Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 16 Oct 1931

Vol. 14 No. 33

Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill, 1931—Allocation of Time Motion.

The following motion stood in the name of Senator Wilson:—
"That, in the case of the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill, 1931, the Stages shall be proceeded with as follows:—
(a) The Second Stage of the Bill shall be set down for consideration at 4.15 p.m. on Friday, 16th October, 1931, and the proceedings on that Stage, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 6.45 p.m. on that day by putting from the Chair forthwith the Question, ‘That the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill, 1931, be now read a second time,' and after the said time on the said day no question shall be put from the Chair on any amendment set down to the motion for the Second Stage.
(b) Immediately on the conclusion of the proceedings on the Second Stage of the Bill, the sitting shall be suspended until 8 p.m.
(c) On the resumption of the sitting at 8 p.m. the Committee Stage of the Bill shall be considered and the proceedings on that Stage, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 9.45 p.m. by putting from the Chair forthwith and successively any Questions necessary to bring the proceedings to a conclusion: Provided that after the appointed time no Question shall be put from the Chair on any amendment, and after such time only one Question shall be put from the Chair bring the proceedings in Committee forthwith to a conclusion, and that Question shall be in the form (as the case may require), ‘That the Section, the Sections, the Schedule and the Title stand part of the Bill,' or ‘That the Section, the Sections, the Schedule and the Title as amended (if amendments have been made) stand part of the Bill.'
(d) Immediately on the conclusion of the proceedings on the Committee Stage of the Bill, the Seanad shall stand adjourned until 11 a.m. on Saturday, 17th October, 1931.
(e) At the sitting of the Seanad on Saturday, 17th October, 1931, the Report Stage of the Bill shall be proceeded with as first business, and the proceedings on that Stage, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 12 noon on that day by putting from the Chair forthwith the Question necessary to bring the proceedings to a conclusion.
(f) The Fifth Stage of the Bill shall be considered immediately on the conclusion of the Report Stage, and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 1 p.m. on that day by putting from the Chair forthwith the Question necessary to bring the proceedings to a conclusion.
(g) Immediately on the conclusion of the proceedings on the Fifth Stage of the Bill, the Seanad shall stand adjournedsine die.”
The following amendment was handed in by Senator Johnson to Senator Wilson's motion:—
Paragraph (c). To delete all after the word "conclusion" in line 5 down to the end of the paragraph.

Cathaoirleach

An amendment to Senator Wilson's motion has been tabled and copies have been circulated to Senators as they entered the Chamber. I propose to call upon Senator Johnson as soon as the motion has been moved and seconded. The effect of his amendment if passed will be, in my opinion, (and I so rule) that at 9.45 p.m. any amendments offered on the Committee Stage of the Bill which have not then been reached will be put from the Chair successively and without debate. I need hardly point out that a division might be challenged on each. A number of amendments have been tabled for the Committee Stage of the Bill, and the Clerk hopes to be in a position to circulate these in stencilled form within the next quarter of an hour. If Senator Wilson's motion is passed, the Committee Stage of the Bill will begin at 8 p.m. this evening and an effort will be made to have printed copies of the amendments available by that hour.

I move the motion that stands in my name—No. 1 on the Order Paper. The object of this motion is to facilitate the passage of the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill through the House, and in order that the Bill may come up for discussion it is necessary that certain of the Standing Orders be amended. Now my motion deals with the changes in the Standing Orders and I will take each section of the motion separately and explain as well as I can to the House the slight changes that are necessary in order that this Bill may be allowed to proceed. Some Senators have been saying that this is a revolutionary motion. What happens in this: That in ordinary circumstances three days shall be allowed to elapse after the passing of the Bill in the Dáil before it comes here for discussion in this Chamber, and I am moving in this motion section (a) that the Bill be permitted for discussion to-day. Instead of three days' notice it is simply allowing the Bill to be discussed after one day.

On a point of order, Senator Wilson is speaking to a motion which was handed in in respect of a measure which was not officially in existence when this detailed time-table was handed in. I ask your ruling if it is in order for a Senator to put in a motion relating to a measure— for instance, the Transport Bill, of which we know through the Press, but which is not in existence as a Bill. Here a detailed time-table is submitted to the House in respect of a measure not in existence when the motion was put in. It may be as voluminous as a Bible and Senator Wilson has put this motion that it be passed in a few hours.

Cathaoirleach

On your point of order, Senator, I am not quite clear. Are you asking me to rule whether the Senator's motion is in order?

Cathaoirleach

The House is complete master of its own procedure. Accordingly, if this motion is passed it makes all proceedings in accordance with this motion in order, as the motion is a direction of the House as to how the Bill in question is to be dealt with. It is quite unnecessary to suspend any Standing Order, as the motion itself is in order and its passing will make all proceedings in accordance with it in order. I so rule.

Section (a) which I have been explaining permits the discussion of this Bill at 4.15 to-day and in addition to that it brings forward a closure motion. If this Bill is passed at 6.45 the closure motion will be put from the Chair, and that closure motion will dispose of the Second Stage of the Bill. That closure motion is in accordance with Standing Orders. Under our Orders any Senator can get up after an hour's discussion and move the closure, so there is nothing revolutionary about it. The only thing wrong with Section (a) is that instead of three days having elapsed from the passage of the Bill in the Dáil one day has elapsed.

One hour!

Well, one hour. Section (b) states that immediately on the conclusion of the proceedings on the Second Stage of the Bill the sittings shall be suspended until 8 o'clock. That means after 7 o'clock when the Second Stage is disposed of we suspend sittings and resume at 8 o'clock, and then at 8 o'clock the Committee Stage of the Bill shall be considered. The Committee Stage ought ordinarily not be taken the same day as the day on which the Second Stage has been passed in this House. There is a change there in Standing Orders. Standing Orders say it must be taken on a day subsequent to the Second Stage, but I am asking on behalf of the Government, as a state of emergency exists in the country, that the Committee Stage of this Bill shall be taken and proceedings resumed at 8 p.m.

In Section (c) there is also a closure motion which permits discussion for one and three-quarter hours. Section (d) merely asks that after the Committee Stage is taken the Seanad shall stand adjourned until 11 a.m. to-morrow. There is nothing revolutionary about that. Section (e) means that the Report Stage shall be proceeded with to-morrow at 11 a.m. An hour's discussion will be permitted in accordance with our Standing Orders. Any Senator has the right under the Standing Orders after an hour's discussion to move the closure. Section (f) means that the Fifth Stage shall be taken immediately on the conclusion of the Report Stage. There is nothing revolutionary about that, because frequently in this House the Fifth Stage has been taken on the same day as the Report Stage, especially when there have been no amendments carried into the Bill.

I want to point out to Senators generally that this motion which is very large really means nothing. It makes no changes in Standing Orders except that instead of having three days' notice of the taking of a Bill we are to have one. I want to place before you the reason why this is done. You must remember that this is a Government motion. The Government who have to govern this country demand from us that this particular measure should be passed forthwith. I cannot see any great reason why it should not be passed if the state of the country is taken into account. While we do not like changing the Constitution——

This is the seventeenth change.

It is a most important change. We cannot allow a position in which men can intimidate the public, intimidate members of Parliament, intimidate jurors and commit crimes which deserve to be punished. We cannot stand for that position and therefore emergency legislation is necessary. It is the Seanad's duty to support the Government in whatever measure they consider necessary for the good order and government of this country. The Constitution says that the liberty of the person is inviolable. Was the body of Ryan inviolable?

Which Ryan?

The man who was murdered in Tipperary a few weeks ago. Can men shelter themselves under the Constitution, and at the same time break the spirit of the Constitution? If we are to consider the Constitution as the charter of our liberty, it implies also that we, as citizens, ought to be obedient to the Constitution and whatever ideals we hold, whether we want separation from England or Communism, must be pursued not by violence but by argument and the votes of the people. If those people who are breaking the law refuse to observe the Constitution, what else can the Government do but to meet force with force? I, as the mouthpiece of the Government, say that we would be neglectful of our duty if we did not support the Government in doing what they consider necessary in order that good government in this country shall be preserved, in order that our condition as a nation amongst other nations of the world may be such that property and life are safe, and that we can pursue our daily avocations without the danger or fear of the gunman.

I beg to second the motion. I believe that there is an urgent necessity for the passing of this Bill. It is necessary to pass it in order that the country might be restored to peace and orderly conditions.

I move the amendment standing in my name. I propose to discuss the general resolution as well as the amendment.

Does that mean that when we come to the other thing there is to be no more discussion?

Cathaoirleach

What other thing?

If the two matters are to be discussed now we will not be able to discuss the Bill.

Cathaoirleach

I want to make it clear that Senator Wilson has moved a motion which involves a closure. An amendment is proposed by Senator Johnson. That amendment will be included in the time given to Senator Wilson's motion.

I do not know whether Senator Wilson, in drawing up this time-table, had anything to say to the time in which the House might discuss his motion. It will be observed that the House was called to meet at 3 o'clock, and one and a quarter hours are allocated to the closure motion, two and a half hours to discussion of the Bill on the Second Stage—to accept or reject the principle of the Bill—and one hour and forty-five minutes to discussing in detail 35 sections. If that is Senator Wilson's idea of the due allocation of time to amend the Constitution in the way that it is proposed it should be amended, I have very little regard for his sense of proportion. When moving the motion, the Senator said something about this nation taking its place among other nations of the world. I had the idea when I read this motion that the Senator, and those for whom he was the mouthpiece, as he explained, had in fact been familiarising themselves with what might be called current international movements. Those of us who read the newspapers are familiar with certain current international movements. Those members of the Seanad who are members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union will be familiar with the documents that have been circulated regarding current dangers to the Parliamentary system, and how it has been shown that the current movements for the Fascist form of Government on the one hand and the Communistic form of Government on the other hand, are united in the idea that Parliamentary Government is a farce and should be abolished. We have had, frequently during the past few years, indications from Ministers of the way their minds are running in respect to this question, sneers at representative Government, sneers at Parliament, sneers at the manner in which parties are supposed to express their views through representatives in Parliament, the break up of the idea of a popular vote, and generally the expression has come from Ministers at different times, of the inutility and obstructive effects of Parliamentary discussion.

In this country.

I have heard or read of the Minister who has just intervened saying things which indicate a distinct distaste for the obstructive effects of Parliamentary discussion. I have heard the Minister for Defence more than once indicating a similar state of mind.

No. That is not correct.

Here we have the ultimate result.

Incorrect.

We have here the result of the mind of Ministers in a resolution. I am not going to deal with the merits of the Bill, but solely with the resolution before us, which is designed to prevent this House discussing for more than one hour and forty-five minutes changes in the Constitution which go to the very foundation of this State as an organised institution. Really it does suggest this, that the Seanad is asked to commit hari-kari. I wonder whether the Seanad realises that if it passes this motion it is practically saying with such Parliaments and representative institutions as exist in Fascist and Communist countries, that their business is to ratify without discussion the decisions of the Executive—to discuss them, but not to attempt to amend them. Let the spokesman for the Government lay before the House the decisions and records of what are being done, and take them as accomplished facts. If you like to change the Government, perhaps there may be another opportunity given; but perhaps there might not. So far as representative institutions are concerned under that method they are not to discuss propositions from a Government but to accept them. That seems to me to be the genesis of this motion.

In moving it the Senator claimed that it was not revolutionary. Of course not. It is quite in accord with the Standing Orders! Presumably if it were not the Cathaoirleach would have ruled it out of order. I now come to my amendment. I put it forward as a very mild and simple proposition that would at least save something of the dignity and self-respect of this House. It is proposed in paragraph (c) of the motion that the Committee Stage of the Bill shall be resumed at 8 o'clock, and that the discussion may continue until 9.45. In that one and three-quarter hours it is suggested that the House can discuss sections one and two of the Bill proper, and thirty-five sections and an appendix in the Schedule. Contained in the Bill are many very important and very, very serious propositions. The intention is that this House shall be given one and three quarter hours for the discussion and consideration of the Government's proposals as contained in the Bill, and any amendments which any Senator may desire to insert. At the end of that time all other proceedings in connection with the Committee Stage of the Bill shall cease except one comprehensive motion to approve of the Bill. I am dealing with the matter now purely from the point of view of a practical working out of this system. It may be, let us say, that on Section 25 Senator Counihan, even Senator Wilson or Senator Brown may think that there is necessity for an amendment. Possibly either of those Senators or some other Senator may have put down a motion or an amendment which will appeal to the House as a whole. It is even possible that there is a flaw in the Bill. The Bill as presented to Dáil Eireann was, bear in mind, altered. It was amended. If at 9.45 to-night this motion is carried, and if we have only got as far as discussing Section 15, then the amendment of any later section is impossible. Senators may say that we will meet to-morrow but they cannot amend the Bill to-morrow. Under the Standing Orders notice must be given for the consideration of any amendment on Report.

In the motion as presented it is going to be impossible to amend this Bill after 9.45 to-night. We are supposed to have discussed the 35 sections in one hour and three-quarters, and either agreed or not agreed to any amendments that have been submitted. As I pointed out, the effect of my amendment is simply this, that at 9.45 to-night, if there are any amendments on the Paper which appeal to the House, they may be embodied in the Bill by vote of the House without discussion. If there are any sections of the Bill which the House considers ought not to be in it, then the House will have an opportunity of deleting particular sections without having to throw out the whole Bill. It seems to me that if that very mild and moderate suggestion, to modify the motion of Senator Wilson, is not accepted by the House, it is a clear indication that the House does not intend in any possible circumstances—because no other circumstances can be imagined which would have a greater appeal in that respect than this—to do anything more than ratify decisions already made by the Executive Council. Senator Wilson admits that that is his position, supported by Senator Miss Browne and possibly by other Senators. I think that is not the view of the House as a whole, and I think it is a reasonable test, whether that is to be the future mind of the House or whether Senators are going to consider their position, of having a right and a duty to consider fairly legislative proposals that emanate from the Government.

I second the amendment. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that I question whether either the motion or the amendment is in order, for the simple reason that we have no Bill before us. It is usual in the Seanad that a Bill is complete as passed in the Dáil, but as far as I know we have no Bill here now. In view of that fact I think our proceedings are entirely irregular and out of order.

Cathaoirleach

I have ruled that they are in order.

Despite the fact that we have no Bill as passed in the Dáil?

Cathaoirleach

Yes.

That is your ruling?

Is it not correct that when a Bill reaches us from the other House it is deemed to be read a first time according to our Standing Orders?

We have no Bill at all.

Cathaoirleach

I think Senators got a Bill this morning.

We have a Bill "as amended in Committee." We have not any information as to whether it was amended on Report or not.

There is no Bill as passed by Dáil Eireann.

Cathaoirleach

Did not a copy of the Bill reach Senators this morning?

Yes, as it passed the Second Reading Stage in the Dáil.

Cathaoirleach

That is sufficient.

Do you know that? You have been told that?

Are we to take it that your ruling is based on the word of mouth of the Minister?

Cathaoirleach

No. The copy you have got is a certified copy that we received as passed by Dáil Eireann.

My Bill is "as introduced by the President."

Can we see the certified copy?

Cathaoirleach

I want to make it perfectly clear that the certified copy we have received in this House reads "as amended in Committee." That is the only copy we have received, and the Bill is as it finally emerged from the Dáil.

What proof have we of that?

Cathaoirleach

Our certified copy.

Where is it?

Cathaoirleach

I have told the House that the certified copy is in the custody of the Clerk of this House.

On these benches, I think you will agree, we have the most profound respect for the Cathaoirleach and for his judgment. I am bringing this matter forward, not with the idea of putting any obstacles in the way of the Chair, or in the administration of the business, but to point out how irregular, how unconstitutional, and how grossly disorderly every step that has been taken on this measure has been. Senator Wilson, in making his appeal on this issue—and I am dealing now both with the motion and with the amendment—displayed the most grotesque mentality I have yet seen in this House, and that is saying a great deal. He talked about the Bill having been passed in one day, showing that he was clearly of opinion that it was passed in the Dáil last night. He is not conscious yet when the Bill was passed, whether it was passed or what was passed. That was clearly evident from the fatuous and grotesque statement he made about the Bill being passed. As a matter of fact, as was pointed out, this Bill was only passed to-day—in other words, about one hour and 25 minutes prior to the time he got up to speak. This gentleman, this Senator, has the audacity to come amongst a body of intelligent men, and he stands here as a so-called fitting representative of democratic people. While we have had many travesties in the Oireachtas, this is the last word.

I want to ask the Chair one question, and I do so with all respect. You stated here to-day, sir, that the House had control of its own procedure. If you will reflect for a moment you will remember that you said here on Wednesday that you had no option—I speak subject to correction—but to order the business of this House in such a way that this measure would be dealt with this week. These are two conflicting statements, if I may say so with great respect. If the Chair had no option I think this House is entitled to know why. I think we are entitled to know what pressure was brought to bear upon the Chair and who held a pistol at the head of the Chair as regards the administration of the business of this House this week.

Cathaoirleach

I will answer that quite readily. The President of the Executive Council informed me that in the urgent necessity that existed in this country, it was imperative or important that I should summon a meeting of the Seanad for a specific purpose, and being so guided by the Head of the Executive Government, now or at any time, I felt that it was my duty to the House and to the country to summon such meeting.

I am satisfied with that statement, but surely it nullifies the statement that this House has any control over its order of business.

Cathaoirleach

I do not think so. The business is before the House, and it can deal with it as it decides. As far as I can see the House is now deciding the matter.

I submit, in view of my respect for the Chair, and only in view of that.

Cathaoirleach

That is very kind of you, Senator.

I want to know, with regard to this motion and amendment, what is the precipitate haste that requires the consideration of this Bill to be finished on Saturday afternoon.

To stop the gunmen.

Why not have it done last Saturday afternoon? Why not have it done three months ago? Why not have it done nine months ago?

There was no necessity for it.

I am not discussing the Bill at the moment. Senator Fanning, in view of his avocation in life, knows more possibly about these people than I do. I want to suggest now that there is a very definite reason for Saturday evening. The reason is that it comes before Sunday morning, and that on Sunday morning, when the decent people of this country, equally with the saint that has been held up to us as a model, namely, the President of the Executive Council, go to Mass, they may hear something on moral conduct which, if digested properly, may influence them to some extent on the immoral conduct that some Senators, in common with the members of the other House, were guilty of during this week. It is all right to sneer and laugh. Senators should remember that each Wednesday this meeting opens with a prayer for truth, justice, piety and religion. Some of you were in for that prayer to-day. I was not. I say this, and I say it after very serious and careful thought, that the members who said that prayer here to-day, and who said it on Wednesday, were guilty of nothing less than rank blasphemy. Sixty per cent. of the members of this House do not believe in their hearts in this Bill, or do not believe it is necessary. Let them understand that they are setting machinery in motion now by this closure motion to establish Star Chamber methods to bully through legislation which is going, perhaps, to sink this country in blood. Then they talk about truth, justice, piety and religion.

We listened to Senator Wilson's schedule of time. There is nothing revolutionary in Senator Wilson's schedule of time! If we were discussing premium bulls for the profession to which he belongs, hours and days would not be too much for that, but an hour and a half is sufficient to decide what is the nature of the legislation that is to deal with Christian humanity in this country.

If we were discussing second-hand furniture how long would it take?

We can discuss that and feel no shame about it. At least the products we manufacture do not injure humanity. I submit that this programme that has been submitted to us is an insult to the House. It is an outrage on everything decent that the Seanad should stand for. It is being rushed through with a very definite purpose, to defeat whatever we may know on Sunday so that the measure they are going to run through all its stages this week will be law before Senators are stirred in their consciences. I do not know whether that is true or not. The President of the Executive Council, judging by his status, at least by the status we suppose he has in Christian religion, may know more than I do about it. I submit that the time schedule is absurd, that this Bill which is going to come before us, will involve undoubtedly human lives, justice and everything else that stands for peaceful Government and citizenship in this country. All these factors would require not a few hours but a few weeks of careful consideration, if they were considered honestly, reasonably and intelligently by the Seanad. That opportunity is not going to be afforded to us. We have not the Bill, as has been pointed out, that has been passed to-day in the Dáil. We have not that measure before us now. We have the Chairman's word, and we accept it, that the Bill was not amended but legislatively we have not that Bill before us.

Cathaoirleach

You have the certified copy.

We have not.

Cathaoirleach

It was sent out by last night's post, as far as I understand.

I would like to emphasise that this document which I have in my hand was delivered this morning and it is headed: "as amended in Committee." That is the only official communication I received other than Senator Wilson's motion and the amendment to it. The Bill I received this morning may have been amended to-day for all I know.

Cathaoirleach

That is the only copy there is.

As far as we are concerned officially and legislatively, the Bill as passed by Dáil Eireann, is not before us. You tell us there is a certified copy of the Bill but I have not seen it and until I see it I refuse to believe there is such a Bill.

Cathaoirleach

I am afraid I have not made myself plain. I have not got the Bill in front of me, but I understand that the Clerk's copy, which is certified, is headed as yours "as amended in Committee". It is quite a common thing to have a Bill headed in that way.

It is no good.

We will make it good.

You must have it as passed by Dáil Eireann before you can consider it.

Cathaoirleach

We frequently take Bills of the same nature.

How could a copy of a Bill purporting to be the final draft of the Bill as it passed the Dáil, be sent out when even the Report Stage had not been taken at that time?

Cathaoirleach

I have tried to make it clear, and the discussion must end now, that the copy received by our Clerk and in his custody, is a certified copy as passed by Dáil Eireann.

Cathaoirleach

This morning.

What time this morning?

Cathaoirleach

He received it to-day about a quarter to two. It is the same copy as you have in your hands now. There is no other copy. That is the Bill as it left Dáil Eireann. I assure you that is so, and there the matter must end.

The point I want to make is this. This House was summoned first of all on the direct order of the Chair under pressure from the President of the Executive Council. Notwithstanding the fact that on the motion for the Adjournment we had an assurance that the Chairman would have us here to discuss a Bill which had not passed its final stages, it was circulated as having been passed, sent out by post, and at two o'clock, one hour before the Bill was brought before us, a certified copy was handed to the Chair. I just want to draw attention to these facts and to point out, how we, a supposedly intelligent body, are to sit here in this Assembly, in which part of the Sovereignty of the State is supposed to reside, and be treated in this manner. We are supposed to be discussing a Bill, one hour after the Bill is supposed to have reached the hands of the Chairman of the Assembly, and yet we have not got a copy of the Bill.

Cathaoirleach

I am allowing you a great deal of latitude in regard to this matter which really is not fundamental. I have the certified copy of the Bill. There is here the certification of the Clerk of the Dáil which states:

"Deimhnim gur ritheadh an Bille seo istigh go cuibhe ag Dáil Eireann ar an 16º lá de Dheire Foghmhair, 1931."

In English that means:

"I certify that the within Bill has been duly passed by Dáil Eireann on the sixteenth day of October, 1931."

That is the copy you have in your hand. I am in no way treating you unfairly. You have the same copy as the Chair has and I must ask you to allow the matter to end.

With my protest I let the matter pass for the moment.

I have not very much more to say. I have stressed the irregularity of this whole procedure. I have pointed out the outrage committed on this House, the Oireachtas and the country. It is symptomatic of what we may expect when the Bill is law. The amount of time that is given to us to discuss this Bill may be very well symbolical of the short time that will be allowed to those whom this Bill is meant to condemn and execute.

I beg to support the amendment of Senator Johnson. Before I go into the reasons I wish to emphasise what has been said by Senator Connolly and Senator O'Doherty in regard to the manner in which this Bill has been brought before the House. If there is one thing essential to the security of the people—and that is what we are here for, to secure the liberty of the people—if there is one thing more than another that is essential to the security and the liberty of the people, it is that the forms of law should be observed. We received this morning copies of a certain measure passed in Committee of Dáil Eireann. We were not entitled to discuss that document. We would be bound to discuss a document passed by Dáil Eireann. There is not before us any Bill as passed by Dáil Eireann.

Cathaoirleach

I cannot allow you to continue in that strain, Senator. I have told you the Bill before you is the Bill as passed by Dáil Eireann and has been so certified. If you continue in that strain I shall hold you guilty of disorder.

You will not hold me guilty of disorder because I shall not be guilty of disorder. We accept what the Cathaoirleach has said, that he has received a measure certified as being passed by Dáil Eireann and that that is in the same terms as the measure sent to us this morning. I hope I am entitled to make this observation, that apparently Dáil Eireann did not make many amendments in that measure and probably the members of Dáil Eireann voted according to their allegiance. That is all I say of a provocative kind in relation to this measure.

I have great sympathy for my friend Senator Wilson. He looked to me like a poor fellow who was going over the top for the first time. It was the first time he represented the Government in moving a motion and he has done it very well. I want the House to say that really this time table is unnecessary. I am very glad we have the President of the Executive Council here, because I will make this one admission, that if there is any grain of sense at all in the Executive it resides in the President. I want to say that there is no necessity for a time table, and the reason there is no necessity is that we have never wasted time in this Assembly. I challenge my friends on the other side to say where, in this Assembly, we have ever wasted one five minutes of your time. We have never said one word for the purpose of delaying or interfering with business. The closure has never been moved in this House except on one occasion, in reference to the Jurors Bill, and it was not necessary on that occasion because we kept within the time. We discussed the measure and discussed it very closely. It was very closely argued and argued within the scheduled time. Therefore, on the present occasion there is no necessity for limiting the time for a discussion, particularly of a Bill of this character. I say again that I am glad that the President of the Free State is here, because I want to tell the members of the Seanad, men who are supposed to be more or less removed from the anger and the heat of Party controversy, men who are supposed to be of mature years, that this is a Bill requiring long and careful consideration.

It is a very revolutionary measure. It ought to be considered by you. It ought to have full time for consideration by you. Mind you, foolish things are done in a hurry and in my opinion—of course my opinion will have little weight with people who are opposed to me politically—but in my opinion this is the most foolish measure that has been applied to this country for a hundred years.

Now let me tell you why it is a foolish measure. It is a foolish measure because it goes beyond the authority of the persons who introduced it. Again I say that I do not wish to be provocative. But I ask: What does the measure do? It provides that all offences—and mind you, offences are to include crimes, but they are to be something else besides crimes and they are to include anything that does not meet with the goodwill or the good wishes of the Executive Minister —it provides that all offences are to be triable, not by a court of justice, but by three military officers not one of whom need be a man acquainted with the laws of this country or the Constitution of this country. It also provides that the punishment for these offences shall not be in fines or imprisonment or even death, but such punishment as these three military officers may consider proper. Now that is one section in the Bill. There is another section in this Bill, that these military officers may condemn a man to death for an offence—not for a crime but for an offence.

On a point of order, is the Senator discussing this motion or the Bill?

Cathaoirleach

I think he is making a Second Reading speech.

I am trying to show that the time allowed for the discussion of this measure is insufficient, and to say that the questions for consideration are so important that there ought not to be any limitation of time. Here is a matter I want to have discussed, a most important question. I wish to make this submission: that you in your wisdom should consider it to be just that if these three military officers condemn a citizen to death, the sentence should not be carried out unless with the sanction of the Executive Council. Is that a matter for discussion? I say that this is a Bill in respect of which no closure should be applied; and if my friend, Senator Wilson, will withdraw his motion, I, on my part, will undertake, so far as I am concerned, that there will be no waste of time. I undertake that if he will allow fair discussion there will be no waste of time and that this Bill will be fully and fairly discussed.

An hour and three-quarters is quite long enough to discuss this.

My friend, Senator Wilson, I take it, refuses to withdraw his closure amendment. Let me tell you this, that this is not a Bill to amend the Constitution. This is a Bill to suspend the Constitution, because a section in this Bill includes a section to allow three men to inflict a sentence of death for an offence which need not be a crime. They override the Constitution according to the express terms of this Bill. I listened very carefully to the debates which took place in the Dáil on this measure. I will say that they were very able debates, although they were marked by a certain amount of excusable heat, let us say. I listened to them very carefully, and from my consideration of the debates I am of opinion that this Bill has not the sanction of the people through their elected representatives: that the terms of this Bill suspending the Constitution were never put to the people, and that the President of the Executive Council is of the same opinion himself.

I say now with whatever authority comes from long years of experience, that a representative assembly, the delegated representatives of the people have power to pass such laws as the people expressly or by implication authorise; that the people did not expressly or by implication authorise the subversion of the Constitution. Above all, they did not authorise the subversion of national liberty. Now I will leave it at that. I say to the President of the Executive Council who is here, that he has not got that authority from the people. Not alone does he in express terms by the measure subvert the Constitution, but he overrides natural right and natural justice. An Article of this Bill says that the Articles of the Constitution shall be read as subject to this Bill. We have an opportunity now of having the President here, and I say it in his presence and with full consideration of my own experience and on my own responsibility, that the President has not got from the people the authority to subvert not merely the Constitution but the natural liberties of the people. The natural liberties of the people are subverted when he subjects any man to trial by three military officers for any offence and without any appeal from that trial. I crave the attention of the Seanad to this: That what I have said is the opinion of the President himself. I have observed in the speech of the President that he is not going to put this Bill into execution. Remember when this Bill is made an Act it cannot be put into execution unless on the resolution of the Executive Council. I think I gathered from the speeches of the President that he is not going to put this Bill into execution until he gets it confirmed by the people. He doing that, the President is right. He has not the prior authority of the people.

It will be done tomorrow.

The President knows he has not got the prior authority of the people for this Bill. He must get the confirmation of the people for this Bill. I say that now to the President, and what I am saying will probably be remembered.

I move that the question be now put.

I second that.

Question put: "That the Question be now put."

Would I be in order in moving the adjournment of the House?

Cathaoirleach

No Senator is allowed to speak after the question has been put. Nothing is in order but the question.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 15.

  • Bagwell, John.
  • Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
  • Barrington, William.
  • Bellingham, Sir Edward.
  • Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
  • Brown, K. C., Samuel L.
  • Browne, Miss Kathleen.
  • Byrne, Right Hon. Alfred.
  • Costello, Mrs.
  • Counihan, John C.
  • Desart, The Countess of.
  • Dillon, James.
  • Douglas, James G.
  • Esmonde, Sir Thomas Grattan.
  • Fanning, Michael.
  • Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
  • Granard, The Earl of.
  • Griffith, Sir John Purser.
  • Guinness, Henry S.
  • Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
  • Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
  • Keane, Sir John.
  • Kennedy, Cornelius.
  • Linehan, Thomas.
  • McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
  • MacKean, James.
  • Milroy, Seán.
  • Molloy, William John.
  • Moran, James.
  • Nugent, Sir Walter.
  • O'Connor, Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, M. F.
  • O'Neill, L.
  • O'Rourke, Bernard.
  • O'Sullivan, Dr. William.
  • Staines, Michael.
  • Toal, Thomas.
  • Vincent, A. R.
  • Wilson, Richard.

Níl

  • Chléirigh, Uí Bean Caitlín.
  • Comyn, K. C., Michael.
  • Connolly, Joseph.
  • Cummins, William.
  • Dowdall, J. C.
  • Duffy, Michael.
  • Farren, Thomas.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Johnson, Thomas.
  • MacEllin, Seán E.
  • Moore, Colonel.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Farrell, John T.
  • Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
  • Robinson, Séumas.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Milroy and O'Rourke; Níl: Senators Connolly and Johnson.
Question declared carried.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 40.

  • Chléirigh, Uí Bean Caitlín.
  • Comyn, K. C., Michael.
  • Connolly, Joseph.
  • Cummins, William.
  • Dowdall, J. C.
  • Duffy, Michael.
  • Farren, Thomas.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Johnson, Thomas.
  • MacEllin, Seán E.
  • Moore, Colonel.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Farrell, John T.
  • Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
  • Robinson, Séumas.

Níl

  • Bagwell, John.
  • Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
  • Barrington, William.
  • Bellingham, Sir Edward.
  • Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
  • Brown, K. C., Samuel L.
  • Browne, Miss Kathleen.
  • Byrne, Right Hon. Alfred.
  • Costello, Mrs.
  • Counihan, John C.
  • Desart, The Countess of.
  • Dillon, James.
  • Douglas, James G.
  • Esmonde, Sir Thomas Grattan.
  • Fanning, Michael.
  • Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
  • Granard, The Earl of.
  • Griffith, Sir John Purser.
  • Guinness, Henry S.
  • Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
  • Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
  • Keane, Sir John.
  • Kennedy, Cornelius.
  • Linehan, Thomas.
  • McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
  • MacKean, James.
  • Milroy, Seán.
  • Molloy, William John.
  • Moran, James.
  • Nugent, Sir Walter.
  • O'Connor, Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, M. F.
  • O'Neill, L.
  • O'Rourke, Bernard.
  • O'Sullivan, Dr. William.
  • Parkinson, James J.
  • Staines, Michael.
  • Toal, Thomas.
  • Vincent, A. R.
  • Wilson, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Connolly and Johnson; Níl: Senators Milroy and O'Rourke.
Amendment declared lost.
Motion put.

Is there any method by which the names of Senators who dissent could be recorded as so dissenting? That would save the trouble of going to a division.

Cathaoirleach

If there are less than five Senators dissenting the names can be recorded not otherwise.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 40; Níl: 15.

  • Bagwell, John.
  • Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
  • Barrington, William.
  • Bellingham, Sir Edward.
  • Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
  • Brown, K. C., Samuel L.
  • Browne, Miss Kathleen.
  • Byrne, Right Hon. Alfred.
  • Costello, Mrs.
  • Griffith, Sir John Purser.
  • Guinness, Henry S.
  • Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
  • Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
  • Keane, Sir John.
  • Kennedy, Cornelius.
  • Linehan, Thomas.
  • McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
  • MacKean, James.
  • Milroy, Seán.
  • Molloy, William John.
  • Moran, James.
  • Counihan, John C.
  • Desart, The Countess of.
  • Dillon, James.
  • Douglas, James G.
  • Esmonde, Sir Thomas Grattan.
  • Fanning, Michael.
  • Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
  • Granard, The Earl of.
  • Nugent, Sir Walter.
  • O'Connor, Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, M. F.
  • O'Neill, L.
  • O'Rourke, Bernard.
  • O'Sullivan, Dr. William.
  • Parkinson, James J.
  • Staines, Michael.
  • Toal, Thomas.
  • Vincent, A. R.
  • Wilson, Richard.

Níl

  • Chléirigh, Uí Bean Caitlín.
  • Comyn, K.C., Michael.
  • Connolly, Joseph.
  • Cummins, William.
  • Dowdall, J. C.
  • Duffy, Michael.
  • Farren, Thomas.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Johnson, Thomas.
  • MacEllin, Seán E.
  • Moore, Colonel.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Farrell, John T.
  • Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
  • Robinson, Séumas.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Milroy and O'Rourke; Níl: Senators Connolly and Johnson.
Motion declared carried.
Top
Share