I move:—

That the Committee on Procedure and Privileges be instructed to draw up for the consideration of the Dáil a Standing Order or Standing Orders, dealing specifically with Deputies who bring the House into contempt by disorderly conduct towards the Chair.

The Standing Orders as at present framed make provision for dealing with disorderly conduct on the part of a Deputy towards another Deputy, but do not specifically provide for disorderly conduct towards the occupant of the Chair. That such a contingency might arise was considered by the Committee who framed the Standing Orders, but the conclusion come to then was that it was undesirable to include in the Standing Orders an Order dealing specifically with the matter unless and until necessity for such an Order arose. Consequently, as the Standing Orders are now drafted, the offence of disorderly conduct towards the Chair is from the point of view of disciplinary consequences on the same footing as that of disorderly conduct towards an ordinary Deputy. That in effect means that when a Deputy has been suspended on the first occasion the period of suspension is a week, on the second occasion a fortnight, and on a third or subsequent occasion one month.

I am of opinion, and it is an opinion which should commend itself to the House as a whole that these disciplinary consequences are totally inadequate to meet the offence of disorderly conduct towards the Chair, which in essence is contempt of the House itself. As to what the procedure should be, that question is one for consideration in the first instance by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and for determination ultimately by the House itself when the report of that Committee has been tabled.

It has always been the considered view of this House that the Chair must be protected in the discharge of its functions from innuendo, insinuation, or direct personal abuse. Failing acceptance of the position that the Chair in any House—whether the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle or any other presiding Deputy must not be attacked for the way in which he discharges his functions save by the method which has been indicated to the House already, no other course than that suggested in the motion appears practicable if the fundamental basis on which the business of the House has always been transacted is to be preserved.

Is this motion in order? Yesterday was the first notice we got of it, when it was down on the Order Paper for the first time.

The Deputy is objecting on the ground of notice?

Yes.

The motion is one concerning the business of the House and for the reference of certain matters to a Standing Committee of the House. There is an option in the Chair to take a motion without the four days' notice required ordinarily by the Standing Orders, and this is the kind of motion which I think might be so taken, unless agreement can be reached to take it on another day. I think a motion dealing with the business of the House, referring a matter such as this to a Standing Committee of the House, might be taken without the ordinary notice.

Is it an urgent matter? Is it not possible to leave that matter lie over until amendments could be tabled. For instance, we are of opinion that the whole question of the Chair might be dealt with at the same time.

I submit, on a point of order, that in accepting this motion now, at a time when the House has not had time to formulate in an orderly and legal manner, according to the Standing Orders, an amendment thereto, you are deliberately invading the liberties and the rights of the ordinary members of this House.

"Shame!" and "Order!"

That is not a point of order. It is a grossly disorderly statement, and the Deputy ought to withdraw it at once.

The Deputy will not withdraw.

The Deputy has made a statement which he refuses to withdraw. I leave his conduct to be judged by the House.

I move that Deputy Flinn be suspended from the service of the House.

I have great pleasure in seconding.

I second the motion.

I therefore direct Deputy Flinn, in pursuance of the decision of the Dáil, to withdraw.

Deputy Flinn then withdrew from the Dáil.

On a point of information: is it a matter of disorder meriting suspension for a Deputy to state that the action of the Chair was an infringement of the liberty of members?

Yes, but that was not the statement made. We cannot go back on that particular incident. But a statement that the Chair is, in fact, infringing the liberties of members is disorderly, because the action of the Chair cannot be criticised in what you might call a casual way, but only in a definite fashion. The statement made was altogether different.

Surely it must be in order to point out that the Chair is not infallible. Surely it ought to be permissible to point out where the action of the Chair would, in fact, be infringing on private members' liberties?

Is not the gravity of the offence in this case the fact that Deputy Flinn refused to withdraw on being asked to withdraw a statement which the Chair said was disorderly?

The statement was: "In accepting this motion now you are deliberately infringing the liberties of private members." There was no "if" and no point of order. I had not yet concluded on the point of order raised by Deputy de Valera. The statement was not a point of order at all. It was a deliberate accusation against the Chair. As to Deputy de Valera's point, it might be well if the position of the Chair were made perfectly clear on the question of infallibility. If the House will allow me, I should like to make a statement to the House on that, if it is desirable.

I think it is.

The Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle are appointed by the Dáil to be the servants of the Dáil and to perform certain functions placed upon them by the practice of the House and by Standing Orders. They have, in the exercise of their functions, to exercise their own best judgment. They have frequently to decide matters, difficult and intricate matters, after due consideration. They have also frequently to resolve without any notice, and sometimes in very difficult circumstances, questions which call for swift and immediate decision, and these decisions by the occupant of the Chair, whoever he may be, whether the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, or the presiding Deputy, have to be given to the best of his judgment in the particular circumstances and when given to be accepted. Clearly there is the possibility of error and that possibility is not denied, nor even the probability of error in certain cases; and no claim on behalf of the Chair has ever been made or is being made to infallibility. Such a claim would be impossible for any ordinary human person to make. But the situation is, that the decision of the Chair having been given, it must be accepted, and if it is to be questioned, it must only be questioned on motion. This is not a question of personalities, nor a question of this House as at present constituted; it is a question of the Chairman in any Dáil, no matter how constituted politically, and no matter under what fundamental law it might have to work. The position of the Chair would be the same in substance. No claim can be made to infallibility. But this claim can be made: That the Chair should not be subjected to accusations and to criticism except on motion. The functions that the Chair has to carry out are of a difficult nature and the occupant of the Chair must not be criticised except in one particular way. That perhaps is the whole difficulty.

And, as the occupant of the Chair, I might go one step further. Provision is directly made in the Standing Orders for the removal of the Ceann Comhairle or the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. It has been stated by responsible Deputies in the House that they intend, quite presumably their Party intends, to take steps for the removal of the present Ceann Comhairle. If I may be permitted to introduce a personal note into the matter for one moment I would say that the Ceann Comhairle is not unprepared to make way at any time for a successor who may be appointed by this House or by any succeeding House. In this matter, it is well for Deputies to know that just as no claim is made to infallibility so no claim is made to permanency. It has been my considered view, and I have given it on many occasions to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and to the leaders of different Parties in this House, that in a Parliamentary assembly it would be impossible and undesirable to impose on any House any particular individual as its Chairman; that each House must be free to choose its own Chairman. For that reason, I am not unprepared to make way here or in any other Dáil for a successor, but I am unwilling to allow to be created here precedents and practices which would make it impossible for any successor to do successfully the work which has to be done here. That is my main concern in the whole matter. The position of the Ceann Comhairle, the position of the Chair, whoever may occupy it, should not be made impossible and it will be made impossible if the Chair is to be subjected to the same kind of criticism as, for example, a Minister of any Government is subjected to. I am prepared to give any further information to Deputies who may desire it and I hope that I have sufficiently explained any question relating to infallibility or permanency.

As regards the question of infallibility, the idea I had in mind when I used that word is this: the Ceann Comhairle, as you have indicated, has to come to certain decisions, and it is only right that a certain aspect of the matter which may not have occurred to him should be put before him. It seems to me that in the case of Deputy Flinn, he was bringing before you a certain aspect of the situation which might not have occurred to yourself. That was, that in accepting this without the usual notice, the justification being that it was a matter concerning the dignity of the House and that notice should be dispensed with, in his opinion you were infringing on the rights of private Deputies. I submit that he had a right to bring that particular aspect of the situation before your notice. I do not think he had any other purpose.

If the point of order were put to me in the same manner as Deputy de Valera has put it to me, then it would be properly put, namely, that if the motion were accepted to-day it would be impossible to put in an amendment. I heard that same point of order here before at some length with regard to another motion and another matter. A point of order is in essence a submission of certain facts or considerations with a view to influencing a decision which has not yet been given, but which, when given, will be accepted. That was quite different from the form in which Deputy Flinn put his point. What was said then was that in accepting this motion the Chair was deliberately infringing the rights of private Deputies. That is a plain accusation against the Chair, and there is no liberty in the House to make that kind of accusation except on a motion. I think Deputy de Valera will agree that it would be impossible to carry out the functions of the Chair if such statements could be made in the House. It is not, perhaps, correct that we should go back on all these proceedings, but if it serves the purpose of making the position of the Chair clear, then a good purpose will have been served. A point of order may be put, but that point of order cannot be one which includes an accusation of deliberate bias.

There is a feeling, without doubt in our Party that the rulings of the Chair were not impartial. We might as well be quite frank on this matter. That feeling is certainly existing among members of our Party. They have a number of instances before their own minds, and they feel that decisions given by the Chair would not, for example, be given if the occupant of the Chair were a member of another Party. That is the feeling, and I am simply expressing a feeling that is quite common among the members of our Party. We are quite aware that there is a majority in this House, and that if we bring a definite motion calling attention to these particular incidents, and if we have the matter debated, the majority would vote against any motion of the kind.

A majority, the Deputy will agree, of more than one Party.

I do not know whether it would be a constant majority or whether it would vary.

Test it.

Order! The Deputy is not quite within his rights in making any accusation against the Chair, but at the same time, because of the circumstances, I am prepared to hear the Deputy.

I say the difficulty that the Chair is in is due to the fact that there is a feeling among members of our Party that the decisions which have been given in some cases recently would not be given were the occupant of the Chair not a member of Cumann na nGaedheal.

The occupant of the Chair is not, in fact, a member of Cumann na nGaedheal.

Was.

The occupant of the Chair—and, as I say, this applies to every kind of Dáil that you can imagine, and it applies to this kind of a House, no matter under what fundamental law it works—must first get elected to the House. He must then be elected by the members of the House to the Chair either by unanimous vote or by a majority vote, because, in the ultimate resort, everything must be decided by a majority vote. Coming to the House by way of election, he must presumably in most cases come in on a particular platform. He then gets certain duties to perform which require that he should exercise certain qualities. It is not being done at the moment in that particular way. It is manifestly not competent continually to charge the occupant of the Chair with being a member of the Party through which he first secured election to the House. As a matter of fact, the Ceann Comhairle is not a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and has not been since his election to this Chair in 1923—a long time ago.

You are an honour to the Chair, sir.

It is perhaps better that this thing should be talked about here than having it in the air. Having it mentioned here will save a good deal of talk afterwards. As I have said, the feeling was strong amongst members of our Party that there were decisions given by the Chair which could not be regarded as impartial decisions. That is a fact. I am simply stating a fact about the feeling that exists. I quite understand the difficulty of the Chair. The Chair undoubtedly has a difficult task to perform here, and as the Ceann Comhairle himself has pointed out his position——

You did not appreciate it.

The Ceann Comhairle will originally have come to the Chair as being a member of one Party or another, and the attitude that we ought to expect from the Chair is impartiality in his judgment —that when he is in the Chair he will act impartially and act in accordance with the Standing Orders, forgetting, if it is possible for him to forget, that he is a member of one Party rather than of another. We, at the time the question of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was being considered, put up a proposition to the effect that it should be frankly recognised that the occupant of the Chair was originally a member of a Party, and that he should be allowed to vote with the Party, and that his conduct in the Chair could be as impartial at the same time without any attempt whatever to gloss over the fact that he was a member of a Party. That is our attitude towards him. If I might deal with the other question raised—the motion of the President——

The Deputy was dealing with the question of the Ceann Comhairle. The Ceann Comhairle is making no ad misericordiam appeal to this House to consider the difficulties of the position. The difficulties of the position, while I appreciate them fully, are not pressing me down in any sense. But there is no doubt there are two different things at issue in what Deputy de Valera has said; one is that the judgment exercised by the Chair and the judgment of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle have been challenged from time to time. But it is one thing to make an error of judgment to which we are all liable. It is another thing constantly to err owing to evil motives. Now if evil motives have been ascribed that is a very different thing. Let me say one other thing now. It has been frequently said here that the Standing Orders are for the protection of minorities. That is only a partial truth. The Standing Orders do afford and ought to afford certain protection to the minority, but the main purpose of the Standing Orders is to assist in the transaction of the business of the House.

If the Standing Orders do contain safeguards for the minority in certain directions they must ensure that the rights of the majority will also be preserved. What has really to be recognised is—what is fundamental to the whole thing here—that the decision of the House itself is all important. For example, when the House decides the motion, "that the question be now put," in the affirmative, it is the decision of the House that prevents Deputies from continuing and having any further debate, and not the decision of the Chair. And in the ultimate there can be no other decision than the decision of the House. The position of the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, when appointed by the House is that they must do their best according to their own lights to perform the duties of the office in accordance with the Standing Orders. Their actions can only be criticised through motions made in the House because it is the House, and the House only, that the occupants of the Chair are responsible to. It is in the House they should be criticised, and it is only in the House opportunity for reply exists as far as the occupants of the Chair are concerned.

I just wish to say a word on this matter. I do not wish to refer in any way to the statement made by the Ceann Comhairle, because I think it must be generally admitted that what he has stated must be accepted by everybody who wishes to take part in a deliberative assembly of this kind. That is, that the Chair must be given a certain authority and must exercise that authority to the best of its judgment, and that there must be a way, and that there is a way for dealing with the Chair if, in the opinion of the House, the Chair is not doing its duty properly. I do wish to refer to the feeling which Deputy de Valera states exists amongst certain members of his Party with regard to the decisions of the Chair, that these decisions were not impartial. The Deputy says that that feeling is there. But I am inclined to think that that feeling arises through inexperience, inexperience on the part of those Deputies, of Parliamentary procedure. Perhaps when those Deputies are longer in the House they will see, I believe, that that feeling will disappear. I speak as one who was a member of a small Party in this House since 1922. Members who were in that Parliament of 1922 will remember that the leader of the Labour Party at that time, Mr. Johnson, was a man who, on more occasions than any other Deputy in the House, raised points of order and challenged the decision of the Chair. He always challenged them in an argumentative way. He submitted his point and when the Chair ruled against him he accepted without question the decision of the Chair. There were times when we felt that the decisions of the Chair were against us, and that those decisions should not have been made in the particular way in which they were made, but in our cooler and calmer judgment there was not one of us who did not feel that if he himself were in the Chair and were called upon to make a decision, and were expected to act impartially, he would have come to the same decision. I think it is only right to say that as the result of experience for the last five or six years.

I would be glad if we could all agree that whatever our points of view are, that having elected the person to the Chair we will be all prepared to accept his decision and if he has grossly misused his position in any way we have a method of dealing with him and I am quite sure that this House, no matter what Party members may belong to, would have no hesitation whatever in dealing with a person who would misuse the position in which he had been placed. I think it would be well if we could all agree to work on the basis that having elected a Ceann Comhairle, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle or an ordinary Deputy to preside, his judgment for the time being must be accepted as unquestioned. That was the reason I stated in regard to Deputy Flinn in that incident a moment ago, that it was not the original statement that I objected to on the part of Deputy Flinn so much as the fact that when you informed him that it was a grossly disorderly statement he should have withdrawn it. But he refused to withdraw it. It was therein that I took exception to Deputy Flinn's action, not so much to the first portion of it. You having told him that the statement was grossly disorderly he should have withdrawn it. If he had accepted that position and submitted and agreed to withdraw I am quite certain the matter would be over. I believe it is not creditable to this country as a whole that scenes such as we had before us in the last week or two should continue.

Hear hear.

I am not for a moment attempting to place blame one way or another for these things at the moment but I do say that it would be well for all of us to recognise that this Parliament and the doings of this Parliament are read about and spoken of and discussed not alone all through this country but far and wide throughout the world and that we ought no matter what Party we belong to be jealous of the good name of the Parliament of the country because the nice little distinctions we may have in mind in this House as to what this Dáil stands for and does not stand for, are not recognised outside this country at all events.

This Parliament is looked upon as the Parliament of the Irish Free State and every member of it ought to be jealous of its good name and do his best to preserve it.

I would like to recall to the House one matter with reference to the authority of the Chair and defiance of the Chair. Some years ago a Minister made a statement to which the Chair took exception and he was asked to withdraw it. He demurred. The House was adjourned. The Minister was informed that in view of the definite request of the Chair the statement should be withdrawn and that if he failed to withdraw it although he was a Minister, the President would have no option but to move for his suspension. On the reassembly of the House that particular Minister withdrew the statement which the Chair had requested him to withdraw. I mention that to indicate what has happened to Deputy Flinn is a thing that if similar circumstances had arisen in the case of a Minister would have followed in his case. As far as I am concerned I personally have been called upon once or twice to withdraw statements made in the House. I thought they were statements I might make but when the Chair thought they were statements I ought not to have made I withdrew them. If I had not withdrawn them I am positive that what happened to Deputy Flinn would have happened to me. There is really no bias in this matter. We have tried in this matter to act in the interests of the good name of the House and in such a way as to secure the most efficient and orderly transaction of business in the House. I do not want to speak at all in any slighting strain with reference to the Deputies on the other side of the House but I agree with Deputy O'Connell that they have been a comparatively short time in the House and perhaps have not——

Do not apologise.

They have perhaps not given the attention to this matter that they ought to have given and I do think this, that if they would care to set down a motion either for the removal of the present Ceann Comhairle or by way of a challenge to any particular decision of his we, perhaps, could have an orderly and informative debate on the whole question and I believe they would at that debate learn something that has not come to their minds yet.

That has not reference to the motion before the House. I would like to hear first the point of order Deputy de Valera raised with regard to the amendment.

Some members of our Party wished to put in an amendment to this motion but the notice given was too short. It appeared on the Order Paper yesterday.

May I suggest to the President the advisability of not proceeding with this motion to-day. I think perhaps the atmosphere is not the best in view of the discussion that has taken place. If there were general acceptance of the position and agreement amongst all Parties of the House that whatever the ruling of the Chair is it would be definitely obeyed there would be no need for this. At any rate I make a suggestion. The discussion of this motion would be better in a calmer and different atmosphere from what has been created as a result of the incidents here to-day. I think the motion should be taken to-morrow morning or next Wednesday and perhaps some more useful discussion might come from it. I just throw out the suggestion.

I am not disposed to agree to the suggestion except on a certain basis, that is, that the Ceann Comhairle must be regarded as the custodian of the rights of the members of the Dáil. In that capacity and in his capacity as President over this House his authority must be freely and voluntarily recognised, and all Parties must agree to it, otherwise I have an objection to the withdrawing of the motion.

That is my suggestion, that if the matter were left over until to-morrow morning an undertaking of that kind would be the best way of getting over the difficulty, an undertaking by all Parties that that would be recognised as the position in future.

I rather deprecate Deputy O'Connell's suggestion that it should be necessary to ask any Deputies or Parties in this House to give an undertaking that they would be willing to abide by the decisions of the Chair. I regard it as fundamental that when Deputies come into this House they must abide by the rulings of the Chair, and I think to suggest that any other course is open to any Deputy or body of Deputies acting as a Party in this House is a suggestion which should never have been made. I had not intended making any remarks upon the discussion which has taken place in regard to the Chair, and I do not intend to go very far now, but I would like to endorse the remarks made by Deputy O'Connell with regard to the conduct of the Chair and the conduct of members in regard to the Chair. The Chair has no such thing as infallibility, as you, sir, so clearly stated, but where you err, or any other occupant of that Chair errs, provided your error is not gross or intentional, there is one thing that must be observed, and that is obedience to the directions and decisions of the Chair. I have had experience of being dissatisfied with the decisions of Chairmen from time to time in other assemblies as well as this, but if the business of the House is to be carried on there is only one way of carrying it on, and that is absolute obedience and submission to the decision of the Chair. If that decision is questioned it can be questioned in the manner you have mentioned by putting down a motion, but as far as suggesting, as Deputy O'Connell has, that any Deputies would, at any time, have the right to question the decision of the Chair, I say that is a suggestion which should and could not be tolerated by any deliberative assembly in any part of the world.

Now with respect to Deputy O'Connell I think that to ask for this motion to be held over with the hope of having some understanding arrived at that in future the decision of the Chair is to be respected and is to be obeyed is suggesting that at present it is the intention of members not to abide by the decision of the Chair, and I think that is, if I might say so, with respect to him, a wrong interpretation to place upon the intentions or conduct of members of this House. We are here to conduct the business of this House, and the only means whereby it can be conducted is by the election of a Chairman and the abiding by the decisions of that Chairman. Therefore, I do not see that anything would be gained by the suggestion that, I am sure, Deputy O'Connell has put forward in the best of faith.

I would like to explain that I thought my suggestion was not capable of the interpretation Deputy Redmond put on it, because I accept at once what he says, that it should be the duty of every Deputy to obey the Chair; but I do say that I believe general agreement amongst all Parties of the House and general acceptance of that principle which he and I accept and agree to would be even a better way of achieving what we are all anxious to achieve than making any Standing Order. That is the reason of my suggestion, in order to give every opportunity of expression to general agreement from all sides of the House as to that general principle.

On the point of order with regard to the amendments to this motion, the motion is quite definite, and clearly must be regarded as simply being a reference to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges and a matter not requiring the usual notice. With regard to the possible amendments, I find it somewhat difficult to find what kind of amendments can be put down. I think Deputy de Valera mentioned an amendment dealing with the whole position of the Chair. If it is for the purpose of putting such an amendment down that he desires to have the motion postponed I do not think such amendments could be accepted.

I have been approached by members of this Party on the question of insufficient notice. They pointed out to me that they wished to put down certain amendments. I have not discussed the amendments. I gather that in the main one of the amendments was dealing with the position of the Chair in general, the question of whether the Chair should have an original vote, for example.

That question could not arise by way of amendment to this motion. I think no amendment could be put down to this motion which would deal with the position of the Chair. The matter the Deputy mentioned could be raised on a substantive motion, but not in any way by an amendment to this motion, which is quite specific and narrow. Therefore it seems to me the motion is one which comes under the provisions of Standing Order 25, which says:

Provided that by permission of the Ceann Comhairle, motions may be made on shorter notice.

The Standing Order gives a discretion to the Ceann Comhairle, and this is the kind of motion which appears to me might be discussed on the notice already given. I am accepting the motion, therefore.

On the motion itself, the President when introducing it, differentiated between what he called disorderly conduct towards a private member and disorderly conduct towards the Chair. I have tried, in the few minutes at my disposal since he made that statement, to look through the Standing Orders to see if there was anything of the kind mentioned. As far as I can see, there is not anything of the kind mentioned. Disorderly conduct, I take it, is disorderly conduct from the point of view of the Chair. In keeping order the Chair is responsible and nothing will become disorderly until it is adverted to by the Chair and until the Chair takes action and either the disorder immediately ceases or else whatever disorder is there is disorder against the Chair. I see no point whatever in the distinction the President has tried to draw. The Standing Orders seem to me to be quite sufficient; they give sufficient power to deal with any particular matter. The Chairman has an opportunity in all cases to put any question to the judgment of the House and, as he has done on a couple of occasions recently, he is able in these cases to get any remedies that are required. It seems to me that to make rules to meet what are regarded as immediate instances is always dangerous. The tendency is to have only one aspect of the question considered, whereas there are other aspects which should be borne in mind. These are much more likely to be borne in mind by a Committee sitting down quietly, as the Committee that originally drew up these Standing Orders I assume sat down, to consider what powers are necessary for the Ceann Comhairle in order to maintain order and at the same time having in mind possible abuses by the Chair of the powers which the Chair has. We must not leave that out of sight. I think it is very foolish for members, because something has happened recently that they might object to, to suddenly give the Chair powers which the Chair up to the present has not got. The Chair is in a position of great power here. In any assembly of the kind it is also in a position of great power. There is a temptation when people are in a position of almost arbitrary power to abuse it, and we ought to be very careful indeed before we give greater powers to the Chair and put, as I would regard it, greater temptations in the way of the exercise of these powers. It was said that if the Chair made a ruling to which we object we could bring that matter before the House. To take one of the instances that have occurred recently to which members of our Party objected——

I do not think the Deputy can take it on this motion. This is not a motion for giving greater power to the Chair, but a motion for referring certain matters to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. If the motion were passed, and any Standing Orders that might be prepared by the Committee were brought before the House which did, in fact, give further power to the Chair the Deputy would be in order in discussing the matter. On this motion the Deputy, I think, is not in order in discussing a particular action of the Chair or the powers of the Chair either.

My only reason for dealing with that was the suggestion of the President. The suggestion was that there is not in the Standing Orders powers sufficient for the Chair. That was my understanding of the reason he gave for bringing forward this motion. I expect the intention, therefore, is to give the Chair greater powers than it has by means of some further Standing Orders. As this is the first step in that process I am opposing it, because I want to point out that it is not advisable to put too great powers in the hands of the Chair, or more than is necessary to enable the Chair to conduct the business properly It has been argued that if there is objection to a ruling of the Chair it is possible for the aggrieved party to put down a motion and get the particular question decided by the House. I hold that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred that is impracticable, because the particular matter—though from the Deputy's point of view it may be serious —it may be a question from his point of view of encroaching upon the private rights of members here—still it would hardly be regarded as sufficient to bring a motion before the House which, in effect, would mean the removal of the Ceann Comhairle. The removing of the Ceann Comhairle would be very serious. You will admit that there would have to be a very big case made for it. The instances might accumulate from day to day—there might be a thousand and one instances where partiality would at least be felt by the aggrieved member, but it would not be sufficient to put down a motion of this kind. To go further than the Standing Orders at this moment, in my opinion, would be most unwise. As I say, it would be felt that it would be a Standing Order brought in by one Party practically to deal with a certain specific occasion, and the dangers that would result from that would not be adverted to, possibly, and given the full weight that would be given to them on another occasion when the Standing Orders were brought from the point of view of the general conduct of business, the point of view of giving the Chair sufficient powers and not giving the Chair more powers than are absolutely necessary for the maintenance of order here. Accordingly, I intend to oppose this particular motion. I think it is not necessary, and I think it is an unwise motion at this time. If there is a danger here that you are trying to correct I believe that you will be running from one danger into one that is even greater. I hold there is greater danger in the occupants of the Chair being given arbitrary powers, if the occupants of the Chair will abuse their powers, than there is in anything like continued disorder here and disorderly conduct towards the Chair. I think that disorderly conduct, as expressed here directly towards the Chair, is much less likely and much less a danger to the members of this House, and order here, than would be the giving to any individual further unnecessary powers which might be arbitrarily used.

I would just like to say that I do not quite agree with Deputy de Valera. I did not take that meaning from the President's statement, namely, that the idea underlying this motion was to give greater powers to the Chair, but rather to give greater powers to the House to deal with attacks on the Chair. That is my understanding of the motion. I would have preferred, as I said, that the President should postpone this motion, but if the President puts it to the House, I shall vote for it, because I believe, as Deputy de Valera himself said, speaking of a Committee that drew up previous Standing Orders, that a Committee sitting down calmly and discussing various possibilities and probabilities as to what might arise, would be in a better position than this House to decide as to what provision should be made in the Standing Orders for the protection of the person elected by the Dáil to occupy the Chair. I believe that Standing Orders are not made to be permanent. They cannot be such. They are being continually added to, changed, altered and revised in the light of experience gained in their operation. That is the case with Acts of Parliament, with rules of organisations, and with Standing Orders for various assemblies. Sometime you will come up against the position in which, despite all your forethought, you will find that no provision has been made to meet a particular class of incident. It is well that these matters should be considered, and I think that a motion of this kind, to set up a Committee to consider Standing Orders to meet such a situation, is a proper motion to be considered and would be useful in the light of experience gained, especially in the last few months. Therefore I propose to vote for it.

I fail to see what purpose will be served by bringing this motion before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It would be far better if the Government would produce their plan now. There is no use in going to the subterfuge of pretending that this matter has the sanction of a Committee when we know the same thing will happen there as will happen here. There will be a Party point of view there also. As I say, the matter will be decided in the same way in Committee as it will be decided here. It would be more honest for the President, instead of proposing a motion to refer the matter to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to produce the scheme now which he had in mind and to debate it here and now. If the motion is adopted it would mean that their scheme which has been arrived at would have the appearance of having the approval of the Committee. The majority Party will naturally decide it. I am not saying anything at present about the position of the Chair. Let us have the Government opinion on this matter.

Like Deputy Boland, I feel that whatever disciplinary order is now to be recommended to this House it would be much better that we should discuss it in the open— the reason for it, the justification of it and the consequences of it—rather than send it before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I am not prepared to discuss the particular motion of the President at any length, but I should like to be assured from the Chair that when the Committee makes a recommendation to the House we shall have an opportunity of discussing that recommendation fully. It has happened before, in connection with a matter that was referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and to other bodies, that we did not get an opportunity of discussing it in this House. I would like, therefore, to have an assurance that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this particular recommendation, whatever it may be.

The terms of the motion are: "That the Committee on Procedure and Privileges be instructed to draw up for the consideration of the Dáil a Standing Order or Standing Orders dealing specifically with Deputies who bring the House into contempt by disorderly conduct towards the Chair." The Committee on Procedure and Privileges, if this motion were carried, would proceed to draw up a Standing Order or Orders for the consideration of the Dáil, and would report the suggested Standing Order or Orders to the Dáil. Before these could become Orders of the House they would have to be adopted by the House on motion, and therefore would have to be discussed. If there were only one Standing Order there might be only one discussion, but if there were two or three they might be discussed in two particular ways—first on Committee, and then on Report.

I take it that we have the assurance of the Chair that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this matter.

There is no need of an assurance. The terms in the motion are clear. If the Committee suggest to the House Standing Orders they cannot come into force without definite action being taken here, and that action involves debate.

If you get this motion through, and new Standing Orders come into existence, it will mean that you will have Standing Order after Standing Order until they will come upon us like a whirlwind. That, of course, is all part of the panic and haste that we are used to, but it is not the way to approach the question.

If the President is not satisfied with the penalties which the present Standing Orders impose on those who violate the rules of the House, I think, like Deputy Boland, it would be more honest on his part to tell the House that he has another series of constitutional amendments to throw at us, and that preparation is being made for the more speedy passage of these amendments, or whatever other legislative measures he intends to introduce which he believes will give rise to other scenes. As I said on the last occasion when another incident occurred——

We are not discussing incidents.

I refer to the causes of the incident.

Nor the causes of the incident.

The causes of the incident are deep and fundamental with those of us who have fallen foul of the Chair. I think that the present Standing Orders are quite sufficient for the maintenance of order in the House. I would go further and say that any new clauses, added with a view to imposing further penalties on those who violate the Standing Orders, if they are intended to serve the purpose for which I think they are intended, will fail miserably, because those of us who take up a certain attitude do not do so for the purpose of bringing the House into disrepute—that should be made clear to the President and everybody else— it is not for that purpose or for the purpose of abusing the Speaker or anything like that, but rather because it is the only method left to express indignation and contempt for the methods which accompany the introduction of certain measures here, and I say that no matter what amendment or addition you make in regard to those Standing Orders we will always find means of expressing our indignation if necessary.

I would have imagined that the President would have had sufficient wisdom to let sleeping dogs lie and that when the row had passed, he would have tried to get on with the ordinary business about which he appears to be so anxious. We have already wasted a considerable amount of time which might be devoted to dealing with the Agricultural Credit Bill, the Creamery Bill or some of the other Bills which are matters of importance. If I might express a more or less neutral point of view, there is a Party here labouring under a feeling of deep grievance about certain constitutional amendments. That has led to a position where they have felt that certain resolutions have been passed which do not state the truth and where the closure has been accepted too rapidly and too often. Everything is being done according to plan. We are being guillotined into adopting certain measures which we wish to prevent being adopted. That feeling is likely to create another feeling, that every measure from the Government Benches is a measure to paralyse every action of our Party in this House and to exasperate us if possible to such an extent that we will be forced to go out of this House. I do not know whether Parliamentary action can be maintained on these lines but I would imagine that if people were serious about continuing Parliamentary business, when a row is over, they would allow the matter to lie and they would try to carry on the work of the country without pressing matters to such an extent as to put a large Party in the country into the position of being outlaws and into the position in which they cannot exercise their rights as representatives of the citizens who voted for them.

On a point of order. I submit that this motion is not in order. This motion does not ask the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, directly or in a correct manner to report on what measures should be taken to deal with Deputies who act in a disorderly manner towards the Chair or with Deputies who bring the House into contempt by disorderly conduct. I submit that an argument has been allowed to creep into this motion. It has been the general practice that when a motion is put down it should be in the simplest possible form and should not contain any argument. I would like to have your ruling on that point.

I think the motion is in order.

A general definition of the term "disorderly" would be "out of order." When it is taken in conjunction with the Standing Orders it means "out of order,""not within the Standing Orders." It may be that very often—as a matter of fact the Ceann Comhairle has said it—it is the best thing not to act within the strict letter of the Standing Orders; that, as a matter of fact, it is a good thing to be disorderly on occasions; that on certain occasions it is the best thing that could happen for the business of the House and, I suppose, for the business of the country that disorderly actions should be allowed in the House, and to proceed with business in a disorderly fashion. We all recognise, everybody must recognise, that when any collection of representatives come together in order to proceed with business, they have to appoint a Chairman, and they have to give him certain powers to keep order. Everybody recognises that that is a correct thing and will support that. Most people recognise also, and should recognise, that there are occasions when action is demanded that is not within the Standing Orders. The Ceann Comhairle says that the proper way, if anyone is displeased with the action of the Chair, is to put down a motion asking the Dáil to remove the Ceann Comhairle from the Chair. That is all very well. That is ordinarily the correct procedure. That is the procedure which members who disagree with the ruling of the Chair should ordinarily follow. But there are occasions—and the Ceann Comhairle himself has admitted that such occasions crop up—when it is better for the general business of the House and, we must take it, for the general business of the country, that Standing Orders should not be followed in the strict letter. There was an occasion recently when I believed that the correct thing to do for Deputies was not to follow the Standing Orders too strictly. If Deputies feel that the Chair is acting in a wrong manner, in a grossly unfair manner, they, of course, will take whatever steps are open to them to protest against that. There were times before—we have more experience of Parliaments than Deputy O'Connell would give us credit for—there was a Dáil in existence in 1919——

It was a one-Party Dáil.

It was not a one-Party Dáil. It was for the whole of Ireland.

What I meant by "one-Party" was that there was no division in it as you have in a Parliament of this kind. They were all of the same opinion. There was no division amongst the people, and the same clash did not occur as has occurred here.

The people of Ireland thought that they were all one.

I hope Deputy O'Connell will not try to foster the wrong idea that the Black-and-Tan war was carried on by a small section of the people.

I want to make myself quite clear in regard to this matter. What I meant was that, although they represented all Ireland, or the greater part of Ireland, there were no party divisions such as there are in this Parliament, that you were all imbued by the one political ideal. That is not the position in a Parliament of this kind.

All classes and creeds were represented in the Dáil at that time, but members while they agreed fundamentally, had many different ideas as to how details were to be carried out.

But you had not, as we have here, a Government Party and an Opposition Party.

An Imperial Party and a Republican Party.

Anywhere you have a Government, you will always have an Opposition. On one occasion the Ceann Comhairle of that Dáil acted in a grossly disorderly and unconstitutional manner, and the position was that when those people, who disagreed with him wanted to put down a motion, six years afterwards, to deal with him he had gone. They had to choose some other method.

I do not think that the Deputy on this motion ought to deal with the action of any Ceann Comhairle. As a matter of fact, the particular matter which the Minister for Finance mentioned to-day, arose by way of a member of the House, a Minister, making reflections on one of my predecessors. I do not think any reference can be made, on a motion of this kind, either to the Ceann Comhairle at present or any of his predecessors. I do not know what the Deputy is going to lead up to— I have no idea—but I think it is unfair to use this particular motion to express a view about the action of some previous person in the Chair of the Dáil.

I do not want to be unfair to anyone. I am simply giving an instance, which is pretty well known throughout the country, when it was too late to deal with an offence committed by the Ceann Comhairle when the opportunity arose to put down a motion dealing with the matter. I am just pointing out that when the Ceann Comhairle does behave in a wrong manner, while people generally recognise that the ordinary procedure should be to deal with it by way of motion, sometimes other methods have to be adopted. We would like it to be recognised more definitely that while the Standing Orders and the Constitution are there whoever says he is going to act within the Constitution and the Standing Orders should act within the strict letter of the law. We hold that the Ceann Comhairle should be governed by the Standing Orders and also by the Constitution. We do not hold that the Ceann Comhairle should act as an angel above all parties, and that he should not be a member of any political party. We believe that any Ceann Comhairle elected became a member of the House because he held certain Party views and we believe that should be recognised and that the Ceann Comhairle should not be put in the impossible position of make-belief that he has no political opinion.

He is not in that position. Nobody ever suggested that the Ceann Comhairle should be put in the position of pretending that he has had no political beliefs—no such thing. I disclaim quite freely and fully and frankly here any such idea as that I have no political opinions.

I am glad to hear that.

No such thing has ever been suggested anywhere, that a Chairman should be elected in this House, or anywhere else that I ever heard of, on the grounds that he had no political opinions.

Do you also deny political Party affiliations?

Political Party affiliations are one thing, political opinions are a different thing. The Deputy is now discussing the position of the Ceann Comhairle; this is a motion to refer certain matters to a Committee, and the Deputy is not in order in continuing on that question.

I do not want to continue. I only want to say that I think the best thing would be to have it recognised that whoever is in the Chair has political opinions and is entitled to have political opinions and to act and vote for his constituents while he is in the Chair. We believe that the proper way to deal with this matter would be to ask the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to draw up a scheme which would empower the Ceann Comhairle, or whoever might be in the Chair for the time being, to exercise his vote on all occasions in which he wished to exercise it. That would be a much better way. It would do away with the pretence that some people—I am not saying the Ceann Comhairle does it—make that the Chair has no political affiliations, that the Chair has no political views. Whoever is in the Chair came into this House because he had political ideas and affiliations, and no minority or majority should ask him to get rid of these because he happens to go into the Chair. All that should be asked of the Ceann Comhairle, or the Chairman for the time being, is that, while in the Chair, he will give fair, impartial judgments on all matters of order and procedure put up to him. The best way to get rid of all irritation would be that the Ceann Comhairle, or whoever occupies the Chair, could say to all the world: "I hold certain political views; I hold them strongly; and am prepared to vote for them; but I will give all parties fair play in matters of procedure." I believe that if that were done it would enable the Ceann Comhairle to act in a much fairer and more impartial manner.

rose.

I think Deputy Gorey should allow the President to conclude the debate.

If I might say one word. The wording of this motion is very simple. It merely says:

"That the Committee on Procedure and Privileges be instructed to draw up for the consideration of the Dáil a Standing Order or Standing Orders dealing specifically with Deputies who bring the House into contempt by disorderly conduct towards the Chair."

The matter arises because the previous Standing Orders, when they were being framed, never contemplated the class of disorder that we had here for the last week. They were meant to deal with a different class of disorder altogether— disorder in debate, disorder between one Deputy and another—quite a different matter from disorder towards the Chair. I might say that in my opinion there is even a difference between the disorder of Deputy Flinn and of Deputy Aiken.

We are not discussing either Deputy Flinn or Deputy Aiken, or their order or disorder. I think the Deputy is completely out of order in going into that.

I think it would be a good thing for the House and for Deputies themselves, and it would protect Deputies from themselves, if there was a specific order dealing with disorder to the Chair. I am not speaking at all from the point of view of personal feelings or political feeling, but I am trying to view the matter from the point of view of the procedure of the House and good feeling between all Parties in this House. I think Deputy Aiken would be the first to admit that the conduct we had here on last Thursday——

That particular conduct is not before us. It has been dealt with and is closed.

Very well, I think Deputies should welcome a new and more explicit order as a protection for themselves.

I think Deputy Gorey has provided a very good reason why this motion should not be proceeded with. After all a motion to prepare a new Standing Order, ought to be for the guidance of the House apart from particular personalities. It is quite evident that the Standing Orders Committee will have in mind one or two persons when framing this new Standing Order. Is it desirable that one will be able to open the Standing Orders and say: "This one was framed to deal with so and so" and of another "this was framed to deal with so and so"? Is that a desirable thing and is it going to lead to good feeling in this House? In my opinion no statesman would press such a motion, especially in view of the speech made by Deputy Gorey.

It is the business of the House to frame its own rules and regulations. In answer to Deputy Boland I may say I have not in mind, and never had in mind, a Standing Order to deal with this situation. I have perhaps had less to do with Standing Orders, and the drawing up of them than any member of the House. The submission for consideration of this matter to the Committee on Privileges and Procedure is the orthodox method to get a Report from the Committee drawn from all sections of the House. I would strongly advise considering the matter free from any entanglements, political or otherwise, and endeavour to get such regulation or regulations as will add to the dignity and decorum and despatch of the business of the House. These are the main considerations.

Is the President suggesting now that the Government Party—I do not suggest himself—has not a scheme in course of preparation to deal with this?

I am not alone suggesting but I am stating there is no such scheme.

Is the President not in the confidence of his Whips?

That is the matter that falls for consideration by this Committee.

I am a member of it.

Yes, and I am sure a good, capable and competent member of it. I wish other members of the Deputy's Party would approach the solution of such a problem as this with such a detached view as the Deputy. I believe if the Deputy had had an opportunity of interviewing Deputy MacEntee before he made his deplorable statement a few moments ago he would not have made it—that he would at least have read the motion before he objected to it.

I did not object to the motion.

The Deputy has experience.

I do not say the Deputy lacks experience but it is lack of attention to ordinary duty as a member of this House. Any amount of experience would never give one that attention to duty which comes only from the spirit of devotion to duty. That is what the Deputy has not developed yet. I am sure it will come from the excellent example he sees on these benches.

Is the President considering introducing the Flogging Bill here.

No, I am not considering that.