Speaking to this motion before the adjournment of the debate last night, I drew the attention of the House to what I considered to be two outstanding admissions during the debate. One was the statement by the Minister which was, perhaps, tardy but, nevertheless, an admission, that the presence of University representatives in this House had very considerably strengthened it. The other admission was that, when this matter was first introduced into the Constitution, there was a mandate for it and that that mandate has not been withdrawn. The Government, by a vote of this House, refused to refer the Bill to the electorate. Speaking to the motion yesterday, the Minister for Local Government told us that the Opposition tried to convey the idea that University representatives were a necessity in the House. I do not think that anybody urged that University representation should be permitted and continued because it was a necessity. It was urged that University representatives were a useful addition to the House and the Minister himself admitted that. The Minister went on to tell us that there were useful members in the House besides University representatives and University graduates. That was begging the question. Nobody put forward that case. Nobody urged that the House could not exist or that it could not carry on its business fairly well without the presence of University graduates. As pointed out by Deputy O'Sullivan, the Minister evidently thought that it was a good thing to put up this man of straw so as to knock him down again. I am afraid that the Minister and his Party are showing in this matter a narrow-mindedness that is not credit able to any Party having powers of government.
The Minister stated in this House— he was only restating what the President himself said in a previous debate—that the representatives of one University were always found voting in the same Lobby and that, if that had not been so, this Bill might not have been considered necessary. When the Minister made that statement, he got to the root of the matter. Yet, he accused the Opposition yesterday afternoon of evadin the root principle of the Bill. The root principle of the Bill, according to the Minister who made that complaint, is to get rid of certain people who will not vote with the Government on any occasion. At least, that is the Minister's opinion. He has evidently given up hope of finding them on his side. Consequently, he and his Party have decided to get rid of them. That is a very narrow-minded view. If it were left to the Minister himself, I am sure he would look at this matter in a much more broad-minded way. After all, Party considerations ought not to be put before the interests of the country. That is what is being done here to-night. It has been admitted that the University representatives were useful men and that they strengthened the House. If, instead of abolishing the University franchise to-night, we were introducing a motion to provide the Universities with representation for the first time, I am sure we should all approach the matter with an open mind, and it is quite possible that the representation given to the Universities would not be as extensive as it is to-day.
Considering that University representation has been in operation here for a number of years and that, in the opinion of the Minister, University representatives have added considerably to the strength of the House, there does not seem to be any reason for proceeding with this motion save Party interest. It is certainly not in the country's interest. As was pointed out last night by some speakers from this side of the House, there is no reason why the majority Party in the State should fear a clash of interest with people who might possibly desire a closer connection with Britain than the majority Party do. We can afford to be magnanimous. After all, the point of view of people who do not agree with us may be very useful. If the matter were considered from that angle, the most useful thing to ourselves, the people concerned and the country might be an exchange of views between ourselves and these people. It is not always evidence of weakness for people to change their views. I am afraid there are in this country a lot of people who think that, once they express a view, they must stick to it irrespective of whether in changed circumstances the view still holds good. We shall never make progress unless we are open to change our views as matters proceed, because progress is the result of changed views of various kinds.
There was an old dictum that Ireland needed the services of all her children. We all agree with that. I am sure Fianna Fáil—particularly the Minister for Local Government—is most anxious that every person in the country should throw in their lot with the country and contribute to its betterment by service. Are we helping in that direction by adopting this motion? Is it true, as stated from the Government back benches, that the Government are determined to preserve a tradition which some of us would not like to see continued in this country—a tradition which, perhaps, the representatives of Trinity College had—and that we ought, so to speak, isolate these people? Or ought we to endeavour to absorb them? Which is the better way?
Will depriving these people of the representation which they have had serve the purpose of absorbing them in the Irish nation, make them part and parcel of it, or make them feel that this nation must be worked for and not the British or any other connection? Are we assisting in this way to disentangle the Border question? How will it help us there? It has been stated from the Government Benches, and we know it only too well, and regret it, that there is certainly an amount of bigotry in another part of this country. That is a fact. We deplore it. Does it assist us or our people in that particular part of Ireland if we take this type of action? After all, we can be magnanimous. We are not afraid of these people. Their presence admittedly has been useful. There is not a Deputy who does not remember with gratitude the late Sir James Craig. I have distinct recollections of his interference in debates here on questions concerning public health every time the opportunity offered. The late Sir James Craig advocated the adoption of more hygienic methods in our homes and on the part of public bodies. He urged Departments to take steps to improve the position of the people. In particular the late Sir James Craig had the honour of fathering that institution known as the Hospitals' Sweep, which has been the means of bringing so much relief to the sick and suffering.
No matter what his Party considerations are, I think the Minister, while he may gain a temporary advantage by ridding the House of four or five votes that he feels would be consistently against him, should remember that that is more than counterbalanced by the good work he admits that these Deputies did in this House. I do not think there has been yet born a man who regretted being magnanimous. We can afford to be generous apart from the fact that these representatives have been very useful in this House. We have not contended that they are necessary, but we contend that their presence here was an advantage. When speaking last night Deputy Corry said that his sympathy, as far as representation was concerned, was with the man down the country who with mud on his boots slaved to make a gentleman of his brother by educating him. The Deputy said that that was the man who should get any advantage that was going. I am afraid Deputy Corry was not paying any tribute to the sacrifice that that man made in order to educate his brother. If sacrifices were made for the sake of education, surely the education that was acquired must be useful, and the man with the mud on his boots must feel that the education his brother got fitted him to appear in a House like this much better than it fitted other men. I do not admit that University graduates are better representatives than people who perhaps had not the same opportunities, but who educated themselves. As the Minister pointed out, we have instances of that. That is no reason why we should discontinue what has been proved to be useful. Deputy Alton asked Deputy Donnelly last night more than once: "Is Trinity College ever to be forgiven?" I think we can afford to forgive everybody. We are in the majority in this State, and we can afford to be generous. We can afford to teach a lesson to another part of the country or to anyone who wants to learn a lesson from us. We have nothing to fear. Let us be magnanimous and let us be Christianlike about it. Let us go ahead with our work, retaining that which has proved to be useful, and cutting out Party considerations by not putting them before our country's considerations.