I move amendment No. 1:—
In line 31 to delete the word "occurring" and substitute the words "summoned by Proclamation to meet after the General Election ensuing."
Read in its proper place, that amendment will have the effect of providing that this measure will operate not as from the date of the next dissolution, but as from the date of the dissolution after that. The purpose of the amendment is to oblige a general election to be held before this measure shall begin to operate. I put it in that form because, in the many lectures we have got in this House as to the powers of the elected representatives under mandates which they get from time to time, it has never yet been asserted in this House—I want to know if it ever is going to be asserted—that this question of university representation was put to the electorate at any election recently held and that a definite, or even an indefinite and vague, mandate was got by any Government for the abolition of university representation. I do not want to argue the point as to the numerical strength of the representation given. I simply put the argument on this single ground—that there was a Constitution enacted here by a Constituent Assembly, that into that Constitution there was written the principle of university representation, that that constituent law was not changed by legislation in the period in which it was possible to change it by legislation and has not since been changed by referendum. Apart from these Constitutional difficulties, there is the question of right. University representation was provided for in the first Constitution. That Constitution went immediately before the people. It was accepted by them. At that time, it can be said that many points in the Constitution were questioned, but no point of objection was taken to the idea that university representation was a good thing or to the fact that it was provided for in the Constitution. Several other elections were held and at none of them was this matter made an issue. It has, more or less, been made an issue now by the introduction of this Bill. People who believe in and prate so much about democracy and, particularly, people who lean on what they call mandates should be satisfied to let this Bill run the gauntlet of a general election. If a Government places this item on its programme and it is returned, then it is entitled to go ahead with it, if it can get over the Constitutional difficulties.
At the moment, the situation is that this principle was written into the Constitution. It was not objected to or made an issue at an election. Despite all that, it is being taken out. It cannot be said that it was written in without advertence, because it had been an agitated point, a point upon which a great many people were asked to express a view in early days. The expressions of their views were entirely in favour of university representation. I have gone over these already. I want to summarise them again. The late Archbishop of Dublin, who was also Chancellor of the National University, raised the cry in the first instance. He raised it at the time that the Representation of the People Bill was before the British House of Commons. It was pointed out that representation was provided for Trinity College, Dublin. The Archbishop of Dublin summoned the people interested in the matter, and summoned everybody believed to be interested in the matter, by a letter which he wrote to the Press in the year 1917. In that letter, he gave many cogent arguments why representation should be given to the National University. He wound up his letter and his exhortation by saying that he did not want this letter to be taken as meaning other than what it stated—that he wanted university representation for a particular university and did not want, on the contrary, that the representation which Trinity College had should be taken from it. He specifically said that he did not want to deprive that venerable institution of a privilege which it had enjoyed for over 300 years. His influence and authority gave great impetus to the movement that was, all the time, growing in favour of university representation. Impelled by that letter, the Graduates' Association, then in being, called a public meeting. That meeting was attended by men of eminence in practically every walk of life. Even the list given by the newspapers of those attending showed that, so far as the professions were concerned, all the distinguished people who had come out of the old Royal University, or out of any of the constituent colleges established from time to time under other university systems, were present or represented. The present President of University College, Dublin, proposed the main resolution, which was carried unanimously. It was carried unanimously by a body which the list in the newspapers would certainly show to be a very important body. Lest it might be said that there was some sort of selfish interest involved, I must point out that the senior students then in University College, Dublin, took the matter up.
They got the acquiescence and the agreement of the students elsewhere. The Student Representative Council in the Dublin College at that date had at its head a man who is now distinguished in the administrative life of this country and previously had been very distinguished in very many ways in the national life of the country. He headed a delegation. All those agreed that such representation should be demanded, that it was a thing worth having and a thing worth agitating for. The then President of that Student Representative Council and some others delegated for the duty visited whoever were the leaders of Sinn Féin then free. Sinn Féin accepted this principle of University representation. Meantime this measure was being fought in the House of Commons and the Irish Parliamentary Party took up the matter. The Bill had gone a certain stage when, owing to their exertions, it was referred to a Speaker's Committee on which, I think, four Irish members served. The result of their endeavours was that the committee reported back in favour of the inclusion of representation for Universities on a wider scale than previously, so that in the year 1917-18 you had this combination with the Archbishop of Dublin, being also Chancellor of the University, and a distinguished figure in the national life of the country, leading the movement.