Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jun 1934

Vol. 18 No. 25

Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on the Exclusion of Certain Duly Authorised Visitors. - Motion by Leas-Chathaoirleach.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

On the 28th February last the following resolution was passed by the Seanad:—

"That the matter of the exclusion by Military Policemen of visitors to whom admission tickets had been issued by the Cathaoirleach for the sitting of the House on Wednesday, 21st February, 1934, be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for inquiry and report."

The committee fully investigated the matter which had been referred to them. They drafted a report, and this report is now submitted to the House for its adoption. I think that every information which Senators may require in coming to a decision on this matter has been laid before them. I do not propose to go any further into it except formally to move:—"That the report be adopted."

Mr. O'Rourke

I second.

Mr. Dowdall

I cannot say that I have studied this Report exhaustively, but I have looked through it and I am of the opinion that it should be referred back to the committee. I am not making any contention that there was no breach of privilege. I would be prepared to take the report of the committee on that, but there are certain portions of this report which, I think, it would be wrong for the House to adopt. I will quote from paragraph 3 (a) on page 11 which says:—

"In the first place, it is very unlikely that the recipient of an official telephone message received for transmission to a third person should forthwith transmit to that person a message substantially different from that which he had just received."

We all know that in the transmission of telephone messages, or of verbal messages of any sort, how easy it is for misunderstandings to creep in. The report goes on:—

"Such an occurrence would be credible if the subsequent action of the person for whom the message was intended was consistent with his having received the message which he said he received and inconsistent with his having received the message as originally given."

I object very much to what follows, and I think it would be very unwise for this House to adopt it:—

"But we find that the Minister's subsequent action was consistent with his having received the message as originally given, and inconsistent with his having received the message which he said he received."

That is tantamount to saying that the Minister was guilty of wilful misrepresentation, and that is founded on a telephone message sent by the Superintendent of this House to the Chief of Staff who, in turn, communicated either verbally or on the telephone with the Minister for Defence who, in turn, gave instructions for a certain order to be given. I am making no contention with regard to the validity of the order. The Minister then, rightly or wrongly, issued an order preventing the admission of certain persons into this House.

In dealing with this let me give an example which arose here on the debate on the Bill for the abolition of the Seanad. There was the admitted fact that the President communicated to pressmen in his presence certain information, and of the three leading papers—the Irish Times, the Irish Independent and the Irish Press—the message which the President had given them was not identical in one of them. Pressmen, as a rule, are very alert and accurate on important occasions, but when differences of that sort can creep in it would be very wrong to allege deliberate misrepresentation on the part of the Minister for Defence arising out of one telephone conversation and one oral conversation. To attribute to the Minister deliberate misrepresentation in the report we are asked to adopt would, I think, be very wrong. I accordingly move: “That this report be referred back to the committee.”

Cathaoirleach

That is an amendment to the motion. Is the amendment seconded?

Mr. S. Robinson

I second.

Mr. Brown

What exactly is the amendment?

Cathaoirleach

To have the report referred back to the committee. In other words, not to adopt the report.

Mr. Brown

For what purpose is it being referred back?

Cathaoirleach

Senator Dowdall's argument was that the findings of the committee were not in consonance with the evidence. Is not that the idea? This is a direct negative.

Mr. Dowdall

If it came up on this report that there was a breach of privilege I would not move a direct negative. I do not know sufficient about it to do so. I object to the form and to certain of the grounds given and the manner in which they were set forth in the report.

Colonel Moore

Can I speak on the amendment?

Cathaoirleach

This being a direct negative, there can be no amendment.

Mr. Farren

With all respect, while I am the last to differ with the decision of the Chair, it is not my experience when a report comes up for consideration that referring it back is a direct negative.

Cathaoirleach

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, Senator, as I am to mine.

Mr. Counihan

The amendment before the House is that the report be not adopted. Is not that correct?

Senators

No.

Mr. Dowdall

In its present form.

Cathaoirleach

I do not see why I should not allow the amendment, leaving open for discussion the question that it be referred back to the committee for further consideration.

Mr. Brown

With great respect, I do not think you should do that without Senator Dowdall explaining to the House the purpose for which it is to be referred back. If it is only referred back that is a direct negative. If the Senator has some actual direction to give the committee it would be in order.

Cathaoirleach

I take it that the Senator means to suggest inaccuracy in the deductions of the committee.

Mr. Dowdall

Precisely. I do not think the committee was entitled to deduce from the evidence before them that the Minister had committed wilful misrepresentation. In effect, that is what one paragraph means.

Mr. Brown

That would be a reason for refusing to adopt the report, but not for sending it back. I am a member of the committee, but I was not present when the inquiry took place. I am very anxious that there should not be anything referred back that they cannot deal with. There is nothing to deal with, unless the Senator puts into the amendment some direction as to what they are to do when the report is referred back.

Mr. O'Neill

With all respect to the Chair——

Cathaoirleach

Please do not say with all due respect to the Chair. The Chair will respect itself. I have allowed this as an amendment and it is open to discussion now.

Mr. O'Neill

What I was about to point out, with due respect to the Seanad, is that Senator Brown, great man as he is, was infra dig when he questioned your ruling, that the amendment should not be allowed, as you had ruled otherwise.

Colonel Moore

Is it open for debate now?

Cathaoirleach

Certainly.

Colonel Moore

I think I can best proceed in this matter by reading a short memorandum I sent to the committee in the early stages. I attended the committee until near the end, but, from the very beginning, I disapproved highly of the tone being taken. After the discussion had gone some way I sent in a short memorandum showing the position I took up. The best thing I can do is to read it:—

Memorandum regarding the draft report of the Committee of Privileges of the Seanad on a recent occurrence.

"I listened carefully to the reading of the draft report read by the Chairman of the Seanad last Wednesday; I heard nothing objectionable till Section 16 (2) was reached. I perceived at once I could not sign such a statement; a similar change was made in Section 17, or rather an elaboration of it.

"There were so many succeeding sections to which I took objection when reading the text next day that I put it aside."

It was so objectionable in the wording that really I could hardly read it.

"My belief is that the Minister for Defence was not thoroughly cognisant of the position of the Seanad and acted in haste. He was not present in the Dáil when these matters were considered and relied on notes placed before him. On the whole, he seemed to regret his precipitate action. I, therefore, think it would have been better to have acted in a broad, sensible, conciliatory manner and accept that view.

"The trouble has its roots in the weakness of the Seanad during its early life, and a quiet acquiescence of the superiority of the Dáil officials afterwards."

During that time there were discussions nearly every day on the exact position of the Dáil and the Seanad, and the chairman of the time acted, as I suppose he thought best, by giving in a great many times to what I thought, at the time, should not be allowed. However, that does not matter very much, as time went on, and various occurrences took place but they were hardly worth quarrelling about and were allowed to slip past.

"I believe the situation as it began and devolved could have been met by a meeting of the Chairman of the Seanad with the Chairman of the Dáil in its early stages.

"I see no object in seeking here and there through the evidence given before the committee for answers which might conflict more or less with other statements; it merely causes bitterness without compensating advantages.

"I think the best plan under the circumstances will be for the chairman to draw up a report consisting mainly of a single statement of fact as it happened, and a considered statement of the rights and privileges of the Seanad; the more so, as it is not proposed to press the matter further.

"I fear the whole affair has tended to exasperate the persons concerned and has led indirectly to results we all regret."

I have not changed my mind since I wrote that statement. I believe the whole matter was exasperated by oratory and by deliberately picking out phrases here and there, and by throwing blame on people who may have made a slight mistake, owing to lack of knowledge, when nothing of any importance occurred. It seems to me that two people came to the House and nothing happened. If the place had been blown up I could understand all that has been made of it. In the circumstances, nothing happened. The visitors were not able to come in that day, but they were able to do so on another day. Things could have been adjusted without any difficulty, instead of having all this rumpus, attacking various Ministers, attacking the Clerk of the Dáil and everyone concerned. The whole thing seems to have been done in the most annoying and most exasperating way. I got up in the Seanad and stated that I objected to the whole transaction. I think the thing has been badly managed from beginning to end, and that instead of having conciliation and good temper, there was as much exasperation as possible.

Mr. Staines

I do not know whether Senator Moore is proposing something for adoption, but I take it that we are dealing with Senator Dowdall's amendment. I should like to point out that Senator Dowdall has not given any reason why we should send the report back to the committee. He told us that a person taking a telephone message can make a mistake when delivering it, and as proof he pointed to reports in the three Dublin newspapers of the speech by President de Valera, giving three different versions of his remarks. I remember being told years ago to tell certain people a certain thing in a certain way. I was told exactly how it was to be done. I was not to let the people receiving it know the reason why we were giving an important message in that way. I was accompanied by a professor. When coming away, I said to him: "You did the very thing you were told not to do. You told these people definitely why we went to tell them so and so." On the other hand, if I wanted to produce evidence that you did so I could not do it, because you spoke in such a way to them. I suggest to Senator Dowdall that President de Valera has the professorial mind, and that he says things in such a way that it is very hard to blame three newspaper reporters for taking different meanings out of what he says.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Connolly)

I do not quite know what the last speaker was referring to.

Mr. Staines

You never do.

Mr. Connolly

I would like to pass one or two comments on the report. I do not propose to go into the details of the report nor am I sufficiently interested in it or its effect upon the Minister to make any attempt at entering into a defence of the Minister. The Minister is sufficiently able to survive this report. However, there are one or two points I should like to make here concerning the general position which has been allowed to grow up, and, to my mind, the Chairman of this House, you, Sir, have been more responsible for that position, perhaps by default, than anybody in the House. A situation, apparently, has come to light now whereby we learn, for my part for the first time, that there was no co-operation between this House and the other House. There was no co-ordination as regards management of the Houses or the officials of the two Houses. One gentleman, who is on the staff of the Oireachtas, the Clerk of the Dáil, has been indicted in this report and, in my opinion, unjustly indicted. It emerges from the report that he is the head of the Civil Service in the Oireachtas. If he was and is the head of the Civil Service in the Oireachtas, then I submit he was placed in a very difficult and invidious position by any activity of one of his subordinate officials. It is argued that had the Seanad had equal control with the Dáil over the whole administration of Leinster House, if the position had at any time been defined but, as such was not the case, it was allowed to go on for many years by default, by the default of this House, and by the default of you, Sir, in the Chair. I speak subject to correction, but that is as it seems to emerge to me. Furthermore, the Clerk of the Dáil was not given an opportunity of going before that committee and being examined, so far as I can see, by the committee. He was invited to submit his opinion on various things and I submit he neither got a fair hearing nor a fair judgment from the members of the committee. That is important because he was placed in an extremely awkward position, to my mind, by virtue of the fact that he was head of the Oireachtas staff.

Then a subordinate, or another official, let us say, was placed in a more difficult position still, because he was left in the position that he did not know whom to obey. If he refused to obey the order of the Cathaoirleach, he was placing himself in a very difficult position. If, on the other hand, he were to refuse to obey an order of the Chief of Staff of the Oireachtas, he was placing himself in a still more difficult position from the point of view of the service. I submit that is the outstanding thing in the report. Ministers, Senators and Deputies can take care of themselves, but I submit it is not fair to indict and condemn an official who has not been heard before the committee. He has not had a fair deal from the committee and he was placed in an anomalous position which was not of his creation.

There is one other point which I should like to mention and I do so with all respect, like our friend, Senator O'Neill. It does throw, I think, a light on the operations of this committee. Senator Mrs. Wyse Power, during the course of the committee's investigations, ventured to ask the Cathaoirleach, who was presiding at the committee, a certain question. I have the question here:

"I want information on previous defences of the House. It is not the first time the House was defended. The streets were held top and bottom. Were you in consultation, a Chathaoirligh, with the powers that be at the time?"

I submit that that was a perfectly fair and reasonable question and even though you were presiding over that committee, and that you were presiding as Cathaoirleach of the House, you were certainly an interested party in this case. I submit that you were in an invidious position presiding at that committee, which was to judge of your actions, you being a very interested party in this case. I submit that you took up what I consider an unfair line of defence when you refused to be cross-examined in spite of the fact that a most exhaustive cross-examination took place of everybody else who went before the committee. I do not want to make any complaint. I did not come here to make any complaint because I am not worrying about the report at all, but these two things did intrigue me when I read the report.

I think first of all that the two officials concerned, the Clerk of the Dáil and the Superintendent of the House, were placed in a difficult position and that possibly antagonism might have been created between them as a result of that position. I hope it has not. I am sure they are sensible enough to realise that this is a storm in a teacup. I submit that it was neglect to define the position of this House in regard to the other House, and a lack of co-ordination in regard to the management of the staff, that have been the cause of the trouble. It is significant that this only emerged during the last few months. It is significant that such a storm has been created over an incident which might have been avoided if a proper understanding had been reached not yesterday or last year but years ago on this matter.

Cathaoirleach

I should like to say a word or two regarding the encomiums on myself in respect to the management of this House, to which Senator Connolly gave expression. He is quite inaccurate when he says that I openly accepted the position which had been set up. It aggravates matters to say that I acquiesced in the treatment of this House by the other House. The Senator is quite inaccurate in that.

Mr. Connolly rose.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator must allow me to reply to his statement. If the Senator had taken the least trouble to examine the files of this House or the records of the Ministry of Finance and the other House, he would have found that on more than one occasion I intervened and that when I did intervene, I got my way. I refused to allow women reporters in here as I believed they were inefficient.

A Senator

That is very unfair.

Cathaoirleach

I refused on another occasion to accept the position that the Clerk of the Dáil was the officer to decide a particular matter in connection with our staff. The then Minister for Finance agreed absolutely with my contention and it was so ruled. On every possible occasion on which I saw the liberty of this House being infringed, I moved immediately in the matter and on no occasion was my point of view disagreed with in the other House, so that Senator Connolly is grossly unfair and inaccurate when he states that I acquiesced in a position of inferiority for this House. I am only replying to what the Senator said.

Mr. Connolly

I want to explain that I have no knowledge of a record——

Cathaoirleach

If you tried to have it you could have had it.

Mr. Connolly

That may be. I think it will be news to most members of the House, but I accept fully your statement. I still submit however that the question is not yet fixed as regards the control of these two Houses. I submit that we do not know at the moment what the position is and I submit that you do not know where the authority lies beyond the fact that the Clerk of the Dáil is still the Civil Service head of the Oireachtas.

Mr. D.L. Robinson

In answer to a point made by Senator Dowdall, that the findings of the committee are not in direct line with the evidence, may I call the attention of the House to a question put by Senator O'Hanlon to Senator Miss Browne? He asked:—

"There is no suggestion that you were bringing these visitors as a test—it was just in the ordinary way?"

Miss Browne replied:—

"I brought the visitors in the ordinary way."

Notwithstanding that fact, on page vii, sub-section (3), the report states:—

"It seems to the committee that Senator Miss Browne's action, judged in the light of the circumstances outlined above, was clearly intended to be in the nature of a test case."

However desirable it might be to prove that the Minister was not telling the truth, I do not think a Committee of Privileges of this House ought to make the same accusation against a member of this House. Certainly, I do not think that whatever evidence may have been given could possibly weigh in comparison with Senator Miss Browne's definite statement that it was not a test case.

Mr. Bagwell

On the motion before the House it seems to me that we are drifting into a most unpleasant and perhaps unprofitable form of debate. It does seem to me that if the House is going to refer this report back without any guidance, apart from simply referring it back, it is equivalent to saying that you do not believe either in the purpose, or possibly in the bona fides of the committee who dealt with it. I suggest that while the House might have the power and the right to do that it is not a proper thing to do unless you go into the whole of the evidence. Is the House prepared to do that?

Mr. Johnson

The statement which I have to make on this matter had better be prefaced by the reading of certain letters which passed between the Clerk and myself. The first is dated 3rd May, 1934, addressed to myself from the Clerk. It reads:—

"I have this morning had a long talk with Mr. Malone as regards the preparation of the minutes and the form of the report of our Committee on Procedure."

Perhaps I should say, for the benefit of those members of the Seanad who are not familiar with the personnel of the staff, that Mr. Malone is the very able assistant of the Clerks and is specially informed on matters of procedure. The letter continues:—

"He has told me something which I would say quite frankly I did not know before and that is that minority reports are unknown to parliamentary practice. Next Wednesday, when we meet at 11 a.m. for the purpose of giving final consideration to the chairman's draft report, it is open to you as a member of the committee to submit your draft report. The chairman's draft report must be submitted to a vote and if there is a majority in its favour your report cannot be considered. It will, however, be printed in the minutes. It cannot be printed as a minority report. If there is not a majority in favour of the chairman's report your report will then come up for consideration. I think it is due to you that I should make this clear to you at the earliest possible moment. I am not writing to Senator Colonel Moore and Senator Mrs. Wyse Power as I have no reason to believe that they contemplate drafting a report.

Yours sincerely,

D. J. O'Sullivan,

Clerk of the Seanad."

I replied on 4th May as follows:—

"Dear Mr. O'Sullivan,—I received your letter this morning. It places me in a difficulty. The chairman has ruled and the proceedings have been conducted on the assumption that one or more minority reports might be made if a generally agreed report was not found to be possible. Now I understand from your letter that a different procedure must be adopted.

I am going away to-morrow morning and had intended to spend the first day or so of my holiday in drafting a report. It will be waste of time to do so in the new circumstances.

I shall probably write you from Kerry after I have considered the new position. — Yours sincerely, (Signed) Thomas Johnson."

I wrote again on 7th May from Parknasilla, Sneem, as follows:—

"The Clerk of the Seanad.

Dear Mr. O'Sullivan, —In reference to your letter of 3rd instant, by which you inform me that 7lsquo;minority reports are unknown in parliamentary practice'—and that ‘next Wednesday ... the chairman's draft report must be submitted to a vote and if there is a majority in its favour your report cannot be considered—it will, however, be printed in the minutes. It cannot be printed as a minority report. If there is not a majority in favour of the chairman's report, your report will then come up for consideration.'

This change of procedure is a complete reversal of the ruling of the chairman, several times repeated, that it would be open to the members to make one or more minority reports, and it was on that understanding they have acted.

In view of the new decision, I assume it will follow that neither the amendments I submitted to the chairman's original draft nor any minority report I might wish to make will be presented to the House. (I do not understand how a report I might put forward can be printed in the minutes if in the event of the chairman's report securing a majority it cannot be considered—in any case, I shall be unable to attend the meeting.)

The procedure of the committee differs so much from my view of what is appropriate that I feel I ought not to remain a member, and hereby beg formally to tender my resignation from the committee.

I wish, however, to have placed on record my conclusions regarding the subject matter of the present inquiry. They are as follows:—

A breach of the privileges of the Seanad occurred in July, 1933, when the Minister for Defence, without consultation with, or the concurrence of, the Cathaoirleach gave instructions that persons, other than members of the Dáil and Seanad, wearing the blue uniform shirt of the A.C.A. be prohibited entry to Leinster House— the meeting place of the Seanad.

A breach of privilege occurred in February, 1934, when the Minister for Defence issued instructions to the military guard to prevent entry to Leinster House of persons bearing authorised tickets of admission to the visitors' gallery of the Seanad.

A breach of privilege occurred when the Clerk of the Dáil, with the concurrence of the Ceann Comhairle, instructed the Superintendent of the Oireachtas that visitors wearing the blue shirt uniform were not to be admitted to Leinster House even though they had cards of admission to the Seanad.

I do not, however, consider that the facts regarding such breaches of privileges warrant the statement made in the Seanad by the Cathaoirleach when the subject was first brought to the notice of the House, viz: that there is not a shadow of doubt that ‘the privileges of this House have been outraged' (Seanad Report—column 454—21st February, 1934). It is unusual for judgment to be announced in such emphatic terms before inquiry begins.

Nor can I agree with the statement of the constitutional position set forth by the Cathaoirleach on the same occasion (column 451) as follows:—

‘As regards the constitutional position, Article 20 of the Constitution provides that each House of the Oireachtas shall make its own rules and standing orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement. Article 25 of the Constitution provides that sittings of each House of the Oireachtas shall be public. Standing Order No. 70 of the Standing Orders of the Seanad, which was made pursuant to these articles, provides that visitors may be introduced by Senators to such places as may be reserved for them by me and upon such conditions as I may prescribe. It follows, therefore, that no Minister of State and no other person whatever has power to debar from access to the Visitors' Gallery of this Chamber, which is the place reserved for them by me, visitors only introduced by Senators who comply with such conditions as I may prescribe. Anyone who so debars them or attempts so to debar them, commits a breach of privilege.'

Such a conclusion stretches the power of the Seanad to legislate by means of standing orders far beyond what any reasonable interpretation of its constitutional authority would permit.

It is in my opinion erroneous to state as did the Cathaoirleach (column 452) that a person has an undoubted right under Article 25 of the Constitution to be present at a meeting of the Seanad.

As the foregoing statements of constitutional rights are likely to be invoked in the future in other circumstances I desire that it may not be said they were accepted without question.

The problems that have been brought to an issue in this case have arisen from these circumstances:

(1) The two houses of the Oireachtas jointly occupy the same building, access to which is by a single entrance;

(2) A joint staff serves both Houses and each House is empowered to make rules and standing orders, but there has not been either by legislation or by definite detailed agreement, a demarcation of the respective authority of Dáil or Seanad jointly or separately in respect to staff or in relation to the Executive Government. No machinery exists for determining disputes if such arise as to jurisdiction or authority.

(3) Ever since 1922 a certain tension between the officials of the two Houses has been the normal condition; similarly, during the same period, with inexcusable frequency, Ministers have acted as though the existence of the Seanad had been overlooked or, quoting the Cathaoirleach's stronger word, ignored.

In the light of these conditions the conduct of the Minister for Defence in taking no thought of the Seanad when, with the concurrence of the Ceann Comhairle representing the Dáil alone, he issued instructions to debar from entry to Leinster House persons wearing the blue shirt uniform, assumes a different and less challenging aspect.

It must also be noted, as shown by the evidence of Senator Miss Browne and the correspondence between her and the Clerk of the Seanad that the attempt to secure admission to the gallery of the Seanad of ‘two persons wearing the blue shirt uniform of the League of Youth' was intended as a test of the Minister's authority.

Had there been the degree of collaboration between Seanad, Dáil and Executive which their complementary functions and joint occupancy of the same building would appear to require if the national affairs at the centre are to be conducted without undue friction, the Cathaoirleach would not have issued cards of admission in the circumstances, (there being a week to spare between the date of issue and the meeting of the Seanad) without informing the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister responsible that he proposed so to do and pay heed to any observations either of them might make on the matter. Instead, the tickets were issued first, and the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister afterwards informed of the fact. Had the design been to bring the several authorities into conflict its success then was assured.

There remains one other observation to be made. The Cathaoirleach's Draft Report charges the Minister for Defence, in effect, with having deliberately misled the Seanad and attempts to prove the charge by quoting freely from the Minister's evidence. There was an obvious and simple way of ascertaining the truth, viz: by calling the Chief of Staff as a witness to testify as to what message he gave to the Minister over the telephone on February 21st. The committee in its wisdom refrained from calling the Chief of Staff for reasons which are creditable and probably compelling. But having so resolved it is surely reprehensible that a responsible committee of one of the Houses of the Oireachtas should charge a Minister of State with deliberately deceiving the House unless the evidence were absolutely irrefutable and no alternative explanation were conceivable.

(Signed) Thomas Johnson.

7th May, 1934."

Anything I may say in amplification of that will not change the character of my observations. Events that have happened since, and reading all the detailed evidence of the report, confirm me in the views and add emphasis to any view I mildly expressed in that memorandum. I want to remind the House of the beginning of this affair. Senator Miss Browne raised the question on the 21st February and drew attention to what had happened, and the Cathaoirleach said immediately afterwards:—

"If Senator Miss Browne's facts are correct a breach of the privileges of this House of the Oireachtas has, undoubtedly, been committed."

Later on, in the same evening, the Cathaoirleach recounted the circumstances and, as reported on column 454 of the Official Debates, after reading a letter which had been sent by Frank Aiken, Minister for Defence, to the Ceann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach said:—

"This makes it quite clear that a breach of privilege has been committed by the Minister. Fortunately, there are ways and means, and very definite ways and means, of upholding and enforcing the privileges of this House."

A little further on the Cathaoirleach said:—

"There is not a shadow of doubt that the privileges of this House have been outraged. Egress and ingress to our House—an essential part of the Oireachtas—have been prevented and so I feel very strongly that strong and active measures must be taken to protect the privileges and rights of this House."

I emphasise the words: "There is not a shadow of doubt that the privileges of this House have been outraged." Subsequently the committee was directed to inquire into the matter under the following terms of reference:—

"That the matter of the exclusion by military policemen of visitors to whom admission tickets had been issued by the Cathaoirleach for the sitting of the House on Wednesday, 21st February, 1934, be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for inquiry and report."

It is provided in the Standing Orders that the Chairman shall preside at the meeting of the committee. In view of the judgment delivered, as I say, in the phrase I have quoted, it does strike one as not in the usual manner of procedure, of judicial bodies, at any rate, that the judgment should be delivered before the inquiry has been made, and, as will appear from the printed evidence, the chairman of that committee assumed the role of prosecuting counsel.

The question to which I want to direct special attention is that a great part of the report is directed to matters which arose after the exclusion of the visitors from this House; that is to say, to the conduct, the alleged offence by the Minister in his statements to this House. It does appear from a reading of the evidence and the examination of the Minister and the report itself that that second offence—the offence by the Minister in his relation to this House, the proceedings that took place after the matter had been raised here—occupied a very prominent place in the minds of the majority of the committee and particularly in the mind of the Cathaoirleach. I submit that, in fact, it was beyond the authority of the committee to inquire into that matter in view of the terms of the resolution passed by the Seanad on 28th February—it was incidental, no doubt, but it certainly ought not to have been so large a part in the inquiry, and the Minister should at least have been apprised of the charge that was being levelled against him in the mind of the Cathaoirleach.

The question that I have touched upon in my memorandum regarding the constitutional position of this House as stated by the Cathaoirleach and as approved of by the committee, raises a somewhat different question, and I think it is worth the while of the House to ask itself whether it desires, in fact, to assert, as the committee does by implication, that a standing order made by this House under the powers given by the Constitution has the weight of a constitutional provision. That is what is implied in this statement by the Cathaoirleach that Article 20 of the Constitution provides that each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, that Article 25 provides that the sittings of each House shall be public, and a Standing Order, No. 70, of the Standing Orders of the Seanad, which was made pursuant to these, made under the powers given to it, provides certain regulations regarding the admission of visitors. Then follows the statement to which I take exception:

"It follows, therefore,"

because a standing order has been made regarding the admission of visitors to this House,

"that no Minister of State and no other person whatever has power to debar from access to the visitors' gallery of this Chamber...visitors only introduced by Senators to such places as may be reserved for them by me and upon such conditions as I may prescribe."

I am asking the House to consider whether it is making the claim that a standing order has as much weight as a constitutional provision and may even, as is implied here, override statutes and laws which may be passed by both Houses. I contend that the statement made by the Cathaoirleach does not "follow, therefore," from the provisions of the Constitution or the Standing Order.

There is presented in this report a detailed statement of the proceedings of the committee and the evidence heard by the committee. In the minutes of the proceedings of the 18th April there is printed a draft report. The minutes state:

"The draft report prepared by the Chairman was read a first time as follows."

The report is then given. In the later proceedings, beginning on the 25th April, there appear minutes of amendments, presumably and obviously to the Chairman's first draft, which were proposed, agreed to or amended. I do not want to be over particular in this matter, but one must understand that the proceedings at those meetings were somewhat informal. As I understood at the time, an attempt was being made to arrive at something like an agreed report. On looking through the report this morning, I find that much of what I thought was informal was taken to be very formal. I want to draw attention to the fact that the draft report, of which I have a copy, dated 18th April, is not identical with the draft report which appears in these minutes. Discussions took place and alterations were made, but, in view of the formal nature of this report, it is necessary to point out that the draft report of the committee, as circulated on the 18th April, is not in all its terms the draft report which is printed in this document. On one or two matters the changes are of such a nature as to alter the impression that one would get if there had been printed the draft report as originally circulated, which was the draft report of the Cathaoirleach. I am referring particularly to paragraphs Nos. 16 and 17. The changes made in the draft report, as printed, from the draft which I have in front of me are important inasmuch as the draft report, which was circulated, indicates a state of mind in reference to the Minister that was modified in the first draft report as printed. The minutes of succeeding meetings have reference to the draft report as printed. I am pointing out that the draft report, as printed, is not the draft report in its entirety which was circulated to members of the committee.

Mr. Brown

Perhaps the Senator would explain. I was not present at any of these committee meetings; I was abroad at the time. What is the gravamen of the difference between the two draft reports? Has the difference any serious repercussion?

Mr. Johnson

Only in so far as the original draft indicates the state of mind of the Senator responsible for it. If Senator Brown wishes, I shall read out the differences.

Mr. Jameson

Does the Senator mean that those who signed the report do not approve of the report as it is before the House now?

Mr. Johnson

No. The proceedings of the committee are printed in this document. It states that, at a meeting on the 18th April:

"The draft report prepared by the Chairman was read a first time as follows."

Then follows the draft report as read a first time. The typescript of the document, which was the Chairman's draft report, as read a first time, is not identical with the draft report printed here.

Cathaoirleach

Should it be?

Mr. Jameson

Is there any reason why it should be?

Mr. Brown

If the difference is material, the House should know what it is. There was a suggestion that there was some difference worth mentioning between the two reports. Surely, the Senator should allow us to know what he means by calling attention to the difference between the reports.

Mr. Johnson

A record of certain proceedings which followed the presentation of the Chairman's draft report will be seen in the minutes of the committee for 25th April. Certain proceedings took place in which an endeavour was made to amend the Chairman's draft report. I contend— if it were worth while I should make a statement regarding it—that the proceedings of that date were an attempt to arrive at tentative agreements. However, what I am pointing out now is that the draft report, as printed in this document, differs from the draft report which members of the committee had then in front of them.

Mr. Brown

What is the inference which the Senator wishes us to draw from that?

Mr. Johnson

The inference I want the Seanad to draw is that the original draft report reflects, in certain of its phrases, a state of mind on the part of the Chairman in regard to the Minister which, as I contend, indicated a definite prejudice against the Minister. I should also contend that that prejudice was exhibited by the Cathaoirleach within half an hour after the first meeting was held when he referred to the "conspiracy" which existed to break the privileges of the Seanad.

Cathaoirleach

Where exactly is that stated? The Senator is rambling from the proceedings of this House to the proceedings at the meetings of the committee and I find it very difficult to understand to which he alludes. I am interested, as the House is interested, in the Senator's statements and I should like to know when the word "conspiracy" was used.

Mr. Johnson

On the first day of the meeting.

Cathaoirleach

Of what meeting?

Mr. Johnson

The committee.

Cathaoirleach

In the Committee Room?

Mr. Johnson

Yes.

Cathaoirleach

Show it to me in the minutes.

Mr. Johnson

It is not in these minutes. That is the whole point— that much of the proceedings of this committee were not reported.

Cathaoirleach

I cannot allow the Senator to allude to proceedings which are not on the minutes and which exist only in his own imagination, which is very vivid.

Mr. Johnson

I have not the slightest doubt about the matter. There are people in this Chamber who would confirm what I say, if I ask them. I discussed with them that very term —the Chairman's reference to a "conspiracy"—before the meeting concluded.

Cathaoirleach

We are discussing the report and I must ask the Senator to confine himself to the report.

Mr. Connolly

On a point of order, has not the Senator raised a very important point as to your reference to a conspiracy. Is that disputed by you?

Cathaoirleach

I am not disputing anything. I dispute nothing the Senator says. My difficulty is that we can only have evidence of these things by the reports and minutes of proceedings.

Mr. Connolly

I merely wanted to have the matter made clear.

Cathaoirleach

I shall try and clear up anything I can for the Senator. What we have before us are the report and the proceedings of a certain committee. We are discussing that report. It has been proposed that it be sent back. Surely, a matter which is not contained in that report and which is not really relevant to that report cannot be admitted. If we go outside the report, we shall get nowhere.

Mr. Comyn

Is the Senator not entitled to show that the report is inaccurate?

Cathaoirleach

If he can—from the report.

Mr. Comyn

Can he not show that the very print itself is inaccurate?

Mr. Connolly

How could he do that from the report?

Cathaoirleach

So far as I can see, he was trying to prove that the draft report, as printed here, is not on all fours with the draft report as originally prepared by me. It was not so intended.

Mr. Comyn

The Senator is now stating that the report, as printed, does not represent what happened—that it is not accurate. That is what I understand the Senator to be contending.

Cathaoirleach

That is not so at all. He was not a member of the committee when the report was finally adopted.

Mr. Johnson

Perhaps Senators will allow me to explain for myself what I am maintaining.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator is going along beautifully but he must confine himself to the facts.

Mr. Johnson

In certain portions of the minutes of these meetings, the phrase occurs "the committee deliberated." In the course of one of these deliberations—the first deliberation— the Cathaoirleach said that he was satisfied that a conspiracy was afoot——

Cathaoirleach

I have asked the Senator to show me that in the minutes.

Mr. Johnson

It took place during the committee's deliberations.

Cathaoirleach

Then it took place only in your own mind.

Mr. Connolly

Is it in his mind or did it happen?

Mr. Johnson

There is no means of proving that. It would be only my word against the word of somebody else.

Cathaoirleach

I cannot deny anything which exists in the Senator's mind.

Mr. Connolly

The Cathaoirleach does not deny it?

Cathaoirleach

I think that it is most unlikely I used the word "conspiracy."

Mr. Johnson

I agree that it would be a most improper word for the chairman of a committee to use.

Cathaoirleach

Proceed with your speech, Senator.

Mr. Johnson

The minutes of the meeting of the 18th April state that "the draft report prepared by the chairman was read a first time, as follows." I do not know what that means in view of the fact that consideration of the draft report in detail was not begun until the week afterwards according to these minutes. As will be seen on page 33, the committee decided to consider the terms of the draft report section by section at its next meeting. I should like to be able to show from these minutes the actual changes that occurred in the chairman's draft report from its inception to the end. Anybody taking up that document would imagine that he was getting a record of the changes as they occurred. In view of the way this matter has been disputed, I am going to refer to the draft report which I have in typescript in my hand. Paragraph 16 (2) reads as follows:—

"The Minister had an opportunity, in writing to the Cathaoirleach, to state that the visitors had been excluded by the military acting under direct orders issued by him that day but he failed to avail himself of it and the only reasonable conclusion is that he deliberately misled the Cathaoirleach and the House."

As printed in the report of the proceedings, that last phrase does not appear. As printed in the report of the proceedings, the reference is as follows:—

"The Minister, in writing to the Cathaoirleach, omitted to state that the visitors had been excluded by the military acting under direct orders only issued by him that day, with the result that the Cathaoirleach and the House were misled as to the actual facts of the incident."

A change took place from the original draft, but there is no evidence in these proceedings of the fact that a change took place from the chairman's draft. Further on in the same paragraph—I am now quoting from the original draft circulated to members—we find this:

"The plain implication of the Minister's action in sending to the Cathaoirleach, without further explanation, the minute and covering letter referred to is that the Minister had issued an order to the military in the previous July and that the two visitors, attired in blue shirts, stopped on that day at the gate were prevented by the military from entering pursuant to that order. But, as has been pointed out, on the very day on which the Minister wrote that letter to the Cathaoirleach it had admittedly been brought to his notice that no such order had ever been issued to the military and he thereupon, and for the first time, issued an order to the military but for which the visitors would, in fact, have been admitted."

Paragraph 17 (1) in the typescript reads:—

"One week later, viz., on the 28th February, on Senator Blythe's motion for reference to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, the Minister read to the Seanad a typed statement, obviously carefully prepared after he had consulted his files. In this the Minister went much further. What a week previously had been only implicit was now stated explicitly."

The difference is not very great, but there is the difference in the mental operations of the chairman who drafted this report showing, as I contend, a very definite prejudice against the Minister.

Cathaoirleach

May I be allowed at this stage to say this: It was agreed that the draft report, as sent out originally, should be regarded as the basis of a final report. That was the intention of the committee. They asked me to submit a draft report, which I did. That draft report is the basis of our final report. From day to day and from week to week that draft report suffered alterations. I think that is perfectly clear. For the Senator to come here and argue from the original draft report that the final report is not the same, I leave that to the House to discuss.

Mr. Johnson

I quite agree that changes took place from day to day and from week to week. That is the whole point: that these changes do not appear in this report of the proceedings of the committee.

Cathaoirleach

No.

Mr. Johnson

Although when I attempted to make a statement regarding my position in the matter you insisted that I should move an amendment. At a previous meeting you had stated—at least you had put forward to the committee a motion and proposed to take a vote upon it. I said that "if you take a vote upon it that means that the committee is coming to a decision and we are not deciding upon anything at this stage." That was agreed to. We then went on to consider matters to see to what extent there was agreement in the general character of the report, but now it appears from these proceedings that every stage was conducted as though it were a committee on a Bill. If it were a committee on a Bill, then the whole proceedings would have appeared for the benefit of the Seanad.

I make this assertion that judgment was delivered by you, Sir, before the committee began its work: that from the beginning to the end you exhibited a prejudice against the Minister, and in the final outcome the report is directed more against the Minister in his conduct to this House after the offence which the committee was set up to inquire into had been committed, and that there is exhibited in this report a general bias based upon the original judgment pronounced by you from that Chair.

Cathaoirleach

I would like to say this: I have allowed Senator Johnson to proceed in a very elaborate way because I thought it was only fair to give him a chance of making his case. But the proceedings of the committee were confidential, and really I ought not to have allowed them to be alluded to in this House. Senator Johnson is a past master in procedure and he knows that. There is another matter which he alluded to, the matter of his not having been allowed to make a draft report. That is the one mistake, I admit, we made. We were not aware of the fact that a minority report could not be issued. I had been told that a minority report could be issued, but I never made a ruling on the matter. I expressed it as my opinion that a draft report could be made. The moment that the Clerk and myself realised that that was not so we communicated with Senator Johnson, and the funny thing was that Senator Johnson, of all people in Saorstát Eireann, knew the procedure. He had been on committees already. He had been on a Parliamentary Committee in the other House in which he wished to draft a minority report and he was not allowed to do so. He knew the procedure.

Mr. Johnson

Is the procedure of this House determined by the procedure of the other House?

Cathaoirleach

Parliamentary procedure and Parliamentary reports in both are the same.

Mr. Johnson

Is the procedure in both Houses always the same?

Cathaoirleach

Senator Johnson got his opportunity. Then we suggested to him that if he wished his draft report to be for publication—Senator Johnson likes to have his reports published—we would see that it was inserted in the minutes and would be there for the public to read. The Senator got every opportunity on the ground of fair play and of considerate treatment from the committee. Now he comes to the House with the confidential reports of the committee which I need not have allowed him to read.

Mr. Comyn

You have just said that the proceedings of the committee were confidential. I wish they had remained confidential. I wish, too, that the report and evidence of the committee had not been put into a permanent form, because, as it stands, I think it exposes this House to a certain measure, I will not say of contempt, but to a considerable degree of ridicule in the circumstances in which we are placed. I hope that before this debate closes Senator Brown will address the House because I am sure we will get from him some information as to the constitutional position. I think he will agree with a good deal of what I propose to say. My friend, Senator O'Hanlon, ought not to be so impetuous. He was very adroit in the proceedings that took place before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, but he ought not to be precipitate on this occasion. I must sympathise with Senator David Robinson who, as a man, is very direct. He said that he put a wholly different construction on question and answer No. 39 from that which a lawyer would put upon them, and from what I think my friend, Senator O'Hanlon, puts upon them. To give the House an idea of how the proceedings were conducted let me quote question and answer No. 39:—

"Senator O'Hanlon: There is no suggestion that you were bringing these visitors as a test—it was in the ordinary way?"

and the answer is:—

"I brought the visitors in the ordinary way."

Now, Senator Robinson, the plain, direct gentleman that he is took it that the answer was an answer to the entire question, but my friend, Senator O'Hanlon, knows well that it was not. In point of fact the committee have found that these young gentlemen from the college were brought here to be the victims in a test case. That is the finding.

The amendment before the House is this:—

That these proceedings be referred back on the ground that the evidence does not sustain the charge which is implied: that the Minister for Defence was guilty of misrepresentation.

It is on that matter that I would be glad to hear Senator Brown, because if ever there was a finding contrary to natural justice it is there and I will tell Senators why. There is a finding made against a man without a charge. That is the first ground to which, I hope, Senator Brown will address himself. Then, in that judgment there are severe strictures—comments—made upon a civil servant who was not examined—the Clerk of the Dáil. These are the two grounds that I would like Senator Brown to deal with. I must say that there are certain things which I read with great impatience. I confess that I read the history of my own country sometimes with tremendous impatience, because of the quarrelling and the wrangling that has gone on. I have read this report with impatience and with humiliation. I do not propose to involve myself at all in the controversy or to import any heat into my contribution to this debate.

I propose to make some suggestions. I think that a good many people have proceeded on a misconception of the constitutional position here and of the rights and privileges of this House. As I understand it the Oireachtas is supreme. It has supreme control, not merely in matters of legislation but in every matter within the precincts of this building. No person can exercise authority here except on the distinct invitation of the Houses concerned. Upon that point, perhaps men have assumed authority which did not belong to them in their various functions here. I should say that before a police officer, a peace officer, can exercise jurisdiction in this House, or authority in the precincts of this House, or in the Dáil, his superior officer has by resolution of the Dáil and by a resolution of the Seanad, first to be invited to send his men in to keep the peace or to keep order. That is the proper constitutional position. The Minister responsible for the police ought to be invited to make arrangements for the keeping of the peace. If it became necessary to have military men about this House the Minister for Defence ought to have been invited, first, by each of the Houses to give that protection. The Dáil has control in relation to anything in the Dáil itself, the precincts or approaches, and the Seanad has jurisdiction in relation to the Seanad itself, the precincts and approaches. I think my friend Senator Brown will agree with me that that is the true position.

Mr. Brown

I do.

Mr. Comyn

I am thankful to the Senator. Seeing that we agree on fundamental points I think we will ultimately, with good will, be able to resolve this matter, which has now arisen, to the credit of this House. That being so, probably that position was not fully understood when the Dáil and Seanad were first established, because if it had been fully understood, or if that great lawyer who occupied the Chair which you, Sir, now occupy, had directed his mind to it, or had anticipated that there would have been any difficulty whatever in relation to the internal relations of this House, I am sure he would, in concurrence with the Chairman of the Dáil, have made arrangements which would have been watertight. However, he did not do that and with all respect to him I must say, Sir, that you have inherited some of the difficulties and misunderstandings which will be resolved, I hope, as a result of this debate. That is the position. I think the members of the committee when they entered into this investigation had not before them clearly the constitutional position. That is another reason why this should be referred back for further consideration. Seeing that some exception has been taken to the Chairman of the Seanad being chairman of this committee, perhaps our present chairman would consider it proper—I do not suggest it by any means; I recommend it—that perhaps it would be better that a lawyer like Senator Brown might be invited by the chairman to preside, because serious reflections are made on a civil servant who is described as head of the Civil Service here. He certainly ought to have got the opportunity of being examined. Then comments have been made in relation to the conduct of the Minister. Before a lawyer would put his hand to a finding, I am sure he would conform to the requirements of natural justice, which is this, that a charge should be formulated and evidence should be heard pertinent to that charge. The Deputy Chairman of this House is enthusiastic still. He is interrupting me. I have read one question and one answer which will stand to his credit as long as this report——

Cathaoirleach

I am sorry to interrupt the Senator, but this letter was written to the Clerk of the Dáil by the Clerk of our House:—

"I am directed by the committee to afford you an opportunity, should you so desire, to state in writing for their information whether, in your opinion, the particulars given under the above four heads contain a correct, or substantially correct, account of the conversations and incidents to which they relate, and, if not, in what respects they are incorrect; and to furnish any observations which you may see fit to make in regard thereto."

He got that opportunity should he so desire to submit anything he wished.

Mr. Comyn

I respectfully say that is not the proper form, and that his right and his obligation was this, to give evidence before that tribunal, just as other people gave evidence. That was his right; that was his obligation, and that is the reason why I say that this, as a judgment of a tribunal, cannot stand, because it violates natural justice. I regret indeed that this matter has arisen at all.

Cathaoirleach

Everyone does.

Mr. Comyn

I wish that the proceedings were never printed. I wish that we should never hear of it again except as a means of settling for ever the constitutional position of these Houses. Conspiracy has been mentioned. I hope Senator Miss Browne will not consider me disrespectful in any way when I say that this whole business has arisen because of a little conspiracy hatched at a political meeting, and that distinguished members of this House have been made the victims. We, of course, are reflected on when any distinguished member of this House is brought into a little quarrel of this kind. For that reason, I regret it, and I ask members of the House to show some of their prudence in this matter, to get through this as easily as they can, to discard anything which is not of interest, and to use this only as a means to set right the practice of both these Houses, having due regard to the constitutional position. For that reason, I submit the motion, that this be sent back again to the Committee of Privileges, and if the chairman would consider it proper that Senator Brown should be invited to preside.

Cathaoirleach

That is not included.

Mr. Comyn

It is not included, but it is a matter which the chairman in his own good sense hereafter can consider. I am putting it now publicly as a suggestion.

Mr. Brown

I take it that we are discussing the amendment, if it be an amendment.

Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Mr. Brown

And that we are not concerned with the constitutional question which is involved in the motions on the Order Paper, to send certain questions back to the Committee of Privileges. That is, to consider the constitutional question between the Houses, and to take such steps as we think necessary for the purpose of finally establishing what we have always held to be our right to manage the affairs of our own House, a co-equal House with the other House. It is very unfortunate that differences arose—I would not say conflicts but argument—between the two Houses. I was not a member of the House when this question was originally before it and was submitted to a committee. The report of that committee was adopted by both Houses, I think, in 1923. At the time there was discussion, and it was very much present I know in the minds of Senators after I became a member of the House, as to what exactly was implied in the report which we adopted, by stating that the Clerk of the Dáil was the Civil Service head of the Oireachtas staff. That was open to a good deal of misconstruction. I have no doubt there was a great deal of misunderstanding on the part of members of the Seanad as to what that exactly implied. I know that Senator Moore took part in the debates at the time, and used to stand out bravely and insistently for the co-equality of this House, and for our right to manage our own affairs. The Senator went so far as to refuse to vote for the adoption of the report, and to get his protest taken down. It is a great pity, I think, that there was not more explanation when that committee's report was before the House, as to what really was implied when making the Clerk of the Dáil the Civil Service head of the Oireachtas staff. I think we all understood at the time— certainly I did when I joined the Seanad—that it was really more or less a formal thing, that he would have to sign certain documents and things of that kind in connection with matters in which the joint staff were acting for both Houses, but that so far as the services of this House were concerned, he was to have no control whatever over the officers we have of our own, who are not members of the joint staff; or over members of the joint staff when acting solely for this House, that we would be masters in our own House, and that he would have no control over it or anything of that kind. It is for that reason I think this question has arisen now. I am very sorry it has arisen.

The object of the two motions we will be asked to pass, after this has been dealt with, is intended to deal with the constitutional question between the two Houses. I hope they will be dealt with, probably by negotiation, probably by talking the thing over with the other House, and that we will be able to arrive without conflict, without anger or anything of that kind, at a proper solution of this constitutional question. I have no doubt, whatever, as far as the question itself is concerned, and I agree with what Senator Comyn said. As to the motion before the House, and the amendment, I submit that we ought not to send this report back to the committee. You cannot send it back for any useful purpose, unless you give directions as to what they are to reconsider and report back upon. It cannot be done. Therefore, I do not think we have any ground for not formally adopting this report. Certain matters were raised in this debate which I am sorry were raised.

What I think I may fairly describe as an attack has been made by Senator Johnson on the Chairman of this House; in my opinion, a most unfair attack and an attack that should not have been made by one who is so experienced in parliamentary business as Senator Johnson. He charged the Cathaoirleach in the first instance with giving judgment in this case before the trial, that is, before the proceedings in the committee. His evidence for that was the statement the Cathaoirleach made when this matter was first brought to his attention in the House. If the facts were as stated, and indeed as are now proved, there was, prima facie, a breach of privilege in this House and the Cathaoirleach was perfectly entitled to state that there was a breach of privilege of this House. That was the reason for referring the matter to the committee to inquire into it.

Coming to the proceedings of the committee itself, Senator Johnson has charged the Cathaoirleach with acting as prosecutor instead of as judge. Surely, no one knows better than Senator Johnson that the chairman of every committee has the duty of examining in chief every witness before the committee. That is his duty as chairman. It is done as a matter of course. I myself have had to undertake that duty time after time and have had to conduct long examinations simply because I was chairman of the committee at the time. That is the ordinary parliamentary procedure. I could not follow Senator Johnson's distinction between the report as originally drafted and the one that was afterwards adopted. Obviously, there would be some verbal distinction, as the Cathaoirleach has explained, and I take it that he is perfectly accurate in that. The draft report was only intended as a draft, to be used as a draft and to be altered by the committee in any way it thought fit. As far as I could make out from the points of difference to which Senator Johnson referred, they were all in favour of the Minister. They all rather seemed to soften the findings suggested in the draft report and I could not see any possible objection to that second draft. I think, in fact, that was one of the virtues of the second draft. At any rate, how could the Senator possibly base a charge on that against this report?

It was suggested—I cannot remember by what member of the House— that really we should not have sent this to the committee at all. But there would have been no breach of privilege of this House if the Minister was right in his explanation to the Seanad. His explanation to the Seanad was mainly that he did not know, when he made this order to the military, that the Cathaoirleach had given leave for the admission of those two Blueshirts, knowing that they were Blueshirts. If that were absolutely correct, there was no breach, because there was no intention of breach. It would have been a perfectly innocent act, because he was carrying out what he thought was his duty in the matter as they were being excluded from the Dáil at the time— perfectly legal, because a proper course of procedure had been adopted. It was entirely different in this House. If the Minister had said: "Well, I did give these orders to the military and they were carried out by the military, but I was not aware that an order had been made by the Cathaoirleach for their admission"—that would have been a perfectly good defence and it would have been all right. It was because he did not state that that the matter had to be referred to the committee. I am sorry that it had to be referred to the committee, but the committee have considered it and they have submitted this as their report. The House has no possible alternative except to adopt the report and to refuse to adopt Senator Dowdall's amendment.

Mr. Blythe

I think the report is one which the House should adopt. It seems to me to be very moderately worded and to be a very reasonable report having regard to all the circumstances. I can understand, of course, that supporters of the Minister should try to raise issues that are not really in question and to obscure the real issue as far as it is possible to do so. I do not think that there is any dispute about the constitutional position. What happened simply was that the Minister took it upon himself to prevent visitors entering this House after those visitors had been duly authorised by the Cathaoirleach. When he came here, instead of being candid with the House, in my opinion he resorted to evasion and mendacity and caused an investigation to be made. If the Minister when he came here had said that what he did was done inadvertently and that he regretted it, the Seanad would have been very glad indeed to accept his apology and there would have been nothing further about the matter.

When the Minister came here he talked about certain arrangements which had been made in the past about guarding the House. Senator Connolly went over that long before, but there was really nothing ever in the past like the action of the Minister. There never was any suggestion that anybody outside this House should decide who would or would not be admitted here. There were arrangements under which a person representing the Oireachtas might be consulted for the purpose of deciding the points at which sentries were to be placed and what gates were to be opened and what gates were not to be opened, but nothing affecting the entry of visitors, who were entitled to move about the streets, who were not armed and who could be dealt with by the police in the ordinary way, was ever raised. It seems to me to be perfectly clear that if the Seanad is to discharge its functions at all it must have, through its properly authorised officers, a means of deciding who will be present at its debates. The Seanad is given power to order its procedure and it is laid down that its proceedings, except on certain occasions, shall be in public. It seems to flow from that that the Seanad is entitled to say who is to be admitted and who will be kept out from its proceedings.

On the other hand, everybody cannot be admitted, otherwise you might have crowds of people, irresponsible people, perhaps armed people or very violent people who would overawe the House or who, if they did not succeed in overawing the House, would prevent debate. It could conceivably happen that, if the Seanad did not have this right of control, somebody who wanted to prevent the Seanad from functioning, could either prevent the Seanad from having the publicity to which it is entitled or allow it to be invaded by people who would not be under control. If the Minister undertook to decide who would come in and who would not come in, he certainly invaded the rights and privileges of the House and he did something which nobody had attempted before.

The suggestion that the question of safety was involved was obviously a pretence. The decision to keep out the Blueshirts had nothing to do with the protection or the safety of the House. It was political action. It was done on Party political lines. It is obvious to anybody that if a person were going to commit some wrongful act or to indulge in some violence here, he would not come in in some conspicuous garb. He would come in in the most inconspicuous garb possible and the statement of the Minister was obviously mendacious and necessitated the examination which would not have been necessary at all if he had shown any manly straightforwardness and frankness in the matter.

Colonel Moore

On a point of order, is the Senator allowed to say that the Minister's statement was mendacious?

Cathaoirleach

It is not a very nice word.

Mr. Blythe

I thought it was a very nice word. That is why I used it instead of something plainer to which objection might have been taken.

Mr. Comyn

It is the nicest he can use.

Mr. Blythe

It seems to me, therefore, in view of these facts, that the report is one which should be adopted. There is no doubt but that there is some matter for discussion in regard to officers of the House—officers of the Dáil and officers of the Seanad. It is clear that the Seanad must have complete control over its own officers and that nobody outside the Seanad can interfere with the officers of the Seanad in the execution of their duties, that they must obey the Chairman of the Seanad, acting on behalf of the Seanad. On the other hand, with the two Houses in one building, it seems to be a matter of convenience that there should be certain joint staffs. It would, I think, be almost impossible to work or it would be cumbersome and unduly expensive to make the claim that there should be a completely different staff for each House, that there should be a separate entrance for each House, that we should have separate staffs of cleaners, caretakers, etc. It seems to me therefore that it is desirable that there should be certain joint staffs and that some arrangements should be made to control these joint staffs so as to ensure that there would be no invasion of the respective rights of either House. I do not think there could be any great difficulty in making whatever adjustments that may be necessary to secure that.

I believe that in fact nothing would have arisen in this instance but for the deliberate action of the Minister in the first instance and his persistence in the second place, because even if something went wrong in the first instance, if he had been frank enough to admit it and apologise for it, the matter would have been straightened out. Of course there must be protection for any civil servant who would have joint responsibility in that way. It seems to me that the officers of the Oireachtas, and particularly the Superintendent of the Oireachtas, were placed in a position of considerable difficulty. Other Senators have alluded to that already. I think that what we require is an arrangement whereby any officer who has joint responsibility, so far as anything directly touching the Seanad is concerned is due to obey only the Cathaoirleach and so far as anything touching the Dáil is concerned, is due to obey the Ceann Comhairle only. When something arises of joint concern, arrangements must be made for consultation to secure that he is not faced with conflicting orders.

I do not agree at all with the suggestion that the Cathaoirleach should have consulted anybody before he issued the tickets. He is invested with authority to issue the tickets. If there was to be any consultation, the people concerned should have come to him, and it is quite clear that before the meeting of the Seanad there was plenty of time for the Minister to approach the Cathaoirleach on the matter of the tickets. The Cathaoirleach actually informed a member of the Government, and if that person did not convey that to the proper Minister it certainly was not the fault of the Cathaoirleach. In any case, it is perfectly clear that, in fact, the Minister did know in time. If he had represented to the Cathaoirleach that the safety of the building or the safety of the members of the Seanad required that people wearing blue shirts would not be admitted, I am sure that the Cathaoirleach would have considered that very sympathetically, although I should hope that it would be difficult to convince him of anything so ridiculous.

I do not think that the Seanad is bound to accept the Minister's view or that the Minister's view is the last word at all. I think that the Cathaoirleach in these matters should be the judge. The only thing is that the Cathaoirleach should have due regard to the safety involved in the proposal that may be put before him, but he was under no obligation to assume that something, that on the face of it appeared so ridiculous, should be acted on merely on the decision of the Minister and that the Minister should be taken as the last word — that it should be regarded as something to which the Cathaoirleach should yield without argument or that he should assume to be right without its having been put before him in the proper way. That is all I have to say, and I hope that the report will be accepted by the House.

Mrs. Wyse Power

In view of the personnel of the committee, whose report we are considering, and the mode of procedure that has been adopted by that committee, I think that hardly any other conclusions could have been arrived at. Here were seven members on that committee and four of these members, during the month of March, while our committee was sitting, absolutely voted against the Uniforms Bill. As well as that, we were presided over by the Cathaoirleach who, we now know, interested himself in the fusion of a political Party of which the Blueshirts were a component part. He presided over the consideration of the propriety of admitting to this building Blueshirts to whom he himself had given tickets, when he must have known that, on at least a dozen occasions, Blueshirts had been refused admission at the gate by the Superintendent of the Oireachtas.

Cathaoirleach

He did not know.

Mrs. Wyse Power

He was a party to the provocative test case arranged by Senator Miss Browne. So much for the personnel. The procedure which the committee followed was to consider a confidential report of the clerk. It was purely confidential and I do not intend to say anything about it. It was concerned mainly with, as you know, a Chathaoirligh, the old dispute of the status of the two clerks. A good deal of the time of the committee was given to this consideration, which had really nothing to do with what we were considering. It became entangled in our deliberations, however, owing to the evidence of the superintendent regarding the Clerk of the Dáil. When our own clerk's report was put on the Table—it was not really discussed but read — I considered that it should be returned to the writer and I returned it, and I think other members did the same for obvious reasons.

The next stage was that our committee asked the Cathaoirleach to prepare a report as a basis for consideration. For a reason which I shall explain this put us in leading strings in a manner which, I think, was not contemplated when the committee asked the report to be drawn up by the Cathaoirleach. Throughout, of course, the Cathaoirleach always told us that we were in a position to move amendments. That was evident all through. A difficulty, however, arose when, at a comparatively late stage of the proceedings, we were told that minority reports were not permissible. The clerk told us that at a stage when our considerations were very well advanced. It had been assumed all through that certain minority reports would be permitted, but our clerk found, from another official, that such a thing was not permissible. This having happened, there really remained nothing for us to do. All hopes of putting down our individual views were at an end, and there remained nothing to be done by those of us who differed from the majority but to dissent from the report as a whole.

The substance of the report was so drafted as to bring home to the Minister and the Clerk of the Dáil a breach of privileges. About a dozen sections of the original draft were deleted by the committee. When, on 2nd May, Senator Johnson was refused permission to speak, I left the sitting of the committee, as the amendment of Senator Johnson, which he wished to move, would have clarified much which was then under consideration. I presumed that Senator Johnson would have moved it on that day only for his disappearance from the committee. After my departure a new section was prepared for consideration at the next meeting on 9th May to fill the gap to which Senator Johnson's proposed amendment drew attention. On 9th May I moved the deletion of the last paragraph of the new section, which appears on page 38 of the proceedings of the committee. This was negatived. The section winds up with a statement that Senator Miss Browne's motives were irrelevant to the question under consideration. If that was so, I considered it unjust and illogical to include a statement regarding those motives.

On the 11th April Senator Johnson had moved:—

"That the Clerk of the Dáil be supplied with a transcript of those parts of the evidence given by the Superintendent of the Oireachtas on which the letter addressed to the Clerk of the Dáil was based."

This was negatived and the superintendent's answers merely were sent to the Clerk of the Dáil. An answer depends largely on the form of the question to which it replies, and the object in refusing the full transcript is evident. If a technical breach of privilege was committed by the Minister consideration should have been given to the exigencies of the moment when the superintendent wavered in carrying out his instructions regarding entrance through the outer gate to Leinster House.

Evidently, Sir, what I am saying is causing a great deal of merriment to Senator Blythe. I cannot help that. It is the usual type of manners, but it is a type of manners to which we are not accustomed in this House.

Mr. O'Neill

Hear, hear! That is the stuff to give them.

Mrs. Wyse Power

The fact remains on record that the Cathaoirleach had not been consulted on previous occasions when other defence measures were adopted. The minutes of the Committee for the Safeguarding of Government Buildings set up in 1926 make it clear that the Cathaoirleach was at no time represented on that committee and was never consulted with regard to defence measures. That being so, one can only wonder why defence measures taken by the present Minister for Defence should provoke such a storm. The answer is to be found, I think, in the hostile attitude of the majority in this House to the general policy of the present Government.

That is all I have to say except that, before concluding, I should like to say that it was not a pleasant task to have to speak as I have spoken of the Cathaoirleach, remembering the friendly relations that have existed between us since I became a member of this House.

Mr. Jameson

I was just going to say that as regards the members of the committee who seemed to wish to prepare and present a minority report, I am very sorry that the rules did not allow them to do so. Undoubtedly, however, they have had an ample opportunity of explaining all their views on what the minority report would have been about.

Mr. Johnson

No, they were refused an opportunity.

Mr. Jameson

We have heard this afternoon the views of the minority members, I take it for granted, who, we were told, were forbidden by the Standing Orders from presenting a minority report along with the majority report. Undoubtedly, they have had ample opportunity of expressing their views and the whole House knows what the contents of that report would have been as far as I can judge. I think it would have been a great deal better for us if it had been possible to allow the minority report to have been printed, as it would have saved us and the House a great deal of time. I should like to say, however, that the speeches of those to whom I am referring have disclosed an utter disregard of the confidential nature of the proceedings of any such committee. I have sat on many a committee and I never before heard members of a confidential committee come out and state what went on at that committee in the way we have heard this afternoon. I think it would be extremely difficult to carry on a committee of that nature at all if one knew that the people who were sitting beside one on the committee and discussing things confidentially would walk into the Seanad afterwards and disclose all one's confidential remarks and everything of the kind. No committees of a confidential nature could be carried on if that sort of proceeding was adopted.

Mr. Comyn

Why was it ever printed?

Mr. O'Hanlon rose.

Mr. O'Neill

On a point of explanation.

Cathaoirleach

On a point of explanation, Senator?

Mr. O'Neill

On a point of explanation, and with respect——

Cathaoirleach

Certainly, Senator.

Mr. O'Neill

I am sorry if I am being disrespectful in being respectful, but what I want to know is whether Senator O'Hanlon is winding up the debate.

Cathaoirleach

No, Senator.

Mr. O'Neill

With respect, Sir.

Cathaoirleach

The greatest respect, Senator.

Mr. O'Hanlon

The House will certainly note one thing in this debate, and that is the tone of voice and the attitude of those of us who favour the report as compared with the attitude and tone of those who stand opposed to it. It is rather a pity, after the headline we tried to set, and that we hoped to maintain, that such references as we have listened to should have been made. The whole thing drifted into an unpleasant sort of debate, as Senator Bagwell said, and I think that is rather a pity.

I should like if Senator Connolly were here to remind him of a few statements he made. Those who stand opposed to this report have used, as Senator Jameson said, every means in stating their case to show that political motives inspired those who stand in favour of the report and that the whole thing was unreasonable and illogical. Surely, the facts do not justify that at all. I should like to address one remark to Senator Dowdall, who is the mover of the motion, to refer back this report to the committee. Notwithstanding the Senator's denunciation, he said he had not studied this report very closely. I should like to refer one thing to Senator Dowdall— that is, this report. If he studied this report, he would not be so hasty in moving his motion. Senator Dowdall based his motion on one consideration solely. That was, the likelihood that the telephone message from the Chief of Staff to the Minister for Defence did not actually transfer what should have been transferred to the Minister. That is not the only consideration that brought about the position in which we came to the conclusion that the Minister for Defence misrepresented the facts in that respect. If the Senator makes any attempt to analyse the evidence and the data on which we came to these conclusions, I think that he will come to the same conclusions that we did.

Senator Comyn referred to one question — a question which I asked. May I refer to another question which I asked in regard to the attitude of the Minister for Defence and whether the Minister was misrepresenting the facts or not. Senator Brown has very properly brought it out. The matter which concerned us in that committee was not that there was a breach of privilege committed by the Minister, but that there was a conscious breach of privilege committed by the Minister. If the Minister was not aware of the circumstances, if he thought that, in the ordinary way, two Blueshirts were coming here and, in case the ushers did not act, he issued an order for the first time to the military guard to prevent these visitors coming in — if that was the position, what would the committee have done? We should have passed the matter over as lightly as possible. The evidence goes to prove one thing. That is, that when the Minister on that occasion—21st February, 1934—ordered, for the first time, the military to preclude from admission to Seanad Eireann two visitors bearing admission cards he was fully conscious that these two cards had been given by the Cathaoirleach for the purpose of admitting these two visitors, even though they wore blue shirts. That is the gravamen of the whole thing. The Senator says that probably the message was wrongly conveyed. Listen to the Minister himself on that point. He said: "I pointed out I was satisfied that, after hearing the Ceann Comhairle instruct the Superintendent, my purpose had been served." I put this question to the Minister:

"Must there not have been some exceptional circumstances? Must there not have been some information of a special character that brought about the condition of things where you altered the practice which had been successful heretofore? The ushers and the police guards had dealt with the situation perfectly heretofore, but that day you ordered that the military guard — and the military guard did — prevent two visitors in blue shirts from coming to the House. What were the special circumstances?"

The Minister's reply was—

"It is quite clear that Colonel Brennan, having received conflicting instructions from the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach, sought to advise me that two Blueshirts were going to come in, notwithstanding the fact that I had told him definitely that I was against their being admitted."

That is the Minister's own evidence in respect of the one point to which Senator Dowdall referred. It would be impossible to cover everything said in this debate, but some of the Senators opposed to the report talked about conciliation. I cannot but feel that their attitude is rather a peculiar one. We have Senator Johnson stating that, in point of fact, the draft report was interfered with. The greatest interference he could call to mind, after the thorough examination which, I am sure, the Senator, in his usual fashion, gave the report, was that the words "the Minister deliberately misled the House" were changed by the committee to "the House was misled." What did the committee do? It softened down the report. It took out the acerbities and its whole tendency was against undue bias——

Mr. Johnson

I agree with that.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Then we cannot be indicted by other Senators with having been unduly harsh. Our judgment was perfectly fair and perfectly honest. Senator Mrs. Wyse Power asked what else you could expect from such a committee which included four Senators who voted for the Uniforms Bill. The result, she said, was expected. What was the result? The four Senators, I take it, would be the Cathaoirleach, the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Senator O'Rourke and Senator Wilson, with, I take it, Senator Douglas. Those Senators were definitely in favour of the report. What did Senator Johnson say?

"A breach of the privileges of the Seanad occured in July, 1933, when the Minister for Defence...gave instructions that persons other than members of the Dáil and Seanad wearing the blue uniform shirt of the A.C.A. be prohibited entry into Leinster House.

"A breach of privilege occurred in February, 1934, when the Minister for Defence issued instructions to the military guard to prevent entry to Leinster House of persons bearing authorised tickets of admission to the Visitors' Gallery of the Seanad.

"A breach of privilege occurred when the Clerk of the Dáil, with the concurrence of the Ceann Comhairle, instructed the Superintendent of the Oireachtas that visitors wearing the blue shirt uniform were not to be admitted to Leinster House even though they had cards of admission to the Seanad."

In the essential and vital portion of our findings, Senator Johnson agrees with us that breaches of privilege were committed by the Minister for Defence and the Clerk of the Dáil. What about Senator Colonel Moore? He is the gem of the whole affair. The Senator read a memorandum which he had prepared but he left out the essential and vital portion of that memorandum which he prepared and submitted and which truly represented Senator Colonel Moore's view. This is the portion the Senator left out. I should explain that the Cathaoirleach and the Clerk were asked to produce a draft report upon which we should proceed to work until, ultimately, it was licked into final shape. That draft report was prepared and was being considered by us. What does Senator Colonel Moore say?

"I think, however, the Clerk of the Seanad was not in a position which permitted him to take a broader view; he had to draw up a report founded on the evidence as given."

Colonel Moore

That is simply explained. I deliberately left out that paragraph because it contained a statement about the Clerk of the Seanad. I thought that it was improper to bring the names of officials into a public statement. I deliberately cut that out.

Mr. O'Hanlon

There remains only Senator Mrs. Wyse Power. We heard her view to-day. Senator Jameson very properly asked how there could be any complaint that no minority report was submitted to the House. Was there anything which Senator Mrs. Wyse Power wanted to say in regard to the proceedings and findings of that committee which it would not be perfectly permissible for her to state here to-day? Was there anything which Senator Johnson could have wished to say which was not embodied in his communication to the Clerk of the Seanad and which, in addition, he could not have stated to-day? Was there any attempt to cloak anything, good, bad or indifferent? I do not want to enter into any great detail. I submit again, with all that respect that Senator O'Neill has for the Cathaoirleach, that Senator Dowdall, before pressing his motion, should devote a little time to perusing this report. He advanced only one reason for his motion — that a slip may have occurred, as slips do occur. I can give six reasons to show that there was no slip, that the Minister was conscious of the fact that the Cathaoirleach had issued these tickets of admission for these two visitors. The Senator should not be surprised if anybody says that the Minister misled the House on other occasions of lesser importance. Senator Dowdall must be aware that on the very day that the Blueshirts were precluded from coming into this House the Minister himself sent you a communication enclosing a copy of an order which he had issued on the 20th July. In that he said: "I am about to issue instructions to the military guard to exclude from admission to Leinster House persons wearing the blue shirt uniform." The Minister in enclosing copy of that order of his of the 20th July never informed the Cathaoirleach or the House that he had never issued such an order. Was that misleading the House? The Minister came again on 28th February and, from a carefully prepared typed statement, said that there were no instructions issued to the military guard.

I need not go further into this matter. It is not necessary to cover all the points, but I think the House would be very unfair to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to refer back this report to them without any reason and without any justification whatsoever. The report is perfectly honest and without political bias. Senator Johnson agrees that breaches of privilege were committed. Senator Colonel Moore agrees that breaches of privilege were committed. I cannot speak so definitely for Senator Mrs. Wyse Power. We have heard Senator Dowdall and no reason has been shown why the House should refer back this report to the committee. A lot of capital was made to-day out of the use of the word "conspiracy." I do not remember the Chairman using that word. The Chairman says he does not remember using it. It is an ugly word, anyhow.

Mr. Dowdall

It is.

Mr. O'Hanlon

It is an ugly word for anybody to attribute to another person unless there is absolute proof of its use. Take the situation as it was. Senator Miss Browne asked the Cathaoirleach for two tickets of admission for visitors wearing blue shirts who were coming to the Seanad upon a certain day. These two tickets were issued by the Cathaoirleach. The Superintendent of the Oireachtas was so informed. The Superintendent of the Oireachtas got in touch with the Clerk of the Dáil. He told the Clerk of the Dáil that two tickets had been issued by the Cathaoirleach for the admission of two visitors wearing blue shirts to Seanad Eireann on a certain date. The Clerk of the Dáil asked him what he was going to do. The superintendent replied that he was going to admit the visitors. The position was that the Superintendent of the Oireachtas had definitely made up his mind that he was going to obey the instructions of the Cathaoirleach and admit the visitors who would be wearing blue shirts. What happened? The Clerk of the Dáil told him not to do anything until he had given him instructions.

The superintendent was later sent for and was told that he was not to admit visitors. He was definitely instructed that he was not to do so. The superintendent said that he would admit them. The Clerk of the Dáil, then, with the concurrence of the Ceann Comhairle, said that the military would exclude the visitors. The superintendent said that there were no orders that he knew of on which the military could exclude visitors. Every sort of attempt was made to prevent the admission to Seanad Eireann of Blueshirts. What was the next step taken? It was this: that the Clerk of the Dáil instructed the Superintendent of the Oireachtas to get in touch with the Minister for Defence and to inform the Minister for Defence of all the facts. The superintendent did so, and then at the last stage of all this manoeuvring the Minister for Defence came in and, for the first time, visitors wearing blue shirts were excluded by the military guard from admission to Leinster House. What does that look like? The superintendent going to do what he considered to be his duty: to obey the orders of the Cathaoirleach, and steps taken by others to prevent the authority of the Cathaoirleach being carried out whereby he had authorised two persons wearing blue shirts to be admitted to Leinster House. What does that look like? Some Senators may hold that the use of the word "conspiracy" in such a connection would not be justified, but I submit that there are other words the use of which would be justified to describe the steps which were taken to exclude these visitors from Leinster House.

I submit that it should not be necessary to go more into detail on this. I do not want to do so. We do not want any heat introduced from outside. I think that the matter should be left as it is. Our tone all through this, I submit, has been conciliatory. There are probably many things which we could say and a lot of arguments that could still be put forward, but I do not want to be forced to put them forward. The position is this: that the Minister has seen our point of view. He has accepted the authority of the Cathaoirleach with regard to the admission of persons to this Chamber on tickets of admission issued by the Cathaoirleach. That is the position that we wanted. We have brought it about and we are satisfied. There is no justification at all for referring this report back to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That would be tantamount to rejecting the report.

Colonel Moore

I just want to make one or two remarks in reply to what Senator Jameson said.

Cathaoirleach

You have already spoken, Senator.

Colonel Moore

I merely want to make a statement by way of personal explanation. If this were a committee that had been appointed to carry out a certain programme then I think it would be very wrong for anyone to disclose what happened, but in this case three out of the seven members left the committee, because they thought, rightly or wrongly, that it was being carried on improperly and that the whole proceedings were wrong.

Cathaoirleach

If I may say so, Senator, you are making confusion worse confounded.

Mr. Dowdall

I said at the beginning that I was not contending, nor am I now, that there was no breach of privilege. I believe there was. I have read the report of the committee but I have not read the evidence. On page 11 of the report it is stated:

"In dealing with this conflict of evidence, the following are the material considerations: (a) In the first place, it is very unlikely that the recipient of an official telephone message received for transmission to a third person should forthwith transmit to that person a message substantially different from that which he had just received."

On this unlikelihood—because there was a conflict of evidence notwithstanding the report of the committee and of what Senator O'Hanlon says — the House is asked to approve of this report. It is on the ground set out in the following paragraph that I wish the report referred back to the committee. It reads:

"But we find that the Minister's subsequent action was consistent with his having received the message as originally given, and inconsistent with his having received the message which he said he received."

The implication there is that the Minister was guilty of deliberate and wilful misrepresentation. Senator Blythe, in the course of his speech, used the word "mendacious," and in the circumstances, if that is true, he was entitled to use the word mendacious. Let me refer to the report again. I see in it a reference not to a telephone message but to three telephone messages. On page 6, paragraph 12 of the report, we find this:—

"As instructed by the Clerk of the Dáil, the superintendent made inquiries and ascertained that there were no such orders on the Guard Orders for Government Buildings and Leinster House. He accordingly telephoned to the Chief of Staff and informed him as follows":—

If Senators will look at what the superintendent had to communicate to the Chief of Staff they will see that it consisted of five paragraphs: not a mere sentence or two, but five paragraphs. We are told in the report that "this telephone conversation took place at 12.47 p.m." As paragraph 12 is set out, it is, I submit, rather ambiguous because it seems to be doubtful as to whether it was the Clerk of the Dáil or the superintendent telephoned. But whoever telephoned the telephone conversation took place at 12.47 p.m. We are told first that "the Chief of Staff telephoned to the Minister for Defence." That was the second transmission." Then the Chief of Staff telephoned to the superintendent. From the report it appears that there were three telephone messages. As there were three telephone messages, I submit that it was very easy for uncertainty to creep in. This House is now asked, in face of the conflict of evidence, to find that the Minister was guilty of misrepresentation. I submit that this House should not put itself in the position of adopting a report which makes a very serious charge against the Minister, and particularly in view of the fact that the Chief of Staff, who possibly could shed some light on it, was not called and did not give evidence. Probably it was quite right that he should not be called, but the fact is there: that one man who could have given evidence was not called. We find again in the deliberations of the committee that the Clerk of the Dáil was not examined and that a transcript of the evidence was refused to him.

Mr. O'Hanlon

It was not.

Mr. Dowdall

Well, that was stated here, but I accept what you say. You had this committee dealing with the privileges of this House, two or three of the members of which resigned during the deliberations of the committee on the ground that they did not agree with the procedure. For this House to put on record what the residuum of the committee stigmatises as deliberate misrepresentation on the part of the Minister is a thing that, in my opinion, this House should not assent to. For that reason I move: "That the report be sent back to the committee."

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 24.

Tá

• Comyn, Michael, K.C.
• Connolly, Joseph.
• Cummins, William.
• Dowdall, J.C.
• Farren, Thomas.
• Johnson, Thomas.
• MacEllin, Seán E.
• Moore, Colonel.
• O'Neill, L.
• Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
• Robinson, David L.
• Robinson, Séumas.

Níl

• Bagwell, John.
• Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
• Browne, Miss Kathleen.
• Counihan, John C.
• Crosbie, George.
• Dillon, James.
• Duggan, E.J.
• Fanning, Michael.
• Garahan, Hugh.
• Griffith, Sir John Purser.
• Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Kennedy, Cornelius.
• McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
• Milroy, Seán.
• Moran, James.
• O'Connor, Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, M.F.
• O'Rourke, Brian.
• Staines, Michael.
• Toal, Thomas.
• Wilson, Richard.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Dowdall and D. Robinson; Níl: Senators O'Hanlon and Milroy.

Question declared lost.

Main question put.

Miss Browne

We heard a great deal about conciliation during the discussion on the amendment, and the efforts of members on the opposite benches to try to lessen the brunt of their defeat in this matter. They suggested that if the Minister had been approached by the chairman, or that if others had approached him, there would be conciliation, that everyone would be happy, and that this unpleasant matter would not have occurred. With the permission of the House I desire to call attention to an incident which arose directly out of the incident dealt with in the report, which shows that it would be very difficult for anyone to believe that the attitude of the Minister for Defence and his Government towards the Blueshirts was one of conciliation. In fact, it shows the attitude of the Party opposite to those opposed to them in politics and could not be considered conciliatory. When I raised this matter on February 21st, then or soon afterwards another order was issued by the Minister for Defence, prohibiting any person, whether a member of the Oireachtas or otherwise, wearing a blue shirt from entering or leaving the House by the gate in Merrion Street. I wish to draw special attention to this order, because it involves members of this House. I wish Senators to take a note of the fact that this order arose directly out of the previous incident, because it was made as soon as the Minister realised that he was wrong when questioned about the Blueshirts coming in at the Kildare Street entrance. Is that conciliation? Does that show that the attitude was one of conciliation or that his mind was reasonable in the matter? I contend that it does not.

Another thing to be considered is, that when the order was made prohibiting any person, a member of the Dáil or Seanad, or otherwise, from passing through the gate leading from Merrion Street to Leinster House, or leaving by that gate, no intimation of it was given, not even as a matter of courtesy, to members of either House. One would imagine that at least out of courtesy there would be some regard for the dignity of this House, for the honour of the country and its Parliament, and that members would be informed of such an order. Not at all. On May 30th I proceeded to leave the House and had gone a certain distance along the passage, as I had done hundreds of times, and as every member has done almost every day since this Parliament was established in 1922, without interruption, when a guard in Leinster House ran after me and told me that I would not be allowed to pass that way. I asked on whose authority he was stopping a member of the House from either entering or leaving. He said that he had his orders. He stood in front of me and assumed a rather threatening attitude — rather an insolent attitude. I would rather not refer to that. I do not blame the guard considering things that have happened in the country with regard to promotion for servants of the State who have shown a hostile attitude towards members of the political Party in opposition to the Government. Considering that persons of that kind, servants of the State, have been promoted for that reason, I do not blame any guard for trying to get a stripe and unnecessarily insulting a member of this House. He has every encouragement from the Government. I believe that such a thing could not happen— and has never happened — in any other Parliament in the world, where a member would be hindered from entering or leaving the House, a member who had committed no crime for which he could be arrested within the precincts of the House. There are only three crimes for which a member could be arrested within the precincts of the House, treason, felony, and a breach of the peace. I was not guilty of any of these crimes.

We cannot help feeling that that is done in a spirit of spite and revenge, for having drawn attention to the exclusion of Blueshirts who had tickets to the Seanad at the Kildare Street gate. We cannot help feeling that it was simply a matter of spite. It is not creditable to the Government and it is a disgrace to this Parliament that such a thing should happen. I am afraid that spirit of spite and revenge has permeated the whole Executive Council, from the head down. It is a very bad example for the country. I will say no more about it. I approve of the adoption of the report. I believe it is a fair report. The incident to which I drew attention shows that there was no effort at conciliation on the part of the Minister, and that there would not have been if he had been approached by the chairman as some Senators have suggested. When members on the opposite benches were speaking it seemed to me as if they were trying to create a condition amongst those not familiar with the report of the proceedings, so that they would not be able to distinguish the wood from the trees. I sympathise with Senator Comyn on being humiliated at the whole incident. I do not doubt he is. I hope the report will be adopted.

Mr. O'Neill

In my opinion this report has many peculiar aspects. It has been responsible for many peculiar speeches, none more so than the speech which has just been delivered by Senator Miss Browne. One item in this report will go down to posterity, and loom high in historic facts, when the story of this period comes to be written. Senator Miss Browne was like a kind of Lady Godiva, "Naked of" political emblems, while her only blue blouse was in the wash. But to cut out of this report all its peculiar trimmings, it appears to me, with my non-legal mind, but subject to correction, that the principal thing, in fact, the thing that the committee had to determine, was whether the action of the Minister for Defence, or the action of the Chairman of this House was right. The report discloses, as we all know, that a conflict of opinion arose between the Chairman of this House and the Minister for Defence. It is only human nature that when these two men went before the committee each of them made every endeavour to prove that the action they had taken was the right one. What do we find then? A most extraordinary thing happened. With a fairly long experience of public life, I have never in my career seen it happen before. One of the disputants actually took the chair. Not alone did he take the chair and examine, re-examine and cross-examine all the witnesses, but the most extraordinary thing was that he examined and cross-examined the Minister for Defence, whose action was opposed to his. I was very interested in the statement of Senator Samuel Brown. I am sorry he is not here now, because I would be perfectly frank, knowing Senator Brown for many years.

I looked upon him, as he was known, as one of the leaders of the Irish Bar. Naturally when any Constitutional or legal matter comes before the Seanad one is inclined to hang on his words. I am sorry that Senator Brown is not here but Senator Jameson is here, a man who has had to do during his career with many disputes, a man who is as well up in worldly affairs as any man in this Seanad or, in fact, in this country. I put it through you, Sir, to Senator Jameson if in all his experience he has ever known, when there was a dispute between two parties, or when there was a difference of opinion between two parties, that one of the disputants took the chair? The Cathaoirleach of old — I had the greatest respect for him, and I have the greatest respect for him still as the Chairman of this House, but when he assumed the position of Senator Westropp Bennett——

Mr. Garahan

You are making a mistake.

Mr. O'Neill

It is seldom you make a speech so you might allow me to make mine without interruption.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator should be allowed to proceed in his own way. He is doing very well.

Mr. O'Neill

Up to quite recently, as I have stated, I had the greatest respect for the Cathaoirleach of this House and I have still respect for him as Cathaoirleach, but when he left that Chair a fortnight ago——

Cathaoirleach

That is not relevant, Senator. You have been guilty of many irrelevancies, but I cannot allow any more.

Mr. O'Neill

After that transaction my opinion completely changed. In my opinion your action in presiding over the meetings of this committee and cross-examining witnesses——

Cathaoirleach

You have gone far enough. I cannot allow you to discuss the membership of a committee of this House. It is out of order.

Mr. O'Neill

When you acted as you did my opinion completely changed. I am forced to confess that your action in taking the chair at the meetings of this committee——

Cathaoirleach

You must stop now, Senator. You are out of order. The arrangements for these committees are made by the Seanad, not by you or by me.

Mr. O'Neill

The Seanad sent you——

Cathaoirleach

You must stop, Senator, or I will have you stopped. You are old enough to know that you must stop when you are told to do so.

Mr. O'Neill

I may say, Sir, with respect——

Cathaoirleach

You will have to stop. Do not mind the respect. I have ruled that you cannot criticise a committee that was arranged for by this House and the proceedings of which were arranged for. That is what I have ruled. Try to exercise your intelligence and observe my ruling.

Mr. O'Neill

I have got out all I had to say about you, but I am still waiting for Senator Andrew Jameson to give his opinion on what I have put to him. Now, Sir — I am afraid to say "with respect"— we find that in this report it is stated: "We report accordingly, Signed, T.W. Westropp Bennett, Chairman." Senator Jameson, a keen man of the world, suggested that it would have been much better if a minority report had been brought in. I have a fairly long and varied experience of reports, and the usual practice observed when any of these reports are submitted, is that you had those voting for it given, with their names attached, and you had those voting against given, with their names attached. You had also the names of those who were absent, but in this report, although Senator Jameson has pointed out that everything that the minority thought was stated by them to-day but we have not it in this report, which will go on the historical files of this House. I put it to any fair-minded man or woman in this House that anyone looking at that report in which it is stated, "We report accordingly," would naturally come to the conclusion that it was a unanimous report.

What do we find, going through the report? You have the statement of my old friend and colleague of many years — one who shared and took part in the dangers of the fight for this country when most of you were in your swaddling clothes as far as patriotism in this country was concerned — Senator Mrs. Wyse Power — and it grieves me to see an old warrior of the Land League days compelled to stand up here to defend her position — that she would not be allowed to append her name to a statement showing that she was against the report. I ask is that fair to one who has such a record, a national record, in this country? Senator Johnson also pointed out that he was against this report, but there is not a word of that in it. Perhaps when Senator O'Hanlon comes to reply he will tell us why the report appeared in this form. I have no fault to find with Senator O'Hanlon in anything he says or does. A fortnight ago a little incident happened which showed Senator O'Hanlon in a very glorious light. All his papers got mixed and he frankly admitted it. The President said: "Perhaps I can help you?" and Senator O'Hanlon replied: "Thank you, President"— he did not address him as "Mr." as some people did recently —"for doing something." The President did help him. When Senator O'Hanlon comes to reply perhaps he will be able to explain why the report is in this form.

I am not going to delve into the Standing Orders and the different things that happened in connection with this affair. I have been looking up the Standing Orders and I find according to Standing Order No. 43: "Visitors may be introduced by Senators with the consent of the Cathaoirleach." In passing I might say that I sometimes find it difficult to pin my faith to standing orders as they vary so much in administration. But take this Standing Order No. 43 at its face value. It is a personal privilege in connection with the position of the Chairman of this House but if this privilege is used by the Chairman in such a way, consciously or otherwise, that it clashes with the authority or power given to a Minister — I should like to hear Senator Brown on that — it must of necessity become inoperative. The Cathaoirleach has control according to Standing Order No. 43 as to who should sit in the gallery of this House. I am sorry Senator Brown is not here now, but surely it cannot be seriously contended that the Chairman has control of Government Buildings as a whole and that the Government or its Ministers are all deprived of power, by that standing order, to prevent people whom they consider dangerous from entering Government Buildings? In my opinion, for what it is worth, the Minister was fully justified in the action he took. I even go further in stating that in my opinion Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill which became law on October 17th, 1931, and was rushed through this House——

Mr. Milroy

With the assistance of Senator O'Neill's vote.

Mr. O'Neill

When I look at my friend Senator Milroy, the lines from Goldsmith's "Traveller" come to me —"remote, unfriended, melancholy, slow." Although, sir, it may be a little aside, Senator Milroy voted for it as also did his bosom friend Senator MacLoughlin sitting beside him—whom he is so pleased to quote as an authority in name calling. The other day he referred to me as some kind of banshee — a lachrymose banshee. I am going to be more respectful to Senator Milroy than he is to me. I should like it to go out to the world and to appear on the pages of Irish history that Senator Milroy in love or war is the grandest, the brightest, the loveliest-minded man that has appeared on the horizon of Irish politics since the time of Brian Boru. We will leave it at that. As I was saying, Sir, I take delight in Senator Milroy interrupting me because, no matter what he says about me or no matter what I say about him, with all our faults we love each other still. To get back to the serious part of this, however, Senator Milroy interrupted me by saying that I had helped by my vote on a certain occasion. Yes, I did, and I am prepared to stand behind it. I also stood behind the Government when they wanted the Blueshirt Bill put through, which Senator Milroy did not.

In my opinion, that Act gave the Government, the Ministers and the Guards of this State exceptional powers, not alone to stop a person from coming into this House but it gave the Guards power to arrest people walking along the roadway. Even you, Sir, or I could have been arrested. Consequently, I believe that the Minister did not exceed his duty when he acted as he did. I want to make my position clear. It will not take me very long. I am not waning in the least in the respect I consider due to this House. I am not waning in the least as to the respect I consider due to the Chairman of this House. I held a similar position to you, Sir, for a great number of years. It may have been a minor position — I do not think it was — but it may have been looked upon as such. I held that position, surrounded by courageous and faithful colleagues — one of them is here beside me — who, in order to maintain the privileges of that Assembly were often surrounded by Black and Tans who had revolvers pointed at their heads. If Senator Michael Staines were here, he could testify to that. He was one of my colleagues, and he and others were taken from amongst us, not knowing what their fate might be. Some of us forfeited no less a sum than £12,500 to maintain the dignity of the position I was placed in. I do not say this in a spirit of bravado, in a spirit of martyrdom, or in a spirit of regret, but I say it to show that Senator Mrs. Wyse Power, if I might use her name, or myself do not take kindly or fondly to any disrespect shown to this House or to any other Assembly to which we ever belonged, or any disrespect towards the Chairman of this House. I say also that if disrespect has been shown to this Assembly — and I frankly say that that disrespect has been shown — it has not been shown by the Minister. It is not by the actions that the Minister took that disrespect has been shown and the House brought into ridicule and made a laughing stock in this country. It has been shown by the people who endeavoured to make the gallery of the Seanad a political platform for political propaganda, and, further, to turn it, as we have seen it turned, into a kind of beauty parlour to show off political emblems of blue.

Mr. O'Hanlon

There is no need to say much on this matter, but I should like to assure Senator O'Neill that he has misread the whole position and to assure him that there has been in this matter no conflict at all between the Chairman of the House and the Minister. I think that the Senator's remarks in that respect are a little bit unfortunate. What some of us considered was a breach of the privileges of this House was committed by the Minister on a certain occasion. The matter was reported to this House and the House referred it for further consideration to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That committee now submits a report to the House and asks the House to adopt it. There was no clash between two parties. There were no two disputants, in the words of Senator O'Neill, such as the Chairman and the Minister. That did not arise at all.

This House, under Article 20 of the Constitution, makes its own rules and standing orders, and we believed that these rules and standing orders were contravened. That is the cause of the whole thing and there was nothing of a political character about it. With regard to the question of a minority report, Senator O'Neill says that he has never known of a committee that did not also issue its minority report. In this respect, the Chairman ruled at the beginning that those who chose to put forward a minority report would be perfectly free to do so. The highest authority on such matters in the Irish Free State subsequently gave it as his opinion that parliamentary practice did not permit of a committee, such as ours was, issuing a minority report. On that advice, the Chairman ruled that a minority report could not be issued, and those who were affected by that decision were at once informed.

Mrs. Wyse Power

We were not aware of that until we were well on with the consideration of the report.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I also was not aware of it until we were well on in the report, so nobody can be blamed in that respect. If we sinned in that small way through ignorance I do not think any blame should attach to the members of the committee. Senator Dowdall made the point that the Chief of Staff was not invited to give evidence. That raises a question that I would not choose to deal with too fully. My opinion of the matter is that I would prefer to leave the difficulty completely unsolved rather than to create a position whereby the administrative head of the Army should be asked to give evidence which might conflict with the evidence already tendered by the political head of the Army. Under no circumstances, would I in any way do anything that would bring about a condition of things such as that. That was the one motive that actuated us in not inviting the Chief of Staff to give evidence before the committee.

Senator Dowdall also said that a transcript of the evidence was refused to the clerk. It was not refused to the clerk, and such statements should not be made. A transcript of the evidence, in so far as it affected the clerk, was available to the clerk if he had asked for it. It was never refused to him. The Senator also said that two or three members of the committee resigned. Two or three members did not resign. Only one member resigned. I think that we should get hold of all the facts, and if we get hold of all the facts, I think that this House would have no hesitation at all in making up its mind that this committee took into consideration all the relevant factors, investigated the whole matter fully, put forward its views fearlessly and moderately in the report, and that this report is worthy of adoption. I hope, accordingly, that the House will adopt it.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I beg to move:—

That it be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges —

(a) to consider and report on the steps which should be taken to terminate the position created by paragraph 3 of the report of the Committee on the Oireachtas Staff, laid on the Table of the House on the 15th January, 1924, whereby the Clerk of the Dáil was constituted Civil Service Head of the Oireachtas Staff;

(b) to consider and report on the alterations, if any, which are necessary in the general basis of the administration of Leinster House and in the status and powers of the officials of the Seanad and of the joint staff so as to ensure the absolute co-equality of the Seanad with the Dáil under the Constitution and the independence of the Seanad in the control of its own officials.

Mr. Milroy

I second the motion.

Question put and agreed to.