Vol. 53 No. 3
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 3, line 5, Section 3, to delete the word "thirty-six" and substitute the word "thirty-eight".
This amendment is consequential on certain action taken by the Dáil when the Committee Stage of the Bill was under consideration. It will be remembered that the House decided that one additional member each should be given to the Counties of Limerick and Tipperary. That decision necessitated this amendment.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In pages 4 and 5, First Schedule, Part I, in the portion of the second column relating to South Dublin where it firstly occurs in the first column of the said Part I, to delete all from the words "the portion of" on page 4 to the words "starting point" on page 5 and substitute the words "so much of the townland of Ringsend as it situate in the county borough of Dublin and was not included in the former urban district of Pembroke."
There was a good deal of discussion on the matter to which this amendment relates. It refers particularly to the area of Ringsend. I proposed in the Bill, as read a First and Second Time, that Ringsend should be in South Dublin. Great pressure was exercised by the Opposition—the view was voiced particularly by Deputy Costello—that Ringsend should not be left in that area. Ringsend, as we all understand it, is not now in Dublin County. It is part of Greater Dublin, and was actually added to Dublin City by the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930. It was part of Pembroke Urban District, and it has now no connection with the administrative County of Dublin. At the moment it is in the County Dublin constituency. The line which encloses the portion of Ringsend to be added to South Dublin City constituency, as the Bill stands, is, as Deputy Costello described it, quite arbitrary. But it is a well-defined line, and the reason for adding this portion to South City is that the total population of the wards in the city south of the Liffey is 144,497. This would give an average of 20,642 per member. Rathmines and Pembroke, which form Dublin City South, or Dublin townships, as proposed in amendment No. 3, would have three for 73,367, or an average of 24,456. The portion taken off Pembroke is estimated, according to the 1926 Census, to have a population of 6,700 and, in transferring that portion, I endeavoured to adjust the population so as to keep the averages as nearly the same as possible. I recognise some merits in the case to keep Ringsend in its present location in Pembroke area and, as in neither case would the average be below 20,000 per member, it will not do any great violence to the Constitution if the averages are 20,642 and 24,456 instead of 21,599 and 22,222. This will give Dublin townships the highest average, but that is not such a grievance in the case of Dublin as it might be in the case of a more distant constituency. I think that the proposition meets the case put up by Deputy Costello.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 5, First Schedule, Part I, to delete the words "South Dublin" where they secondly occur in the first column of the said Part I and substitute the words "Dublin Townships".
Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 go together, and are consequential on the joining of the former constituencies of Dublin South-East and Dublin South-West to form Dublin South.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 5, First Schedule, Part I, in the portion of the second column relating to South Dublin where it secondly occurs in the first column of the said Part I, to delete the words and brackets "(except so much thereof as is included in the Borough Constituency of South-East Dublin) and", and substitute the words "and also so much of the land described in Part III of the First Schedule to the said Act as is contiguous to the said area and also".
This amendment is consequential on the adoption of amendment No. 2. It regulates the boundaries of the area.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 7, First Schedule, Part II, after the portion of the said Part II relating to North Mayo to insert the following:—
|
“EAST DONEGAL |
The administrative County of Donegal except the portion thereof which is comprised in the County Constituency of West Donegal. |
Four |
|
” |
With regard to this amendment and the following amendment, it will be remembered that a certain position arose in the House when it was dealing with the County of Donegal. There was practically an even division. The Ceann Comhairle, so as to leave the matter still open to discussion, gave his casting vote in a certain direction. The House having expressed the opinion that Donegal should not be undivided, it would not be in order to move the amendment moved in Committee. I have considered the question of the division of Donegal and I cannot suggest any better division than the one I suggested originally in the Bill. This amendment provides for the same division and I move accordingly.
I could not hear what the Minister was saying. He was, apparently, speaking to himself. The last words of the statement I did not hear at all. Would the Minister mind repeating what he said, so that we can hear him?
The Minister moved amendment No. 6.
The portion of his speech which I did hear was to the effect that the House decided that Donegal should not be divided. Then the Minister muttered something which I did not hear. Would the Minister mind telling the House what he said after that?
I have said all I intend to say.
The Minister said something after that which could not be heard. Did the Minister read it or did he make a statement?
I made a statement.
You did not read it?
No.
Was the statement to the effect that the House having decided that Donegal should not be divided, the Minister came to the conclusion it should be divided?
I did not say that.
Would the Minister mind saying what he did say?
If the Deputy was not listening to me that was not my fault.
I was listening.
I do not think you were.
Perhaps some other Deputy who was listening may tell us what the Minister did say. Did Deputy McMenamin hear what was said?
I understood the Minister to say that we had the status quo, and that he was bringing forward this proposal for dividing the county. Are we to take it that he is relying on a proposal to have a division of the county? On the Committee Stage the voting was equal on a proposal to divide the county. The result was that the county was left as it was. Deputy Dillon and myself, on that occasion, reviewed the situation and gave very good reasons why the county should not be divided. My first objection to this proposal arises from my natural antipathy to any form, taste or smell of partition. There is no county in the Free State or in Ireland that has been so much tortured by partition as Donegal. My principal objection to this proposal is that nothing stinks in the nostrils of my people so much as any mention of partition of any kind. Whatever the country is suffering generally as a result of partition Donegal in particular is suffering very much.
Perhaps the Deputy would allow me to make the matter clear? There was a proposal on the Committee Stage that a paragraph of the First Schedule be deleted in order to make way for an amendment which proposed that Donegal be left as one county constituency. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle voted for the deletion of the words in order that that amendment might be moved, stating that the House would have a further opportunity of deciding on the matter. The amendment was put that the county be left as one constituency. That amendment was defeated on an open vote, and no similar amendment can now be moved. The House is now getting a further opportunity of considering the division into East and West Donegal.
That is what I understood myself. That is the status quo. We are in the same position now as we were.
Except that the committee decided that Donegal is not to stand as a one-county constituency.
Is it wrong to propose it?
The Minister has now proposed that the original division of east and west be reinserted in the Bill. That is the matter before the House.
Is Deputy McMenamin not entitled to argue against the division of the County Donegal into two constituencies?
There would not be much purpose in arguing, since it would not be in order to put in any amendment to leave Donegal as one constituency.
But is not the Deputy entitled to protest against any division?
The Chair has not ruled the Deputy out of order, but has simply endeavoured to clarify the position.
May we take it that what happened was that the Committee was asked to decide upon the division of the County Donegal into two constituencies and that it divided equally on that point. Then, when the question of the single constituency was put, the Committee rejected it? That, I take it, is why this particular proposal has now been brought in. The only explanation the Minister has given as to why that is being done is that he sees no better division.
That is a question of merit which does not interest the Chair.
I am very glad that it does not.
The first question, I take it, that was put to the House that night was that "the words proposed to be deleted stand." On that there was no decision. I would like to know if I am correct in that? There was a decision on that?
There was. By the casting vote of the Chair the paragraph was deleted to clear the ground for the amendment, the Chair stating that he was voting for it so that the House would have a further opportunity of considering the matter. The paragraph having been deleted, however, the amendment to leave Donegal a one-county constituency was defeated. Donegal was left, therefore, in the air. The proposal now is to restore that paragraph to the Schedule.
Am I correct in speaking?
The Deputy has not been ruled out of order. It is not wise to ask for the indulgence of the Chair in advance.
I just want to review what I stated on the last occasion when, on behalf of my constituents, I registered a protest against the division of the county. I might be disposed to support this in my own self-interest, but it is not in my own self-interest that I am here but in the interests of my constituents. I am in entire agreement with my constituents in their hostility to the partition of my county in any shape or form. With regard to the proposed division itself, as I pointed out on the last occasion, it is proposed to divide what is known as the Gaeltacht area: to put a minor portion of that area into an area that is pronouncedly different from it. No two areas could differ so much as the two areas involved in the County Donegal. A small portion of the Gaeltacht area will be taken now and put into an area that has no cultural associations whatever with it. In other words, a small area of the Gaeltacht is being taken away and put into North-East Donegal. It is being put into an area which is commonly known to us, and I suppose to many others here, as a planted area. I think that is a correct description of it. That small area is being taken and thrown in there. The result will be that no Deputy in that area will have any particular interest in it. He will feel that he will not have any substantial mass of public opinion behind him to agitate for any reform that he wants for this minor portion of the Gaeltacht. It was said on the last occasion by Deputy Brady that the question of convenience made this a practical proposal, and he gave that as a reason why it should be adopted. I had spoken before Deputy Brady. Had I spoken after him I would have put a question to him. He said that he lived in the south end of the county and that it was very difficult to get to the north. I would like to put him this question. If a person had two appointments, one at Moville, in the north of the county, and the other at Gortahork, a northwest point in the new divided constituency, which would be the easier to get to? Surely it would be much easier to get to Moville from Killybegs than it would be to Gortahork. Important issues, both cultural and economic, arise in the County Donegal, and this proposal cuts right across them. This proposal will cut off one section of Donegal entirely and completely from the other. It will give us a planted county and a non-planted county. It will give us a planted area which, in the main, has no affinity at all with the other part of the county. For that reason, in addition to the strong objection I have to any form of partition, I oppose the amendment.
I do not think that the word "partition" is properly applied in this case, or would be properly applied in the case of a parliamentary division in any other county of the Saorstát area.
Not so much as it would be in Donegal.
Why in Donegal more than any other county? I do not know the County Donegal as well as the Deputy, but I have been there often enough——
Has the Minister got the map before him? Let him look at East Donegal and let him draw a line from the Tyrone corner to Barnesmore Gap right along the mountain road into Dunfanaghy. He will see that it cuts off the Gaeltacht areas of the north and north-east—the entire planted area. You have there the old landmarks of the planted and non-planted county. You have the county of the Gael and the county of the non-Gael, if I might put it that way. I do not mean to be offensive in saying that. I merely wish to draw a distinction.
I do not believe the Deputy intends to be offensive to anybody, but I do not think he can say that East Donegal is an entirely planted area. There are a great many good Gaels in that area whom I know, and in West Donegal there are people many of whom would not be described as Gaels.
There are not many of them.
I think there are. As I say, I do not know the county as well as the Deputy, but from my knowledge of it I do know that there is a good sprinkling of Gaels—people who are known as Gaelic people—in all parts of the county. In one end of it, the east, what the Deputy describes as the planted area, it is stronger than in the west, but taking the county as a whole, I think the population is fairly well mixed. In the west it is more Gaelic. Certainly, whatever Gaeltacht there is, and there is a considerable area in County Donegal, it is in the western area, but that does not say that the population is not fairly well mixed all over the county, in the west as well as in the east. For parliamentary purposes, I cannot see where, with any propriety, the word "partition" can be used, or where one can stress the mere separation or division of counties. There is a division for parliamentary purposes, but that does not make it any more difficult for a person to go from Barnesmore Gap to Moville or to Gortahork, as the Deputy said. The mere fact that there is a parliamentary division will not make transport from one end to another any more difficult. I proposed this amendment in accordance with the general principle of the smaller constituencies rather than the larger, and I believe it will also be for the greater convenience of the people in Donegal as a whole. I believe it will have better results from the parliamentary point of view, and better results from the point of view of local convenience.
The point that is rather puzzling in connection with this is that when the House voted equally on the Minister's proposal, it was fairly obvious that a stronger case should be made for the Minister's proposal than was then before the House. Such matters as constituency arrangements ought not to be the subject of political weight in this House. If it be desired to have them, future parliaments can take note of that and can alter these arrangements and so on. The only suggestion the Minister has to make in support of this proposal is the smaller constituency. Seven is too large. That is a very poor argument. It is not much of a compliment to the House which voted in equal numbers on this particular proposal. It is almost the invariable rule, if one wishes to interpret the feelings of the House and to get the support of the House for a measure of this kind, which should be decided on grounds other than Party grounds, that due consideration be given to the expression of the view of the House. That was not possible when the Ministerial weight is thrown in against the single constituency as happened in this particular case. This is a large county at present and it has been so far 12 years and people are accustomed to the fact that it has been so. It is broken up now and is, and must be, an inconvenience except in the case of a highly regimented Party or Parties, as the case may be. If the case is as presented by Deputy McMenamin, and he ought to know the district better than the Minister, there is every reason in the world why it should remain a seven-member constituency. The Minister says he has been there, but does not know as much about it as Deputy McMenamin. If he does not take the Deputy's presentation of the case, then it is a matter that ought to be considered, but the Deputy who speaks on behalf of Donegal and who, I presume, opposed this particular allocation of seats—four for East Donegal and three for West Donegal— must, I feel sure, be in possession of more expert information about it than is likely to be in the Local Government Department.
Not necessarily.
I should like to know how often the Department send up an inspector to find out what particular divisions there are in the county? It is not their business and if they are doing it, they are neglecting something else. The political divisions in any county are no affairs of theirs. What they have to do is to administer them and to see that the laws are carried out. If we are standing for the principle of proportional representation, as it is understood, in the large constituency there is an opportunity for free expression of opinion in that connection. If what Deputy McMenamin says is correct, there may possibly be 4,000 or more of the people in whom he is interested in one constituency who will not be able to pull their weight and almost an equal number in the other. Normally, they would be able to get a seat, but, with this division, they would probably be disfranchised.
I see that the difficulty about this position at the moment is the contradictory vote which was previously given by the House. It voted against the proposed division of Donegal and subsequently voted against Donegal remaining a single constituency. Now, the position is that there is only one proposal before the House, that one being the proposal advanced by the Minister and the House finds itself in the position of being between the devil and the deep. The only spokesman for Donegal, and the only spokesman who gives every indication of a thoroughly intimate knowledge of Donegal politically, economically and geographically, has clearly expressed his opposition, or, rather, the opposition of the people he represents, to the present proposed subdivision, not only on those grounds but on historical grounds and supported by arguments of dissimilarity of tradition, religion, outlook, and sentiment of the people. The Minister's case against Deputy McMenamin is the principle that he is opposed to the large constituency and that that principle weds him for all time and in all places to the smaller constituency. I might remind the Minister that, during the Committee Stage of this Bill, when that particular principle of small constituencies as opposed to large constituencies was submitted to a free vote of this House, in the case of Limerick and in the case of Tipperary, on both occasions, the free vote of the House was for the larger constituency. That point was conceded, I may say, in a broad-minded spirit to a non-Party vote. It was conceded in the case of Limerick; it was conceded in the case of Tipperary. There was a mix-up in the case of Donegal; there was a contradictory vote. Now the people of Donegal are presented with a pig in a poke, an accomplished fact; it is that or nothing. If this particular proposal is out-voted here to-day, I suppose Donegal will be back as it was—non-existent. That is not a fair position to put the House in. The circumstances are exceptional. The particular events that happened on the Committee Stage were contradictory. In the two votes that were taken with regard to Donegal all the people voting did not, perhaps, quite understand. However, it is not fair, in face of the votes previously taken regarding Donegal, and in view of the verdict in connection with Limerick and Tipperary, to face the House with what amounts to an accomplished fact, and say it is that or nothing. I think some further consideration should be given to the arguments advanced by Deputy McMenamin, and that some appreciation should be expressed for his thorough understanding of the Donegal position and of the Donegal people. I would particularly urge on the Minister, in view of the absence of any opposite opinion expressed by any representative of Donegal, that further consideration — sympathetic and generous consideration—should be given to the case advanced by Deputy McMenamin.
Mr. McMenamin rose.
Deputy McMenamin has been allowed to intervene twice though the House is not in Committee.
I should just like to say a word or two in connection with this matter. I was absent on the occasion on which the vote for my own constituency was taken, but it strikes me that the fact pointed out by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins—that in the case of two similar constituencies, Tipperary and Limerick, the House by a free vote left them as they were—is the strongest argument that could be made by anybody in this House for leaving Donegal remain as it is. We ought to be consistent in something. I cannot see any logic or sense in pressing the case of Donegal to a division when two smaller constituencies were left as they were. I, in common with some of the other Deputies, would urge the Minister that this, a similar constituency, should also be left as it is. I think it is only reasonable to expect that, in view of what has happened.
Would you permit me to make three other points?
Very well, although it is setting a bad precedent.
The first is in connection with the anomalies that arise. Let me put this before the Minister. I was born in a townland that is Gaelic. The entire townland is Gaelic. The next townland is non-Gaelic. If this division is carried I can snap my fingers at the Gaeltacht in Donegal. I am out. I may as well sit for Belfast as far as that is concerned. Take the other case. Take the problems that arise there. A few days ago I got a letter from The Rosses asking me to see Deputy O'Doherty and work in conjunction with him to get something done from the Department. If this division is carried, what will I do with it?
Why?
Take another problem which arises. There are 4,000 or 5,000 of Deputy Myles' constituents, Protestants of South Donegal, going to be disfranchised. Is that right? Are they not citizens? Are they not taxpayers? Are they not entitled to representation in this House? That is another of the special problems which arise. You have those 4,000 or 5,000 electors—making perhaps somewhere about 8,000 or 9,000 people altogether—disfranchised if this division is not carried. That is not fair to those people. There you have myself de-Gaelicised if you like. You have 4,000 or 5,000 electors in South Donegal without any representation. Then you must remember the united effort we had here, all Deputies in Donegal, irrespective of what Party they belong to, acting together on behalf of Donegal, owing to the special problems that arise there. If I were working for selfish ends I would vote for that division.
The Minister to conclude, if he desires to reply to new questions raised.
I hope the Deputy did not mean to suggest that if there is a parliamentary division the Deputies in the two divisions will never again co-operate for the benefit of Donegal. I hope that if Deputy McMenamin, representing the western side of Donegal, gets a letter from some person in the eastern side, he does not mean to suggest that he will tear that letter up because there will be no electoral advantage to him.
I would be intruding on another man's job. It would be an impertinence.
When you are asked to co-operate?
If I am asked to co-operate it is a different thing.
You cannot be intruding where you are asked to co-operate.
No.
Have some sense.
Much has been said with regard to the expert knowledge of Deputy McMenamin. I do not doubt that he has that expert knowledge, but we had three Deputies on the other side here on the last day speaking in the opposite direction.
Two.
Two; Deputy Brady and Deputy O'Doherty. Since this discussion took place, and the division took place on the last occasion, I have discussed the matter with three of them and asked their opinions. They were strong in their opinion that the suggestion originally in the Bill, which was not put before them before the Bill was brought into the House here, was the best suggestion.
Should they not give that opinion to the House?
Two of them did. Deputy Brady and Deputy O'Doherty did give that opinion to the House when they were asked by Deputy Dillon here on the last day. Deputy Dillon unquestionably did oppose the division, as Deputy McMenamin did on the last occasion, but the other two took the other side equally strongly. The House gave an indeterminate decision on the small constituencies, and, therefore, the House, having left it indeterminate, I think I am entitled to stick to my views on the matter. There is another point which I might make. On the last day, at the end of the Committee Stage, I was asked to give an extended time for consideration of further amendments to be put in on the Report Stage. This was a matter that had raised considerable interest, not alone on the part of the members representing County Donegal, but on the part of other members as well. Despite the fact that Deputy McMenamin is so interested—as I am sure he is, for very good and proper reasons— he put in no amendment on the Report Stage.
I consulted about a dozen people as to the position in Donegal. One half of them said, "It is as it was," and the other said, "It is divided." I did not really know what the position was until the Ceann Comhairle gave his ruling to-day.
The Deputy did not consult the Ceann Comhairle.
I gave not only a fortnight but a month for reconsideration. Several times I was asked to bring forward the Bill for the Report Stage, but I said that there was no great urgency about the measure; that there were a lot of interests to be consulted by people who were taking an interest in the matter and that other amendments might come in. No amendment, however, came from Donegal.
The Minister gave an undertaking to leave it to a free vote of the House on the last occasion. and why was it not done?
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 7, First Schedule, Part II, after the portion of the said Part II relating to North Mayo to insert the following:—
|
“ |
||
|
WEST DONEGAL. |
The District Electoral Divisions of: Annagary, Aran, Ardara, Ballintra (Ballyshannon), Ballintra (Donegal), Ballyshannon Rural, Ballyshannon Urban, Binbane, Bonnyglen, Bundoran Rural, Carrickboy, Cavangarden, Cliff, Clogher, Corkermore, Cross Roads, Crovehy, Crowkeeragh, Crowarad, Dawros, Donegal, Doocharry, Dunfanaghy, Dunglow, Dunkineely, Dunlewy, Eanymore, Fintown, Glencolumbkille, Glengesh, Glenleheen, Glenties, Gortahork, Graffy, Grousehall, Haugh, Inishkeel, Inver, Kilcar, Kilgoly, Killybegs, Laghy, Largymore, Lettermacward, Lough Eask, Maas, Magheraclogher, Maghery, Malinbeg, Meenaclady, Mountcharles, Mulmosog, Pettigoe, Rutland, Tawnawully, Templecarn, Tieveskeelta, and Tullynaught, and the Urban District of Bundoran in the administrative County of Donegal. |
Three. |
|
” |
I beg to move amendment No. 8:—
In page 8, First Schedule, Part II, in the portion of the second column relating to Tipperary, after the word "Tipperary" to add the words and brackets "(North Riding) and the Administrative County of Tipperary (South Riding)."
This is a drafting amendment, necessary as a result of the decision on the Committee Stage. It is necessary to have an accurate description of the administrative area.
As regards amendments Nos. 9 and 10, amendment No. 10 deals with a specific point, that is, that Youghal area be retained in South East Cork. Amendment No. 10 embodies three points, Youghal area, the number of Deputies for the constituency of South-East Cork, and the transfer of certain electoral divisions from West to South-East Cork. Amendment No. 10 will be taken first. The decision on that will govern part one of amendment No. 9; part two of amendment No. 9 is out of order as it advocates a principle which was not adumbrated in any way on Committee, to wit—the transference of certain electoral divisions from West to South-East Cork— and the third portion does not arise.
Amendment No. 10:—
In page 8, First Schedule, Part II, in the references to the constituency of Waterford to delete in the second column all words after the word "Waterford" where it secondly occurs; and in page 9, First Schedule, Part II, in the reference to the South-East Constituency to insert in the second column the District Electoral Divisions of "Ardagh, Clonpriest, Kilcronat, Killeagh (Youghal), Kilmacdonagh, Youghal Rural and the Urban District of Youghal."—(Deputy Broderick).
Before I move this amendment I would like to explain that I submitted earlier another amendment which had for its object the making of East-Cork a four-member constituency. In doing so it was necessary to take a portion from North Cork. I realise now that that would be completely out of order. Lest it may be taken that that amendment meant in any way to deprive Waterford of its four members, I would like to give this explanation, because I believe Waterford is entitled to be a four-member constituency and I am going to make no attempt to lessen its representation. I move the amendment in my name to exclude Youghal Urban and Rural from the Waterford constituency. In doing so I have in mind the principles laid down by the Minister, on the introduction of the Bill, for his guidance as to the future. He said that, as far as he could, he would retain county boundaries, historical associations and unified national and administrative activities. I submit, in the case of Youghal, it completely conflicts with all the principles laid down by the Minister.
Before taking up the argument in favour of the amendment, I wish to deny some of the statements made here, first, that there was any attempt by the people of County Waterford, no matter whom they represent, to grab a portion of a Cork constituency, or that there was any traditional hostility between the people of Cork and the people of Waterford. Many of our public men in Youghal, some of our most appreciated and respected citizens, themselves or their immediate parents, originated in that county. The best possible relations exist, as they should always exist, between the peoples of those neighbouring counties. You have had submitted to you resolutions from the Youghal Urban Council and the Cork County Council in opposition to the Minister's proposal in this Bill. Both these bodies are opposed to it. Particularly let me mention that the man who presided on the night the Youghal resolution was passed is a supporter of the Minister, and no man could speak more strongly against the Minister's proposal. The Cork County Council, likewise, took up the same attitude. They, too, want continued the associations that always existed between Youghal and the people of the neighbouring counties.
We are not opposed to going into Waterford through any feeling of hostility. Waterford is a county that has great national traditions. It is the home of many of our country's most distinguished men. We, as fellow Irishmen, feel proud of that. We readily grant them all they claim for their county, national and unified control: we enthusiastically support them there. But surely this House will find no fault with us if we say that what we readily grant and are prepared to support for Waterford, we demand for ourselves? The Minister says that in East Cork and County Waterford they have not sufficient electors to entitle both to four-member constituencies. East Cork has 79,000 electors and Waterford has something over 78,000. The Minister's plan is to take Youghal and its immediate neighbourhood and transfer them to the County Waterford, thus providing a sufficient electorate to entitle Waterford to a four-member constituency. In doing so he cuts across every principle laid down for his own guidance. He claims that he is dominated by the Constitution. The Constitution lays down a minimum of 20,000 and a maximum of 30,000. Waterford falls short by a few hundred votes of the required number that would entitle it to a four-member constituency. I am not going to put up the argument that East Cork has a bigger right than Waterford and would be more entitled to a four-member constituency.
In Cork we have 18 members, and it has been frequently demonstrated in this House that that number can always be relied upon to advance or protect the county's interests. I am not going to be selfish enough to try to lessen Waterford's representation to the advantage of Cork. The case for the amendment is to leave Youghal in East Cork and East Cork a three-member constituency. We will have 26,000 electors to each representative, a figure which complies with the Constitution. Waterford will have 19,800 and it is clearly a matter of choice whether the Minister is to be governed by the principles he laid down for his own guidance on the introduction of this Bill—the retention of county boundaries, the holding together of administrative and national interests as a unit and the preservation of historical associations and background —or whether he is so slightly to infringe the Constitution that it is hardly noticeable. We have 19,800 voters as against 20,000 and it is a figure which, in all probability, is at the moment rectified, because the Minister must bear in mind that the additions this year to the franchise in the Saorstát number at least 50,000, and Waterford will have its share of those. Probably it has now, on this franchise, reached more than the minimum that entitles it to a four-member constituency, without the inclusion of Youghal.
I do not know what the Minister's choice may be, but I am satisfied that the unfettered opinion of everyone in this House will support my contention. I am equally satisfied that all independent opinion outside this House that has considered this question and that clearly understands and appreciates the motives of this amendment, will be prepared to support it. I will ask the Minister earnestly to consider it. If the Minister still maintains that, according to the Constitution, that cannot be done, one would be almost tempted to ask the Minister when he developed this oriental submission to and reverence for the Constitution, particularly as the very words in the Act are "as near as possible." I suggest that by accepting my amendment your primary object, the reduction of a member, would be maintained.
In order to concentrate the mind of the House on what has been done in our case, I would like to draw a comparison between Limerick City and ourselves. Limerick City is much closer to Clare than we are in the case of Waterford and East Cork. It is bound up with Clare by half a dozen bridges. Many of its suburbs are in the County of Clare. I wonder what would be the feeling of indignation of the people of Limerick if the Minister were to do there what he is doing with us, if he were to transfer Limerick City, Sarsfield's City, and make it portion of a Clare constituency? I venture to say that even the supporters of the Minister, if they were to support an action of that kind, would not long represent an outraged and indignant people. I sincerely hope that this House will not consider that we feel too intensely about this matter, or that we have too great a regard for our historical past; yet I will submit that you can hardly realise the affection we have for our town and all that concerns it.
A few evenings back I was walking beneath the old town walls that towered over my head, their massive structure defying time, the old cannons still in place, eloquent monuments to the determination of former generations of our townsmen in the struggle to retain their individuality. Look where you will there, you will see the ruins of abbeys, friaries, the remains of monasteries; you will see our college, the first in later times that was established in this State and that is still in being—all silent witnesses, if you like, of our spiritual and intellectual past. In all ages the people of that town have taken part, and a prominent part, in the struggle for national and religious liberty. Each hallowed spot there has its own history of sacrifice on the altar of both. I would despise myself if any word or act of mine tended in the smallest degree to revive any bitter memories. I have nothing but contempt for the mind that wallows in traditions of hatred and creeds of revenge in the broader atmosphere of to-day, of better understanding, mutual appreciation and respect.
For over 700 years we have been a corporate town, always having our own representatives. Isaac Butt, one of its members, framed the first Home Rule Bill. Many of its townspeople were leaders in the '67 movement. It was the centre of the land agitation. I remember, as a child, seeing its revered pastor, the late Monsignor, then Father Keller, led out a prisoner to be lodged in Kilmainham. Visualising all this, no wonder we feel deeply that we who survived the occupation and domination of Cromwell should in this, our own day, by the act of a Minister of a National Government created by our own people, be torn ruthlessly from all our historical past, as little considered as if we were merely an addition to a labourer's half-acre, and thrown to a neighbouring county across the Black-water at its widest portion, where it is a mile wide, taking with us one of the neighbouring villages, Ballymacoda, the birthplace, cradle and burial place of Peter O'Neill Crowley and many of the young men who gave their lives in the late movement.
I view this Act, and many other measures, as expediency measures, having no element of permanency in them. I regard the welter of brutal passion, which nowadays masquerades as patriotic or national activities, as a transitory phase. Reason will yet reassert itself and the real characteristics of our people will declare themselves and, as becomes a Christian nation, we will concentrate our energies on the only victories which will leave no regret—victories over vices, ignorance and inhuman conditions of life. When that time comes, we desire to take our place in the midst of our old associations, which will be to us an inspiration and guide. (Interruption). I would like to say that the person who is entirely dissociated from this country, the person whose appearance is so very objectionable, ought, at least, to pay me the honour of listening to me in silence. I have listened in silence and contempt to him.
Let Deputy Flinn come into the House if he is going to speak, or go back to Liverpool.
Can there be a more contemptible creature than one who is so entirely dissociated from our national life, one who can know nothing of our hopes and ambitions, one whose future is securely invested in another country, one who lives here in security, bringing misery upon this unfortunate country and playing the part of agent provocateur between ourselves and the people on the other side? You are outside the House now, Deputy. I can give you nothing but the contempt a creature like you deserves. I have to apologise to the House and to the Minister, but I am sure you will all agree it was not my fault. In view of all these considerations to which I have referred, I would appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment, particularly as it is practically certain that the numbers that we are short are made up on the present additions to the franchise of 50,000 new voters. If the Minister feels that he cannot accept responsibility, let him leave the question to a free vote of the House. The reason why I ask this is two-fold. Firstly, if the Minister carries it through with a mechanical majority, many of that majority having already declared against it, we will always resent his action as an unnecessary and tyrannical abuse of power. Secondly, if he leaves it to a free vote of the House, and even if the decision is against us, much as we regret it, and we will regret it intensely, we will respect the decision of our National Parliament.
I listened very attentively to the eloquent plea of the Deputy who has just spoken. All the arguments he put forward and all the magnificent things he said may be quite correct. Youghal, no doubt, is a very old and very historic town and, no doubt, we in the County Waterford should be all the more anxious to have it associated with us in our national affairs. There are other reasons, also, and in my own case there are personal reasons. From one of the monuments in Youghal my great-grandfather was hanged in 1798. Many years ago Raleigh, from his headquarters in Youghal, ravaged County Waterford. He came up to my native town, Lismore, ravaged it and drove the people out and took possession of their land.
Is this in revenge for all that?
I am answering the eloquent plea made by Deputy Broderick. When historical references are made by Deputies on the other side of the House, I am entitled to introduce such references into my speech if I wish to do so. Youghal was also the seat of Edmund Spenser, and, when we Irish people hear historical references made to Raleigh and to Spenser we should bear in mind that they and their followers ravaged many towns in the South from their seats in Youghal. In Youghal, to-day, I regret to say there are many people of the way of thinking of Raleigh and of Spenser. In taking over Youghal we, in Waterford, will be taking over many people who, if they had their way, would restore the Ireland of Raleigh and of Spenser——
I do not believe that that is at all correct. I do not know anyone in Youghal—and I am in more intimate association with the people of Youghal than Deputy Goulding—who does not accept wholeheartedly the rule of this National Parliament.
That does not get away from the fact that there are many people in Youghal who are not likely to be of our way of thinking.
The only thing we can gather from Deputy Goulding's speech is that the Waterford people having a grievance against the Raleighs and the Spensers in the past, according to the Fianna Fáil policy now, have to wipe their feet on the citizens of portion of this State to-day. The mere Youghal people are to be trampled under the feet of Fianna Fáil, because they would not come to the aid of their supporters in Waterford. If you cannot hit Raleigh and Queen Elizabeth and Queen Anne, you can surely have a belt at someone else, and so, far the present, they are having a belt at the Youghal people.
I do not think I could add anything to the appeal made by Deputy Broderick in this matter. I regret butting into this discussion. I regret the attempt made to tinge with any political significance what has been done. But as a representative of the constituency I have during my period of public life, and before it, made many friends in Youghal. Some of these friends, comrades of mine, were butchered in Waterford in 1922.
Which has nothing to do with this Vote.
Since we have been talking about historical persons, surely occurrences which took place in 1922 are a lot nearer to 1934 than the period of Sir Walter Raleigh and Spenser.
The Deputy's reference is not in order.
I bow to your ruling. The matter I referred to was drawn out of me by the intervention of Deputy Mulcahy. There was one thing disclosed in the statement of my colleague, Deputy Broderick, with which I cannot agree, and that is his generosity. It is a great feature always of Deputy Broderick to give something away. I cannot agree for one moment with the idea that 26,000 East Cork people are to be only equal to 19,000 people in County Waterford. That is an admission of inferiority with which I cannot at all agree. It is the second time that Deputy Broderick has committed himself in this matter. He committed himself before in the Cork County Council to handing over part of the representation of West Cork.
Leave West Cork alone.
I will deal with West Cork when the Deputy comes along. I am anxious and more than anxious that the town of Youghal, and the districts surrounding Youghal should be left as they always were, portion of Cork County, and I cannot for the life of me see any reason for taking them away from it. I certainly would insist that the people of West Cork are just as much entitled to one representative for every 20,000 people as Cork City or Waterford City, or any city or county in the Free State. I spoke at length on this matter when it came up here before, but I feel keenly and very keenly upon it. As I say, I have been associated with that area both during the Black and Tan period and from that on. These people have been dear to me and I feel bound up with them. I would feel very keenly the idea of handing over any portion of Cork County to Waterford or any other county. There is a case to be made. We made it fully before, but if there is to be a change in the constitutional representation here the change should be by portion of County Waterford being transferred to County Cork. Youghal No. 2 Rural District embraced the town of Youghal, portion of the district surrounding it, and portion of County Waterford, and that portion had its headquarters and centre in the town of Youghal. It is a great deal more fitting that a bunch of County Waterford men should be ruled by County Cork men out of County Cork than seeing any portion of County Cork going there and being ruled by Waterford men. I regret keenly the decision of the Minister in the matter, and I hope he will see his way to change it.
Do I understand from the Minister that amendments Nos. 9 and 12 are to be taken together?
I understand the Ceann Comhairle said that No. 9 could not be moved.
I understood that part of it could be met, contingent on the result of Deputy Broderick's amendment.
I understood that the Ceann Comhairle communicated with the Deputy by letter.
As a matter of fact that letter was not in accordance with the verbal agreement. I was rather surprised to get the letter. I suppose the amendment cannot be discussed now. It is difficult to frame amendments.
I understood the Ceann Comhairle to say that the first portion of amendment No. 9 would be governed by the result of the decision on amendment No. 10. My understanding was that the first portion of amendment No. 9 could be discussed now, but that the second portion was out of order. I did not catch what the Ceann Comhairle said them.
That is so.
What is the objection?
I believe the basic objection is that it raises a new matter, which was not considered on the Committee Stage. I do not think that is quite correct, because the matters I tried to embody in the amendment were discussed, if not actually put down in the form of an amendment.
The decision on this will not alter the ruling as to No. 9 afterwards. Amendment No. 10.
We are not considering simply and solely Deputy Broderick's amendment.
We are considering the question of Youghal.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the eloquent speech of Deputy Broderick. I have certainly great sympathy with him. I know he feels what he says, and that it is a kind of wrench to him to see any portion of the area with which he is so familiar and with which he has been associated so long in public life, associated with another area, even though that area is just across the water, whatever the distance in space may be. But I am ruled by the necessities of the case, and I am sorry I cannot give way to the Deputy's suggestion or accept his amendment. I realise that it was not in any spirit of hostility to County Waterford he spoke. As a matter of fact, if he had his way, he would be more generous to County Waterford at the expense of his own constituency.
It is so important that everyone wants it retained, on the grounds the Minister laid down for his own guidance, historic associations and unified control. We are prepared to make any sacrifice so long as we are left as we are.
I am afraid I cannot go that way. I could not make any sacrifice, and I do not feel that the necessities of the case are such that what I regard as a sacrifice is necessary. I do not see that there is any very great sacrifice, with all respect to Deputy Broderick and his deep feeling in the matter. I cannot feel it, perhaps because I am a Dublin man and not a Cork man nor a Youghal man. I cannot see any sacrifice by the people of Youghal being associated with very close neighbours, with whom they have very intimate contact in business of all kinds daily. I spent a couple of summers in Youghal on holidays. That is about all the intimate knowledge I have of Youghal and the surrounding country. I spent some happy days there and travelled around the neighbourhood. I met County Waterford people who came in, and I am glad to say I made some use of the acquaintances I made by learning some of the Ring Irish, and learning some more in the town of Youghal from some old and distinguished citizens there. They were not the type described by Deputy Goulding, but were of the old Gaelic stock, and retained their Gaelic tongue. I know the neighbourhood and I know that there is close and intimate contact with that part of Waterford close to Youghal. Even the fishermen there cross the water and come in almost daily. I crossed in a fisherman's boat from Ring to Youghal and went back the other way frequently. I profited also by learning a little Gaelic as well as other things from them. I know that there is close association, and for these reasons I cannot see—if the Deputy will pardon me saying so—that there is the sacrifice entailed that he would have us believe exists. Therefore necessity compels us to keep Waterford with this membership until the next census. I believe it will be only until the next census figures are taken, when we will have to bring in another Bill.
It is my belief that in many of the constituencies, which according to the 1926 Census lose a member, the increase of population will probably be such that the members who are now lost will have to be restored. That I believe to be a fact. In all probability the period will not be long when a constituency, such as County Waterford, which is losing a member, will have that member restored if present economic conditions continue. I have not that deep reverence for the Constitution as Deputy Broderick suggested that some people have. I do not know that it is very deep in any Party. The other Government tore the Constitution to ribbons. We have done a fair share of it, I know. This present Government has amended the Constitution in many ways, but I think that we have not yet brought in as many amendments to the Constitution as were brought in and passed by the last Government. I am speaking now personally when I say that I have not that deep reverence for it. I do not want to enter on a discussion of constitutional matters, but it is not by reason of the very deep reverence that a Minister would be supposed to have for the Constitution that I am sticking to this Bill and this part of it relating to Cork and Waterford. It is because of the necessities of the present situation.
There were one or two remarks made by Deputy Mulcahy to which I would prefer to reply when he is present. I did not like his remark about the Fianna Fáil Party wiping its feet in the mere Irish. If there is anybody who did more than wipe his feet in the mere Irish it is Deputy Mulcahy, and if he were present I would remind him of the wiping he did. As he is not present another opportunity will arise.
And in that very town of Youghal too. He took them to Waterford and butchered them.
In any case it is unnecessary as the people have given him their answer on more than one occasion. I do not like tearing a part of any county from its proper situation even for parliamentary purposes. In the Deputy's eloquent address I was figured as a kind of Atlas, not exactly throwing the world around, but throwing counties around.
Portions of it.
Portions of counties and tearing them asunder. I do not picture myself in that role. There is very little of the Atlas about my physique.
Hercules!
Hercules or Samson would not be in it with me, listening to the Deputy's eloquent words. It was not for any purpose of that kind, but merely for the purpose of trying to get an even distribution of members, that this was decided upon. It was decided upon in the interests of County Waterford and these same interests at some future date, when the population grows as it is growing rapidly will ensure that the tearing away of that part of County Cork which is now to be associated for Parliamentary purposes with County Waterford cannot last very long.
There is one question which I should like the Minister to answer. At the present time the increase in the franchise lists in County Waterford shows that the population complies with the constitutional requirements as regards membership. The Minister does not consider that adequate?
We do not consider anything except the last census figures. The only figures we can consider are those of the Census for 1926.
You cannot take into account any other figures?
No.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 10, Second Schedule, Part I, in the first column, to delete the words "South-East Dublin" and substitute the words "South Dublin."
This is a consequential amendment.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 10, Second Schedule, Part I, to delete in the first column the words "South-West Dublin" and to delete the portion of the second column relating to South-West Dublin.
This is also consequential.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 10, Second Schedule, Part I, to delete in the first column the words "South Dublin" and substitute the words "Dublin Townships."
This amendment is consequential.
I move amendment No. 14 standing in my name:—
In page 12, Second Schedule, Part II, in the portion of the second column relating to "South Kerry" to delete the words "The County Registrar of South Kerry" and substitute the words "The Under-Sheriff of the County of Kerry or, on that office ceasing to exist, the County Registrar of the County of Kerry."
I cannot see the point in the Minister's provision in the Bill for transferring the constituency of South Kerry to the County Registrar as Returning Officer. It has not been done in other constituencies.
It has been done.
Well, for instance, in the County Borough of Dublin the existing Under-Sheriff is to be Returning Officer for the constituencies in both North and South City. I do not see the point in not retaining the Under-Sheriff for the two constituencies created in Kerry. After all, the arrangement for Kerry now is merely a division of the constituency into North and South, while retaining the same number of Deputies as formerly represented it when it was one constituency, namely, seven Deputies. For a number of years the Under-Sheriff has been accustomed to act as Returning Officer for the whole county. I cannot see the Minister's point in taking the new South Kerry constituency from him as Returning Officer and giving it to the County Registrar.
There will be this difference in the new arrangement: that you would have to supervise two areas with two separate headquarters. In the case of Dublin there is the one headquarters and all the staff can be under the one supervision and control of the Sheriff or Registrar, as the case may be. That could not happen in the case of County Kerry, or Donegal or Mayo. The fact that it would be so difficult to supervise staffs in two different centres for the day of the nomination or the day of the counting of the votes was what determined this, because it was felt that this new arrangement would lead to more efficient work in these areas if they were divided so as to have two Returning Officers, each with undivided responsibility.
I should like to get the Fifth Stage now.
I object.
Fifth Stage fixed for Wednesday, 20th June.
