next business.

COLONEL MOORE

A Chathaoirligh——

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I cannot allow Senator Colonel Moore to speak. I will not listen to him any further on this. I am not going to deal with trouble raised in this House as between you and the officials.

COLONEL MOORE

I can answer that question——

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Well, I cannot allow it.

I think it is a little hard that when a Senator makes an explanation and you, sir, see fit to tell him that from information which you have derived——

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You are out of order, Senator. Let me explain to you. Sit down, please, while I am speaking. I referred to a conflict of recollection—I put it in that way—that has arisen between Senator Colonel Moore and the officials of this House. We have no power to determine who is right in that. I did not determine who was right in that conflict of recollection, but I did refer to it in justification of the Clerk, who cannot speak for himself, and who is entitled to defend himself from the suggestion that he gave advice to Senator Colonel Moore which was in direct conflict with the ruling I had given in the House. That is a matter which I was, of course, bound to mention in defence of the Clerk. As to whether his recollection or that of Senator Colonel Moore is right is not for the House to determine; but the House has an illustration of how undesirable it was that any Senator should, in debate, introduce any reference to advice given him by our officials, because our officials are not in a position to speak for themselves, nor is the House in a position to decide between the Senator and the officials. That is not a matter that in any way concerns anyone else, and, as I have said, any further discussion of it is out of order.

Have I not leave to say, in reply, one word to what you have said? It is not so much that my friend wished to justify his statement in contradiction of that made by our Clerk, but that he wished to point out to the House that the only reason that he was obliged to consult the Clerk was because he was unable to find you or get you on the telephone.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Do you not see you are completely out of order? You are now assuming that he did consult the Clerk. You are making the very statement that the Clerk has emphatically and absolutely denied.

I beg your pardon; you said that the Clerk admitted that Senator Colonel Moore consulted him.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You evidently were not listening to me. What was said by Senator Colonel Moore was that he had consulted the Clerk of the House and that the Clerk of the House had agreed with him that no such arrangement was arrived at. I stated that the Clerk of the House says that Senator Colonel Moore never spoke to him, directly or indirectly, on the subject, but that he did speak to the Assistant Clerk.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Pardon me. And the Assistant Clerk gave me his assurance that so far from agreeing with Senator Colonel Moore's view of what had taken place, he expressly pointed out to him that he was wrong.

I only wish to say——

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I cannot hear you any further. Please resume your seat.

On a point of order; I quite accept your ruling that it is out of order to discuss this matter; but, with the permission of the House, would it not be possible to discuss it on the adjournment?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Not a matter arising out of a personal explanation.

A Senator lower down in the House replies for you. Is that in order?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I did not hear that. I am always able to speak for myself, Senator.

Top
Share