I had an amendment to the Second Stage of this Bill but unfortunately when I sent it to the office it was late and for that reason you, Sir, ruled it out of order. I think it very desirable that the amendment should be discussed, and I am asking the House for permission to have this Bill put back until this day week when my amendment would be properly before it. I move accordingly.
Public Business. - Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.
Question proposed—"That the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, 1933 be now read a Second Time."
Cathaoirleach
Is the proposal seconded?
I second.
I wish to oppose this motion, because on the face of it it is absurd and, in my view, ought not to be brought up here at all. This Bill has been before the Seanad and the Dáil again and again and has been discussed in every possible form. The Senator has taken a year to consider the matter and he now comes along with a proposal to postpone its consideration for another week. That seems to me to be utterly unreasonable. I am astonished that it has arisen here at all. I desire to oppose it. On a point of order I ask you, Sir, to rule that it should not be brought up at all.
Cathaoirleach
What is the point of order?
Whether it is reasonable that a motion of this sort should be brought forward at this stage?
Cathaoirleach
Its reasonableness is not a point of order. The fact of its being capable of being brought forward is a point of order. The proposal is certainly capable of being brought forward. Otherwise I would not have allowed it to arise. I am not passing any comment as to its reasonableness.
I take it the motion to which Senator Wilson is putting forward an amendment is that the Second Reading of the Bill be passed. We ought, at least, to have some idea of the terms of the amendment before we agree to postpone consideration of the motion.
Cathaoirleach
As Senator Wilson has informed the House, he sent an amendment to my office which I read and ruled on. He asked me if he could bring it forward as a matter of urgency, and I refused to allow that, as I thought there was no urgency.
I take it that it was a reasoned amendment to the motion?
Cathaoirleach
Yes. I refused to exercise in this case the discretion which I have to allow an amendment on shorter notice than that prescribed by the Standing Orders, and that, apparently, is the reason why Senator Wilson wishes to postpone the Second Stage of the Bill till next Wednesday. If he gets his way, his amendment, which is now late, would then be in time.
It seems extraordinary that Senator Wilson should make such a proposal at this stage. He is asking the members of the Seanad to take a jump in the dark, not knowing anything about his amendment. If Senators were in a position to know exactly the terms of his amendment they would be clear about it if it came to a vote. Not knowing the terms of the amendment I certainly object to the proposal. If it is an amendment such as is suggested by Senator Johnson what is the reason for it? Can the House not at once deal with the Bill now before it? If the motion before the House is to pass the Bill why is the Senator's request necessary at all? Let the Seanad deal with the Bill and either pass it or throw it out.
I take it the position we are faced with is that Senator Wilson sent in an amendment which you, Sir, ruled out of order as being late. It will be found in the Standing Orders that on the Second Stage a reasoned amendment may be proposed. As this is the first occasion on which a Bill was sent back to us under this particular Article of the Constitution, and in view of the fact that we have plenty of other business to do, I think another week's delay would not make any difference seeing that the Seanad will be meeting next week in any case.
Would it be proper procedure or be advisable if the amendment is out of order that we should then adjourn for another week until the Senator formulates something which might be in order?
Are not the statements that have been made misleading? There is no substitution of an amendment. Senator Wilson's amendment was ruled out not because it was out of order, but because it was sent in too late. He is now handing in the suggested amendment which I take it you, Sir, will be able to accept, because it will be handed in to-day. That is an entirely different position and I hope the House will agree. If Senator Wilson was a little lax in not handing in his amendment in time I hope the House will show its indulgence by giving him an opportunity to have it considered this day week.
On a point of order. This Bill has had a Second Reading by this House, so that the principle of it has been approved. I can only see the possibility that an amendment on the Committee Stage might be in order and be acceptable to the House. Surely there can be no reason in putting forward a new reasoned amendment on the Second Reading of a Bill which has already had the approval of the House?
Is there any reason for the Second Reading to-day?
Cathaoirleach
I take it that the point about the adjournment is that there will be ample time for the necessary notice of the amendment to be given. As I have a copy of the amendment here I do not think I will be wrong in reading it:—
To delete all after the word "That" and to substitute therefor the following: "the Seanad declines further to consider the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, 1933 until it has been made the subject of negotiation between the Executive Council and the British Government with a view to an amicable agreement."
That was the amendment I refused to accept because it was not sent in in time.
Should not Senator Wilson give some explanation to the House as to why he was late with his amendment? We can visualise a character in a famous story who woke up after 40 years and noticed all the changes that had taken place in the meantime. Everyone was aware of this Bill and it was very much talked of during the General Election. Senator Wilson comes along to-day, when the Seanad meets, and tells the members that he was late in sending in the amendment. I think that is an extraordinary attitude for any Senator to take up.
Most Senators at different times have been late with amendments and, as far as my memory goes, they were ruled out, even without any consideration as to whether the amendments were reasonable or unreasonable. This is the most unreasonable proposal I have ever heard, to postpone consideration. It would mean that Senators will have to go away and come back again, causing expenses, all because some members do not choose to put in the proper amendment at the proper time. The Cathaoirleach may consider it possible under certain circumstances to overrule the regulations, but in this respect there was never a case so unreasonable.
With regard to this talk about this being considered during two General Elections, I would point out that the Resolution was passed by the Dáil only last Wednesday and there was not a great deal of time lost by Senator Wilson in sending in his motion.
I think that, in an important question like this, there is no use in carrying on a kind of skirmish about it. The facts are plain to every member of this House. The Government introduced a Bill last year for the purpose of removing the Oath and, after considerable discussion, this House gave the Bill a Second Reading which meant approval of the principle of the Bill. Then the Bill was amended in such a way that it was of no value. In the meantime, a General Election has taken place and the people of the country have, without doubt, endorsed the action of the Government with regard to the question of the Oath.
Not all.
I think there is no doubt about it that the majority of the people have.
Yes.
I would appeal to the House to deal with this question in a businesslike way. This motion before the House is brought in accordance with the Constitution and we are asked to suspend consideration of this motion to-day because we want to do exactly what we did to the previous Bill last year. That is exactly what is intended by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment that has been read out is intended to kill the Bill.
Is it in order to discuss this amendment?
Perfectly.
Is the amendment before the House?
Cathaoirleach
The amendment is not before the House.
If it were not, I would not know anything about it. The Cathaoirleach has read out this proposed amendment and if Senator Wilson is entitled to make a case as to why the consideration of this matter should be postponed for a week, I am equally entitled to make a case for not postponing it. The case I am making is that the intention in the proposed amendment that was handed in too late is identical with the intention of the amendments that were carried to the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill last year, that is, to kill the Bill, and I say, with all respect to the members of this House, that it is not one of the functions of the House to interfere in a matter like this of a highly-contentious political nature which has been endorsed by the people of the country, and, therefore, I say that this motion should be passed and that we ought not to be fooling about it. Whether this House likes it or not, the Removal of the Oath Bill will become law in a few weeks' time, and there is no use in the House taking up a Die-Hard attitude and saying: "We will fight to the last ditch for the preservation of a thing that nobody in the country wants." I appeal to the commonsense of the House to agree to the motion.
I should like to call attention to this point. The Oath is part of the Treaty and as such it was not competent for the Government to put it to the country at all at a General Election. Let them go out and say: "Do away with the whole Treaty." They have no power, they have no right to take one vital clause of the Treaty and put that before the people and still assume the attitude that they stand for the Treaty. That is my point. There is another point I should like to make and that is that the Government has taken no steps to repeal the Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Act of 1927, which provides that every candidate going forward for election to the Dáil must make an affidavit that he will take the Oath. Unless that clause of that Act has already been repealed, it seems to me extraordinary that we should do away with the Oath, but the important fact is that this is an international agreement and it cannot be settled by the people in an election. They have no power to settle it. There is only one way of coming to agreement and that is by negotiation between the two parties to the agreement.
Cathaoirleach
If no other Senator wishes to speak, I will put the motion to the House: It is "That the Second Stage of the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill be taken on Wednesday, 15th March, 1933." I think there is no other way of deciding it than by a vote of the House.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Bagwell, John.
- Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
- Browne, Miss Kathleen.
- Costello, Mrs.
- Counihan, John C.
- Crosbie, George.
- Desart, The Countess of.
- McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The
- Milroy, Seán.
- O'Connor, Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, M.F.
- Douglas, James G.
- Fanning, Michael.
- Garahan, Hugh.
- Griffith, Sir John Purser.
- Guinness, Henry S.
- Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
- Keane, Sir John.
- O'Rourke, Brian.
- Parkinson, James J.
- Staines, Michael.
- Wilson, Richard.
Níl
- Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
- Cummins, William.
- Dowdall, J.C.
- Duffy, Michael.
- Esmonde, Sir Thomas Grattan.
- Farren, Thomas.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Johnson, Thomas.
- Linehan, Thomas.
- MacKean, James.
- Moore, Colonel.
- O'Farrell, John T.
- O'Neill, L.
- Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
- Quirke, William.
- Robinson, David L.
- Robinson, Séumas.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Wilson and O'Hanlon; Níl: Senators D. Robinson and S. Robinson.
Motion declared carried.