Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Apr 1936

Vol. 61 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Constitution (Amendment No. 23) Bill, 1934—Motion of Enactment.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
The Constitution (Amendment No. 23) Bill, 1934, having been sent on the 6th day of February, 1936, to Seanad Eireann in pursuance of a resolution of this House passed on that day under Article 38A of the Constitution, and the period of sixty days mentioned in that Article having elapsed since the said Bill was so sent to Seanad Eireann, it is hereby resolved that, as Seanad Eireann did not pass the said Bill within the said period of sixty days the said Bill be deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas at the expiration of the said sixty days in the form in which it was so sent to Seanad Eireann on the 6th day of February, 1936. (An Leas-Uachtarán).

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this matter was first introduced into the Constitution, there was a mandate for it and that that mandate has not been withdrawn.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.

I wish to raise this question entirely out of the sphere of Party politics. It will be recognised by everybody in the House that in every age in any progressive country literary talent, intellect and education were recognised and respected, and in no country more than in Ireland, where the poor scholar was always a welcome guest. Everybody will admit that from the earliest days the men who created and fostered public thought and made it racy of the soil were University men. As Thomas Davis says: "Bless these men of patriot pen," Swift, Molyneux and Lucas. They were only three of the brilliant galaxy of orators, writers and patriots that shed immortal glory on this country. I am not going to go through the catalogue, but, with few exceptions, they had all received University education, which shows that a man of such education has opportunities and talents which are denied, possibly unjustly, to other people. A great Fenian poet, and he certainly cannot be accused of any undemocratic principles, has written:

"A master-mind is worth a million hands;

No kingly robes have marked the planet-shaker,

But Samson-strength to break the ages' bands,

The crown of Emire gives no power supernal.

Athens is here, but where is Macedon?

A dozen lives make Greece and Rome eternal,

And England's fame may safely rest on one"—

and, mind you, the poet hated England, but he recognised that Shakespeare was a master-dramatist.

Even Jean Jacques Rousseau foresaw and he was one of the founders of modern democracy, that counting heads may, in certain circumstances, not only be a danger to, but the ruination of democracy. I am sure the Vice-President has read and carefully studied his "Le Contrat Social”— commonly called The Social Compact. Under these circumstances I do think that eight thousand University graduates are entitled to special representation. It may be, if you wish, not in accordance with modern democratic ideas, but it is in accordance with sound judgment, because in every age the aristocracy or the oligarchy of intellect has been recognised in every progressive country. At all events, say what you will say of University graduates, in the words of another Irish poet, Arthur O'Shaughnessy, who was not a Fenian, they may say:—

"We are the music-makers,

And we are the dreamers of dreams,

Wandering by lone sea-breakers

And sitting by desolate streams—

World-movers and world-forsakers,

On whom the pale moon gleams;

Yet we are the movers and shakers

Of the world forever, it seems."

I shall not occupy the time of the House except to say these few words. I heartily commend my words in no Party spirit to the Government. I think that it is in the best interests of the nation to retain University representation, as it has been retained in England, which, with all its faults, has always followed a very sound policy.

To my mind there is very little principle merely in regard to University representation in this Bill. I think if both the Universities were represented in this House to the full extent by Fianna Fáil Deputies or persons who, even from time to time, would give some countenance to the rash policies pursued by the Fianna Fáil Party, this Bill would never have been introduced. It is supposed to be brought in in the interests of democratic representation. I think we ought to disabuse our minds altogether of that idea. In my belief this Bill was brought in here simply and solely as an attack on Trinity College. And so, the cry goes up: "Is Trinity ever to be forgiven?" Through Trinity it is an attack on the Protestant minority. This whole ramp is an anti-Protestant move. We are engaged in a Protestant man-hunt. That is the bald fact. As I regard this Bill and this policy, it is a Protestant man-hunt that is being indulged in by the so-called followers of Wolfe Tone. It is true that now, of course, Fianna Fáil only puts "Republican Party" in parentheses after its title, but at the same time it still advocates publicly its adherence to the principles of Wolfe Tone. If Wolfe Tone could look on this Assembly to-night and see his policy being reversed in the brutal way in which it is being reversed, he would despair for the future of this country. Wolfe Tone wanted to substitute for Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter, the common name of Irishman.

This Bill reverses that. It is going to exclude from participation in the management of this country, to a great extent, the Protestant minority of this country, and to hit the Protestant element in this country by depriving an institution like Trinity of its representation in this Dáil. I am sure Deputies on the other side will admit that there is no University in the English-speaking world to-day that stands so high in reputation as does Trinity College. We are told that Trinity College is a "pocket borough." We are told—these words have been actually used in this House—that the protestants are a privileged class, and that they are no longer going to get privileges under the Fianna Fáil Government. We are told that no longer are they going to be allowed in here in numbers disproportionate to their actual influence in the country. Now, this country is not altogether made up of supporters of Fianna Fáil. It has a majority of only 55 per cent. against 45 per cent. in the whole country, and the Fianna Fáil Government should remember that 7 per cent. of the population of this country is made up of what is called the ex-Unionist or Protestant class. They are a people, on the whole, who are a hardworking, industrious section. They are men who have filled very high offices in this country, men who have shed lustre on their country, and men who have done credit to the social and commercial spheres in which they have moved. They are men who have done their part in public life since the passing of the Treaty; since this country secured for itself a form of Government which could be regulated and moulded by the will of the whole people. They have done their best to fit in with the schemes of the Government of the day, and to be loyal in the service of that Government, whatever Party was in power. These are the people who are now to be derided and told that they are a privileged class. The Attorney-General, and his colleague in the representation of the National University, have lent them selves to this very debasing spectacle, and lent themselves to it in a very degrading manner. It is not so long ago since another successful attempt was made to degrade a very high institution in this State, the office of Governor-General. Donal Ua Buachalla was induced——

That does not arise.

It is a parallel.

It does not arise. In fact the position of Governor-General is not discussed in this House except on the Vote for External Affairs.

I want to prove that in the same manner the Attorney-General and his colleague Deputy Mrs. Concannon, against their better judgment, are allowing themselves to be debased in this House. They are going to accept the principle of this policy, and to listen to the sansculottes on the back benches of the Fianna Fáil Party in their die-hard cries that we have heard with regard to the ex-Unionist element in this country “Away with them, away with them; off with their heads.”

This Bill is an attack on the constitutional Opposition to the Government in this country. It is well known, of course, and felt by Fianna Fáil that at no time would an intellectual institution like Trinity College send persons into this House, who would be likely to fall into line with Fianna Fáil policy; and, perhaps, it is also realised that the time was soon coming when the National University would not tolerate in its ranks as its public representatives any followers of the policy of Fianna Fáil. The Opposition here has always been dubbed a Protestant or even Pagan Opposition. In the old days, before Fianna Fáil came into the Dáil and even for a long time after they came in, the cry of "Freemason" was levelled, time after time, at those now on this side of the House. This Party was supposed to be propped up with "Freemason money." In fact, things went to such an extent that the State itself was called a "Freemason State." During a late election, I remember reading on walls in East Cork the slogan: "Vote for Corry and finish the Freemason Free State." In the name of Providence what can anybody do where you have a condition of affairs that is revealed by that ignorant type of slogan?

We have been told also that representation in this House should be influenced merely by numbers. Therefore, we are asked to believe that a person, in order to be a proper representative in this House, should represent so many thousand voters; that his intelligence and his adaptability for the work of a legislator, the care and the attention that he brings to bear on the problems that he is called upon to solve here, are not to be taken into account at all, but merely the number of electors whose support he gets in his constituency. I believe that there are over 10,000 electors in the constituency of Dublin University. The number is smaller in the case of the National University, but these numbers will increase each year as more and more of our young people obtain their University degrees.

The Attorney-General

The number of electors in the constituency of Dublin University is, I think, 3,000.

I should imagine that as the years pass the representatives of Trinity College in this House would be representing the opinions of at least 10,000 intelligent, well-educated people. We have been told that a man who gets elected in an ordinary constituency, who is elected by a larger number of votes, is, by that fact, better qualified and is going to be a better legislator than a University representative who obtains election by a smaller number of votes, and this in a country where there used to be so much respect for learning and where the arts and the sciences were always held in the highest esteem. We have now reached the position that in the Government's view a University professor is less capable of understanding the needs of this country than an ignorant "bodach" taken from the side of the country cross-roads. In saying that I am not to be taken as running down, or speaking disrespectfully of, the ordinary type of plain man in this country. I want simply to emphasise the difference that intellectual culture ought to make in getting for this country better administration, and pointing out that in a country like this, which was always remarkable for the respect it paid to learning, we should at all times endeavour to put into public positions men who will fill them with dignity and carry out the duties of their office in a manner that will win regard for themselves and for the people whose administrators they are. That, I think, could always be said of the representatives of Trinity College.

I deplore the spirit in which this Bill has been introduced. It was introduced in a narrow-minded and, I would almost say, ignorant, intolerant spirit. Certainly a very bad spirit was shown in its introduction, a spirit that will do untold harm to this country, that will seriously interfere with our national status and seriously affect the esteem in which we were held by other civilised countries, as a country in which there was respect for learning and advancement, and for good, pure, and clean administration

The introduction of this motion also gravely imperils what we all had been anxiously looking forward to—something that is more important than the particular form of Government that we have, something that transcends even the getting of the republic, and that is the unity of our people, north and south. I feel that it will have serious effects on the possibility of that reunion ever taking place. I am afraid it will postpone to a very remote time indeed the possibility of a joining up of hands between the people of Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State.

It is really very sad that at this time of our lives and at this time in the life of this State we should be called upon to pass a measure such as this. I will not say much more as I see that the Vice-President is anxious to conclude. He seems to be waiting impatiently, like the headsman with his axe, to cut off the heads of the Protestant representatives in this House. In a few minutes their heads will fall into the basket. I think that we will be doing a bad day's work and a dirty day's work if we pass this motion. We will be doing something that, in years to come, when Fianna Fáil and all its wicked works and pomps are forgotten, will stink in the nostrils of the Irish people.

I, too, greatly deplore the introduction of this measure. I am thinking of the grave injustice that we will be doing ourselves, an injustice that will only be fully realised in time to come. I am thinking of the injustice that we are doing to our people in this State as well as to the minority in another part of Ireland We had hoped—I, probably, foolishly, if you liked, had hoped—that with the aid of the representatives of Trinity College we could make a link between this part of Ireland and the North. I had hoped that with the help of their great influence we might be able to bring both parties together, but before an opportunity presented itself of doing that, of getting together a conference that might result in bringing the people of the North and South together, the Government come along with this Bill ‘and smash that link.

There is no use in anybody hiding the fact that Trinity College and the representatives that it has here to-day would prove an important factor in any step that this country would like to take to bring about peace between all our people. There is no doubt that Trinity College is being deprived of its representation simply because they have refused to accept the Whip of the Fianna Fáil Party. It has been stated that they voted too often against the Fianna Fáil Government and because of that they must go. I say that we are doing ourselves a very great injustice. There are many members who are sitting in this Parliament and may not sit in the next one, and they will regret this step all their lives. They will remember it in time to come as the greatest blot in their political history. I wish to protest against the passing of this Bill. I also want to join in the tribute that has been paid to the late Sir James Craig. He was a big, broadminded, tolerant individual, and there is no man or woman in this House who will say that the three representatives we have to-day from Trinity College are not big, broadminded men who in the days to come, as I said before, might be useful in breaking down the barrier which divides our country.

I wish to oppose this motion, because speaking for Co. Cavan I do not know of any demand for it there. I do not know of any demand for it in any part of the country, and even the Minister himself seems to be thoroughly ashamed of it. There is some credit due to him for the fact that he has paid a tribute to the services rendered by the University representatives in the House, but that makes it all the more awkward for him to cut them out now for no other reason except that given by Deputy Donnelly, who was sincere and honest enough to give the real motive. That motive is that the representatives of Trinity College did not show their independence by voting against their own convictions and against the wishes of their constituents.

I do not think I said that.

That is exactly what Deputy Donnelly's statements meant— that they should vote against their convictions. I do not think the whole thing is logical even from the Fianna Fáil Party point of view. It is detrimental to Fianna Fáil itself, although they may think they are gaining a temporary advantage. The advantage of gaining a couple of votes will be outweighed by the amount of respectability they will lose in their Party. That Party stands to gain by increasing the number of its more respectable members, instead of by diminishing them. Everybody in this House must admit that the two Deputies on that side who have been sent from the University are a credit to that Party. I am not excluding the Attorney-General, although he is just as much a Party man as there is over there, but after all, he is one of their most respectable members. As for Deputy Mrs. Concannon, everybody admires that lady.

Personally, I never admired her so much as last evening when she corrected Deputy MacDermot and made it clear that the election address which was attributed to her was only put forward on her behalf. I say that a Deputy like that would help to raise the credit of any Party, and I think Fianna Fáil will see their mistake in cutting out representatives such as Deputy Mrs. Concannon, because I do not think she will go to the country to seek election, and we will certainly miss members like her. I think that the whole thing is a great mistake. I believe that the Minister is beginning to realise that, and as time goes on it will become more and more impressed on him and upon other Deputies on those benches. I do not want to delay the House too long, but I just want to pay a tribute to Deputy Corry. He certainly made the best case that has been made by anyone on the Fianna Fáil benches. He is a man of good ideas, and like the curate's egg he is good in spots, but while he has bright ideas unfortunately he turns those ideas to improper purposes. He did hit a very good idea when he referred to brothers and sisters who are slaving early and late in order to give other members of their family a University education, and said that those people were not entitled to any privileges other than those which their brothers and sisters were getting. I quite agree with that sentiment. I am entirely with Deputy Corry on that. But he forgot one thing—that it is not the people who get this education that are getting the privilege and the advantage of increased representation but that it is this country and this House that are getting the benefit of having the representatives who are sent forward by the people who have this education. Nobody knows better than Deputy Corry that the people who stay at home are just as good as the people who have been sent away and educated, but at the same time education gives them an advantage that we must all recognise. It gives them an advantage in various directions.

If either Deputy Corry or myself wants an opinion upon any technical matter we have to go to a doctor, a lawyer or some man who has special training. While we may be very good representatives of the class to which we belong, and may represent them as fairly and honestly as anybody else, I think everybody must admit that if we had the advantages of a higher education we would represent them more faithfully. Education would not spoil us as Irishmen. If we had a higher education we would have as good a national outlook and be as Irish as we are without it. I think everybody will agree upon that point and admit that a higher education is an advantage that should be availed of as far as possible. By depriving this House of that advantage grave damage is being done to the nation, and it is something which Fianna Fáil, as well as every other Party, will regret.

The Minister to conclude.

I was very glad to hear the tribute of respect and admiration paid by the Deputy who has just sat down to my friend and colleague, Deputy Mrs. Concannon— I hope her husband does not take it too seriously—and to the Attorney-General; it is just what I would expect. I wonder does the Deputy think that I would like to see those two respected colleagues of mine deprived of the right to sit in this House? I would like to keep them here. I would like to have the advantage of their learning, their culture, their experience and their courtesy. I hope that any action I take here as Minister in proposing this motion, and eventually calling for a division, if there are any opponents of the proposition at the end of the debate, will not take away any of the lustre of the haloes that Deputies Rowlette, Alton and Thrift must feel they have around their heads as a result of the wonderful eulogiums they have heard throughout this debate.

The heads will be off as well as the haloes.

I hope they will be able to carry the halo even when the guillotine has descended. So far as I am concerned, the guillotine action will be strictly confined to the scope of the measure I am dealing with and I certainly would not like to see any of the lustre rubbed off. In all seriousness, I stand by every word I said in the way of humbly paying tribute to the University representatives whom I have known here since I became a member of this House. I do not want to retract one word of what I said and, if anything, I might add something to it. They have done good service; they have added knowledge and experience and training which have often been of value in the discussions here. For that reason, a purely personal point of view, I can say for myself and for my colleagues, that, speaking of the individuals we have known, with whom we have served and worked on committees, and so on, we do not desire to do anything that would prevent them from being members of this House.

There are some small-minded people not entirely of one Party, who would consider this question of the abolition of the University seats from the narrow, mean, petty, Party viewpoint, and who would believe that we have introduced this measure because of the chance of a vote or two one way or the other. Some of them, like Deputy O'Neill—small minds in big bodies— think that a Government takes important decisions of the kind that was taken by this Government when this measure was decided upon in that narrow, mean, petty spirit. That is not so. It may not be believed, and I am sure there are people, some perhaps with small minds and some with minds not so small, who will continue to say that I was a good actor, but I am speaking in all sincerity. We have gone over this discussion completely and we have had many points of view put, pro and con. We have had some able speeches and some eloquent speeches, and none more able or eloquent than some of those we listened to yesterday; but my mind is not changed, and I stand, and my Party stands, for the principle enunciated in the Bill.

It would probably not be interesting to the House for me to go over in detail many of the points that were raised and the arguments put forward by the different speakers who spoke yesterday and to-day in opposition to the motion. To use the words of Deputy Thrift, much of the discussion was a rehash of the former debates, and it was necessarily so. One cannot go on for ever talking on a subject, not of limited scope, but of moderately limited scope, like this, and on every occasion on which the debate is renewed, bring forward new arguments. There are, however, one or two matters I should like to refer to. There is the question of the mandate. How does a political Party that forms the Government get a mandate? It gets it from its political Party organisation and from its contact with the country. The Fianna Fáil programme was got in that way, the same as any other political Party which goes to the country and which has an organisation behind it, gets a programme and gets a mandate. We have a mandate for the abolition of University seats from the time Fianna Fáil was founded.

Deputy McGilligan has talked of that mandate frequently and at great length. He has emphasised the fact that, in his opinion, it was no mandate because we got it from a few Fianna Fáil Cumainn and from the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis. Where does any political Party get its mandate otherwise? It is no discredit to us that we got it in that way, as we did get it. Where was the mandate got to put University representation into the Constitution? It was never asked for; it was never before the people; the people were never told in advance that such a thing was going to be done. It was done in this House when the Constitution was being discussed, on the suggestion, I am told, of some Independent member.

Did they not get a mandate to form a Constitution then?

That is how University representation was brought in here and put into the Constitution. The country was given a draft Constitution on the morning of a general election. The country got no opportunity in that famous general election of knowing what it was to vote on. Probably 75 per cent. of the people who voted that day never saw the draft Constitution. It was later discussed, debated and altered, and, without a mandate, without instructions and without reference to the people, University representation was brought in here, be it good or bad. I am talking now on the question of mandate. There was no mandate asked for, much less received from the people for the insertion of University representation in the Constitution.

It was already in in practice.

Not in this country. You had not got a Parliament.

Was it not in the Sinn Féin programme?

There was a demand made, as Deputy McGilligan reminded us again last night—and I was about to come to this—for equality of representation for the National University in the then Parliament. That is what was asked for in 1918. There was a Redistribution Bill going through the British House of Commons at that time, and the claim was made, and justly made, on behalf of the National University, that it should have an equal representation with Dublin University in the Parliament, which then represented or misrepresented Ireland. There is no analogy between that and the present case.

There was no call for abolition then.

The demand in 1918 was to level up representation. Deputy McGilligan said last night that University graduates are part and parcel of the ordinary life of the country. I believe he was replying to some remarks of my friend and colleague, the Attorney-General, and he referred to some reference that the Attorney-General made to Bryce's views on the antiquated notion of University representation. The Deputy wanted to prove that the university of to-day was an entirely different conception from the university of 100 or 200 years ago— that it was to-day a democratic institution, part and parcel of the life of the people. Why, if that be so, cannot the universities trust the people? They are part and parcel of the life of the nation. The life blood of the universities is the youth of the nation. What have they to fear from the nation as a whole, or its voters, or its representatives?

Fianna Fáil.

Fianna Fáil represents the majority-the vast majority —of the citizens of this country old enough to vote.

The vast majority?

Well, what is the use of debating a matter like that? It ought to speak for itself since we are the Government of the country. We would not be here if we were not the majority.

A majority—not the vast majority.

Just another point to show that, far from debating this matter from a non-Party standpoint, as Deputy O'Neill—or if not he, some other members of his Party—suggested should be done, a representative committee of his own Party was set up in or about 1926-and there were important members of the Party sitting on it, 11 or 12 of them—to discuss this question of University representation, and their decision was that there should not be University representation in the Dáil. They were important people. They were the most important people that ever sat on the front benches or the back benches of that Party, and that was their decision— their considered decision-after many meetings. Why, even the man whom I believe they regarded as the ablest statesman they produced, the late Kevin O'Higgins, opposed University representation on principle in this House, as did many of the leaders of that Party in the committee that was formed in 1926. However, that was referred to here before and I do not want to go over it again.

Do not misrepresent the late Kevin O'Higgins. He wanted representation in the Seanad, but not in the Dáil.

I do not want to misrepresent anybody. I said very distinctly "in this House."

You seem to have a bad memory over there.

We have better memories than the Deputy. We do not forget. We will never forget you people, anyway, nor the country either.

As I said earlier, it is not from the mean, narrow Party view-point that we are putting forward this motion and the principle enshrined in it. Deputy McGilligan said last night that a House so narrowly divided that Trinity College representatives—or "T.C.D." as he put it—could rule the roost, would not last, and that is true. It is also true, incidentally, that one vote, or less than one vote—the vote of the Ceann Comhairle—kept Deputy Cosgrave in office longer probably than the majority of the people of the country wished him to be kept. With a small, narrow majority of that kind behind the Government, it would certainly not have a very long life, and it would be useless and futile of this Government, or this Party, to think that it could hold office with success and govern with effect if it had only behind it a vote or two, composed perhaps of people on whom they could not always rely.

What about your own majority at present? It is not very big. What about the official Labour Party? You can always rely on them, I suppose.

Since the Deputy left it.

At any rate, it is a clear majority of one over all.

It has been frequently suggested in this debate that the Bill has been introduced to get rid of Trinity College representatives That is not true. At least, it is only half true, because we want to get rid of the National University representatives as well.

Oh, shades of poor old Oliver Cromwell!

As I said earlier, I would be sorry — I do not know whether they would be sorry or not— to lose my colleagues from the National University as colleagues in this House. I know that often times, when another National University representative spoke in this House, I felt sorry for the University and for University education. I felt sorry for the House—not because he was a University representative, but because he was not a credit to higher education. However, I must say, as I said on the last occasion on which we debated this question, that I was thankful that we were not given the usual kind of address on this subject that we have listened to from that distinguished University graduate so often on other matters in this House before. I am not a bit ashamed or afraid at any time to talk about, and face openly, the fact that there are differences of opinion—religious differences—here in this country among our people — not a bit afraid or ashamed of it, as Deputy O'Neill would suggest. I realise the fact, as we must realise the fact, and face it; but I would like to remind the House, if necessary, that all the Protestant minority in this country are not all on one political side, and never were.

Witness Deputy Browne, who spoke from the back benches last night, when he repudiated the right of Deputy Thrift or the Protestants of Trinity College to speak for him as a Protestant, or for all the Protes tants in Saorstát Eireann. There have always been some Protestants who share the political views of the majority of the people of Ireland. I am the type of Irishman who was always willing, and expressed it publicly and privately on every possible occasion, to hold out the hand of friendship to brother Irishmen of a different persuasion, and who asked them to join with the majority of the people for the good of the country; if possible, to accept their view-point, but, at any rate, to join with them and work for the good of the country.

To give them their rights but no privileges.

To give them their rights. I might go a little further. I think I said once before, but perhaps it is no harm to repeat it, that I would be not alone just, but generous, because of the fact that they are a small minority. In that connection, I should like to quote the speech referred to by Deputy Thrift last night and which I quoted before in the Seanad. On the day we were discussing the University Bill on the Seanad the speech was reported in the Irish Times. It is a speech delivered by Dr. Gregg, Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, who said:

"I am very much concerned that we should allow ourselves to think of ourselves or encourage others to think of us as an alien minority. We belong to this country. It is for us to take our part in the work of the country and not to be regarded as a small class which must be treated differently to everybody else."

Further on he said:

"It is our business to amalgamate ourselves with the country, to take our part in its life and make others think of us, not as a separate body, but as belonging to the integral life of the country."

I stand for that.

Are we helping that?

I stand for the philosophy behind that. My political upbringing was on the writings of Thomas Davis. I stand for what he taught; for his political philosophy and his Irish philosophy. I have never deviated from that and, please God, I never shall. I shall do my best to get all Irishmen together, without privilege, without any special distinction being made. I hope to see all Irishmen working together some day in one big political movement for the unity, betterment and complete independence of this country. Political differences are short, no matter how long we may think they are. Some time ago most of those on the Opposition Benches and on the Government Benches were in one great national movement and there were some persons prominent in that movement belonging to the religious persuasion of the minority. We are divided to-day; God knows how it will be to-morrow or next year. People who are with us to-day may be against us, and those who are on the opposite side may be with us.

I hope, however, that all will join in similar movements to those we have had in the past for the honour and glory of this country, where there was no religious distinction and all worked together for the glory and honour of God and our country and its independence. That is my view, that is my philosophy, and that is the philosophy enshrined in the speech of the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin. That is what is behind the suggestion to do away with privilege for the minority. It is for the benefit of the minority, if they will only look at it in the right way. Get down amongst the people, stand with the people, be of the people, and they will be behind you. I believe in that principle. I believe it is for the good of the country, and particularly for the good of the minority concerned. If accepted in the right way, it will be to their good and our good and the country's good. It will make for the unity of the country and its good in the days to come.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 40.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Concannon. Helena.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Dowd. Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Alton, Eruest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dolan, James Nicholas.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lavery, Cecil.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Rowlette, Robert James.
  • Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smit h; Níl:—Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share