Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Feb 1927

Vol. 8 No. 6

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT No. 2) BILL, 1926—THIRD STAGE.

"The Constitution shall be and is hereby amended by the insertion therein of the following paragraph at the end of and as an addition to Article 21, that is to say:—

‘The member of Dáil Eireann who is the Chairman of Dáil Eireann immediately before the dissolution of the Oireachtas shall, unless before such dissolution he announces to Dáil Eireann that he does not desire to continue to be a member thereof, be deemed without any actual election to be elected at the ensuing general election as an additional member of Dáil Eireann not representing any constituency and shall as such additional member have all the rights and obligations of an ordinary member of Dáil Eireann (including eligibility for the office of Chairman) save that his death, resignation or disqualification shall not create a vacancy in the membership of Dáil Eireann.'"

Mr. O'FARRELL

The first four amendments on the Orders of the Day are consequential on what happens to the one I ask permission to move. It reads:

To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

"2. The member so elected shall be deemed to represent the constituency which last elected him to Dáil Eireann, and the number of Deputies to be ordinarily elected by the said constituency at the ensuing general election shall accordingly be reduced by one, save that the death, resignation or disqualification of the said member shall create a vacancy in the said constituency, which vacancy shall be filled by the ordinary methods of election of a member of Dáil Eireann."

CATHAOIRLEACH

In the event of the amendment being carried the others are consequential. If it is rejected the others fall.

Mr. O'FARRELL

The effect of this amendment is to alter the Bill so that the outgoing Chairman of the Dáil shall be automatically elected an ordinary member of Dáil Eireann as representing the constituency that elected him to Dáil Eireann. The constituency which he represents will return one Deputy less than it would return ordinarily, but, in the event of the death of the Ceann Comhairle, a vacancy would be created in the constituency and would be filled by the ordinary method of an election. This amendment merely seeks to do by legislation what is done in England and in other places by arrangement between the different political parties. Of course there is every reason to believe that if there were single-member constituencies here, as in Great Britain, there would be an arrangement between the parties not to oppose the Speaker of the Dáil. That is rendered difficult, if not well-nigh impossible, by the fact that here all the constituencies return a comparatively large number of members, so that it is impracticable to return a Speaker unopposed. The amendment suggests that if we cannot do it by arrangement we should try to do it by legislation. Personally, I am not in love with the amendment any more than I am with the Bill. I think it is an undesirable form of legislation.

I am moving the amendment as, in my opinion, it is at all events somewhat more desirable than what is in the Bill. Under the Bill a sort of floating additional member is added to the Dáil by the Dáil itself. The total membership of the Dáil is increased for the time being by one member who represents no constituency. If he is not selected for the Chair after the new Parliament opens, he is then in the rather anomalous and unenviable position of not being in the Chair. At the same time he represents no constituency, and has no intimate connection with any constituency. There are times also when with an even division of parties one additional member might have a vital effect on the life of a Government. If he is in the Chair he has a casting vote and gives that vote although he is a person representing no constituency and is an additional member. That may have very far-reaching and vital results. If he should die or resign before the next election there is no provision for electing anybody in his place, so that the membership of the House fluctuates, at all events, to the extent of one.

Another consideration that I do not want to advance very much is that by the amendment the allowance of one Deputy would be saved. It may be a small matter, but it is a consideration that may be worth mentioning. I do not claim that the amendment is by any means perfectly drafted. I only ask the House to consider the principle of it, and the drafting may be seen to afterwards. As I said, I am not in love with the amendment, but I think it is more acceptable than the arrangement of adding an additional member to the Dáil, and making him a floating member without attachment to any constituency. I suggest the amendment as a compromise for the consideration of the House.

CATHAOIRLEACH

What is the position at present, supposing the Speaker resigns during his term of office?

Mr. O'FARRELL

At present he represents the University, and if he resigns, as in the case of any other Deputy, a vacancy is created and is filled by a by-election. If he represented any constituency outside the University the same thing would occur. As the Bill stands, if the Speaker resigns there would be no election. No vacancy would be created. My position is, if my amendment is passed, that at the next election the University would elect only two instead of three Deputies. In the event of death or disqualification there would be a vacancy.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I think the position is that if the Speaker resigns his seat during the first term but not the Chairmanship, there would be a vacancy. If he resigned under the Bill after he was deemed elected, the position would be as Senator O'Farrell has stated. I think the amendment proposed by Senator O'Farrell is a very interesting one. It is quite clear that it does not in any sense cut across the principle of the Bill. Those who strongly support the Bill can support the amendment without in any way injuring what it is desired to achieve. At first I was inclined to think the amendment is an improvement, but on the whole, I am inclined to think it is not. It is not because of any vital difference. It is largely a matter as to which will be the more convenient machinery.

If the amendment were inserted and the Speaker died or resigned, as suggested, if he had been deemed to be elected under the Bill there would be a by-election. That is one clear difference and a point in favour of the amendment that will appeal to those who consider representing a constituency to be of considerable value. Personally I do not think under Proportional Representation that is a matter of very great importance, but the drawback to the amendment is a Speaker has first of all to be elected for a constituency returning say four, five, six or seven members. He then finds himself chosen as Speaker, and then, in my opinion, he practically ceases to represent that constituency. He cannot act in any party sense, he cannot argue in public, and he cannot represent the constituency except in some way which I think is undesirable. For all practical purposes there is disfranchisement under the amendment, and that disfranchisement would continue if there were six members representing the constituency for which the gentleman was returned, who was chosen Speaker. At the next election only five would be elected because the Speaker would be deemed to be elected. I think, but it is not vital, that it is preferable to let that constituency elect six members. The fact is you cannot get a perfectly logical position if you want to provide for this. I do not think there would be a saving of £360 a year. If the gentleman is not re-elected as Speaker somebody else would of course be chosen for the position.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Under my amendment there would not be an additional member. There would not be more than 153 members.

Mr. DOUGLAS

In that case there would be an additional member, but it would not always so work. To be logical and make the thing perfect you would want to provide that he should be a member of the constituency of the person who was chosen in his place. On the whole I think it is better as it stands, but it is a matter of choice.

EARL of KERRY

You cannot make this sort of thing completely logical, but I am bound to confess that Senator O'Farrell's amendment makes it more logical than it is in the Bill. It approximates as nearly as possible to the custom on the other side, which works very well in practice. It seems to me perfectly fair that the Speaker would be virtually deemed to be elected, and to continue to be a member of the constituency for which he was originally elected. Would not there be a certain injustice supposing he were not chosen as Speaker in the second Parliament? He would have, so to speak, divorced himself from his constituency during a period of four years during which, through force of circumstances, he had been unable to do anything for that constituency. You would assume he was a member of merit or he would not have been elected Speaker. He would get his reward by letting him continue to represent that constituency in the next Parliament, and you would give him a chance under these circumstances of actually representing the constituency. It seems to me that it is far more logical in that way than to put in an extra member with all the possibilities that may arise under the Bill. Therefore I support Senator O'Farrell's amendment.

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)

The amendment which is consequential has the appearance at any rate of elected representation. The person who has acted throughout the period of the life-time of one Parliament is deemed to be elected for the constituency which elected him in the last General Election. In that way, unlike the provisions of the Bill, the total membership of the Dáil remains what it was, and the constituency which in the previous General Election returned the Speaker will be only free to elect one short of its full representation. Whether that represents an improvement on the Bill or not is questionable. The Speaker on his election was, I submit, called from the service of his constituency to the service of the Dáil, but he is to be dumped on that constituency by Statute in the next General Election, and the constituency is to be docked to the extent of one seat of its full representation. Whether simply for a desire to adhere to the appearance of democratic and elected representation we are not in fact infringing on it to an almost equal extent is a question, but there is one reaction in this amendment to which I would like to draw attention. Article 26 of the Constitution provides that the constituencies shall be revised at least once in every ten years. Now, let us suppose that during the lifetime of a particular Parliament the constituencies are so revised, and let us suppose that the constituency which elected the person chosen as Speaker in the previous General Election was substantially altered, or perhaps legislated out of existence, to what constituency then is the Speaker to be deemed to be elected in the next General Election? Senator O'Farrell says his former constituency, but his former constituency may have disappeared as a result of the operation of Article 26 of the Constitution.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Is not that rather far fetched?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Certainly not. There is to be a revision of the Constitution at least once in every ten years. Presumably that envisages a substantial alteration of constituencies. It might be if there is to be substantial alteration that there would be a disappearance of one constituency.

The EARL of KERRY

The whole constituency would not disappear?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

One whole constituency might disappear as a result of the alteration.

Colonel MOORE

Would it be absorbed in another constituency?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Parts in one constituency parts in another, and so on, but there is visualised in the Constitution an alteration of constituencies at least once in every ten years.

Mr. KENNY

On a population basis.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Yes, and as a result of such revision one constituency might disappear and be merged in an adjoining constituency. If the Speaker's constituency were to disappear, or to be substantially altered, then to what constituency under this amendment is the Speaker deemed to be elected in the next General Election? His former constituency will have ceased to exist. Parts of it may exist, but the former constituency as such has gone if it is interfered with.

Mr. FARREN

What would happen supposing the constituency of the Vice-President disappeared?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I would find another. That is not at stake. But the Speaker is not free to find another. Under the amendment he is to be deemed to be elected to his former constituency, and that might put him in the dilemma; that in the absence of his former constituency he is not deemed to be elected for any constituency. If the constituency is altered then it disappears in fact. There is that difficulty about the squaring of the provisions of Article 26 of the Constitution with what the Senator seeks to effect by his amendment.

Now this other proposal is simply that the Speaker be returned to the Dáil as an additional member, free to choose a constituency on whose needs he may care to concentrate with a view to the next ensuing General Election. I do not think there is anything particularly anomalous in that. There is the same anomaly as there is in Great Britain. We have been told by Senator the Earl of Kerry that the system in Great Britain works very well. It does of course work very well, but whether the electorate there would be enthusiastic about it is another matter. It results in the disfranchisement for a long period of years of an important urban constituency. It works very well because the heads of parties refrain from putting up candidates in opposition to the Speaker, but the net result for the electorate of that constituency is that for all practical purposes it is disfranchised during the lifetime of the Speaker. Now this proposal is that your Speaker who has served in one Parliament be returned automatically to the next without defining him as representing any particular constituency. If he is not elected to the Chair, well he is there as an extra member with a roving commission, free to choose the constituency that he may care to concentrate on, and we are told that is a fault and a stigma. It is something less than one per cent. of an encroachment on the representative character of the assembly. Whether you will improve that very much by saying by Statute that he is deemed to be a representative of some constituency which, in fact, has not elected him, is a question, and when you add to that question the difficulty that I pointed out and that certainly may arise under Article 26 of deciding what constituency he represents, if the constituency that elected him in the former General Election is substantially altered, then I think there is a case for leaving the Bill as it stands.

Mr. BROWN

I agree with Senator O'Farrell in the attitude he has adopted towards this amendment. He said he was not very much enamoured of it, and I am much in the same position. There is one comfort about this amendment, that whether it is passed or not it is not going to spoil the Bill. No matter whether you pass the amendment or leave the Bill as it is, the Speaker will remain in the House. My reason for not being enamoured of this amendment and for much preferring what is in the Bill is this: the objection to the Bill on the part of Senator O'Farrell and of others who share his view is that it infringes the theory of parliamentary representation. You have someone in the House who represents no constituency. Well, to a certain kind of decimal extent that is perfectly true. But, on the other hand, this amendment makes the matter very much worse, for under it the Speaker will be automatically dumped on a constituency which he may not represent at all—he may not represent the views of the people in that constituency at all. In fact, their views in the meantime may have undergone an entire change. I am, therefore, in favour of the Bill on the ground of parliamentary representation, believing as I do that you do less harm to it by the Bill than by passing this amendment.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

The speech of the Vice-President confirms me in my opinion that this is not a desirable Bill. The amendment which Senator O'Farrell has moved meets the situation to some extent, though I would have preferred to have the matter debated on the amendment which I intend to propose to line 31. The speech of the Vice-President raises a new spectre. He told us that in addition to having a Speaker in a new Dáil in future years who would represent nobody, that we would have what he called disappearing constituencies, so that apparently we are to have members of the new Dáil representing nobody, and we are to have constituencies that will disappear if you press a button.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Or if you pass a Bill.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

Yes. All this is evidence to my mind that it would be very much better to leave things as they are. The Vice-President told us about a Speaker or ex-Speaker who was not re-elected to be Speaker. I gather that is the case that he had in mind. He told us that that gentleman, who represented nobody, should concentrate on another constituency while he sat in the Dáil. I can imagine the reception that the member for that other constituency would give this gentleman representing nobody concentrating upon the people whom he was elected to represent. I disapprove of this Bill altogether. It is very hard to amend it, and logically it is not possible to amend it. You cannot amend a thing logically which is utterly illogical in itself. It only shows us how unwise it is to make constitutional amendments without some really grave and all-important reason. We have a written Constitution, and this is one of the illustrations of the advantages of a written Constitution. We find it very difficult, if we amend it, to know what the results of that amendment are likely to be. Senator O'Farrell's amendment is an attempt to improve what I think is a very illogical situation. I object, and will continue to object, to a member of a representative assembly representing nobody. That, to my mind, finishes with this Bill altogether. The idea of the presiding officer of a legislative assembly representing nobody is, to my mind, a parody on constitutional principles. I have an amendment down which we are to discuss, and which removes at all events the personal element, because I should be very sorry to be suspected of taking any personal view in this matter. I would be very sorry indeed to say anything unkind or impolite about the distinguished gentleman who presides over the destinies of the Dáil.

What I propose is that he should be re-elected for his former constituency. That would make his position in the next Parliament perfectly safe. Senator O'Farrell has a similar purpose in view in the amendment which follows, and to that extent I accept it and welcome it.

The main underlying principle of Senator O'Farrell's amendment and of mine is the same. It removes the utterly impossible situation of an unelected member being a member of an elective and representative assembly I think that when one considers the matter deeply one becomes more impressed of the desirability of the legislature being elected. We have been talking all our lives about democratic institutions, constitutions and legislalive assemblies. This Bill is the first real attempt to go behind the principles that we have always professed. We are going to have in the new Dáil a Speaker who represents nobody. I hold that you cannot confine this election to the Speaker. You must treat your Deputy-Speaker in the Dáil in exactly the same way. Then, if you do so much in the Dáil, you must come to the Seanad and you must re-elect your Chairman and your Vice-Chairman of the Seanad automatically. Once you start infringing on the principle of representation you do not know where you may be landed. It might very well happen that when the system had been in operation for a few years, with the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Dáil and the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Seanad elected automatically, that the President might consider that he was entitled to be re-elected automatically, and I do not see how, on logical grounds, you could prevent it. I think it would be very much better to leave this matter alone and not interfere, as this Bill does, with established principles in this country. I certainly support the Senator in all his amendments. They do not quite treat the matter as I would like it to be treated, but they carry out to a certain extent the views that I maintain.

Colonel MOORE

I agree with a great deal of what the last speaker has said. The Minister's speech was very ingenious, but I think he seems to have omitted to remember that the very thing that he suggests might apply to the present case in this Bill. The Speaker's constituency might have been abolished. Then what constituency does he represent? He certainly cannot be deemed to represent a constituency which has been abolished.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The Bill does not deem him to represent any constituency.

Colonel MOORE

I think in the Bill he is deemed to represent a constituency. That is the supposition. That constituency does not elect anyone for that particular period. I do not know what he represents if he does not represent a constituency. The whole thing shows that once you begin to have illogical proposals you cannot make them logical again.

Mr. KENNY

The report of the Committee that dealt with this matter states:

"A majority of the Committee considers that it is desirable that the Chairman of Dáil Eireann should keep himself clear of party affiliations during his term of office; that the difficulty in these circumstances of his securing election in any constituency to the subsequent Dáil will tend to be great; and it is, therefore, of opinion that amendment of the Constitution in this respect is desirable."

Then there was a proposed alternative. As I understand it, the Chairman is chosen by a majority of the Dáil and acts in that capacity throughout the year or throughout the term of his Chairmanship in a way that commends itself to the Dáil or does not. At the next general election the fact that he was Chairman would rather, I think, enhance his chance of being returned. He certainly has had an honour conferred upon him, and the electors of the constituency he represents would appreciate it in that way. There is no use in saying that the man who occupies the Chair is perfectly colourless in the matter of politics from any political opinion. He is not. He is a human being, and he has his own views. He tries as far as he can to divest himself of any partiality just as a judge would on the Bench, but at the same time he holds his views and acts accordingly. I am entirely in agreement with Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde and other speakers in the views they expressed that every member either in this House or the other should represent some constituency, and I am, also, of the view that the matter should be left there and that the Speaker as well as every other member of the Dáil should come forward for election and not disturb the principle that underlies our present electoral system.

Mr. JAMESON

The last three Senators who have spoken have dealt with a matter which I hardly think is before the House—that is, the rejection of the Bill. I have been sitting here trying to make up my mind after listening to Senator O'Farrell as to which was the wiser course, the Bill as it stands or the Bill with Senator O'Farrell's amendment. The last three Senators who have spoken have practically said "A plague on both your Houses; we do not want the Bill and we do not want the amendment." They are advising the House to throw out the Bill. I could make nothing else out of what Senator Esmonde said and Senator Colonel Moore and Senator Kenny said the same. I think as far as I listened to the debate that the general opinion of Senators is that the object of the Bill and of the amendment is entirely a good one. Both Senator O'Farrell and the Minister admitted that they were doing a certain amount of what you might call evil, but for a good purpose, and as an ordinary individual looking at it I really think that the good to be obtained in making the Speaker of the Dáil absolutely independent is so great and that the evil under the Bill or under Senator O'Farrell's amendment is so small that I do not think the House should hesitate to adopt one or other of those evils. To reject the Bill seems to me to be a course that none of us could possibly think wise, because I think we all agree that to secure the absolute independence of the Speaker is an object worthy of every consideration and that we should not interfere with it in any way. Senator O'Farrell does not at all attempt by his amendment to wreck the object of the Bill. There is no such intention on his part. We see in the Parliament on the other side of the water the same difficulty and the way they dealt with it was by agreement amongst the leaders of the different parties disfranchising one constituency more or less. I believe the Bill as we have it here does a great deal less than if we followed the British practice. There is one thing in which I differ with Senator O'Farrell. I think if there is any evil in either course his amendment is going to do more harm in the way of democratic representation if adopted than the Bill will do as it stands. I think I interpret the feelings of the House when I say that we are not in any way disposed to vote against the Bill. I think the issue is whether the amendment or the Bill is the best way to secure the absolute independence of the Speaker. That it ought to be done one way or the other is a matter upon which I believe we will all agree. Personally, and for the reasons I have stated, I think I would prefer the Bill as it stands to the Bill with the Senator's amendments.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde really expressed the position and described the situation correctly when he said that the amendment sought to make the best of what was in any case an anomalous position. I am not enamoured of the Bill nor of the amendment, and I merely recommend the amendment as preferable to the Bill as it stands. I was surprised to hear Senator Kenny denouncing the whole of the Bill, seeing that he voted in favour of the Second Reading.

Mr. KENNY

No.

Mr. O'FARRELL

The Senator's name is in the official record as voting in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill. The arguments advanced against the amendment are not, I think, particularly impressive or crushing. What the amendment merely suggests is that what has been the arrangement and what has been acted upon as a desirable arrangement for some years past in Great Britain by agreement between the parties shall here be made a statutory arrangement in view of the impossibility of making it voluntary. Senator Jameson talked of disfranchising a constituency. That is the case in Great Britain where you have single member constituencies. You do not in this amendment disfranchise a constituency, because at best or at worst there will be other people in the Dáil representing the constituency. If a constituency has one of its members selected to be Ceann Comhairle, I think that will be an honour conferred upon the constituency as well as upon the individual, and it is not too much to ask them to have him as one of their accredited representatives while he is in that position, and to elect accordingly one less than the total number that they would elect in the ordinary way. Even if there does occur the position that the member in question is not re-elected as Chairman of the House, he has a roving commission, as the Minister says. He is knocking round to see into what constituency he can stick his nose. There is no place for him. He is in a most unenviable position, because he can only get re-elected in the future by ousting one of his colleagues. If he tries to take an interest, in a particular constituency everyone will see the reason is obvious, and that he is trying to provide for his future, and he is trying to get a seat that he has not got now. His position will be infinitely more independent under the amendment than under the Bill. If he is not re-elected, which is a contingency which we have to provide for, then under the amendment his place will be one of the duly elected representatives of the people, he can then without any accusation of ulterior motive function for his constituency in the actual ordinary way. Senator Douglas seems to argue that there would not be a saving of £360 a year at all times under this. But there is not under the Bill. Under the Bill there must be one additional member—154 instead of 153—and inasmuch as that is the case whether the Ceann Comhairle is re-elected to the Chair or not there must be an additional member in the House under the Bill, unless the Speaker resigns, of course, altogether or is disqualified.

The Minister really made only one point, and that certainly a very feeble one. His argument was the amendment assumes that the Speaker shall be deemed to represent the constituency that last elected him to the Dáil, but that under a revision of constituencies or re-organisation his constituency might disappear altogether. But surely in order that that should occur legislation would have to be introduced. Would it not be very stupid legislation that would not be able to deal with a position of that kind? The Bill need only say that the present Speaker shall be deemed to represent whatever constituency the greater part of his previous constituency went into. That arrangement could be made by legislation when the matter arose, just as we deal with many other unforeseen matters as they arise. This would be a matter of a Bill, and it is not beyond the bounds of genius to deal with it. I think on the whole that my amendment is a far more preferable arrangement than that suggested in the Bill. One other point, the Bill only received a final reading in the other House by a comparatively small majority. I believe my amendment, if adopted, would secure for the measure a far greater amount of general support than has been given to it so far, and I am sure the Speaker himself would like, if possible, that the Bill should be almost unanimously approved in the House of which he is a member in order that he might avail of it. If this amendment is inserted the Bill will get greater support in the Dáil than it got originally, because the amendment will be a great argument in favour of it.

Question put.

On a show of hands the amendment was declared carried by fifteen votes to twelve.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I move amendment 1:

In Section 1 to delete in line 30 the words "an additional" and to substitute therefor the word "a."

The reason is that this will not be an additional but an ordinary member of the Dáil.

Amendment agreed to.

The following amendment stood in the name of Sir Thomas Esmonde:

In Section 1 to delete in line 31 the words "not representing any" and to substitute therefor the words "representing his former."

Amendment not moved.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I beg to move in Section 1 to delete in line 31 the words "not representing any constituency." This is consequential also.

EARL of KERRY

Might I suggest to the Senator that he would achieve the same object by cutting out the whole of the end of the section?

Mr. O'FARRELL

I do not think so, because the subsequent wording in the section decides that he shall have all the rights and obligations of the ordinary member of Dáil Eireann and I would not like to cut out that part of it.

EARL of KERRY

If he were returned as a member of the Dáil would he not have the ordinary rights of a member of the Dáil?

Mr. O'FARRELL

I think he would, but the words here place it beyond all doubt and I think it would be more desirable to have them in.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Possibly this matter may be discussed again on the Report Stage, and with regard to the mere drafting amendments we might pass them as consequential, and when we see the whole section on the Report Stage, if there is anything illogical in it, we could deal with it then.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I move in Section 1 to delete in line 32 the word "additional."

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I move Amendment No. 5:—In Section 1 to delete all after the word "Chairman" in line 34 to the end of the section. This is merely a consequential amendment also.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Question proposed—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'HIGGINS

On this motion I would like to deal with the point raised by Senator O'Farrell with regard to complications arising out of Article 26. The Senator made light of my argument based on the difficulties that will arise or that may arise under Article 26 in the event of the constituency for which the Speaker was elected being altered by the revision. That is made mandatory under the Article. He says that you can deal with that in the revision Bill. But you are embodying now in the Constitution a provision for the re-election of the Speaker. You are saying that he is to be deemed to be elected to his former constituency. That is embodied in the Constitution. The Constitution for eight years from the date of its passing may be amended by ordinary legislation. Thereafter it will be much more difficult, and if after eight years a constituency represented by a particular Speaker is, during the lifetime of that Parliament altered, then to what constituency is the Speaker deemed to be elected under Senator O'Farrell's amendment? That is my point, and the Senator has not met it. I suggest that the Senate would do well to give it a little more consideration than they have given to it.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I also think that Senator O'Farrell is not correct in saying that it could be met by law. But now that this amendment has been passed I do not think there would be any difficulty on the Report Stage in adding such words as these: "That in the event of the constituency being abolished, such other constituency as may be determined by law be deemed to be the constituency of the Speaker." I take it that Senator O'Farrell would not object to that amendment on the Report Stage.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

Perhaps the Senator could suggest some form of words that would meet the case, but I could imagine that cases of this kind would be dealt with at the time the alteration is being made in the constituency. The National University would not disappear, but would be merged in some other constituency.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I think the Minister is making too much out of this. It is quite possible to meet it by legislation, because it will not be necessary to alter the constituency at all. The Bill would say that according to Article so and so of the Constitution, the constituency for which the Speaker is deemed to have been elected on the last occasion shall be so and so. If his present constituency is amalgamated with Trinity College it will be called another name, and it will be quite easy to say so in the Bill, that it shall be for the constituency with which his present constituency is combined that he would be deemed to have been elected. That is a very simple proposition.

Question put, and agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 and the Title put, and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.