I move that the Committee disagree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:—
Section 4. The section deleted. The Seanad has inserted this amendment and we do not propose to accept it.
Electoral (Revision of Constituencies) Bill, 1934—From the Seanad.
How can the Minister ask this House to turn down the Seanad amendment in view of the most unsatisfactory state in which the Bill was when it left this House? It contained quite a number of extraordinary contradictions—the mutilation of a certain number of important counties and, as was pointed out here during the long discussions on the Bill, a certain amount of outrage of the principle of proportional representation, as proportional representation is intended to be understood.
Mr. Boland
I am satisfied that the Bill was quite good when it left the House. It certainly has not been improved by the amendment inserted in the Seanad. They have amended the Schedule in a most ridiculous way and one of the things they have actually done is to combine Wexford and Waterford as a single constituency. Anybody who knows anything about geography knows that in order to get by land from one county to another, you have to travel about 14 miles through Kilkenny. That is a sample of the amendment carried out by the Seanad. So far as I can see, there was nothing but obstruction. They intended to hold it up and they are quite welcome to do so. They have also joined the two constituencies in Mayo into one, although that county formed two constituencies since 1923. They have ignored completely the new Dublin City boundary and in several ways they have made the Bill far worse—I would ask Deputy Belton not to laugh too soon because the laugh might be the other way around before we are through—than any person said the Bill was when leaving this House. I am quite satisfied that nobody could point to anything so ridiculous as this amendment inserted by the Seanad and for that reason I ask the House not to accept it. There was no attempt at all made to improve the Bill.
After the cogent and the striking statement we have heard from the Acting Minister for Local Government and Public Health, the House, no doubt, is fully illuminated as to the Government's view on the virtues of the amendments put forward by the Seanad. I am gratified to hear the authoritative Lemass note returning to the Minister's reference to the Seanad. The Seanad, a fortnight ago, was no body into the hands of which the Minister for Industry and Commerce was going to commit the destinies of this country. The Granards and the Jamesons were no safekeepers of the country's destinies, so far as the Minister for Industry and Commerce was concerned.
Hear, hear! Do not omit the Bagwells!
Yesterday, the Minister referred to the Seanad with feeling in his voice and to-day the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs returns with the charge. He says that, as usual, the object of the Seanad was merely to obstruct; that there was no virtue whatever in any of the proposals the Seanad had put forward; that they were preposterous and ridiculous and that the Government desired the House to reject their recommendation. The Minister did not dwell on the fact that if he disapproved of the Seanad's proposal to link together Waterford and Wexford, every rational man in the country disapproves of the Government's proposal entirely to obliterate the County Carlow. The Minister did not dwell, I noticed, and I thought it strangely tactful of him to refrain from dwelling, on the Seanad's action in regard to the County Roscommon.
Mr. Boland
There was no objection whatever to dwelling on it.
The people of Roscommon are still wondering why the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs discovered that a large part of the south of the county did not belong to Roscommon at all.
Mr. Boland
They gave their answer a week ago.
The Minister will probably notice that the constituency he represents has been returned to its original form by the Seanad and every rational person in the county will approve of the action of the Seanad in that regard. The Minister will also notice that the County of Carlow has been resurrected and appears again on the electoral map of this country. The Minister will also notice, although he did not care to dwell upon it, that the clear principle which underlay all the amendments which the Seanad put into the Schedule was to restore such a number of members to each constituency as to make it possible for proportional representation to operate again. If the Minister gave us his view on that aspect of the situation, we should have something to go on in considering whether we should accept or reject the amendments put forward by the Seanad. Senator Brown, Senator Douglas and some others pointed out to the Minister that where you had three-member constituencies, proportional representation went by the board, and their object in every case was to restore, where it was possible, the five-member constituency or a constituency with more than five members so that minorities might get a representation.
Now we know the Government's view on the subject. We know the Government's view on university representation; we know the Government's view on the Electoral Bill; and it becomes more and more clear to anyone who watches the general trend of their operations that, provided a minority like that poor minority sitting on the Labour Benches is prepared to eat out of their hand, they are trebly blessed and are to be protected by every Constitutional safeguard. But, if there is any other minority, which is not prepared to eat out of their hand, or anybody else's hand, which is prepared to think for itself and to act according to its convictions, the sooner it is wiped out of existence the better.
I certainly do not take that view. I feel that if a minority is acting independently, whether I agree with it or whether I do not, it is an infinitely better thing that representation should be secured. Certainly, so long as we pretend to have the system of proportional representation, we ought to secure that minorities are represented. If we have made up our minds that the time has come to let the larger Parties run the country, and to wipe minorities out of existence, we ought to do away with proportional representation altogether, and an argument can be made along these lines.
Is not that in your programme?
What is in our programme is straightforward and honest.
Mr. Murphy
Is not that definite?
It is not.
The Deputy wants to know if that is in our programme. Anything that is in our programme when we get into office we will proceed to do it, but there is one thing we would not do and that is, while pretending to support the principle of proportional representation and being solicitous for the welfare of minorities, to wipe out all the minorities and go round with a hypocritical sheet tied round our necks casting it around the Labour Party whenever they were prepared to sell their soul and withdrawing it from anybody who has dared to act according to his conscience.
Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):
How many times were you absorbed?
Again, that is an interesting thing. If we believe in a policy we are not ashamed to go out and proclaim it and to accept those others who share our views as our colleagues and to work with them. There is something extremely disgusting about independents, who merely masquerade as independents and something even more revolting about the Government masquerading as the protectors of independents, whose sole solicitude is to preserve in existence such independents as they are able to buy by political concessions. You have two courses before you—one, to make up your mind to do away with the representation of independents in this House and that is to go back to one-member constituencies and let a straight vote settle every constituency. That is the honest course to pursue.
There would be no opposition if we did that.
Time will tell that. We have been inviting you to do it at a general election for a long time and you have not accepted it yet. The sooner you try it the better it will be for everybody in the country. That is one way; that is the honest way to wipe out the independents in this House—to go back to one-member constituencies and let the election be fought between the big Parties. The other way is to provide some facilities for persons who represent comparatively small sections of the community to get a seat in this House and that is the way of proportional representation. If you want to operate proportional representation you must do it on the basis of constituencies which have a larger representation than three— preferably five or more. You can do one or the other honestly, but you cannot do honestly what the Government are trying to do, because they are pretending to preserve proportional representation and they are conspiring to withdraw all the benefits which that system is supposed to confer upon the community.
So far as I am concerned, I am in favour of the Seanad amendments. I am principally in favour of them because they are aimed at restoring five-member constituencies, or constituencies having a larger number of representatives. Such constituencies will allow proportional representation to operate. So long as we have proportional representation, then I am in favour of the five-member constituency and I propose to support the amendments brought forward by the Seanad. If and when the Government bring forward a proposal for abolishing that system and go back to the straight vote in one-member constituencies, we will discuss that. There may be a good deal to be said for it and there may be a good deal to be said against it.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 24.
Tá.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Keating, John.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Tray nor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and O'Leary.
Question declared carried.
Mr. Boland
I move that the Committee disagree with amendment No. 2:—
Section 5. The section deleted.
Question declared carried.
Mr. Boland
I move that the Committee disagree with amendment No. 3:—
First Schedule.—The Schedule deleted and a new Schedule substituted therefor as follows:— .bqe
FIRST SCHEDULE.
REVISED CONSTITUENCIES.
PART I.
BOROUGH CONSTITUENCIES.
|
Name of Constituency |
Contents or Boundaries of Constituency |
Total Number of Members for Constituency |
|
CORK BOROUGH. |
The County Borough of Cork and the County electoral area of Ballincollig. |
Five. |
|
DUBLIN NORTH. |
The Clontarf East, Clontarf West, Drumcondra, North Dock, Arran Quay, Mountjoy, Glasnevin, Inns Quay, North City and Rotunda Wards. |
Eight. |
|
DUBLIN SOUTH. |
The Fitzwilliam, Merchants' Quay, Mansion House, New Kilmainham, Royal Exchange, South City, South Dock, Trinity, Usher's Quay and Wood Quay Wards. |
Seven. |
PART II.
COUNTY CONSTITUENCIES.
|
Name of Constituency |
Contents or Boundaries of Constituency |
Total Number of Members for Constituency |
|
CARLOW-KILKENNY. |
The administrative Counties of Carlow and Kilkenny. |
Five. |
|
CAVAN. |
The administrative County of Cavan. |
Four. |
|
CLARE. |
The administrative County of Clare. |
Four. |
|
NORTH CORK. |
The County electoral areas of Kanturk and Macroom in the administrative County of Cork. |
Three. |
|
WEST CORK. |
The County electoral areas of Bandon, Bantry and Dunmanway in the administrative County of Cork. |
Four. |
|
EAST CORK. |
The County electoral areas of Mallow and Cobh in the administrative County of Cork. |
Four. |
|
DONEGAL. |
The administrative County of Donegal. |
Seven. |
|
DUBLIN. |
The administrative County of Dublin and the areas referred to in the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930, as the added urban districts and the added rural area. |
Nine. |
|
GALWAY. |
The administrative County of Galway. |
Eight. |
|
KERRY. |
The administrative County of Kerry. |
Seven. |
|
KILDARE-WICKLOW. |
The administrative Counties of Kildare and Wicklow. |
Five. |
|
LEITRIM-SLIGO. |
The administrative Counties of Leitrim and Sligo. |
Six. |
|
LEIX-OFFALY |
The administrative Counties of Leix and Offaly. |
Five. |
|
LIMERICK. |
The administrative County of Limerick and the County Borough of Limerick. |
Seven. |
|
LONGFORD- WESTMEATH. |
The administrative Counties of Longford and Westmeath. |
Four. |
|
LOUTH. |
The administrative County of Louth. |
Three. |
|
MAYO. |
The administrative County of Mayo. |
Eight. |
|
MEATH. |
The administrative County of Meath. |
Three. |
|
MONAGHAN. |
The administrative County of Monaghan. |
Three. |
|
ROSCOMMON. |
The administrative County of Roscommon. |
Four. |
|
TIPPERARY. |
The administrative Counties of Tipperary North Riding and Tipperary South Riding. |
Seven. |
|
WATERFORD- WEXFORD. |
The administrative Counties of Waterford and Wexford and the County Borough of Waterford. |
Eight. |
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 26.
Tá.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Keating, John.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and O'Leary.
Amendment disagreed to.
Mr. Boland
I move that the Committee disagree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:—
Second Schedule. The Schedule deleted.
Question—"That the Committee disagree with amendment No. 4"— put and agreed to.
Motion declared carried.
Disagreement with amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, reported.