Would the President state the order of business?
Public Business. - Order of Business.
It is proposed to take as first business the resumed debate on the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, and then private members' time as usual at 12 o'clock. I propose:—
That the Dáil sit later than 2 p.m. to-day, and that the order for the adjournment be taken not later than 12 midnight to-morrow, Saturday, April 30th.
This is a most unusual procedure. I object to the time of the House being extended on this occasion. The measure that is before the House is one of first importance. It has been debated at considerable length, but one may almost say that there has been an entire absence, on the part of the Government, of an acceptance of the importance of the measure. For two days quite a number of able statements have been made on this measure. Its importance has been emphasised from the front and back benches of the Opposition. It has been emphasised that there is much more in the measure than the short title sets out, and notwithstanding that fact there has been no real case put by the Government for passing the measure. They have in the Government two lawyers. They have the Attorney-General, who is a member of the House. Points have been made which would call for and demand an exposition of the Government's side of the case, but they have not been answered. This House is being trifled with by the Government in respect of this most important measure, the most important that could possibly be introduced here.
Scandalously trifled with.
And, now, having done so much with information which, I believe, is kept from the other Irish newspapers in this State, and kept exclusively for a newspaper over which the President of the Executive Council has what is called a controlling directorship, and which, I presume, may be looked upon as giving expression to his views—which I may say is misnamed in its own title, absolutely misnamed—the House is invited, at this season of the year when the time of farmer Deputies might be very well spent on their farms, to accept this motion: to enable the Government to keep people here instead of devoting themselves to what they had pointed out as the greatest need of the country at the moment— doing something for the unemployed. I object strongly to the House being trifled with by the Government in this fashion. There has been no response from the Government Benches, and I object to the whole procedure that has been adopted in connection with this Bill. I propose to vote against the motion to extend the time of the House to-day.
The President practically invited the House not to discuss this Bill. He made a comparatively short and very limited statement of the case. He altogether avoided touching the real issues that are involved in this Bill, and, as I have said, he then invited the House to limit itself to the points which he chose to raise in introducing the measure, and altogether avoided the much bigger issue that is involved in this. Now that was, of course, all right. The President was entitled to take any particular line he liked on the Bill, but there was an attempt made from this side of the House to discuss everything that was pertinent to the Bill: to try to put the real position before the country.
This Bill certainly merited serious debate from the Government Benches, but no attempt at all was made to reply. Very short and rather perfunctory speeches were made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not think that the Minister for Industry and Commerce occupied more than two or three minutes with his remarks.
Now there is no doubt at all that the whole proceedings in connection with this Bill are an attempt to stampede the people. The mere introduction of the Bill is an attempt to stampede the people. The President and the Ministers know perfectly well that they have received no mandate whatever for this Bill, and that there is no desire on the part of any substantial number of people that this Bill should be rushed through, or that any loss should be incurred by the country for the purpose of putting it through. There is no doubt that they put it on their programme. Their action in that connection is something like what happens, say, in Germany, where the system of proportional representation is different from what it is here: where any sort of ward-heeler can be put into the Party list after they have put in one or two attractive names to get votes. The Party opposite did not get their votes and did not get their victory, such as it was, because of the Oath Bill. They got their victory because of the fact that a Government ten years in office could be criticised on many scores, and because it must have made many enemies. They got it on their plea for a change. They got it also on the appeal to the cupidity which was involved in their policy in connection with the land annuities. They got it on other issues, but I venture to say that they did not get 10,000 votes on the Oath issue, and that if they had done a volte face in connection with the elimination of the Oath, as they did in connection with the taking of the Oath, it would have made no difference whatever.
It is easy to say, as the events that occurred in the summer of 1927 proved conclusively, that there is no real interest whatever on the Oath question in this country because if there had been any interest the manoeuvre which the President and those associated with him carried out would have caused a great revulsion of feeling. Having said that he would never take the Oath and having got elected on the policy of not taking the Oath and of refusing to come into this House unless the Oath were abolished, he turned around and came into the House. When a General Election was called after he had done that he actually gained increased support. He may have lost a few whose places were taken up by others, but it was quite obvious that the people were not interested in the issue. That was just as plain at the last election, too.
There was no interest in the Oath issue except the interest that the President himself had in it. He is out solely to occupy the time of the House in order to whitewash himself and those who acted with him in the past, having brought great damage and trouble to the country. So far as I am concerned the President can whitewash himself to his heart's content for what he has done. I have no wish to go back particularly on the past, but he should not whitewash himself or set out to whitewash himself at the expense of the country. He should not try to do damage to the country. He has already done damage to this country simply in his own personal interests. No one can deny that what is being done now has inflicted damage already and is bound to do more damage. The whole procedure in connection with this has caused instability and doubt in the minds of many people here. There is no doubt at all that what the President is doing is causing ill-feeling abroad, and that ill-feeling in our best market is going to have economic results.
It is all very well for the Minister for Agriculture to bring in a Bill here, and put a levy of 4d. a lb. on the consumers of the country, in respect of butter, but I say that the sort of thing that the Ministry are now doing, is calculated to produce feelings abroad of prejudice against our produce, the ordinary sort of prejudice that will operate in all sorts of commercial transactions, to a sufficient extent to do away with the greater part of the benefit of this bounty to the creameries and the butter producers which is to cost the consumers 4d. a lb.
There is no doubt at all that what the Ministry have done, and propose to do, has already caused unemployment, has already caused distress and is bound to cause more, and it is all done unnecessarily, even from the point of view they have in mind. It would be possible for them to deal with this Oath question in such a way as would cause none of the evils they are causing, and possible for them to deal with it in such a way that, whatever results are desired to be achieved, could be achieved without doing any damage to the country. When they bring in this sort of proposal, it is reasonable that they should debate it fairly, and, if they debated it fairly, there would not be any obstruction, and they could carry out their proposals in the ordinary time of the House, but now they propose to attempt something which is to be a sort of punishment on Deputies for venturing to criticise and discuss the proposals of the Government. The Ministry will not be able to get away with that. The President is very strong on doing things behind people's backs. He is great on giving his despatches out——
The Deputy is entitled to be heard without interruption.
The President is a great hand at committing the people to something, without consulting the Dáil. In the past, when a despatch should normally have gone, he has purposely waited until after the Dáil has sat, and then hurried it off, and later presented the Dáil with a fait accompli, and he has pursued the same sort of tactics here. Before any official announcement of policy was made to this country and the Dáil, other than the vague election promises, which nobody relied on, in view of the way he had turned completely round on his previous election promises, he communicated with the British Government and, as far as possible, tried to knit the issue with them.
It is quite possible that the President wishes for trouble and would prefer, in his own interest and in his Party interest, and in an attempt in some sort of way, to reach the semi-dictatorial position he once occupied, to have a war situation, because it is only in a war situation that that semi-dictatorial position can exist, and that he can get back some of the halo that was torn off him at the time of the Treaty debates and afterwards, when, by his blind folly, he plunged this country into a civil war; threw a burden of £30,000,000 worth of damage on the country; made inevitable the partition which, at that time, was not completely inevitable, although the Northern Parliament had been set up, because everybody who knows anything about it knows quite well that the people of the North were astonished at the success which the plenipotentiaries gained, and that there was every possibility that there would be no voting out of the Free State by the North. But the President, in his vanity, and in his dictatorial spirit; in his attempt to have the people, who had done greater service to the country than he ever did, behaving as his humble servants, plunged the country into all that trouble and, as a matter of fact, made it inevitable and natural that the people of the North should vote out of the Free State. He has done all this in the past, on the pretence that he objected to something in the Treaty. He did not object to things in the Treaty, but he objected to Collins having the credit for what he had done; he did it out of jealousy of the man who was a greater and a better man than he ever was—the men he maligned in that dirty despatch to the British were men who had given treble the service, ten times the service the President had ever given— and because he wants to maintain that dictatorial position of 1921 now in 1932, we are having this attempt to rush this through.
On a point of order, is this speech addressed to the motion before the House?
I think we cannot discuss that particular motion, without advertence to the business before the House. If this business before the House is urgent, and pressing, and in the national interest, no case at all has been made for it.
Are we entitled to discuss the rival merits of the leaders of 1922? Because we could talk a long time on that. The Deputy has got away with a lot of it.
Certainly, go on with it.
We can all have a crack at it.
To discuss the merits of the leaders of 1916-1922 is not in order on this motion.
Mr. Boland
Deputy Blythe was allowed to get away with it. I would draw your attention to that.
There should be some case shown for the urgency of this Bill, and the national interests it will serve. No attempt has been made to make a case by the President, who proposed it. He did not think enough of the House to make a case for the Bill. He only made a sort of a case, and his arguments were practically exclusively addressed to the ability of the House to pass it. He did not think it worth his while to show why the House should pass it in view of the circumstances surrounding it, and the possibilities attaching to its passage. I think the House deserves, and the Bill surely deserves, to get some justification for its passage, and that it was worthy of some arguments being advanced in favour of it, and something more than mere small arguments about machinery, and the rights of the House to pass it. In view of that it surely is not reasonable that this particular step should be taken. If the Ministers had spoken; if they had shown any disposition to meet the House fairly, the debate would probably have been over last night, or certainly to-day, and there would be no necessity for this, but when Ministers refuse to get up, Deputies on this side of the House have got up to try to shame them into speaking for the Bill, and, if not to shame them, to show them that it was not to their advantage to allow the whole discussion to be on one side. That attempt was not successful. The Ministers, with the exception of the one or two who have spoken, are apparently going to play the part of dumb dogs in this matter, and to try to get the Bill machined through by the Labour Party whom, I presume, they have for once succeeded in getting to agree to a late sitting, or to vote for the closure. The Labour Party, obviously, are ashamed of their part in the matter.
Did the Deputy ever vote for the closure?
I think the case for the motion before the House was very clearly stated by Deputy Blythe when speaking, so far as it was not revealed by the other speakers of his Party during the past two days. For two days we have been listening to them talking about the Bill, each one of them making a different case, each one with a different set of arguments, each one contradicting the previous one. Is it necessary that we should listen to them interminably, and, if so, what advantage is going to come to the country from it? We are not curtailing discussion. We are not denying the importance of this measure. Measures almost as important were rushed through the Dáil by the late Executive Council after three or four hours' discussion. There are members in this House who know more about the various devices by which discussion in Parliament can be curtailed than the members of any other Parliament in Europe, taught by Deputy Blythe and his colleagues. We have had the guillotine, the closure, and other devices invented by the ingenious minds of Deputies opposite to prevent discussion and to get measures and amendments to the Constitution rushed through the Dáil one after another like sausages out of a machine. We are not curtailing discussion. This Bill has been discussed for two days here. It was discussed for four years before that throughout the country. We are going to give you two more days to talk all the nonsense you can about it and at the end of that time we want a decision. We hear talk about faked election promises. Deputy Blythe can make any gibes he likes of that nature, but there was one promise made by us to the country on the strength of which we were returned— the promise to delete the Oath in the Constitution. There was nothing faked about that and it is going out.
And not to break the Treaty!
I advise Deputy Cosgrave very strongly to call a conference of his Party and ask them what is the Treaty and what is their attitude to it; what significance they attach to the document this year, and try at least to get one member of that Party with authority to speak the common mind of the rest, if there is such a thing amongst them. We have been sitting here for the past two days and it was not necessary for us to intervene in the debate because the case made by any Deputy opposite was immediately contradicted and torn to pieces by the Deputy who followed.
What were the copious notes taken for by Ministers?
Because it is necessary that we should have some amusement.
Why was the information transferred from the Labour Benches?
Various statements have been made by Deputy Blythe that it is necessary to contradict. He said that information was given to one newspaper and denied to others. That is not true. I want to contradict that in the most emphatic manner possible. There was no information given to any one newspaper since this Government came into office that was not given to the others.
Have the other newspapers got the information that there is to be an all-night sitting?
If the Deputy had been exercising his function as leader of the Opposition he could have got that information by listening to the discussion in the Lobby.
I spend my time in the House and not in the Lobby. Then we get Government policy in the Lobby!
It is as edifying to see Satan rebuking sin as to hear Deputy Cosgrave describing a proposal of this kind as unusual. It fairly takes one's breath away. On many occasions he stood in this place and proposed "That the vote upon this motion be taken not later than 6 p.m. this evening." Deputy Hayes will tell him the usual formula about putting the question to bring a motion to a conclusion.
There is a difference between ten years and ten weeks.
The only reason there is opposition to this motion is to let loose the floods of oratory on the back benches of Cumann na nGaedheal which have been dammed up for ten years—to let them loose at last. We want this question debated fairly. We are debating it fairly before the people. We got a verdict from the people, and that verdict is going to be given effect to here.
You did not get ten votes for it in any constituency.
We got more votes than you upon whatever policy you put before the people.
You got them on the land annuities.
One matter of serious import mentioned by Deputy Blythe in his speech and in speeches which his colleagues delivered during the past two days was undoubtedly making for instability and uncertainty. In view of the fact that this question has been adequately debated and that the attitude of the people towards it has been clearly defined, it is obviously in the public interest that the passage of this Bill should not be delayed by senseless opposition and obstruction. That is what the Party opposite are doing for purely Party purposes; to promote that instability and uncertainty, to do the most damage they can to the economic life of the country, in the hope that there will be some reaction against the Government and that they will gain a few votes at a by-election. If Deputies opposite had the slightest element of sincerity in their attitude, they would co-operate with the Government in getting this Bill through the Dáil; so far as this Dáil is prepared to put it into effect to get it through and by doing so to give effect to the verdict of the people recorded at the elections to enable the Government to get on with their work in solving the other serious problems. Before concluding there is one thing I want to say. The Deputies talked about information given to one newspaper. I have not had an opportunity of reading all the newspapers. Obviously neither had he, but at least one other newspaper—the "Irish Times"—had the information.
I did not think the Deputy read the "Irish Times."
Is the "Irish Times" in your confidence also?
Your men must have gone to bed early.
The ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce could tell Deputy Cosgrave exactly the procedure that is adopted when it is desired to withhold information from a newspaper just because that one newspaper was critical of the policy of his Government. He knows all about it. If he likes, I shall produce here files from my Department with notes written by him, such as: "No information is to be given to the ‘Irish Press'; no advertisements are to be given to the ‘Derry Journal'; under no circumstances are advertisements to be given to the ‘Dundalk Examiner.'" These are all over the files.
Why not say the Press that you call Irish?
I am talking about the "Irish Press."
You will want to put a big label on that.
There is a case for getting this Bill through the Dáil before this week terminates. We are going to give Deputies opposite from this until 12 o'clock to-morrow night to talk all they want about it. Surely that is adequate. It is much more time than they ever gave us to discuss any question which they introduced.
We had not as much to listen to.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce told us that there has been obstruction with regard to this measure, and went on to say that the obstruction consisted in each one of the Deputies here making arguments contradictory of the ones that preceded and followed—each had different arguments and they were self-contradictory. Have we no debaters on the other side to point that out in the course of the discussion?
It was painfully obvious.
It was so painfully obvious that it would have given the Minister for Defence more pain than he ordinarily exhibits to stand up in his place and demonstrate that. The back benchers of this Party have, according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to let the oratory loose that for years has been dammed up. There may be a change as the oratory which used to flow in a flood from the back benches on the other side is now being dammed and roundly dammed. A certain discretion ought to be used with regard to back benchers. Are Ministers so afraid of their colleague? Are Ministers afraid that the Minister for Justice would not be allowed to make his customary indiscretions if he were allowed to blunder into this debate? Is the Attorney General——
Mr. Boland
He will come after you.
Not the honorary Attorney-General. Is the Attorney-General so fearful of his legal knowledge in this matter that he cannot be allowed to point to the contradictory arguments used on this side? I say the non-honorary Attorney-General because we understand that most of the arguments used have been founded on arguments of the honorary Attorney-General. I understand the Government go on the good old racing theory that they do not pay on the first past the Attorney-General's post. They only pay when the winner is declared all right. The red flag was hoisted with regard to the first past the post, for that particular emolument. The red flag was hoisted but the winner was not declared to be all right, and it will be interesting to find why the man upon whose arguments this measure we are discussing have been founded upon should have been disqualified. It might have been on the ground of boring, whether there was bumping also I do not know.
Can the Deputy show how this matter is relevant to the motion before the House?
Because the arguments on which this Bill was founded were based upon the arguments this gentleman used to bring forward, in the country for many years; that makes it relevant. Was it because of the previous running of that particular horse that he had to be warned off the course? If we have an Attorney-General in this House surely his function, unless he is going to be occupied more with his part-time work is——
May I ask whether the point in regard to the particular function of the Attorney-General is relevant to the matter we are discussing? I suggest it is not.
On account of that we are open to discuss the people who have spoken and with equal relevance to discuss people who have not spoken particularly when they are people from whom a speech might easily be expected.
Are we open to discuss or to refer to people not in this House?
It would be advisable not to, and the Deputies who have not spoken, may not be discussed, as persons, either.
Only in relation to functions we expect them to discharge in this House.
I suggest the question of the function of the Attorney-General is not in order. If we are to discuss the functions of the Attorney-General, why not discuss the functions of the ex-Minister for External Affairs?
And I suggest that that was done and very pointed. Questions were put to me relating to that capacity, which I intend to answer. The question of function was brought in. I hope it will be stressed.
By whom?
By the President. The President asked would the ex-Minister for External Affairs deny certain things and give a statement. He addressed me merely in relation to the functions I had in one Ministry.
And the ex-Minister has not answered.
And if the Deputy is afraid that the ex-Minister for External Affairs will not answer it, let the debate flow on and he will get his answer from me either here to-day or next Wednesday.
And the House will also get the answer from the Attorney-General.
I hope so.
Mr. Boland
After you!
If that is the reason why certain interventions were not made in this debate, there were the ordinary channels through which that argument might have been advanced. I would have been willing to step into this debate at any point in order to supply the answers so often demanded by many speakers opposite. I would be quite willing if that is what is in question.
Has the Deputy not said that he would not intervene until after the Attorney-General?
Deputies
No, no.
I have not said that.
He cannot get a word in edgeways.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce said that he— I presume he means the Attorney-General—cannot get a word in edgeways. Has he shown any signs of rising in his place and not being called on during the last couple of days by the Chair? I have not seen it. I do not understand the force of the observation that that person could not get a word in edgeways.
He wants to hear you.
Very good. That situation can be easily brought about. Is that any argument for closuring the debate on this Bill?
We are not closuring it.
For taking this House out of its ordinary sittings? What is the case made for urgency and what is the urgency with regard to the measure? It is to remove the Oath. You are all sworn.
You are all foresworn.
There is nothing retrospective about this. It does not remove the sort of sin, the stain of original sin, that came upon you on entering into the House.
Your theology is weak.
I should like to ask is the Deputy entitled to address members across the House. I think he should address the Chair.
The Deputy should address the Chair.
I apologise, sir. May I ask Deputies opposite through you, sir, are they not all sworn?
I shall answer that when I come to reply.
Is there anything retrospective in this measure which will clear away the sin which they apparently think they are tainted with —the sin that they took to themselves when they came into the House after saying through their leader that they would be in their grave before such an Oath was sworn by them? The Oath has been taken. This Bill to remove the Oath does not remove the taking of that Oath from those people. It does not remove from them anything in the way of disgrace they may have incurred through coming into the House and obeying its regulations. Is there any other cause for urgency about it? We are told that we have peace in the country, that we have it, not that we are going to have it, if this Bill goes through. We have it according to Ministers opposite. Is there any reason on account of the peace of this country and is the peace so unstable that holding this Bill over from to-day until next Wednesday is going to interrupt the peace of the country? Is the Minister for Justice not able to enforce the ordinary law upon law breakers, if such there be, between this and next Wednesday? The title of the House is faulty according to Ministers, and has been faulty since 1922. We are now in such a state of urgency that we must get the Bill through before Saturday in order to reinstate it and to reinstate it in the good opinion of whom? Of the people whom the Minister for Justice cannot keep in order by enforcing the ordinary law, if he regards it as ordinary law, in the country at present. If we have lived in a state of anarchy by reason of this House being faulty to pass legislation for nine or ten years, is the difference of two or three days or two or three weeks going to make any change? Has any case for urgency been made? When any case for urgency was made in the past the first approach was through the ordinary channel to see whether or not any accommodation could be got either with regard to the particular stage of a measure, or with regard to all the stages. Was there any approach made with regard to this measure? Was there any approach made with regard to speakers or as to winding up at the end of the time limit? No approach whatever. We have had the spectacle of the President telling us that this Bill should not really be discussed because it was only a matter of principle. Matters of principle are not to be discussed at any length in this House!
I do not think that is what I said.
May I quote from the paper of the Minister for Industry and Commerce—the "Irish Times"?
I am not responsible for what is in the "Irish Times" or any other paper.
May I quote from the newspaper what the President said? "He did not think that any good purpose could be served by lengthening the debate when it was a question of principle that should be decided." A peculiar statement. The President at any rate asked us to curtail the debate.
No.
He said that he did not think that any good purpose could be served by widening the scope of the debate, and he deliberately restricted himself. "Other matters raised would be dealt with in reply," and finally he "did not think that any good purpose could be served by lengthening the debate." But more effective than the President's words asking us not to lengthen the debate was the fact that he threw in his Minister for Finance, the next speaker to himself, to clear the House. He certainly did go out of his way to shorten the debate by that bit of tactics.
There were tactics on the other side.
The debate lost interest for a while. The only people who stayed were those who stayed to see if the Minister for Finance could avoid blundering into something as he usually does, and he did not avoid it. In addition to those two, we had the Minister for Industry and Commerce indicating that although he was now on the verge of a Republic, that nothing on earth was going to push him over the edge into it. That was the only argument that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was able to put forward with regard to the measure. All the Republicans, the semi-Republicans, the oathless Dominionists, the pure Dominionists and the sworn people here in front of us sat silent while this debate went on for two days. They said there was a mass of contradictory statements made on this side. A mass of contradictory statements, they said, was made, but if so these could have been shown up by keen debaters; but so far they failed to show them up.
Because they were so obvious.
The Minister for Finance does not ordinarily neglect the obvious. The obvious is what he deals in, and the more open and obvious a mistake is the more may one be certain that the Minister for Finance will not merely see it, but knock up against it. The Bill, according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has been discussed in the country for four years. Is not one of the big points made in this debate, and not yet answered, that the Bill has not yet been discussed by anybody, and has not been understood by anybody in the country? The question of the removal of the Oath which was not mandatory may have been discussed, but the question of the removal of the Oath which was mandatory was never discussed. The question of the removal of the Oath which was declared to be mandatory by this very Bill by which it is proposed to remove the Oath, was not discussed by anybody for even four weeks, not to say for four years, in this country. The Minister went on to say that there was one promise on which they got returned; and that was what? This Bill? Surely not.
That the Oath declared not to be mandatory would be taken out of the Constitution? It is because of the Clauses that are in the Bill that is presented to the House that the discussion has gone on. He waited to hear those people, legally minded, explain why two Clauses were put into this measure; to explain away the conscience betrayed by the insertion of these two Clauses, to tell us what is to be the policy which has been clearly agreed since the Ministers were before the country electioneering and this Bill. This Bill clearly, as has been stated, goes further than anything they put to the country. If it were not so, are the Ministers opposite so devoid of debating skill, that all they can say in answer to the arguments made by the speakers on this side, is for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to declare his intention of sticking fast to the Commonwealth?
Is Deputy McGilligan going to make two speeches on the Bill—is this the Deputy's speech on the Bill?
Certainly not.
The Deputy is in order.
What has this speech to do with the motion?
Do not delay the House.
When the Deputy has more experience in Opposition he will know that it makes no difference.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce has said that it would be his advice to us that we should get together and get some spokesman to declare what is, what he describes, as our common mind on the Treaty, and on this Bill, if we have such a common mind. We have debated this, debated it freely and different points have been put up. We waited to hear what are the Opposition arguments, and are met by a very definite appeal to the common mind on the other side. What is the result of these appeals to the common mind on the other side? That nobody is to speak for fear somebody might blunder in this delicate matter. That is the common mind we find on the other side. There is something common to the people on the other side, and it is the outcome of the action of the kind to which Deputy Blythe referred as the dictatorial element in the President's composition. He was to make the running. He was to make the speech; the Minister for Finance was to clear the House, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce was to wave a little bit of flag. But he was not to go near or even towards the Republic. The rest were to be confined.
In a cage.
No argument was allowed to proceed from anybody other than the dictator. There is only one speech of substance made on the Government side, and that speech was the opening one. To the play of argument from this side, no return was made because of the common mind. At any rate, the Government did get one spokesman of the common mind in the Minister for Industry and Commerce. They did get one spokesman who told them to "Hang fast to the Commonwealth; it means a lot. This Bill is not to put us outside the Commonwealth." The very people who swore always to break the connection; the people whose aim and policy always was described in that way—to break the connection and to have complete separation from the Commonwealth, are now represented by the Minister for Industry and Commerce who was put up to make that statement about "hanging on to the Commonwealth." The Minister was put in to soothe people on a particular point. He was well chosen because he was the foremost and most vehement in putting forward the opposite point of view. Now the point of view put forward by him is "Hold fast to the Treaty; it keeps you in the Commonwealth and you are not to be hoofed out of it."
That is what the Minister for Industry and Commerce comes to; and he is representing the common mind of the back benchers of Fianna Fáil in that particular matter. He does represent them. But for fear some of them might blunder into some other sort of statement, for fear that some of them might not so easily forget the war-cries they uttered in the last ten years, they have to sit silent and no argument put up by this side is answered. The debate is allowed to drag on. In a debating assembly, the principle is that things are going to be argued out and reason is to be brought to apply to all things, that the clash of mind to mind is what works and gets you a definite policy. That is all gone because of the apprehension that exists in the President's mind, that if any of his followers would be allowed to speak, there would be blunders committed. The President has enough to do to get out of his own blunders in the past, without taking on his shoulders the blunders of his followers. The war-cries of the past five years are to be forgotten. The closure has to be put on the Government Party in regard to what they are going to say, and even in regard to the people who are to be allowed to speak. We are told that the Leader of the Opposition could have got an indication of Government policy in this matter, if he had listened in the Lobbies last night. The journalists of particular newspapers evidently were not listening in the Lobby last night when the thing could be so common as the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that certain newspapers——
One newspaper. Your Party newspaper did not get it.
One newspaper states that it can authoritatively state a certain thing. Was that gleaned in the Lobby, or where did they get it, or where did they get the segregation of this peculiar policy position that has developed—a part-time President of a State and a part-time Director of a newspaper?
Mr. Boland
There are a lot of part-time men over there.
It would be interesting to know where the part-time newspaper proprietor begins, and stops, and where does the part-time President take up his functions, and where do those functions end.
That is not in order, since it is not relevant to this motion.
I understood that when a Minister was allowed to mention this matter, rebutting statements would be permitted.
My statement was a rebutting statement.
The ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce fancies he has the superiority complex.
The Minister has indicated that his statement was a rebutting statement. Then, apparently, both statements have been allowed and surely further references in the same connection are relevant. We heard to-day for the first time from the Minister for Industry and Commerce of the possibility of instability in this country. Instability due to what?
The Deputy's speeches.
Due to the speeches delivered here? What would be the reason for the instability? Where does instability reside in the speeches delivered on this side? The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in the course of his brief intervention the other day, asked in the most pointed way what defiance was there in the attitude of the Government. What adverse consequences would there be, he asked, and he continued that if Deputies on this side knew anything of the possible adverse consequences, they ought to indicate them clearly. That was the Minister's invitation. Does the Minister mean that the statements made in response to his invitation are calculated to give rise to instability in the country?
No statements have been made in response to my invitation. There have been certain innuendoes, insinuations, and veiled suggestions, but there have been no statements of any kind in response to the invitation.
So if a statement as to the possible consequences were to be made, as distinct from a hint in regard to those consequences, it would prevent instability? Is it that the hint causes instability, and definite statements that certain consequences are likely to follow, would not cause instability? I would like that argument developed.
It is the oldest argument in the world. A person can insinuate what he cannot prove, and suggest what he does not know.
It is the ordinary type of argument on the other side of the House. The President has insinuated certain things, but he has not proved them. For instance, he has insinuated, but has not proved, that this does not break the Treaty. He has insinuated that in a variety of ways.
Is this discussion really in order? I think Deputy McGilligan should, at least, be fair to the House. He should make Deputies aware whether he is really discussing the Bill, or the motion that is now before the House. If his object is to get Ministers to give him little points on which to string speeches, so that he can lengthen out his oration, and then come along later this evening, and possibly to-morrow evening, with more statements, he should, at least, make us aware of that.
That is not a point of order; it is a speech.
The motion before the House is that the Dáil sit later than 2.30 p.m. to-day, and the Deputy might come back to that now.
He might.
I have not put forward any arguments that have not had reference to the arguments made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Arguments made on this motion?
I presume when the Minister was not held up, his statements were considered to be in order; his arguments were probably in order. I cannot see how rebuttals of those arguments are out of order if the original arguments were in order. I have not spoken on any matter except what the Minister for Industry and Commerce introduced into the debate on this motion.
Is Deputy McGilligan's opinion as to what he considers a rebutting statement to rule in this House? Deputy McGilligan ought to tell the House what he means by a rebutting statement. Some of these rebutting statements may go on for hours and there is no indication of what they have relation to. There should, at least, be some relevancy in the debate.
The Chair is the judge of what is in order.
When Deputy McGilligan has had more experience in opposition he will be a lot wiser.
He is doing very well.
He is learning all right.
Deputy Derrig while being a part-time Minister for Education is not also a part-time occupant of the Chair.
I am not a part-time Minister for Education. I am a whole-time Minister for Education. I am not in the same position as Deputy McGilligan once occupied.
The assertion made by Deputy McGilligan must be withdrawn.
I withdraw it immediately. I hope the same thing applies to the President.
The Deputy should try to be sensible.
Mr. Boland
If Deputy McGilligan wants that sort of thing he will get plenty of it. He will get more than he is bargaining for if he starts that game.
We have been asked by the Minister for Industry and Commerce not to debate this motion further.
I did not ask any such thing.
One of the arguments introduced by the Minister was that possibly debating this Bill for a few days might gain us a few votes at a by-election. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is very electorally minded. It is heartening to find a suggestion from him that he regards a debate on this Bill as injurious to his cause. It negatives his argument that this Bill was discussed in the country for four years. If it has been so discussed and if the Government got into power on that as one of the items— and they claim it to be the biggest— how would discussing it for a few days be likely to get us a few votes in a by-election?
Not discussing the Bill.
Then discussing what?
I said the object of the Party opposite was to do as much damage as they could to the economic structure of this State by their speeches, in the hope that, as a result of the damage, they would gain a few votes in a by-election.
That is a new and interesting argument—that causing economic damage in this country is likely to gain a few votes for us in a by-election. That is now a clear-cut argument. It may be one of the reasons why the present Party sits in office, because they did their level best to do economic harm in this country in the years gone past. It is only because of the promises to repair the damage they did, because of their great plans, and their proposed reduction of taxation, that they got into office.
Would I be in order, when I speak later on, in dealing with the economic injury the late Minister for Industry and Commerce did here in connection with various schemes he had charge of?
The Minister will be in order if he has time to speak, but a decision on this question must be taken before 12 o'clock noon.
Then Deputy A. Byrne was wrong in arranging for three or four Deputies to speak. I think Deputy MacDermot arranged something like that too.
That statement is inaccurate.
I made no arrangements for anybody to speak.
The chains of office will fall from the group. They are all to be chained down by 12 o'clock.
I hope we will have no decision in this House to prevent Deputy Cleary from speaking. He spoke in this debate already, and his intervention was such that I think the order that back-benchers were not to speak became more rigid than previously. That was the only result we got from his intervention.
We might, however, have the ordinary by-play of argument if the mind of Deputies opposite had been allowed to come in and reveal itself in speech. We are told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce of important measures that are forward. Let us think of one of them which will be blocked it this Bill runs the ordinary course and is carried forward to next week. There was a butter proposal before the House. A request was made to us through the usual channel that we would allow that Butter Bill— not the motion—to be introduced on Wednesday of this week and debated yesterday. We have not got the Bill yet. If that Bill has been held up, I suggest that it cannot be said it is because of the discussion that is going on now, because the Minister for Agriculture was conspicuous by his absence when this was proceeding. I did not understand that any of the people interested in that matter had occupied themselves to any extent with the measure which we are discussing. Why is the Butter Bill——
The Deputy must keep to the motion.
I suggest that this is completely and entirely relevant. We have been asked to take a discussion on this motion until 12 o'clock to-morrow night in order according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, not to prevent other important measures being brought before the House next week. That is one of the reasons given by one of the two persons who have spoken for this motion. I think I am in order in referring to one of the measures we were to have before us, and which is now absent, although we were promised it in such time that we could have a debate on it yesterday. Where is the Bill?
In cold storage.
Like the back benchers of Fianna Fáil.
It is in the dissecting room.
We will find it is more than put away to be preserved. I think we will find it has undergone certain changes, if we are to believe the authoritative organ of the Party opposite.
Discussion of the Butter Bill is definitely out of order on this motion.
He will bring in the Drumm train yet.
If the Butter Bill had been brought here on it, it would have come a great deal faster.
How many times in the last month was the Drumm train brought in for repairs?
I would remind the Vice-President that, like a human organism, a battery can go out of order occasionally.
How many times in a month?
I would not like to call attention to the absence of certain people from this House and ask why they were away. What seems to have happened to the Butter Bill is this——
The Butter Bill is out of order on this motion.
Are we going to have floods of oratory from the other side when the Bill is being discussed?
What Bill? There is no Bill being discussed.
If the Deputy's speech gives us inspiration, he will have floods of oratory.
Surely I might explain to Deputy Cooney that a motion has been moved to have a discussion for a certain period.
Forty-eight hours.
A motion, not a Bill.
There seem to be several Ceann Comhairles in the House.
On a point of order. Is the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce in order in stating that there are a great many Ceann Comhairles in the House? I think he is the last Deputy who should make such an insinuation.
I would like to have the last point explained. I do not know what it means.
Deputy McGilligan.
I hope I was in order in the point I put to Deputy Cooney that if a motion is moved to have a discussion on a particular Bill carried forward for a particular period that one is in order in discussing on the motion that Bill in so far as it is relevant to the motion for the extension of time. I am attempting to show that there is no reason of urgency made to the House why the discussion of that Bill, which is carried into the motion, should not be allowed to go in the ordinary way into Wednesday or Thursday of next week.
What has that got to do with the Butter Bill?
Order.
I think I had better refer the Deputy to the Minister for Industry and Commerce who first introduced the outside important measure that we have held up. One measure that was clearly before the minds of everybody who entered this House was the forbidden Butter Bill. We want to discuss the Bill with which the motion deals in an adequate fashion and in the ordinary way, but there has been no suggestion made by the President or by the only Minister who supported him that there is urgency. Vague statements about instability which are shown to be groundless are not reasons why this Bill should not go in the ordinary way and be debated on Wednesday and Thursday next. If there is any point that the Bill ought to be got through all stages, or that it is the desire of the Government Party that the Bill ought to be got through all stages by a certain date, cannot that case be made openly or through the ordinary channels? No case whatever has been made, either openly or through the ordinary channels, why this Bill should be taken in the peculiar way in which it is going to be taken. Let it be remembered that there is serious thought being given to this Bill in the country. The whole Treaty issue has been raised by the introduction of Section 2 into the measure. Is it going to be represented here that that issue is not big enough and important enough to be discussed by all Parties in the House before a decision is taken on the main stage—the principle— of the Bill?
I am sorry to interrupt Deputy McGilligan, particularly when he is starring on the boards. We all know that it is a good thing to have a little amusement, but we have work to do and I propose that the motion be now put.
Are we going to hear from the Labour Party on this point?
Mind your own business.
The discussion has only been on one hour.
As the Deputy knows a decision must be reached before 12 o'clock.
There are 25 minutes to go yet by my watch and 22 minutes by the clock in the Chamber.
Mr. Boland
It is five minutes slow.
I shall accept the President's motion if made again in five minutes.
I would like to let Labour intervene for the five minutes.
Perhaps the Deputy does not object to giving someone else five minutes. The extraordinary thing about Deputies on the front Opposition Benches is that they seem to be quite in ignorance with regard to the urgency of certain matters which one would imagine they above all other people would be cognisant of. One of these matters is the Budget. I understand that in normal circumstances the Minister for Finance would have got about two months to prepare his Budget. Yet we have Deputies on the Opposition Benches now clamouring and asking the Minister for Finance why he cannot have a Budget ready within two or three weeks. We have also complaints about the Butter Bill.
The Butter Bill will be in circulation shortly.
Is the Butter Bill in order in this debate?
I do not think Deputy McGilligan will have any complaints on that score. We have any no objection whatever to Deputy McGilligan, and his colleagues, getting the fullest possible time, and we intend to give them until 12 o'clock to-morrow night. If Deputy McGilligan ever had the opportunity for showing the stuff that is in him to give us a complete account of the whole Treaty issue, with particular reference to Section 2 of the present Bill, he has now that wonderful opportunity.
This man who has been bursting for fame for many years, who has been desirous of coming forward on the European stage, who could not make up his mind whether it was with the mere British Commonwealth of Nations the Irish Free State should be associated or with Monsieur Briand's European Plan or even with Bolshevic Russia—it is certainly extremely hard on this ex-Minister to have to come down to such puerilities as Section 2 or 3 of a Bill of this character. In addition, we must remember the tremendous vanity of the ex-Minister. Nobody else knows anything about international affairs, about the Treaty issue, about the relations between the Irish Free State and the British Commonwealth. If any member of this House had the temerity to express an opinion on these matters, it would be immediately dismissed as mere uninformed verbiage. Yet, what is the contribution of the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce to this matter? It is that insufficient time has been given. It has been pointed out that a Bill of this character was introduced into this House in 1927. It was indicated that such a measure had at least been under consideration by the late Government. They have had ample opportunity for many months past to make up their case. What is the result of all that? I submit that no contribution of any value whatever has been made to this discussion. All the speeches that were made were, so far as I can judge, based upon speeches made by the Irish Party in the British House of Commons, some time before the Sinn Féin movement started. One of the most extraordinary things about this whole discussion is that we have gone back to pre-1914. The ex-Republican ex-Free State Ministers are so anxious to get away from their bad Republican past, so anxious to hold up the business of this country, so anxious to deprive the Irish people of the opportunity of knowing the real financial position created by Deputy McGilligan and others——
On a point of order, I should like to question, in the first place, the relevancy of the speech now being made, and, secondly, I should like to put it to you, A Chinn Comhairle, that you declared your intention of accepting the closure in five minutes.
Remember you are an ex-Minister now.
We had no notice of this motion and, seeing that we had no notice, I should like to ask if you would be prepared to accept an amendment to the motion.
The motion before the House is in the usual form. It is too late now to accept an amendment as the matter must be decided by 12 o'clock.
The amendment need only be formally moved and a division taken. It can then go forward in the ordinary way. I would move to delete the words "12 o'clock to-morrow night" and substitute therefor the words "five o'clock this evening."
I now move the closure.
Are you accepting the amendment, A Chinn Comhairle?
I wish the ex-Minister would read Article 52, which they used so often in the past.
The closure motion has not been accepted yet.
The closure is not accepted yet.
It will be accepted in a moment. The usual channels have been used to get the closure.
May I ask, sir, if you are accepting the amendment?
I am prepared to accept the amendment on conditions.
Are you quite certain that you will be able to get this business finished in time?
I take it that the House agrees that the debate conclude at 12 o'clock.
I suggest that the debate should be concluded before 12 o'clock midnight to-morrow.
I accept the amendment on condition that the House agrees to decide the main question even after 12 noon, and not otherwise.
Either my amendment is in order or it is not. From the fact that you accepted my amendment, I gathered that it was in order.
Conditionally.
This is a device to gain time in collusion with the ex-Speaker.
That statement is absolutely untrue.
You are worthy of it.
I am the author of the suggestion.
I wish to call your attention to Standing Order 52, which says that when a Deputy moves "That the question be now put,""unless it shall appear to the Ceann Comhairle that such motion is an infringement of the rights of a minority, or that the question has not been adequately discussed, or that the motion is otherwise an abuse of these Standing Orders, the question "That the question be now put' shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate."
The motion submitted was that the question be now put. I gave a five-minute extension and did not accept the motion then. An amendment has now been moved. The House is entitled to come to a decision on the main question. There is no time to decide both the closure motion and the main question before 12 o'clock, having regard to the ordinary time a division takes. I now accept the closure motion, and I cannot accept the amendment.
I move the closure.
The motion is that the Dáil sit later than 2.30 p.m. and that the Order for the adjournment be taken not later than 12 midnight to-morrow.
Two o'clock.
The motion, as moved in this House, was 12 o'clock.
Nonsense.
The motion before the House is that the Dáil sit later than 2.30 p.m. and that the Order for the adjournment be taken not later than 12 midnight to-morrow (Saturday).
That is the motion.
The Dáil normally adjourns at 2 p.m., not 2.30.
My motion was actually 2 o'clock. I corrected it.
The Deputy moved from 2.30 o'clock.
Mr. Boland
He moved from 2 o'clock. Are you Ceann Comhairle?
No but——
Sit down and behave yourself.
I ask the President to state what he meant by saying that he corrected the motion. What did he correct it from?
The paper had as a misprint 2.30, and in moving the motion I indicated that it was from 2 o'clock.
The President states that he said 2 o'clock?
Yes.
He also said 2.30.
I am taking the motion as from 2 o'clock. The question is—"That the question be now put."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá: 78; Níl: 72.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Bryan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Micheál.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Curran, Patrick Joseph.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Gormley, Francis.
- Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- O'Gradv, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas J.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Broderick, William Jos.
- Broderick, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Hassett, John J.!
- Hayes, Michael.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Keating, John.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Kiersey, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McDonogh, Fred.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Davis, Michael.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis John.
- O'Brien, Eugene P.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Hara, Patrick.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mrs. Mary
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick Walter.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Question declared carried.
Main motion put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 78; Níl, 72.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Bryan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Micheál.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Curran, Patrick Joseph.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Gormley, Francis.
- Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas J.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Broderick, William Jos.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Davis, Michael.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorev, Denis John.
- Hassett, John J.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Keating, John.
- Keogh, Mvles.
- Kiersey, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McDonogh, Fred.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Brien, Eugene P.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Hara, Patrick.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, Thomas J.
- O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mrs. Mary.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick Walter.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Motion declared carried.
I would like to intimate to the House that we propose to meet on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week.
I am afraid the President is late with regard to that.
When it comes to the motion for the adjournment I intend to move that.
Oh, no.
I am not moving it. I am simply indicating that I intend to move it.
The usual practice is to indicate it at the commencement of business on Friday.
Mr. Boland
As a matter of courtesy.
Are we departing from courtesy?
Will the President kindly say whether it is his intention, at the first opportunity, to introduce a relief measure for the unemployed?
That question is out of order.
Mr. Byrne
It is all very fine for Deputies to laugh, but there are people suffering great hardships in the City of Dublin.
Deputies
Chair, Chair!
Give them sugar-cane.
Mr. Byrne
You are a great party for the poor.
Notice has been given that a motion to sit on Tuesday next will be proposed later.