I want to raise a matter which, I think, calls for some consideration, and it arises out of the discussion which took place yesterday and two rulings that were given from the Chair. I am not now asking you to alter your ruling in any way, and I am not challenging your ruling with any view of affecting the proceedings on the Bill which was passed in the Dáil yesterday. I want to draw attention to the circumstances under which those rulings were given. The first case deals with the requirements of Standing Order 123, which says: "In cases of urgent necessity, of which the Ceann Comhairle shall be the judge, any Standing Order or Orders of the Dáil may be suspended for the day's sitting, on motion, duly made and seconded, with or without notice: Provided that such motion has the support of a majority of the Teachtaí of the Dáil who are qualified to vote." You ruled that a decision which was taken by a majority of those members present was a decision of the Dáil in accordance with that Standing Order. I am asking you and the Dáil to refer to the discussion which took place when that Standing Order was passed by the Dáil on the 8th March, 1923. The Standing Order was introduced by a Committee which sat on this matter, and the form of the Standing Order as introduced was as follows: "Provided that such motion has the support of a majority of the whole Teachtaí of Dáil Eireann." The Ceann Comhairle said in explanation: "I think 81 (c) would benefit by the deletion of the word `whole.' It seems absurd. `The whole Teachtaí' is a peculiar phrase. I would suggest that you put down `the total number of Teachtaí.'" Professor Magennis intervened and said "present and voting; otherwise it might mean the total number altogether." An Ceann Comhairle then said "That is what is meant." Professor Magennis said: "Present and voting." Mr. Blythe: "No, it means members of the Dáil who have taken the oath." The Ceann Comhairle replied: "The Committee understood those were the members of the Dáil." Mr. Fitzgibbon, who was in charge of this motion, said: "The object of this proposal is that it should not be open for a chance majority at the commencement of a sitting to suspend the Standing Orders, and that these Standing Orders, which have been passed by all of us, should not be done away with, except the majority of the whole body were in favour of suspending them for the time being." Mr. Blythe then said: "We could say `members of the Dáil who have taken their seats.' " An Ceann Comhairle replied: "It is proposed to amend this Order in this way—from the word `provided' read `that such motion has the support of a majority of the total number of Teachtaí who have taken their seats.' "
Professor Magennis and other speakers, including Mr. Hughes, who was a member of the Committee, go on to confirm that, and it is quite clear from that discussion that the intention of the Dáil at the time was the intention of the Section, as I urged yesterday, that it was a majority of those who had qualified themselves to vote by taking their seats, having taken the oath. That is point number one.
I want also to draw attention to the other point which touches on the Constitutional provision. The Minister for Home Affairs quoted Article 22 of the Constitution, which says: "All matters in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present other than the Chairman or presiding member, who shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes." That is as far as the Minister for Home Affairs read this article, and I am asking the Dáil to note the proviso, "save as otherwise provided by this Constitution." Following the quotations, which I have repeated, there comes this sentence: "The number of members necessary to constitute a meeting of either House for the exercise of its powers shall be determined by its Standing Orders." Thus the same article, which declares that the matters were to be determined by a majority of the members present, also says that the proceedings of the House are to be ruled according to Standing Orders decided by a majority of the House. I submit, therefore, that the ruling that has been given should not stand as a precedent for this reason, that if a majority of the Dáil at any time is empowered to abolish, for the time being, its Standing Orders, it may abolish even the quorum, and any four or five members of the Dáil who may be got together can put into the Chair a Chairman who may be complacent, and they may pass any resolution of a financial character, or any Bill to the extent that the Dáil can carry it, imposing or removing taxation. Such a chance majority can do anything if you have no Standing Orders. I, therefore, submit that it is impossible for any minority in the Dáil to remain in that position under Standing Orders if the decisions of yesterday are to be taken as the law of the Dáil, that is, as a precedent.