The debate is to be resumed on the amendment. I call upon Deputy Davin.
ISSUE OF WRIT—NORTH DUBLIN CONSTITUENCY. - DEBATE RESUMED.
"Go n-ordóidh an Ceann Comhairle do Chléireach na Dála a Rit do thabhairt amach chun ball do thogha chun an fholúntais atá I nDáilcheanntar Bhuirge Bhaile Atha Cliath Thuaidh, folúntas a thárla toise nár toghadh ach seachtar in ionad ochtair chun an Dáilcheanntar san d'ionadú i nDáil Eireann ag an Toghachán Generálta a comóradh ar an 15adh lá de Mheán Fhomhair. 1927."
"That the Ceann Comhairle direct the Clerk of the Dáil to issue his Writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy which exists in the Borough Constituency of Dublin North, caused by the fact that only seven persons instead of eight were elected to represent that Constituency in Dáil Eireann at the General Election held on the 15th day of September, 1927." (Rúnai Páirliminte don Uachtarán.)
Amendment.
To delete all the words after the word "That" and substitute therefor the following words:—
"inasmuch as eight candidates were duly declared to be elected by the Returning Officer of the Borough Constituency of Dublin North and the names of the eight candidates so selected were duly returned by the Returning Officer to the Clerk of the Dáil in accordance with Section 27, sub-section (1) of the Electoral Act, 1923, the motion for the issuance of a Writ for the election of a Member for the Borough Constituency of Dublin North be postponed until such time as a certificate of a competent Court is received by the Clerk of the Dáil declaring that in fact a vacancy does exist in the Borough Constituency of Dublin North."—(Eamon de Valera.)
I am prepared to wait and see.
I am calling on the Deputy, as it was he who moved the adjournment of the debate on the last occasion.
I think it is correct to say that it was the Minister for Industry and Commerce who moved the adjournment of the debate.
I thought he had concluded his speech. As a matter of accuracy, after the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Deputy Cooney spoke; after Deputy Cooney had spoken some discussion took place with regard to the appointment of this Committee, and my recollection was that Deputy Davin said he would move the adjournment of the debate for the purpose of allowing the matter to be further discussed about the Committee. It is a matter of no importance.
Is there any danger that Deputy Davin who moved the adjournment of the debate is not the same Deputy Davin——
I was one member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges which discussed this question as to the identity of the particular candidate for this constituency, and at the end of it all, after wrangling in and out and round about, I felt myself in the position of the gondolier, "Which was which, I could not make out, despite my best endeavour," and though that may have been my attitude, I am perfectly certain that it was not the attitude of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, because what struck me was that the majority of that Committee were not concerned with finding out whether in fact a certain James Larkin, described as of Unity Hall, 31 Marlborough Street, in the City of Dublin, and returned by the Returning Officer for the Borough Constituency of Dublin North, one of the eight persons returned to serve in the Dáil, was one and the same person as the James Larkin who was adjudicated a bankrupt.
The Dáil has had the opportunity. I am sure, of reading the Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. You will find that only one witness was examined, and that witness not the person who was most particularly concerned with the matter. They examined the Returning Officer, and the Returning Officer admitted that he had a conversation with a certain Mr. James Larkin some days before the day of the nomination, and that that Mr. Larkin acknowledged he was a bankrupt, but the Returning Officer admitted also in reply to a question that it was quite possible that Mr. Larkin, after considering the conversation which he had with the Returning Officer, might have decided that he would not be a candidate in this election. That is one of the possibilities that the Committee altogether ignored. The second was this, that though Mr. Sherlock compelled the person who handed in the nomination paper of a certain James Larkin to extend the description of the candidate by describing him as General Secretary of the Workers' Union of Ireland, the Returning Officer was not in a position to state definitely that to his certain knowledge, on the day on which that nomination paper was handed in and on the day of the election the James Larkin who was the General Secretary of the Workers' Union of Ireland was the James Larkin who was a bankrupt. Now you have seen, if you have read the Report, that one or two papers or exhibits were reproduced there. There is one signed by—at least I am told, it was not proven—there is one supposed to be signed by J. Larkin, Junr. It might be John Larkin, Joseph Larkin, Jeremiah Larkin or Jerome, but we are told it was signed by James Larkin, Junr., and the actual signature in fact is J. Larkin. No member of the Committee was anxious to bring the person who wrote this letter before them and ask him whether in fact his name was John, Joseph, or James Larkin. So anxious were they——
That you did not propose to summon anybody.
I will deal with that point in a moment. I am not going to overlook it. The next point was that though we have two exhibits reproduced here, the third, which I regard as the most significant one, has not been reproduced for the information of this Dáil. There was brought before the Committee of Procedure and Privileges a poster and on that election poster there were three photographs. In the bottom left-hand corner there appeared a photograph with the letterpress underneath:—James Larkin, Jr. In the top center of the poster there appeared a photograph described as James Larkin, Senior, and in the bottom right-hand corner there appeared another one which we suppose was John Lawlor. At the bottom of this particular election poster the people were asked to vote for James Larkin, Junior, for County Dublin, and for James Larkin, without any appendix as to whether he he was Senior or Junior, for North Dublin. He might have been, as a matter of fact, the patriarch of a family and been James Larkin natu maximums. We find at any rate that this particular James Larkin was neither described as James Larkin Junior nor as James Larkin, Senior, and in fact, so far as the Committee were aware, on the evidence produced before them, he might not have been any relative whatsoever to the James Larkin Junior or Senior, whose photograph appeared on this particular election poster.
I submit that is a very important point because you have got to refer back to the conversation which took place between the Returning Officer and James Larkin, Senior. It is quite evident that as a result of that conversation Mr. Larkin, Senior, could have gathered—he would have been a fool if he did not and whatever you might say about James Larkin, Senior, you cannot describe him as a fool—that if he were in fact the candidate in this election he was open to be the respondent in an election petition and that because, as he admitted himself, he was an undischarged bankrupt he would certainly lose his seat.
Now here is the position. Here you have a man who is likely to lose his seat, knows he will lose his seat, if any person proceeds against him. Yet, he is anxious that some member of his Party should stand in this election and what is more likely than that he should have recourse to an old electioneering trick, here in County Dublin and in Dublin, of getting another person of his name to be nominated. The members of this House will remember the time when there were as many as 22 O'Kelly's nominated for a Ward in the City of Dublin. It is quite possible another James Larkin might have been and probably was made General Secretary of the Workers' Union of Ireland between the date of the conversation with Mr. Sherlock and the date of his nomination.
It is a possibility that I think is an extreme probability, considering the circumstances in the case. Did the Committee on Procedure and Privileges take any steps to investigate that possibility? It was put before them; they had a very solemn duty to discharge, and I suggest they ought to have done as they were asked to do, summon James Larkin, Senior, and James Larkin, Junior, interrogate them, and, if they refused to answer, then produce the proposer and seconder of the James Larkin who stood as a candidate in this election. What did the Committee do? It was suggested that we should move in the matter. It was suggested that I should propose a motion. I, quite properly, refused because I was not there to prove this case. The case had to be proven to me, and the onus in this matter rested upon those who were the prime movers in it.
You were there to answer questions.
The Deputy will get an opportunity of speaking later.
I was not there, I repeat, to prove this case. I was there as a member of the Committee to investigate it, if you wish. I stated I was not satisfied. My colleagues stated that they were not satisfied, and they put the onus, as they were entitled to do, directly upon those who were the principal movers in this matter, and said to them, "summon these witnesses, and, when you summon them, so far as the question of fact is concerned, we will abide by the result of that investigation." I think that was a perfectly fair attitude to adopt in this matter. When this matter was being discussed—the question of sending for the witnesses—Deputy O'Sullivan proposed a motion. Before the motion was seconded, Deputy Little intervened and asked——
On a point of order. Do motions in Committee require a seconder?
This particular motion, in fact, was seconded by Deputy Duggan.
It did not need to be.
I know, but, at any rate, it was. However, before the motion was handed in in writing, Deputy Little raised the point: would we, before the motion was taken, be permitted to raise this question of sending for the essential witnesses again? As Deputy O'Sullivan was writing out his motion, I wrote out another one. As I said before, I do not think it was right that the onus should have been placed on me in the matter, but since I was anxious to assist the Dáil, since I was anxious to bring in a report that I could stand over, I was willing to take an onus that did not properly rest on me, and I handed in a motion asking that James Larkin, Senior; James Larkin, Junior, and the proposer and seconder of the James Larkin, who was nominated as a candidate for North City Dublin should be summoned before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That motion was ruled out by the Chairman of the Committee. I am not going to question the ruling now, but I want to answer a point that I know will be made, a point that was made, in fact, by the President, that when we had an opportunity of asking for these witnesses we did not do so. I submit that we did ask that these witnesses should be summoned. They were not summoned, and, therefore, I say that this particular report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges which was prepared and has been submitted to the Dáil, without hearing those who could give the only information that could decide the matter, should not be allowed, in any way, to affect the decision which the Dáil is going to take.
Now, dealing with No. 10 on the Order Paper particularly, during his speech the Minister for Industry and Commerce announced that the Whips were not going to be put on in this division. The Dáil, therefore, can approach the question untrammelled by Party bias or Party discipline. You are free to discuss it and to decide it on its merits, and I submit that is the only way in justice to this House, in justice to the people whom you represent, and in justice to the principle of popular representation, that you can decide it. As the Minister himself said, we are creating a precedent, a precedent which afterwards may be invoked with far-reaching consequences. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, that whatever decision we make should be above all suspicion, should be made impartially and with our most judicial mind. No thought of convenience, no thought of party advantage, should be permitted to vitiate that judgment, for, whatever the decision, our motive should be above suspicion, so that the precedent which we are creating may be beyond abuse. But can the precedent which you are asked to establish, the precedent that the Dáil, without examination of the law, without complete proof of the facts, can declare a vacancy to exist, be such a one? Are there any safeguards that this Dáil could devise that will prevent such an illogical decision from being abused? It is the property of precedents to enlarge themselves in operation. The history of constitutional government is a record of precedents whose operation was extended far beyond their original scope. If those who follow the President habitually into the Division Lobby do so now, then this motion will be passed, not by intelligent appreciation of the facts concerned in it, but by mere numerical strength. If it is, who can say but that on another occasion another Dáil, another majority, intolerant, dictatorial and unfair, may not use this as a precedent to declare vacant the seats of such Deputies as inconveniently oppose them?
Bankrupts.
There are motes and beams in people's eyes. I am not referring particularly to Deputy Gorey, but the less they talk about bankrupts in this connection the better.
I repeat the word "bankrupt" or any other disability.
Political bankrupts.
I ask the Dáil to consider the terms of this motion. I ask them, does it not strike at the very roots of democratic representation? Here is a constituency for which an election of eight representatives was to take place. More than eight candidates were regularly and validly nominated. The election was duly held, the eight successful candidates were duly declared elected, and every step necessary to make their election effective was duly completed. Yet, we are asked to state in the terms of this motion, upon no stated grounds whatsoever, that an unspecified seven amongst the eight candidates were elected. Which seven candidates were elected, and what candidate was rejected? In whose cases were the votes of the electors capable of producing a Deputy within the matrix of the election, and in whose case were the votes impotent and ineffective? You might think this was a matter that those asking you to create this precedent would be careful to state, but if you turn again to item No. 10 on the Order Paper you will find that the name of the candidate returned to serve, whom you are now asked to unseat, is not mentioned in this particular resolution. We are told, of course, that it is going to apply to a certain James Larkin, but is that James Larkin the only person against whom that particular resolution might be directed? Who knows but that it might not be used to declare the seat of my colleague, Deputy Sean T. O'Kelly, vacant simply because he had the temerity to criticise a judge who, with impropriety and in an ill-mannered way, interfered with a jury in the proper discharge of its functions.
The Deputy should not deal with any matter before the courts, and he knows that quite well. That is a most disorderly statement, and the Deputy is well aware of it, I am sure.
Very well, then, I withdraw, if I may, with your permission. Who knows but that this particular motion might not be used to declare vacant the seat of the Minister for Local Government because, on one occasion, he acquiesced in the organisation of a camorra within the Army. Or it might be used against my friend, Deputy J.J. Byrne, or against Deputy Alfy Byrne because his identity is sometimes confused with that of his colleague for North City Dublin. With the resolution passed in the form in which it appears on the Order Paper, there is not a Deputy in the House, no matter on what bench he sits, against whom it might not afterwards be used.
In speaking on this matter, the Minister for Industry and Commerce asked the House to accept this dictum: that the question of law required no decision, and that the only matter involved was one of fact. In asking us to assume that the law in this matter is clear beyond all doubt, the Minister, who no doubt is as able to handle a law-case as he was a coal strike upon one occasion, proposed this most extraordinary hypothesis: that a person was validly and properly nominated as a candidate, and that the votes cast for him——
On a point of order, I would like to know if this James Larkin is the one and same person as the James Larkin referred to in questions on to-day's paper?
Surely that is not a point of order.
I do not know. At any rate the legal hypothesis which the Minister for Industry and Commerce put to the House was this: that a certain person was validly and properly nominated, that the votes cast for him were validly and properly cast, and that in a proper and valid way he secured the quota necessary for election; that he was duly and properly returned as elected, and yet, notwithstanding all these things, that he was, in fact, not elected. I ask the House to examine the hypothesis. He was properly nominated, the votes were properly cast and properly counted, he was properly declared returned as a Deputy to serve, and everything was done in an ordinary, regular way, and yet, notwithstanding the fact that everything necessary to create a Deputy was fulfilled, the person in fact was not a Deputy. Now, that reads like a proposition from "Alice in Wonderland." I do not know what court of topsy-turveydom the Minister for Industry and Commerce is going to practice before, but I think that when he comes to argue such a proposition as that before it, the way in which he can best advance his argument will be by standing on his head. Surely only the most extreme dearth of reason and argument could coerce the Minister for Industry and Commerce to put forward such a case. Is it not an outrage on common sense to ask the Dáil to reconcile these two contradictory propositions? Is it not more reasonable to assume that if the person involved was all the while disqualified from being a Deputy then he was all the while disqualified from being a candidate.
No.
Is not that the most logical and the commonsense view of it? Is it not, in fact, the principle which is at the very root of all electoral law, that only those persons who are qualified to become candidates are qualified to be elected?
No.
I see Deputy Cooper making notes. There is one exception under the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act that persons disqualified from being elected may be regarded as candidates, but only for the purposes of that Act. If a person disqualified from being elected is nominated, he is not, in fact, a candidate, except for the purpose of enforcing certain legal penalties. Should he break the electoral law he is, for the purpose, and for the purpose only, of the Illegal and Corrupt Practices Act, regarded as a candidate. I think that is the rational way of looking at it.
Let us examine the proposition put before you by the Minister—that a person can be properly nominated as a candidate, that votes can be properly and validly cast for him, that that person can be properly and validly declared elected by the Returning Officer, and everything that is necessary to make a Deputy can be done in due and proper form, and yet all the time the person cannot be elected as a Deputy. I submit that it is much more reasonable to assume that a person who was disqualified from being elected as a Deputy was disqualified from being nominated as a candidate. That is the point of view I would like to put forward. As I say, I am a layman. I do not feel competent to determine the law in this matter, but it seems to me that that is a principle that could be more easily upheld than that which the Minister for Industry and Commerce put forward. I am not going to decide. I am not going to ask the Dáil to decide between these two propositions, because I know I am not competent, and I think the Dáil—in the main an assembly of laymen—is not competent to determine this question. Therefore, how is it going to be determined? Surely there must be some tribunal before which these questions can be argued out.
The experience of other legislatures shows that the most unsuitable tribunal is a tribunal such as this, where every decision, even if it is not in fact determined by political considerations, will be under the suspicion of being determined by such considerations. For years the English House of Commons had jurisdiction in these matters of election petitions. Long experience showed that it could not, and was not in fact, a body capable of discharging the judicial functions entrusted to it in those matters. In order to overcome these disadvantages, election petitions and all matters affecting electoral law were in time referred to special committees. A special committee of the Commons was set up to deal with them, but even that was unsatisfactory. How unsatisfactory a committee of the legislature dealing with matters of electoral law can be you have proof, if you wanted proof, in the report submitted by your Committee on this particular matter on the identity of two persons—one of the simplest things to solve in a proper way. But the Committee was not anxious to solve it in a proper way. They were anxious to have a decision and a report that would suit their case in this motion, and so, as you have seen, without sending for the principals involved, without sending for the persons who were involved secondarily, they summoned to their presence a gentleman holding an official position who, when asked, stated that he was not competent to give an opinion upon this matter, and he could have only given an opinion. It would not have been proof; it would have been surmise, an opinion. It would not have been admissible as evidence if he had given it, and yet, having heard that gentleman, who himself was conscious how thin the ice was on which he stood—I say that in commendation of him and not in blame—having heard that gentleman, and having refused to hear either of the Larkins who might have been the candidate or the Deputy involved in this matter——
On a point of order, is the Deputy in order in making a misstatement here—that the Committee refused to hear persons—when he knows that such is not the fact?
I wonder how the Deputy supports that?
By the fact that I asked those who are the principal movers in this matter to send for the witnesses whose evidence would have been conclusive. As I have said, the onus of proof was upon the Parliamentary Secretary who is the proposer of this motion, who was a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and who refused to discharge that onus and those who voted with him on the report refused to discharge it. I am entitled to say, therefore, that they did not want to hear an essential witness in the matter. I have referred to that to show how unsatisfactory decisions and procedure of the Committees of the House can be on matters of this kind. Our experience has not been unique. It is, I think, practically the universal experience of legislatures, and in consequence of that all questions relating to the electoral law and the election of Deputies have been taken out of the hands of the Legislature and entrusted to the judges of the land. We say that here is the position: You have two legal propositions. One is in accordance with common sense. The other, that which was stated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, outrages common sense. We have heard that "The law is a hass." I do not know. At any rate we are not competent to determine which of these propositions is the right one, and therefore the whole matter should be referred to a competent court, to men who are remote from politics, to men many of whom never engaged in politics and who will be concerned only to interpret the law, bearing in mind the positions they hold and the public prominence their decisions will receive.
There is one other point. The Minister for Industry and Commerce asked this House to do a most extraordinary thing. He said: "Let the House take a decision on this motion." It is quite possible that the decision you will take will not be a correct one. It is quite possible it will not be a just one. You have therefore the certainty that when you take that decision you are going to aggrieve some person. We have heard a lot about the rights of the subject from the Government, but when you weigh the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, it is the most extraordinary proposition that ever a responsible member of a Government committed himself to.
The Legislature which should be concerned to aggrieve no person, the Legislature which should be concerned only to deal justly with every one of its subjects, or its masters—we are all the servants of the people—aggrieves one citizen of the State in order that it may prove itself right or wrong. This citizen is going to be offered up—a sacrificial offering—to the political necessities of a Government who are anxious to strengthen, if they can, their tenuous and tired majority in this House. I am certain that the result of this election will be a disappointment to their hopes. Again, I ask you to weigh up that proposition. I do not know whether I should put it in another way which would convey its enormity to the House. Consider it again. You are asked to aggrieve a certain person in order that you may prove yourself right or wrong in this matter. If you think on it. I am afraid that the language that would bring home to you the enormity of that suggestion would be such that it would almost outrage decency. A Deputy has been, if you like, illegitimately elected, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce asks this House to procure an abortion.
As a member of the Committee, I want very briefly to state why I voted for the answers in the affirmative to the two questions which were put to the Committee by this House. Listening to Deputy MacEntee in this House, and having had to listen to Deputy MacEntee for three or four days on the Committee, I begin to wonder whether the Deputy has not forgotten that he himself was a member of the Committee. He has spent close upon an hour attacking a Committee of which he was a member. He states that the majority of that Committee were not concerned very much as to whether James Larkin was or was not an undischarged bankrupt, and he implied that the majority of the Committee had their minds made up before ever the Committee met. It may be true, or it may not be true, that the majority of the Committee had their minds made up. But so far as I, personally, am concerned, I had not my mind made up. I want to go further and say that if I could conscientiously vote to keep Jim Larkin in his seat I would do so, for this reason—that even though he and I do not agree upon many things, still he is a Labour man and would be more to my liking than the Deputies returned either with Deputy MacEntee's Party or with the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. He is a Labour man and was returned as a Labour man, and for that reason, if I could conscientiously give him my vote, and say that I was not satisfied on the question, I would have done so. Deputy MacEntee laid a good deal of emphasis on the fact, as he said, that the Committee refused to send for the essential witnesses—for the two Larkins, and for their proposers and seconders. But it is only fair to say that Deputy MacEntee and his colleagues refused upon more than one occasion to move that these witnesses should be sent for. Deputy MacEntee did not tell this House why he or any of his colleagues were not prepared to move that these witnesses should be sent for. That was a very noticeable omission from his very long speech.
It was not our business.
Deputies will allow Deputy Morrissey to proceed.
The Deputy said that he was not there to prove this case. I suggest that Deputy MacEntee, and every member of the Committee, no matter what Party he belonged to was there to find out the truth and to report on the truth to this House. There is emphasis laid on the fact that we are going to set up a precedent here, and that it may be a dangerous one. Surely we are not going to allow a person to be deemed to be elected and to sit in this House who was never eligible for election, in order that we may save ourselves from setting up a precedent. We are setting up precedents in this House every day in the week.
Hear, hear!
I certainly came to the conclusion on the Committee—I was confirmed in that view by listening to Deputy MacEntee here now—that if James Larkin, senior, came before the Committee, stated on oath that he was James Larkin, senior, and that he was the person who had been nominated and elected a Deputy, and that he was, upon the day he was elected, an undischarged bankrupt, Deputy MacEntee would not even then have been satisfied.
Prove that now.
It seems to me that Deputy MacEntee is too innocent altogether to be a politician. If Deputy MacEntee is as innocent as he would have us believe, then he is too good for this House. The Deputy said that the Committee refused to send for the Larkins, whose evidence would have been conclusive. How does the Deputy know it would have been conclusive? Why does the Deputy say that their evidence would be conclusive? Conclusive of what, or conclusive to whom?
To the minority, of course.
It seems to me, sir, that any member of this House who wants to get at the truth, any member of this House who wants to give a fair verdict on this matter, can do so if he reads the Minutes of Evidence given before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in the Larkin case. Deputy MacEntee and some of his colleagues on those Benches know much better than I do— they are quite clear in their own minds who the James Larkin in question is. There is no question whatever about that. I give Deputy MacEntee and his colleagues credit for more intelligence than they would give themselves credit for. Then there is this letter, which was sent to the Returning Officer for Dublin City North:
"Dear Sir,—I have to acknowledge, on behalf of Mr. James Larkin. the receipt of permits to allow candidate, agent and one other representative to attend the counting of votes for North City—Yours faithfully, James Larkin, Jr."
We are told that it is quite possible that James Larkin, described as of Unity Hall, Marlboro' Street, Dublin, trade union official, and General Secretary of the Workers' Union of Ireland——
Has the Deputy any proof that that letter was actually written by James Larkin, junior.
I have, what I think the Deputy has not very much of. I can claim to have a little common sense.
You are very common.
I certainly have as much proof, though I might not be as agile as the Deputy when he put down a question and referred to Mr. James Larkin of Dublin. It is very noticeable that he did give us Marlboro' Street or Beechwood Avenue. The Deputy knows a good deal about the James Larkin and could probably tell the House whether or not the James Larkin was an undischarged bankrupt. The Returning Officer admitted before the Committee that the person who came to see him in response to his message was James Larkin, senior. He stated, in the course of his evidence, which he afterwards corrected, that Mr. James Larkin said to him: "You have no right to object to my nomination." Dr. Sherlock said afterwards that he was not quite clear as to whether that was the word or whether it was: "You have no right to object to this nomination." But Dr. Sherlock had no doubt, from what passed between him and James Larkin, that Mr. James Larkin, senior, was to be the candidate. The poster was also talked of. Deputy McEntee told us, when he spoke first, that one of those who was described as James Larkin, senior, had his photograph in the "top centre," as he put it described as James Larkin, senior, and at the bottom one was described as James Larkin, junior. I think the Deputy corrected that afterwards.
The top centre was Mr. James Larkin, senior.
The other was John Lawlor, and the particular constituencies for which each candidate was standing were stated on the posters. I do not wish to delay the House very much longer, but I want to give my reasons to the House for voting in favour of this report. I do not want to speak for anybody except myself, and in my opinion the evidence produced was such as would convince any reasonable man. Because I was convinced and because I thought it was my duty to answer truthfully and in accordance with my own conscience and judgement the questions which were put to that Committee by the House, I voted in favour of the report.
I wish to ask the Deputy, in view of the fact that he was a member of a Party involved in the legal action which resulted in declaring a James Larkin a bankrupt, how he can claim to be an impartial judge?
Which Party, will the Deputy say?
Which Party took an action against a James Larkin?
The Labour Party.
The Deputy knows that that is not a fact.
They took an action against the Deputy a few years ago, for which they were truly grateful.
On a previous occasion we had here a motion, and on this occasion we have an amendment; we are really discussing them both. Formally, I presume, we are discussing the amendment. I think the House will have noticed that hardly a single Deputy opposed to the original motion and apparently in favour of the amendment, or opposed to the amendment and in favour of the original motion, thought it worth his while to examine the amendment and see whether there was anything in it. I am going to follow the example of other Deputies in that respect. No effort has been made to show that in fact and in practice the amendment means anything or can mean anything, or that, if passed and accepted by the House, it can be carried out. The suggestion has been made in one or two of the speeches —a kind of dull, low echo to the amendment—that it ought to be referred to a competent court, but none of the Deputies in favour of the amendment has attempted to show how it could be put before a competent court at the present moment. The mover of the amendment was challenged, I think, by the Minister for Justice as to how that could be done. He was asked had he thought out fully what was involved in the amendment and how it could be carried out. Did he attempt to shoulder that responsibility? Nothing of the kind. He practically asked the Executive Council to take the parentage, so to speak, of his own amendment, to tell him what the amendment meant. That was an instance of delightful diplomacy on the part of the Deputy.
I refer to this simply because it is just asking a trifle too much that the Government should do his thinking for the Deputy when he puts forward the amendment—that they should explain to the Deputy and to the House what the amendment means. I also refer to this because, that the amendment has not been referred to by those who are professedly in favour of it, and has not been dealt with, is in itself a proof, an indication, that there is no other means of dealing with this situation than the means proposed in the motion moved by the Parliamentary Secretary. We cannot explain Deputy de Valera's amendment because, as the Minister for Justice put it, we know no other course of action that we could take before a court.
There are none so blind as those who do not want to see.
I quite admit that, and there were four Deputies on that Committee, and whether they were blind from malice or merely blind through other causes I cannot say, but blind they were, as Deputy Morrissey has pointed out. Deputies can read this particular report that was presented and the minutes of evidence that were presented by the Committee.
They were not mute.
No, they were not mute. That is also quite clear to us, perhaps not to our minds, but to our ears, after what we heard to-day and after what Deputy Morrissey assured us—he need not have, because we would have taken it for granted— occurred at the Committee. May I be permitted to give that amendment the respect given to it by those in favour of the amendment and by other Deputies in the House, and pass on? When this motion was introduced, and when the Parliamentary Secretary spoke on the matter, he was told that it was more or less put up to us and the House that something was being done that was unprecedented, unheard of, almost that the Government for which he spoke was guilty of turpitude in the action they were taking—almost insulting the House.
What have we done in regard to this vacancy? In fact, we have dealt more fully with this vacancy in the motion proposing it than with any other vacancy that has occurred and that necessitated a by-election. We are told that in this case there are questions of fact and questions of law involved. If I may quote Deputy Redmond, there is really a point of fact and a point of law that will largely depend on the determination of the point of fact. That holds true and has held true of every other vacancy that occurred in this House since 1923. I heard Deputy MacEntee's speech, and I have read the speeches delivered here when the motion was being debated, and I will ask those Deputies who are not committed to any particular Party, have they ever listened to such an amount of quibbling and of trifling with the House as they have listened to in the course of this debate? No absolute legal proof, we are told, has been offered; there was still a possibility that something else might have been the case. Supposing the same course of reasoning was adopted with regard to every other vacancy in connection with which by-elections have been held, could any other by-election have been held since 1923 under our Acts?
It may be said that in the previous vacancies we were dealing with facts that were notorious. I suggest that here we are also dealing with facts that are notorious. It may be said that in the other cases the point of law involved was quite simple. It was not more simple or clear than the point of law involved in or the particular section dealing with this case. It was never before suggested that in order to determine, as we were bound to determine or take for granted in every case, a point of fact or a point of law, we should go to a court in connection with the matter. Yet, as I say, in every case we have had to take action. We were not asked to decide the law, but to act according to the law. As was pointed out, I think by you, sir, the result of any motion here will not deprive any individual of any rights he has—will not deprive him of going before a court if he has a case, any more than would a similar action in the case of previous vacancies.
Deputy O'Connell, I think, said we are being asked to decide that there is a vacancy. We are being asked in this case to do what we have always done. Assuming, as we know to be a fact, that there is a vacancy in this particular seat, we are asking the Ceann Comhairle to proceed with the issuing of a Writ. That is the procedure we have adopted in every case. The other cases were quite obvious, but the thing has been made a matter of principle. It is said we are usurping the functions of the court. So far as principles are concerned, we are no more usurping the functions of the court than we have done in the case of the other vacancies.
May I ask the Minister if he can prove in law that there is a vacancy?
We are proceeding in this case as we have proceeded in the case of every other vacancy, and I would have the same difficulty in proving in law in the case of the other vacancies that I have in this case. There were four distinct types of vacancies since I came into the Dáil in 1923. Take the case of the death of a Deputy. If we are sure that the Deputy is dead, there is a vacancy. But imagine Deputy MacEntee trying to show that the Deputy was really alive and gone to America. How could we prove it three months after that the Deputy was dead? I can imagine all the subtlety and quibbling he would go on with to show that in reality there was no vacancy—that it was really an attempt on the part of the Government to get votes. There is a point of law involved in the case. There being a vacancy, how is it to be filled? It is the Constitution and the Electoral Act which determine how every vacancy is to be filled. We are bound to act according to the law. It was never suggested in that case that we should go before a court. The Ceann Comhairle never formally informed the Dáil of the death of any Deputy. We assumed it—we went on the common and notorious knowledge, and we moved for the Writ, as the Parliamentary Secretary moved for the Writ in this case.
It could be debated as to whether a vacancy of that kind should be filled up. It might be argued, for instance, that it was against the whole principle of proportional representation that you should have by-elections at all. All these things could be argued, to show that there may be some doubts about the law. The law is no more clear in the cases I am referring to than it is in the particular case of the undischarged bankrupt we are now discussing.
Resignations. There also we have a fact. In any of the various vacancies that occurred the Ceann Comhairle never formally announced a vacancy to the Dáil. He never told the Dáil there was a vacancy. He said in each case of resignation that he had received a letter from the Deputy tendering his resignation. Afterwards, that being so, the Dáil took action, just as certain facts being established the Dáil is now invited to take the appropriate action, namely, the seat being vacant, it intends to proceed with the election in the normal way. Similarly, with a more involved case—the case of a Deputy being elected for two seats. There again there was not even an intimation formally before the House that there was a resignation of one seat and the acceptance of the other. There was simply an acceptance of one seat in the case of you, sir, when you were elected for the City of Dublin and the National University, and in the case of Dr. MacNeill when he was elected for Clare and the National University. In each case the Deputy opted for one seat. Again, a question of law arises, but the House never for a moment thought it was necessary to refer that obvious point of law, that obvious action on their part according to the law, to a Court, any more than they ought to consider it necessary now in the case of the sub-section dealing with an undischarged bankrupt.
Is the Minister criticising those responsible for the 1923 Electoral Act?
No, he is dealing with the law as it is and not criticising anybody. The Deputy must take the law as it is and not as he would like it to be. How he would like it to be, I have not the remotest idea.
I do not know what it is.
There is not the slightest doubt as to what the law is on this particular point. It is that an undischarged bankrupt is neither capable of being elected nor of sitting in the House. What is the ambiguity about that? There is nothing about his not being capable of being nominated, but he certainly is not capable of being elected or of taking his seat—neither of these two thing, and remember they are distinct.
Therefore, he never created a vacancy.
Precisely. It was never his seat. I was coming to that. He was never capable of being elected or of taking his seat. There is a distinction, as Deputies ought to know, between being elected and taking his seat. Certain formalities— shall I call them?—have to be gone through after the election before a Deputy can take his seat in the House. But the law is perfectly clear—there is no ambiguity. It is as clear in this case as in any of the other cases of casual vacancies that I have referred to. There is no ambiguity about it here, no more difficulty in acting according to it here, when we have the facts established, than there was in any of the other cases, or that there is in any case of this kind. Apparently the ingenuity of some of the Deputies opposite has gone so far as to suggest that not merely is there a doubt as to which James Larkin was elected, but as to what seat the motion referred to. All these arguments of Deputy MacEntee, his doubts about which James Larkin was nominated, on the one hand, and his doubts about what seven members actually have been elected, are pretty much on the same level. It is all word-spinning or logic-chopping of a very obvious kind. It is quite true that we are not saying that Mr. Larkin's seat is vacant. It is not. It was never Mr. Larkin's seat—that is our contention. Our contention is that there were only seven elected, and therefore the motion has to confine itself to facts. Even if it was to make it clear to the somewhat, I will not say naturally, but possibly occasionally, wilfully opaque minds that have been brought to bear on this point, we could not put in a motion what is not a fact —that Deputy Larkin has vacated his seat. He has not. He never had a seat in this House and was never entitled to a seat in this House.
Will the Minister admit now that the count of the votes has not been completed?
Of course he will not admit it.
No. There is nothing so obvious as the charming simplicity that comes from the benches opposite.
It is the obvious truth.
It is an absolute refusal to face the obvious facts in this matter, that distinguishes practically all their policy. There are few things clearer than the matter we have now before us. I suggest that in reality the speeches we have listened to from the benches opposite in opposition to this motion are really trifling with this Assembly. There may have been, on the part of some Deputies, genuine doubts apparently that the thing was not properly presented, but I suggest when Deputies have read those findings of the Committee and the documents there given in facsimile in the short minutes of evidence, I think whatever little hesitation they would have had on the question of facts, namely, whether James Larkin was an undischarged bankrupt, and whether the undischarged bankrupt was the person nominated, ought to have vanished. Deputy Redmond had some strictures pass on the way in which the Government dealt with the matter. With the strictures I am not in agreement, but there is something in the contentions he put forward, and they have been met. He asked that certain things should be done. These things have been done. The questions of fact ought to be quite clear to Deputies, and if the questions of fact are clear, then it is clear there is a vacancy, and if there is a vacancy there is only one way which this House knows of dealing with it, and that is to proceed with the issue of a Writ.
I was one of the unreasonable minority on the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. If there was no doubt in the mind of the Dáil as to whom the particular James Larkin was, I wonder why it was necessary to refer the matter to a Committee at all. Most of those who spoke in favour of accepting the Report seemed to be as positive that Mr. James Larkin, senior, was the candidate as it is alleged we are positive that he was not. I would like to say with regard to the remarks of Deputy Morrissey that he was led to believe that even if Mr. James Larkin was produced Deputy MacEntee and myself would still be of the opinion that he was not the candidate——
On a point of explanation, may I make it clear that Deputy Boland, during the proceedings in the Committee, did not appear to me to be nearly as unreasonable as Deputy MacEntee.
I was not looking for that. I think the minority on the Committee did put up a case. We have been asked why we did not propose to send for, and bring them before the Committee, the two Larkins, and the proposer and seconder of James Larkin, and the reason was pretty obvious. Deputy Duggan introduced the motion and we maintained that the onus was on him to prove that this James Larkin, senior, was the candidate. We wanted conclusive evidence, and if that evidence was produced, and if Deputy Duggan wanted unanimity—I know he was certain all along of a majority—I certainly think he should have sent for those people whom we thought necessary as conclusive evidence. One member of the Committee actually wanted to know what would we do if they happened to be dead. The Ceann Comhairle said that that was a hypothetical question. Anyhow, we made the case there to show that the evidence was not conclusive. If everything was so plain as the Minister for Education would have us believe, why was the matter sent to a Committee to be investigated? Doubt was expressed from the day of nomination whether it was a trick or not. I am not certain, but it was not clear. Deputy Morrissey thought the document signed J. Larkin, junior, was conclusive. I understand the name on both nomination papers, for Dublin City North and Dublin County, was James Larkin. It does not say James Larkin, junior, or James Larkin, senior. The point was made at the Committee that it might have been a formal acknowledgment of an invitation to be present on behalf of James Larkin—it did not say which—signed by James Larkin, junior. Undoubtedly he sent it.
Tell the House all about it.
I will tell the House everything, and Deputy O'Sullivan can add anything that he thinks I have left out. I do not want it to go unchallenged that the attitude of the minority was unreasonable. It was possible to produce what would have been conclusive evidence and that would have led to a unanimous report. If the Committee had produced the evidence that we thought necessary we could not have got away from it. It was not our business to produce the evidence. We held, and we hold still, that the onus of proof was on Deputy Duggan.
The Minister for Education said there was a precedent in the case of the Ceann Comhairle and Dr. McNeill in the matter of vacancies in the Dáil. I do not admit that at all because they were people who were actually in the Dáil. That is the same as the case of the President who, at the last election, after being elected for Kilkenny and Cork, resolved to sit for Cork. There was no question of identity there. There is a question of identity here and we maintained that further evidence should be procured that would be conclusive evidence. We indicated what the evidence was; if they were not prepared to send for it that was not our business. We believed we were justified in our action, that is really all I want to say. There is no comparison between the cases the Minister for Education cited—the case of the Ceann Comhairle and Dr. McNeill—because they were bodily present here.
It was not on the question of fact that I cited that case but on the law involved. I wanted to show that in all these cases there is the question of law and the question of fact.
What I am mostly concerned with is to try to justify my action on that Committee. I might have been considered unreasonable in my action but if there was no problem to be solved it would not have been necessary to have referred the matter to a Committee. I admit the majority had a right to decide. Our attitude, I will not say has been held up to ridicule, but it has not been presented in the right light. I think it is up to us to justify the action we took and not to allow ourselves to be held up as most unreasonable people. I contend that those on whom the onus of proof rested were most unreasonable in not making an attempt to have a unanimous decision arrived at by producing people whose evidence would have been conclusive that Mr. James Larkin, Senior, was the candidate. That could have been very easily done. If Mr. Larkin himself did not come before the Committee his proposer and seconder could have been got, and that would have settled the whole thing. That was not done and, consequently, we voted in the minority.
I speak on this matter because of certain inaccurate statements made both by Deputies MacEntee and Boland as to what happened at the Committee. Even the report of the minutes of evidence taken has not been read accurately by the Deputy. I want to refer particularly to the point where the Under-Sheriff for Dublin was asked by the Chairman Question 11, page 2:—
"You were satisfied yourself that the person being nominated was Mr. James Larkin, Senior—or were you so satisfied?—I do not think I am bound to express an opinion of that kind."
A perfectly proper remark from one who was described by the Deputy as a paid official. The reply of the Under-Sheriff was not read, but the statement was made that the Sheriff said he was not able to express an opinion. Now, Deputy MacEntee introduced his speech with his favourite quotation of "in and out and round about." Between the Committee and his speech in the Dáil I have never heard anything so much "in and out and round about," and such a positively absolute failure to attempt to put up any case why he refused to come to a decision in the Committee and sat blandly and blindly in opposition saying "I am not satisfied. The onus is on somebody else." I would refer the House to the Order here of the 2nd March resolving that questions one and two be referred for inquiry and report to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and that for the purpose of this inquiry the Committee on Procedure and Privileges be empowered to send for persons, papers and records. That did not put on anybody, either on the Parliamentary Secretary to the President, or on me, or on Deputy Cooper or even on Deputy MacEntee, the onus of proving anything. Two questions were submitted to the Committee for an answer, and it was plainly for them to arrange what evidence they required and what they did not require. Deputy MacEntee and even Deputy Boland, as I say, talked "in and out and round about." Deputy MacEntee went a little bit further than he went in Committee, having said that we came into this House—he did not suggest it in Committee—with the intention of declaring a vacancy. Now, when we sat in Committee it was Deputy MacEntee's right, and Deputy Boland's and my right, and the right of any other member of the Committee to move that any witness, provided the witness is named, be sent for, and talking about James Larkin, Junior, and James Larkin, Senior, here, is talking "in and out and round about."
May I ask the Deputy a question?
You may ask any question you like, provided it is not "Who started the Civil War?"
You know.
I know, and I know a good deal more now. If I were to start it again I would——
Is it not a fact that Deputy Duggan was the person who presented all the documentary evidence that was presented at that Committee?
Again, I would refer the Deputy to the report. He will see and remember, if he has any memory, that even Deputy Duggan was, to some extent, opposed to my proposition that the Under-Sheriff of Dublin should be sent for. It was I who was responsible for the motion that the Under-Sheriff should be sent for and the documents presented were presented, as the report clearly shows. I would ask the Deputies to read the report. As the report shows, these documents were presented by the Under-Sheriff of the City of Dublin.
May I ask a question?
I cannot answer two questions at the same time.
ACTING - CHAIRMAN
Let the Deputy finish with one question.
I would explain that I am not going to take on myself the responsibility of a Minister who may be asked questions. I am not here to defend the report. Any questions the Deputies wanted to ask they could have asked as members of the Committee. They did not ask them. An opportunity was given to Deputy MacEntee to move that Mr. Larkin be sent for.
I did move it, and was ruled out of order.
The Ceann Comhairle happens to be absent from the House, but I do not intend to go back on the matter. It was ruled out of order when it was moved too late. The Chairman of the Committee gave every opportunity, and as a matter of fact the resolution which I was to propose was passed round the table before I moved it, so that in case any member of the Committee had anything further to say he would get an opportunity of saying it. I understand one thing cannot be raised even in this House now, that is that the Chairman of the Committee ruled improperly or unjustly.
May I ask the Deputy——
You may not ask the Deputy anything.
Was not the general information to us given by Deputy Duggan?
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
The Deputy must be allowed to continue his speech as other Deputies were.
I wanted to ask——
I did not hear what he asked.
You do not want to hear.
Deputy O'Sullivan referred to Mr. Larkin as Deputy Larkin, while the Minister for Education holds he is not a Deputy at all.
I withdraw "the Deputy." Now I have read the order of reference, what we were sent into Committee to report on. The whole proceedings of the Committee were, from one angle, brought up here to-night. I do not propose to go into that again. The documents speak for themselves. I want to say I have no personal or party interests as to the rights of a James Larkin, whether he is senior, junior, or medium, to be a member or a Deputy of this House. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges is one which should do its work without being guided on party principles and should enter into its deliberations without feeling it was justifying Deputy Boland or Deputy MacEntee, because they had not any desire to have their action go before the House.
It should justify Cumann na nGaedheal motions.
What do you know about Cumann na nGaedheal motions? As far as I remember the discussion in the Committee, what troubled Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Boland most was that the country should know. Now, from the two hours' debate the country will likely have heard and known enough of what did happen in Committee.
Two questions were submitted to the Committee. The Committee found on the questions. No tangible or reasonably sensible argument has been set up by the Deputy against the motion that is moved except Deputy MacEntee's suggestion that that vacancy might mean that either of the two Deputy Byrnes or any of the other Deputies here to-night might thereby be unseated, although five minutes later, in response to a question about the occupancy of two seats, Deputy Boland said the members themselves were present in the House and that is a different matter.
We know that seven Deputies for this constituency are present in the House and that there is an eighth person who was said to be elected but who has not been present in the House. It is only childish to talk of the unseating of Deputy J.J. Byrne or Deputy Alfred Byrne, or even Deputy O'Kelly. It is also childish to parade for this House the 22 O'Kellys who were nominated for the Dublin Corporation in some ward which Deputy O'Kelly subsequently represented notwithstanding the fight against the 21 other members of the clan. It is childish to bring such an argument before this House. The important question is whether the person adjudicated a bankrupt by a Court of competent jurisdiction in Saorstát Eireann is or is not the person who was returned in the election of September, 1927, to be a member of this House. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges have found that the person so adjudicated a bankrupt is the person who was returned as a member of this House.
So I submit that the motion that the Writ should issue is one that should be supported, not on party grounds at all, but so that the Dáil would always have its full complement of representatives of the people. I do not think that a question of fact or law enters into this at all. The Committee was asked to answer two questions, and it has answered them. No tangible argument has been put up here against these answers. Nobody asked for other witnesses and nobody brought others there, and the debate was not entered into in a party spirit. I think it was Deputy Cooney asked were these letters proved, was there proof that J. Larkin, Junior, wrote that letter. That letter was produced as evidence that a person who wrote that letter and signed it acknowledged a certain document; that letter proves itself.
It proves nothing whatever.
Whom does he acknowledge it for?
The Deputies were not so voluble when asked questions at the Committee. I do not quite know which question which is asking.
What does that letter prove?
That letter was one of the documents in evidence before the Committee. The Committee made its findings on that as well as on other documents and other evidence. I referred to the question about proving the letter and who wrote that letter. That is the only reply. That is why I ask the Dáil to pass this motion and to reject the amendment.
As one of those who voted in the majority in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, I would like to give you my views as to why I arrived at the conclusion I did. This whole matter arose in a debate in the House on Thursday week on the question as to whether a writ should issue in North Dublin or not. It will be in the memory of all the Deputies here that that debate was abortive, and that by the general consent of the House two questions were put to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to decide. I happened to be a member of that Committee at the time. In the ultimate, this House has to decide by a vote or unanimously, whether a Writ should or should not issue, and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges were to decide, by yea or nay, the two questions that were put to them. They were placed exactly in the position of jurors to whom a judge hands up questions to answer in the affirmative or in the negative. By a majority we have answered the questions in the affirmative.
I do not intend to rehash the proceedings of the Committee—the report is before the Dáil—except to say that, on the first day that we met, I approached this question with a perfectly open mind but on the first day I was by no means convinced that we had sufficient evidence that the James Larkin who was returned by the Returning Officer as elected for North Dublin was the James Larkin who was a bankrupt. Certain documentary evidence was brought before us, including a poster showing photographs of James Larkin, Senior, James Larkin, Junior, and somebody else, but there was no printer's name on that poster and, so far as I was concerned, it might have been printed on the day before. It did not give me any evidence whatever that the poster concerned that particular election. A handbill dealing with another candidate was produced which incidentally mentioned James Larkin, Senior, and James Larkin, Junior. That I did not consider sufficient evidence. But when the Returning Officer came before us and produced the nomination paper and this letter from James Larkin, Junior, on behalf of James Larkin, presumably and incontrovertibly the candidate, I was convinced at once that the James Larkin, of Beechwood Avenue, and the James Larkin of Unity Hall was the candidate, and that we had nothing else to do but to answer the two questions by the word "yes." We are in the position now that we of the Committee and the whole House have to decide whether the finding is correct or not. I think on the last occasion that this matter was debated the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that he would take off the Whips. I am perfectly certain that if he takes off the Whips that there is not a member of this House who has read this Report and who approaches this matter in a reasonable frame of mind, will have any doubt whatever that the finding of the Committee is correct on the evidence before it. If it is left to a free vote of the House to decide, and I think it should be, I have no doubt at all if this House is composed of men of reasonable intellect that they will decide that the Committee was correct in its findings.
As one of the Deputies who is in danger of being unseated in the North City of Dublin, perhaps I might say a few words, with some local knowledge of the actual facts. It has been suggested by members on the opposite benches that in the North City of Dublin there was considerable doubt as to who the James Larkin in question really was. Now living in that vicinity, and having to meet the electors of that constituency, and hearing the various qualifications of the different candidates canvassed from time to time, I do suggest with full knowledge of the facts, that members of the Opposition benches are not dealing with this motion in a sincere way and are not dealing with it in the way in which it should be dealt with.
Diogenes.
Mr. BYRNE
Especially do I suggest that to Deputy Cooney who has interrupted so frequently in this debate. I can tell Deputy Cooney that there was one mode of voting followed in that election that caused his return to this House, and that was "vote Jim Larkin No.1, and vote Cooney No.2." If that mode of voting had not been followed we would have a different Deputy in the House from Deputy Cooney.
Had Deputy Larkin a surplus?
I merely mention this to show——
Mr. BYRNE
I will not give way to Deputy Cooney. Sit down.
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
Is the Deputy raising a point of order?
Yes. The Deputy has made the definite statement that I would not be in this House——
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
Is that a point of order? I rule it is not.
The interruptions of Deputy Cooney are characterised by irrelevancy.
Could it be possible that the Deputy was returned because he was confused with Deputy Alfred Byrne?
We have in the North City two Deputy Byrnes—Deputy Alfred Byrne and Deputy J.J. Byrne—and the most harmonious relations, I am proud to say, exist between us. The matter at issue here has been magnified in a way which it does not deserve. It seems as simple as going out to a racecourse to back a horse. A certain number of horses run, but one is disqualified. That is the position of Mr. James Larkin. He was allowed to run but he was disqualified after passing the post. That is the matter in a nutshell. We have been asked by Deputy MacEntee to refer this matter to a competent court. Anybody who was here when this debate was inaugurated had the benefit of an exposition of the law on the subject. We have been told that at this stage of the proceedings there is no procedure in law to deal with this matter. Members on the opposite Benches know as well as I do what the law on the subject is. In Section 51 of the Electoral Act of 1923 no member can be elected to this House who is an undischarged bankrupt. It was proved by the production in this House of a certificate of bankruptcy that the candidate who had been illegally elected was an undischarged bankrupt. There was clear evidence of the bankruptcy of Mr. James Larkin. What followed after that fact was established? There was not a voter in the whole of the North City area who did not know that Mr. James Larkin was a bankrupt, and everybody said that it was merely waste of time to go and vote for him, as he would never be returned to the Dáil.
If members opposite, who possess all the wisdom of Solomon, pursued their legal rights in the matter they could have brought a petition and claimed the seat within twenty-one days of the election. Perhaps, however, there was method in their madness, because, if they had petitioned, I have no doubt that the seat would have gone to Lord Mayor O'Neill. I was present at the counting of the votes, and I know how keenly the contest was waged. If a petition had been presented, neither the Government Party nor the Party opposite would have got an extra member, and Alderman O'Neill would have been in the Dáil to-day. We have been told by the Leader of the Opposition that the motion we propose to carry is ultra vires, that this House has no power to issue a Writ. Is it not time for members opposite to realise that this is a sovereign assembly with sovereign powers? There are legal members on the opposite Benches who know what that means as well as I do. They know that an assembly which possesses sovereign powers can do anything it is asked to do. They know that it can make or unmake laws. They know that it can change the established Constitution of the country, and, if necessary, it can legitimatise the illegitimate. They know that it can do anything in a constitutional way except turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man. That is the constitutional law, and Deputies on the opposite benches know it as well as I do, and they know when they advocate the course of action which they have proposed that it is entirely illogical.
Now we turn to the problem of the identity of the candidate. As regards that, I believe that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges have come to true and proper findings. I have already stated that it was a matter of common knowledge that it was Jim Larkin—in Dublin we have only one Jim Larkin—who was standing for the vacancy in question. The question we have to consider is not a question of law, as the time for any procedure by law has passed. There is now no legal remedy in existence. We are the power concerned, and we are concerned with matters of fact. On matters of fact the Committee on Procedure and Privileges have given a verdict, and it is up to the House to accept it for what it is worth. To anybody who means to act in a reasonable and common sense way the evidence of Dr. Sherlock is proof conclusive that Mr. James Larkin was the candidate in question. Dr. Sherlock stated that he sent word to James Larkin, Senior, that his nomination was objected to; that Mr. James Larkin, Senior, waited on him in Green Street Courthouse and was informed of the objection; and Mr. James Larkin, Senior, said, "You have no power to reject my nomination" (with emphasis on the word "my") "if the paper is correct. I have got counsel's opinion on that point."
Dr. Sherlock was even more cautious still. In order to establish the identity as clearly as possible, to quote his own words, he said: "I got them to put in ‘General Secretary of the Workers' Union of Ireland'." That basic fact is on the nomination paper. "I know," Dr. Sherlock said, "as a juror that he was recognised as the General Secretary of the Workers' Union of Ireland." In answer to a question by Deputy O'Hanlon, Dr. Sherlock said that the nomination was authorised by Mr. James Larkin, Senior, himself. Let us threat this question in the light of plain, cold common sense and leave out all the party issues, for, after all, it is not a party issue. We have been told by members opposite that the Government are not going to win this seat. If that is so, what injury will members opposite suffer? I think, however. they know that the Government Party are going to win the seat. We are here to decide on very plain facts. It has been suggested by Deputy Flinn that we are not capable as a body of laymen to decide these very simple issues. I venture to say that any twelve men empanelled as a jury would give a verdict on such an issue almost without leaving the box. The facts are as plain as the noonday sun. Mr. James Larkin, General Secretary of the Workers' Union of Ireland, was a candidate. He was disqualified, and a vacancy now exists in the North City constituency which it is our duty to fill. I, for one, shall support the motion, and I speak not as a party man but in the light of plain reason and common sense.
With reference to the point raised by Deputy J.J. Byrne with regard to my position, I wish to say that, with one exception, I received more first preference votes than any member of this Party.
I look upon this debate, so far as I have listened, as a preliminary canter for the coming by-election. On the one hand we have Deputy Cooney, and from his face one could see that he is shouldering the whole burden of this debate, and trying to play to the people outside for the votes which Mr. James Larkin got on a previous occasion. On the other hand, you have Deputy J.J. Byrne trying to defend the action of those who have brought forward this motion. I intervene to deal with the two points stressed by Deputy Gerald Boland. He seemed to think there was no difference in the form of nomination paper handed in by Mr. James Larkin for the county Dublin, and the form handed in by the Mr. James Larkin, the man who caused all the trouble and is getting this free advertisement, for the North City. Deputy Gerald Boland must candidly confess that in the form of paper for James Larkin as handed in for the county Dublin there does not appear the description "General Secretary, Workers' Union of Ireland." That appears in the form of nomination for the North City. Deputy Boland, I think, made his whole case on the point that Mr. James Larkin—the Larkin—was not sent for or brought before the Committee to make certain that he was the person charged with being a bankrupt, and being a bankrupt, not eligible for being elected. Deputy Cooney, I am sure, will admit that this James Larkin whom we are discussing was on a famous occasion appointed one of the Twelve Apostles who were to rule the world, one of the governors of the earth. I state, on very good information, that when the Committee on Procedure and Privileges was sitting Mr. James Larkin was at that time walking back from Russia where he had been attending one of the meetings which he has to attend occasionally as one of the rulers of the world. If he was walking back, or running back, or travelling in whatever way he does, it would have been impossible for the Committee to produce him.
Is this Labour Deputy sneering at the new economic system which obtains in Russia?
Is Deputy Cooney defending it?
Deputy Cooney is the one person who is seriously alarmed as to the result of the decision on this question. I look upon him as an understudy to Mr. James Larkin, and he should be in a position to say if Mr. James Larkin was in Dublin or not during the inquiry by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. If he was not in Dublin, but was walking back from Moscow, it would not have been possible to produce him to state whether he was the individual in question or not.
Why not give him the opportunity?
The plain fact is that Deputies who are making play of this motion know perfectly well, as well as I do, and I have no prejudice in the matter, that Mr. James Larkin, General Secretary, Workers' Union, is the James Larkin who was adjudged bankrupt on a certain occasion, and it is because of that I am going to vote for the motion that stands in the name of Deputy Duggan.
I think it is common knowledge that Mr. James Larkin was home before this Committee had concluded its investigation.
I would like to make use of the privilege I got from the Ceann Comhairle to explain my position. I believe I am the Deputy who suggested that this matter should be sent first to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I did so because I had certain doubts with regard to the whole procedure. I pointed out that the only official evidence we had before the House to enable us to form a judgment was the statement read out by the Clerk, which appeared on the official journals of the House. It is because I wanted to have some official evidence that there was, in fact, a vacancy I made the suggestion, and these matters were referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I want to say briefly and definitely that so far as I am concerned the doubts that were in my mind have been resolved by the report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I am accepting the report without any doubt and without making any qualifications. Therefore, I am prepared to accept that the Mr. James Larkin who was returned to serve in this House was in fact bankrupt at the time he was so returned, and is, therefore, not eligible for election; but I say still that the form in which this motion was put down is largely responsible for the trouble which has arisen. It is asking us to state something which it is not necessary to state for the purpose of this proposed by-election. In any case I do not know how "a vacancy exists in the Borough Constituency of North Dublin." It is not the usual form in which to put it; it should be "a vacancy exists in the representation of the constituency of North Dublin." There are numerous vacancies, I expect, in the constituency of North Dublin. It is a small matter and not worthy of mentioning except for those who have to be careful regarding the records of the House. Many people doubt as to whether there are eight vacancies or only one. It was open to anybody to take such action as would disqualify those they believed illegally elected, but such action has not been taken. We must, therefore, accept the position as it is. In view of the findings of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges my doubts, as I have stated, have been resolved, and I am prepared, though reluctantly owing to its form to vote for the motion. I would prefer if it had stated quite plainly and definitely that it was necessary to fill this vacancy which was caused by the fact that this Mr. James Larkin on the date of the General Election was an undischarged bankrupt. As it is impossible to do that now, and as there is a vacancy that has to be filled, and as it is a matter for this House to fill the vacancy, I am prepared to vote for the motion.
The attitude we on this side of the House adopted was that this was assuming by the Dáil functions that were properly the functions of a court. Deputy J.J. Byrne has elaborated the powers and sovereignty of the Dáil, and the numerous things it can do, and he referred to some of the things it cannot do. But it is the first time, as far as I am aware, that the Dáil has tried to assume what should be properly judicial functions. It has set itself up as a court to inquire into and decide questions of evidence and certain questions of law. We, of course, at the outset, and when finally the matter was being referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, stated we were still opposed to that on the principle involved. We had a very long speech from Deputy O'Sullivan. We might have expected that he would have kept that Committee on Procedure and Privileges in its investigations within reasonable bounds of legality. Instead we find that the greater portion of the evidence put before that Committee would have been ruled out by any competent court of jurisdiction.
We find that the main portion of the evidence, at least, in this report before us now, is concerned with hearsay. Starting on the first page, a good deal of emphasis is laid on what a certain Dr. Sherlock had heard. He heard that Mr. James Larkin was to be a candidate. Probably a lot of people had heard that also, but it was brought forward to try to get evidence —something of what was heard outside. It would be expected that Deputy O'Sullivan, if he wanted to have it in any sense a legal Committee and carry out a legal investigation, would, at any rate, inform the Committee that they could not take notice of such evidence as that. Instead of that we find, perhaps, that Party ran riot to try to get in what would not be allowed in a court. They come before the Dáil now with two things from which they say the Dáil must conclude that a certain James Larkin, of Unity Hall and Beech wood Avenue, is the same person who was adjudicated a bankrupt. They base that on the hearsay evidence of this Dr. Sherlock, and on a document put in to the report signed by James Larkin, Junior. A lot of emphasis is laid on that letter. Personally, I do not see what it has to do with the matter, or what assistance it could give. The James Larkin described in the letter is not described as James Larkin, Senior, or James Larkin, Junior. It does not describe him as general secretary, or anything like that.
Reference is made to a nomination paper, and the majority of the Committee in their efforts to try to get some little tittle of evidence that would look plausible, to some members, of the Dáil at any rate—I say plausible, because they could not get any other evidence —got a nomination paper for the Dáil election, and there also we find James Larkin, described neither as junior nor as senior, described as a trades union official in the first instance. Dr. Sherlock stated that he got that struck out and got the words "General Secretary, Workers' Union of Ireland," put in. Dr. Sherlock does not state that that was at the request, or with the approval or acquiescence of the people who handed in the nomination paper. No James Larkin appeared before Dr. Sherlock and handed in the paper, and except that some gentleman called down to Dr. Sherlock some time before the election there is no evidence whatever of any touch or contact between any particular James Larkin and the Returning Officer.
Of course I know the position that this Committee found itself in when it went to investigate this matter. A certain section, a majority, went there with prejudged ideas. They went in, as I said, to try to bring something before the Dáil which would look plausible, which would excuse the judgment they had already arrived at. For that purpose they come along with these few little facts, or what they call facts, and ask us to hold that they had conclusive evidence before them. The first, I say, is evidence that would have been ruled out, as Deputy O'Sullivan knows, by any competent court in this or any other country. The second is, that it does not give any description that would identify the particular James Larkin who was a candidate. These two facts being disposed of, what have we to go on? There is no proof that this James Larkin who was a candidate for the election was the person who was adjudicated a bankrupt. Of course we have a lot of talk here. We had, for example, Deputy Morrissey talking about Deputy MacEntee being too good for this House, and in the next breath he talked about his conscience. I was inclined to think that Deputy Morrissey was too good for this world—not only for this House—when I heard him talking about his conscience. The report is based—all that is put forward here, and the so-called conclusions of the majority of the Committee—on the fact that there were prejudged ideas.
A motion was put before this House in the first instance. A certain section on the opposite benches, or some people, at any rate, on the Government Benches, had come to the conclusion which they asked the Committee to come to. Naturally the members of the Committee who were members of the Government Party had the same ideas on this question, as they have in other matters, as the few people on the Front Government Benches; whatever those few people say must be accepted as infallible. That has been the practice as far as we have seen during the little time that we have been in this House, and I am sure it was not deviated from in this instance. Therefore, these four or five people. Deputy O'Sullivan and the others, went in to deal with this matter on the basis that this particular James Larkin was the person who was a candidate and who was adjudicated a bankrupt. There has not been a single tittle of evidence put before this Dáil by the Committee, not a single whit of legal evidence, at any rate, that would prove that this particular James Larkin was the James Larkin who was adjudged a bankrupt. I defy anyone on the opposite benches to show it. We hear talk about "commonsense,""doesn't everyone know it,""not being childish," and so on. Deputy O'Sullivan knows, as well as everyone else, that in the courts every day people are acquitted because evidence is not legal which, if admissible, would bring about a different decision. Only the other day Deputy O'Sullivan was defending somebody in Donegal—I am speaking subject to correction. There was a Donegal case, at any rate, where a person was charged with murder or some charge like that, and the witness who had given a particular statement to the Civic Guards, just the same as Dr. Lorean Sherlock, on hearsay—but this was even stronger —went back on his statement, and we had the usual outburst that this was a great miscarriage of justice, and the State Prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi. That happens every other day.
There has been a good deal of talk about who should or should not have brought some Mr. Larkin or his nominator or seconder before the Committee. That is a way of trying to shift the blame apparently to someone else. Deputy MacEntee says he asked that Mr. James Larkin should be summoned before that Committee. While not controverting that statement, Deputy O'Sullivan said it was then too late. I do not know what the point was about its being too late, or what was the urgency in having to report to this House, but Deputy O'Sullivan knows quite well that any case in the courts he may be in, will never be decided without notice, at any rate, being given to the other side. Of course, the Dáil in its recklessness to set itself up as a judicial body, must apparently constitute for itself different procedure altogether, and this Committee must try someone behind his back. Was there any difficulty about getting in touch with the person alleged to be James Larkin who was adjudicated bankrupt, or getting in touch with and summoning the nominator, seconder or assentors to the nomination. There does not seem to have been any attempt made. There may have been some reason for that. I leave that to the majority of the Committee, who decided in a certain way. What I submit is that this case shows that the Dáil is taking on itself what should properly be the functions of the courts. There is a simple way of dealing with any difficulty that arises. Everyone on the Government Benches knows it, as they have dealt with these matters in somewhat analogous, I will not say similar, proceedings. This is an attempt to establish a precedent on these lines. I say that it is a dangerous precedent, one that is making for trouble and disaster if allowed to go on. At any rate, let the House not try to fool itself, and let the majority of the Committee not try to fool the House and say that they have got any evidence, that they have got one title of legal evidence more than the prejudged ideas they had when they went into the Committee. Were it not for those ideas which they had before they went into the Committee, they would not be coming before the Dáil to-day and recommending it to take a certain line of action, or to act in a certain way, when there was, as I say, no legal evidence to support it. They know that, and it is not necessary to argue it. Even if this House was satisfied that a certain position was so, if that position was to be defined by the courts, then it was the function of the courts to define it. If there is any difficulty about the courts defining it, there is a way, as I say, to get the courts to do so. The Government Party knows that there is no difficulty about that. It has been done before, not in similar cases but in analogous cases. The objection that I take mainly to this is that the majority report of the Committee is more a whitewashing attempt to try to get something plausible.
I am sorry that Deputy MacEntee is not here, because I want to praise him, but I hope his colleagues will transmit the praise. I admired Deputy MacEntee this afternoon. I admired his eloquence. I admired the infinite ingenuity with which he managed to make a simple question complicated; and above all I admired his skill in changing his ground. I have not yet received the syllabus of the Tailteann Games, but if there is a competition in changing ground Deputy MacEntee is certain to bring a medal back to the Dáil. Four weeks ago Deputy MacEntee and others were proclaiming that the only satisfactory tribunal to judge a question of fact was a Committee of the Dáil. This afternoon Deputy MacEntee got up and said that the only competent jurisdiction to decide a question of fact was a judicial body, men remote from politics, men who had not recently been, engaged in politics, men who had a knowledge of the law of procedure and of the law of evidence. I am quoting him roughly. He certainly said "men remote from politics." He thought that a Committee of the Dáil was the best possible body to decide a question surrounding the circumstances under which a man was shot. That is still-before the tribunal, and I do not want to prejudge it. But if we are not competent to judge of a question relating to our own membership, of what questions are we competent to judge? Committees have their limitations. They are not, as Deputy Ruttledge has suggested, legal bodies. It is impossible, I think, to get a Committee of the Dáil composed entirely of Deputies who have a legal training. We had on the Committee of Procedure and Privileges two solicitors, according to the normal usage one of them on each side, and we had one barrister. But I take Deputy Ruttledge's point. The procedure was not the legal procedure, and it is possible that we admitted evidence that might have been ruled out on the objection of counsel on one side or the other if there had been counsel present. We never could get business done in the Dáil if we followed the legal procedure strictly, for the reason that we do not have the assistance of counsel. We cannot have Committees confined entirely to barristers and solicitors—it would be a great injustice to the Labour Party if we had— and the bulk of Deputies are not competent to judge legal questions. But what the practice has always been on our Committees—and I have served on more committees than I can think of—is to adopt a rough and ready procedure to try to ascertain the facts, and that is what was done in this case.
One point made by Deputy Ruttledge is that we did not follow legal procedure, that we admitted evidence that might have been inadmissible in a court. If there had been legal representatives of the other side to argue the point, it might have been proved that it was admissible. That point never arose, and I do not think it ought to. The second point, which was Deputy MacEntee's main point, was that certain witnesses were not summoned. I want to know where this summoning of witnesses was to stop. If we summoned Mr. James Larkin, Senior, and Mr. James Larkin, Junior, and the proposer and seconder of the Mr. James Larkin who was nominated, their evidence, if we had got it, would have been partisan evidence, and I am inclined to think that if we had heard one candidate, and the proposer and seconder of one candidate, and his namesake or namesakes— because Deputy MacEntee's argument went so far as to say that any James Larkin who described his address as Unity Hall might be the candidate— where were we to stop? We might eventually exhaust the twenty-two O'Kellys that Deputy MacEntee spoke of; we might have a squadron of J.J. Byrnes all coming up and saying that they might be the candidate. We might have had an atmosphere of partisanship and an atmosphere of controversy that could not be avoided. But the Committee went to the one person to give evidence who was an impartial official. He was the returning officer, who was not allowed to take sides, and who, in his evidence before the Committee, did not take sides. I know that Deputy Little will agree with me there; he would not give an opinion on the question at issue. I only know, on the question of the evidence, firstly, the fact that Mr. James Larkin, Senior, visited the Returning Officer and had a prolonged conversation with him about his candidature, and never suggested that Mr. James Larkin, Junior, was the candidate and not himself. Secondly, there was the letter from Mr. James Larkin, Junior, on behalf of Mr. James Larkin, Senior, written on the eve of the poll, acknowledging certain documents, and, thirdly, the fact that in the nomination paper the seconder of Mr. James Larkin is described as James McEvoy, Junior. If they were so careful about the "Junior" in that case why did not "James Larkin, Junior," appear as the candidate on the nomination paper? Deputy MacEntee argued that between the interview with the Returning Officer and the polling, Mr. Larkin might have changed his mind and decided to substitute some other candidate. The letter written on the eve of the poll indicates that there was no change of mind, and the nomination paper indicates that. These three facts, to my mind, were abundantly satisfactory.
Turning to the general question, Deputy MacEntee tells us that we are making dangerous precedents, that the seat of almost any Deputy can be imperilled by passing a resolution of this character. We have got to make precedents. We have been making precedents ever since I have been in this Dáil. We are a new legislative body making precedents, but there is no great danger, for the simple reason that the grounds on which we are proceeding are well-known grounds of qualification. There are certain grounds upon which you can disqualify members for participation in the proceedings of a legislative assembly. One is conviction by a civil court. A little over four years ago a Deputy, a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, was convicted by a civil court, and his seat was vacated. Another ground is bankruptcy. Deputy MacEntee says this is a dangerous precedent that we are establishing. He does not want precedents. Under Section 33 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1883, as probably Deputy MacEntee is aware, a bankrupt is disqualified from membership of the House of Commons. The Deputy referred a good deal to England, and this is an English Act. The Speaker of the House of Commons, under this section of that Act, as soon as he becomes aware that a member of the House has been a bankrupt for a period exceeding six months, is empowered, even if the House is not sitting, to issue a writ for a new election at once. He can do that without even consulting the House. Therefore, bankruptcy is a well-known ground for disqualification in a legislative assembly. It is not creating any dangerous precedent to say, when it is true, that a man is a bankrupt. Deputy MacEntee, in the course of his cloquent argument, never sugested that Mr. James Larkin is not a bankrupt. The bankruptcy documents which the Committee had before them were quite convincing on that point. They prove that the man is a bankrupt. Then automatically the Writ must issue.
It may be said that is the precedent in England and that we need not be bound by it. But, as I have indicated, we have our own precedent here, and to say that the passing of this motion is taking a leap in the dark and creating a dangerous precedent here is not in accordance with the facts. Deputy Ruttledge said, as regards the Committee, that one section of it went in with prejudged ideas. Was it only one section? Had not Deputy Ruttledge and his colleagues made up their minds before they went to the Committee? I venture to say that none of us could go into a matter of this kind without having certain prepossessions. I do not think we could entirely free ourselves of prepossessions in a matter of this kind after having heard it discussed by individuals and seen it discussed in the Press.
On a point of personal explanation, I do not think it is fair to say that those on our side have made up their minds. Personally, I have not yet made up my mind, because the evidence before me was not of a legal nature.
It is fair for Deputy Ruttledge to say that I had made up my mind; but it is not fair for me to say that Deputy Little had made up his mind. I went before the Committee to see what evidence would be produced. I had certain prepossessions in favour of a certain course. I will admit that I thought Mr. James Larkin was Mr. James Larkin. I have known of him for a long time, and certain incidents that occurred during the election had, more or less, made a certain impression on my mind. I really think there is a certain amount of prejudice on each side. I am not saying that offensively to Deputy Little, but all of us must inevitably have had a certain amount of prepossession in one direction or another. I do not think, therefore, that it is fair to charge one side with prejudice and let the other side wash their hands of it.
Deputy MacEntee made the rather amazing statement that this was not only creating a dangerous precedent but that it was undemocratic. Is it undemocratic to ask the constituents in North Dublin City to decide whether they are to be disfranchised or not? Is it undemocratic to ask the voters in that constituency whom they want to represent them? If that is undemocratic, then it is the most amazing proposition that I have ever heard put forward. If the voters in North City Dublin wish to be represented by Mr. James Larkin they can nominate Mr. James Larkin. They can give him a sufficient number of votes, not to elect him, because he is disqualified, but to ensure that they will continue to be disfranchised. On that there is the well known precedent that was established in England about 100 years ago. I am sure Deputy MacEntee knows of it. It was the case of John Wilkes. He was elected a member of the House of Commons and was disqualified, but the electors in his constituency persisted in re-electing him. They kept on electing him until eventually the House of Commons got tired of the thing. If the electors in North City Dublin want Mr. James Larkin and at the same time want to be disfranchised, they can have him, but surely they ought to be asked whether they want him or not. How it can be undemocratic to ask the voters in that constituency to decide the question is beyond me.
I propose that the division on this matter be taken before 7 o'clock. I hope the Deputies who wish to speak will accommodate themselves accordingly.
It is a nice commentary on the brain power of our front line trench that the gentlemen who sit there and who, I believe, are going to bequeath their skulls to the College of Surgeons when they die, should ask the House to decide this question after their six years legislation. During that time they framed four coercion Acts for the purpose of hunting their political opponents out of the country. They passed an Electoral Act in 1927, and yet in spite of all this legislation we have no means of settling the point that has arisen here. We have no guarantee that the same thing will not occur again at the next General Election. At that election the country will probably be faced with "a bankrupts' organisation." The present trend of things in the country is that way. I think if such an organisation is established it will be able to return a majority of members to this House— that is, if the present state of affairs continues. You will have in every constituency three or four bankrupts going up for election and getting returned. Then you will see the kind of House you will have here. There is nothing to prevent that happening. It appears to be assumed that the report of the Committee at present before the House is correct, and that there is a vacancy in North City Dublin. Of course we should not forget that after the last election we had the declaration made here that eight members had been declared elected for that constituency. If there is a vacancy now, I submit that one of these selected candidates must be in the process of election.
Under the system of proportional representation, the Returning Officer should long ago have gone into this if there is a vacancy in the constituency for the purpose of finding out who was next highest on the list at the time of election. That person should, I think, be declared elected. That would be the ordinary democratic way of filling the vacancy if one exists. The point is which of the two Mr. James Larkins was elected. The method now proposed is to issue a Writ and to have a new election and, I take it, a straight fight. But, I ask, is that the proper way under proportional representation to secure elected representatives? I admit that the gentlemen on the opposite benches are finding themselves in a tight corner. They are beginning to feel that their future legislation is going to be so unpalatable even amongst their own members, that they will have a few breaks away and that by some means they must get another seat. We are told now that only seven members have been elected for this constituency, but we all recollect that the names of eight members were read out here and that these were stated to have been duly elected to this House. It is surely a ridiculous state of affairs to find that Mr. James Larkin was not asked to appear before the Committee. After all a prisoner—we can call Mr. Larkin a man on trial—is entitled to consult with his judges, but Mr. James Larkin was not summoned last week to appear before his judges. Was it that they were afraid to meet him in Committee. He must be a very terrible person when such a rigorous law as this has to be put in force against him so as to get rid of him. I doubt, however, if you are getting rid of him. I am inclined to think that at the next election Mr. Larkin will bring in a majority here.
I would not be at all surprised, mind you, because the present trend in this country is that nine-tenths of the people will soon be bankrupt, and they will undoubtedly elect other bankrupts. You will have a bankrupt organisation here. I am absolutely certain that you will have a bankrupt organisation putting up candidates at the next election, and I cannot see how you are going to get rid of them—these idiots who have worked, and who, on account of working, have found themselves in bankruptcy while the drones are fattening on their sweat and are knocking out a good time here out of their labour. You will see all those poor fellows going up at the next election. They will get rid of the drones. The bankrupts will be candidates, and very probably after the election will be occupying the front trench opposite. I at any rate can see no reason why we should turn round and deny the people the right to have whatever representative they elect and to have him sitting here. There is no doubt in life that they elected James Larkin. He was declared elected by the Sheriff, and his name was read out here as one of the candidates elected. Six months afterwards the President gets a brain-wave that the coming legislation is going to be so unpalatable even to his own members that he is going to have a breakaway and that he must try by some means to get another seat. I am certain he will exercise due judgment and that he will get a good decent Mason to represent the constituency.
I avail of the privilege to deal with this matter again. The arguments that I have heard have been, for the most part, beside what I regard as the real point in this matter. The motion says that we are to fill a vacancy. We have, first of all, to be satisfied that a vacancy does exist. What are the arguments put up here to show there is a vacancy? We are told that a certain James Larkin, who is assumed to have been the candidate, is bankrupt, or was bankrupt at the time of the election, and therefore he could not be elected. Granting that assumption, does that prove to us there is a vacancy? If the Returning Officer, for example, made a mistake, or if his return was not correct, does it mean that all the votes that were cast have to be regarded as invalid votes? Votes were cast for eight candidates. Some eight were duly elected, and eight people capable of being elected were, as a matter of fact, voted for. How are we going to be satisfied now that those people who voted for the eighth person who was eligible, let us say, are legally to be deprived of their votes? I say we cannot determine it. Some of the best legal authorities are not satisfied about it, and here we are going to determine this complex question of law which has become particularly complex since the introduction of Proportional Representation. We are going to sit down calmly to determine it by the methods revealed, for example, at this inquiry as to the identity of James Larkin.
The casual manner in which this whole thing has been treated by the Government shows the amount of respect they have for law and for the rights of the citizens. They pretend that they are coming on at this stage to see that the constituents are represented, that the people of Dublin City North are going to be represented. Why did they not take action immediately—they knew then, I daresay, as well as afterwards—when the Clerk announced here the return of eight members as being duly elected? I would imagine that that was the proper time to do it. I submit they did not do it then because they got legal advice that they would be in a better position to declare a vacancy and nullify the effects of proportional representation by waiting for a certain period. They waited for that period, and then they come along and say to us: "Point out to us now, if you please, how we are going to proceed." My amendment is very clear, and the trifling of the Minister for Education and some other speakers with it was of the very same character which shows the amount of respect for the House generally that their action on the whole matter shows. They did not even go to the trouble of bringing in and giving to the Speaker formally to bring before the House, a certificate of this man's bankruptcy. They say it was never done before. I have got here, from the reports that have been given to me, an instance showing that on a former occasion when a Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy from Mayo was convicted in court, the Ceann Comhairle read out to the House the decision of the court, and declared that the seat was vacant. Why was not that done here?
Will the Deputy say where he got that?
I do not know; I am reading from the report. It has been given out of the reports.
The Ceann Comhairle read out a letter from the judge stating that a person who was a member of the House had been convicted.
That refers to a Deputy, while this debate here refers to a gentleman who was never a Deputy and who could not become one, under existing circumstances.
In any case it was formally announced to the House by the Ceann Comhairle that the Deputy had been disqualified and on that account the seat was vacant. Here we are supposed to act on everything we hear in the Press and everything our neighbour tells us. We are expected to act without any proofs whatsoever. I, for one, am not going to act in that way in this matter. I definitely am going to vote against the issue of a Writ in this case until we are satisfied that there is a vacancy. The object of my amendment is clear. It was to put the House in a position of knowing, by a certificate of a competent court, that a vacancy did exist.
Does the Deputy think it could be got?
I know very well that if Deputies on the opposite side of the House wanted to get it they could get it, that if they wanted to have the matter tried before a proper court they could. They say: "Why do you not show us the means?" Public money is being paid to the legal advisers of the gentlemen on the opposite benches. They have public money with which they can retain legal advice; we have not.
A DEPUTY
We got that advice.
In any case I know enough to know this: that if we wanted actually to get a court to try this matter we could. I believe our legal advisers could point out whether there are existing Acts under which a proper court could be set up, but if there is not in existence a proper court to try it out I see no reason why, for a matter of this kind, a short Act setting up such a court for that specific purpose should not be introduced. It is of sufficient gravity to do it.
I think, as far as we are concerned, that I have pointed out very clearly why it is that before a writ is issued we wish to have it definitely decided by a competent authority that there is a vacancy to be filled. We are asked to make decisions of this kind on the ground, as they tell us, of common sense. A short time ago the Clerk of this House took upon himself the responsibility of excluding from this House Deputies who were entitled to be here. Four senior counsel and three junior counsel whose advice we sought on it—four in consultation and three individually—gave their opinion, and I will read it for you now in order to show where we might land ourselves if we go, all the time, on this interpretation off-hand of Standing Orders, and the rest of it, and the interpretation even of the law. The opinion on that occasion was:—
" That there is no authority in any one under the Treaty or Constituation or Standing Orders of Dáil Eireann to exclude any member of that House, whether he has taken the oath or not, from any part of the House, before the House has been duly constituted and the Ceann Comhairle thereof has been duly elected. In case any such exclusion takes place we are of opinion that any Ceann Comhairle chosen in the absence of the excluded member or members will not have been validly elected."
That is to say, that the Ceann Comhairle would not have been validly elected. The Clerk of the Dáil took upon himself to play the part of Colonel Pride. We do not know on some future occasions but we will have gentlemen here standing up to interpret the law as they please, and to act on their own interpretation of it. We have heard a good deal of talk about respect for the courts and the independence of the courts. Why not let this matter be tried by the courts? If under the existing law there is no course or procedure by which we can bring this matter to the cognisance of a court, we can set up a court for that particular purpose. The Ceann Comhairle himself, and some of the Ministers, I think, following him, said that if any person should be aggrieved accordingly by any action of ours, such as the issuance of a Writ—I am interpreting as well as my recollection will allow me what the Ceann Comhairle said—he intimated at least to me, and I am sure other speakers afterwards followed that line —he intimated to me that if a person were going to be aggrieved, if some person were going to be aggrieved by this action, he could have recourse to the court. In other words, if any legal right exists that any action of ours could not deprive the person of that legal right. If, for example, the eighth person to have been declared by the Returning Officer as having been duly elected—if that person is aggrieved by our action by the issuing of a Writ, that that person can go to the courts. I hold that it is not fair to put individuals to that necessity. I hold it is not fair, first of all, to injure a person, and then afterwards tell him that he has a legal redress. That is the sort of thing we hear from the Minister for Justice every day in reference to the Gárda Síochána——
I beg your pardon. I have never said that the Gárda Síochána are entitled to injure anybody.
I am continuing my arguments, and apparently the Minister sees there is a little justice in it now. The point I am trying to make is this—we have, time and again, asked questions with regard to the Gárda Síochána, and we are always told that if any person is aggrieved he can take civil proceedings against them. I say that is unfair. It is the duty of the Department of Justice to keep discipline and control over their forces and to have such control over them that it will not be necessary for the civilian population to go to the expense of taking action in a court of law.
There is such control.
That is the way not to do it. It is of the same type of thing as executing a man first and then allowing an appeal afterwards. The duty of the Executive who have the public money at their disposal is to safeguard the rights of the citizens. It is not fair to throw the onus back upon the private individual, and that is why I say that we ought not to issue this writ saying to ourselves that if we are acting illegally and some other person is aggrieved by our section that then that person has the right of entry into the courts. I think it is unfair and unjust to do that. I think this is not the court really to decide complex matters of that kind. I think this House would do well in adopting the procedure which is adopted in other Houses which have experience of this sort of thing, in not deciding questions of contested elections where there is controversy. We say that these matters ought to be decided by a competent court. I ask the Deputies here to safeguard the rights of individuals in this matter, and not to do wrong, or not to do what they believe might be wrong, simply because the person aggrieved would have some kind of legal redress. I ask the Deputies to consider this carefully, and if there is a doubt in their minds—and I am sure there is a doubt—as to the identity of the person, and if there is a doubt as to whether there is a vacancy to bear that in mind. I am speaking honestly, and the presumption in my mind is that there is not a vacancy. If this matter has to be decided on legal lines and in equity, in simple, plain natural justice, the simplest way is this: the papers are there and they can be recounted, and if this House decides, for example, that Mr. James Larkin was not eligible and could not have been elected at the time, then the papers are there and it is for this House to say who was properly elected and who was the person that should have been elected.
There are two questions involved in the motion. One is a question of fact and the other is a matter of procedure. So far as the question of fact is concerned, that was submitted to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, who reported back to the House, and whose report is before the House. I feel that anyone open to conviction is quite satisfied with the Report. I think Deputy Morrissey replied satisfactorily to Deputy MacEntee, and it would be a waste of time to discuss any further the question of fact.
With regard to procedure, the only other question to be discussed, the matter appears to me to be quite plain. Under Section 51, sub-section (2), paragraph (c), of the Electoral Act, an undischarged bankrupt under an adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction in the Saorstát is disqualified from being elected a member of the Dáil. If the House is satisfied that James Larkin, the candidate in Dublin City North, was an undischarged bankrupt at the date of the election, then it is clear that he was disqualified not alone from sitting, but from being elected, and, consequently, he was never a member of the Dáil, and the arguments of Deputies on the benches opposite fall to the ground for the reason that they were discussing the matter on the basis that the particular gentleman was a Deputy, which he never was.
The count was, therefore, not complete.
Any person who was aggrieved, or felt he or she was aggrieved, did not take any action in the courts or otherwise. The election took place six months ago. Seven of the eight Deputies returned as being entitled to serve in this House have been sitting in this House; they came here and took their seats. The eighth person has never claimed his seat. Deputy MacEntee asks us to assume that the person who was the candidate must have been a person who was eligible to be a candidate, and that if the James Larkin, Senior, whom the Returning Officer interviewed, was not the candidate, therefore it was obvious that some other James Larkin came in in the meantime, got himself appointed secretary of the Workers' Union, and that he was the person who was elected. We are dealing with possibilities and probabilities. There are all sorts of possibilities, and if one were to satisfy Deputy MacEntee, it is obvious to me, at least, that we should not alone have to summon James Larkin, Senior, and James Larkin, Junior, but we should have to summon before the Committee every James Larkin, either in Ireland or outside of Ireland.
James Larkin, of 31 Marlborough Street.
Deputy MacEntee would not have been satisfied and he would have adopted the same attitude as he does now. That being so, I feel it is hardly necessary for me to say anything further. No other Party took any action in this matter. That particular constituency was disfranchised to the extent that there are only seven out of eight representatives in the House. There is talk about a candidate Number 9. That candidate could have gone into the courts. Why was not there an election petition, and why was not there an effort to claim the seat? That being so, the Executive Council felt it is their duty to see that the electorate get the representation they are entitled to. The Government Party have considered this matter and they have taken legal advice, the best legal advice procurable. That legal advice is that the proper and legal method of remedying the existing state of affairs is to come to this House and ask that a writ should be issued and that the electorate itself should be asked to fill the vacant seat. I do not think there is anything very undemocratic about that. Our friends opposite boast that if there was a General Election to-morrow they would sweep the country. I thought they would have jumped at this chance of securing one seat.
May I ask the Deputy if he has submitted for legal opinion the question of a recount?
Yes. Every aspect of the question has been submitted for legal opinion.
Have you published it?
The position, as far as I can see it, is that this is not a Party question, for the reason that the gentleman concerned does not owe allegiance to any Party in this House. It was simply from the point of view of a duty to the public, to the electorate, that the Executive has taken the action it has taken. I, therefore, ask the House to pass this motion.
In what capacity is the Deputy taking action in this particular case?
As a Party Whip.
In his usual capacity when a vacancy arises.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say in what capacity he is taking action?
In every case in which there is a vacancy, the Parliamentary Secretary moves for the issue of a Writ. It is the ordinary course. There is a vacancy here, and it is being dealt with in the ordinary way.
You are going to see that the constituents are fully represented—is not that so?
Yes.
Did not that duty devolve on you before this?
No.
Why not? I wish to raise another point with respect to possible legal action arising out of the issue of a Writ. Is it not a fact that there are already precedents which would rule this out of court? Remember, when the Writ is issued the election takes place in a short time. If legal action were to be taken afterwards there are precedents which would rule out of court any appeal.
Surely, legal action can be taken immediately. The courts are always prepared to hear a matter of that kind, a matter of urgency, and deal with it at once.
If the Writ is issued by this House——
DEPUTIES
Order, order!
The Deputy will remember that the question must be put before 7 o'clock.
Is not the presumption this: That the courts will not hear any person moving in the matter; that they will say that the Writ having been issued by a competent authority they have no jurisdiction?
That is peculiar view of the courts.
It is here defined in black and white in the Mitchel case. That is a definite parallel. John Mitchel was held to have been disqualified; he was elected and re-elected, and when the question came up as to whether the House of Commons had acted ultra vires his counsel contended that the matter could not be taken cognisance of by the court. It simply means that if this House is going to declare a vacancy and issue a Writ, they are prejudicing the whole question and preventing any body from having legal redress.
There is a different law and there are different judges.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided : Tá, 50; Níl, 80.
Tá
- Frank Aiken.
- Denis Allen.
- Neal Blaney.
- Gerald Boland.
- Patrick Boland.
- Seán Brady.
- Robert Briscoe.
- Alfred Byrne.
- Frank Carney.
- Frank Carty.
- Michael Clery.
- James Colbert.
- Eamon Cooney.
- Martin John Corry.
- Fred. Hugh Crowley.
- Tadhg Crowley.
- Thomas Derrig.
- Eamon de Valera.
- Frank Fahy.
- Hugo Flinn.
- Andrew Fogarty.
- Seán French.
- Patrick J. Gorry.
- John Goulding.
- Seán Hayes.
- Samuel Holt.
- Patrick Houlihan.
- William R. Kent.
- James Joseph Killane.
- Mark Killilea.
- Michael Kilroy.
- Seán F. Lemass.
- Patrick John Little.
- Ben Maguire.
- Thomas McEllistrim.
- Seán MacEntee.
- Séamus Moore.
- Thomas Mullins.
- Seán T. O'Kelly.
- William O'Leary.
- Matthew O'Reilly.
- Thomas O'Reilly.
- Thomas P. Powell.
- Patrick J. Ruttledge.
- James Ryan.
- Timothy Sheehy (Tipperary).
- Patrick Smith.
- John Tubridy.
- Richard Walsh.
- Francis C. Ward.
Níl
- William P. Aird.
- Ernest Henry Alton.
- Richard Anthony.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Bourke.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Martin Conlan.
- Michael P. Connolly.
- Bryan Ricco Cooper.
- Richard Corish.
- William T. Cosgrave.
- Sir James Craig.
- James Crowley.
- John Daly.
- William Davin.
- Michael Davis.
- Peter de Loughrey.
- James N. Dolan.
- Peader Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Alexander Haslett.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Michael Joseph Hennessy.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Michael Jordan.
- Patrick Michael Kelly.
- Myles Keogh.
- Hugh Alexander Law.
- Michael Brennan.
- Henry Broderick.
- Seán Brodrick.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Edmund Carey.
- John James Cole.
- Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Finian Lynch.
- Arthur Patrick Mathews.
- Martin McDonogh.
- Michael Og McFadden.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Joseph W. Mongan.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- James E. Murphy.
- Joseph Xavier Murphy.
- Timothy Joseph Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin Michael Nally.
- John Thomas Nolan.
- Richard O'Connell.
- Thomas J. O'Connell.
- Bartholomew O'Connor.
- Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- Patrick Reynolds.
- Martin Roddy.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy (West Cork)
- William Edward Thrift.
- Michael Tierney.
- Daniel Vaughan.
- John White.
- Vincent Joseph White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen. Níl: Deputies Duggan and P. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
Original question put
The Dáil divided: Tá, 80; Níl, 50.
Tá
- William P. Aird.
- Ernest Henry Alton.
- Richard Anthony.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Bourke.
- Michael Brennan.
- Henry Broderick.
- Seán Brodrick.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Edmund Carey.
- John James Cole.
- Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Martin Conlan.
- Michael P. Connolly.
- Bryan Ricco Cooper.
- Richard Corish.
- William T. Cosgrave.
- Sir James Craig.
- James Crowley.
- John Daly.
- Michael Davis.
- Peter de Loughrey.
- James N. Dolan.
- Peadar Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
- Richard O'Connell.
- Thomas J. O'Connell.
- Bartholomew O'Connor.
- Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Gearoid O'Sullivan.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- Patrick Reynolds.
- Martin Roddy.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Alexander Haslett.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Michael Joseph Hennessy.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Michael Jordan.
- Patrick Michael Kelly.
- Myles Keogh.
- Hugh Alexander Law.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Finian Lynch.
- Arthur Patrick Mathews.
- Martin McDonogh.
- Michael Og McFadden.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Joseph W. Mongan.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- James E. Murphy.
- Joseph Xavier Murphy.
- Timothy Joseph Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin Michael Nally.
- John Thomas Nolan.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
- William Edward Thrift.
- Michael Tierney.
- Daniel Vaughan.
- John White.
- Vincent Joseph White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Frank Aiken.
- Denis Allen.
- Neal Blaney.
- Gerald Boland.
- Patrick Boland.
- Seán Brady.
- Robert Briscoe.
- Alfred Byrne.
- Frank Carney.
- Frank Carty.
- Michael Clery.
- James Colbert.
- Eamon Cooney.
- Martin John Corry.
- Fred. Hugh Crowley.
- Tadhg Crowley.
- Thomas Derrig.
- Eamon de Valera.
- Frank Fahy.
- Hugo Flinn.
- Andrew Fogarty.
- Seán French.
- Patrick J. Gorry.
- John Goulding.
- Seán Hayes.
- Samuel Holt.
- Patrick Houlihan.
- William R. Kent.
- James Joseph Killane.
- Mark Killilea.
- Michael Kilroy.
- Seán F. Lemass.
- Patrick John Little.
- Ben Maguire.
- Thomas McEllistrim.
- Seán MacEntee.
- Séamus Moore.
- Thomas Mullins.
- Seán T. O'Kelly.
- William O'Leary.
- Matthew O'Reilly.
- Thomas O'Reilly.
- Thomas P. Powell.
- Patrick J. Ruttledge.
- James Ryan.
- Timothy Sheehy (Tipperary).
- Patrick Smith.
- John Tubridy.
- Richard Walsh.
- Francis C. Ward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. Doyle. Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Question declared carried.