I move for permission to introduce a Bill entitled "An Act to amend the Constitution by altering the age of eligibility for membership of Seanad Eireann." If I were not of a very versatile disposition I would be disposed to say to the House that it is not my child but Deputy de Valera's that I am presenting to the House for sacrifice, but I am going to stand over it. It is proposed in this measure to reduce the age for membership of the Seanad from thirty-five to thirty years.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT No. 8) BILL, 1928.—FIRST STAGE.
In opposing the first reading of this Bill—the Constitution (Amendment No. 8) Bill, 1928, which is a Bill entitled "An Act to amend the Constitution by altering the age of eligibility for membership of Seanad Eireann"—I would like, A Chinn Comhairle, to draw your attention to Standing Order No. 82. While the right of the proposer of a Bill under that Standing Order is strictly limited to an explanatory statement, on the other hand, a Deputy who opposes the Bill has a much greater liberty. The rélevant words of the Standing Order, as I see them, are: "If such motion be opposed, the Ceann Comhairle, after permitting an explanatory statement from the Deputy who moves, and a statement from a Deputy"—it may be explanatory, contradictory, or otherwise—"who opposes the motion, may, if he thinks fit, put the question thereon." It would seem to me, as I said before, that under that Standing Order the Deputy who opposes the motion that the Bill be read a First Time is at liberty to address himself to any particular aspect of the motion which appeals to him, to discuss the general principle as to whether the introduction of a measure of that kind at this stage is advisable, and then, if necessary, to discuss the particular principle contained in the measure.
Is the Deputy putting that as a point of order?
Yes, I put that for the moment.
The use of the word "statement" in this Standing Order appears to me clearly to indicate that on a motion for leave to introduce a Bill a wide debate upon the merits of the proposal which may be contained in the Bill is not to be allowed, but that there are to be at least two statements, one from the proposer of the Bill and the other from a Deputy opposing the motion. The word "statement" is used advisedly in the Standing Order, and has always been construed to preclude a general debate. The concluding words of the sentence of the Standing Order are: "If such motion be opposed, the Ceann Comhairle, after permitting an explanatory statement from the Deputy who moves, and a statement from a Deputy who opposes the motion, may, if he thinks fit, put the question thereon." The Ceann Comhairle is, by the Standing Order, I think, coerced into allowing a statement from the mover of the motion, and a statement—and there I think it is restrictive in itself—from a Deputy opposing the motion, and then he has a discretion to put the question immediately, without any further statement. This evening I have exercised my discretion to allow more than one statement in each case, but in reply to Deputy MacEntee's point of order, the Chair is prepared to construe the word "statement" as being restrictive and as not allowing a debate.
It would seem to me that the omission of the word "explanatory" in the second case means that the statement which the opposer of the motion may make may be a very general statement.
I am not prepared to construe the Standing Order in such a way as to put one Deputy in a better position than another Deputy, which is what Deputy MacEntee is asking me to do. He is asking me to construe the Standing Order in such a way that the Deputy who moves for leave to introduce a Bill would be restricted, but that the Deputy who opposes the motion would not be restricted. The Chair does not accept that particular view of the Standing Order.
I submit that the Standing Order does, in fact, do a certain thing, that it limits one man definitely, within restricted and segregatory limits, and apparently deliberately avoids limiting another within these limits, and we must assume that the intentions of those who framed that Standing Order was to do precisely what they did.
The position is that this is a Standing Order, and the Ceann Comhairle is the person to construe the Standing Order. He has construed it.
I submit that you are not entitled to construe it in opposition to the clear and explicit sense of the Standing Order. A statement may mean a speech, a long speech, a speech extending over hours. There is no limit as to time in regard to a statement, nor is there any limit in matter in regard to a statement. I feel that the ruling which you gave in the case of the preceding amendment is one which may have very serious consequences in so far as it sets up a precedent here.
The precedent has already been set up. The position about the Standing Orders is that they are construed by the Ceann Comhairle. The point Deputy MacEntee makes is this: that because the Chair does not accept his view of the meaning of a particular Standing Order——
Oh, no.
These Standing Orders are here, and the Ceann Comhairle, or the occupant of the Chair, whoever he may be, is here to construe the Standing Orders. Necessarily from time to time the Chair is bound to disagree with the view put forward by a Deputy as to what a particular Standing Order means. In this particular instance the Standing Order is construed in the way it has been previously construed, and which seems to the Chair to be its only meaning. The Ceann Comhairle is the sole judge of order.
Very well, I accept your ruling. The point now is the wisdom of permitting a Bill of this description to be read a First Time. In connection with that I should direct Deputies' attention to the number of Constitutional changes which have taken place, their great rapidity, and, I am sorry to say, altogether in the interests of one particular Party, within the last four or five years. The Constitution in a normal State is the fundamental Statute which regulates the relations between the Government and the citizens. Quite obviously it is not a Statute which should be lightly or frequently changed. In this particular instance I would suggest that the Government should deal very charily with the Constitution. Their past record forbids them changing it. They fought a war to maintain it. There were considerable sacrifices made to secure a change in the Constitution on the one hand, and to maintain it unchanged, on the other hand——
The Deputy must deal with this particular Bill. I recognise his difficulty.
I am dealing with the general principle first.
The general principle does not arise in any of these Bills.
I agree that, possibly, I am restricted, but the point I would like the House to consider in dealing with this particular Bill is this: that the Constitution under President Cosgrave's manipulation of it has assumed more of the form of a kaleidescope than a Constitution. From day to day the pattern changes, and now we are going to have a new pattern. This House, which formerly was urged to choose Senators upon grounds of personal merit and special qualification, is going to be forced to choose between the principles of senility and puerility as a qualification for election. The particular form in which the Seanad was to be constituted and the particular age of Senators was, I submit, not one lightly decided on.
What about your leader now?
For months a Constitutional Committee sat on this matter and agreed that a certain age limit should be laid down. I presume that in fixing that age limit they balanced, on the one hand the impetuosity of youth, and on the other hand the experience of age, and they decided that this was a happy mean. That, of course, was the attitude of the Party on the Government side of the House. Our attitude is quite a different one. We do not wish the Seanad to be there. We are quite prepared to take off the break that age imposes on legislators and to let a Seanad of juveniles, if you like, rush to destruction. I am appealing not to members on this side, whose opposition to the Seanad is well known and whose desire, if you like, is to destroy it; I am appealing to the members of the Government side of the House, who desire to maintain the Seanad, and I ask them: Is it right to support the First Reading of a Bill which proposes by reducing the age limit for the Seanad, to make it, as I said before, less an object of reverence, wonder, and esteem, less an assembly of reverend grey-beards on the one hand, and more an assembly of schoolboys on the other hand? As I said, let us remember that this particular clause in the Constitution is one of the few important clauses in it which, up to this, the Government have refrained from altering or amending. This important clause in the Constitution was inserted after a Constitutional Committee, composed, I believe, of some of the most able and astute intellects at the disposal of the Provisional Government of that day, framed it in order to provide certain safeguards for this State. It is well known that the late President Griffith and the late General Michael Collins took a keen interest in the work of that Constitutional Committee. I believe that every line in the Constitution was considered and revised by them, and I think it is a very ill-advised thing that those who espoused and followed the policy of Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins should at this day, without any real justification, come along and propose now to tear up their handiwork. I cannot see what good purpose is going to be served by introducing an amendment of this sort. The President refers me to Deputy de Valera. Well, as I said before, our attitude towards the Seanad is not a friendly one. We are not at all disposed to alter or amend it, because we do not believe that it can be altered or amended to the abiding advantage of this people. Every attempt to alter or amend the Constitution of the Seanad—not by any of the amendments on the Order Paper—but particularly any attempt to extend its powers, or in any way to make it a more active agent in the Government of this country, will be opposed, and should be opposed by us. I do not propose to detain the House very much longer. I do not see that it is a fair thing that we should be asked to make this alteration.
I may draw the President's attention to the fact that this is a Bill entitled "An Act to amend the Constitution," by altering the age of eligibility for membership of Seanad Eireann. On the other hand that may possibly mean that the President in view of his known antipathy to any suggestions which emanated from this side of the House, may be possibly disposed to increase the age.
No. I can give the Deputy that assurance.
It may be of course, that he may have a more subtle method of securing more or less the same object, which I believe is virtually to destroy the Constitution. I think he might have a more subtle way of doing it and that is by reducing the age limit for the Seanad down beyond, if you like, the legal majority. I feel, of course, that he could possibly do that without very good grounds but, up to this the Seanad has not performed any very useful function in this country. I think the original purpose of it was to act as a revisory body in ensuring that in all political matters which interfered particularly, I should say, with the liberty of the subject, or with the rights of citizens, it would hold up legislation and by use of the power conferred upon it by Article 47 of the Constitution secure——
Have we not gone further than the meaning of what is in the Standing Order?
What is your interpretation of that?
My interpretation is this——
The Deputy is not called upon to interpret the Standing Order, but I agree with him that Deputy MacEntee has travelled away from the age limit for the moment.
I will come back to it. I was going to say that from our point of view I suppose the question of the age limit might be described as not being of any great importance in view of the fact—I am trying to discuss this with the utmost relevance to the age limit——
Hear, hear.
——that up to the present, at any rate, the Seanad has lamentably failed to discharge the functions entrusted to it by the Constitution. There were certain occasions when by exercising rights under Article 47 it could have secured a referendum of the people upon certain contentious matters. It was, I submit, of very great importance that it should exercise those powers in view of the fact that a considerable proportion of people were not represented in this Chamber when those particular legislative measures were going through.
I take it the Deputy has finished his statement on this particular Bill?
I agree in saying that it is not of very great importance what the age limit should be. But I object to President Cosgrave saddling the full responsibility, if you like, for a change in the age limit——
Only for the child. I am prepared to stand over it, and no more.
Of course I know the President is prepared to stand over it. We remember that the President, on a previous occasion, expressed with great emphasis his disregard for antique furniture——
And I also admire it.
—and his antipathy to the antiques who at present constitute or furnish the Seanad Chamber, and he now desires to get rid of them and to replace them instead by shoddy furniture of a new and modern type. I submit to him that that is an ill-advised thing to do, for up to this the antique furniture has been his principal support in the seats of the mighty. The Presidential armchair in which he reposes stands upon the four legs of the Chamber of Commerce in Dublin.
I do not find the Chamber of Commerce here either.
You will find it in the Seanad.
The Deputy, I think, has really concluded his statement.
Except that he will not admit it.
Does the President desire to make a statement?
No.
took the Chair.
Question—"That leave be given to introduce this Bill"—put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 40.
Tá
- William P. Aird.
- Ernest Henry Alton.
- Richard Anthony.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Bourke.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Edmund Carey.
- James Coburn.
- John James Cole.
- Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Martin Conlon.
- Michael P. Connolly.
- Bryan Ricco Cooper.
- Richard Corish.
- William T. Cosgrave.
- Sir James Craig.
- John Daly.
- Michael Davis.
- Peter de Loughrey.
- Eugene Doherty.
- James N. Dolan.
- Peadar Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- Barry M. Egan.
- Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- John Good.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- John J. Hassett.
- 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.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- Joseph Xavier Murphy.
- Martin Michael Nally.
- John Thomas Nolan.
- Thomas J. O'Connell.
- Bartholomew O'Connor.
- Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
- Daniel O'Leary.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Gearoid O'Sullivan.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- William Archer Redmond.
- Vincent Rice.
- Martin Roddy.
- Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
- William Edward Thrift.
- Michael Tierney.
- Vincent Joseph White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Frank Aiken.
- Denis Allen.
- Gerald Boland.
- Patrick Boland.
- Daniel Bourke.
- Seán Brady.
- Robert Briscoe.
- Daniel Buckley.
- Eamon Cooney.
- Dan Corkery.
- Martin John Corry.
- Thomas Derrig.
- Eamon de Valera.
- Frank Fahy.
- Hugo Flinn.
- Andrew Fogarty.
- Seán French.
- Samuel Holt.
- Patrick Houlihan.
- Michael Joseph Kennedy.
- 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.
- Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
- Seán T. O'Kelly.
- Matthew O'Reilly.
- Thomas O'Reilly.
- James Ryan.
- Martin Sexton.
- Patrick Smith.
- Richard Walsh.
- Francis C. Ward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen. Motion declared carried.
Bill ordered for Second Reading for Thursday, 14th June.
resumed the Chair.