In discussing it and the Bill one is at a disadvantage because of the line which the discussion took in another place. The merits or demerits of this series of Bills, I think, have been very largely alouded by a constant reference back to things which have passed into history, and by the attempts to arouse ancient feuds, and the bringing of these as a regular tide across the whole subject of the merits or demerits of the Bill. That is unfortunately characteristic of probably all of us. Political animosities die very slowly in Ireland, and even when they are buried they are likely to arise again if they get the slightest opportunity. It is unfortunate that this disposition to harbour ancient wrongs and feed on them is not the monopoly of any one section in the community. It is found in places where one might reasonably expect a more enlightened spirit. It displayed itself very definitely in Dublin yesterday on the occasion of a certain noted event. Buildings that are normally covered with bunting and flags on such festive days as Empire Day, Armistice Day and the King's birthday were strangely bare and unadorned yesterday. Racial animosities and hatred, arising out of the Great War, seem unfortunately to have been too much for even such enlightened institutions as Trinity College and the Bank of Ireland when it comes to honouring the brave men of a non-English nationality on a great, unique, courageous and scientific achievement. The attitude of institutions of that kind, and the equally boorish attitude of similar institutions in the city, constitutes a petty-minded, futile attempt to insult brave men because of ancient hatreds and animosities, and will only result really in earning for the perpetrators of them the contempt and laughter of all decent minded people. When one finds that difficulty on the part of certain people who talk of tolerance and forgetfulness of ancient wrongs and so forth and who display that desire to harbour ancient animosities, one is not surprised at less educated people harping back to ancient feuds and trying to discuss their merits and demerits on every occasion such as a discussion on a Bill of this kind affords.
This Bill proposes to remove from the Constitution two of its most important provisions, the two provisions that perhaps were most debated during the Constitution debates in the Provisional Parliament. What are the reasons for their removal at this particular time? It is true, of course, that all of us are six years older than we were in 1922, and those who originally conceived and voted for these proposals, to the extent that they have any political existence at all, profess to have grown six years wiser in the interval. As a practical demonstration of their wisdom, they propose now to expunge from the Constitution two of the Articles that were blazoned forth as the brightest jewels in a model Constitution. If they had acted as the result of some experience of the difficulties and the risks attached to the application of these Articles and the practical working of them, then we might understand the meaning and the necessity of this Bill; or, on the other hand, had the Bill been introduced as a result of careful consideration of the whole Constitution by a Committee representative of all parties which saw in these Articles risks and difficulties that should not be incurred, then also the necessity for the Bill could be appreciated, but neither of these things happened. The Government are no wiser in this respect now, as a result of practical experience, than they were in 1922. We shall be told probably, without any attempt to prove the statement, that the Initiative, for instance, has proved unworkable and a failure in other countries, but it is not because of anything that has happened since 1922 in any other country that this Bill is being brought forward. Anything in the way of practical experience, as regards the working of the Initiative, that the Government may have to-day they also had when they brought in these two Articles first into the Constitution. They are, therefore, declaring that they were either knaves or fools in 1922 by their action to-day.
The Bill, of course, as everyone knows, is only brought in because an attempt was made to put the machinery of the Initiative into operation. It is simply because an attempt has been made to put it into operation for a purpose which does not meet with Government approval, that the whole pitch prepared for the game is now to be disturbed. I think in all the six years that have elapsed since the Constitution was first under discussion, the Government could not have chosen a more unfortunate time for the introduction of this Bill. They waited until 90,000 signatures were collected, and an attempt made to present the petition, asking that the machinery giving effect to the Initiative should be brought into operation. The absence of machinery for receiving the petition is pleaded as a reason for its refusal, and then they proceed to solve the whole problem by applying the axe to two of the most important Articles in the Constitution. Whether they are desirable or not, they are at all events very important Articles, and on an issue such as this, without debating their merits or otherwise, they proceed to cut them right out of the Constitution. Surely this display of reckless contempt for the Constitution by the Government cannot possibly fail to have the most detrimental reactions in the case of any Government of the future that is prepared to subordinate the Constitution to the party expediency of the hour. The immediate advantage gained will in all probability be heavily counterbalanced by the very undesirable reactions of the future.
It would be infinitely better to have no written Constitution than to have a charter which has no substantial stability connected with it. I do not say that the Constitution should be a cast iron instrument, but the Constitution here as elsewhere, is the fundamental law of the land, and it should be treated with the greatest possible respect by all constitutional parties, but above all by the party forming the Government in power. If changes are found to be necessary they should only be made after careful consideration, and after due regard has been paid to the views of each of those parties who may form the Government of the future. If each party in turn adds to or takes from the Constitution in order to meet the particular party expediency of that particular day, then the Constitution, instead of being the sheet anchor of the law of the land, will become a wretched weathercock serving only to indicate the type of party in power at any particular time.
The most serious proposal in the Bill in my opinion, is the proposal to remove the Referendum. I, any more than the Government, have no experience of the application of the Initiative. I can quite conceive that formidable arguments can be advanced against it on the grounds that it is cumbersome, expensive and slow. I can imagine that arguments can be advanced against it on the grounds that it can be abused, but on these latter grounds there could be only arguments of assumption, because it has not been tried, and we have yet to see whether it would be abused. With regard to the question as to whether it is cumbersome or impracticable of application, no attempt has been made to explore the possibilities along these lines, and there again it is largely a question of assumption. But as far as the Referendum is concerned, it must be admitted that it is a simple, effective, and democratic safeguard for the people in the last resort against unwise, unwanted or oppressive legislation. It certainly saved Australia from conscription during the Great War, and it has been shown that the Government of the day were in favour of passing legislation which was emphatically repudiated by the majority of electors when they got the opportunity of giving their views on a definite concrete issue. In this country I believe that we shall require safeguards such as the Referendum in the future. if we are going to judge by the history of the past, even more than we shall require to urge on slow-moving Government Ministers.
I suggest, therefore, that every possible consideration should be given, if the House decides eventually to consider this Bill on its merits, to the question of trying to save the Referendum. Nobody can say that that is fantastic imagination. It emanated in the brains of the present Executive Council to a large extent, and I would not say they are faddists. At all events, it has been applied in other countries. It is the last entrenchment on which the people can fall back in the event of a Government which has lost the confidence of the people, but still having a fairly long period of office, embarking on some unwanted, oppressive or unwise legislation.
Under the existing Constitution, Article 47, the Referendum can be brought about by a resolution subscribed to by three-fifths of the members of the Seanad, or by a petition presented by not less than one-twentieth of the electors then on the register. I would suggest that it is still possible to save at least the Referendum, if all else goes, by making it possible for three-fifths of the membership of the Seanad, and two-fifths of the membership of the Dáil, to hold up a Bill for a specified period and demand a Referendum. I do not see why it should go in addition to the Initiative, because the arguments that apply in the case of one certainly do not apply in the case of the other, and they are probably being struck out only because they are more or less interwoven into the three Articles of the Constitution dealt with by this Bill. I think it would be much better that the Bills should not be proceeded with now because of the passions it will arouse, and, worse still, because of the excuse it gives for future Governments to use their discretion in the mutilation of the Constitution. In matters of this kind we in this House have a great responsibility and duty to discharge. If there is any justification for a second chamber it is that it should act as a moderating influence in matters of this kind, and above all in matters affecting the fundamental law of the land, which is the Constitution. The procedure of rushing this Bill at express speed through the Oireachtas is something that cannot be defended. I hope that Senators will realise ordinary decencies and not allow that resolution if it comes on later to be carried through. We are supposed to be a break on hasty and unnecessary legislation, which I contend this is, and if we have the opportunity of acting in that capacity now when the powers and constitution of the Seanad are the subject of furious debate in the other House, and we fail to discharge our responsibility, then I think we would stand self-condemned.
Some people who support the present Government in almost the whole of their policy seem satisfied that because they were returned on the last occasion they and all connected with them are going to live happy ever after. Unless this country is going to be different to every other country with Parliamentary institutions there will be a change of Government sooner or later. If the Seanad allows to rush through the Oireachtas while it has the power to retard the progress of measures of this kind, legislation which proceeds to hack up the Constitution, then if some other Government comes along, a detail of whose policy would be the elimination of the Seanad altogether, I do not think members of this House then, whoever they may be, will have any moral authority for holding up that legislation. Certainly they will have no moral support from the great body of the people, because they merely take the word of a Minister in a matter of this kind instead of using their own discretion and sense of the fitness of things in order to do the right thing in an important proposal of this kind.
It will be argued that the great majority of the people do not know the first thing about the Initiative and less about the Referendum, and that they only heard of it when it was brought before their notice. Surely the same thing might be said about a lot of Articles in the Constitution, and a lot of laws of the greatest importance to humanity in general, that the great bulk of the people knew nothing about them until they were brought to their notice on some particular occasion. That is no reason why you should proceed to cut them out—because you think people are ignorant of them. The arguments advanced in favour of this have been arguments not of reason but of expediency, and they are largely arguments of assumption as to what might happen. I can see nothing serious happening by holding up this Bill until a representative Committee has time to examine the Constitution. There may be certain amendments necessary, or at least a case may be made for them in regard to the forthcoming Seanad elections. I do not admit a necessity for any change, but I am prepared to admit there are people who can put up a very plausible case for an alteration of the Constitution in that respect. I see no case made. A motion was carried in the Dáil refusing the petition presented until such time as the Oireachtas have made arrangements for the reception of the petition. Hence the petition cannot be received until these arrangements are made. There is no indication that they are going to be made. Where is the danger of holding the Bill over? Where is the necessity for rushing it? Let us not shut our eyes to facts and pretend we can fool everybody by pretending there is a necessity for the Bill when there is no necessity. If only on those grounds I would be compelled to vote against the Bill, and I hope the Seanad will take a similar course and support Senator Dowdall's motion.
