Legal Practitioners (Qualification) Bill, 1928—Second Stage.

Seán O Maolruaidh

Táirgim an Bille seo do'n tSeanad ar an dara léigheadh dho. 'Sé tá faoi an Bhille, brigh Alt a Ceathrar de'n Bhun Reacht a thabhairt chun cinn agus deanfar so ar chaoi nach gnithear éagcóir ar aon duine. Mar sin do, iarraim ar an tSeanaid aontú leis an mBille seo.

I move the Second Reading of the Legal Practitioners (Qualification) Bill, which proposes to secure that future members of the legal profession shall possess a competent knowledge of the Irish language. That purpose is stated in the long title. The Bill is a comparatively short one, comprising six sections, and though its object is simple and clear, that object has very important implications, and, if and when achieved, would produce far-reaching reactions not alone in the law courts, but also, I believe, in the national life generally of the Saorstát. During its passage through the Dáil the Bill was subjected to severe and exhaustive scrutiny, and those who followed the discussions in that House, or who have since read the Official Reports, are no doubt fully conversant with the various provisions of the Bill. Nevertheless I presume that something in the nature of explanation is expected, and before I enter upon anything in the nature of argument on behalf of the provisions, it might be well to run over the main essentials of the Bill.

The main feature of Section 1 is that the expression "competent knowledge of the Irish language" is defined as "such a degree of oral and written proficiency in the use of the language as is sufficient to enable a legal practitioner properly to conduct the business of his clients in the Irish language." Section 2 states the age of those persons exempt from the operation of the Bill. No person who is over the age of fifteen on the 1st October of this year will be affected by the Bill. Section 3 prescribes that no person shall be admitted to practise as a barrister-at-law in the courts of Saorstát Eireann unless such person has satisfied the Chief Justice that he or she possesses a competent knowledge of Irish. There is, however, a provision in this section which continues the reciprocal arrangements with other Bars whereby members of the Saorstát Bar may be admitted to practise at such other Bars. Section 4 prescribes that in the examinations held by the Incorporated Law Society the Irish language shall be a compulsory subject. Section 5 prescribes the qualification in respect of the Irish language necessary for the admission of any person to the profession of solicitor. Section 6 simply states that the Act may be cited as "The Legal Practitioners Act." That, in brief, is the outline of the Bill, and it seems to me, after considering its proposals at some length, to be one which is moderate and reasonable and scarcely likely to arouse any very serious opposition in the Seanad.

It is not my intention to anticipate criticism or objections, and I propose to defer the main part of my argument to the close of the debate; but there are just three points of importance which I think it would be well to make some reference to at this stage—namely, the basic justification for the introduction of the Bill, the question of whether or not its introduction has been done with unseemly haste, and third, is its operation likely to inflict undue hardship on those who propose to enter either branch of the legal profession? Other points may be raised in the course of the discussion, and, if so, I will endeavour to deal with them at the proper time.

In the Dáil one of the chief arguments advanced in justification of the introduction of the Bill was the fact of the existence of many thousands of Irish speakers in the Gaeltacht and the importance and equity of those citizens of the Saorstát being able to command the assistance of Irish-speaking solicitors and barristers when necessary. That is an important consideration, and one which has an insistent claim upon the attention of the Oireachtas; but I think there is a stronger and wider ground of justification for this Bill. The basic ground upon which this matter rests primarily is that Irish is the national language of this country. We would be sunk very low indeed as a people and would have lost contact with the vital springs of our national being if we failed to appreciate this fundamental aspect of the matter, or if we failed to take a deep and honourable pride in the fact that our nation possesses a distinct and ancient language of its own which links our generation to historic traditions that have given our race a notable and hallowed renown in the annals of civilisation's development. It is true that by grievous external forces and oppressive enactments that language has been depressed and driven from a considerable area of our country; but the very extent of that depression and suppression should be the measure of our determination to restore it to its natural position in the country now that we have recovered the authority and the means by which to effect that restoration. Therefore, in bringing forward this measure its promoters must not be regarded as engaging in a wanton effort to impose a needless and irritating ordeal upon the legal profession. That is neither the object nor the spirit of this Bill. It aims at something totally different, namely, that of securing the cooperation of the coming generation of the legal profession in a wholehearted and comprehensive attempt to give the language its due and rightful place in the national life.

I would like to make it clear that I am not viewing a vote one way or the other on this Bill as the sole and acid test of Irish patriotism. I am aware that there is a section in the country who do not regard the language as an integral part of our national existence, whose conception of a fully functioning State or nation is one which can dispense with the factor of the language. That is not my view, nor is it, I believe, the view of these elements within the nation which will most wisely serve its needs both for the present and the future. Nevertheless, I appreciate the position and outlook of those to whom I allude. They are, I believe, a diminishing section, but it would be unjust, in my opinion, to treat them as outside the household of the nation because of their present outlook. My aim, at any rate, is to win them to an understanding of our point of view and to carry them with us in the building up of a national polity which has its roots in the inspiration which is derived from the language and all that the language stands for. For these reasons I urge that the proposals of this Bill be approached, not from the antagonistic positions of pro-language enthusiasm and anti-language pessimism, but rather from an appreciation of the fact that the restoration of the language is a settled and essential part of national policy and that this Bill merely advances that policy one step further.

It may be said indeed that we have gone beyond the stage when this aspect of national policy is arguable. The Irish language is enshrined and defined in our Constitution as the official language of Saorstát Eireann. Article 4 of the Constitution states:—

The national language of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) is the Irish language, but the English language shall be equally recognised as an official language.

That Article was not devised as a species of conventional homage to a passionate but fading sentiment. It was a serious and deliberate act, committing the State to a position in regard to the language from which it cannot recede with honour. We cannot abandon that position without annulling Article 4, and that, I think, no one proposes to do. Since then the Saorstát has gone forward by definite stages in the work of giving effect to the letter and the spirit of Article 4. Irish was made an essential subject in the primary schools in 1922. It was made an essential subject for the Intermediate last year. It is an essential subject for the Civil Service and for appointments in the teaching profession under the control of the Government. In view of these important facts, let it be no longer suggested that the object of this Bill is to single out the legal profession for penal victimisation. It is merely bringing this important institution of the State into line with the other departments of national life which are under control of the Oireachtas.

The assertion has been made that this Bill is an instance of hasty legislation, or, in other words, that it has been sprung on the legal profession with unnecessary precipitancy and without adequate notice. A little reflection on the circumstances pertaining to the matter will, I think, show that this contention is scarcely one which can be sustained. There have been indications in plenty which should have revealed to anyone with average foresight that such a step as that which this Bill proposes was impending. The position which the Irish language has been assigned in the Constitution should in itself have been almost sufficient foreshadowing of the objective of the Bill; and if there is any class, section or profession that might be expected to appreciate the significance of Article 4, surely it is the legal profession which deals with the construing and interpretation of the enactments of the Oireachtas. Irish is declared by that Article to be the official language of the Saorstát, and if there is one department of the State more than any other in which the official language should be in usage, it is in the law courts of the State.

If, however, Article 4 was not explicit enough, there was yet another indication which made manifest the fact that such a step as that of the present Bill could not be long delayed. I refer to the White Paper issued by the Government in connection with the Report of the Gaeltacht Commission. On page 29 of that document the policy of the Government is set out in terms that no one can describe as ambiguous:

In view of the fact that the use of Irish in the courts is handicapped because few solicitors or barristers are capable of doing their work in Irish, the Government is of opinion that no person who is under 16 years of age on the date of the issue of this Paper should hereafter be admitted as a solicitor or barrister without a competent knowledge of Irish.

The White Paper was issued in, I believe, February of 1928, fifteen months ago, and surely members of the legal profession must have read it, and, reviewing the whole matter and taking into consideration the policy in regard to the language which the Government has inaugurated in respect of the schools and the Civil Service, it was clearly obvious that legislation, such as that of this Bill, must at an early date materialise. If members of the legal profession failed to realise this, one must conclude that they were either asleep while these things were happening, or that they did not take seriously these repeated indications of national policy. At any rate, there is no ground for the complaint that they have been taken by surprise, that this Bill has been sprung upon them without full and timely notice.

I come now to the last point I wish to deal with at this stage, namely, whether the operation of this Bill when it becomes a statute will inflict any undue hardship on those who contemplate entering the legal profession. What are the facts we have to consider in this connection? No one, I believe, can qualify for either branch of the legal profession before the age of twenty-one. The Bill applies only to those who are fifteen years and under on the 1st October of this year, so that even if they had not already had a grounding in the language they would still have five or six years to study it before they could qualify. But we must bear in mind this additional fact, that Irish has been an essential subject in the primary schools since 1922, and any prospective law student who is fifteen years old on the 1st October next and who has come through the primary schools would have been about eight years of age when Irish was thus introduced into these schools and must have had several years training in the subject. Again, Irish was made an essential subject for the Intermediate last year, and, as was pointed out during the discussions in the Dáil, those who passed the Intermediate must have spent a couple of years studying Irish for the examination. So that it appears clear that all, save perhaps very exceptional cases, to whom this Bill applies will have already undergone a very considerable course of study of the language before they come under the operations of the provisions of the Bill, and I do not know that it would be good policy under any circumstances to make it a principle of law to legislate for exceptions. These considerations dispose, I think, fully of the argument that prospective entrants to the legal profession are likely to be unfairly handicapped by the passing of this measure.

Dr. Gogarty

In the Irish Free State.

Mr. Milroy

Jurisdiction in regard to legislation of the Oireachtas is confined entirely to Saorstát Eireann. An erroneous impression of the Bill has been spread which is, I believe, responsible for much of the hostile criticism which has been voiced. In many quarters the opinion has been created that it is intended by the Bill to force the study of the language on all members of the legal profession, regardless of age or other considerations. Whether that utterly false idea has sprung from a misunderstanding of the Bill or a malignant desire to misrepresent it I am not clear; but undoubtedly it has been industriously propagated. I wish emphatically to contradict this mischievous misrepresentation, and at the risk of wearying repetition to point out that the Bill applies only to those who on the 1st October next are fifteen years or under. The Bill, in my opinion, is necessary for the advancement of the declared national policy of Saorstát Eireann. It is praiseworthy in its objective, and moderate and reasonable in the measures by which it proposes to attain that objective. It has already received the almost unanimous endorsement of the Dáil, and I trust that the approval of the Seanad will be no less emphatic.

Colonel Moore

I second. I propose to speak later. I do not expect that there will be any opposition to the motion.

Sir William Hickie

I would like to say a few words against this Bill on the ground that I consider it not necessary. We are spending a very large sum of money yearly with the object of teaching the rising generation to speak and write their native language. Now, either that money is being spent wisely and will have the desired effect, or unwisely, in attempting the pursuit of an impossible proposition. But whichever it may be, I hold that this Bill is unnecessary, for if, in the course of the next ten or fifteen years, this country does not become Irish-speaking, why should we impose this extra task on the legal profession? If, on the other hand, the work of the Minister for Education is crowned with success and the country becomes an Irish-speaking country, as it ought to be, surely the lawyers themselves, in common with the members of every other learned profession, will learn to speak and write the language of their fathers. I do not like the rattling of the sabre and the tramp of the jack-boot. I think that the time has come, in this as in many other things, when we should try the policy of the velvet glove. I am perfectly certain that there are better and nicer methods of making the love and the pursuit of that language universal and more popular. I for one shall vote against the Bill.

Dr. Gogarty

It is a pity that one cannot discuss this question of Irish without being considered a West Briton. The only consolation I have myself if I were to fall under that stigma is that I would be no worse than many native speakers who are not as enthusiastic about the language as they ought to be. Senator Sir William Hickie made a point which does not require any development from me. This Bill is an anticipatory confession of failure on the part of our primary and secondary education. If you were to confront the engineering profession with a Bill to provide that every member of it should have a good knowledge of Algebra it would not be any more absurd than to anticipate an ignorance of Irish among the coming entrants to the legal profession, seeing that they will have intensified teaching of Irish for the next ten years, so that it seems to me to be superfluous.

There is another point of view from which one might regard this policy on the subject of Irish. We are beginning deliberately to go backwards. Here a difficulty again confronts me, because if one is to criticise Irish he is naturally looked upon as criticising the Government, the language and the nationality of the country. It is far from me to criticise Irish; I only criticise the expansion and attenuation of the language. If it is to be expanded to include all technical terms it will not be Irish but an artifact of English. Thirty years ago I read the language with its proper alphabet and it was remarkably different from the language that is growing up now day by day. As far as I know, no country has ever re-created its language under the conditions that we are endeavouring to revive ours by manufacturing words, not from Irish radicals but from English. We will have an expanded language if we are to include in it the technical terms of administration, legislation and science, that will be very easy to learn, I am glad to say, but it will be very foreign to the genius of the language, national genius. It is quite possible to be an Irishman, and a patriotic one at that, without speaking the language that we will have fifteen years hence. I am not for one moment complaining that Irish should not be the language of the country, but if it is to be the sole avenue of information, the only avenue to the school children, we will so depress and lower the national standard of education and confuse the intelligence of the people that we will automatically exalt the well informed business men into positions of aristocracy or of ascendancy. The native speakers will be the subjects of the commercially trained and commercially minded people in Dublin. So that instead of the British coming back to rule we shall have Unionist elements that are here already put in the position of an artificial and an unworthy ascendancy. And the aborigines will be in the subject position they brought on themselves. But instead of blaming ourselves for our own sentimental ineffectiveness when we find our native speakers servants of the resident business classes we will probably say that it was not our own tomfoolery, but the Freemasons who did it. You will be creating that artificial ascendancy over people who can never hope to be anything more than farm workers. If you teach mathematics and geography in a language which lacks the words and which the teacher does not know fully you cannot give the poor pupil a chance of clear thinking. If you are to have a national language, therefore, let it go parallel with the national education, without making it a medium of confusion. In Dungarvan, which is an Irish-speaking district, I heard of a father bringing his daughter to the town for employment, and she was refused employment there because she did not know enough business terms. That may seem an unnecessary and an undue criticism, but let me return to the outlook of the legal profession. It is to my mind a confession of failure to single out any profession in the future for an elementary education which should be thoroughly grounded in the schools. From the broader point of view the language of our commercial life is English. The language of our relatives in the U.S.A. is English; I am not bringing in anybody or any Party into it because I am probably an outside voice, but I cannot see that it is essential to speak the language of what is not, after all, the only race in the country. Every other country is proud of the fact that other races have come into them. The invasion of 800 years ago strengthened and enriched the race, but we have refused to consider any race except the Gaelic speaking race, though there were races before it and after it, without the infusion of which the country could not have had its character and individuality. No aboriginal country in the world has remained in possession of its freedom. Not even the black fellows in Australia. You hear the English talking of the Norman conquest as if the Normans were the guests of King George V. and were recently invited. We had a Norman conquest, and the result of it was to give the only attempt at centralised government that the country ever had. The native parts of this country have always resisted central government and we are paying for that still.

Harking back to the general principle of resurrecting a language, with a nation that ought to be struggling to keep itself in the European Comity this seems to be a wrong policy, but inasmuch as it is the Government's policy I will not criticise it. I will only criticise the implied confession of failure. It is a confession of the bankruptcy of a language if it must seize the prestige of the professions to help itself. The next profession will be the doctors. I am quite willing to consider Irish-speaking doctors provided you let us put the Gaeltacht in quarantine and provided that the doctors are given time to recover from the concussion of language on their modernly trained brains.

A Senator

What about the patients?

Dr. Gogarty

Oh, the patient's condition will be discussed in a dead language, or at least one that is already post-mortem. That experience will not be very helpful. The question of the policy of changing technical terms of any profession, not into equivalent technical terms, but into technical terms that are being invented from English, is an obstacle. We see upon every mail van the words “Puist agus Telegrafaí”—there is no word in Irish for telephone.

Mrs. Wyse Power

"Telephone" is not English.

Colonel Moore

"Telephone" is a Greek word.

Mrs. Wyse Power

What does it come from?

Dr. Gogarty

It comes from Telos, afar, and phonos, voice. I say that if we did wish to impose such a word as this, we have words for “voice” and “distance.” The Germans use ferusprecher. Therefore to make technical terms out of a language from which they are not derived is foolish. Therefore we are asking a profession to adopt a continually expanding and attenuated language. If we are to make any professional use of Irish, let it be the Irish that was taught thirty years ago, and of which there are text books, letters and a definite range of literature. There is much difference between the modern Irish scholars and speakers in people's minds. They look upon Professor Bergin and Mr. Best as people who have got a kind of prerogative of Irish, whereas everybody else is more or less in the arbitrary stage of Irish. If I were spending money on Irish education, the first thing I would spend it on would be to form a definite Irish Academy to decide what Irish is and is to be. The Greek Government was confronted with something very similar to this. It had five dialects to deal with. But it stopped all schooling for two years. It made a grammarian's language, so now words derived from Homeric and classical Greek are not understood in Greece to-day. The same thing happened in Hungary. We are told four patriots preserved the Magyar language. The fact is that it never fell out, that it was always there.

Mr. Toal

Irish never died.

Dr. Gogarty

I never said it did.

Colonel Moore

The Senator does not understand it.

Dr. Gogarty

I am trying to live up to it, but it is escaping me.

A Senator

West Britain.

Dr. Gogarty

There it is! It is becoming political. I am not making it political. I merely want to say that to overtake the solicitors' profession and to single it out when its ordinary apprentices shall have gone to school without a competent knowledge of the language is a tremendous reflection, as Senator Sir William Hickie pointed out, on the success of Irish teaching in the schools. I am envisaging a time when, instead of getting school children to be competent in Irish, it will be a disadvantage against them entering any other profession. Behind it all we are confronted with the fact that the commercial conditions are the conditions that dominate life in this country, and if we wish to remove ourselves from industrial education and commercial alertness, we will have a new and third rate ascendancy here. Grattan's Parliament lasted a little over seventeen years. Grattan's colleagues were men of the highest integrity and education, but they did not keep out Great Britain for more than eighteen years. There is no question of Britain re-administering this country, but there is every question of a commercial class doing so, a class that will retain a commercial education, but not a bi-lingual education, getting into a position of ascendancy, and we can only blame ourselves if that occurs.

Mr. Counihan

My objection to this Bill is that, like Senator Sir William Hickie, it seems invidious to me that one section or profession should be singled out and compelled to acquire a competent knowledge of the Irish language. Why not all the professions? Why not all the members of the Oireachtas? I would suggest that we should begin with the Oireachtas, and that it should be obligatory on every candidate to be competent to make an intelligent speech in Irish before he could be elected either to the Dáil or to the Seanad. The big majority of the people are not so enamoured of the Irish language as most people would lead us to believe. I love the Irish language; I spoke it as a boy, and I would go a long way to foster and encourage it. But I believe that we are going too fast, and, for the sake of the language itself. I believe we ought to go a little slower, because if we move at this pace we will certainly get a very strong public opinion against us. I have read this Bill, and I cannot see that it will inflict any great hardship on the legal profession. If Section 2 of the Bill is amended to read: "This Act shall not apply to any person who is over the age of ten years on the 1st day of October, 1929," I would vote for the Bill. Like Senator Sir William Hickie, I do not think that the Bill would inflict any great hardship under those circumstances, because when children who are now ten years of age enter the profession, they would have no difficulty in having the necessary knowledge of Irish. I hope that after some years every boy and girl in the country will have an efficient knowledge of the language.

Mr. Kenny

I have here a pamphlet sent out by the legal practitioners, entitled, "Why the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland objects to the Legal Practitioners (Qualification) Bill, 1928." I take it that if any body of men could make a case against this Bill it would be the combined intelligence and the argumentative power of the lawyers, and here is their case in a few pages. They admit—which, of course, is the pith of the whole Bill around which argument centres—that this Bill does not apply to any person over the age of fifteen years on the 1st day of October, 1929. That is taken from the Bill itself, and their objection to the Bill is an admission of inability, or want of intelligence, with about ten years in which to do so, on the part of recruits to the legal profession to qualify and to reach a standard which will satisfy the Chief Justice. I sent two of my boys to Ring College some years ago—a boy of ten and a boy of eleven. They came back after nine months, and when I met them at Waterford station and spoke to them some words in English—I am a student of Irish, but I am not a fluent speaker—in connection with their luggage, they were not able to answer me in English. They knit their brows and had to translate what I had said into Irish. They had reached that stage when they were actually thinking in Irish, and for a week at home these boys could not carry on the ordinary conversation of the house in English. That was after nine months. One language had actually displaced the other. In this pamphlet it is suggested that this proposal makes for inefficiency. It is a startling fact that at the recent Intermediate examinations the schools which reached the highest standard were those which were most proficient in the teaching of the Irish language and whose pupils scored the highest marks in Irish. Does that show that the study of the Irish language——

Sir John Keane

Could the Senator tell us where he has got that information from? I may say that I have been searching for it for quite a long time.

Mr. Kenny

The information has been circulated. The facts are there, and Senator Sir John Keane as well as anybody else can get them. It is open to the Senator to go to the Education Department, where he will be provided with full information.

Sir John Keane

Could the Senator be more specific and say where he got that information?

Mr. Kenny

I will get the information in all detail for the Senator if he likes. It has been stated by Senator Gogarty that the Irish language lags behind modern requirements—that you cannot convert modern terms into Irish.

Dr. Gogarty

I did not say anything of the kind. I did not say that you could not convert modern terms into Irish. What I did say was that we were not doing it. I said Irish radicals were not used to make new words, but that English radicals were used to make new words.

Mr. Kenny

The English language is not used to make new words. When a new word was required for telephone——

Dr. Gogarty

Would the Senator explain "sugar beet"?

Mr. Kenny

When a new word was required for telephone the English language was not equal to the occasion, and they had to go to Greece to get a term for it. Why did they not go to Irish for it?

"Phonos" means voice, and "telos" means afar or distance, and there are Irish for these. Why did they not go to the Irish language when they wanted their new terms? Because the English language is hostile to Irish. Every intelligent man and woman in this House, who has given any consideration to the matter, knows that the Irish language is quite equal to every modern development. In the course of our legislation here we have travelled over a very wide field, covering such subjects as scientific agriculture, the Shannon scheme, electricity, aviation and other modern developments. If Senator Gogarty, or any other member of the House, looks up the Official Reports he will find that every word spoken here on these subjects has been translated into Irish. What has been said will be found in both languages. The Irish translators have not found any difficulty whatever in giving a verbatim report in Irish of every word spoken by Senators and Deputies on these subjects. The translators have found no difficulty in doing that, and it is quite possible that the Irish translation gives a much clearer definition of what it was meant to convey. Reference was made to an incident that it was stated happened in Dungarvan where a girl, because she could not make herself understood in the English language as regards certain terms, lost a situation. Senator Counihan made a point as to the lack of interest that there is in the preservation of the Irish language. I have attended the fairs in Dungarvan for quite a long time. If, say, 20 years ago Senator Counihan went there to buy a bunch of cattle from one of the men who came down from the mountains and who did not know English, he could not do so without aid of an interpreter, because fifty per cent. of those who had cattle to sell at that time did not know one word of English. If he endeavoured to make a purchase from them through the medium of the English language they would not understand a word he was saying. The position is much the same to-day. There is a good deal of Irish spoken in Dungarvan to-day. Nearly all the shop assistants, by the very nature of their positions, are required to know both languages because in most of the shops the principal customers are all Irish speakers. They know no other language.

Senators spoke of the difficulty there will be in replacing the English language by the Irish language. It may be that it will take a long time. I submit that it is our duty to preserve the Irish language, which is a living language. Some Senators spoke here to-day as if the Irish language was a dead language.

It will not be a dead language as long as there is a single native speaker left alive. Some members of this House seem to think that the Irish language is not worth preserving, but that is not the opinion of some of the greatest European scholars who came over here and spent a great deal of their valuable time in studying the Irish language. They have done that because it is the Irish language, because of its structure, and because it possesses many qualities that have been found wanting in many European languages. I am not stressing this aspect of the matter at all, that we all as Irishmen and Irishwomen should aid the efforts that are being made to preserve the Irish language. The Irish language means a lot to us. It is linked up with our past; it is our native language, and it has expanded with the progress and growth of our country. It is native to the soil of Ireland; and, in making an effort to preserve it, it is not as if we were endeavouring to impose a foreign language on the people. It is one of the few things left to us that are worth preserving. We ought to be proud of our national language, and I submit that we ought to do everything in our power to preserve it. I am not, however, stressing that aspect of the matter at all. That is a matter which every Irishman and every Irishwoman should consider for themselves. I suggest that their first duty is to preserve their native language.

When the Constitution under which we live was being framed, the Irish language was considered of sufficient importance to be incorporated in it. As it is our national language, the framers of the Constitution put it before the English language. We are here to carry out the spirit of that Constitution. It is an extraordinary thing that men and women, who are bound by their pledges and by their presence here to uphold the spirit of the Constitution in that essential, are standing up here and opposing the principle enshrined in the Constitution with regard to the Irish language. I think in doing that they are false to their trust and the position they occupy, and also false to the Constitution.

Cathaoirleach

I would like to point out to Senators that on this Bill we are not considering the question of the Irish language as it affects the country as a whole, but rather as it will affect the members of the legal profession. I would ask Senators to confine themselves to the subject of the Irish language as it concerns legal practitioners. It is really outside the scope of this Bill to discuss the question of the language as it affects the country as a whole.

Mr. Kenny

Perhaps I should apologise, but it is usual to have the principle of a Bill discussed on the Second Stage.

Cathaoirleach

I was not referring to the Senator at all.

Mr. Kenny

I think Senators are entitled to discuss the principle of a Bill on the Second Stage.

Mr. Connolly

I desire to support the motion that has been moved by Senator Milroy. If the House will pardon me for saying so, I think that there is more in this Bill than a purely legal practitioners Bill, and that one cannot very well deal with the principle that is involved in the measure without referring to the outlook that is expressed on various sides of this House on this question. I do not want to labour it very much. It seems to me that Senator Milroy has an unanswerable argument when he points to the fact that this Bill is not intended to apply to any solicitor who is in practice to-day, or to any solicitor's apprentice to-day. It will only apply to those who are school children at present and who may enter the legal profession later in life, to those who will be under fifteen years of age on the 1st October of this year. This question of the Irish language has always been a clean-cut line between the Irish people and what I consider, and I am going to say it quite bluntly and plainly, the anti-Irish element in this country. It seems to me that it represents what one might call the British Imperial outlook in their colonial activities. In other words, we have an element here which has had for many years the domination of the Irish people. After all, Dublin City, great as it is, is not the Irish nation. There is an Irish nation outside even this very distinguished body, and even outside the very distinguished group of gentlemen who meet in the Dáil. There is something known as the Irish people, and we are making a great mistake if we, sitting here, think that we are the be-all and the end-all of the Irish nation.

This Imperial attitude is in Dublin. It has been fostered in Dublin for centuries, and it seems to me that when it comes to a question of Irish that it exhibits a mentality that we cannot afford. It seems to suggest that the people who have this superiority complex, as against the native Irish, are resisting the whole Irish race lest they should go native. Now, most of us know what we mean by going native. It is in those terms that they think and, unfortunately, too many of our people are suffering from the inferiority complex. It has been imposed upon them by the element which should have led this country but did not, but instead joined in subjecting it to every evil thing that the British Government could impose upon it. Now we had hoped that that phase of life in Ireland had passed, but quite recently in the Seanad it was keenly brought home to all of us who observe things that such is not the case. Recently, when discussing another measure here, we were told that the minority party in Ireland had contributed far beyond its proportion to the intellectual, artistic and cultural influences of this country. Personally, I am inclined to dispute that statement, but even allowing it were so, let us get back to the historical reasons for it. Let us not run away from these things. Let us face up to what we are; let us make up our minds as to whether we are going to be native or whether we are always going to be a thorn in the side of everything that stands for Ireland and for what is right and good in Ireland. Where is the hardship in asking, in this Bill, that young people who are now attending either the primary or the secondary schools, and who at present are only about 14 years of age, should have a competent knowledge of Irish eight or ten years hence if they decide to become apprentices in either branch of the legal profession? I think it is perfectly futile and childish to suggest that there is any hardship in that. The only reason that I can see for opposition to this Bill is either that the Irish language is going to be a stigma of inferiority, or that it is not desirable in any way to foster a knowledge of it. The idea seems to prevail that we should not foster a knowledge of the Irish language.

Senator Gogarty referred to what I think he called depressing the intelligence of the natives. I do not know whether a knowledge of Irish is going to improve the intelligence of the natives. I have been around this country a good deal, and if a knowledge of the Irish language is not going to depress the intelligence of the natives any more than English culture has done, then I am all for the Irish language, for in so far as English alleged civilisation has permeated this country, it has produced anything but intelligence or development. So far as business terms are concerned, we all know that where business goes means will be found of communicating in their own language with the people who want to purchase and with those who want to sell. It seems to me that we have arrived at the point when we must face this issue boldly. If any Government in power in this country decided to make it obligatory on prospective members for the Dáil and Seanad to become fluent Irish speakers before they could qualify for membership—if such an obligation as that were imposed—I would be very glad to vacate my place in favour of an Irish speaker. I will go further, and say that if the proposal I have made were put into effect we would have as fair a chance of getting at least as brilliant an exchange of ideas from those Irish speakers as we have been treated to in both Houses of the Oireachtas during the last year or six years.

Colonel Moore

It is not often, I am sorry to say, that I can offer my congratulations to the Government. It is very rarely that I have been able to compliment the Minister for Finance on any of his aims or intentions. On this occasion I do compliment him, and also the Government, for what they have done for the Irish language during the last few years. They have faced this question in a national spirit, and have done all that they could do for it. They have my compliments as far as that goes. It has been my boast for some time that there are many people who do not think much of the Seanad. But I think that the Seanad generally has been more Irish in its outlook than the other part of the Oireachtas. I suggest that if the various Acts passed by the Oireachtas during the last few years are examined, it will be found that whenever the question of insisting on a knowledge of the Irish language was introduced, it was the Seanad that always did that and not the Dáil. I am sorry, therefore, that this Bill requiring lawyers in the future to have a knowledge of Irish should be opposed in the Seanad. I had hoped that the Bill would have been passed practically unanimously. I feel sure that after this discussion it will get a Second Reading with practical unanimity.

The question of the language is a national question. Those who wish to belong to the Irish nation must take the view that Irish should be the language of the country. Those who oppose compulsory Irish or essential Irish, as it is sometimes called, are really in their hearts opposing everything Irish—the language and everything else. They have always supported compulsory English and compulsory everything else. The only one thing they object to is compulsory Irish. Their point of view—and this is clearly what is at the back of their minds— is that they do not approve of Irish, and I imagine, would like to be back to the times when the use of the Irish language was suppressed. Now it is not so very long ago since that was the case. Some ten or fifteen years ago friends of mine were put in prison for giving their names in Irish in Irish-speaking districts. I did not hear any of those who are now speaking against compulsory Irish say a word against that at the time. On the contrary, they approved of it. What they approve of now is compulsory no-Irish. It is not so many years ago since certain people in Dublin wrote their names on their carts in the Irish form. They were brought before judges who were supposed to be Irish judges. In some cases they were sent to prison, and in all cases, I think, they were fined for doing that. The national spirit was aroused by action of that sort. Immediately that action was taken by the courts, the Corporation of Dublin had its title printed in the Irish form on its carts. The result was that, just as those who are opposing compulsory Irish now will be swept away, those who opposed compulsory Irish at that time were also swept away.

The question of compulsory Irish is not a new one. Some 20 or 25 years ago a new University was established in this country. At the time I was a member of the Coiste Gnotha. One night we proposed and passed a resolution that Irish should be made compulsory for entrance to the University for the matriculation examination. I confess that I, and I think those who voted with me on the question that night, were very doubtful as to whether we would succeed in our object. We went away very doubtful in our hearts as to what was going to happen, but the matter was taken up. Some people, of course, laughed at us and said that only a few cranks were in favour of compulsory Irish for entrance to the National University. They told us that if our proposal was carried out the University would be ruined. I remember Mr. Birrell, who was over here at the time in an official capacity, saying that he did not think the Irish people were foolish enough to make such an arrangement. I remember the Irish Bishops signing a manifesto practically—not practically at all, but thoroughly—denouncing anyone who advocated such a thing. But what happened was that the country became aroused on the question and a big controversy ensued. I remember that there was a big convention held in Dublin about that time. This question of compulsory Irish was raised at it. It was opposed by some great parliamentarians, people who had been sacrificing their lives in the service of this country for a good many years—for instance, the late Mr. John Dillon. This was a convention of the Irish Parliamentary Party. The convention was called to deal principally with the great question of the land. When this subject of compulsory Irish was introduced, it was opposed by some of the prominent people present. The convention, however, would not listen to this opposition, and insisted upon a discussion of this question of compulsory Irish.

Therefore, I say this is not a new question at all. I say that the people who are opposing it to-day are quite in the backwater. They have put themselves in the backwater. On many other occasions in the last hundred years they have also put themselves in the backwater. They have always been beaten and they have always been defeated, but still they have always been stupid enough to come forward again and try to get back into a period which they can never revive. Some 700 years ago when the Normans came over to this country, one of the first things they did was to ban the use of the Irish language. They put all sorts of objections forward against the use of it. People were forbidden to speak the language, and if they did so they were subjected to all kinds of punishment. As a result of the drastic regulations that were in force against the use of the Irish language people had to cease speaking it. What happened? Within a period of two hundred years there was scarcely a man in Ireland who could speak the English language. Amongst the Peers and Commons—in the Parliament of that day—the only man amongst them who could speak the English language was the Duke of Ormond.

The Irish language is one of the finest languages in the world. It has a most ancient literature, one that is far better than English, and there has been a continuation in that respect up to the present. Irish has been pushed into the background by compulsion. The Irish language was banned by the British Government. It was not taught in the schools, and no one could get any employment in the Post Office or in minor positions unless they could speak the English language. What was the difficulty? All the people in the West, in the Gaeltacht, can speak both languages, even though they have not been taught them in the schools. If you were speaking in English to a man in the Gaeltacht you would not know that he had ever heard the Irish language; but turn to him the next moment in Irish and he can speak excellent Irish. People can learn two languages easily. I was in South Africa, and there were people there who are supposed to be the most ignorant in the world, but they could speak three or four languages. When marching with columns I had often to inquire so as to find my way around the country. I have spoken to a Hottentot there, and he listened to me when I spoke English, and then he turned around and spoke to a Boer in Dutch and explained to him what I wanted. He could also speak the Kaffir language. There is no difficulty about making Irish the spoken language, and the people who are opposed to it merely wish to go back to a period which has passed away in this country and which can never come back again.

I know there are always a lot of grumblers. There were grumblers when Irish was made compulsory in the National University. Plenty of people grumbled about Irish being made compulsory in the University, and even said that as a result the University would be killed. The position is that following the introduction of compulsory Irish the University was placed in a stronger position than ever, and has continued to progress since Irish was made compulsory twenty-five years ago If we are in earnest in our advocacy of the Irish language let us go the full measure, and make it the spoken language of the country, the same way as was done with the English language. When they wanted it to be the spoken language in this country they made it compulsory. If Irish is not to be the spoken language of the country let us abandon it altogether, as there is no use in our wasting time and money on it if it is not going to succeed. We have our choice either of making Irish compulsory or of abandoning it altogether. Half-hearted people never succeed. It is only those who know their minds and are determined to get what they want who succeed. Personally, I believe the language will succeed and that it will be of advantage to the country in every possible way. For one thing, trade in this country is being ruined by English commercial travellers and others who would not be able to do that if Irish was the spoken language, for they could not talk in Irish, and they would not be persuading the people into foolish bargains. I will certainly vote for compulsory Irish now and always.

Sir Thomas Esmonde

I shall trespass shortly on the patience of the Seanad. This is a very interesting debate and there is an aroma of bygone years attached to it, because it reminds me very much of speeches, pro and con, I listened to thirty or forty years ago. Personally I am slow to change my opinions. Thirty or forty years ago I supported the Gaelic League, and I was one of those prosecuted for having inscribed my name in Irish on my cars. I think the proper position in this country would be to have it bilingual. A bilingual country is absolutely more intelligent than a unilingual country.

In most countries in Europe they talk many languages, and I think that makes for intellectual culture. I do not go so far as my friends who scoff at the use of the English language altogether. Quite apart from commercial conditions, I am reminded that many of the Irish people, whose names are too numerous to mention, are amongst the greatest writers and speakers of the English language and reached a position of pre-eminence of which I as an Irishman am honestly and sincerely proud.

While thinking that it would be well for this country to be bilingual at the same time I agree with Senator Sir William Hickie—from whom I am sorry we do not hear more speeches in the Seanad—that the velvet glove method is the best. There is no use in scarifying our sensibilities and reminding us that in ancient days coercion happened. I have lived under various Coercion Acts, and one thing that is indelibly impressed upon my mind is that Ireland has a most miraculous knack of defeating coercion in any shape in which it is presented. I suggest to the promoters of this Bill, and to the leaders of the Gaelic movement in this country, that they would be very wise to adopt the method of the velvet glove, because the only danger, to my mind, in the spread of the special cultivation of the Irish language is the threat of compulsion. In my opinion, that is the only danger. I would respectfully suggest to those people who are interested in the spread of the ancient language that if they cultivated the velvet glove policy it would be better for the success of their objects.

As to the legal profession, I have the greatest respect for the official statement from that body. I think the legal profession would be quite able to protect itself against unnecessary coercion. The legal profession in this country is one which we all honour, and it is associated with great and historic Irish names. I do not think there is any great hardship in asking that a boy who is fourteen years of age in the present year should have a knowledge of Irish at the time prescribed in the Bill, as I suppose long before he has attained his majority Irish will be the spoken language of the country. One thing I would suggest in connection with the speaking of the Irish language is that we should have official Irish. I have travelled in Greece, and various other countries, where the modern language bears no relation whatever to the ancient language. I think we should decide whether we are to have Connaught Irish, Munster Irish or Ulster Irish, or an amalgam of the three, as the official language of the country. If it ever comes to casting a vote for the official language of the country I certainly will vote for Donegal Irish as I think it is the easiest spoken.

Mr. O'Farrell

I wish, in the first place, to congratulate Senator Milroy on his moderate and statesmanlike speech in introducing the Bill. It was a speech to which nobody could take exception, and I think if the movement in favour of the Irish language were conducted along the lines followed by Senator Milroy to-day it would have made far greater progress than it has made. It is a pity that speakers in support of the Bill who followed Senator Milroy did not keep on the same lines. I claim to be as good an Irishman and to belong to as good an Irish stock, and as good a fighting stock, as any who spoke in support of the Bill. I object to certain people inventing a particular type of patriotism and putting a little halo around their heads and then denouncing all and sundry who differ from their point of view. I prefer the lines laid down by the late Arthur Griffith. He said:

"The resuscitation of our national language is a work in which everyone of us should help, and at the same time we would regret any insistence on a knowledge of Gaelic as a test of patriotism."

I subscribe to that principle, and I deplore the type of speeches that we have heard here to-day, with threats and bullying and all sorts of epithets being flung around in anticipation of any different points of view being expressed to those which other people hold. This Bill is of an important character. It affects one very important profession, important not only from their own point of view but from the point of view of those who have to seek the law courts for the redress of grievances and the adjustment of legal matters. The matter is sufficiently important for the Government of the day, if they thought this Bill necessary or desirable, to father the Bill and not to leave it to back benchers. Senator Milroy, in discussing a motion in this House some time ago, deplored the possibility of an orgy of Private Bill legislation, that every crank who had an idea in regard to any subject would be able to bring in a Bill and take up the time of the Oireachtas on it. We have two people who described themselves in the other House as back benchers bringing in this Bill, and it is a Bill which is to form the acid test of the patriotism or otherwise of members of the Oireachtas for all time. I am not aware that there has been any demand, either open or implied, from any section of the community in regard to this Bill. I have seen no resolution passed by any single authority in the country in regard to it, and if there has been I have not seen it, and I have not heard it quoted.

This Bill seeks to subject the legal profession to a test which is not applied to any other profession in the country. Surely, the medical profession is more in touch with the people, and particularly with the Gaelic-speaking people, than the lawyers are? If there is any case in which one would like to have an understanding with his clients, it is in finding out what his physical disabilities are, as it is a matter of life and death. If Irish is necessary in the case of legal matters, it is even more necessary in medical matters. Why not extend the Bill to the engineers and the clergy of all denominations who certainly are in close touch with the people? The promoters of the Bill would not dare to apply compulsion to the clergy.

Colonel Moore

It is applicable to the clergy.

Mr. O'Farrell

The Senator is not correct. It is not compulsory in Holy Orders for any of the clergy.

Colonel Moore

It is compulsory in Maynooth.

Mr. O'Farrell

My objection is to this compulsion to have a technical knowledge of law in Irish. It means the setting up of two sets of examination papers, both of them in legal technicalities, and requiring proficiency in each in order to become eligible for admission to the legal profession. There is no legal literature, and there is not likely to be in the immediate future, in Irish. We are very backward not only in literature of that kind but in the ordinary text-books. Here is what Mr. C. Breathnach, late President of the Gaelic League, said:—

"It would be a great advantage to the Irish language if many of the books in Irish at present used in the schools were burnt. Senseless lessons on points of grammar were being shoved down the throats of the children, and it was no wonder they were getting sick of this teaching."

That is from one of the most enthusiastic spirits behind the Gaelic movement, and one of the most uncompromising in his attitude. In the debates in the Dáil recently we find great enthusiasts for the language expressing their lack of faith in the present method of teaching in the primary schools. Mr. P. Hogan, Labour member for Clare, one of the very few members of the Oireachtas who can speak the Irish language and make himself understood by Irish speakers, said: "From the viewpoint of reviving Irish as the spoken language, it could not be effective so long as Irish was not spoken in the homes." Professor Tierney, another language enthusiast, urged:

"The preparation of a series of official school text-books in Irish. The absence of such books was definitely injurious. There was also a great scarcity of suitable school histories of Ireland. He did not think enough time had been given to the examination of how far the present method of teaching Irish in primary schools throughout the Gaeltacht was being successful, and how far energy that could be better spent in the Gaeltacht was being wasted in trying to teach it in the Gaeltacht."

Then Mr. Mullins, a Fianna Fáil member, speaking in the Dáil also, agreed that too much confidence was placed on school training as a means of restoring the Irish language. These are expressions of a want of confidence in the effectiveness of the present method of teaching the Irish language in the schools, and they are from representatives of the movement. While this is going on, some young men and old men, in a hurry, want to plunge ahead and make our solicitors in the next six or seven years be not only proficient in the Irish language but be able to conduct business in the courts.

Mr. Kenny

That is not in the Bill.

Mr. O'Farrell

The Bill says that they must have a competent knowledge of the Irish language, and that means a knowledge sufficient to enable the legal practitioners properly to discuss the business of their clients in the Irish language. What does that mean? Does it not mean the conduct of their cases in the courts? The answer to this Bill is that when the Irish language is the spoken language, and when the people want their cases conducted in Irish, there will be bound to be solicitors to do that. Wherever there is a demand there is a supply inevitably to be found, and no solicitor who has any intelligence is going to lose business because he does not know a language for which there is a demand. As has been pointed out, the language is compulsory in the primary and secondary schools, and it is being used in the Universities, so that inevitably students of the legal profession will have a knowledge of Irish. I am prepared to make them show that they have a proficient knowledge of Irish, but I would not submit them to the technical test of passing an examination and conducting their work in Irish, because there are quite a number of people who have a good reading knowledge of Irish, and can speak it fairly well by speaking it slowly, but they could not conduct their ordinary business in that language.

I wonder how many members of the Oireachtas who are Irish speakers could make themselves understood by an Irish audience? I was speaking to one of the greatest authorities on Irish in this country, and he said that there were only about four members of the Oireachtas who could speak in a manner he could understand. He said they could ramble away and make speeches, but that a native speaker would not know every second word they said. The spirit in which this Bill has been put forward is not the type of spirit that is going to help it to be a success. Here is what one Deputy said:

"I see no reason why a penalising of Irish professions should not be applied, in fact pursued, if these professions refuse to recognise the fact that much water has flown under the bridges of Ireland for the last seven or eight years. I see no reason to be ashamed of it, if it were necessary, to institute something approaching the penal laws."

The recognition of how much water has flown under the bridges within the last seven or eight years depends on the particular viewpoint of the speaker. There is one point of view, and unless you agree with that you are anti-Irish, and the Deputy would penalise you, and then there are the two jack-boots which the Minister for Finance would apply. I do not see why the Incorporated Law Society was not consulted in the first instance, as is usual in matters of this kind, and as was done in the case of legislation affecting other professions. I think that should have been done as a matter of business, to say nothing of the question of courtesy. It is only right that the people who are to be affected by this type of legislation should be consulted, and it is regrettable that some attempt was not made to arrive at a substantial agreement before the Bill was introduced. It seems peculiar to set up the Chief Justice as a sort of general detective in regard to this one subject. I take it that the Incorporated Law Society is going to be the judge in regard to other matters as regards the examinations, but that the Chief Justice is the man who is going to see that you are good at Irish. In my opinion that is an anomalous arrangement altogether. Senator Kenny gave us an extraordinary example of the effectiveness of Irish. He said that two of his children after nine months forgot the English language, but he did not tell us whether they had learned the Irish language.

We heard a good deal about Celtic culture. If some of the speeches made in support of this Bill are an example of Celtic culture I would be sorry, but I do not believe they are. Senator Milroy referred to pro-language enthusiasts and anti-language pessimists. The pessimism in this case seems to be on the side of the language enthusiasts, for this Bill is a declaration of pessimism. Some of the avowed enthusiasts for the Irish language have shown rather too great a readiness to stab the country to the heart on a vital occasion, while some of those who take a different view in regard to this Bill are prepared to make great sacrifices for the honour and greatness of this State. Senator Kenny, as an example of the simplicity of the Irish language, said that the Official Debates are translated into Irish without any trouble. I think he must have been dreaming, for the Debates are not translated into Irish, or at least if they are I have not seen it. According to Senator Connolly, everyone who is opposing this Bill is expressing an Imperial viewpoint. I have before replied to that point of view. Having regard to a speech by the Senator recently, because he happened to come from the North he should be regarded as an alien. I do not think it is a right point of view to put. The stand I take in regard to this Bill is that I would be in favour of giving it a Second Reading and then amending it along certain lines. Are Senators prepared to extend Irish as a compulsory subject to the other professions? I wonder why one profession should be selected. It is an open confession to make that I am not one of those who are carried away body and soul with the idea that this country can never be great until we are an Irish-speaking nation.

In the minds of some people, that may be a terrible profession of heresy, but I think it is a point of view one is entitled to have. I learned enough Irish to be able to read it fairly well. I was able to read a few books in it, and I know suffcient Irish to know that some of those who make speeches in it often make very bad speeches. I do not think that the greatness or otherwise of this country depends on the language spoken in it. An Irish-speaking nation lost Irish independence, an English-speaking nation has won it back. An Irish-speaking, an English-speaking, or a German-speaking nation can become great in science, art and industry, and can develop other national characteristics of a high quality irrespective of the language in which it expresses its thoughts or its feelings.

The Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe)

rose.

Sir John Keane

Is the Minister concluding?

Mr. Blythe

I do not propose to conclude the debate. I want to speak at this stage, as it were, in a personal capacity. This is a Private Member's Bill, and while I think most members of the Government Party voted for it in the Dáil, on the other hand, it is not a Government Bill, and when speaking on it here, I am really speaking for myself.

Mr. O'Farrell

You have no right to do so if you are.

Mr. Blythe

I think so.

Mr. O'Farrell

I am not going to object. A Minister in charge of a Bill has a right to speak.

Mr. Blythe

I understand a Minister has the right to address the House.

Mr. Douglas

There is a Constitutional right.

Cathaoirleach

I think the Minister has a right of audience, and I am sure that he has the permission of the House to speak.

Mr. Blythe

It seems to me that Senator O'Farrell and Senator Gogarty produced a great many chestnuts about the Irish language. The statement of Senator O'Farrell that there are only four people in the Dáil who can speak Irish so as to be understood by a native speaker is preposterous. I do not say that there are more than four speakers who are what you would describe as absolutely perfect speakers of Irish, but there are many more than four who would be easily understood by Irish speakers. With regard to the question of terminology it presents no great difficulty. If a man is able to speak and write Irish well he will have no great difficulty in making himself fit to conduct legal business in Irish. A man who had a good command of the Irish language, and who knew law, could in two months make himself competent to do legal business in Irish. It is true that, in the course of his arguments, he might have to use English words. Suppose the point in a case depended on the legal interpretation that had been given to a particular English word in a statute, naturally that word would have to be mentioned. One finds in legal arguments that French and Latin words are mentioned, and the question of their meaning and application is argued. One might have to quote a section of a statute that was passed in England on which there were judgments of interpretations. Anybody who knows Irish and who would simply take the trouble to read the Irish translations that have been made of the laws passed since the Saorstát was set up would find himself equipped with a vocabulary that would serve him very well. Senator Sir William Hickie stated that this Bill was unnecessary. In my opinion it is necessary and more than necessary. I agree with those who say that there is no reason why we should not go further than this.

This Bill proposes to make Irish essential for members of the legal profession, and I think it could be accepted on its merits that people agree with it, and that the question as to what future steps should be taken can be decided later and separately. I believe it will be necessary to do more because, while the work that is being done in the schools is essential work, and good work, I am not so foolishly optimistic as to believe that by the work in the schools alone the Irish language can be saved, having been brought to its present condition. I think more must be done to give it a status and prestige in the country, and I think that one of the things necessary to give it prestige is to make a good knowledge of it essential by degrees, and without imposing undue hardship on anyone, for positions of honour and emolument. No such urgent demand is likely to arise for Irish-speaking lawyers if a Bill like this were to be rejected as would cause solicitors themselves naturally to get all the knowledge that is suggested in the Bill, because there are very few monoglot Irish speakers in the country. They are going to be far fewer in the future, and the position will be that while a client might want and might prefer to use Irish, he will in the majority of cases, and by degrees in all cases, be able to use English, and he is not going to make a fight for the use of Irish. He would, perhaps, have to go to one or two solicitors who happen to have a sufficient knowledge of Irish and employ one of them, and not for reasons of choice. He is not going to do that, and it is going to be a long time before the work of the schools alone will provide us with a sufficient number of legal men who have a knowledge of Irish that would meet the case. There is no doubt that the schools suffer at present from a lack of a sufficiency of good teachers. That lack is being supplied, but there are many schools in which there are not teachers who are competent to impart a knowledge of Irish that might be imparted under other conditions.

Secondly, we have to remember that quite a number of children will be discouraged at home from learning Irish, on the ground that they are not going to get any good out of it afterwards; that it will not be necessary for them afterwards. I know of cases where the teachers wanted to teach children Irish, and where there were parents, out of a spirit of bigotry, I think I might call it, forbidding the children to learn Irish. You are going to have in a certain class—because this is a matter that is still controversial-parents discouraging children from making full use of the opportunities at school, and then you are going to have children for a period, until the position of Irish has been greatly strengthened, until it is more used in public life, in administration and in social intercourse than at present, losing a good deal of what they learned at school. The loss is greater now than it will be some years ahead. If we are to have a position that if a child learned some Irish at school it could enter no profession or no career, except the Civil Service, and need no Irish thereafter, then there will be a great many who will simply allow the language to slip, partly, at any rate, from their minds. I think the work being done in the schools has to be reinforced by other measures. I would not like the Seanad to vote on this Bill under any misapprehension. I hope the principle of this measure will be extended and applied in other directions. I think it is necessary from the point of view of the policy of restoring the Irish language. People may have their doubts as to what any particular electorate would think of this Bill. If you take any constituency, or take the electors as a whole, I am satisfied that a majority would be favourable to this Bill. People may shake their heads, but it seems to me they are blinding themselves to the facts of the situation. As Senator Moore and other Senators pointed out, the popular political parties in this country for a long time have, by overwhelming majorities, accepted the principle of compulsory Irish. It was accepted by the United Irish League, which was a great political organisation at one time, when the National University was set up. It was accepted by the county councils all over the country at that time also. It is on the programme of the existing big political parties, and you cannot keep any item of policy on the programme of a number of political parties, however vague, however general, however silent, unless there is a majority support for it in the country. If it were not supported in the country, if there was a majority against it, then some party would take advantage of that to look for support. I think the man who says that majority support would not be got for a revival of the Irish language by reasonable means is simply digging his head in the sand.

Senator O'Farrell said this was an important Bill. It is not. It is a trivial Bill—a mere matter of detail —and that is why there was no outcry over it; that is why there were no resolutions and demands for it. The demand is for a general policy to preserve and revive the Irish language. The details will be left by public opinion to the people who are dealing with it. This Bill, or some Bill like it, if no private members had been interested in the matter, would probably have been introduced by the Government at a fairly early date. I say now that I think that such a Bill would have been introduced, because the resolution that was passed by the Incorporated Law Society convinced me that representations to them to do something themselves would have had no effect. If the matter had been left to the Government what would have happened was that they would have written to the Incorporated Law Society pointing out the passage in the White Paper, on the Gaeltacht Commissioners' Report, and suggesting that the Society ought to do something about the Irish language. If the Society had been willing to do something reasonable the Government would have left it there, but I am convinced, from the sort of absurd resolution that was passed by the Incorporated Law Society, that the Society would have done nothing, and that consequently a Bill something on these lines would have had to be introduced.

As Senator Milroy pointed out, the Bill inflicts no hardship. It got a Second Reading in the Dáil some time last autumn, when anybody who would be affected by it had not reached 14 years of age. I suppose no person is going to be apprenticed before 16 years of age, so that before a young person enters on apprenticeship for the solicitor profession there are two years to make up sufficient Irish to pass the preliminary examination. Most of the students will have received previous instruction in Irish, and it will be a matter of no difficulty for them to pass a fairly stiff preliminary examination, or to pass subsequent examinations. It is the principle of the Bill that is being discussed at this stage. Senator O'Farrell referred to some details. The details are of no consequence. If it were only a matter of details they could be arranged. I am perfectly sure of this, that if the Incorporated Law Society say: "We see that this Bill is unfavourable, but it is going to pass, and we suggest, in order to make it more workable, that this, that or the other thing should be done," no one wants to impose upon them a Bill which makes things more difficult for them than they need to be. At the same time, speaking for myself, I would not agree to the suggestion made by Senator Counihan, that the age should be lowered to ten. As a matter of fact, I think the age limit has been fixed so low that there can be no reasonable objection to it, and I would not be inclined to do anything in that respect. Senator Sir William Hickie and, I think, Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde, talked about the velvet glove. Well, I think you could have no better exemplification of the velvet glove than this Bill. It is as mild and as moderate a measure as you could impose——

Mr. Johnson

Artificial silk.

Mr. Blythe

It may be, but it is as moderate a measure as could be proposed. I think the Incorporated Law Society's view has been absurd about it, that it would have been much wiser, and perhaps much better for the Bill, if they had followed the attitude of their more astute brethren of the Bar.

Mr. Johnson

I was one of those who voted for Article 4 of the Constitution, which says:—

The national language of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) is the Irish language, but the English language shall be equally recognised as an official language.

I did that then with my eyes open, and I do not want to go back from it in the slightest degree. I think it would be a very desirable thing, indeed, that, as early as possible, the mass of the people of this country should be able to speak the national language, which is Irish, and the English language, which is an official language. I think that would be very good educationally, nationally, and in every other way. Before Deputy Blythe leaves I would like to say that I hope the privilege that has been accorded him by the Seanad will be reciprocated, and that it may be possible in future for Senators to have the privilege of speaking in the Dáil.

Cathaoirleach

Article 57 of the Constitution provides for the attendance of Ministers in the Seanad.

Mr. Johnson

What I want to call attention to is that Article 57 states that every Minister shall have the right to attend and to be heard in Seanad Eireann.

Cathaoirleach

I interpret that as his right to be here.

Mr. Johnson

As a Minister, but I think he quite clearly stated that he was speaking in his personal capacity and not as a Minister.

Cathaoirleach

You cannot divorce him from his position as Minister and he is Vice-President of the Executive Council.

Mr. Johnson

He was not speaking as a Minister but as a Deputy, and the House gave him the privilege by a unanimous vote. I hope that that will be noted.

The discussion has gone round the whole question of the revival of the Irish language, but the Bill is very much narrower than that. I am in somewhat of a quandary in regard to it. I was quite definitely in favour of the Bill. I heard a good deal of the discussions in the Dáil, but I was ignorant at the time of the facts in regard to the legal position of the Incorporated Law Society. When the Bill passed the Dáil and was coming to this House, I took the trouble to make some references. I find that if this Bill is passed the only subject which will be compulsory in law in its application to the solicitors' profession will be Irish. Now, that would be an utterly ridiculous position for the Statute to take——

Colonel Moore

Does the Senator suppose that if a man did not know a single word of English he would be suitable for the law?

Mr. Johnson

I am stating what is a fact—that the law sets out no subject as compulsory at present.

Mr. Kenny

The Incorporated Law Society does.

Mr. Johnson

That is the whole point.

Cathaoirleach

Senator Johnson is making a point, and you can appreciate it or not as you wish, but I hope he will not be interrupted.

Mr. Johnson

The law has given power to the Incorporated Law Society to carry out certain functions governing the admission of persons to act as solicitors, and they have adopted certain methods and certain examinations. As late as 1923 amendments in respect of the powers of the Incorporated Law Society were embodied in the statutes. But there is no question except the will of the Incorporated Law Society as to what subjects shall be adopted in which students must pass. Now it is intended that legally there shall be an obligation upon the Incorporated Law Society to make Irish compulsory. So that English need not be compulsory, nor need any other subject.

A Senator

Not even law.

Mr. Johnson

Not even law, and I am afraid that Irish will be very much in the same position as law is, that they will pass examinations and will know very little about it in practice. I am afraid that that applies to a very considerable proportion both of solicitors and barristers.

Mr. Connolly

And other people.

Mr. Johnson

Other people have not to pass the examination. That seems to me to place this Bill in rather an extraordinary and almost a singular position—that we impose upon the solicitors' profession the obligation to learn Irish and that we impose upon them no other obligations whatever, except those which the Incorporated Law Society decide upon. The obvious conclusion one would draw from that is that the Incorporated Law Society should be pressed to set out in some form the list of subjects in which candidates would have to be accomplished and that Irish should be one of them. To make Irish the only compulsory subject is ridiculous to my mind. But Deputy Blythe made quite clear what I think has not been made clear by others, that the real intention of this Bill—and I do not complain of it—is to give an added stimulus to the primary and the secondary student to learn Irish, that this is simply a new method of intensification, of propaganda for the study of Irish. I am not against that kind of effort. I think it has been necessary, and I think it is still necessary that there should be more than the normal amount of encouragement. I think the state of the Irish language and the state of many other things in the country requires much more than the normal course of development, requires some special stimulation, and with the clear understanding that this Bill is simply a method of adding a stimulus to the promotion of the study of Irish amongst the boys and the girls in the primary and the secondary schools, I realise that the Bill may fill quite a useful purpose for a few years.

But in the practical application of this Bill what are we going to be faced with? Let us say that when the boy who is fifteen in October of this year reaches the age of seventeen, his parents decide for him, or he decides for himself with the aid of his parents, on the law as a profession. One thing that I have learned from Irish speakers, teachers and students is that unless one has got a pretty useful knowledge of the language in boyhood or girlhood it is only by very exceptional attention and application that adults can become competent speakers. So that we have to think of this Bill in its effect on boys and girls of from six years upwards.

No one will contend that in a great majority of primary and secondary schools to-day the teaching of Irish is as proficient as Irish enthusiasts would like it to be, that the schools are turning out competent speakers of Irish. They are giving the elements of Irish to the boys and the girls in the primary schools and, with a little more difficulty, giving it in the secondary schools. But as Deputy Blythe said to-day, the teaching, both primary and secondary, is backward, and if the teachers are backward in these days the students will be backward. They will get a smattering. If that is the position in these days it must follow that from the age of seventeen upwards, if boys are to pass this examination by the time they enter the solicitors' profession, they must have entered into a long period of intense study, which must inevitably lessen the time they can give to legal studies. It is because of that consideration that I am entirely in favour of Senator Counihan's suggestion. We have got a right to assume that from now onwards the teaching of Irish in the primary and in the secondary schools will become more proficient, and that the boys and girls going through these schools will become more freely able to speak and to know the language without having to apply that specially intensive study during the period when they ought to be learning law, and such other subjects as go to make efficient solicitors.

It is because I think the purpose of the Bill is to intensify the study of Irish amongst the juniors, and that the free spoken and written knowledge of Irish will only become generally prevalent in the schools in the years to come, that I think it is wrong to say that it will be a barrier against people of this particular school-going generation who become solicitors if this Bill is passed in its present form. Therefore, I think that the Bill may ultimately be passed, provided that it gives time so that those who are now in the senior classes, or in the secondary schools, will not be handicapped in seeking to get into the solicitors' profession in the years, say, from the time they are seventeen upwards, when they ought to be studying subjects more closely appertaining to the profession, and to avoid the necessity for them having to apply their time and attention to the intensive study of Irish during those years. I think that that would be a handicap upon the present generation of boys and girls at school, and therefore I hope that when the Bill passes it will pass with such an amendment.

In regard to the present stage of the Bill I would warn those who are opposed to it of the danger of attempting to defeat the Second Reading. It is one of the paradoxes of the present position that if you want to pass a Bill in the form in which it is introduced you should defeat it on Second Reading, because it will inevitably become law in that form if it is defeated on the Second Reading, according to the new constitutional provision, in twenty months' time, and that, I think, would not be satisfactory, because this Bill is certainly not satisfactory in its present form, and, as Deputy Blythe pointed out, so far as he is concerned he does not think there is anything unreasonable in trying to meet the reasonable requirements of the solicitors' trades union, or of the parents of the boys and girls who are now at school.

Mrs. Wyse Power

Many of the speakers who oppose the Bill seem so pessimistic about the future of children who have to learn the Irish language and at the same time study law. The people who feel like that are really people who have not reared children with a knowledge of the Irish language and who became students of the law. If they had done so, or if they had consulted those who had made careers for their children through the medium of the Irish language and the study of the law, perhaps a great many of their fears would be removed. The intensive study of the Irish language seemed to weigh down some of the speakers. There is nothing more intensive in the study of the Irish language than there is in the study of French, German or Latin. Irish should be more natural to them, and I think anybody who has reared and educated children knows that the suitable study for the Irish child is the study of its own language. That is my experience and I have had experience; my children have been educated in the Irish language, and one of them is a lawyer who is able to do any business that comes to him through the medium of Irish.

I do not like to be discussing personal matters, and I merely put that forward because some others who have spoken have not had the experience that I have had. Senator O'Farrell said that if the Irish language was used really as a living language in the courts the solicitors would be there with the Irish language, that if they would get more business because they had a knowledge of the language, they would be prepared for that. Many years ago trials of cases from the West of Ireland were held in Dublin. I have heard as many as twenty witnesses examined in some of these cases, and an interpreter had always to be present. In the courts in the West and South of Ireland interpreters are present now where the judges and barristers do not know Irish. If an interpreter has to be employed on the case a person may be at a most unfair disadvantage. Interpreters are sometimes not all that they ought to be. I think that is the experience of those who have been dealing with interpreters in courts where Irish was not known by the judge.

In the early part of to-day's debate a great deal of time was spent in asking why the medical, engineering and other professions were not brought under a like compulsion. I think it ought to be clear to everybody that the courts are portion of the Oireachtas itself. The medical profession is not. The courts are really portion of the Oireachtas; the judges are appointed by the Oireachtas, and the courts are carried on under the law of this country. The Constitution states that the Irish language is the official language of the State. I think that is a very sound and sufficient reason as to the necessity for this Bill. The question of bad Irish and good Irish has been dealt with by Deputy Blythe, but it seems to me that, in Ireland particularly, when one sets out to do a thing somebody else always asks: "Why do you not do something else?" Undoubtedly a standard of Irish is needed, and an academy for standardising certain terms is required, but the absence of that is no reason why this Bill should not pass.

Mr. Bagwell

I rise to speak against this Bill for a variety of reasons. In the first place, it seems to me that I am justified in describing this as an unnecessary piece of legislation. What I mean by unnecessary in this connection is that the title of the Bill ought not to have been "The Legal Practitioners (Qualification) Bill"; it ought to have been "The Irish Language (Enforcement Through the Professions) Bill, No. 1, Legal Practitioners." I did not think of that at this moment; I thought of it some time ago, and I thought that I might be accused of being unreasonable and narrowminded, but that is not so. I am quite relieved to find that I shall not be accused of anything of that sort, because the supporters of the Bill have quite openly stated, and the Minister himself made it perfectly clear, that the prime reason for this Bill was not for the conduct of the business of the courts but for the propagation of the Irish language. The Minister tried to make it appear that there would be, in quite a short time, a practical need for a widespread knowledge of the Irish language among barristers and solicitors; in short, that clients would be demanding insistently that their cases should be conducted in Irish and would be seeking barristers and solicitors who were competent to do it. I venture to doubt that very much. I do not believe that that will be the case. I think that the prime motive in the minds of clients will be to get solicitors and barristers who will win their cases for them, and so long as they win their cases, they will be indifferent as to what language is used.

The Bill owes its origin to an idea that has nothing to do with the conduct of business in the courts. It owes its origin to an ideal, if you like, and that ideal is that the Irish Free State should become bilingual, or even from the point of view of some, a purely Irish-speaking country. I know quite well that there is very little to be gained, that there is no sense in trying to trample on people's ideals or to throw ridicule on them, and I am not trying to do anything of the kind; in fact, I say quite sincerely that for honest idealists I have respect. But the qualification in this connection for an honest idealist is to have learned Irish so as to possess, in the official words, "a competent knowledge of the Irish language." The man who has done that has put in a great deal of work; I respect him for that work, and I know he would not have done it unless he was an idealist. Therefore I respect him. But I do not respect the people who try to force this on the youth of the country who have not themselves gone through all this work. There are genuine idealists in this connection; they may not be very many, but they do exist, and they are numbered amongst the promoters of the Bill. But however much we may respect idealism, it seems to me that it is the duty of the Seanad to see to it that the idealists, however genuine they are, are not allowed to run away entirely from commonsense, are not allowed to promote their ideals in a tyrannical manner.

The question for us is: Will this be effective? I consider—the view will not be shared by a large number of Senators, but we are here to exchange our views—that from the point of view of material efficiency this is absolutely suicidal. Keeping to the Bill at the moment, I do not believe that it is a good thing that a young would-be barrister or solicitor should be compelled to spend a large part of his time of study for that profession in learning Irish instead of learning law. I am not impressed by what the Minister said about the ability of a man who learned enough Irish in a couple of months to conduct business in the courts.

A Senator

He did not say that.

Mr. Bagwell

I know something about learning languages other than that which I am accustomed to speak, and I do not think it is as easy as that. It is particularly difficult in this way, that you cannot get many people who are talking nothing but Irish from morning to night with whom to discuss the various affairs of daily life. That is what makes it possible to learn a language quickly, but in this case young students will have to learn the language as lessons, and I do not believe that it will be possible to get a genuine knowledge in that way within such a short time. On the contrary, in view of the fact that other subjects will have to be studied all the time, I believe that it would add a very long period to the term of general study. Their term of study, of course, is governed by their age, so that it cannot be extended. What will happen is that they will know Irish at the end of their study but they will know very much less law than they would have learned otherwise.

So much for the necessity. I do not believe that there is a great necessity for this outside the Gaeltacht. If there is it is an artificially created one. I would like to refer to the remarks made by Senator Kenny on the subject of the degree of Irish-speaking which exists in the neighbourhood of Dungarvan. I may not know Dungarvan as well as Senator Kenny, but I know that part of the country fairly well. I have no doubt if I asked anything in English I would have very little difficulty in getting an answer. But the part of that country which I know intimately is the wild part—the Comeraghs—which is the real stronghold of the Irish language in that area, where people have been speaking Irish all the time that I have known the district. I have talked to people all over those mountains and I have hardly ever found anybody who was not glad to conduct a conversation with me in English. They are true bilinguals. There are some who cannot talk English, but bilingualism is very prevalent there. Purely Irish speakers I never met there.

The proof of the absence of professional necessity is shown in the last part of Section 3 of the Bill, because it provides for the admission of barristers practising at other Bars. They require no Irish, and therefore the mere fact that the Bill contemplates that they shall be able to practise shows that this is not a matter of absolute necessity. What is morally certain is that the enforcement of this Bill will produce less competent barristers and solicitors. They will know less law because they will have less time to learn it, and to that extent the results of the Bill will certainly be more idealistic than practical. Even as an ideal there seems to be a great difference of opinion on the subject. I hold that bilingualism is not a thing to covet. I hold that it means a great material disadvantage. Where it exists it cannot be helped and it has to be made the best of. But to create bilingualism I honestly believe to be very bad for the welfare and the progress of the country.

The Senator who introduced the Bill stated that what is aimed at is the fostering of the spirit of nationality. If I believed that I might not be opposing the Bill, because I do not despise a spirit of nationality. We have got to run our own affairs, and anything that tends to give us a good ideal is a good thing. But to speak a language peculiar to yourself is not necessary for the fostering of a spirit of nationality. As regards what a nation is, opinions may differ, and I dare say my opinion would differ very much from the Senator's. Perhaps Senator O'Farrell would agree with my opinion. The definition of a nation which appeals to me is one which I mentioned here before. It is a definition given by a great Frenchman, and I may say that no people have got a stronger national feeling than the French have, and have had for centuries and centuries. His definition is this: "To have done great things together and have the will to do more of them." That is what makes a nation.

I believe that this is an absolutely satisfying definition, and it is one which contains a high ideal, a very much higher ideal than the speaking of a language. It is a manly and a dignified view, whereas the view that to be national, to have a national spirit, you must have a language peculiar to itself, does seem to me like trying to achieve nationality through peculiarity. Really it is a peculiar thing that we should be trying to establish bilingualism by reviving, not a language that is spoken genuinely and freely, but a language which, as taught in schools, cannot be understood by the people. It must be more or less an artificial language. That cannot be helped, because there are, of course, very great differences between different dialects, and I recognise that to make the language common to all it is necessary that the language shall be revived. But what I quarrel with is the wisdom of doing it in this way. I quarrel with no man who chooses to learn Irish, but the language is certainly unfitted to the requirements of modern life, and to force it upon the community seems to me to be forcing upon it a very great waste of time.

A strong national spirit is not developed upon the ownership of a peculiar language, and to prove that I will give two examples—the United States of America and Scotland. Both of them speak English. Does anybody really say that in the United States of America there is not a true feeling of nationality? That would be a most absurd thing to say. Of course there is a very strong feeling there. The same thing applies to Scotland, and is accounted in the minds of a great many other people as something rather nearer to self-sufficiency. The practical effect of this Bill will be, I claim, a general decline in professional competency. It will drive many out of the country because, as has been pointed out by Senator Johnson, the effect of this Bill begins now. It will not begin in a few years' time, but from the time when the Bill is passed. You at once begin to affect the position of a would-be barrister or solicitor who has got to consider the position, or whose parents have got to consider it for him. A great many will not stand what they conceive to be a waste of time and a great addition to their period of study in learning Irish, and they will tend to choose something else or to go elsewhere to practise law. Moreover—and this seems to me an amazing point—the Bill will allow English, Scotch, Canadian and Australian, and, I dare say, other barristers, to come here and practise who will not be under such a disability and who need not know Irish, while the boy who was educated in this country and who is a citizen of it will have to know Irish.

The solicitors' profession is one in which the son tends to follow the father. Father and son together will be considering this thing, and the tendency will be for a large number of men to be diverted from the legal profession. I dare say it would be said by many of the idealists that these people would be no loss, that they would be a good riddance, but I can hardly be expected to take that point of view, holding the views that I do. I am sure that most members of the Seanad will agree with me that any law which was regarded by large numbers of people as so tyrannical and so objectionable that they will actually leave their own country rather than submit to it is a bad law for the country. All things of that kind have been shown by history to be bad for countries, for they tend to drive out the ablest and the most useful elements, people who have rather more spirit and ability than most and who can take care of themselves. If they see that a thing is not to their advantage, they will avoid it by going away, and the country will be the loser.

It is very difficult to see how this Bill could be amended. It is a very simple Bill. It is essentially a Bill of principle, and I do not know how it could be modified to any great degree. People like myself who believe that the Bill is bad for the country and is a pursuit of a mistaken ideal, have no course left open to them but to try to defeat it. In a Bill that involves principle of such a drastic kind as this does, you must either agree or disagree with it. If you disagree the only thing to do is to oppose it by every means in your power. If you do not do that you are not doing your duty, and I must oppose this Bill.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I had intended speaking at some length, but I do not think it is necessary to do so because there is not much point in the criticism which we have heard so far against the Bill before us. There is not much point for instance in criticism on the line that was pursued by Senator Counihan. He loves the Irish language, but yet he thinks this Bill making for a more general use of the language should not be inflicted on the Irish people. If that is not inconsistent I do not know what is. Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde said that he was against coercion in regard to the Irish language notwithstanding the fact that it is definitely laid down in the Constitution that Irish is the national language of this country. The Senator thinks that it is coercion to give effect to that Article of the Constitution. Again I submit that Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde was inconsistent in the arguments he put forward. Senator O'Farrell said that there had been bullying and threats. I wonder where did the bullying and the threats come from? I did not hear any Senator make use of threats of any kind. Senator Connolly made the point that, if legislation were introduced at some time making a knowledge of Irish compulsory in the case of prospective candidates for the Dáil and Seanad, he would be only too ready to vacate his seat in favour of a native speaker of the language. I do not think there is very much use in following that particular line of argument, but the point we ought to concern ourselves with in considering this Bill is—and Senators and everybody else must accept this—that it is laid down in Article 4 of the Constitution that the Irish language is the national language of this country. Whether that is right or wrong is not a matter either for me or members of this House to determine now. If anybody wants to get a decision with regard to the Irish language then I think it should be within his capacity to devise ways and means of getting the question put before the whole Irish people and of getting their verdict. There is one tribunal which can give a decision on this matter and that tribunal I suggest is the one which the whole of the Irish people constitute. But as long as Article 4 remains in the Constitution it must be accepted that the Irish language is the national language of this country, and therefore I suggest that if we are serious and not out merely for window-dressing we will proceed to carry into effect the provisions of this Bill. It should be remembered, too, that under the Constitution Irish is the official language of Saorstát Eireann and the position in respect of English is that it is only admitted as an equal with Irish, thus conferring on Irish the superior status even under that analysis. Consequently, every right-minded citizen, who chooses to pay anything but lip-service to a fundamental Article of the Constitution should carry into effect both the letter and the spirit of that Constitution.

When I was young I remember that I was reared in the belief that this was an island of saints and scholars; that our people were more brilliant and our men braver, and greater patriots than those to be found in any other country, and that our products rivalled those of any other people. We have outlived that belief. I admit it was an exaggerated idea. But it seems that now we are imbued with a belief that is even more dangerous, and that is that we can produce nothing good in this country. In fact, we have the type of man here who can see nothing glorious, nothing good in the country, its history, its language, its traditions, its ancient civilisation. We have reached the point where we seem to be forever decrying things Irish and decrying the civilisation that we have built up. We have entered on a period of self-abasement and self-depreciation that is far worse than the condition of mind that prevailed heretofore. I suggest that we should examine our position to-day in a reasonable spirit and at least be consistent, particularly on this whole question of the national language. If others are serious about this question then it should be within their competency to raise it in the proper quarter and have a decision taken before the proper court —a court constituted by the Irish people. When we had got that decision we should abide by it. But as long as Article 4 is in the Constitution it is, I submit, the duty of every citizen to respect the Constitution and any particular Article of it.

What is the object of the promoters of this Bill? To make Irish a living tongue in this country again. That is no new ideal. Objections to the proposals contained in this Bill cannot, I think, be put forward on the grounds of economy. There is no considerable expense to be incurred either by the State or individuals in carrying the measure into effect.

What do we find from the opponents of the Bill? Highest expressions of affection for the Irish language; but when a clear-cut, definite and business-like proposal is put before them to promote the spread of the Irish language, they object. That is a very strange attitude to take up. They say that they want to see the Irish language fostered and preserved, but when a measure is put before them that has for its object that purpose, a measure that certainly is not coercive and that does not inflict hardship on any one, they become very violent in their opposition. To me that is a strange attitude for any Senator to take up. We had at one time enthusiasts in the country who longed for the day when we should have the management of our own affairs in our own hands. For some years now we have been in that position, and this, I suggest, is a critical period for the Irish language. In respect to the Irish language, as in regard to most other matters, one either goes forward or goes backward. There is no such thing as a standstill position. This is indeed a critical period for the Irish language, and those who make themselves responsible for its preservation know that if the matter is not tackled in a business-like way nothing will be done.

Critics and caricaturists hold that one of our characteristics in the past was that when we stepped into the ring for a fight we fought more valiantly than our opponents did for a time, but then there developed a tendency to slacken off and not renew the fight. Since those days we have, I think, developed another characteristic, and that is the characteristic of going doggedly and quietly about our business. We enter the fight with less of a whoop, and we last out much longer. In this particular matter the policy aimed at of spreading a knowledge of the Irish language is proposed to be carried out on quieter and more effective lines than some people would infer, as indicated in the characteristics they have attributed to us. What is the position? For years in pre-truce days the dominant political party in this country stood for the preservation and maintenance of the Irish language. Since the pre-truce days there have been many elections held in the country, and on each occasion the Irish people have unequivocally given their decision in favour of the Irish language. The Irish language has been accepted as the national and official language of the country.

Civil servants are required to possess a competent knowledge of Irish, and the same, of course, applies to teachers. Irish is now taught in the National schools. It is an obligatory subject in them, as well as in State-aided secondary schools, while, of course, it is also an obligatory subject for matriculation in the National University. In practically every educational sphere that is the policy pursued. It seems certainly that the language is making progress. Another step is now being taken along that road with the Bill before this House. Some Senators have asked why single out the legal profession. I submit that other professions have already been dealt with. It is a compulsory subject, for instance, for the teaching profession in primary schools. When it was proposed to make Irish compulsory for teachers they could have made the case that they were being singled out at that time. The objection is now made that the legal profession is being singled out. I do not think there is much point in that. Doubtless the people who are responsible for the conduct of things in regard to the Irish language will take steps to deal with other professions at another time.

In any event, what does this Bill propose to do? It proposes that the standard of general education for the legal practitioners of the future shall be of such a kind as will enable them to conduct and carry out the proceedings in the courts if necessary in the Irish language. To enable them to do this they are required to obtain a competent knowledge of the language before admission to their profession. Where is the hardship in that? Practising solicitors of the present day are not being asked to acquire a competent knowledge of Irish. It was not proposed at any time to ask them to do that. Therefore there is no hardship as far as they are concerned. What the Bill does ask is that youths in this country who are now fourteen years of age will be expected, six or eight years hence, if they propose to enter the legal profession at that time, to have a competent knowledge of Irish. That is the whole thing, and I ask if there is any great hardship being inflicted on them thereby. At the present time Irish is being taught not only in the National schools of the country, but, as I have stated, in State-aided secondary schools and in the two Universities. Youths of the present day are afforded every facility for acquiring a knowledge of the language. There are even classes provided where some can get free tuition in Irish. Where, then, is all the hardship that we hear so much about?

Speaking for myself, I may say that I have mastered the language reasonably well. I did not consider the study of it any great hardship. Neither do I think any wrong would be done if the standard of general education for legal practitioners in this country were raised. There is no likelihood in the future that there will be any dearth of barristers and solicitors in this country as a result of this measure. Our policy in this country must not be to cater for the foreign market, and opinion and to continue to do so as against a policy of national development, and development on sound economic lines, because we have our eyes on another country and not on our own. That is not the line of policy that any self-respecting nation would pursue. It would not be likely to bring any real national advantage in the end and would in other ways inflict definite injury. On the other hand, if you want to create a real case of hardship you will refuse to pass this Bill. If you have the position that in six or eight years or fifteen or twenty years that this is even partially an Irish-speaking State and that non-Irish-speaking solicitors who are then practising will be compelled to learn Irish, then I submit there will be a case of real hardship. But what it is proposed to do under this Bill is merely to prepare the way, to fit things in easily and gradually by a method of slow progression and by inflicting no real hardship on anyone.

There is just one other question I would like to deal with—a question raised by one Senator—that difficulties would arise with regard to technical phraseology and legal terminology. This point was not met and covered by any Senator speaking for the measure. There is no cause for anxiety arising out of that particular objection. Following the lines pursued by Senator Kenny, may I say that no difficulty has been experienced in translating into Irish, Acts that have been passed by the Oireachtas. Further, and this may not be generally known amongst Senators, the Irish language is at present in use in certain of the courts in this State. To give a specific instance, let me say that the proceedings in the District Court at Falcarragh, in County Donegal, are conducted entirely in Irish. The District Justice is an Irish speaker. So is the Court Clerk, as well as members of the Civic Guard in that area, the plaintiffs and defendants and others who appear in the court. It may be interesting to point out, too, that the court proceedings are reported in the local newspaper in the Irish language, and that a certain Dublin weekly which gives a considerable amount of prominence to matter relating to the Irish language has from time to time republished in its columns these Irish reports. There has been no difficulty found in this connection. I might also point out that about two months ago a will was drawn up in the Irish language and admitted to probate in Letterkenny. The will was technically examined, was pronounced as being without flaw, and no difficulty, good, bad or indifferent, arose in respect to its drafting. Some purists in language find objection with respect to present-day Irish terms. Their type of criticism is evidenced by these instances. They take the word "Acht" and say that it is derived from the English word "Act." But they forget that our Irish word for "Act" comes from the same source as the English word "Act." As a matter of fact if you go back to the Leabhar Breac of the 13th century you will find the word "Acht" there in Irish. Similarly the Irish word for "Bill" appears in Irish texts of 400 years ago, although these critics maintain that we have merely copied the English word. The critic-purists go further and maintain that the correct Irish word for Act is Reacht, being ignorant of the fact that both Acht and Reacht are derived from the same source, the Latin language —Acht being derived from the word "Actus" and "Reacht" from "Rectus." Similarly dozens of other such cases could be cited.

Reference was also made to the difficulty of finding a modern Irish term covering scientific or other developments. They scornfully refer to the Irish equivalent for railway—"Bothar Iarainn"—whereas there is nothing technically wrong in saying a "Road of Iron" rather than a "way of rails." Similarly the French, "Chemin de Fer," should be ridiculous in their judgment. There is, I submit, no point in criticising the Irish language on the basis of lack of terminology and technical phraseology, because if modern terms are required in Irish one can proceed to the same source as other peoples to get those terms. That source is mainly the Classics, and that is the source to which even the Anglo-Saxon peoples go when they require their modern terms.

The Latin and Greek languages are there for us as well as others, and surely we have the same competency, the same capacity, as the people of other countries in applying these radicals to meet our language requirements. Surely we can conceive word-formations on a more intelligent system than many of those who translated into English certain of our old Irish terms. For instance, we have lovely old place names in the Irish language which are given English translations. The name of one such place in Irish was Mathairaguirt. The meaning of that in English is "a bare or barren plain," but those who took upon themselves the work of translation ignorantly gave it the title of "Hunger's Mother." The translation of this Irish term should be perfectly obvious to anyone who has a fair knowledge of the Irish language. Let us hope that when the people of this country develop their school of linguistic experts that they will be able to do better.

It was to be inferred from Senator Bagwell's and other speeches that the Senators in opposition were inclined to make a general attack on the whole position in respect of the Irish language. That, as I said earlier, is a question which can be decided at another time when a case is being made against the revival and preservation of the Irish language. They base their opposition to this particular Bill on a line of argument covering the general position. They state of Irish that it has no existing literature; that Irish is of no educational value; that it is defective as regards development, and refer to it in the words of Dr. Mahaffy, as an "omnium gatherum." But there are other linguistic experts, men of European reputation and of the highest scholarship, who have expressed their views very definitely and differently in respect of the Irish language. Bentham, for instance, states that amongst the oldest manuscripts in existence are Irish manuscripts, and refers particularly to the Psalter of Columkille and the Book of Armagh. Zimmer has left it on record that Ireland was the birthplace and abode of a great culture in the fifth and sixth centuries. He went further and established it that some of the oldest manuscripts in the Latin were written by Irishmen, and that in the fifth and in the sixth centuries, at the period of the decline of the Roman Empire, Irish scholars carried their learning across Europe, influencing the German and Roman peoples, and laying the foundations, to a great degree, of what is regarded as modern continental civilisation. These are statements of fact that cannot be controverted.

Further I would like to remind Senators that it was only in the year 1362 that the English language became the language of the English law courts. In that year a statute was passed enacting that "all pleas which shall be pleaded in any court whatsoever shall be pleaded, shewed, defended, answered, debated and judged in the English tongue." Thus you had compulsory English in the year 1362. Four hundred years before that date we had a fully-developed language, a literature and a cultural civilisation of our own. Such was the position in this country four centuries before the English language became the language of the English people. Dr. Zimmer, of Griefswald, has also left his opinion of the Irish language as a subject of instruction on record. He said: "I know of no other modern language which, regarded purely as a language, possesses a higher educational value than modern Irish for a boy who knows English. Practically, from the point of view of modern literature, a knowledge of French and German would certainly be more valuable to him outside of Ireland; but for thorough education and schooling of the mind, Irish stands at the very least on a level with the two above-named languages; in fact, it is in many respects superior to them, because it is more characteristic and consequently gives more matter for thought."

Dr. Windisch, of Leipzig, a scholar of European reputation, a philologist of the highest order, stated that the value of Irish was that "it must help to maintain in the Irish people their intellectual characteristics." I could quote many other scholars of international repute, such as Stern, Pedersen, Dottin—men who are regarded as being in the first rank of European philologists—in respect of the educational value of the Irish language. But I suggest that it should be left to the linguistic experts to examine this question of the language dispassionately and apart from political bias. Let them decide—and let us accept their decision.

President Cosgrave said some time ago that the Irish language had been waylaid and left for dead by the roadside, and it was for us to revive it or let it die. The destiny of the language is in our own hands. At least we should be logical if we mean to revive the Irish language as a spoken tongue. We should be consistent and carry into effect Article 4 of the Constitution. If some are not prepared to accept that policy, then, as I indicated earlier in my speech, they should take the proper steps to raise the question and get a decision on it from the whole Irish people. The court of the people is the final court. It really should be within the competence of these people who are opposed to this measure to devise means to secure that judgment, but at present it is their duty as citizens to accept this measure. I suppose it is true to say that a nation cannot be made more national any more than it can be made more virtuous by legislation, but it can be claimed for legislation, at any rate that it ensures that the will of the majority of the people be carried into effect. That will has been unequivocally expressed. This measure, I submit, marks a consistent and logical step along the road of policy enunciated in Article 4 of the Constitution, and I hope therefore that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Comyn

I have not had the advantage of hearing all the speeches that have been made on this Bill. Inasmuch as I am a lawyer, I do not think it would be right for me to give a silent vote on this Bill of which I am in favour. I should like the Seanad to pass the Second Reading of the Bill without much heat or acrimony, because I think it is desirable that a measure of this description should have as much general support as possible. I understand that some amendments will be introduced to the Bill with the object of improving it. The opposition to the Bill may be described, I think, in a few words; that it is another manifestation of what is called compulsory Irish. Let us examine and see whether it is opposed because it is compulsory or because it is Irish. When I was a law student, every subject in the curriculum was, so far as I was concerned, a compulsory subject. I had no great desire to learn any of them, but it was absolutely necessary that I should do so. I have been thinking whether, if the proposal here was that young law students or solicitors' apprentices should, in addition to Latin and English, be compelled to show a competent knowledge of Greek, Sanscrit or German, there would be any violent opposition to this Bill.

I well remember on that great old Munster Circuit discussions as to the educational standard for members of the Bar. The desire was often expressed that it should be raised much higher than what it was. Many a time have I heard it said that, in addition to Latin and English, barristers should be compelled to be thoroughly acquainted with Norman-French and Greek. In one of the State trials that were held some years ago, I myself was obliged, in the House of Lords, to argue considerable portions of the case in Latin and in Norman-French. Only a fortnight ago, in the Court of Appeal in Ireland, I had to read a passage in Norman-French, so that so far as the Bar is concerned there would not be the slightest opposition as to requiring students to have a competent knowledge of one or two languages in addition to those which they are obliged to have at present. The same thing, I think, applies to the solicitor profession.

I do not agree with Senator Bagwell that the requirement of a knowledge of another language will make young solicitors and barristers less efficient as legal men. We have the reputation of being educated men, and we are called learned men. Now, in five or six years time, if our young barristers are ignorant of the language which is taught in the schools, and which will be known by the litigants, how can they be described as educated men? I think it is highly desirable, in the interests of the profession, that the young barristers and the young solicitors should have a reasonable knowledge of the language which is now being taught in the schools to the boys and girls who will be the litigants of the future. The argument of compulsion goes by the board. Therefore, I think that the ground for opposition outside this House is that it is the Irish language of which a knowledge is being required by law students and solicitors. I will not conceal from this House my idea that there is a purpose behind this Bill, but I say that it is a reasonable and legitimate national purpose, and the national purpose is the preservation of the Irish language as a cultured literary tongue, because so surely as it becomes the language of the courts its future is secure in Ireland. I would not wish that it should be carried in this House or in this country by the high hand. We have sufficient experience of the effect of the high hand in the history of this country.

The English language was introduced into the courts by the high hand. It was introduced in England, as my friend Senator O'Hanlon said, in the year 1362. That was 300 years after the Norman conquest. Up to that time Norman-French was the exclusive language of the courts. Then an Act was passed that English should be introduced, but it took 400 years after that to oust the Norman-French language. It was not until 1735 that an Act was passed providing that English should be the exclusive language in the courts, and that section, unlike the sections of this Bill, was highly penal, because it provided that any breach of that regulation should be met by a fine of £50 to be recovered in the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Two years after that a similar statute was passed providing that English should be compulsory in the courts of Wales. At that time Welsh was the universally spoken language in Wales. In 1737 a law was passed in this country on the same terms, making it a penal offence to speak Latin, French, or any other language except English in this country, and the penalty was to be recovered by an action in the Four Courts, Dublin. The clause provided that the person was allowed only one imparlance. They had to use a French word in connection with the penalty. I do not wish to see Irish introduced into the courts by means so drastic as that. I think the good sense of the Seanad ought to let us more or less agree that this measure should get a Second Reading so that we may have the opportunity of giving full consideration to the amendments which will be proposed.

I would say, as a result of some years of experience, that the greatest misfortune that ever overtook this country was the fact that barristers and judges were not acquainted with Irish during the past 250 years. I have seen in the courts men who spoke Irish trying to plead their case in the presence of counsel and before judges who did not know the Irish language, and who seemed to treat it with a certain amount of levity. I have seen these poor Irish people endeavouring to express themselves in English, and I have seen them misunderstood and derided. I have seen them described as prevaricating witnesses, whereas they were giving in the English language a true translation of their thoughts in the Irish language. If a little force is necessary at present to restore the Irish language, it should not be harshiy applied, but some degree of compulsion is necessary, and I think, in the interests of the nation and of all classes in it, it is desirable that this Bill should be passed. I am against anything in the nature of lex talionis. I am against resorting to the spirit of intolerance or force, but I cannot help thinking that in the past Irish was despised and decried. The very interpreters of that tongue were taken from the lowest class.

I remember well the cross-examination of an interpreter in one of the courts in the Munster circuit. A solicitor cross-examining him asked: "Are you a decent man?" and the answer came, swift as a shot: "Indeed I am not a decent man, because if I was I would not have my present occupation." That was the degree of ignominy and contempt to which the native language of this country was reduced. That is the way in which it was treated. That is the condition to which it was reduced. It is now the official language of the State, and I think it ought to be restored as a cultured tongue. It is well known to lawyers and statesmen that this is the only method of doing so. Let it be done moderately, legitimately and reasonably. There was a great deal of animation and heat, and some threats were used in another place in reference to this measure. I would recommend to this House that we adopt a different attitude. Let us pass the Second Stage of this Bill so as to allow of calm discussion of the amendments. I hope it will not be regarded as a threat when I say that if we do not pass this Bill the consequences will be that it will become law as it stands, and that it will be a serious disadvantage to members of both professions.

Sir John Keane

There are occasions on which I wish that I myself was an Irish speaker, because I unfortunately possess the habit of saying certain things which I know annoy other people in this House. If I said them in Irish I would have the satisfaction of knowing that the other people would not understand them, and we would both be satisfied; but, unfortunately, I am not an Irish speaker, and I must ask those who are listening to me to realise that I am trying to speak now, in what I have to say, in a spirit of openmindedness and toleration. I welcome this Bill as the first opportunity since the Treaty this House has had of discussing the broad principle of compulsory Irish. It is an extraordinary thing that without any legislative sanction, outside that of the Constitution, this whole principle of compulsion has been imposed on our people, and imposed in the most intimate form through our primary and secondary systems of education, in addition to being made a test for the Civil Service. Of course, the advocates of compulsion as regards the Irish language point to the Constitution. They say: "Under an oath you are, morally at least, debarred from questioning the right or wisdom of that provision with regard to the language." Since when have we found this sanctity for the Constitution?

There is an article of the Constitution which gives to every citizen the right of appeal to the Privy Council and the right of his Majesty to grant such an appeal. I never heard in the case of Lynam and Butler, which did in effect deprive a citizen of this country of the right to such appeal, that anybody showed that reverence for our Constitution. I find that our Constitution has been trenched upon and amended in a very drastic fashion. I regret today, as I did at the time, that amendment which removed from our Constitution the provisions of the Referendum, because on this question of compulsion in the language it is the one and only method by which we could test popular opinion. The Minister for Finance claims that the powers with regard to Irish were entirely popular in the country. Senator O'Hanlon spoke in the same strain, and he said: "Why does not some Party go out and give a challenge on this question of Irish if they believe it to be unpopular?" Of course the thing is absurd. You cannot dissever an item of this kind from the general Party policy. A Party exists on a number of issues, and you cannot get any clear-cut vote on this matter except through some such machinery as the Referendum. I certainly do not regard the Constitution with any great sanctity. It has been altered by Parliament so that we are now debarred from seeking—and I believe if we could seek it it would be a matter for some trepidation to the language enthusiasts—a clear-cut vote of the people of the country on this matter. Then, again, was there much love and reverence for the Constitution when we said that it was necessary to pass a measure repealing the Referendum by special resolution in the interests of peace and security? Did not that show utter insincerity to the Constitution? Gentlemen who were in favour of that could not now stand up and claim the sanctity of the Constitution when it suits their own case and their own purpose.

I am glad that Senator Connolly should have spoken as he did, I suggest in none too tolerant spirit, in reference to those who disagreed with him. He seems to think that disagreement is sufficient to entitle him to call the person who disagrees an Imperialist and to blacken him personally. Surely that is not a style of argument we should hear in those days? We know that in the old days anyone who represented the British point of view could be readily blackened by reference to his associates, but surely those days are past. Senator Connolly says that we who do not favour compulsion, and who disagree with other things, are a thorn in the side of those who claim a monopoly of the patriotic virtues. Let me suggest there are thorns in his side, and there are many even in his ranks. People who are in no way in sympathy with the views I am credited with holding, but who might not have the courage to say so. will tell you privately that they are utterly opposed to compulsion on this question of the language. They know what it has done in the schools. They have experience in their own homes through the education in Irish of their children. Whether we are right or wrong, I claim that we have the right to say what we think, and that we ought not to be met by suggestions of West Britonism and Imperialism, and lack of patriotism, and that we are antagonistic to Irish sentiment, and all that kind of stuff.

I perfectly admit that my point of view is a cosmopolitan one far more than that of Gaelic intensification. I may be right or wrong. I see a country with a large population to which, and rightly so, there is no limitation, met with the difficulty of finding occupation for that population. I hold it is the duty of the State and the parents to provide such an education and training for that population that if they could not earn a decent standard of living at home they would be in the position to do so somewhere else. Rightly or wrongly, I have the Commonwealth outlook. You may call it Imperialism, but it is ratified by the Constitution which we all hold in such sanctity when it suits our case. We have a perfect right to seek community of intercourse with people who compose the communities of the Commonwealth of which we are an equal member. I am very glad to have the opportunity of saying that in this House, because there is a sort of feeling that because you do not agree with a certain point of view you are an enemy of your country, and the rest of it.

Senator Kenny referred to the linguistic features of the Co. Waterford, especially Dungarvan. I claim to know the town of Dungarvan as intimately, if not better than, Senator Kenny, and I challenge his statement that of recent years there never has been in the fair of Dungarvan anybody who is not fully competent to carry on business in English.

Mr. Kenny

I said twenty years ago.

Sir John Keane

Surely the Senator referred to the present day?

Mr. Kenny

No, to twenty years ago.

Sir John Keane

I will wait for the official record, but I understood the Senator to be referring to the present day. If he says twenty years ago my case is not so strong. I come from a district where, according to the census, 80 per cent. of the people are Irish-speaking. I know the place intimately. If 80 per cent. of the people are Irish-speaking I can only say that I have never heard a word of Irish. They do not speak Irish generally, but if you ask them do they speak Irish they will say "yes," but they do not speak it among themselves. When I was a boy I remember hearing the head cliffman giving directions in Irish, but you never hear that now. I do not think those census figures at all represent the true facts of the case. Nobody has referred to the difficulty that was outlined in the pamphlet issued by the Incorporated Law Society. There are, I understand, no Irish law text books. As far as I know, in law questions turn largely on the niceties of language and interpretation. How can you expect in ten years to bring about that condition of affairs where it would be possible to argue cases in Irish, except simple assault or trespass cases? If this Bill is going to be in the least serious, it must be considered that there are High Court and Chancery actions involving very delicate points of law, and close interpretation of the meaning and structure of sentences. Without being a lawyer, I am satisfied from what the lawyers have said that position is utterly fantastic. For that reason, to say the least, the Bill is entirely premature. When the occasion arises the lawyers will be there to meet it, and that is the position taken up by those who oppose this measure.

Senator Milroy mentioned that this measure did not affect the reciprocal arrangements with other countries. He did not develop that point. He did not point out what may likely happen, that those who —not that they are anti-Irish—do not wish in the interests of education and a saving of time to learn Irish, may leave this country in increasing numbers. Those who can afford it are going across the water for education. I should like to get the statistics of those who went across the water for education five years ago and compare them with the numbers going now, and who are going simply because of what they believe to be the damaging effect on their education of compulsory Irish. There is nothing to prevent a person who wishes to practise at the Irish Bar, and who does not wish to learn Irish, going abroad and being called to the English Bar and coming back and getting admitted to practice here under the reciprocal arrangement. The only people who will suffer by that would be the Universities and the training centres for the study of law. I hope this measure will not pass. I do not stand up and profess, as many do, to have a love for the language. I have an open mind as regards the language. I have no objection to anybody who wishes to learn the language doing it, but I object to its being made compulsory. I do claim that in making that objection I am no less an Irishman than Senator Colonel Moore. I take the cosmopolitan point of view. In these days of wireless, travel and aviation, and with a large and increasing number of our people earning their living across the water, cosmopolitan intercourse is necessary. I do not see how we denationalise ourselves by accepting cosmopolitanism. I hope we have heard the last of those unfair attacks on people who hold those views, rightly or wrongly, to which I have given expression.

Mr. Foran

I did not intend to take part in this discussion only for the remarks of Senator Sir John Keane. He said the fact that the Irish tongue is being taught in the universities is driving Irish boys and girls across the water for their education. This Bill will prevent that, or at any rate will ensure that if they are so unpatriotic and so bitter against the Irish language as to go to England for their education that they will find employment there and get their living there. If for no other reason I think the Bill is well worth while. The fact is that we are making these people realise that they are not going to get their living in this country unless they learn the language, and they cannot learn it in England or in France, and they will have to learn it here. This country has been spending roughly £17,000 yearly in the development of the Irish language. Up to this the working classes have been forced to learn the language although the school life of the ordinary working-class child is brief enough in which to learn the subjects that are absolutely necessary for existence. Up to this the professions have given very little help. They have more or less boycotted the Irish language, and I hold that the huge amount of money being spent in fostering the Irish language would be wasted unless the professions are brought in and students made to learn the language.

A Senator

Coercion.

Mr. Foran

Coercion if you like. We were coerced to learn the English language, and we learnt it fairly effectively. I am entirely in favour of the principle embodied in the Bill. Senator Sir John Keane has used the best argument that could be used in favour of the Bill. None of those who supported the Bill were so in its favour as Senator Sir John Keane. He said that the teaching of Irish in the University was responsible for driving people to other countries. Just think that over now for a moment. These students cannot learn Irish in England or in France. If they are going to remain here, and to make a living in Ireland, they have to go to Irish Universities and learn the language. For that reason, if for no other, I am entirely in favour of the Bill.

Mr. Robinson

Senator Sir John Keane made a statement to which, I think, I should draw attention. I do not know if the Senator meant it, but I thought it unfair. It reminded one of the old Dáil debates in which a great many conversations were brought up that most people never remembered. I am sure Senator Sir John Keane heard something in conversation, but it is not fair to bring that up here. Personally, I believe that the Senator is under a wrong impression. I do not know of any member of the Fianna Fáil Party who was of opinion that compulsion in this matter was wrong and who would not have the courage to get up here and say if that were so or not.

Sir John Keane

I did not refer to any Party. I said there were people in the country who said that, but that they would not stand up in the open and say it.

Cathaoirleach

It would be well, Senator, if you want to make a personal explanation, to ask me if you might do so.

Mr. Robinson

I am quite satisfied. Perhaps I mistook the word "country" for "Connolly." Senator Bagwell, amongst other things, told us that the Bill was very unpopular with the legal profession. I suppose the older legal practitioners may be a little jealous of the possibilities of a Bill like this, and may think that some of the crumbs may fall to the young people, crumbs that they looked upon as theirs by right. Naturally I am not surprised at these members of the legal profession being jealous. I think the arguments against the Bill fall under two categories—the compulsory argument and the non-utility argument. The question of compulsion has been fairly well dealt with. It seems to me extraordinary for people to complain of compulsion in a matter of law: because all law entails compulsion. Every law is "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not." A man makes a resolution or takes a pledge in order to break himself off some bad habit, such as drinking. He puts compulsion on himself to help him to get out of his weakness. Similarly, the nation is helping itself by compelling itself to revive the language. I think there is too much talk about compulsion. I do not want to go into all the details, as the ground has been covered again and again.

Coming to the utility argument, it has been said by a number of people, and apparently a certain element believes it, that the Irish language is now more or less dead. They feel that perhaps it is a pity it is dead; they are sorry; they might even be annoyed at the English having deprived them of it, but they say as it is gone it is hardly worth the money or the energy to revive it. They think the question is not worth the candle. I ask these people to remember that dumping has been the ruination of our industries. Surplus goods manufactured in England are occasionally, intermittently sometimes, dumped here to the ruination of our industries, as a result of which our people are thrown out of work or are on short time. There has been a much worse form of dumping though—the dumping of surplus young Britons into the country, into the very best positions, both public and private. I ask those who think that the revival of the language is not worth the candle to remember that the language can be made a rather effective barrier against that kind of dumping, and that it will let the young people who are coming on have a chance of getting what is going in this country instead of leaving it to outsiders. That is my main reason for supporting this Bill. The opposition to the Bill at its worst or at its best can only defer this measure for some time. The opponents of this Bill and of Irish in general might just as well try to keep back the tide with the proverbial sieve or the point of a needle as to hold back the onward march for reviving the Irish language. The worst they can do is to delay matters. I ask the people who are opposing it to realise that if the Bill is not passed it will be brought up again, that people will have to begin the study of the language so many years later, and I ask the opponents of the Bill to remember that the language is going to come back and to let it begin right now.

Mr. Toal

I do not think it would be right for me to allow the debate to close with the impression that this question has not been before the country for a number of years. I rise to clear up that point. Having been connected with county councils for the last thirty years, and knowing a good deal about what these councils have done towards reviving the language, I think it is only right that I should say so. It is right that the Seanad should know that a rate has been struck by, I may say, every county council in the Saorstát for the last twenty-five years for the teaching of Irish and for preserving the language. That is a very good proof, if proof were wanted, that the Irish people want the language restored. Having been connected with the national movement for forty years, and having a good idea of what the principles were, I think I am right in saying that the revival of the Irish language was one of the planks in the platform of every Irish movement. I think the man who would get up on a public platform in the old days or even at the present day and say that he did not support the language would get a very poor hearing. "No language, no nation," was the teaching of all Irish leaders. Has it come to this, that now, when we are supposed to have a free country, we are going to neglect the language? What was the teaching of Pearse? He wanted not alone a free country, but a Gaelic country. I was surprised to hear some people who profess to be followers of Pearse and Arthur Griffith speak on the lines they spoke here to-day. I am strongly in favour of the motion.

Mr. Brown

I am strongly opposed to the principle of this Bill, and I would like to state very shortly, from the point of view of the legal profession, the reasons why I am strongly opposed to this Bill. At the outset, I would like to tell the House what my own attitude is towards the Irish language, because I do not wish to be misunderstood. I very greatly regret that I do not know Irish, and I still more regret that I am now too old to learn.

Colonel Moore

It is never too late to learn.

Mr. Brown

I am afraid it is.

Mr. Kenny

People who were sixty learned Greek.

Mr. Brown

It is an extremely difficult language. I am afraid I am too old. I am entirely in favour of every possible encouragement being given to the teaching of Irish. I am against what has been referred to so often as compulsory Irish. We are a curious people. One of the facts in our history that seems to me to stand out is this, that coercion of any kind has never succeeded in this country. It was tried century after century and never really succeeded, and I do not believe that the general use of the Irish language is going to be brought about by compulsion. If it is ever to be brought about it will be brought about because the people themselves wish to learn it, and will learn it. Coming to the reasons why, from the point of view of my own profession, I am against this Bill—the professed object of the Bill is to enable legal practitioners to conduct the business of their clients in Irish. A Bill with that object is either unnecessary or is absolutely impracticable. What does the business of the legal profession consist of? The great bulk of the business of the legal profession is not done in court. It is done in the office of the solicitor, in the study of the barrister, and in the Law Library. It consists of carrying out in a legal way the great business of the country, and if there is a real demand for Irish-speaking lawyers for the purpose of doing that business, the supply will be there. There is no profession in this country so keen about their own interests as the legal profession. I am not saying that in any derogatory sense. They are very intelligent men. They know on which side their bread is buttered and, if their clients wish that legal business should be carried out in the Irish language, take my word for it, there will be plenty of solicitors and barristers who will prepare themselves to do that without any Bill of this kind. But coming to court business, which is the business to which most reference was made in the course of this debate, there are two great classes of cases which come into court. There is the case where the question before the court is the ascertainment of disputed facts, and there is the other great class where the question before the court is the determination of the law with reference to some definite and particular set of facts. Let me say a word or two about both.

In the case where the question before the court is purely one of fact this Bill is absolutely unnecessary. Except in a few places, such as Falcarragh, referred to by Senator O'Hanlon, there is not such a knowledge of Irish as would enable the business of a court which is determining a question of fact to be conducted in Irish, and it would be quite impossible for any question of fact to be decided in Irish unless the judge knows Irish, the whole of the jury know Irish, and the witnesses give their evidence in Irish. Until that fortunate result is brought about it will be practically impossible to decide a question of fact in the Irish language. When that desirable event does occur, when the use of Irish is so general that the judge on the bench, the twelve jurymen in the box, the witnesses who go into the box, and everyone else, has such a competent knowledge of Irish as would enable the work to be done properly in court, the lawyers will know Irish as well as anyone else, and this Bill will be absolutely unnecessary. It would be far better to let the language work out its own salvation in the ordinary way, and not to apply compulsion. It will not work until there is a general knowledge of the Irish language, and then the Bill will be unnecessary. The other class of case which comes before the court is a case which depends on a question of law. Notwithstanding what I have heard during the course of the debate I am satisfied that it would be quite impossible to put into the Irish language a great many of the legal ideas with which we are concerned in our law. It is true that you could manufacture a mongrel language, but it would not be Irish, and even then I very much doubt if a great deal of argument, if it was not of the very simplest kind, could possibly be conducted in the Irish language. The language is not there.

Colonel Moore

It is curious that the Senator does not know Irish and he makes these remarks.

Mr. Brown

I admit that I do not know Irish, but I know this, that there are no Irish words for "estate tail" and for "contingent remainder."

Mr. Comyn

Neither are there English; they are both French terms.

Mr. Brown

I beg your pardon. The great bulk of the law administered in our courts is case law— that is, it is law which depends on decisions given in courts. There are thousands of them. They are all in the English language. They are all understood, except the very old ones that are in law French. There are hundreds of volumes of these reports in the English courts and in our Irish courts, and they are all in English.

Mr. MacKean

Is not a considerable number in Norman-French?

Mr. Brown

A number of the older reports before and during the 13th century were in Norman-French, a curious mixture of English and French, but they are no longer in practical use. For practical purposes two-thirds of the law administered in our courts is the kind of law which depends upon the decisions of judges who gave decisions and judgments in English. Apart from the expense, you could not translate them. You could not translate those reports and make them usable in any of our courts. Someone referred to the fact that our Acts of Parliament are translated into Irish. It is called Irish, but, whether it is Irish or not, the translation of statutes passed by the two Houses is not admissible in any of our courts, for the purpose of argument, or for the purpose of interpretation. The statute which is passed by this House and obtains the consent of the Governor-General is passed and assented to in English. You cannot even use the Irish translation for the purpose of trying to find out, in case of doubt, what the English version means. That has been so decided in our courts. You could not do so, because you are depending upon the translator as to whether his translation is right or not.

Mr. Comyn

On a point of order. The statute that is decisive is the copy signed by the Lord-Lieutenant or Governor-General. That can be either in Irish or in English.

Cathaoirleach

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Brown

Up to the present neither House has exercised the privilege which, no doubt, they will in some future time of passing a statute in Irish. When they do that it will receive the consent of the Governor-General in Irish. Up to the present all statutes have been passed in English and the Irish translations are not usable for any proceedings in court. Any translation of the reports, which could only be made at colossal expense, and by a skilled lawyer, as well as a highly-trained Irish scholar, could not be used in court for the same reason. Therefore, so far as this large department of the legal business that is carried on in the courts is concerned it would be absolutely impossible to carry out this Bill. The Bill is unnecessary, so far as the work done out of court is concerned, because that will correct itself. It is unnecessary so far as cases consist of ascertainment of fact, because that cannot work until everyone in court—judge, jury and witnesses— knows Irish, and once they do this Bill will be unnecessary for the lawyer.

Reference has been made to the fact that there are reciprocal arrangements between this country and the English Inns of Court as to the admission of students to the Bar. As far as possible, the present Bill tries to prevent that from working. The English barrister who has been educated at one of the Inns of Court in England, who is called to the English Bar, and who has practised there for three years is entitled to come here and to obtain from the King's Inns, which is our school for the Bar, the degree of barrister-at-law without passing any examination, and is entitled to be called to the Bar by the Chief Justice. A section of the Bill preserves that right so far as the English barrister is concerned. but unfortunately it does not work reciprocally as far as the Irish barrister is concerned. If he gets his legal education in the King's Inns he cannot be called to the Bar unless he knows Irish, and cannot practise unless he knows Irish. He has got all his education and his degree as barrister-at-law, but he cannot be called to the Bar and do the three years necessary to enable him to be called to the English Bar under the reciprocal agreement. So that you have an arrangement which is entirely in favour of the English barrister and entirely against the interests of the Irish Bar.

Just one word more. I am most opposed to this Bill because I feel it is going to injure both branches of this great profession. At present any citizen of the Free State can become a barrister without knowing Irish. The profession is open to everyone. If you put this language bar across the way you will prevent, rightly or wrongly, a certain number of people joining one or other branch of the profession. That is not a desirable thing to do. Those people might be described by some as cranks but, at any rate, they are very often people of very high intelligence, and of very great ability, and any statutory bar you place against the entrance of any citizen of this country into any of the learned professions is a bar that is not only going to injure the profession but is going to injure the country. I strongly urge the Seanad to throw out this Bill. I have considered the question as to whether it would be better to pass the Second Reading and try to amend it then, but I have come to the conclusion that in fact this Bill is impracticable. All you could do with it would be to postpone it for some length of time, to add to the years before which it would come into operation. I do not think it is really worth while doing that and I intend to vote against the Second Reading.

Mr. Farren

I want to say that the case made by the opponents of this Bill does not, to my mind, hold water. They started by saying that it was unfair to single out one particular profession, forgetting the important fact that that particular profession was the one that it was necessary, in the interests of the business of the courts and the carrying out of the administration of justice, that the members should have a complete knowledge of the Irish language. It is laid down in the Constitution that Irish is the language of the country, and it is also laid down that the witnesses, or any other persons, are entitled to state their cases in court in the Irish language. Therefore the legal profession cannot be compared to the medical and engineering professions. Senator Brown is a man with great legal knowledge and from my experience of him I have great respect for his legal knowledge. The case against this Bill must be a very poor one when Senator Brown was not able to make a better one. The Senator started by telling us about the procedure in the courts. He said one thing about the legal profession that we all are in agreement on, that it knew on which side its bread was buttered. In the appointment of judges in future I think it is absolutely essential that they should have a competent knowledge of Irish.

The people who are supporting this Bill are the best friends possible of the legal profession, because, if the judges in the future have a competent knowledge of Irish, then it is surely in the interests of the students who propose going to the Bar that they should be obliged to acquire a knowledge of the Irish language at the present time, just as all children in the national and secondary schools has to do at present in order that they may be able to earn their livelihood when they leave school. I have a suggestion to make that I think would meet the whole situation and that would remove every objection that the legal profession have against this question of compulsory Irish. I suggest that in the future judges, instead of being appointed by the Executive Council, should be appointed as a result of a competitive examination, and that Irish be a compulsory subject at that examination as it is at present at every examination for positions in the State service. That, I suggest, should apply to all judges, to those occupying minor as well as the highest-paid judgeships. If my suggestion were carried out, I think I could guarantee that from to-morrow you would have every lawyer in the country starting to acquire a knowledge of the Irish language, and I do not think they would consider it any great hardship to be compelled to do so.

Senator Brown told us that it would be impossible to put into Irish certain legal phrases that are used in the courts and that if we insist on carrying this Bill through the whole administration of justice will fall to the ground. I would like to know from the Senator how the administration of justice was carried on in this country before we got the English language. I think that on that point alone the whole case for the opposition to this Bill falls to the ground. Before the English language was known here, the administration of justice was carried out here just as efficiently as it is to-day, and, I think, on a fairer basis and at a much cheaper cost to litigants. Under the Brehon Law, the administration of justice was carried out in this country to the entire satisfaction of the people, but I do not think it can be claimed that in recent years, or at all events in our time, that it has been carried out to the satisfaction of the whole people of this country.

The Incorporated Law Society sent a statement to every member of this House containing their objections to this Bill. To my mind the Society has taken up a wrong attitude in connection with the whole matter. From my reading of the Bill, it appears that boys and girls who are now fourteen years of age will be required, in about eight years' time, to show that they possess a competent knowledge of the Irish language if they desire to enter as students for either branch of the legal profession. That, I think, is not asking too much. They are now only fourteen years of age, and they have eight or ten years to acquire a competent knowledge of the language. It should be remembered that the poor man's child at the present time who is attending a primary school, has no option but to learn Irish. There is no outcry about it. Therefore, I say it is not asking too much from these people to expect them to have a competent knowledge of Irish in ten years' time. The Incorporated Law Society have not refused to accept the few hundred pounds a year in aid of their funds which they receive from the State. There is no outcry against that, but there is an outcry that students who propose to enter the profession in ten years' time should be required to do what every child attending a national school to-day is obliged to do, namely, have a knowledge of the Irish language. I think it is only right that we should make provision for the time that Senator Brown visualises, the time when the supreme courts in this country will be giving their judgments in Irish. We should see to it that when that time arrives the practising members of the legal profession will be able to conduct their business in the courts in the language of the country which, we all hope, will then be in general use.

Mr. Cummins

So much has been said on this little Bill that the public might conclude that a violent act of coercion is being perpetrated upon some section of the community. In the early days of the Gaelic League movement, it was believed that if the language was to make due progress it should be made fashionable. The effort to make it fashionable has not yet succeeded. The Gaelic League, whose foundations were laid on patriotism and true Irish ideals, and which was the nursing ground of the modern movement that brought this House into being, is, I think paying a great compliment to a body like the Incorporated Law Society in asking it to lend its aid in making the Irish language fashionable. I believe that once the language is made fashionable by such a body as that in the city of Dublin that it will influence many and that it will become a strong feature in the modern development of the language and of our social life generally. I believe that if the language is once made fashionable by such bodies as the Incorporated Law Society, that then indeed the Irish language will be secure.

Why should the rank and file amongst our people be asked to bear all the burden of redeeming the language from the position to which it has fallen? Is it not the duty of those who belong to such bodies as the Incorporated Law Society to put forward some slight effort in the revival of the language? It has been said by opponents of this Bill that compulsory Irish for law students will mean an extra year's study of the law. They say that it will impose an undue burden on a body of men who are certainly very keen in regard to their own interests. I should say that it will not be a burden on them at all. If they are so keen in regard to their own interests and know so well on which side their bread is buttered, I believe that they can have their bread buttered on both sides by acquiring a perfect knowledge of the Irish language.

Reference has been made to the Universities. In addition to the schools of law conducted under the auspices of the Incorporated Law Society, students get a legal training in the two Universities. I think that if the Incorporated Law Society continue to resist this slight measure intended to help the revival of the Irish language, it may become the duty of the Government at some future date to replace that particular body for training law students by one more in keeping in outlook and sympathy with Irish aspirations. I do not think that we shall ever have a Government in this country that will not be in favour of the Irish language and of compulsory Irish. In the case of the profession to which I belong, Irish was made a compulsory subject some years ago. We have been doing our bit voluntarily for the language for a number of years past. We did not complain of the heavy burden imposed upon us. There are now 10,000 teachers in this country shouldering the burden of spreading a knowledge of the Irish language and helping the nation along as best they can. They are doing that because they accept the Constitution and are doing their utmost to show that they are loyal citizens of the State. The acceptance of the Constitution involves the carrying out of all Acts passed under it. I think it is rather late in the day now, and I am rather astonished, to find a section of the people persisting in their opposition to the national language. While these people profess the greatest personal solicitude for the restoration of the language, when an attempt is made to apply it in their particular case they resist that attempt and describe it as an act of aggression. I do not think that is a proper attitude for them to take up, and I am rather amazed at it.

I am rather surprised that there should be any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill. The policy adopted in this House, and advocated many times by Senators who have spoken in opposition to this Bill, has been to give a Second Reading to every Bill that has come before it, so that an opportunity might be given to see if there was something in a particular Bill that would merit consideration, something that could not be dealt with on Second Reading Stage. This House has always taken up that attitude of giving a Second Reading to Bills brought before it. I am sorry to see that there has been opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill, but I hope it will not be persisted in.

Senator Toal referred to the various public bodies, such as technical committees and county councils, that have supported the Irish language. Whatever Government comes into power would not last one session of Parliament if they were opposed to the Irish language. The youth of the country are being taught Irish in the schools, and the schools are turning out thousands of competent Irish speakers at the age of 14 years or 15 years, where the teachers are qualified for that purpose. Given proper facilities any ordinary child may learn Irish, and if those who intend to become lawyers are not able to learn the Irish language they are not fit to become lawyers. This Bill does not mean compulsion. We have eight or nine compulsory subjects in our national schools. If French, Latin or German was introduced by the Incorporated Law Society as an extra subject there would not have been the slightest objection on the part of the students, but the Society chose to oppose this Bill. I appeal to the House to give it a Second Reading.

Mr. Jameson

The reason some of us will have to vote against this Bill is partly due to some of the speeches we have heard. One such speaker is the Senator who has just sat down. I thought that with the establishment of the Free State we were going to have liberty. This is the first time, while I have been in the Seanad, that it has been definitely laid down that the majority intend to make the minority do what they wish. It has been repeated again and again.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Should the minority make the majority do what they wish?

Mr. Jameson

That remark has been made in speech after speech. I never heard it before. The extraordinary thing about this Bill is that it is not brought in by the Government. Why Mr. Blythe came in here and spoke as a private person I do not know. In his speech, he announced the policy of the Government. He said to this House: "If you do not accept this Bill the Government will bring in a Bill on the same lines." I was completely confused at that. What I thought all along was that the Government wished to put upon those two Houses the unpleasant duty of carrying out a measure of compulsion which they themselves did not wish to bring in. That was the conclusion to which I came. From what Mr. Blythe has said here to-day, that cannot be the reason. Why the Government should have allowed so much time to the debate of this measure and did not bring the Bill in themselves I fail to understand. One of the reasons why I must vote against the Second Reading is that the Seanad, by passing the Second Reading, is endorsing a policy of compulsion towards the people of the Free State. There is a great principle to be upheld. We are told that the Bill is a small matter, that it is a trifling thing, and that it will not interfere with the profession. But it is announced by the speakers, and, I believe, announced also by Mr. Blythe, that this is only the first step for the professions. Anyone listening to the debate must conclude that one after another of the great professions are going to have this compulsion applied. It is not right in a free country that the power of the majority should be used in this way and that our greatest professions should be attacked on these lines. For that reason, I will vote against the Second Reading, though I have not before voted against a Second Reading. The principle in the Bill is wrong and should be voted against.

Mr. Milroy

Many years ago I remember reading that Peter the Great said "There were two lawyers in my dominions, and I hanged one of them." Now, if this Bill had the effect which the drastic measure of Peter the Great had in his country, it would reduce the legal profession by fifty per cent., which, I think, would be a good thing for the profession and the country. This Bill will either get a Second Reading here or it will be rejected on the vote that is to take place. If it is going to be rejected, there must be convincing reasons for its rejection. I have listened patiently, and with intense interest, to every speech that has been delivered in criticism of the Bill. Speaking as one—though a sponsor of the Bill—who has come to consider it with a detached and disinterested mind, I say there has not been, since the debate opened to-day, one single convincing argument which would secure the casting of a vote for the rejection of this Bill.

The major portion of the criticisms of the Bill have been irrelevant. Senator Gogarty rambled away on the most irrelevant and cheap trifles, and he hardly referred to the Bill at all, except to say that it was an anticipatory confession of failure on the part of the primary and secondary schools. He did not attempt to prove that argument. He seemed to fail to realise that instead of being an anticipatory confession of failure it was simply a step to secure that in the case of those who take up the legal profession after they come to manhood the instruction they get in the national language at school and college will not go for nothing. It is intended to prevent the failure of the teaching of Irish in those training establishments, but Senator Gogarty cannot be taken seriously on this matter. I think he said this Bill would have the effect of an artificial creation of inferiority. What he meant by that I do not know, except that it seems to be a pet theory of that worthy Senator that those who think of an Irish-speaking Ireland are of a lower mental grade than those who smile at these vagaries of the natives and who occasionally patronise the natives by flying visits to the west.

There seems to be a tremendous atmosphere of unreality surrounding some of the speeches. Senator Jameson waxed indignant, and Senator Bagwell was prophetic. Senator Sir John Keane was altogether without hope for the future, and the thing which destroyed every hope in the future of the country is this coercion. Senator Brown said that coercion had been tried in this country for hundreds of years and it never succeeded. I was delighted to hear that. Deathbed repentance is better than none at all. But it is a poor argument and a cheap argument, and it is certainly not convincing to use that kind of appeal to the human sympathies of people to try and destroy this Bill. There is no more compulsion in regard to this particular subject of Irish than there is as regards any other subject that will have to be taught. Will the gentlemen who argue in defence of the legal profession say that it should be left to the students to decide what subjects they will study, that they will be left entirely to their own free will, and that when they go for their examinations they will go forward and say: "I know such-and-such a subject, and I want a certificate to say that I am capable of practising as a solicitor or barrister"? I believe it is a fact that there is compulsion upon them in certain subjects. In fact, there is a rumour that at present before people can enter the legal profession they are compelled to know something about law. I do not know whether that rumour is fully justified or not, but the fact remains that this whole talk of compulsion is a mere misuse of words.

When I find gentlemen who are arguing against this subject merely on the grounds that it is compulsory growing equally indignant about other subjects that are taught students in the schools of this country, then I will say that there is some substance in their case. Senator Brown argued in a strange fashion. One could almost assume his contention was that there is no law where the English language is non-existent, and if by some calamity the English language disappeared from this country we would be unable to function at all.

Mr. Brown

On a point of order, I never made any such statement.

Mr. Milroy

I do not say that is the statement made by the Senator, but I suggest that he was arguing in a fashion that would lead to that conclusion when he said that there were certain cases which could not be tried without the use of the English language.

Mr. Brown

Yes.

Mr. Milroy

And the people who think that is an effective argument against this Bill should bear in mind that this is not a Bill for the abolition of the English language. If it passes and there are cases that cannot be argued without the use of the English language the fact of this measure being on the Statute Book will not prevent the consideration of such matters in the English language. We ought to realise that though this Bill is dealing with a specific profession it reflects the whole trend of national thought. The argument that the language is unnecessary, and that this Bill is unnecessary, is made only, I think, by those who do not comprehend the spirit that is behind the working of influences in Ireland.

I think it was Senator Sir John Keane who made use of an argument which seemed to me to have an implication of which he was not conscious. He was speaking about people in Dungarvan. He simply said there was practically nobody who was not competent to transact business in English. He did not tell us there were any people competent to transact their business in Irish, but I gather from the speech of Senator Kenny that there are. I say that the people who tell us that when a case arises where a man knows both languages it is not necessary for him to use the Irish language he is arguing in favour of compulsory English. If there are a number of citizens who know both languages equally well, then I say it is the right of the State to give these people facilities to use whichever language they like in the conduct of affairs, whether it be in legal matters or otherwise. The argument of Senator Sir John Keane, whether he was conscious of it or not, was one in favour of compulsory English. We are not advocating the compulsory suppression of English. Let it be clearly understood that this is not a Bill for the suppression of the English language in our courts. It is a Bill to secure, when the occasion arises that the Irish language is necessary, barristers or solicitors in the courts will be competent to transact business in the language of the nation. I would like to call this fact to the attention of the House, that we are not expecting to get that accomplished within a few months or within a few years. It may take a generation. But certainly if we do not make a start now the same arguments that were used to-day for deferring of the language will be used in fifteen or twenty years' time, and this Bill is suggesting the steps that can be taken that will secure that there shall be barristers and solicitors a few years hence who will be competent to deal with law and with legal matters in the Irish language.

Since the discussion opened there has not been from any single one of those who opposed the Bill an assertion that this will inflict any hardship upon anyone intending to enter the legal profession. I say that if you agree to these few heads that I now put before you this Bill must get a Second Reading. If you agree that it is a good thing, a necessary thing, that the Irish language should be preserved, should be restored to its proper place, whether it takes a few years or a few generations, at least this generation should do its part to help that along. If you believe that, you will sympathise with the objects of this Bill. If you admit that our law courts must come within the influence and the ambit of the Irish language you cannot dismiss this Bill lightly, and if you agree with my contention that the steps embodied in this Bill to secure that object will inflict no hardship upon anybody, will secure that we will have an Irish-speaking legal profession in a few years' time, then I say you are bound to give this Bill a Second Reading. I ask the House to give it. There may be possibilities of amendment with regard to details of the Bill. That cannot be secured unless the Second Reading is passed. I think that those who have been speaking for the legal profession will not be well advised to reject the Second Reading of this Bill and thus prevent the consideration of it in Committee. Senator Brown came to the conclusion that the Bill was unimprovable. That may or may not be the case, but we have not come to the stage when we can be definitely sure of that, and if upon analysis in the Committee Stage, Senator Brown's contention is borne out, then he, his friends and those who think with him, will be able to register a decision against the Bill at a later stage. But the present stage is one the passing of which is necessary if this Bill is to get the examination which it merits. I think, in my approach to this matter, I cannot be accused of having used arguments and language that were hurtful. I would like members of all sections who differ from my point of view to realise that Ireland has come——

Colonel Moore

I suggest that we divide as soon as possible. It is getting late.

Mr. Milroy

Might I ask the reason why——

Cathaoirleach

Proceed, Senator, please.

Mr. Milroy

I was trying to bring my remarks to a close. I want Senators who are thinking against this Bill to try to realise that it is in itself but one symptom of the great change and transformation that has come into the life of Ireland, that after long years of suppression the Irish people have now got the opportunity to restore to their national life the language and all that it means, all that is implied in it, and this is one effort to try to secure that in that great work the great professions of barristers and solicitors will be brought into harmony with the rest of the working organisation of the nation. I ask the Seanad to give this a Second Reading, and if it is thought necessary at a later stage to reject it they will still have power to do so.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 17.

Tá

Michael Comyn, K.C.
Joseph Connolly.
Mrs. Costello.
William Cummins.
Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
Thomas Farren.
Thomas Foran.
Thomas Johnson.
Cornelius Kennedy.
Patrick W. Kenny.
Seán E. MacEllin.
James MacKean.
John MacLoughlin.
Seán Milroy.
Colonel Moore.
Joseph O'Connor.
M.F. O'Hanlon.
Bernard O'Rourke.
Síobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
Séumas Robinson.
Thomas Toal.
Richard Wilson.

Níl

John Bagwell.
William Barrington.
Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
Alfred Byrne.
James G. Douglas.
Sir Nugent Everard.
Michael Fanning.
Dr. O. St. J. Gogarty.
Sir John Purser Griffith.
Henry S. Guinness.
Major-General Sir William Hickie.
P.J. Hooper.
Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
Sir John Keane.
The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
James Moran.

Motion declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, May 8th.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 1 May 1929