FROM THE ARCHIVES:The Free State Senate (a different animal to the current Seanad) got itself into a tizzy over a Criminal Justice Bill in 1935 which dealt with the age of consent, contraception and prostitution, matters many thought it unseemly to discuss in public. – JOE JOYCE
AT FIRST sight in the Senate yesterday it looked as if the report stage of the Criminal law Amendment Bill would pass without discussion. The Minister for Justice , in introducing the measure, said that it was unsuitable for public debate, and that all the preliminary work had been disposed of satisfactorily by the Special Committee appointed for the purpose.
Senator [Ernest] Blythe (FG) then rose to say it would be better to accept the fact that the Government had made the necessary investigations, and Senator [James] Douglas (Ind) followed his lead by maintaining that this was not a party measure, and that elaborate discussion would not be required. Senator Miss [Kathleen] Browne (Ind) interrupted with a question dealing with the age of consent.
Senator [Thomas] Farren (Lab) said that the Bill had passed through all its stages in the Dáil without amendment, and that the Senate ought to accept the Bill in the same spirit.
After it had been made law, and if it was found to be unsatisfactory, all the alterations necessary could be made then.
The House was just preparing to break up when Senator [Tom] Johnson (former Labour Party leader) introduced the first piece of excitement.
‘‘We are asked to say,’’ he said, with some indignation, ‘‘that when the Government brings forward a measure of this kind it must be passed without further examination. We are dealing here with a social evil of incalculable importance. It is our business to investigate it’’.
said he had passed a number of his years in the Victorian age, and that the greatest blot on the escutcheon of this era was its refusal to discuss such matters as these.
Every child in the country has a certain knowledge of the subject under discussion; why, then, should grown men avoid it with such eagerness?
Two protests followed this speech, one from Senator Farren, who said that no restrictions of any kind had been laid upon the Senate; and the other from Senator [Denis] Healey (Ind), who denied the children’s knowledge.
By now the Chairman had tired of the fruitless argument, and at once he said: “I shall proceed with the amendments. Will those in favour of Amendment 1 please say Tá.’’ The amendment was passed; but Senator Jameson again rose to his feet and asked if the amendment was not to be discussed.
“No,’’ said the Chairman, “the amendment has been passed already. On a point of order there may be no discussion”.
“So,’’ replied the Senator, “the age of consent is to be reduced in this instance from 16 to 15 on a point of order.”