Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jan 1936

Vol. 20 No. 24

Constitution (Amendment No. 24) Bill, 1935.

I move:

That consideration of the Second Stage of the Constitution (Amendment No. 24) Bill, 1935, be postponed until a later date to enable the following Message to be sent to the Dáil:—

"That, inasmuch as the Seanad is willing to pass the Constitution (Amendment No. 24) Bill, 1935, provided that an amendment is inserted therein to the effect that the Bill shall not come into operation until a Constitution Amendment Bill has been passed by the Dáil establishing a Second Chamber in substitution for Seanad Eireann, the Seanad proposes a conference between members representing both Houses of the Oireachtas for the purpose of considering an amendment of the character suggested and such other amendments providing for the period of transition or otherwise as may be found desirable:

That the Seanad be represented at such conference by seven Senators."

That a Message be sent to the Dáil accordingly.

I move this motion in the belief that it will enable this House to express its attitude towards the situation created by the return from the Dáil under Article 38A of the Constitution (Amendment No. 24) Bill in a more satisfactory manner than by a direct vote for or against the Second Stage; and because I feel that my proposals represent the real opinion, apart from Party considerations, of a large majority of the members of the Seanad.

Briefly stated, my proposal is that we should make it clear to the Dáil that, while we cannot acquiesce in any way in the establishment of Single Chamber Government and will oppose such establishment by every constitutional means in our power, we are nevertheless prepared to agree to the abolition of this House as at present constituted. If the Dáil will agree to amendments to this Bill ensuring that a new Second Chamber will be established in place of the Seanad which it is proposed to abolish, I propose that we should pass the Bill as thus amended, and not only that we should do so but that we should co-operate with the Dáil in the enactment of any legislation that may be found necessary or desirable with the object of enabling the change-over to be carried out as smoothly and as easily as possible.

The President's arguments during the successive stages of the Bill in the Dáil against Second Chambers in general and ours in particular were faithfully dealt with when the Bill reached the Seanad. This is now a matter of history, and I do not now propose to go back upon it. I myself on that occasion, and also when the Bill to reduce our power of suspension was going through this House, endeavoured to set out at length, and in some detail, the work done by the Seanad and to show the falsity of the charges made against it and against its members. There is nothing which I then said which I have reason to withdraw or to alter. I am confident that the impartial investigation of the Seanad's record, which I hope will some day be undertaken by some historian, will demonstrate that its useful work was very greatly in excess of its errors, from which, like all human institutions, it cannot claim to be immune. But I have no hope whatever that the stream of calumny which has been, and is being, directed against us will soon abate, or that any argument will alter the determination of the majority in the Dáil to abolish the present Seanad. I therefore believe that our energies should be directed towards ensuring that this Seanad shall not be removed from the Constitution until another and better Second Chamber has been established to take its place or, at least, until there have been inserted in that instrument safeguards for the liberty and sovereignty of the people such as are to be found elsewhere.

I should like to make it clear at the outset that I and those with whom I am associated have never rigidly taken our stand on the maintenance of the Seanad as it is at present constituted. While not admitting in any way that this House has been ineffective or has failed in its duty in the past, we have repeatedly stated that we would welcome any change which would add to its usefulness, and I feel certain that there is not one member of the group to which I belong who would not gladly retire if by so doing he could bring about a new Seanad which would be representative in character and free from Party control. There are still no less than 20 members of the House who have belonged to it continuously since its inception in 1922, and a number of others have been members for almost the whole period. Whatever Party they may belong to, I am confident that they will agree with me that the majority of Senators have always used their influence against Party rancour and bitterness, and that the Seanad has habitually given to Bills which came before it a consideration different in kind from, and more dispassionate than, that which is usual in the other House.

But, as I have said, that is not the line I propose to take now. If the Seanad passes the motion which I am proposing, its action will be perfectly consistent with that taken by it so long ago as the 11th July, 1933, when it passed the following resolution and sent the appropriate message to the Dáil:—

That it is expedient that a joint committee consisting of five members of the Seanad and five members of the Dáil, with the Chairman of each House ex-officio, be set up to consider and report on the changes, if any, necessary in the constitution and powers of the Seanad.

The action taken then by the Seanad was, in effect, an offer of co-operation with the Dáil in carrying out the mandate alleged to have been obtained by the Government at the last general election for the abolition of the Seanad as at present constituted, and in the establishment of a new Second Chamber. If the Dáil had accepted this proposal, a genuine attempt could have been made to find a form of Second Chamber acceptable to all Parties; and I personally have no doubt that members of this House would have been found ready to treat the question in a patriotic spirit and without regard to Party considerations. If the joint committee had been set up and had failed, the Government had nothing to lose. They could still have proceeded with this or some similar Bill. If the committee had succeeded, the country as a whole would have gained. But the Dáil did not even have the courtesy to consider our message. That message has been printed on every successive Order Paper of the Dáil since its dispatch in July, 1933, and it has been completely ignored. If the proposal did not meet with the approval of the Dáil, it might have been expected, out of courtesy to another House of the same Parliament, to send a message to that effect; but it has not done so. I am glad to notice that at least one member of the other House—I refer to Deputy Dillon—has commented strongly on the attitude of the Government and of the majority of the Dáil in this matter.

It would appear to be the intention of the President to pass this Bill into law as it stands, over the head of this House, and to do so without any appeal to the people, whether by referendum or by general election. Such action is, to my mind, fundamentally wrong, and should in my opinion, be opposed by every constitutional means. It is contrary to all the recognised principles of democracy to make a change in the method of government of a country without a direct mandate from the people or without, at any rate, providing that the proposed change shall be submitted to the people before it comes into effect. I cannot find evidence that the Government either asked for or obtained a mandate to establish Single Chamber Government in this country, but I am satisfied beyond doubt that they did not obtain any authority from the people to place a bare majority of the Dáil in an unrestricted position to amend or repeal any or every Article of the Constitution without any period of delay or without any kind of reference to the electorate. And that is exactly what this Bill proposes to do.

If any Article of the Constitution does not suit the Government of the day, it can use its majority to abolish that Article and, if pressed for time, the Standing Orders can be suspended and the Bill passed in one day and become law by the evening. The new Sixth Stage in the Dáil suggested by the President as a substitute for the Seanad would be utterly useless on such an occasion. I wonder whether the people of this country realise that the constitutional provisions that the Oireachtas shall meet once a year and that the Dáil must dissolve within six years after a general election can in the future be altered or abolished at any time by a bare majority? I wonder if they realise that an Executive Council having a majority of one could abolish the Dáil or suspend its sittings indefinitely if it found it convenient to do so? I wonder if they realise that every safeguard for individual liberty which has not already been made removable by the Executive Council, by virtue of Article 2A, will now be subject to the will of a bare majority in the Single Chamber?

Even the independence of the judiciary, always regarded in civilised countries as the sure shield of the individual against tyranny, is gravely threatened, for the belated attempt made to safeguard it in the Bill is at best feeble and at worst may be totally ineffective. Under the Schedule, Article 63 of the Constitution will now be altered so as to require the votes of four-sevenths of the members of Dáil Eireann before a judge can be removed from office. But there is nothing whatever to prevent a bare majority removing Article 63 altogether which means that a judge can be removed by a bare majority, by first removing Article 63 and then removing the judge.

The Labour Party in the Dáil, having assisted in every possible way to create this situation, is at last showing signs of uneasiness. In the Irish Independent of the 7th January last, Deputy Davin is reported to have said:—

"Single Chamber Government is a positive menace to democratic government, especially when any one Party has a clear majority over all Parties in the Dáil."

Personally I agree with the Deputy, but I am curious to know why he voted for a Bill which sets up what he considers to be a menace to democratic government. The leader of the Labour Party in the Dáil appears to share to some extent the uneasiness expressed by his colleague. In his speech in favour of the motion to send this Bill again to the Seanad, he said:

"I would urge the members of the Executive Council, and in particular I would urge the members of the Fianna Fáil Party to exercise their opinions within the Party, to ensure that the Referendum will again be incorporated in the Constitution."

The value of these protestations is somewhat lessened by the fact that, although more than 18 months have elapsed since the Seanad passed and sent to the Dáil a Bill to re-establish the Referendum for constitutional amendments, and though it was open throughout that period to Deputy Norton or any of his colleagues to press for a discussion of the Second Stage of that Bill, not one of them moved in the matter. The fact that the Bill was supported by members of all Parties in this House did not prevent its being ignored by the Dáil in exactly the same way as the Message requesting a joint committee to which I have already referred. It is, of course, obvious that the present Government have no more use for the Referendum, now that they are in power, than had their predecessors in office and I have no doubt that the Labour Party are not oblivious to that fact. I would point out, however, that the motion which I am now moving is sufficiently wide in its terms to permit the conference which is proposed to discuss the reinsertion of the Referendum in the Constitution, if it is desired to do so.

One of the gravest features in this Bill to abolish the Seanad is that it seeks to effect the momentous Constitutional change from a bicameral to a unicameral system by the simple process of deleting from the Constitution (which was, of course, carefully designed for a bicameral Legislature) all references to Seanad Eireann. It is true that it does not quite succeed in doing so, for the Seanad has not been removed from Article 2A; and there are certain other grave flaws. But that, at all events, is the declared object. The safeguards which are universally regarded elsewhere as the necessary concomitants of Single Chamber Government are here conspicuously absent. There is no other country in the world, as far as I can find, which claims to adhere to the principles of democratic government, in which a simple majority in Parliament has unlimited power to alter the Constitution and to filch from the people any quantum of their sovereign power. In unicameral countries the restrictions on the power of the Legislature are found to be even more stringent than in bicameral countries —which, after all, is what one would naturally expect. The provisions relating to Constitutional amendments in the six unicameral States in Europe will serve to illustrate my point.

In Spain, which established a Single Chamber Parliament after the Revolution, considerable care was taken to prevent hasty change—the most important provision being that the Cortes can only pass an amendment to the Constitution by a two-thirds majority and, when such an amendment is passed, the Cortes is automatically dissolved and the amendment does not actually become law until passed by the newly-elected Chamber. In Finland, which has also only one Chamber, one-third of the House can cause legislative proposals to be delayed until after the next election and even then certain fixed majorities are required before constitutional amendments can become law. In Esthonia, which before the establishment of dictatorship had Single Chamber Government, one-third of the Chamber could submit any law to a referendum. In Lithuania a three-fifths majority is necessary for constitutional amendments, which may be then submitted to a referendum if demanded by the President. In the other Single Chamber countries—Bulgaria and Turkey— similar provisions are to be found, but as virtual dictatorships now exist in these countries, their constitutional provisions, I am afraid, are only of academic interest.

The Saorstát will, if this Bill passes, follow Spain, Finland, Esthonia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Turkey in establishing Single Chamber Government. But it will have the unique distinction of being the only one of the seven unicameral countries which has no democratic safeguards. The President, at one time, appears to have been sensible of this danger. Speaking in the Dáil on the Fifth Stage of this Bill on the 24th May, 1934, he said:—

"It is suggested that we did this without any thought as to the situation that would result when the Bill became law. We did not do anything of the kind. Although we shall be going to the Seanad in a very short time—Wednesday, perhaps—with this Bill, I do not expect that the Seanad are going to pass it. They did not pass the Bill limiting their powers and I do not expect that they are going to pass this Bill abolishing themselves. We will, therefore, have a period of close on a year before this measure becomes law. During that period of time it is possible to do certain things and it is intended that certain things should be done."—(Debates, Vol. 52, col. 1812.)

On the following day he returned to the subject, giving us some indication of what these things might be. He said:—

"We want the Articles which guarantee democratic rights accepted by both sides, if possible. They are being examined at the moment... those who have had to apply them under successive administrations— permanent officials have had experience of their application—are having them examined at present with a view to seeing whether, in their precise, present form, they can be permanently adopted and secured, in so far as we can secure them, as the basis of our Constitution. When that examination is completed, I propose to bring in a Bill to deal with them."—(Debates, Vol. 52, col. 1876.)

That is nearly 20 months ago, but I gather from the lack of any reference to the subject in the President's speech on the motion to send this Bill to the Seanad a second time that nothing has been done, or if the matter has been considered, that the President is not yet in a position to announce the result in the Dáil. This very fact is, I suggest, a very strong reason why this resolution should be passed and should be accepted by the Dáil.

I have pointed out that our Constitution was carefully designed for a bicameral system. I, personally, have the gravest doubts whether, apart from the obvious and unique dangers I have mentioned, it can be made to work as an efficient system by the simple process of lopping off one of the two limbs of the Legislature. It would be just as sensible to amputate the two fore-legs of a quadruped and then to expect it to walk upright. Our whole legislative and administrative machine is based upon a Two Chamber system and I would like to refer to one aspect of the matter which I believe will be appreciated by this House and by a large number of persons in the country.

There has recently been published by the Government a compilation entitled "A Register of Administrative Law in Saorstát Eireann," covering the period from the 6th December, 1921, down to the end of 1933. In the introduction to this compilation I find the following astounding paragraph:—

"The Oireachtas, accepting the view that its laws should in the main be statements of principle, has shown a notable tendency to delegate the detailed elaboration and the practical application of its enactments. Legislation over a very wide area of civic activities has accordingly been reinforced by administrative directions of the most varied kinds and an extensive range of subsidiary law has grown up in the 12 years under review, far greater in volume than the body of law directly enacted by the Oireachtas. More than 3,000 orders are entered in this Register."

I confess that I read, with something like dismay, the statement that the Oireachtas has accepted "the view that its laws should in the main be statements of principle." That is emphatically not my view and I do not believe it is the view of the majority of the members of this House.

Is the statement signed by anybody?

The compilation was prepared under Government instructions by Mr. Gavan Duffy and Mr. Art O'Connor and I take it they are responsible for the introduction.

It is signed by them.

It is definitely signed by them. But the fact that such a statement can be made with some show of authority in a publication issued under Government auspices, undoubtedly shows the direction in which we are tending. I see by the numbers of the orders which appeared on the Seanad Order Paper yesterday that over 640 Administrative Orders were made in 1935. I do not know the number made in 1934.

A Senator

659.

Thank you. It may well be that the laws of the future, once the Seanad has been abolished, may consist of "short statements of principle," and that the Government majority in the Dáil will concede to the Executive powers of legislation never contemplated when Article 2 of the Constitution was enacted. Senators are familiar with the fact that a number of our Acts confer power on an Executive Minister to make rules, regulations and orders pursuant thereto. These are generally directed by statute to be laid before each House in some such terms as the following:—

"Every regulation made by the Minister under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat annulling such regulation, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done previously under such regulation."

I have been at some pains to ascertain the number of Acts of the Oireachtas in which a provision of this kind has been inserted. A search of this kind is difficult owing to the fact that this is not a matter to be found in the Index to the Statutes or in any other publication that I know of. But out of a total of 596 statutes passed, from the beginning of the Saorstát until the end of 1935, I have a list of 86 in which this provision is contained. An exhaustive search would probably discover others. In some of these Acts, the provision occurs more than once, and is applicable to different sets of regulations. In a small number of cases the provision is of a more positive kind, requiring a definite resolution of approval by each House of the Oireachtas before the regulations with which they deal can have the force of law. It may be said that in some cases the power of making regulations (and therefore the power of annulment) is spent. But it must be borne in mind that the power given to a Minister to make regulations is, in general, of full force and effect while the Act itself is in force, and there have been cases recently of regulations having been made pursuant to statutes passed a number of years ago.

The point I wish to bring out is the following: In something like 15 per cent. of our statutes, passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, power has been given to Executive Ministers to make what is called administrative law; but power was always reserved to each House of the Oireachtas to annul any such administrative law. If the power is exercised at present by either House the law in question is a nullity. It needs no argument to show that this power was conceded by the Legislature to the Executive on the faith of the continuance of the bicameral system. It may be said with truth that neither House of the Oireachtas has made frequent use of this power of annulment. I would point out, however, that an Executive Council is naturally careful not to make orders of which there is any serious danger of annulment. Power given to the Dáil alone to annul the administrative laws of the Executive is, therefore, of no practical value as a safeguard for the people. For the Executive is responsible to the Dáil and whatever regulations the Government propound will have an automatic majority behind them in that House, and will not be annulled.

I do not know if it is generally realised that, as the result of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ryan and others versus Lennon and others, which is now part of our substantive law, our Constitution is virtually in a state of chaos. The Constitution Committee, of which I was a member, intended when drafting the Constitution to establish the sovereignty of the people rather than that of Parliament; and I believe that the third Dáil sitting as a constituent assembly had the same object in view. But when redrafting Article 50 (which deals with amendments to the Constitution) the Dáil failed to carry out that intention. The result is that, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, it is possible for any Article of the Constitution, however fundamental it may be, to be amended or totally repealed. I may point out in passing that all three judges appeared to be of the opinion that there is, however, no power in the Oireachtas to amend the Constitution Act itself, that is the Act to which the Constitution itself is a Schedule. Chief Justice Kennedy, in his dissenting judgement says that Act is "an Act which it is not within the power of the Oireachtas to alter, or amend, or repeal." Mr. Justice Fitzgibbon says in his judgement:—

"It is further to be observed that this power to make amendments is limited to ‘amendments of this Constitution,' and that the Constituent Assembly did not confer upon the Oireachtas any power to amend the Constituent Act itself...."

He further says:—

"In this connection I may add that in my opinion an amendment of Article 50 by the deletion of the words ‘within the terms of the Scheduled Treaty' would be totally ineffective, as effect is given to those words by the Constituent Act itself, which the Oireachtas has no power to amend."

These two quotations seem sufficiently definite, but Mr. Justice Murnaghan in his judgment actually refers to the provision of Section 2 of the Constituent Act and treats those provisions as being still of full force and effect. I need hardly remind Senators that Section 2 is purported to be deleted by the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Act, 1933. What the effect will be on that Act of the decision of the Supreme Court I do not profess to know.

Now I do not want to suggest for one moment that the present administration or any one party has any direct responsibility for the present chaotic condition of our Constitution——

Nobody else.

——or that the position can be remedied by continuing the present method of electing the Seanad, or even by creating a new Second Chamber. But I do suggest that the present time is, in view of what I have said, a dangerous time to experiment with Single Chamber Government. I believe the time has come for a revision of the Constitution on non-Party lines and for a careful consideration of the principles involved. I suggest to the President that a new Constitution should be drafted and that the draft should be prepared not by civil servants but by a committee of persons of proved ability and experience, representative of all sections of the community. If a Constitution is to be a fundamental law of the State it must be respected by all sections. A Constitution which emanates from a Party Government will always be suspect, no matter how good it may be.

The President has a unique opportunity. Let him set up a committee with a majority of persons who have no political axe to grind and who would not be subject to pressure from any political Party. That committee could take evidence from civil servants and from persons with political experience drawn from all sides. Its report should be published and allowed to be discussed by the public generally before it is submitted to Parliament. I am sufficiently optimistic to believe that if such action was taken by the President, there would be a good chance of obtaining general agreement on this momentous question of our fundamental law. The appointment of such a committee would add to public confidence and, in my opinion, would do much to lessen Party bitterness.

Before I conclude, I would like to express my agreement with the speech delivered by Deputy Thrift when this Bill was before the Dáil. He expressed the views of those members of what used to be called the minority who have loyally accepted the Saorstát.

It is very easy to be loyal to the State when you belong to the majority and the Government you support is in power. The real test of loyalty comes when you do not approve of the policy of the Government, and I have no hesitation in saying that the people for whom Deputy Thrift spoke have shown their loyalty to this country quite as well, to say the least of it, as did the present Government Party when they were in opposition.

The old political minority were represented in this House, in its earlier years, quite out of proportion to their numbers in the country. I believe that was a good thing for the State—I am quite sure it was a good thing for the minority. With the abolition of University representation in the Dáil and the abolition of the Seanad, the number of parliamentary representatives in a position to speak for the minority will be very small indeed. While I admit that, in strict political theory, no minority has any right to parliamentary representation out of proportion to its numbers, I feel, nevertheless, that it is often good policy for a majority to be generous, and I think it most unfortunate that these two political changes—both of which reduce minority representation— should take place at practically the same time.

It was disingenuous of the President to suggest, as he did when replying to Deputy Thrift, that the minority had associated itself with the Fine Gael Party and accordingly that the need for any special representation had disappeared. In many ways, I should be glad if that were the truth, but, to my knowledge, it is not. I have no title to speak for those who were formerly Unionists, for I have never been myself a Unionist. In my personal opinion— and I think it is shared by very large numbers who were Unionists—the religious minority have been well and even generously treated by the successive Governments which have functioned since the State came into being. I am satisfied that that minority does not need any special protection, but I would like to see it represented in the Legislature. I know that there is still a minority consisting of Catholics and non-Catholics which is unwilling to attach itself to any of the organised political Parties for reasons which it would be difficult to explain briefly, and which, in any case, do not affect my argument. This minority consists largely of men and of women of an independent turn of mind, of the type that is not responsive to a Party whip, but just the kind of citizen likely to serve the nation effectively in a Second Chamber.

Not the least of my objections to this Bill is that it will deprive the Legislature of the wisdom and counsel of men, both Catholic and non-Catholic, who, though in a small minority, have a valuable contribution to make in the achievement of a United Ireland and who are unable to seek representation in the Dáil as pledgebound members of any of the existing political Parties.

To sum up: if the object of the Government is to establish an Oireachtas consisting of one Chamber with unrestricted powers, I consider that the sole responsibility for such action should rest on the Government and the Dáil majority which supports them. This House may disappear, but let it not be said that it acquiesced in Single Chamber Government of the kind which will follow the passing of Constitution (Amendment No. 24) Bill. If, on the other hand, it is not the desire of the Government to give unrestricted power to one House, then I suggest that the Seanad should submit to its abolition as at present constituted and should offer to co-operate with the Dáil in amending the Bill in the manner necessary to achieve this object. If the Seanad agrees with me, I believe the resolution which I now propose will make its attitude perfectly clear.

I beg formally to second the motion, reserving my right to speak later on if I so desire.

This discussion is, of course, purely academic; the absence of President de Valera plainly shows his contempt for this motion and is an indication that neither the motion nor anything else will thwart him in his determination to wipe out this House. As I was in at the birth of this House, I should not like to let this "sod picnic," to quote the elegant phrase of an eminent statesman of the Government Party, pass without a few valedictory words.

The Seanad was born without President de Valera's benediction. That was its original sin. It persisted despite President de Valera's hostility. That was its mortal sin. It refused to be intimidated by President de Valera's blustering as it had refused to be terrorised by his gunmen. That brought about its doom. That is, in brief, the history of this House by one who has been not only in it but of it. It is a history of which I for one am proud. It is a history of which those who come after us will be prouder still. They will realise that we stood for country and democracy when the President and his Party stood for politics and pique. It is utter childishness to pretend that this House is to fall because of inherent weaknesses or antagonisms. This House is to fall for one reason and one reason only: that is, that it put the will of the people before the will of President de Valera. President de Valera was unable to destroy the Seanad in 1922 and, as everybody in politics knows, "he forgets not neither does he forgive." He nursed his hostility for 13 long years and now he is having his revenge.

I was amused to read in the debates of the Dáil talk of "an ideal Seanad." It appears that we should have been spared annihilation if we had only been an "ideal body." I presume that the Government is an ideal Government, including as it does, on the Ministerial fringe, at least, one idealistic coiner of racy Irish jokes. I presume that the Dáil is an ideal Dáil as evidenced by its gentle regard for the rights of minorities and, of course, it would be the highest treason to suggest to anybody but a half-dead Fianna Fáil Senator that the President is not an ideal President. But, despite this search by idealists for idealism, I am convinced that if members of this Assembly were furnished with angelic wings—Senator Comyn having as Vice-Chairman a particularly expansive pair —President de Valera would nevertheless condemn us to the nether regions.

I should be sorry not to be able to cross swords with the Senator.

I have watched the President's political career closely and, while I have read and heard many professions of tolerance and liberality by him, I have never yet seen him act the generous part at the expense of his own political interests. Those of us who endeavoured to serve the people in this House have the satisfaction—that is, if it can be regarded as satisfaction—of knowing that the institution which we helped to build up is not being sacrificed in isolation. The President's urge for destruction has forced him over a wide field. As far as in him lay he endeavoured to destroy the first Dáil by calling on his cohorts to leave it when he found that Arthur Griffith was about to be elected President to succeed him, Arthur Griffith was not fit for the shoes of Eamon de Valera —in the President's modest opinion. President de Valera endeavoured by force of arms to destroy succeeding Dála, which were illegal institutions, because he did not dominate them— but they were immediately legitimised when Mr. de Valera became President of the Executive Council. His passion for destruction, however, was not abated. He started out as President by abolishing the top hat. Then he abolished our markets. He has abolished the right of minorities to representation on Dáil Committees. He has abolished our external trade. He has abolished our fairs. He has abolished our calves, our cows and our pig markets. He has abolished the right of a citizen——

On a point of order. Sir. I should like to know what has this to do with the motion before the House.

I think it has everything to do with it, Senator.

He has abolished the right of a citizen to protect himself from assault at public meetings. He has abolished the right of our poorer citizens to untaxed goods and fuel. He has all but abolished the courts, and he has abolished that sprightly weekly An Phoblacht. Who are we, then, to complain when the inspired arch-abolitionist lays his destructive hands on this Assembly?

There are just a few things which President de Valera has not abolished. He has not abolished unemployment, he has not abolished the Border. The Border was to fold itself up as soon as President de Valera strode into Merrion Street. The Border is still there and the best a Ministerial member of this House could do at the recent Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis was, in effect, to commend the Border problem to our prayers. After all the great promises to smash the Border, made from Fianna Fáil platforms during the past two elections, I am frankly disappointed with their cynical inaction. As an Ulsterman I am keenly interested in the abolition of the Border, and I want to say this, that if I thought for a moment that there was the least prospect of the Border being abolished through the policy of Fianna Fáil I would, notwithstanding my abhorrence of their methods and record, support that policy without hesitation. I would even support the abolition of the Seanad if I thought it meant the abolition of the Border.

Senators

Hear, hear!

Living on the Border as I do, however, and knowing the mentality of our Northern fellow-countrymen, I am convinced that the policy of the present Government is every day making the trench of partition deeper and wider. I am further convinced that there is not a man on the Executive Council, from the President down, but knows that their policy is having that effect.

At the recent Ard Fheis, Republicans were condemned for exploiting the Nationalists of the Six Counties. But what else have the supporters of the present Government been doing? Since Fianna Fáil took office, has one practical step been taken calculated in any way to promote the cause of Irish unity? Has there been a single act done calculated in any way even to case the situation for the unfortunate Nationalists in the north? If there has I should like to hear of it. Is the policy of ostentatiously throwing away the British market one day and of sending over, a few days afterwards, civil servants to go up the back stairs of Whitehall to make trade pacts and agreements with the British, calculated to bring into this State the hardheaded business men of the North? Are they likely to be attracted to us by legislation depriving the minority here of university representation, or by legislation such as we are discussing here to-day depriving the minority of the representation in this Oireachtas promised them by the men who founded this State?

When a representative of that minority whose constituency is soon to meet the fate of the Seanad made an appeal in the Dáil to the President, an appeal which could not fail to stir the heart of any Irishman, especially one who was constantly preaching the doctrines of Davis and making pilgrimages to the grave of Tone—his appeal was ruthlessly brushed aside. He was told that in future the people for whom he spoke would get just the representation to which they were entitled under proportional representation, which the Government had already reduced to a farce by the shameful splitting up of constituencies into three and four-member units which could only give results that were a travesty of proportional representation. Is this treatment of the minority here likely to win over the sentiments of 1,000,000 people in the North whose goodwill is the first essential to Irish unity? Are professions about anxiety for the unity of Ireland in one breath, and meaningless talk about an Irish republic in the next, likely to win them over? People who talk in that strain want neither unity nor a republic. While Fianna Fáil proclaim that their ideal is a united Ireland, they deliberately pursue a policy which they must know can never lead to a united Ireland. They are too astute politicians not to know the effects of their own policy, and not to know that their policy of spurious anti-British propaganda of waging an economic war and of abolishing a Second Chamber, can only have the effect of antagonising instead of mollifying the people of the Six Counties.

They know this all right, but they also know that if Irish unity were once established, their days as a Government would be numbered, and President de Valera's reign as chief of the Executive Council would be cut short. That is a thing that could never again be tolerated—a Government without President de Valera at its head. Accordingly, their whole policy has one definite object, not Irish unity, not the establishment of a republic, but to keep a firm grip on office and to make President de Valera the permanent ruler of this State. Every other consideration is subordinated to that. Every move, every piece of legislation, every proposal for a settlement is considered, not from the point of view of whether or not it is good for the country, but from the point of view that immortalised the Vicar of Bray—"How will it affect me?" And, of course, we are told that everything is being done in accordance with principle. This House is being abolished to maintain principle. We are told we are a barrier to the onward march of the nation—the onward march of the nation to what destination? If the present policy be pursued, the onward march will wind up in the county homes. It will certainly not lead to Irish unity or to an Irish republic. When I hear this claptrap about the onward march of the nation, I am reminded of the lines of Omar Khayyám, which admirably sum up Fianna Fáil policy:—

"The stars are setting and the caravan

Starts for the dawn of Nothing, Oh make haste—"

There is no haste, at any rate, to declare a republic. Instead, we have a platitudinous resolution passed at the Ard Fheis leaving the declaration of a republic to the discretion of the President who has not yet used his presidential discretion to abolish the office of Governor-General. The poor Governor-General is immured in a dismal mansion on the County Dublin coast. He is not allowed to see or be seen. Compared with him, the keeper of the Kish lighthouse leads a riotous life. As a member of the other House would say, the Governor-General is an "anachronism"—and a rather costly and lonely anachronism at that. But President de Valera refuses to put him out of pain. Why? Is he afraid of immediate and terrible war? Is he only prepared to do the safe things while talking of the unsafe? To disestablish the Seanad is no doubt considered much safer than to establish the republic.

Since the President sent the Vice-President to Ottawa to tender his respectful homage, on his behalf, to the King, the word "republic" has been forced into the obsolete section of the governmental vocabulary. When we want to allude to a republic now we adopt what the Irish Press would call a euphemistic circumlocution, and speak gingerly of “a republican form of Government.” I suppose this was the form of words adopted when the last stand for the Irish republic was being made in a Geneva flower garden —arm in arm with a British Minister.

"They hand in hand with wandering steps and slow,

Through Eden took their solitary way."

Geneva, the city of peace, has achieved some wonderful things, but in my most imaginative moments it never occurred to me that a war would be waged with the hereditary enemy over plates of pate-de-fois gras, bottles of burgundy and, I suppose, a syphon of lemon soda. There has been nothing to equal this display of chivalry in warfare since Cuchulain and Ferdia wept on each other's necks at the end of each day's bout at the ford. I should have been less astonished if I had read that the Emperor of Abyssinia had invited Signor Mussolini to a champagne supper in Paris while the war was raging round Addis Abbaba.

The Emperor's quarrel with Italy is only of yesterday's growth, whereas our quarrel, fought out with convivial recklessness at Geneva, has a crimson history of 700 years, as President de Valera used a few years ago to remind us so emphatically. The Imperial bond therefore remains. It was forged at Ottawa and fortified at Geneva.

Let me say that, in addition to his own long-cherished animosity, President de Valera has one good excuse for the abolition of the Seanad "as at present constituted." I emphasise the qualifying phrase. That excuse is to be found in the undignified and servile attitude of the members of the Government Party and some of their imitative friends in this House. These members voted for the abolition of the House of which they were members. They did it obediently as they were told—why? Was it because they thought they would be doing the Nation a service by effacing themselves? Not at all. They are not so conscious of their own shortcomings; they were for long under the impression that they conferred an honour on the Seanad by deigning to come in here. Was it through motives of economy that they voted for self-effacement? Not at all. Was it owing to the conviction that the country would be better served by one House than by two? No. They have been going around since telling themselves, and others, in sodden whispers that nothing is more necessary to the welfare of the country than a Second Chamber.

The shameful truth is that they voted for the extinction of this House in the same spirit as some of the illustrious gentlement voted against the Treaty— hoping that it would be carried. They have been disappointed on this occassion. They will, nevertheless, vote for the motion. Why? Because they hope to placate the architects of their destruction and secure a seat in any assembly that may succeed this House. Here, again, I trust they will be disappointed. Public life will be more wholesome without people who think one way and vote another.

I confess, as a somewhat uncharitable man, that it gives me as great pleasure to witness the writhings of the Government Party and their allies here to-day as it afforded the President to administer gall and wormwood to his political opponents.

I can imagine the most learned member of the Government Party—our dethroned Vice-Chairman—standing up in his place before the President and on behalf of himself and his colleagues gladiatorially exclaiming: "Ave, Cæsar, morituri te salutamus" (Hail, Cæsar, we, about to die, salute you). To die in such company is no honour, but it is at least mildly entertaining, and we who stood for the rights and privileges of this House as a co-equal member of the Legislature can find comfort in the reflection that we have fared as well as those who sacrificed their self-respect and their dignity in the hope of saving their seats.

In conclusion, Sir, I desire to thank you for the scholarly and convincing vindication of the House over which you so worthily presided to which you treated us on the last occasion on which the Bill was before the House. For that vindication you have placed every believer in Parliamentary Government in your debt. By it you honoured, not alone yourself but you honoured this House.

This House may go but that vindication will live and it will explain to coming generations how one of the Houses of the first native Parliament that sat in this country for 750 years was sacrificed to the pique of a man who will neither wage a war nor make a peace.

When Senator MacLoughlin was making his speech, instead of watching him, I was watching Senator Douglas and it just occured to me what was running through Senator Douglas's mind as to how Senator MacLoughlin's speech was going to help the motion that he had proposed. I am not going to follow Senator MacLoughlin for the very good reason that I could not. I am not going to follow Senator Douglas because I am not capable, but I must congratulate Senator Douglas on the tone of his speech compared to the tone of Senator MacLoughlin's speech. Senator Douglas dwelt on the impartiality of this House about which I will have something to say later. The real pith of Senator Douglas's motion was to try to focus the attention of the public on the desirability of having a Second Chamber. I am in complete agreement with Senator Douglas as to a Second Chamber, but as wiser heads than mine appear to be in a tangle as to the sort of Second Chamber we should have, I will pass it by and devote a few brief remarks to Senator Douglas's motion and the Bill that is before the House.

Now, I listened with peculiar attention to Senator Douglas explaining his motion. I know him a long time now; he stepped into the gap practically at my invitation at a very dangerous period in this country. He is a clever, a far-seeing and, undoubtedly, a fair-minded man but, with respect, if he does not mind me saying so, at times it is a little difficult to know where he is driving. With the greatest respect I say that, in my opinion, I never heard Senator Douglas less convincing than he has been to-day. I am really surprised that a Senator of the eminence of Senator Douglas, who was such a great factor in the defeat of the Bill—he has been congratulated and quoted constantly—that he, above all others, should be so inconsistent as to ask those who defeated the Bill with him to vote for it to-day under any consideration. This motion of Senator Douglas, I say with respect, has the appearance of being designed to save the faces of those Senators who voted against and defeated the Bill 18 months ago and of enabling Senators of the calibre of Senator MacLoughlin to do a certain amount of penance by voting for this Bill to-day on the plea that great results will follow.

Now, I wonder when Senator Douglas was putting down this motion what guarantee, if any, had he that those who defeated the Bill 18 months ago would vote for it to-day? Surely, after all the loud protestations that they made against the Bill they are not going to swallow all those protestations by voting for the Bill now, even at the request of Senator Douglas. Surely, my friends to the left are not going to let down their friends in the Dáil by voting for the Bill, their friends who stood so loyally by them. Now, Sir, through you, I have to put a simple question to Senator Douglas. It is: if this motion is passed, and if the President does not accept it, what position is the Seanad in then? Perhaps Senator Douglas, when he is replying, will tell us the position. In my opinion, it would sink the Seanad lower and lower in the mire of humiliation. If the Bill was bad 18 months ago, should it not be equally bad to-day?

And so it is.

No amount of sterilised hedging will alter that fact. Now what is the literal meaning of this motion? In other words, it amounts to this: "Look here, President, if we pass this motion it means that we pass your Bill and the Seanad ceases to exist and, having paid you the compliment, President, of passing your Bill you will pay us the compliment of more or less having a transmigration in the Seanad, leaving us, according to the terms of the motion, to function until a Constitution (Amendment) Bill has been passed by the Dáil establishing a Second Chamber in substitution for Seanad Eireann. In effect, it means that, having been evicted from our holding, we plead, cap in hand, to you, President, to allow us to remain on as ordinary caretakers until the incoming tenant is ready to take up possession."

If Senator Douglas had brought forward his motion on the day the Bill was introduced, or before it was defeated by the Seanad, something might be said for its sincerity, but 18 months have elapsed. During that time—and I have been a long time in public life—I have never heard more bitterness or more personal abuse directed against any measure than has been directed against this measure and against those who promoted it, both by Senators of the type of Senator MacLoughlin, and by Deputies also. Now, at the eleventh and a half hour, this peace proposal is placed before us which cannot but remind every one of us of the shivering bravado of the nigger in the tree: "Don't shoot, Colonel; I will climb down."

I am opposed to this motion. I think it is unreal; I think it is unworkable; I think it is a face-saving motion and I am still strongly in favour of the Bill without any reservations whatever. During the debate in the Dáil on this Bill, I happened to be sitting with other Senators. In all 13 speeches were delivered, covering 116 columns of the Official Reports and with the exception of the President's and Deputy Norton's all the speeches were made by Opposition Deputies strongly opposing the Bill. You, Sir, Senator Douglas and Senator O'Hanlon were highly commended for your action in defeating the Bill, and then followed a long litany of praise by Opposition Deputies for the Seanad and for Senators. If any House was to be abolished, it should be the Dáil— rather an extreme compliment. Senators were so impartial, both men and women, that they would shed lustre on any legislative assembly in the whole world, and one Opposition Deputy, with an amount of agonising affection, thanked the Seanad from the bottom of his heart for what it had done for successive Governments in the past 14 years.

This praise coming from Opposition Deputies is very significant, and one's sense of discernment would be very limited indeed if one did not realise what all this praise meant. During the debate on the Bill, I happened to be sitting between Senator Milroy and Senator Fanning, looking down on the tense scene in the execution chamber below. I do not know what was passing through the mind of Senator Milroy or Senator Fanning at the time, but, from the amount of admiration showered on the Seanad by Opposition Deputies, I felt for the moment that all Senators were on the high road to political canonisation; but when the result of the division on the Bill was declared, I could see that Senator Milroy's thoughts were like my own, as we felt there was no chance of canonisation this time, but that instead we were ruthlessly told: "Pack up; quick march, into the bureau of damnation." It is hard enough, goodness knows, to suffer for one's own political sins, but it is very much harder to suffer for the political sins of others. In the words of Zozimus, it is the devil entirely, but such is fate. Public life gives one a great insight into the vanities, the frailties and the disappointments of human desires.

When this Bill came before the Seanad first, with a great flourish and with a great banging of the political tambourines, it was defeated by 33 votes to 15. To a certain extent, I must admit that the Seanad redeemed itself by the careful and impartial way in which it dealt with many Bills since this Bill first came before it. It even drew from Ministers their thanks, and it occurs to me that it was a great pity the same spirit of impartiality was not extended to other Bills which came before the Seanad. If that same spirit of impartiality had been extended, the Seanad would not be in the unprepossessing position it is in to-day. The factors which make a Second Chamber useful and effective are found in the amount of respect it commands and in the impartiality of its actions. Has the Seanad commanded the universal respect of this country? Has the Seanad been impartial in all its actions?

Let me briefly and calmly, I hope, survey the situation. The late Government were in power for ten years. During that time they had the power which they naturally used—all Governments would do the same—to nominate and elect to the Seanad those on whom they could rely to support their policy. What was the sequel? For the ten years during which the late Government were in office, so far as I can find out—and I am speaking subject to correction—not a solitary Bill was thrown into the waste-paper basket by the Seanad. When the present Government came into power, they were faced with a majority in the Seanad against their policy and with the usual bitterness of a defeated Party behind it. This is where the impartiality spoken of by Senator Douglas and Senator MacLoughlin comes in. During the first three years of the present Government's office, five important Bills coming from the Dáil—one of them having the hall-mark of the people's will upon it—were thrown into the waste-paper basket by the Seanad.

Where does the impartiality come in now? It just proves, to my satisfaction, at any rate, the dangerous powers the Seanad possessed and the ramifications of those powers. With a Government—and it does not matter to what Party it belongs—having specific mandates from the country dealing with the industrial, political and agricultural life of the country, the Seanad has the power, and has used that power already, to trample on the people's will. This is the body about whose abolition there is so much lamentation. If the Seanad was directly responsible to, or elected by, the people, there might be something to be said for its actions, because the people would have an opportunity of dealing with its actions when members were rendering an account of their stewardship at election times. But no—the Seanad stands on a pedestal, with the inscription underneath: "We are monarchs of all we survey: the people's will means nothing to us." We have read of revolutions taking place in many countries, and particularly the French Revolution, caused by those in authority trampling on the people's will. Fortunately, the people in this country have a milder and easier method of dealing with the Seanad, and that is to look to those whom they have placed in power to carry out the mandate given to them to abolish the Seanad. If the Government did not carry out that mandate, they would, in my opinion, be joining in the vendetta to flout the people's will. In my judgment, no matter what has been said to the contrary, the Government acted with wisdom, with bravery and with foresight. In my judgment, President de Valera acted faithfully, in the best interests of the country, high above Party aggrandisement or above Party motives.

I have proven, or endeavoured to prove, to my own satisfaction, at any rate, if to the satisfaction of nobody else, that the Seanad has not been impartial in its dealings between the two Governments. The late Government—let me repeat myself—were in office for ten years. Not a solitary Bill was thrown into the waste-paper basket by the Seanad during that period. In two and a half years while the present Government were in office five important Bills were thrown into the waste-paper basket. May I repeat myself again—where does the impartiality come in? It has just occurred to me that if the Seanad acted towards the late Government as it has acted towards the present Government, by throwing five of these important Bills into the waste-paper basket, everyone knows that long ago the Seanad would be a thing of the past and there would not be a newspaper in the land which would not have had screaming headlines and leading articles saying that it served the Seanad right.

It has just occurred to me again— another inspiration—that the late Government without any legitimate excuse whatever destroyed a body elected by the people—a body more important, with a greater national outlook, certainly more intelligent and undoubtedly more self-sacrificing than the Seanad. My friend, Senator O'Hanlon, says it must be the Dublin Corporation. Is he not a wonder? It was certainly more self-sacrificing than the Seanad. Yes, and it was not a few hours on an occasional Wednesday they gave to their work, but many hours, many days a week, and there was no attendant going round at the end of the month handing the members cheques. The Seanad without the least compunction whatever took part in the destruction, as my friend, Senator O'Hanlon, has reminded me, of the Dublin Corporation. Now the poor Seanad is awaiting burial in the grave of obliteration itself. "Alas! poor Seanad; I knew it well, dear brother." What of its gambles, its jibes, its powers? "Going, going, and, in a short while, for the third and last time, gone."

Has the Seanad gained and retained the confidence of the majority of the people of this country? Apart from the actions I have dealt with, on occasions it has acted in a dangerous, unbecoming and condoning manner— dangerous because the majority in the Seanad, although warned, and well warned, blocked the Army Bill at the dictation of a very prominent Party leader in this House, a member of the House, an action which could have led to very serious complications in the Army. This Party gamble had the appearance of being a deep political move. What an appetising and glorious electioneering cry it would have been—"Oh, look at what the Government has done. No pay for the Army! Put my Party back into power and we will see that the Army are paid. We have the majority in the Seanad." We have seen in other countries many times the sad consequences that ensued when Party leaders tampered with the army of the country. It has just occurred to me— another inspiration—that during the time the late Government were in office certain leaders made an attempt to tamper with the Army for their own ends. What exactly happened at the moment I cannot call to mind. It may be a little delicate but perhaps Senator Milroy will help.

It will occur to you in a moment.

In my opinion, if the Seanad had done nothing else except to block the Army Bill—an action which could have had such serious consequences—it placed itself beyond redemption. The Seanad acted in a most unbecoming manner when the majority of the members attempted to turn the gallery of the House into a kind of beauty parlour with a display of Party emblems consisting of Party coloured blouses, shirts, shorts, stockings and little batons. I have seen sedate Senators—what anniversary it was I do not know—standing to attention outside and lady Senators pinning little blue primroses on their breasts. When they came in I could see them suddenly being put into their pockets and in some cases thrown under the seats—all going to show the unbecoming attempt that was being made to turn the Seanad into a kind of variety show instead of trying to maintain the dignity of the superior House of the Parliament of this State.

The Seanad, in my opinion, acted in a very condoning manner when it condoned actions and language, to which, with regret and a certain kind of shame, I feel compelled to refer. Supposing the Speaker of the Dáil, the Speaker of either House of Parliament in Northern Ireland, the Speaker of the British House of Commons or the British House of Lords, the Speaker of either House of Parliament in the United States of America —in fact, the Speaker of any House of Parliament throughout the civilised world — it has been commented on to-day and I would let it pass had it not been commented on so strongly and so favourably from his point of view by Senator MacLoughlin—stepped down from the Chair, delivered a bigoted oration and stepped back to the Chair again after having taken from his pocket a typewritten document which he read not on the spur of the moment, not in the heat of debate, a paper showing signs of having been very carefully prepared, showing signs as if more heads than one had taken part in the compiling of it, showing signs of having been very carefully edited indeed, and if he had criticised adversely from the floor of the House the Government, holding up the administrators of the Government to ridicule, and, above all, outrageously insulting, by insinuating that he was an inferior and incompetent person, the head of the Government, what would happen to him in any Parliament of the world? Would not every Party join together to maintain the dignity of that Parliament and have him removed from office within 12 or at most 24 hours?

Does the Senator think that this House ought to deny the Cathaoirleach the right to step down on the floor of the House and speak if he wishes?

Senator O'Neill is perfectly at liberty to go on for three hours if he wishes, if the House can bear with him. I cannot stop him.

Thank you very much.

He is not entitled to make a case on falsehood. We have to listen to him. He stated that we blocked the Army Bill. We did not; we passed the Army Bill.

You can contradict his statement when he is finished, and you can make him wince, if you can. This is not the time.

As to the suggestion to my friend, Senator Staines, to make me wince, even the Senator will not make me wince. I say deliberately, and I do not fear contradiction, that this House blocked the Army Bill.

Tell the truth.

Please restrain yourself, Senator.

I cannot.

You must listen to a tissue of statements that may or may not be accurate.

To get back to where Senator O'Hanlon butted in, I put before the House the position that if another chairman had acted in the manner I described, I am quite satisfied that there is not a Parliament in the world but would have removed him within 24 hours. What happened in this House? Senators opposite clapped the Chairman on the back. There was not a word of condemnation.

Definite approval of the Chairman's statement.

I know that. When seeking re-election as a Senator, the Chairman was returned by a Party, and when he was seeking re-election as Speaker, he was re-elected by the votes of Senators opposite. In my opinion, that goes to prove that these Senators condoned the action of the Chairman of this House. His speech appears in the Official Debates for May 30th, 1934, Volume 18, col. 1257:

"Mr. Westropp Bennett: Now, what is the object behind this campaign to abolish the Seanad, bolstered up as it is by calumny and by a false representation of history? Undoubtedly the object is to establish a dictatorship, and a dictatorship of a particularly obnoxious kind, namely, one that masquerades in the guise of parliamentary government. It is agreed on all sides that Mr. de Valera's domination over his followers in the country, over his Party in the Dáil, and over his Ministers is absolute. They, none of them, dare to cross his path or to raise their voices once he has spoken.

‘I am Sir Oracle,

And when I ope my lips, let no dog bark!'

"He brooks no argument. Whatever he says is right, and if he is proved wrong it is because he has been wilfully misunderstood. If his actions are proved by time to have been misguided, and his plans gang agley, it is because other people are traitors. The constitutional Opposition in the Dáil are traitors, and I suppose the only reason why a similar epithet is not harled at Senators is because they are supposed to owe no allegiance except to England. It is the familiar story of the behaviour of an inferior when put in a position of authority, which is as old as the Bible.

‘He knows no use for power

Except to show his might;

He gives no heed to judgement

Unless it prove him right.

And when his folly opens

The unnecessary hells,

A servant when he reigneth

Throws the blame on some one else.'"

Hear, Hear.

I expected that.

"Now, a competent dictatorship is a possible system of government, though I believe it to be profoundly unsuited to the temperament of our people, and I do not think it would be tolerated here for a single day. But an incompetent dictatorship is surely of all forms of government the very worst. Even the thought of it is abhorrent to right-minded men. No one can doubt that Mr. de Valera's real aim is to establish a dictatorship. No one can doubt that he would be in a position to do so once this House were abolished. No one can doubt that his innate incompetence would result in quick disaster, but that any one who ventured to stand in his way——"

Does the Senator propose to read the whole of the speech? I do not object to quotations.

If you read the Standing Orders you will see that you have certain powers. Otherwise, if you do not act according to these Orders, I cannot.

Is the Senator going to read the whole of the speech?

I do not suppose he will.

If the Senator wants it read, I will read it.

It is good stuff.

Senator Milroy can read the part that suits him. I am reading the part that suits me. That is straight and fair. I will go back on it again.

"No one can doubt that his innate incompetence"—this refers to the President of the Irish Free State—"would result in quick disaster, but that any one who ventured to stand in his way—whether judge, public official, or any one else—would receive very short shrift. The abolition of the Second Chamber has proved to be the forerunner of a dictatorship in many countries to-day. Mr. de Valera is out for uncontrolled power, and that is why he regards the abolition of the Seanad as a necessity. The reasons he adduced for desiring to abolish this House are seen to be a tissue of misrepresentations. But necessity, they say, is the mother of invention."

Following up that speech, I have here a cutting from a newspaper, and I suppose there will be no objection to my reading it, as newspaper cuttings seem to be the fashion in the Seanad of late.

Will you please address the Chair, Senator, and I will let you know.

I am doing so.

You were addressing some one else, and you asked if it was in order to read a cutting. If you ask me, I will be the judge.

If I turn sideways——

You will ask me if it is in order to do so, and no one else. Just ask me.

I will look you in the face. I have a habit of looking behind me sometimes.

What do you want to know about the newspaper cutting?

I want to know with great respect if——

Do not mind the respect, just ask the question.

Surely to goodness it is not disrespectful to be respectful?

I do not mind; just ask the question. There is nothing out of order in reading a Press cutting, read it.

This cutting is taken from the admiration column of the Sunday Independent, December 15th, 1935, and the heading is:—

"A REMARKABLE SPEECH.

"I noticed that several members of the Dáil were in possession during the week of the booklet containing the remarkable speech delivered in the Seanad 18 months ago by the Cathaoirleach, Mr. T. W. Bennett. opposing the Bill for the abolition of that House. That was a memorable speech. The tribute paid to it of having it printed in book form is unprecedented in connection with a speech in the Oireachtas. Senator Bennett has been an able member of the Seanad since its formation and has presided over the House since 1927. He is a County Limerick farmer, and brother of Mr. George Bennett, a member of the Dáil."

With respect, Sir, I quite agree that it was a remarkable and a memorable speech, remarkable, as I have indicated, and memorable for the beauty of its poetry, which makes you forget the agonies and worries of life; which makes you forget mundane things, even the Dáil, the Seanad, the Hospital Sweep and even the League of Nations. It takes you back to the babbling brook of childhood's fancy; it makes you remember boyhood or girlhood days when every stream was a romance. Listen to the beauty of the poetry. According to the Official Debates:—

"I am Sir Oracle,

And when I ope my lips, let no dog bark!"

Poor Oliver Goldsmith is only in the sixpence half-penny place. President de Valera is too big a man to let even this remarkable and memorable speech worry him. I have seen President de Valera many times under far more dangerous fire than this remarkable and memorable speech. Although there may be some—I admit that there are a few—Senators who may think to the contrary, the name of President de Valera will remain enshrined in the hearts of millions of the Irish people, when his traducers have faded away to nothing—from whence they came.

I look upon the abolition of the Seanad with mixed feelings. With the abolition of the Seanad there are many Senators on both sides of the House whose passing will be a distinct loss to the legislation of this country; that is so, so far as their business and their professional capabilities are concerned; but I stop there as, from that on, their wisdom seemed to have forsaken them and, instead of standing aloof, they allowed themselves to be dragged in to support political moves for Party purposes. To these Senators —and I say it with deep regret as, with the passing of the Seanad, many of us shall never meet again—to these Senators, and to these Senators in particular, will accrue the blame of the downfall of the Seanad. Requiescat in pace.

We have had, during the last few weeks or the last few months, in the Free State, a remarkable phenomenon—the fall of a great figure. Down through the political spaces he falls, from the dizzy empyrean heights of the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, where prophecy displaces reason and fact— down, down to the humbler altitudes of Dáil Eireann, from which a thunderbolt of misrepresentation is fired at this House at the end of a debate, when no one can answer—down, down to the lowest depth where, vicariously, he flounders, in the muddy, boggy puddle of Senator O'Neill's flatulent, pettifogging inanities. Senator MacLoughlin commented upon the absence of the President here and suggested that it was the President's contempt for this House that caused his absence. I dissent from that. I do not think it was President de Valera's contempt for this House, but his fear of this House that kept him away. It was his fear of being mastered in argument——

As he was.

——his fear of having his bubbles of fantastic historical precedent punctured; his fear of having to face a repetition of what happened in this House when this Bill was last before us, when his whole case against this House was stripped naked of reality and shown to be what it was— a cheap, poor delusion, a sham and a fraud.

If I might be permitted, perhaps I could enlighten the House as to the reason for the President's absence.

I am sure that the House would be glad to hear you, Senator. Does Senator Milroy agree to hear Senator Quirke's explanation?

I should be very glad to hear it.

It may be of interest to some of the Senators who have spoken to know the real reason for the President's absence. If I had been so impetuous as to jump to my feet to answer Senator MacLoughlin, I should probably have said that the President, being a busy man, could not be expected to attend every funeral. Since that time, however, I have met the President and I want to state what really happened. The President was, as a matter of fact, in the House. An official from his Department was sent here to the House to take notes, as is the custom. While that official was here he was approached by an official of the Seanad and was informed that, unless he was accompanied by his Minister, he could not sit where he was but that he would be accommodated with a seat in the public gallery. Now, I put it to any fair-minded man in the Opposition, could the President, under those conditions, come here to-day? If that action, or that little scene, which was being enacted here while Senator MacLoughlin was rolling off his rhetoric, had been made known to the House, I am quite sure some of the Senators would have been spared some of their ridiculous remarks. I believe that that is an unprecedented incident either here or in the other House. I believe that it was premeditated and that it is indicative of the vindictive policy of the majority of this House against the President personally—indicative of the vindictiveness contained in that miraculous doctrine referred to by Senator O'Neill; that is, the speech of Senator Westropp-Bennett when he came to the floor of the House and dragged the name of himself and this House into the mud. I hope that that will throw some little light on the matter, and I reserve my right of a further speech.

In view of what Senator Quirke has said, I feel that I should say what really occurred in connection with this matter. Mr. Hearne, the legal adviser to the Department of External Affairs came in at three o'clock and sat in one of the seats reserved for those in attendance on Ministers. He was asked who was coming, or if the President were coming, and he said he did not know: that he was not aware that he was coming. Mr. Coffey was then asked to tell him that he could not remain there if a Minister were not in attendance— those seats are reserved for Ministers and their attendants—but that a seat would be provided for him in the front row of the Gallery. He replied "Tell him to communicate that to me in the proper way", and he subsequently left. That was communicated to me by the Clerk of the House. I then prepared this letter, which I signed, and which would have been handed to him if he came back. It was not handed to him, as he did not come to the House later. The letter reads as follows:—

"Legal Adviser to the Minister for External Affairs.

"I am afraid I cannot allow you to sit behind the chairs reserved for Ministers if no Minister is in attendance. A seat in the Gallery will be found for you. This procedure is in accordance with precedent.

—Cathaoirleach."

That is how the matter stands. Mr. Hearne has not returned. He was asked if the President or a Minister were coming and he said he did not know. That is the position of affairs and Senator Quirke has tried to explain it with the slight misunderstanding on his part that Mr. Hearne was not able to say whether a Minister was coming or not.

That explanation may be all right from your point of view, Sir, but since that time I have seen the President and have gone to the officials in other parts of the House to find out what was the procedure in the Dáil.

Do not mind the Dáil, Senator. This is the Seanad.

I am telling you what I have found out, Sir, and that was that the procedure there was the same as the procedure in this House, which was that those seats were available at all times for officials who came here either to wait for Ministers or to take notes in the absence of the Minister. The President was in the Dáil at the time, and it must have been known to the officials of this House that he was present.

I have told the House and Senator Quirke that Mr. Hearne was asked if the President or a Minister was coming.

Why need he have been asked?

I do not know. I am only giving the facts.

I hold that the official had no right to answer the question at all.

He had no right to be there unless he was with a Minister. That ends the matter.

It is just vindictiveness, and I am sorry to say that the Cathaoirleach was a party to it.

That ends the matter.

If Senator Quirke's ruling is reasonable, why should not one of the President's numerous armed guards be present?

That ends the matter.

Senator Quirke's first appearance as a substitute Minister has been somewhat of a fiasco. He has only made matters worse.

Sez you!

And he tries to act the Minister by introducing those beautiful American slang words. It is edifying to this House and to the nation to see the type of mind that asks this House to abolish itself. It is an omen for the future. Senator O'Neill reminded this House of my presence in the Dáil the night this Bill was last discussed in the Dáil. I remember the proceedings well. The President, as usual, opened with a few perfunctory remarks. Deputy Norton gave him some slight aid as an assistant acolyte. The rest of the speeches were delivered by the Opposition. It lasted until about 10 o'clock, and from the beginning of that discussion until the end, when the division was taken, there was not a single solitary attempt on the part of any member of the Government to try to justify the proposals. The only relevant argument used by the President in his concluding speech in support of his case was the allegation against the Seanad which I had to deal with yesterday in this House—a misrepresentation and, if I thought the President knew the facts, I would say a falsehood. I assume he did not. But there you have one of the most far-reaching and, from the point of view of constitutional principle, one of the most revolutionary proposals that has ever been submitted to the Oireachtas since the foundation of this State, receiving its last consideration in the other House of the Oireachtas without a solitary attempt to back the proposal with fact or reason. The Ministers sat there silent, knowing that their dumb squadrons would appear in the Division Lobby, and relying upon a nominal majority to carry through the proposal that meant the extinction of one of the most essential safeguards of the liberties of the citizens that exist in any country in the world. But the President could not be here to-day. It is a pity he could not be here, because there are some things which I propose to say which are going to be interesting to him and to which his rejoinders might have been illuminating to this House and to the country.

I do not envy the position or the state of mind of Senators on the Government Benches to-day. The fruits of the Fianna Fáil victory at the polls—the alleged victory at the polls—must to-day be tasting like dead, bitter, sour ashes in their mouths. They helped to secure that victory. With their aid it was won, and their share in the victors' spoils was seats of honour in what Senator MacEllin once, in an unguarded moment, styled "the first assembly of the land." But to-day the President passes them the hemlock and says to them: "You will drink this and like it."

I was one of those who took a prominent part in the last election, and I can say that one of the items in that election was the abolition of the Seanad.

"As at present constituted."

Senator MacEllin has anticipated a point that I propose to deal with later. Neither by election manifesto, nor by public speech, has the President appealed for a mandate for the abolition of the Seanad. But, against their will and despite their better judgment, the members of the Government Party are going to be constrained to support the Government in this matter. They must be conscious of the fact that, in doing so, they will be earning for themselves from any historian who may care to note the fortunes and the fate of this House the verdict of "suicide while of unsound mind." I wonder do they appreciate fully what they will be doing when they support the Government? I do not think they do. I wonder do they realise themselves that when and if by their votes they support the Government in this matter, they will, by that vote, be branding themselves as persons unfit to act as legislators in this State. I want them to ponder over that.

There is one other thing that they may have overlooked, and of which I will remind them. Presumably the ardent spark of political ambition will not be extinguished in the bosoms of those Senators who are now prepared to make the supreme Senatorial sacrifice on the altar of Party compulsion, but do they visualise this contingency: that when, later, a sense of high national duty impels them to woo the Dáil electorate, that electorate may have taken note of the proceedings here to-day: it may have accepted the value which these Senators have put upon themselves as legislators, and may reply to their overtures in this fashion: "In the month of January, 1936, you by your votes in the Seanad branded yourselves as persons unfitted to exercise the important functions of legislators, and you leave us no option but to endorse that opinion by our votes." I certainly hope that what I visualise as a possibility will prove to be a certainty when some of those Senatorial suicides seek resurrection at the polls in a Dáil election.

Now, it may be thought by some, and I am inclined to share the opinion, that the time has gone for arguing as to the merits or demerits of this proposal of the Government. Senator Douglas gave us a very erudite dissertation on the value of Second Chambers, and his thesis on that subject is, I think, of great value. But if he was trying to impress the Government mind, I think he was wasting his sweetness on the desert air, and might have been as usefully employed in whistling jigs to a milestone. They are here to bury Caesar, not to praise him. I am not so sure yet whether Caesar may not bury them first, but at any rate, whether the time is past or not for considering the pros and cons of bicameral and unicameral legislatures, I want to say this: that in my opinion the time is not past, the time is ripe, for putting this present proposal of the Government into its true setting and for tearing aside the fiction, the hysteria, the malice, misrepresentation and calumny with which the President has tried to veil it— to tear that veil aside and disclose this proposal in its true character. It was conceived in a baneful effort to discredit the institutions of this State in those days when the President was sowing his political wild oats. It was brought forth in a fit of petulant spite because this House wisely declined to assist the Government in a stupid attempt to hamstring, politically, a Party which stood in constitutional criticism of its policy.

Repeatedly has the weakness of the Government's position in regard to the Seanad been demonstrated by reason and logic. The arguments with which the President has endeavoured to buttress his superficial case of make-believe, of hysterical and unsustainable allegations against the Seanad: the ideas and arguments with which he tried to buttress that case have been rebutted and shattered. Historical precedent reinforced by living essential realities in this State have gone not merely to prove the fatuity of the Government's proposal, but also to show, like a clear beacon light, the dangers, the grave, imminent and menacing dangers to which that policy exposes the people and the State. "Government and legislation," said Edmund Burke, "are matters of reason and judgment and not of inclination"; "and," he asks, "what sort of reason is that in which the determination precedes the discussion?" We know only too well that not only did President de Valera's determination precede discussion on this issue, but that after discussion had taken place, when his reasoning was proved beyond doubt to be fallacious and delusive, and his purpose perilous to the best interests of this State, that ill-starred determination persisted, not because there was any public demand for this step—there was none whatever —but merely in order to secure legislative sanction for the petulant, unreasoning, and capricious inclination of the President.

There has been a campaign of calumny against this House conducted in an endeavour to galvanise into existence some semblance of public opinion hostile to it. The daily Press organ which supports the Government has been assiduously engaged in this poisoning of the wells of public opinion. Its efforts have been aided and abetted by Ministers, and the President of the Executive Council has taken pride of place in the shameless campaign. I have here a file of the leading articles which have appeared in the Irish Press, extending from March 22nd, 1934, to the 2nd January of this year. I may say that each and every one of those articles is shot through and through with malice, misrepresentation, distortion and calumny. I do not propose to weary the House with many citations from that organ, but there is one in the last leading article which it produced, in reference to the Seanad, which should be dealt with. It refers to the rejection of the Final Stage of the Land Purchase (Guarantee Fund) Bill in this House on the 1st January, and states:—

"If any further argument were needed for the excision from public life of an Assembly so constituted and so grossly partisan in the action of the majority of its members, it has now been furnished by that body itself."

That is what it cites as a justification for the proposal for the abolition of the Seanad—the action taken by the Government members on January 1st in this House. That incident is so recent, so fresh in the minds of most people, that the suggestion made there would be comical were it not a fact that it is simply typical of the grossly unscrupulous type of argument that has been brought to bear in order to secure a vicious, false and distorted view of this House and of its functions.

The charges against this House have been definite, and the counts in the indictment upon which it has been arraigned cover a wide range. It was alleged that the Seanad was anti-national, partisan, reactionary and obstructive; that it was opposed to the expressed will of the people. It was declared to be not only unnecessary but a danger. Those charges were formulated, and at length the indictment was brought to this House by the President himself. The Seanad was called upon to examine those charges and to make its defence. Each of those charges was examined and shown to be false. Each and every argument put forward by the President was proved to be defective and unsustainable in every particular. His challenge to those who opposed the Bill for the abolition of the Seanad, his challenge to them to show that dangers might arise from the existence of a Single-Chamber Legislature was met and overwhelming evidence cited proving that history teems with instances of such dangers. His witnesses as to the merits of the unicameral system were shown to be irrelevant when they were not worthless. Under the careful scrutiny and exhaustive analysis to which his whole thesis on the matter was subjected in this House, the entire case he had endeavoured to build up was swept away, destroyed and discredited by the inexorable facts of history and truth.

If we can imagine a parallel case in a court of law, we may get some idea of the gravity of the conduct of the President and his Ministers. If we can imagine a parallel in a court of law, where a comprehensive series of grave charges is made against the accused, where men of the highest responsibility in the public life of the community enter the witness-box and make vehement declarations in support of those charges and, when all the evidence has been sifted, it is proved to be nothing more substantial than the tittle-tattle of malignant gossip, when it is proved beyond yea or nay that the witnesses have been swearing falsely, and that there is not a solitary scrap of real evidence in support of the charge, what, in such circumstances, would we anticipate as the inevitable sequel? Surely the collapse of the prosecution, the acquittal and immediate release of the accused, followed at once by the prosecution of the witnesses for perjury?

But here in the case of the Seanad, indicted on charges already proved to be groundless, we have the accusers claiming not only to act as judge and jury, but also to fill the role of executioner of a sentence, secured in virtue of a predetermined verdict brought in by a packed jury, on evidence which is proved to be saturated with falsehood, malice and mean politics. One wonders, in reviewing the background of this proposal to abolish the Seanad and the recklessly false statements which have stimulated the campaign to that end, if the President and his colleagues consider themselves immune from the Divine Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour; or if they think, in the arrogant assumption of power which they are trying to claim, that they have power to delete that section from the Ten Commandments.

Now I will come to the point at which I regret the absence of the President, and when I read the grounds for his absence I am sure Senator MacEllin will be just as glad the President is not here, because it would be rather embarrassing for the President to be here. They are serious matters. There are two instances of this particular form of Government advocacy of their proposal to which I wish to call special attention. They are both references to the President. When, in the Dáil last December, he was reminded that the historical quotations which he made were wrong, he persisted in his contention that they were right. I regret his absence to-day because I desire to give him an opportunity, in regard to at least one of his quotations, to prove that he was right. It was a reference to Adams, whom he quoted and claimed as a supporter of his view in regard to the unicameral system. "Adams was no mean political thinker; he stood for the Single Chamber," said the President. The President is not here and it seems that not many of his followers are. There are, however, some. The sad and disillusioned legions of the lost still have left a few solitary remnants to fight a rearguard action.

I presume they have access to the sources of information which the President has in regard to this matter; that he has taken these loyal supporters of his into his confidence, as he has not done with the Oireachtas, and told them where the source of his declaration in regard to Adams was. If that is the case—I would ask the substitute Minister, but he, too, has disappeared; perhaps Senator MacEllin is the deputy substitute Minister and can supply the missing link—I would ask him to reconcile this statement of the President's, that Adams was no mean political thinker and that he stood for the Single Chamber, with the statements of Adams on the subject quoted by Senator O'Hanlon on the occasion on which this Bill was last before the House. I want Senator MacEllin and his colleagues to take careful note of this. "Adams was no mean political thinker; he stood for the Single Chamber," said President de Valera. Here is Adams speaking himself:—

"I cannot think a people can be free nor ever happy whose Government is in one Assembly....

"A Single Assembly possessing all the powers of Government would make arbitrary laws for their own interest and adjudge all controversies in their own favour."

That is one of the points that explains more eloquently and more truthfully the real reasons for the absence of the President to-day than the substitute Minister's peculiar method of explanation. This is the type of thing upon which the case against this House has been built up—misrepresentation, falsification of evidence and the citation of witnesses in favour of a principle when the fact of the matter is that they stand for the reverse.

I have one more reference to the President with which I want to deal and I think it is even more important than the other. It will be remembered that in his effort in the Dáil to make a case for his Bill, the President invoked historical precedents and the writings of many people. In all the commentary which Senator O'Neill devoted to the examination by the Cathaoirleach of the President's statements—an examination which despite all the peculiar commentary of Senator O'Neill will stand as one of the most important State papers this generation has produced in this country and will stand what the President's case will not stand, examination—he was not able to indicate one flaw in the case made by the Cathaoirleach in support of the action taken on the Bill.

The President in the Dáil, when moving that the Bill be returned to this House, very wisely refrained from the type of argument he used on the original occasion, after his experience of having had the whole case he had painfully built up, with very little care apparently to accuracy or verification of his authorities, swept away when the indictment reached this House, but he did, unfortunately for himself, make one incursion into those regions which had proved so treacherous for his arguments and I am going to examine that statement. I am sorry he is not here to comment on what I have to say, but in any case what I have to say will, I think, put the finishing touch to the process of debunking the President as an authority on historical political parallels. His remarks were as follows:—

"The example of Canada has been the subject of writing by Canadians. They have a type of nominated Senate there and it has not worked out well—in the opinion of Canadians, at any rate. The history of these nominations shows that people are nominated by the Prime Minister, for the time being, who puts into the Senate people of his own way of thinking, people who have rendered service to him in a political way in the Party, and so on. For a long period, you had a number of Conservative Senators who, as it was said of the House of Lords, were asleep when their own political Party was in power, and only became active when a Government in opposition to them was elected. That is the practical difficulty."

That is the President in the Dáil on December 12th, at column 2661 of the Dáil debates. The President omitted to mention the following remarkable facts which ought, I think, to have been referred to by him when suggesting any possible comparison between the Canadian Senate and any nominated Senate which could conceivably be set up in this country: (1) The Canadian Senate is the Senate of a Federation, the 96 members of which are composed of Senators from each of the nine provinces of the Dominion; (2) Canadian Senators are nominated for life; (3) the powers of the two Houses are absolutely equal, except for the fact that Bills appropriating money and imposing taxation must originate in the House of Commons. Thus, any Bill whatever received from the House of Commons may be rejected absolutely by the Senate. To bring the Canadian Senate into a speech announcing the Government's decision to set up a unicameral legislature in this State and to suppress the foregoing facts appears to me to border very closely on gross dishonesty. One would have thought that a Second Chamber of this absolute type would be unpopular and, in fact, could hardly survive, in a democratic country such as Canada. According to President de Valera "it has not worked out well, in the opinion of Canadians at any rate." Let us see by evidence from reputable authorities how far that is true. I quote first from a book written in 1917 by Mr. Justice Riddell of the Supreme Court of Ontario, and himself a Radical in politics. He says:—

"Senators are ... men as a rule of mature years and their rate of mortality is rather high."

I am afraid ours is going to be rather higher in the immediate future.

"...The result is that if an Administration remains long in power, there is a decided preponderance in the Senate of members of that political Party—and the majority are disposed to be critical of the measures of a Government displacing that of their own Party. As time goes by, deaths occur and the pendulum swings the other way; the result is that it is only during the first years of an Administration that the Senate is to be feared. In a very few years it supports the Government.

"When the Senate is of the same political party as the Commons, very little is heard of a movement to abolish or amend it; when it is troublesome by refusing to carry Government measures, a cry is raised by some for its abolition or amendment, but that is not continuous or influential."

That is taken from The Constitution of Canada. Political Parties in Canada tend to have long leases of power. For example, when the Liberals took office in 1896 under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Conservatives, under Sir John MacDonald, had been in power for 18 years and the Senate was predominantly Conservative. Sir Wilfrid Laurier held office for 15 years until he was defeated at the “Reciprocity Election” of 1911 when Sir Robert Borden and the Conservative Administration were faced with a Liberal majority in the Upper Chamber. A similar situation arose when Mr. Mackenzie King and the Liberals took over from Sir Robert Borden in 1924. Difficulties then arose, as they had done before, and a resolution was passed by the House of Commons on the 9th March, 1925, instructing the Government to refer the question of the reform of the Senate to a conference consisting of representatives of the Government and of the nine provinces constituting the Dominions. It was apropos of this threat to reform the Second Chamber that a leading article appeared in the Montreal Gazette, one of the principal newspapers in Canada, on the 27th of October, 1927, part of which runs as follows:—

"The Canadian Senate is something more than a Second Chamber. It functions, and was intended to function, as a safeguard for the provinces, for the smaller provinces particularly, and for the minority in all of them. It possesses and exercises just that measure of party independence which enables it to reject or modify legislation passed in haste by the House of Commons in response to a supposedly ‘popular' demand or the noise of the party whip."

Mr. MacEllin made a remark which was inaudible.

I am sure the deputy-substitute-Minister does not approve of that but he may find interest in this quotation. The conference to which I refer met in 1927 and I quote from its report, which is a Canadian State document. This is from the report of the Conference, representative of the Government and of the provinces concerned.

"On the question of abolishing the Senate the members of the Conference were unanimous in opposition.... The discussion, in which the Premiers of all the provinces participated, was carried on on a very high plane and indicated that delegates had given careful thought and much original attention to this much-vexed question.... It may be stated that the question of abolition had not a single backer in the Conference."

This is the Assembly which according to President de Valera does not work well according to Canadians at any rate, and yet when a Conference representative of the whole Dominion met with representatives of the Canadian Government, at that Conference there was not a single backer of the proposal to abolish this Assembly which President de Valera says has not worked out well.

"A comparatively small body of opinion favoured some change which might bring the Upper Chamber more closely in contact with the electorate.... While there was a strong body of opinion in favour of any reform which might strengthen the general machinery of Parliament, there was no attempt on the part of any speaker to minimise the value of a Second Chamber."

Here I leave this subject. It is quite obvious that in the single historical quotation he cited in the Dáil on the last occasion, the President can find no comfort or support any more than he found in the instances into which he delved on the first occasion when he sponsored the Bill.

The President in his statement in the Dáil argued very disingenuously about the difficulty of securing the right personnel for a Second Chamber. He conjured up a vision of unreal moral perfections and semi-celestial detachment from mundane affairs, as indispensable qualifications for such a body, and then plaintively turned round, having conjured up that vision, and asked: "Where can we get persons endowed with these indispensable virtues?" He generally adds: "But even if we can secure them, I do not believe that such an assembly is essential for a democratic Legislature." If the President had been available when man was about to be created, judging by his reasoning on this subject, I think he would have done his utmost to dissuade the Almighty from proceeding with the project. He would have argued: "It is a moral certainty that man will eat the apple if You create human beings. His descendants will take sides in party politics, make war on each other, and in various ways endeavour to thwart the setting up of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth." Then he would have added: "But if You can show me how to create a human being who will be above these things, then I think it might be a good thing to create man, but even so, I do not think such is essential to the scheme of creation." I wonder did the President endeavour to secure individuals modelled on his pattern of perfection when his Party secured its last quota of recruits to this House? With his mind imbued with these exalted ideals, surely it was incumbent upon him to strain every effort to see that the new standard-bearers of his Party in the Seanad would be moulded nearer to his heart's desire, that they, at least, would be shining exemplars of his ideal, who would tend to inform, to improve and to elevate the minds and the characters of the lower, and rather less capable, characters with whom they would have to associate here? Are those who at the last election to the House secured the Presidential benediction——

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I do not like to interrupt you, but I do not think it is in order to make commentaries or reflections upon your own colleagues in this House——

But, Sir, I am not.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

On their type or on their qualifications.

I have not the slightest intention of doing so. I am assuming——

Leas-Chathaoirleach

You should keep this debate on a high plane.

That is what I am trying to do.

Like Senator O'Neill.

Like Senator MacLoughlin.

So high is my conception of my colleagues who secured election as Government supporters at the last election, that I believe if in some more peaceful era, when the economic war is happily terminated and the lion lies down with the wolfhound under the protecting aura of a bigger and better coal-cattle pact, if in those blessed and tranquil days of some remote future, the civic impulse of the people should impel them to raise some memorial to that ended conflict, such as the tomb of the Unknown Legislator, surely it must be the mortal remains of one or other of our present Government Senators which will find sepulchre there. I am sure the President realised his ideal in the last election.

Now, Sir, the President deceives and humbugs no one but himself when he argues about the difficulty of securing the right type of person to constitute the Seanad. In this connection it is important to bear this prosaic reality in mind, that it is neither super-men nor archangels that are required, but plain human beings with intelligence, commonsense and breadth of vision. I want to say very emphatically that this State is not barren of competent men and women of that type. I want to emphasise that there are such in this Seanad, that in every Party represented here it has been demonstrated that there are men and women competent to examine and analyse measures submitted to this House, carefully, intelligently, constructively and helpfully and to deal with them in such a way as has resulted in the vast improvement of these measures, enhanced the prestige of the Oireachtas and helped to safeguard the public welfare. The plain matter of fact is this, that though there may be a problem and a difficulty in constituting a Second Chamber which will suit the particular temperament of the President of the Executive Council, there is no problem of any great intricacy or any insuperable difficulty in constituting a Second Chamber that is suited to the interests and needs of this State.

If such a problem did exist in the beginning of this State, a solution of it was found. It may surprise President de Valera to know that that solution has been operating for several years. If adjustments were required in the functions, duties and powers of this Assembly, to make it more in keeping with the necessities of the State, then we have evidence of the resolution quoted by Senator Douglas, that this House and the members of it would not be obstacles to such adjustments. If there was any vestige of reality in the President's statement as to the quality of what I might term the political impeccability required by members of such an Assembly, surely that very contention postulates that it is more vitally imperative it should be embodied in the personnel of the Dáil, if and when it assumes the functions of this House and acts as the sole factor in the Legislature of this State. Is it suggested that that is the case at the present moment? Is it suggested that the other House is so above Party considerations, is so endowed with these essential qualities which the President sets such store on, that it can take over the duties that we are told we are unworthy to discharge, that these can be assigned to the other House without any fear of the consequences? If not, does the President propose any means whereby they will be acquired, or is it unreasonable to conjecture that later on when this House disappears, the President may discover that the Dáil, like the Seanad, is so lacking in these essential qualities of detachment from Party that it too must follow the Seanad into oblivion and leave the Executive Council in sole possession of executive authority in this State?

The President indicated that he considered that the retention of proportional representation by the State was adequate guarantee for the continuance of equality and security of status for citizens. What guarantee have we that proportional representation will be retained when the Dáil becomes the sale arbiter in legislation? The President, if he were here, would probably vehemently deny that the abolition of the Dáil enters in any way into the policy of his Party, but we have discovered from the statement of the President at the Ard Fheis that Government policy is subject to change by the discovery of new factors. The President said there:

"Any change that was made was due to the discovery of certain factors. We would not be fair to you if when we got facts which in any way moved our conviction on certain matters, we did not act in accordance with the information at our disposal."

I suggest that it is beyond the wit of man to predict what new factors the President may discover, or imagine he discovers, which he will consider adequate justification for even more radical steps than the scrapping of proportional representation or the scrapping of the Dáil.

There is one more aspect of this question which I want to examine, and I am finished. The President of the Executive Council suggested in his last speech in the Dáil that the duties and functions of this House might be discharged and fulfilled by the Dáil Standing Orders being revised to provide an additional stage for the consideration of measures in that House. I wonder was the President serious in that statement? Does he really believe that? If so, he will get very few to share that opinion. There is a conception of this House which it is clear has never yet dawned on the mind of the President. There is a function which this House discharges which a dozen recommittals of Bills in the Dáil could never touch, or prove a substitute for. I have heard it said that there is no real analogy between the Senate of the United States and our own. I am aware of the very wide difference there is in the character and origin of the two Assemblies, but I think there is something which, for want of a better word, I will call a symbolic analogy. There is this symbolic analogy the contemplation of which should bring to our mind a clearer understanding of the principle underlying the matter we are considering. Just as the American Senate symbolises and secures in the American Union State equality and thereby produces a national cohesion, strength and unity, which the House of Representatives alone could not, so the Seanad of the Saorstát might symbolise within it, in a way the Dáil cannot, an equality of mind and status of elements within this State, diverse in character, background and outlook, but which, through the interplay of association and discussion here, might be fused and welded into an asset of great potency for national consolidation and progress. When at the dawn of a new era this State came into being, and the form, structure and institutions of an ordered organised democratic community had to be fashioned, those to whom that task was entrusted visualised, I believe, something of what I am trying to indicate. They faced the task which confronted them in that spirit, which, I think, received its noblest exposition in the memorable words of Lincoln, spoken in the course of his second inaugural address:

"With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we are in... to bind up the nation's wounds, to do all that can achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

If we can interpret the sublime political sanity of these words in terms of the needs of this State, and apply to those needs the profound and far seeing statesmanship which inspired that utterance of Lincoln, we may perceive that the wounds of this nation that require the deepest thought and the most careful attention of statesmanship are not the bruises and scars of the last few years of embittered strife. These are but superficial wounds on the body of the nation, which are steadily healing and disappearing under the benign influence of the liberty which came to this land by the Treaty of 1921. The wounds of this nation that call for true statesmanship and for the care of the statesman—not of the charlatan—the wounds of this nation that most need to be bound up and healed are deeper and of more ancient origin. They are wounds which were inflicted by long years of alien domination, inflicted by a system which divorced vital elements of this nation from its life and diverted their thoughts, energy and outlook in the main away from the consideration of the vital needs of their own land. Those are the deep gangrened wounds that true statesmanship would attempt to bind up and heal, so that the evil influences of past generations might be blotted out for ever, and all those elements so estranged might re-enter the bosom of the nation's life to repair its fortunes and to help to rebuild within it the fabric of a progressive and an enlightened civilisation. That task of supreme statesmanship is not going to be achieved by striding roughshod, like a Cromwellian trooper, over the elements so affected. At the inception of this State and in the creation and composition of this House, we have evidence that there did exist an understanding of the true and wise thing that required to be done. In this House we have had to a degree, and in a manner perhaps impossible in any other assembly in the land, a practical interpretation of the fine ideal of Wolfe Tone:

"To abolish the memory of all past dissensions, and to substitute the common name of Irishmen in place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter."

Those of us who have been privileged and honoured by being members of the Seanad have seen that blessed work of reconciliation operating and fructifying. We have been witness to the fact that representatives of elements for which the Dáil could not provide have been here playing a loyal, a steadfast and constructive part in the nation's work. But this Seanad, this efficient instrument to allay animosities and estrangements of the past, and to forge new bonds of unified national strength for the future the Government proposes to destroy. This work of reconciliation between elements vital to a healthy nation they purpose to terminate. These wounds, the heritage of evil generations, now in process of healing, they prepare to tear open once more, and challengingly to tell certain of our citizens that the guarantee of their status for the future is to be not loyal service to the State but subservience to a junta. I stand appalled when I contemplate the tragedy of mind and spirit which is being here enacted, and which Ministers not only view with complacency, but profess to regard as a further step on Ireland's road of destiny. I cannot believe it possible that they are right. I refuse to believe that Ireland's road of destiny is, after all, only a via dolorosa that leads but to an unending agony of tormenting futilities. The President and his colleagues may think that their star is in the ascendant at the moment and that they can outrage the fundamentals of democracy with impunity. I suggest to them to have a care lest it be their eclipse and not their star which is impending in the political sky, and I fervently pray that that eclipse, when it comes, will not engulf in ruin, gloom, and despair the dearest hopes we have for the future of our country.

This generation of ours has done great things for the nation. It has brought it out of the catacombs and out of the dock. It has won back for the nation a place in the family of free sovereign states. It has given the nation a free democratic constitution under which it can progress happily and peacefully to its highest ideals. It has given it a free Parliament wherein the sovereign will of the people can be supreme. This democratic constitution, the Government are engaged in disembowelling. This free Parliament they are preparing to dismantle. The extinction of the Seanad is but one stage in their work. I ask members of this House, with all the seriousness and sincerity that I can summon to my aid, to pause and to think long and deeply before they assist in this work of disruption. We may be powerless to prevent what the Government propose from becoming an actuality, but we can at least refrain from being partners with them in this iniquity. A docile, acquiescent majority in the other House can, it appears, bring to consummation this retrogressive and antisocial proposal. I suggest that we should let them have the full and undivided guilt and shame of it. I ask the members of all Parties in the Seanad not to be assenting parties to their own dishonour and to the betrayal of the trust of the people.

In the few remarks which I shall make, I shall try to bring the discussion back to the atmosphere and the substance of the very important speech delivered by Senator Douglas here this afternoon. Notwithstanding the number of considerably provocative utterances which have taken place, I shall not repeat what I have said on two former occasions relative to and in support of my view that this Seanad, as at present constituted, should not be maintained; but I make the very important reservation: "As at present constituted." The evolution of politics very recently in Europe shows, unfortunately, to my mind, a great and increasing tendency to do away with the effective power of the people in their governments and to put the power, which should be exercised by the people, into the hands of dictators. Whether that dictator be a communist or an aristocrat or a social democrat, is utterly at one to me. I loathe and abominate the whole idea of dictatorship. I have thought that a dictatorship, or anything at all approaching a dictatorship, was almost unthinkable here, until very recently, and I was amazed and aghast at what took place in the Dáil a very short time ago in a very accidental way. Deputy Dillon taunted, Deputy MacDermot with not giving sufficient respect to parliamentary institutions in this country. Deputy MacDermot immediately replied: "I supported and defended parliamentary institutions in your Party when they needed defence." When they needed defence! If ever I was speaking earnestly and without taint of Party bias, I am speaking that way now. I did not think that that was possible. I know that General O'Duffy advocates the Corporate State. Quite frankly, I do not take General O'Duffy seriously.

Does the Senator take Deputy MacDermot seriously?

I take seriously the fact that both General O'Duffy and Deputy MacDermot were adopted unanimously by the whole Party which is associated with my interrupter, Senator MacLoughlin. I am pointing out the danger. I agree with Senator Milroy that in every section of this Seanad, as at present constituted, and in every Party in it, there are people who are very well worth their place in any deliberative or legislative assembly in this or any other country. Nevertheless, I think that a new form of Seanad would be better. I am profoundly convinced, however, that the immediate establishment of that Seanad should take place and that no legislative safeguard should be omitted effectually to prevent anything at all by any or all parties in the nature of a dictatorship in this country.

Senators

Hear, hear.

That, in effect, is my feeling, and I think it is a very important matter in view of the trend of legislation. And particularly when you hear men of standing, character and education say that democracy is an exploded force. I was rather taken by Senator Milroy's quotations from Lincoln, but there is one to which I, at all events, will pin my political faith—also from Lincoln—and that is that government of the people, by the people, through the people shall be the effective force of democracy and that the force of democracy through that method may be preserved upon the earth. Anything I have got to say after that is very subordinate to that. That, to my mind, is all important and for that reason, if this Seanad were dissolved to-morrow, I would consider that, as soon as it possibly could be achieved—by nomination if necessary—a second chamber should be re-instituted. Senator Douglas, however, made a rather important point when he said, in effect, that, while the Dáil and the Seanad pass certain measures, the principle of which we all approve, incorporated in those measures is the power to give Ministers—which in effect is the power to give civil servants—powers to make orders and regulations which really have legislative effect and may, in effect, be out of harmony with the spirit of the major measure altogether. That is rather an important matter. I do not want to go through the whole list, but I shall give some of the figures with regard to orders and regulations that have been issued in the last few years. In 1924 there were 36 such orders. In 1932 there were 119 such orders. In 1934 there were 389 such orders, and in 1935 there were 659 such orders. Fancy any legislative machine turning out even so many sections of important Acts in such a time with no consideration and no discussion! That is a subtle way by which the power is being taken from the elected representatives of the people and from the legislatures dealing with such matters. Those are the two points I wish to make and, though I still hold the view that the Seanad, as at present constituted, is not the best Seanad, I have become so impressed by the importance of what is going on that I would assent to the continuance of this Chamber until something which is deemed better is ready to be substituted.

I have listened with great patience to all the speeches that were made to-day, and particularly to what Senator Dowdall has just said. Senator Dowdall, however, did what I did not do. He made some vicious attacks on this House outside the House. Whatever I have got to say about the House, I say it here. Senator MacLoughlin poured out the usual vitriolic stream of words and, during the last two years and during the last stages, I have listened to the same old humdrum statement from him. I am not going to descend to his eloquent scurrility, and I have probably more brief for what I have to say than he has. It is very interesting to hear Senator Milroy talk, and particularly to hear the last part of his appeal; but if Senator Milroy, in the last couple of years, had lived up to the spirit of that appeal by his actions, it is probable that we would not have this discussion here to-day.

He went so far in his effort to justify the continuance of the House as to quote, above all people, Tone, "to abolish the memory of past dissensions." But is there any group in this or in the country that has done more than the group to which he belongs to tear up the basic principle on which the elected Government of the country is working? Senator O'Neill referred to some of their actions in this House. He pointed to the fact that there was no Bill held up in this House during the 10 years of the previous régime, and mentioned that five Bills, at least, had been held up and thrown into the waste paper basket within the last two years. Senator Milroy did not make the slightest effort to justify the group that he belongs to in doing that. He did not make the slightest attempt to explain why this House was so very accommodating to the previous Government for ten years, or why it has been so actively alive in its efforts to embarrass at every step the present Government. These are facts. The action of the Party opposite within the last couple of years might not be so bad in the case of ordinary domestic legislation, but the crying shame about the whole thing was that by their actions they have proved themselves to be better Englishmen than the English themselves. After making long speeches they went into the Division Lobby to justify the actions taken by the British Government against this country, to justify a, continuance of their subserviency to a foreign king.

Is that a proper expression to use? I will not have that from a pup like you.

That is unparliamentary language and should not be used.

He told me to shut up.

I did not hear that expression used. I am sure that Senator O'Hanlon did not mean it.

I meant every word of it. I think that Senator MacEllin's language about subserviency to a foreign king merited what I said.

Senator MacEl in must be allowed to make his speech, and I think Senator O'Hanlon should apologise.

I apologise to you, Sir.

I do not want any apology from you anyway. What I said is quite correct. Fortunately or unfortunately, the division lists of this House are there against you and you cannot get away from them.

It was good enough for Thomas Davis.

Please, do not interrupt.

There were many speeches made this evening, but, in my opinion. Senator Douglas was the only one who attempted to make a case for the continuance of Second Chamber Government. If Senators confined themselves to that issue and had spoken in the spirit that Senator Douglas did, it is possible we would have advanced much faster, and that what was said here would command more respect both inside and outside the House. Senator Douglas said some things with which I do not agree. One of his statements was that under a Single Chamber Government a lot of revolutionary things are likely to happen. One of the things, he said, likely to happen with a majority of one in the Dáil was that we would possibly have some judges removed.

May I be allowed to say that when the Senator has the opportunity of reading what I did say he will find that in no part of my speech did I venture to prophesy. I said that things could happen, but I did not say that either this Government or any Government that may succeed it were going to do these things. At no time did I attempt to prophesy.

I accept that. Then we are to take it that what the Senator said was that it could happen, that, with a majority of one in the Dáil, judges are likely to be removed and that a dictatorship is likely to be set up.

Could be.

I think Senators will find that the members of the present Government have adhered rigidly and closely to constitutional usage and practice. There is one important fact that I would like to point out to the House and it is this: that the election of President de Valera's Government marked the first change of Government that we had under a Dominion as such. That being so, there was a tremendous responsibility placed on the leader of the new Government, especially when we remember that a few years before this country had gone through a terrible time as a result of a civil war with all its repercussions. That first change of Government took place, and I suppose I am not giving away any secrets when I say that when that happened there was tremendous pressure put on the President to adopt the system that prevails in America and in some other countries— that is to change completely the whole routine and established principles of Government as we know it in England in the matter of the removal of civil servants and police. We know that such a system as that prevails in America and other countries, and that it is put into effect when a change of Government takes place. The pressure that was put on the President was terrific.

There are plenty of good precedents for such a change in America and elsewhere. If the President had yielded to that pressure he would be setting up a precedent in this country, and in doing so would probably leave as many broken hearts as were left after the civil war. But the President resisted that terrific pressure, and took over the nucleus of Government and its institutions. Instead of removing civil servants and police, he took them over against that terrific pressure, because he felt it is not for the present we are working, but rather for the future of Ireland, and for those who are to come after us. He felt that we had got to set precedents that the generations to come after us may follow as a good example. Because of his tremendous personality and of his big-mindedness, the President was able to set that good example. If any other person had come in as leader of the Government in such circumstances and at such a time— coming in so soon after a civil war with all its repercussions—and adopted such a course as the President did, he possibly could not have survived. The President, in the course he set himself, proved successful. He got loyal service from the civil servants and the police with, perhaps, an odd exception. He proved to the country that his decision was wise, right and correct. In doing that he was acting on the principle of Tone that Senator Milroy spoke about—"the removal of past dissensions."

With regard to the removal of this House, in my opinion it is going to lead this country on to the proper path and to do more than anything else towards the removal of past dissensions. Is the President getting any credit for that, or is that thought of to-day? Not at all. Will one of his critics get up in public and say: "Well done, de Valera"? Not at all. Is a man who is capable of acting as he has, going, under a Single Chamber Government, to remove judges or civil servants simply because he has a majority of one in the Dáil? Certainly not. So far as I know, President de Valera has never said that he was a believer in Single Chamber Government. We cannot assume that he intends to continue with a Single Chamber Government. I think there are a good many Senators on the other side of the House who, like Senator Dowdall, do not believe in the principles on which this House is set up, nor do they believe that it should be continued as at present constituted, but, unlike Senator Dowdall, they have not the moral courage to come out and say so. I think it would be better if Senators, instead of pouring out vitriol and passing nasty remarks, would settle down and, regardless of whether the President is here or not, discuss the question of Single Chamber or Two Chamber Government on its merits or demerits. I have not, so far, expressed any views as to what I think on the question of Single Chamber or Two Chamber Government. I spoke at the time that the Bill for the abolition of the Seanad was before us, and then gave my reasons as to why I believed that this House should be abolished. On that question we have President de Valera's statement that there is no harm in an experiment. I happen to be one member of the House who is a great believer in an experiment.

Try cutting your throat.

There is no need for me to do that as there are too many people ready to do it for me. But there is no harm in an experiment. An experiment in anything is good.

I do not like to interrupt the Senator, but an arrangement was come to this afternoon to take the Conditions of Employment Bill at 6.45. The Bill is an important one, and we are anxious to see it passed through this evening.

The Minister has been sent for and it will be sufficient time for the Senator to finish his speech when the Minister is in attendance.

I do not think it would be necessary for the Minister to attend. The business is purely formal. No amendments are down for Report Stage.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

We did arrange, at the beginning of the sitting, that we would adjourn this debate at 6.45 p.m. to take the Conditions of Employment Bill and I propose to do so now.

I presume the debate is adjourned until tomorrow?

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 16th January.
Top
Share