I beg to move: "That the Dáil agrees with the recommendation made in the Third Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges regarding sittings of the Dáil on holidays of obligation." That motion was put down at the request of Deputies opposite in order to afford them an opportunity for a discussion on the Report of the Committee. My ideas on the subject are just the same as when the matter was under consideration by the Committee.
Dáil Sittings on Holidays of Obligation.
I do not know in what manner a decision will be taken on this Report. Perhaps a vote for or against the adoption of the recommendation of the Committee would be the best way of dealing with it. I speak for those who do not accept the recommendation of the Committee. The Committee met on the 11th October last. The Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges sets out that this matter was taken into consideration arising out of some references to it that were made in the House on a couple of occasions last year. The decision of the Committee is that a motion in assertion of the general principle that the Dáil should not in future sit on any holiday of obligation was negatived on a division of the Committee. Accordingly the Committee recommends that the practice heretofore followed should not be departed from. The practice in regard to what are known by Catholics as holidays of obligation—Catholic Church holidays—has been not to interfere with the ordinary routine sittings of this House except in the case of St. Patrick's Day when it occurs in the middle of the week. There are Deputies in this House who are of the opinion that the Dáil should not sit on what are known as Catholic Church holidays of obligation.
I do not know if this matter was taken into consideration when the House was first organised. Probably it was not, and there was no serious consideration given to the matter. The practice grew, and the House sat regularly on such holidays. I and some others think that there should be no sittings on Church holidays. I do not desire to raise what would seem to be a sectarian or purely religious matter; but we cannot avoid it in this case. Some people are strongly of the opinion that it is not wise or proper that the House should sit on Catholic Church holidays. The holidays that we know as bank holidays—who invented them or arranged them I do not know—grew up, I suppose, gradually and developed in England. Their history might be interesting to those who care to study them, but they do not seem to have much serious application to the conditions in Ireland. There is no special reason why the first Monday in August should be a bank holiday, or why bank holidays as such should play such a serious part in the social life of the country.
No doubt holidays are agreeable to everybody, and no question of sectarianism or anything of that kind arises so far as they are concerned. In considering the social life of Ireland, in my opinion, public holidays, recognised as such, ought to have some relation to the social life of the people. Of course, our social life here has been, for historic reasons, based on the practice that has ruled in England. We cannot get over the fact that our life has been ruled and regulated in accordance with ideas that were not native to this country and were not inspired by the traditions of the people here. The change that has taken place here in recent years in public affairs—governmental affairs —is such that the holidays ought to have some relation to them, and if we are going to mark that change some effort ought to be made to correlate the public festivals with the social life of the country.
Bank holidays at the present time are not observed in the country; they are not generally observed in the agricultural areas. This, of course, is mainly an agricultural country, and workmen do their ordinary work and give their ordinary hours of labour on these bank holidays. Both the workmen and the farmers work on bank holidays. There is a cleavage between the main body of the public in Ireland and a certain section of the business community in this matter. There are towns in Ireland where the banks, and, following their example, certain business houses, are closed, to the inconvenience of many, while outside these places the ordinary work of the country goes on. If the holidays are to have any meaning at all, in my opinion, they ought to be selected and arranged so that the whole community should be able to enjoy them. That is not the rule at present.
In discussing this matter with people here in Dublin I have heard some shopkeepers say that they would not approve of the Church holidays being made obligatory so far as business is concerned. I have heard it stated that the Catholic Church holidays are recognised by the business men in Dublin as being particularly useful days for them. Many people come from the country and do business on these holidays because the holidays are not observed in the City of Dublin. That is an argument against my own idea, if you like, but, even so, the holidays as such, if they are to have any meaning at all, should be selected with an eye upon the history of the country, or, at least, the social history of the country. It is with a view to giving a lead in that direction that I move that the House does not agree with the decision of the Committee. I do not know, if that were carried, that it would exactly achieve the purpose I have in mind—that the House should not sit on holidays of obligation, Catholic holidays. But if the House, by expressing its opinion on this matter, agrees with the point of view that I have, then I suppose we could arrange that the matter would be further discussed, perhaps, by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, or perhaps by a Special Committee, which would be set up to deal with the matter.
Anyhow, I am strongly of opinion that the time has arrived when this matter should be investigated by a body that would take into consideration the history of our country and the social conditions here. Any holidays that are to be recognised as public holidays in future should have some relation to the views of the majority of the people in the country. At present, in my opinion, with the exception of St. Patrick's Day and Easter Monday (which is accepted very generally) the other holidays do not coincide with what I regard as Irish ideals. This matter will arise in a particular way in the month of May. There will be two Catholic Church holidays in that month, one on the 9th and one on the 30th. Both of them will fall on a Thursday. That would, perhaps, make matters awkward for some people in this House. In view of that I think the suggestion of the Ceann Comhairle, that this matter should be discussed at an early date and not be brought into this House as it was last year, a few days before such Catholic holidays would arrive, is a wise one. There should be a discussion upon it in good time so that a decision could be reached, giving due notice to everybody concerned if a change is to be made. I suppose it is not necessary to move an amendment, but I am strongly of opinion that the House ought not to adopt the view that Catholic Church holidays, so far as this House is officially concerned, are to be ignored. I might say, in passing, that it is my view, speaking from the Catholic point of view, that there has been too much ignoring of the fact that this is a Christian country, no matter what church we belong to. So far as this House is concerned officially, no notice whatsoever is taken of that fact.
I am told that that is not so altogether in the Seanad. This is, perhaps, somewhat irrelevant, but I think it is a matter which ought to be taken seriously into consideration. This House has ignored so far the existence of God, and I think that is not quite proper. In a Christian country one of the first things that a House like this should do would be in some way to recognise that the public acts of the House have, and are bound to have, serious reactions on the life of the people, socially, politically, even spiritually, and some reference to the existence of God, Who directs our minds, and from Whom we expect guidance and assistance, ought to be made by the House. However, that will probably arise on another occasion—I hope it will. On this special question of the Catholic holidays, I feel very strongly, and there are other Deputies who feel equally strongly, and I would urge the House not to accept the decision of the Committee as contained in the report.
Perhaps I should explain the effect of this motion. This matter was discussed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and, as Deputy O'Kelly has said, I suggested to the Committee that a decision should be taken before the Easter Recess, so that we would not be discussing the matter just before a holiday of obligation. It was the opinion of the Committee that, as the matter had been referred to the Committee, it should be discussed in the House in Government time, and the President agreed with that view. For that purpose, in order that Government time in the ordinary way would be given for it, the motion is moved by the Chief Whip of the Government in the form on the Paper—that is, in the form of agreement with the Committee's report. Should the motion be decided in the affirmative, then it means that the procedure heretofore followed in the House will continue. Should, however, this motion be negatived, I think that will be accepted as an expression on the part of the House that the procedure should be altered, and that the House should not meet on Church holidays. Therefore the decision of the House on this motion in its present form should, I think, be an effective decision of the House on the matter which Deputy O'Kelly originally raised.
I think that the effect of the decision on this motion will be such as you, sir, suggest, namely, that if the House disagrees with the motion a change will have to be made so far as the practice here is concerned. Deputy O'Kelly has raised this question on more than one occasion, and on both occasions, I think he spoke of the feeling that he himself had, that other members of his party had, and, apparently, that certain people outside the House had on this particular question. It is really not a question on which we can come to a decision on the private judgment of any individual, on the private feeling of any individual. What we want to find out exactly is, what is the basis of the proposed alteration; why, in other words, should we depart from what has been the established practice of, I think, all the Dála that sat in this country. I think the Dáil sat on a holiday in 1920, and also on a holiday in the beginning of 1922. Leaving that aside, however, what I want to know is not exactly the personal emotions of the Deputy, but what is there in the practice that we have followed for a number of years that is in any sense contrary to ordinary Catholic teaching, because it is argued from that particular point of view. When the Deputy comes forward, as he seems to come forward, as the exponent of Catholic views on this subject, what authority is there behind that assumption on his part? I am speaking my own individual views, and putting forward arguments merely, without, naturally, making any claim to any authority. I think the matter should be based on definite reasons put forward, unless we can assume that the Deputy can speak with authority on the matter on behalf of those who are in authority to speak on the matter.
This is a practice which was in existence in this House even before the Treaty was ratified. How was it that in all that time those whose special business it is to watch over these matters, those who might be expected to speak out, have never in any way intimated that this House was doing what was abhorrent to the bulk of the people of the country, whom they in religious matters represent and control? How is it that these people in authority have never spoken, have never put forward any views to the responsible people here on this particular matter? As in many another matter in this country, when it comes to gestures, what I feel very often might not unfairly be described as empty gestures, there are people who are much more orthodox, much more militantly Catholic, so to speak, than those whose business it is to represent and to speak with authority on Catholic opinion.
I ask the House to judge the case on its merits, knowing, as every Deputy knows, what the ordinary Catholic teaching is on the subject, and not to assume too lightly that Deputy O'Kelly, not having brought forward any definite reasons, has some vague kind of authority to raise this particular matter. It is a gesture. I gathered from portion of his speech that the particular value of it would be merely as a gesture—I hope I am not misrepresenting him. I feel in this, as in a great many other matters, that there is too much of a tendency to substitute gestures, very often empty gestures, for real solid good works, so to speak—too much of a tendency to take refuge from reality in gestures of that kind. I could view this with a great deal more complacency, perhaps, had I found that in these particular matters other aspects, not merely Catholic emotions, but fundamental Catholic teaching, were strongly inculcated by the party opposite, both here and through the country; that they always showed a readiness to accept the views of those in authority, for instance, on the question of what is due to the lawfully constituted authority of the State; that they denounced more strongly some of the events that have taken place even quite recently. If they had shown their enthusiasm for ordinary fundamental Catholic teaching in that respect, I must say I might approach this with a little more patience. As I say, gestures of this kind are a very poor substitute indeed for failing to make that effort, as they are in a position to make it, when the opportunity arises and their words might have some weight to stir up a sound public opinion on matters that are fundamental to the Catholic Church, and to all Christian Churches indeed, if I might use the phrase as Deputy O'Kelly has used it, and when not merely dissociation but strong condemnation might be expected.
What is there in what we are doing that runs in any sense counter to Catholic practice or doctrine? I speak now from recollection, but I think most Deputies can remember that the rule, so far as Sundays and holidays is concerned, is that we abstain from all unnecessary servile work; that is well-known to all of us. Now, if there is anything further removed, despite occasional efforts on the part of certain parties in the House, from the strict conception of servile work than the proceedings in this Dáil I am not aware of it.
What about religious observances—going to Mass and church?
That is not servile work.
The matter seems to be funny to Deputy Blythe.
If there is anything more removed from work, or service, from which the word servile comes, than the work of a sovereign assembly, I certainly cannot think of it. I never heard the suggestion that the work carried on in this Dáil is in any way servile work.
Does the Minister regard himself as a servant of the people?
It is not servile work any more, for instance, than the work the Pope does, who is a servant also.
But he observes Church holidays.
He does his work on Church holidays.
The Papal Delegate has become a Pope.
This is preeminently a debate in which Deputies might refrain from offensive interruptions. (Deputies: Hear, hear.) I suggest that the Minister should be allowed to make his speech without interruption. I am not for a moment suggesting that Deputy Lemass's interruption was offensive.
Might I suggest that the number of interruptions from the opposite side tends to show the levity with which they approach what they profess to regard as an important subject. They are not prepared to discuss the merits of this particular case. It is not a matter for humour, one way or another, from Deputies on the opposite benches. We do not get any further, and we certainly will not increase respect for Catholic holidays or Catholic institutions by interruptions of that kind. I know nothing further from the fact, if Deputies take up that line, and suggest that it should be decided on that line, than that the work of this Dáil is, from the Church point of view, servile work. If they can get established ecclesiastical authority to pronounce in that way, I am quite willing to abide by the decision. One merely has to glance at the actual practice. Deputy O'Kelly referred to the fact that this is a predominantly Catholic country; the majority of the people of this country are Catholics. Quite so.
Deputy Lemass made one interruption which I shall answer. If Deputy Lemass looks up the Catholic practice in this particular way, if he looks up, for instance, the last Council of the Church—the Vatican Council—he will find that processions were held on public holidays and that the work was done on these particular days. If the Deputy would turn to the countries that were Catholic, not merely Catholic in the sense that the bulk of the people were Catholic, but, also, in the sense that the State was formally Catholic, he will find that the Parliaments met on Church holidays. I can find nothing to support the view put forward by the Deputy. This has not been put forward, as I suggested already, by anybody that I regard as entitled to speak with authority on the Catholic side. No representations have been made, and there were many years in which representations could have been made, that we were doing anything wrong in meeting on Catholic holidays.
I shall take some examples. Take one of the most Catholic portions of Europe, one of the oldest Catholic democracies in Europe, the Canton of Uri in Switzerland. Its legislative assembly is the assembly of the people. What day do they meet? On a Sunday in May and they pass their laws there for the coming year. That has gone on right down through the ages to the present time. Now if we take some examples here. I remember one of the most significant and striking political actions taken in this country was taken on a Sunday after Mass at the various churches, and that was the signing of the Anti-Conscription Manifesto. I am dealing with the matter purely in relation to the particular type of work in the Dáil. But look at the actual practice, even where other work is concerned.
We meet here in the city of Dublin, where all the shops are open and all the business in the city goes on as usual on Catholic holidays. It is suggested that it is a kind of shock to the Catholic conscience that we should meet and do this particular kind of work while every other type of work is going on in the city and so far as I know in every town in Ireland.
No.
Well, in nearly all the towns in Ireland, so far as I know. There is one particular exception—the city of Wexford.
A Deputy
There are several.
There may be several, but the ordinary practice is as I say, so far as nearly all the towns in Ireland are concerned. Some of the biggest fairs are held on Church holidays, as Deputy O'Kelly himself indicated quite fairly and recognised, to a certain extent, that it told against his own argument. What is the attitude of the ordinary business man in any town or city in Ireland? It is that the holiday is a very good business day—not, mind you, for the kind of work which is not servile work, but work that approaches to it. In a number of towns which I know in the South, a holiday is looked upon as being next to a market day, so far as business is concerned. Here we are dealing with a class of work that in no sense can come under Church rules regarding servile work. I wonder whether the Deputies were ever at school. What is the practice there? Am I to be told that in the big boarding schools run by religious communities in this country there is abstention from work on those days? Not in any with which I am acquainted. Work and very hard work, is done there on holidays and Sundays, and examinations are often held on these days. It is recognised very clearly that that is not servile work, and that not merely is there no prohibition, but that that is the natural thing to do on these particular days.
Is it seriously put forward by any party in this House that Deputies here should abstain from political work on Sundays and holidays of obligation? Everybody knows that Sundays and holidays of obligation are periods of intense political activity throughout the country. Perhaps Deputies opposite abstain and only pretend that they hold these meetings, and that they send accounts of them to the newspapers, but everybody knows that there are more objectionable political speeches made on those days, because there is no control over them, than could ever be made here. I am not at all convinced that from that point of view, and from the point of view of real observance, that respect for Church holidays would be in any way increased if this Dáil were not to meet on those days. It would be another opportunity for holding these political meetings, as in the past, right through the country. Practically at every Church door meetings of this kind are often held. I would ask the House to seriously consider this. Do the various professional men opposite intend to stay away from their offices on these days if they are released from their duties here? What is there in favour of abandoning this particular practice?
As I said before, no representations have come to us from those whose business it would have been to approach us if they felt that we were in any slight degree outraging Catholic opinion in this particular respect. How could representations come to us on that matter when neither Church doctrine nor Church practice could urge them to make such representations? Deputy O'Kelly mentioned two holidays. These are generally the two holidays in question, the two particular Thursdays to which he referred. It may accidentally happen that the Dáil may meet on other Church holidays. We meet three days out of seven, and the chance is that very often when holidays come together at Christmas the Dáil is not meeting. Therefore there is practically no danger, except perhaps in times of crisis, of the Dáil meeting on Church holidays during that period. There are a few other holidays in regard to which it may happen that Church holidays may coincide with a meeting of the Dáil. It may occur in mid-week. The two particular holidays in question come in mid-week, at the busiest time during a meeting of the Dáil, and coincide with Thursday's sitting here. If you adopt a proposal to refuse to meet on these holidays it will mean summoning Deputies for a day and having them in Dublin idle. I think the better thing in that instance would be to abandon the sitting of the Dáil during that particular week. Deputy O'Kelly made a suggestion about bank holidays. What are the bank holidays in question? St. Patrick's Day. Is it suggested that we should change that? St. Stephen's Day. Is there a suggestion that we should change that? Easter Monday, Good Friday and Whit Monday. Is there a suggestion that these should be changed? Then there is left the first Monday in August. Let us look at it. Why is Monday chosen as a bank holiday in preference to any other day? Because, of course, the greatest advantage comes from having a public holiday on that particular day. It is connected with Sunday.
Half the value from the point of view of the recuperation of people engaged in work and who get off on that day would be gone if you changed it from Monday to mid-week. That is the grave objection from that point of view. If we were able to change Thursdays to Mondays we might be able to meet Deputies opposite in regard to this proposal, but until some extraordinary change of that kind takes place I do not see anything would be gained by consideration of the bank holidays. We are doing nothing, I suggest to the House, in so far as I know the ordinary teachings of the Church of most of us here, that can in any sense be regarded as a violation of Catholic teaching. We are carrying out our ordinary business, and, so far as political activities are concerned, I feel that they might be much worse spent if the Dáil were to rise on these particular days.
I regret very much the tone which the Minister for Education has imported into the debate. We hoped that it would not be a debate on party lines, but that it would be a debate on which Deputies would advance their individual opinions. I hope that the Minister for Education does not represent the view of his party when he suggested the lines on which the division would be taken on this proposal. He imported matters of high political controversy into this debate. That is not going to get us a reasonable and harmonious settlement of the question. In fact, I hope that we will allow his political references to pass by in order that we may get a general decision on this question. I would like to know from the President whether he holds that a decision on this matter is a matter of party or one on which the House should be free to vote.
I think that the Deputy ought to place his hand on his heart and tell me about his own party.
I am discussing the matter entirely apart from the atmosphere of party.
I may say, if we are asked, it is not a party matter with us.
It is not a party question with us either but we will see how far that will be borne out by results.
We have made a certain advance in atmosphere if nothing else. This question is largely one of atmosphere. The Minister for Education dealt with the question from the point of view of Church authority. I think it is invidious to bring the matter of Church authority into this question. It is rather a question of creating atmosphere. There is a strong feeling in this country among the people that we are only emerging from the Penal laws, and that we are ashamed of any public demonstration of our faith such as occurs in all countries where you have had a continuous tradition of Catholic practice. When I say that I do not wish in the least to say anything that would be offensive or aggressive towards those who do not agree with the majority views of the Irish people in matters of religion or religious convictions, but I think any sensible person will recognise that in a country like Ireland which has emerged from the persecutions it has gone through in the past, it is quite a natural thing that the people here should try to establish an atmosphere in regard to Church holidays which will have some relation to the culture of their religion. I use that word in the sense of something which is apart from strict dogma or the strict rules of what you must do and what you must not do. It is a public gesture, if you like, that we should not meet on these two days.
The Minister for Education wants the miracle performed of changing Thursday into Monday and said that we could find a solution if that were done. I suggest that if the Dáil did not meet on Thursday and Friday, and if it met on Tuesday and Wednesday of that particular week, and if necessary, for an extra day on the following week, the problem could easily be solved. To bring home the point of view that I want to get at, suppose these days had been freely recognised holidays and suppose measures were taken to abolish them, you would find that there would be a very strong feeling in the country against doing such a thing. It would not hinge merely on the question of whether it was unnecessary servile work or not. It would be taken as in some way diminishing the respect due to the beliefs of the majority of the people. We want to pay a tribute of increased respect by not meeting on these two Thursdays. There is not a great deal to be said on the subject. The Minister for Education argued about different Sundays that had been used for political purposes in the cantons of Switzerland. On that line of argument, if one were to be logical, one should suggest that the Dáil should meet on Sunday and I think that would be a great outrage to opinion generally in Ireland. I would like if some attempt were made to meet the wishes of those who put forward this proposition and that some general view would be expressed which would not be one of a hostile nature, but one which would go to meet the viewpoint of those who made the proposition.
I think it is a good thing that this matter of the holidays was brought forward, because it has been in a state of uncertainty for a very long time. I may perhaps view it from a different standpoint to that of the majority of members of the House, but I cannot see why the Church order to hold certain days free from work—an order that is common to the whole of Ireland— is not universally obeyed throughout the country. For instance, in Dublin and in the towns it seems that work goes on as usual. I conclude the order to attend service is obeyed as it is in the country, but in the country the holiday is strictly observed. I never could understand why if it is right in the one place it should not be right in the other, why if it has got to be done it should not be done everywhere, but it is not. I look at it from a different point of view from that of a good many people, but I notice that in the country, after the Church duties have been performed, in many cases there is nothing for the people to do. They hang about, not looking very happy, and the large majority of them would be much happier if they were doing their ordinary work after having attended to their religious duties. However, it is a matter for the Church, but I observe that it is not carried out in Dublin. That is beyond yea or nay. I do not know what other cities like Cork and Limerick and the big towns do, but I suppose they act in the same way as Dublin. I conclude that the order to abstain from work has been promulgated in Dublin and these other towns, but yet it is not observed. It is observed in the country, and I do not understand it. It seems to me that the work we do here cannot be considered servile work. There is nothing to prevent anybody from attending service at whatever church he belongs to before he comes here to do the work on the day appointed for the work. Of course I naturally will fall in with any arrangements, but that is my opinion. If people can carry on servile work in Dublin and the big towns, as they do on these days, I think it is not wrong for us here, who are legislating for the good of the country, to carry out our work.
As regards the other question of bank holidays, I agree with Deputy O'Kelly that we need not necessarily take the example of England in this matter, that we should suit ourselves according to our own needs. Bank holidays, I conclude, are meant to give bank officials, who are very hard-worked people, a certain amount of relaxation and change. They do not get very much in the year. But it seems to me that the way in which they are arranged does not do them much good. A certain number of days are spread all over the year. It always seemed to me that it would be far better if some arrangement were made by which they could have their five or six days together, when they could get some good out of them, instead of having them spread all over the year, when they are very frequently wet, so that they get no good whatever from them. In the mills in Lancashire, and in other places like that, employees are given a certain number of days off at the same time —a week or ten days——
The Deputy is wandering from the actual point at issue.
I am only making an analogy. My opinion is that these days should be put together, and employees in banks would get much more good out of them than they do under the present arrangement.
The motion proposed by Deputy O'Kelly has not, I suggest, been supported by a single logical argument from beginning to end. It certainly has not been supported, as the Minister for Education has rightly said, by any representation from Catholic authorities. Neither, in my opinion, has it got the support of the common people, who are the real masters of this country, no matter what any of us may say or think. References have been made to the fact that business men would seriously object to carrying out the principle which this motion involves. If this motion is to be carried it would be only a logical sequence that the principle should be applied to every other concern—to business, to the professions, to work of all kinds and classes.
If there is one class in this country who would object, and rightly object, to the application of that principle, it is the businessmen of the City of Dublin, and I think I can safely say, as far as they are concerned, speaking with some knowledge, that they are of opinion that there are almost too many holidays, and many among the masses of the people are of the same opinion. If a working man gets a holiday he generally gets it at the expense of his own pocket. How do you think that the ordinary businessman could afford to close his premises, with the present depression in trade and business? Do you think that the closing of every shop in the city on Patrick's Day does not mean a very severe loss to those engaged in trade and business? Anybody who has practical experience of these things knows that it entails very serious loss; and when we are discussing this matter let us be fair to all classes of the community and not take a narrow point of view. I consider that when Deputy O'Kelly made the suggestion that this House had ignored the existence of God he was, in common parlance, grossly over-stating the case. This House has never refused to recognise or ignore the existence of God. It has never infringed in any way the teachings of the church to which I belong. I would remind Deputy O'Kelly that the leader of the Opposition, sitting beside him, is the head of one of the great Universities in this country, and if this be applied to the Dáil surely he ought to set an example and apply it to that University. Any Catholic knows that there is one obligation upon him—to receive Mass—and after that he is free to perform his ordinary normal operations. We carry out that obligation.
A Deputy
Query.
The bulk of us do. I can certainly say, speaking for myself, that I do anyhow, and I believe that the bulk of us do, and after we do that we perform a useful service, perhaps, as somebody has said, a much more useful service in working in this House than, in the words of Deputy Anthony, letting a lot of Deputies loose on the city of Dublin, when God knows what would happen. The Minister has rightly said that the work we perform here is not servile work. Nobody has attempted to prove that that statement is not correct. It does nothing in violation of Catholic teaching——
You are still drawing your salary.
I am, in common with you, my friend. We have had a lot of empty humbug being talked on this subject, and there is nothing in it. This is the only institution in the State that is supposed to close, and then we are going behind our counters and into our offices, while the Dáil is going to be closed as a recognition of the existence of God. Was there ever such humbug talked in a national assembly? If there is any infringement of the rights of the Catholic Church, Deputies on these benches would not be slow in protesting, and in standing up for them. They have as much respect for the Catholic Church as Deputies on the Opposition Benches. We are lectured as to how we should perform our duties, and what we should do and not do, and when certain of the gutter Press journals in this city set out, as they say they are going to set out, to stiffen the backs of Deputies, I am one of the Deputies whose back they are going to stiffen, and they have certainly stiffened my back in opposition to this proposal. Deputy Little made a very moving plea in favour of this course, but would Deputy Little's office be closed on a holiday of obligation on which the Dáil is closed? I cannot see that there is anything in this but an empty gesture with nothing in it. We are told by some of the speakers on the opposite side that the Whips are off on this motion. Well, I was very green in that respect here at one period, but now when I am told from the opposite side that the Whips are off I hold a very different opinion.
I had an open mind on this question, which is not a party one. I have not, however, been quite convinced, but I am inclined to side with Deputy O'Kelly owing to the speech of the Minister for Education—his episcopal, ex-cathedra pronouncement. He lectured us on sanctity, morals, faith, and many other things. It was a question on which I thought there would not be such an attitude taken up, but that it would be discussed calmly, with arguments put forward for or against. I do not know exactly which side Deputy J.J. Byrne is on, because his speech reminded me of Percy's "Bulls and Blunders." He talked of an "empty something having nothing in it,""that the House never refused to ignore," about "receiving Mass," and so on. I do not really know what it was all about. However, there is much to be said against closing the Dáil for Catholic holidays, and there is much to be said on the other side. Deputy J.J. Byrne referred to this as a rational assembly. There is such a great deal of rationalism and materialism that even a gesture might do something to counteract them in this country, and that is one of the reasons why I would be inclined to vote for this. There is the idea that business is the end of life, that the making of money is the end of life, but there should be some other ideal also.
Mr. Byrne
But we have got to live.
I am quite willing to give way to Deputy Byrne, A Chinn Comhairle, if you so desire. We are told that no representations were made. They were not directly, I suppose. Ecclesiastical authorities spoke to me on the matter, some for and some against. Some were very strongly in favour of this and some were against it. I did not consult them on it. It was in the ordinary course of conversation. As regards the ordinary working man not getting paid, I put it to Deputies that if business is closed down on these holidays, that is not the fault of this Dáil; it is the fault of that materialism I referred to—the materialistic spirit. It is not merely because these are Catholic holidays, but as a recognition of some other world, or something beyond the making of money, that I would be inclined to vote for the motion. I do not know what gutter Press Deputy Byrne refers to. It is true that we have had meetings of this Dáil, and of the old Dáil, on Catholic holidays, but we never met in the old Dáil without having a chaplain there, and having some recognition of faith and Christianity.
At the outset I wish to make it clear that, as far as members on these Benches are concerned, there is no question of any Party decision, or anything of that kind on this question. I think it is essentially a question on which there should not be a decision by Party. It is one on which every individual should express his opinion, and vote, if the question goes to a vote, according as his conscience directs. I regret that I was not present for the whole of the debate and did not hear Deputy O'Kelly speak, but from the speeches that I heard I believe that we are here as a lay assembly to decide this matter, and apparently are trying to introduce into it questions of religious principles which we are quite incompetent to discuss or debate. I believe this matter ought to be decided purely on common sense and on custom, and, personally, I see no reason for departing from the practice which has been followed here during the seven years that the Dáil has been sitting. I have heard no evidence that the sitting of the Dáil on Catholic holidays is considered to be in any way an abuse. I am not in the position of Deputy Fahy; no representations have ever been made to me by my constituents, by ecclesiastical authorities, or by anybody, as a matter of fact, to the effect that it was wrong, or even that it was not proper or fitting, that this Assembly should meet on Catholic holidays. I am rather slow to believe that this matter is brought before the Dáil from any overpowering sense of religious feeling. I am not prepared to admit that people who sit on one side of the House are any more deeply imbued with religious feeling than people who sit on the other side, I do not believe that is the reason this proposal is brought before the House at all. It is the custom to hold meetings, conferences of all kinds, religious and lay, on Catholic holidays. It is the custom to open shops and do business and if we are not engaged here in the Dáil we will be engaged in our offices or at business. We may not have control over business people or offices, although if we wished we could pass an Act of Parliament compelling all business premises and offices to close. It is not suggested that we should go so far.
We certainly have control over our own services, and we have direct control over civil servants who are in the employment of the Government that is responsible to the Dáil, but it is not suggested from any quarter that we should close all Government offices on church holidays. That proposal has not been made. It might be popular in some quarters—a more popular suggestion than this—but it has not been made. I do not want to take up the time of the House beyond saying that this is not a question on which any great arguments are necessary, but I am not going to admit that for the past seven years we have been following a practice which should not have been followed by sitting on these holidays, or that it was necessary—I do not know whether Deputy O'Kelly was the originator of the proposal; I think he was—to tell us that we were doing something that, in fact, it was not right or proper in the circumstances we should do. I am therefore prepared to vote for the motion on the paper, that the practice should remain as it has been for the past seven years.
Several Deputies rose.
It was arranged that the question would be put at twelve o'clock, and I feel obliged to hear the Leader of the Opposition now. The Minister for Defence desires to intervene briefly. Unless the House is prepared to go beyond 12 o'clock the Chair will now hear the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister before putting the question.
Go ahead.
Mr. O'Connell
I think there would be general agreement to go beyond 12 o'clock.
I do not want to say very much on this question. My view is not that the Dáil has been doing something wrong during the past four or five years, but I think when a change is proposed it is not necessary to prove that what was done up to this particular time was wrong, but that a better practice than the existing one is available. I think it is better that we should not sit on Catholic holidays, and if I examine why, I go back and I find myself thinking of the nature of the Sabbath generally. Leaving aside the question of any divine institution with respect to the Sabbath, I think it is very good for us, from the social and from the human point of view, that we should be taken away from our ordinary daily routine at regular periods. Therefore, I think the Sabbath is very important from a purely human point of view; that is, without dealing at all with it from the religious point of view. Looking around the country I must say that I have felt all my life that there has been a growing tendency not to give the Sabbath, and holidays, which for Catholics ought to take the same place as the Sabbath, the observance, from the point of view of change of daily routine, which it would be good for the country that they should be given, and when we look at this encroachment on the Catholic Church holidays, I feel that it is going to lead to an encroachment on the Sundays. From a Catholic point of view—at least, from my point of view as a Catholic; I do not want to claim any authority for it—I think we ought not to distinguish between the holidays that are instituted by the Church and the Sabbath.
I do not know that I have ever seen any distinction made between the two. How many of us would propose to come here and meet on Sundays? If it were necessary, I believe that we would and could meet on Sundays. If the circumstances were such as they were in 1920, when we had to come together and met in private, and if there was a proposal that the Dáil should meet on a Sunday, I would support it. Suppose that the circumstances were such that it was necessary for us to meet on a Sunday, then I would have no objection to that. My objection to our meeting here on Catholic holidays at present is that it is not necessary. Remember that we are not legislating now for the keeping of Catholic holidays outside. We are legislating for ourselves, making rules for our own conduct, and there is no doubt whatever about it that, without causing any grave inconvenience, we could arrange not to meet on the two or three days involved. The fact that there are only two or three days involved makes it all the easier for us to arrange not to meet on those days. All that is necessary is that when a Catholic holiday occurs on a Thursday when the Dáil is in session that, instead of meeting that week on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, we should arrange to meet on Tuesday and Wednesday or, if necessary, on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I see no reason why, in such circumstances, we could not arrange to meet on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
The reason that I am going to vote against the motion as it has been put before us is that I believe that it is not necessary to meet on Church holidays. This has been referred to as a gesture. Remember, that when people are left to judge for themselves as to whether a thing is or is not necessary, they naturally weigh the balance in their own favour. The tendency all the time is to take greater liberties. Therefore, I think that a gesture by this Assembly is not an empty gesture, and that it would be of value. I think that such a gesture and such a line should be set by this Assembly.
The suggestion was made that the schools in the country do not observe Catholic holidays. If that is so, then I must have forgotten all my experience in that connection. I have had as wide experience of different types of schools in the country as the Minister for Education. As a teacher, I do not remember at any time going to teach in Catholic secondary schools on a Catholic holiday. It is true that the boys have study on a Catholic holiday, but the day is not an ordinary school day, and that is made plain on various occasions throughout the day. The ordinary routine is broken on that day. It is broken almost completely by the fact that you have not the ordinary classes. The whole question for us to decide is, whether or not it is necessary for us to meet here on Catholic holidays. If it were proved to be necessary, then I would say all right, but I believe it is not necessary that we should meet here on those days. I think it is right that we should give a proper gesture in that way by not doing work which is unnecessary. It was stated that the business of the Dáil is not servile work. May I say again that my idea of the Sabbath is that it is a break in the ordinary routine. I believe it is just as necessary to change from office work or the type of mental work that we do here—to change from that periodically—as it is to rest from manual labour.
There is only one other point. I regret that the Minister for Education referred, for instance, to our attitude with regard to Church authorities in certain cases in the past. If we were to argue that question to-day, it would bring us into the whole controversy of the last four or five years. I have only to say this, as far as I am concerned, that the whole thing depended on whether there was a lawfully constituted authority here in this country at the time. I hold that there was not, and I am prepared at any time to hold my views against anybody on that. I hold that at that particular time we were not fighting against a lawfully constituted authority.
In my opinion, if we observe the Church holidays well from eight o'clock in the morning until three in the afternoon, I think we would be doing a very good day's work for our souls. If, for instance, we were to adjourn on Catholic holidays at seven o'clock in the evening in order that we might have an opportunity of attending Vespers, I am afraid that more of us would be found at Shelbourne Park or at the Royal than in the Churches. Trades people open their shops on Catholic holidays and also publicans who, of all people, are the most conscientious. They are compelled by law to do a little bit on Sundays. Town labourers, after attending Mass in the morning, work on Church holidays. I believe that agricultural labourers and the farmers are the only people who really observe Church holidays. I do not believe that we would be doing any harm by meeting here on Church holidays at three o'clock in the afternoon. We could do good honest work from that hour until seven or eight in the evening. If we compel people by law to remain idle on Church holidays, such people, for instance, as labourers employed by county councils, then I think we should also make provision and see that these poor people, who cannot afford to be idle for one day are paid their wages. To my mind, the holiday is not a holiday at all, if you get no wages for it. We take very good care to pay ourselves for our own holidays. I am not a great judge of the rules laid down by the Church, but my conscience tells me that we will not be infringing its rules very much if, having attended Mass on a Catholic holiday, we assemble here at three o'clock in the afternoon to do the work that is here for us to do.
I think that, having attended to our religious duties in the morning, we should have a little dispensation to spend a few hours here in the afternoon doing the work of the country, especially as many of us have to travel very long distances. Deputy Anthony and myself, for instance, have to travel a distance of between 150 and 200 miles. It would not be fair, I think, to summon us to attend here and then send us back without doing any work. I would also remind the House that in many places fairs and markets are held on Church holidays. They go to great trouble to advertise the fact that one of their best fairs will be held on New Year's Day. The people in those centres believe that in holding their fairs and markets on Church holidays they are not doing injury to anyone or giving bad example, but are simply carrying out what has been done for centuries. With regard to Deputy de Valera's point that there would be no harm in having a change and that Deputies could meet here on the Mondays. I assure the Deputy that it would be very awkward for a number of the Deputies to have to start at 6 o'clock on a Monday morning to catch a train so as to arrive here in time for the meeting of the Dáil. We consider that we would be doing too much if we did that. For that reason I am satisfied; as far as I am concerned I am quite safe in meeting here at 3 o'clock on the Church holidays, and if that is all I am going to do to injure my soul there is no fear of me.
I propose to hear Deputy Anthony and Deputy O'Dowd briefly, and then the Minister for Defence to conclude.
I would like to speak.
The Deputy had ample opportunity in the early part of the debate, but he did not rise.
After such manifestations of piety on the part of the leaders of Fianna Fáil, it is with a certain amount of diffidence that I rise to make any contribution whatever to this discussion. I rise to support the motion even at the expense of being labelled a pagan. I want to say at the same time that I have quite as much respect for Catholic holidays as any other Deputy in this House. I want also to say that there is an atmosphere of unreality about the whole discussion. I feel, to be quite frank and open on this matter, that Deputies are speaking with their tongues in their cheeks in the majority of cases. While advocating that Catholic holidays should be observed by the Deputies of this House, there is no suggestion, as has been pointed out by some Deputies, that workers in the city employed by private enterprise should observe the Catholic holidays by abstention from work, and, of course, no suggestion has been made that if and when they are asked to abstain that they will be paid for these holidays. I may be told I am a materialist. To a large extent I am, but I want to know how many in this House are altruists? How many of them are so non-materialistic that they refuse to accept their salaries? Let us have some evidence of it. Again, I would suggest to those imbued with this great religious zeal for Catholic holidays that they will find plenty of outlet for that zeal here in the City of Dublin. I am one of those who think—I do not want to digress —that we are sending too many missionaries abroad. We have plenty of work here in this city for missionaries. I believe we have in this House, and we have had evidence of it to-day, some very useful lay preachers. Let them go and preach the Gospel all over the City of Dublin, and let them ask the people to observe the Commandments, particularly the great Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." Then I, for one, will be thoroughly and deeply impressed by their seriousness and lack of materialism, and will believe they are altruists and mean what they say. The Minister for Education has described the whole thing as a gesture. Personally I would refrain from making this gesture where a religious matter is concerned. I much prefer to practise religion, although I admit I am a rather poor practitioner, but, at any rate, there is only one thing we should get rid of in this House, and that is the cant, humbug and hypocrisy preached by people who say "We are the only Christians in this country and the rest are anti-Christian," because, forsooth, they are materialistic enough to work on Catholic holidays.
As I said before, I have as much respect for Catholic holidays as anybody, and as much respect for the rules of the Church, but I would ask Deputies do they really mean what they suggest when they say this House should not sit on Catholic holidays because it is against the rules of the Church? If that is the case I am very much afraid that if it be a mortal sin then we are all damned, for I have worked most of my life on Sundays and I have hunted and fished and shot on Sundays, and I will continue to do so while I am able. I think if we had as a slogan "Away with cant and hypocrisy" we would be doing a good day's work for the country instead of wasting our time and public time in discussing this motion.
I regret this discussion has developed into more or less of a controversy as to what is right or wrong. This whole question should have been tackled and handled in the way suggested by the leader of the Opposition, and that is that a Catholic holiday should be looked upon as something different from the ordinary working day. I for one approached this question with an open mind, and I am going to vote for the motion for the reason that I do not see why we here should not meet on Catholic holidays as long as every other servant in the State has to work on those holidays. The only exception I know of is in the case of national teachers. They are exempt from working on Church holidays simply and solely because Church holidays are observed by the farming community and the children will not attend the schools in the rural districts. So long as the Law Courts have sittings on Church holidays, and so long as civil servants attend their offices, and barristers and solicitors and everybody else attend to their business on Church holidays, including the poor dispensary doctor who has to attend at his dispensary on Church holidays, I am prepared to support the claim that we should meet here. When the Dáil proposes to give a general holiday to its own servants, not forgetting the dispensary doctors, I will then support a motion that the Dáil does not sit on Church holidays.
Before the Minister concludes I will hear Deputy Corish for a few minutes, as I understand he is against the motion. I would like to have it on record that the House decided to take an hour and a half for the discussion of this motion. It was then agreed to go into Private Members' time, but I think it is an unsound principle to be taking Private Members' time in this way.
Coming from a constituency where business is completely closed down on Catholic holidays, I feel it is my duty to vote against the motion. In the constituency of which I am a representative, bank holidays are not observed by people other than those working in the banks. What I object to is the tendency on the part of those who observe bank holidays to have them observed through the country generally to the detriment, as I think, of Irish Ireland. We have always looked upon bank holidays as something instituted by England in this country. That has always been the tendency, in my opinion. When Deputy J.J. Byrne was speaking he laid great stress upon what I believe to be a fact, that the businessmen of Dublin would certainly be adverse to this proposal. I am not at all surprised at that, because the business men of Dublin reap a very rich harvest on Catholic holidays. Clery's and other business houses of that kind make it a point to arrange for excursions from different parts of Ireland to Dublin on holidays in order that money may be spent. That is most detrimental to other parts of the country. If that were the only reason why people should not work on Catholic holidays the Dáil should make an effort in order to secure the state of affairs Deputy O'Kelly wants to have brought about.
I think this discussion has been largely unnecessary. Every Deputy who got up, and I with him, had to state quite clearly that as there are others who speak authoritatively on matters of Church holidays we speak always subject to their teaching. That teaching is that on Church holidays we are to hear Mass and rest from servile work. I understand servile work to be such work as was done by the servants in Rome. There is nothing further removed from that than the work done here by the Dáil. Therefore, by no stretch of the imagination could the work done here be described as servile work. The work here generally begins at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. It does not in any way interfere with the hearing of Mass. Therefore, the decision of the Church to make such holidays has no relation whatsoever to the discussions here.
The Church's first Teacher warned His Disciples very strongly against asserting as dogmas such things as are not dogmas. For instance, things have been implied here to-day as dogmatic that are not such. Deputy de Valera constantly used the word "encroaching." He definitely suggested that we were encroaching on Church holidays. He declared that the judgment of what is to be done in this should be determined by the answer to the question "Is it or is it not necessary?" That question does not arise except in the case of servile work. There is no question as to whether it is or is not necessary to meet on Church holidays.
took the Chair.
The mere fact that these particular days happen to be Church holidays has no direct relation to the matter. It really is a question of whether it would or would not be a good thing to have the Dáil meeting on two Thursdays before Whit-Sunday and another Thursday shortly afterwards. In this matter I speak subject to my teachers, and I say that this matter has no relation whatsoever to the Church's definition of these days being holidays of obligation, because the work done here is not servile work and it does not interfere with our hearing Mass. Therefore the Church's teaching is not touched on in that matter.
May I ask the Minister would he propose to meet on a Sunday?
From the point of view of the Church I do not see that there is any more reason why we should not meet on Sunday, but I think Sunday would be inconvenient. As the Minister for Education pointed out, the Vatican Council, doing work analogous to our own, meet on Sundays. There is nothing in the teaching of the Church which would make it undesirable for us to meet on Sundays, except by meeting early in the morning it might be difficult for us to hear Mass. As regards Sunday or any other day, it is purely a matter of convenience. Deputy de Valera suggests that we should meet on Mondays and Tuesdays in order to avoid Thursdays. Is it or is it not convenient for us to meet on Mondays? That means, as a matter of fact, that a great many Deputies would have to travel on Sundays.
On Saturdays.
Some Deputies may not have motor cars, and it means at that rate that there would be another day wasted. It means that they would have to travel on Saturday, or at the very latest on Sunday, in order to meet on Monday. As I have pointed out, it is purely a matter of convenience. Monday is inconvenient because it means travelling on Sunday, or some time prior perhaps. Religious questions have really no relation to the subject at all. I can well understand that Deputy O'Kelly may have a sort of sentimental idea that he would like holidays of the Dáil to coincide with holidays of the Church. That however, is purely a question of sentiment; in reality there is no direct relation whatsoever. These Thursdays would break up the whole week and there is no objection from the point of view of the Church to the Dáil doing its work. The Church has defined how these holidays should be kept, and, in my opinion, it is almost impertinent on the part of other people to suggest to the Church that it should have thought of some other way of keeping those days.
Thursday seems to me to be a particularly convenient day. if people have to meet here on Monday, as has been suggested, it means travelling on Saturday or on Sunday. It is a very inconvenient day. After all, this whole question is purely one of sentiment and, without being blatantly materialistic, we may be permitted to consider the question of our convenience. These holidays happen to occur at a time when the Dáil is sitting, and at its busiest period. Of course, we could cut out the whole week if we desired. Very often when it is proposed not to meet on a certain day, we hear voluble protests from Deputies about the waste of public time and money coming up here to meet only on two days. If you do not meet on Thursday I do not see how you could avoid wasting a day.
It is not a matter of confidence or anything like that, but I do not think we should like it to be suggested that by the Dáil meeting on Church holidays we are encroaching. By meeting here it is not a question of servile work; that question does not enter into it. Deputy de Valera talked of the tendency to take greater and greater liberties. By meeting here on Church holidays we are not taking any liberty that I know of. It is merely a matter for Deputies to consider whether it is or is not convenient to meet on Thursdays. If it were more convenient for us not to meet on Thursdays, I would have no personal objection to anyone trying to satisfy Deputy O'Kelly's sentiments.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 50.
Tá
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Daly, John.
- Davin, William.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, William Archer.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Tubridy John.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clancy, Patrick.
- Clery, Michael.
- Coburn, James.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Holt, Samuel.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.)
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Anthony; Níl: Deputies Corish and Buckley.
Question declared carried.