With the permission of the House I wish to say a few words of a more or less personal character. When the discussion on the Agricultural Products (Regulation of Export) Bill was proceeding yesterday a division took place, 33 Senators being present and voting. Immediately afterwards the Moneylenders (No. 2) Bill was under discussion and was of very great importance to the poor. During the discussion you, a Chathaoirligh, left the Chair, the Leas-Chathaoirleach also left the House, and very few Senators remained. It appeared to me that there was a boycott on, for what reason I could not decide. I felt that it was an insult to the Minister, was against the dignity of the House, and that it was heartless to those that the Bill we were discussing affects. I drew attention to the fact that a quorum was not present, and I fear that I made some caustic remarks on the absence of some of the Senators. When you returned to the House, a Chathaoirligh, you told us that you and many members of the Seanad, with the Minister, had been endeavouring to create a bridge to deal with the situation which had arisen on the Agricultural Products (Regulation of Export) Bill. I want to withdraw now, unreservedly, any remarks I made in reference to the absence of so many Senators. I wish further to have it placed on record that the absence of the Senators when we were dealing with the Moneylenders Bill was amply justified by your statement.
Senator's Explanation.
Cathaoirleach
I am very glad Senator O'Neill has made that statement.
On the same matter I wish to say that I was one of those— in fact the one—who drew particular attention to the fact that many Senators were absent from the Opposition Benches. While stressing the valuable assistance they could have rendered if they were here on that occasion, I passed various remarks, to the effect that if we were discussing a Bill in which provision was being made to increase income tax, super tax, or where monetary interests would be concerned, the Opposition Benches would be full, but when discussing a Bill to protect the poor people of the country from moneylenders—the wolves, as I termed them—men with valuable knowledge at their command were not here to assist us. Unlike Senator O'Neill, I am afraid I cannot withdraw substantially what I said yesterday. In my statement I did not include those who were concerned in the conference which was going on at the time with the Minister for Agriculture to bridge over a difficulty which had arisen. Apart from those who were implicated in that conference, there are various other Senators on the Opposition Benches who, on every occasion that any legislation——
Cathaoirleach
The Senator wishes to refer to a particular incident. He should not refer to any other occasion.
I am sorry. What I wish to say is that I did not wish any of my remarks to apply to Senators who were engaged on the conference, which was absolutely necessary. I meant my remarks to be directed to those who were absent from the debate, and who did not remain over for the Moneylenders Bill, which was really a Bill for the betterment of the condition of the poor people.