I have submitted an amendment to this Section.
SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTORS REGISTRATION BILL, 1923—THIRD STAGE.
Section 1 put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
The second register of electors to be prepared pursuant to the Principal Act, that is to say the register of electors who are qualified on the 15th day of November, 1923, shall in addition to the matters prescribed by or under the Principal Act, contain in the prescribed form the names of all persons who under the existing law as amended by this Act are qualified on the 15th day of November, 1923, to be registered as local government electors.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I am not quite satisfied that the amendment is in order, because it proposes to effect two radical changes in the law regulating the right to the franchise. That would look prima facie as if it was hostile for the purpose of this Bill, but I find there is a provision in the Bill, Clause 3, which does deal with electoral qualifications by shortening the period, and, therefore, I am not in a position definitely to say that the Senator's amendment is out of order.
The first portion of the amendment reads as follows:—
To add at the end of Section 2 the following:—
"(a) provided always that nothing in this Section or in any existing enactment shall entitle a person to be registered as a Local Government Elector if the rates for which he or she is legally liable on the 31st March immediately preceding the 15th November in each year are in arrear at the time of the compilation of the Register."
I do not think it is desirable to say much on this amendment. It is quite evident that it is desirable that a person who pays no rates should not have a voice in their distribution. If carried, this amendment will achieve a double purpose. It will exclude from voting those who do not pay their rates, and it will also induce ratepayers to meet their liabilities. For those reasons I move the amendment.
Apart from the sentiment underlying this amendment, there is a fault in the drafting. The amendment talks about the time of compilation of the register. There is actually no fixed time of compilation. There is a period for qualification and a period for the publication of the register, but there is no time for compiling. If this amendment were adopted it would apply differently in different places, and cause endless confusion. If a man whose rates are unpaid is to be disfranchised what about disfranchising his wife? There is no reason why she should not be disfranchised also. Then there is the other very important fact, that, in places like Dublin, the tenant almost invariably pays an inclusive rent which includes rates. If the landlord fails to pay the rates the whole of the tenants under him will be disfranchised, although they have paid their rents. It is obvious that this amendment cannot possibly be applied from the point of view of practical application, and, if it did apply, it would inflict the greatest possible hardship on some people. I hardly think that it is necessary to argue against it further.
I think that there is something to be said in favour of this amendment. All over the country there is evident an extraordinary lack of zeal in paying rates. In some counties the arrears amount to thousands and thousands of pounds. Anything that would stimulate the payment of these rates and make ratepayers recognise their responsibilities and their duties towards the public ought to be encouraged. For that reason, I would certainly not allow a voter to vote in a local government election if he did not discharge his primary duty as a citizen and contribute his proper share to the local rates.
With regard to a wife losing her vote if her husband did not pay his rates, that might, in fact, be an inducement to pay the rates, as if the wife is anxious to exercise the franchise she would probably wish her husband to pay them. I do not say that this particular proposal should be adopted, but, I think, it is no harm to have the suggestion made and generally considered. Senator Linehan has rendered a public service in raising the question. It is for people who live in the country and have to use rates in the building of cottages and so forth, to see that those of their neighbours who are not prepared to discharge their duties should be penalised in some way. The vote in this country is not a matter to which people seem to attach great importance. For those who do vote and who are interested in the exercise of the franchise, I think it might be made known that they should also discharge their other duties.
The Senator who sits behind me has really hit the nail on the head when he stated that the compilation of the register is to be carried out at no stated time. That is the whole answer to Senator Linehan's amendment. I wish, sir, when you said that this amendment was in order that you had explained that fact to the Seanad because, as Senator O'Farrell has said, the register is taken in one place at one time, and at another place at another time. My feeling is that the amendment is absolutely useless as an amendment to the Bill.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You are only objecting to its grammatical form, but I could not rule it out of order on that ground. I think what Senator O'Farrell had in mind was not compilation but completion.
With regard to the particular time when the compilation of the register is engaging attention, if the amendment were slightly altered so that the elector would be entitled to have his or her name recorded on the register, provided he or she had paid the rates for the previous financial year, it would not matter what particular time the register was being compiled. That is the recommendation made by the General Council of County Councils to the Local Government Ministry. I think, generally, that if a person is so lacking in civic spirit or in a sense of civic obligation, and has not paid rates, provided he is in a position to do so—there are many cases where persons are not in that position, and for one reason or another are evading their obligations — he should not be allowed the privilege of voting. Generally, throughout the country, there is now a disposition to evade the payment of rates, and we know that in the matter of county council arrears of rates the figure is very considerable. Propagandist movements are on foot throughout the various counties, actually to strike at the collection of these rates, and they have the effect of utterly dislocating the finances of the various county councils. There are, in fact, instances where the rates are two and three years in arrears.
You have certain expenditure to which you are committed. Very large services depend on the payment of these rates. A large amount of distress would be involved if any County Council were to break down financially. Appeals have been made by various County Councils. Yet we find no material response to these appeals, showing the people are actually dead to their civic duty. We have told them the asylums must be closed, and other humanitarian measures of that character will fail owing to the nonpayment of rates, but we do not find a response. In cities we know of many people who could well afford to pay their rates, who have four, five, and six pounds a week coming into their houses, and in which houses there is no tangible property to be seized in default of payment of rates. The money is recklessly squandered. In England when a man of good earning capacity but with no tangible furniture in his house fails to pay his rates, he is put in gaol. That shows you how the authorities view the matter in other countries. For all these reasons I should certainly support the amendment. It is anomalous to have a man having a voice in the election of a public body that has to deal with the administration of public funds who is absolutely unconcerned whether or not he discharges his public duty. His idea is that the expenditure might be of a lavish order and he might benefit indirectly by it. I think a man who pays his rates should follow up the man he votes for, and see he does his duty. The man who does not is a bad citizen.
I do not think any member is antagonistic to the sentiment which underlies Senator Linehan's amendment. I am very much in favour of it myself. Even Senator O'Farrell, if he wants labourers' cottages in a regular fashion, must have rates. And as Senator O'Farrell pointed out, the whole point is, if this amendment is passed, a lot of people would be done out of their votes through no fault of their own.
It appears to me from the statements that have been made that in the country, individual cottage-holders pay their own rates. In the city it is not the case. The landlord charges an inclusive rent and pays them himself. If this amendment is passed, it seems to me that if the landlord does not pay the rates, he disfranchises his tenant. Unless the law is changed, each individual householder is responsible for his rates. The sooner the law is changed in that respect the better it will be. It will have the effect of getting everything done in a proper spirit.
I am definitely opposed to this amendment, because it seems to me the Senator is attempting to cure a disease, due to abnormal times, in a permanent Bill. In the ordinary times rates are collected fairly well, and even in the wild Co. Clare, which, contrary to the popular belief, is a peaceful county, in the district where I live, the total amount of rates outstanding is £98. I do not know how many other districts have the same to say. The reason that is so in Clare is, that the strong arm of the law is put into force. I do not think this amendment is of much value. As regards the idea of tenants being disfranchised through the landlord not paying the rates, that is a matter for the lawyer, and I do not think we can discuss it. I think Senator O'Farrell was right about the vagueness of the amendment as to the word "compilation." That, in itself, is sufficient to make me oppose the amendment.
I should like to support this amendment for several reasons. In the first place, the reason given by Senator O'Farrell seems to me to be beside the question of when a man is disfranchised because the landlord did not pay the rates. Whether the landlord is liable or not, why should a tenant be disfranchised? Perhaps the tenant would not pay. I know that the scandals arising through people administering and spending the rates who never pay them are fearful. I am aware of one district where the rates amount to 40s. in the £, and where people have to pay double their valuation. That is, double their valuation, and these rates are imposed by people who, in a great number of instances, never pay rates at all. I do not see why people should be allowed to levy rates or incur charges at the public expense who would not themselves contribute towards them, and if this amendment would have the effect of preventing this sort of thing I am entirely in favour of it.
I would like to emphasise the point which Senator Barrington rather wants to slur over. One does not want to be a lawyer to know that it is the tenant who is held responsible for the rates, because I have had that experience myself. My landlord did not pay the rates, and I was summoned for them, although I had not to pay rates at all. If the County Councils and Corporations did the duties for which they were elected instead of talking polities, there would not be such arrears and justification for such action as this.
I have been in exactly the same position as Senator O'Farrell. I happen to hold a place for which the landlord was liable to pay the rates. The landlord did not pay them, and I was disfranchised. I did not care a scrap whether I was disfranchised or not, but I did object to his failure to pay the rates. I took legal advice, and I paid the rates, but deducted them from the rent, and I believe a similar course would be open to everybody.
I think that is decided in Bradshaw v. McMullen.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I have heard of that case, Senator.
I support the amendment or the suggestion of Senator Kenny, rather that it might be amended to meet the case. As it stands, it is rather incoherent and hazy, but I think the principle that is at the back of Senator Linehan's mind, that a man should not enjoy the vote unless he discharges his civic duty, is an admirable one. I must dissent from the view of Senator O'Farrell regarding the performance of their duties by the County Councils. I have had long experience as a County Councillor, and I found, year after year, large sums in arrears returned and carried over, although strong efforts were made by the local bodies to get them in. In many cases they went to labourers' cottages, and it was a case of nulla bona. They had plenty of bona to spend on everything else but their rates, and I really feel that if this clause should be put in, while safeguarding the town dweller, it ought to be done. If an amendment could be framed so as to secure that the town dweller would not be affected, I would certainly be in its favour, and even as it is, I would like to support this amendment.
I support the amendment, which is a very useful one, and I think it will be of very great assistance to the local authorities that something should be put into the law to stop this refusal to pay rates. The point advanced by Senator O'Farrell is really not material. We all know very well that a landlord is liable for rates, and that the tenant has a very simple remedy. He can pay the rates and deduct the amount from the next month's rent. There is no difficulty at all about it. If he wishes to be, what he ought to be, a good citizen and anxious for the good government of the community, there is no difficulty for any man who thinks his landlord is really liable for the rates. I agree entirely with Senator Nesbitt that it is one of the worst plans to make landlords liable for the payment of rates, and nothing could be worse for the civic government of Dublin. Rates ought to be levied and collected from the occupiers of the houses, and then they will become aware of how important it is to keep down the rates. In Dublin during my memory, the tenant has never taken any interest in the rates. He thinks the landlord pays them, and that he is not concerned. The result is that you have the present high cost of living in Dublin. I have men in my employment to-day who have been obliged to take a back room and pay £1 a week for it. It is intolerable, and it puts them into that position. I think it is a most useful amendment, and I certainly support it.
Would I be in order in suggesting that the Senator should so frame his amendment that the general feeling of the Seanad would favour it? As it is, it is accepted as loosely drawn, and if Senator Linehan would put his amendment into the shape pointed out by Senator O'Farrell, there would be no difficulty in carrying it.
Might I suggest that the amendment to this amendment be as follows:—After the word "arrear" to leave out all the remainder of the amendment, and then it will read properly, and it will be possible to pass it. Senator Linehan has altered the one word "is" to "if." I must point out that the register has not been compiled for two years, and formerly it was compiled every six months, I believe. If you, sir, agree to that, I beg to propose it as an amendment to the amendment.
I think if we heard the Minister it might help us and, possibly, if he was in favour of the amendment he might, on Report Stage, bring up a more considered form.
I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment in any form. The principal point about this Bill is its urgency. We want, if possible, to get it through before Christmas. In so far as the amendment deals with the speeding up of the collection of rates, I have a Bill before the Dáil at present which will be much more effective for that purpose than this Bill. It will come before you very shortly, and if you have any amendment of this kind that will be the proper occasion to bring it forward. This Bill is really very urgent, and I ask you not to press the amendment for that reason.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It is quite clear that an amendment of this character might be held to be foreign to your other Bill. If your other Bill is merely for the purpose of speeding up the collection of rates, it might well be held that an amendment of this character would be foreign to its purpose. I cannot say that until I have seen the Bill.
I think it would come in under that in so far as it deals with the franchise. Of course, this Bill was not intended to amend the franchise law in any way; that question comes under the general heading of Local Government reform, which is at present having the consideration of the Department. When I bring forward the Bill we will be able to consider the question of franchise. I think it is a most unsuitable time to bring forward this contentious matter. Then, of course, the question has been asked about the tenants who pay rents to their landlords on condition that the landlords pay the rates. That is another very important matter to take into consideration, because, as Senator Nesbitt pointed out, in a great many cases these rents are paid on condition that the landlord pays the rates. All the time the tenant remains legally liable for the rates, so that on the whole, it would be much better not to press this amendment.
One of the main reasons advanced by the Minister appears to be that it is necessary to pass this Bill before Christmas, another example of rush legislation, of which, I am sure, we have all heard. If there is a Bill on the stocks we have no knowledge of it, and if we think that a certain proviso should be put into this Bill to affect a useful change in the administration of the country, I think it is our duty to insert that proviso, even though it might not meet the views of the Government— that we should shut our ears to what we hear and our eyes to what we see. I do not think it would be becoming to us as a Seanad to adopt the suggestion, and I think it is one more reason why we should pass this amendment, because the only reason suggested for not passing it is that we have to pass the Bill before Christmas.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view Senator Bennett has just expressed. At the same time, I think there is a fair case for the urgency of this Bill, as it stands. I think it is possible there is another way out for members of the Seanad who feel strongly in this matter: that is, to introduce a Bill amending the existing legislation early next year. It would be a Seanad Bill, which could be carefully considered, and sent to the Dáil from here on its merits, after full debate. Most of us, judging from the speeches, find a certain amount of difficulty in making up our minds in voting on this amendment. A considerable number who agree with it are doubtful as to its exact effect. I should like to point out that in this matter we are placed in a difficulty. I appeal strongly to the members of the Government and the leaders of the Dáil not to place us again in the position we are now. Most of us would like to see the Local Government elections taking place for various reasons at as early a date as possible, and, therefore, we do not wish to delay this Bill. I think it is an extremely unsatisfactory position that the Dáil should send up Bills and then adjourn. I think, in the interests of good Government, or the careful consideration of Bills sent before us, that an arrangement might be made by which the Dáil could be called to deal with any amendments that might be inserted, particularly as regards urgent Bills. The same applies to other Bills in which amendments might be inserted, and for which a fair case for urgency can be made. I hope it would be possible, if the Seanad agrees with me, to ask the Dáil in future to make it easy for the reconsideration of amendments to urgent Bills, and not simply adjourn until the 10th January, and send up a number of Bills to the Seanad, which we must either amend as we wish, or pass because we are afraid of delay.
I think the Senator is not quite fair in this matter. This Bill was sent forward here when the Dáil adjourned, not through any discourtesy to the Seanad, or anything of the sort, but because it was considered non-contentious. No amendment was moved in the Dáil, and the representation in the Dáil is to some extent the same as here, and we did not think there would be any discussion on it. An amendment which we had not foreseen has been moved, and that has created a difficulty. If we had known there was to be any contentious amendment moved the Dáil would not have adjourned without giving time to consider it.
Arising out of what the Minister has said, last week I protested in the strongest way I could against this system of sending up Bills —saying they are matters of such urgency, and that they should be passed at once, as they are only temporary Bills. Last Session we had instance after instance of Bills coming up under these conditions, and we passed them in view of statements the Ministers made. We knew the difficulties of the Ministers, and we passed them without amendments, and then we found these Bills were reintroduced verbatim and sent back for us to pass as permanent measures. I think this case, if not exactly similar, is much the same. If the Seanad is of any use—after all, we are the Seanad of Ireland—we have been called a Cooling Chamber—we are supposed to do our best to amend legislation, if it is our opinion that certain amendments ought to be introduced after consideration, and not make us pass a Bill of which we disapprove.
I would like to ask the mover of the amendment if he is aware that there are 20,000 people living in one roomed dwellings in Dublin for which they pay abnormal rents. Very few, if any, of these contribute directly to the rates, and a landlord can, at any time, decide to withhold the rates in order to disqualify his tenants, as this amendment would empower him to do. All of us on this side are in entire sympathy and agreement with the sentiments expressed in the amendment, but we say it does not go far enough; it should go a long way further to penalise those landlords who will not pay the rates, though they can pay them. Some penalty ought be laid down to deal with these people. You have plenty of internment camps and jails idle now, and if people act in this way they should be dealt with, because of their action in disqualifying a great number of people. I think it is ridiculous to bring in an amendment of this kind as a remedy. It certainly will not be a remedy.
I was associated with Local Government administration for some time, and I think this matter came before me for consideration. The view that I and other people took of that was that we should not contemplate a condition in which any serious default would be allowed, that we should strengthen up the machinery for the collection of rates, should apply that vigorously, and that we should not consider the question of disfranchising anybody. We should not say if so and so does not pay his rates he will be disqualified, but we say we will give him the franchise and see he pays his rates.
May I suggest this to the Government? The position we find ourselves in is, I think, the majority of the Seanad are in favour of the amendment. Would the Government undertake to consider this question favourably in connection with their amending Local Government Bill when it comes in? In that way probably the situation might be met. No doubt many members of the Seanad would like to see something done in this direction. If the Government would say they would consider the question favourably in connection with their new Bill, then we might withdraw from the position we have taken up; otherwise I think we would be inclined to vote for the amendment.
Certainly we will take the views of Senator Sir T. Esmonde into consideration when we are bringing in the Bill dealing with Local Government reform.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think his words were "favourable consideration."
I could not, at this stage, without knowing what other provisions would be brought into the Bill, say that we would embody that provision.
Would the Minister consider it favourably, and not rule it out?
I will consider it favourably.
Am I to understand that we can amend the franchise in any way but in a Franchise Bill?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I will decide that when it arises. I have said already I know nothing about the contents of this promised Bill, but I foresee a possibility—I will go the length of saying a probability—that if it takes the shape suggested by the Minister, an amendment of that kind I will be compelled to rule out of order, but I am not going definitely to say so.
That is just the point in view. There is no use asking the Minister to give favourable consideration to any amendment of the Local Government Act on the franchise question. As pointed out, the seriousness of the position will be that if you attempt to deal with a person who is guilty of the offence of refusing to pay his just and lawful debts, there are many other people who will suffer in consequence of his default if elections become very keen again. There are some landlords who own many slum houses, where as many as 40 or 50 people live in one house, and these landlords will not pay rates for the purpose of disfranchising these people. They are not above doing that. Though in sympathy with the idea underlying the amendment, that if a person does not pay his just and lawful debts he is not entitled to full citizenship, I think, under the circumstances, we cannot support it.
If you are going to deal with the matter, deal with it in the proper way, as the Minister said he was prepared to deal with it. If people do not pay their just and lawful debts, he said he was prepared to put the machinery of the law in motion and compel them to do so.
I would like to ask whether, under the existing law, a Local Government elector who has not paid his rates is not disfranchised? I would also like to inquire whether this amendment makes any change in the existing law?
On the spur of the moment, I cannot answer that question. There may be some technicalities involved. I would say he is not disfranchised.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The amendment, as originally proposed, stood in the name of Senator Linehan but since then Senator the Earl of Mayo has proposed to omit the words at the end: "In each year are in arrear at the time of the compilation of the register." I would suggest to Senators Linehan and the Earl of Mayo that while these words should be left out the other part of the amendment should be framed in this way:
Provided always that nothing in this Section or in any existing enactment shall entitle a person to be registered as a Local Government elector for any year in which the rates for which he or she is legally liable on the 31st March, immediately preceding the 15th November are unpaid."
I accept that.
I take it that an amendment to an amendment can only be accepted with the general consent of the Seanad.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I propose to put it to the Seanad.
I would urge that we are taking an extremely important step without consideration. It would be a very serious proposition to put a matter of this kind to the Seanad in a form in which it may be carried without receiving proper consideration.
I would like some information as to whether this Bill refers only to registration for the present year. I only see one date mentioned.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
If you refer to Section 3 you will find that previous provisions are repealed. If it had not been for that Section, I would have ruled this amendment out of order. But Section 3 undoubtedly introduces a change in the law in respect of the qualification of electors, not alone for one year, but for the future. Consequently, I cannot rule the amendment out of order.
Might I ask if this would leave any margin to the ratepayer? The General Council of County Councils thought fit to give him some latitude, inasmuch as they recommended that if he paid his rates for the previous financial year he would be entitled to be put upon the roll. It might so happen that the dates set out here might place him at a disadvantage, and I would suggest that there should be some margin allowed.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think the Senator need trouble very much with that sort of point. I imagine that if this amendment were passed and accepted by the Government, they would themselves bring in a clause, when it comes back, framed in such a way as to meet all those difficulties.
I entirely agree with Senator O'Farrell. I think it would be much better not to press this amendment—at any rate until the law is altered giving the franchise to the occupiers of the houses themselves. I would much prefer that the amendment should not be pressed.
Before the amendment is put, I would like to know, if it becomes law, will it preclude people from voting who do not pay rates directly, in case the landlord fails to pay them.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
If they do not pay their rates and deduct them from their rent——
I was thinking particularly of those people who are not in a position to deduct the rates—the people inhabiting tenement houses who pay by the week. Their rates are paid by the landlord. I would like to know would this amendment exclude them, if the rates were not paid by the landlord?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think it plainly would.
Amendment put —"Provided always that nothing in this Section or in any existing enactment shall entitle a person to be registered as a Local Government elector for any year in which the rates for which he or she is legally liable on the 31st of March immediately preceding the 15th of November are unpaid."
The Seanad divided. Tá, 22; Níl, 18.
Tá
- William Barrington.
- Samuel L. Brown.
- Richard A. Butler.
- John C. Counihan.
- Peter de Loughrey.
- Dowager Countess of Desart.
- Sir Thomas Henry Grattan Esmonde.
- Sir Nugent Talbot Everard.
- Martin Fitzgerald.
- Captain Joseph Henry Greer.
- Sir John Purser Griffith.
- Arthur Jackson.
- Sir John Keane.
- Patrick William Kenny.
- Thomas Linehan.
- James MacKean.
- Earl of Mayo.
- Col. Maurice Moore.
- Michael O'Dea.
- William O'Sullivan.
- George Sigerson.
- The Earl of Wicklow.
Níl
- James Green Douglas.
- Thomas Westropp Bennett.
- Mrs. Eileen Costello.
- Michael Duffy.
- Thomas Farren.
- Thomas Foran.
- Oliver St. John Gogarty.
- Mrs. Alice Stopford Green.
- Henry Seymour Guinness.
- Benjamin Haughton.
- Cornelius Joseph Irwin.
- Joseph Clayton Love.
- Edward MacEvoy.
- Eamonn Mac Giolla Iasachta.
- George Nesbitt.
- John Thomas O'Farrell.
- James J. Parkinson.
- Mrs. Jane Wyse Power.
Amendment declared carried.
I beg to move the next amendment standing in my name, which is also an amendment to Section 2. It reads:—
(b) provided also that a person occupying rateable property having a valuation not exceeding £20 shall be entitled to one vote, over £20 and not exceeding £50 two votes, over £50 and not exceeding £100 three votes, and over £100 four votes at any Local Government Election, and the Register shall be so prepared as to show the number of votes to which each elector is entitled."
I regard those bodies which are elected by the Local Government electors as business concerns, and I think it is only right that the persons who contribute to their upkeep should have a voice in their election corresponding to some extent to their contribution to those bodies. I regard those bodies, more or less, as a company, and the ratepayers as shareholders. From a business point of view, I think it is only right that those who contribute a large amount should have a larger number of votes than those who contribute only a small amount. The proportions set out here are not at all so great as to give the large ratepayer votes corresponding to his valuation. For instance, a ratepayer contributing on a £1 valuation will have one vote, whereas a man paying on a valuation of £100 will have only four votes. That is not a very great difference and does not at all correspond with the margin between the contribution of the greater and the lesser ratepayer. If this amendment were carried, it would have the effect of preventing the gross extravagance which is taking place under some of the local bodies throughout the country, and I would hope it would considerably reduce the rates by more efficient methods of administration. For that reason, I submit the amendment for the consideration of the Seanad.
This is a very funny amendment, coming from "Rebel Cork." It suggests setting up a franchise on the Prussian model. I suppose that is where Senator Linehan got the idea from, although I understand that for generations past Cork was Republican. Senator Linehan says that local government is a business matter. Well, so is national government, and if you are going to give a ratepayer whose valuation is over £100 four votes, and his wife four votes more—that is eight —you will have, in order to be consistent, to do likewise with the Parliamentary franchise. At that rate, Messrs. Guinness and Son would elect about half the members of the Dáil.
I thought we had got away from that property basis of voting. But now that we have got the power to arrange our own household, Senator Linehan, coming from Cork, wants the old feudal system restored. For some considerable time now, the principle of "One man, one vote," and, in later days, "One woman, one vote," has been adopted in every country having any pretensions to democracy. This amendment is going to alter all that. Senator Linehan, a few minutes ago, as one of my colleagues pointed out, tried to take the house from the poor man. Later on, he wanted to take the Local Government vote from him, and now he proposes to put him in an unequal position, by giving the wealthier man four times the number of votes he has. By the time this Bill gets through with these provisions, we will probably have a revolution.
The proposition is so outrageous that it would not be fair to keep the Seanad discussing it.
I do not think the Seanad should pass this amendment because it is not sound in principle. To be consistent we should assume that all property was properly acquired through the industry, integrity and intelligence of the persons possessing it. No one could hope to convince the Seanad that that is the case. That being so the amendment would be very unfair from an equitable point of view and would give a very unfair advantage to property owners whose title to property, or the means by which they acquired it, might be, at least, very questionable, and probably would not bear investigation in a great many cases. Also if you make a property qualification on the basis of the amount of wealth that a man has, how would you apply it to the basis on which the Parliamentary franchise rests. Would you then say that a man who was on the lowest intellectual level should have one vote and go by degrees of intellectuality until you come to the B.A., give him two votes, and three votes to the M.A.? The same principle should apply there. There are degrees of intelligence, just the same as there are degrees of wealth, and when you apply the root principles of the amendment I do not think the position taken up by Senator Linehan in this case is a tenable one.
While I am not able to support the amendment I would like to correct two statements as regards the principle. This principle of plurality of voting is not confined entirely to countries of a reactionary kind. If Senator O'Farrell would study the Constitution of Belgium he will find that there is a plurality system there, not on property qualification, but intellectual qualification.
Like Senator Sir J. Keane I could not vote for the amendment, but I would like to point out that in Belgium a man gets one vote when he comes to 25 years of age; another vote if he gets married; a third vote if he is a graduate of a university, and a fourth vote if he has property above a certain valuation.
I wish to refer to one point that has been mentioned against this amendment, that is comparing the Parliamentary franchise with the Local Government franchise. In the case of the Parliamentary franchise practically every person who has a vote contributes about the same amount to the national revenue as regards indirect taxation on what they eat and drink. There are very few who have to pay on the income tax basis compared with the vast number of voters on the register. I do not therefore regard the Parliamentary franchise as being the same as the Local Government franchise.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Remaining Sections agreed to.