Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 18 Jul 1935

Vol. 58 No. 7

Actions of Ceann Comhairle—Motion.

I move:—

"That the Dáil is of the opinion that the conduct of the Ceann Comhairle in the Chair and especially his actions on Friday, July 5th, have gravely infringed minority rights and tend to bring Parliament into disrepute."

Before the Deputy moves this motion, No. 7 on the Order Paper, would you allow me to ask if the motion is in order? Standing Order No. 47, I think it is, gives the Ceann Comhairle the sole right to decide questions of control and order in the House, and I would like to ask if this motion, for a kind of roving inquiry into the conduct of the Ceann Comhairle in the matter of order, is in order.

As the motion is directed against myself I would be extremely reluctant to impose any restriction which might hamper the presentation of the case for it. I might say, however, impersonally, that it does seem to me that a motion of censure on the Chair should deal only with the immediate incidents which are considered to warrant such a motion. I am allowing the motion.

I have allowed the motion.

Mr. Boland

Might I point out that when there was a precedent here I handed in that motion to the then Ceann Comhairle, and he insisted that we should deal with the specific incident. That was done on that occasion. Therefore, I am surprised that you are allowing it in. The motion would not be taken from me unless it was dealing with a specific incident.

We have been frequently told from the Chair that there is one way of challenging the conduct of the Ceann Comhairle. Of course, it would seem absurd that every time we feel we have a legitimate grievance against the Ceann Comhairle we should put down a motion of censure. However, you have ruled on that, and, therefore, I do not intend to devote any more time to it. It is not with any great alacrity that we propose this motion. We do it because we are extremely conscious of the inroads that have been recently made into the rights of Parliament and of the interference with Parliamentary institutions. So far as this particular motion is concerned, we feel that, especially in the last few weeks, the Chair has helped that particular development. It is really because we are conscious of the importance of these Parliamentary institutions, and because we are anxious to see that none of the rights that still remain to Parliament should be unduly curtailed, interfered with, or filched away, that we put down this motion. If the House and the public will bear in mind the tendency that has made its appearance in the last few weeks, practically speaking, to make the Government Party, the majority Party, as it is called, despotic here, and the way in which the Chair has not tried to curb, as I think it was bound to do, that particular development, I think the ordinary public will be convinced that there is sufficient ground for the anxiety we feel in this particular matter. At a time when the majority in this House is busy proclaiming that, because it has a majority, it can do what it likes, when it likes and how it likes——

Hear, hear.

"Hear, hear," is the answer I get from the opposite side. Therefore, I take it for granted that the charge is acknowledged, and not merely acknowledged but accepted as their programme by the opposite side. I take the "hear, hear" to mean that. Even if I did not get that "hear, hear," anybody who has been in this House for the last couple of months knows perfectly well that that is the doctrine and the attitude of the majority Party in the House at present. Although I am grateful to the gentleman who said "hear, hear," apart from that approval that he gives to the charge, the facts themselves bear out the charge. At a time when that particular development was obviously taking place in this House, I hold that it was particularly incumbent on the Chair to be particularly watchful, more watchful than usual, to see that no serious inroads were made into the rights of Parliament.

Our attitude towards the Chair has been consistent all along. There were many times when this Party could not agree with the ruling of the Chair. That is inevitable; I find no fault with that. But I think the Chair has no reason to complain of our acceptance of his ruling. We have never taken up the attitude which, I understand, is the official attitude of the majority Party, proclaimed by themselves, proclaimed on an occasion like the present and similar occasions in the past, that the Chair is a Party institution, that the Ceann Comhairle is a Party man. We have never taken up that line, and we cannot accept that line. We are quite willing to admit that when a Deputy enters this House, owing to modern electoral conditions, he enters it as a member of a Party. But we expect a Deputy who is elected to the Chair to act as a non-Party man, and we have always tried to regard the Chair in that particular manner. Therein I confess we differ from the present majority Party.

We are making this protest because we feel, as I say, that undue inroads are being made into the rights, not merely of minorities, but of Parliament altogether. We are not expecting the Party that takes up the line, and that in the person of many of its prominent members took up the line, that the Chair ought to be a Party function, that the Chairman ought to be a Party member, to agree with our particular point of view, or vote for this motion. We feel bound, however, whatever the verdict of the House, whatever the vote of the House may be, to make this protest against any further curtailments of the rights of Parliament. I have no doubt that the stronger the grounds of this kind that can be put forward here, and that could be put forward in other circumstances against any ruling of the Ceann Comhairle, the more they would recommend that ruling and recommend the conduct of the Chair to the Party opposite.

As I say, we have given every assistance in the past to the Chair in getting his ruling accepted. I think it was on a similar occasion that it was pointed out that the first ten years of this Dáil were rather important as moulding the traditions which would guide the future actions of this Parliament. What I fear is that in the last couple of years we have seen a process, not of continuous moulding along those lines, but of re-moulding, and we find that that re-moulding is not healthy. The remoulding has taken more and more the form of trying to reduce Parliament to a mere formal expression of acceptance of the declared will of the Government and of the majority Party. That reduces Parliament to a nullity and a farce. It is because we feel that the Chair on more than one occasion, especially in recent times, has by his action — I am not going into motives — furthered that development, helped to accelerate that development, that we make this protest.

There may have been errors of judgment on the part of the Chair. The Chair will be the first to admit that such things are possible. We can find no grave reason to complain of ordinary errors of judgment. The occupant of the Chair, like anybody else, is fallible. It is inevitable that in any Assembly like this there will be conflict of opinion and that members of the House may not find it possible to agree with the Chair, but they will accept his ruling. However, as I am on the question of error of judgment perhaps I may just recall a piece of advice that good old Baedeker gives to continental travellers. "Remember," he says, "in connection with travellers who intend to leave their hotels early in the morning, it is advisable in this case to get their bills made up the night before as in the hurried departure of the morning waiters are liable to make mistakes in arithmetic and the mistakes in arithmetic are seldom in favour of the customer." Well, Sir, without at all imputing anything except a desire to get on with the business, I feel often that errors of judgment are seldom in favour of the Opposition in this House. However, these are not serious matters. I think any errors of judgment there were of that kind were due to a feeling of pressure which, from their own convictions, we must believe the Government, as the majority Party, have no hesitation in applying to the Ceann Comhairle.

There is also the desire sometimes entertained by the Ceann Comhairle to "get on with the work" and getting on with the work generally means coming to a vote. I do not think that you, yourself, are conscious of it but there are times when a certain impatience is shown from the Chair, not with the irrelevancy of the discussion but rather with the discussion going on. In the ordinary way we have not a way of pointing that out to you. I am sure we could——

The Chair would be obliged if the Deputy would quote the specific instances in which such a tendency was displayed.

I am not going to quote any of these instances. As regards the reference which you have specially asked from me now, I want to know where precisely I stand. I can understand the position you are in if you intervene merely as a person whose conduct is challenged and I shall try to satisfy you as much as I can. On the other hand if it is merely as Ceann Comhairle at the particular moment that you intervene, then, Sir, I am either out of order or I am not relevant. I am not quite sure in what capacity you intervene.

The Chair has no intention of intervening in this debate beyond seeing that the rules of order, which obtain in this as in every other debate, are observed.

I want to be quite clear, as the Chair will find out before the close of the debate, without going into elaborate detail. I can only give, as the Chair must know, an impression of repeated instances amongst a number in this House. I think that is a recognised method of procedure. I do not think it is the business of the Chair to hurry discussion or to hurry a decision. I think that unconsciously the Chair has frequently fallen into that particular error. The Ceann Comhairle is not responsible for the actions of the Government. He is not responsible for the business of the Government or for the speed or the slowness with which it is conducted. Then there is another matter on which more than once members on this side have felt aggrieved. That is the question of relevancy. On more than one occasion members on this side of the House — I speak now from personal experience — have felt themselves unduly bound by a rather fantastic, narrow conception of relevancy on the part of the Chair. I can understand members of the Government Party laughing. They are rarely relevant. Their leader is practically never relevant. He has a full right to discuss any matter on any motion in this House. He has utilised that right to the full as every member of the House knows. Even the Vice-President can follow him, but only at a long distance, so far as relevancy is concerned. I have found it extremely difficult to conduct anything like an elaborate complicated argument without interference from the Chair on the grounds of relevancy. More than I have found that very difficult. We were strictly keeping to the subject. The argument may have been difficult and elaborate but there was undoubtedly on various occasions too great haste on the part of the Ceann Comhairle to interfere with us in that respect. These are comparatively minor matters——

Deputies

Hear, hear!

——I know, but it is necessary to mention them. They do not raise any particular question, perhaps, that might seem to us to be fatal to the rights of this House. But there have been a number of things that are not in the same category. I do not intend to go through all of these. I shall give a few merely as an illustration. I am not going back too far, I might say, and I certainly shall not make use of a very obvious tu quoque against the present occupant of the Chair. But I must mention the closure on the Vote on the President's Estimate in the all-night sitting in June, 1933, after two and a half hours. The President had made an exceedingly provocative speech and he had indicated clearly a new departure in oppression so far as this country was concerned. I think that, Sir, was, to put it very mildly, a grave error of judgment on the part of the Chair.

Coming to more recent times, it is only a few weeks since that we witnessed, a number of us at all events, a quite interesting and instructive display in this House, on the one hand led by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and on the other by Deputy McGilligan. The House will remember a very elaborate challenge made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to a full discussion here in this House on certain matters. Certainly so far as the use of adjectives and the full use of that excellent and splendid voice he has, were concerned, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, purely in these respects, made a "strong" case. He was not interrupted; he was not interfered with. He challenged the fullest discussion. He was allowed to put his case and to put it fully. But when Deputy McGilligan began to answer! Just ask anybody here on that particular night as to the circumstances and the conduct of that particular debate. Continued interruptions were allowed both from the Minister for Industry and Commerce and from Deputy Briscoe. That is not so much what I am now complaining of, but after the challenge of the Minister there came a moment during Deputy McGilligan's attack when we saw the sudden anxiety of the Minister to get away from the discussion. He rose to ask the Ceann Comhairle: "Is all this relevant?" On the precise thing that was under discussion, on which he had challenged a full debate, he suddenly intervened and tried to stop the debate. Then on the grounds that a certain lease was not relevant, the discussion came to an end, practically speaking. That discussion of the lease was not relevant, we were told, on the ground that the Minister said he had not made the lease. If there was a covenant for a lease by two members of the Oireachtas — one a member of this House and the other a member of the Seanad — that in, itself constituted a lease, but in any case it was a matter of which the Minister for Industry and Commerce should take cognisance. Yet we had at that particular instance, if I may say so, the Ceann Comhairle coming to the rescue of the Government by, what seemed to us, a very strange ruling.

It was, however, on Friday, July 5th, at 11.30 at night, that these matters more or less reached the culmination. Let us see what led up to that. The Government had so conducted their business that they found at half-past ten on Friday morning that they had the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill still on their hands. Then they moved to sit late, and I think it was the Minister for Industry and Commerce that made that particular motion. Now I shall draw attention to the exact form of the words he used, because they are of some importance in that particular connection.

Mr. Lemass: It is proposed to take the business on the Order Paper, commencing with item No. 7 — Conditions of Employment Bill — to item No. 10 — Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill — inclusive. Public business will not be interrupted at 12 noon to take Private Deputies' business. The Dáil will adjourn until Tuesday, the 9th instant, at 3 o'clock.

I want to point out that, strictly speaking, I will admit that was not an Order of the House. But in that connection I should like to point out that such a statement by a person who moves such a motion is regarded as an Order of the House, and very often it becomes that without further motion being made. It is only in the separate words they differ from an Order of the House. We may grant to those who oppose this motion that, in the strictly technical sense, it was not an Order of the House. But in view of what occurred afterwards, at 11.30, it became a grave act of deception. I am admitting that there was no intention to deceive, but I say that it became a deception, because of what occurred at 11.30, and I think that was a motive which should have weighed very strongly with the Chair in refusing to accept that motion proposed at 11.30 a.m.

It will be noticed, in this connection, in the defence that was made for a long sitting, up to midnight on Friday night, that of the two Bills mentioned, there was only one put before us as being urgent—that was the Finance Bill. In view of the adjournment of the Dáil, and the consideration of the Finance Bill on the Tuesday following, or the Wednesday, no one could take seriously the suggestion that it was urgent that the Finance Bill should go through all its Committee Stage by that week-end. It was quite obvious that was not so. The whole conduct of the Government, subsequently, shows that they did not believe in the urgency on the ground of which the motion was accepted at 11.30 that night. For these two reasons, with that discussion, not unduly prolonged, because there were a number of matters then being examined and properly examined for the first time, there could not be any proper consideration by the House of the matter of urgency. The Government waited so late as 11.30 to make up their minds to hand in this particular motion. Therefore there could be no discussion on the question of urgency, and the House was unable properly to give consideration to the question of urgency. The House accepted, like the Chair, the fiat of a member of the Government that there was urgency. The condition of the Finance Bill should have been obvious to the Government long before Friday morning, 5th July, and they should have taken the necessary steps.

Futthermore, when we did come to the Committee Stage, still unfinished on the night of Friday, with practically half an hour still to go, there were various courses open to them, other than the one involving the Chair, which they took. There was no reason why they should have involved the Chair. They could have put down the motion which they afterwards did, and with no more interference than they were guilty of, with the rights of the House and with the rights of minorities. They could have put down that motion for Tuesday, and got the Finance Bill through some time on Wednesday, as they got it through. But the Government preferred the course of carting the Chair, and my complaint is that the Chairman on that particular occasion allowed himself to be carted. That is one of the particular grounds on which we object to the acceptance of that motion by the Chair.

The proceedings were reported as follows in the three Dublin papers and one Cork paper on the following morning:—

The Ceann Comhairle said the next motion he had was that the Dáil adjourn until 10.30 on Saturday morning. That motion, he said, was given to him as a matter of urgency as certain Bills had to go through the House within a week. He thought it would be an impertinence on the part of the Chair to decide that the majority of the House could not come to a decision of that sort.

A Deputy

Hear, hear!

Again we have approval of that particular line. We want to make clear what is the point of view of those opposing this motion as to what the rights of the Dáil and the Chair are. The ruling of the Chair, as it appears in the Official Debates of Friday, July the 5th, is slightly different. It is as follows:—

An Ceann Comhairle: As regards the motion that the Dáil do now adjourn till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow, July 6th, that motion was handed to the Chair as a matter of urgency, as certain Bills have to get through this House within a week. I consider that it would be rather an impertinence for the Chair to decide that the majority in this House in a matter of urgency cannot come to a decision as to whether or not it would sit to-morrow.

What I want to make clear is that on that particular night it became clear to us that the Chair did not exercise its discretion on the question of urgency. He merely accepted the fiat of a member of the majority Party of this House as to whether a certain thing was urgent; secondly, that, in fact, there was no such urgency and it was proved by the subsequent conduct of the Government itself that there was no such urgency; and that it was quite clear that the business could have got through as quickly as it did, and possibly more quickly, if the Government had not challenged, as they deliberately challenged, all precedents and parliamentary rights.

I admit that in taking the line they did, the Government were still under the sway, and, apparently, still are under the sway, of their old conception of the function of the Chair. That is not a conception which I, or this Party, share. That, in itself, was a very serious precedent to set, that, after a definite statement which had always been regarded as binding and which in many cases had been regarded as an order of the House, had been made by the Minister then in charge of business that the House would adjourn at 12 o'clock, until the following Tuesday the House should be summoned half an hour before 12 o'clock that night to meet the following day, when many Deputies would have gone home. If you take that particular decision by the Chair with the subsequent decision on the following Tuesday on the question of notice and the non-necessity of notice, you will see the pitch to which we are brought. The majority Party, apparently, can tell the House, and the House in good faith can act upon it, that the House will adjourn at, say, 12 o'clock to-night. That same majority Party merely, if we are to take the ruling of the Chair, because it says a thing is urgent, can say: "We will meet again at a quarter past 12 to-night or even at 10 o'clock to-morrow morning."

It can do that and it can bring up a matter of which no proper notice has been given. This is done without any atmosphere of crisis and that is what is so serious. If the thing can be done, so to speak, cold-bloodedly in an instance like this, what is likely to happen in time of crisis or in a time which can be suggested to be a crisis? The rights of the House can, practically speaking, be swept away. If the Government sees that it has a more favourable House than usual, it can suddenly move that we continue to sit until after 12 o'clock; that we adjourn for a quarter of an hour and recommence the sitting; and then bring on any matter, no matter how controversial. Remember, Sir, that the matters brought on on the Tuesday were exceedingly controversial. There was no need for them to have been brought on on Tuesday. No case for urgency was established by the Government, but the one thing that was established is that the fact that they did not bring on the Finance Bill on the Tuesday is an absolute proof of the complete lack of foundation for their plea of urgency. Further, Sir, that same lack of foundation is exemplified by the fact that, on Friday, these same Ministers spent up to after 2 o'clock discussing a Bill which certainly cannot be considered urgent. It may be important but it was not an urgent Bill, and the state of Government business this week shows that it could have been dealt with now quite as well as at the time chosen by the Government to carry on that discussion.

If you take these two rulings together, they constitute, in our eyes, a most serious invasion of the rights of the House. They undermine, it seems to me, the very foundations of Parliament. The Government could have avoided that. There was no necessity to have brought the Chair into this matter at all. There are, unfortunately, from the point of view of parliamentary rights, tremendous powers already at the disposal of the Government to see that its business is transacted and there was no necessity to pull the Chair into this at all, but they deliberately went out of their way to do it. I can understand that attitude on the part of a man like the President of the Executive Council, whose attitude — I will say this at all events — is quite definite on this matter. He is Governor-General, President of the Executive Council and Chairman of this Dáil. That is his attitude and that is the attitude he took up in other assemblies. Let him look up Documents A and B and he will find it strikingly exemplified there. I am glad to see him back. He has not been attending this House very much, and on the few occasions on which he now deigns to visit this unimportant assembly — it is, after all, his conception of the value of Parliament — he makes it quite clear that rules of order are not for him.

The consequences of these two rulings taken together are extremely serious. If, for instance, the Government is anxious to rush through a particular measure for some reasons — so that the people cannot act or save themselves before morning — it can do it as a result of these two rulings and, apparently, it would be an impertinence on the part of the Chair to interfere with the conduct and with the view of the Government. That is the serious thing — the failure to exercise his discretion on the part of the occupant of the Chair. We were told, for instance, when a certain Bill was going through this House—the Bill for the abolition of the Seanad — that a certain fraction of this House would be necessary to carry through changes in the Constitution, but if you make these two rulings together, what is to prevent any Government over-riding that in the space of exactly three-quarters of an hour? Either people are serious in their belief in Parliamentary institutions or they are not. If they are, then, it is time a stop was put to the development that has been taking place here in the last month and it is because we feel — very reluctantly, I confess — that the Chair has not been sufficiently alive to that matter that I have felt compelled to bring forward this motion.

I cannot take the light-hearted view of Standing Orders that was taken in your ruling, Sir, of Tuesday. I think they are something more than pious pointers to the Chair and I think that unless they are kept, and not departed from without grave necessity, or only on fairly trivial matters, when the House can have an opportunity of discussing those trivial matters again, it is very serious, not merely from the point of view of the minority, but of the majority and Parliament altogether. It is a very serious thing to break these. They are not mere petty rules of this House and it is not these rules themselves I am thinking of, but what these rules were meant to protect. It is because I feel that the institutions and rights which these rules were meant to protect are being filched away that I feel compelled to move this motion. The electorate elected a majority here, but it also elected others. It elected the majority to carry through the Government policy. I admit that is one of the things it did — not that the Government is carrying it through; but that is quite another matter, quite irrelevant to this discussion. It is quite true that the majority were elected here to do certain things, and so were the minority. They were elected to scrutinise very carefully the measures of the Government and they would have been failing in their duty if they did not exercise those rights to the fullest extent. The Parliament is not the Government. It is a different institution altogether and there are plenty of opportunities for putting forward the majority views and the majority rights. The Government puts them forward every day and it is the business of Parliament to scrutinise what is put before it by the Government.

Not to sabotage.

I can understand that word sabotage is very familiar to the Deputy. I think I know the country in which it is most used and he is quite familiar with it. It is the function of Parliament not to act as a Government but to consider Government measures and pass them or reject them. But it must consider them first. It is because these various things, the developments of the last few weeks, have interfered with and threaten still further, if not properly checked, to interfere with that function on the part of Parliament, that I propose this motion. The line taken up by the Government Party is that of majority dictatorship. It is because there has not been sufficient resistance by the Chair at a time when Parliamentary institutions were being threatened that we feel it necessary to propose this motion. It is a question of the majority saying "We want this; no discussion on it. The fact that we want it is enough and let there not be examination."

In connection with the Finance Bill, and especially with that Schedule that took several hours, that was the one occasion on which a thorough examination was possible. We had to act partly on the basis of a memorandum that was circulated presumably with a view to a further discussion. The Government is simply trying to put Parliament aside, to make it a mere registration machine, which is the aim of prominent members in the Government. It is to that we strongly object.

Deputies must remember certain stages of the Finance Bill. We on this side of the House were able to witness a very interesting and, in some respects, lamentable display that was taking place. We saw attempts made by the Minister for Finance to brow-beat the Chair. We saw contempt expressed again and again by the Minister for Finance, and this is not the first time attention was called to that. We heard the Minister for Finance——

On a point of order. Might I recall a previous ruling?

The Deputy must first indicate his point of order.

The point is whether what is now being said is in order.

My able and experienced predecessor, in column 1264, Volume 33, on an exactly parallel debate gave a ruling with which I heartily concur: "This motion is unique in that it affords no opportunity whatever of criticism of any Minister."

I am not criticising the Minister.

I submit, Sir, that very ruling has been violated by the Deputy.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary submitting that as a point of order?

I am not criticising the Minister. I am detailing the facts.

On a further point of order——

I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary is now copying the Minister for Finance.

May I submit another ruling of your distinguished predecessor? "I do not think any criticism of Fianna Fáil arises either. What arises is criticism of the Ceann Comhairle, and I think the debate must be directed entirely to the action of the Ceann Comhairle — either to his action or his words relevant to that action."

If the Parliamentary Secretary has a point to put he should put it and not merely draw my attention to rulings of my predecessor.

I can assure the House I have no intention of criticising the Party opposite. When I say in this resolution that the Chair tended by its conduct to damage parliamentary institutions, I am not making the suggestion that the Chair came in here at, say, 12 o'clock midday and, in the presence of the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk and the official reporters, suddenly did all these things. What he did, he did here in the full House, and what I am now referring to is the fact that we saw a deliberate attempt made to brow-beat the Chair. We were interested to this extent, to know whether the Chair would stand for that.

Dr. Ryan

That is the point.

If the Parliamentary Secretary would only——

Is the statement that a deliberate attempt was made to brow-beat the Chair in order on this debate?

There were two deliberate attempts, another made by yourself.

I am waiting to hear Deputy O'Sullivan finish his point.

We were wondering, when the Minister for Finance threatened that he would leave the House if certain things were not done, what was going to happen. All of us —we may be wrong—thought that that did seem an open determination to force the Chair to do certain things which the Chair ought not to do— accept closure. I admit the Chair held out a long time, but it did not hold out altogether, and that is my complaint. My grievance is this: that the Government, having determined to put the Chair in the cart, the Chair went into the cart. That is the serious thing—that the Chair fell into that particular trap that the Government had laid. That is the grievance I have so far as the Chair is concerned.

The powers of the Ceann Comhairle are wide—at least they are great within certain narrow limits—but I think that is all the more reason why judgment should be used in the exercise of these powers. We feel, as a result of the rulings made on that particular occasion and the whole conduct of business, especially from Friday to the following Tuesday, that there has been a serious interference with the rights of the minority and, what is still more important, with the privileges of Parliament. For that reason I move this motion.

I beg formally to second the motion.

You yourself, Sir, I am sure, and everybody else in the House were wondering why it took the Party opposite a full week to table this motion that is now before the House. You recollect, Sir, when a similar motion was tabled by this Party when in Opposition we had it on the day following the incident with the Chair where our Party thought the Chair was in fault. On the day following that incident we handed in a motion, and the Chair on that occasion insisted that only a motion in specific terms would be accepted. I regret that you yourself did not insist on something of the same kind now in this debate. Instead, you have allowed Deputy O'Sullivan to roam over the whole Official Debates in the last few years. The Deputy did so in the futile hope of discovering something in your rulings with which he could find fault. It took him quite a long time to come to the incident on Friday night, 5th July. I notice that the person who did make the threat about bringing on this motion has not yet turned up. Obviously there was some trouble in the Party which apparently caused delay in getting them to stand by it. That Deputy who made the threat has taken cover between two heavy-weights. He has been sandwiched in between these heavy-weights. At any rate Deputy O'Sullivan has gone all over your rulings and he has made only very minor points after all. What is the complaint now in connection with that Friday night? That the discussion was closured. Deputy O'Sullivan pretends that they were most anxious to discuss this Finance Bill fully. The Deputy stated in the course of his speech that we had another way of getting the Finance Bill through in just as short a time as we did. We are well aware of that. If we did we would not have given the Deputy eight hours on the following day to deal with the Bill. His grievance really amounts to this, that instead of closuring the Finance Bill we gave him and his Party more time than they were able to avail of. Anybody listening to the Deputies opposite must have been disgusted with the whole thing.

That does not arise on this motion.

Mr. Boland

Does it not?

The nature of the speeches made on the Finance Bill may not be debated.

Mr. Boland

I do not want to call your ruling in question, Sir. Are we to be held entirely to this motion, or are we to be allowed to follow Deputy O'Sullivan in his arguments?

The Minister may reply to any statement made by the Deputy.

Mr. Boland

On that particular occasion we saw a lot of matter in the Press about the Finance Bill. The Irish Times said that £11,000,000 were passed here in as many minutes, but eight or nine hours were taken up with a discussion of the Bill; that time was taken up by the Opposition, and not a single constructive suggestion was made and no constructive contribution was uttered to the debate. Still the Opposition complained that they did not get time. It is quite the reverse— it is really too much time they got, and that is what they did not want. What I see wrong in the position is that the Opposition do not realise the changes that have taken place. They still think they are a majority in the House. As Deputy Flinn said, they are looking in the mirror and they see themselves still as a majority. It will probably take them a few years to realise that they are a minority. I would like to remind Deputies opposite of something said by your predecessor here as to the rights of majorities and minorities in this House. Speaking on the 5th July, 1928, as reported in Vol. 24, col. 2071, of the Official Debates, your predecessor, in the course of his remarks, said: “It has been frequently said here that the Standing Orders are for the protection of minorities.” That is the line taken by the Opposition now. Your predecessor went on: “That is only a partial truth. Standing Orders do afford and ought to afford certain protection for the minority, but the main purpose of the Standing Orders is to assist in the transaction of the business of the House.”

Mr. Boland

Hear, hear. Then your predecessor continued: "The Standing Orders do contain safeguards for the minority in certain directions; they must ensure that the rights of the majority will also be preserved." It all depends on which Party has the majority. They will quite agree with that when they are the majority. But when the position changes it will not work at all. Then the Ceann Comhairle on that occasion continues: "What has really to be recognised is —what is fundamental to the whole thing here—that the decision of the House itself is all important. For example, when the House decides the motion ‘that the question be now put,' in the affirmative, it is the decision of the House that prevents Deputies from continuing having any further debate and not the decision of the Chair." That was said by your predecessor in 1928. I did not always agree with everything your predecessor did, but he was quite sound on that occasion.

Mr. Boland

There were occasions when I did not agree with many things he said, but when we did disagree with him to the extent that we did, we were not afraid of putting it down upon paper and putting down the precise points on which we disagreed with him. Everybody knows that the occupant of the Chair was only human in any case, but there was an idea then that he was more than human. There is no question about it that the Chair in those days was sacrosanct. But we realised that the Ceann Comhairle was only a human being, that he was bound to make mistakes, and that he made mistakes, and so does the present occupant of the Chair. If the present occupant of the Chair has been partial, it is only to the Opposition that he is partial. That is due to the innate decency of the man. Mistakes are often made by decent people, and they are harder on their own than on other people. Unquestionably we proposed a member of our own Party for the Chair. We frankly recognise that we put a man of our own Party in the Chair. We expect from him fair dealing and impartial ruling, but we never pretended that the Ceann Comhairle was not a member of our Party at the time he was elected to the Chair. If his rulings have been partial in any way, it has been on the side of the minority, and everybody knows that the members of the Opposition get from him a better hearing than the supporters of the Government. Every person in the House knows that. I have here a copy of an Opposition paper which actually says it. It has an article here about the Ceann Comhairle, which winds up by saying: "He is the right man in the right place; would that there were more men like him in the public life of the country." That is an extract from an article in the Evening Mail of the 12th July. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle would rather get a compliment from some other paper than from this. But that statement certainly expresses the mind not alone of this Party but of every Party in the House, and of practically every person in the House. There may be a few of the other opinion, Deputies like Deputy McGilligan, who threatened to put down this motion. It took him ten days to persuade his Party to agree to the putting down of the motion. There are people like him who could never be satisfied. These are the people who are never accustomed to being pulled up by the Chair. But the leaders of the Opposition have, too, to be kept in order occasionally. You, Sir, have given latitude to them, and that was due, I believe, more to the innate decency that is in you than to anything else. If anybody or any Party was to put down this motion that is now before the House, it is this Party that should put it down.

After a lot of beating about the bush trying to come to the point and not coming to the point, we got this from Deputy O'Sullivan that the Ceann Comhairle was asked on that day by two Ministers if there was anything in the Standing Orders to prevent the House sitting on the following day. Seeing that the Government was anxious to give as much time as possible to the consideration of the Finance Bill, the Ceann Comhairle was asked was there anything in the Standing Orders which would prevent the House from meeting on the next day to give further time for discussion. The Ceann Comhairle, having consulted and studied the Standing Orders, decided that there was nothing in them to prevent it. As a matter of fact, I know of no record of a case in which formal notice had to be given of the adjournment of the House on a particular day. Look at the Order Paper. That item is on the Order Paper every day—the adjournment of the Dáil. Four days' notice is normally necessary if the Ceann Comhairle thinks there is no urgency.

That is knocked on the head.

Mr. Boland

It is not knocked on the head. Your own man, who is now no longer a member of the House, has settled that the House—the majority if you like, because, after all, when the House comes to a decision it is a decision of the majority—has the right to decide those questions, and as the Chair said, it would be an impertinence on his part to prevent the House from coming to a decision. He may not have meant that it would be an impertinence, but, in any case, he felt it was his duty not to prevent the House from taking a decision as to whether or not they would meet to give further time for discussing this measure.

That is what I say—the four days' notice is knocked on the head.

Mr. Boland

Surely when there is a majority decision—even if the majority happens to be on this side of the House —it is a decision of the House? Of course it depends on who the majority are before the Party opposite will be satisfied, and they will not be satisfied then either. We were told then that there was no precedent for the Dáil meeting on non-sitting days without notice—or at all, I think. As a matter of fact I have been looking up the records of the House in the early days—in the days when Professor O'Sullivan told us that the House was growing; in the years when all those precedents were established; as far as I can gather from him there should never be another precedent established after they left office—and I find that there were at least nine occasions on which the House met on a Monday, which was a non-sitting day also. One of the members of the Labour Party at the time was objecting to this, and the leader of the Labour Party—that is, the present Senator Johnson—took the line that after all the Government knew what business it had to do, and it was only right that in matters of that kind the Government should be facilitated in getting through its business. That was the attitude adopted at the time, and there was no question about it. On nine occasions in those years, 1923 and 1924, the House did sit on non-sitting days, so that that argument falls to the ground, too.

Would the Minister say if the House had half-an-hour's notice of it?

There must have been notice from Thursday or Friday.

Mr. Boland

No. There was practically no notice. Deputy Cosgrave announced that they proposed to meet on Monday.

When? At that hour?

Mr. Boland

At the conclusion on Friday.

But at what hour? Was it when concluding on Friday at 2 o'clock?

Mr. Boland

It was the last business on Friday.

But there was not a late sitting?

Mr. Boland

No. I will deal with that, too. There is a precedent for sitting until 2 o'clock on Saturday. The only difference is that on this occasion we had some regard for the comfort of Deputies, and particularly Deputies opposite, because they got very worried on the last occasion when we sat all night, and really did not know what they were talking about, so we thought a night in bed would not do them any harm. On one occasion we sat from 10.30 on Friday until 2 o'clock on the following Saturday, in continuous session, but after the exhibition we had on that occasion nobody would wish to have it repeated. There is, therefore, a precedent for sitting on non-sitting days both on Saturday and Monday, no extra notice being given. Of course, what really happened was that the wild man, the ex-Minister, Deputy McGilligan, got excited and said some things which he had no right to say. Deputy Cosgrave, instead of acting the kind father and giving him a good spanking, let the Party be bullied by him into standing over his action on that day. I think that Deputy Cosgrave should now reassert himself. He should get those people under his control again, and make them behave themselves. I do not think that in the whole of Deputy O'Sullivan's Dáil career he ever made a more futile or ineffective speech. He made no real point at all. He himself admitted that most of the matters he had to complain of were minor matters.

Mr. Boland

Oh, yes, he said they were minor matters. And the big matter that he had to raise, instead of being a cause of complaint, ought to have been quite the reverse, because, as I pointed out already, it was not a matter of closing the debate; it was a matter of giving further time to discuss the Finance Bill, which had already taken seven times longer than this Party ever took in discussing a Finance Bill. I can, therefore, find no other explanation for this motion than the one I have given—that Deputy McGilligan rushed the Party. I do not know whether it was with the threat of a split; there was a split recently——

That does not arise.

Mr. Boland

I am wondering why they put down the motion.

The motion is in order.

Mr. Boland

But I am trying to show the House——

That it is from your side it should have come!

Mr. Boland

I am trying to show the House—and I am sure the House knows it quite well—that there are no grounds whatever for it. If there were any grounds, those grounds would have been dealt with in the motion on the Order Paper. It is only because of the pique of an ex-Minister that the House and the institutions of the House are to be brought into contempt. In order to please him, Deputy O'Sullivan, a University Professor, and the ex-LeasCheann Comhairle, instead of, as I say, helping Deputy Cosgrave to spank him and to teach him manners, fell into the trap and are associated with him in the Resolution. I think they really ought to withdraw it, because there is no case whatever for it.

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs seems rather concerned with the absence of Deputy McGilligan, apart from the fact that the meat is missing from the sandwich.

Mr. Boland

The mustard!

If it is any consolation to the Minister, I can assure him that in a short time the sandwich will be complete, and he will probably find that there is a heavy dose of mustard in it also. The Minister has apparently been delving into the Official Reports of the House, and he gave us the results of what he had gleaned from them. He laid particular stress on the decision of the House that the Ceann Comhairle had no right to stand between the House, or the majority, in coming to a decision. It is a pity that when the Minister was going into the Official Reports he did not look at column 1278, of the 5th March, 1930, and read what the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, said on that very point. On that occasion Deputy Lemass said:—

"That is the particular point I wanted to make clear. The debate was concluded by a decision of the House. The implication is that the Ceann Comhairle was merely the medium by which the proposal of the jack-boot Minister for Finance was submitted to the House. The Ceann Comhairle knows, and every Deputy knows, that in permitting the closure motion to be moved he was not asking a decision of the House, but a decision of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party."

He goes on to say:—

"It was not a decision of the House; it was a decision of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party... The Ceann Comhairle is supposed by this section to protect the rights of the minority from invasion by the organised Party majority."

As reported in column 1280, the same Deputy said:—

"I regret that the Ceann Comhairle should have seen fit to have facilitated the application of the gag to this House by accepting the closure motion."

Apparently, as I say, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs did not come across that.

There is no reference to a closure motion in the motion we are now discussing.

There will be reference to it in a moment. That is what I want to get at. Let us get down to the real point at issue. We are told by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that the Government wanted to give more time to the Opposition to discuss the Finance Bill. The Government had no option. The Government found, through their own incompetency, their own inefficiency, and the fact that they were not so able to organise business so as to have the Finance Bill completed in proper time, that they had to get it discussed upon another day.

Let us have some regard to the circumstances in which the whole matter arose. I defy any Deputy to produce from the Official Debates from the foundation of this House any precedent for what was done on that Friday night. Let it be remembered first— attention was drawn to it in this House and it cannot be denied—that there was a definite attempt on the part of the Government, and particularly on the part of certain Ministers, to browbeat the Chair. That was a sustained attempt over three weeks, which, I suggest, culminated on that Friday night, when the Chair was bullied into accepting two motions and two closures at 11.30. I say that that was a direct result of the tactics carried on, particularly by the Minister for Finance— clear to every Deputy, and commented upon by Deputies before ever this matter arose—and, to a lesser extent, by the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself.

What was the position? The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs told us that we occupied more time than was ever occupied before in discussing a Finance Bill. We were told that there was more time occupied by the Opposition than the Government Party ever occupied when in Opposition. Surely that does not say it was wrong. Surely everybody knows that this year's Finance Bill was such as we have never seen before; that it was a Finance Bill which called for more detailed examination and exposing, if you like, to the public than any Finance Bill that ever came before the House before. Surely if there was urgency, which I deny, the fact that you were tied up for time was due, not to what happened in the discussions on the Bill, but to the fact that owing to the inefficiency of the Government and their want of proper organisation the Finance Bill was delayed and the Budget was introduced at a later date this year than, as far as I know, speaking from recollection, any Budget was introduced in this House since 1922. They talked about all the time taken here and that they had to give at least three weeks to the Seanad to consider the Finance Bill. We know quite well what the Government think of the Seanad and what are the powers of the Seanad with regard to the Finance Bill.

On the Friday morning a motion was made that the House should sit later than 2.30, and that the motion for the adjournment should be taken not later than 12 midnight. There was nothing whatever wrong with that motion in itself. The Government, if they did not know when moving the motion, certainly knew long before 11.30 p.m., that, owing to the detailed examination of the long schedules imposing new and additional taxes on a tremendous number of articles, they were not going to get the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill concluded that night. It has been proved that there was no reason whatever why the Committee Stage of the Bill could not have been taken on the following Tuesday and concluded on that day. Further, there was no reason whatever why the whole of that Friday, from 10.30 a.m. until 12 midnight, should not have been devoted to the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill.

The Conditions of Employment Bill is an important Bill and it was important that the Committee Stage of it should be got through. But does anybody suggest that it was essential to get the Committee Stage of that Bill concluded on that Friday morning and that it should be given precedence over what the Government claimed was the most urgent Bill, the Finance Bill? Let us remember that the Finance Bill was not taken up until 3 p.m. on Friday and that four and a half hours of that Friday, that is more than a whole normal sitting period on Friday, was taken up by the Conditions of Employment Bill, which, while important and while it would be necessary to get it through with the least possible delay, should not, if the Government's claim of urgency for the Finance Bill was well founded, be given precedence over the Finance Bill.

Before this happened at 11.30 p.m., everybody had come to the conclusion that the Dáil was adjourning at midnight until the following Tuesday, because, apart from what had been stated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, one naturally came to the conclusion "that the Dáil shall adjourn not later than 12 midnight" meant that the Dáil should adjourn until the following Tuesday. That was assumed by many members of the House. It was assumed by every member of the Labour Party that that was what was going to happen. Otherwise, that Party would have been here because, apart from the Finance Bill, there was another Bill in which they were genuinely interested. It was assumed by members on the opposite side and by members on this side. That is well known to members in all parts of the House. My submission, therefore, is that the Ceann Comhairle, having had to withstand intimidation, open and unashamed, from certain members of the Government, and in particular from the Minister for Finance, at last was brow-beaten into accepting a motion which I believe normally he would not accept and could not accept. At 11.30 the Minister for Agriculture interrupted the business of the House to ask the Chair to accept the motion without notice. There was no discussion allowed on that motion; it was closured. Then we were told that there was another motion and another motion was moved at, I think, 11.40, and that motion was closured. No time was allowed to advance a reason for or against that motion, as to whether it should or should not be accepted; and my point is that that was absolutely unprecedented in this House.

I say further that the Government deliberately refrained from moving these motions until 11.30 in order to compel the Chair, if he accepted the two motions, also to accept the two closures; because there was no point whatever in the Chair accepting these motions at 11.30 unless he also agreed to the closures, as the motions could not have been decided before 12 o'clock and, therefore, would not be effective. The whole thing can be boiled down to that. I am confining it to this particular issue of the Friday night.

I might say in passing that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, it seems to me, made the best case, a better case than I could make, for this motion because he said clearly, without any equivocation whatever, that they were the majority Party and that it was the rights of the majority that were going to hold in this House. The Minister certainly says what he has to say, unlike his leader. He is a very devoted follower of the President but he does not follow him in everything. There is no difficulty in understanding what the Minister means because he comes out clearly and to the point. We are told that all this was done in order to facilitate the Opposition. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs wanted to know what was the reason for this motion and what was the purpose of it. It would seem to me that the main reason for this motion, speaking for myself, is to endeavour to have the power and the authority of the Chair in this House upheld even against the Government for the time being.

Would the Deputy explain the cause of the delay in tabling this motion?

Certainly. The Minister contrasted the rapidity with which he moved a motion on one occasion with what he called the delay in this case. The Deputy and his Party as usual rushed in here in hot blood on the following morning and put down a motion. We waited calmly to consider it and to see the Official Report.

And this was all you could produce!

It depends on what the Deputy means by "produce." No doubt the Deputy would produce many things. He has, as a matter of fact. I am suggesting, and I think it is a very complete answer to the Minister, that we waited to consider the matter carefully, to see the Official Report and to make sure that we were perfectly right when we asserted that the Ceann Comhairle had allowed the rights of the minority to be trampled on, on that occasion, by the majority. I assert—I am giving my personal view for what it is worth—that it is the main function of the Ceann Comhairle to safeguard, so far as he can within the Standing Orders and in conjunction with the Standing Orders, the rights of the minority. The fact is that the majority usually can, and do, look after themselves. If we are going to be faced with the position that the majority Party for the time being in the House can come at any time to the occupant of the Chair and put it to him in this way: "Is there anything in the Standing Orders to prevent our moving a motion, any motion at any time"—if that is to be contended, it seems to me that the sooner we carry on without a Ceann Comhairle the better, because the function of the Ceann Comhairle is, so far as he possibly can, to uphold Parliamentary institutions, practice and procedure and to see that minority rights are not trampled on. I say that any occupant of the Chair who accepts two motions and two closures half an hour before midnight on any night fails in his duty absolutely. That is the case as I see it. That is the case that the House will have to address itself to.

There is more in this than an error of judgment. It was not an ordinary error of judgment. It is quite easy for any man occupying the Chair to be in error; he is not infallible; he has to depend on his own judgment. He has to judge things in the particular circumstances and atmosphere of the House. He does that on his own, frequently without advice. The real seriousness of this, however, is that it was not an ordinary error of judgment made by the Chair. The real seriousness lies in the fact that it was a deliberate and sustained attempt of the Government to break down the institution of the Chair in this House. My submission is that they succeeded in that attempt and that as a result of three weeks of sustained intimidation, intimidation particularly by the Minister for Finance, to the knowledge of every member of this House, not only did the Chair accept two motions, but it accepted two closures on these motions without any discussion whatever as to whether the motions were necessary or whether they should be allowed before the House. The House, we were told, had to come to a decision, and it was not entitled to discuss the motions. That, again, we were told, was not a decision of the House but a decision of the Ceann Comhairle. In that way the Chair decided that the Party who claim to have a majority were entitled at that hour to trample on the rights of other Parties in the House.

I listened with considerable interest to the speech made by Deputy Professor O'Sullivan in support of the motion. Although the Deputy occupied about three-quarters of an hour of the time of the House, and was copiously supplied with notes, I have never listened to a speech on a motion dealing with so serious an issue, containing such a tissue of trivialities as the Deputy tried to mobilise in support of his case. The Deputy took three-quarters of an hour to mobilise what I suppose he describes as arguments. In one portion of his speech the Deputy was very much concerned because the Fianna Fáil Party would not listen to arguments. I have a good deal of sympathy with the Fianna Fáil Party, if they have got to consider the trivialities which the Deputy calls arguments. The Deputy himself did not believe they were arguments. It was only by being equipped with a volume of notes that the Deputy was able to remember even the trivial points which he made in support of his motion. I was rather interested in one line which the Deputy took in support of the motion. He was concerned that Parliament should not be brought into disrepute and that Parliamentary institutions should be maintained in a dignified manner. He said that there was a universal recognition by all Parties and by the community of the majesty and the dignity of our Parliamentary institutions. I am beginning to wonder whether that was not a mock rôle for the Deputy here this evening, because it is not so long since the leader of his Party said that our Parliamentary institutions were un-Irish and should be abolished. Yet we have Deputy O'Sullivan here this evening taking a line completely contrary to his leader and saying that he wants to maintain Parliamentary institutions, which his leader of another day wanted to abolish because they were completely un-Irish.

What the leader of another day wanted to abolish is not relevant to a vote of censure on the Ceann Comhairle.

I am surely entitled to suggest that when the Deputy submitted a motion of this kind he has left himself open to an accusation of hypocrisy. I am surely entitled to say that all this pretended concern for Parliament and Parliamentary institutions, is so much humbug when Deputy O'Sullivan brings in a motion criticising your conduct. Why, in this particular matter you have shown yourself a very much more faithful champion of Parliamentary institutions in this House than Deputy O'Sullivan or any member of his Party has shown himself to be. Deputy O'Sullivan, of course, made no case whatever for this motion. He did not seem by his halting and disjointed argument to have any sympathy with this motion. He seemed to be a substituted mover of the motion and to have very little real concern with its terms. Deputy Morrissey made a somewhat better attempt to justify the motion. At all events he justified the delay in submitting it to the House by making it clear that it was the desire of the Party opposite not to do anything in a rush or in the impetuous way that Deputy McGilligan wanted. Deputy Morrissey wanted to wait and see the Official Report. But Deputy McGilligan, in the rôle of author of the motion, even on Friday, the 5th July, made up his mind that such a motion should be submitted on such evidence as he then had. Deputy Morrissey's calmer consideration was only used to implement the decision taken in the heat of the moment by Deputy McGilligan on Friday night. And, of course, all the calm consideration was utilised for no other purpose than to see in what way Deputy McGilligan's view might be supported with some argument advanced in favour of the motion.

If we are to take Deputy O'Sullivan's speech as a justification for the moving of this motion, then, it becomes quite clear that there is no justification for the motion at all. Speeches made so far in support of this motion were irrational and irrelevant as Deputy McGilligan's on Friday night was ill-considered. Deputy Morrissey and Deputy O'Sullivan seem to think that in Parliamentary institutions all the rights lie with minorities and no rights lie with the majority.

I did not say anything like that.

That was the substance of the arguments put forward in the speeches of the Deputies. I concede, at the outset, that minorities, of course, have their rights. But in balancing the claims of majorities and minorities the Chair ought not, in any way, to lean towards the side of the minority, or ought not to do so to such an extent as would frustrate the majority will of the people. Whatever rights minorities have they ought not to be utilised in a way that would prevent Parliament functioning, or in a way that would thwart the will of the people, as expressed at the elections, and in order not to hold up to ridicule and contempt Parliamentary institutions established by the people of the State.

I must say frankly, a Chinn Comhairle, that I did not like the language in which your decision was couched on the night of the 5th of July. I would prefer the reasons given were expressed in different language and, perhaps, on reconsideration, you, Sir, yourself, might be disposed to agree with that point of view. But the language is not a serious matter on an occasion like this. It is the action of the Ceann Comhairle that we are now discussing, and it is that action that we must examine. And in our examination of that action we must endeavour to ascertain whether in fact the Ceann Comhairle has, in any way, allowed the rights of minority Parties in this House to be violated. What are the facts of the case?

We had Deputy MacDermot, deputy Leader of the Fine Gael Party, in this House, introducing a motion in favour of speeches being limited in duration to half an hour. Yet when we came to the Finance Bill the Fine Gael Party put up speaker after speaker to occupy the time of the House for very much longer periods than half an hour. Speeches from the Fine Gael Party revealed that there were any number of latent experts in the Party. Deputy Bennett, who had not distinguished himself by any expert knowledge previously, showed in his speech on the Finance Bill that he was an expert on football cases.

How do you know? You were not here.

I was here for part of the debate. I am glad, however, my better judgment assisted me to get out of ear reach of many of the declarations of the Deputy's colleague. But even Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney must see the humour of Deputy Bennett posing as the football expert of the Fine Gael Party.

In other words, he kicked the Fianna Fáil Party.

He may have been kicking but he certainly was not thinking. Listening to him one would think that the whole future of this country, and its destinies, were to be decided on the question whether a tax was to be put on football cases and golf balls. Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney were very much annoyed because they were not allowed to talk all the week on the question of the taxation of football covers. It was obvious to anyone listening to the debate on the Finance Bill that the whole object of the Party opposite was to delay the Bill and take up the time of the House. The same speeches have been made over and over again and, on important matters, two or three times previously. Many of the arguments put forward by Deputy Mulcahy and which occupied much of the time of the House were not arguments that would commend themselves to anyone with common sense.

Order! The Deputy's arguments or an analysis of them are not in order on this motion.

I pass away from that. An effort was made to discuss all big matters in a reasonable period of time, allowing adequate discussion for all Parties and allowing minorities their rights, while at the same time not deliberately throttling the rights of the majority. If the Opposition wanted adequate discussion they had abundant time for it. If they had any respect for Deputy MacDermot's view they should have kept their speeches within the ambit of half an hour. But having being allowed a holiday in one particular week on the matter of talking on the Finance Bill, they found it difficult afterwards to confine themselves to any reasonable discussion. The object of the Government Party was to try and have discussion confined within a reasonable time. I think every Party in this House, and certainly the minority Parties, had adequate time in which to discuss the Finance Bill; therefore there can be no complaint whatever, no well-founded complaint, that adequate time was not given to Deputies in all parts of the House to discuss every provision of the Finance Bill both on Committee Stage and on Report Stage.

If there is any complaint that could be made against you, Sir, I think it is the one suggested by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, namely, that you have extended perhaps too much latitude to Deputies in this House. I certainly, from my own view, would say that if the Chair displayed any bias it was not towards the Government Party and that too much tolerance was extended to the Fine Gael Party. At the commencement of our business here the House asks that Almighty God will happily end our words and works; but that prayer is scarcely finished until some member of the Party opposite gets up to engage again in a campaign of abuse.

This is absolutely irrelevant.

And irreverent, Sir.

I submit that when the Party opposite complain that you have shown bias against them, we are entitled to ascertain whether there is any justification for the charges so made, and I suggest that so long as the Party opposite are allowed by you the latitude and indulgence which one well-known member of that Party is allowed, the charge of bias against you falls completely to the ground.

You have had, Sir, a very difficult task in the Chair, and you certainly have not been assisted by some Deputies in this House, and by one Deputy of the Fine Gael Party, in particular, and it ill becomes that Party, in view of the indulgence and latitude which they must know they have received from you and which they must know at least one prominent member of their Party in particular has received from you, to submit a motion of this kind which questions your conduct and accuses you of disregard of the rights of minorities, and of bias in favour of the Government Party in this House. I think that most reasonable Deputies in the House would wish that the needless heat and uncalled for bitterness which disgrace this House in the eyes of the community, were eliminated, and that there was less raking of the ashes of bitterness and of the ashes of the unfortunate civil war. If we want to maintain the dignity of Parliament, if we want to maintain the majesty of Parliament, if we want our people to respect Parliamentary institutions, we here in this Assembly ought to set an example to the rest of the community by dignified and decorous conduct.

That is not relevant to the motion.

Somebody is bringing Parliament into disrepute.

I think it is relevant to the motion, unless it is now almost a crime to talk of maintaining the dignity or the majesty of Parliament.

The motion sets out that the actions of the Chair tend to bring the Parliament into disrepute. The actions of Deputies are not in question.

Nobody believes the terms of the motion.

The debate is confined to the Ceann Comhairle and his actions in the Chair.

Deputy O'Sullivan told us that the existence of this House was for the purpose of analysing the proposals which came before it; that it was a deliberative assembly; and that adequate time should be allowed for discussion. Does Deputy O'Sullivan seriously contend that the House has been denied the opportunity of discussing measures which have to pass through this House? Does he deny that he was afforded an adequate opportunity of discussing those measures, and that he might have had more opportunity of discussing them intelligently himself, if he could have turned off the flow of irrelevant and unintelligent criticism which was directed towards many of these proposals? So far as the Finance Bill is concerned—and that seems to be the burden of the Deputy's case in support of this motion—adequate time, in my view was allowed, and it was painfully obvious to everybody—to the members of the House and to visitors—that the whole strategy of the Opposition on that Bill was to waste as much time as possible in order to cause as much embarrassment as possible to the Government Party.

Deputy Morrissey and Deputy O'Sullivan seemed to think that democracy consisted of talking and that democracy consisted of allowing a minority to spend as long as it chose in discussing legislative proposals. In my view, that is the very negation of all democracy. Real democracy surely consists of allowing the will of the people to be expressed. Real democracy surely consists of enabling the legislative programme endorsed by the people to be carried out. Real democracy will only continue to exist in this country if the Parliamentary institutions of this State are regarded as institutions through which the will of the people, as expressed in the ballot box, can be given effect to, but if we are ever to consent to a position in which the will of the people, as expressed in the ballot box, can be thwarted by Opposition tactics in this House, Parliament in this country will become a sham and people will look to other methods for a solution of their economic and political differences.

I think no motion has ever been introduced in this House based on such insincerity, on such trivialities, and on such a complete want of any justification whatever as the motion moved by Deputy O'Sullivan this evening. He has not attempted to show that the Ceann Comhairle has in any way debased the exalted position which the Chair should rightly occupy in any deliberative assembly. He has failed completely to show that the Chair was guilty of any offence against minority parties in this House on 5th July or any other date. The Deputy's speech consisted of a tissue of trivialities, and it seemed from the way in which he endeavoured to put them over to the House that he himself for one scarcely believed in half of them. I think that most people listening to this discussion will realise at once that there was no justification for this motion, and that the attempt which was sought to be made by Deputy O'Sullivan to hang this motion on your action, on Friday, 5th July, has fallen completely to the ground.

In the Chair, I think you have displayed a propriety which it would be exceedingly difficult to surpass. I think you have shown regard for the rights of minority parties in this House, and I think you have maintained the high tradition which has been associated with the Chair of this Parliament since 1922. I think you have shown yourself a fitting occupant of this Chair, and if the Party opposite still pretend to have any regard for Parliamentary institutions, they ought not to have treated us to the degrading spectacle of wasting time in considering a motion of this kind which I say, in the first place, is insincere, and, in the second place, is a hypocritical demonstration of pretended affection for Parliament by a Party which has already indicated that it has no use for this Parliament and no use for the Parliamentary institutions of this country.

I think you have been very unfortunate, Sir, in the fact that the last speaker, Deputy Norton, took up the cudgels on your behalf. Deputy Norton's speech on your behalf appeared to me to be the speech of a man who was perfectly convinced that he had no case to put forward. Deputy Norton's speech consisted, as to the first part of it, of a mere diatribe against Deputy O'Sullivan. How does that help the House? Deputy Norton's speech, as it went on further, was an attack upon this Party as being an opponent of political institutions, which Deputy Norton and everybody else in this House knows is utterly and entirely false. Deputy Norton knows that to be utterly and entirely false. We have left physical force to the Party opposite.

Deputy Norton's speech rang entirely dishonest when it came from a man who proceeded to talk about debates at which he was not present. I have before me a report of the proceedings, and I find that in not one single division on Friday or Saturday, after the Conditions of Employment Bill had been finished, did Deputy Norton take part. I say further that when Deputy Norton professes that he was here when the discussions were proceeding on the Finance Bill, the discussions that he describes as irrelevant, he is suggesting what is not correct. Deputy Norton was not present in the House, as this book shows, so far as divisions are concerned. It is within the memory of every person here that on Saturday and on the whole of Friday not merely Deputy Norton, but not one single member of the Labour Party was in his place.

That statement is incorrect.

After the Conditions of Employment Bill was dealt with there was no Labour Deputy present. The division list is the test. Now that I have answered shortly the complete irrelevancies of Deputy Norton, and now that I have answered the very cheap method which the beaten debater often adopts, the cheap method of endeavouring to attack the other side when you have not got a case, I would like to get down to other matters. Let me come—and it can be put in a very short compass indeed— to the pronouncement made by the Ceann Comhairle here. The pronouncement stands on the records of the House, and it is a precedent for every single person who occupies the Chair for the future, be he Ceann Comhairle, Leas-Cheann Comhairle or the Deputy called on to preside over our debates. Here is the precedent which the Ceann Comhairle has set down, the general ruling he has given, and let Deputy Norton or any member of the Labour Party or of the Fianna Fáil Party who likes say if this is a sound ruling. This is the precedent laid down, which ought to be followed by the Ceann Comhairle or any occupant of the Chair in this or any other deliberative assembly. This is no afterthought on my part. I may say that when this pronouncement was made from the Chair on that particular Friday night I took exception to it there and then. No attempt was made by the Chair on that occasion to retract or qualify in the slightest degree the general principle laid down for the future guidance of the occupants of the Chair. Here is the principle laid down. It is in column 2061, Vol. 57, No. 4:

As regards the motion that the Dáil do now adjourn till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow, July 6th, that motion was handed to the Chair as a matter of urgency, as certain Bills have to get through this House within a week. I consider that it would be rather an impertinence for the Chair to decide that the majority in this House in a matter of urgency cannot come to a decision as to whether or not it would sit to-morrow.

That is the general principle laid down by the Ceann Comhairle, that if the majority Party considers a matter to be one of urgency it is an impertinence for the Chair to come to any other decision or to think for itself. That is a ruling to which we must take exception, that the Ceann Comhairle considers it an impertinence for a man holding the high position in which he has been placed by the votes of this assembly, to use his own judgment or to question a decision which has been given to him by the majority Party. That principle stands there, and it is not confined to matters of urgency. Apparently the majority can do anything they like. The general principle is laid down that it is an impertinence for the Ceann Comhairle to interfere with the majority Party and it is against that we will continue to raise the very strongest protest. What is the nonsense that is put forward here, that this is not a bona fide motion, the nonsense that our Party and everybody in the House interested in the future of the House are not concerned when the Ceann Comhairle lays down from the Chair a general rule for his own guidance and for future occupants of the Chair, a terrible rule that it is an impertinence for the Ceann Comhairle to interfere with the views of the majority Party? He takes a particular suggestion of urgency, but it is not confined to urgency. It would, apparently, be an impertinence for him to hear the Leader of the Opposition. Presumably he would adopt that attitude if the majority Party thought that the Leader of the Opposition should not address the House. He can prevent anybody speaking and he can do anything he likes if the majority Party consider it right. This general rule is applicable not merely to urgency but whenever the majority Party wish anything to be done.

The Ceann Comhairle has laid down that general principle in the terrible pronouncement that it is an impertinence for the Chair to use its own judgment against the judgment of the majority Party. That is the proposition to which we take exception. It is a proposition to which anybody who is interested in Party government must take exception. It is a proposition to which any person who thinks there is any future before this House, as I do, must take exception. It is a proposition to which every upholder of democratic government, of which I and my Party are the strongest upholders in this country, must take exception. If we are going to have a legislative assembly here in which the Ceann Comhairle openly admits that he is simply there to do the bidding of the majority Party and not to preserve the rights of the ordinary members, then this House as a democratic institution cannot carry on. That is the main thing which we have to decide. What the Ceann Comhairle did has already been questioned and put before the House and I need not repeat it. I make an appeal to the House to express its views on this matter solely upon the general principle which the Ceann Comhairle has laid down for future occupants of the Chair. I say that is a principle over which this House should not stand.

Dr. Ryan

It is extraordinary the ability with which Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, Deputy Morrissey and Deputy O'Sullivan have been able to work up a little heat in this debate. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney must have been a very able man in addressing a jury when he could act so well in a debate like this. Deputy Morrissey quoted the Minister for Industry and Commerce on a debate like this some time ago. I would like to let the House know what President Cosgrave at that time, now Deputy Cosgrave, thought about the duty of the Ceann Comhairle. He said: "The Dáil must have the transaction of public business and the Ceann Comhairle is appointed to preside over the debates and to secure that they are conducted in a peaceful and orderly manner." We all agree with that. He says: "He also has the duty of seeing that the business of the House is done." He still has that duty even though Deputy Cosgrave is not President now. The Ceann Comhairle has the duty of seeing that the business of the House is done. He also said on that ocasion that "the Ceann Comhairle has just as many obligations to the majority as he has to the minority." Just as many obligations. When people spoke from this side to-day on the motion, they did not go as far as that. Deputy Norton said that the Ceann Comhairle ought to lean towards the minority. Deputy Cosgrave when he was President said that the Ceann Comhairle ought to lean just as much to one as to the other, just as far to the majority as to the minority: "If the majority of the House wishes to take a decision it is obvious that the Ceann Comhairle has no option. It would be an impertinence to interfere with the rights of the Deputies."

Dr. Ryan

That is very laudable. He said if the majority of the House wishes to take a decision it is obvious that the Ceann Comhairle has very little option. When Deputy Cosgrave was President, if the Minister or the President wished to put it to the Ceann Comhairle that the House wished to decide in a certain way it was obvious that the Ceann Comhairle had little option but to let them decide. That was the way with the majority always—they got their right to decide on a vote of the House what they were to do. That is how Parliaments have always decided. That is how Parliaments must always decide by a vote of the House. If we are deciding on such a vote we are upholders of majority rule and that Party over there, surely to goodness, did enough in this country to uphold majority rule or, at all events, they did enough in the name of majority rule.

Do not let us go back to that now.

Dr. Ryan

Very well. Deputy O'Sullivan when speaking here to-day—I am not able to deal with him as ably as Deputy Norton did—spoke about the inconvenience of being kept relevant in a discussion in this House. He complained that the Ceann Comhairle occasionally called him to order on the score of irrelevance. The Deputy is, no doubt, very much inconvenienced on that point. He said it was only a minor matter but still it is perhaps rather hard on the Deputy. Naturally an accumulation of these small matters might cause one to resent the Ceann Comhairle's ruling. But built up on these small little annoyances such as being called to order for irrelevancies there surely was quite enough justification for putting in this motion. These matters culminated on one particular night. The Deputy mentioned that there was a ruling given in June, 1933. We have had no time to look at what were the circumstances at that particular time. None of us are prepared to accept the ex parte statement of Deputy O'Sullivan that after a two and a half hours' debate on the President's Vote, a motion was accepted by which the minority were ruled out. Deputy O'Sullivan also referred to a debate between Deputy McGilligan and the Minister for Industry and Commerce in which the Ceann Comhairle was supposed to act unfairly.

The point was made to-day that the Government waited until 11.30 o'clock on the Friday night before taking action. Why should we not? When we announced the business here in the morning at 10.30 there were four Bills before the House. Most of the Committee Stage of the Conditions of Employment Bill had been dealt with and we had concluded a large part of the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. All that remained was the Report Stage of another Bill and the Fifth Stage of a fourth Bill. Although we are not accustomed to underestimate the power of the Opposition to roam around the subject and to talk a good deal of irrelevancies on anything that would arise, we did believe that the 13½ hours would be more than sufficient to conclude that business, especially as we had given more time to the Finance Bill up to that point than ever had been given in this Parliament before for financial business.

And more time is required.

Dr. Ryan

And they got very much more time. We are blamed because we did not ask to sit on Saturday until 11.30. Take the position. We had the last part of the Finance Bill —only the Schedules to be discussed in Committee. That discussion commenced at 8.30 and anybody would imagine that Schedules which dealt with a matter of only £5,000 out of £28,000,000 would be discussed and dealt with in three hours. The Government believed that even the Opposition were hardly capable of petering out three and a half hours' time. We expected there would be sufficient time to conclude that and the other business before 12 o'clock on Friday night. It was only when it came to 11 o'clock that it became obvious what the Opposition wanted to do. That was to leave a small portion of the Finance Bill over so that they could say "We have beaten you and we have beaten the motion you brought in this morning. You have not been able to conclude this Bill."

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy has seen other things. When the Deputies found that their little game did not work out quite in the way they expected, they got into a temper and immediately Deputy McGilligan said to the Ceann Comhairle: "I will put down a motion to deal with you." Deputy Boland said to-day that they took ten days to consider the thing but Deputy McGilligan did not wait ten days before threatening his motion. Deputy McGilligan objected to the motion to report progress which of course was necessary in order to move the next motion. He objected to that technically but it was to the sitting on Saturday that he really objected. I think there were some few minutes discussion on the second one.

Not one minute.

Dr. Ryan

He objected by his vote to the House getting an opportunity of deciding how the business should be arranged. The Opposition themselves had left no time for anything else. The motion to sit on Saturday was to enable the Dáil to transact financial business. The point was made here by Professor O'Sullivan that we could have adjourned on Friday night, and taken all the stages of the Finance Bill on Tuesday, by some kind of closure motion. I think the Opposition would be quite entitled to object to that sort of procedure—having a closure on the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. We wanted to give the Opposition more time to discuss the Finance Bill. They are objecting because they got plenty of time to discuss it. It was proved on Saturday that they were not able to sit for the 12 hours. They had to give in.

Even Deputy Costello, with his tennis racquets.

We know the Minister for Defence's opinion of the Ceann Comhairle and his respect for the Chair.

I hope you do.

Dr. Ryan

If we adopted the course suggested by Professor O'Sullivan we could only have concluded the Committee Stage on Tuesday, and would have had to take the Report Stage on Wednesday. That would not give any time for amendments on the Report Stage. The Opposition had amendments down for the Report Stage, and what is more they got time to discuss them on Wednesday. Of course, under Deputy O'Sullivan's arrangement there would neither have been time to put in amendments nor to discuss them. In that way, they would probably have a much bigger grievance than they have at the present time.

Could we not have taken the Bill on Thursday or Friday?

Dr. Ryan

No; Wednesday was the last day on which it could be taken in order to give 21 days to the Seanad.

The Minister pins himself to that?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy ought to have a little respect for the Seanad, like the rest of us.

The Minister is pinning himself to that?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Very well. That is all right.

Dr. Ryan

There is one thing I want to say before I pass from this, and that is that the first place I read of the censure motion was in the evening papers. I think that is a rather unusual thing for a responsible Deputy, as Deputy O'Sullivan is——

We are not discussing Deputy O'Sullivan or how he acted.

The first place we heard about your Department was on the radio.

Dr. Ryan

But when a matter comes before the Dáil you do not first hear it on the radio.

The Minister should understand that what we are discussing is the action of the Ceann Comhairle, and not the action of Deputy O'Sullivan or anybody who put down this motion.

Dr. Ryan

I thought I would be in order in saying that the first place I saw the motion was in the evening papers. That was before it was circulated to Deputies.

That is one against the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. He was not awake that evening.

Mr. Boland

There is first-hand news on the radio!

Dr. Ryan

The Ceann Comhairle appears to be getting into some trouble because the Minister for Finance asked him for the closure four times, I think it was on Friday. But the Ceann Comhairle refused. Surely to goodness if the Ceann Comhairle actually refused to accept a closure motion from the Minister for Finance, it is not to be put to the discredit of the Ceann Comhairle, at any rate, in discussing a motion like this. I do not really know how the minority can claim in any way that their rights were infringed by giving them an extra day to discuss the Finance Bill, rather than adopting Deputy O'Sullivan's suggestion of a closure motion to shut out further discussion, and meet on Tuesday instead. There was only one Schedule to this Bill remaining, which entailed an expenditure of £5,000. The discussion on that lasted from 8.30 on Friday night until 11.30, and went on for about four hours on the following day. There was six hours and forty minutes discussion on an expenditure of £5,000.

On raising the money.

Dr. Ryan

That is quite right. It is quite evident, I think, to everybody, that the Opposition were obstructing, rather than using the time usefully in dealing with the business here. The minority evidently claims the right to determine the course of business. It has always been recognised in this House—the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs quoted Senator Johnson, who was leader of the Labour Party here, and it has also been recognised by others when they were in minority Parties here—that it was the business of the Government to order business, to say what time should be allotted, and so on, or to say when we should meet at any rate. When we met on that Friday morning the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that there were four Bills to be dealt with. We fully expected that they would be dealt with by 12 o'clock that night. When it came to 11 o'clock and the Bills were not disposed of, two Ministers, of whom I was one, went to the Ceann Comhairle and told him that this business was urgent. We asked him if there was anything in the Standing Orders to prevent the House from meeting on Saturday. We knew there was nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent a motion going down to closure all financial business on the following Tuesday or Wednesday, but as I said already that would not give the Opposition Party the same opportunity of discussion as meeting on Saturday, so we asked the Ceann Comhairle if there was anything in Standing Orders to prevent the House from meeting on Saturday. He said he would look up the matter and let us know. He came back and said he would accept the motion as being in order for decision by the House, and after that the necessary motion was moved. I think the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and Deputy Norton are quite right in their surmise that if this threat had not been made by Deputy McGilligan on that Friday night, this motion would never have gone down. The motion went down eventually in the name of Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Morrissey, along with that of Deputy McGilligan, in order to save Deputy McGilligan's face, but I do not believe that the case which has been made by Deputy O'Sullivan or by Deputy Morrissey has in any way improved Deputy McGilligan's position, or proved that he had grounds for his attitude.

This is a discussion of incidents which occurred on Friday, 5th July. The Minister who has just spoken went to some pains to see what was said on the motion of censure in the year 1930. He has not had time to see what transpired in 1933, being apparently satisfied with having had the law laid down in 1930 on the censure motion which was then before the House. It is a strange commentary upon the methods which are adopted in dealing with either public business, or procedure, or anything of that sort, that there is an inevitable trek back to see what were the precedents that were established, what were the statements that were made, and what was the opinion that was given expression to by the Minister who was here before, in connection with the conduct of the Chair and the position of the Chair with regard to the House. The Minister might have gone further. Having read a single speech made on that occasion he might have examined the reasons why that speech had got to be made. He would have found out that there is a record in connection with the Opposition either in regard to the last Chair or this Chair, which his Party has not got. The Chair was never called names either in the last Parliament or in this by any Minister or ex-Minister of this Party, and he cannot claim that particular distinction for his Ministry at the moment. That is to be regretted. Perhaps they are sorry for it. I hope they are, and I hope that as a result of this particular motion there will be greater respect for the Chair, and greater respect for the conduct of business in this House. This closure motion arises out of proceedings which took place on that Friday night. But the start was not made on that Friday night. The proceedings out of which this motion arose began on the Friday morning, when a responsible Minister, in announcing the business for the day, made this statement: "It is proposed to take the business on the Order Paper commencing with Item No. 7 (Conditions of Employment Bill) to Item No. 10 (Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill). Public business will not be interrupted at 12 noon to take private Deputies' business. The Dáil will adjourn until Tuesday, 9th inst., at 3 o'clock."

Dr. Ryan

That is all that was said.

That is all that was said. Would any more require to be said? Was there any necessity to say any more? What is the position of a Deputy, no matter what Party he belongs to, who hears a statement like that made on responsible Ministerial authority by a Minister representing the Leader of the House? "The Dáil will adjourn until Tuesday at 3 o'clock"—and the motion put from the Chair is: "That the House sit later than 2.30 p.m. and that the order for the adjournment be taken not later than 12 o'clock." I have longer experience in this House than any member over there and never in the history of the House was the House deceived by a statement by the Leader of the House or a person acting for him. Was there any deceit practised on the House by that statement? Who has the responsibility, if there was any deceit practised on the House? It is either the Minister or the Ceann Comhairle. The Minister made great play with the question of three weeks. He said it was absolutely necessary that the Finance Bill should leave this House on the following Wednesday in order to give 21 days for consideration by the Seanad. What was the Minister's contribution to the discussion that took place on the motion that the House should sit longer than 2.30 o'clock on Friday? As reported in column 1822 of the Official Debates of 5th July, the Minister for Agriculture said: "The Finance Bill must be law by the 5th August." That is five days more. He is pinning it now to 21 days. But in the case he made for the House sitting late on that day, he put down the 5th August.

Dr. Ryan

That is wrong. It should be 31st July.

The Minister is not saying that he did not make the statement?

Dr. Ryan

I am not sure about that, but I know the 31st July is the correct date.

It is on the records of the House in print. What the Minister had in mind is what any Minister has in mind who understands that the income tax law runs for four months from 5th April. The reason he gave for sitting late on Friday was that this Bill should be law by the 5th August. Then the Minister, who told us he went with another Minister to the Ceann Comhairle at 11.30, suddenly forgot all about the 5th August. He suddenly forgot about the five days. He went to impress on the Ceann Comhairle the absolute necessity for having this Bill through the House on Wednesday. These are the people who tell us they know about their business, and yet they cannot find out the actual date before which the Finance Bill must be passed into law. It might not even be necessary on 5th August, so far as the provision of money is concerned. It might be necessary on 1st August. I am prepared to take it that it was necessary on 1st August. If it were, was it because of an honest mistake that the Government made; was it because they found themselves at 11.30 that night in a fix? Did they approach any member of the Opposition in connection with the matter at that time and point out the urgency of it?

Dr. Ryan

They were hopeless.

They approached the Ceann Comhairle and satisfied him outside this House with regard to the urgency. What was the urgency on 5th July? There were still 26 days. As Deputy O'Sullivan pointed out, they took the Conditions of Employment Bill on that day from 10.30 a.m. until 2 o'clock. There was no urgency between 10.30 in the morning and 2 o'clock. There was no urgency in the Minister's mind when he had a month from the 5th July to 5th August to get the Bill through. Some extraordinary situation must have presented itself to the Minister between 11 a.m. and 11 p.m. to change his mind about the 21 days or the 31 days. There is no use in trying to mislead either this House or the people by saying that there was a case for urgency. No case of urgency could validate the deceit practised on the House on that occasion.

I should like to know what is going to happen in the future if there is a majority in the House, an accidental majority if you wish, by which the Government of the day is beaten. Is the Ceann Comhairle immediately going to take from the people in the majority any resolution that they think is necessary owing to the urgency of the situation? Look at the position in which they are placing the Chair and the difficulties that are going to confront the Chair in future. If it so happened that the tea duty was beaten on a division, is the Ceann Comhairle going to be impressed by representations made to him by a majority in the House regarding that particular state of affairs? He is not.

Dr. Ryan

If it was urgent he would.

It is admitted that he is going to do it. The Minister will require to reflect whether he is not making a mistake about that, as he did about the five days. A case has been put up here as to the considerable amount of time wasted on the Finance Bill. The Finance Bill is the most important measure introduced during the year. For a great number of years the Finance Bill made very little change in the taxation imposed on the people. Over a period of six or seven years the variation did not amount to more than £1,000,000 or £1,500,000. This particular Finance Bill imposed enormous taxation on the people. Are the majority Party in this House, or to use the phraseology of the Ceann Comhairle on that occasion, are the majority of the House to decide what rights any persons in this House, outside of that majority, have got in discussing, criticising, exposing, explaining the taxation, or getting explanations in connection with the taxation that is being imposed?

On examination and on reflection nobody will be less pleased with the results of that Friday night than the Government. It may be that we are coming to the point where there will be no longer three independent institutions in this State—the Executive, the judiciary and the legislature. If the independence of the legislature is gone the sooner the country is told it the better. While it remains, if there is any vestige of it remaining, if the rearguard action which the Ceann Comhairle has been fighting for the last 12 months or two years has preserved some vestige of it, and if that is all that remains, it is certainly our duty to let the people know that this is a Parliament and not a registering body to validate decrees passed by the Executive Council.

The whole series of legislative proposals, in regard to taxation and otherwise, that have been brought in here within the last couple of years would appear to regard this Parliament as being merely a registration body. We object to that. We are not going to stand for that. If there is no other Party in this country to make a stand for the independence of the Chair, we shall do it. We have some right to do it, because we have done it before and we made no apologies for it before. We did not say, as was said by a Minister here to-day, that if anybody should put down a motion of censure on the Chair, it was the Government Party, because the occupant of the Chair leaned more in the opposite direction than he did in theirs. It is time for us, having shaken off the chains that bound us for so long, to remember that we are in a free country, that we should not always posture and exhibit the slave mind, just as if there was somebody still interfering with us, in our activities in connection with Parliamentary institutions. It is a matter of sincere regret to us that a motion of this kind has to appear on the Order Paper. It is a matter of still further regret that in connection with this motion we should have had a speech from the Leader of the Labour Party, who was not present on the occasion. He knew nothing about it except what he read in the newspapers, heard from somebody or read in the Dáil Debates.

Did the Leader of the Opposition hear the Deputy say that he was here?

I did not hear him.

He said he was here and heard part of the debate. The Leader of the Opposition specifically challenged the Leader of the Labour Party to know whether he was here.

And there was no reply.

I know I heard him say he was.

I have looked through a number of divisions from 9 o'clock onwards, and I did not discover his name.

I am putting it to the Leader of the Opposition that he said he was here.

I did not hear him. There is only one member of his Party, An Leas-Cheann Comhairle, now present who can answer for him, if he were here.

Is the Deputy saying that he stated an untruth?

I am not saying any such thing. I am saying that I did not hear him say that. Furthermore, I will say that I did not see him that night. We are not making any ad misericordiam appeal for minority rights. We fought for our minority rights against bigger odds than this Government, and we were able to secure them and maintain them. We are making a case for this motion because we desire to maintain some vestige of respectability about this Parliament and to maintain the authority of the Chair in this House. We are objecting to the Chair being persuaded outside this House regarding a question of urgency that did not arise. We object to the deceit that was practised on the House on that Friday morning. We say that if a responsible Minister states in this House on a Friday morning that the House will adjourn on that evening until Tuesday, no person or no majority in the House has the right after that statement is made to alter that arrangement. That may be an extravagant view to take.

It may be, but I would like to hear it urged and developed that it is an extravagant view. There can be no method of conducting public business if such deceit is to operate. If the arrangement made that morning was not meant to leave the House under the impression that it would adjourn until Tuesday at 3 o'clock, we should hear what it was meant to do. Taking the matter on another basis altogether, the House had met that week on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday at 3 p.m. On Friday it met at 10.30 a.m. and sat until 12 midnight. The motion that it should sit again next day was handed in and the decision taken at 11.30 that night. That decision was not rendered necessary by reason of the 21 days' interval. I am quite prepared to admit that the Ministry had overlooked the necessity of getting the Emergency (Imposition of Duties) Bill through all its stages on the day previous, but if they wanted the Finance Bill, they had Tuesday for putting it through. They could have put it through quite easily on Tuesday, and they would have all the time on Wednesday for considering amendments on the Report Stage. It would still be in time, allowing for the 21 days, on Thursday. Therefore, the question of urgency did not arise.

In all these proceedings the one thing outstanding is the statement of the Minister on Friday morning that this House would adjourn until Tuesday at 3 o'clock, and the statement afterwards that no such order was made. Not even the Chair, in all the circumstances, could justify any departure from that order. An unreasonable attitude was taken up by the Government in regard to all this business. The disturbance, if any, was a very mild disturbance in all the circumstances, considering, firstly, the deceit, secondly, the case that was made for it, which was no case at all, and thirdly, the fact that the House had done its duty all through that week. It was unreasonable, and it was not in the interest of public business, to ask the House to sit again on Saturday.

I thought that Deputy O'Sullivan's speech was—I do not think I can use a less strong word—the most hypocritical speech that could be made on this motion. I have got to change my mind after hearing Deputy Cosgrave, the Leader of the Opposition. He comes in here and lectures this House on respectability. He was present for the last fortnight in this House when certain Deputies gave exhibitions—I only read of them in the newspapers—of disorder that were unprecedented in the history of this House and there have been some violent scenes in the history of this institution. I do not think that in the history of the institution there was ever such disorder and disrespect, and in particular disrespect to the Chair organised and displayed by the Opposition, as was shown by the Party under the leadership of Deputy Cosgrave during the last few weeks. Then he talks about wanting to maintain a vestige of respectability around this institution. He had better lecture his own Party, lecture them on respect for the Chair, show a good example in sincerity to his own Party, and not give us the type of lecture, with the tongue in the cheek to which we have just listened. It comes badly from him, remembering the disorderly Party, he has led in the past few weeks. I speak with particular reference to some of the leaders of his Party. There has been vituperation, abuse, vile abuse and scurrility without equal, poured out in this House and inferentially on the Chair itself by some of the leaders of Deputy Cosgrave's Party, some of the front bench members. Nothing that ever happened in this House has done more to bring the institution into disrespect than these incidents. Deputy Cosgrave knows, as well as I know, that all that has happened under his leadership during the last few weeks and it is directly and indirectly responsible for the motion put down here to-day.

This is intended to cover up their own disorder and vituperation in this respect. It is a whitewashing motion put up by members of the Party under the leadership of Deputy Cosgrave. It was put up in order to try to get somebody among the public to believe that the Party opposite consisted of saints, so far as their conduct in this House is concerned, and that it is the Government, with the assistance of the Ceann Comhairle, who are responsible for the disorder, and to endeavour to attempt, to whatever extent it may be considered in the country, to make people believe that the House and the institutions connected with it have been brought into shame in the last few weeks.

It has been emphasised here to-day that there is a complete want of sincerity about this motion. I think that was evident from the speech of Deputy O'Sullivan. Some Deputies on the Opposition Benches who followed Deputy O'Sullivan, tried to work themselves up into a state of indignation. They emphasised with heated voice the language they used, and they tried to get themselves to believe, and to get the House to believe that they were sincere in this motion. In my honest conviction there is not a Deputy in any part of the House who believes that the Ceann Comhairle has been guilty of any unfairness or any injustice to any member of this House. Some of the Opposition speakers said, and it was said from this side of the House, and, of course, it is axiomatic that no Ceann Comhairle could be altogether without fault. That is true. If we sat here for a whole 12 months and canvassed every member of the House, and eventually, without any Party bias entering into it, put a man into the Chair, he might make mistakes even in the first week of his office. He might, in the judgment of the House, do an injustice some time or another. That is because whoever would occupy the Chair would be a human being. Probably the present Ceann Comhairle has committed as many faults as any human being might. I have not much to complain of. I have been ruled out of order at times by the Chair and, perhaps, I thought I was unjustly ruled out of order. But that does not matter, but these were the kind of points made by Deputy O'Sullivan. The ex-Leas Cheann Comhairle tried to make a case. He has knowledge and experience and he tried to make the case that the Chair should not have accepted the motion which he did accept on Friday night.

Four motions!

I am referring to the main motion which is the cause of the trouble. The motion for the Adjournment could not be put until progress was reported. Deputy Morrissey admits that the Ceann Comhairle must accept a main motion of that kind. Any other course would be unprecedented. The Leader of the Opposition himself not many years ago told the House what the duties of the Ceann Comhairle were, not merely in regard to the rights of minorities. Not alone, he said, was it the duty of the Ceann Comhairle to regard the rights of minorities, but it was, also, his duty to see that the business was done. He did not agree that the matter under discussion that day was urgent. Deputy Cosgrave stressed that point and said it was true that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, acting for the Leader of the House read out, when called upon to do so, the Order of Business and stressed the items that were to be got through. There were several items winding up with the Bill for Widows' and Orphans' Pensions. That business was not got through, and not one half of it was got through, although the House considered that it was necessary to be got through. Any honest person, I think, reading the debate, and seeing the nature of the discussion that went on on the Schedules to the Finance Bill, must admit that there was no serious attempt made to allow the business of the Finance Bill to get through. It is the duty of the Government to see that business is not obstructed. There was an attempt to obstruct business. Heat arose because of the attempt to obstruct. An effort to have the Bill carried over to the following week, so as to further obstruct the business of the Government, was not successful. Language that ought not to be used was used to the Chair by Deputies on the Front Bench opposite. Deputies opposite got vexed. I do not know what was in the Ceann Comhairle's mind. He saw their game, I think, and it did not work. They got vexed. Then Deputy McGilligan made a point which his Party did not like and hated to carry out.

I feel that Deputy Cosgrave believes that the present Ceann Comhairle is as good a man as could be put into the Chair, and is as little likely to be influenced by those sitting on this side of the House, or on any other side of the House, as any man living. Deputy Cosgrave knows that that is true, and he knows that the Ceann Comhairle would not submit to be brow-beaten by anybody. Deputy Cosgrave knows that. Yet he gets up, and in a most insincere and hypocritical speech backs up a motion in which he does not believe. I believe he holds that that motion should not have been put down by his Party at all.

I think the House, on its part, knows it is true that the Ceann Comhairle has added dignity to this Assembly. He is an able man, a cultured man, and knows his work and does it fairly and honestly without leaning to one side or the other. Deputy Cosgrave indignantly repudiated craving anything for the minority. I think he is right. They should not be expected to crave anything. But they should get justice and I think the House realises that they have got that from the present Ceann Comhairle as well as every other Party has got it. More they cannot expect, and do not expect, but the condemnation that they propose in this motion is not warranted. The Ceann Comhairle has done his duty by every Party. This motion is pure camouflage hypocritically submitted to whitewash the Party opposite who have been guilty of gross misconduct in the last few weeks and done their worst to bring this House into contempt. No Party could have done more in a short space of time to endeavour to injure whatever credit attaches to this institution.

I remember hearing Deputy Hogan, ex-Minister for Agriculture, saying once in this House that the majority were damn well right in pushing through any business they wanted. That is the kind of language he usually uses, and that is his mentality. That is not the mentality of the Government and it is not the mentality which the Ceann Comhairle would, at any time, be a party to. He has treated members of the Government, Cabinet Ministers, in exactly the same way as he has treated every other member of the House, and when they have sought, in their anxiety to get business through—and some have tried it now and again after listening for 20 hours to a discussion of a motion relating to finance—to closure discussion, the House has heard the Ceann Comhairle over and over again refuse to be a party to closuring the discussion which he thought necessary. He has used his discretion. He is charged by Deputy O'Sullivan and by the Leader of the Opposition with not using his discretion. He has at all times used his discretion, and he used it in regard to this matter, as he always did before, but he did not happen to come down on the side of the Opposition and, therefore, he used no discretion.

The Minister was not here at all.

I was not here, and I have said that, but I have read the debate.

The Minister did not read the atmosphere that was present.

I read it so far as the newspapers, friend and foe, could give it to me, and I know what heat there was when the Party did not get their way and when the discretion the Chair thought fit to use did not coincide with their view.

You know nothing at all about it.

He used his discretion, as he always does, and as he is capable of doing, and he did not give his "fiat" in favour of the Opposition. That is the burden of the charge against him and that is all that can be said against him. He has acted fairly and squarely between man and man and between Party and Party in this House, and inside the membership of every Party in the House you could not get a man who will act more justly, more fairly and without any consideration of Party, once he is put into that Chair, than the present occupant.

The Vice-President has accused the Opposition of disorderly conduct. I remember a few years ago the Vice-President sitting on these benches and shouting in clear bell-like tones: "Murder, murder, murder." I remember the Minister for Industry and Commerce from these benches accusing the Civic Guards of having murdered Kevin O'Higgins. I remember the Minister for Defence, having been expelled by the Chair——

Would the Deputy remember the motion?

I am answering the Vice-President. I remember the Minister for Defence, as he walked up these stairs, turning around and making that very kind remark to the Chair: "Skunk, skunk, skunk." I remember various other members of the Government Benches, during their period in opposition making very opprobrious remarks to the Chair. The reason why I vote in favour of this motion, and against the Government, is that the President refused to obey the ruling of the Chair and was expelled from this House. That never occurred in the case of the ex-President, Deputy Cosgrave, and for that reason I will certainly vote for Deputy Cosgrave as against President de Valera.

Whether this motion is accepted or defeated, it will have this one advantage, that by reason of its being put on the Order Paper it will give the House a chance to pause and think. There is no doubt whatever that every member of this House appreciates—and if he does not, he ought to—the solemn dignity of the Chair, what devolves upon the Chair and the tremendous responsibility which the Chair has to shoulder. If order in this House breaks down and receives caption lines in the newspapers, not only here but outside this country, a great deal of blame and criticism is escaped by ordinary members and Ministers, but a great deal of blame is levelled at the manner in which the House is conducted. The criticism is generally levelled by outsiders as to whether the Chair is competent or not, and it is the duty then of everybody in the House, whether Minister, or back bencher like myself, to do all we possibly can to see that the dignity of the Chair is in no way lowered, but that it is raised, if possible.

Sitting on these benches, I have seen the Chair on numerous occasions make corrections in connection with matters that were out of order and appeals to speakers to keep within order. I have seen these appeals not receiving the response they should receive, and if I were asked, as an impartial member of this House, and belonging to no Party, where the worst of that has occurred, I am sorry to say that I should have to state that, on the occasions on which I was present it came, in the majority of cases, from responsible Ministers on the Front Bench. I was here when the Chair called a responsible member of the Government Party to order seven times, and I have seen appeals not being acted on and not being received in a manner which would add to the dignity of the Chair or of the House.

It has already been indicated by the Ceann Comhairle that we are not discussing the actions of Deputies regarding the Chair. We are discussing a motion which refers to the action of the Ceann Comhairle, and we should confine ourselves to that.

Wherever the Ceann Comhairle may have gone wrong or wherever he may have been unfair or unjust, I should like, as an humble Deputy of this House, to state that on numerous occasions, there has been sapping and mining going on against him on the majority side of the House, and, through weariness, he has not been able to stand up to the constant pressure that has been exercised by the majority Party in this House. For that reason—and I do not believe it can be used as an excuse, but it certainly can be presented as, to some extent, mitigating criticisms of the Chair—I wish to refer to it.

I sincerely hold that wherever the Ceann Comhairle has made a mistake, or where he has been unfair or unjust, it was probably due to the fact that, being only human, he was worried by having constantly to deal with interventions by the Party which forms the Government. If there have been any complaints against this side of the House, I am quite certain we were fair enough to admit our offences. If this motion does anything it will at least enable us to refer to the Chair, and we can pay our compliments to the occupant of the Chair with dignity. The Chair has to be protected, and, in turn, it protects members. We ask for the fullest protection of the Chair, because we are a minority Party, and if there is to be partiality shown it should be shown to the minority and not the majority.

And so it is.

I am not suggesting that the majority should be steam-rolled or blotted out and should not get a fair hearing, but certainly the minority should receive every protection. There is no question, we should all endeavour to help the Chair, and, in return, we all expect to be fairly treated by the Chair.

I listened with a good deal of attention to Deputy O'Sullivan and to subsequent speakers up to the time Deputy Norton spoke, when I was absent for some time. I was anxious to learn to what extent the Ceann Comhairle had sinned last Friday night. The only evidence I have of the scenes that occurred here is the evidence presented through the agency of the Official Report. I would not like to give a silent vote on this motion, and, for that reason, I would like to have my position clearly understood. Personally, I have experienced nothing but courtesy and civility from the occupant of the Chair. At the same time I hold with Deputy O'Sullivan and the last speaker, that the Ceann Comhairle, and perhaps at times the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, has been driven into a difficult position, much against his better and maturer judgment, by the barrage directed against him, not alone by the back benchers of Fianna Fáil but by some of those who, because of their experience, their training and education should set a better example. Anybody who was in the House for the last couple of weeks and who had to listen to the roaring and bellowing of one Deputy on the opposite benches, and to the deliberately insulting speech made by a Parliamentary Secretary— anybody who had to suffer that humiliating experience would surely feel ashamed of being an Irishman. On that occasion the Ceann Comhairle called that Parliamentary Secretary to order seven or eight times, and the Ceann Comhairle would not be human——

Now, let us be clear on this. This motion refers to the action of the Ceann Comhairle in general, and also on a particular occasion, and it has no reference to the incident the Deputy is referring to; in other words, it is not relevant.

The date was 5th July. There were numbers of incidents besides the incident of 5th July which have been cumulative in their effects. I think the Deputies who put down this motion were led to do so because of the cumulative effects of various incidents such as the one I have referred to. It is borne in on me after a relatively long experience in this House that it is a pity some common agreement could not be found between all Parties to elect to the Chair some person who has had no political affiliations with any of the Parties in the House. That has occurred in other countries, and it is a pity we cannot take a leaf out of the books of some of these countries. There can be no doubt that the position of the Ceann Comhairle of this House is a political appointment. I would prefer to be speaking to a motion of no confidence in the Government rather than to be speaking to a motion which concerns the conduct of the Speaker of this House. I feel the Ceann Comhairle has been merely the agent of the Fianna Fáil Party, the unfortunate agent in this case, translating their policy of hush-hush by means of the closure. I am aware that even on the occasion referred to in the motion his patience was sorely tried, and perhaps those who most sorely tried his patience were the members of the Government Party.

Although the main opposition to the closure came from the Opposition Benches, I am sure that some of the other members, those who have even the merest element of fair play, those who have any manliness or decency, will feel inclined to admit that the treatment of the minority Party, for some time back at any rate, was not treatment that might be expected from an institution of this kind, the members of which purport to represent the people of the country. So long as the appointment of a Speaker in this House is in the hands of a political Party, I fear there will not be that unbiassed view taken by the Chair which we would all desire. There will not be that impartiality displayed by the Chair that one would associate with older institutions, older in the sense of parliamentary government. To me it is not an attractive thing to talk of the conduct of the Chair. I have said that I have experienced nothing but courtesy and civility at the hands of the Chair. Like the Vice-President, I have been pulled up by the Chair, and I have on occasions found myself aggrieved by the action of the Chair. I believe I was wrongly treated by the Chair on one occasion, but I have always had an inherent regard and respect for the institution of the Chair itself, and I think I hold the record of being the person who has been suspended less often than others.

It is becoming a common thing now.

Yes, it is becoming a common thing now. I make this suggestion, and I make it in all sincerity— that the Government back benchers and some of the Government front benchers would cease their efforts at intimidating the Chair.

And so should ex-Ministers as well.

There is no intimidation exercised by ex-Ministers as far as I know, because they are not in a position to intimidate. But the Ministers and some of their back benchers and some of their Parliamentary Secretaries at any rate do come into this House and by every gesture and by every word they utter in this House they seek to antagonise members. When they, in addition to that, seek to intimidate the Chair, things are becoming very bad. When that conduct ceases on the part of persons who owe some responsibility to the House, to these institutions and to the people, then we may be in a position to regard the Chair with that respect, almost with the reverence, which we should pay to the Chair of an Irish assembly.

Deputy O'Sullivan to conclude.

I am not going to follow the speakers who spoke against this motion, nor will I describe their particular speeches or the spirit that animated them. But if all they were able to say against the motion is what they said here to-day in this House, there is no reason why they should reject it. I do not like to call the speech of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs silly talk, nor to characterise the language of the Vice-President when he described the speeches in support of this motion as insincere. There was no insincerity behind this motion. It was put down with regret, quite true, but it was put down because we particularly felt that the events specially referred to in the motion are cutting at the roots of parliamentary institutions here. In any of the speeches against this motion no attempt has been made to deal with that point. The Vice-President spoke of the conduct of this House during the last three weeks. The Vice-President was not here at all that time. He was in Prague, but I suppose he got from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs over the radio the atmosphere which prevailed here. He spoke of the language used. He was very careful to refrain from any illustrations of the language he complained of. I am grateful to Deputy Esmonde that he did quote in answer to the Vice-President one or two of the choice items, one or two of the flowers culled out of the very rich bouquet that Deputy Esmonde referred to. He could have got many more, as he himself must know, from the members of his Party. May I point out that no attempt was made—and that was because they had no interest in the matter—to deal with the Constitutional issue raised. Take the action of the Ceann Comhairle, acting under pressure from the Government, starting at 11.30 on Friday night. Combine that with the ruling that he gave deciding to accept motions without prescribed notice. Does not that mean that the majority can do what it likes?

I am quite aware that one of the principal objects of the rules of debate —the Standing Orders of this House— is to see that business is done and to see that a decision is come to. But there is another object as well. Deputies, whether from the Government or the Labour benches, are so obtuse as not to recognise that the principal object does not rule the secondary important object and that is to secure that there is proper and ample discussion. Because as things are developing in this country unless you have proper, ample and full examination of the proposals in this House you will not be allowed to get it anywhere else. I think I have referred to that particular tendency and that is why the Chair ought to be most careful in seeing that there is no infringement whatsoever of the rights of the Deputies.

If we take the ruling of the Chair it comes to this: at any time a Minister likes he can go to the Ceann Comhairle and say: "We agreed at 12 o'clock to-day to adjourn to-night. We think that after the adjournment at 12 o'clock we should reassemble a quarter of an hour afterwards and at that meeting we propose the following business." Take the two rulings by the Ceann Comhairle on Friday night and on Tuesday. We are told he had no option. The Vice-President says he must accept. That is not so. He is not bound to do anything of the kind. I entirely disagree with the Vice-President there. He has to exercise his discretion and if the Vice-President had followed the debate he would have understood that one of the principal grievances we have against the Ceann Comhairle in this connection is that he refused definitely to exercise his discretion, and threw the responsibility of the question of urgency on the Ministers. That is the reason why we object, that and the very serious Constitutional consequences that followed from these two rulings. I was challenged because I brought up only a couple of instances. I deliberately did that. It was not my business to have all the grievances that we had or imagined we had against the Ceann Comhairle brought up here. Some of these grievances were quite genuine and well-founded. In the case of others there was disagreement and I confined myself practically altogether to the events of that evening. I did so deliberately because as has been pointed out it was the culmination of a pretty long development of these three weeks which the absent Vice-President tells us he observed from Prague. The Vice-President apparently observed it very carefully. But we also observed it not at his distance but across the floor of the House. May I point out to the Vice-President that one sentence to which reference was made has not been quoted fully. It is no harm to give it in full to the House to show the pressure which was being exercised and which was ultimately successful In the Official Debates we find the following:—

"Mr. MacEntee: Will you, A Chinn Comhairle, on this the third time I make the request take a motion from me that the question be now put? If not, I will have to consider my position—whether I can sit here and listen to these repeated speeches."

We have the only occupant of the Front Government Bench at that particular moment telling the Ceann Comhairle in no uncertain tones and, I can assure you, in no dulcet tones, that if he did not accept the closure motion from him he would have to consider his position and leave the House.

Now, Sir, I think I have made my views clear as to why I strongly object to the action of the Ceann Comhairle in this whole business. But see the impossible position into which the Government insisted on putting him. I remember an occasion when a Minister fell foul of the Ceann Comhairle, and he had to apologise. The Dáil adjourned until he apologised. That was not under the present régime. But what chance had the Ceann Comhairle of resisting a threat of that kind? He was approached, as we gather now from the Minister for Agriculture, some time after 11 o'clock at night, and told: "We want this through; it is urgent." With all that before him I regret that he gave way. I regret that he refused to exercise his discretion. It is because he refused to exercise that discretion which is placed upon him in the House that I think his conduct is censurable. There were many motions taken. The closure motion was taken. There was no discussion. The question of urgency could not be discussed. It may be that there was not time, but who was to blame for that? Surely not the Opposition. If it was necessary to spring on the House a motion of this kind. in defiance of what was practically an Order of the day, though not technically so, why not at least give time so that the case for urgency could be made to the House? It apparently was not made to the Ceann Comhairle. A mere statement was taken as sufficient. It certainly was not made to the House and no opportunity was given for discussing it. Is that the proper course in a matter of that kind, which, remember, cuts at the very root of anything like proper parliamentary debate, and gives it into the power of a majority at any moment to decide what will be the next business, and when they will conduct it? You cannot have business done in that way. Nobody can deny that the Government has the right to do its business, but it must do it with some advertence to the rights of fair play and proper discussion. It did not do that here.

I remember an occasion, Sir—you know I am not particularly given to what I may call tu quoque argument —when there was a vote of censure, and the question arose of accepting a closure motion after about 20 hours' discussion. With all respect I think the issue raised on that Friday evening, to anybody who has a sense of constitutional development, which I think those on the Government benches have not and never had, was more important than the position that was then decided after about 20 hours' debate. This is from the then mover of the motion, as reported in column 1345, vol, 33, No. 4 of the Official Debates:—

"Deputy Hugh Law, I thought, was rather clever. He put the proposition that if I were in the Chair as Ceann Comhairle,"

I may say that this is Deputy Fahy speaking, and I perfectly believe this expression of opinion,

"which God forbid, for I have no ambition in that direction, and I cannot fancy myself in the position, what would I do? Well, I say candidly, if I were in that position, as as far as I understood the matter and I had an opportunity to judge it impartially, I would not have allowed the Minister for Finance to move the closure on Friday last."

So far as the rights of Parliament are concerned, I think there was a much more important principle at stake and a more important precedent established on this Friday night which we are now discussing than on that particular Friday night to which that quotation refers. The Ceann Comhairle, or rather the Vice-President— they are so fond of usurping your position that I sometimes make a mistake—spoke of the respect they had for the Chair. I am not going to repeat what Deputy Esmonde said, but I was not talking without the book, so to speak, when I said what was the view of that Party as to the functions of the Ceann Comhairle, and as to the character of the Ceann Comhairle. Therefore, I do not expect that any constitutional arguments would have any effect on them. I am not now going to quote abuses of a previous occupant of the Chair. It has nothing to do with this debate. What I am going to do is to show their idea of the functions of the Ceann Comhairle. What Deputy Lemass said then was illustrated by the conduct of the Minister for Finance on the Committee Stage of the Budget, and unfortunately yielded to —I mean so far as that particular matter is concerned, I am not making any charge of partisanship—by the Ceann Comhairle. Here is what Deputy Lemass said and his opinion was not isolated. I quote it as one of many. It is reported in column 1275 of the same Volume:

"The President gave us a brief outline of the powers and duties of the Ceann Comhairle. He might have added that the Ceann Comhairle is elected to this House as a member of a political Party, and that he is elected to the Chair by a political majority in the House. We have no objection to the Ceann Comhairle acting as a partisan or infringing the rights of the minority, provided that such action is not taken under the cloak of impartiality. If it is to be fairly understood that a member of a political Party, elected to the Chair by a political vote, can utilise the power given to him while in that Chair for the purpose of helping the political Party, of which he is or was a member, then we will be able to conduct the business here with a closer relation to realities than we have been doing heretofore."

I do not believe that that is the view which the present Ceann Comhairle takes of his position, but I believe it is the view which the Government takes of the Ceann Comhairle's position. I do not believe they have changed in that. If the long-sighted Vice-President could have clearly seen into this House from Prague, he should have clearly seen that I am perfectly justified in objecting to the way in which they conducted the business of this House through the Ceann Comhairle. That is their conception of the functions of the Ceann Comhairle. He was a political man and he remains one, and he cannot help it. They have no objection to his being a partisan so long as there is no pretence that he is not. Can you expect support for this motion from the gentlemen who hold that view? Can you expect them to have any grasp of the constitutional issues that are at stake in this question? I can well understand, therefore, the complete failure of their various speakers to deal with the issues that have been raised on this particular occasion.

We had gibes repeated some 40 times, I should say, between three speakers about insincerity, and so on. I have a vague idea that if you do not use abusive language or do not shout, the Government Party think you are insincere. That is their only criterion of sincerity. I know the Deputy Leader of the House holds that view, judging by his actions occasionally, although he is quite gentlemanly on other occasions. As very serious implications follow from the rulings to which I have referred, we hold that there was no excuse for them. The Ceann Comhairle should have exercised his own judgment and made it clear that he was exercising his own judgment on the question of urgency. There was no urgency. That, in fact, was afterwards proved up to the hilt.

We had really to wait until the Minister for Agriculture spoke to find out the reason for it all. We thought it was urgency, but I gather that was not so. What a valuable contribution emerged from the speech of the Minister for Agriculture, who is one of the two Ministers that approached the Ceann Comhairle on this matter! It is the Minister for Agriculture who is responsible for this particular business. Apparently, some time about 11 p.m. the Minister for Agriculture, or some other Minister, got it into his head that the Opposition had made up their minds to best the Government on this, and they said: "They will not best us." They went to the Ceann Comhairle and said that this was urgent. That was the only urgency about it—a sudden determination on the part of the Minister for Agriculture, or his colleague, that the Government would not be bested, and that if the Opposition took up to midnight on the Bill they would have to come back next day again. It was not a question of urgency. As is clear from the little contribution of the Minister for Agriculture, it was a question of the Government not being bested. For that they endangered the whole position of the Ceann Comhairle in this House.

My objection is that the Chair, unfortunately, accepted that position. If it is possible for the House to be told at the beginning of business what amounts practically to an Order of the Day, that it will adjourn at 12 o'clock, and if, half an hour before that adjournment, a Minister can go to the Ceann Comhairle and say: "We want to begin again at 12.15 to discuss some urgent business," I do not know where the rights of Parliament stand. It is because no attempt has been made to answer that by any speaker from the Government Benches that we must ask the House to support this motion. As to whether the particular kind of defence they put up is complimentary to the occupant of the Chair, he is the best judge of that. Personally, if I were in his position, I should not care for that kind of defence. From beginning to end, no attempt was made to deal with the serious constitutional issue raised.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 40; Níl, 59.

  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Bourke, Séamus.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lavery, Cecil.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Reilly, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Rogers, Patrick James.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corbett, Edmond.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Ben nett; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.
Motion declared lost.
Barr
Roinn