Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Jul 1928

Vol. 10 No. 24

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT No. 10) BILL, 1928—THIRD STAGE (RESUMED).

The Seanad went into Committee.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The House will recollect, in connection with this Bill, that there were certain amendments on the Order Paper in the name of Senator O'Farrell, and it appears that two objections, in the shape of points of order, were taken to these particular amendments. The first objection was that the amendments were outside the scope of the Bill, and the second objection was that they were practically a direct negative to the particular clause in the Bill. I will deal with each of these separately. First of all, the objection that these amendments were outside the scope of the Bill has to be considered by reference to the Bill itself. The Bill is a peculiar one in some respects. It asks the Seanad to delete two Articles in the Constitution which provide apparently a remedy of a certain character, of different kinds, for holding up and delaying the passing of Bills, but while the Bill proposes to delete these two Articles in the Constitution, it makes no provision for any alternative. The President very ingeniously pointed out that a provision is purposed to be made for an alternative in another Bill, but for the purpose of my duty I cannot look at that other Bill. It may never become an Act of Parliament, and I have got to decide this question on the Bill that is before me. If this Bill, for example, contained one clause only, and that clause dealt with Section 47 of the Constitution, and that that was the only thing that was in the Bill, or if the two Articles in the Constitution which this Bill does propose to delete were mutually dependent so that one could not survive without the other, and that the deletion of the one necessarily meant the deletion of the other, in that case the position would be more difficult than what it is. As that position does not face us, I do not propose to pronounce any opinion on it, except to say that it would take a great deal of argument to persuade me that, even in the case where a Bill proposed to take away rights and remedies conferred by one Article in the Constitution, that it should not be open to any member of this House in Committee to propose an alternative remedy to the remedy that is taken away, provided always that the remedy is something substantially different to the remedy taken away. Simply to propose the restoration of the remedy that is taken away would be practically a direct negative, as you will see, to the Bill. However, that is not the position with which we are confronted.

We are confronted with a Bill which contains two separate and distinct proposals. They are not dependent one upon the other. If you delete Article 47, Article 48 does not necessarily go, and if you delete Article 48, Article 47 does not necessarily go. Therefore, the position is that you have a Bill which contains two separate and independent proposals. But, supposing instead of there being two proposals, there were half a dozen, what is the position of Senators on the Second Reading? Many Senators may be in favour of deleting five of these proposals—I am taking a supposed case—but they want to retain the sixth. What are they to do? Do they lose their right, in Committee, to move to retain No. 6 because they are in favour of deleting the rest of them? I think that would be unduly limiting and restricting the rights of Senators. I am quite prepared to rule that where a Bill contains separate and distinct principles, that it is impossible for me to rule that a particular amendment is outside the principle of the Bill, because the Bill contains a variety of principles. I could not say that it is not within the right of a Senator to say "You are taking away a particular remedy; I do not quarrel with that, but I do propose as an amendment an alternative remedy of a different kind." Otherwise the position would be that all these rights and privileges contained in the Constitution might be swept away and no substitute left.

Now, to come to the second objection that was raised, and this is the more serious one, to Senator O'Farrell's amendment: that is, that in effect and in substance it is a direct negative. I hold that it is. I have considered it very carefully, and I find that it is substantially, in substance and in effect, an amendment proposing to restore an Article that this House has agreed, by a Second Reading Vote, should be deleted from the Constitution. Curiously enough, there is a precise case in point in Erskine May's very useful book, which I came across last night. I will read it so that the House may clearly understand the ground on which I have given this ruling. It is:—

The Chairman, in the case of an amendment offered to a Bill which was limited in scope to the repeal of a clause in a Statute, ruled that the amendment was out of order, because its object was a continuance or extension of the clause to be repealed.

If the clause that Senator O'Farrell wants to insert was inserted, the effect of it, in my opinion, would be practically to restore the Article in the Constitution which this House, by its vote on the Second Reading, determined should go out. At the same time, the point is not one of substance, because the Senator has still his remedy. He will be quite entitled, now that we are in Committee, when I put from the Chair the motion "that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill," to challenge that, and to give his reasons and ask the House to reject the clause. The Senator would be quite entitled to do that, because, remember there is no finality in any one of these Bills until they have passed the Fifth Stage. A Bill might pass the Second Reading here without a dissentient voice being raised, and yet the House would be entitled to throw it out by an overwhelming majority on the Fifth Stage. That might be said not to be consistent, but new views might be put forward and new light might be thrown on the matter in Committee, with the result that, on the Fifth Stage, the House would be quite entitled to go back on its decision reached on the Second Reading. I hope that Senator O'Farrell understands now the position in which he is. He will be quite entitled to challenge this section of the Bill when it is put from the Chair, and if he wishes to press his objection to a division he can do so. But I could not allow him, even if he succeeded in that, to move his amendment now. It would not be necessary, because by deleting the Government proposal he would restore the Article in the Constitution, and, therefore, a substantive amendment would not be necessary.

We will now resume the consideration of this Bill in Committee.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

The Constitution shall be and is hereby amended by the deletion of Article 47 thereof.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I rise to oppose the passing of this section. As you, sir, have said, and as Senators are aware, the Bill contains two separate proposals, and it is quite feasible and consistent to retain in the Bill Section 3 and to delete Section 2, which proposes to abolish the Referendum. I am sure that the House realises the difference as regards the use of the Referendum for the purposes of the Initiative as compared with its use for the purpose of preventing the imposition of unnecessary, unwanted or oppressive legislation. The Initiative and the Referendum that works with it means enforcing on Parliament probably, in fact, I think inevitably, in opposition to the views of the majority, certain legislation devised by the people themselves. The Referendum, in the ordinary sense, and as it would stand in the event of the section being defeated, could be used only for the purpose of enabling the people to express their views on a Bill or Bills already passed by the Oireachtas. So that it in no way tries to impose the views of a minority or even of a majority upon Parliament in regard to legislation not introduced. It merely gives the electorate an opportunity of voting for or against a Bill which the majority of the people do not want. If I had been in order in moving my amendment, I was suggesting an alternative method to the present system. It is still within the range of the Government, if this section is deleted, to bring in an alternative form of Referendum. Article 47 at present prescribes that the Referendum can be invoked by three-fifths of the members of the Seanad or, alternatively that two-fifths of the members of the Dáil may hold up a Bill for ninety days and, if within that period one-twentieth of the electors then on the register present a petition to the Executive Council the matter at issue must be submitted to Referendum.

I was suggesting, as could be seen, to make the Referendum more difficult by ensuring that there should be three-fourths of the members of this House in addition to and not as an alternative to two-fifths of the members of the other House. These, of course, are not arbitrary figures or propositions, but they simply suggest a basis upon which some arrangement might be made whereby, in the last resort, it would in a new State be possible for a Government elected on general issues, shortly after a general election, to embark upon legislation that might involve the country in very serious consequences against the wishes of the great majority. It is true that this House has power to delay for eighteen or twenty months. Parliaments run for a period of five years, and one year after a new Parliament was formed very serious legislation affecting international agreements, for instance, might be introduced, and in less than two years become law. Then you would have the position that the country was powerless to do anything, irrespective of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people might be in direct and emphatic opposition to that legislation. I think it is a pity that we, after posing as one of the most modern and democratic States in existence, should suddenly react to the other extreme and proceed to scoff at everything that is held dear by democratic States. I hope that the word "democratic" has not come to be sneered at, as the President and members of the Government seemed to sneer at it recently.

It seems now to be really good statesmanship and the very best indication of good citizenship to scoff at every one of those principles practically for which men have fought and suffered and died for centuries. That, in a small State, too, and one recently rehabilitated, seems all the more surprising because there has been a great advance in modern thought and modern government, particularly in the realms of Parliamentary Government. It is really regrettable to find that any arguments advanced for the retention of some of those principles, even now, is characterised by would-be responsible statesmen as piffle, hysteria, and other scholastic epithets. Personally, I am prepared to submit to that sort of thing because I think it is a poor case that cannot survive disorderly retorts, and I would prefer to submit to that than to the soft soap with which Ministers belabour their meek and long-suffering supporters in this House.

The trouble is that we find it hard to get these matters discussed on their merits. We are accused of ulterior motives, of insincerity and so forth, when we proceed to discuss a matter which is in the Constitution, which is the child of the people that now seek to delete it. They dread it as if it were the illegitimate offspring of their greatest enemies. This House has certain responsibilities, and certainly one of them is to consider very seriously the position in which it is sought to take from the electors as a whole the rights which they enjoy under the Constitution. If ever Senators are to exercise their responsibilities, this is a case in which they should do so. I do not say that they should not approve of amendments to the Constitution, but certainly in a case of this kind, such as the taking away of the Referendum, which is certainly the sheet anchor of popular rights, if the Seanad does not see its way to seriously consider a matter of this kind, then it baffles me to know when the occasion will arise when Senators will play that part which Senators are always inclined to say they may play in the future, but never play to-day. I am not arguing by any means for the retention of the Referendum as it is, in view of the added power which this House has got for holding up Bills, but I suggest that there are rights for people outside this House which it is our duty to safeguard, and there is a minority in the other House which has rights under the present Constitution which are now being taken away from it. That minority, in a constitutional way, is helpless unless this House comes to its assistance. There are one and a half million electors in the country who had rights under the Constitution that are being taken away by this Bill, and they have no constitutional remedy except through this House.

It has been suggested that the Referendum would be abused. All sorts of gloomy pictures have been painted of what might happen if the Referendum is retained. It has not been abused so far. When people attempt to prophesy what might happen in the event of these Bills going through, we are told that that is all piffle, and that there is not the slightest likelihood of these things coming to pass. It is a case of one man's outlook regarding the future compared with that of another, but I do seriously suggest to the House that they should delete this section and let the rest of the Bill go. Even if you delete the section, the Bill will still be quite logical, consistent, and self-contained. I suggest to the Government that it should consider some other alternative to that of the complete deletion of the Referendum. I suggest that it is quite possible to retain the Referendum, if not in its present form, at least in such a form that it cannot be lightly invoked, that you could make it very much more difficult than it is at present to invoke it, but at all events that you should leave it there so that in the long run there can be an appeal by the people from the foolish or oppressive attitude of a new Government elected on other issues in respect of some matter of great national or great international importance. These are my grounds for opposing this section. I put it seriously to Senators that they might show their anxiety for retaining certain rights and safeguards for all sections of the community which already exist in the Constitution, or that at all events they should delay the passage of this Bill until every available avenue has been explored, to see whether some feasible and intelligent alternative cannot be devised, instead of applying the axe, as suggested in the present Bill.

Mr. MacLOUGHLIN

I do not think that making the Referendum a little more difficult will make it less objectionable. Neither to-day nor on the occasion of the Second Reading has Senator O'Farrell, or any other Senator who objects to the Referendum, given any solid reason for its retention, except, of course, the vague rhetoric we hear about the democratic rights of the people for which men suffered and died. I submit these rights are amply safeguarded by the system of representative government we have here, with a general election every five years. We have not been told that the retention of the Referendum would bring about better economic conditions, or increased production which, according to that excellent Labour Deputy, Mr. Morrissey, speaking in the Dáil, was the one thing this country required. The danger to the national settlement which Senator O'Farrell contemplates cannot be averted by a Referendum once this country returns a majority pledged to uproot the Treaty settlement. With regard to Senator O'Farrell's complaint about wild charges, I think he is the last Senator who should complain. On the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, in answer to the argument that the Referendum had been responsible for defeating conscription in Australia, I had the temerity to state that conscription had been defeated in Ireland without the Referendum, and for so stating I was accused by Senator O'Farrell of displaying a mentality of violence, because according to his version of history conscription was defeated in Ireland not by constitutional means but by methods of force and violence.

I distinctly and definitely stated on that occasion that it was defeated by the force of public opinion, by the strength and unity of the people whose leaders had agreed to sink their differences to resist it, backed up by the united hierarchy under Cardinal Logue. I would like to ask the Senator does he say that the bishops and the Cardinal on that occasion displayed a mentality of violence? No force or violence was used, nor was it necessary, and to read into that simple statement of mine—that conscription was defeated by the force of public opinion—a suggestion of violence is what I might describe as very far-fetched misrepresentation, even for Senator O'Farrell. With that misrepresentation as a basis he then proceeded to lecture the Senators on their inconsistency by saying things outside and then coming in and voting differently. I always understood that as regards private conversations among public men there was a code of honour that prevented them being quoted or even hinted at in public. I do not know who the Senators are Senator O'Farrell was speaking about with regard to this Bill, but I venture to say they were no more inconsistent than Senator O'Farrell and the whole Labour Party, for at the General Election last year there was not a candidate put up by that Party whose slogan was not that the people were sick and tired of politics, that the thing that mattered was an improvement in economic conditions, and that no Party should be allowed to divert the minds of the people by introducing and discussing questions long since closed.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Does the Senator suggest we should not oppose Bills because they are political?

Mr. MacLOUGHLIN

No, I do not suggest that they should be resisted by violence. Senator O'Farrell told us at the general election last year that the Oath was an issue which was dear to the hearts of the pothouse politicians, who wax eloquent on it. Now he is voting for the very instrument that will give the pothouse politicians their pet subject for turning the country into a ferment. We were told by the Labour Party at the last general election that the country's energies should be directed towards bread and butter politics.

Mr. BENNETT

Senator O'Farrell suggested certain safeguards and delays as essential in a legislative assembly such as ours. The clause about to be deleted gives certain safeguards and certain delays by means of the Referendum. The Referendum in that case should take place after 90 days had elapsed from the passing of a Bill by either House. It was considered, and I consider, and all the members of the Committee consider, that 90 days is not a sufficient period to enable the country to consider a particular Bill at issue, or a particular Act which has been passed. The Government have introduced a new Constitution Amendment Bill (No. 13) which has passed, I believe, its Committee Stage in this House and which gives this House the power to suspend the Bill for a period of probably 18 months. I consider that that provision is a better safeguard than the provision of the Referendum, and it certainly should provide sufficient delay to enable the country to decide whether a Bill proposed was wise in the interests of the nation or not. I think we are in a lucky position in having Senator O'Farrell's amendment on the Order Paper. We might be allowed for a moment to consider his alternative if we were to delete and reimpose a certain clause.

Mr. O'FARRELL

On a point of order, as I was not in order in moving my amendment, I do not know if it is in order to discuss it except I am given the opportunity to reply?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not think Senator Bennett should proceed to demolish Senator O'Farrell's amendment when I did not allow him to move it.

Mr. BENNETT

Quite, but I thought the Senator alluded in his speech to certain proposals he had in his mind. He did make certain suggestions, and in the back of our minds we were weighing them. However, I am prepared not to go further in that matter. The proposal in this Bill is to delete a clause of the Constitution which provided for a Referendum after 90 days had elapsed. That safeguard some of us in the Seanad have come to think is one which probably we would never be in a position to use. The Referendum is a clumsy process in a country like ours, where we are accustomed to small sections of the community going to the polls to decide an issue. Is it at all likely we would get in the country a percentage of the people to go to the polls to decide a concrete issue which would justify the expense, inconvenience and the other concomitant troubles of a Referendum? I do not think so. I think the position of the Government is that it is better to throw away this cumbersome machine and substitute instead in the Constitution the clauses set out in the Constitution (Amendment No. 13) Bill, which would enable the Seanad to hold up any Bill for 18 months unless a general election took place in the meantime. I think that would give the country sufficient time to get the opinion of the electorate as to whether a measure proposed by any Government is a sound measure in the interest of the country as a whole. I oppose the deletion of this clause.

Sir WALTER NUGENT

I am entirely opposed to the principle of a Referendum. I should be very sorry to see it part of the Constitution of the country. I was very much amazed when Senator O'Farrell, speaking of the Referendum, said it was a democratic institution. He said it was the sheet anchor of popular rights. What could be more democratic than our present system of getting the opinion of the country? Surely it is more democratic than the Referendum? Surely it brings more home and makes clearer to the people an issue than could be done by the Referendum? Yesterday, in the discussion on another matter, it was pointed out that large numbers of people took very little interest in politics. How would the Referendum work in such circumstances? In nine-tenths of the cases the people, especially the women, would keep the Referendum in the house until someone whom they trusted came along to advise them what to do. It seems to me the Referendum would not be half as democratic as the present system. I have still a greater objection to it. It appears to me if there is one subject upon which the majority of the people of this country have made up their minds quite clearly upon it is the question of politics. Quite clearly they are sick of politics, and the discussion of them. They are sick of strife. If you bring the Referendum into the political life of the country you will be perpetuating politics, and the country will be a seething cauldron of politics, and you will have done what the majority of the people do not want. I submit that all the average citizen of the Free State wants at present is to be allowed to develop the country to the best of his ability, and work out his salvation in his own way. For that reason I hope the Seanad will not agree to Senator O'Farrell's suggestion. I sincerely hope that the Referendum will never again form part of the Constitution.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I was hoping we would have the counsel to-day, as we did on the Second Reading, of one who, I think, was the only member of this House who was instrumental in drawing up the Constitution. He must have considered carefully whatever advantages there may be embodied in this principle of Referendum about which we were exceedingly enthusiastic at one time, but to which we have now become, with equal enthusiasm, opposed.

I do not know, if it was brought up de novo on a clean slate, that I would be in favour of embodying the Referendum in the Constitution. I do say that people ought to have considered it calmly. I am afraid it has not been considered here calmly. It is essentially a conservative instrument. Senator O'Farrell might not like to be in conservative company, but it is the best safeguard for minorities. The question has been looked at at present from a short and pessimistic point of view. It is assumed we will suffer from virulent opposition, that we will never suffer from a virile and obstructive minority, and that we will never be in the position to tyrannise by a high-handed majority. We may suffer from a high-handed majority who may wish to exceed its mandate from the country, to force on the country legislation it does not want. I do not at all agree with the last speaker, or the President, who regard a general election as the best and most scientific process for ascertaining the wishes of the people. The President considered that in that way the voice of the people is invoked.

From what I know of a general election it is a hurly-burly. Any number of cross-issues are placed before the people, each side trying by promises or destructive criticism to pull the wool over the eyes of the people as a whole, and whichever side is most specious and clever at that comes in. There may be between the two a rough and ready balance, but none can say it is exact, and no one can say any one measure is treated on its merits at a general election, and that as a rule it dominates the issue. I had the temerity to say in this assembly that the country is capable of exercising intelligence, but that apparently appears to the majority of the House to be a wrong point of view. I honestly do think, although they may not individually be so educated and instructed, that on the whole the opinion of a number of people up and down the country is just as intelligent as the opinion of the elected representatives sitting in Parliament, and sometimes more so. By intuition and an infusion of general common sense they come to sound conclusions. The reason I object to this is it is being tempered in that spirit of pessimism that everybody is trying to abuse the Constitution and nobody is going to try and work the Constitution in an honest and patriotic spirit. I believe the time will come when the people will get rid of this strife, and they will, I hope, get rid of this sort of sharp practice of trying to do down your opponent and get the better of him by some skilful, tactical dexterity, and that they will try to work the Constitution in the interests of the country. Until that day comes popular government will be discredited. When that day comes the Referendum will be of real use. That is why I object to this being deleted. I would be quite in favour of certain amendments to this clause, making it more difficult, and certainly to have an amendment so that you could not use it for the purpose of breaking up the Treaty clause, but there is a great difference between sweeping the whole thing away and amending it in a statesmanlike manner.

Mr. FARREN

I want to join in the appeal that is being made to retain the Referendum in some form. We are satisfied it is essential, in the interests of good government in this country, that the Referendum in some form should be retained. I was certainly astonished to hear Senator Sir Walter Nugent talking about making every house a seething cauldron of politics by the retention of the Referendum.

Sir WALTER NUGENT

I spoke of the country, and not every house.

Mr. FARREN

As a matter of fact, the Referendum has been in the Constitution since 1922, and no house has been made a seething cauldron of politics because it was in the Constitution. If a suggestion put forward by Senator O'Farrell with regard to the Referendum were accepted it would ensure that it would be only on very rare occasions that the Referendum could be used. It is all very well to talk about the democratic form of government we have in this country. Senator MacLoughlin spoke about the Government being elected every five years.

Assuming a government in its first five years of office carried through a measure to which the majority of the people of the country were opposed, what is the position of the people? They have no alternative. They have no way of showing their disapproval of an Act that might be put through in the first year. A measure to which the people were opposed might be put through in the first six months of the life of a government, and it might cause serious consequences for the people as a whole. We are not advocating the retention of the Referendum for the purposes of any party, but we believe it is necessary in a country such as this that in the last alternative there should be some means by which vital issues that would affect the life of the country could be referred to the people for decision. No doubt Senator MacLoughlin will say that the people will make it impossible for any Government to pass unpopular Acts. He referred to the question of conscription. I think it is far-fetched to compare the opposition with regard to the attempt made to impose conscription in this country, especially when we consider the period in which it was attempted to be imposed, 1918, and compare it with the present condition of affairs in this country. Notwithstanding all the Senator says about the unification of the party leaders, the threat of force was behind the demand of the people that this country should not be conscripted.

Mr. MacLOUGHLIN

After the rebellion was crushed.

Mr. FARREN

The threat of force was behind it. The Senator says no force was used, but he must not shut his eyes to the fact that the Volunteers were prepared to defend any and every house from which a man would be taken. He must not forget that plans were made to make it impossible for any man in this country to be conscripted. There is no use in putting forward arguments such as that in connection with the retention of the Referendum. Our only concern in this matter is that we believe it is essential in the interests of good government that as a last alternative there should be some means by which vital issues could be determined by the people by a Referendum. It is all very well to say it gives power to minorities to over-ride the will of majorities. That is nonsense. It is the reverse, because the retention of the Referendum in some form would mean that the majority of the people would be secure against aggressiveness of any government that might be in power. For these reasons, for the good of the country as a whole, we believe that some such suggestion as is contained in the amendment should be accepted and it would make it as difficult as possible to put the Referendum into operation. I expect that, as usual, we will be snowed under when the division takes place on this particular question, but the mere fact of numbers being against us does not prove our case is not right. We are satisfied that in some form or other the Referendum should be retained, and if it is not retained it will not be our fault.

Mr. O'HANLON

I wish to pass a few remarks on this question. We in this House, together with the other House, the Dáil, are engaged in the task of governing this country. The country is governed according to the principle which has been established as a result of the experience of ages, and the best machine that man has been able to devise to govern the country is a machine which, so to speak, shows itself in this institution and the other institution, that is, in bodies composed of representatives of the people elected by the people and responsible to the people. Experience has brought about that result. It has devised that means of government in this country. I do not think that the experience of the ages in this, as in many other questions, is very wrong. I am fairly satisfied that our Government institutions in this country have been fairly solidly established. I do not think there is any necessity for having any change in that respect. I see no use whatever for the Referendum. A lot of play has been made of the word "conscription." Let me take a case which might arise in respect of conscription under normal conditions. A cause arises for strife between nations, and the Legislature of my country considers the cause and origin of the strife and it decides to go to war. According to the arguments advanced by some of the Senators, instead of my country going to war in a cause which has been deemed right by the Legislature, it has to be referred to the people. and let every street demi-god perch himself on a stool to espouse one cause or another.

Let every coward who has not the courage to go out and fight for his country take shelter behind a vote, and let him threaten to resist by force of arms so that he may thereby shield his own hulking frame. If the Legislature of my country decides to go to war and if the people are too cowardly to fight, then by all manner of means have conscription, and do not leave it to the people to decide, so that the coward who is afraid to fight may have a chance to save himself.

There is very little to be said for the Referendum. There is a business method, and only a business method, of governing the country. Senator Sir John Keane said that the opinions of the people were just as intelligent as the opinions of the Legislature. But, after all, if a corporation is set up, consisting of its board and its shareholders, I wonder if Senator Sir John Keane would like to see the shareholders interfering every month, or every two months, in the management of that concern. Is that the practice which he would adopt—to interfere with the board of directors in every matter that would arise? No; he believes in the good business method, and the good business method is to let the shareholders come together, elect their board of directors for a certain time. and let the board of directors function in respect of matters which they are handling and let them be responsible to the people who elected them.

Sir JOHN KEANE

As the Senator has chosen that analogy, would the Senator say how often the shareholders meet their directors and how often the directors are re-elected?

Mr. O'FARRELL

And let them write down the shares.

Mr. FARREN

What happens when the company goes bankrupt?

Mr. O'HANLON

If the country is going into bankruptcy the Referendum will not save it. The analogy is absolutely complete, and I take it that in this country, where we have two Houses elected by the people——

Mr. O'FARRELL

One House elected by the people.

Mr. O'HANLON

There are two so far, at any rate. They are responsible to the people, one very directly and the other not quite so directly in the future. They are charged with all functions for a certain period by the people, and they would be responsible to the people. I do not want to have the people's opinion in regard to every matter that may arise simply formed by the people who stand on stools at corners and harangue the plain people who, not having access to all the information, are not in a position to judge the matter in question from an intimate knowledge of it. That is not the most business-like method of doing business that I can see. In regard to the points in favour of the Referendum, Senator O'Farrell stated an extreme case— that is, if the majority indulge in foolish and repressive legislation by all manner of means let us have a safeguard for the people. Who is to decide what is foolish and repressive legislation?

Mr. O'FARRELL

The majority.

Mr. O'HANLON

How can you say now that the majority may indulge in foolish and repressive legislation? I do not think that that could be said. In my opinion no good case has been made for the retention of the Referendum clause.

The PRESIDENT

This is carrying out one of the recommendations which were made in the Joint Committee, and perhaps in his leisure time Senator Sir John Keane would like to see its report, if he has not looked at it or heard about it. The proposal there was that the nine months which the Seanad has for holding up a measure should be increased, and that if these changes were made an alteration might be made in the Constitution in so far as the use of the Referendum was concerned——

Mr. O'FARRELL

On a point of explanation. Perhaps the President would try to get into his head what the Joint Committee did recommend. They recommended that, instead of three-fifths of the Seanad being allowed to hold up a Bill for nine months and after that have a Referendum on it, they should be allowed to hold it up for eighteen months and have no Referendum. But they did not suggest that the Referendum should be taken away from the people.

The PRESIDENT

Senator O'Farrell will probably permit me to go on now. As the Senator has explained that much I suppose I may be relieved from explaining it.

Mr. O'FARRELL

You were not explaining it correctly.

The PRESIDENT

Not as correctly as the Senator would like. We are now faced with a peculiar combination. We have on the one hand those that speak for the Labour Party in the House, and on the other Senator Sir John Keane. I do not know what political party he belongs to or whether he ever belonged to a political party. But they are the exponents of the Referendum. All that one can learn from what they have said is that they fear the political wisdom of their fellow-countrymen, and they fear, in the second place, for the representation of this country in the future. They have no confidence in the people, no confidence in the future of the country in so far as political stability is concerned, and they want safeguards. I do not know whether it is that there is a community of interests between these two, but I am certain of this, that the sooner we learn that we cannot take elections lightly the better it will be for the country as a whole. One would imagine that when Senator Sir John Keane was addressing himself to this subject he would have told us that he had considerable experience of general elections, or of any sort of elections, and considerable experience of the Referendum. I had myself one experience of the Referendum, and I believe it is one more than Senator Sir John Keane has had. I think I have had much more experience of general elections than he has had. I do not like to be too hard on the Senator, but I do say that he reminds me very much of a Deputy whom I had to speak to on one occasion, who reminded me very much of the gentleman who went to the Temple and said: "Thank God, I am not as other men." We are done with that sort of thing. What we want to see is results, improvements, some confidence in the people. We had an opportunity at this Joint Committee of making all the sensible recommendations that we have heard about, but they were left over until we come along here to carry out the recommendations that were made. Might I say that if I were called upon to make recommendations I would not have made exactly the same as those, but I would have gone very near them. We are now five or six years carrying on business here, and not once has the Referendum had to be used.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Then why fear it?

The PRESIDENT

The Senator, who occasionally condemns the Government, has this at least to say of it, that not on one occasion had he or his Party to put the threat of the Referendum to it. I would like him to consider that, and to consider how well he has been governed during this last five or six years. I would ask him to have much more confidence in the future. If there be changes let us consider, before we make them, who the people are that we propose to entrust with responsibilities, and let us not be always looking for these safeguards. In practically every well-governed country in the world there is no necessity for the use of this, and in any country where the Referendum is of use—and one has been mentioned here —extraordinary precautions have got to be taken to ensure that there is a majority. We are told about repressive legislation and of things that may be done by a majority going into the Dáil, and which the people will have no opportunity of counteracting. Let us examine that. Senators will know how difficult it is to get a political majority where there is proportional representation, and when various Parties constitute the majority, and we are invited to consider each and every one of these parties combined together to do something against the interests of the people. There is an opportunity for holding up measures for a longer period than formerly by one of the Bills that is at present before the Seanad. There is an opportunity for getting public opinion on these questions, and with all these safeguards we are looking for still more. I am afraid that we cannot have such gilt-edged security either in this country or in any other. We must have a little more confidence in the people and in ourselves.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 34; Níl, 7.

Tá

• T. Westropp Bennett.
• Dr. H.L. Barniville.
• William Barrington.
• Sir E. Bellingham.
• Sir E. Bigger.
• P. J. Brady.
• S. L. Brown.
• Mrs. Costello.
• J.C. Counihan.
• Countess of Desart.
• James Dillon.
• James G. Douglas.
• Sir Nugent Everard.
• Michael Fanning.
• Dr. Gogarty.
• James P. Goodbody.
• Mrs. Stopford Green.
• Sir Henry Greer.
• Benjamin Haughton.
• P.J. Hooper.
• Rt. Hon. A. Jameson.
• Cornelius Kennedy.
• P. W. Kenny.
• Francis MacGuinness.
• James MacKean.
• John MacLoughlin.
• Sir Bryan Mahon.
• James Moran.
• Sir Walter Nugent.
• M. F. O'Hanlon.
• B. O'Rourke.
• J.J. Parkinson.
• Thomas Toal.
• W. B. Yeats.

Níl

• J. C. Dowdall.
• Michael Duffy.
• Thomas Farren.
• Sir John Keane.
• Thomas Linehan.
• J.T. O'Farrell.
• Mrs. Wyse Power.

Motion declared carried.

Mr. BARRINGTON

Can I correct my vote? I voted "níl" by mistake.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Do you mean that seriously?

Mr. BARRINGTON

Yes.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Was the mistake made by accident?

Mr. BARRINGTON

Yes.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Do not be afraid not to be in the swim.

The House gave permission for the Senator to correct the vote and to have it properly recorded.

Bill put through Committee without amendment.

Bill ordered to be reported.

The Seanad went out of Committee.

Bill reported without amendment.