Constitution (Amendment No. 24) Bill—Report.

Question proposed: That the Bill be received for final consideration. (The President.)

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, Schedule, Part II, at the end of the portion of the column relating to Article L to add the words "The insertion after the words ‘by way of ordinary legislation' of the words ‘but no such amendment passed by the Oireachtas in respect of Articles VI, VII, VIII, IX, XVIII, XIX, XXIV, XXVIII, XLIII, XLVI, XLIX, L, LXI, LXII, LXIII, LXIV, LXV, LXVI, LXVIII, LXIX, LXX shall become law until after a general election shall have been held and a Resolution approving of such amendment shall have been passed by Dáil Eireann on the recommendation of the Executive Council first elected after such general election.'"

The object of the amendment is to ensure that any amendments of the Constitution which are effected by the Dáil will not be equivalent, merely, to an ordinary Act of the Oireachtas, under Article L of the Constitution, before the expiration of a period of 16 years from the date of the coming into operation of the Constitution. During that time the Constitution can be amended by ordinary legislation; in other words, by an ordinary Act of the Dáil. Any such Act of the Oireachtas, purporting to amend the Constitution, within that period can, therefore, itself be altered or repealed or amended by another ordinary Act of the Oireachtas. Therefore, when the Seanad has been abolished, in accordance with the terms of this Bill, the position shall be, unless some safeguard such as is proposed in this amendment is inserted in the Bill, that the Constitution will have completely disappeared or, if it does not disappear, will be alterable by an ordinary Act of the Oireachtas.

The Articles supposed to safeguard the rights of the citizen, as set out in the amendment, are fundamental Articles of the Constitution. Article VI provides for the inviolability of the liberty of the subject, and the remedy by way of habeas corpus for unlawful detention; Article VII provides for the inviolability of the dwelling; Article VIII provides for the guarantee of the citizen's right of free expression of opinion, and so on, with the various Articles enumerated in the amendment. It is obvious that if these fundamental rights are to be continued in any way that will give any safeguard to the citizens there must be some check, after the passing of this Bill abolishing the Seanad, against depriving the citizens of this State of these fundamental rights by the passage of a mere Act of the Oireachtas which could be done in the course of a few hours in this Dáil. That is the object aimed at in this amendment. It is proposed in respect of these Articles which set forth, and guarantee to the citizens of the State, the various fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution— that Articles, subject to the provision of Article L, that they should not be in a position to be repealed, altered, or swept away by an ordinary Act of the Dáil. The proposal is that during the residue of the period of 16 years mentioned in Article L the guarantees contained in these Articles for the rights of the citizens should be preserved by making it impossible, constitutionally, for the Dáil to pass an ordinary Act in any way prejudicing or affecting those rights.

The proposal is that the Constitution, during the residue of that period, can still be amended by ordinary legislation which will amount now to an ordinary Act of the Dáil, but that that Act shall not operate as law until after a general election has been held during which the people will have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the Constitutional amendments that have been proposed, and that after that general election, whatever Executive Council is elected as the result of it will have complete control over the situation. If the Executive Council that originally proposed an amendment to the Constitution is returned, by the mere passing of a resolution of the then elected Dáil the Constitutional amendment will there and then become law. On the other hand, if the Executive Council that proposed the amendment of these fundamental rights is not returned and the Executive Council that does take its place takes a different view from the previous Executive, it has complete control over the situation.

This Dáil is no more sovereign than any of its predecessors or any of its successors. The Dáil—the Oireachtas as it stands at the moment—is a sovereign Assembly. Its sovereignty is to some extent cut down by the Constitution and by the provisions of the Constitution, but to the extent only to which the powers of the Oireachtas are cut down by the Constitution. The Oireachtas is sovereign and the position would, therefore, be that this Dáil could, if Article L is allowed to remain in its present state, sweep away the entire Constitution of the State by an ordinary Act of the Dáil passed in a few hours. It is obvious that some remedy must be found for that state of affairs.

The President has down in his name an amendment dealing with the position of the judges. He has expressed the view of himself and his Government that they accept the principle of the independence of the judiciary, and that the only matter between himself and the Opposition was one of the numerical amount of the majority which was necessary to remove a judge. Now if that amendment is carried, as I presume it will be, and inserted in this Bill and the Bill becomes law, the Constitution, of course, is amended ipso facto, but the law which amends the Constitution to that extent is itself only an ordinary Act of the Oireachtas which can itself be repealed by another ordinary Act. Therefore, as things would stand, except some such principle as we are proposing is inserted in the Bill, the independence of the judiciary would not be preserved even by the President's amendment, nor even by the amendment which we proposed on the last occasion when the matter was before the House.

We want to see that the fundamental rights of the Constitution, guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizens of this State, will continue to have some effective guarantee. Under the system of unicameral legislation which will obtain if this Bill becomes law, and if Article L is allowed to stand as it is at the moment, there will be no effective guarantee for the Constitutional rights which, for the moment, are set forth in the Constitution. The right of freedom of expression of opinion can be limited in any way and on any day by an Act passed by the Dáil. The Article which provides for the freedom of expression of opinion, Article IX, can be amended by ordinary legislation in accordance with the provisions of Article L. To take that Article as an example, we propose that the constitutional right of the citizen freely to express his opinion and freely to form lawful political associations should not be made the sport of whatever political Party happens for the moment to form the Government of this country. We propose that if any Government, having a majority for the moment in this House, wishes to interfere with the constitutional right of freedom of expression of opinion that they will not be enabled to do that by means of their chance majority, or the majority which they happen to have for the time being, but that, before any alteration is made in such a fundamental right as that, the people should have the opportunity of expressing their opinions as to whether their constitutional rights are or are not being interfered with. We suggest that the proper way to do that, in present circumstances, is to provide that no such amendment to the Constitution in reference to that fundamental right, or in reference to any of the fundamental rights set forth at the moment in the Constitution, should be capable of being prejudiced, or in any way affected by an ordinary Act of the Dáil before the people have had any opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it. In the last couple of weeks in this House we have heard a lot of talk about democracy. The proposal that we are putting forward is essentially democratic. It should not be in the power of the Executive Council to interfere with the guaranteed constitutional rights of the citizens.

On the occasion of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill which the House considered a few weeks ago the Minister for Industry and Commerce challenged the Opposition to give reasons why the Bill which he and his Government were fostering in relation to the deprivation of the Universities of their representation should not be passed. That, apparently, is the attitude of the present Government. I pointed out on that occasion that the Universities had a constitutional vested right at the moment, and that the onus lay on those who were taking away that constitutional right to give reasons why it should be taken away. The same argument could be put forward in relation to other constitutional rights unless some such provision as we are proposing is inserted in the Constitution. The Ministry may bring in a Bill to provide for the limitation of the right of free assembly, the right of freedom of expression of opinion and the Minister for Industry and Commerce will use the same—I was going to say—arguments, but it is really lack of argument. He will ask the Opposition why should not the right of freedom of expression of opinion be cut down. The Government, he would say, is charged with the duty of preserving public peace, that they think the people should not have the right of expressing their opinions; that the Government have been elected by the people and that nobody should open their mouths against the Government or say anything by way of opposition or criticism. The Ministry would ask the Opposition for reasons as to why that right should not be cut down rather than take up the attitude that it is upon them to justify the proposal to take away a vested constitutional right.

We have some reason to anticipate that these rights may be in some way whittled down by the present Government, having regard to their attitude and to the fact that recently they brought in a Bill to take away a right which was vested in certain people under the Constitution, a right which has existed in this country for nearly 12 years. For these reasons which, I submit, are quite unanswerable, we put forward this amendment, not believing that it will be accepted, but looking forward with a certain amount of derisive anticipation to the ridiculous arguments that will be put up against it.

Professor O'Sullivan

Is the amendment being accepted by the Government?

Mr. Fitzgerald

I was astounded to hear the mover of this amendment say that he presumed it was not going to be accepted by the Government, but I am still more astounded to see a certain movement on the part of the head of the President indicating that he does not propose to accept it. I know that members of the Government and of their Party have habitually assumed that the sovereignty of the Government implies unlimited sovereignty. It seems never to have entered their heads to wonder why it was that in Christian civilised countries generally there has been such complicated machinery of government. There has been the equivalent of the Dáil, the House of Commons, the Chamber of Deputies or whatever it might be, with extraordinary powers, and yet there is another power able to veto their action and to prevent their doing certain things. There has been a monarch or a President working in conjunction with these two bodies, and the whole three have had to work within the framework of a Constitution. As far as I understand it, the reason that a Constitution exists is that, although it is necessary to have in a State a Government with the power of life and death in order to promote that rigid justice and that order which are requisite amongst people living in society, at the same time the human person is superior to the State.

It has been said that as individuals we are subject to the stars, but as persons we control the stars. Any person in this country, judged by the end for which he is created, is of infinitely greater importance than the Irish nation, as a person. One of the notes of the person is that the person is the centre of liberty. We, created persons, must necessarily of right, by our very nature, possess liberty, but the Government's idea as far as I have been able to judge from the statements and actions of the Government, and particularly by the nod of the head of the President a few moments ago, is that there is some extraordinary right existing in a Government or in a majority, which right must not even be challenged, no matter how it operates. Here, these Articles that are in the Constitution are there because they are the right of the person over against the State and over against the Government, and any attempt of the Government, or of any institution, to claim power to obliterate these rights, is an act of diabolical tyranny and can imply nothing else but the act of a most completely tyrannical person. The people of the country have rights, no matter what Government is in power, that no Government has any right to take away from them.

The whole idea of the Constitution, one may say, in other countries was to have a sovereign State. You have Governments elected with sovereign authority over the whole State but the Constitution is there controlling the Government's actions and the reason for that is that it is right, proper and necessary that the Government should have some restraint put upon it. What restraint are we going to have here? Here we have the position where there is an Executive Council with a servile majority in the House. Not only the present Government but any future one, can, on any one day they choose, obliterate any innate right that exists in the human person in this country. There should be, I maintain, power to put a legitimate limitation to the possible operation of the powers the Government claims. Here we propose that the fundamental rights of the human person in this country cannot be taken away by the Government. What we are proposing, however, is in itself inadequate because if the Government propose to operate against those rights, and if it brings in a Bill here and goes to the people of the country, and the country for a while votes in favour of these rights being taken away, that is an act of tyranny, an act of injustice and an immoral act. Actually, therefore, the proposal we make here is inadequate but at the same time we can see that it is morally impossible, or that it is morally unlikely, that certain things proposed by a Government that are clearly against justice, would receive the assent of a majority when they went to the country or that they would only receive the assent of the majority if there was some particular reason why the rights should be limited.

Here we have an extraordinary situation. The Government that came into power first of all denied the Governor-General—I think, strictly speaking, he should have certain powers vested in him, though I admit we took them away—power to go to a tea party or to give a tea party if he wanted. Then they proceed to abolish the Second Chamber. They now want power to say that no matter what they may decide in their minds, whether it is against the best interests of the country or not, it must become law by their desire alone. The President might say that he has no intention of ever taking any action to deprive the people of the rights that they are guaranteed by these Articles of the Constitution. He might say that and he might be sincere about it. We know on the other hand that he might change his mind as he has often done before. It is not so many months since he went round the country denouncing us and saying that we wanted to establish a dictatorship. A dictatorship, as I understand it, is a tyranny by one person, government by the will of that person and his supporters and not according to wellbeing of the general body of the people. We get up and we say that there is nothing further from our intention than the institution of a dictatorship but let us assume that we may change our minds at some later stage. Not only that; it might not be we only who would come along to set up a dictatorship. If the President were honest in his apparent indignation and in the fear that he expressed that when we proposed a corporative system that implied a dictatorship, what is he doing at the moment? He is not only smoothing the path for us but he is removing every possible tiny obstacle that might be in the way of any person who might possibly get some sort of snap majority. He is removing every obstacle from the way of such a person setting up a permanent and absolute dictatorship.

If he accepts this amendment it is true that he himself can form a reasonable judgment as to what he may want to do within the next four years. He may give himself the particular latitude that he may want to do certain things. At the same time, all we are proposing is that there should be this limitation on Government action although we could not possibly be the Government until the President's Party has ceased to be the Government. It is true that we cannot make a fair estimate of the protection that we would require but I would ask him if he does not intend to accept the amendment to say that he does not propose, in relation to the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, to take them away without having the matter submitted to the people. With the best motives in the world, he may say it is perfectly ridiculous that any limitation should be put on the Government. He may say that everybody knows him and that our people know perfectly well that he would never want greater power. He may say that he is never going to sin against the light or to take away from the people rights which are necessary for them and to which they are entitled. He may think so and he may be quite convinced of that—and it may be quite true—but he must recognise that here he is creating a position that if to-morrow anything happened, as it might—God between us and all harm—that quite a number of Fianna Fáil Deputies might die they would be in a minority. What would happen then? Another Party would come in, or there would be a general election, and the President would be handing over to the people whose policy and outlook he thinks is directly against the interests of the people, power to do anything they like —complete, absolute and uncontrolled power over the lives and actions of the people. That is what he would be doing. With that enormous confidence that he has in himself in any arrangement of the kind he must look a little beyond to-day. I admit we created a situation in which the Constitution could be changed by ordinary legislation. We recognised that it was a dangerous situation. On the other hand, we felt the need to pass over to some Government coming after us certain latitude, as experience might show that there were certain things which, if they remained in the Constitution, might be a hindrance to the progress of this country. At that time it was required that a Government elected at one general election would have to be convinced that such a change was good and, at the same time, that the other House, the Seanad, elected at a different time and at a different moment in the country's history, would have to concur. That was quite an inadequate limitation, but it was some little limitation.

The President brought in certain Bills which he says he was convinced were necessary. He wishes to put down the wearing of blue shirts. We think that was motived in his mind by a certain dictatorial attitude of his. I have no doubt he felt he was justified in taking that action because he thought the Blue Shirt movement represented a menace to the State and a menace to public peace. When the Seanad used their powers to delay that Bill for 18 months, he took a short cut and said he was going to abolish the Seanad. But his action in abolishing the Seanad was really a minor effect. That was a negative act. As a positive act an Executive Council that, at any time, came into power would be absolute dictators. They need not consult anyone about what they desired to do, as their own servile followers would be prepared to agree. With this power and their followers they could abolish the whole Constitution and could establish themselves in perpetuity in this country. That is the position the President, by his own action, has created. He resists any attempt to prevent him getting rid of the Seanad and he purports to prevent that situation arising with regard to the judges, if I may say without offending him, by making an offer on the old lines of the cow for sale. I would like to hear him putting up any sort of case against this amendment. If he is going to do so, he must indicate with regard to the specific clauses why he requires to be able to abolish those rights which were assured to the people without first having submitted the proposed change to a general election. At the same time I wish to say that I do not consider the amendment adequate, because, if there was a proposal by which a Government could take away my fundamental rights, and if the country voted solidly for that, I would still deny the right of the people to take these rights from me.

Professor O'Sullivan

Are we to have no reply? I am afraid Deputy Costello is going to be disappointed, as he will not have the pleasure of hearing the ridiculous arguments that might be put forward against the amendment. I can sympathise fully with the President and with the Attorney-General. They are showing remarkable reticence and modesty in not trusting themselves to arguing against the amendment. The amendment has been put forward and has been supported and ample opportunity was given to the President to define his attitude, if he has any attitude to justify him.

Here is a Bill, so important that it proposes to abolish one member of the Oireachtas, namely the Seanad, and on the amendment that tries to rescue some of the rights of the people that are threatened, the Executive Council is silent. They do not wish to speak. Apparently they have no argument in favour of whatever attitude is to be revealed to us in the Division Lobby. One of the obvious things with this Bill going through—and I think the danger is illustrated by the contemptuous attitude of the Government to the House, including their own followers—is that this House is to be turned, when there is an opportunity, when they have an argument, into a mere machine for registering the decrees of the Government. Of course, that is the obvious fate that is always in front of a single Chamber. That is the danger. Even in this small matter of courtesy to the House, I suggest the President reveals his attitude, contempt for the body that he intends to make a mere registration machine. After the eloquent pleas he has made against this amendment I have no doubt he has fully convinced his followers, and that they will follow him obediently into the Lobby perhaps in more good faith than if he had put forward arguments.

Mr. Donnelly

That is getting a bit stale.

Professor O'Sullivan

So are the arguments of the President. Is it a fact that they follow the President blindly?

Mr. Donnelly

They follow him everywhere.

Professor O'Sullivan

Absolutely blindly, with or without reasons being brought forward by the Minister or by any of the Ministers alleged to be in charge of this Bill. Whatever may be said about the Seanad there is a certain amount of independence shown there. They do not blindly follow the Minister, and when they are allowed to vote they show unanimously what they think of the Government's proposals.

Mr. Donnelly

We cannot help them if they have no brains.

Professor O'Sullivan

I never suggested that the Deputy is responsible for the brains of the supporters of his Party in the Seanad. I am referring to the attitude of his own Party in the Seanad. As the mover of the amendment and Deputy Fitzgerald pointed out, the amendment tries to make one last effort, so to speak, to save the country from the very obvious dangers that are unfortunately familiar to everybody who knows anything about the unicameral system; to save it from these dangers, and to prevent what it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid if the Bill in its present form became the law, namely, the setting up of permanent Party despotism in this country.

When speaking previously on this question the President referred to bedrock. We have not got down to it. Is there any bedrock in constitutional matters where he is concerned, is it not dealt with in these Articles that this amendment, to a certain extent, tries to safeguard? For the President, is there anything fundamental in the Constitution? For him, is there anything fundamental so far as the rights of the people are concerned? He cannot pretend, as he did on previous occasions, that national principles are involved and that, therefore, he must trample on certain Articles of the Constitution. He used make a distinction between certain Articles of the Constitution that flowed from what he called an imposed Treaty and other Articles that flowed, apparently, from the fundamental rights of the people. What this amendment proposes to do is to safeguard, so far as an amendment to this Bill can, rights that were regarded at one time by all Parties in this country as fundamental. It is not an attempt to safeguard what he used call, at one time, the imperialistic Articles of the Constitution. These are Articles which would have been put into any Constitution of this State even if the State were not bound by any Treaty. He utilised, to the great disadvantage of the Irish people, the imperialist argument against certain Articles of the Treaty. To a certain extent, he got away with that. The House and the country will notice that he is equally warlike against the ordinary Articles of the Constitution— Articles that guard the rights of the Irish people. The House will notice that his policy is fatal to these rights, as it was fatal to some of the Articles in the Constitution that flowed from the Treaty. His policy is equally destructive of both, but he cannot raise the imperialist bogey—it was nothing else—so far as these Articles are concerned. Yet, he is quite as hostile to the working of these Articles as he was to the working of the Treaty. They have one fundamental weakness from his point of view—they stand in the way of the exercise of his power. To put it in a way which he may prefer, they prevent him from putting into effect all the ideas he believes are for the good of the country. It is for the country to decide what is for its good and not for even a heaven-sent person like the President.

Why are these Articles necessary? There were hints occasionally from members of the present Government when they were elsewhere, and there are hints even now, that a Constitution may some time be good for this country. Why? Because it is necessary that limitations should be put on the power of an Executive and on the power of a majority Party in a Parliament. That is one of the fundamental purposes of a Constitution. That is why it is framed. That is why most Constitutions with which I am familiar include what are called "fundamental Articles." These Articles cannot be abrogated by a Government or a majority which may be merely a passing majority. The people feel that these Articles are necessary if any meaning is to be given either to constitutional liberty or to democracy. That limitation is needed in the case of every Government, no matter how enlightened or inspired. If it is the wish of the Irish people to do away with both constitutional government and democracy, and to set up a form of despotism, that is another matter. But if you are to have democratic and constitutional government you must have safeguards of this kind.

The President spoke of our being in a state of flux at present. Does not everybody recognise that he is determined to keep this country in that particularly fluid condition? Does not everybody recognise that he is determined to keep the country like a mass of molten lava? Is not that the whole aim of his policy or, if it is not the aim, is it not the result of his policy? Is he not determined that the country will not settle down? Is it not a fact that he and his Party find that they can fish best in troubled waters? They realise that they can make most out of disturbed conditions, out of that state of flux which the President referred to in his speeches. He made it clear that he envisaged a continuance of that state of affairs for quite an indefinite period. If the Government opposes this amendment, it will be obvious that there is no such thing as bedrock for them, that this country is not to be allowed to go to rest. That is the policy of the Government. Naturally, every class of that type who have got into power have acted as revolutionaries in possession. That is what they are. What is the objection to safeguarding the Articles dealt with in this amendment? We are waiting to hear the objection.

We do not want the mere pious expression—I am using the word in its semi-slang meaning—on the part of the President that he likes these principles and that they appeal to his heart. Fundamentally he is in agreement with them. We want to know what he is going to do to preserve them and to see that his Government and every Government honour them and honour them not by saying how deeply they are attached to them but by acting up to them. We can only assume, if he rejects this amendment, if he refuses to safeguard these principles, even to the limited extent to which this amendment tries to safeguard them, it is because he knows perfectly well that he is going to violate these principles and that though his heart melts when he goes to look at these principles, in reality he is going to trample them underfoot.

As has been pointed out by Deputy Costello, and as has been shown in this House by other Deputies, the Government have given proof already of their intention in this respect. They have done these things several times in the past in one of the most peaceful countries in the world, and they have done these things in times of peace. What are they prepared to do —what do they think they are prepared to do and what are they thinking of doing in the times of heat and excitement that may crop up in any country? Can the Dáil then stand between the people and the despotic exercise of power? Does anybody think it will? It is in a moment of that kind that safeguards are more necessary than at any other time. But it is precisely at moments of that kind that it is quite clear the President is to violate these Articles of the Constitution.

Why is there not, after the previous protestations of the President, a ready acceptance of this amendment? Were these protestations that he made when in opposition—this talk about the freedom of the Irish people—for the one purpose to see that that freedom would be dependent on the will of an individual or Party? That is not freedom. That is not democracy. There are tremendous dangers inherent in the unicameral system. Some of the worst terrors that have been set up anywhere have been set up because of the unicameral system. It was found that one House of legislation was capable of being turned into a registration machine.

The President

Give us the history of it.

Professor O'Sullivan

Well, I do not see the necessity of instructing the President in these matters. I have already pointed out that historical examples are there for him. I want to appeal to the ordinary sense of the people. Everybody knows that that particular danger is there in a unicameral system. The speches made by the President and the actions of the Government must convince anybody who does not prefer to be blinded in this matter how great the danger really is. Any despotic Government that desires to usurp rights against the nation always finds excuses. As I previously pointed out, the President has already been finding excuses for despotic action in the future. "Factious opposition!" Well, "factious opposition"' is never out of the President's mouth. In reality factious opposition means opposition to him. It means criticism of him, criticism even here in the Dáil.

One of the Articles that this amendment tries to guarantee and to preserve deals with the right of Deputies elected by any section of the people to come and give expression to the views of their constituents here in the Dáil, but that Article can be swept away. Does anybody who has watched the Fianna Fáil Party in the last two years, and has seen them trample on every principle to which they professed allegiance when in opposition, think that those rights will be safeguarded? Does anybody think that the Fianna Fáil Party or the highly interested Labour Party are a safeguard for the people's rights or that they will save the people from despotic action on the part of the Government? The danger is really there and it would be criminal on our part to overlook that danger.

We are trying by amendments to this Bill to safeguard certain rights of the people. I hope at last the President will be induced to break the Trappist vow of silence that he has put upon himself. We have heard the old protestations that the Government has a sense of responsibility; that the Government elected by the people must be supposed to have a sense of responsibility. I admit that the Government should be supposed to have a sense of responsibility. But the reason why Articles of this kind were inserted in the Constitution is because no Government should be given despotic power and no Party should be given despotic power. The judges are there, as has often been pointed out, to decide even between the claims of just men. Constitutional Articles of this kind are put into the Constitution to limit despotic action on the part of any Government no matter how excellent its intentions. Unless a despotic Government is wanted these Articles should be retained. If you want democratic government these Articles must be preserved. Articles of that kind can be violated if there is not protection for the citizen under Article IX. As the thing stands, all these rights of the citizens can be swept away, not because there is any ground for sweeping them away but because the exercise of these rights irritates the head of the Government, irritates the members of the Government and irritates the Parties who support the Government.

Dr. O'Higgins

I am not disappointed at the silence of the Government. I am merely disgusted. Every time the Government Party are doing a discreditable and disgraceful thing in this House they merely hang their heads and, relying on a machined majority, sing dumb. The President may grin. It is not the first time that the President has grinned. And it is not the first time his Government has done a discreditable thing in this House. What are you doing in the sacred name of democracy? You are destroying everything that stands for democracy in this House. You are depriving the people of the rights which they enjoyed before your time. You were talking about the sanctity of democracy, and the only vocal sign we had from the Government Benches was an interruption by Deputy Donnelly: "We followed the President before and will follow him anywhere."

Mr. Donnelly

Absolutely.

Professor O'Sullivan

Oh, oh!

Dr. O'Higgins

The Deputy says "absolutely," and it is put up to us to make a case for the retention of the things which the Government desire to destroy. The same argument could be advanced for the retention of the Mallow Bridge. Is the onus always to be on us to make a case for retention and is the machined majority, by their silence, always to be destructive? Well, at least, their act was clothed with the decency of silence. Neither the President nor the Attorney-General, nor any statement from those benches except Deputy Donnelly's interruption, tried to make a case against this amendment which, in fact, is laying it down that the people have a right to speak.

There is great confusion nowadays between a majority in this House and a majority in the country. A majority in the country, as everyone over there knows, the President in particular, may be secured by the most brazen and dishonest promises. We have the President grinning over there. He secured a majority in this House by the most brazen and dishonest promises that were ever made to an electorate, and now he grins at the poor dupes who voted for him, and he knocks down, one after the other, every kind of protection that the people had from his tyranny. The Seanad has got to go as a matter of policy and, we are told, as the result of a mandate. Why did you abuse that mandate 12 months ago if you had it? If you had a mandate to destroy the Seanad, to remove it, why did you come in here with a finicky Bill to limit the power of delay of the Seanad? Was it not because at that time you believed you were even exceeding your mandate? If that was not so, if that was not the intention of the Government as a result of the vote of the electorate, then it was dishonest, and it was abusing the trust of the electorate. But 12 months after you come in with a Bill to destroy that institution.

The President

Is this discussion pertinent to the amendment?

Dr. O'Higgins

If the President wants to interrupt, will he stand up?

Professor O'Sullivan

Hear, hear! He should have some respect for the Chair.

The President

I raised a point of order. I asked whether that speech was pertinent to the amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No, it is not pertinent to the amendment. The Deputy has travelled farther than any other Deputy so far and what he has said certainly is not pertinent to the amendment. So far as the President standing up is concerned, that is a matter for the Chair.

Dr. O'Higgins

Might I ask the President what particular point in my speech he objects to? The President does not reply. Might I ask the Chair what is the particular point objected to? The gist of this amendment is that when the Seanad goes, any legislation passed by this House will be referred back to the people at a general election. The reason for this amendment is because the President, by his legislation, is out to destroy, to remove, one of the safeguards which the people had before his time. The reason this particular Bill is introduced is because the Second House asserted its legislative function in the interests of the ordinary democrats of this country by interfering with the President in his attempt to annihilate one of the emblems of the political opposition in this country.

The President, all during his time in public life in this country, has objected to opposition and has at the same time bleated about democracy. He has only recognised the sanctity of the rights of a majority when he, by a slick trick, secured a majority. He has not, however, a majority in the Oireachtas. The people who have powers not of vetoing, but powers of delay, exercised those powers of delay and they have got to go and, recognising that the majority here will secure that in the course of time they will go, an amendment is put down here to say that if they go, well, then lean back on the people, lean back on real democracy. The President indicates "No" by his silence and he is fortified in his attitude by the weight of the votes behind him. He has neither the courage nor the manliness to stand up here as a real tyrant, a real enemy of democracy, and to say in so many words why he objects to an amendment to refer power back to the people. Make no mistake about it, if this amendment is rejected——

Mr. Donnelly

Why did you take away the Referendum?

Dr. O'Higgins

You interrupted once, Deputy Donnelly, and not with great success.

Mr. Donnelly

May I ask the Deputy, with all respect——

Dr. O'Higgins

On a point of order, if you like.

Mr. Donnelly

Well, on a point of order. May I ask on what grounds did your Party remove the Referendum from the Constitution?

Dr. O'Higgins

I do not believe that is a point of order, but, nevertheless, Deputy Donnelly will get his answer in due course. At the present moment I am dealing with the amendment before the House, and no red herring is going to attract me away from this particular matter. There is no good in talking about democracy and standing against this amendment; there is no good in talking about the rights of the majority of the people and at the same time opposing this amendment. We are waiting patiently to hear any case made against the amendment, except the argument of the majority, secured on promises which will never be fulfilled. I am ashamed of the silence of the President. If he has any case to make against this amendment, why does he not stand up and make it? If there is no case to be made against it why does he not accept it? The whole point in this amendment is that, before a Bill becomes law, a Bill interfering with the Constitution, the people should have a right to speak. Are you afraid of the people?

Mr. Donnelly

No.

Dr. O'Higgins

I am not surprised that you are. Your actions during the last 15 months have opened the eyes and the minds of the people to the type of men they have put in charge of this State. We got advice from the Minister for Industry and Commerce within the last 48 hours that the way a Parliament should be run is by getting the political Parties, each of them, into a room, each member of the Party agreeing as to what he is going to say when he comes into this Assembly. We know that has been the practice of the Deputies opposite, and that is the greatest curse of this Parliament; that is what makes it a humbug, and that is what makes it necessary that there should be some court of appeal over and above the majority Party in this House. According to the Minister the Party opposite is composed of men who meet in a room and each of them is told what he is going to say and then afterwards they come in here and say it, each one responding to the whip, to his master's voice. What this country has got to know is whether it is going to be ruled by one man or by a Parliament.

Heretofore we had an Oireachtas consisting of two Houses. One House is to be abolished now because it defended the rights of the political opposition in this country. An attempt was previously made to abolish, to stampede, to trample on, that political opposition. The ordinary reaction of the Irish people to tyranny stood up against that and beat it, and then what you could not do by the mob you try to do by legislation. Legislation failed because of one of the Houses that constitute this particular Oireachtas. Accordingly, that Second House has got to go. Then, when your illegalities were held up by the courts, and when the courts were protected by that Second House, the Second House has got to go first and the courts afterwards. As a substitute for that Second House, this amendment proposes the people. You have all been talking about the people, and this amendment is calling the bluff. Are you prepared to listen to the voice of the people? Are you prepared to hear their commands? Your answer to this amendment will be the answer to that particular question—whether you are prepared to abide by the voice of the people or whether you want to trample on the voice of the people.

Mr. Donnelly

I had not the slightest desire, I assure you, Sir, to take part in this debate at all, but naturally, after the kind of semi-invitation thrown across from Deputy Doctor O'Higgins— and, needless to say, after the very friendly tone in which that invitation was extended across the House—one has to respond to it. Instead of speaking to the amendment, as far as I could judge from what the Deputy said, his speech was more concentrated all the time on a bitter personal attack on the President. The adjectives the Deputy used ought to be cherished. They ought to be taken down by some industrious Deputy and put on a long list for future reference when any Deputy in this Dáil wants to attack another Deputy. They are really choice words—every one of them characteristic of many of the speeches the same Deputy delivers in the country when he is taking a tour either in his own constituency or in any other constituency. To a certain extent, I must admit, they are enjoyable—and I myself do enjoy them—because they are characteristic of the Deputy, and I should not care to listen to a speech of his unless there was a good supply of these adjectives in it because, otherwise, I would not recognise the speech as his.

The Deputy asks us, of course, are we afraid of the people? That is the usual kind of question we are used to from the Opposition. Is it not time that they ceased to ask that question from the Opposition? We went to the people twice within 12 months. We went to the people with our programme. There were a number of by-elections before that. We went to Longford-Westmeath and the people gave us our answer there. That was the time when the old Cumann na nGaedheal organisation took to the youth. After Longford-Westmeath we went to the people of Kildare, and we got a reply there. Following those by-elections, we had a general election, and the organisation responsible for the Opposition at that time ceased to exist. At the last general election we got a clear majority over all Parties. On top of all that, the Deputy still asks the question, are we afraid of the people? He also hurls across at us the jibe of our doing certain things in the interest of democracy. He, certainly, is a peculiar champion of democracy. As a matter of fact, he is an extraordinary champion of democracy at the moment. I think that his vote was registered in this Assembly for the removal from the Constitution of the Referendum which was the greatest safeguard that democracy could have.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Question?

Mr. Donnelly

Well, it was removed out of the Constitution when we, when in opposition, tried to make use of it, and we find now that this body that took away the safeguard for democracy are engaged at the present moment in trying to put back into the Constitution something that they themselves took out of it. This is to be the safeguard for democracy that Deputy O'Higgins wants. As I said to Deputy O'Sullivan, his argument about our Party machine is getting a little stale. We have our Party meetings and we get our orders there and we act accordingly, according to him, and there are no similar Party meetings held by the United Ireland Party. I can quite understand that, because no two of them could agree about anything, judging by their meetings. We, however, agree and we have a loyalty and fidelity to our leader that certainly will mark every action of ours. We are proud of that loyalty and fidelity and we intend to carry on in that spirit. We showed our leader fidelity and loyalty when he was in the wilderness, and we will continue to show fidelity and loyalty still. Deputy Doctor O'Higgins may refer to it as "His master's voice", if he likes. I would advise him that the sooner he can get into his Party the same loyalty for leadership the better it will be for his Party. It would do him no harm and would do a lot more good than this perpetual jibing and sneering at what people ought to be proud of— the characteristic of fidelity and loyalty to a political leader.

Dr. O'Higgins

It is belated with some of them.

Mr. Donnelly

At any rate, it does not exist at all over there. The only leader of commonsense and ability they had has been jockeyed out of his position and Heaven help the Party if his successor carries on.

The President rose.

Mr. Cosgrave

On a point of order, Sir, is the President to conclude?

Mr. Costello

I moved the amendment, and if there is anybody to conclude I have the right to conclude.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is that right?

The President

There is no need to make any speech on this amendment because everything that is to be said about this amendment was said already a dozen times, and all that the Opposition could say in favour of their amendment would only repeat, in anything but a very convincing manner, arguments which they had put forward a dozen times already. I thought that, when Deputy O'Sullivan was speaking on this occasion, he might give us some of the cases of disaster he pretended to have on a previous occasion. I asked him before to give us these examples of the disasters that followed a unicameral system. He is a Professor of History and he spoke as one who knew all about these things and had them at the tips of his fingers. I asked him for these examples on this occasion, and again, although he pretended that he knew all about them and that, in fact, every schoolboy should know about them, he did not deign to tell us what they were. We would have listened with great interest to the stories of the disasters that had followed the unicameral system.

Now, we are not accepting this amendment. The method that is proposed, that of a general election, as a means of testing this precise type of question, has been objected to by me on more than one occasion, both on this side of the House and on the other side. I objected to this method of getting a decision because, at a general election there is a variety of questions before the electorate and when a decision is wanted on a specific matter like this, I think it ought to be sent alone to the people for consideration. Therefore, if there was to be a check, I think it should be by way of a referendum and not by way of a general election. It is very interesting to hear the Deputies on the other side speaking as if the whole of the democratic foundations here were to be overturned because the Seanad was removed. Everything was going to go wrong because this Seanad was going to disappear. That has not been the opinion of the people and let the Deputies, when they go out to the country, tell the people what a supporter of their liberty the Seanad as a House has been and ask the people whether they are not frightened at this bulwark of their liberty being taken away.

There are in the Constitution two types of Articles. The division was referred to by, I think, Deputy Professor O'Sullivan. There are those which might be inserted in the Constitution of any democratic State and there are those which everybody knows were inserted in the Constitution here because of a threat of war and outside pressure. Now, I think, there is one ground on which we can get agreement between both sides of the House and I propose to have carefully examined these fundamental Articles dealing with the democratic foundations of the State. I do not mind if these are fixed so that they cannot be changed by ordinary legislation without some such provision as a Referendum to the people, but I do not want that done by way of an amendment introduced without proper examination and in which there is no attempt whatever to deal with all these Articles.

I do not know that all these Articles are perfect and I do not think that our predecessors found them perfect. If it is agreed that we should go through the Constitution and take out these Articles which have not any immediate relation to the Treaty and, having examined them, say, with the experience of administration which has now been got by both sides, whether we can in their regard perhaps modify Article L, again I say it should not be done in this particular manner. I also hold that the method by which the will of the people should be tested in regard to Articles of the Constitution should be by way of Referendum and not by way of a general election.

I am not then going to accept this amendment. If all these Articles are carefully examined it will be found that some of them are not without being entangled with the Treaty and with the Constitution that has been framed with special reference to the Treaty. I cannot, therefore, accept these, as they are here, as clearly separating Articles of the Constitution which may be regarded as having relation to the democratic foundations of the State and the liberties of the citizen. I do not agree with the argument of Deputy Costello because, if his argument were quite sound, nothing we could do here would affect the situation. All our work here would be idle, if we cannot do anything here by way of ordinary legislation which would put difficulties in the way of legislation later for revising this Constitution. I believe, for example, that the provisions in the next two amendments in my name do secure that these particular Articles will not be altered except under conditions which have been definitely laid down. There is not, I think, anything further to say. It has been suggested that because we do not accept these amendments we are going straightway to abolish all these Articles or to interfere with them vitally. That is not the intention at all. What is being done, I remind the House again, is that the Seanad, as a Second Chamber, is being removed, and it is being proposed that, instead of having two Houses in future in the Oireachtas, we shall have one.

Mr. Cosgrave

Probably the last couple of words in the statement to which we just listened epitomised the whole situation. "There is nothing further to say"—having really said nothing. Let us examine the situation from the historical standpoint. Twelve years ago a Constituent Assembly considered a Constitution which was presented to them by a Provisional Government, that Provisional Government having had the opportunity of being advised in that connection by a responsible Committee of citizens, one of the Committee—a person who was not a citizen of this country, and not a citizen of any European country, assuming for the moment that Great Britain is in Europe—having been taken into council. He was an American. They considered the Constitution and they submitted a Report to the Provisional Government. The Provisional Government considered the Constitution, and the late President Griffith and Mr. O'Higgins went to London in connection with it, and there certain representations were made in respect of particular Articles. The Articles in question were disclosed to the Dáil, the Constituent Assembly which considered the Constitution.

The Constitution at that time was considered in a non-Party spirit. It was the first time, one might almost say, for a century, if not longer, and certainly the first time in the history of this country, that a really representative institution in the nature of a Parliament sat down to consider a Constitution, and they considered it, as I have said, apart altogether from any Party considerations, subscribing, each person, his quota of what he considered would be the fundamental principles of a democratic Constitution, and embodying in it those Articles which were considered and put forward by the British as having in them their conception of the Treaty and their acceptance of the Treaty. In it, so far as the ordinary citizens were concerned, there was the safeguard of a representative body, in the first instance, the safeguard of a Seanad, half of which was elected by the Dáil and half nominated, in the second instance, and then a Governor-General.

There are, unfortunately, biassed views in connection with all three institutions, and people, when considering them, put on, if they so desired, prejudiced spectacles in order to give to their followers, or to the people whose votes they are endeavouring to get, as prejudiced an opinion as is possible, in connection with any one of these three constituent parts of the Oireachtas. The President would be one of those who would tell us 12 years ago that that was not a fit body to consider a Constitution. Whether it was or not, neither he nor any member of his Party could have improved upon the safeguards that were embodied in the Constitution for the democratic rights and liberties of the people. Neither he nor any supporter of his could make any improvement on those Articles.

An amendment of the Constitution was possible through the assent of the other two constituent parts of the Oireachtas. It so happened that without any help from this Ministry, or any member of this Ministry, or any member of that Party, a complete change took place with regard to the authority of the Governor-General. If we could consider that question apart from Party bias we might, perhaps, better appreciate the value which could be reposed in a person occupying that position and doing his duty properly, in accordance with the Constitution and the law. I will just mention one instance. There is there in that Constitution an Article giving a life of six years to the Parliament. The Seanad will be gone in 12 months' time. There is nothing to prevent an alteration of the six to 12, or 18, or 24 or 30, or for life if you please, in connection with all the members here. There is only one stoppage, which we in our wisdom or unwisdom have provided, and that is the Governor-General saying: "No, I will not sign." There was his use in that connection, if the office and the holder of the office could be viewed without any bias and without any prejudice. He would be the person who would say "No." Similarly with regard to dissolution. The President of the Executive Council might not possess a majority in the Dáil; he could refuse to come to Parliament, and go to the Governor-General for a dissolution. There again the Governor-General would be entitled to exercise his discretion, granted now that the inferiority complex in connection with the office is not there. We are now proposing to take out one of the three constituent parts, one having been already parked in safety in Monkstown, and to that extent non-effective. The people of this country are in the position that their fundamental rights are at the will and pleasure of a Single Chamber, and of a majority of one in that Single Chamber. It is not good business. It is by no means good business, and it will not be considered, apart from politics, according to the speech to which we have just listened. Take one particular case. The President said that if there is to be an amendment to the Constitution it should not be effected after a general election. Let me put this question. An amendment to the Constitution is required, let us say, on some small point. There is an Article there, No. XI. It deals with lands and waters and other things of that sort. A small unimportant amendment to it might be required in connection with mineral development or something else of that sort. Are we to be put to the cost and trouble of a Referendum in order to get that? The Attorney-General was going to make some observation?

The Attorney-General

I do not think the President said that.

Mr. Cosgrave

I know he did not, but he said that amendments to the Constitution should not be effected after the fashion that is proposed in the amendment, but, if they are to be at all, they should be in the form of a Referendum. If he likes to make his position more clear I am prepared to listen to him. Then we are to take it that if there is to be an amendment to the Constitution after 16 years have elapsed, assuming the 16 is going to remain there, those amendments can, in the opinion of the President, only be properly made if submitted to the people in the form of a Referendum. We have had 24 amendments in 12 years. Twenty-four referenda! Of course they might be bulked, but remember this is a particular case in which a decision would probably have to be taken. The particular Bill which we have before us is one that, at any rate, having regard to the speed of its introduction and the reason of its introduction, would certainly mean a Referendum. We were told in the course of the speech just delivered by the President that he has two amendments in, to safeguard the judiciary on the one hand and the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the other. I should like to know if it is seriously put forward that that security which is there is recommended as a real security. What is there to prevent this Dáil or the next Dáil from taking out that amendment? This Dáil had the right to put it in. Is the next Dáil to be denied a judgement upon that particular action? If it is, then this particular Dáil is more sovereign than the one which will follow. Let us get that point clear.

The Attorney-General

What about the Dáil after 16 years?

Mr. Cosgrave

After 16 years?

The Attorney-General

Under Article L.

Mr. Cosgrave

Yes, quite right, or perhaps before 16 years, if we pay attention to some observations that were made yesterday in another place. That was the opinion of the people after the Constituent Assembly had concluded its work, that every eight years an opportunity was to be given to amend the Constitution. If it is correct to have spread that out to 16 years, then it is the people who have got the authority; it is the people who have secured the rights, and the Dáil cannot interfere with them. It was stated from the beginning, when the first Dáil came in under the Constitution and properly elected, that it had its opportunity, with the Seanad, of altering the Constitution within a limited space of time. Everybody knew that. The position that is now proposed to be taken up is that this particular Dáil is evidently a more sovereign one than its successors, because it lays down the law which will bind them with regard to this matter.

I will put another question to the Attorney-General. Will he say, as a lawyer, that it is not possible to take out that whole Article, or alternatively to take out the Article which refers to the independence of the judiciary, once this passes into law and we have a single Chamber? What this amendment seeks to do is to ensure for those Articles of the Constitution which affect rights, liberties, freedom of expression of public opinion, and various other things of that sort, something which will put it beyond the power of a majority of one on any particular day to take away any one or all of those rights. Take the particular case of habeas corpus. Is it to be left to a single majority of one to take that right and privilege away from the people?

It so happens that Deputy O'Sullivan will not give us any opinion regarding historical precedents. One thing ought to be taken note of, and that is that the greatest ruffian in history, I suppose, always had legal sanction for his actions, or pretended to have it. I refer to Robespierre. The difference between that Ministry and the Opposition on this question is the difference in our conception of the authority of the Executive. My view on the authority of the Executive is that it must not abuse power; and from what I have listened to and heard I believe that the conception of the Ministry is that, having the power, they can exercise it without either judgment or discretion, be it an abuse of power or otherwise. My view is that the people give a limited authority to an Executive or to a Parliament. Their view is that having got what they call a mandate or a majority, which is the real thing, they can do as they please. That is not my conception.

This amendment does not hinder or hamper alterations in the Constitution. I am prepared to admit that it is not ideal. The Government should remember when talking about a mandate that the proposal was to abolish the Seanad as at present constituted. It was not put before the people that they were going to abolish it altogether. There were two institutions, one closely associated politically and otherwise with the people; the other having, perhaps, an opportunity of looking at matters from a more detached point of view. The speeches which we have listened to would seem to endeavour to feature the Seanad as a body which had views inimical to the best interests of the people.

The names of two members of that institution have been bandied about by a Minister; one of them being one of the biggest industrialists in the City of Dublin and a good citizen. His political views and mine were, perhaps, as different as chalk from cheese. He spent perhaps the best part of his life in trying to prevent the coming into existence of this State. We should remember, however, that when the Minister in question would not be listened to anywhere as a responsible authority or as a person worth listening to in connection with any public matter, one of these two individuals did all that lay in his power to prevent the division of this country into two parts. Having been practically all his life a Unionist, he became a Dominion Home Ruler the moment Partition was mentioned and has remained one. I met him for the first time when this State was established, and I think it is very bad form on the part of the Minister to pillory a public man, a big industrialist, and a citizen of this country simply because he held certain views 30 or 40 years ago to which he stood up like a man. Men such as he have lost the power and influence they had but they are citizens of this State and should they not get the rights to which citizens are entitled? They are citizens of this State and should have the same rights and privileges as other persons. It ill becomes the Minister of a Government which is going to wipe out this institution to single out two people for no other reason than that he believed they were politically opposed either to the land movement or the Home Rule movement for a long period.

That is the thing which satisfies me that the Ministry is taking a biased view in connection with this whole problem of the Seanad. If there was any semblance of honesty in connection with that policy the first thing they would have done would be to put themselves in the position of the Constituent Assembly of 12 years ago and say: "We have experience of that; we can realise its imperfections and faults," and then take the Constitution and see what improvements can be made in it, instead of what mutilations can be perpetrated upon it so as to leave practically none of it at all. Is it the idea that we have to have fundamental law or that we are to have such a state of affairs here as will enable Parliament day after day to change it? There may be people who think that, although you have a Constitution, any Bill, without specifying an amendment of it, could alter the Constitution and could override the Constitution. That was not our view. These particular Articles of the Constitution which it is sought here to preserve will never interfere with an Executive in their administration for the securing of order, peace, good government or anything else. The fact that the Ministry are standing against this and that they have only one apologist out of the whole lot of them to speak against it satisfies us that no case can be made against it. They realise that they are not just men and are not doing the honest thing in not accepting the amendment.

The Attorney-General (Mr. Maguire)

I was rather amazed at the speech of Deputy Cosgrave, having regard to what the President said. Deputy Cosgrave must realise that he is quite wrong in saying that there is no agreement that there are certain fundamental Articles which ought to be put in a place apart and not be so easily altered as other Articles of the Constitution. I thought the President made it quite clear that he agreed with that, but that this was not the place and this was not the method by which they ought to be protected. Deputy Cosgrave very cleverly avoided dealing with the attitude which the President made quite clear in his speech. The Deputy sought to introduce such a trivial thing as an amendment of Article XI and to suggest that the President's idea of an amendment only after a Referendum would apply to such an Article as that, whereas I understood that the President made it clear that he referred to certain fundamental Articles which he agreed might be protected in a special way.

Of course, the whole discussion of this amendment is rather amusing. It was a very clever bit of politics. I do not know whether it is of real value to the Opposition. I do not understand what particular value they hope to get out of championship of the Seanad. It would not appear to have any great appeal in the country. I do not think Deputy Cosgrave would care to go to the country on the question of whether the Seanad should or should not be abolished. The discussion on this amendment summarises their whole attitude. They sought to present the Seanad as being the guardian of certain fundamental rights of the citizens and have tried to make the case that we are removing the Seanad out of the way in order to tamper with the fundamental rights of the citizens. Such a case is perfectly absurd. I do not think it is really believed in by the Opposition. I believe it is only being put forward for another object, which emanated from Deputy O'Higgins's speech more clearly than from some of the others, and that is to create an atmosphere of suggestion or suspicion that we are really out for despotism.

Deputy O'Sullivan talked about the fact that in every Constitution you have safeguards of this kind against precipitate action on the part of a popular Assembly; that you had checks and safeguards in order to protect these fundamental rights. The Deputy was particularly cautious, as the President pointed out, not to give us the benefit of his knowledge of these Constitutions or to say where they have been found so valuable and so essential. He was particularly careful to avoid reference to developments on the Continent, where at present it is not the unicameral system which is coming into favour but the one-man system, a system which, as far as we can see, is rather popular with certain of the leaders of the Opposition; a system by which legislation does not have to pass through even a public assembly. Legislation by decree is now popular in some of what, I am sure, Deputy O'Sullivan would call the highly-civilised States.

Mr. Cosgrave

We are getting very close to it here.

The Attorney-General

This ramp of putting the Seanad forward as being the guardian of the liberties of the subject is so absurd and ridiculous that I do not believe it appeals even to the most ordinary man in the street. Deputy Cosgrave opened with a disquisition on the history of the creation of these institutions here and said they were brought into being after a Constituent Assembly. I agree with a good deal of what he said about that Assembly. It went about its work with a great deal of care and, so far as time allowed, gave as close attention to the writing of this Constitution as could be expected. It cannot, however, be lost sight of that rather a large section of the people were not represented there. I know Deputy Cosgrave will say that that was their own fault, but the fact was that this Constituent Assembly, so called, did not represent the whole of the people of this country. He then pointed out that they brought in these several legislative institutions as we have them to-day and that one of these was the Seanad. He did not, however, travel over the ten years of the existence of the Seanad and show where it preserved those fundamental Articles which Deputy Costello has embodied in his amendment. I think we have only to glance at Article II A of the Constitution — Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act—to see the effect of that Article as embodied in the Constitution. Section 2 of that Act says:

"Article III and every subsequent Article of this Constitution shall be read and construed subject to the provisions of this Article, and in the case of any inconsistency between this Article and the said Article III or any subsequent Article, this Article shall prevail."

It is generally thought that the reason why this Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act was written into the Constitution was because the law officers of the day advised that unless it was so written into the Constitution there were several sections of it that might be held to be in conflict with several of the very precious Articles that Deputy Costello is now trying to protect. The Seanad, which was the guardian of these fundamental Articles hitherto, and against whose removal we must, hot-foot, make provision, as some of them expect to be swept away, accepted that special section without having troubled itself to ask what were the particular Articles they were interfering with there. I cannot call to mind any instance in which the Seanad displayed its absolute regard for the fundamental rights of the people as embodied in the fundamental Articles of the Constitution. I waited to have that pointed out; it would be relevant. What we heard was not relevant. This particular amendment does not properly find its place in this Bill, which is a Bill to remove the Seanad.

Deputy Costello says we want to remove the Seanad because it refused to pass the Blue Shirt Bill, and there was a hint that the method by which the Seanad was asked to act was unconstitutional, and that the Seanad rejected the Blue Shirt Bill because of its sense of duty to the people whose fundamental rights were embodied in the Constitution. The Blue Shirt Bill was a piece of ordinary legislation. If it interfered with any of the Articles of the Constitution, set out in this amendment, the courts would have stepped in, so that the Seanad's interference was quite unnecessary. We did not write in the Blue Shirt Bill as part and parcel of the Constitution and I think a case has yet to be made in favour of this amendment. Deputy Costello said he listened to the arguments from these benches with amusement.

Mr. Costello

I got the kick out of it that I expected.

The Attorney-General

I have yet to hear any instance where the Seanad interfered, in the past, to protect any of the rights embodied in these fundamental Articles of the Constitution. As I said, it is a question of analysing these various Articles, and having them carefully considered and having them, with the experience at our disposal, and with the experience at their disposal, carefully phrased before being put into a place apart. That method of dealing with the Articles is quite reasonable and worthy of consideration. But to say because the Seanad is going, we must, as an amendment of the Bill to abolish the Seanad, put these Articles in a special place, so that they cannot be altered except as a result of a general election, is, to my mind, a matter absolutely without the slightest argument to support it.

Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy O'Sullivan rambled into their usual phrase, that this is an attempt to establish a dictatorship. I do not think that this kind of attack, from the benches opposite, during the last two years cuts any ice. I do not suppose one man in a thousand, in the country, accepts the view that the action of the Government is heading towards dictatorship, while there are many thousands of people who firmly believe that dictatorship is very much in favour with the Opposition. That their action with regard to the Seanad in relation to the Blue Shirt Bill was more than dictatorial is quite clear. When the Bill was introduced the leader of the Party opposite told the Seanad not to pass it and they did not do so. If that is not dictatorship, I do not know what it is. It is manifest, from this debate, that the Seanad was very obedient towards its masters, the Party opposite, when they were in office. But the moment we get into office it proceeds to hamper, and to impede us, and to set up, in effect, an Opposition dictatorship in this country. That is one of the reasons why this Bill has been introduced. And lest I should be misrepresented, and misunderstood again, I might say, I am quite prepared to admit there are certain fundamental Articles in this Constitution which I do not believe for a moment there is any fear any Parliament representing the Irish people would tamper with. But lest there might be such fears it might be well to consider them, and whether they should not be treated in a special way and in a particular place. But I object to this Bill being the medium by which this is to be effected.

Mr. Costello

May I conclude the debate now?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not entitled to speak twice.

Mr. Costello

I thought you, Sir, ruled that having moved an amendment a Deputy could later reply.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. When President de Valera offered himself to speak I, in mistake, used the phrase "the President to conclude." Deputy Cosgrave got up afterwards, to assert his right to speak, as he had a right to do. I said then that I should not have called upon the President to conclude. It was a mistake on my part. Standing Order 38 is conclusive with regard to a Deputy speaking twice. It says: "No Deputy shall be entitled to speak twice upon the same motion except to close the debate upon a motion of which he was the proposer." The Deputy, in this instance, moved an amendment.

Mr. Costello

Does not an amendment that was moved become a motion, and has not the mover of it the right to reply?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is an amendment to a section of the Bill. It is not a motion, as indicated by the Standing Order.

Mr. Costello

I do not for a moment wish, in any way, to question your ruling; but I would point out the obvious inconvenience if I am not to be allowed to reply. There were a number of arguments put forward by the President and the Attorney-General to which I have had no opportunity of replying.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have an opportunity when the question is put "That the Bill be received for final consideration" and also on the question "That the Bill do now pass." He will be able to work off a good deal on those occasions.

Mr. Costello

With great respect, I am afraid I would be stopped.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

Mr. Cosgrave

There is a point of order that I should like to put to you, Sir. Standing Order 36 says: "A Deputy desiring to speak shall rise in his place"——

The President

A Chinn Comhairle, may I ask——

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 17 May 1934