——
Constitution (Amendment No. 19) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is the President not coming here to take this Bill?
Cathaoirleach
The Minister for Justice.
I regret that it is impossible for the President to be present to deal with this Bill. Senators will observe that the Bill itself is a very simple one. The relevant feature of the Bill is contained in Section 1. The object of the Bill is to reduce the period in which this Chamber may hold up measures passed by the Dáil, and in dealing with that aspect of it I will try to be as brief as possible. In the Constitution, which was decided on in 1922, three drafts were submitted from the Committee. I am only concerned, and this House is only concerned, with that part of the Constitution which limited the time in which Bills might have been held up by this Chamber. Two of those reports that were submitted at that time suggested a period of 108 days. The third one suggested a period of four months. However, in the Constitution as it came from the Dáil, the period was set out as 270 days. That was passed and continued to be the position down to 1928. Side by side with that provision we had in the Constitution a clause dealing with the Initiative and a clause dealing with the Referendum. In 1928, however, it was enacted that the period should be extended to eighteen months, with a further holding up period of sixty days. That position has continued down to the present.
The Executive Council decided—and hence this Bill is before this House — that in their view that period was too long. They considered that an initial period of three months, with a further period of two months, would be quite sufficient if this Chamber is to be regarded, what was considered at its inception at any rate and in practice afterwards to some extent, as a revisory body. It is felt that sufficient protection is given to prevent hasty legislation: to prevent an Executive, in any reasonable set of circumstances, from acting in a hasty, unconstitutional or unreasonable way. If you extend that period to what has been the position from 1928 down to the present, or at least if you continue that position, then you may find that from time to time the Dáil, in trying to carry forward the programme which they have submitted to the electorate and which the electorate has adopted, would be obstructed in carrying that programme into operation.
It was pointed out in the other House by the President that the 20 months represents a very considerable part of the normal time that the Dáil is elected for: that if you take 20 months from the usual period of four or five years you may find the Dáil in such a position, if legislation were held up in this House, that it would not be able to carry out its programme in the way it was elected to carry it out. Therefore, taking into consideration what this House was first regarded as —that is, as a revisory chamber—it is considered that there are ample and sufficient safeguards provided in this measure. The amendments that have been tabled do not, in our view, help in any way. They are not going to secure what we have in mind in the Bill. I do not propose to say more at this stage. The Bill is clear to everyone, and I submit it to the House for its views and decision.
I beg to move the amendment standing in my name, which reads—
To delete all after the word "That" and to substitute therefor the words "the Second Stage of the Constitution (Amendment No. 19) Bill, 1933 be postponed pending the consideration by and report of a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas on the changes, if any, necessary in the constitution and powers of the Seanad.
Notwithstanding all the propaganda, all the talk by the opponents of the Treaty and of all the malcontents in the country who are opposed to our present form of government, as well as the attitude of the Executive Council, I still contend that the Seanad is by far the more popular chamber of the Oireachtas—at least amongst the business people and the commonsense community. That is their view. Now more than ever, that particular section of the community depends on us to save the country from complete collapse. If we are to have constitutional government, if we are to have a sound Government and if we are to have a Christian Government in this country, then that section of the community looks to the Seanad as the only hope that such a Government will exist. For that reason, I contend that it is the duty of this House to resist, by every means in its power, any encroachment on the powers and privileges of the Seanad, and that we should hand down to our successors the heritage of the Treaty and the Constitution that have been given to us.
Let us consider for a moment some of the effects of the abolition of the Seanad. Take, for instance, the courts of justice. The judges at the present time are independent of any Government. They can only be removed from office by a vote of both Houses of the Oireachtas, but if the Seanad were to go, I contend that the independence of the judges——
May I suggest that the Senator is a little premature in his remarks? It is not suggested in this Bill, so far as I understand, that the Seanad is to be abolished.
Cathaoirleach
I think that is so.
There are many members of this House who would sooner vote for the abolition of the Seanad than for a curtailment of its powers which would make it a farce. Before Senator Quirke, interrupted, I was going on to show that it would be quite easy for the President of the Executive Council to get any resolution he desired passed in the Dáil since the Dáil approved of the dismissal of General O'Duffy from his high office — practically a semi-judicial position. If the Executive Council can find it so easy to get a resolution passed at present, if the Seanad is abolished, the judges will soon realise that a certain organisation or section of the community will only have to agitate strongly enough to secure the removal of any of their number with whose decisions they do not agree. It has been said that the Seanad does not represent the will of the people. I want to remind the Minister for Justice that one-third of the members of this House were directly elected by the votes of the people. If the President would consider —it is, of course, the President that counts in this case—the class of votes which elected one-third of the Seanad, he would admit that they should be regarded as quite as important as the votes which gave him his majority. I am confident that if the abolition of the Seanad or the reduction of its powers were submitted to a referendum of the people over 30 years of age, they would definitely decide that this House retains the confidence of the country and represents the will of the people. If the President would consider the personnel of this House he would not be so anxious to dissolve it. I am sure that he would as soon take the advice of the ordinary Senator as he would take the advice of the ordinary member of the Dáil, or of the majority of the members of his own Party. For that reason, I do not see why the President should be so anxious to abolish the Seanad——
Cathaoirleach
I do not think that the Senator ought to allude so frequently to the abolition of this House. I think that he should confine himself more closely to the terms of his amendment, which deals with the curtailment of the powers of the House.
This Bill, I suggest, is leading up to abolition. If this Bill is passed the Dáil will only have to pass another Bill and, in three months, this House will be dissolved. If the President believes that this House is an important body, I cannot see why he should be so anxious to curtail its powers or abolish it except, as his actions would lead us to believe, he is out for a Seanad of his own construction and his own selection—a Seanad which would, to all intents and purposes, be a rubber stamp. We are led to that belief because the President has converted the high office of Governor-General into a rubber stamp. It is believed he has converted the Executive Council into a rubber stamp, and he has converted the Dáil into a rubber stamp. I want to tell him that the Seanad would sooner vote for its abolition than for any curtailment of its powers.
As one of the reasons for this measure, the President stated that he did not believe the Seanad was worth the money which had been expended upon it. I do not know by what mode of calculation he arrived at that conclusion. I should like to hear how he has come to that conclusion. The leader of the Centre Party in the Dáil stated that as there were a number of very wealthy men in the Seanad, we should be paid less than the members of the Dáil are paid. In fact, the leader of the Centre Party wanted to put us on piece-work and pay us by the job. I want to protest strongly against the reference by the leader of the Centre Party to the remuneration of Senators. The leader of the Labour Party in the Dáil—I should be glad to hear from the Labour members in this House if they agree with them—is so ultra-democratic that he wants no Second House. He thinks that this House ought to be abolished, and it seems to me as if he were leading up to the creation of a dictatorship.
I am sure that the constitutional position will be dealt with by Senators who are more qualified to speak on it than I am. My first impression on reading this Bill was that we should reject it right away. But, on reading the speech of the President on the Second Reading in the Dáil, I found that I agreed with some of his statements. He said that he did not want the Seanad to be a reflex of the Dáil. The majority of us will agree with that. He said that he did not approve of the mode of election. Many of us will approve of that. If the Executive Council and the President want the Seanad improved in a constitutional way, I think Senators will give them all the assistance in their power. For that reason I have put down this amendment. I intend to move a subsequent motion and if the President and the Executive Council are sincere in the statement that they do not want the abolition of the Seanad but rather want an improved Seanad, they will accept the amendment and the subsequent motion.
I beg to second the amendment. With your permission, a Chathaoirligh, I reserve my right to speak later.
It is not often that we have the pleasure of the presence of the Minister for Justice here. I am sure the Minister will not misunderstand me when I say that I regret that the President is not able to be present, as I gather from his speeches that he is very largely responsible for this Bill. In the speeches made by the President in the Dáil on the Second Stage of this Bill, he expressed the opinion that the Bill was not conceived in a party spirit, and suggested that it should be considered from the point of view of the good of the State, irrespective of what party was in power. I am afraid that the attitude of many members of the Dáil towards this question is (to put it mildly) very much influenced by party considerations; but, nevertheless, I hope the discussions in this House will deal with the general principles involved, rather than its possible effect on the fortunes of either of the large political parties, or of this House.
A statement is attributed to Khalif Omar, when he permitted the destruction of the library at Alexandria, "If the books agree with the Koran, they are not needed; if they differ, they ought to perish." This seems something very like the attitude of the leader of the Párliamentary Labour Party in the Dáil, and some members of the Fianna Fáil Party. If the Seanad agrees with the Dáil it is useless; if it disagrees, let us abolish.
The President, however, made it clear that he has not yet adopted this attitude, and although the Executive have not made up their mind on the question as to whether the legislature of this country should be bicameral or unicameral, they are considering whether some form of Seanad can be devised which will meet with their approval. But, whatever new Second Chamber is to be proposed, no matter how satisfactory from the point of view of the Government, it is not to have greater powers of delay than are proposed in this Bill.
If these statements of the President were to be taken by themselves, it might appear that the only question at issue is the period of delay which should be allowed to a Second Chamber in a democratic State. But a fuller examination of the speeches of the President, both in and outside the Dáil, makes it very evident that the real reason for the introduction of this Bill is to be found in mistrust of, and objection to, the present Seanad.
This House has been subject to all kinds of attack on party platforms, especially during the General Election, and statements were made many of which were grossly inaccurate. It would be a mistake to take many of these statements seriously. They were made in the heat of party strife by politicians who did not know what they were talking about, and who had not taken the trouble to inform themselves of the work done by this House since the Free State was established. But when misleading statements are made by responsible Ministers they cannot be ignored; and this Bill provides an opportunity for members of the House to reply, an opportunity which I feel should be availed of.
On January 3rd, 1933, the President, in the course of an address to representatives of the Press, stated that
"A hostile Seanad is constantly attempting to harass the Government by mutilating its measures, or wilfully delaying them."
On January 10th the present Minister for Justice stated at Balla, as reported in the Irish Press, that
"Every Bill they had passed was being held up, particularly by the Seanad."
In his speech introducing the Bill the President said that
"The Second House, which was largely nominated by the Executive, had uniformly"—note the word—"until the time the present Administration took office, assisted that Executive and assisted it even when there was every reason to believe that the Executive did not have the support of the majority of the people."
In the same speech he said:—
"I think that the Seanad as at present constituted is not worth the money; that it has no really useful function and does not, in fact, perform any useful function."
The work done by this House is rarely of a spectacular nature, and consequently very little space is given to its debates in the Press. It is only when we have some such measure before us as the Oath Bill, or on the happily rare occasions when party feeling develops, and our members are foolish enough to make bitter speeches about each other, that we get headlines in the newspapers. As a result, the public generally has very little knowledge of the amount of useful, though unobtrusive, work done by the Seanad; and I am afraid that a large section of the electorate are deceived when they are told by Ministers that this House does not perform any useful function, that it uniformly assisted the last Government, that it is constantly mutilating or wilfully delaying measures of the present Government or, as the Minister here now stated, that every Bill is being held up.
The records of the House show that none of these statements is true. I have in my hands a carefully prepared table showing how all the Bills which came before this House since its inception have been treated. It is too long to read in detail, but I propose to read summaries which will give some idea of the work done. It will take some little time to read these, but I feel that they should be on the records, and I trust the House will bear with me. The first is a summary showing how Bills initiated in the Dáil, other than Money Bills, were dealt with.
|
PERIOD |
Total Bills |
Not Amended |
Amended |
No. of Amendments |
Agreed to |
Not Agreed to |
|
1922-23 |
42 |
26 |
15 |
100 |
98 |
2 |
|
1924 |
52 |
31 |
21 |
219 |
213 |
6 |
|
1925 |
39 |
23 |
15 |
194 |
185 |
9 |
|
1926 |
37 |
21 |
16 |
76 |
76 |
0 |
|
1927 |
32 |
19 |
13 |
269 |
268 |
1 |
|
1928 |
31 |
23 |
8 |
67 |
59 |
8 |
|
1929 |
38 |
26 |
12 |
58 |
56 |
2 |
|
1930 |
27 |
19 |
8 |
80 |
80 |
0 |
|
1931 |
42 |
28 |
14 |
87 |
85 |
2 |
|
1932 |
27 |
19 |
6 |
94 |
86 |
8 |
|
1933 |
9 |
4 |
4 |
133 |
117 |
16 |
|
(6 months up to end of June.) |
||||||
|
Grand Total |
376 |
239 |
132 |
1,377 |
1,323 |
54 |
Bills rejected by the Seanad are not included in this table.
Amendments which were modified by the Dáil, or for which the Dáil suggested substituted amendments which were agreed to by the Seanad, have been treated, for purposes of simplicity, as amendments made by the Seanad and accepted by the Dáil. They are comparatively few in number.
The number of unamended Bills is large, but it must be remembered that a very considerable number of these were of a formal character and had passed the Dáil without amendment. If these figures are compared, it will be seen that the proportion of Bills passed without amendment since this Government came into power is slightly higher than when the old Government was in office, and they prove that the statement that every Bill introduced by this Government has been held up is quite contrary to fact, and it is not even true to say that this House is constantly mutilating Bills.
The figures with regard to Money Bills show a similar state of affairs. They are not, of course, so important, but I think they are of considerable interest, and for record purposes it might be worth while reading them.
The following is a summary showing how Money Bills were treated.
|
PERIOD |
Total Money Bills |
No. passed without recommendation |
No. passed with recommendations |
No. of recommendations |
No. Accepted |
No. not Accepted |
|
1922-23 |
10 |
7 |
3 |
9 |
9 |
0 |
|
1924 |
6 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
1925 |
6 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
1926 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
1927 |
7 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1928 |
6 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
1929 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
|
1930 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1931 |
13 |
13 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1932 |
9 |
5 |
4 |
24 |
12 |
12 |
|
1933 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
(6 months up to end of June) |
||||||
|
Grand Total |
73 |
59 |
13 |
42 |
29 |
13 |
The outstanding point in these figures is the fact that the Dáil has not been as ready to accept recommendations made by this House during the past 18 months as it was previously.
I now propose to give details, showing the Bills which were passed or may be passed without the assent of the Seanad. I think these points are of sufficient interest to go on the records, even though it takes a little time to give them to the House.
They are as follows:—
1. Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1923. — Passed by the Dáil on 3rd August, 1923, and sent to the Seanad. On the 8th August, 1923, the Bill appeared on the Seanad Order Paper for the Second Stage, and a resolution was passed postponing consideration of it until after the summer recess. The Oireachtas was dissolved on the following day (9th August, 1923), and the Cathaoirleach took the view that the dissolution had the effect of killing the Bill. The Government, however, took a different view, and they presented the Bill to the Governor-General for his signature on the 23rd July, 1924, the period of 270 days prescribed by Article 38 of the Constitution having expired on the previous 29th April.
2. Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill, 1925.—Rejected by the Seanad on Second Reading on the 17th December, 1925; signed by the Governor-General on the 22nd September, 1926. I will refer to that Bill later.
3. Dáil Supreme Court (Pensions) Bill, 1925.—A Certified Money Bill. The Seanad passed the Second Stage on 7th April, 1925, but took no further action. Signed by the Governor-General on the 27th April, 1925.
4. Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, 1932.—Passed on the 28th June, 1932, with amendments with which the Dáil refused to agree; sent again to the Seanad under Article 38 (A) of the Constitution on the 1st March, 1933; Second Reading declined. Bill signed by the Governor-General on the 4th May, 1933.
5. Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, 1932.—In possession of the Seanad at the dissolution on 2nd January, 1933; sent again to Seanad under Article 38 (A) and passed with 44 amendments. Of these 29 were agreed to by the Dáil and 15 not agreed to. The period of 60 days had expired before the Seanad had an opportunity of considering the Message of the Dáil intimating its disagreement.
6. Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1933.—Rejected by the Seanad on Second Reading on the 14th June, 1933.
Taking the last of these—it is now held up, and may be passed in 18 months time—as it was recently before this House I do not propose to discuss its merits, except to point out that the delay does not do any possible harm, as the Bill would not have operated during that period, if it had been passed.
The Seanad did not refuse to pass the Agricultural (Cereals) Bill, and no suggestion was made from any quarter of the House that it should be rejected. The House arranged to meet specially to facilitate the consideration of the Bill, and the delay in passing was entirely due to the action of the Dáil, which did not treat the Seanad with ordinary courtesy.
Of the other Bills, the Civil Service Regulation Bill and the Removal of Oath Bill are the most important. The majority of this House thought that the Civil Service Regulation Bill, 1925 was unduly interfering with the provisions for sex equality in the Constitution, and I think they thought that public opinion would support their action in rejecting it. Neither of the Opposition Parties bothered about the Bill. No public interest was aroused, and the Bill was duly passed over the head of the Seanad.
In the case of the Removal of Oath Bill, the majority of the House regarded it as a breach of the Treaty, and were of opinion that the Oath should only be removed by agreement with the other signatory, and that it was, therefore, a Bill which should be properly delayed by the Seanad. Whether this was right or wrong is a matter of opinion, and the Government are entitled to make any case they can against the action of the Seanad.
The whole case against this House, so far as its past actions are concerned, seems to me to lie in the fact that it insisted on amendments to the Oath Bill which it thought were necessary to safeguard the Treaty.
The record of the work of this House would not be complete without a reference to the Bills initiated here, and with your leave I propose to read the list.
Bills initiated in the Seanad:—
1923—Dyestuffs (Import Regulations) Repeal Bill, 1923.—Passed by Dáil, unamended.
Valuation (Postponement of Revision) Bill, 1923.—Passed by the Dáil, unamended.
1924—Oireachtas Witnesses Oaths Bill, 1924.—Passed by the Dáil, unamended.
Private Bill Costs Bill, 1924.— Passed by the Dáil, unamended.
1925—Shop Hours (Drapery Trades, Dublin and Districts) Bill, 1925.—Passed by the Dáil, unamended.
1926—Coroners (Amendment) Bill, 1926.—Passed with amendments by the Dáil, and repassed by the Seanad under Article 39 of the Constitution.
1927—Wild Birds Protection (Amendment) Bill, 1927.—Rejected by the Dáil.
1928—Bodies Corporate (Executors and Administrators) Bill, 1928.— Passed by the Dáil, unamended.
Children Bill, 1928.—Passed by the Dáil, unamended.
1929—Dublin City and County (Relief of the Poor) Bill, 1929.—Rejected by the Dáil.
Wild Birds Protection Bill, 1929. —Passed with amendments by the Dáil, and repassed by the Seanad under Article 39 of the Constitution.
1930—Town Planning and Rural Amenities Bill, 1930.—No date was fixed for Second Stage in Dáil; Bill killed by dissolution on 19th January, 1932.
Shop Hours (Drapery Trades, Dublin and Districts) Bill, 1930.—Rejected by the Dáil.
1931—Trustee Bill, 1931.—Passed by the Dáil, unamended.
Some of these were Bills which would have been introduced by the Government, but the majority dealt with subjects of a non-party character, which it is difficult to persuade a Government to introduce into the Dáil. In this connection, I would point out that Private Members' Bills have a much better chance of making progress in the Seanad than in the Dáil and I think the members of this House might fairly be criticised for not making greater use of the power of initiation.
It is perhaps too much to expect the President to go through the amendments made by this House during the past ten years, but, if he would do so, he would find it absolutely impossible to maintain his contention that the Seanad uniformly assisted the late Executive, unless he regards it as assistance—which I presume he does not—to press for amendments which the Executive did not like. A perusal of the amendments passed should, I think, also shake the President in his view that this House performs no really useful function. A very large number of the amendments were admittedly most valuable and were of a character which are only too often overlooked in a popular Chamber which is overloaded with work. Most of them did not raise Party issues and consequently received little publicity, but they were none the less important from the point of view of the ordinary citizen.
When the Government are considering the functions of a Second Chamber, I would suggest that they take the trouble to study the work done by this House with regard to Bills of a detailed and complicated character. I can say without fear of dispute that they received careful consideration. In particular, I would direct their attention to the Industrial and Commercial Property (Protection) Bill, the Coroners (Amendment) Bill, and the Town Planning and Rural Amenities Bill.
All important Bills have received careful revision by this House, and it is no reflection on the Dáil to say that they have almost always been considered here with very little, if any, regard for Party considerations, and that they have received an expert examination which is only rarely possible in the Dáil. As a rule this House has been very jealous of interference with personal liberty. This was especially in evidence in the early years of the Seanad, and again I suggest that if the President would read through the debates in the first three or four years, paying special attention to the efforts of the House towards peace, and for the safeguarding of liberty, he would hesitate before repeating his statement that this House had uniformly assisted the late Executive or that it performs no useful function. Men and women who used to be in a political minority in this country were invited to become Senators—they have given of their knowledge and ability loyally. Their presence and their work here have done much to make that ancient minority which they represented loyal to this State, and even if we disregard the work of this House, which I have referred to in detail, I suggest that the bringing of these people, and those who support them, into active service would of itself justify the existence of a Second Chamber in the Saorstát.
Much of the present dissatisfaction with the Seanad is due to the fact that the majority of its members are honestly opposed to some of the main points in the programme of the present Government; but, in spite of this, I contend that with the exception of the two Bills which were held up, this House has given the measures presented to it the same criticism that it always gave, showing a desire to improve the Bills, to correct errors and to prevent proposed legislation interfering more than is necessary with individual rights and liberties.
The fact that there is a large majority opposed to Fianna Fáil is not the fault of this House, nor can the blame be laid on the framers of the Constitution. If the supporters of the present Executive had seen their way to take their seats in the Dáil at a much earlier date, the complexion of this House would be very different. Even under the present system of election, it is very unlikely that after the next general election the Cumann na nGaedheal Party will be in the dominating position in this House which it now holds.
On the Second Stage of this Bill in the Dáil, the President referred to the Committee which prepared drafts of the Constitution, and his words gave the impression that some of the Committee were of the opinion that four months' delay was sufficient power to give a Second Chamber. The Minister now present made an almost identical reference to the Committee. That is not correct. The President stated in his first speech:—"The history of this particular clause is somewhat interesting. I have seen the original drafts of the Constitution as presented by the Committees that were working on it at the time the Constitution was being framed. There were three drafts. A period of 180 days occurred in two of them and, in the third a period of four months was mentioned. The intention was that there would be one preliminary month in which the Bill presented to the Seanad was to be discussed, and then a delaying period of three months. In the Constitution, as passed by the Dáil, a period of 270 days was allowed, but that was in conjunction with a Referendum."
In his concluding speech in the same debate in the Dáil he said: "I shall answer Deputy Fitzgerald as to why I referred to the original drafts. It was not to suggest anything such as he thought. It was to show that a body, consisting of three separate Committees which was approaching the question of a Constitution in the detached frame of mind in which Deputy MacDermot suggested matters of this kind should be approached, having been asked to consider Constitutions and forms of government and to come to a calm decision as to our form of government, did not propose a longer period than the period we are proposing here. I think that, in itself, is proof that this proposal of ours is not brought in purely a biassed frame of mind, for the purpose of facilitating this particular Executive, but that it is brought in, having considered carefully —as I can say the Government has considered—what would be the reasonable period of delay which should be given to the Second Chamber. I ask the House to think of that and to weigh its value; that we had three Committees of experts, that had no immediate political axe to grind, that were given this task of considering what should be the Constitution—under certain limitations, I will admit—of the State here, and that these Committees suggested a period which is, practically, the period provided for here in this Bill."
I do not for one moment suggest that the President, or the Minister for Justice, deliberately misrepresented the Committee, but they evidently did not trouble to read the drafts very carefully, As the House knows, I was a member of the Committee. The President was in error in stating that there were three Committees; there was only one Committee, which issued three separate drafts; and I have in my possession a copy of each of the drafts, signed by the members who were responsible for them. These draft Constitutions were never published, but, as the President has relied on them to show that the proposals in this Bill are reasonable I feel that it is only right that I should read the relevant portion of the particular draft to which he referred. Three drafts were sent to the Government, one signed by four members, one by three, and one by two members.
The first two drafts agreed as far as the Articles providing for a Seanad were concerned. They, as stated by the President, recommended that Bills passed by Dáil Eireann and not passed by the Seanad might be deemed to be passed after 180 days, but they also recommended provisions for a Referendum, which gave a majority of the Seanad power to suspend a Bill, after it had been passed, for a further 90 days, during which it was to be submitted to a Referendum. There is not much difference between the statement made and the facts, so far as the first two are concerned.
The third draft, signed by two members, is presumably the one to which the President referred. This draft laid great emphasis on the Initiative and on the Referendum, and it included detailed proposals for both. It suggested that all Bills should be sent to the Seanad after the First Reading, and provided that if the two Houses did not agree within three months, the Bill should pass if it was a Money Bill, or if it was not a Money Bill, it should become inoperative, unless the Dáil or 50,000 voters demanded a Referendum.
I think it better to read the actual Article which was proposed:—
"(1) All Bills passed by the House shall be presented to the Seanad for approval. If within one month, being time of session, after such presentation, the Seanad does not express disapproval, it shall be taken to have approved.
(2) In case the Seanad amends or rejects the Bill, it shall be brought before the House for further consideration. Should the House and Seanad not arrive at an agreement within three months, being time of session, the Bill, if it appropriates revenue or imposes taxation, shall become law as finally passed by the House, save as provided in the preceding Article. If the Bill does not appropriate revenue or impose taxation it shall become inoperative unless within that interval a Referendum is demanded by 50,000 voters or by a majority of the House or Seanad, in which case the law as finally passed by the House shall be submitted to a vote of the people for acceptance or rejection.
(3) If the House by a two-thirds majority declare that the measure is of extreme urgency the period of three months provided in the preceding section shall be reduced to one month."
That is an actual quotation from the third draft, not previously published, but, in view of the statement made in the Dáil, I feel it my duty, although not a signatory of this particular draft, to read it to the House.
It is quite clear from this that the President was very unfortunate in his reference to the drafts of the Constitution Committee. The three months' delay proposed by two members of the Constitution Committee was a very different proposal to that which this Bill contains. Except in the case of Money Bills it was, in effect, a provision giving the Dáil three months to agree with the Seanad and, if it did not do so, it must either drop the Bill or submit it to a referendum. This would have placed the Seanad in a dominating position in all legislation except finance, and the proposal that the Seanad should have this veto was not one which commended itself to the other six reporting members of the Committee. The reference made by the President was most misleading, and I am very much surprised that he fell into this error.
If my memory serves me right, the majority of the Committee believed that the task before them was to try to devise a Second Chamber suitable to a democratically-governed State — one which would have sufficient power to enable it to play a real part in the legislature, and to make it worth while for persons of experience and ability to become its members, but nevertheless a Second Chamber which could not thwart the will of the electorate.
We were, I think, in general agreement that the proposed Seanad should not be in a position to control the Executive, and that it should not have any power over administration. Its function should be legislative and its principal duties should be:—
(a) to subject every proposed law to a revision which might introduce improvements in form or in substance and
(b) to prevent undue haste in the passing of important laws by securing a period during which the opinion of the people regarding a law might be duly formed and expressed.
To carry out these duties a Second Chamber must, through the character of its personnel, command the respect, if not always the complete approval, of the people of the country, and it was recognised that to create a Chamber which might become permanently tied to any one Party or any particular interest would be fatal.
The two outstanding difficulties which at once presented themselves to the Committee were the two problems which are still matters of dispute to-day. How could a method of election be devised which would secure the right kind of Second Chamber, and how much power of delay should the Chamber be allowed? The first of these questions is being considered by the Government, and they hope to make proposals. It does not arise directly on this Bill, which deals specifically with the second difficulty.
To the best of my recollection the majority of the Committee felt that it would not be possible to persuade men of experience to join a Seanad unless it had sufficient power of delay to give the people time to express their opinion should they strongly object to any proposed law; and they, therefore, had to choose between a long period of delay, or a short period, accompanied by some method of ascertaining the wishes of the electorate. As I have already stated, they decided to recommend the latter, and they proposed 180 days' delay with a further 90 days during which a Referendum could be demanded. Whether the Referendum was or was not desirable is a matter on which opinions will differ, but the fact remains that the Dáil did not implement the provisions of the Constitution with regard to the Referendum by the necessary legislation, and it was never tried. Later the Referendum was removed from the Constitution, and the period of delay of the Seanad was extended to 18 months, which period I submit was a logical consequence of the removal of the Referendum.
Personally, I consider that nine months' delay with power to force a Referendum gave this House much greater power than a delay of 18 months, and was much more likely to work out conservatively in its effects. The experience of other countries shows that Bills are more often rejected than passed when submitted to the people by Referendum. We need not go into the reasons for that now. Members of the present Government opposed the deletion of the Articles of the Constitution providing for a Referendum when they were in opposition and, while I am still sceptical as to the value of the Referendum, I would not have been inclined to oppose them if they had coupled their proposals for a reduction of the power of this House with the revival of the power of insisting on a Referendum to the people.
The Government are considering the creation of a new kind of Second Chamber to replace the present Seanad. So far the only conclusion they have reached is that it shall not have any larger power of delay than that proposed in this Bill. I would like to know if the Government have made any serious study of the Constitutions of other countries. Can they mention any Second Chamber in any Sovereign State which can only delay a Bill five months? I do not know of any. This is not the only democratically governed country in the world. We are not the only country in which the will of the people must prevail. It is difficult to obtain up-to-date information. The President drew a distinction between unitary and federal States, and I think he rather suggested that the need for a Second Chamber was not as great in unitary States.
I admit that it is easier to devise a satisfactory method for the election of a Seanad in a federal State, but an examination of the Constitutions of the world will show that unitary, equally with federal, States have adhered to the bicameral system. And it is significant that these unitary States have all given considerable powers to their Second Chambers. So far as I know—and there again my information is limited—the only sovereign States which have unicameral legislatures are:—Turkey, Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Albania, Spain and Finland. Jugo-Slavia had a single Chamber, but is revising its Constitution. Several countries have tried a Single Chamber Parliament, but apparently found it unsatisfactory as they have returned to the bicameral system. France, I believe, had a Single Chamber during the first and second Republics, and during the past few years Greece recreated its Second Chamber.
The considered opinion of the civilised world is in favour of bicameral legislatures. Is there any serious doubt that Second Chambers have been retained in even the most democratic countries for the very good reason that the people recognise the value of revision and of some effective check against hasty legislation? Will any member of the Government suggest that Turkey, Albania, Bulgaria or even Spain are States that we should try to follow? Spain had a Second Chamber until the new situation came. There were peculiar reasons there. There was a very large Church organisation, against which intense feeling had arisen.
Small countries like Sweden, Denmark, Holland and Belgium have retained their Second Chambers and show no inclination to abolish them or destroy their powers.
The fact that Second Chambers exist in almost every civilised country may not be a reason why the Saorstát should have a Senate, but it is a reason why we should consider very carefully before we adopt a unicameral system.
Likewise, the fact that Second Chambers in every Sovereign State have considerable powers of delay is a reason why we should pause before we agree to a proposal which would render the Seanad in the Saorstát unique as the only Second Chamber which had its power limited to a maximum delay of five months. To my mind, if this House were to accept this Bill, we would not only be stultifying this House as at present constituted, but we would also be agreeing to the principle that a revising chamber should have no effective power of delay.
This House has no wish to, and certainly no right to, prevent the will of the people from being carried out. But one of its principal functions is to delay proposed legislation for such a period as will enable public opinion to be formed and expressed. The Dáil equally has no right to thwart the people's will; and if strong opposition should arise to any measure held up by this House, then I submit the Dáil ought not to exercise its power of passing such measure until at least a general election has intervened. To my mind this country needs stability and peace more than anything else. Few things are more dangerous to the real progress of a State than hasty legislation or violent change, and this is especially the case in a State like our own which is only just beginning to establish its position in the world and to build up its trade and its national institutions after centuries of misrule.
A Second Chamber should not lightly exercise its power to hold up Bills and, as I have already demonstrated, this House has never done so. A Second Chamber should, in my opinion, only exercise its power of delay when it believes the Bill proposes changes which the country has not had an ample opportunity of considering, or that the Bill will result in injury to the country or its citizens which the people do not realise or appreciate, and when it believes that an opportunity should be given to the people to consider the effects of the proposed legislation.
A Second Chamber should carry out its functions of revision in accordance with the knowledge or experience of its members, but its power of delay should only be exercised to give time to the people to express their opinions, if they wish to do so.
The fact that the Seanad passes a Bill after suggesting amendments, should not necessarily mean that its members approve of it, but rather that they believe the people wish it passed, or that they do not consider it of a nature that public opinion is likely to be expressed against it.
This Bill proposes a maximum delay of three months. There will be a further two months when the Bill may be further revised, but the only actual power of delay is three months. I do not believe a delay of three months would be of any value whatever, except perhaps when a Dáil is at the very end of a five-year period. The public generally could not possibly assert their opinions against a Bill in such a short period. Deputy Norton thinks this House should have rejected the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill. I do not wish to argue the point now, but for the sake of argument let us assume that he is right. I would like to know does Deputy Norton really believe that a three months delay would have served any purpose in that case? The Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill reached this House at the end of last year with an intimation that the Government regarded it as urgent. This House passed it with amendments which the Dáil took almost two months to consider. I mention this to show that three months does not always allow sufficient time for the passage of an important Bill through all stages in this House. If the present Bill is passed, the power of delay in this House will be a farce.
Many people believe it would be better to have no Second Chamber than one with such a farcical power of delay. I am not prepared to go so far, as I still believe in the value of a Seanad as a revising Chamber, but I do say that it would be far better for the Government to be quite frank about it, and say that the Government propose to remove from the Seanad all power to prevent hasty legislation and to give the people time to assert themselves, and that they only want a revising Chamber with no powers. The President suggested that a House with 18 months power of delay could control the Executive. I confess I cannot even follow his reasoning. The supremacy of the Dáil is unquestioned, and I cannot see that giving the people a possible 18 months to consider a few of its proposals is, in any way, controlling the Government.
Since the war there has been a very great tendency on the part of Executives in Europe to assume autocratic power over both Parliament and people. This country has not escaped, though we have not yet caught the disease as badly as some countries. The Executive in England has gradually assumed more and more power. We saw the same thing growing here under the last Government, and under the present Government it has been greatly extended—the most notable examples being the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, 1932 and the general system of licences which affect almost every industry. Personally I believe this tendency towards autocratic Executives is bad, and that sooner or later there is bound to be a reaction. Parliament will, I believe, again begin to assert themselves and will curb executive power, and I think it will be found that those countries which have a bicameral system will be the first to do so successfully. While it is dangerous to venture to be a prophet, I think you will find the bicameral system the most effective and best able to check the growing power of the Executive.
Before I conclude I would like to make it clear that I do not suggest that the constitution of this House could not be improved. On the contrary I think it could be altered in several ways to advantage. I would favour the gradual reduction of its membership to 35 or 40, but I could not approve of the proposal to reduce it by not holding the next triennial election, which would remove some of the best and most useful members of the Seanad without giving them a chance of re-election. I would welcome any scheme which would enable vacancies to be filled by the very best citizens the country possesses, irrespective of Party, and which would tend to make the Seanad more of an expert assembly, and would break up the Party divisions which have become more manifest during the last few years. I think, also, that the work of this House could be usefully increased. The Dáil is overloaded with work, and I believe it would be greatly to its advantage if Bills, especially those of a non-Party character, were first introduced in this House, or sent here after a preliminary reading in the Dáil.
In spite of our faults the atmosphere here is generally—not always, I am sorry to say—more conducive to helpful criticism than is usually the case in another place. The Minister for Industry and Commerce recently paid a tribute to the helpful nature of the criticisms in the Seanad, and I believe, if this question could be divorced from Party feeling that most Ministers, whether in this or in the old Government, would agree with him. I do not, however, believe that the passing of this Bill will help the proper consideration of such changes as are desirable. Therefore, I cannot support the Second Reading of this Bill, which I think would be a serious mistake; but I would be prepared to support Senator Counihan's amendment, in the hope that it might result in a careful and friendly consideration of the whole question.
We have had a very able speech by one who is admirably qualified to speak on the subject of this Bill, and who has gone to the trouble of verifying his facts, and putting the case, from his point of view, as well as it could possibly be put. Senator Douglas has stressed certain functions of this House. First, he referred to the question of safeguarding interference with personal liberty. He referred, time and again, to undue haste in the passing of important laws and the necessity of giving the people adequate time to express their opinions and of having some effective check against hasty legislation. Towards the end of his speech he said: "Let the Government be frank about it and admit that its object is to give the Seanad no power of preventing hasty legislation."
If ever an important Bill was before an Assembly such as this, calling for all the safeguards and precautions that Senator Douglas has outlined, it was the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill. Let us examine the record of this House in that regard. A motion was handed in by Senator Wilson dealing with the allocation of time in reference to it, and when that motion was handed in the Bill had not been introduced in the Dáil. Mark you, that Bill took away every Constitutional safeguard for the liberty of the subject. It abolished trial by jury in cases where the Government desired to do so, and prevented any recourse to the accepted and regular legal tribunals of this country. This was the time-table in regard to that Bill: that consideration of the measure should be commenced at 4.15 p.m. on Friday, 16th October—Senators will find this in column 1917 of vol. xiv of the Official Reports—and be concluded at 6.45 p.m. on that day: the sitting then to be suspended until 8 o'clock, the Committee Stage then to be taken and to conclude at 9.45. Further, it was proposed that the Seanad should then adjourn to 11 a.m. on the following day, Saturday, that the Report Stage should be taken then and brought to a conclusion at 1 o'clock. That is, that this Bill, which gave the Government practically any power it liked over the subject—even to put him before a military tribunal with unlimited powers of punishment, a tribunal from whose decision there was no appeal—was passed by this House, commencing at 4.15 p.m. on Friday and concluding at 1 p.m. on the following day.
Now, I shall ask Senator Douglas to consider how the Seanad fulfilled its functions on that occasion with regard to safeguarding the liberty of the subject, preventing hasty legislation and giving people adequate time to express their opinions. That is one outrageous example. I said at the time, and I shall continue to say, that if ever there was a time when an indictment was framed against this Assembly, that was the occasion. But that does not stand alone. I remember a most important motion which had been set down for debate by Senator Johnson for which there was no House. I remember a very important motion in regard to the land annuities, which at least was a proper subject for discussion, which had been handed in by Senator Colonel Moore. A deliberate attempt was made on that occasion to count out the House. The count was taken but the Senator who came in and asked that the count should be taken by his very presence constituted the requisite number. It is as good to be frank with regard to these matters. Senator Douglas said: "Let the Government be frank." Let us be frank with ourselves, that when Party questions have been before the House, Party questions which involved very important results for the subject, the Seanad has been a Party House. Questions of revision, safeguards, time limits, giving people an opportunity of adequately expressing their opinions, have been completely ignored. In these circumstances, though I must confess with Senator Douglas, that I am in favour of a Second Chamber, and that I am in favour of those things which he has stressed, I must point out when opportunities for expressing opinions were deliberately taken away by a former Government, it was supported by this House in circumstances in which it should not have been supported. In these circumstances I support the present Bill.
I rise to support the amendment of Senator Counihan. I should like to know if this Bill with which we are concerned is the emanation of some Brain Trust that the present Executive Council has called into being. If so, I hope that the very clear and very comprehensive statement made by Senator Douglas will be submitted to that Brain Trust when it takes into consideration the amendment of Senator Counihan. I want to protest against the absence of the President from this discussion. This is his Bill. He has sponsored it in the Dáil. He has made charges against this House in the Dáil and in the country which he should have been here to-day to make and the reply to which he should have been here to hear. It is; to me at any rate, somewhat unconvincing that we should have a formal excuse that he found it impossible to attend. It is not the first time that President de Valera has evaded a responsibility when he found it awkward to face that responsibility. On the Second Stage of this Bill in the Dáil the President said:—
"The position therefore is that without wishing finally to pronounce on the question of a Second Chamber, we are coming here to prevent the Chamber that exists from interfering with the expressed will of the people. That is our attitude. I hope the Bill will commend itself to the members of the Dáil and I hope that the Deputy who proposes to delay, will realise that delaying action in this matter might possibly mean rushing another question on which it would be just as well more time were taken and the immediate position remedied."
The "other question" to which the President alluded was the abolition of the Seanad. Sir, there is an implied threat in that statement and I wonder if we are going to meet that implied threat in the same manner as the frogs who committed suicide to save themselves from slaughter? This question of the period of delay, with which this Bill deals, is not the real issue behind this Bill. If it were the real issue, if it were a question of what is the appropriate period which this House should have for holding up legislation, I think that is a moot question, one upon which profitable discussion could take place, and upon which possibly some profitable results could be achieved, but we cannot ignore what is the environment of this Bill. We have had read out to us to-day by the Cathaoirleach a list of the Bills which this Seanad is expected to pass before the Recess, something I think between 30 and 40 Bills. With all that work before us, for the adequate consideration of which we would require several months, we have this Bill introduced. It deals with no immediate practical matter that has been referred to by the Minister who is sponsoring it in this House——
There would be no necessity for it if there were not many like you in the House.
Unfortunately I must dissent from the opinion of the Senator. It is that particular attitude, taunts personal to the House and to certain members, that makes it difficult to discuss this matter as dispassionately as one would wish. I referred, Sir, to the atmosphere, to the background of this Bill, and to the fact that the question of the period of delay is not being raised on its merits, that there are other issues dragged before the Executive to secure a reduction of the period. One of these circumstances, which we cannot refrain from considering, is that the impetus behind the Executive Council in this matter is the question of how the next Local Government elections are going to be carried on. We know that these elections were postponed from June to November, and that this Bill was then introduced to secure that the existing power of the Seanad should not be utilised, if the members of this House decided that they should be so utilised, to prevent the extension of the franchise to certain classes in order to secure a certain result in these Local Government elections. It is idle to tell us that that is not relevant to the Bill, or that it is not embodied in the Bill. It is the one immediate practical issue that is behind the Bill, and every member of the Executive Council and every member of the Party of the Government know that that is a fact.
What is that? Let us know what is in your mind.
The fact is that you are trying to get this Bill through in order to dump Fianna Fáil followers on the Local Government bodies.
Blatherskite!
It would take a clearer argument than that to dissipate what I am suggesting. Another aspect of the matter is whether the period of delay that this House possesses is adequate for the purpose of enabling the present Executive to function efficiently. I have considerable doubts if it is. We have, to-morrow, I believe, to discuss another Bill, the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. On May 3rd a motion was passed in the Dáil, a motion of enactment, in connection with the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill. That motion terminated the operation of the Oath and certain aspects of the Constitution bearing upon the Oath, but it did not remove everything in that connection. We have the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, which is to deal with another consequence of the Removal of Oath Bill. That Bill was introduced in the Dáil on May 24th — 21 days after the Oath Bill had become law. That Electoral (Amendment) Bill is not law yet so that, if, between May 3rd and the present day, there had been an election, either for the Dáil or the Seanad, a candidate for either House would have to swear, according to the Schedule of the Amendment Act of 1927, to take an Oath which had been abolished. When the members of the Executive argue that the period is too long, they should, at least, demonstrate that, if it is too long, it is, at least, long enough for them to legislate efficiently. To enable them to make this law in connection with the Oath sound and consistent, they should have been thankful to the Seanad that the Seanad should have suspended or kept the period of delay for even a couple of months longer. It would have enabled them to bring their legislation into harmony with their actions.
The objection of the President to this House is, so far as one can judge, an objection, not to the Seanad as such, but as an assembly which has a majority of members who decline to subscribe to the opinion that he is invested with political infallibility. This is a definite move towards dictatorship. Apart from the matters to which I have already referred as operating to produce this Bill, this is a definite move to a dictatorship, and it is not a new kind of idea. This is not the first time that such an idea has been mooted by the head of the present Executive Council. In 1926, addressing Fianna Fáil, he made this remarkable statement:—
"I believe that the Executive should be elected by the people independently of the Legislature, and for a fixed period."
That is the mentality that is behind this Bill, and which reveals the purpose it has in view.
The United States.
That is very different. Under the Constitution of the United States, the Executive may be independent of the Legislature, but Senator Johnson knows very well that the analogy ceases and that it cannot be pursued to the extent suggested by this statement of President de Valera. If we were considering the whole constitutional position, we might take into consideration whether the present relation of the Executive to the Legislature is the best or the most ideal, or whether it can be improved upon, but we are not considering that. We are considering something which, I think, has a much more immediate and practical concern for us, and that is the question of whether there is going to be set up in this country an Executive Council, without check, without restraint, and without any entity within the State having power to slow down or delay action, no matter how arbitrary, on the part of that Executive Council. I say that anyone who understands the situation in this country, anyone who understands the implications of this Bill, will realise that what I am saying is a matter of fact, and that I am not using the language of exaggeration. Consider this Bill with its three months' power of delay. The Executive Council being dominant in the other House with its majority, does anyone wish to suggest that, if a deep and fundamental conflict of opinion arose, a delay of three months is sufficient? Remember this, that, as we stand in this State, at present, we have no alternative check on legislation to that of a Second House. Under a constitutional monarch or under a constitutional Republic, you have the veto of the monarch or of the president which can be utilised as a check in certain circumstances. Here the substitute for that might have been, if certain provisions were not in the Constitution, the Governor-General's veto, but he acts and signs statutes on the advice of the Executive Council, so that, therein, there is no check, no safeguard, against arbitrary action on the part of the Executive Council.
Single Chamber government is government of one Party. It is Party Government, and it may be a government of a majority of one—as exists at the present time. If, in a House, being the only Chamber of the Legislature, that Party is the pliant voting machine of the Executive Council, then it is Government of the Executive Council, and, if the Executive Council is dominated by its head, it is government by one man, by the head of that Party, and I say that it is dictatorship, pure and simple, without any check on any arbitrary action that such an individual may decide to take, and I say that the only safeguard against that that we have, within the Constitution of the Saorstát, is the existence and delaying power of Seanad Eireann. We should hesitate, and we should be very careful, before we diminish such powers as we possess, and, certainly, we should resist any attempt to destroy those powers. Efforts have been made to create animus in the public mind against this House. Senator Douglas referred to the President's description of this House as
"a hostile Seanad that has constantly attempted to harass the Government by mutilating its measures or wilfully delaying them."
That statement was made in January of the present year. A more recent statement by the daily organ of that Party makes this comment:
"In the Twenty-Six Counties, the Seanad, since its first creation, has given itself the duty of obstructing public opinion and of endeavouring to defeat its control of legislation."
We know that these statements are the reverse of fact: that they are untrue, unscrupulous and misleading, but the outside public, probably, is not aware of that. I think that on an occasion like this, when the real issue involved is the existence and the continuance of this House itself, the members of it should take the opportunity to give the lie to statements such as I have quoted, and try to convey to the public mind what are the real facts of the situation. I put in evidence, as against the statements I have quoted, a statement by Senator Colonel Moore in the Nation of February the 18th, 1928, in which he says, referring to the Seanad:
"Yet, whatever may have been its demerits owing to the manner of its selection, I can vouch for the fact that it has been a far more independent and a far more national body than the Dáil."
The President has argued that this House is a useless body, and that it is a waste of public money to maintain it. Unfortunately for any weight that might be attached to such a pronouncement, we all know that such words express exactly what used to be the President's opinion of the Saorstát itself. Apparently, his outlook on these matters has undergone a very severe change since he became the head of the Executive Council of this State.
Question. It has been the same always.
Senator Dowdall referred to certain action on the part of this Seanad. Argument has been put forward from sources that wished to create a hostile opinion to this House that, on certain occasions this House legislated quickly during the Government that preceded the present one. There is just this difference. I can define that difference, I think, in dealing with Senator Dowdall's argument—I am sorry the Senator is not here—in this way: that the legislation that was required was required swiftly, and was for certain purposes. I think Senator Dowdall said its purpose was to take away every scrap of liberty from the citizens. On that matter, I think Senator Dowdall's mind is far from clear, because everyone knows that that legislation, and all similar legislation that was passed swiftly in this House, was for the purpose of safeguarding the rights and liberties of our citizens and the existence of this State, and not for the purpose of destroying the liberties of the citizens. The Senator must know further: that, if it had not been for the fact that the Seanad and the Government had the moral courage to face up to the requirements of the situation and pass such legislation, then in time it is very questionable whether either the Seanad or this State itself would be in existence to-day.
Hear, hear.
I think I can understand the mentality of the President as we see it behind this Bill. He seems to me to be obsessed with what I may call the gangster complex: he wants to be the big shot, the big boss, in the State. Irish nationality is his racket, and anybody who muscles in on his territory is going to be bumped-off politically. That may be all right for cinema melodrama, but it is not practical politics and it is not going to get us anywhere. This State was brought into being by great sacrifices, and under the guidance of great men. It was brought into being to build up a state of happiness and prosperity for the people, and not to create a pedestal upon which any individual may pose.
The Dáil was told that the existence of proportional representation is an adequate safeguard against any sudden revulsion of feeling: that it fulfils the safeguard which the Seanad was intended to be. As a safeguard against a landslide at a general election, I admit there is something in that; but, as a safeguard against the arbitrary action of an Executive Council, once that Executive Council is in power and no matter how small its majority may be, I say that proportional representation is no safeguard whatever unless you embody in your Constitution something like this: that if you are diminishing, or abolishing, the power of the Dáil, that in the Single Chamber itself no measures of a certain class to be named shall become law by a bare majority, but shall require a certain majority of the whole membership of that House before they can become law.
President de Valera put this matter of proportional representation forward as an assurance to the people. To anyone who thinks seriously of the position of the Free State, to anyone who views this matter apart from the Party view that "the Seanad is an obstruction to our Party's progress and we must get rid of it,"—if people view this question from that point of view, there is no use arguing with them; there is no use in considering what their point of view is; there is only the one duty to perform, and that is to prevent their views having effect, if that is at all possible. But, anyone who considers, seriously and intelligently, the position of this State as well as the temperament and temperature that politics sometimes take here must realise that we have no safeguard such as the President suggested, and that one of the things that it is most essential for this State to have is a safeguard against arbitrary action on the part of the Executive Council.
A comment by John Stuart Mill is very pertinent to this matter. These are his words:—
"A majority in a Single Assembly when it has assumed a permanent character—when composed of the same persons habitually acting together and always assured of victory in their own House—easily becomes despotic and overweening if released from the necessity of considering whether its acts will be concurred in by another constituted authority. The same reason which induced the Romans to have two consuls makes it desirable that there should be two Chambers: that neither of them may be exposed to the corrupting influence of undivided power even for the space of a single year."
That was written a long time ago, but I cannot consider anything that might be written to-day in reference to this question that is so pertinent and so true. If this Seanad is to have the power of delay, surely that period of delay ought to be adequate for the purpose for which the delay is intended. So far, very few occasions have arisen where the Seanad differed so definitely with the Executive on legislative proposals as to hold up, or reject, Bills for the purpose of securing delay. But, on every single occasion that the Seanad took that view the matter involved was sufficiently important to warrant the delay which took place. There is no use in giving this House the power of mere nominal delay, or in thinking that the power of delay, such as is embodied in this Bill, will serve the purpose which necessitates delay when matters of major importance arise. For measures of certain types, dealing with non-controversial matters upon the exact wording of which there is some disagreement, a period such as is suggested might be sufficient, but where there is a vital and deep-rooted difference as to what is the wiser course to pursue, then, the period the Seanad already possesses is not excessive and should not be diminished. But that is not the real issue.
President de Valera informed the Dáil that he was endeavouring to devise some form of Second Chamber other than the present form. On that, I should like to make this comment. There is no use in endeavouring to create some fantastic assembly as a substitute for the Seanad, simply for the sake of bringing about some imaginary difference in the functions which the Second Chamber will discharge from those which the Dáil discharges. Let it be remembered that this House is part of the Legislature, and, by the very circumstances of the case, the functions of this House must inevitably, and almost invariably, be similar to those of the other House — that is, considering revising and passing or rejecting legislation. If you cannot face that fact—that that is the function of this House as a Chamber of the Oireachtas—then, in devising some other function for it, you are thinking of a Chamber which may be a useful institution but which will not be part of the Legislature.
For the reasons that I have given, I am against this Bill and I am supporting Senator Counihan's amendment. There are other reasons why that amendment should be passed. It is quite clear from the statements of the President that his mind is far from clear as to his intentions regarding the future of this House. He told us that if this Bill was delayed or rejected, it might mean the rushing of another Bill to abolish this House. That a statement like that should be seriously made by the head of the Executive Council is astounding. One moment he says that he finds a difficulty in arriving at any sound basis for a new assembly or for the reconstitution of the present Assembly. In the next sentence he says that if this Bill, which is obviously ill-considered, is rejected, he proposes to rush some other ill-digested, ill-considered and unprepared measure for the abolition of this House. With that revelation of the mentality in the Executive Council that is dealing with this question, it is all-important that the motion by Senator Counihan to have these matters considered by a Joint Committee should be passed, so that, if not on the part of the Executive Council, at least on the part of members of the Oireachtas, we shall have given to this subject the consideration that it requires, and that, if the present constitution of this House is not ideal, we may hope to have, at least, some more intelligent, and some more responsible proposals for its reform than those contained in the Bill or adumbrated in any of the statements of the Ministers who have spoken in either House on this subject.
As one of the very latest comers to the Seanad, I should like to say a few words on this amendment. The first thing that we, in the Seanad, gathered from the pronouncement of the President some years ago was that his intention was to abolish our Chamber altogether, principally on the score of expense. He wanted, so far as possible, to save all unnecessary expenditure, and he regarded us as one institution which was drawing money unnecessarily from the Exchequer. I should like to point out that the Governor-General's office costs nearly as much as our Assembly. Though we may have been rather a luxury and a source of some expense to the Government, had our views been taken, the Government would have been able to make a very considerable saving—running into many millions of pounds—for the whole community. For instance, we protested very strongly against the passing of a Bill which has deprived us of a great many markets. We were then assured that these markets did not matter at all, because in 15 years they would have disappeared. Apparently, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Scandinavia, and all the other countries did not take that view. They were prepared to make hay while the sun shone. They have stepped in and taken over these markets which, in our view, should have been preserved for this country.
We were told when the measure which is really the cause of this Bill was before us that if we allowed it— the Oath Bill—to pass, everything would change and there would be no people outside who would protest against the existence of the Seanad and the Dáil. The Oath Bill has passed, and I, for one, cannot see much change in the attitude of those who were always hostile to the Free State. As one who feels it a great honour to be a member of this body, I cannot help alluding to one little phase of the history of the Seanad. My friend Senator Dowdall spoke of the rapidity with which this Assembly passed a certain measure. That is perfectly true, but Senators should bear in mind that brave men are very valuable in the community. The Romans had an old belief that the greatest treasure was a brave man. I, as one who had no share in the Parliamentary proceedings of those days, can now say that I consider that the Senators who stood between anarchy and freedom deserve everything from the community. It is very easy to be brave on a battlefield. A lot of people will tell you that if you have a rifle in your hand, even with the odds against you, you do not feel the test so severely, because you are excited. That is not the sublimest test of courage, nor is standing before a firing squad the supreme test of courage. I should point out to you that the father of the late Czar was reputed to be the strongest man in Europe. What happened him? Through fear of the assassin he withered away and died. Which of us will say he was a coward? We had in this House men who were not really concerned, from the personal point of view, with what went on here, but they felt it was up to them in the interests of their country to stand firm and to form a phalanx around Liberty. If they had not taken that attitude, I believe that President de Valera would not be filling to-day the office which he occupies. We have gone through an exciting ten years. I am not keen on prophecy, but when the history of this period comes to be written the brightest page will be that dealing with the public representatives who were prepared to stand up to the gun-bully, who, rather than submit to that sort of tyranny, were prepared to take their chance of being shot. That, I think, is a tribute that can be paid to no other legislative assembly in the world.
In looking at this very short Bill, one would naturally come to the conclusion that the debate upon it would be very short and the number of speeches very limited. Instead of that, it has brought forth arguments covering a great field—sufficient not alone for one evening's debate, but which, if I, with my own limited ability, were to deal with all the points raised, would occupy until this day week. I was particularly impressed by the calm, concise, and dignified manner in which the Minister for Justice placed this Bill before the House. I would like to refer to a few things that have been dealt with by Senator Milroy, and by our kindly friend, Senator Crosbie, who is now leaving the House. In my humble judgment Senator Milroy made an unanswerable case in favour of the Bill when he referred to the remarks of Senator Dowdall regarding the Public Safety Bill. Let us imagine a Bill of that importance. If there was a Seanad which held it up for eighteen months, what would be the consequences? In my opinion the consequences would be such that Senator Milroy has made an unanswerable case in favour of this Bill. Senator Counihan made a most extraordinary speech. I can always forecast when he acts in that way that he is labouring, perhaps justly, under a wrong impression. Fortunately he did not mention the economic war to-day. It was left to Senator Crosbie to do that. Speaking from recollection, Senator Crosbie told us that the outcome of this Bill would be to fortify the President in all the trouble he had created, and in losing the markets of different countries. If that is not correct I would like to be corrected. This may be a little outside the discussion, but I am going to prove that if Senator Crosbie and those associated with him threw in their lot with the Government, and helped them to bring to book the Government of the other country—and by that remark I do not mean the people of Great Britain—the position might be different. I see Senators laughing. Perhaps they think my remarks a bit wild. In a few minutes the laugh will change to the other side.
With the permission of the House, I will read a leading article which was taken, not from a Republican paper, not from the Irish Press, but from a staid, steady, cute paper, which generally knows the way the political barometer is moving, the Evening Herald of Thursday, June 22nd. The heading to this article is “Stubborn Statesmen”:
"The rumours and hints as to an approaching settlement of the Anglo-Irish struggle seem to be unfounded if one is to judge by the statement of Mr. Thomas in the House of Commons yesterday, when he answered pertinent questions put by certain members. The Dominions Secretary is fully aware that the vast majority of the English people are anxious to see the end of this struggle. But he has not the vision or foresight to realise that the more powerful party in this fight is the one that should make a further move towards settlement. The Free State Government is willing, and has always been willing, to submit the question in dispute to an International Tribunal, obviously because the Free State is a national unit. Mr. Thomas must have something to fear from such a tribunal, otherwise he would cease to repeat over and over again that ‘the door had not been slammed.' As long as he is determined not to yield one single point the door is slammed. It seems probable that one of two things must happen before an attempt is made by the British to settle the dispute: one is that Mr. Thomas yield his office to a better statesman, and the other is that the National Government come to an end. Till either of these things occur the struggle, in which the weaker side is losing most, must continue with all its dire consequences."
I intend to support this Bill. As the Minister has told us, the present Government have a mandate from the country to do certain things. One of these things is to curtail the powers of the Seanad. The reason the President and those associated with him wish the powers of the Seanad curtailed is to enable them to carry out the mandate they received from the people. If the President and the Government did not carry out the mandate they received, to curtail the powers of the Seanad, which they believe, and which I believe, would interfere with the carrying out of that mandate, I say they would not be worthy of the positions they hold.
Will the Senator point out where the Seanad has curtailed the present Executive? He stated that this House had curtailed the Executive.
Senator Wilson is always very careful and very busy. He is one of the last men in the world who would misrepresent anyone. I did not say that the Seanad had curtailed the powers of the Executive. What I did say was that I considered that the President and the Ministers, owing to the mandate they had received from the country, are fully justified in attempting to curtail the powers of the Seanad if it interfered with that mandate.
I was a member of the Provisional Parliament in 1922 which discussed the Constitution and, when the Article dealing with the Constitution of the Second Chamber was reached, I expressed views to the effect that, on the whole, I was in favour of a Single Chamber. When that Parliament decided in favour of a Second Chamber, I made tentative proposals for a Chamber of an entirely different character from this, which, of course, were only put forward to ventilate the idea. I said that on the whole I was not in favour of a Single Chamber. I spent five years in the Dáil, doing my best to prevent the Executive of the time passing legislation without proper discussion. I then stated, and I still believe, that the almost inevitable tendency of an Executive, whether of States or of private institutions, is to take to itself added powers, and to impose them, if they can, without either elaboration or criticism upon people they are concerned with. I believe, therefore, that it is desirable there should be criticism and discussion of legislative proposals. I came to the conclusion long before the five years was up, that my mild prejudice in favour of a Single Chamber was mistaken, and that it was desirable, even necessary for the protection of liberties, that in the Constitution had been given to the people that there should be some barrier against an Executive having, as that Executive had, an acquiescent majority in the Dáil, some barrier against that Executive passing through legislation without consideration—that is, consideration by Parliament. It was not an unfounded fear. I think Senator Wilson will agree that frequently legislation would have been carried through in one or two days without consideration by the Dáil, but for the existence at that time of Standing Orders. Those Standing Orders which prevented the rushing of legislation have now been altered in favour of the Executive. The risk of an Executive with an acquiescent majority, using its powers to pass legislation without consideration in a Single Chamber, makes it desirable that there should be a Second Chamber. I disagree with some who think that the purpose or power of that Second Chamber should be so wide as to enable it to hold up legislation which has been passed twice by the Dáil—the elected Chamber—for 18 months. A very much shorter period is all that is necessary to fulfil the functions which, I believe, a Second Chamber must have. That is to say the function of sending back to a Single Chamber, legislation which has been ill-considered, or has not received any consideration, by that Chamber, pointing out to them where there have been departures from desirable principles or the introduction of undesirable principles, or for the correction of obvious errors. I think that if the Elected Chamber decides— notwithstanding the fact that the Seanad has pointed out that certain inaccuracies have been made, or that certain new principles have been inserted which are undesirable in legislation, in the view of the Seanad—to re-enact them, then the Second Chamber should give way.
The point is made that it is necessary that the country should have an opportunity of declaring its will, if, on consideration, a particular measure is not acceptable to the public. I agree that that is desirable and I think it is one of the essential things for the proper development of Parliamentary government that there should be much more active political opinion exercised within the country than there is or has been. I think this essential of proper Parliamentary government is lacking in this country because of an unwillingness to discuss on their merits legislative proposals, but this House is responsible as much as any other factor for the deprivation of the right to appeal to the public when a question arises of a difference between the Dáil and the Seanad. It is no use coming here now and saying that there are curtailments of public liberty, that there is an attack on the institutions of democracy and so on when this House is so deeply guilty of the offence of depriving the public of these powers which were originally given to them. I think that a period of three months, or five months as it is in fact, does give an opportunity to any active political opinion that exists in this country in respect to any particular measure to express itself and to bring pressure to bear on the members of the Dáil. If there is no active political opinion that can be aroused within three months then we must say that the Dáil is the body to which the public has granted power to speak for it on matters of legislation. I do not think that five months, or three months as the case may be, is too short a time for that public opinion to express itself. One is not going to be tied to a month in these matters. One might say another month—four months or five months—but I dissent entirely from the view of 18 months as a minimum period, such as I think was implicit in what Senator Douglas said.
May I state that I neither said nor implied that 18 months was the minimum? What I stated or meant to state was that three to five months was a totally inadequate period, but I tried to convey to the Minister that there were many changes in the constitution of the Seanad that might be usefully discussed between the two Houses.
I thought that Senator Douglas was pointing out that when the change took place and the power to refer was abolished, in recompense for that deprivation of power, an extended period was essential. In regard to some of the things that have been said to-day, I must support the statements of Senator Dowdall. We heard from Senator Douglas of the tendency which seems to be expressed in the Bill before us, and in the speeches which have been made foreshadowing this Bill— of what Senator Milroy spoke of as a definite move towards a dictatorship. Again, this House is just as responsible for anything in that direction as anything that was done within the last few years by the previous Government. Powers at present exist in law without any further appeal to this House to establish a dictatorship and this House was responsible for the giving of these powers. I do not want to make any suggestion to the Minister. I have no doubt he is very well aware of it, but I think the House might be justifiably reminded that it is possible for the Ministry to-morrow morning to declare a state of emergency and once that is done neither the Dáil nor Seanad need meet again. The essential financial powers can be exercised under the Emergency Duties Act. I think that combination gives the Ministry the full powers of a dictatorship as soon as they wish to exercise them. That power was granted freely and despite warning, by this House. Perhaps it may be unnecessary that the powers should be exercised but this House, at any rate, cannot cry if they are exercised. The Constitution that was passed in 1922 certainly was very forward from the point of view of democratic rights and up to a couple of years ago, for the whole period of office of the Government under President Cosgrave, there was a steady declension from the liberties granted in that Constitution. It is because I see the danger of that kind of Executive being re-elected, that I am not in favour of the abolition of a Second Chamber because there is always the possibility that a Second Chamber may be hesitant and may have certain doubts as to the wisdom of certain legislation and may at least give consideration to drastic and coercive legislation.
Most of the discussion on this Bill, so far, has been in regard to a Bill which has not yet seen the light. I do not propose to follow the discussion any further on the question of whether a Second Chamber is desirable or not. I will say this, that while I wish to oppose the amendment I would very much like to support the motion which it is intended should follow. I think the House ought to pass this Bill, but I think that, at the same time as it passes this Bill, it should invite the Dáil to join in considering the form that a Second Chamber should take and the powers such Chamber should have. Incidentally I should like to say this, and I make it as a suggestion to the Minister. Senator Douglas and the Minister made reference to draft constitutions that were submitted to the Provisional Government by the Constitution Committee in 1922. Senator Douglas has quoted verbatim from one of these drafts. I suggest that it is time now that not only these drafts but the draft which was sent to London should be made known to members of the Dáil and the Seanad. They have now got into the region of discussion, but we are expected to discuss them without knowledge of what they contain. As they are now matters of history it cannot do any harm—whatever good it might do—to publish them. I suggest to the Minister for his consideration that the time has arrived when they should be published and made available for our information.
The Seanad, of course, has not been guilty of the enormities in relation to Governmental proposals that have been alleged against it. The Seanad has done very good work on many occasions, and I think its chief sins are sins of omission, apart from the two great crimes of passing the Constitution (Amendment) Bill without due consideration and its refusal, after the public had decided the matter by vote, to give its sanction to the Bill for the removal of the Oath. These two events in the life of the Seanad, to me, are quite exceptional occurrences from the point of view of Parliamentary government responsible to a public electorate. I think it would be very difficult to justify the Seanad in respect of its good work when these two very grave evils stand as evidence against it. I intend to support the Second Reading, and if the other measure comes forward, I would hope that the House would get some kind of encouragement from the Minister that he would be prepared to assist in setting up a Committee to examine the whole question of the constitutional powers of a Second Chamber. The President has said several times that he is not in favour of the maintenance of the Seanad as it at present exists, but he is not clear as to what form a Second Chamber should take. This gives an opportunity, I suggest, for a thorough examination of that question, so that the matter can be discussed with something like detachment and without undue partisanship.
The question before the House is the question of how many months' delay it is right to give the Seanad in respect of legislation passed in the other House. The President and the Minister base the Government's case on three reports of the Constitution Committee which sat to draft a Constitution for this State. With regard to the third report, in which a period of four months was mentioned, Senator Douglas has clearly shown that, so far as his information goes, the President has misrepresented that report and that, in fact, the period of four months, coupled with the other provisions, would have given the Seanad control over the other House entirely, and, therefore, in my opinion, I do not think that the four months period, unless Senator Douglas is wrong, should be quoted at all as a recommendation of the Constitution Committee. With regard to the other recommendation, I happened to be in that Constituent Assembly, and my recollection is that there was one Party which desired a longer period than nine months and another Party which desired six months, and the 270 days period drafted into the Constitution was a kind of compromise, but plus the Referendum. The opportunity for appeal to the people having been taken away, a second nine months' period was added as a kind of strengthening of the powers of this House. The Minister was very careful, in referring to that Constitution Committee, to say that, in connection with the Constitution itself, he wished only to refer to the matters bearing on this power of delay of the Seanad, but, if he had examined, in the light of the opinions now expressed, the original proposal put up by the Government of the day, under which there was to be an Executive Council of eight members who were not to be members of Parliament at all, he might not have, perhaps, the same faith in that Constitution Committee and its findings as he would have if he had adverted to that particular proposal, by which democracy, which was supposed to be the ruling factor, was left out, and eight Ministers appointed not being members of Parliament at all. I do not say that that was a wrong recommendation, but I do say that, in the light of present-day affairs, that particular Constitution would have been considered a freak Constitution, and, therefore, so much stress should not be placed on the recommendations of this Constitution Committee in respect of the powers of delay to be given to this House.
With regard to the case made in connection with the 17th amendment, it will be remembered that, in the period during which the initiation of this legislation took place, many of us, although not politicians, and never mixed up in the movement, but representing outside interests entirely under Article 4, were placed under police protection for a considerable time. Everybody knows that members of this House were kidnapped, their houses burned, and that two members of the other House were shot. At that time, we knew nothing about what was happening and we knew of nothing that would make us consider that protection was necessary. A similar state of affairs was represented to me. It was represented that there was an underground movement in this country to subvert the Constitution. We know that there was drilling going on and that a police officer had been shot. We know that there were witnesses killed and that the Hierarchy condemned the movement, and we know that, then, also, we got police protection. I do not say that we required it. I did not require it, and it was very objectionable to me. On one occasion, I, with 14 or 15 women, was picking potatoes, and there was a policeman at each corner of the field. I, naturally, did not feel very happy. The information I had on that particular occasion was the same information I had in the beginning, when we were put under police protection. I would not be a party to obstructing the Executive Council of the time in what they deemed to be necessary, and I would ask the Minister if he never considers that a state of affairs would arise when it would be necessary for this House to agree to take away the liberties of the people. That has to be recognised, and it has been done in the most liberty-loving countries in the world. We were told, at the time, that this state of affairs existed, and that was the reason why Standing Orders were suspended and the particular piece of legislation which is condemned carried forward.
With regard to the Oath Bill, even if it had become law when it came from the other House, it would have made no difference. It was like the Bill that was thrown out the other day —there was no immediate necessity for it. The Senators objected to it because they considered that it was a breach of the Treaty, and the Government were not upset by one iota by reason of the Seanad's failure to pass it, so that, in regard to these two particular Acts, no Executive Council can say that this House has stood in their way. In fact, I was present when the Minister for Industry and Commerce complimented the House on the assistance it had given him, the number of amendments which he considered essential which it had put forward, and, particularly, the creditable way in which the House passed a very complicated Bill, the Traffic Bill. That was not the first time on which I heard encomiums from Ministers on our work here. That, however, is inside. Outside, the idea is that this House is in the way; that it is an obstruction; that it consists of Freemasons; that it is in the way of the national movement, a brake on the wheels of progress, and the idea is, like all the ideas of the present day, that existing institutions should be pulled down and something new set up in their places. Something new seems to be the idea of progress held by the people of the present day. Senators may laugh, but there is a lot of truth in it. It is a very serious thing to pull down or interfere with the jurisdiction of one House of the Oireachtas. It is a law-making authority, and it is there by reason of the Constitution. It has endeavoured, so far as I know, since I became a member of it, to consider legislation in a way creditable to itself with the knowledge it possesses—outside knowledge, and a type of knowledge not to be got in the other House in that it is detached entirely from politics. It will be noticed that, frequently of late, many members of the Party supposed to be associated with the late Government do not vote on Party lines. I, myself, am constantly being hauled over the coals by my Party for going against them, but, at the same time, no action is taken and I am not ejected, and, whenever I think that a particular proposition is reasonable, I never hesitate to vote for the Government. There are other men in the Seanad who hold the same views, and, therefore, there is no case whatever for reducing the powers of the Seanad. If Senator Counihan's amendment were considered reasonably by the Government, and, if a committee of both Houses sat down quietly and had a smoke and talked over it, they could very readily come to an agreement, which, perhaps, would be beneficial to both Houses, and would do something of benefit to the country, and redound to our credit.
I do not propose to deal with the various inaccuracies in the speech of Senator Milroy. I started taking them down until I found that my pencil would wear out if I were to try to keep track of them but, looking over them, I find there is one which certainly demands contradiction and it is, in my opinion, the only statement made by Senator Milroy, in his lengthy speech, which merits the serious consideration of anybody. It is a direct libel on a most helpless victim. He said that the frogs committed suicide to save themselves from slaughter. If Senator Milroy will look up his fairy tales, or whatever the source is from which he gets most of his information, I think he will find that it was the snakes committed suicide to save themselves from slaughter. Senator Crosbie made an extraordinary statement. He claims that the greatest admiration is due to the members of this House who were responsible for giving the final benediction to that particular legislation which was so ably described by Senator Dowdall. He claims that no particular credit is due to the individual who goes out into the open battlefield and fights for his country with a rifle, for instance, and that no particular credit is due, and no particular courage necessary, in the case of a man going before a firing squad. I dare say that Senator Crosbie never found himself in the position in which he thought there was even a remote possibility of his having to face a firing squad. I do not suppose that Senator Crosbie was ever called upon to take his courage in his hands and step into the open battlefield with a rifle. It is unfortunate that Senator Crosbie should come too soon to be in the war and too late to be implicated in that wonderful piece of legislation for the passage of which he gives such credit to the Seanad. However, some little credit is due to Senator Crosbie because at this early stage he has the wonderful courage to come into this House and to ramble unguarded through the corridors, where he is liable and, in fact, in this very House, to run up against numerous assassins, as he describes them. In fact, I think he deserves wonderful credit for sitting in this House in the presence of people who, such a short time ago were, in his opinion, assassins. The people whom he refers to as assassins think now what they thought a year ago, what they thought five years ago and what they thought ten years ago and, on that account, I believe that great credit is due to the Senator for his wonderful courage.
I cannot, by any means, agree with Senator Counihan, who says that, in his opinion, the Seanad is by far the more popular House. Senator Counihan, or any other sensible man, must know thoroughly well that the Seanad, because of its record over a number of years, has become very unpopular with the people of this country. Not perhaps so much because of the legislation that is held up but rather, as has been pointed out already because of the legislation it failed to hold up when that holding-up might have saved the country from a condition from which it is now but slowly recovering.
[Senator Dowdall took the Chair.]
It has been brought up as an argument against this Bill that it is necessary that powers should remain with this House whereby the passing of hasty legislation could be avoided: that it was necessary that this House should have power, so to speak, to control an unscrupulous Government. but it is not very long ago since such a Government was in power in this country, and what was the attitude of the Seanad? Did they try to hold up that hasty legislation when it came along? They certainly did not. It has been pointed out that, not alone did they fail to hold up that legislation for more serious consideration, but that the members of this House worked overtime to make sure that the executioner would not be deprived of his market. Had the members of the Seanad at that time taken the right action, the action any sensible people would have taken under the circumstances—and the action now claimed to have been taken by Senator Wilson and others—they would, possibly, have departed from the rules and the regulations handed up to them by Cumann na nGaedheal and the other sections forming the Government Party at that particular period, they would have departed from the regulations for once, and insisted that the then Government would reconsider the desperate legislation which they proposed to enact. But, because on that particular occasion, as on other occasions, the Seanad failed hopelessly in its responsibility to the people I believe, regardless of what Senator Counihan has said, that the people to-day will be in entire sympathy with the Bill that is now before the House.
I have no hesitation in saying that, to a great extent at least, it was because of that particular legislation that the late Administration went down in disgrace before the people of this country. At that time, perhaps, certain members of this House claimed, and believed that they were justified in claiming, that they represented or were representative, somehow or other, of the majority of the people outside this House. But since then we have passed through two general elections, and since the people to whom the Opposition in this House now owe their majority have been discarded by the votes of the people, surely the members of the Opposition will no longer hang on to that very doubtful claim—that they were ever representative of the majority of the people of this country? As I have said, we have since passed through two general elections. In the second, still more than in the first, the people who were responsible for the majority held by the Opposition in this House were thrown out of office, and the people of the country, in larger numbers than at the first general election, went to the side of Fianna Fáil.
But, notwithstanding these changed circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that the majority in this House only represent a hopeless minority in the country, what was the attitude of the Seanad when certain legislation was demanded by the people and when a Fianna Fáil Government proceeded to implement the people's mandate? Notwithstanding the changed conditions and notwithstanding the fact that the members of the Opposition in this House must know full well that they no longer represent the majority of the people of the country—that they no longer represent even a majority in the Dáil—they insisted on holding up that legislation, they insisted on holding up for 18 months if they could legislation that was very definitely demanded by the majority of the people. It was only possible to implement the people's mandate by a general election, with all its consequent expense. That was the only way whereby the Government could give expression to the will of the people. It is suggested that that state of affairs should continue in this country: that, every time a little advance is to be made towards national freedom or economic freedom, the Government will be in the position that, unless they want that legislation to be hung up for a period of 18 long months, they must go to the country and have another general election. I do not think that is the idea of the majority of the people of this country.
Some members of the Opposition, perhaps, will say that there is no hurry about this and that there is no hurry about that, but on the question of the Oath the people very definitely voted on that issue at two general elections, and whether the members of the Opposition think so or not, the people very definitely demanded the immediate enactment of the Bill to remove the Oath. Apart from all that, I believe it is in the national interest that this Bill should pass. I believe that the people of this country are gifted with a considerable amount of patience, but I believe there is an end even to the patience of the Irish people, and that if the people's will continues to be thwarted by the majority in this House—representing, as I have said, a hopeless minority in the country— then the people's patience will wear out. I believe, knowing the history of the Seanad for a short time, that if the powers which this Bill deals with still remained, the Seanad would continue to hold up legislation; they would continue to obstruct the Government in its march towards national independence. Because I believe that the members of the Opposition would insist on that attitude and that insistence on it would be tantamount to inciting to war in the country—Senators who insisted on flouting the will of the people would naturally be regarded as disturbers of the peace— it is the duty, in my opinion, of any Government, so far as they have any power, to preserve the peace of the country, if nothing else. I say that the introduction of this Bill, even though some Senators may not think so, is a move in the right direction—even from the point of view of the members of the Opposition.
Then, again, from the economic point of view, the world is at the present time passing through a period of depression. In passing, I may say that I was rather surprised at how long it took to drag the economic war into this debate to-day. I felt sure, however, that it would not be forgotten. It is a good thing to talk about it now and again, because some people are liable to forget all about it, but in view of the fact that this world depression has hit this country to a certain extent, it will, as time goes on, be necessary to introduce certain legislation which may seem drastic, perhaps, to the members of the Opposition. It has been necessary, in the past few months, since the economic war was launched on the people of this country, to pass certain measures in this House to protect the people from the common enemy. Because of the conditions prevailing at the present time, because we are at war, if you like, and because we are being attacked, it may be necessary for the Government to feel, so to speak, a little surer of themselves. It does not do, under such conditions, to have a Government going along like a young horse in a curb expecting every minute to feel a sudden jerk from its master. The Seanad, because of its powers of delay, very definitely holds control of the Government. It is not a case of a steadying influence; it is a case of very definite control. With the existing powers, the Seanad could either force the Government to refuse to carry out the mandate of the people or to go to the country and have a general election every couple of months. It is obviously ridiculous to think that any Government could carry on under such conditions. Because I believe this Bill is not only desirable but an absolute necessity, I support it, and I hope the Seanad will accept it for what I believe it to be— a blessing in disguise.
May I intervene to make what may be regarded as a personal explanation? The Senator who has just spoken has given the impression that I, personally, have never gone in any danger. I make no boast of it, but I think you, Sir, will bear me out when I say that I ran possibly as much risk as anybody down our way. I ran quite as much risk from the Black and Tans as the Senator. Secondly, the manager of my concern, the Cork Examiner, was shot, and it was a pure accident that I was not shot myself. In order to emphasise my hatred and dislike of Ireland, they burned my house. I do not know who did it. They never told me who did it, but I think you, Sir, can give a guess. I was not frightened of them then, and I am not frightened of them now.
If I remember rightly, I said I was open to correction. If I made any false statements about Senator Crosbie, I should certainly be agreeable to withdraw them, but so far as the Senator's explanation goes, I do not think I have anything to withdraw. I never said that the Senator did not go through any danger. In fact, I know that anybody living in Cork during a certain period was open to considerable danger. I appreciate the fact that the Senator, because he lived in Cork, was open to being shot and was open to have his house burned, and so on. But I repudiate the statement made by Senator Crosbie that he had, perhaps, as much to do against and went in as much danger from the Black and Tans as I——
I think that the Senator should not pursue the personal question.
Excuse me, but I must finish.
Acting-Chairman
We had better leave out the personal element.
When you let the personal element enter a little bit, you must let it go the rest of the way. I should be sorry to say anything offensive. I do not mean to be offensive, but I do say, for the benefit of this House, that I met most of the men prominently connected with the 1st Cork Brigade. I met practically every man actively in sympathy with the Republican movement in Cork from 1918 to the present day, and I must say I never had the pleasure of an introduction to Senator Crosbie even up to to-day.
Acting-Chairman
These personal statements must finish now. They are quite out of order.
Some of the speeches made on this amendment constitute, in my opinion, the strongest arguments for the abolition of this House. I approach this Bill with the belief that it is the precursor of a further Bill either to reorganise drastically the constitution of this House or to abolish the House. To that extent, I think it is eminently reasonable to suggest that before any drastic reorganisation of this Chamber take place, a committee representative of the House should be consulted. So far as I am concerned, I do not care a brass farthing whether this Chamber be abolished to-morrow or not. But I am here by the votes of the people, and I am not going to be either cajoled or intimidated into surrendering the responsibilities thereby placed upon me and the powers which I was sent here to exercise until I am convinced of the necessity for so doing.
The Government can quite constitutionally abolish this House by an appeal to the people. But I think that this House would be worthy of abolition and should be abolished, if it allowed itself to swallow something for which there was no mandate and which, in its opinion was bad for the country. Senator Douglas quoted Deputy Norton, the Leader of the Labour Party in the other House. He omitted to state what, I think, the Deputy did state—that he was expressing his own personal opinion. I have examined the Labour Party programme in each of the seven elections that have taken place since this State was set up, and in not one of these programmes is there any item advocating either the abolition of this House or the curtailment of its powers. It is quite true that Deputy Johnson, during the Constitution debates, did oppose a Second Chamber, but the fact that Senator Johnson himself has been here for the last three or four years and is one of our ablest members is, perhaps, the best answer to his objections then.
I am amazed that Senator Quirke should contaminate himself by being a member of a House which he so roundly and emphatically condemns. His patriotism must be absolutely polluted by coming within the precincts of such a House. If I held the views he does, I should be out on the hillsides until this House was abolished, instead of coming in here as a member of a minority and making futile speeches against it. Senator Quirke speaks from the depths of his experience. I much prefer to take the view of his colleague, Senator Colonel Moore. He has been here since the beginning, and he is not disposed to shower praise undeservedly on anybody. In a debate on a motion of mine of a somewhat similar character to that now before the House, moved on the 15th February, 1928, Senator Colonel Moore, who was then probably the only Fianna Fáil representative here, used these remarks regarding the Seanad:
"If we compare the Dáil with the Seanad, I think, from any national point of view, the Seanad must be said to stand pre-eminently in the front. For instance, in amendments to Bills from the Dáil, the Irish language was made essential. I might select a number of other matters in which the members of the Dáil have not shown themselves very national. They did not trouble themselves in these matters, but the Seanad intervened and brought about changes from the national point of view. I might mention that, when the Seanad first sat, a motion came up from the Dáil to give an amnesty to the British soldiers over here without any reciprocal arrangements for the other side. The Seanad held it up from a national point of view, and said it was improper that an amnesty should be granted to one side without also being granted to the other."
The Senator added:
"I do not think anybody would agree that the powers of the Seanad should be dismissed."
Those are the views of the representative of Fianna Fáil who has been longest here. His opinion was that the Seanad had done most of the valuable things for the non-doing of which it is being impeached to-day.
Senator Douglas has referred to the well-known historic fact that every democratic nation worthy of the name has a Second Chamber—and a Second Chamber with considerable powers. To suggest for one moment that the President and his Cabinet are children of ancient wisdom in this respect would be perfectly preposterous. The nations to which I refer have had centuries of parliamentary tradition and experience. Surely, it cannot be that they have all been fools and that we are the one wise nation in the world? The objection to the Seanad and to its powers is not an objection on principle at all, judging by the speeches made. It is an objection to the personnel of the Seanad. Because the present personnel is not what the Party in power desire it to be, then you must destroy it. It is like the foolish Chinaman in Charles Lamb's tale who burned his house to cook his dinner. At one time, it was the Governor-General who was the bugbear of all the cross-roads politicians. Now, the Governor-General might as well not exist, and the Seanad is quite good for speakers who are unable to utter two sentences on any other subject. To the extent that the personnel, which will change with time, does not come up to the expectations of the Government, surely the President and his colleagues are, in part, to blame? They joined with Cumann na nGaedheal in 1928 to pass a Bill which destroyed the representative character of this Chamber. I was one of those elected by the people, and the then forthcoming election was to have been of a similar character, in which, in order to be elected, you had to contest the whole country as one constituency —surely a magnificent method of testing the national popularity of any person, whatever about his capacity. Fianna Fáil and Cumann na nGaedheal united—it was one of the few things in which they did unite—to destroy that method of election and to substitute the present method. They talk of the members of this House as if they were simply musk rats that had to be destroyed. Surely, they are the ordinary citizens of this country, elected by the people or by the representatives of the people in the other House? What is the use of talking about them as if they were some imposed tyranny brought in from some despotic race we detested? Arguments of a very conflicting character have emerged in the debate on this Bill here and in the other House. The Seanad is denounced because it did not thwart the will of the people when another Party was in power. They are denounced in this Parliament because, it is said, they do thwart the will of the people because a particular Party is in power. The critics cannot have it both ways. Either it is the duty of Senators at certain times to hold up Bills passed by the other House or it is not. Will Senators who have spoken say which course is the right one? Is it the duty of Senators to pass everything the other House passes?
I am no new convert in this matter at all. I ask the leave of the House to quote a statement I made on this same question in the debate I referred to, in 1928. I said:—
"There were, of course, times when splendid opportunities were afforded Senators to act as calm, unimpassioned but powerful guardians of individual citizen rights, whilst at the same time not imperilling the safety of the State or undermining its Constitution in any way. They had opportunities of showing that they could rise above mere Party passions and in a calm, judicial way practise a moderating influence on hasty legislation, conceived in panic or in a spirit of vengeance. It was on such occasions that a majority of the House allowed itself to be stampeded in a very regrettable way, and it is through this lack of courage, or lack of public interest, on occasions such as these, that it owes a tremendous amount of its unpopularity and the lack of confidence that at present prevails."
That was my viewpoint then and that is my viewpoint now. I cannot overlook the fact that no matter how you constitute this House its members will have their individual political opinions and these will manifest themselves in the legislation they pass.
How many members of the Fianna Fáil Party, with perhaps one or two honourable exceptions, have ever dared to dissociate themselves in this House from what their Party did in the other House? How many members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party did so? How many members of the Labour Party dared to do otherwise than what their members did in the other House? What is the logic in blaming one particular Party for bleating in the tones heard in the other House when the same is done here? It is merely an expression of political views, being first a party man and afterwards a statesman. When politicians and members of parties will have the courage, on certain occasions, to speak and to act according to their conscience in this House, then, in my opinion, you will have the first approach to a real Second Chamber. The Government Party are not in favour of that, judging, at least, from the firm Party attitude they have adopted throughout. It would be almost treason for any one of them to criticise the Government. It is looked upon almost as treason for any Labour man to have the audacity to criticise the Government. Senator Sir John Keane accused me of feeling uncomfortable at one time because I criticised, in a moderate way, certain measures which came along. To do so is looked upon as an absolutely unheard-of thing. At any rate, the Senator wondered at it. It is ridiculous to suggest in one breath that the Seanad should have taken a certain course of action while, in the next breath, it is denounced for taking that line.
I entirely dissociate myself from what the Seanad did the second time the Oath Bill came before it. There was a clear, definite expression of opinion from the people, by which the Seanad should have abided by passing the Bill when it came before the House a second time. It was blind adherence to Party politics that made the Seanad reject that Bill a second time. It may be argued on a certain Bill which comes before the House to-morrow that it was not before the electorate, or that there was no suggestion of it. How would the Government take it if in these circumstances members of their own Party said: "This is a very drastic Bill. You have no mandate for it. We do not know how the people feel with regard to it, and consequently we are going to exercise our powers to delay it?" I do not think the Government would accept that as a proper thing for this House to do.
I was in opposition right through the administration of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. I was always in a minority here, and, therefore, I am, perhaps, all the safer in stating what is a fact, that amendments were inserted on many occasions in this House which tended to make Bills of a more democratic character. All the terrible reactionary measures we hear of originated, not here, but in the House elected by the people. What is the use of denouncing this House because it did not make democratic measures which were introduced and passed by the really democratic Assembly? Even in the first Public Safety (Emergency Powers) Bill, 1923, 13 amendments were introduced in this House, all tending to make that Bill less drastic than it was. In the Treasonable Offences Bill 11 amendments, all tending to make it more democratic, and to protect the liberty of the subject, were introduced here. I was able to state in a debate that took place in 1928 that on the Railways Bill of 1924 we carried here numerous amendments for the protection of railway employees rendered redundant as a result of amalgamation. These amendments had been turned down, on divisions, in the other House. During the passage of the Electricity Supply Bill and the Local Government Bill, 1925, practically the whole of the amendments of any value, seeking to protect the workers, were moved and carried in this House. Recently, in the National Health Insurance Bill, we got amendments carried the equivalent of which had been rejected in the other House. In the recent Railways Bill I got one or two important amendments carried which were defeated by heavy majorities in the other House. I got various other amendments carried here tending to improve and to protect the position of railway employees.
Those who go out and try to humbug the public into believing that the general activities of this House have been of a reactionary character are simply stating what is not true. The charges that can be made against this House are that during the term of the late Government they allowed certain measures of a very drastic character to be passed, measures which were stated by that Government as being necessary to preserve public order. I was in opposition in regard to all this. Is it a terrible thing to say that we worked overtime in that regard. The Dáil stopped up all night in order to do it, and even very recently, on the motion of the President of the Executive Council, they sat up late in order to cut the salaries of civil servants. What, then, is the use of charging this House with being reactionary, because the majority, at a certain period, decided to sit extra time to pass a Bill that the Government of the day suggested should be passed, when we remember that the Dáil sat one Friday and one Saturday in order to cut the salaries of public servants in defiance of pledges given to the contrary? I have no confidence whatever that if we had a House of an absolutely different complexion, and if we had a Government Party in power, that it would not become an absolute rubber stamp to the Dáil during the lifetime of the present Government, just as it was a rubber stamp for Cumann na nGaedheal during the late Administration. Is there one member of the Fianna Fáil Party who would have the courage to get up and say: "I object to this, although my Party passed it in the other House"? If there is, I would like to shake him by the hand. I admire Senator Wilson's attitude, because he has always had the courage of his convictions. He got up and seriously embarrassed his Party at times, and gave his reasons for doing so. I wish we had more of that type of politician. I do not know what appeal this Bill should make to Labour in a particular sense. We certainly would be very glad if this House would reject the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Bill which was passed through the Dáil by the present democratic Government. That Bill got very little support here. One Cumann na nGaedheal representative voted with Labour, but Fianna Fáil voted for it, although I am sure that one or two, who are exceedingly good employers, were against it on principle. Yet the Party Whip operated.
[The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.]
The President expressed great admiration for America. That being the case, he should not overlook the fact that the United States in the Federal Parliament have, not alone a Second Chamber, but a Second Chamber in each of the 48 States. In each State of the Australian Commonwealth they have a Second Chamber, with one exception, in addition to a Second Chamber for the Federal Parliament. Australia is a place where Labour has been in power on numerous occasions, while it has never been in power here, and, with the exception of a couple of wild men, the Labour Party there has not advocated the abolition of the Second Chamber. In the great Republic of the West, the Senate has equal powers with the House of Representatives. Where do we get all our newfound wisdom by which we are to dispense with the experience and the tradition of all these great nations, where liberty was fought for, and in the cause of which blood was shed? In order to facilitate the Government in office for the time being, are we in the Twenty-Six Counties to sweep away all these traditions and to ignore the experience of other lands? I have nothing more to say, except that I am going to vote for the amendment. I took an exactly similar line when the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was in power. They were the first to introduce legislation to alter the constitution of this House. I thought that an entirely improper and irregular method of altering the constitution of one of the Houses of the Oireachtas, and I moved a motion in this House which was carried, that a Committee should be set up to meet a Committee of the Dáil to consider, devise and report on the desirability of effecting amendments to the constitution of this House, method of election, and so on. What I did then I am prepared to support now. I am not going to take the line that some will take, voting against the amendment and hoping to Heaven, at the same time, that it will be carried. I believe in doing what is right constitutionally, and, in my opinion, the right and the straightforward course to take is that suggested in the amendment.
I had completely forgotten, until reminded of it, a certain speech I made a few years ago. I was making a few notes while other Senators were speaking on what I should say now. I admit that what the Senator quoted is what I said several years ago. He has saved me the trouble of repeating it. I adhere to what was quoted. I am in favour of a Second Chamber, and always have been. I think no Chamber should be condemned on account of the follies of certain individuals. If we make a comparison between the follies committed in the Dáil and the follies committed in the Seanad, we find that the Dáil—I am not going into whatever may have been done lately—during a period of seven or eight years dealt with a series of the most preposterous proposals that could have been brought forward. At least, as much was done in the Dáil as was done here. Therefore, the Dáil should be changed, or should only be allowed to pass Bills that would last three months. What a nice state of affairs that would be for the country! A lot of stupid people in the Dáil, and a lot of stupid people in the Seanad, in different Parties, have done certain things, and because of that the whole Constitution of the country is to be changed. If Senators look at the various Bills that were passed by the Seanad during the first few years of its existence, it will be found that every mention made in these Bills about the Irish language was introduced in the Seanad. The Bills were sent here without any reference to the Irish language being inserted in the magnificent Chamber down below. The other Chamber accepted many of the efforts that were made here to forward the cause of the Irish language. Considering the composition of the Seanad, that is rather remarkable.
We hear a great deal now about the land annuities, and about other sums that affect the national finances. A sum of £5,000,000 a year was mentioned. These questions were not raised in the other Chamber. These payments were passed there for years, and although they were fought against here, not a single person in the other Chamber opposed them. The question was fought out in this Chamber from beginning to end, and what was done in the Seanad was very instrumental in its being passed at all. I remember that on the last occasion when the matter was introduced here, there was a motion made by the present Cathaoirleach to the effect that a Committee should be set up to examine the subject. The division on that question resulted in equal voting, but the motion was defeated on the casting vote of the then Cathaoirleach. If that Committee had been set up, a great deal of trouble and annoyance would have been avoided. The question would have been settled years ago. Everybody now admits that we were right at that time.
The matter may be summed up in this way—that the two Houses have done a certain amount of good things and have also done a certain amount of bad things. I cannot see therefore why, that being the case, one of these Houses has to be abolished while the other, which is equally to blame, is to be maintained as it is. I do not agree with that proposition at all. This question would never have arisen if a certain silly lot of people who had violently opposed the present Government had kept their mouths shut or if they had opened their eyes and had known what the Irish people wished. If they had known that Irish nationality is a thing that will carry its way in time, whatever we may think, they would not be faced with this situation now. That never dawned upon them. It never seemed to come into their minds, and they continued to go on in the same old way. I remember in the early days of the Seanad, during the first six years, there was no such Party as a Government Party in the House. There was what we call a Progressive Party which met regularly, did its business, and was just as likely to vote against the Government as in favour of it, according as they thought right. At that time I used to vote with the Labour Party frequently. We had during that period three or four Coercion Bills to which they and I objected and which now seem to be perfectly useless. These Acts never did any good at all. What happened? As soon as the Fianna Fáil Party came into this House certain people broke up that Progressive Party. That was a Party which did not take sides and the members of which voted according to their consciences.
I remember attending the last meeting when Senator O'Hanlon proposed a motion which was carried. I was obliged to leave that Progressive Party because it adopted a purely reactionary line of conduct and pledged itself to support the Government of that day. We have heard enough of what was done afterwards. Stupid Coercion Bills were passed. One of the last stupidities of which that Government was guilty turned out to be absolutely useless. We were told at the time that desperate things were going to happen, but they have never happened. If these people had a little sense, the Bill that is now before us would never have been introduced. I think that if bad things have been done by the Seanad, bad things have also been done by the Dáil and it would appear to me that the matter should be settled by compromise. I think myself that three months is too short a period for the consideration of Bills. That period does not give sufficient time to allow the matter to be discussed properly in the country and debated properly here. On the other hand, I think the present arrangement of 18 months is ridiculous and absurd, it handicaps the Government in such a way that it cannot attend to the business which it wishes to transact. Legislation for the good of the country is held up. I think that some compromise might be arranged that would be of advantage to the country, of advantage to the present Government and to all concerned.
It is true as has been stated that the Bill before the House is not for the abolition of the Seanad. It is for a reduction of its holding-up powers. It is a fair comment, and I think a desirable comment, that this Bill with which we are now dealing, if passed, is the first step towards Single Chamber government in this country. I have yet to learn that any civilised country has for long prospered without a Second Chamber. It will be found in many well-known historical cases that where the Second Chamber was abolished it always had to be re-created because it was found necessary in the interests of the State. This measure is therefore against the experience of the civilised world. For that reason it is folly or even worse if we are to be allowed only to hold up a Bill for three months; such a power would be perfectly useless. I shall give one reason to prove that and it should be sufficient. No Government in a highhanded frame of mind, so to speak, would ever take the trouble of considering amendments from the Second Chamber if its holding-up powers were to last for only three months. They would simply wait for the three months and the thing would be done.
One of the most important functions of a Second Chamber, to my mind, is that the members should restrain or hold up legislation which they consider detrimental and which is brought in by a Government which has come in on the crest of a wave of popular enthusiasm. That may not be wise enthusiasm. that is why Second Chambers are given holding-up powers for a considerable time—so that there should be time for second thoughts, which are very often the best. This Seanad has served the country well. But for this House the Statute Book would contain a great deal very much worse legislation than it does contain. That very desirable state of affairs has been brought about not only by amendments moved in this House to legislation brought before us, but also by the automatic restraint on the type of legislation to be introduced, because of the fact that it has to be brought before a more or less independent body like this. I should perhaps say that I intend to vote against the Second Reading, but if the Government are prepared to accept the amendment and to set up a committee to examine this question I shall vote for the amendment, for this reason: this House, through circumstances which are well known, tends to become, under the existing arrangement, less independent and less separated from the violences of party politics. I think, therefore, that the time has come when we should consider whether the Second Chamber could not be constituted on a more satisfactory basis. If the constitutional power of the House were considered by such a committee I do not think it would be a waste of time. The subject would be thoroughly ventilated and we might get some improvement on the existing state of affairs. If, however, the Minister should say that the Government have no intention of considering the matter in that way, then I think the amendment should be withdrawn and we should vote against the Second Reading.
I think this is a measure on which one should not be expected to give a silent vote. The Bill before us proposes to alter the Constitution in so far as it alters the power of the Seanad to hold up Bills from 18 months to three months. I think I must for the first time be forced to admit that I agree with Senator Bagwell. I have been a member of this House since its inception. I have a distinct recollection of the most important measures that were passed in the House. I have a distinct recollection of some of the incidents that I think led up to the introduction of this Bill. I do not like to recount the various things that happened in this House further than to say this: that my colleagues and I on several occasions warned members of this House that they themselves were putting up the best arguments for its abolition. I must say that at the outset I should much prefer to see a straightforward Bill for the abolition of the Seanad than the present measure, because I think if the House accepts the present measure it accepts its own condemnation. I recollect that some of the most important Bills that came before this House took three months to pass, and I think that we can claim that during their passage these Bills were altered out of all recognition and that the alterations were for the better of the country. I have in mind one particular Bill that was not of a political nature at all—the Patents Bill. That Bill dealt with highly technical matters. When it came to this House it was thought desirable to refer it to a Select Committee because of its technicalities and because of the many legal questions involved in it. The whole Bill was recast in Committee and the Bill was made almost perfect. It was not recognisable as the original Bill after it left this House. When that Bill went back to the Dáil practically every suggestion and every amendment made was accepted by the Dáil. I have been informed to-day that, highly technical as the Bill was, and although it has been in operation for some years now, there has not, as yet, been one legal question raised in regard to it, or one legal flaw found in it.
Experience has taught me that, on many occasions, this House has been very useful in altering and in helping in the framing of legislation. The House has on many occasions been very useful in producing a steadying effect in regard to measures of a special nature that came before it. As has been recounted here to-day, the members of this Party fought very hard against all the Coercion Bills that were introduced here. I think we have been consistent all the time in that. We fought on all occasions against any attempt to take away the liberty of the subject. We fought on every occasion against attempts to take away the privileges and the rights of members of this House, but I regret to say that some of the people who are opposed to this Bill are responsible for bringing about the present situation.
When this House was first established half the members were nominated; the other half was elected by the Dáil. The Constitution provided that at all future elections members of this House should be elected by the people. The first election that took place after the triennial period had elapsed was an election by the whole of the people, with the whole country as one constituency. Afterwards, a Bill was introduced by the late Administration altering that Article of the Constitution and taking from the people of the country the right to elect directly the representatives in this House. We, in the Labour Party, strenuously opposed the taking away from the people of the right to elect their representatives to this House but the majority in the House accepted the proposals put forward by the late Administration and went on the first step to their own destruction. The next step came when a further attempt was made to amend the Constitution. The provisions of the Constitution set out that this House had power to hold up Bills for a certain period and also had the power, with a majority of the House, to bring the Referendum into operation. We strenuously opposed the taking away of the right of that appeal to the people. We were not listened to. We still believe that the people are supreme and we believe that that was one of the most valuable Articles in the Constitution—the right of a majority in either House to bring the Referendum into operation on important questions by which the people, as a whole, could decide the issue. This House, however, again acquiesced in taking away its own liberties and the House is paying dearly for it now.
The incidents that actually led up to the introduction of this Bill and, to my mind, what was responsible for most of the outcry with regard to the Seanad and the crimes it committed, were, first, the passing in a few hours of the Public Safety Bill. We protested, as we did against all these measures. We told the House that they were doing wrong, that they were taking away the liberty of the people, that they were giving all power to a military dictatorship and we advised the House in its own interest not to do it. Somebody said that they worked overtime to pass it. They did not work overtime. As a matter of fact, they worked only a couple of short shifts. We did not get any opportunity to move reasonable amendments to that Bill because, before the Bill reached the House at all, there was a motion on the agenda that the Bill should go through all its stages in a few hours. With all respect to the people who were responsible for that, I think they made a farce of a proper legislative assembly. The next important question, and, I think, the really important question at issue, was the question of the Oath Bill. The Oath Bill was introduced and passed in the other House. When it came here it was rejected. We, on these benches, supported the Removal of the Oath Bill. I said, during the course of the discussion on the Bill— and I lay particular stress on this important point—in reply to an amendment that was passed, that the people who were responsible for refusing to pass the Oath Bill by the amendment they inserted meant that they would pass this Bill provided we got the consent of somebody outside this country. That is a position I never would accept. I voted for the abolition of the Oath. In the meantime, a general election took place and there is no doubt whatever in the mind of any reasonably-minded man or woman that the present Government, if they got a mandate for anything, got a mandate for the removal of the Oath and, on the last occasion on which the Bill came up, after the general election, I said that the people who are going to vote against the will of the people were putting up the best argument for the abolition of this House. I still believe that. The Government got a mandate for the removal of the Oath and, when that Bill came forward, after the last general election, the members of this House, by a majority, refused to accept the freely expressed will of the people.
Am I in order, Sir, in moving that the question be now put? We have heard every argument, I think.
Cathaoirleach
I think the debate ought to be allowed to proceed.
I do not want to continue this discussion about the Oath but I am just putting forward the views I put forward when the Bill came before us previously. I said, at that time, that the members of this House were putting up the best argument possible for the abolition of this House. Notwithstanding all that, I do say, quite frankly and honestly, that I should much prefer to see a Bill being introduced by the Government for the abolition of this House than the present Bill and, for that reason, I am going to vote against it. I am going to vote against it because I think that this Bill should not come here. I say that three months is too short a period. If the Government do not want this House, the straight and honest thing for the Government to do would be to introduce a Bill immediately for the abolition of the Seanad. I should prefer to face that Bill rather than accept this Bill because, if we accept this Bill automatically it means the abolition of this House because there is nothing to prevent the Government, if this Bill is passed, from introducing, next week, a further Bill for the abolition of the Seanad and, if they get a majority in the Dáil, ipso facto this House is abolished in three months' time. The question at issue is too important for that.
I think the suggestion made in the amendment on the Order Paper is a reasonable one and I think that, if the Articles of the Constitution that confer power on this House are to be amended in any way, they ought to be amended not in a party spirit but in such a way that, if a Second Chamber is desirable in this country, it will be made as perfect as possible, that it will be a legislative assembly and that it will have powers to do certain things with regard to legislation within reasonable limits. I do admit that 18 months is a long period, but I also say that the experience of most democratically governed countries has been that it is necessary, in the interests of the people as a whole, that there should be a Revising Chamber or a Chamber to act as a check, because we all know from what we have read and from what we have experienced that Governments, in the first flush of victory, after elections, revolutions, or things like that, are liable to do things that they would not do if they had time to consider them properly. For that reason, I think there is a necessity in this country for a Second Chamber and that, instead of introducing this Bill, the Government should endeavour to set up any Committee they like—a Joint Committee of both Houses, if they like—to go into the whole question with regard to the manner of election to and the powers to be conferred upon a Second Chamber, if they desire one, and, if they do not desire a Second Chamber, they should come along openly and state: "We do not require a Second Chamber and there is a Bill for your own abolition." For these reasons, I will vote against the Second Reading.
I beg to move the adjournment of the House. I understand that quite a number of other Senators wish to speak, some at fairly considerable length.
I beg to second. This is a very important matter, and I am sure the Seanad would like to discuss it fully. We would scarcely have time now for more than one other speaker, and as we cannot finish the debate to-night, I think it should stand adjourned until to-morrow.
Cathaoirleach
We have a tremendous amount of work to do this week, and I think that to adjourn at ten minutes past seven is rather early, but it has been proposed and seconded that we do adjourn now.
Can we adjourn for an hour? I move as an amendment that we adjourn until 8 o'clock.
I second.
Amendment put and declared carried on a show of hands.
The question of whether we should adjourn until to-morrow was not put to the House at all.
Cathaoirleach
No, because there was an amendment proposed to that, and the amendment was carried.
The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m., and resumed the debate on the Constitution (Amendment No. 19) Bill, at 8 p.m.
There are just a few points that were dealt with by some Senators that I would like to refer to. Senator Counihan, who opened the debate, followed a line of argument that I thought at the time we were not discussing in this House, a line of argument which, to my mind, would be more appropriate at a later stage, if such a stage were contemplated, and that is the abolition of the Seanad. He told the House that the country had to rely on this House for its protection. A number of Senators who followed him have, I think, pointed out the fallacy of that argument, so far as it has worked out, to a certain extent at any rate, in practice. To elaborate his arguments the Senator referred to various things that might be done by the present Executive. He talked about the insecurity of the judges, and referred to the case of General O'Duffy and so on. It would not be proper that I should refer in this debate to, or deal with, the position of General O'Duffy. That was dealt with in the other House. This House may have an opportunity at another stage of discussing that. I only mention it for the purpose of showing how very weak the Senator's argument was: that this Executive might contemplate, and that even if it did contemplate it had the power, to remove judges. Very definite powers are laid down in connection with the removal of judges. These powers rest not with the Executive itself, but with the two Houses of the Oireachtas. It does not lie within the province of the Executive Council to remove those people.
The Senator then went on to say, I presume for the purpose of showing the democratic composition of this House, that a third of the Senators who sit here were elected by the people. It is quite true that a third of the representatives here had been elected by the people, but, as was pointed out in the Dáil, the representatives who were elected by the people were elected a considerable time ago, and that as policies might be favourable in one set of circumstances to people, those policies might not be favourable to people at a later time, under different circumstances. It does not in any way appear to me to be relevant to suggest that some time in the not very recent past a certain proportion of the representatives in this House were elected by the people. It does not seem to be relevant as showing that this House is constituted in the democratic way that we regard, for example, the Dáil as being constituted. If we look back upon the method by which a third of the representatives of the Seanad were elected, we find, I think, that only 20 per cent. of the electorate voted. I think it was ridiculed by everybody as being a hopeless business to try and elect people on that basis with the Twenty-Six Counties as one constituency. I think it is accepted and admitted by everybody that an election taking place in that way could not, no matter what organisation candidates had behind them, give them an opportunity of getting in touch with the people. Certainly, so far as individuals are concerned, they had not a fair or reasonable opportunity of getting in touch with the people of this country. The only way in which they could get in touch with them would be by having smaller constituencies, or by some other method.
Senator Douglas dealt with two matters. I would like to deal with the particular one he mentioned about the report of the Committee: what I referred to as the third report. I did not suggest—I certainly did not intend to convey—that there were three separate Committees. I did not take the Senator's exact words, but I think the quotation that was made by him is absolutely correct. This is how that Article was set out:—
"Four months, made up of an initial period of one month and a subsequent period of three months, after which the Bill would become inoperative unless within that period a Referendum was demanded by 50,000 voters or by a majority of the Dáil or Seanad, the measure as passed by the Dáil being in such case submitted to the vote of the people for acceptance or rejection.
"In case of extreme urgency the Dáil had the power by a two-thirds majority vote to reduce the three months period to one month."
I think that is the one I had before me when speaking earlier. I did not intend to refer to three committees, because it was the one committee that made three different reports. If there has been any misunderstanding in the other House, and I do not remember there was, it may have been due to want of elaboration of the particular matter itself. I only quote that for the purpose of showing that certain periods of time were in the minds of the people who were on that Drafting Committee. The five months period is not as definite there as it is in this particular Bill, but such periods were at all events in the minds of the members of the Committee in varying ways. When the Bill finally came from the Dáil and was afterwards adopted it provided a period of nine months. I take it that was considered, at the time, in every way ample. In so far as the point of time is concerned it was considered as reasonable as it might be. I was thinking that one of the reasons why such a period as nine months was inserted at that time was because we had, in addition, the Initiative and the Referendum. I thought that was what was behind the minds of the Committee in providing that period of time. We have had no Referendum in this country. I imagine that machinery for the working out of, and the carrying into effect of, the Referendum would take a fairly considerable time.
Now the Referendum and the Initiative have gone by the board, and the present Executive Council are not to blame for that. So far as the point of time is concerned, I think, when you have not to avail of machinery such as that, when you have not to adopt this method of the Initiative and the Referendum, that the three months and the two months would seem to give ample time to anybody who wants to test, in any way they can test, the feelings of the country.
Senator Milroy referred to the President's absence. I should like to assure Senators that the reason the President is absent is that he is occupied in the other House. That is the reason and no other. I think Senators are aware that the President was anxious to be here to deal with this Bill himself and that it was only at the last moment I had to come along and take charge of it. There is no threat, implied or otherwise, as suggested by Senator Milroy, that this is the forerunner of another measure. Whatever threat exists, existed at the last election when we were putting our policy before the people. We put our policy very definitely, explicitly and clearly to the electorate. We stated in our programme that we proposed, if returned as the Government in this country, to alter the Seanad as at present constituted. If there is any threat in the measure before the House, that threat existed at the time we put that programme before the people. It was also suggested by Senator Milroy that this was an attempt to dump members on to local bodies. What are the facts? A Bill was submitted dealing with the commercial register. It was passed by the Dáil. We know the rest of the story. A Bill has been introduced providing for adult suffrage in the elections for local bodies. Is any of us so sanguine as to expect that this Bill will get through this House quite automatically and that there will be no difficulty about it? The elections have to be held before, I think, June of next year. The Seanad, under its present powers, can hold up that Bill for 18 or 20 months and can hold up this Bill for the same period. If the Seanad can hold up this Bill for 18 months and if it can hold up the Bill dealing with the electors for local authorities for 18 months, how can any Senator suggest that the aim of this Bill is to dump certain people on to local bodies?
Senator Johnson referred to the making public of these draft constitutions. That is a question on which I am not in a position to give an answer. It may be a matter that should be considered and it may be advisable that they should be published. I shall have the views of the Senator made known and get a decision if it be considered advisable.
Senator Wilson pointed out that there were no grounds for reducing the powers of the Seanad. I ask what grounds are there for retaining them? May we all consider, from various points of view, what would be an admirable, democratic body based on a democratic constitution? I am quite sure that Senators would differ with one another as to what would be an ideal system and an ideal constitution. But I feel that any democratic constitution must be based on not allowing the body that is elected to dictate to the people, but rather that the people should dictate to it. Hardly anybody listening to me will argue against that. If the people, under the fullest and freest system of election, with no obstacles in their way, elect an Executive, it is not for a body which is elected not primarily by the people to obstruct the people's will, as expressed in that way. I do not think that any constitutional authorities or anybody else can visualise any situation in which that would be right. What we object to is not the interference of this body but that they are not going to allow the people to tell them what they want, that they are going to dictate to the péople. That is what the Seanad has done and that is what we object to.
There may be argument and talk about ambiguity arising from time to time on various issues and various questions but, as pointed out here by Senators, a very definite issue went to the people in two successive general elections and nobody can say that that particular issue was not clear to the people's minds. While some Senators might argue that the issue was not made perfectly clear on the first occasion, no Senator can argue that, having been made twice over, it was not clear to the people's minds. In spite of that, the body nominated and elected here says: "We do not care if the people decide a thousand times, so long as we can stand in their way on this particular thing, we are going to do it." That is an attitude that, we say, cannot be tolerated, and that would not be tolerated in any country with any respect for democratic institutions. That is the point we have in introducing this Bill. We seek to limit the powers of this House in such a way that it will not be in a position to dictate to the people who have expressed their wishes. There is no question of dictation from the Executive. The dictation is the other way round. I see a Senator smile. He may smile, though we heard more from him and others about the will of the people than a lot of us shouted about it.
It is a great joke.
I suppose it is when it does not suit. The will of the people may have been all right to those who regarded it as a catch-cry for some time, but when the will of the people is asserted in another way, an attempt is made to obstruct it and to prevent its being exercised. This opposition is simply and solely designed to prevent the will of the people being exercised in the way they desire and wish. We are not trying to suggest that this body or some such body is not absolutely essential for the purpose of revision, for the purpose of securing that there will be adequate consideration of the various measures that come before us. I am not trying to dispute that useful work cannot be done along these lines but we recognise that there must be some sort of limit. After all, if there is not some such limit, why on earth is a Government elected to carry out a certain policy when it cannot carry out that policy? Why put a Government in office on a definite programme which it placed before the people and which the people ratified, if it is to be obstructed and prevented from carrying out that programme? It has been pointed out that the Seanad has power to hold up measures for 20 months. They can hold up for 20 months the programme we got the people to back and snap their fingers at the people. The programme on which the Government was elected must wait for 20 months. Does anybody think that an Executive Council can make any progress or get any distance with its programme if it has that position to contend with? That is the position we want to remove and that is the main reason and the sole reason this Bill is before the House.
Mr. O'Hanlon rose.
I thought that the debate had closed with the Minister's statement.
Cathaoirleach
I am afraid not. The Minister was speaking on the amendment, not winding up the debate on the motion for the Second Stage. Senator O'Hanlon is entitled to speak and I called on him.
I should like, first, to deal with some of the statements made by the Minister. In the speech of the Minister introducing the Bill, there was nothing on which anybody could hang an argument. In the speech which he has just made, the main reason advanced by the Minister for reducing the powers of the Seanad is the attitude taken by the Seanad in connection with the Oath question. If I may, I should like to deal now with a few of the other points raised by the Minister. The Minister, dealing with Senator Counihan's comment that some of the members of the Seanad were elected directly by the people, said that the people took no interest in that election—that only 20 per cent. of them voted. Actually, 25 per cent. of the people voted and the reason more people did not vote was that there was no issue before the people. It was a question between individuals and all the individuals were pro-Treaty at that time. If you had an election to the Seanad to-day and if you had Fianna Fáil candidates going before the people and Cumann na nGaedheal candidates going also, as many people would vote as would vote in a Dáil election. There is no question about that. The Minister urged as against the Seanad that people did not take an interest in the election but ignored the fact that the election was one as between individuals and that there was no national issue at stake.
The Minister said that quite sufficient power would be given to the Seanad under the Bill—three months plus two months—to test the opinion of the country. How is the Seanad going to test the opinion of the country? What power will the Seanad have to test the opinion of the country? Under this Bill, the Seanad would be merely degraded and would be of no consequence. It would have no powers whatsoever. As Senator O'Farrell said, rather than degrade the Seanad and give us a talking shop in which our decisions would be cast aside by the Executive at its will and disregarded, the simple thing would be to save expense and abolish the Seanad. The Minister said—I want to stress this— that the Executive had a mandate from the country, that they got that mandate at the last election. The mandate he said they got from the country was to reconstitute the Seanad. Accordingly, the points at issue at the present time in reference to the Seanad are—the numbers of the Seanad, the powers of the Seanad, the functions of the Seanad and the methods of election. These are all the points at issue. Does the Minister oppose the amendment which is before the House? If the Executive got a mandate from the people to reconstitute the Seanad, is it not perfectly logical, reasonable and consistent with every sound principle of procedure that a Joint Committee of the best members we can get from both Houses should go in detail into the question, assisted by the Cathaoirleach of this House and by the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil? If that is the interpretation of the Government's mandate, there can be no opposition of any kind to the amendment to the Bill before the House.
The Minister stated that it was the aim of the Executive Council to reduce the powers of the Seanad, and not to allow it to be a body to dictate to the people. What dictation has there been on the part of the Seanad? Wherein has it dictated to the people? He said there was a definite issue before the people at the last two elections concerning the Seanad and that they had a mandate to reconstitute the Seanad. What about the mandate the Government got previously at the general election in regard to the Seanad? Is the Seanad going to be a pawn in all this election by-play? Are we going to have, when dealing with such an important matter as the government of the country, whether it is to be the bicameral or unicameral system, one Party coming into office which simply wants to wipe out the Seanad, to reduce its powers to absurdity, and then to have another Party coming into office which feels that it must strive to set up a Seanad that will be hostile to a new Government? Is the Seanad to be the pawn of these Parties, or is it going to be treated as a serious problem in the system of government, and be debated on the merits? Are the people concerned in the matter to decide whether unicameral or bicameral is the better system? Let us not make the Seanad the pawn of election by-play, at one time with power and another time weak and degraded. I do not think that is a consistent attitude for an important body, charged with responsibility, to adopt towards the Second House in the government of this country.
The Minister dealt with the question of the Oath. Apparently the main objection to the Seanad's existence is that it is an important factor in the legislative life of this country, and is not dependent on the principle as to which system is best for the government of the country but on its record. The Minister passed over one matter very lightly. That was a reference which was in the speech of Senator Douglas. I must confess that I have been concerned in reading up the debates and the reports, and I have gone into them rather exhaustively on the question of motive. Various motives have been imputed to the Government that has gone out of office in regard to the power which it gave to the Seanad as it exists. I want to stress one thing, and that is that a Joint Committee was appointed in 1928. I had the honour to be one of the members of that Committee, of which Senator O'Farrell was also a member. That Committee discussed the whole question of the Seanad, its powers and functions. Generally speaking, there was not a Party division at the Committee. I call attention to one little matter in that connection which may be of interest. A resolution in these terms was proposed at a meeting of the Joint Committee:—
"That the Joint Committee recommends that for the purpose of election to the Seanad a panel of candidates be formed by the Dáil and Seanad in proportions to be decided later."
That motion was proposed by the then Deputy de Valera and was seconded by Deputy Tierney. Two voted for the motion, the two being the then Deputy de Valera and Deputy Tierney. No one on the Committee was as much in touch with, or had the ear of the Executive Council of the day as Deputy Tierney. There you had Deputy de Valera on one side, and Deputy Tierney on the other side, with the same point of view on such an important matter as the position of the Seanad. There was no question of Party bias or Party clash in that connection. I might now refer to President de Valera's statement in the other House on the question of motive. He referred to the fact that "until the time the present Administration took office" the Seanad had assisted the Administration in office and assisted it when there was every reason for not assisting it. He went on to say:—
"That Executive, looking to the future, and seeing the possibility that they would no longer command a majority here, made up its mind that it was going to strengthen the delaying and obstructing powers of the Second House."
That is a very important charge to make against the Seanad, that the Government that had gone out of office gave it very deliberate powers so that when Cumann na nGaedheal went out, the Seanad would be in a position to obstruct the new Government in its policy. We did not hear any of that to-day. That statement was made in the other House. In regard to the powers which the Seanad enjoys, the Joint Committee discussed the matter on the merits, and you had a division in which you had Deputy de Valera, Deputy Tierney and the Cumann na nGaedheal members voting together— the decision being unanimous with one dissentient—deciding the powers that the Seanad should enjoy. There is an absolute contradiction of the other statement which was made when. Deputy de Valera was a member of the Joint Committee, that decided that the powers which the Seanad at present enjoys should be conferred on it. Senator Douglas referred to a serious statement which was made in the other House as to motive. It was an exceedingly serious statement for the President of the Executive Council to make in the other House. I confess that when I read the President's comment in that connection in the Dáil I was a bit perturbed. He said that they were not approaching the matter in any biassed frame of mind; that the effective powers of delay given the Seanad were those put forward by one of the committees. To my amazement we had the revelation from Senator Douglas to-day that the President misrepresented the facts and misled the House at the time of the Second Reading of the Constitution (Amendment No. 19) Bill. I do not charge him with doing that deliberately, but the facts are that he misrepresented the position, which is as Senator Douglas stated. None of the draft reports from that Committee conferred on the Seanad only those powers which the present Executive feels inclined to give it. As a matter of fact every one of the three draft proposals would give to the Seanad greater powers than it enjoys to-day. The President took pains to stress the character of the Constitution Committee. He said they were a body of experts. He said that he approached the matter in a detached frame of mind, but that they had a good lead which it was proposed to follow, in giving the Seanad those small powers which are mentioned in the present Bill. I am surprised to find that that is the condition of things. I am quite satisfied that the President, jealous as he is of his reputation, will take the necessary steps to put that matter right when he goes before the other House, and speaks about the Seanad again. It was a very serious statement to make. It was entirely wrong and misleading. I am perfectly satisfied he did not do it deliberately, and I am perfectly sure he will take steps to put it right.
May I come to another record of the Seanad which has been referred to several times to-day? We had a statement with figures from Senator Douglas, which was very valuable. I would like to place the facts before the Seanad, because people would be inclined to believe from statements made, particularly on election platforms—and that is inferred from the comments of the Minister, when he referred to obstruction in the last part of his speech—that since Fianna Fáil came into office there has been obstruction here. Let us see what happened this year. The Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Bill, 1932 was passed by the Dáil on June 7. It was passed by the Seanad on the 30th June, 15 amendments being inserted, all of which were accepted by the Dáil. That was the first kick-off, indicating the attitude of the Seanad towards the constructive policy of the Fianna Fáil Government, when they came into office. The Seanad disposed of that Bill in 23 days. The Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 2) Bill, 1932 (Money Bill) was passed by the Dáil on the 30th June. Three recommendations were made in the Seanad which disposed of the Bill in 15 days. The Finance Bill, 1932 (Money Bill) was passed by the Dáil on 14th July. The Seanad made 13 recommendations, six of which were accepted by the Dáil. That Bill was disposed of in the Seanad in 14 days. The Control of Manufactures Bill, 1932 was passed by the Dáil on 12th July and by the Seanad on the 4th August. There were 29 amendments inserted by the Seanad. The Dáil agreed to 21 and disagreed with eight of them. That Bill was disposed of in the Seanad in 23 days. The Eucharistic Congress (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was passed by the Dáil on 9th June, and by the Seanad on 15th June. Three amendments inserted in the Seanad were agreed to by the Dáil. The Seanad disposed of the Bill in six days. The Seanad made 34 amendments in the Control of Prices Bill, 1932, all of which were accepted by the Dáil. The Seanad disposed of that Bill in 27 days. The Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1932 was passed by the Dáil on July 12th and by the Seanad on July 28th. Twelve amendments inserted by the Seanad were accepted by the Dáil. The Seanad disposed of that Bill in 16 days. The Emergency (Imposition of Duties) Bill, 1932, passed the Dáil on 15th July, and of five recommendations made in the Seanad three were accepted. The Seanad disposed of that Bill in five days. The Therapeutic Substances Bill passed the Dáil on November 18th. The Dáil accepted four amendments made in the Seanad. That Bill was disposed of by the Seanad in 19 days. Where is the hold-up; where is the delay?
Even since the new Government came into office the Road Transport Bill, 1933, which was passed by the Dáil on the 3rd May, was passed by the Seanad on the 7th June. The 11 amendments which were inserted here were agreed to by the Dáil. The Seanad disposed of that Bill in one month and four days. The Railways Bill, 1933, was passed by the Dáil on the 3rd May and by the Seanad on the 7th June. Of the 19 amendments inserted by the Seanad the Dáil agreed to eight and disagreed with one. That Bill was passed by the Seanad in one month and four days. The Road Traffic Bill, 1933, was passed by the Dáil on the 3rd May and by the Seanad on the 21st June. The Seanad inserted 59 amendments, all of which were accepted by the Dáil. The Seanad disposed of that Bill in one month and 18 days. The position is that the Seanad treated the constructive policy of the Government with the greatest possible respect. That policy has not been held up by the Seanad. There is the record of the Seanad since Fianna Fáil came into office. These statements stand uncontroverted and incontrovertible. The actual position is that from January 1st to June 30th we inserted 133 amendments in Bills which came before this House, and of these the Dáil agreed to 117. Surely that disposes of the question of motive, so that we need not have any further trouble about it.
Then there is the question of the cost and the usefulness of the Seanad. The President, commenting in regard to the usefulness of this House, on the Second Reading debate in the Dáil, said: "My own view is that it serves no useful purpose; that there is a waste of public money in maintaining it." Still, we have had the list indicating the useful service rendered by the Seanad in regard to the legislation of this country. You have had that list submitted to this House by Senator Douglas. According to him since the origin of the Seanad, the amendments inserted in this House number 1,377 and the amendments agreed to by the other House numbered 1,323. Yet the question is raised as to the usefulness of this House. If you had 1,377 amendments inserted in Bills in this House and if you had the preponderating majority of these amendments thrown out by the other House, there might be some question of the usefulness of the Seanad. But when you had 1,377 amendments inserted here and 1,323 accepted by the other House, then the question of the usefulness of this House is not open to question. It does not arise.
In that connection Senator Douglas also made reference to tributes which had been paid to the Seanad. I should like to go a little further in that connection in regard to the usefulness of this House. It will be within the memory of everyone who was here within the last few months that in connection with the Second Reading of the Traffic Bill the Vice-President stated:
"I am very grateful to the members of the Seanad who have spoken on this Bill. The number of suggestions of a useful kind that have been made is quite large. I think it is a good Bill and I have no doubt that as a result of the discussions here and of suggestions made and of amendments moved, it will be still further improved."
Certainly the Vice-President had no difficulty in making up his mind as to the useful purpose served by the Seanad in connection with the different stages of the Road Traffic Bill. The Minister for Industry and Commerce— let me quote again what Senator Wilson read out—said on the Final Stage of the Railways Bill:
"I should like, in conclusion, to express appreciation of the manner in which the Seanad has given consideration to this Bill and to the Road Transport Bill. The discussions we have had here have been particularly useful, and the amendments inserted in both Bills considerably improved them. It is my intention to recommend the Dáil to accept all the amendments."
There is testimony to this House, which in a sense has been and is being maligned, testimony given by members of the Executive Council itself. You remember also the words which were expressed as late as last week by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health when he said:
"My relations with this House have been very friendly."
He had not been disappointed, and had no reason in connection with the National Health Insurance Bill to feel disappointed, at the attitude which Senators took in connection with that Bill. As a matter of fact Senator Wilson led a detachment of members of his own Party away from the leaders of the Party on that day to support the Minister and his Bill on a point which he thought deserving of support. An amendment was carried here against arguments which had been advanced by leaders of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. Notwithstanding these arguments the House supported the Minister because it felt the Minister was right.
The question of the usefulness of the Seanad, I think, has been very well disposed of, and if the question of its usefulness is admitted, I do not think the question of cost arises. Certain comparisons were made between the cost of this House to the State and the cost of the Viceregal Department. It is not necessary to labour that. It is rather unworthy that any comment in that respect should be made. It is easy, of course, to make the case that economies must be effected. There are people in this country who have been making up a very strong case that one Guard should be taken out of every barrack and that that would mean a saving to the State. There have been people in the other House also making the contention: "Why have an Army? What is the purpose of the Army? We do not want to attack anybody, and it is too small for defensive purposes." That argument has been advanced in the other House. We have had the contention also advanced in regard to the other House: "Why have 153 Deputies? Could it not be argued that the legislative interests of the State could be served by 120 Deputies? Could there not be a considerable saving there? Is there any reason why the number of Deputies in the Dáil should not be reduced?" If you want to pursue that to its logical conclusion, and if we recognise the way that Parliamentary machinery operates, could there not be an arrangement that when the 152 Deputies are elected, they should be called together to elect a President, and that then either the President should himself elect his Executive Council or that the Deputies should ratify his nominees, hand over all authority to the Executive Council, and let all Deputies go home? Considerable economies could, no doubt, be effected in that way, but these economies could only be effected if we were to disregard the democratic character of our institutions. There is something to be said for on the grounds of economy, but there is a lot to be said against it too. I hope this first step taken in connection with the Seanad will be halted before it proceeds any further.
May I just deal with a few points, or take another comment of the President in the other House on the Second Stage of the Bill? The President said that "the Seanad was a mere reflection of this House that such an Assembly was bound to be." He said that this House was a mere reflection of the Dáil. That is exactly what it is not. Perhaps it is because it is exactly not that, that this Bill is being introduced. If this House were an exact reflection of the other House you would have the same majority in this House, and the same political allegiances as you have in the other House. What is the position? You have a Government in the other House and you have the majority in this House opposed to that Government. Is that not as it should be? What is the purpose of this House? It is regarded as a revising Chamber, as a cooling Chamber. It is regarded as a brake against hasty, ill-advised and hastily-conceived legislation. It serves its purpose in these respects. If you had the position that with every change of Government, the majority in this House would be so constituted that this majority would by some process or other be of the same political faith as the majority in the other House, there would be only one thing to do, and that would be to abolish this House. It would be an exact reflection of the other House. It is because the likelihood is that any new Government coming into office will probably find itself for a time faced with a majority against it in this House, that the Seanad as an institution is necessary. It serves as a defence against the introduction of hastily conceived or ill-advised legislation. Members of Fianna Fáil might find that to their advantage if they are long enough in office.
If Fianna Fáil are in office after the next two triennial elections, they will have a majority in this House. Senators should consider what will be the future position of people in this country who have certain fears concerning industrial development here. There are people in this country who are afraid to invest their money in an Irish undertaking, who are afraid to open up industrial enterprises because they feel that if there was a general election and Fianna Fáil were not successful, there might be a complete departure from the full protectionist attitude which has been adopted by the Fianna Fáil Government. If Fianna Fáil gets a majority in this House, as they will get if they are long enough in office, I need not pause to comment on that aspect of the matter, how the fears of such people will not be justified because the real merit of this institution will prove to be that it is not a reflection of the other House. Its real merit is that if a new Government takes up office imbued with the idea of sweeping away existing institutions, and replacing them overnight by other institutions, it will have to recognise that it has the Seanad to reckon with. The people know that they have in this House a number of men of considerable experience, of great steadiness, with very useful records, and with national records too, Any delay in legislation that may take place will all be to the national interest.
Senator Wilson referred to criticism of the Seanad, and he said that it had been charged with being anti-national and anti-Irish. I have heard the Seanad myself referred to as a Freemason Seanad. Various charges have been made against the Seanad. I am rather surprised to know how certain leading people in this State, in a sense, have pandered to certain ill-formed criticism throughout the country in regard to this House. The Minister now present, in a statement in Balla, said: "Every Bill they had passed was being held up."
I should like to refer to that matter now. I intended doing so in my reply. It is the first time that the statement has been called to my notice. I should like to see the report. I do not say that the Senator has not got it, but it is the first time I ever heard of that statement. It was never called to my notice.
I shall sent the Minister the reference in the Irish Press.
I do not dispute the Senator's statement that it appeared there.
I can send it to the Minister to-morrow.
I shall again quote the high authority of the Irish Press in substantiation of another statement reported to have been made by no less a personage than the President himself. The President is reported to have said in an address to Press representatives in Government Buildings:—
"A hostile Seanad is constantly attempting to harass the Government by mutilating its measures or wilfully delaying them as long as the Government's powers of enforcing its measures are open to doubt."
That is not a fair comment on the record of this House. The attitude of the House has not been to mutilate measures. The attitude of the House has been helpful to the present Government, and it is entirely unfair that the head of the State should make such an ill-informed comment as that. I am surprised at the President pandering to that ill-informed opinion which finds expression at public meetings. Speaking at Limerick—I am still quoting the Irish Press—when some voice cried out: “Do away with the Seanad,” the President replied: “Perhaps when we come at the next election we shall do that also.” Why does the President want to do away with this House? Is the Minister or the President opposed to bicameral Government? Is the opposition to the Seanad because of its record? Is it anti-National or anti-Irish? Is it obstructing the Government in carrying out its programme? It is not. What is the record of the Seanad? I have gone to some pains to get this. I want to get the record of this “anti-National” Seanad. Might I, before I proceed further in regard to this record, quote from a leading article in the Irish Press which appeared when this Bill was introduced in the other House? This article stated:—
"In the Twenty-Six Counties, however, the Seanad, since its first creation, has given itself the duty of obstructing public opinion, and endeavouring to defeat its control of legislation."
What further does it say?
Is it not quite true?
Where are the proofs?
There will be lots of them when I come to speak.
Let me quote further from this leading article in the Irish Press.
"Bills were rushed through the Dáil which deprived every citizen of his liberty of person and the inviolability of his home. In this case the Free State Seanad never once sought to exercise the powers of delaying legislation."
What is the record of the Seanad in regard to the violation of the individual's home in this country? I would ask Senators to take their minds back to the period just following the civil war when anger had been aroused and passions inflamed and when Senators themselves had suffered and when the spirit of revenge stalked through this land. One of the first measures introduced by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government in this country was the Public Safety (Emergency Powers) Bill, 1923. What was the attitude of this Seanad towards the Government of the day? What was the attitude of some of the Senators who spoke in connection with this Bill and who voted on this Bill and who had had their homes burned and who had suffered themselves in their persons and in their property? The Bill proposed to permit an Executive Minister to procure the arrest and detention of any person suspected of having committed specified offences. That is what the Bill, amongst other things, set itself out to do. The Minister was to act in the matter on the report of an officer of the military or police forces. The Seanad deleted the latter provision and compelled the Minister, in each case, to certify in writing that there was ground for suspicion, and the onus of arrest and detention was thus placed on the Minister directly. An Appeal Council was established by the Bill and one of the amendments, as some Senators will, I am sure, remember, was that, on this Appeal Council, there should be at least one barrister or one solicitor of five years standing. On whose account was that amendment inserted? The Seanad provided that, on receipt of a report from the Appeal Council that there was no reasonable ground for suspecting a person, the Executive Minister should order that person's release or place him on trial. On whose account was that amendment inserted and what purpose did it purport to serve? The Bill provided that a person found guilty of certain offences should be sentenced to penal servitude for any term not less than three years. The Seanad amended this to such term of penal servitude as the judge might decide. The Seanad further inserted an amendment providing for the inspection of prisons and detention camps and arranged that visiting be allowed. What was the purpose of these amendments inserted by the Seanad? The writer of that leading article, and those who subscribed to it, should investigate the facts as stated by me and he might then write another article having more regard for the truth and telling the "truth in the news" about the Seanad.
The Courts of Justice Bill, 1924, which came before this House in 1924, made a distinction, as Senators will remember, between the District Justices and Judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court and the Circuit Court. The Bill placed the salaries of the Judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court and the Circuit Court on the Central Fund, thus making the judges practically immune from any Ministerial or Parliamentary interference of any kind, but it proposed that it should apply differently to District Justices. The Seanad inserted an amendment in that Bill which brought it about that District Justices were to be treated in exactly the same manner as the other judges. On whose account did the Seanad get inserted that amendment? The Public Safety (Powers of Arrest and Detention) (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1924, gave certain powers of arrest to the military. The Seanad inserted an amendment providing that no dwellinghouse should be entered for the purpose of effecting such an arrest unless, so far as practicable, the military were accompanied by a member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police force or the Guards. On whose account and for what purpose was that amendment inserted? The Public Safety (Punishment of Offences) (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1924, imposed specified punishment, including whipping, for certain offences. The Seanad inserted an amendment taking away the jurisdiction of a court of summary jurisdiction in such cases, unless, in the opinion of the court, the offence was a minor one fit to be tried summarily. The Treasonable Offences Bill, 1925, made amenable persons aiding or abetting persons who were charged with committing treason or other offences. The Seanad inserted two amendments providing that the person so charged with aiding or abetting might satisfy the court that he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that he was so aiding or abetting. The Bill also made it an offence—and this is very important, too—for persons to incite members of the military or police forces to refuse to obey the orders of their superior officers. The Seanad inserted an amendment providing for the insertion of the word "lawful" before the word "orders." The Juries (Protection) Bill, 1929, provided that a majority vote of nine out of 12 should prevail. The Seanad inserted an amendment providing that, in criminal cases, on a charge for which the penalty was death, the foreman of the jury should privately inform the trial judge whether the decision was unanimous or not, and, if the decision was not unanimous, the number of dissentients. In the latter case, the presiding judge should report to the Minister. In the case of persons refusing to recognise the court, the Bill provided that the judge should sentence such persons to six months' imprisonment for contempt of court. The Seanad altered the word "shall" to "may."
I have given that record of the Seanad since the time of its creation, in reference to important matters which came before it, affecting to a great degree the lives and liberties of the people, and my list in that respect, I claim again, goes uncontroverted and is incontrovertible and is, and must be, a complete and satisfactory answer to any reasonably-minded man who charges the Seanad as the Seanad has been charged in that leading article which appeared recently in the Irish Press.
Might I ask the Senator if he could say how many of these amendments were inserted by the Seanad in spite of the opposition of the Government or how many were agreed to by the Government?
I am sure that very many of them were inserted in spite of the opposition of the Government, so far as I know.
Cathaoirleach
All these amendments were inserted in spite of the opposition of the Government at that time.
I thought that, perhaps, the Senator knew.
There is not very much reason to say anything more. I have dealt with the question of motive. I have dealt with the question of the usefulness of this House. I have dealt with the question of the cost of this House to the nation. I have dealt with the question of the record of this House and the record of this House since the advent of the Fianna Fáil Party to office. I think I have shown conclusively that this House has not been the tool of any Government and is not the tool of any Government and is less likely, in the future, to be the tool of any Government in office and I am perfectly satisfied that the Seanad will do the logical and sensible thing in this matter—there has been no opposition to it at all—and that is, if any question arises as to the powers and functions of and the manner of election to the Seanad, to let the whole question be investigated by a committee of both Houses and let that committee make its report and, then, advised by that committee, the Executive Council will be in a position, if necessary and if advisable, to introduce legislation of such a character as will meet with satisfaction, based on the reasonableness of the whole position and recognising the fact that the Seanad has nothing to be ashamed of and can stand on its own record. It is a pity that that criticism of the Seanad should be made, and it is a pity that any paper should write as follows:—
"Not one Irishman or woman will have any sympathy with an assembly which went out of its way for ten years to flout popular opinion in this country and, in a futile series of futile efforts, did its worst to stem the march of the nation."
Where is the nation marching to and how has the Seanad stemmed the march of the nation? I should like anyone, at some time, if the opportunity does not offer now, to get up in the House and specifically set out how this Seanad, by rejecting any motion or by the insertion of amendments has, in any way, stemmed the onward march of the nation. I should like to say that, in connection with the Oath —the one thing that has been mentioned—there is no point in debating the Oath or raising the old question of the Oath being a violation of the Treaty. I do not want to pass comment on any Senator's speech but I was rather surprised at Senator Dowdall's attitude. He referred to two little circumstances in this House, one, where a Senator was proposing a motion and sufficient Senators did not wait, at that hour, to hear him. That is one reason why Senator Dowdall expressed himself as supporting this Bill. On another evening, there was a little bit of by-play in this House, which everyone took as being perfectly harmless. A Senator mentioned to the Chair that there was not a quorum. The Cathaoirleach ruled that there was and, shortly after, that Senator proceeded to make a speech, and another Senator came in and called the attention of the Chair to the fact that there was not a quorum. Senator Dowdall says that that is one further reason why he is opposed to the existence of the Seanad. The Senator referred to the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act and, of course, that was serious. Senator Wilson has dealt with that. If any charge could be made against the Seanad this would be a serious charge, that, in a time of national emergency, when the Government proposed to take certain action and wanted to have certain powers in itself to meet that emergency, this House positively refused to give it those powers in that time of national emergency. Senator Wilson has disposed of that and, surely, it is within the knowledge of Senator Dowdall that, at the time, Senators were not very free agents. They had to be guarded and certain threats had been made to Senators and it is, surely, within the knowledge of the Senator that the list of the passengers who left Ireland on the boats going to England, on the Friday night before that Bill was finally passed in this House, would make interesting reading. That is all I need say about that.
Tell us about it.
If the Senator does not know about it, he does not know much about current affairs. I will tell him another time. The Dáil dealt with the Bill there and then, taking a couple of days, and the Seanad dealt with it, as Senator Dowdall says, in just about 24 hours.
And as I will deal with you when I get a chance.
Therefore, according to Senator Dowdall, the powers of this House must be whittled down; you must practically abolish it. Why, if you want to be logical, not whittle down the powers of the Dáil? If this House deals with certain matters, in a time of national emergency, and with what seemed to be undue haste, and, if the Dáil deals with certain matters with what seems to some to be undue haste, and, if it is proposed to take from the powers of the Seanad, and in a sense to degrade the Seanad, all leading up, as some have said to its abolition perhaps—why not take the same steps in connection with the Dáil? Let us be logical and let us be sensible.
It has happened already in one Bill.
It is not necessary for me to say any more. I will not follow the example of another Senator who took all the speeches made by other Senators and talked about obstructing the Government in respect of its programme, and thwarting the will of the people. I cannot, at the moment, lay my hands on all the statements that were made, but I think there is no need to refer to them. The Seanad has a proud record of service. It is composed of honourable men and women, and has nothing to be ashamed of in its past. If the whole question is to be investigated, let it be investigated calmly and dispassionately. Let us, as the President himself said, approach it in a detached state of mind: with an open mind on the matter. The way to do that is by setting up a joint committee of the two Houses that will go into all the facts, investigate the whole of the position and make its report. So far, no case has been made against that proposition.
The debate to-night has covered the whole subject very exhaustively, but there is one aspect of it which, I think, is rather being forgotten and to which I should like to refer. We have heard an absolute and convincing defence of the utility of the Seanad in the past; its broad outlook, its national outlook, and its wholesome corrective effect on legislation. But I do not think that we have had sufficient regard to the special conditions of the country at the present time in relation to bicameral legislation. Senator Douglas referred generally, and more or less historically, to the parallel with other countries. I think if you are to examine this question in the proper spirit you must have regard to the facts as they exist. I think any of us who are honest with ourselves must admit that the country is at present in a very crude state of political development. You see it on every side. Senators heard the speech of Senator Quirke who, I am sure, has great influence in his own district. He talked about national interests and the popular will. But is not that the talk of the hustings and rather of the mob orator? Is it not much of the pot pourri of politicians?
There is the politician. We have to have the mob, unfortunately, in the nature of the circumstances of the case where we have a popular electorate; a large number of people who naturally understand very little about the essence of politics. We have the whole thing conditioned very largely by what one person said, "a counting of heads, irrespective of their contents." I am not concerned with any politician who goes out and exploits that state of affairs to the utmost, but what I am concerned about is that when people get into office and get into power they should say to themselves: "Well, we know what that is worth, but we have another side to our work. We have all the responsibility of Ministers dealing with this thing in calm reason, and we must have regard to realities." I am sure that the Minister, if he is honest with himself, will realise that there is a terrible lot of nonsense talked about the popular will. I could go out and raise a cheer all over the country at the moment by appealing to the farmers and telling them that the way to settle their troubles was by turning on the printing presses and giving them plenty of money. If I did that I would be cheered to the echo. There is a lot of that going on. I saw manifestoes from certain sections suggesting that a remedy such as I have mentioned was the one to apply. It is human in a politician to make use of that popular ignorance, but when it comes to loosing that, to putting it in practice in office, it' is a very different matter.
As long as that spirit is abroad, and as long as our politicians have not yet learned that they are also statesmen at the same time, there is bound to be a necessity for a Second House. There is in this country, naturally, a lack of experience in regard to tried political systems. We are learning, and while we are learning it is above all necessary that there should be a House of this sort. Senator Dowdall knows that perfectly well. He is a man of experience, and he knows there is every necessity for a House of this kind to put a brake on the sort of wild stuff that is given out by a lot of politicians who go out and stump the country. They appeal to large numbers of boys and girls who have no job and are ready for political adventure, and then come back and say: "That is the popular will; put all these wild doctrines into practice." The only door between them and the carrying out of these light and fancy remedies is provided by a Second Chamber, so that I think the necessity for a Second House will remain for years to come. Everybody knows how that sort of stuff can be put over on the electorate. A House of this kind should exist where, to a certain extent, calm deliberation should have play and where the statesman can counteract the politician.
Not being in the inner councils of the Government, I think I can safely say that I question the belief that it is the intention of the Government to abolish the Seanad altogether. Therefore, I think it is very unfortunate that an entire day has been spent in discussing this Bill from that point of view. Almost no reference has been made to the advantages or disadvantages of decreasing the length of time which a Bill can be held up from 18 months to three months, which is what this Bill proposes. If I thought it was the intention of the Government to use this Bill as a means of abolishing us altogether I would vote for it, because I think that when you get a tap on the shoulder it is pleasanter to arrange for your own death than to have somebody else arranging it for you. However, some members of the Seanad seem to think that this is a gentle hint and, consequently, they wish to have a joint committee to arrange the pomp, the circumstance and the ritual by which we abolish ourselves in the manner of the French aristocrat getting out his handkerchief and taking a pinch of snuff. I thoroughly approve of that method, and so I will assist the Opposition to arrange for the obsequies by voting for the amendment. I do hope, however, that whatever the Joint Committee decides is to be the proper way by which the Seanad, as we know it, vanishes and a new Seanad, perhaps, takes its place, that the new Seanad, at any rate, will not be the subject of ridicule which this Seanad has undoubtedly been for years. I doubt if it were not for ourselves and the Lord Mayor of Dublin that any pantomime could have existed, for want of jokes, in the last four years. It would not have lasted very long. Both were made the subject of the principal jokes that one heard. I think that is very unfortunate. As Senators know, I think ours is the only House of the two that starts its proceedings with prayer for Divine guidance.
The Dáil does too.
Mr. Robinson
Perhaps it does now. It is an unfortunate fact that on one occasion the Opposition misinterpreted the Divine guidance so far as the Oath Bill was concerned, but that is just by the way. I do think that we ought to make some effort, or get the Government of the day to make some effort, to see that the institutions in this country are not made a source of perpetual jest. I think that attitude may have been encouraged by the fact that for a long number of years articles have appeared in the Irish Times rather ridiculing the Dáil. That paper did not ridicule the Seanad, its attitude being rather the same as that expressed by Senator Sir John Keane to-night: that we are rather superior beings, that we do not get in any way contaminated with the hustings like Senator Quirke and all that sort of business. I think that is unfortunate. All the institutions of this country, legislative and others—for instance the police—should be protected. We read the other day of a rag carried out by university undergraduates, when an attempt was made to knock off a policeman's hat. The policeman was expected to behave properly and to take the whole thing as a joke. I do not think the police should be interfered with and knocked about like that. Neither do I think that the Seanad or the Dáil should be the subject of perpetual ridicule in the papers and with the public generally. I think one of the things that has militated against the Seanad in this country is the fact that it has always been the subject of ridicule. I hope that, whatever emerges from the obsequies that are being arranged for us by the Joint Committee, there will be some body at any rate set up that will command the respect of the general public in this country.
I do not agree altogether with my colleague when he says that it is because of the way this House has been ridiculed that it has not the prestige and the status it ought to have. Senator O'Hanlon, by his usual innocent method, gave the House a lot of reasons and statistics as to how useful we are. There is no question that in dealing with Bills we could have done very useful work here. I submit that this House, since the change of Government, definitely laid itself out deliberately, I will not say to spike the principle of a Bill, but deliberately to spike the principle of the Government's policy. Now, rightly or wrongly, this country was governed by a Government for ten years. By a coup that Government succeeded in taking over the reins of government and retained them by force of arms. At the outset the members of this House were nominated by that Government and it ruled here to a great extent, but as Senator O'Hanlon pointed out, during the years 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927 and up to 1928, this House acted in an independent manner. It went so far as to pass a motion calling on the Executive Council of the time to hold the land annuities—that they were not legally due. This House was independent at that time, though Senator O'Hanlon did not tell us anything about that. I think the Senator himself was an independent member of the House at that time.
Is the Senator charging the Seanad with that?
I am not charging anything. I am telling the facts, though. I have not the means of ascertaining the facts like the Senator. In 1928 the Fianna Fáil members came into this House. From the day on which we took our seats in 1928 there was a complete change of aspect over the whole House. Immediately a party atmosphere was created—simply and solely because the six Fianna Fáil members who were elected decided to take their seats here. Since that time you have had the Cumann na nGaedheal organisation here, a Unionist Party, a Fianna Fáil Party——
And the Labour Party.
At all events the House divided itself into Parties. Whatever independence it asserted in holding up Bills in the previous régime, it certainly acted every time up to 1928 at the whim of the Ministers of Cumann na nGaedheal. Obvious amendments were introduced to Bills. It was admitted by members of Cumann na nGaedheal that these amendments would improve the Bills but because a Cumann na nGaedheal Minister said he wanted the Bill through for cussedness or because it was a vote of confidence or for any other reason, Senators answered to the whip every time. I submit that the whole status of this House and the method of election is in a hopeless position and is bringing this House into ridicule. This House does not get the respect which it would deserve if elected by the people, or by some other means than the present system. Senator Milroy, Senator O'Hanlon and other Senators attempted to lead us to believe that they were very anxious to improve Bills and to further the policy of the Government. If we had that spirit in the House during the last few months, I believe the prestige of this House would have been enhanced and that we would have proven to the people who, as Senator Robinson has said, have been ridiculing this House that it was anything but a subject for ridicule. As regards the Bill, I am quite satisfied that a time limit of five months is sufficient. A month or two, one way or the other, would not make much difference, but I think it is not right for any House to hold up a Bill for a longer period than about that period. To hold up a Bill for any greater period serves no useful purpose. Take the case of the Coercion Bill, which was before the House in October, 1931. There was then no opportunity for the people to get away from gun-bully methods. By an extraordinary coincidence, the Cumann na nGaedheal Government decided to go to the country when they has a position created for themselves, and inside five months the people had reversed the verdict. Yet, the Seanad, after their caucus meetings, decided to let that Bill through at the whim of all the Ministers of the State who came in and utilised the time that Senators should have occupied. The people turned down that measure inside five months and I think that five months is sufficient to hold up any Bill. If the measure is of such serious importance to the people, they will very soon show their teeth and back up the Seanad in their decision, if it is in their interests.
I hope that one point made by Senator MacEllin will impress the Government and the people of this country. He made a point about Fianna Fáil coming into this House in 1928. They have been claiming the sympathy of the people since this State was established, because they stayed out of this House until 1928 and out of the Dáil until 1926.
Nonsense.
They ask the people to-day to say they were right, because they did in 1926 and 1928 what the people who accepted the Treaty did in 1922. That is his point, and it is a point against his own Party and his own Government. We were right or wrong to accept the Treaty. We accepted it in 1922. The Senator's Party accepted it in 1926.
Nonsense. I was not talking about that at all.
You have made the best point made to-day against the abolition of the Seanad.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Bagwell, John.
- Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
- Bellingham, Sir Edward.
- Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
- Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
- Browne, Miss Kathleen.
- Costello, Mrs.
- Crosbie, George.
- Douglas, James G.
- Duffy, Michael.
- Farren, Thomas.
- Garahan, Hugh.
- Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
- Griffith, Sir John Purser.
- Guinness, Henry S.
- Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
- Keane, Sir John.
- Kennedy, Cornelius.
- McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
- Milroy, Seán.
- Moran, James.
- O'Connor, Joseph.
- O'Farrell, John T.
- O'Hanlon, M.F.
- O'Rourke, Brian.
- Parkinson, James J.
- Robinson, David L.
- Staines, Michael.
- Toal, Thomas.
- Wilson, Richard.
Níl
- Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
- Dowdall, J.C.
- Johnson, Thomas.
- MacEllin, Seán E.
- O'Neill, L.
- Quirke, William.
- Robinson, Séamus.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators O'Hanlon and Douglas; Níl: Senators S. Robinson and Johnson.
Amendment declared carried.
On behalf of Senator Counihan I move:
"That it is expedient that a joint committee consisting of five members of the Seanad and five members of the Dáil, with the Chairman of each house ex officio, be set up to consider and report on the changes, if any, necessary in the constitution and powers of the Seanad.”
I second it.
Question put and declared carried.