I have to call the attention of the House to the somewhat complicated position in which this Bill now stands. You will recollect that originally a former member of the House, Senator De Loughry, introduced a Coroners Bill. The Bill was rather a skeleton one. The House did not consider it satisfactory. It was withdrawn and a new Bill, on more extensive lines, was introduced as a result of reference to a Select Committee which went into the matter. That new Bill was passed through all its stages in this House and then was sent to the Dáil. In the Dáil there were a number of amendments made to the Bill, none of them interfering with the substance of the Bill. They were, more or less, of a drafting nature, not touching the root of the Bill at all. Now, the Bill has been sent back to us from the Dáil. The question is: How are we to deal with it? The position is rendered a little difficult owing to Article 39 of the Constitution, which prescribes that any Bill initiated in the Seanad, but amended by Dáil Eireann, shall be considered as a Bill initated in Dáil Eireann. That would look as if, when the Bill comes to us now from the other House, we were bound to treat it in every respect as if we never heard of it before—treat it de novo. I do not think that was the intention of the Article. The intention, I think, was to give to any such Bill, initated in the Seanad, the same position as if it had been originated in the Dáil for the purposes of the periods which are to follow before it becomes law. That was plainly the intention— to enable the periods fixed for measures passed by both Houses to come into operation: the period as regards submission to the Governor-General for signature, the period that may elapse if this House fails to consider it, or if amendments are put in to which the other House do not agree.
This clause was intended to apply all these periods to all Bills, whether originated in the Seanad or in the Dáil. But in its literal interpretation—I have always endeavoured to interpret the Constitution literally and to follow its strict letter—the Article would amount to this: that we would have to consider the Bill de novo. But the method of consideration is not imposed on us by the Constitution. It is subject to our own Standing Orders. We have a Standing Order, No. 92, which prescribes that in the case of any Bill, no matter in which House initiated, which comes back to this House amended by the Dáil, consideration of that Bill in this House has to be confined to the amendments. Therefore, I propose that you consider the amendments to this Bill to-day. I do not think you are likely to have much difference of opinion as regards these amendments. They do not interfere with the principle of the Bill. If you are satisfied to agree with them, I shall ask you to pass the Bill, because you have never had it before you in its present shape until now. It is not exactly the same Bill as the Bill you passed. In order to comply with the provisions of Article 39, I shall ask you, when you have disposed of the amendments, to receive the Bill for final consideration and to pass it. As it is a private member's measure, motions to agree with or reject amendments will have to be put to the House.
