Before you go further I wish to read a letter from the Catholic Total Abstinence Federation of Ireland.

We had better dispose of this matter.

Excuse me. There are also letters from other bodies here. These have only just come into my hands. I understand the deputations are waiting outside. In accordance with the ordinary procedure of a sovereign Parliament it is not usual to receive deputations, but in order that I might be guided in the matter I will put it before the House as to whether we may receive any deputations that are waiting.

There is a deputation here from the Total Abstinence Association. I understand they wrote to the Speaker some time ago. The Speaker, unfortunately, is not here. They came here on the chance of being received, or of having an hour fixed when they could be received. If the House would be willing to receive the deputation they would not take many minutes. I think there will be only one speaker. There are a number of distinguished people on the deputation and I would suggest, if I may, that an hour in the afternoon be fixed for their reception.

I second that.

I think these people should see the Ministers of the Departments that are concerned with the matters they want to raise. It is an absurd matter to have deputations coming in and addressing us. I would move as an amendment that they be not received.

A precedent was made when a Labour deputation was received. I think organisations should have a chance of putting their views before the sovereign assembly of this country. I move that these deputations be received. I think they should be admitted and listened to with courtesy.

I second that.

What are the deputations?

I understand one is a deputation from the Total Abstinence Association. They wrote to Mr. MacNeill a few days ago and they were expecting that he would bring the matter up this morning. They are very distinguished people. They spoke to me last night. They hoped that both sides of the House would allow them to be received.

How many are there?

Three apparently. "The President of the Irish Vigilance Association requests me to ask if you will be good enough to arrange for the reception by the Dáil on Wednesday or Thursday of a deputation from the Irish Vigilance Association re the censorship of films, and the circulation of objectionable newspapers, et cetera. The deputation would only occupy about ten minutes in explaining the matters on which they wish to address the members.”

I rise to support the motion moved by the Minister for Trade and Commerce. The sooner deputations understand that we are not a public meeting the better. There are Ministers working very hard, day after day, and week after week, to establish Executive machinery for dealing with the various ills and problems of the nation. It is to those Ministers these deputations should address themselves, and it is to those departments that concern them they should go. I suggest that the first thing a deputation should do would be to put its case properly on paper, and not be coming here before us making speeches that go in one ear and out another.

I am not satisfied with the answer I got. I want to know definitely who ruled my motion out of the Agenda?

The Standing Orders.

Produce them.

I want to get the matter of the deputation finished. Does the House wish to receive the deputation from the Total Abstinence Association or not?

Every little point that has arisen here to-day has been treated in a party spirit.

Speak for yourself.

It is time to drop that if we mean to get on with the business of the nation. I am opposed to this deputation coming in, not because those who are against the Treaty want them to come in, but because I think it is bad business—bad procedure—for an assembly like this. If you admit one deputation you have no right to exclude another.

The precedent has been established.

If you establish a precedent, hardly a day will pass that you will not have deputations from other sections. It does not bring these people concerned any nearer the desired result. As the Minister for Finance pointed out, the proper way to exploit their ideas is to bring them before the Executive Department concerned. I strongly support the motion not to receive this or any other deputation. The Labour deputation that was received here some time ago was not intended to be regarded as a precedent. It was regarded as exceptional—to deal with a very grave matter. I don't think it should be taken as a precedent. I therefore support the motion not to receive the deputation.

I am sorry that my old friend, Mr. Milroy, is against receiving a Total Abstinence deputation. We have a precedent for receiving deputations in Dáil Éireann. We received a deputation from Limerick a long time ago. I think that this body —the sovereign body of the nation— should not refuse to receive deputations from any public body or any bodies that are working for the nation's good. I very strongly support our receiving the deputation.

If the House gives me authority I will see the members of the deputation later on, so that we may get on with our business. Personally, I do not think this matter should be made a party question.

I would like to say this in connection with deputations, that there is much to be said on both sides of this question. I would suggest that an arrangement be made by which applications be considered by the Whips on both sides and by the Speaker of the House, and if it is considered by them a matter which could for the public profit be brought before Dáil Eireann, it should be done. By that arrangement there would be a prior investigation as to whether it was a matter that ought to be brought on—that it would result in public good. We should have some preliminary Committee to examine applications.

I would suggest if the Minister under which the particular thing comes would enforce the regulations it would meet it.

What is the third deputation?

I don't know what it is about. It is simply headed "Re Jim Larkin.”

What are we going to do about the deputations? I have been informed that the Total Abstinence deputation communicated twice already with the President of Dáil Eireann.

I received no communication.

I am sure they would be very glad to hear the communication had not reached you. They seem to be strongly under the impression that it was received, at least, by your secretary. I am sure they would be glad to hear it had not reached you at all.

I have been receiving deputations day after day. I am prepared to go on enduring it, but are we going to have the business of this House hampered by deputation after deputation? It simply means that we can't get on with the business. We all know what will happen if we receive three deputations to-day.

I consider that the business of this deputation is sufficiently important to be dealt with.

I think we have sunk very low when temperance comes to be a party question, only belonging to one party.

It could be arranged not to have it occur again, but as the deputation is here would it suit the House to hear them to-day?

We should make a rule to receive every deputation or no deputation. If we receive one we must receive all. There should be no exception.

Do you accept the suggestion made by Deputy de Valera?

What about these gentlemen who are here to-day?

I suggest that the deputation could have been heard all this time.

I have asked the House already if it meets with your wishes that I see the deputation as a private individual and, as suggested, I will speak to the Whips on both sides and we will make arrangements if it is the wish of the House that the deputation be heard in the afternoon.

I suggest that we hear the Total Abstinence Association, and that the others be ruled out.

What are the others?

The Vigilance Association and Larkin.

I think the other rule might come into operation for the future, but why not hear the whole three? It won't take very long.

They are not here.

The Larkin people are downstairs.

I beg to support the Minister of Finance, anyway, that we receive that deputation.

Do you agree?

The whole three (cries of "No!").

It has been proposed and seconded that the Total Abstinence deputation be received.

Is it in order?

It is entirely out of order. It comes up in this fashion because the Speaker of the House is absent. He was communicated with by this deputation. I only want to get a direction from the House as to what to do.

I suggest that we confine ourselves to the Orders of the Day. We have a lot of business to do and we ought to get on with it.

If there was a parish pump being put up there would be more regularity than there is in this Dáil.

If it is understood that we hear this deputation and that that ends the question of deputations I will agree to it.

It was then agreed by a large majority that the deputation be heard.