Before we proceed with the business, I have to move: "That the Dáil sit later than 8.30 to-day for the consideration of the Public Safety (Emergency Powers) Bill, 1923, and adjourn not later than 6 a.m. to-morrow, Tuesday, 17th July."
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS.
I second that.
I would like to hear some reasons given before this question is thrown into discussion.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I should have thought that the reasons are very obvious. There is a heavy legislative programme awaiting the consideration of the Dáil and Seanad, and it is necessary to get through this Bill in order that other Bills may be brought forward for the consideration of the Dáil. The reasons are just the same reasons as compelled us to sit late on Thursday night last— just the same reasons.
That means that there are no reasons whatever. The legislative programme that is before us is one other Bill, of which the Second Reading has been taken, and to which a very small number of amendments have been put forward. That is the heavy legislative programme that we are asked to deal with. When is the General Election? Is it next week or the week after, or three weeks or a month hence? If not, where is the heavy legislative programme that demands a night sitting? That is not the reason, notwithstanding what the Minister says. I protest against what I consider to be very scurvy treatment of the Dáil by the Minister and his colleagues.
On Thursday, we were here to discuss business in the ordinary course, with the ordinary Standing Orders, having had the ordinary notice that the business would be conducted in the ordinary way. We have had, week after week, business coming to us, adjournments over several dates. We have had men coming from the country for one day and going back again with no other business in hands. Then the Minister comes forward on Thursday, and tells us that we have to sit beyond the normal period. He moved that we sit until 4 o'clock in the morning. On Friday we adjourned without any notice of any new procedure, of any suspension of Standing Orders, or any alterations in Parliamentary time. The Minister comes forward to-day again at 3 o'clock in the day, and tells us that we are to suspend the Standing Orders. He moves the suspension of the Standing Orders for the abolition of the time limit. I say that is scurvy treatment of the Dáil. It means that in the minds of the Ministers this Dáil is merely a toy for them to play with. We are to say "ditto.""What we have decreed, you are to obey." I resent that kind of treatment. I ask the Dáil to resent that kind of treatment.
Ministers have been treated by the Dáil very fairly, and very reasonably, and with the greatest possible amount of consideration. They have brought forward Bills here; they have broken their rules of order. They have broken their Standing Orders time after time, and they asked for the leniency of the Dáil. They do it time after time. They have broken all the rules of order, and all the rules of debate. Then they come forward to the Dáil and say, "Here is a thing we want done." They give the Dáil no consideration whatever. They say, "Because we have willed it the majority of the Dáil must follow us." We have been given no consideration whatever. That is scurvy treatment of the Dáil, and we resent it. If the Ministers are going to treat the Dáil in the way they threaten they will get all the opposition they require. If they are going to destroy any as a toy, if they are going to destroy any attempt to make this Assembly worthy of the name of Parliament, if they are going to destroy this Dáil they are welcome to it, and they will get every possible amount of assistance. They can easily do it. If they are going to challenge us to bring this Dáil into contempt, then they can have it brought into contempt.
I say that the method of conducting business has been a scandal and a shame, and this procedure of trying to rush a Bill of this kind through in the small hours of the morning, and coming here in the afternoon of the day and asking for the suspension of the Standing Orders so that we shall be here again all night, is treating the Dáil scurvily, and without any of the reasonable amount of consideration with which men should be treated.
I regret that the Deputy has thought fit to use such language as he has used in connection with the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders.
There is no motion to suspend the Standing Orders. Under the Standing Orders a motion can be made without notice for the extension of the time.
Well, the motion for the suspension of the time limit. It is a motion at any rate that is provided for, and for which the Standing Orders were specially adapted to make provision. The Deputy says we have not good reasons for this particular proposal. I gave the reasons on the last day, the first day that we moved to sit late. The reasons were, first, there was a considerable amount of business, and I adhere to that statement. There is a considerable amount of business. Some thirteen estimates have not yet been passed, and when they are passed an Appropriation Bill will be necessary, and it will have to be dealt with before the first of August. In addition to that there are other Bills practically ready for introduction, but we must clear the way with regard to this particular measure. The question is: is this Bill that is now presented a Bill of any importance? Is it a Bill of urgency, and is it a Bill in connection with which the Deputy, if he were here on these Benches and in the same position as we are, would be free to say "I will not have this Bill." Everybody in the Dáil, and nobody better than the Deputy, knows that if he were here he would have to introduce a Bill not having, perhaps, all the attributes of this particular measure; at any rate he would have to introduce a Bill similar in its main functions, having the same character and embracing the same provisions as there are in this one. If other business be tabled it will delay the passing of this Bill, and the passing of this Bill cannot be delayed. I quite admit the Dáil has treated the Ministry with every consideration; I have admitted that more than once. I have admitted that as far as the transaction of ordinary business is concerned, we have been facilitated in every way at any time that we asked to be facilitated. Deputies are certainly aware of the fact that we had not a free hand with regard to many measures that were brought forward. Some had got to be considered before a certain date; other matters of considerable importance had to be brought forward before they were considered; and there were occasions when we had to ask for special consideration owing to the circumstances of the time. We are not living in normal times; everybody knows that. There may be people who say that we are approaching normality. I quite admit that. We may have normal conditions now; but, the setting up of a Government to arrange for the laying of a foundation for the future convenience and stability of the State, is a matter of no small difficulty now as compared with a normal period. While Deputies are perfectly entitled to criticise the Ministry, the Ministry's time has not been sufficient. Twenty-four hours in the day are not sufficient to enable us to deal with present legislation. The setting up of services required considerable attention. Some had to be constructed from the very foundations, and that work had to be carried on together with the ordinary transaction of the affairs of Government. During that period there have been continuous communications in regard to the financial adjustments and otherwise between the British Government and this country. I am positively certain that for some time to come, even when a new Government has been elected, such delays are inevitable until really normal conditions are restored, and by normal conditions I mean normal conditions of government, in which it will not be necessary to take up these temporary financial adjustments that have to be made. The Deputy asks when will the General Election take place. I can assure him that I am not in a position to say when the General Election will be. I am not in a position to say for two reasons, one of which is very material to the issue. I do not know at this moment when exactly the Register will be available. We cannot decide when an Election will take place until we have that information. The other reason is that there are certain Bills to be considered before the General Election. I do not know that I could give any more satisfactory answer than that, and it does appear to me while the Deputy may feel annoyed, that we have not resented very lengthy discussion on this particular measure. We have not introduced the closure on this or on any other measure. I explained that if we did that it would not be necessary for us to ask for those long sittings. We wish that to this and other Bills the greatest consideration and the most lengthy consideration should be given by the Deputies. I am sure Deputy Johnson will admit that so far as this is concerned what I have stated is exactly the case.
The President has asked whether the measure before the Dáil is an important one. It is. It is so important that plenty of time should be given for its discussion. What are the facts?
It was introduced without half as much notice as any other measure that has been introduced. It went through its first and second stages. It came forward for Committee on last Monday, and, as everybody in the Dáil is aware, when it came before the Committee last Monday the Dáil had to adjourn until Tuesday because sufficient notice, even according to the Standing Orders, had not been given for its consideration. In other words, Monday, legislatively, was largely lost. I am not attributing blame in any particular direction for that, but nobody knows better than Ministers that three or four weeks ago the Dáil adjourned for two or three days. No. I am not going to object to an adjournment of that kind, but if there was need for such desperate haste and desperate urgency in the consideration of all these things why not make a better use of the time at the disposal of the Dáil? I remember that the adjournment was moved on the night of the Second Reading of this Bill, and it was moved for a certain purpose; that purpose was achieved after two days, namely the second two days of the races at the Curragh. There still remained one further Parliamentary day, and it would have been quite possible for the Dáil to have dealt with its legislation on that other day. The consideration of further Estimates was before the Dáil at that time, but they were not reached and we are now told that they must be got through before a particular time, but the Dáil at the request of the Ministry wasted its time, and declined to meet at a time when, according to the opinion of the Ministry, it ought to have met. Whose fault was that? Certainly not the fault of those who were endeavouring to carry out their duty by criticising the Bill. With the exception of six or seven people on this side of the Dáil and two or three elsewhere, apart from the Ministers concerned, the Dáil has given little or no consideration to the Bill. It has simply taken it as it was put before it and it is prepared on the whole to do the same for the future. Why exactly is it necessary that this thing should be done to-night and at such short notice? Why must you have the measure pass its Committee Stage before to-morrow morning? What is the business before the Dáil to-morrow? The talk on the last occasion that this step was taken about the necessity for doing this in a hurry was largely fudge, because no matter how much we hurry the matter here it has still got to go through the Seanad, and the Seanad is not meeting within the next two or three days. We have got to have the Report Stage before that and also the Final Stage. You did get two or three days' work squeezed into 21 hours on Thursday night and Friday morning, but I hope that this Dáil will never put itself in the position in which the Seanad has put itself when it squeezed three or four weeks' work into twenty minutes. The thing is a scandal. You have got already, and I suggest you take full advantage of it, a docile majority that will vote here whatever the Ministry puts before it without question. I have no hesitation in saying that. There has been no attempt unduly to prolong the Committee Stage of this Bill.
I have taken some pains to look over the time spent by the various speakers in criticism of the Bill. I find invariably that they had not taken the full limit of time allowed by the Standing Orders. Those of the Deputies who attend the debates while they are going on know perfectly well, and no one knows it better than the Minister, that those who have been opposing the measure could work out the full limit. They have not done so; they have confined themselves to speaking at such length as they think necessary for dealing with particular points. I do not want at all to discuss the Bill or any of its provisions now, but I suggest that it is just as unnecessary to rush this Bill as it is unnecessary to put certain exceptional provisions into the Bill. On Thursday night the Ministry thought, I presume, that by having an all-night sitting they could wear out the opposition to the Bill, and that legislative consciences were so elastic that after three or four hours' discussion we would be as tractable as the Government majority in the Dáil. We were not. We were sent here to perform certain duties. To the best of our ability and judgment we have been performing them and we shall continue to perform those duties, but if there is anything to the discredit of the Dáil, that discredit will not fall on the opposition to the Bill, but will fall on the majority supporting the measure. Again and again we have noted that the greatest weakness and the biggest fault of this Dáil have been the docility of the majority of the Dáil in regard to whatever is put before them. They consider themselves simply little more than a mere registering machine.
Long ago, at the height of your crisis, when you were threatened with the overthrowing, not only of this Dáil and of this Ministry, but with the overthrow of the Treaty which brought this Dáil, this Ministry and this Free State into existence, you did things that we had occasion to oppose. I want to say that, in spite of the bitter opposition on many things we had to give you then, we had such a keen realisation of our duties that, whether personally, politically, or collectively distasteful to us, we took our stand on certain things. We continue to take that stand, and in the deliberate judgment at least, of one of us, we did a great national service to this State by doing so, because at any moment had we chosen we could have let you remain simply a registering machine—not a mutual admiration society exactly, but a body that would not even have the courage to be a mutual admiration society, but that would come here day after day, hour after hour, and rush indecently without any consideration, except the consideration given by draftsmen and Ministers, every measure. We did not choose to do so; we took a different line. We thought it was the duty, at least, of somebody in the Dáil to subject measures that came before the Dáil to scrutiny and examination. No Minister, and no Deputy supporting the Government can deny that if there came helpful suggestions, if there came useful hints from any side of the Dáil outside the Ministry, they came from those who are opposing this measure, and they only came because those opposing this measure now, and who were criticising and examining previous measures, gave thought and consideration to those measures, examined them line by line, picked out what they thought were their weaknesses, suggested changes that they thought would be useful, helpful, and strengthening to those measures.
We have done the same with this measure. We have tried to change it; we have not asked for anything except ordinary consideration. We have only asked that the Dáil should be treated as a legislative assembly, purely and simply as a deliberative and legislative assembly. If you want it to be something less than that, something quite different, then in honesty and decency you ought to say so, and if anyone has an objection to your change of mind, to your change of policy, to your new conception of what the Dáil ought to be, then those who have such objections can consider their position and decide whether they will or will not support you by continuing to take part in the proceedings. In theory you have deliberately chosen that this should be a deliberative and legislative assembly. We have endeavoured to help in making it so, and now, because you are piqued, because you are disappointed and vexed like children at school, because you cannot get your own way in everything, then you must have all night sittings. Perhaps it is not so much that we would object to you voting as a block; you are quite entitled to do it. It is the custom, more or less, and the practice of such assemblies as this to do that. But your greatest sin in this Dáil has been your absolute indifference to discussion.
On a point of order, is the Deputy addressing the Chair?
The Deputy is to address the Chair.
The greatest sin and weakness of the Dáil has been that Deputies have refused to discuss certain things. Certain things were stated in the Press about the last all-night sitting, many of them incorrect. Can anyone deny that throughout this discussion you were not engaged in deliberating at all until the division bell rang? If you desire that there should be no division bells rung, that the Ministry should be allowed to do just as they please, if the Dáil desires that that should be the state of affairs let the Ministry say so, and some of us, at all events, will do our best to accommodate them.
The Deputy who has just spoken seems to take so much delight in bouquets being thrown that, in default of their being thrown by others, he throws bouquets to himself and to his Party, and it would be a pity not to add to his gratification by throwing a further bouquet from the Independent benches. It is true that, in these days of strain to which he refers so feelingly, it was unnecessary to force attendance in the Dáil during the long sittings, because in these days the patriotism of the Deputy and his Party exhibited itself conspicuously. There was no attempt to speak out lengthened speeches in wearisome detail, but there was a desire to be helpful, and to make the proposed measures more useful and more effective for their intended purpose. I was present throughout the greater part of the sitting of Thursday night and Friday morning.
Silent.
I was present. Does the Deputy suggest that my mind was not working? He went out of his way to be offensive to many of us, and declared that, because we did not join in the childish amusements in which he indulged himself, that therefore we were not taking a serious view of the position. He spoke just now of "We." Nothing amazed me, who sat through that nightlong debate, so much as the word indicative of unity regarding his Party. A little after 5 o'clock in the morning on Friday the Deputy himself was engaged in the rôle of enacting the "fat boy" from Dickens, trying to make our flesh creep with the details of the horrors and the agony of whipping, as described in some book which he read, and, only a little time before, his ostensible leader was reading from another book a passage to show that the Recorder of Liverpool had found, by experience, that instead of whipping being mediæval without chivalry, that it was a punishment which held so little dread for those who were expecting it, that they asked for it in preference to lengthy terms of imprisonment. The leader of the Party told us that the attitude of the expectant convict was pretty much that of a child towards cod liver oil as we see it depicted in newspaper advertisements. The children look at it, and ask for more; and "we," the same Party, ask us to believe that this is such a horrible, barbarous, and nefarious punishment that it is a disgrace to civilisation to attempt to impose it upon men who have as little regard for civilisation as they have for their parole. Deputy Johnson says we have no need for haste. I speak for myself, personally, and as they have advanced their considerations for personal comfort without stating it explicitly, I advance mine. I want a summer holiday, and I do not see why I should be obliged to sit here, day after day, and week after week, listening to Deputy A. proposing that the figure 21 should be changed to 23, and then when that is defeated, another member of his Party, after speaking for the third time for 10 or 15 minutes, proposes that the number should be changed to 19. There ought to be some consideration not merely for the members of the Dáil, but for the discharge of public business. It was a Deputy in the front benches of his own Party who proposed that we should sit to 8 a.m. We all rose to the suggestion. No sooner did he indicate the desire of his Party to sit until 8 a.m. than the majority immediately voted to sit until that hour. Now, he complains that it is an effort to wear them down. There is the legislative programme to be considered. We have been promised a Bill to which I am looking forward with great interest, and I would prefer to go without a holiday than to miss that Bill—the Ministries' Bill. That has been dangled before our eyes for quite a considerable period, and we are living in expectation of it. There is also the Bill to deal with the Constitution of the Judiciary System. Then there is the Army Bill, and several other Bills——
They have been promised, but not introduced.
They are not coming before the elections.
Deputy Figgis says that they are not coming before the elections. Possibly they may, or may not, but those of us who are working men, attending the Dáil from day to day, and work besides, feel the strain, and are anxious to have a summer recess of some sort. I think I am entitled, in the name of humanity to Deputies, to speak in these terms. Humanitarian considerations have been pressed with regard to men who burn other people's houses in the night, and their children after the houses. We are asked to shed tears for the robber who arms himself in order to terrorise the bank clerk.
Who asked that?
Are tears not to be shed for other victims?
Who asked that?
Those who called for the withdrawal, or the evisceration for all effective purposes, of Clauses in this Bill in the name of civilisation. They are practically asking for that, although none of them have had the courage to stand up and defend these people altogether. No, but they display an amount of anxiety for nice and gentle treatment of malefactors of that sort.
We are backed up by Deputy FitzGibbon at least in that.
What about the Recorder of Dublin?
The Recorder of Dublin is not in order here.
Is it in order for the Deputy to suggest that only for lack of courage we would have done these things?
I did not suggest anything of that kind. I did not speak in that fashion. I measure my words. I said that they had not the courage to do it.
Willing to wound yet afraid to strike.
It would be better that we did not discuss the Bill just now.
I am sorry if I have trespassed in discussing the Bill. I pointed out what the operations are that those interested in the passing of the Bill have to face. It is absurd—I have already called it offensive—but it is absurd to suggest that those of us who voted for this measure voted with blind acquiescence, that we did what we understood not. Deputy O'Shannon complained that I was silent. Would anything that I could have said have altered his vote or the vote of any member of his party? The fact is that we are all quite alive to the necessity of getting this Bill passed, and the fewer speeches made upon it the better where they are merely damnable reiteration, to quote a famous eighteenth century phrase. For my part I am prepared to remain for four or five consecutive all-night sittings rather than have the Bill blocked by lengthy discussion of immaterial details.
I am afraid my friend, Deputy Magennis, has attached too much gravity, and too much seriousness to the situation. I am quite sure Deputy O'Shannon did not intend to be taken seriously when, in the words of Deputy Magennis, he presented himself and those acting with him with a very elaborate bouquet. It is some months ago since I complimented Deputies on the other side in belonging to the legitimate section of the opposition of this assembly, and I see nothing in the recent discussion that would induce me to qualify that compliment. We have been told on this side of the Dáil that we vote in block. The proceedings, especially on the discussion of this Bill, will show where the best examples are to be found of voting in block.
And where the best discussions are to be found also.
The longest speeches, not the best.
I will come in a moment to discuss that.
Why did you accept some of our amendments?
I am quite willing to give way to the Deputy if he wishes to make another speech. I do not know whether, in any dictionary of the English language, it will be found that the word "consideration" and the word "deliberation" which have been used in regard to this Bill contain anything, in their definition, to indicate that they consist in making speeches. Certainly for my part I find I can consider best when I am silent, and I often consider better, than otherwise, when other people are silent also.
Why summon the Dáil then?
The same, I think, applies to "deliberation." I am not going to deny that it is possible to think that all the things that the section on the other side of the Dáil have said are true, and that they have all the virtues, as we are told, and that we have all the vices. It is possible to think of the meaning of the things that they say; but the suggestion before us now is that if we had a day's interval, upon each occasion, so that by this time to-morrow we would have fully appreciated the weight and the merit of the things Deputies have said to us to-day, then we would have proceeded with due deliberation; but that it is impossible to come to a conclusion on the same afternoon on the merits, or, at all events, if we sit continuously for an evening, it is not deliberation, whereas if we break up our discussion into junks of three or four hours it would allow ample time for everything to sink deeply into our minds, and that that is deliberation.
On a point of explanation I do not think that I or any other Deputy on this side suggested that no decision should be come to until the next day on a point made to-day.
No, but we are told we are proceeding with undue haste, which means that we are not allowing the arguments presented to us to sink into our minds. Some further things have been suggested. It certainly has been suggested in some of the interruptions, if it has not been suggested in any of the responsible speeches made on the opposite side, that the Ministry, in some way or other, has been introducing deliberate delay into its legislative programme. We have been told, in an interruption, that certain things brought forward in the legislative programme were not intended to be passed before the elections, and in another interruption that they were being dangled.
We have not been told in any responsible speech, nor has any responsible speech been made from any quarter of the Dáil that the members of the Ministry here were wasting time, that they were delaying legislation, that they were deliberately imposing obstacles or delays in the way of their own legislation. If we were told that, I think we, and every person who has a true appreciation of the facts, would receive the suggestion with amusement. Only one other point in regard to what the Deputy said. He made a further suggestion—I will not deal with the things which I hope were not said with any view to provoking acrimony —a suggestion that the only people who think, who deliberate and consider, are those who presented so frequently on the last sitting on this Bill, the number thirteen in the divisions. Those are the only people in the Dáil who think, who deliberate and who consider, and the people who sit on this side of the Dáil are a docile flock who vote en masse, who do exactly what the Ministry desire, and whom I suppose the Ministry never consults on any point. The other suggestion which brings me to where I began—that Deputy Professor Magennis has taken the matter far too seriously—was the suggestion that in making the proposal to have a prolonged sitting, on the previous occasion, or on this occasion, our object is to wear down the opposition. I am one of the oldest men in this assembly. I do not know, looking around, that I could count on the powerful physique on this side of the Dáil wearing down the puny material resources of, shall I say, Deputy O'Connell, or Deputy Davin. I do not know that we could count on our powers of holding out against the miserable resources that are at the command of these gentlemen. I wonder really whether Deputy O'Shannon meant that to be taken seriously, or whether Deputy Professor Magennis was justified in taking that and some of the other remarks he made quite so seriously as he did.
It is rather refreshing to find that the silence of Deputy Professor Magennis has been broken at last, by giving expression to the opinion that the speeches on this side of the Dáil were damnable reiteration. If they were of such a character as Deputy Magennis describes them, I wonder how he can explain that the records of that particular debate show that 17 amendments had been accepted from this side of the Dáil, and several others had been promised consideration. That is proof, at any rate, that the first statement made by Deputy Professor Magennis is not altogether correct. The President has asked whether or not this is to be considered as a Bill of importance. It certainly is not one of the fourteen Bills that he handed to us in a list some considerable time ago. Many of the Bills which were on that list have been pressed for by various members of this Dáil, as being important and meaning a good deal to many people outside. The President's question is answered by the fact that no speeches have been made from his own side of the Dáil in support of the Bill, or against even any amendments that have been put up. When the first all night sitting was proposed, Deputy Sean Milroy suggested that it was inhuman to make any such proposal.
On a point of correction. I made no such suggestion. I would like the Deputy to quote me correctly.
The statement he made was that human nature could not stand it. I remember distinctly sitting here for hours during that long night and seeing the effect of the all night sitting on Deputy Sean Milroy, that he anticipated. I think that could be said of others of Deputy Milroy's party, and the proportion who suffered in that way was considerably more than those who suffered on this side of the Dáil.
Due no doubt to the angelic nature of the Deputies on the opposite Benches, whichever region they came from.
I have not had the pleasure of hearing the interruption. I suppose it is an attempt at a joke, on account of the smiles on the faces of the people who sit around Deputy Whelehan. I think it has not been contended, even by the Minister, who has been the only member of the Government party who has taken any strong line of action in opposing the amendments from this side of the Dáil, that the amendments were ridiculous. They have at any rate, so far as we are concerned, in the most important Bill that has been introduced, been put up in order to make the Bill more acceptable than what we thought it was when presented with the backing of his own party. I am quite certain that the Bill is not being rushed for the purposes of giving an exhibition of flogging, because the Recorder of Dublin has provided for that by a decision he gave in a case on Friday last. Therefore, there can be no suggestion that there is any hurry from that point of view, as the existing law makes provision for dealing with people committing the offences that are mentioned in the particular Clause of the Bill.
After all, Deputies on this side of the Dáil, though they may be few, are entitled to some consideration with regard to the effect of several all-night sittings. They should be taken into consideration by the Committee on procedure, or by whatever other Committee is responsible for the arrangement of these Bills, before a motion, such as is now made by the Minister, is sprung upon them. Some Deputies live a long distance from these premises, and they should be made aware before they come here that they will be expected to sit out the night. This information is only given to the Minister's own colleagues and those who sit behind him. Some provision should be made by which notice would be given of a motion of this kind before we are asked to vote for it in the hurried way in which it is now presented.
I want to correct a statement made by the last speaker. He said that the motions are known only to the Minister, and those who sit behind him. I happen to sit behind the Minister, as well as stand behind him, and I had no more knowledge of this proposal than the Deputies on the other side. I am not making any grievance of it, but before I proceed further I would like to call the attention of the Dáil to the very generous tribute which the last speaker paid to the Government. He said the Government had accepted 17 amendments from their side, and promised consideration to others. Is that an attempt at ruthless legislation? Does that not indicate that the Ministerial mind was open to receive any helpful suggestion made?
On a point of explanation, I made the statement referred to in order to prove the necessity for putting up these amendments. Some of them were not accepted until they had been spoken to three times from this side of the Dáil.
It shows that the Ministerial mind is not so impervious to arguments as some of the Deputies have been trying to prove. I think a party that can succeed in getting 17 amendments accepted by a Minister in the short time this Bill has been in Committee must be a party that can congratulate itself on its legislative powers of persuasion. The Deputy made some allusion to the statement I made the last day. The statement I made that day I do not wish to retract. The original motion was, I think, that the Dáil should sit not later than 4.30 o'clock.
Four o'clock.
The motion of Deputy O'Brien, without any suggestion that the Deputies should get overtime, was that the hour be extended until 8 o'clock. I think in this matter we have even a greater grievance than the dockers who have gone on strike to-day. What occurred to me, under those circumstances was, that having secured an extension of four hours in the morning, the suggestion of Deputy Johnson to adjourn prior to the discussion was not one of an extravagant nature. But the Ministry know their legislative time-table, and they know their position with regard to the matters they want to get through, and I bow to their decision. There is no doubt at all about the urgency of this Bill. If those phases of the Bill that have evoked torrents of denunciation from the other side of the Dáil are so heinous, then I want to know why some Deputies on the other side of the Dáil have not risen to move the adjournment or given notice to raise on the adjournment a question calling attention to the decision of the Recorder the other day. That has evoked no horror——
That is out of order absolutely.
I do not like to be out of order. Another argument has been put forward by another opponent of this motion. The Deputy who spoke last said he saw evidence of the fatigue of the last night's sitting upon myself. Undoubtedly. It took me a good while to recover from the fatigue of that night, but I do not regret having sat here if it expedited the Bill. I am prepared to indulge in twice as much fatigue to-night if necessary. The Deputy also made an interesting point which I would like to emphasise— that this is an attempt to wear down the other side of the Chamber. He simply endorsed the observations of Deputy Professor MacNeill, the Minister for Education. He said although he saw evidence of weariness on this side of the Dáil there was no evidence of weariness on the other side. Evidently it is impossible to do anything to wear down the Deputies on the other side, and, therefore, they have adduced no argument to show that this proposal is an undue strain upon them, whatever it may be upon the delicate physique of the Deputies who are sitting or standing behind the Government.
rose to speak.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I move that the question be now put.
I will hear Deputy O'Connell before I take that motion.
The sum and substance of the objection by Deputy Johnson to this motion was that it was brought forward without due notice to Deputies. When we came here on Thursday we were told that there would be an all-night sitting. That was the first of it that the Deputies on this side heard and from the statement made by Deputy Milroy that was the first other Deputies heard of it also.
Now we went through that all-night sitting and we met here on Friday. On the occasion of the adjournment on Friday there was no word and nothing to indicate that there would be another all-night sitting to-night. Why was it not moved then that there should be an all-night sitting to-night? If that were done, as far as I am concerned, it would remove a considerable portion of my objection. I do not like to be brought here, having arranged for other business, as many of us have to do, after 8.30 p.m., and then be told on coming here that we will have to sit until 6 o'clock in the morning. If I was told to-day that there would be another all-night sitting to-morrow night my objection would not be so strong as it is to this motion. We heard three Ministers and two or three other Deputies speaking in favour of the motion, but one and all kept clear of that point, the sum and substance of Deputy Johnson's objection.
I move that the question be now put.
I second.
Motion put: "That the question be now put."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 38; Níl, 11.
Tá
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Donchadh Ó Guaire.
- Gearoid Ó Suileabháin.
- Seán Ó Maolruaidh.
- Seán Ó Duinnín.
- Mícheál Ó hAonghusa.
- Seán Ó hAodha.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Deasmhumhain Mac Gearailt.
- Seán Mac Garaidh.
- Risteárd Ó Maolchatha.
- Pilib Mac Cosgair.
- Mícheál de Stáineas.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Earnán Altún.
- Sir Séamus Craig, Ridire, M.D.
- Liam Thrift.
- Eoin Mac Neill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Padraic Ó Máille.
- Seosamh Ó Faoileacháin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Fionán Ó Loingsigh.
- Séamus Ó Cruadhlaoich.
- Criostóir Ó Broin.
- Caoimhghin Ó hUigín.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus Ó Dóláin.
- Próinsias Mag Aonghusa.
- Eamon Ó Dúgáin.
- Peadar Ó hAodha.
- Séamus Ó Murchadha.
- Seosamh Mac Giolla Bhrighde.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Tomás Ó Domhnaill.
- Earnan de Blaghd.
- Uinseann de Faoite.
- Séamus de Burca.
Níl
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.
- Darghal Figes.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Seoirse Ghabhain Uí Dhubhthaigh.
- Liam Ó Briain.
- Tomás Ó Conaill.
- Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.
- Liam Ó Daimhín.
- Cathal Ó Seanáin.
- Domhnall Ó Ceallacháin.
Motion declared carried.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 11.
Tá
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Donchadh Ó Guaire.
- Gearoid Ó Suileabháin.
- Seán Ó Maolruaidh.
- Seán Ó Duinnín.
- Mícheál Ó hAonghusa.
- Seán Ó hAodha.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Deasmhumhain Mac Gearailt.
- Mícheál de Duram.
- Seán Mac Garaidh.
- Risteárd Ó Maolchatha.
- Pilib Mac Cosgair.
- Mícheáil de Stáineas.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Earnán Altún.
- Sir Séamus Craig, Ridire, M.D.
- Liam Thrift.
- Eoin Mac Neill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Padraic Ó Máille.
- Seosamh Ó Faoileacháin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Fionán Ó Loingsigh.
- Séamus Ó Cruadhlaoich.
- Criostóir Ó Broin.
- Caoimhghin Ó hUigín.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus Ó Dóláín.
- Próinsias Mag Aonghusa.
- Eamon Ó Dúgáin.
- Peadar Ó hAodha.
- Séamus Ó Murchadha.
- Seosamh Mac Giolla Bhrighde.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Tomás Ó Domhnaill.
- Earnan de Blaghd.
- Uinseann de Faoite.
- Séamus de Burca.
Níl
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.
- Darghal Figes.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Seoirse Ghabhain Uí Dhubhthaigh.
- Liam Ó Briain.
- Tomás Ó Conaill.
- Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.
- Liam Ó Daimhin.
- Cathal Ó Seanáin.
- Domhnall Ó Ceallacháin.
Motion declared carried.