When I asked the President at the commencement of Public Business if it was intended to take this Bill with the other Constitution Amendment Bills this evening he said, what I believe to be true, that he was anxious to facilitate me in the matter. Am I correct?
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT No. 8) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE (RESUMED).
Debate resumed on amendment by Deputy Lemass to delete the word "now" and add at the end of the motion the words "this day twelve months."
Quite.
The President will note that I have an amendment to the effect that the Second Reading be postponed for 12 months. As the President seems to be anxious to facilitate me. I trust he will signify his agreement with the amendment and let the discussion terminate.
I shall not.
He will not facilitate me to that extent. I am prepared to come down and to amend it to six months.
I will facilitate the Deputy to this extent that I will agree to take the Committee Stage on October 10th.
As the President proposes to move the adjournment tonight I think it is very likely that he will be taking the Second Stage on October 10th. We are not half as anxious to facilitate the President as he is to facilitate us. We believe an important and serious measure of this kind should be carefully deliberated on and discussed before we vote on it.
It is a Bill which should be allowed to stand over until after the Recess, so that public opinion on it can be ascertained and so that the Deputies could come back after the Recess fully informed as to what their constituents think about it. I suggest to the President that it would be a wise and statesmanlike action to decide here and now to allow this Bill and the other Bills in their present stage to stand over until October 10th, and I am sure if it was in order that I should move a motion to that effect in this Dáil it would be carried almost unanimously. As, however, there seems to be little hope that the President will agree with that proposition we have to proceed with the discussion on the Bill.
As I was saying yesterday, the issues raised by this Bill are two—one, should there be an age limit in respect of Senators and, secondly, if there should be an age limit, what should that age limit be? When we talk of an age limit, of course we mean an age under which persons are not eligible for election. The existing law provides, as some Deputies are aware, that a person must be 35 or over to be eligible for election to the Seanad, and it is proposed by the Government to reduce that age from 35 to 30 years. Upon the Second Stage the President advanced one argument in favour of it. He said, as he had learned from Deputy Dr. Ryan, a member of this Party, that the average life of an individual in the Free State was 44 years, that to fix the age limit at 35 would be therefore unwise, as it would mean that the average Senator would expire before his term of office expired. Therefore, in order to ensure that those who are elected will, on the average, be able to give attention to their duties for the full period he considers it advisable to reduce the age to 30. That statement was made by Deputy Dr. Ryan yesterday, but the Bill was introduced several weeks ago and was probably drafted several weeks before that. Apparently the President, who is responsible for the drafting and introduction of the Bill, had no argument in favour of it until Deputy Dr. Ryan made a speech yesterday on another Bill, because he advanced no other argument on the Bill. He did not deal with either of the two points the Bill raises. Should there be an age limit, and if so, what? Let us take the question whether there should or should not be an age limit to the Seanad. We should ask ourselves, first, what are the advantages of having an age limit and, secondly, what are the disadvantages? I tried very hard between this and last evening to find arguments in favour of having an age limit for the Seanad. I have not succeeded yet. I mean an age limit under which a person is not eligible. It may be desirable that persons who have not yet reached the age of reason or persons who have passed it should be excluded from the Seanad, but I doubt very much if you are excluding such persons by this Bill, because even though it is impossible for a child under this Bill to be elected, persons in their second childhood are quite eligible. A number of the Front Bench members of the Government Party would be eligible beyond all shadow of doubt in consequence of that fact. Are we wise in fixing the age limit at 30?
Let us look over the history of this country; let us look over the history of the world and find whether any of the great acts that shine out in history and were performed by great men were actually performed by them while they were under or over the age of 30. I wonder what age was Napoleon when he invaded Italy; how old was he when he commenced his Egyptian campaign? How old was he when he won the Battle of the Pyramids? I think he was 28 or 29 years old. If he were alive now the Napoleon who won the Battle of the Pyramids would not be eligible for election to the Seanad: he would not be wanted there; he would be unfit to be a member of the Seanad.
I wonder at what age was Alexander when he commenced the conquest of the world. He was, if I remember correctly, a very young man, certainly in his twenties. It would be, perhaps. drawing too much on the imagination of Deputies to ask them to imagine Alexander going forward as a candidate for the Seanad, but if he did he would not be eligible. I wonder at what age did the President become a political economist.
That is prophecy.
I will just leave it at that, because it is a moot point. It might be contended that he has not become a political economist yet. But when you consider history and the great men who marched through its pages, we find a large number of them who would be ineligible for election to the Seanad if they were here now, at the very age when they were accomplishing the most historic deeds of their lives. Therefore, there seems to be a strong case against fixing the age limit at thirty, unless it is the intention of the Government definitely to exclude from the Seanad anybody who might be of any use, who might have ideas. and who might be anxious to do something. If that is their purpose, then we think the age limit should be fixed much higher than thirty. If they fixed the age limit at sixty, seventy or eighty and said only persons over that age would be eligible, they would be able to get a House constituted in accordance with their wishes. Of course, a number of the Senators they selected might not last for the entire period of their office. But we can remember that there has been a number of individuals in history who lived much older than eighty or seventy years. If Methuselah came forward at this stage for election to the Seanad he might be elected several hundred times, running for periods of nine years. If we were to fix an age limit a little higher, say at seventy, we would have a very reliable sort of Second Chamber. We could rely upon them not to do anything rash, we could rely on them to do nothing in a hurry, we could rely on them to take a long time to consider any Bills that came before them. But I certainly think, when we face this difficulty as to whether we should or should not fix an age limit, we realise that a very strong case can be made out for having no age limit at all. Could we fix the age limit the other way? Could we cut down, could we say that those under thirty would be eligible for election to the Seanad? Would not that be a wise precaution? It would involve, of course, the resignation of a number of existing Senators and would, perhaps. destroy the last political hopes of a number of those people who are annoying us in the lobbies these days. But at the same time we have got to consider this question from the point of view of general principle and not temporary expediency.
I have come to the conclusion that the Government Party definitely regard the Seanad as a place into which they can put members of their Party who failed to secure election to the Dáil, and who have become disgruntled in consequence, because we know a number of candidates were induced to go forward at recent elections upon the strength of promises which the Government were not able, or certainly did not try, to fufil in some cases. Some of those candidates did not get elected and, having taken the serious course now of definitely committing themselves to Cumann na nGaedheal, it is up to the Government to provide for them otherwise and, consequently, this anxiety to preserve the Seanad and to alter the methods of election so that the Government will be independent of the people and will be able to put in there any persons whom they select for the purpose. You see, you can never rely on the people doing exactly what you want them to do, or what you expect them to do. Occasionally they get an idea.
The Deputy's experiences are interesting.
Let us get away from the people now and come back to the age limit.
A very undemocratic question.
In any case, the question we have got to ask ourselves is— would it not be better if this Bill were withdrawn now and another Bill introduced abolishing the Article of the Constitution which fixes the age limit altogether, and allow any person who can pull the wires sufficiently to get elected, irrespective of whether he is old enough or young enough. After all, when there is a limited number of Senators to be elected and when it is necessary, in the first place, to get the approval of the Party committees and, secondly, the approval of the majority of the Dáil and Seanad, only those who are the fittest to survive will survive. Only those who are qualified, in the narrow sense of the word, will be elected. By qualified I mean qualified to exercise the necessary influence to ensure getting a majority vote. We have found, I think, in the past that that type of person does not necessarily make the best legislator; but, after all, we do not expect good legislation from the Seanad. We intend them to act in accordance with the wishes of the Government. If they do not do that, no doubt the Government will introduce another series of Bills getting rid of them or altering their constitution. But seeing that we are going to have a Seanad that will be docile, in any case a Seanad the vast majority of whom will be quite prepared to back the Government in any circumstances, I do not think that any useful purpose will be served by passing this Bill. I do not say that any useful purpose will be served by rejecting it. It does not make much difference whether the age limit should be 30 or 35, or whether there should be any age limit. We may propose to introduce a qualifying examination to ensure, at least, that they have passed the first stage in education, so that we could know definitely that they were able to read and write, because that would be an important qualification for Senators. If we were satisfied that they could read and write, I think we could rely on them to carry out the rest of their work very efficiently, which merely consists of doing everything the Government tells them to do. They do not even have to make speeches, or at least they seldom make speeches. If there are one or two individuals who are capable of talking, and if the remainder are able to read the title of a Bill and know what way to vote, then the Seanad is constituted as we would like to see it constituted.
Taking all this into consideration, I ask the Government Party to consider this Bill seriously, and the Government to consider whether it would not be advisable to do as I have suggested, namely, to withdraw the Bill and to re-introduce it on the 10th October, of course in a manner that would provide for the abolition of the age limit altogether. If, however, the Government is determined to fix some age limit, I think they should seriously consider the proposal contained here and get one more suited to the situation. Yesterday, I suggested that persons between the ages of six and sixty should be declared ineligible, and that only those under six and over sixty should be allowed to go forward. I have considered that matter over night; and now think that we might put the figures higher—under ten and over a hundred. We would then be sure of having some people of intelligence in the Seanad, because a schoolboy aged nine or ten would know as much about the political constitution of this State as the average Senator does. He would certainly be old enough to be able to read the "Irish Times" to find out all about these matters. If the President does not consider that suggestion feasible, I think he will find that the next best alternative would be to abolish the age limit altogether. The proposal contained in this Bill is indicative of the fact that the Government did not consider the matter before they introduced it. Apparently they just said that there should be an age limit. "We had one before and we might as well have one again." The Committee seemed to think the same, and consequently the proposal was handed over to the draftsman and the Bill was introduced. The Bill was presented to this House without a single argument being advanced in support of it, until Deputies on this side supplied members on the opposite side with arguments. The Government immediately availed of the arguments that we put forward, and spoke against them, in order to pretend that they were a responsible Government. The Bill, of course, will be passed.
Attention called to the fact that a quorum was not present. Count ordered. and a quorum being present.
One thing, at all events, of which I am convinced is this: that the fate of this Bill is not going seriously to affect the future of this country. I was not always of that opinion, but I am now. I have had an opportunity of tapping public opinion concerning this. I find that 95 per cent. of the people do not know that such a Bill is before the Dáil at all, and the remaining 5 per cent. do not care whether it is or not. They do not seem to worry whether Senators are over thirty-five or over sixty-five. I found no one concerned with the fact that there was a Seanad in existence at all. It is easy, therefore, to understand the indifference with which members of the Dáil take this Bill, in view of the fact that the people are not concerned about it. Deputies know that no matter how they vote in connection with this Bill it will not affect one single vote in their constituencies. Perhaps some of the wild and reckless members of Cumann na nGaedheal might decide, when this Bill goes to a vote, actually to go into the lobbies against it. They would thereby get to know what it feels like to vote against the Government. I can tell them that it is rather an exhilarating experience—the fact that they know that the fate of the nation is hanging on this. As they come down the stairs from the Lobby waiting to see the Tellers report the result of the count, they can say to themselves: "I wonder did my vote do it," and it might have done it.
It might not.
As Deputy O'Sullivan wisely remarks, it might not. At any rate they could enjoy the experience in regard to a Bill of this kind because the Bill does not matter a cent. It makes very little difference whether it is passed or not. It is possible, of course, that the President or some member of the Government has some particular candidate for the Seanad in mind whom he is anxious to facilitate, and that that is the only reason why the Bill is introduced. Personally no one who appeared to be under the age of fifty approached me canvassing me for my vote. They all appeared to be over that age, and some of them seemed to be beyond the years in which one would expect they would take any interest in politics at all. Recently we had a discussion here about the evils of canvassing. We are getting a very practical demonstration of that these days. Whether it is an evil or not it is certainly a nuisance. Perhaps I might take this opportunity of making myself immune by announcing that I will not vote for anyone who canvasses me.
You would only consider panels of three.
That is so. As a matter of fact, I think that the number of votes that this Party would have in the election would be sufficient to enable us to consider panels of five or six, but we will say not less than three, to be on the safe side. I will not be canvassed by these, I can promise you that. But to come back to the Bill——
Hear, hear.
Take it away with you on your holidays.
I may say, in reply to Deputy Sheehy, that I made that very suggestion in my opening remarks, that this Bill should be adjourned over the Recess so that public opinion concerning it, which does not exist, might be formed, and so that Deputies might come back to the House with fresher minds to examine it and with knowledge as to what their constituents think about it.
Mr. SHEEHY
I have great pleasure now in suggesting that you should take it with you on your holidays and that you should take a journey through the Saorstát. If you do that you will realise how the people view your conduct here for the last fortnight.
I wonder what objection could be taken to our conduct in respect to this Bill. Do Deputies think that a Bill of this kind should be passed through the Dáil without discussion? The Bill was simply proposed for Second Reading, and I am the only Deputy so far who has spoken on it.
I have.
Except by way of interruption. The President, of course, made some interjections. If Deputies are of opinion that a Bill to amend the Constitution, that sacred document of which we cannot alter a single word or comma, should be passed through the Dáil without discussion just because some members want their holidays, then of course that gives us an entirely new outlook upon things. It is our view that any Bill should be adequately discussed before it is passed. I think that a Bill to amend the Constitution might safely be postponed for a considerable period, so that Deputies would have an opportunity of reading up all the authorities on the matter, and so that they could discuss the question with their minds fully informed.
I wonder if any of the Deputies opposite who have studied the authorities on this matter could tell us if there is an age limit in the United States, or in France, or in any other State in which there is a Second Chamber, and what has been the experience of these countries? If there is a case to be made in respect of this Bill it should be made in relation to the experience of mankind on this matter, but apparently there is not. Deputies did not know what the Bill is about until I told them, even though it only consists of six lines, and yet they expect it to go through without advancing arguments against it. If arguments occur to us in favour of the Bill we will support it, and if the balance of the arguments in its favour is greater than those against it we will support it, but in view of its unimportant nature we find it difficult to get arguments either for or against it. If information were supplied to us, perhaps in view of the fact that our minds are open upon this question, the President or some member of the Government would find it possible to get unanimity concerning the Bill if a case were put forward for it.
Surely they must have some case for it. It must have come before a meeting of the Cumann na nGaedheal, or a Cabinet meeting and have been decided upon, and if decided upon somebody must have said why. They may have said: "We may as well have this Bill. What harm will it do?" If that is so let us know. If they have no case in support of it why did they introduce it? We are anxious not to waste the time of the Dáil for we understand there are more important Bills on the Order Paper. The other five Constitution Amendment Bills the Government hope to pass to-night are of a much more serious nature than this one, and will, I trust, be discussed at greater length. It may be the Government will have some arguments in support of this, and that they will give them. This Bill is not important and it does not matter whether it passes or not. If it is possible to secure the withdrawal of the Bill in order to give the Government the opportunity of considering whether there should be an age limit, we will facilitate them. If we are to have an age limit it does not matter whether it is thirty or thirty-five. I am speaking to my amendment to the Bill, which proposes that this Bill should be postponed for twelve months. I think in view of the fact that this Bill is by no means urgent an amendment of that kind could be usefully supported by Deputies. There will be an election within twelve months for one-third of the Seanad, but it does not matter whether the age limit is thirty or thirty-five, for, as far as I can see, they are all centenarians who are going forward. There are also other amendments to the Bill. They have not been moved and I understand they are all being taken together. There is one by Deputy MacEntee. It is that:—
The Bill be not further considered as it is the opinion of the Dáil that there should be no change in the age of eligibility for membership of Seanad Eireann until a Special Committee of eleven (11) members of the Dáil, to be selected by the Selection Committee, has inquired into and reported on the amendment of the Constitution as a whole.
We have already stated that in our view it is unwise to treat such a document as the Constitution as the Government have treated it.
The Deputy was told yesterday that amendments 2 and 3 were out of order.
I do not think that was definitely stated.
Yes. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle so ruled.
Did you not rule that amendment number 1 to which Deputy Lemass is speaking was out of order— that it was tantamount to a direct negative to the Bill?
No, I said it was a form which enabled the Deputy to move the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading—that it would enable Deputy Lemass, in spite of his protestations, to discuss the Bill as well as the amendment at the moment. The other amendments were ruled out of order by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Does the Ceann Comhairle think that my arguments now should be confined to the amendment?
I think they should be concluded.
If the Ceann Comhairle thinks that my arguments should be confined to the amendment I am prepared to do so.
The Ceann Comhairle is of opinion that the Deputy has been discussing the Bill and the amendment, which is the usual practice on that kind of amendment.
As the only amendment which appears to be in order is the one standing in my name I would strongly advise Deputies to support it. It is possible the Government may consider this Bill necessary for the immediate preservation of peace, order and stability in the Free State. A Bill of a similar nature was introduced here, and it was declared by a majority of the House to be immediately necessary for the preservation of peace and order in the Free State. Perhaps the Government may think the same regarding this Bill, and in that case I would be glad if they said so. There may be a revolution in several parts of the country at the proposal to reduce the age limit for Senators from thirty-five to thirty, but I cannot think of any district that would be seriously concerned about it. If it be not immediately necessary for the preservation of peace and order, or if it be not immediately necessary for any other reason, the amendment to postpone it for twelve months should be accepted. I trust the amendment will receive the support of Deputies of all Parties in the House.
I presume as Deputy Lemass discussed the age limit for a long time I can say something about it?
Certainly.
Mr. MURPHY
I am not in favour of reducing the age limit from thirty-five to thirty, but as I understand it was recommended by the Joint Committee, I leave it at that. We are leading the country to believe that the Seanad is to be a staid, sober body, and to be a check in a way on an exuberant and irresponsible Dáil. For that purpose I think that people of thirty-five have more mature judgment than people of thirty. I wish the Government would do something at the other end. As far as I can see, there is no reason why a centenarian cannot be elected to the Seanad. I think when we are going next November to put 19 or 20 people into salaried positions the Government might consider whether they should not have an age limit. I do not want to treat the matter with levity, but I think no one should be put forward for the Seanad after the age of seventy, or should be allowed to remain in the Seanad after the age of seventy-five. I do not know if the Government has considered that, but it is a sensible suggestion. When we are electing people to the Seanad it should be ensured that they would give some return in service. It is possible for a person to be elected next November and to get £360 a year for nine years, and put in no appearance at the Seanad.
He could do that at thirty-five or thirty, or at any age. I do not think the Deputy's remarks are relevant.
Might I point out that Plato learned Greek at the age of eighty?
So the books tell us, but I have my doubts.
I rise to support Deputy Lemass's amendment. Deputy Murphy said that he was not anxious to proceed with a certain amount of jocularity, and I am anxious also to be accepted as wishing to treat the subject with reasonable seriousness. For the last few days I was very much interested in the Dentists Bill, and the one thing that was outstanding in that Bill, the one thing that the Minister for Industry and Commerce hammered away at, was that to be eligible for the examination men must have attained 28 years of age, subsequently increased to 31, with certain other qualifications, one of them being a certain number of years of service in that profession. Here we have a body of legislators who are getting extra powers under other Bills that are going through the House, and instead of increasing their age qualification we are setting out to reduce it. We are giving them extra powers and then we are making it possible to put those powers into the hands of younger men. I believe if we are to have a Seanad at all, and if we are to try to make that Seanad suitable for the purposes that some people think it should perform—as a cooling chamber for hasty legislation, and for sending to this House new ideas with regard to Bills, an instance of which we had today—I think we should only expect to get that properly from men who would be above, on the average, the age that is proposed in this Bill, under which we would have Senators of from 30 to 40 years, because they would grow older after they are elected. I believe some reason should be given as to why the age should be 30. This House might be better if some of its members were older—I say that quite seriously—but unfortunate circumstances in this country have brought about a situation in which young men have had to take on their shoulders responsibilities that older men could not take. That is the reason why we have men here younger than are ordinarily found in other Parliaments.
I maintain that the Government should give us one reason as to why they want this change from 35 to 30 years, and if they are going to change at all, why they should specify 30 years. In every walk of life you will find certain age limits set for certain responsibilities, and if the Seanad is going to be all that the President suggested it will be after this change is brought about. I believe that that would be more likely if the Senators were not under a certain age. If there is to be a change at all, it should be upwards rather than downwards. I will go this far: I say that if a reason was put forward for this change, a reason that they could stand over, the opposition on this side might be withdrawn. This is not a matter that could properly be described as one of political contention; it is a matter of common sense. Give us a reason and we might consider it. But you are putting through a Bill without giving us any reason for it at all.
I believe that the age limit of thirty-five was really fixed because you could not ordinarily find people under that age who would have lived long enough to give the services to the State which would entitle them to be elected. We now have abolished election and we are practically coming down to selection, and still we try to pretend that only persons who have rendered service to the State will be put into that body. Yet we are reducing the age. I believe that if you want to get a proper body of men they should certainly be over thirty-five years of age on the average. I invite the President or the Minister for Local Government to say what the reason for this change is. If they were to do so they might save a great deal of time and get the Second Reading passed. If they would give us a reason we would be able to consider it in some light. At present I oppose this Bill because I believe that Senators would not be properly qualified if you bring the age limit down to thirty years, keeping in mind the type of body that the Seanad is supposed to be. You have had the same request already from Deputy Lemass. Who has invited you to put before the House reasons as to why you consider there is any necessity for altering the Constitution in this way, and I would seriously ask the Minister for Local Government, if the President does not wish to do so, to give us some reason for this proposed change in the age.
The only argument in support of this Bill which I gathered from the President—apart from the argument which he picked up in passing from Deputy Ryan—which he considered in any way important was that Deputy de Valera had suggested an age limit of thirty in the Committee.
Had moved it and had voted for it.
Well, there is a thing called a monkey gland, which you will have heard of. It is a very valuable and a very useful thing. But supposing you apply it to the wrong person? Supposing you apply it to somebody who is a public nuisance instead of to somebody who would be of great utility, what is your attitude on the question? Monkey gland in your case is being applied to the wrong person. It would be an excellent thing if the Seanad were a valuable body. Then if it were a question of reducing the age limit it would be all right. But it is not the Seanad which we envisage; it is not the Seanad which Deputy de Valera envisages. This is simply giving greater vitality to what we consider is a burden on the State. I am speaking seriously, because it is a burden on the State.
You are not. You do not mean to say that a man going on to seventy-three, as I am, needs monkey glands?
Some fellows never have a gland.
Mr. T. SHEEHY
Never in their lives. I could not listen to him. I had a father who was able to conduct his business at 94 years of age. I am, at seventy-two and a half years, in the Dáil, and I venture to say that neither behind Deputy Little nor Deputy Lemass am I in intellect, in common sense, or in prudence as far as public matters are concerned. I could not have the patience to listen to that.
I quite agree with my friend, but he is arguing in the other direction. He is arguing upwards towards 90, but I am arguing towards 30. In fact he is with me. It is true that men like Gladstone were up to 80 or 90 years of age in complete command of their faculties. If the Seanad were a serious Seanad I would put that as an argument in answer to Deputy Sheehy. But dealing with the matter in a serious way, take the contrast that occurred yesterday. In the debate one of the matters that arose dealt with the question of pensions for teachers. Some ex-teachers are living on £50 a year after giving their whole life's service to one of the greatest professions to which one could devote one's life. Yet there they are, paupers in this State. Is it not a terrible shame to think that there are rich men in the Seanad getting £360 a year added to what they have already?
But not getting it in respect of their age and of this Bill. The Deputy cannot discuss in this Bill the rich men in the Seanad.
The opposition we are putting to the age limit depends on several other things. If the Seanad were a proper and an efficient body, which added to and did not impede the march of the nation, then we would be in favour of reducing the age limit to 30 and perhaps lower. It is conceivable that even younger men would have given such service as would make them suitable persons to be members of such a Seanad. But it is not on that aspect that we oppose this Bill. When dealing with the age limit one is entitled to contrast the remuneration of that body and the remuneration and work done by teachers and what they get in return. In any case, I have sufficiently indicated my attitude of mind, and I am not particularly anxious, if I can avoid it, to go outside the ruling of the Speaker in that matter.
Mr. SHEEHY
I am sorry that you insulted old age. You ought to be hoping that you will live long yourself without a gland.
He never had a gland.
Perhaps we will be quite willing to present Deputy Sheehy with a gland.
Mr. SHEEHY
I will do without it.
Here we are legislating to give doles to men of 30 years of age. If you pass this Bill it will be possible to give doles of £360 a years to men of 30 years of age and upwards who need never attend the Seanad, who may have other sources of revenue, who need not do a day's work for the country, but who may continue to draw £360 yearly for nine years. That shows what a complete farce this thing is from the social point of view. The cynicism of it! Here we are doing a thing with laughter, doing it indifferently, while there are people who have given real service to the country starving. Really I am surprised that men already in the Seanad are not ashamed of themselves. I am sorry for those who are in the Seanad who are persons that one has respect for, because a Seanad might have been a very useful body, and so far as a few of the members are concerned they do the best they can. We had an example of it on an amendment made to-day in another Bill.
The Deputy cannot discuss the utility of the Seanad on this Bill. Surely that is outside the Bill. He must discuss the question of the age limit. It is possible to do it, and it has been done already.
We must admit that a considerable amount of history has been already covered in discussing this Bill.
I agree.
We have discussed whether Napoleon, if he were alive now, could be a member of the Seanad. Of course he could, as he would be about 150 years old now. My contention is that by reducing the age limit you are accentuating the evil. Perhaps, on the whole, it is better that the evil should be accentuated. Perhaps, on the whole, it is the best thing that could be done, because the country is realising more and more what a farce the whole Seanad is. They are really realising that they are feeling the pinch of taxation themselves, and they are very angry that this farce should be imposed on them. As this Bill is increasing that evil, perhaps, on the whole, instead of opposing this, it is just as well we should allow the evil to come to a head.
I have been making representations to the President that, if a vote were taken on this Bill now, he should not proceed with the other Bills. I do not know whether the House will be glad or sorry to hear that he has agreed to that. In view of that, I would now ask that the question be put, and let us get away.
I would be quite willing to accept the flag of truce, but I would like to hear the President's reply.
I would like the Deputy to consult a penny catechism, as in my recollection it says: "Every idle word that man shall speak he shall render an account for on the day of judgment." I must say that I am glad that I have not to account for as many idle words as the Deputies opposite.
You have to account for the Bill. We will render our account.
Question: "That the word ‘now' in the motion stand," put and declared carried.
Main question put and declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for October 10th.
Will the President inform the House if there will be an all-night sitting on October 10th, seeing that so many Bills are postponed until that date?
All the other items on the Order Paper are postponed until October 10th.