Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 30 - 29 May, 1929

Public Business. - Juries (Protection) Bill, 1929. Motion for Allocation of Time.

The Vice-President (Mr. Blythe): I move:—

“That not more than six hours be given to the Committee Stage of the Juries (Protection) Bill, 1929, and that the proceedings in Committee on the Bill, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the expiration of the aforesaid period of six hours by putting from the Chair forthwith and successively any Questions necessary to bring the proceedings to a conclusion: Provided that after the expiration of the said period of six hours a Question shall not be put from the Chair on any amendment save on an amendment set down by the Government.

That not more than three hours be given to the Report Stage of the Juries (Protection) Bill, 1929, and that the proceedings on that Stage, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the expiration of the aforesaid period of three hours by putting from the Chair forthwith and successively any Questions necessary to bring the proceedings to a conclusion: Provided that after the expiration of the said period of three hours a Question shall not be put from the Chair on any amendment save on an amendment set down by the Government.

That not more than one hour be given to the Fifth Stage of the Juries (Protection) Bill, 1929, and that the proceedings on that Stage, [418] if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the expiration of the aforesaid period of one hour by putting forthwith from the Chair the Question necessary to bring the proceedings to a conclusion.”

Deputies who have read the motion will see that it proposes to give six hours to the Committee Stage and three hours to the Report Stage of the Juries Bill, which is a short and simple one. It contains only thirteen sections, of which eleven are operative. The number of points of principle in the Bill is small also, perhaps not more than three or four, and the opinion of the Government is that it is a Bill which can be very well discussed in Committee in the course of one day's sitting. If we had not had the great number of amendments which have been sent in, no motion of this sort would have been moved. We would have been content to have two sittings of the House occupied by the Committee Stage, and we would have been prepared to allow a reasonable time to satisfy all claims for the Report Stage, but when the amendments were received the Government came to the conclusion that it was intended to occupy a great deal more time with the Committee Stage than could be afforded. If all the amendments were put to the House and voted on, I think it would require practically a week's sittings merely to take the divisions. It would certainly require more than two whole days' sittings to take the divisions on the Committee Stage. Deputies will recognise that for the House to spend its time in that way would be merely to waste time. There is a comparatively small number of amendments put down that could possibly be accepted by a House which was prepared to pass the Bill. The House has shown itself prepared to pass the Bill by giving it a Second Reading, and the number of amendments therefore which need to be discussed at any length, because they are amendments which might reasonably be accepted by the [419] House, is small. It will be easily possible for Deputies to discuss these amendments within the time which it is proposed to allot to them.

If Deputies on the Opposition Benches who have put down amendments will either not move or formally move amendments which patently have not the slightest chance of being accepted, I do not think that Deputies from this side of the House will occupy time in discussing them. It will be possible, therefore, to take up the time it is proposed to allot by this motion with the amendments which I might describe as serious, amendments which might conceivably be passed by the House in view of the fact that it has accepted the general principle of the Bill. The amendments are put down, not so much in the hope of having them passed or of making the Bill more acceptable to those who oppose it, but in the hope of occupying time, and that, to my mind, is proved, if further proof were necessary, by the amendment to the motion set down by Deputy Aiken. The only effect of that amendment, if it were passed and the amended motion then accepted by the House, would be that, having spent six hours to-morrow discussing the Bill, the House would be engaged in walking through the Lobbies all day on Friday, all day on Wednesday, and probably part of the day on Thursday next.

I do not think that I need argue against the amendment in view of the result which it clearly would have. The adequate discussion of any measure depends not at all so much on the amount of time actually taken up as on the spirit in which the discussion takes place. If Deputies on all sides are content to put points which are reasonable and at sufficient length to have them understood, and to take up no more time than is absolutely necessary to have them understood, it is possible to have a really good Committee discussion on a much longer and more complicated Bill than this within six hours. In spite of the fact that a good many amendments [420] have been put down, if Deputies take the matter in a reasonable way it will be possible to have a thoroughly good discussion of the details of this Bill within six hours. The principles of the Bill have been already discussed at very considerable length on Second Reading, and in view of the time already spent, and in view of the fact that it is proposed to allot three hours for the Report Stage, I think that the six hours proposed for the Committee Stage would be quite sufficient.

Mr. Aiken: I mean to confine myself to discussing the implications of my amendment, which I now move, namely:

“To delete the provisos to the first and second paragraphs.”

It is quite apparent from what he said that the Minister for Finance either does not know the procedure of the House or is deliberately misrepresenting it. It is very well known that when there is a large number of amendments to sections of a Bill the Ceann Comhairle has power to reject any amendments which he thinks are simply delaying amendments, and also, if he wishes, he can put questions which will allow the House to indicate whether or not it wants the amendments altered. If we are not simply to be turned into a mill for passing Bills which the Government introduce without any consideration, we should keep to Standing Orders. Standing Orders give the Ceann Comhairle full scope for dealing with amendments, and, if there is a large number of amendments, Standing Orders give him power to put a certain question and it can be decided by the House whether or not it wants to amend certain sections. Whatever can be said for limiting the discussion, there can be absolutely nothing said for doing away with the right of private members to alter sections of a Bill or to make suggestions. I do not know whether there are any amendments down by members other than those of the Fianna Fáil Party, but I am sure that a Bill of such a serious nature as this will draw amendments [421] from all parties and sections in the House. It is therefore only right that they should have an opportunity of testing whether the House desires to have any particular section amended. We can discuss later, on the motion, this question of limiting the discussion of such a Bill to six hours; but whether it is limited to six, twenty-six, or thirty-six hours the rights of private members should be protected by giving them an opportunity of amending sections. I think, sir, that you should rule those provisos out of order. I certainly think they are not in order.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the Deputy putting any point of order with regard to the provisos?

Mr. Aiken: The right of putting in amendments is guaranteed to private members in Standing Orders, and I think that that right should be protected.

An Ceann Comhairle: That is not a point of order. The House may decide on this special procedure in the case of this Bill. There is no doubt about that. I cannot rule that these particular provisos should not be allowed by the Chair to appear in the motion.

Mr. Cooney: Is it in order for the Minister to move a motion which, in effect, limits the number of amendments which may be put to the House?

An Ceann Comhairle: It is in order for a motion to be moved limiting the number of questions to be put from the Chair.

Mr. Cooney: Limiting the number of amendments put to the House?

An Ceann Comhairle: No. What is limited is the number of questions to be put from the Chair, not the amendments on the Order Paper.

Mr. Cooney: In effect, it means the other thing.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: I take it that we are allowed to discuss the general [422] motion of the Minister as well as Deputy Aiken's amendment?

An Ceann Comhairle: Yes.

Mr. O'Connell: I want to say that I feel that the reasonable and sensible people are being apparently pushed out between the two big Parties. That is the way it strikes me. The number of amendments put down by the Fianna Fáil Party are, according to the Minister for Finance, put down, not because they are considered and reasonable amendments or amendments that have a chance of being discussed, but are put down simply for the purpose of obstruction. That is his view. The Minister makes the extraordinary statement that in the ordinary way we would have been allowed two days for the discussion of the Committee Stage of the Bill but now, as the Fianna Fáil Party have put down so many amendments, we will be only allowed six hours, and people like Deputy O'Hanlon and myself, who have put down what we regard as reasonable amendments, are going to be pushed out. That is the way I see it. This Party has eight amendments on the Paper. We have to accept the view that the Second Reading of the Bill was passed by the House. We believe that these amendments are such that they are reasonable, and if we had an opportunity of arguing them, I have such confidence in the Minister's good sense that I believe they would be accepted, but we are not going to get that chance. I do not know whether any attempt was made at making arrangements between the two big Parties in the House—I call them big in numbers only, I am not referring to their common sense or anything of that kind—as to what amendments should be discussed. I say the effect of this motion in any case possibly will be that the six hours will be taken up in discussing the first few amendments on the Paper. Then there will be a kind of gallop through the next amendments, and then we will only have put from the Chair the Minister's amendments. As I say, it is quite [423] possible that good and useful amendments, those that would be accepted after argument in the House, will be pushed out altogether.

I think the Minister for Finance is not treating us fairly in the attitude he is taking up when he says that he is deliberately curtailing the time which would, in the ordinary way, be devoted to the measure because of the action of the Opposition. I do not think that action is justifiable on the part of the Minister. He should remember that there are other parties and other members of the House besides the Fianna Fáil members. If he is so desperately anxious to score off the Fianna Fáil Party, and make things unpleasant for them because they are making things unpleasant for him, I think he should remember that there are other interests to be served and other people to be considered. I suggest to the Minister for Finance that he should not move his motion to-day, that he should let us see how we can get on and how far we can get. He says himself that two days would ordinarily be devoted to the Bill. If he finds it necessary to-morrow to do it, let him move the motion. Then, we would know better where we would be. In any case, it would give us a chance of dropping the unimportant amendments and getting on with the important ones. I suggest to the Minister that he should take that course, and that he should not move his amendment to-day.

Mr. Blythe: If this motion could be voted on by 4 o'clock, there would then be five hours until 9 o'clock, when Private Members' Business will be taken up. In that event I would be prepared to give a further six hours to the discussion of the Committee Stage, that is, eleven hours instead of six hours as stated in the motion.

Mr. Lemass: Needless to remark, we are not going to be any party to any arrangement such as that suggested by the Minister. When this motion appeared on the Order Paper, we got an opportunity of [424] gauging the supreme insolence it represents and when we had an opportunity of hearing the equally insolent speech by the Minister for Finance in supporting the motion it became quite obvious to us that the Government have no respect whatever for the ordinary institutions of this State or for any machinery that may exist for the purpose of ensuring that this State will be provided with good laws. They are concerned only with the welfare of their own party and the furtherance of their own ideas. I do not know by what perverted system of arithmetic the Minister arrived at the magnanimous decision to inform us that if we had not got the large number of amendments which have been received to the Bill, a much longer time would have been allowed for its discussion in Committee. Because the number of amendments is greater than he anticipated, he is going to curtail the time for the discussion of these amendments. By the exercise of his majority in the House he is going to try to deprive Deputies of the right to amend one of the most important measures that ever came before the House. We were informed when this Bill was introduced by the Minister for Justice that it was to constitute one of the great gems in the crown of Cumann na nGaedheal, but now, according to the Minister for Finance, it is much less important than the Censorship of Publications Bill which certainly took longer than six hours in Committee, or the Cork City Management Bill which also took longer than six hours. The setting up of machinery for the censorship of publications, according to the Minister, is a much more important matter and deserves more detailed consideration than a Bill to amend the whole jury system of the country. We have been informed by the Minister for Finance that the majority of the amendments on the paper are not likely to pass the House. By what right does he inform us that amendments appearing on the Order Paper are not likely to pass the [425] House and therefore must not be discussed?

The amendments tabled here are all serious amendments in an attempt to improve this rotten Bill. We hope, although the grounds for the hope may be very slight, that we may be able to convince a few of the machined members of Cumann na nGaedheal to accept proposals to lessen the iniquitous effects which the Bill is bound to have. The Minister informs us that they would have allowed reasonable time if fewer amendments had been proposed, and, as Deputies on the Fianna Fáil Benches would not fall in with their ideas as to what are proper amendments, they are not going to allow reasonable time for their discussion. That is in effect what the Minister said. They are going to use the jack-boot on this occasion. They are going to try to shove it through by brute force because they are afraid to hear it criticised. I do not want to use words which might not be in good taste, but if I imitated the Minister for Defence, I would say that they had not the guts to discuss the Bill. The Minister told us that these amendments were not put down in the hope of having them discussed. He evidently knows more about the Fianna Fáil Party than the Fianna Fáil Party themselves. He knows what was operating in the mind of Deputy Ruttledge much better than what Deputy Ruttledge knows. These amendments were not put down for the purpose of having them passed! By what right did he say that? If they were not put down for the purpose of having them passed, it would, I think, be the duty of the Ceann Comhairle not to accept them, but they were put down for the purpose of having them passed, and they were put down as serious amendments. It is because they are serious amendments the Minister is determined that the House will not get an opportunity of discussing them or an opportunity of expressing any opinion on them. The principle of the Bill was, of course, debated on the Second Reading. The Minister [426] for Justice, in his introductory speech, stated:—

We have examined the workings of the jury system very narrowly, and we have concluded that real improvements in the jury system can be effected, and for that purpose we have introduced this Bill, not as a temporary expedient but as a permanent measure. We are altering the existing system so as to make it meet present-day requirements.

Is that the Bill that was discussed on Second Reading, the Bill that is going to pass this House when the majority comes into operation? I see an amendment on the Order Paper to alter its character fundamentally, to alter the Bill from being a permanent measure into a purely temporary measure. This Bill was not discussed, I will admit, as a permanent measure at all. It was discussed in relation to certain nonsensical statements made by the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Agriculture, and numerous back bench members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, nonsensical statements relating to a purely temporary situation, but it was not discussed as a permanent measure at all. It was introduced as a permanent measure, but, as I say, it is not going to be a permanent measure at all. This is the Bill that we are told was adequately discussed on the Second Reading. If it was adequately discussed on the Second Reading, I would advise the Minister for Finance to look up the Official Debates. If he does, he will realise that it was discussed by many members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. They were jumping up all over the House in their anxiety to speak on it. At least twice as many members from the Cumann na nGaedheal Party spoke on that Bill as there did from all the other parties in the House put together.

We want to see this Bill properly discussed, because we believe that, if passed, it is going to do inestimable harm, not merely to the stability of the country but to the [427] proper operation of the jury system. We believe that we can put forward a reasonable case for the various amendments that appear on the Order Paper. We want to get an opportunity of doing so. We want to get an opportunity of endeavouring to throw some light on the dark ignorance of back-benchers in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party so that they may see the real harm they are endeavouring to do. The Bill, I notice, was introduced as the Juries (Protection) Bill. It has now become the Juries (Amendment) Bill. I do not know the exact significance of the change.

An Ceann Comhairle: I am afraid that the title of the Bill as it appears on the Order Paper to-day is due to an error. There have been so many amendments that perhaps the clerks in the office or the printers thought they would put in the word “amendment,” but the correct title of the Bill is the Juries (Protection) Bill.

Mr. Lemass: I am glad to hear that. At any rate, the purpose of the Bill is still to protect jurors.

Deputies: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lemass: The Deputies who say that must not have read the Bill. If they had, they would realise it was not a Bill to protect jurors.

Mr. T. Sheehy (West Cork): I have read it, and I know the necessity there is for it.

Mr. Lemass: The purpose of the Bill is to machine the jury system in this country so that the Government can railroad a person into prison—anyone they want to get into prison—without evidence.

Mr. T. Sheehy: No.

Mr. Lemass: As I said, this Bill is called the Juries (Protection) Bill. The Minister for Justice did not describe it as such when introducing it. He stated that it was a Bill to improve generally the administration of criminal justice in this [428] country. “Improvement” was the word he used. It is not the word I would use, but that is perhaps beside the point, and I do not know if the Ceann Comhairle would admit if that is in order. The Bill must be considered by us in relation to the amendments which we know the Government propose to introduce, and which they undoubtedly will have passed. The Minister for Justice is the puppet of the forces behind the “Irish Times.” He is prepared to come to heel, not when he is criticised by fifty-seven representatives in this House, but when he is criticised by the writer of the-leading article in that journal. We argued here for two days against the making of this Bill a permanent measure. The Minister ridiculed our arguments and treated them with scorn and contempt, but as soon as the whip was cracked by the “Irish Times” he changed his tune. The Minister himself is now coming forward to introduce an amendment which he ridiculed when it was suggested from these benches.

It is this Bill, as a temporary measure, that I suggest we have now got to consider. We have got to consider whether the changes which the Government propose to effect in the jury system are changes which should be made for a short period only. If there is one institution in this country in which there should not be periodic changes, constant chopping, and constant alteration it is in the system of the courts. If the Bill was introduced to deal with a certain situation which, as alleged, exists in this country, then it should be confined in its operations to dealing with that situation. But the Bill was introduced as a permanent measure, and it proposed to effect changes in the jury system without any relation whatever to any situation now existing in the country, and it is still proposed to effect those changes despite the fact that the Bill is now to be a purely temporary piece of legislation.

The Minister for Finance may, of course, adopt the view that any attempt to change a proposal introduced by the Government—by the [429] ten or eleven wise men who constitute it—is so iniquitous in itself that every device should be availed of in order to prevent its happening. Possibly there is not in the whole of the sixty-four or sixty-five members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party one man with sense enough to see what the Government are proposing to do. I do not believe that. I, apparently, hold a much higher opinion of the mentality of the general members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party than the members of the Executive Council do. I believe that a number of them, at any rate, are reasonable men, and that after they have heard a reasonable case for every single amendment that we have on the Order Paper to this Bill, they might be induced to ignore the Party whip for one lucid moment and come into the Division Lobby along with us. The Minister for Finance spoke of the amendments altogether. They were all, he told us, introduced merely for delaying purposes. He did not go to the trouble of indicating a single one of the amendments which it could be shown was introduced to that end.

We propose to delete certain sections of the Bill. We do not approve of the Bill, and we want to make it as little harmful as we can. We believe that every single section of it could be deleted with advantage to the country. We could make a separate case for the deletion of each section of it. I do not want to discuss the Bill in detail now, but there are certain sections of it so obviously foolish and so obviously designed merely to stir up trouble in this country, that it is possible we may succeed in getting a majority in the House in favour of their deletion. Members of the Executive Council, and the Minister for Finance, should not forget that they had at least one vote in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill from a Deputy who described it as a prostitution of the jury system. No doubt that Deputy will be delighted to hear that it is only going to be a temporary prostitution of the jury system, and therefore can reconcile his conscience with the [430] vote which he gave for the Bill on Second Reading. Possibly there are other Deputies who also thought it to be the class of Bill the Deputy described, but who have, notwithstanding, voted for it, because of their ties to Cumann na nGaedheal and their obligations thereunder to the Executive Council. It seems to me that a Bill of this kind dealing with one of the most important institutions of the State should not be steam-rolled through the Dáil. We think it is a very undesirable precedent to establish. We think Deputies should oppose this motion if for no other reason than that it does establish a precedent. As I have said, this Bill is probably one of the most important that is likely to be introduced into the Dáil in this session, and the Government propose to treat it as a minor measure. They do not propose to allow the same time for discussion on the Committee Stage as they allowed for at least one half the Bills introduced last year.

Some of the Bills took weeks in Committee. The Cork City Management Bill was before the House for almost the entire period of three months. The Censorship of Publications Bill was up in Committee day after day, and a much larger number of amendments was introduced than in the case of this Bill, yet there was no attempt to closure discussion on these measures. Does the Minister for Justice think the Censorship of Publications Bill a more important measure than this? Does he think more danger would arise to the stability of this country if that Bill was obstructed than is likely to arise through this Bill if passed? I stated on the Second Reading that my view of this Juries (Protection) Bill was that it was not introduced to protect jurors, but in pursuance of the Government's policy to stir up disorder, and to keep alive the hate and bitterness created by the civil war in 1922. They are playing the one game all the time. They realise that it is to their party advantage to keep the national forces divided. They are playing on the one string, without policy, programme [431] or constructive ability. They have no hope of maintaining their position in the country, except they base it on the hate created here when the guns were opened on the Four Courts. It is because the Bill is of that nature that I appeal to the Deputies of Cumann na nGaedheal, some of whom have, as I have said, a reasonable outlook, to vote against the proposal to closure discussion on this Bill. If they are not afraid to stand over the votes they will give, they will vote against this motion. We will give them adequate opportunity of making any case they have for every section of this Bill. If they think their case is good enough they will not be afraid to make it. It is because they know that no convincing argument can be produced against this Bill that they will vote for the closure, because they are afraid of criticism of the measure and afraid of public opinion. They have seen that opposition to this Bill is not confined to supporters of Fianna Fáil or the Labour Party. They have seen, as I have said, a leading article in the “Irish Times,” and that has brought them to a realisation of the danger of their position. They have seen such conservative journals as the “Irish Statesman” criticising and denouncing the Bill. It is because they have stepped on a wasps' nest that they are trying to push through this Bill in the dark, because they are afraid to push it through in the open. There is a case to be made against this Bill that has nothing to do with any need that may exist for affording protection to jurors. This Bill has an ulterior motive.

It is a continuation of the campaign which opened at the by-election in the North City to misrepresent the position in this country, to stir up disorder and try and make conditions here something like what President Cosgrave described them to be, because they know people realise that conditions are not one-half as bad as they are trying to make them, or as bad as he wants them to be. We have seen how [432] President Cosgrave telegraphed to America not to mind the scare-mongers. The only scare-mongers concerned in this matter are those sitting on the Government Benches. They started the scare and they pushed the scare. When the North City election was over they tried to stop the scare. There is another by-election now, and consequently the scare must be revived. That is why this Bill was introduced. I believe this Bill will be inoperative, that the sections in it which might claim to afford protection to jurymen will not be availed of, and that the Government do not want them to be availed of; but they are playing ducks and drakes with the legal system of the country for party purposes. They do not care one jot about the harm they do either to the machinery for the administration of the law or respect for the law amongst the people, provided they can snatch a few extra votes.

Again I ask Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies to realise that, if this Bill goes through, and if as a result there is chaos in the judicial system, and there is more than chaos existing outside the courts, they will be responsible. They will have the opportunity, if the Committee Stage takes its normal course, to remove any of the points of danger they may see in the Bill or which may be pointed out to them. If they vote for the motion they are depriving themselves of that right. They are the elected representatives of the people, and not elected to sit here as dummies to vote whatever way the Cumann na nGaedheal Whips tell them to vote. They were sent here to represent the interests of their constituents. Do they think it is in the interests of their constituents that a Bill of this kind should go through without discussion and proper opportunity for examination of the measure? If they do they are a poor type of representatives. Not merely is the Government proposing to prevent discussion on this measure but it is going further than it has ever gone before—it is going to stop amendment of this measure. Only amendments introduced by the Minister for Justice are to be put to [433] the House. After six hours have elapsed the other Deputies are to be deprived of the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution and the Standing Orders by a majority, a big, brutal, ignorant majority in this House.

Mr. Flinn: It is getting smaller.

Mr. Lemass: The amendment proposed by Deputy Aiken to this motion is, I think it will be admitted by most reasonable people, a sensible amendment. Even if you do not want amendment, even if you are afraid of criticism and argument, surely you are not afraid of giving members of your own Party the opportunity of voting on the various amendments on the Paper? Is it because the Government cannot feel certain of the loyalty of their pledged members? Is it because they realise there is still some brains and common sense left in the back benchers of their Party? That must be the only explanation, because otherwise they surely would not be afraid to have these amendments at least voted on, even if they are voted on without discussion. That is all that Deputy Aiken's amendment asked for. He says, in effect: “Let us have the six hours' discussion, if that is all your majority is going to allow, but after that six hours' discussion is over, at least let the House have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the amendments.” The Government declined to give that opportunity. Why? There are only two explanations possible: either they fear that these amendments would be passed in consequence of some weakness in the loyalty of members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, or else, as I said, they are so indifferent to the preservation of the rights of the elected Deputies of the people, so indifferent to the democratic institutions of which they boast from election platforms, that they are careless of the consequences of the motion, careless of the precedent that this establishes, so long as their Party purposes are served by it. I [434] do not know if there is a third explanation—possibly there is, and the explanation is laziness. Deputies may dislike sitting in this House in hot weather—they do not dislike it any more than I do; but I have a conscience. Deputies perhaps would like to have explained to them what a conscience is. I accepted the responsibility of representing the people of South Dublin City constituency, and whether it is pleasant or not to sit here in hot or cold weather, I intend, to the best of my ability, to carry out that undertaking. Deputies on the other side prefer to shirk responsibility, prefer to put through a motion such as this, and then spend a greater number of months of the summer on the golf links, or at the seaside, instead of in the House. I hope for the sake of public decency, for the sake of the honour of members of the Dáil, that the motion will be defeated.

I believe that if this motion is passed we are taking a long step in the way of the abolition of democratic institutions altogether. I know that members of the Executive Council feel that they could manage the affairs of this country much better than they are doing at present if they were not subject to criticism in this House, if they were relieved of the necessity of having to explain measures, if they were established as commissioners, dictators, or despots of some kind, and given a free hand to do what they liked with national affairs. This is the first step in that direction, a step which does not go the whole way towards the abolition of the Dáil, but does go a very considerable way towards the making of the Dáil a useless and ineffective body. If motions of this kind are to be introduced whenever important measures come before the House, those of us who have some respect left for ourselves will have to consider very seriously whether we can continue to be members of the House. We came in here as the elected representatives of the people, and as nothing else. We came in here to give the best there is in us in order to ensure that good laws will be enacted, and that institutions will be [435] established in this State for which it would be possible to have public respect. Do you think if this Bill goes through in this manner, in consequence of the passing of this motion, there is any decent-minded man in this country who will have any respect for the courts of law that will operate under it? Of course he will not. I know Deputies will stand up now and make play with that statement, but I tell you that there is nobody in this country with a normal outlook upon affairs who can have any respect for a court of law operating under a Bill passed in the manner which the Government proposes this Bill should be passed.

Members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party maintain that they are trying to restore respect for law and order in this country. They are trying to destroy respect for it, I maintain. They are certainly going the best way about it, whether it is through sheer ignorance, or whether it is through lack of foresight. By the introduction of such Bills as this and by the making of such speeches as we listened to on the Second Reading of the Bill from the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Agriculture, and the Minister for Justice, you are engendering in the minds of the people the idea that political bias and not justice is going to operate in your courts. That idea is there in many minds already. It will be there with very good reason if this Bill is passed in the manner which the Minister for Finance has proposed. If the Government felt that there was any reasonable case to be made out for this Bill, we would have heard that case. We did not hear it on the Second Reading. We heard, as I said, nonsensical statements about a situation which is alleged to exist and Fianna Fail's complicity in that situation. We heard the Minister for Justice telling the House that I and other Deputies were puppets of a murder gang.

An Ceann Comhairle: That was not said in the speech introducing this motion.

[436] Mr. Lemass: I am suggesting that it was on the strength of such statements as that this Bill got a Second Reading.

An Ceann Comhairle: Even so, it would not be a matter for this motion.

Mr. Lemass: In consequence of the manner in which it got a Second Reading, a very strong case has been made out for giving adequate consideration to it on the Committee Stage.

An Ceann Comhairle: There is no case for re-opening the Second Reading of the Bill. The Deputy himself will realise that. I want to prevent a re-hash of the Second Reading arguments, more particularly the argument which the Deputy has now mentioned. It would not do any good.

Mr. Lemass: I bow to your ruling. I maintain that if there is one Bill to the consideration of which we should be prepared, if necessary, to give the whole session, it is this Bill, because the consequences of this Bill are likely to extend outside the courts of law altogether. I do not believe it was introduced, as the Minister told us, to improve the administration of criminal justice in this country. That was not the prime consideration that operated in the mind of the Executive Council. It was not even the argument, as I said, which was placed before the Dáil in favour of it.

The Bill may have some minor good points in it, and if there are some minor good points, we want them preserved. We attempt to preserve them in the amendments which we propose to move. We believe if these amendments were accepted a Bill would go through this House which would be certainly much less harmful than the Bill as introduced, and a Bill which would not have the consequences which the original Bill would be likely to have. I appeal to Deputies, especially those who are not pledged members of Cumann na nGaedheal, to realise that they have a duty to their constituents to see that this Bill gets a fair discussion and [437] consideration, and that everybody in the House who, like them, are elected representatives of the people, should get an opportunity of proposing any amendments to the Bill they think it requires.

Mr. Cassidy: Although the Minister for Finance has endeavoured to put forward a very plausible reason for the need for a time limit on the discussion of this Bill, I ask the House to reject his proposal. There is a very big principle at stake in this suggested time limit. Irrespective of this Bill or any other Bill or subject which may be under discussion in the House, I am one of those who believe that it should be discussed in a businesslike way and that sufficient time should be given to discuss it in all its aspects. The only reason the Minister has put forward for the adoption of this time limit is that a limit should be put upon the discussion in order, as he believes, to save time. I would like to point out that according to the Standing Orders the Dáil is empowered to meet four days per week. For some considerable time past it has only met three days per week, and the reason that it has only met three days a week is because of the fact, I understand, that a handful of Government supporters, Independent and Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies, have made it clear to the Government that they are not prepared to remain in attendance four days per week. In other words, in order to carry along with a mechanical majority, the House is only meeting three days per week. As far as that matter is concerned, did Deputies who come to this House elected by their constituents tell those constituents at election time that if they were elected they were not prepared to devote four days per week to the business to be transacted in the House. The position is that, in order to suit the convenience of those particular Deputies, the House only meets three days in the week, and consequently we are asked to limit discussion with regard to certain subjects and certain Bills.

This is not the first time that we [438] were asked to put a time limit upon the discussion of subjects that came before the House. Prior to the Christmas Recess I raised the question of unemployment. At that particular time the House, at the suggestion of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, agreed to give me only two and a-half hours for the discussion of that subject owing to the fact that at that time again the House was only meeting for two-and-a-half days per week. I think we should reconsider, our position. There might be some reason for the Minister putting forward this suggestion if the House was meeting three-and-a-half days or four days in the week; but in view of the fact that we are only meeting two-and-a-half days in the week, I think the House should reject this motion. Whether on this Bill or on any other, Deputies should get sufficient time to put forward amendments, and to discuss them in Committee without any time limit or closure, such as has been suggested by the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Flinn: There is nothing new in the claim of a majority to misuse that majority, nor, I think, is there anything new to this House in the practice of the misuse of a majority by a majority. What we are dealing with is a new machinery for carrying out a very old lack of principle, which is illustrated in the regular practice and conduct of the present Government. The Minister for Agriculture has publicly laid down the principle that minorities in this House or in the country are entitled, and must accept, as long as this Government is in power, the very minimum exercise of right. He has clearly and honestly—I always like to give those people credit for honesty even in evil—laid down the principle that minorities must suffer and not merely that but that they must be prepared to undergo the absolute maximum of suffering which the majority can impose upon them. If any man doubts that amazing doctrine, if any man doubts that that doctrine has been enunciated in this House, I advise him to go back to the records of the House and to the speeches of the Minister [439] for Agriculture on the Constitution (Amendment) Bills and he will find that that is the real world as distinct from the normal world in which we live in this House.

The Minister for Finance has set out various reasons why he has introduced this particular motion and why he resisted the amendment which is in the name of Deputy Aiken and he has stated various other reasons why he will, in turn, resist the motion to reject this motion. But the one man who has the honesty from the Government Benches to declare the real reason that is behind the Government's action—the driving force behind all their machinery—is the Minister for Agriculture, when he says “Woe to the minority in this House which is in a minority of a single one, whatever may be the merits of the case, so long as we, of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, possess one more.” It is said that Parliament can do anything. This is a proof that there are no limits to the violence of the intention of this Government in relation to what this Parliament will do with the liberties of other people. There is no logical difference—none at any rate that I can see—between making this provision six hours and making it six minutes. There is no reason why under this machinery a constitution amendment which would make this Dáil and its present membership and majority permanent, should not be put through without any discussion whatever, without any question in relation to that Bill being put to the House except whether the majority now in the House were prepared to make themselves the permanent governors of the State.

If this principle is accepted by the House—and apparently it has been accepted by the Chair——

An Ceann Comhairle: What does the Deputy say? Will he repeat that?

Mr. Flinn: If this principle is accepted by the House—and it apparently has been accepted as orderly by the Chair——

[440] An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy's first statement was that the principle was accepted by the Chair, I think.

Mr. Flinn: Perhaps there was a misunderstanding.

An Ceann Comhairle: I do not want any more misunderstandings, please.

Mr. Flinn: All right. If this House votes for this motion it is voting for this principle in relation to all future legislation—whatever Government may be in power, the principle in relation to a particular Bill which is before the House that the House shall not be allowed to express opinions by a vote in relation to any detail or to any amendment of the Bill other than the details and the amendments which the Minister in charge of the Bill desires. We are not concerned at the moment with a mere incidental piece of the machinery of Government for the purpose of getting through a particular Bill. We have brought out here for the first time, in the history of this House at any rate, the principle of selective suppression of discussion, and the principle of selective repression of amendments. That is perfectly new to the House, and it is universal in its application. This House must recognise that in any little incidental act of this kind which it does; in any little incidental action, however small, which it may take, it is setting a precedent which no further or future action of this House will ever be able to prevent being a precedent. To do a thing and say it is not going to be a precedent is simply fighting the air. What is being done here now can and will be used by reckless people upon the Front Benches for similar purposes in relation to other Bills. Every member of this House, in considering whether or not he will vote for this provision in relation to this measure, must envisage the whole possible range of legislation to which it may be applied, and say to himself that in relation to the whole of that future legislation he is prepared [441] to have it applied and to regard the application of it as good for this State and for this House. Frankly, I do not think that the House thinks anything of the kind.

I heard my friend, Deputy Lemass, say that he still has some illusions. I wish I had. He has illusions that there are moments of sanity, moments of lucidity, moments of conscious regard, moments in which ordinary members of Cumann na nGaedheal do advert to the responsibility which they took upon themselves, moments in which it is possible for them to consider themselves bound to carry out these responsibilities. What evidence is there of that? On what can Deputy Lemass found such an idea except on the goodness of his heart and the belief that, after all, even continual bad associations cannot have completely corrupted what originally was probably humanly good. I, personally, have extremely little hope that it will be the ordinary backbencher of Cumann na nGaedheal and a revived and resurgent regard for his conscientious responsibility that will settle this matter. I believe, without doubting, that another authority will settle this matter. It is in order that that other authority may have the opportunity, by a public discussion here, by the examination among themselves of what has been said here, by the weighing up of arguments pro and con which will be delivered upon this thing, it is in the hope that that other authority, the electorate of this country, shall have an opportunity of having this measure examined before it fully, that they will have on the records of this House the opinion of every single Deputy whom they have sent here in relation to every detailed suggestion of change with regard to this Bill, it is because I believe that the higher and overriding authority has the right, and ought to have the opportunity, of forming a judgment upon that evidence that I oppose in the first place the provisos which are put into this measure and, when we have discussed that matter, the motion to which these provisos are [442] added. Deputy O'Connell has raised the point that this House is not made up merely of the Government and their successors; that it includes representatives in Labour, in inverted commas, and real labour——

Mr. T. O'Connell: Fianna Fáil in inverted commas.

Mr. Flinn: —farmers, in inverted commas, and real farmers——

Mr. Moore: Independents in inverted commas.

Mr. Flinn: Independents in inverted commas, and some who show their independence upon occasion when safety in that independence has not been guaranteed to them by the previous knowledge that the Government and its successors were going to vote together. Behind that plea there is a real matter. According to this provision, assuming for the moment that the Minister for Finance has a prescience in this matter that he has not in finance; assuming for a moment that anybody in this House, for the purpose of interfering with the rights of the whole House, will adopt the procedure which the Minister for Finance accuses us of having adopted; assuming that any individual member did in his individual capacity—and he would be entitled to do it—what he alleges Deputy Ruttledge has done, the logical result would be that the capacity of this whole House, of the Government and the Opposition, to discuss any measure adequately, could and would be taken away from them.

This procedure is two-edged. If the Minister can take away from the Dáil, by the mere accusation of intention to obstruct, the power to discuss a measure, any member of this House can, by using precisely the same machinery which he accuses us of using, take away the power to discuss any measure. The Minister's suggestion is that procedure of this kind is going to save time. He will find that he has made a mistake even in making such a suggestion. Under its Standing Orders this House has certain powers and [443] rights, and when a majority will publicly say to a minority: “The smallest possible exercise of those rights, and only the smallest possible exercise of those rights, will be allowed to you,” the answer of the minority will be that the largest possible exercise of those rights, large or small, will be taken by them.

I do not think that the previous experience of the Government has been that methods of this kind are going to have a time-saving effect. You are dealing here with a Bill which, on our contention, is going to interfere with the confidence of the people in the administration of justice. Is that the kind of Bill to add a procedure to which is going to interfere with the confidence of the people, even in the discussion of the measure? If ever there was a Bill to which restrictive action of this kind should not be applied, it is this Bill, because it is in itself a restrictive Bill, because it is in itself a Bill to reduce publicity, and to apply to that a machinery whose whole purpose is to reduce publicity of discussion, and to prevent us having it on record in relation to every Deputy in this House what his opinion was in every detail. Surely unless that is done in a spirit of pure recklessness no man would possibly have chosen this Bill for that purpose. What sort of respect will you get for the verdicts of juries under a Bill of this kind, introduced and passed in this manner! Which one of us, when we do come to a case of a man actually being condemned to death, will have any confidence in the justice of that verdict and the justice of that execution, having regard to the fact that you have a Star Chamber trying him, and a Star Chamber making arrangements for trying him? I want respect for verdicts. I want the people to have confidence that verdicts are correctly given, because unless and until you have that you will not get, and you ought not to get, behind the verdicts of courts the sanction and the authority of the people. Here you have a Bill which does produce a Star Chamber atmosphere in the court, [444] and you multiply that by the Star Chamber atmosphere in which you actually lay down the regulations for that court. “Criminal justice” I think the Minister for Justice called it. In this case justice will be the criminal. We must look out to all the reactions of that.

Deputy Lemass alluded to the fact that there might be good minor points in this Bill. I believe there are. At any rate, there is an opportunity for good minor points to be introduced into it. There is an amendment down—I am not going to deal with the merits—which deals with the position which, at the moment, is embarrassing, and sometimes a bit absurd. I am only going to deal with the fact that we may not get to it. That is the case where men may refuse to recognise the court. The procedure at present is, in my opinion, absurd. It is elaborate; it is costly, and does not produce any result commensurate with the cost. How do we know that we will get to the amendment, which says that in a case where recognition of the court is refused, a verdict of not guilty shall be automatically entered and the case shall proceed? How can we guarantee that we shall get to that amendment at all? I might go through the whole of the amendments. I could take Deputy O'Hanlon's and ask: What guarantee is there that it will ever be mentioned? There are some amendments from the Labour Party. How are they going to be picked out as ones upon which even the decision of the House, apart from discussion of the House, is going to be obtained? Personally I see no machinery provided under these resolutions. There are alternative machineries. I am not advocating any of them. There is what is known as the closure by compartment and the kangaroo closure. There are half a dozen devices of that kind which have been invented for the purpose of dealing with actual difficulties in relation to amendments of this kind. For instance, under certain provisions power is given to the occupant [445] of the Chair to pick out of the whole of the amendments the amendments which he regards as most significant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. Flinn: There is given in other cases power, as I say, of kangaroo closure, where the Chair is allowed to jump over perhaps ten amendments into another amendment, where selected amendments which have behind them particular bodies of opinion in the House, as distinct from amendments which might have a general body, are marked out so that if there were, say, half a dozen Labour amendments there would be an assurance that some of these which were regarded as most significant by the Labour Party would be discussed. There is no such machinery here unless it is intended that the Minister for Justice is to go back and actually read the amendments by Deputy Ruttledge. That is conceivable. It is just conceivable that he may for a moment tremble on to sanity in this matter, go back through the amendments of Deputy Ruttledge and pick out of those the forty or fifty which are of importance, see that they are properly discussed and individually put to the House. But there is no provision whatever for him to go through and pick out any single one of these amendments. If for instance, you could get somebody who was recklessly disregardful of the time of the House, somebody who was really obstructive and skilfully determined to use his powers under the rules and who would make a strictly relevant speech for six hours—I mean any individual member upon any bench who is capable of making a strictly relevant speech for six hours on the first amendment: it has been done, as you know —he could cut out the whole of the rest of the discussion for the whole of the House. There is no provision whatever to deal with that. Pigs in a poke are publicly-exposed and intimately-photographed things compared with the details of this Bill [446] as it will be approved of by this House.

Until the decision has been taken by the House to upset the whole principle of the Bill as introduced, nobody does know which resolutions and amendments are of critical significance. The Bill, as introduced, pretended—it is simply that dishonest sort of pretence which, frankly, we do not get from the Minister for Agriculture; we get a different kind of dishonest attempt at pretence from him—that the Minister for Justice, with far-seeing wisdom, examining into the details of the administration of justice in the Free State, had been dissatisfied with these details in relation to criminal trial, and that he and his associates sat down in careful conclave, getting the whole of the information which could be got and the opinions of everyone whom it did, in fact, concern and that he had evolved this perfect piece of new legislation permanently to deal, as an ordinary condition, with the whole state of the criminal law, in relation to trial by jury in this State. That was to cover every single sort of trial of criminals. He was disturbed by the present state of the criminal law. He calmly and consistently, as part of a scheme that was going to exist permanently, contrived this thing. Because—I think it was alleged in the paper—Deputy Tierney made a speech or for some other reason, he has discovered that it is better frankly to acknowledge that it had none of those origins and none of those purposes, that it was intended to be a temporary device to deal with a temporary condition in relation to a narrowly-specified body of people. Is that the Bill to which it was possible for us to draft amendments before that particular provision had been put into it by the Minister? What is to be the position if the House spends the time in discussing that significant amendment? The condition in respect of the texture of a tennis shirt—something you are going to wear in the hot weather, something you wear [447] for momentary relief—is a very different thing from the house in which you are going to live.

This Bill, now changed from a temporary to a permanent condition, bears as much relation in respect to its previous condition and its future condition as the tennis shirt bears to the house. Yet we are told that we have agreed to buy a tennis shirt when, according to the Minister, we had been taking a lease of land for 999 years on which to build a whole system of criminal law. The one thing might be part of the whole judicial system of the country. It might concern this generation and five generations hence, because when you pass a thing permanently you are supposed, at least, to envisage it as permanent, and not to assume that the thing is merely for the moment. How are we going to pick out, and what machinery is there provided to enable us to pick out, the amendments which will be significant in one case and insignificant in the other? I might be prepared to drink a glass of whiskey. It is quite a different thing to put the tap of the whiskey barrel in my mouth and keep it permanently pouring there. The one may be a tonic; the other produces the condition which we are perfectly familiar with in relation to the administration of justice. Are we to regard this as a tonic, a medicine, a weapon or a food? Are we to regard it as a ribbon to decorate the Minister for Justice or the permanent uniform of the Ministry of Justice? If we are not even told that now, how can we frame or select out our amendments? Of course, I suppose it will all be the same in a thousand years. I believe this Bill is going to be as sterile, as useless, as incapable of operation for any useful purpose in this State as the Public Safety Bill, which the electorate killed in its birth. I believe the position in relation to the Public Safety Bill has been reproduced in relation to this Bill. They knew the Public Safety Bill, after they had passed it, and after the people had seen it, was bad. They knew it was a disgrace; they knew it [448] was a calumny upon this country, but they had not the little miserable courage to destroy their own child.

They know now that this thing is bad. They know that it is purely and simply a conspiracy against the public peace. They know that it will be used, if it is used at all, for the lowest possible exploitation of party authority over party opponents in the name, or misname, of justice. They have already thrown away a thousand years' possession. They already know it is a thing that cannot, with any respect to the State, permanently exist in the State. But they have not got the miserable little courage to get rid of the other eighteen months—or is it a year? In that time they shall have to clear the Augean stable. The Minister for Justice will be the only man in a position to treat the law with contempt. I think that long before this Bill disappears—and I believe it will disappear before even its limited term—this Government will be satisfied that the name of this Bill also will be written upon the political tombstone under which they will lie in the contempt of every decent and honourable man. I think it was the Minister for Defence, in relation to a Bill as important as a Constitution (Amendment) Bill, asked that we should pause, that we should examine, that we should consider, that we should use the weapon of delay for the purpose of allowing misunderstanding, misrepresentation, heats and other things of that kind to disappear; that in relation to matters which struck, not at the machinery, but at the basic foundation of the State, delay was immensely valuable perse; that the knowledge that a thing was done pausefully, the knowledge that a thing was done with consideration, that every possible implication of an act had been considered and weighed before that act took place was valuable. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings there sometimes cometh wisdom. Why not apply that principle to this Bill before we upset a system of trial which has some hundreds of years of sanction behind it, a system of trial [449] which has been grossly and grievously mistreated, as we know, in this country in the past, but which, if not mistreated, but treated decently and kindly and with respect, has a great deal to be said for it? Why upset it in six hours?

Of course, there will be unlimited time for discussion elsewhere. In the really responsible hours, it may be some consolation to the House to know that when it passes from the survey of people who have merely gone through the electoral fire and goes into the hands of those who have been made pure and holy by a caucus, it will be properly considered and that possibly just as the amendments of the “Irish Times” are acceptable, because the independents might become independent, those amendments that come from that august body may be accepted even though they may not be allowed to be discussed in this House. If that be so, if the experience of the House was that they could hand on, without any sense of responsibility or security, to our friends up above the duties which they themselves ought to perform, there would be a lot to be said for dividing out the work. But has it been our experience that Bills of fundamental importance that call for all this assuagement of delay were delayed, that they were considered there in detail, that they were examined, that they were, for instance, changed from the permanency of the Public Safety Act in its first stage to its impermanency after a General Election—has that been our experience, or has our experience been that these gentlemen up above do what they have been told to do, that they take the precautions of passing around envelopes to see that nothing goes wrong in the procedure, that exactly as it comes from this House without the change of a word, a sentence or a comma, we can rely upon those good people to pass and send down to this House, with the maximum of celerity, any Bill which would have been passed by Arthur James Balfour, Greenwood, Spencer or a few others. [450] What guarantee have we, when we have let it pass out of our hands that hands more responsible, more loving of the public peace of this country, will fondle and nurse it? Any?

When this nursling passes from the keeping of the House it passes into the possession of a majority at least as reckless, at least as disregardful of individual right, at least as disregardful of public policy as the majority who tell us that the rights of the minority, and the rights they are to expect are the minimum rights. Personally, I have no guarantee that the House could go against its own responsibility to carry out its own duties. If the only legislation which the Deputies opposite are prepared to pass, if the only consideration which the Deputies opposite are prepared to give to these amendments is the legislation with their feet, well at any rate their heads will be counted during the process, and that will be to the good. I have only dealt for a moment very rigorously and very strictly with the amendment itself. Afterwards it will be necessary for us to consider on somewhat broader lines the motion and its rejection. But nothing that has been said in the House, up to the present, nothing that a fairly fertile imagination on my part has been able to provide, has shown any reason whatever why this House should consent to have put in the main provisos which are put in here.

Nothing has been put forward to suggest that this new machinery for sterilising the responsibility of legislators in relation to legislation should be allowed to be introduced. Nothing has been shown which enables me, at any rate, to find a means afterwards of preventing the successors of this Government misusing the like machinery for the same purpose. I do hope there will come into the possession of it, in possession of the Government of this House, those who believe that the minority have something more than the barest allowance which the majority is unable to take from them. If that is the principle, and [451] as long as those gentlemen opposite legislate in the country it is the principle, this proviso as added to this Bill is a great danger to security in the State, great danger to responsibility in legislation, and a radical blow to the use and value of this House as a legislative assembly.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney): We have received two little pieces of personal information this afternoon. One of them was from Deputy Lemass informing us that he had a conscience, a very sensitive conscience, and that following the dictates of that conscience, no matter how hot it was, he was willing to make any necessary number of speeches and go any number of times into the Division Lobby. Deputy Flinn informed us that he had a very fertile imagination. I think Deputy Flinn might have claimed a conscience just as much as Deputy Lemass, because if making an extremely long speech is performing your duty to your constituents then certainly Deputy Flinn performed that duty this afternoon. But when he talks about his fertile imagination I am afraid it is not quite so easy to follow Deputy Flinn, because if his imagination is fertile in producing arguments he managed to keep those arguments, despite the length of his speech, entirely within his own breast. For a more commonplace speech I think it would be very hard to hear anywhere delivered. Deputy Flinn brought up arguments which always can be brought up against the closure. These arguments, if applied to the full, would mean that a minority in a House like this, a minority in a legislative assembly could, if they wished, hold up the majority who are desirous of passing legislation for the country's good.

In every deliberative assembly there must, if the work of that assembly is to be properly carried out, be certain provisions for closuring unnecessary, and I might even go so far as to say, deliberately unnecessary [452] discussion, so that the work of the assembly may be carried on. Deputy Flinn, in some of his examples, was rather unhappy. For instance, he said that there was a very excellent amendment standing in the name of Deputy Ruttledge— that a plea of not guilty should be automatically given where persons refuse to recognise the court, and he was very sorry, moved to tears, by the possibility that that amendment could not come on for discussion until after six hours had elapsed. But that amendment means nothing. That is the existing common law. That is what exactly happens at the present moment. Deputy Flinn also said that there were forty or fifty amendments of importance, admitting thereby that there were forty or fifty or more amendments of no importance——

Mr. Fahy: Oh, no, non sequitur.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: What else could it mean? He said forty or fifty amendments of importance. As there are, roughly, one hundred amendments in Deputy Ruttledge's name, it appears that the balance, and those in Deputy Flinn's name, at any rate, are of no importance. So it seems to me, and I entirely agree with Deputy Flinn, except that he does not put the number quite high enough. Deputy Lemass mentioned in one part of his speech that I, in my opening statement, had used words to this effect, that I regarded this Bill not as a temporary expedient, but as a permanent measure, and that I looked upon this Bill as being rather an improvement of the jury system in this country. I stated so then, and I adhere to that statement now. I believe it is.

The two cardinal principles of this Bill are (1) that there should be a majority verdict. I believe that is a great improvement. The other principle is that the jury panel should not be indiscriminately circulated, that the old practice in this country should be tightened up in order that in times like the times we are passing through, jurymen should not be intimidated and murdered, and also in ordinary times that persons of influence [453] and importance may not be able to get a jury panel and to go round to jurors and canvass jurors and so defeat the ends of justice. I consider that these are two of the main principles in the Bill and are really improvements of the jury system in this country.

Dr. Ryan: Then why make the Bill temporary?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: There are other sections of this Bill undoubtedly not required in normal times, required solely in the abnormal conditions in which we now are. Once there is a body of persons who are trying by assassination of jurymen and witnesses to break down the administration of the law in this country——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: This is a Second Reading speech.

Dr. Ryan: The Minister is using exactly the same language.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I am merely explaining this point, and I will not go any further in that connection. The reason I make this Bill temporary is that I believe completely in the correctness of the arguments that I put forward and the stand I have taken up. I am willing it should be so because I recognise that the Labour Party, who, I believe, are as interested as we are in maintaining law in this country—

Mr. O'Connell: That is not much of a compliment.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney:——are as interested as we are in maintaining peace.

Mr. O'Connell: Much more so.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I will not say more so, but they are genuinely interested. Deputy O'Connell, speaking on behalf of his Party, has expressed doubts as to whether this Bill would work. I am willing to let him see it working for a couple of years. At the end of a couple of years, when this Bill has been seen working, I believe it will have proved a complete success. It can [454] then be entirely re-considered. Those are the motives and the only motives which are in my mind. If there are persons who have a genuine desire for peace and order, if there are persons afraid that this may shake or damage the administration of the criminal law, I am perfectly willing that this Bill should be tempered. I am quite ready to believe that when it has been seen working it will prove acceptable. When it actually has been seen in operation we will be then in a better position to consider it, not experimentally, but as a measure which we have actually seen in action. In consequence we will be in a stronger and a much better position in which to make up our minds. I venture to think that at the end of two years Deputy O'Connell, seeing how the measure will have operated, will come to the conclusion that the fears which I know he honestly holds at the moment were groundless and that those fears will have been dispelled.

Mr. O'Connell: Will we all get the same opportunity of explaining our amendments as the Minister is now getting?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I am merely dealing with the point that was made the subject-matter of a good deal of the speeches of Deputy Lemass and Deputy Flinn. If it is open to them to attack me upon it, surely it is open to me to explain my position. Deputy Lemass said there was a reasonable case for amendment here, and he wanted to know why less time should be given to this Bill than to a less important Bill, the Censorship of Publications Bill. The answer is perfectly obvious. When the Censorship of Publications Bill was under discussion, the Deputies opposite discussed it in the spirit in which Deputies really should discuss a measure before the Dáil. They discussed it with a genuine bona fide desire to improve the Bill. No obstructive tactics were there. There was not a single amendment put down by Deputies opposite or by any Party [455] in the House for the deliberate purpose of wrecking the Bill or the deliberate purpose of delaying it.

Mr. Ruttledge: Will the Minister state what amendment in the list tabled to this Bill is obstructive?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I will, of course; that is what I am coming to. I am going to read to the House some of Deputy Ruttledge's amendments. Deputy Lemass declared that these are all serious amendments put forward with the hope of improving the Bill. He also said that they wished to preserve the good points in the Bill. He said there were some good points. If you consider Deputy Ruttledge's amendments, and approve of them, you will delete the whole of Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. You will delete every one of these sections.

Mr. Lemass: And improve the Bill.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: You will leave Sections 5, 11 (paragraphs (b) and (c)) and Section 12. I do not know whether it is the deliberate intention of Deputy Ruttledge, but if his amendments are approved of, every bit of what Deputy Lemass says is good in the Bill must go except Section 5. Possibly Section 5 may be affected, too. It establishes the principle that a majority can bring in a verdict in criminal cases. Section 12 prevents loitering outside the court and paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 11, which deal with the printing or posting up of threats of violence against jurymen, are all left. I say it is very doubtful if Deputy Ruttledge meant to leave anything at all except paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 11.

Mr. Lemass: And the Title.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Deputy Lemass says there is no desire to bring in purely obstructive amendments. Yet his Party bring in amendments to delete every sub-section in the Bill except two. Notwithstanding that, they say gravely that they have no desire to obstruct [456] the Bill, and they say, further, that any amendments they have brought forward are for the deliberate purpose of improving the Bill. That is an argument which may commend itself to the Fianna Fáil Benches, but if it does I am sorry for the mentality of Deputies over there.

Mr. MacEntee: We remember some bad attempts to amend other measures.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I very much wonder if Deputy Ruttledge drafted the amendments standing in his name? I wonder has he read over the amendments, because some of them certainly give me the impression that Deputy Ruttledge gave the job of drafting them to some very junior clerk in his office. He told him to draft something for goodness' sake; it did not matter what it was.

Mr. Ruttledge: Do you object because counsel's opinion was not asked?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: As far as some of the amendments are concerned, that is what is in my mind.

Mr. Cooney: That is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Oh, no, the Chair is not responsible. The Chair cannot give brains to Deputy Ruttledge's staff. I acquit Deputy Ruttledge of drafting these amendments. I would never charge him with that. Let us take amendment 19, which is an amendment to Section 4. Paragraph (b) of that Section says:—

“When calling over in pursuance of Section 46 or sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47 of the Principal Act the names of the Jurors entered on a panel (whether original or supplemental) of jurors the registrar shall not call the name of any such juror whose attendance he has previously recorded under the foregoing paragraph of this section on that day unless he has reason to believe that such juror has since his attendance was so [457] recorded left the Court and not returned thereto.”

The proposed amendment is to delete the words “unless he has reason to believe” and substitute therefor the words “unless the jury on evidence of the Registrar is of opinion.” That is perfectly meaningless. No jury has been sworn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I am afraid that the Minister is now going on to discuss the merits of particular amendments.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: With great respect——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The amendments, or the merits of the amendments, cannot be discussed on this motion. If the Minister proposes to discuss what he calls useless amendments I have no doubt that some Deputies on the other side will claim the right to discuss what they consider to be useful amendments and we will really have a Committee Stage debate on the Motion and not on the Bill.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I am endeavouring to establish a proposition——

Mr. MacEntee: On a point of order, I am in agreement with the Minister for once. When introducing the motion, the Minister for Finance stigmatised our amendments as vexatious. I think we are entitled to go through the amendments in order to refute the charge that they are vexatious. I do not say that we are entitled to advocate the adoption of the amendments, but we are entitled to show that on the face of them they are not vexatious.

Mr. Ruttledge: With regard to what the Minister has said about this amendment, it is obvious that there is a misprint. The word “jury” should, of course, be “judge.”

Mr. MacEntee: There is, in fact, a misprint in to-day's Order Paper, as the Bill is described as the Juries (Amendment) Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The amendments cannot be discussed on this motion.

[458] Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: May I not show that there are at least seven or eight of Deputy Ruttledge's amendments which are so absurd that they must be obstructive. I desire to call the attention of the House to them. He now gets out of this one by saying that it is a misprint, but we will go on and see how many more misprints there are.

Mr. Cooney: There is one in the Bill at any rate.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Let us take amendment 40, which is to the effect that the jury and not the judge are to be the judges of what is to be contempt of court. Is that an obstructionist amendment? Now take amendment No. 47. It is to delete all words in sub-section 4 (a) of Section 6 after the word “sentence.” line 44, to the end of the paragraph, line 53. The sub-section would then read:

When a person is sentenced under the foregoing sub-section of this section to suffer a term of imprisonment the judge shall at his discretion either (a) direct that such person shall suffer such imprisonment forthwith, in which case such person shall thereupon be removed in custody and imprisoned in accordance with such sentence.

All sub-section (b) is to go out. Therefore the Deputy, in order to get an amendment, makes the suggestion that the trial should go on in the prisoner's absence. Is that an obstructionist amendment? Take amendment 55. I wonder what misprint there is in this particular amendment which proposes to delete in sub-section (1), page 5, line 2, all words after the word “had” to the end of the sub-section and substitute therefor the words:

The judge presiding at such trial may, on hearing such evidence as may be tendered before him, that it is necessary for the protection of witness and jurors concerned in such trial that the public should be excluded from the court during such trial, put to [459] the jury the question whether the Court should be cleared, and upon receiving an answer from the jury in the affirmative may order the court to be cleared.

Here again there has been no jury sworn. Sub-section 1 reads:—

“Whenever, at the trial of an accused person in the Central Criminal Court or in the Circuit Court and after such accused person has pleaded ‘not guilty’ or a plea of ‘not guilty’ has been entered for him and before any further proceedings are had ....”

There is no jury in existence at that stage. No jury has been sworn, yet the question, according to the amendment, is to be left to the jury. If that is not a deliberately blocking amendment I do not know what is. There is no room for a misprint there.

Mr. MacEntee: Is the jury not empanelled before the prisoner pleads?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Of course not.

The President: It must have been Deputy MacEntee who framed that amendment.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: There is no escape that way for Deputy MacEntee. Take amendment 78, to delete sub-section (7) of Section 7. Deputy Ruttledge, of course, puts this forward with the sole desire, according to Deputy MacEntee, of improving the Bill. That is the sub-section which preserves the existing powers of the judge to clear the court in certain cases, but Deputy Ruttledge wants that power taken away. That is to say that when, for instance, a small child is giving evidence in an indecent case the judge shall not have the court cleared. Is that an obstructionist amendment, or is it put forward by somebody on behalf of Deputy Ruttledge who never saw it? I do not believe that that is the desire of Deputy Ruttledge or anyone else— [460] that the power which judges have to clear the court during indecent charges should be taken away. Is that amendment inserted for the purpose of helping the Bill or has it simply been put there in order that there may be some amendment on the Paper? There are others, but I will not go through the whole lot.

Mr. Lemass: We will.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Amendment 99 is one of the gems. It proposes in Section 9, sub-section (3), to insert before the word “statement,” line 53, the word “false.” This is how the section runs:

Nothing in this section shall apply to or render unlawful the printing, publication, distribution or making by any person in the manner and to the extent directed by the Principal Act, as amended by this Act or otherwise by law, of any statements which it is his duty under the Principal Act as so amended or otherwise by law so to print, publish, distribute, or make.

Deputy Ruttledge wants to insert in that “any false statement.” That is to say, a stenographer will be punished if he puts forward a correct account or a correct report for the Court of Criminal Appeal. The stenographer will be punished according to Deputy Ruttledge's idea. A stenographer sending forward a correct shorthand note of a trial will be punished, but if he sends forward a false note he will not be punished. I say that I believe some of these amendments were never read by Deputy Ruttledge himself or he would not have produced them. They prove conclusively that there is not on the part of the Fianna Fáil Party any genuine attempt to act as Deputies should act and that is to endeavour to improve and not to obstruct measures which have the approval of the House, not to attempt to interfere in a blind, senseless, stupid fashion with the passage of a Bill of this nature. I have nothing more to say upon this motion. The real question [461] before the House is: shall there be obstruction of legislation in this House or shall there not be obstruction? Shall a series of amendments be put forward, not with a genuine desire to improve a Bill, but put forward, some of them, solely in order that there may be something on the Paper, some of them against common sense, some of them which cannot even by any stretch of the imagination be considered to be the bona fide belief of the persons who put them forward? Shall amendments of that nature be allowed to check the passage of legislation in this House? That is the question.

Mr. MacEntee: Since the Minister for Justice has ceased to erupt and has become somnolent again, possibly it might be well if we reverted to the speech of the Minister who introduced the motion. The real argument by which the Minister tried to justify the motion was that if there were not such a great number of amendments sent in, no motion would have been moved, and they would have been content to have as much as two sittings of the House occupied by the Committee Stage. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the system of trial by jury which has been evolved through an experience, I think, of something like eight centuries. Many States envy England as being entitled to claim that it originated and brought to a state of perfection this system of trial by jury, whereby a man might be fairly assured that justice would be done as between him on the one hand and the Executive on the other and the Minister feels that a House composed largely of laymen can consider a Bill which he has introduced to amend that system of trial by jury, and can discuss it adequately inside the time occupied by two sittings of the House. He suggests that a system of legal procedure which has occupied the united wisdom of mankind, one might say, for practically a period of eight centuries, is to be disposed of and radically amended by this House in a period of two sittings. I think that is a claim to almost omniscient wisdom, a claim to have in this little State a legislature of supermen. The [462] ridiculous length to which the Minister's prejudice has brought him, and the desire on the part of the President and the Executive Council to make capital out of some temporary, passing situation, the desire to shock, as it were, the consciences of the electors in a certain constituency, to make them feel that we are trembling once again on the abyss of revolution, have forced the Minister for Finance to make that extravagant statement— that inside two sittings of the House we could radically alter and amend a work which has taken the collective wisdom of mankind eight centuries to evolve. I do not know whether I am entitled to labour that point any further. I think it must be clear to the mind of everyone that that statement was so extravagant as to be ridiculous in its very nature.

The Minister further argued that possibly they might not have introduced this motion to limit the time allowed for the Committee Stage of the Bill if it had not been for the number of amendments which have been put down by us, the amendments which the Minister for Justice endeavoured to show, with no sort of success I contend, were vexatious. I should like just for one moment to direct the attention of the House to some of the amendments put down. I do not wish to discuss them but I merely direct the attention of the House to them specifically so that the House may be able to judge for itself whether there is any substance in the allegations made by the Minister for Justice. I am not going to go through Section 1. So far as Section 2 is concerned the first amendment reads:

“In every county and county borough to which this section is applied by an order made under this section, the powers and duties conferred or imposed on the under sheriff of the county registrar or any other officer of such county or county borough by Part 5 of the Principal Act as empanelling officer shall hereafter be discharged by the secretary of the county council in the case of [463] counties and by the town clerk or other principal clerk of the county borough in the case of county boroughs and save as aforesaid.”

Now it is quite clear——

The President: That is Section 2 and not Section 3.

Mr. MacEntee: I will come to Section 2 afterwards. I was afraid that some subsequent speaker in the Government Party might say, because I omitted to refer specifically to these amendments, that I was endeavouring to evade discussing the question as to whether they were or were not bona fide amendments, and not vexatious amendments, as has been alleged by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Justice. Now it is quite clear that the whole intention of that amendment —and in the circumstances it is a reasonable one—is to ensure that the empanelling officer will be an officer who is independent of the Executive, one who is not specifically a subofficer of the court and an employee of the Department of Justice. I am not going to argue that amendment pro and con, but I do say that it is not of its very nature a vexatious amendment. It is an amendment which, in good faith, is designed to improve this Bill and not to obstruct it. Take again amendment 6, Section 2, which reads:

To insert at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows: “All orders made under this section shall be laid on the Table of each House of the Oireachtas, and shall not be valid unless approved of by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas.”

Again, I contend that is simply to provide a safeguard and to guard against an abuse of the powers which it is proposed to confer on the Minister for Justice by Section 2 of the Bill. At any rate, I cannot see that, on the face of it, it can be held to be a vexatious amendment. I come now to amendment 9 to Section 3. I am passing over amendment 7 which stands in the name of Deputy Tomás O Conaill, [464] because I do not think the Minister alleged that any amendment the Deputy put down was a vexatious one. The whole indictment has been lodged against the principal Opposition Party in this House whose particular duty it is to scrutinise with more than ordinary care proposals made for legislation. After all, it is the duty of the Opposition Party to criticise and, to obstruct if necessary, in order to ensure that due consideration will be given to every legislative proposal. When, therefore, we do take the trouble of going through a Bill section by section, and find in it any point that appears to us to be doubtful, we are quite within our rights, in dealing with it. We are not only within our rights, but would be lacking in the proper discharge of our duty, if we omitted to put down a reasoned amendment designed to clarify a point or issue which was doubtful. For that reason, therefore, when a Bill of the far-reaching importance of this measure is introduced, and in the circumstances in which this Bill has been introduced, it is almost, I believe, impossible that only a small number of amendments should be put down.

It is of the utmost importance to the House, and to the people of the country generally, that the full purpose of the Executive should be made explicit in the terms of the Bill itself, and that the House should not give to the Executive any powers of which the House itself is not fully aware. Therefore, it is the duty of the Opposition, fulfilling an important function under the Constitution, whenever a point is not clear or is doubtful, to put down an amendment which will elicit from the Executive a full statement of the position in regard to the point at issue, and for that reason and for no other it necessarily follows that there must be, in the case of a Bill so important as this is, a considerable number of amendments appearing on the Order Paper. It is for that reason that we put them down. That, however, is by way of digression.

To get back, I am passing over, as [465] I have said, amendment 7 which stands in the name of Deputy Tomás O Conaill because neither the Minister for Justice nor any member of the Executive Council has alleged, so far as I am aware, that the amendments standing in that Deputy's name are vexatious or obstructive in any way. I come, therefore, to the amendment which proposes to delete sub-section (1) of Section 3. This sub-section states:

Section 50 of the Principal Act shall not apply to a panel of jurors prepared for a sittings of the Central Criminal Court nor to a panel of jurors prepared for a sittings of a Judge of the Circuit Court for the trial of criminal issues, and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that the empanelling officer and the summoning officer shall treat every such panel as a confidential official document.

Now there is a big point of principle involved there as to whether the panel of jurors shall or shall not be a confidential official document to be withheld from the prisoner, his legal advisers and from the people of this State. I contend that an amendment to delete that section and to discuss that issue in detail, cannot be held to be, and should not be alleged to be, a vexatious or an obstructive amendment.

The President: Would the Deputy explain the other two amendments to that sub-section?

Mr. MacEntee: I do not propose to explain Deputy O'Connell's, but I am proceeding to deal with amendment 9. The amendment reads:

To add at the end of sub-section (1) the words “save that every accused person, or his solicitor in the case of the trial of any such person, shall be entitled as of right to a copy of the panel of jurors from which it is intended that the jury for his trial is to be drawn.”

Now, I wonder is that a vexatious amendment? Does the Minister for Justice allege that that is a vexatious amendment: “save that every accused person, or his solicitor in the [466] case of any such person, shall be entitled as of right to a copy of the panel of jurors from which it is intended that the jury for his trial is to be drawn?” I presume that if the prisoner is not going to have a legal representative in court, or in the event of his desiring to be so represented, then this is to ensure and to safeguard to him the right to have a copy of the panel. Is that a vexatious amendment? The Minister for Justice is going to sleep again.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: No, I beg your pardon.

Mr. MacEntee: Then I would like the Minister to answer that question, “Yes” or “No.” Does he allege, and does he as a lawyer contend, that it is vexatious to ask that the solicitor charged with the defence of a prisoner in a criminal trial should be entitled to have a copy of the jury panel?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I have no objection to answering the Deputy's question. I never stated that every single amendment that was put down was vexatious. I have never said that there might not be a difference of opinion about this Bill, but I do say that an overwhelmingly large number of the amendments put down are purely vexatious and are put down solely for the purpose of obtaining divisions when it is perfectly obvious that they are snowed under.

Dr. Ryan: You said that over fifty of these amendments are of no importance.

The President: Considerably more —practically all the amendments to delete sections, for instance. The very one that the Deputy has put forward now as a sensible amendment is, by another amendment, to be deleted?

Mr. MacEntee: Yes, but the amendments are not consequential. One might be there as an alternative to the principal amendment. Is it contended that a Deputy who puts forward a principal amendment intended to include the whole substance [467] of his objections to any particular proposals in this Bill is not entitled, in the event of the rejection of the principal amendment by the House, to bring forward an alternative amendment? Or does the Minister contend that an alternative amendment would be a vexatious amendment? The Minister said that there was one amendment to which he did not object. I have read out nine amendments, and is it alleged that the five amendments to which I have directed attention are vexatious and are put down simply to waste the time of the House? I do not know what the Minister has to say in relation to amendment No. 10. That amendment, strange to say, was the amendment to which the Minister, in the course of his strictures on Deputy Ruttledge for proposing to touch those sacred folios with his sacrilegious fingers, did not advert at all, because that amendment is to delete sub-section (2) of Section 3, which is:

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other enactment, no accused person shall be entitled as of right to a copy of the panel of jurors from which it is