I tried to intervene in this debate at an earlier stage but was not fortunate enough to catch the Speaker's eye. Perhaps it is just as well because much that I would have liked to have said has been said with greater eloquence and greater force by other speakers, perhaps, as far as I know, by the last two, Deputy Clery and Deputy Mongan. However, there are one or two observations that I would like to make. In the course of this debate which has taken rather a wide range, there were appeals made, by more than one speaker, to an ideal that all of us, Irishmen, cherish, the hope of an ultimate unity. This was expressed in splendid language and phraseology of which I am not master. We were reminded of historical parallels. We were reminded of that great motherhood which had the power in the past as she has still the power to amalgamate foreign and heterogeneous elements into herself. That was a note that I think struck a responsive chord in the hearts of every one of us. It certainly was a note that appealed to me but I could not reconcile that with other remarks, warnings and threats, indeed with language that almost amounted to sneers and gibes at those who differed from the speakers and ventured to express opinions which they conscientiously held.
It is the first time since I have been in the Dáil that we have been recommended to speak with bated breath, with whispering humbleness, to gag ourselves. I am not going to listen to that warning because I do not believe that it represents the opinion of the Dáil. It is no good our coming here and not expressing openly what we think. I know that in an ideal State there should be no lawyers at all, but as the Free State is only approximating towards perfection—I gathered that from the criticisms of the Government—we have to have lawyers, but it seems now to be contended that lawyers should have no opinions or at least should not express them. It seems, too, to be resented that we have tried to express the views that we know are held and conscientiously held by two great professions in this country. I am not more intimately acquainted with the technicalities of these professions than any other member in this House but I do know members of the profession and I know they are as good Irishmen, I will not say as myself, but as any other Irishman here, and I know they would not speak so forcibly if they did not believe that the views which they are advancing and desire to be expressed are views that are good for the country. I did find it—and it was with some pain that I found it— hard to reconcile these professions of mutual toleration, these aspirations for mutual understanding and toleration, with the advocacy of methods which, to say the least, were intolerant. Indeed, one speaker went so far as to be frank and call them coercive and penal. That is one point I would like to bring before the House.
I think you cannot speak with two voices on this matter. There are certainly two voices speaking in many of the speeches. As regards the argument by which this Bill has been urged, I suppose it is idle at this hour to point out the usual line of argument, which runs briefly: Irish is a good thing, therefore compulsory Irish is a good thing. That argument involves a gross, flagrant and glaring fallacy; I can see no way of justifying it. It is, as I said, idle now to stress it, and it is possibly equally idle to state that we, who protest here against compulsory Irish, are not protesting, are far from protesting against the revival, preservation and encouragement of Irish by any reasonable, by every equitable means. I say it is idle to make such protestations as that now, for the Minister for Finance has discovered that we do not know what we say, or else that we do not mean what we say. He has said categorically—I think I am quoting correctly—that when it comes down to hard facts, the man who does not know Irish nearly always is out to kill it. In other words, we who have stated that we are in favour of the legitimate encouragement of Irish are either self-deceived or are deliberately deceiving the Dáil. I do not know whether the Minister was really serious when he made a statement of that sort. I do not know whether he really believes that intelligent men can so deceive themselves or that decent men can go out and so deliberately deceive others. I do not know whether or not he would be willing to subscribe to that as a general proposition. Does he believe that every person in the Dáil who does not know Irish hates it and is out to kill it? If so, I have listened to the speeches on this Bill, and one thing I noted is the number of speakers who declared themselves supporters of this Bill and, in the same breath, deplored their ignorance of Irish. There was one speaker who had a wider acquaintance with natural history than I have got who talked of bunny rabbits and tenacious molluses. He told us of his desperate attempts to learn Irish. He outdid the spider in his determination. The spider tried seven times and succeeded in the seventh. I think it was thirty times he tried. He is a strong supporter of the Bill, and he does not know Irish on his own admission. There were others who admitted the same. Are we to assume that they are out to kill Irish? Perhaps that is the meaning of this Bill, that these Deputies are out to kill Irish. Well, I am not going to be a party to that deep-laid conspiracy.
I am going to vote against the Bill and save Irish. I hope Deputy Mongan will count that to me for righteousness. I have talked of bad psychology. I do not, to be serious, admit that the Minister for Finance's psychology is much better, but I think that it is a poor Bill that hobbles along to the Report Stage on two crutches of bad logic and worse psychology.
Turning more particularly to the Bill, there are just two points I would like to stress; one I mentioned on the Second Reading. I drew attention to a point to which the Minister for Justice drew our attention, that this Bill involves an entirely new principle. His words are: "In this Bill Irish is made compulsory for persons who have received no Government money in the course of their education, and who are not asking for any Government employment or any payment out of public funds." That the Minister for Justice characterises as a new principle. To me, it appears to be evidence of a complete lack of principle. The work of these two legal institutions is to educate in law, and I, who have something to do with education, know the importance of having the cobbler stick to his last. They know something about the law, and you are turning them now on to educate in law and in Irish. The result, certainly for some time, will be that their students will know neither law nor Irish. You are not making any provision for the teaching of the new subject. The teaching of this subject, with the standard set in the Bill, will be a tedious and arduous task, and will involve very considerable cost. I think decency demands that some provision should be made for the discharge of this mere monetary liability. The promoters of the Bill, who might be excused at the initial stages for overlooking this fact, have not made any mention of that difficulty. They have not indicated their desire to come to the help of those institutions in that matter. The new principle seems to me to let anybody call the tune and the piper can pay himself. I think I am right in stating that were a similar Bill promoted in another place, it would be at least followed by a White Paper giving an estimate of the probable cost of the operation of that Bill. I think it would be well that the promoters of the Bill would reflect a little seriously on what that cost is likely to be.
I would put it really under three heads. It is going to cost them too much as regards their law school, for even now, in this amended form of the Bill, I see that students will be driven or at least encouraged, if they are going to be called to the Bar, to go across the seas. I am sorry for it. But we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there are some —possibly those who have legal aspirations more than others—who are governed by materialistic motives, and I do see them going across to be called to other Bars and perhaps, after three years, coming back here. There is nothing to prevent them being called to this Bar. I see our legal classes passing and I see a corresponding decay in the quality of the teaching, because large classes mean competition, better teaching and more efficiency. I do see a certain decay in the quality of your jurists. Your jurists have made a great name for themselves in the past in many countries across the seas as well as here. I do see that the quality of the Bar will not be what it was. It will not be recruited now in the same way. You have done much, by this Bill, to destroy the pride that barristers and solicitors have in the traditions of their profession and I do not see that you have got any corresponding advantage. But the biggest cost of all, and I am very serious in this, is the loss in confidence and in good will, the belief that we here can understand one another and not suspect one another, the belief that the one thing we all should try is to bring about a thorough-going, far-reaching, ultimate and permanent unity. I think we will all differ from one another in minor respects, but there is no reason why we should not all be joined together in certain basic principles and I think you are going a long way to delay the attainment of that ideal.
Deputy Flinn said that Irish might be one of the cements to join together all the heterogeneous elements that would compose the nation in the future. I am paraphrasing his remarks. The real cement that binds a nation together goes deeper than any externals like language, dress, physical features or matters of that sort. The real cements are mutual understanding and mutual good-will. Those are the things we should work for. Language, I will admit, might, under those conditions, contribute very materially towards that common end. But language coupled with compulsion will not be a cement; it will be an acid, not an acid to test our nationality, but an acid that will corrode the very roots on which the union of the future should grow. I am sorry. I do realise that this Bill was born of enthusiasm, that the intentions of its initiators were of the best. I think that they see eye to eye with me in more respects possibly than they realise. I am a little old, and am using the knowledge that years have given me to put these views before the House. I think the Bill is a mistake. It will have far-reaching and disrupting consequences.
