We will now resume consideration of the motion that was proposed to the Seanad three weeks ago, that the Second Report of the Joint Committee on the temporary accommodation of the Oireachtas be adopted. That motion was duly moved and seconded. Then there was a motion postponing further discussion for a fortnight to enable Senators who were interested to see the reports from the Board of Works with regard to the precautions against fire. The adoption of the report has been formally moved and seconded and I now call upon Senator Brown.
TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION OF THE OIREACHTAS.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I beg to move my motion. I do not know whether it is an amendment to the resolution adopting the report or whether it is an independent resolution. The resolution that stands in my name is:—
"That the Seanad is of opinion that Dublin Castle affords the most suitable temporary accommodation for the Oireachtas, but is willing to adopt the recommendation of the Joint Committee as contained in paragraph 4 of their report provided that the occupation of Leinster House by the Oireachtas shall not extend beyond the time necessary for the immediate rebuilding of the Four Courts and the transfer thereto of the Courts of Justice, and that in the meantime accommodation shall be provided for the Seanad in Leinster House itself and that adequate precautions shall be taken for the safety of the Museum and its contents, including the removal of all wooden buildings and buildings lined with wood and all other sources of danger from fire."
I beg to move that resolution.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think any question will arise as to the form of the resolution. I think what the Seanad would like would be to be put in a position to come to a decision one way or another upon the two alternatives suggested.
That is really the object.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Your motion would enable the Seanad to accomplish that.
That was the object I had in putting this motion on the Order Paper. I did think it was right that the Seanad should have an opportunity of considering this question fully and of coming to a clear and independent judgment. Now, this question of the temporary accommodation of the Oireachtas is one that has been troubling us for a very long time. The Report that we have to consider to-day, and which, I take it, is the final report of the Joint Committee, contains two solutions of the problem. One of these solutions is recommended by the Committee to us for adoption, and the other is simply placed before us as the only alternative to the first one. Now, the solution which the Committee recommends us to adopt, to put it shortly, is this, that we should remain where we are.
I feel very strongly that we ought not to adopt that solution except on certain conditions, and with very definite assurances. I have often wondered what exactly was meant by the word "temporary" as used in this phrase, "temporary accommodation of the Oireachtas." I have often wondered how temporary it is to be. I have heard it suggested that it probably means a term of ten years. In my opinion, if the Oireachtas have their home anywhere for ten years, they will have it there for twenty years, and very probably for a generation. Because in these times, where reconstruction is so important in this country, and will involve so much expense, it is almost certain that the choice and erection of a permanent home for the Oireachtas will not be made for another generation. We are, therefore, dealing with this question over the space of a generation. Now, that being so, I also sometimes wonder whether we remember that we are merely guests where we are. We have been practically invited to come here and made welcome here, and we are really only guests. I also wonder if we do not sometimes forget the injury which we are doing to our hosts and the injury that we are doing to the country by remaining here.
Nothing but a real national necessity would justify our remaining here. I am satisfied however that for the present, at least, the national necessity does exist. But I am also satisfied that we ought not to remain here for one moment longer than we can help. The Committee report that the only alternative to Leinster House is the Castle. In that I am also satisfied that they are absolutely right. It is not only the only alternative to Leinster House, but it is in my opinion a more suitable House for the Oireachtas than Leinster House. But great as is the injury which we are doing by staying in Leinster House, the injury which we would do by going to the Castle before adequate accommodation is provided for the Law Courts would be greater still. The administration of law in any country is quite as important as the making of it. In this country at the present time, I have no hesitation in saying, the due administration of the law is more important than the making of it. For some years past, for reasons which it is not necessary to mention, the administration of the law in this country has not been held in respect by the majority of the people and therefore it was not successful.
If the future of this country is to be made secure, due respect for the administration of the law must obtain and it cannot be regained and it cannot obtain in this country unless there is due accommodation in the capital city for the Courts of Justice. It has been suggested that if the Oireachtas were to go to the Castle that, during the rebuilding of the Four Courts, the Courts of Justice might find accommodation in the King's Inns. We did occupy the King's Inns for something like 12 months. It was most important at the time that the administration of justice should at least appear to be carried on. We did keep the Courts open but that is really all we did. We were not more than just able to carry on and if anything like the quantity of business had to be done then that there is to do now it would have been physically impossible for it to have been done at the King's Inns. Even if you erect a couple of temporary courts in the garden there—and three or four courts would probably be an absolute necessity—you still have no office accommodation. In the King's Inns for twelve months the offices were each represented by a small table in the Great Hall. The clerks sat round the table, the public came in there and there was no place to keep documents or to keep registers. It was a perfect mart and it is greatly to the credit of the officials that the business in the King's Inns was carried on with as great success as it was. But it could not have been carried out if the volume of business had been anything like what it is now.
There is another reason why we could not go back to the King's Inns. We have started a new system of judiciary, and I am happy and proud to say that it is going to be a success. At no time for many years was there such a boom in business. It is as if it came to welcome the new courts. Let me remind my fellow-Senators that the prosperity of the country is closely tied up with the prosperity of my profession. If the profession is prosperous, it is a sign that the country is prosperous, and my profession is never prosperous when the country is really unhappy. Therefore, they are bound together, and I am happy to say that we have started these new courts with a volume of business that, in fact, we had nothing like since before the war. The Castle is not a very suitable home for the Courts of Justice, though it is a great deal better than the King's Inns. There is ample space there in a way, but it is not a very suitable home for the courts. It would be a much more suitable home for the Oireachtas. But if you turn us out before you provide us with adequate accommodation, then you will be doing, in my opinion, an irreparable injury to the country. The true solution of the difficulty is, in my view, quite obvious. The true solution is that the rebuilding of the Four Courts should be undertaken at once, and should be carried out as quickly as possible.
As soon as the Four Courts are rebuilt, the courts will leave the Castle and the Oireachtas will go to the Castle. It might be suggested, or it might be objected, that it would take a long time and cost a lot of money to rebuild the Four Courts. I understand that a certain rough estimate has been made of the time it would take to rebuild the Four Courts and the probable cost of rebuilding. That cannot be very accurate. It must be taken to be rough. But if I am rightly informed, the rebuilding can be done within two years, and I think I am putting the cost higher than it has been estimated at, when I say it could be done for a quarter of a million of money. A quarter of a million of money is more than you would spend, perhaps, if you turned us out of the Four Courts and had to put up temporary accommodation for us, or if you had to put up temporary accommodation for the Oireachtas here, if they were going to stay as long as ten years or twenty years in these buildings.
Remember that every penny that is spent on the Four Courts is money spent on permanent reconstruction; it is money spent on a building which will remain, whereas the money you spend, if you turn us out or if you have to build us temporary accommodation elsewhere, is largely waste money. Therefore, the time is not very long, the money is not very large, and it will be well spent money. May I call attention to the terms of the resolution which I am moving. With the first proviso in it, I have already dealt, namely, that the Four Courts should be rebuilt as soon as possible. The second proviso is almost, if not quite as important, as the first. If we are to stay here for even a couple of years, this building and its contents must be made safe. In the first place, this room in which we have sat in discomfort for a considerable time, should be vacated, and given back to the Museum, and the Museum, including this room, should be given back to the public for their use. That will help the safety of the Museum and its contents, but it will not make the safety quite sure. We have been told that precautions have been taken which have made the safety of this building and its contents secure, or at least will make them secure when they are completed. I am not satisfied that the safety of these buildings has been, or will be, secured. The ordinary fireproof doors are all very well in their way, but the safety of the Museum and its contents will not be ensured until the refreshment room, which is lined with wood, and the other wooden buildings, sheds, etc., so many of which are near this building, are removed. There should be no difficulty in putting up a building in Leinster Lawn at very small expense. It will not be an eyesore for more than a very short time. Some suitable building for a refreshment room, if it is required, and cannot be got in Leinster House, could be put up there. All that is perfectly possible, and it will be a very small price to pay for the real safety of the Museum and its contents. I beg to move the resolution which I have already read.
I want to know the position we are in regarding the Report itself. It will be remembered that about three weeks ago the Report was formally moved and seconded. What I want to know is, is Senator Brown's motion an amendment to the Report?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
In substance, it is.
I think we ought to be clear that we are not now dealing with the Report. With much, if not all, of what Senator Brown says, I am in agreement. At the same time. I think we are in a very awkward position. The Report itself has been moved and seconded, and now this is an amendment to it, or has the Report gone?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I thought I explained that. On the previous occasion, about three weeks ago, there was a formal motion that the Report be adopted. That was moved and seconded, and then, on the suggestion of Senator Mrs. Stopford Green and other Senators, it was agreed that the further consideration of that motion should be postponed for not less than a fortnight to enable Senators and others to see the reports as to the precautions against fire. Accordingly, that accounts for the adjournment. These reports have been seen, and now the matter comes up again. The motion before the Seanad is the adoption of the Report. Senator Brown has moved what is, in substance and in fact, an amendment.
The report still remains?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Yes. The question before the Seanad is the adoption of the Report.
I wish very warmly to second the amendment which has been moved to the Report. In doing so I wish, first of all, to say expressly that I have no desire to criticise or to blame the Government for anything that has been done up to now. They have had to deal with circumstances of very great difficulty, and they did so in a very pronounced manner and with a degree of courage which has won all our respect. Therefore, it is not in any hostile spirit that I desire to say a few words now. In the first place, circumstances have greatly changed since we first occupied these buildings, but we have to take regard of the new circumstances, and must consider the future. We who have been occupying these buildings at our ease—Senators may think I am romancing when I speak of ease, and when we can neither sit, listen, nor speak with any ease—are responsible to the people who sent us here for the complete safeguarding of their treasures. That responsibility has been brought home to me very acutely by the petition which I sent out lately as a private person and without any backing whatever. The response to that petition was rapid and pretty widespread. Besides, the signatories to it, I had many letters, some of them expressing warm gratitude at the opportunity of being able to show their interest and their concern as to the present conditions; others spoke of the loans or gifts which they had proposed to give, but which they thought unwise to offer under the present conditions, and others asked for my advice as to the safest place in which to deposit historical manuscripts.
The whole tenor of the correspondence showed me that there is a very widespread interest and a very important interest throughout the country which has, so far, been practically and necessarily silent. It is our business to consider that interest and to consult it if we want to make a truly united Ireland. I am sure that many Senators besides myself have felt a deep personal humiliation at sitting down here, and sitting down rather heavily, upon the whole of the cultural institutions of Ireland—the National Library, the National Gallery, the Dublin Society, the College of Science, and the Academy, as well as the Museum here, of which very few Senators would venture to give any estimate of the extraordinary value of its treasures, not only their historical value, but their value in money as well, which cannot be reckoned.
We say the fate of these various institutions is very serious. Some are slowly recovering, some cannot revive at all, some are somewhat stagnant. I suppose that no one here would wish to bring into this building any citizen from an educated and civilised country to see the condition to which we have been brought. Take an example. There is now an illustrious judge looking over our boundary. If he comes to Dublin can we picture the scene of our Education Minister who is responsible for the greater part of this place, endeavouring to convoy him throughout the building, and show him for his admiration our little particular partition boundary—the boundary we have established through the solid bar we have fixed up between the outlawed and deserted home of Science and Arts and the demesne of our legislators. I fancy that visitation will not be made, and I think it ought not to be possible in this country for such a thing even to be suggested. I suppose there will be very few sorrowful faces—when we come out, some day, from under the shadow of the monument which grips the ground so firmly in the front, and blocks the way to our humbler quarters, and obscures the front of one of our old historic houses.
Now, I think we have come to a new departure. It is our business here, I believe, to attempt to check the apathy, disillusionment and disheartenment we see all round us in the country. If it continues it will be not wholly the blame of the people, but the condemnation for it will fall upon our heads.
Then, look at the artists' fate. They are shut out from the treasures that they might study here. Their fate is deplorable. There are now in Dublin artists who could emulate the triumphant artistry of the Irish people. What fate have they? Their lot is tragic. No help comes to them except from America. We are losing by our callousness and indifference to that side of life, in the midst of politics, assets to the nation which would be of incalculable value in its honour and in its credit. We here ought to leave no shadow of doubt in the minds of the people of the country that we are determined to guard their treasures that we venerate them as much as the humblest man or woman in Connemara and that we venerate the things of the past and that we are determined to preserve them for the people.
I do not mean to speak now about the means of preservation. Over four months ago I began to ask about the protection that was afforded here, and whether it was adequate protection for our treasures. There have been various explanations since; every one of them absolutely discount the intelligence of this House, but however that may be, we have to work with the limited gifts that God gave us. But this subject will come up later and will be dealt with more ably than I can deal with it. What I say now is, politics will never unite this country; they never did and they never will. There is a nobler and a mysterious influence which is a bond in this country, and that is what Burke described once when he spoke of his devotion to Ireland and said, "It is that deeper instinct which I cannot reconcile or subdue to reason." It is that deeper instinct that we can have for the things which would make this country live that will unite this country and make everyone in this land, of whatever rank or race or faith, feel the influence of that deeper instinct which is our life. I beg to second the resolution.
I have heard what has been said by the two Senators who have spoken, with the greatest interest, and I am very much impressed by it. I wish to speak in favour of this resolution. There are several different ways in which the difficulty could be met, but I think this is far the best one. It would, I think, quite satisfactorily house the two legislative chambers in this Free State. That is the first point. It would restore to the Royal Dublin Society their property, and that Society deserves well of the inhabitants of this country. I suppose there is hardly an instance that you will find in the world where a society—practically a society of private individuals—has done so much for the material welfare of the country as the Royal Dublin Society. It is most desirable that they should be able to continue that good work. The Society is one of the country's most valuable assets, and continues to be, and it should not be hampered in any way. The restoration of the treasures which are to be found in the Museum and the Picture Gallery, which have a very great educative value, is very desirable. Their loss and use to the public at present is really a great national disaster.
The rebuilding of the Four Courts would give a great deal of employment in Dublin which, perhaps, more than any other place in Ireland has suffered from unemployment. All these objects could be achieved by other methods no doubt, than by going to the Castle and by the Four Courts being rebuilt and rendered available for the housing of the Judiciary, but the proposal which Senator Brown has so strongly recommended has two advantages which, I think, no other scheme would have. It would more suitably house the Judiciary than they could be housed in any other way, and although I am not an authority upon that subject, for I know very little of the inside of Law Courts, I have been told that a very great authority upon that subject who was in Dublin some years ago, said that he never knew—and he had travelled in every civilised country in the world— and never saw Law Courts so well arranged as the Four Courts, and that he considered them an absolute model of what a building of that kind ought to be.
Now, another thing is that this proposal would remove a very great stigma from the Capital of the Free State, and that stigma is the ruins which have been made by the inhabitants of the State. If the ruins were made by an outside enemy, that stigma would not be a stigma to the same extent. Any stranger coming to this city here, however well disposed he may be to this Free State, and however much sentimental attachment he may feel to it, must feel discouraged on seeing these ruins in our midst.
It is a matter of scorn that this city should possess such things in its midst. It would remove one of these things from our midst. I think it would restore in that particular direction national self-respect to a very great extent. I cannot help thinking that to a great many people the fact that we have these ruins is a steady discouragement on the mind, and makes us feel less proud of the country to which we belong. If we saw the Four Courts rebuilt, I think it would be a very happy augury for the restoration of a better state of affairs, and I hope that this House will accept the proposal as being the best course for finding accommodation for the Seanad as well as for the Law Courts.
I only want to say a word or two in confirmation of what has been said by those who have preceded me. Since I first came to Dublin in my youth and went round the city, I have always been proud of the beautiful buildings in the capital of my country, and I felt great humiliation when I saw them destroyed. I saw the Post Office destroyed by a foreign enemy, and the Custom House and Four Courts, not by foreigners. I remember the time when it was suggested that notices be put up on certain places that were destroyed, stating who destroyed them; but now I regret to say that I no longer wish to see them put up. Let us do our best to restore these ancient monuments, so that we and our children can again have that respect which we formerly had for our country. From an economic point of view, I feel it is a terrible loss to the College of Science to be taken over. I do not understand, and I do not pretend to understand, these proposals about the College of Science, but I think that as soon as possible it should be put back to what it was originally meant for. So long as we remain here, we impede everything in the nature of progress. We impede the culture and science of the country, and we ought to get away from here as soon as we can. I am entirely in favour of what has been said. There has been talk of the cost of rebuilding the Four Courts, but I have heard rumours that there are certain people who in consideration of certain buildings which may not be wanted for the country being handed over to them would be prepared to rebuild the Four Courts without expense to the country. I do not know how far these things are true, but I believe there is some truth in them.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to give the House some estimates made by the Board of Works, which have been placed at my disposal by the President. Perhaps I had better read them for what they are worth.
Scheme No. 1.—To move the Seanad to Leinster House and to move the Royal Dublin Society elsewhere.—Estimated cost of moving the Seanad to Leinster House, £4,000. Estimated cost of moving the Dublin Society to 64 and 65 Merrion Square, altering and fitting up those houses, building a bookstore in the back gardens, and hiring other houses for the Technical Instruction Branch at present in Nos. 64 and 65, say, £9,000. (This proposal is the only one for housing the Dublin Society which occurs to me as immediately practicable; of course, I do not know what the Dublin Society would say to it.) Scheme No. 2.—Move Oireachtas to the Castle, move the Law Courts elsewhere.—Estimated cost of moving Oireachtas to the Castle, £10,000 to £15,000 (according to the amount of reconstruction asked for).
I do not like to say anything in view of this statement from an expert like Sir Philip Hanson, but I should be greatly surprised if it would involve such an amount as that.
"Further, the Stamping Department would probably have to be moved elsewhere—cost say £4,000 additional. Total, £14,000 to £19,000. Estimated cost for rebuilding the Four Courts and setting up the Law Courts there, £180,000 to £200,000. (This seems to me the only satisfactory way of housing the Law Courts if they leave the Castle, the Royal Hospital, which is fairly well suited for the Oireachtas, is very ill-suited for Law Courts, because the two great halls are too big for courts, and no other room is big enough)."
I think that the Seanad should have these figures to assist them in the discussion.
I see nothing inconsistent in the amendment or any reason why it should not be carried, with the Report itself, because it proposes to adopt the Report with a certain reservation which, I think, will be fairly unanimously agreed to, particularly in view of the figures which you, sir, have read out. It is, indeed, very gratifying to know that the estimated cost of rebuilding the Four Courts does not exceed £200,000. If that is the cost, and we must take it that it is, there seems to me no good reason why the rebuilding of the Four Courts should not be undertaken without delay. What is termed "Scheme 1," involving the removal of the Seanad to Leinster House and temporary accommodation being secured for the Royal Dublin Society, also commends itself because of the fact that it is the cheapest of all schemes, and it does not involve a great deal of building of a temporary character. I think it will be agreed by anybody who visits this Chamber that the sooner we get out of it the better. It was, I think, originally constructed for the preservation of mummies or the housing of antique furniture, and certainly its atmosphere is more conducive to the development of antiquities than to develop progressive ideas. I do not know if that accounts for some of the decisions we have taken from time to time, but even the enlightened policy of the Labour Party is inclined to suffer owing to the mustiness of the atmosphere here.
I think that a theatre such as the place where the other House is accommodated would be preferable to the place we are in now. Its ventilation arrangements leave you the option of suffocation or, on the other hand, of pneumonia. There is a danger too that if this continues the legislature itself will be brought into contempt owing to the miserableness of its surroundings. There is something in the way a legislature is housed. In a building of fine architecture and good surroundings the meanest minds are inspired. While, on the contrary, surroundings like those in which we are, tend to depression and demoralisation and certainly have an unfavourable effect on the minds of visitors who come here, and see the miserable place where the laws of the country are enacted. There is, also, the danger of bringing the law courts into contempt if they are in uncongenial surroundings. We all agree with Senator Brown when he objects to the Law Courts being sent back to the Kings' Inn owing to the lack of accommodation there. The three great buildings of Dublin, the G.P.O., the Customs House, and the Four Courts have been destroyed in recent times.
The Four Courts is indispensable and to practically the same extent, the other two buildings are indispensable too. It seems to me extraordinary that the Government seem to have made up their mind that the rebuilding of those institutions is not contemplated in the immediate future. We have heard it said that the pressure on the skilled trades for building houses is so great it would not be fair to start the building of those other institutions. It is a well known fact that skilled tradesmen are idle in various parts of the country and many of them have to emigrate at certain periods in order to get work. I do not think that that is a reasonable excuse why the building of one of those institutions, at least, could not be started. Is there any reason why the permanent home of the Oireachtas should not be a matter for immediate consideration? I think it is a vote of want of confidence in the stability of the State to suggest that a permanent suitable home for the Oireachtas should not be a matter for consideration now in the immediate future. After all, it cannot be such a tremendous expense. I think, even if it is a fairly substantial matter in the way of finance, it would be a good investment if it were only for a gesture of the confidence of the people in the stability and prosperity of the State. However, our immediate business is to get some kind of temporary home pending the provision of a permanent one, but I am not without hope that it would be still possible to avoid going to the Castle unless it were the intention that that should be the permanent home of the Oireachtas. It should be in the region of possibility that when we change here, in the space of two years, or thereabouts, we will go into what will be the permanent home of the Oireachtas.
Like those who have spoken in this debate, I feel it my duty to express my appreciation of the generosity and hospitality of the Royal Dublin Society, and to express our regret at the great inconvenience and the considerable interference with their most useful functions which are entailed by our occupying their premises. I am sure the Royal Dublin Society understand that we are here not altogether of our own free will, but owing to the circumstances and the misfortunes of the times, we have had practically nowhere else to go. I am quite certain that every member of the Seanad would assure the Royal Dublin Society that not one of us would like to stay here one minute longer than we could help. We realise the obstruction we are causing to their work, and to the work of other public institutions, such, for instance, as the National Library, the College of Science, the School of Art, and, not least, the National Museum. For all those acts we would not like to be guilty one second longer than we could help. I am certain that the Seanad will be only too glad when its occupancy of those premises terminates. Senator Brown's resolution, which I am very glad to support, is governed by the blessed word "temporary." We are now discussing means of finding a temporary home for the Oireachtas. The Joint Committee that investigated this matter made a double-barrelled suggestion, and we are simply dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's" when we vote for their recommendation. We are voting for it as a temporary expedient.
We are not in any way committing ourselves as to our future actions in whatever development this question may eventually take. I do not think that we are committing ourselves even to Dublin Castle as the future permanent home of the Oireachtas. For my part, I would like to say that Dublin Castle has no attraction for me now any more than it ever had. I think the proper use for Dublin Castle would be to turn it into a picture gallery or a museum, or both. That, I think, would be a useful purpose to devote Dublin Castle to. With the proposal to rebuild the Four Courts, I am absolutely in accord. It is a beautiful building and has housed our law courts for many years. It has been specially built for this purpose, and as a specimen of architecture it is second to no similar building in the world. I cordially agree with Senator Bagwell, who dwelt upon the advisability of rebuilding our ruins.
I think the sooner this country makes up its mind to abolish those horrible records of a horrible time the better for the self-respect and public pride of the country. With those remarks I cordially support Senator Brown's resolution. We are not now discussing the permanent home of the Oireachtas, though I agree with Senator Farrell that the sooner we make up our minds on that matter the better.
These things cannot be done in a day, and I cannot agree with Senator Brown in his idea that it would take us at least a generation before we could find a permanent home. I think we could make up our minds on this subject within the next twelve months, and possibly we may have a more interesting discussion. If the Chamber in Leinster House is a superior Chamber for making long speeches to this one, then I suppose it is better. I am quite in agreement with this proposal.
I also wish to speak in support of the amendment, and if I could I would influence the Government in connection with the decision arrived at. We all sympathise with the Royal Dublin Society. We came here as guests, and now we are evicting our hosts. It would seem the Government had made up their minds, and there is no other alternative; but I would wish that we could use all our influence to induce the Government to remove us out of this building. If the intention is to take over the whole of Leinster House, there must be rooms and departments there which could be converted to a Senate Chamber and refreshment rooms. These last constitute the greatest danger to the Museum. In that way the Museum could be cut off altogether from any other building, and would, perhaps, be as safe as before we entered into possession of these premises. I do hope that before two years are passed we will see the Four Courts restored. I would rather see that done and Dublin Castle pulled down, as you would have to do to turn it into a picture gallery.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
In reference to what Senator Jackson has said a very important proviso arises. He puts it that it is assumed and taken for granted that if Leinster House is taken that accommodation is to be provided for the Seanad. There has never been any undertaking on the part of the Government that that will be so, but throughout all the discussion and throughout all the debates, it seems to me that there is an honourable understanding to that effect. And in that point of view those of us who have examined Leinster House, and the Committee who examined it in this very connection, came to the conclusion that there were two rooms there, either of which might be suitable for the purposes of the Seanad. One is a large room that is used for the sorting of books and the handing out of books. The other is the room above it on the top floor. I want to suggest, by way of caution, that a friend of mine, an undoubted expert in these matters, has put it to me that it would be very wise of the Seanad if they themselves would go and see these rooms, because his view, rightly or wrongly, is that neither room would be large enough for the purpose of the Seanad, and secondly, that there are no accommodation offices—either a room for the chairman or the staff.
Then there is the difficulty arising about accommodating the Private Bill officials who, of course, would have to leave their present quarters. He mentioned further a matter which is well worth investigation, and that is that he was very doubtful indeed as to the acoustic properties of these two rooms. He suggested to me that the Seanad should hold an informal meeting there next week. It would be easily arranged with the courteous superintendent. It would be worth while for the Seanad to meet there in an informal way, and to see how far these chambers would be suitable, so far as acoustics are concerned. Perhaps Senator O'Farrell could address us on that occasion, and then we would be able to judge. I think these matters are worth bearing in mind, and it would be essential that a Committee of the Seanad should be appointed to look after our interests in the distribution of the new accommodation to be obtained.
My interest in this question is almost entirely confined to seeing to it that the contents of the Museum are safe. I do not know whether the members of the Dáil or all the Senators realise that practically no Museum is insured, that the contents of Museums are so valuable that money cannot replace these articles. The National Gallery in London, the great museum in South Kensington, and the British Museum or the Irish Museum are not insured. You must, therefore, see to the safety of the Museum in the way that you do not see to the safety of any ordinary building. Furthermore, you cannot trust merely to your fire-extinguishing apparatus— though in museums that is generally of the most perfect kind—because the water hose may do as much injury as the fire to the Museum. There is only one thing that you can do with the Museum, and that is to see to it that no fire can break out in it. Certain precautions are taken all over the world. In no museum in the world is smoking permitted. Now, here we have a refreshment room where there is cooking. In museums where there is a refreshment room they are specially constructed on concrete floors, so that fire cannot break out. Furthermore, all these museums of any importance are detached buildings. About twenty years ago it was discovered that the National Gallery in London had an inflammable building up against it. There was great agitation in England, and there was great indignation, and that building was pulled down. In the Bodleian Library, which I know very well—I used it for several years—artificial light is not permitted, because it is an old inflammable building, though not more inflammable than our building. These are the ordinary precautions taken all over the world for the protection of national treasures. Are we going to be less civilised than any other country?
Some few weeks ago the various persons whose business it was to look after these treasures memorialised the Government in various forms. The Royal Irish Academy laid weighty evidence before the Government to show that the national treasures were not safe. The Visitors to the Museum, who are persons appointed under Act of Parliament to take care of the treasures there, laid a memorial before the Government, showing that the national treasures were not safe. A petition was laid before the Government signed by bishops, peers, representatives of all the learned institutions of Ireland, and some twenty Senators of this House, stating that the national treasures were not safe. The answer to that was the statement by the Government that they were safe. Then, some three weeks ago we postponed the report of the Special Committee that we might see the technical evidence upon which the Government had stated that the national treasures were safe. I have here on the Table, where it should have been laid by the Government, the report of the technical advisers. It was sent to the Clerk of this House that members might see it. I will read you one extract from the letter written on the 22nd June by the Board of Works to the President's Secretary:—
"We beg to report that the danger of fire to the National Museum is undoubtedly increased by the fact that the Seanad and its officials are housed there, and that Senators and officials are accustomed to smoke on the premises. It is also true that the annexes of the Museum at present used as refreshment rooms and kitchen are lined with wood, and are very inflammable, and that there is a wooden hut near the annexe occupied by soldiers, which also is of an inflammable nature."
And yet we are told the national treasures are safe! The Board of Works might have said more. They might have pointed out that the floors are of wood, that the centre of danger —the kitchen and the bar—are flanked by rooms containing highly inflammable material. Any of you can go and look at the place next the dining-room and you will find a room packed with inflammable show-cases. If you go into the passage in the same building you will find bottles full of spirits —not the spirits they have in the bar, but spirits in another form equally dangerous in case of fire. Then the Board of Works, in this letter which I have here, go on to say:
"Special precautions have been and are being taken to meet these risks."
They define their precautions. They are putting up a fireproof door between the passage and these buildings. They are putting up a fireproof door between the building on that side and the other Museum. They are putting up a further fireproof door above the way that leads down to the spirit store, which is under the kitchen. Then they go on to say that there are other precautions. There is, they say, a fireproof door outside the room upstairs where the gold ornaments are housed. There is no fireproof door there. There is a burglar-proof door.
They say an inspector goes round every night and that that is the best precaution of all. If that is the best precaution of all, I think very badly of the others. If that man does his work properly it will take him at least an hour to see after the library which he is to inspect, and to see that all the windows there are properly shut. I am informed that it would take him several hours to make his rounds, if he does his work properly. A fire might therefore have a very considerable start before he discovered its existence. And that is the best precaution according to the Board of Works! Then, why were not those precautions taken months and months ago? Can we trust anything the Board of Works says to us when we have it that it is only now it takes such precautions. Is it a fitting guardian of the public treasures? The only thing it does, as a result of Mrs. Green's agitation, is to put up those fire-proof doors. If the Oireachtas remains here, there is only one thing to be done if the Museum is to be safe—that is to rebuild the kitchen and those other apartments somewhere else. The chief danger is from those buildings.
I cannot imagine that the Government desires to take less precaution in guarding its national treasures than Governments do in other countries. I can only think that the situation has arisen because of the extraordinary apathy of this country—an apathy that has come upon everything in connection with the national life in the recent past. I cannot imagine that if the mind of this country were what it was seven or eight years ago, the people would think for a moment of leaving in any greater danger their treasures than the treasures, say, in South Kensington Museum or the British Museum. These treasures are the only visible signs we have that we ever had a civilisation. I do not think that the Government, if they gave thought to the matter, would like to set such an example before the people of this country of contempt of things of the mind. They are bringing in an ambitious Education Bill. They talk occasionally of their desire to see this an able, intellectual country. But if they are going to pay less respect than any other country does to their national treasures, to the irreplaceable things, who in this country will take them seriously when they speak of their desire to see this country able and educated?
Motion put and declared carried.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not know how far the Seanad would be inclined to adopt the suggestion I made about their visiting these rooms. We will be meeting on Wednesday next at 3 o'clock, and I would suggest that those of us who conveniently could would come together at 2.30 in the rooms mentioned in Leinster House. If that is the wish of the Seanad, I am quite sure the Superintendent of the Society would arrange that those rooms should be at our service for a period of half an hour on Wednesday.
Might I suggest that we should meet at 2.30 on the first day that we meet next week, instead of fixing Wednesday definitely.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Yes. We will meet at 2.30 on the first day on which the Seanad comes together, be it Tuesday or Wednesday. I think it might also be desirable that the Seanad would appoint a small committee to look after its interest in the allocation of the accommodation in Leinster House.
The Seanad has already representatives on the House Committee.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I was going to mention that. There is a Joint Housing Committee of the Oireachtas, on which we have our own representatives, and if they take on this task, which naturally falls to them, I am sure the Seanad will be content. It is understood, then, I take it, that the first day we meet next week, whether it be Tuesday or Wednesday, we shall meet at Leinster House at half-past two for the purposes of the examination I mentioned.
I doubt if the present Joint Committee has the power necessary in this matter. I suggest that as we are going to meet next week we should bring the matter forward again with a view to appointing representatives, and in the meantime we should see how the matter stands as regards the other House.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
We will let the question of the Committee stand over until we have seen the place.