Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Mar 1922

Vol. S2 No. 2

ELECTION DEPOSITS.

COUNT PLUNKETT:

I move:

"That this assembly is of opinion that the tax of one hundred and fifty pounds to be paid by each Deputy in nomination for any constituency is an unfair and unnecessary tax, and should be abolished."

I hope the motion may be received in the spirit in which the last motion has been received. The charge of one hundred and fifty pounds has been a serious trouble in Ireland in connection with the elections. From a purely technical point of view and from a material point of view not only of the candidates but their constituents, in Ireland the grievance has been felt so acutely that it is only the fact that Westminster was looked upon as so remote a place to fight it, and that we were entirely dependent on our own resources, that prevented us, years ago, raising this question. In some constituencies a few men are able to produce the sum without inconvenience to themselves. The elections, after all, are not organised for the convenience of the wealthy, and all the poor are affected by the tax, and Labour must feel the stress very acutely. The injury to the public service is so serious—in limiting the range of choice—that I sincerely hope that this Dáil will take this matter up and, by a resolution of the House, declare that it recognises the seriousness of the matter, and that this impediment to the full exercise of the franchise—because that is what it comes to—will be swept away. I know that there are two difficulties in the way. One is legislative—that, I presume, can be got rid of. The other is financial, but I believe that the financial difficulty can be got rid of equally easily. The Dáil could express its opinion; and if there is a power behind the Dáil that can settle this question it would be hardly our business to dispute it in a matter of the kind which affects the liberty of the people. We are not only a democratic body but we are moving to be more democratic than the constitution has allowed us to be up to this. And if we pass this resolution it would be to the convenience of the people of Ireland, and the people outside Ireland, that the democratic feeling of the people of Ireland would be emancipated. This would enlarge the field of choice, and relieve Ireland of a burden which has been felt by individual candidates and also by the people who had to supply the money out of their own pockets.

MR. J.J. O CEALLAIGH:

Cuidighim leis sin tráth is nár dhin éinne ar an dtaobh eile é. Bhí súil agam go ndéanfadh an taobh eile é ach níor dhineadar.

MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS:

My recollection of that was that it was something for the purpose merely of establishing the bona-fides of the candidates, and that it was refunded in the event of the candidate getting one-eighth of the total vote. I do not know exactly what can be said for the resolution, but it seems to me that, if there is any large body of opinion in a constituency in favour of a candidate going forward, that he won't have much difficulty in finding one hundred and fifty pounds to establish his bona-fides. The mention of Labour candidates seemed to me the strongest argument in favour of the resolution. But even the Labour candidate, I understand, would have an organisation capable of backing him to that extent. I don't know as to the possibility of making any change in the existing machinery of the election law in time for the coming election.

MR. DANIEL MACCARTHY:

If the candidate gets one-eighth of the total poll he gets his money back. It will be given back to him then. It was given back in the case of Pierce McCann. You want to do away with the bogus candidate. We know in Dublin, at Municipal Elections, a certain man was well-known to the Dublin people. He had to be sent out of the country because he became a nuisance. He got nominated for every vacancy in Dublin, and people had to go round giving him five pound notes and ten pound notes to withdraw. You will have the same thing again. Anybody who can secure one-eighth of the votes is entitled to his money back.

MR. EAMON DE VALERA:

Have you got some information under proportional representation about this one-eighth?

MR. MICHAEL COLLINS:

One-eighth of the quota.

MADAME MARKIEVICZ:

I support the idea behind this motion. I support it because I heard so many complaints from Labour organisers or Labour Unions that could not possibly find the money. Deputy MacCarthy feels strongly on the subject as, apparently, the money that was lodged by our party in 1918 has not yet been paid back. I think that shows what the Corporation thinks of it. I quite agree with those who said that one hundred and fifty pounds is a small sum that any organisation can get together; that applies to city, but it does not apply to country districts at all.

MR. JOSEPH MACGRATH:

I do not agree that Labour bodies in this country object to this one hundred and fifty pounds. I know what I am talking about—the Labour bodies in Ireland don't object to it. I believe the reason it was introduced was that certain people here in Dublin resorted to the method whereby seven candidates of the one name were deliberately nominated with a view of confusing the issue. A party on one side or the other might be guilty of the same thing. Labour might be guilty of the same. Mind, politics are very dirty. It was with a view to doing away with any possibility of such tactics that such a thing was brought in; and I think it was very necessary. None of us can be accused of doing it if there is such a provision there.

MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:

I quite agree as to the necessity of guarding. I remember there were thirteen of my own name nominated against me. Some of them had been in Glasnevin for thirteen years. They couldn't withdraw, but we had to resurrect others to with draw for them. Others were at the trade in the way that Deputy MacCarthy says—we had to buy them. But I do think we ought agree that the sum should be reduced. It might be hard on even a large organisation. If we left the fee at fifty pounds it probably would meet all sides. If there is any organisation that can't produce fifty pounds their candidate would not have much chance of being elected, and if a man has not much chance there is no use of putting forward his candidature. I think a fee of some kind is necessary so that one can be assured that the candidates are bonafide. One hundred and fifty pounds is a hardship. No doubt it was put in the spirit that Mr. MacGrath mentions, but the figure is too high, and if it was put on at fifty pounds it would meet all sides. I would move that it be a recommendation to this Dáil that the figure be reduced to fifty pounds.

PRESIDENT ARTHUR GRIFFITH:

I would like to know exactly what this means. Has it reference to the forthcoming election, with which we have no power whatever to deal, or to the whole of the conditions under which that election is to be fought. If it is merely an expression of opinion I have no fault to find with Mr. O'Kelly's suggestion.

MR. D. MACCARTHY:

It is only an expression of opinion.

PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:

The proposer says quite the contrary.

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

It is not in the sense of going into the whole question of the franchise laws.

PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:

If it is an expression of opinion, if it has nothing to do with the next election which we all have to fight, I quite agree with Mr. O'Kelly.

COUNT PLUNKETT:

The amount to be expended by this body would run to thirty thousand or forty thousand pounds, and I think that is a terrible imposition on the country, and that the State should recognise a system of imposition which taxes the people for doing service to their country.

MR. W.T. COSGRAVE:

I do not think that is a tax; that is not a correct way to describe it. The tax is upon a person who cannot secure one-eighth of the total number of votes polled. If there are forty thousand cast and there are four candidates to be elected, you must divide forty thousand by four.

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

By four?

MR. W.T. COSGRAVE:

Permit me to tell you what the case is. You divide a quota of ten thousand by eight, and that would mean that the candidate who presents himself for election who, out of forty thousand, gets one thousand two hundred and fifty votes, gets his money back; if he cannot get one thousand two hundred and fifty, I think he ought to be taxed. It is a good job to tax him; and everybody who has ever fought a strongly contested election knows that a candidate opposed to him who only gets one-eigth of the number the winner gets ought to be taxed; one-eighth of the total number of votes polled divided by the total number of members to be elected.

MR. AUSTIN STACK:

I rise to refer to what is really the most important thing of all. The unsuccessful candidate if he polls one-eighth of the quota gets back his money; the successful candidate, if he polls nine-tenths of the votes of his constituents, will not get back his money if he refuses to take what is an objectionable oath—as has been the case with all of us here. We refused to go to Westminster, and our one hundred and fifty pounds is still lodged with the British Government. That was the case at the last election. In a future election in Ireland the same thing may apply, and you may have a body of Irishmen who may not be able to take such an oath and be elected, while if they had been defeated it would be returned to them. This provision about the oath was not in the original Bill as introduced into the British House of Commons, at all. But it was pointed out that the Sinn Féiners had a certain policy, and if they followed that policy, that they might not attend—so it was decided to try and induce them to attend, to offer them a bribe; and if they did not, to penalise them. So that is how it has come about that our money was retained altogether although we were successful in all the elections. If it were possible, I believe that the opposition would, if they could, drop this business—anyway, with regard to the form of the oath. I am sure that they will give it every consideration, and not try to tax their opponents in the manner the British Government did.

DR. PATRICK MACCARTAN:

I think we should have no one hundred and fifty pounds; I think it is a relic of the old time. There is no reason why any man should have to pay up one hundred and fifty pounds, but there is a danger, as Deputy MacCarthy has said, of bogus candidates. But to avoid that, why not get men in preference to money? Why not get the candidates nominated by one hundred and fifty voters?

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

There is an amendment which I have not got in writing.

COUNT PLUNKETT:

If it produces unanimity at this meeting, I don't want to take a vote. I would be quite happy to agree to Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly's suggestion and have fifty pounds instead of one hundred and fifty pounds.

MR. M. COLLINS:

I ask the Deputy for Offaly to put in his suggestion as an amendment because it is, I think, a better proposition than either of them.

DR. P. MACCARTAN:

That is, that each candidate for a constituency is to get his papers signed by one hundred and fifty voters.

COUNT PLUNKETT:

I will certainly accept that.

MR. D. MACCARTHY:

I am against that amendment. The man who signed that nomination paper does not bind himself to vote for the candidate for whom he signed the papers. That won't get out of the difficulty of the bogus candidate. I don't care if you reduce it from one hundred and fifty pounds to one hundred pounds or seventy-five pounds, but there must be some fee lodged if you are going to have a properly conducted election. Deputy Stack's point is covered all right, even under the original Act. When you sit and take the oath you can get your money back. Men of straight principle who didn't get their money back all along, can, when Parliament is dissolved; the Free State can afford to pay it back.

MR. J.J. O CEALLAIGH:

Quite a number of us in 1918 were elected, and we had to pay one hundred and fifty pounds; we were elected a second time, but the money paid in the first instance has not come back.

MR. M. COLLINS:

Parliament is still sitting.

MR. HARRY BOLAND:

I think that Mr. MacCarthy's point about the likelihood of bogus nominations might very well obtain under the old system, but on a straight vote under the Proportional Representation it is not likely to happen.

PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:

More than ever.

MR. M. COLLINS:

Yes, more than ever.

MR. D. MACCARTHY:

I think we will all agree if you agree on a figure. There ought to be some money lodged.

MR. J. MACGRATH:

This is rather too big a thing to decide now. Could it not be put back to the next Session? Meantime, something could be done. Something should be drawn up on the lines suggested by the Deputy for Offaly, some guarantee. The one hundred and fifty signatures appears to me to be very good. But then, these signatures could be obtained without their being genuine. We might get some way of checking we don't see at the present moment.

MR. PATRICK O'KEEFFE:

Timnal blian ó shoin bhí rún os cóir na Dála agus chuirimear deich agus fiche míle púint i leataoibh i gcóir no dtoghchán. Do bhí sé sin ceart an uair sin. Tá sé eagcóireach anois. The Dáil, this day twelve months, passed thirty thousand pounds for the elections on the following May. That principle of one hundred and fifty pounds was right then. Why is it wrong now? No member then objected to it, although this country was in the throes of war. They knew very well that we could do nothing, because we were using the British machine, and we were squaring our consciences in using that machine. Yes, we were; and we have high principles now; and the national apostates now are different men to the men we had then. I say this is a red herring driving at something else, and if we do not see that hundred and fifty pounds there you will have all sorts of candidates at the next June election—you will have seven Mooneys and one hundred and twenty-one Bolands. You will have all those bogus candidates, and that is your only safeguard—by keeping that fee of one hundred and fifty pounds there. You can form other machinery in the new Dáil or Free State Government, and any candidate that you think is bogus—have him put into jail or hang him.

MR. DE VALERA:

I wonder would the last Deputy agree to the suggestion that we should do what we did last year because we regarded it as the way of upholding the Republic? We decided, acting in accordance with the purpose for which the funds of the Dáil were collected, that thirty thousand pounds should be made available for the election. Perhaps if Dáil Éireann put the sum of thirty thousand pounds now as the figure for the purpose of maintaining the Republic it would meet the case. Our attitude with regard to this whole question is this: we have used British guns against themselves; there is no reason why we should not use British machinery against this. The present Cabinet has a policy which brings them in contact with Britain, and it gives them a certain power for arranging procedure. As their policy is the policy of the majority here in this Dáil, there is no reason why they should not be able to get any views which they strongly hold —get these views impressed on those who are devising this machinery. If, as far as we are concerned, they improve the British gun and we can get it, I have no objection whatever in using it. This is admitted by President Griffith and others to be an unfair and heavy tax.

PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:

I did not say so.

MR. E. DE VALERA:

Well, perhaps I am wrong. But if there is an oath, for example, which a large number of candidates may not be able to take conscientiously, undoubtedly it would be a heavy tax. About this decree, then, I would say this about these elections. I do not know if we will have an opportunuity of discussing it again; I have a question to raise as to our registers; I think if you want to get the will of the Irish people you will have to get that machinery changed.

PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:

We have to fight this election on the existing franchise.

MR. E. DE VALERA:

Why?

PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:

Because we do not want the people to be held back any further. We will not have this red herring, and this motion that has been put down is, in my judgment, an attempt to obstruct the election. We will not have that election obstructed. We have agreed for three months, and after that we are going ahead with the election. We have to use the existing register and the existing franchise and the existing forms. In so far as this is an expression of opinion I would not object to it, but as a device to obstruct the election I do object.

MR. E. DE VALERA:

I could prove that you have no legal register at the present time, and I brought it up purposely that you might take advantage of the three or four months. There is no legal register at present—and I can prove it.

PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:

I move now the rejection of this motion.

MR. SEAN MACENTEE:

One of the most frequent statements from the other side is to try to get the free will of the Irish people. Now, this one hundred and fifty pounds was an imposition upon any candidate representing the popular view. Everyone knows the origin of that. It was imposed in order to prevent Sinn Féin candidates from standing at the 1921 election; it did not appear in the original draft of the Bill. It was then put in as an inducement to us to go back upon our repeated election declarations that we would not take the oath in the British House of Commons. It was imposed there, either to induce us to do that, or to prevent us putting forward candidates at all. It is important that, in the coming elections, no section of the Irish people should be hindered from putting forward candidates. There are a number of minor political parties in the country; some of whom hold opinions in favour of the Treaty, and some against it. It is easy for those who are certain that they have behind them numerous resources to say that one hundred and fifty pounds is not a grave restriction upon the popular voice. But those who know that this tax must be met in addition to the large expenses of running a candidate for a large constituency, know very well that it will be the last straw, as it will prevent candidates who represent certain vital opinions in Irish life from going forward. It is simply an attempt to impose upon the Republican Party a handicap in the race. It is a repetition of what was done by England upon Republican Parties in the past. If they were genuine when they said they were taking the Treaty as a stepping-stone towards the Republic, their very first aim would have been to secure that the coming elections should have been held in the very fairest possible way. It is not true to say that they cannot, at this stage, alter the conditions under which the election is being held. The election is being held directly at their wish. It is not being held, as the Ard-Fheis conclusively proved, by the wish of the Irish people. One thing which the President of the Republic was afraid to take a division upon at the Ard-Fheis was upon the motion which stood in the name of the Minister of Finance——

PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:

We were not afraid of it.

MR. S. MACENTEE:

When he got up and said he was not going to stand for the trammelling of the expression of the will of the people he was met by the unanimous cry from that Ard-Fheis that there should be no election. Now, I say to the President of the Republic, who always pretends to pay such deference to the will of the Irish people, that instead of refusing to accept this motion, it is up to him to go to the English people who are ordering this election and who are, apparently, regulating the manner in which it shall be held, and say that it must be the freest possible election that can be held in Ireland, and every political party who wants to put forward a candidate must have an opportunity of doing so, and this tax must be removed. It only shows what we have, all along, seen in Irish history—the demoralisation of all parties in Ireland who have anything to do with the English. The refusal of the President of the Republic to accept the motion only shows that he is not concerned with the free expression of the peoples' will.

PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:

After the shamelessly characteristic speech that has been made by the late member for Monaghan I wish to say this—there is nobody here, or few at least, who believe in their hearts that I would play any trick of that nature. We have got to have this election. If this question of one hundred and fifty pounds were genuinely raised I would not object but I do not believe it is a tax at all. Surely the members here who are opposing us will get, at least, one-eighth of the votes.

MR. E. DE VALERA:

We believe we will get in.

PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:

I am prepared to agree that every member of this Dáil should get his one hundred and fifty pounds.

MR. E. DE VALERA:

If he is a candidate supporting the Republic—not otherwise.

PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:

That is quite right. We are going as parties, but I am prepared to agree with President de Valera on that point.

MR. E. DE VALERA:

We will not take that.

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

The motion as it stands in the name of Count Plunkett is before us.

MR. H. BOLAND:

I am sure we could all agree on the amendment of Doctor MacCartan.

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

The motion as altered now reads that the fee be reduced from one hundred and fifty pounds to fifty pounds. Doctor MacCartan's amendment is that each candidate should secure one hundred and fifty nominators.

DR. P. MACCARTAN:

I withdraw my amendment.

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

Now there is only the motion before the assembly.

COUNT PLUNKETT:

I accept the alteration; that is, that instead of the word "abolished" the words "reduced to fifty pounds" be substituted.

PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:

I move a direct negative. I suggest that Count Plunkett did not put in that motion purely in the interests of the electors. We have got to have a fair do on each side of the House.

MR. M. COLLINS:

I will speak a few words on this motion. The motive for this became revealed when the Deputy for East Clare said that the men on the other side who were in contact with the British could get the machinery changed. And if they did that another Deputy from the other side would get up and say: "You used your influence with Lloyd George." We are not going to have any more of this sort of thing. Everyone on the other side knows that this one hundred and fifty pounds is not a real impediment. I would support anyone who moved honestly that it be reduced to fifty pounds, or I would support Doctor MacCartan's amendment. From the speeches that were made by the Deputy from Monaghan who, of course, is not prepared to face his constituents, I would say this is not an honest motion, and that it is done for the purpose of denying the Irish people their right to their free will. We have heard to-day that Dáil Eireann is supreme. This Dáil Eireann is not supreme——

MR. E. DE VALERA:

It is.

MR. MICHAEL COLLINS:

This Dáil Eireann is not supreme. The people of this country are supreme, and no amount of autocracy is going to deny the people of this country, or take that supremacy from them. We have been anxious to support everything. We did come to an agreement at the Ard-Fheis. The reasons for that agreement are trotted out by the Deputy from Monaghan, who has no claim to speak for Monaghan. But those that entered into an agreement with us knew that we were not more anxious than they were. We were not prepared to face an amendment vote or a vote in our favour; we were trying to preserve unity; we did it as best we could and for two days now we have been kept here, hearing nothing but obstruction. There has not been a single obstruction idea put forward here by the majority, and they are keeping back our work by motions of this kind. Now, we are going to have a line up on this thing.

MR. S. MACENTEE:

The Deputy for Monaghan would say this—that he is as ready to face his constituents in Monaghan as the Minister of Finance is prepared to face his constituents in Cork or Armagh.

MADAME MARKIEVICZ:

I protest against the speech of the Minister of Finance. And it is only dishonest minds who read dishonesty into other peoples' actions. I have supported this because, in my experience, I have come across the hardest of all difficulties in the way of small bodies with, perhaps, new thought to give to the world being given an opportunity of getting their idea expressed. I support it because it is a democratic measure, and I absolutely resent being misrepresented by the Minister of Finance in his desire to get headlines in the paper. Why has he been nick-named the member for Fleet Street?

COUNT PLUNKETT:

In bringing forward this motion, I brought it forward without party consideration, and solely in the interests of Ireland.

MR. PETER HUGHES:

We have wasted time enough at it seeing that this Dáil can't change the law with regard to the forthcoming elections. If that is so we are talking here for an hour to no purpose. What's the use of doing all this? Can't we leave it until after the elections, when the people who will come in then will have the power to make laws? We have been discussing this now, and I don't know whether the vote is one way or another, whether it will effect a change of machinery. Therefore, I would suggest that, the matter having been discussed, that the question be dropped, and that we proceed to the next business. If we are going to show by passing this motion that it can be put into effect I can agree with it; but if it has no effect I do not see why we should waste our time in discussing motions which are absolutely futile.

MR. DAVID CEANNT:

We were all unanimous in coming to the conclusion that one hundred and fifty pounds should not be paid, and we protested against it. Now, we are told that the elections will be held. Why not start now on a democratic basis? To expect the people to keep on for some time— are we going to keep it? I think it more suitable for the sixteenth or seventeenth century, and those who speak about democratic ways, and about helping to build up a new Ireland are going the wrong way about it. It is their boast that they want the free will of the people.

MR. G. NICHOLLS:

I move that the question be now put.

MR. J.J. O CEALLAIGH:

Have you accepted the withdrawal of Doctor MacCartan's amendment?

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

I have.

MR. J.J. O CEALLAIGH:

The Speaker has ruled unfairly. That amendment could not be withdrawn without the unanimous consent of the House.

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

I cannot allow a statement to be made about my ruling. I am not here as Speaker or Deputy Speaker. I am trying to do my best in the matter, and I will not allow anybody to say that I have shown bias in the matter, because I am doing my best.

MR. A. STACK:

Take me as dissenting from your statement.

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

I must get cut of the Chair if there is any further question about it. You are not going to see me in the Chair in the morning.

MR. J.J. O CEALLAIGH:

I want to explain if your statement was intended for me, that I think it is customary to seek leave of the House to withdraw an amendment. It is customary to get the unanimous assent of the House.

MR. J. MACGRATH:

It was got.

MR. J.J. O CEALLAIGH:

Therefore I wish you to record that I object to permitting Doctor MacCartan to withdraw his amendment.

MR. M. COLLINS:

It was put to the House.

MR. H. BOLAND:

Doctor MacCartan moved an amendment which was seconded by Mr. Collins, and we were prepared to accept that amendment without a division; and you did not get the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw it.

MR. GAVAN DUFFY:

I do not think they are aware of the fact that the Deputy Speaker asked the House if the amendment could be withdrawn, and there was no dissent.

MR. J. DOLAN:

He certainly asked permission.

MR. G. NICHOLLS:

There was no discussion whether the amendment was withdrawn or not. The only question before the House now is that the question be now put.

MR. A. STACK:

I leave it to the Ceann Comhairle himself—did he ask the leave of the House to withdraw it?

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

Yes, I did. The fact of the matter is that there was much talking all the time.

MR. W.T. COSGRAVE:

For the information of the ex-Ceann Comhairle I would say that it is not necessary to get the unanimous consent of the House.

Motion put and declared lost, the voting being 40 for and 50 against.