I move:—
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the action of the Ceann Comhairle in refusing to afford to Deputies who desired to speak on Motions 7 and 8 on the Order Paper of Dáil Éireann on July 4th, 1951, the opportunity of speaking was a grave infringement of the rights of Deputies, which if adopted as a precedent would tend to bring Parliament into disrepute.
In the world in which we live it should be a matter of pride to all of us that we are members of a free Parliament. The individual liberty of every citizen of this State depends on the continued functioning of Oireachtas Éireann as a free Parliament. The continued functioning of Oireachtas Éireann as a free Parliament ultimately depends on the sacrosanct right of the humblest and most isolated Deputy whom our people choose to elect by their votes to speak and be present here in Dáil Éireann. All over Europe free Parliaments are being destroyed and I submit to this House now that the issue I here raise transcends Parties and individual likes and dislikes, for if we look abroad upon the world and watch the murder of free Parliaments in other countries we shall find a uniform pattern: that the process of assassination invariably is begun by elected members of a Parliament combining to deny one member his parliamentary privilege of one kind or another. In Ireland the only real privilege a member of Parliament enjoys is to speak and to be heard. In every case where the members of a legislature have been tricked into consenting to the deprivation, in the case of one of their number, of rights the use of which caused them irritation, the subsequent unfolding of history has to tell that the precedent then established has been quickly used by a dwindling majority to destroy a growing but impotent minority until eventually the voice of the minority is heard no more.
On the 4th July, Sir, two distinct resolutions appeared on the Order Paper of this House. One resolution, No. 7, stood in the name of the Taoiseach and proposed the election of a Fianna Fáil Deputy to the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Another wholly distinct and separate motion appeared on the Order Paper as No. 8, in no sense an amendment to No. 7, in no sense dependent on No. 7, proposing the election of Deputy Alfred Byrne to the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle. That motion stood in the name of two Independent Deputies. The Taoiseach moved his motion. Deputy Fagan moved the motion in his name and that was seconded by Deputy Flanagan. Then Deputy Cowan and some others intervened. There then transpired one of those events which cause those who know the Taoiseach well to wonder how he manages so successfully to maintain an exterior of undeviating honesty and simple good faith until one remembers that he has read, not without profit, as his manual of politics, The Prince, by Machiavelli, which once established the rule not to bother about what one really is but to be solicitous about what one appears to be.
I was in this House when the Taoiseach offered himself a second time to the Chair to be afforded an opportunity to speak. Several other Deputies were here. I have been 20 years a member of this House and in all that time I have never seen the Leader of the House, from whatever Party he was drawn, rising to speak and any Deputy from another side of the House claiming to be heard before him. So it was on July 4th. When the Taoiseach rose, no other Deputy pressed his claim to be seen or called until the Taoiseach had finished what he wanted to say. As I heard the Taoiseach and as others heard him— I refer to Volume 126, No. 6—he rose in his place, unbidden by anybody, to say: "May I say a few words", and then went on: "First of all, this is not a question of penalties or comparisons." Now I have not sat opposite the Taoiseach, and Deputy de Valera as he was for three years, for 20 long years for nothing. The moment the division concluded that ensued on the resolution subsequently moved by him, and which excluded me from the service of this House, I went to the editor of debates of this House and claimed to see the typescript of the report of what had transpired. I took the precaution of saying: "Observe the Taoiseach's opening words were: ‘May I say a few words?'" I then scanned my own contribution to the proceedings and went my way.
Three days later the Official Draft Report was circulated and this is what is circulated:—
"The Taoiseach: May I say a few words in reply to some things that have been said?"
Now the whole issue joined in this House was the question as to whether the Taoiseach, when he rose on that occasion to speak, was being called on to conclude the debate which is the ordinary parliamentary terminology for replying to the arguments advanced by those opposed to the motion which he had moved.
The whole basis on which the Ceann Comhairle on that occasion refused to hear me, refused to hear Deputy MacBride when he rose to a point of order, directed the Leader of the Labour Party to sit down when he rose to a point of order, and said that he would hear nobody, that "The Taoiseach is concluding the debate on this motion" (column 806), was that the Taoiseach was known by all Deputies in the House to have been replying to the case made against the proposal he brought forward. The record of the official notetaker, the recollection of the Deputies who listened to him, was that he said: "May I say a few words". This dramatic fact emerges that when this hardy old practitioner himself read the typescript of the report he was constrained to admit to himself on that record: The Ceann Comhairle could not be right, and I cannot sustain the claim I made to be concluding the debate, for he made that claim when it was proposed to him that he should conclude. At column 837:—
"Taoiseach: I did not intervene in the debate. I was called on by the Chair.
General Mulcahy: You were not.
Mr. Seán Collins: You rose and asked permission to say a few words."
Was the old practitioner daunted by the typescript? Was he dismayed by the testimony of several Deputies that they heard what he had said? Was he confounded by the fact that every independent witness confirmed the other? Not a bit of it. If the words were not there he would put them there, and in his own office he sharpened his pen and he inserted in the typescript, or had them inserted by his staff, the words: "In reply to some things that have been said." This report is published with those words inserted. If the Taoiseach reiterates that he said them, that his voice fell and no one heard them but himself, his position as Leader of this House entitles him to the courtesy of an acquittal of speaking what is not true. He is the Leader of this House. He is the Head of the Irish Government. I ask him now to tell the House, on his word of honour when he comes to speak, did he utter those words, or did he, in retrospect, regret that he did not utter them and think it wise to put them in. Did he hope he would not get caught and now that he is caught, what does he propose to do? That is not the pith and essence of this matter. That is the typescript without the words. That is the printed version with them. That typescript has been checked officially with the notetaker's shorthand note and that note confirms the typescript, but there are the words for all to see. I know their source, not the official notetaker but the Taoiseach's Secretary. I am concerned, Sir, to defend something much more important to this country than the Taoiseach's veracity or lack of it. I refer the House to column 837 at which I am reported as saying:
"On a point of order. I confidently trust in you, Sir, to reserve my right to speak on the motion proposed by Deputy Fagan and seconded by Deputy Oliver Flanagan, and lest you might be under any misapprehension through my failure, for want of agility, I should like to say that I desire to contribute to the debate and be seen as soon as your convenience will permit.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Chair called on the Taoiseach to conclude the debate.
General Mulcahy: Nobody heard you say that, Sir.
An Ceann Comhairle: There is no need for the Chair to say definitely, ‘The Taoiseach to conclude.' The Taoiseach, as the mover of the motion, rose when no other Deputy offered himself to make a contribution to the debate. I definitely rule the Taoiseach as concluding."
Several other Deputies intervened. I now refer the House to column 840. I said:—
"On a point of order. I am an Independent Deputy and I have as much right to be heard in this House as any member of the Government. A motion has been made by Deputy Fagan, an Independent Deputy. It has been seconded by Deputy Oliver Flanagan, an Independent Deputy. Common courtesy demands that, if the Taoiseach rises in this House and seeks to catch the Ceann Comhairle's eye, Deputies will naturally give way. I am claiming my right to intervene in the debate on the motion moved by Deputy Fagan and seconded by Deputy Oliver Flanagan and I look to you, Sir, to protect that right."
The Ceann Comhairle then proceeded to rule and ended his ruling with the words:—
"I am now ruling definitely that the Taoiseach is concluding the debate."
As reported in column 840, the Ceann Comhairle said:—
"The Chair has already indicated that what will happen on this motion will rule whether or not there will be any motion before the House. I am putting the motion now.
Mr. Dillon: What motion?
An Ceann Comhairle: The motion in the name of the Taoiseach."
On a point of order I submitted, as reported in column 841:—
"This is one of the few remaining Legislatures in the world where individual Deputies' rights are recognised. I respectfully submit that I have as sacrosanct a right as any other Deputy to intervene in an orderly way in the debate on the motion before the House. I am asking that right now. I want to intervene within the strict rules of order in the debate which has been proceeding in my presence during the last quarter of an hour on the motion of Deputy Fagan and Deputy Oliver Flanagan.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should have offered himself before the Chair called on the Taoiseach.
Mr. Dillon: I want respectfully to submit that no Deputy of 20 years' experience of this House, such as I have, could ever imagine that the Taoiseach would be called upon to wind up on the motion of Deputy Fagan.
An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Fagan can reply on his own motion.
Mr. Dillon: I want to intervene on this motion before Deputy Fagan concludes."
Now I ask Deputies calmly to listen to this ruling:—
"An Ceann Comhairle: The Chair cannot help that. The Chair is calling on Deputy Fagan and on no other Deputy.
Mr. Dillon: I am asking the Chair to allow me to intervene. Will the Chair accept a motion for the adjournment of the House?
An Ceann Comhairle: I will not. Deputy Fagan to conclude on his own motion.
General Mulcahy: The Taoiseach tricked the House.
The Taoiseach: That is an untruth. It would take a Deputy Mulcahy to make that statement.
Mr. O. Flanagan: I will ask you to take a motion to adjourn the House.
An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Fagan to conclude on his own motion.
Mr. Dillon: I have offered myself twice——
An Ceann Comhairle: If Deputy Dillon persists I will have to ask him to leave the House.
Mr. Dillon: For asking to exercise my right to speak.
An Ceann Comhairle: If Deputy Dillon persists I will have to ask him to leave the House.
Mr. Dillon: The right of an Independent Deputy to speak in this House is a stabiliser of liberty in this country. I claim that right under those Standing Orders.
An Ceann Comhairle: I have told Deputy Dillon that if he offered himself before I called on the Taoiseach I would have freely and willingly called on him. I cannot allow him to say that the Chair has been partial. Deputy Dillon will resume his seat.
Mr. Dillon: I asked leave to intervene on the motion moved by Deputy Fagan and seconded by Deputy Flanagan, and I asked you to see and to hear me before your attention was drawn by Deputy Fagan. I now ask my right to intervene in that discussion.
An Ceann Comhairle: I am asking Deputy Fagan to conclude now, and I will hear no further points of order.
Mr. Dillon: I demand my right to be heard.
An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Dillon has his remedy if he thinks my ruling is incorrect.
Mr. Dillon: I respectfully submit that my remedy is to stand here and claim to be heard.
An Ceann Comhairle: I will have to ask the Deputy to leave the House.
Mr. Dillon: If the Ceann Comhairle considers that I have no claim to be heard in Dáil Éireann after 20 years' service here, then I must insist on my rights.
An Ceann Comhairle: I regret that I have to name Deputy Dillon for disobeying the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Dillon: I intend to stand my ground, and I claim my rights.
Mr. Norton: On a point of order.
An Ceann Comhairle: There is no point of order. Deputy Norton will resume his seat."
Deputy MacBride, the Leader of Clann na Poblachta, rose.
"An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy MacBride will resume his seat. There are no points of order."
The Taoiseach then intervened and said:—
"It is my duty, as Deputy Dillon has been named, to move that he be suspended from the service of the House."
I ask Deputies to pause and ask themselves this question: Is it an affront to the dignity of this House, to its Ceann Comhairle or to its Standing Orders for a Deputy to ask leave to speak and to be heard while a debate is in progress? I readily concede, I go further and I affirm, that, if Parliament is to be carried on with the dignity it is entitled to demand of its members, if a Deputy finds himself in conflict with the Chair on a very grave matter, in 90 per cent. of cases his clear duty is to give way and, as the Ceann Comhairle suggested, to avail of another occasion to take the classic remedy of moving the motion I now move. But I want to submit to my colleagues in this House, wherever they sit, that to that general principle there is one exception, and that is an attempt on the part of the Ceann Comhairle of the majority, of the minority, of the whole House, to deny one Deputy his right to speak, and that there is no appropriate means of resisting that challenge but to stand where the Irish people sent you to stand and to speak so long as you can make yourself heard. I believe that as sincerely as I believe anything. If that right is successfully challenged, it is a fraud and a delusion and, what is worse, a snare to our people for any Deputy to come to this House in their name and pretend that he is a Deputy of a free Parliament, because he is not; and he is contributing to the fraudulent pretence before our people that they have free institutions when they have ceased to have them.
I said often in this House that the test of a democratic Government is not the size of its majority but the solicitude with which it concerns itself for the rights of the minority. It does not matter how great a majority a Government has; if it uses it to rob its fellow-citizens of their fundamental rights it is the most loathsome kind of dictatorship. I am appealing from Governments and officers of this House to the supreme civil power in Ireland, to Parliament itself, to join hands with me in defence of our rights, and when I say "our rights" I mean the rights of all our people to be free because that right is enshrined and sanctified by us, the people's representatives, being free in the people's Parliament.
If I fail to make my colleagues see that what is at issue here is not whether one Deputy shall be silenced, it is not whether that which is unpopular shall go unspoken, but what is in issue here is, ultimately, will we keep our people free, if I fail to persuade my colleagues in this House, on every side of it, I fail in perhaps, the most important assignment I ever undertook?
I want no traverse. I have excluded from the motion I placed upon the Paper words which appear in the only two precedents our records have to show. A motion in these terms was moved by Deputy Fahy, in 1930, before he became Ceann Comhairle, when Deputy Michael Hayes was Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil. A motion in similar terms was moved by the late Deputy John Marcus O'Sullivan in 1935, when Deputy Fahy was Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil. In both those motions care was taken, while deprecating the events, to condemn the Ceann Comhairle for deliberate misfeasance. I am ready to concede at once that in the early stages of the new Dáil confusion may sometimes arise-misunderstanding. One word may borrow another until eventually an impasse is reached and things transpire which we all regret. I do not give a farthing for my own person in this matter. I do not deny that I so love and revere our parliamentary institutions that it is an affront to me, one I bitterly resent, to be declared by resolution of this House excluded from its proceedings. But, that is trivial compared to the importance of ensuring that what transpired on that day will not be established as a precedent to filch away the fundamental rights of all of us hereafter.
I want the House, if needs be, passing judgement on no one and leaving judgments just or unjust on the record, to say clearly that that is not a precedent this House accepts; that whatever transpired from those events are of the past but have no part in the future of this free Parliament. Say that and all that matters fundamentally is done, but fail to say it and July 4th will become a day of as evil memory in this Republic as it is glorious in another.
I do not understand the mind that sought to change the record of this House in a fundamental way, surreptitiously. Perhaps others do. I am not concerned to understand it, to justify it or to condemn it. I am only concerned for one thing and that is that Dáil Éireann shall say now that no one but Dáil Éireann has the right to limit free debates in our Parliament, that no officer of this House, no Party in this House, no individual group or majority, though it be 145 to one, shall take from a member of this House the right our people gave him to speak and to be heard on their behalf in their Parliament. It is the foundation stone, it is the keystone, it is the cornerstone of the freedom of us all. I urge my colleagues to forget the personality of every individual involved in this matter and to achieve the miracle of unanimity for this most fundamental principle of freedom.
