Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Feb 1936

Vol. 60 No. 2

Public Business. - Constitution (Amendment No. 23) Bill, 1934. Motion under Article 38A of the Constitution.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
It is hereby resolved, under Article 38A of the Constitution, that the Constitution (Amendment No. 23) Bill, 1934, be again sent to Seanad Eireann. (Leas-Uachtarán na hArd-Chomhairle.)

A Chinn Chomhairle, owing to circumstances over which, for the most part, they have no control, the recipients—if that is the correct word—of obituary notices are not usually in a position to enjoy them or reply to them. The discussion last night, as Deputies will remember, took to a great extent the form of obituary notices on the six University representatives, and as the procedure in this case is still undetermined I do not know what is the correct thing to do. However, as my fellow corpses were all very lively—I think everybody spoke—I should like to say a few words. I do not propose, A Chinn Chomhairle, to follow the discussion, which covered a very wide ground, but I would introduce perhaps a new note into it by bringing it back to the realities, that is to say, what we are considering now.

It is hereby resolved, under Article 38A of the Constitution, that the Constitution (Amendment No. 23) Bill, 1934, be again sent to Seanad Eireann;

that is what we are here to consider. The House, having an opportunity of considering the whole question, considered it at great length. There were many cogent arguments presented on both sides, and, having those arguments before them, the House decided that University representation, as it is now understood, should not continue. That University graduate constituents should have the same franchise as everybody else was the considered opinion of this House. The other House took the opposite view. The question, therefore, comes back to us to consider again. The only reason that could move us, I think, to change our opinion, would be some cogent argument, which we did not hear, although there were brilliant speeches made last night. The best speech, I think, I have ever heard on the value of University education was from my colleague, Deputy McGilligan, but I do not think that there was any argument which would outweigh the expressed opinion of the House when the matter was formerly before us.

There is one thing which would weigh with me and that would be the attitude of the University voters themselves. Well, A Chinn Chomhairle, everybody knows that during the last 18 months they have had an opportunity to consider it. They have had an opportunity of reading all the speeches that were made in favour of it. There were very brilliant speeches I acknowledge, but it is a very strange thing that—this is my own experience and I expect my colleague has had the same experience—of the 2,000 odd voters who sent us here only one wrote to express the opinion, that University representation, as at present understood, should be continued. I laid that opinion, which was that of a valued constituent, before the leaders of my Party, but, considering that the other 2,000 said nothing at all, I expect that they would like to be treated the same as everybody else; that they do not want to be treated as a separate class. I came here as a representative of the University constituents, and within the limits of my disabilities, which Deputy Professor O'Sullivan stressed, I endeavoured to do what I could for them, but as it turned out I found myself just a representative of an ordinary constituency. It happened that for a great part of the time I have been here my late lamented colleague, Deputy Martin McDonogh, was ill. During that time, and after he died, I found that my principal work was that of an ordinary constituency member. I did that work to the best of my ability, in a back-bench way, which I say is a very useful kind of thing. I cannot discover what is the difference between University representation and ordinary constituency representation. The University voters have just the same needs. They want housing facilities; there are questions of old age pensions, and so on. I found that I had to deal with everything which the ordinary constituency representative has to deal with, so I cannot see that the Universities need any special representation. For that reason, therefore, I do not propose, even if my Party allegiance allowed it, to change the way in which I voted on the last occasion. I am glad that there was such a thing as University representation. It has been a great privilege for me to be in this House, to take part in its deliberations, and to take part in the national advance. I take this opportunity of thanking the voters of the National University who sent me here. I am quite sure that in voting as I did on the last occasion, and as I intend to vote now, I am fulfilling their will. I do not wish to take up the time of the House any longer, but I thought I ought to say that much.

Having regard to the speech of Deputy Donnelly last night, and the succeeding one this evening of my neighbour here, I feel that I should say that in so far as my attitude to this Bill is concerned it remains the same as it was previously. I am a voice in the wilderness. Every speech here last evening depended on politics. It was all politics. It began, as usual, with abuse of the President. He is the source of all evil here, according to the doctrinaires on the other side. From him springs all the evil. They forget that he is Chancellor of the University. They forget that we believe he is the right man in the right place, and we are perfectly satisfied that no word or act of his would, in any circumstances, be directed towards the injury of the status of the University. The taint of politics, in my opinion, should not have been introduced here. Do you really think—you members of the Opposition over there—that the fate of the Fianna Fáil Party in the future depends on two or three votes from the Dublin Universities? If you do, put that idea out of your head. There is no advertence to votes in connection with this Bill. Not a bit of it.

This Bill is brought in as part of the regular policy of the Fianna Fáil Party, so-far as they can do it, to level every constituency in the country and make them all obedient to the people's will in so far as University education is affected. I am not in favour, at this period, of doing anything that would reduce in any way the status of the seats of learning in this country. I think the wave of vulgarity that is spreading all over this land at present is too strong entirely to allow of anything being said or done in reduction of the dignity of learning in the popular mind. As I said already, I am a voice crying in the wilderness. I do not suggest that this place is a wilderness, but I think it is worse having regard to the fact that I listened last night to speeches in connection with a motion that has been for more than 18 months on the Order Paper and has already been discussed over and over again. These motions remain on the Order Paper of the only deliberative assembly in Ireland that is worthy of the name. We have these agricultural questions on the Order Paper until they become blue mouldy or to use an agricultural term, until they sprout. One would not expect any such thing in a wilderness when one considers the position to-day as I view it. Now I may be wrong. I am not speaking as a moralist at all. I am no such thing. But who are the heroes to-day? Prize boxers and film stars. These are the people who command the greatest attention in the public opinion of the country. Just see what the papers every day and every evening spout about. See what is brought into the home. Here is an extract from one of them. This is from a Dublin paper. The extract I admit is from a paper of some months ago, but certainly it was long after the Dáil had given its consent to the Bill to which we are now giving a further consent. The extract is headed "Seeking Divorce." Here it is:—

"Boop-Boopa-Doop Girl on way to Reno. Miss Helen Kane, the film actress, who became known as the `Boopa-Doop Girl' because of a phrase she coined, is on her way to Reno to start divorce proceedings according to the Herald Examiner.”

Is the Deputy quoting from a university magazine?

Mr. Kelly

I am quoting from a journal that has much more circulation than any university magazine in this country. The extract goes on:—

"She is quoted as saying that she has no special complaint, but that she and her husband, Mr. Max Hoffman, junior, are `incompatible.' They were married in February the 1st, 1933."

You will notice that the paper says "in" instead of "on." That indicates that the writer has not got a university education. The extract winds up in this way:—-

"Miss Helen Kane first won recognition as a singer, particularly for her pout and phrase `Boop-Boopa-Doop.' She has appeared in such films as `Nothing but the Truth,' `Sweetie,' `Dangerous Dan McGrew' and `Paramount on Parade."

The same evening that I read that in a Dublin evening paper which circulated to thousands of homes of the Dublin working class community, I happened to be down in Dame Street and turned into Foster Place. There is usually a meeting being held there and a crowd had assembled at the place on this particular evening. That crowd was around a black man who was selling patent medicine. He explained he was born in Africa——

Would the Deputy relate his speech to the Bill for the abolition of University constituencies?

Mr. Kelly

I do relate it according to my own view, that by our votes here we are encouraging this sort of thing. I was explaining that I heard this black doctor speaking and that he was describing his early days in South Africa. He was saying that in the morning he would withdraw the mat from the small window and put his head out in order that he could inhale the delicious perfume from the woods and forests. He thanked God for that, and I said that man's civilisation is a higher civilisation than what we have here as shown by the evening papers in Dublin. I think I am right in saying that. I have been challenged by many people as to my attempt to preserve Trinity College or the University of Dublin. I have been told that it is not in keeping with any views of mine as a nationalist. I have been assured that this institution was founded and carried on for the purpose of maintaining British predominance here. I admit that it has been so maintained during three centuries. I admit that the very Charter of Queen Elizabeth founding the University stated definitely that it was "for the purpose of preventing her subjects going to France or Spain or other foreign countries for their education where they there imbibed Popery and other ill effects and became dangerous subjects." I think these are the words of the Charter. But I maintain that during its existence here there was always a minority of just men, men who gave their services to this country. That fact should in all reasonable minds prevent its destruction.

When I spoke before on this Motion I quoted many illustrious names. I do not want to go over them again. But I do suggest to those who are enthusiastic for Irish culture, its language and its literature to remember that in the middle of the last century when things were not very healthy for Ireland, there were groups of scholars here who at any rate maintained her great tradition for scholarship and that many of these were recruited from Trinity College. Those who composed the Irish Archaeological Society, the Celtic Society, the Ossianic Society and those other learned societies got a great many of their members and those who guided their councils and works from Trinity College. I would like Deputies to remember that. I would like further that we should remember that later on in the century when Parnell's policy looked as if it were going to be triumphant and when we had here an enthusiasm that probably was equalled only in 1918 and 1919, but certainly never surpassed, many men from Trinity College stood by Parnell in those days. I remember well the surging crowds during the 1885 election when the two protagonists were the late Lord Iveagh, then Sir Edward Cecil Guinness, and Edmund Dwyer Grey, the editor of the famous Freeman's Journal, the most powerful journal then in Europe. I remember the surging crowds which assembled in College Green each evening. On one side you had the green flag with “Who Fears to Speak of '98” on it and on the other side the Union Jack with “Britannia Rules the Waves.” We never hear that now. These were stirring scenes. I often thought that if the refrain of “Who Fears to Speak of '98” could penetrate through the walls it would fall on the ears of the man who composed it, John Kells Ingram.

I ask any of those who criticise my views regarding Trinity College to weigh up if they can by any process of calculation what was the value of "Who Fears to Speak of '98" to the national movement during those, years and subsequent years. It was the greatest asset that national opinion had and it was the work of a professor of Trinity College. No doubt he explained later that it was produced in his young days, in his youthful enthusiasm; that after attending a "Young Ireland" meeting he went back to his rooms and wrote it, put it in an envelope and dropped it anonymously in the letter box of the Nation and that in later years his opinions changed. I doubt that, because I was connected with a journal some 25 years ago or thereabouts and the conductors of that journal asked him if he would re-write the famous ballad in order that they might publish it and he did—a return if you like to his old love. That is my answer, along with other matters that I could put up, and I think I am justified in believing that representation should be maintained for the University of Dublin as well as the National University.

The only other matter I would allude to is the peculiar opinion that members on the opposite side of the House have of the Fianna Fáil Party. Whether the views they express here are the honest opinions that they hold or not I do not know—but they are constantly stating here that we have to obey the lash of the whip. I do not know how many lashes Deputy Donnelly has borne already. That is all nonsense. We are an independent body of men and women. If the policy of the men were not right, we would not follow them. I do not agree with my Party this evening. Do you think that I am under any censure for that? I am not. When the Bill was first circulated, I told the powers-that-be that I could not Conscientiously vote for it and that was all about it.

Why is Deputy Donnelly voting for it?

Mr. Kelly

I am not the keeper of Deputy Donnelly's conscience.

You are a lucky man.

Mr. Kelly

I am only the keeper of my own conscience. Deputy Donnelly is one of the best men we have and one of the most fluent and able speakers in the House. If you want to know anything from him I am sure he will be willing to oblige. The next matter discussed yesterday was education. Over and over again I heard the word "education"; that we must have educated men, that a man must be educated to be here. I am not an educated man by any means—I never had an opportunity. The majority of the Irish people are born poor and they cannot be educated in the sense the word was used here. The majority of the people in the world are born poor. I do not see that anything is going to happen to change that. I think the Russian experiment has failed and that people will be born poor and remain poor in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, the only education the poor man can get is the education of the world, and perhaps it is the best education. I do not regret that I was not educated. All the education I got was in the Christian Brothers' Schools for a few years for a penny a week and it was good enough. The principal education I got was through mixing with men and fighting for my bread in the world. Therefore, the people I should like to see in the majority here are that class, not the educated class. If University education was free, which it ought to be, of course I might change my mind in the matter, but as it is, I cannot.

I will conclude by saying that I am not a moralist. I think that the work of people who are deeply interested in the culture of this country ought not to be interfered with and I think this Bill is an interference. When you read in the staid Irish Times an account of a prize fight, that a man gave a left hook to the jaw and another left hook to the jaw, you begin to feel that there is something wrong, something that you would like to set right. This Bill will pass, I have no doubt, but as an election will not take place for two years, the idea of saying that this is politics emanating from the Executive Council is nonsense. We do not know what these two years may bring forth. If you look at the world to-day you must say it does not look any way pleasant. We may have more serious things to discuss later on, but I hope not. I believe this matter will come out all right. I am a firm believer in the Executive Council and I think they will bring forth some fruit, if you like—not sour or forbidden fruit— some policy which will undoubtedly preserve the representation of learned bodies as fully as I would like. I hope that will be so. I honestly believe it. I have only to say that I cannot vote for the Bill, but in loyalty to the Party, without being asked, I believe I would set a bad example by voting against it.

The triumph of hope over experience.

A Chinn Comhairle, d'eist mé le cuid mhór den chainnt a rinneadh annso indé agus indiú maidir le ceist seo na nOllscol, ach níor airigh mé aon argóint a chuirfeadh athrú ar an dtuairim a bhí agam sar ar toghadh ar an Dáil riamh mé ná raibh sé ceart ná cóir go mbeadh aon príbhléid fé leith ag na hOllscoileanna, ná ag aon dream eile mar sin, i dtaobh Teachta nó Teachtaí a thoghadh i gcóir na Dála. Tá guth ag gach duine sa taobh so d'Eirinn anois atá os cionn bliain agus fiche, tá gléas toghacháin againn annso a thugann caoi d'aon tsaghas dreama, atá láidir go leor, teachta a thoghadh i gcóir na Dála. Má tá céimidhthe Ollscoile 'nár measg go bhfuil suim acu i gcursaí poilitidheachta agus dúil acu bheith páirteach ionnta, níl a bhac ortha teacht ós comhair an phobuil aimisir thoughacháin mar iarrathóiri, má thig leo dream den lucht toghacháin d'fagháil a ghlacfaidh le n-a gcaingean agus a sheasóchaidh leo. Ní fheicim aon chúis, a Chinn Comhairle, go mbéadh aon chomhacht fé leith feasta ag Céimidhthe na nOllscol so againn fé mar a bhí acu go dtí so agus tá áthas orm go bhfuil socair deire a chur leis an príbhléid sin.

D'airigheamar a lán cainnte annso an fhaid a bhí an cheist seo faoi dhíospóireacht againn faoi'n seisear teachtaí Dála a thóg na hOllscoileanna. Ní dóigh liom go raibh sé ceart nó go ndearna sé aon mhaitheas do phlé na ceiste scéal pearsanta a dhéanamh de. Admuighim le fonn gur teachtaí eolasacha clisde na teachtaí a tháinig annso chughainn o na hOllscoileanna. Ní dóigh liom gur chuir aon Ollscoil acu teachta annso riamh, cuir i geás, go bhfuil meas agus cáil comh mór air agus atá ar theachta atá ar bhinnái Fianna Fáil. Sí Bean Ui Chonceanainn atá i gceist agam, bean uasal léigheannta go bhfuil a hainm in áirde, ní hamháin in Eirinn, ach ar fud an domhain mhóir, mar staraidhe Caitliceach. Admhuighim gur chailleamhaint mhór don Dáil a leitheíd de theachta, ach táim sásta, freisin, go mbeadh meas chomh mór ag an bpobul i gcoitchinn in aon Dáilcheanntar uirthi is a bhí ag céimidhthe na nOllscoll Náisiúnta.

Rud eile, a Chinn Comhairle, chualamar a lán cainnte ó theachtaí ar gach taobh den Dáil seo faoi Choláisde na Tríonóide agus faoi na fearabh mórcháil a thainig as. Fuair an Coláisde sin ard-mholadh faoi Wolfe Tone agus Robert Emmet agus Mitchel agus daoine eile mar iad a bhi náisiúnta agus d'oibrigh agus a fuair bás, cuid acu, ar son saoirse na hEireann. Nílim ar aon aigne olc maith ná donaidhe leis na Teachtaí ar na binnsí seo ná ar na binnsí thall a chreideann go dtuilleann Coláisde na Tríonóide moladh agus creideamhaint mar gheall spioraid náisiúnta na bhfear san a luadhas. Má bhí na fir sin mar a bhíodar ní haon bhuidheachas do Choláisde na Trionóide é. Ní sa Chóláisde sin, ná toisg go rabhadar na macaibh léighinn ann, a fuair Tone agus Emmet agus Mitchel an teagasc náisiúnta a bhí acu. Ba chóra a rádh gur in aimhdheoin díchill Choláisde na Tríonóide agus lucht a stiúrtha a bhí na fir sin ar thaobh na hEireann agus ag troid ar son saoirse na hEireann fé mar a bhíodar. Deirim-se nach moladh atá tuillte ag an gColáisde sin i ngeall ar bhaint do bheith ag na Sár-Fhearaibh úd leis tráth, ach cáineadh trom, nuair nár lean furmhór lucht léibhinn an Choláisde lorg na laocbra san riamh ó shoin. Tá's ag an saoghal, a Chinn Comhairle, cé an fáth ar bunuigheadh Coláisde na Trionóide an chéad lá. Tá's againn go raibh sé mar chuspóir ag lucht a bhunuighthe agus ag lucht a stiúrtha an tír seo a Ghalldú, go raibh uatha "Sacsa nua darbh ainm Eire" a dhéanamh di, agus creidim go bhfuil lucht stiúrtha an Choláisde sin dílis don chéad chuspóir sin fós. Tá tuairim láidir agam féin gur créacht i gcorp an náisiúin so Coláisde na Tríonóide agus go mb'fhearr-de Eire dá gcuirtí deire leis an gColáisde féin chomh maith le na bhallaíocht sa Dáil agus ná beadh ach aon Ollscoil mhór amháin againn i nÉirinn, Ollscoil a bhéadh náisiúnta ceart. Cuireadh mór-chuid aimsire amú ag plé na ceiste seo, a Chinn Comhairle, agus ní raibh deil ná deabhramh le mór-chuid den chainnt a rinneadh fúithi. Mar adubhart i dtosach, táim go láidir ar aon aigne leis an rún so, agus táim chun guth a thabhairt ar a thaobh de bhrigh go gcreidim gur fearr-de an tír, gur fearr-de an Dáil agus gur fearr-de na hOllscoileanna féin go gcuirfí deire leis an gcomhacht agus leis an bpríbhléid fé leith atá acu fé láthair maidir le teachtai a thoghadh don Dáil.

The discussion, which has taken place on the motion before us, has not produced anything new on the question of University representation in Dáil Eireann. We have had this discussion several times before, in this House, on the various stages of the Bill since it was first introduced. The matter has been gone into in great detail and a certain decision was come to. I do not know that anybody expects the Executive Council, or the Government, to change their minds since the question was first laid before the House. I gathered from Deputy Rowlette, or, perhaps, it was Deputy Alton, that he had in mind that perhaps as a result of the arguments used here over 18 months ago, when the Bill was first before the House, the Government might have changed their minds. I have sat through various discussions on this subject, and I did not hear, from any side of the House, any argument that was effective enough to make me change my opinion on the question of the right of Universities to special or privileged representation here. I think the same applies to the Government as a whole, and I am sure to the Fianna Fáil Party. What applies to me evidently applies also to my friend, Deputy Tom Kelly. He told us that he did not hear any argument, from those in favour of the measure, effective enough to make him change his mind. I am sorry for that.

Deputy Kelly said, in the opening of his speech, "I am not in favour of doing anything that would lower the dignity or status of seats of learning." He evidently thinks that seats of learning derive some special honour, or dignity, from being represented here. I cannot see that in the matter of representation here, the fact that the National University or the Dublin University sends one or two or three representatives each to this House, adds to or takes from their status. It has nothing to do with their status as seats of learning. Some people might hold, if we were to go into personalities, as were indulged in in this discussion, and make a valuation, that, judging by the type of speeches made frequently by representatives from the Universities in this House, the Universities gained nothing as a result, and I think that view might justly be held. On the ground of principle I think it is wrong—and that is the view of the Government—that there should be any privileged class of the community with voting power and rights that the ordinary citizens have not. It is on that ground and not on the ground of taking away any dignity or honour from seats of learning, to which Deputy Kelly referred, that this Bill was introduced.

I should like to emphasise another remark of Deputy Kelly's when he said that this is not a matter of votes. It was said yesterday by more than one speaker, on the Opposition Benches, that they thought this Bill was introduced on the ground of some arithmetical prejudice—I think that was the the phrase used by Deputy O'Sullivan. There is no such idea in our minds. This question of University representation was canvassed before Fianna Fáil was founded by people who are now associated with Fianna Fáil. It was canvassed during Fianna Fáil's period in opposition. It was often canvassed before ever we thought we would be a Government, and the decision was always in favour of the abolition of University representation. It is not since we became a Government that that decision was taken. As Deputy Kelly said, if this Government had to rely on the chance of one or two votes one way or another in order to remain a Government, it would be a very poor prospect for us indeed. But that is far from being true.

To a great extent, the debate yesterday was on the question of the type of individual sent here by the Universities. That is an entirely wrong attitude to take. Personally I do not deny, and nobody could deny, that representatives have been sent to this House at different times by both Universities that would be a credit to any assembly. That is true. But the same applies to every other constituency in the country, more or less. There have been distinguished University men and distinguished University professors sent to this Assembly by other constituencies. Some of them, before they were elected by a University, were sent to Dáil Eireann by constituencies in the country. At the same time, some of them would have a very poor chance of being elected by a University. Some distinguished University electors would have a poor chance of being elected. It is not on the ground of the type of individual sent here that we should discuss this question. I looked through the list before I came into the House to see how many University graduates are elected members, and practically a fraction over a quarter, so far as I can make out, of the people elected to the present Assembly are University graduates. It is a very good number. I doubt if any Parliament in any country in Europe has a higher percentage. I am glad of that. It is a very proper thing. I would like to see the graduates of the Universities going into the constituencies and taking their part and doing their work as citizens. It cannot be denied that the opportunities of going through a University course are of value. Whatever value there is in receiving the privilege of a University education, it is all to the good that the benefits should be brought into the ordinary constituencies. To a considerable extent that is so in this country. I think Deputy MacDermot talked about the difficulties of educated people getting elected. He is a standing refutation of that argument. I do not think Deputy MacDermot will deny it if I challenge him with being an educated person, yet he was elected for the constituency of Roscommon and is a graduate of Oxford University. Is not that a standing denial of the statement he made of that difficulty? I give that one example.

Possibly I would have got elected more easily if I was not a graduate.

I do not think the Deputy had too much difficulty. He got in with a fairly safe majority on more than one occasion. Another example. Deputy Dillon was elected for Donegal. I do not know whether he possesses the fog-horn voice that his colleague Deputy McGilligan says is necessary for a man to get elected in a country constituency. That is a poor reflection by Deputy McGilligan on his own colleagues, that a fog horn voice, as he told us last night, was all that was necessary to get a man elected in a country constituency. I wonder what Deputy Dillon has to say to that. I think Deputy Dillon has more than a fog horn voice. I know that he has a powerful voice. But he has more than that. He is a University graduate, a distinguished one, I believe, and he has not found great difficulty in getting elected. I understand that his chances next time are not so rosy but that is not because he is a University graduate.

Would I do the Vice-President an injustice if I said that the wish was father to the thought?

Oh, you would. I think the House would lose a lot of its hilarity if Deputy Dillon was not here. Of course, as a Party man, I assure the House that the more colleagues of Deputy Dillon that would fall under the voters' axe the better I would be pleased.

I appreciate the distinction.

I would be sorry to think that Deputies of such value to this House, such as the Deputies from the University College of Dublin, should be deprived for all time of sitting in it by reason of the passage of this Bill. I certainly think that men of such capacity and public appeal, judging by their speeches here —that is the only way I have of judging them—could find a constituency that would give them a sympathetic hearing. That is my belief. It would be good for themselves and good for the country that they should go to the constituencies and not ask for a continuance of the privileged position that the universities seek to have continued here. There was only one argument used yesterday that got any kind of sympathy from me, and that was the argument used by Deputy Rowlette, in the course of his speech, where he talked of the harm that this might do with regard to the unity of Ireland. I thought that over since. It would not be in my power as an individual to alter the course of the Bills, but if I thought that argument had considerable weight I would certainly make representations to my colleagues. But, thinking it over and judging it by what has happened since Dáil Eireann was established, I cannot see that there is weight in that argument. I cannot see that the fact that some few voters for a university, either University College or Trinity College, being resident in the Six Counties and voting for members of this Assembly can have any weight on the question of the partition of Ireland remaining or being abolished. I cannot see that it has any weight, and I think when we come to deal— whenever we do—with the question of getting the unity of Ireland restored, a much more influential and wider argument than that will have to decide the issue.

Every little helps.

I think it is infinitesimal. A good deal was made yesterday in the course of the discussion of the value of education, and in that connection the value of getting representatives of the two universities here. Neither I nor anybody else would attempt to decry the value of education, whether got in a university or in the fashion which my friend Deputy Tom Kelly referred to. Education is of the greatest value and university education probably has special and particular value in a House like this, or in any deliberative assembly, where questions of such import to the country are discussed, and where the educated point of view is very often of the greatest value in coming to a decision. But it was not necessarily because of their education that any of the Deputies who were elected here by a university were sent to this Assembly; it was not because they had any particular educational distinction, and I say that with all respect to the persons concerned. It was because of their politics that they were sent in. That is true of the National University, at any rate, and I think it would also be true of the University of Dublin. They were sent here because of their politics, and if they were not of a political colour, one way or the other, they would not be sent here.

Therefore, it was not for educational reasons, or because of their distinction in education, they were sent here, but because of their politics and for the purpose of doing political work. In the case of the National University, they have to be members of a Party, whatever side they are on, and in the case of the Deputies from the University of Dublin, they tell us, and we naturally accept their word; that they are not members of a Party; that they are independent. If, however, they did not give that loyal service to those whom they believe are in accord with their ideas and politics, they probably would not be sent here either. There would be a change, so that it is not because of education or their distinction in education, but because of their politics, that individuals are elected as Deputies to this House.

I need not say very much more. There was, however, one argument used by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney yesterday in support of keeping University representation alive. He talked of the group system and the desirability of keeping alive the group system. If I am not mistaken, a former leader of the Party for which Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney speaks, was a very strong advocate of the group system. He went around the country recommending the group system in the name of his Party. And what happened him? He very soon got the boot. What happened the group system recommended by the late leader of Deputy Dillon's Party, General O'Duffy? He was, and still is, I think, an advocate of the group system. They were in favour of the group system when they had him as leader and they are not now in favour of it, I gather, except when it suits them. It suits them for reasons best known to themselves to keep this system in existence here, which does not exist, so far as I know, anywhere else outside of Great Britain. There is no country in Europe, or out of it, in which a popularly elected Parliament is in existence, that has this system of privilege for Universities, except Great Britain, and I do not see that there is any special reason why we should follow Great Britain's example in this matter, any more than in any other matters.

Deputy Lavery talked about the drab mediocrity of the electorate. I do not think Deputy Lavery can complain of the drabness of County Dublin which found such little difficulty in selecting and electing him.

He was talking about his own audiences.

If you look around at all Parties in the House, you will find, I think, that if this House represents the electorate, it certainly could not be described as drab, whatever else it may be. There is a liveliness about it, even in discussions of questions of this kind, that certainly refutes Deputy Lavery's statement that there is a drabness in the ordinary electorate of every constituency in this country. There is neither drabness nor mediocrity, taking the electorate as a whole and this House as a whole.

Deputy McGilligan spoke last night and I must pay him the tribute of saying that his speech was one of the pleasantest, if not the pleasantest, to listen to that I ever heard him deliver in this House. The tone of the discussion and the debate here have on the whole been on a very high level. It was very pleasant and agreeable and arguments pro and con were put forward in a way that, I think, did credit to the House, but I was particularly pleased to see Deputy McGilligan depart from his usual style. Maybe it was because of the reminders of what was expected from a University representative, but he was in an unusually mellow mood and did credit to himself and to his University. Among the things he mentioned, besides the type of fog-horn voice which he believed was necessary, was that people were asked about how often they wore dress clothes and other similar personal questions when they went seeking the suffrages of the electors around the country. If I am not astray in my recollection, I think that very issue as to people wearing dress clothes was raised, and one individual described as the best dressed man in Europe, not by the ordinary common electorate, but in a poster issued officially by Cumann na nGaedheal during a general election, at a time when the Director of Publicity of Cumann na nGaedheal, was none other than a University professor, so that you do not have to go down to the common drab mediocrity of the electorate to get personal in general elections or bye-elections. You can get enough of it from the Universities.

Who was the best dressed man in Europe?

It is all a matter of taste.

I think the Vice-President was named on that occasion.

I was not Vice-President when that poster was issued. I think I have said enough on the subject. I do not think there has been any change of mind or change of heart on any side on this matter. Some of us have got some information to think about as a result of the arguments pro and con. I have certainly thought over some of the arguments, including the argument to which I referred about partition, but I cannot see that any solid argument, as Deputy O'Sullivan said yesterday, has been produced by anybody that would influence me to go back on what I have said previously on this subject or on my view, held over a long time, that University representation is something that is not consistent with what I believe ought to be the form of adult suffrage we should have for the electorate in this country.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 38.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keves, Michael.
  • Kilory, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Travnor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Reilly, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Keating, John.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Rogers, Patrick James.
  • Rowlette, Robert James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Little and Smith; Níl, Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.

I am certifying the Constitution (Amendment No. 23) Bill, 1934, under Article 38A of the Constitution, as containing only such modification as is necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since that Bill was first sent by the Dáil to the Seanad.

Top
Share