Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 May 1929

Vol. 12 No. 11

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

The Seanad went into Committee.
SECTION I.
1.—In this Act—
the expression "the Chief Justice" means the Chief Justice of Saorstát Eireann, the expression "the Incorporated Law Society" means the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland acting under their present or any future charters and the expression "competent knowledge of the Irish language" means 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.

I move amendment 1:

Section 1. To delete all after the word "charters" in line 17 down to the end of the section.

This amendment was put down by me because the definition in the Bill as it stands was, in my opinion, quite unworkable for the reasons which I stated in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. There was no definition in the original Bill, and no definition appeared to me to be better than a definition which was plainly unworkable. However, after very mature consideration, I have come to the conclusion that it is better that there should be some definition of the words "competent knowledge of the Irish language" in the Bill. Otherwise, the matter would be left at the mercy of whatever authority was to apply the test for the time being. I think it is better that one should be certain of what the test is going to be than that there should be any uncertainty about it. Therefore, after mature consideration I have come to the conclusion to ask the House to allow me to withdraw the amendment, and later we can discuss the question of what a proper definition should be.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 2:

Section 1. To delete all after the word "of" in line 19 down to the end of the section and to substitute therefor the words "proficiency in the use of the language as is required for the matriculation examination of the National University of Ireland."

The purpose of this amendment is to delete the present definition in the Bill and to substitute for it the definition of "competent knowledge" as set out in the amendment I have just moved. With this amendment inserted in the Bill, the wording of the definition would be as follows: "The expression ‘competent knowledge of the Irish language' means such a degree of oral and written proficiency in the use of the language as is required for the matriculation examination of the National University of Ireland."

In putting down this amendment my object was to have, if possible, a definite definition of the kind of test that would be applied under this Bill. I thought that the test which is applied by the National University, which is the only university in the Free State in which compulsory Irish is part of the programme in the case of the entrance examination, would be a good and sufficient test for the purposes of this Bill. I am not wedded to that definition if any other definition can be suggested which will work better. But there you have a public and an independent body who are already applying that test for the purpose of bringing about what is the object of this Bill, and admittedly what is the object of this Bill, for the object of the Bill is not to make us better lawyers but to make lawyers speak Irish whether they like it or not. The only public test of that apart from the Civil Service test, which is one that varies according to the different grades of the public service and which would not be easily applied in this case, is the test for the entrance examination to the National University of Ireland. For that reason I have proposed it as the test to compare it with the test which Senator Milroy has set out in amendment No. 3, which if I may so describe it, is the rival definition of competent knowledge. I would suggest that this is the more appropriate test, at least for the present. My objection to Senator Milroy's definition, if I may be allowed to refer to it in moving my own amendment, is that it lays down too severe a test, having regard to the present state of the Irish language in this country. I suggest it is also too severe a test, having regard to what the state of the Irish language is likely to be as far as use is concerned, in the next ten or fifteen years. I do not propose to say anything about Senator Milroy's definition for the moment, but I merely suggest that it lays down a test which is too severe for the present state of the language, and probably for the future state of our knowledge of the Irish language in the next ten or fifteen years.

I am opposed to this amendment mainly for one reason, that the National University test is not sufficient. It is concerned chiefly with reading and writing. It is more important, I think, that solicitors should be able to speak the language to their clients than that they should be able to write an essay in Irish on some subject. In fact, I have thought that Senator Brown would have approved of that view. Senator Brown said that he thinks that the definition laid down in amendment No. 3 is too advanced for the present state of the language. I would remind the House that in this Bill we are not dealing with the present state of the language, but rather with a state that will not arise for five or six years. Surely by that time the progress made as regards the language will be such that it will be quite easy to be able to find people who can talk common talk. If that will not be the position, then we will be in a very bad way, and the progress made in the meantime will not have been very much. I am opposed to this particular amendment, but would be prepared to accept in exchange for it amendment No. 3.

Cathaoirleach

We will discuss amendment No. 3 later.

I do not think that we can accept this amendment for the reason given by Senator Colonel Moore. The second reason why we cannot accept it is that we have no guarantee what the examination test for entrance to the National University will be in the future. At the present time it is considered a rather low test when one considers the present advanced state of the Irish language in the country. If Senator Brown's amendment were accepted, the result may be that young people entering for the legal profession in the years to come will be subjected to a more severe test than any that is proposed in this Bill. The Senator, I am sure, understands that if his amendment were accepted it would mean trying legal students in the future as regards the Irish language to the matriculation test set up by the National University. We have no knowledge what that test will be in the future. It may be a test requiring a knowledge of old or middle Irish. The test to-day is for a spoken knowledge of the Irish language.

Supposing that the test for the matriculation examination in the National University in the future was in old or middle Irish, I do not think it would be a fair one in the case of young people going forward for the legal profession, or that it would be in the interests of what we all wish, namely, to see and to hear the Irish language spoken in the courts of the Saorstát. I think it would be a most unjust thing to expect these young students going forward for the legal profession to tackle old and middle Irish, if that happened to be the test in the National University examination. At present we do not know what test will be applied in the future in the case of the National University. At present it is simply one requiring an oral knowledge of the language. It is, I suppose, sixteen years since the present test for matriculation in the National University was introduced. Irish was not in as advanced a state then as it is to-day. With the progress that has been made in spreading a knowledge of the language, it is only natural to expect that the National University test of a knowledge of Irish for matriculation will be made more severe in the future.

I am in favour of imposing as little hardship as is possible by this Bill. But I think that this amendment of Senator Brown's is hardly fair, because he proposes to set up the standard required for matriculation in the National University. The matriculation examination, as everybody knows, is simply the entrance examination to the University. I think that students for the legal profession, in their final examination. would require to have a better knowledge of the Irish language than what is required at the initial examination in the University. I think that a higher standard should be set for them than that required for entrance to the University. For that reason I cannot support the amendment.

I would ask Senator Brown to withdraw his amendment and accept the amendment in the name of Senator Milroy. If Senator Brown's amendment is carried, then I will have to reconsider my attitude with regard to the amendment which I have tabled. I submit that the amendment in the name of Senator Milroy affords an opportunity for a fair and reasonable compromise, and I think the House should agree to accept that.

In a way I think it is a pity that we are not discussing Senator Brown's suggested definition with the definition proposed in my amendment for the purposes of making a comparison. Obviously, a definition is required for the purpose of the Bill. It strikes me that it is doubtful if Senator Brown's amendment is in order, because it seems to me to be in conflict with the long title of the Bill, which is "An Act to make provision for securing that future members of the legal profession shall possess a competent knowledge of the Irish language." I do not think anyone would suggest that a person passing the test suggested by Senator Brown in his amendment would have a competent knowledge of the Irish language for the purposes of this Bill. My knowledge on these matters is not very exhaustive, but I understand that the matriculation examination in the National University resembles, in a considerable degree, the preliminary examination which a law student has to undergo and which enables him to interpret a phrase or to construe a passage in Latin. The object of this Bill means something more than to enable a legal practitioner to interpret a phrase or construe a passage in the Irish language. The object of the Bill is that those entering the legal profession, at a certain date, should have a competent spoken knowledge of the Irish language. Obviously, the definition proposed in Senator Brown's amendment would not secure that. In fact, I think if it were adopted it would go far to hamstring the Bill and to render it futile.

While I am quite prepared to concede that in theory the original definition is incapable of meeting every possibility, to construe that definition as one setting an impossible standard is, I believe, not correct. I believe that in practice it would work out satisfactorily. Statutes must either conform to the realities of life or remain a dead letter. At the same time, while making that admission. I think that a definition which does perhaps more accurately express the real objective of this Bill in that it does not lend itself to possible misconstruction is desirable. For that reason I have tabled an alternative definition which I think conforms to the definition I suggest. I will deal with that further when we come to the amendment. I think that if we take this Bill seriously and desire to secure the object it aims at without inflicting hardship on anyone concerned, we cannot accept Senator Brown's amendment, and I think that Senator Brown might very well refrain from pressing it. I think he must realise that he does not secure what is really required in the matter.

I desire to support the amendment. My reason for doing so is that in the matter of the transaction of business in Irish in the courts, I do not believe, and I have no doubt the mover of the amendment does not believe, that there is not any practical necessity for this Bill now, or that there is likely to be for a number of years to come. It has been admitted by the Minister most interested in this Bill when he addressed this House on the Second Reading debate, that the object of the Bill was not solely confined to meeting any necessity for transacting legal business in Irish in the courts.

On a point of order, Senator Bagwell is now making a Second Reading speech. He is discussing the principle of the Bill, and that has already received the assent of this House.

Cathaoirleach

I think the Senator is discussing the amendment.

I think not.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator must allow Senator Bagwell to proceed.

I bow to your ruling, sir, but I do hold that I am speaking strictly to the amendment. The point that I was making has, I submit, a strict bearing on amendments 2 and 3, even though we have not yet reached amendment 3. Amendment 3 assumes that there is a necessity for providing for the transaction of legal business in the courts in the Irish language. My point is that that is not necessary. I was referring to what the Minister, who probably has more knowledge of this Bill than any other Minister, said when he addressed this House on the Second Reading of the Bill. He said that the object of the Bill was very largely to further the adoption of the Irish language in the country for which purpose the teaching of Irish in the schools was not sufficient. That is a reason which I give for supporting this amendment. It is the view that I hold, and I suggest that for the purpose of furthering the adoption of the Irish language in the country what this amendment proposes is reasonable and sufficient, and that it would be unjustifiable to impose on the rising generation of lawyers a higher standard of Irish than that proposed in the amendment.

Cathaoirleach

I think the Senator is now going outside the scope of the amendment.

I am not quite so pessimistic as Senator Bagwell, or, as perhaps one could call it, optimistic. I think that the time will come, possibly before a great many years have passed, when every member of the legal profession will find, whether this Bill passes or not, that it will be to his own interest to obtain a competent knowledge of Irish. I do not think that the members of any profession would be quicker to learn the language, if they found it was necessary to do so, than the members of the legal profession. I think that perhaps it would be a good thing in the interests of finding a way out if Senator Milroy and Senator Brown and some others came together with a view to arriving at a definition that would meet with general approval. It seems to me that the original definition in the Bill was quite unworkable. That, I think, is more or less admitted.

From the discussion that has taken place on Senator Brown's amendment, some Senators have suggested that the standard which it proposes to set is too low. I do not know enough about the matter to give any decided opinion on that, but that seems to be one of the greatest objections to the Senator's amendment. It seems to me, however, that Senator Milroy's amendment aims at setting too high a standard in view of the present position of the language. I do not see how a solicitor or a barrister could efficiently examine a witness unless he had a knowledge of Irish sufficient to secure for him the "Fainne." Unless he was really able to know immediately what the witness stated and was immediately able to put supplementary questions in the same language, I do not think it could be said that he was efficiently examining the witness. I have no doubt that there are members of the legal profession who are able to do that, and that as the years pass they will be in increasing number. I am not sure, however, that we have reached the stage in which we could wisely set a standard as high as that outlined in Senator Milroy's amendment. The setting of such a standard would possibly do more harm than good. I suggest that possibly it would be a good thing to leave this question over and perhaps in the meantime some way could be found between all the parties interested of arriving at a reasonably high standard consistent with the Bill, but a standard not quite as drastic as that proposed in Senator Milroy's amendment. I think that, possibly, if that were done a way might be found of reaching agreement.

Senator Douglas spoke of the difficulty of examining witnesses. That appears to be a point of criticism in regard to my new definition. That is a kind of criticism that has been expressed frequently in regard to this Bill. Stress has been laid on the difficulty of examining witnesses in the Irish language. I want to repeat one thing I said on the Second Reading of this Bill. This is a Bill not for the abolition or discontinuance of the English language but a Bill to secure that where the litigant wishes to conduct his legal business in Irish provision shall be made that his legal adviser shall be able to do that for him. If occasion arises when matters are brought into court for adjudication where it is impossible for that course to be pursued, and where the use of the English language is essential, there is nothing whatever to prevent the use of the English language being resorted to. I want that clearly understood. This Bill will be operative to no degree further than the possibilities of the situation permit. It is not expected to work miracles by this Bill, so as to give people who have never known the Irish language the gift of tongues after the Bill becomes law. The object of the Bill is to secure that where the litigants require legal advisers to advise them in the conduct of their business in the language of the country, the studies of the legal practitioner shall be such that that degree of proficiency in the language shall have been reached. I am afraid that I have wandered into a discussion on my own amendment, but what I have said, I think, helps to clarify the atmosphere around Senator Brown's amendment. I think it helps to indicate that his amendment is futile, and that no purpose could be served by a division upon it.

Does the Senator consider that if his definition were adopted each lawyer must have a fluent speaking knowledge of the Irish language? My case is that it does mean that in effect, and that we have not got to that stage yet.

Cathaoirleach

We are not now discussing Senator Milroy's amendment.

When all these amendments are analysed we must come back to one thing, and that is that a solicitor or barrister by the time this Bill becomes operative, in six, seven or eight years' time, will be required to have a knowledge of the language sufficient, as set out in the Bill, to enable him properly to conduct the business of his clients.

Cathaoirleach

That is the wording of the Bill.

Yes, that is the wording of the Bill. If a future solicitor or barrister falls short of that his labour has been wasted, and his time has been wasted, and you are simply trying to evade the clear requirements which are set out in the Bill, that he must be able properly to conduct the business of his clients in the Irish language. As to Senator Brown's amendment, a law student if he passed the National University matriculation standard test to-day, and if he stood on that and did not increase his knowledge, would not be able to conduct the business of his clients properly in the Irish language. As has been stressed by Senator Milroy, it is essential that a member of the legal profession should be able to speak the language fluently, and an oral test is a mere cipher in the test for the matriculation. There is a feeling that those who are opposing the amendment are imposing some hardship on future law students. That is what some convey by their speeches. Actually the Bill is designed to, and will if it is put into operation as it now stands, actually help them.

The time has come, and the Government realises it, when you will have in the courts litigants and clients who will require the conduct of their business in Irish or English, and who will employ barristers or solicitors accordingly. The time is coming when there will be a certain zeal for the language on the part of those who are enthusiastic in preserving it, and they will make it a point when they have any legal proceedings to instruct their solicitors to conduct their business in the Irish language, although they may be more fluent themselves in the English language. Of course you will have those in the extreme West who will know no other language but Irish. They may be able to speak a sort of broken English, but they do not convey their thoughts and views through the English language. The essential thing is that solicitors and barristers must have a fluent knowledge of the Irish language.

This Bill is designed to fit the students who to-day are entering the legal profession to gradually acquire a knowledge of the Irish language in six or seven years' time, to make them so qualified in the knowledge of the language that they will reap the full benefits of their profession when they become qualified. I anticipate from the zeal that is manifested in the revival of the language to-day that the knowledge of the language will continue to grow, and that in a few years time the solicitor or barrister who will not be able to conduct his business in the Irish language will have very little practice.

Cathaoirleach

This is really a Second Reading debate. The amendment simply deals with a competent knowledge of the Irish language. Senator Brown considers that a competent knowledge of the Irish language would be secured by his amendment.

When appropriately enough, the Minister for Finance came to the House to explain this Bill he said it was not to enable people to hear evidence in Irish or to defend cases in Irish. That was not present to his mind in connection with the Bill. He was not anxious about evidence being heard in Irish or about the court being able to conduct its business in Irish, but he was anxious that the Irish language should get the prestige of the Bench. That to my mind, considering what the Bench has done to win that prestige, and considering how little the Irish language has done to deserve that, is a capital levy on the profession, and it will go a long way to lower the professional status. By allowing this Bill to become law we are putting ourselves in a cul de sac because of this hurry about Irish. The professions are being roped in long after they have made themselves——

Cathaoirleach

Everybody is trying to make a Second Reading speech on this amendment.

It is impossible not to do otherwise.

Cathaoirleach

It is not impossible. We are dealing with a competent knowledge of Irish, and we are not to consider whether Irish is good or bad. This amendment deals with the question of a competent knowledge of the language, and that is a perfectly plain matter.

I was merely arguing that in the mind of the Minister for Finance it was not a question of a competent knowledge of the Irish language he was concerned with.

Cathaoirleach

The amendment deals with a competent knowledge of Irish.

I am arguing on the question of a competent knowledge. The profession is quite competent to set its own entrance examination, and if it sets a standard of Irish which satisfies itself I cannot quite see why the Chief Justice should be the examiner in Irish.

Cathaoirleach

If the Senator reads the section he will find that a competent knowledge is necessary.

I suggest that a fluent knowledge of an uncreated thing is impossible of definition.

Would Senator Brown agree to substitute for the National University matriculation examination the B.A. pass standard examination of the National University?

Cathaoirleach

It would be better to deal with the first amendment. We get no further by roaming into a treatise on the whole Bill.

I do not wish to follow the example of my friend. I think he is, unconsciously I know, trying to lead the Seanad astray on this occasion. We have already discussed the principle of this Bill. There has been no great hurry in introducing it, and there will be no great hurry in putting it into execution, because, so far as I can calculate, it will be fifteen or sixteen years before the Bill comes into practical operation in the courts of justice. In regard to the second amendment, the standard set is so low as to be absolutely elusive. I am sorry that it was not possible to discuss the first amendment in conjunction with the amendment to be proposed by Senator Milroy. As I have said, the standard, in my judgment, is quite elusive; and, what is more to the point, I think that it would have no chance whatever of acceptance when it goes back to the other House. Therefore, I am against the amendment. I would like to see some middle course taken as between this amendment and the amendment which Senator Milroy has down.

Cathaoirleach

You have a definition in the Bill as an alternative if you like.

As between the definition in the Bill and Senator Brown's amendment, I am in favour for the present of the definition in the Bill.

I am afraid the amendment of Senator Brown is a contradiction. I understand from those who are somewhat proficient in the use of the language, and who know something about the National University, that proficiency in the use of the language is not secured by the matriculation examination, and to speak of that as a definition, when it is self-contradictory, is hardly fitting. Yet, I appreciate what I imagine to be the purpose of Senator Brown in moving this amendment. One has to project one's mind to fifteen or twenty years hence, and in doing that I think I have hit upon at least one of the main reasons for the Bill, and which has undoubtedly some bearing upon this amendment. I take it that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the junior members now in the profession would deem it to be necessary to obtain such a knowledge of the language as would enable them to conduct business in court. In the course of time the present bench of judges will retire or die. By the time the youths of to-day come into the profession the judges will be thinking of retiring or dying. Within a period of seven or eight years a considerable number of vacancies in the judiciary will occur and these vacancies will have to be filled. The field to draw upon for filling those vacancies would be very small indeed unless the test in the Bill is such as to enable an adult of the present day to get a sufficient knowledge of the language to fit in with the Bill. If that is not done what is the field of choice for those people who have come into the profession within the last six or seven years, and who came into it having risen on the wave of Gaelic enthusiasm, who have learned the language and are proficient in the use of it to-day? They will maintain their knowledge of the language, and they will be the only people capable of conducting business of the courts in the language in fifteen or sixteen years' time. Consequently, they will be the only people chosen for the judicial bench.

That seems to me one of the reasons why the Bill is brought forward, and also one of the reasons why it seems to be necessary to have a lower standard as regards a competent knowledge of the language than is indicated in the next amendment. Yet, I feel that the matriculation examination of the National University is entirely useless as a means of obtaining a competent knowledge. If all I have heard is true, you need not have any knowledge except to be able to pass a written examination. The standard is very low indeed. It is an improving or rising standard; there is nothing fixed in it, and therefore, that examination as a definition seems to me faulty. I agree with Senator Comyn who suggested a somewhat higher definition than that, and yet not one which requires that a lawyer would be required to have grown up with the language. It is, I think, quite a reasonable proposition to expect that the generation which is now being born will require to have a competent knowledge of the language. That, of course, will be discussed on the later amendment. I think the present amendment is not practicable, because it is inconsistent in itself, and it ought not to be passed.

I would like to explain my position on this amendment. As everyone in the House knows, I was very strongly opposed to the Bill and I voted against the Second Reading. I am now most anxious, if possible, to make the Bill workable. The sense of the House was against my opinion on the Bill, and I acquiesced in that most completely. You will not have it a really working Bill unless you have a statutory definition in respect to "competent knowledge" when the Bill comes into operation. I cannot now speak on Senator Milroy's amendment.

My whole reason for proposing the test in my amendment is that the test should not be too severe, having regard to the present position of the language in this country. I am willing to assume that the movement for compulsory Irish in this country is going to be a success, that the youth of this country are going to grow up with a knowledge of the Irish language, and that in ten or fifteen years a citizen of this country who wishes to become an apprentice, or to join Kings Inns as a student for the Bar, will be able to speak the language. I respectfully urge on the House, however, that the test in the Bill is far too much. If I were sure this Bill was not going to come into operation for an extra five or six years I would be willing to withdraw my amendment. My whole object is that there should not be imposed a standard during the next ten or fifteen years. If I was assured of that I think my amendment would be unnecessary, and then it would be only a question of trying to arrange with Senator Milroy some form of definition.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move:

Section 1. To delete all after the word "practitioner" in line 20, and to substitute therefor the words, "efficiently to take instructions from and to advise clients, to examine witnesses, and to follow proceedings in the Irish language."

A good many laymen have been misleading the legal profession with regard to the severe ordeal they have to undergo, but, curiously enough, this particular amendment is one that has not only the approval of but it is one that has emanated from the Bar Council, and, therefore, I think that might be sufficient guarantee that it does not impose any real hardship on the profession. I do not intend to delay the House by any lengthy commendation of this amendment. I suggest that it is a more accurate definition of the real objective of the Bill than the definition which at present stands in Section 1. It removes certain possibilities for misconstruction and puts down in plain language the fact that in essence the object of this Bill is to enable ordinary court work to be carried out in the Irish language. Senator Brown very courteously drew my attention to one verbal mistake in this amendment. If the amendment were adopted the mistake would have to be rectified. The Senator has pointed out that barristers do not take instructions from clients but receive them from solicitors.

If this amendment were carried it would be necessary to substitute "receive" for "take." I do not think there could be any really consistent criticism of this amendment. One point I have heard referred to in a particular way was the examination of witnesses. As I pointed out in the course of discussion on the previous amendments, there is no occasion why that particular wording should excite any undue apprehension. Of course, if we are going to face in any serious way the question of the legal profession being able to pursue their profession in the Irish language, we will have to accept as one of the steps to that course the examination of witnesses. Irish-speaking witnesses or litigants have a right to have their cases conducted by Irish-speaking barristers or solicitors.

Even though the litigants are bilingual, if they prefer to conduct their business in the Irish language, they have a constitutional right to do so. I cannot imagine that there is any insuperable difficulty in a student who passes through the studies in the language which will be necessary to qualify for the profession not being able to examine and cross-examine witnesses in the course of ordinary court work. This Bill is only operative on those who will have passed the age of fifteen on the 1st of October next, that before they can qualify they have six years to live, and that before they are in real practice, they will probably have spent three or four years as qualified men, and I presume they will not have discontinued their studies in Irish. Add to that the fact that in the great majority of cases these students will have already passed several years in the study of Irish in educational establishments. So that there is a period of almost twenty years during which the people concerned will have been associated with, and will have been pursuing the study of Irish. To suggest that after that experience it is unreasonable to require competency to examine witnesses in the language is surely rating the intelligence of these people at a very low standard. I rated it at no such standard. If I were a boy of fifteen—I wish I were —and if I was told when I was being sent to study for the Bar or for the solicitors' profession, that at the end of the time I would be incompetent to conduct the ordinary business of my profession in the Irish language, I would feel that I had no business setting out to acquire qualifications for such a profession. I think the younger generation, and those who are thinking about this matter, will be ashamed and will repudiate the statements that are made by many of those who are trying to save them from this ordeal of the Irish language when they hear it said that they will be incapable of acquiring sufficient knowledge of the language to conduct their business. This amendment gives a rational definition of the objective of this Bill. It is one that is not capable of what I conceived to be possible in the original definition—certain misconstruction. It is one which inflicts no hardship, and, in my opinion, fixes no unduly high standard. It is one which has emanated from the Bar Council, and therefore ought, I think, find acceptance in this House.

I think the House ought to be impressed by the fact that this definition emanates from the Bar Council, who are principally concerned.

Perhaps you will allow me explain that it is true a small committee, consisting of three members, two of whom I believe are not members of the Bar Council, was asked by the Bar Council to consider this definition, and they approved of it. To that extent, and to that extent only, was it approved of the Bar Council, for what it is worth. I would like to call the attention of Senator Kenny to the fact that the Bar Council is not the authority in the matter. That is portion of the educational course of barristers, and the Benchers of the King's Inns are the proper education authority for that purpose. Even if the Bar Council in solemn meeting approved of this they were not the proper body to do it.

I am very glad that Senator Brown intervened, because Senator Milroy's references have left me under a wrong impression. Possibly Senator Milroy was left under a wrong impression himself. I still hark back to the definition in the Bill. There may have been some subtle distinction in the minds of the Bar Council when they set out these four headings, that is to say, that a future legal practitioner must have sufficient knowledge "to take instructions from and to advise his clients, to examine witnesses and to follow proceedings in the Irish language." Take each of these laid down as essential, and refer to the standard of the Bill, which sets out that future practitioners shall have "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." To conduct the business of his clients properly, it is absolutely essential that he should be able to take instructions, to advise them, to examine witnesses and to follow the proceedings in Irish. I cannot see the difference. There may be some subtle distinction in the minds of the Bar Council. Legal practitioners are very versatile in drawing such distinctions, but I cannot see where the advantage is in laying down these four mandatory requirements as laid down by the Bar Council, or whatever the body may be. Students cannot possibly qualify under each of these headings unless they have a proper knowledge of the language as set out in the definition. The definition in the Bill is a minimum. They are not asked to have any more knowledge; they are not asked to have middle Irish, or old Irish.

Cathaoirleach

It is rather indefinite.

They are asked to have a sufficient knowledge of it to enable them do these four things. If they fall short of any one of these four things laid down by the Bar Council, then they are not properly qualified, and cannot conduct business in court. There is another objection to this amendment, and this may be where the subtle distinction is in the minds of lawyers. You can take instructions from a client without having a very full knowledge of the language. When accustomed to reading Irish by glancing over books one can connect one word with another and fill up the gaps. You get the drift of the thing, and if you have a general knowledge, it enables you to link up. That is not sufficient for legal work, where distinctions are very fine, and where a case might hinge on accurate definitions. Particularly when you come to deal with the Irish language and the little idioms it contains, that sort of half knowledge is not sufficient. In the definition proposed by Senator Milroy, as suggested by the Bar Council, I take it that is where the little advantage comes in, that they will fall short of that full knowledge and have just a bare acquaintance with the language, sufficient to get a general idea of what their clients require, and to conduct their business in the courts, having previously gone over the matter with their clients in a sufficiently intelligible way to reach a certain conclusion. I am still wedded to the language of the Bill. There is nothing extra required in the definition of the Bill except a bare knowledge to do a thing which the Bar Council, such as it is, approves of, and has accepted as being the minimum requirement.

I understand that the only choice left open to us is as between the definition contained in the Bill and the definition proposed by Senator Milroy.

Cathaoirleach

That is the correct view to take.

In that case I am in favour of the definition proposed by Senator Milroy, and I will endeavour to explain as best I can some of the matters which have created a difficulty in the mind of Senator Kenny. Under the provisions of the Bill it is stated that a legal practitioner must know sufficient of the language properly to conduct the business of his client in the Irish language. There is some portion of the business of a client which it is quite impossible to conduct in Irish at the present moment. Portion of the business of a client consists in the discussion of legal principles and questions of law. These discussions are carried on in a language which is described as the English language. I took occasion some time ago with some friends to extract from the body of one of our law books—from a page taken at random—all the words which were purely Saxon, all the words which were of Gaelic origin, words of Latin origin, and words that came to us through French. It was a book dealing with the laws of property and the principles of law. We found that six per cent. of the words were of Saxon or English origin, two or three per cent. were of Irish origin, and that more than 90 per cent. came directly from Latin or through the French language, excluding, of course, the prepositions and conjunctions. Therefore, the language which is used in the courts is a special language—the language which is used in the discussion of legal principles relating to the law of real property—I think it will be quite impossible for a great number of years to substitute for that language a Gaelic phraseology which would be accurately adapted to represent ideas—and, of course, the Seanad knows that extraordinary accuracy is necessary— in the matter of legal discussions. For the reason I consider that the definition in the Bill is too stringent for practical purposes.

Senator Milroy announced that the amendment he proposed is an amendment suggested by the Bar-Council. Senator Brown modifies that, but modifies it to this extent only, that the Bar Council took an interest in the matter. Probably they wished to arrive at some working arrangement, some sort of compromise, with the men who, very properly, and for a proper and legitimate national purpose, are anxious that the Irish language should become a cultured tongue. The Bar Council very reasonably, as I think, wished to meet them and to arrive at a practical understanding. The Bar Council selected three of their men, and those men, in consultation with others, arrived at this definition. I had no part in the consultations at all. Let me examine it. I think it is practicable—"efficiently to take instructions from and to advise clients." In my judgment that does not require a very great knowledge of the Irish tongue, because, unfortunately, the ordinary client has not a great vocabulary. He has a hundred or two hundred words in Gaelic, but certainly not more than three hundred. It is well known that the ordinary working man in England has a vocabulary of two hundred or perhaps three hundred words. The late Judge Adams, an old friend of mine, gave me my first instruction on this question. He said that Shakespeare had a knowledge of 20,000 words, the ordinary British workman had a knowledge of 300 words, and that Lord O'Brien, the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, had a knowledge of one hundred words. Therefore it does not require a tremendous proficiency in the language.

Then what is all the opposition about?

I am supporting the amendment proposed by Senator Milroy.

Cathaoirleach

And very well too.

I am trying to explain that it does not require the extraordinary and complete efficiency that some people imagine is required efficiently to take instructions from the ordinary client.

Will the Senator explain why clients are only working men?

I am only giving an example of the ordinary client—the workman or the farmer—and if Senator Sir John Keane comes to examine it with his great vocabulary he will find, as he has such a perfect command of the language that he does not use more than 500 or 600 words. If you have a perfect command of a language it is not necessary to use a great number of words. It is only when you are floundering and stumbling about that you use words that are out of the way. I have practised in parts of the country where the litigants were Gaelic speakers, in West Kerry and in some parts of Clare. There were some solicitors there who conducted their business in Irish, and I have one in particular before my mind who was called An Aturnae Gaedhealach, that is, "the Irish attorney," and to my knowledge he conducted his business efficiently in the Irish language. I know that his knowledge of the Irish language would not entitle him to an honours degree. He had just a fair practical knowledge, but that was enough. Let me now take the third part of the amendment "to follow proceedings in the Irish language." The degree of knowledge necessary to follow proceedings in the Irish language is not very great. I do not profess to have a great knowledge of the Irish language myself; I do not profess to have any literary knowledge of it whatever. I happened to learn a little of it when I was very young, but that knowledge enables me to follow proceedings in the Irish language. As Senator Kenny said, it could fill up gaps. Some one suggested that a man could understand something and imagine the rest, but in any case an ordinary intelligent person, with a smattering of the Irish language, a person who has read a few books in the Irish language, can very well follow proceedings so far as the ordinary layman can follow them at all. I come now to the next thing provided for, "the examination of witnesses." Perhaps it is difficult to frame a definition but the examination of witnesses in Irish or English is a very difficult problem. It is the most difficult part of our work.

Some people say that the cross-examination of a witness is the most difficult part of a solicitor's or a barrister's work. In my judgment a perfect examination of a witness requires infinitely greater skill. Of course, to go into court and say to a witness. "Innis dom do sgeul,""Tell me your story," is not examination of a witness. Therefore that test is the most difficult. It may mean a very high degree of proficiency indeed, and it may only mean a very small degree of efficiency, depending on the standard required in the working out of the Bill by the people who will have to consider the legal attainments of the students. Personally I think the standard proposed in the amendment is high enough. I cannot suggest any form of words which would suit my views better at the moment, but I think Senator Milroy's amendment is very much preferable to the definition contained in the Bill, and therefore I will support it and ask the House to pass it.

It seems to me that Senator Brown and those who think with him do either of two things— either they imagine that the Irish language, or any language which people do not know, is so difficult to learn that it would take years and years to be able to talk a little chatter and understand a little what a person was saying, or, on the other hand, he supposes that the Irish people generally, and solicitors especially, are so stupid that they could not learn anything in a number of years. I have spent a great deal of my time in foreign countries, and I picked up the languages, principally in India and other places, as well as I could. Everybody in these countries was able to learn sufficient of the languages to talk to servants and to people they met there. They could get on with them in that way so that they understood one another. There is really no great difficulty about the matter at all. The difficulty is purely imaginary. The people in some countries like Switzerland speak three or four languages. If it is possible to be able to learn a little knowledge of these languages in five or six years, it is ridiculous to see the attitude adopted here. I cannot understand anyone taking such a view who honestly wishes this Bill to go through in any form.

Cathaoirleach

You are digressing, Senator. Stick to the question before the House, that is the question of efficiency to take instructions from, and to advising clients, to examine witnesses, and follow proceedings in the Irish language.

It seems to me from this discussion that every anti-national force in this country is anxious to whittle down the use of Irish, and inasmuch as this is a practical step to the re-establishment of the language as a spoken language, I am not in favour of any amendment which would in any way whittle it down. I believe that as between what is in the Bill as it stands and Senator Milroy's amendment there is not much to choose. I think that if anything his definition is the more comprehensive and specific, and I will vote for it. But I do hope that the House will not in any way try to throw any obstacle in the way of the language becoming the spoken language of the country, as it should be according to the Constitution.

I have already explained that my attitude, so far as the amendments to this Bill are concerned, is to do my very best to make this thing workable. As between the definition in the Bill and the definition which is contained in Senator Milroy's amendment, not being able to carry my own views, I am entirely in favour of Senator Milroy's amendment, with the verbal alteration to which he has referred. There is just one thing which I would like to say, in answer to the point made by Senator Milroy, that the young fellow who will be just under fifteen years of age next October, and who will come under the operations of this Bill as it stands at present, will have six years to acquire a competent knowledge of the Irish language. I am afraid that those six years are very illusory for that purpose. Five of those six years he will have to spend in a solicitor's office as an apprentice, going in there probably at half-past nine in the morning, staying there until six o'clock, learning his law and doing his master's work, and I can assure the Senator that he will have very few opportunities during those six years of learning the Irish language, or of doing anything but the work in which he will be engaged.

What about his University studies? Has he not to pursue those?

A University student has not to spend five years in a solicitor's office. If he takes his degree in any University he will not have to spend more than four years in an office. But while he is at the University he will have a very large number of other things to study besides Irish. While he is doing his four years' apprenticeship he will not have practically a moment of leisure to study Irish. Although I intend to vote for this amendment, I would like to call attention to this, that it does, on the whole, set up too high a standard for the position, that the Irish language is likely to occupy in, say, six years' time, and to make this a workable amendment I think we ought to postpone the operations of the Bill for another five years, in accordance with a subsequent amendment.

I agree with Senator Dowdall that there is not very much difference between the amendment and the language of the Bill. But the fact that the amendment has the backing of a section of the Bar, inasmuch as Senator Brown seems to approve of it—and his views on the profession carry a good deal of weight—I view this amendment in the light of a compromise, as placating the profession, as it were, and because of that I think the House ought to pass it.

I have been trying to think of the position of the young men who will come into the profession, and whether the promoters of the Bill and those who have drawn it have attempted to see the kind of change that will be made in the future of a boy of fourteen or fifteen by this Bill, as compared with the future of anyone who entered the profession either as a barrister or a solicitor in the past. Previously both barristers and solicitors had definite examinations, and when they had passed those examinations they knew that their career was in front of them. What we are doing now, either in the definition in the Bill and in Senator Milroy's definition, is to make provision for a thing that I could not understand if I was a young man. I would never know what I had to pass in this examination, and nobody could coach me sufficiently to be able to say: "You will get through." I hold that it is extremely hard on the young men of any profession to lay down an inaccurate description of a standard in respect of which an ordinary teacher could not say: "If you reach that standard, you are safe in your profession." Nothing that anybody has said so far as these two definitions are concerned would suggest that any young fellow going in for this profession could say: "I know that I can pass."

Cathaoirleach

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we have only two things before us, and with great respect I think you are making a Second Reading speech. We have the wording of the Bill, and the wording suggested by Senator Milroy. Whether or not these are good or bad for the profession as a whole, or for the country as a whole, we are not discussing. If you can show me that one amendment is better or worse than the other from any point of view, you will be perfectly in order.

Am I allowed to suggest that I think both are bad? It would be possible to do this by some other way——

Cathaoirleach

Nobody has tried to find it. There was plenty of time to put down amendments, but these were the only ones that were suggested.

If you would allow me, I will develop my argument for a moment. The line I am trying to develop is this—that, in my opinion, they are both bad for the young men, but that it would be possible for Senator Milroy, and possibly for Senator Brown, to arrive at a definition of the standard which, when attained by a student of either branch of the profession, would be certain to get him through. I believe it would be possible. But if we adopt one or other of these methods, and do not reconsider the matter, we will do serious injury to the young men who will take up this profession. The Chairman seems to think that I am out of order in suggesting this. I doubt if he is right in that. I am talking both on the wording in the Bill and of the amendment, and I am suggesting that there ought to be some reconsideration of this one point. Apply either of these definitions to the final part of the Bill where, so far as solicitors are concerned, the matter lies entirely in the hands of the Chief Justice, and try to enter into the mind of the Chief Justice, after the Incorporated Law Society has passed this young man through all his examinations. No doubt they will now have a standard of Irish in their examinations, but supposing a student has passed them all. Then with that education he goes before the Chief Justice, who may disapprove of the results of that young fellow's examinations.

He will be bound by the definition.

Exactly, he will be bound by the definition. That is my point. He has to give what is really a final judgment on the young fellow's career on the definition. We differ in our opinions with regard to what the definition amounts to. Senator Comyn himself defined it as the examination of witnesses. How is the Chief Justice to test the proficiency of a man, who has passed his examinations, in examining witnesses? If it is hard to examine a witness, it must be very hard indeed to take a young man who is just going through and say to him: "Show me that you are competent to examine a witness in Irish." Can you imagine any young solicitor or barrister who has had five years of hard work to get through, suddenly being placed opposite the witness and told by the Chief Justice: "Examine that witness in the Irish language"?

That is not contemplated at all.

If it is not, how is the Chief Justice to satisfy himself that the student is fit to examine a witness in the Irish language?

By five minutes' conversation.

Might I go on? My remarks are for the House. What I am trying to point out is that in all professions that I know of the people have to pass examinations. In getting a degree I had to pass examinations. That has been the case in the legal profession up to now; but you are now trying to put a burden, by one or other of these definitions, on the legal profession which has not been on it before, a burden on the young. I suppose the Chairman will rule me out of order when I say this, but I am afraid you will ruin the young men going in for the profession, and you will drive a great many clever people out. I would suggest to those who are in charge of the Bill that they should try to devise a definition which would let the young fellow who enters the profession know what standard he has to reach.

On this last point I gather that the Incorporated Law Society, so far as solicitors are concerned, will have the right to fix the standard, and that will be, no doubt, done in consultation with the Chief Justice. That will be the test that the student will have to pass, and he will be able to find that out from the Incorporated Law Society.

I am afraid that if this matter was discussed from now to this day twelve months, it would be impossible to get a definition that would satisfy Senator Jameson. I do not think he wants a definition; I do not think he wants the Bill. The only definition that would suit Senator Jameson would be one which should say: "Nothing in this Act shall apply to Saorstát Eireann," or something like that. I am not a bit pessimistic about the future of the professions under this Bill. There will be no difficulty whatever for a young law student in finding out what he will be required to know. He will be confronted with the degree of proficiency when he takes up the study, and I think it would be absurd to suggest, as Senator Jameson has suggested, that, having gone through examinations which will be set for the purpose of securing this proficiency, he will be turned down by the Chief Justice. I do not think it is contemplated that the Chief Justice should conduct personal examinations, but some authority was required—someone who would decide that a certain standard should be secured. It does not follow that a particular Chief Justice will conduct that examination, but under this Bill he will be the authority to appoint the examiners who will see that the degree of efficiency required has been secured. I would ask you, sir, when putting the amendment to the House, to make that verbal alteration, that is, to substitute the word, "received" for "take." That is, instead of "efficiently to take instructions,""efficiently to receive instructions."

Cathaoirleach

Would you also eliminate the word "from?"

Is it desirable to have a split infinitive in the definition?

Cathaoirleach

This is not a split infinitive—"efficiently to receive instructions." I would suggest that you leave out the second "and" also.

If you like.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
This Act shall not apply to any person who was over the age of fifteen years on the 1st day of October, 1929, and in this Act the word "person" shall be construed accordingly.

I move:—

Section 2. To delete in line 23 the word "fifteen" and to substitute therefor the word "ten."

The section would then read:—

"This Act shall not apply to any person who was over the age of ten years on the 1st day of October, 1929." This amendment, if accepted, would, I am sure, remove a great deal of the opposition of the legal profession. It would be very much better for the Irish language, and very much more could be accomplished if every section of the community could be got to look on this question in a sympathetic manner. It has been stated, and I am sure will be stated again, that as Irish has been taught in the schools for the past four or five years there would be no hardship in requiring a person of fifteen years to pass an examination in Irish, but I want the House to remember that there are several citizens of this State who may be anxious to enter the legal profession and who have been educated either in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain, and I say that the Bill as it stands at present would impose great hardship on these, if they came back, if they intended to enter the solicitors' profession, because they would have only one year to prepare for their entrance examination. They could not have anticipated that this Bill would become an Act of Parliament, and they had no means of learning the language, because they were educated in Universities and Colleges where Irish was not taught. For that reason I suggest that the amendment should be accepted. I am sure that every member of the House is anxious to foster the Irish language in every way, and that we differ only as to the wisdom of the steps to be taken to that end. If the promoters of the Bill would accept this amendment and some others in a reasonable spirit, I am sure that they would do very much more for the language than they are doing with the opposition they have been putting up to all the suggestions that have been put forward.

This amendment has been put down in the first instance with a view to preventing that revulsion of feeling against the Irish language which hasty measures such as this Bill are bound to give rise to. A second reason is the fact that the Government obviously do not want this Bill, at any rate, at this stage. Before speaking on this measure, I waited to see the Official Report of Minister Blythe's address here on the Second Reading of the Bill, and, as I expected, I see that he was careful to avoid definitely committing the Government in any way to his opinions on the question. If I might read just one extract from what he said——

Cathaoirleach

Did it concern the difference as between 15 and 10?

I am using an argument in support of this proposal. That is the whole point. He said: "It is not a Government Bill. In speaking on it here, I am really speaking for myself." Continuing, he said: "I believe it will be necessary...""I am not so foolishly optimistic...""I think more must be done, and I think that one of the things..." In no case did he say that the Government required this Bill at this particular stage.

It does not matter very much what the Minister said as to whether the Government desired to have it or whether they did not.

Cathaoirleach

Quite so, but the Senator wants to develop this in that way.

The Bill is a Private Member's Bill because in spite of the statement of policy enunciated by the Government in regard to Section 80 of the Report of the Gaeltacht Commission, the Government were not prepared to bring forward the measure until such time as the Irish language had more firmly established itself, and there was no approach by the Government to the Incorporated Law Society on the question. A third reason is the time which will be gained by the law schools to translate into Irish the books in the libraries used by students in the process of acquiring a knowledge of legal matters, and, what I consider is bound to come, that senior solicitors and barristers who, notwithstanding the assurances in this House, will obviously have to give advice to their juniors and without a really remarkable knowledge of Irish, will be totally unable to do so.

You have heard the view of another Senator who, like myself, can claim an intimate knowledge of the Gaeltacht, and I trust that the House will give us some credit for the honesty of our opinions when we say that haste in this matter will do more harm than good in the movement for the restoration of the Irish language. If we are to become once more a bi-lingual people, the process must, like all evolution, be a gradual one. An experiment to this end is now being tried in the schools, and if it is successful, the measure which it is now sought to force upon the people will take shape of its own accord, and the movement will be better for it. I move that the effect of the Bill be postponed for five years, on the ground that the measure is premature, and that after the years of violence, both in thought and in deed, which we have passed through, we require more time to see matters of this kind in their correct perspective.

It seems to me to be a curious thing that both the Senators who have spoken in favour of this amendment come from the Gaeltacht. It has always been a puzzle to me why people who have heard the Irish language spoken by the poor, especially if they are people of the better class, do not seem to have any great enthusiasm for it. That is a curious fact. Let us examine what the effect of this amendment would be. Its object is to provide that no person shall be required to have any knowledge whatever of the Irish language who is less than ten years of age on the 1st of next October. That is what it means. I have often heard people saying, if anything like violent measures were proposed: "Oh, it will not come about in our time." If this amendment is accepted the use of the Irish language in the courts will not come about in our time. A boy who is nine years of age next October and who wishes to become a lawyer will probably, unless he changes his mind in the meantime, go up for his entrance examination when he is seventeen years of age, that is, eight years hence. He will then spend five years as a solicitors's apprentice, ending thirteen years hence. If he is very fortunate he will have some little practice in the courts when he is twentysix or twenty-seven years of age, but it is quite unlikely that he will have any real practice until he is thirty years of age. Therefore, according to the wishes of the mover of this amendment, it will be almost a generation—over twenty years— before the Irish language becomes a really spoken tongue in the courts of justice. That is absurd, I submit very respectfully and with great deference to the gentlemen concerned. This suggestion that there has been undue haste in relation to the Irish language is not well founded. The Constitution was passed in December, 1922. We are now in the year 1929. Seven years have been allowed to elapse before any effectual step has been taken in the matter of making Irish in some degree the language of the courts. I consider that in the matter of the age limit, the Bill is very reasonable. Some people think that when a new subject is introduced into a curriculum, the object of the examiners and of every person concerned is to make it as difficult as possible at the start. So far as I know, the desire always has been when a new subject has been introduced to have the examination for the first three or four years as reasonable and easy as possible and gradually to elevate the standard. It must be assumed that the Chief Justice will be a reasonable man, and that the Incorporated Law Society is composed of reasonable men. I am quite certain that the Benchers, of whom my friend, Senator Brown, is a distinguished member, are very reasonable, and will understand exactly how to deal with this question so as to meet the case which Senator Jameson has in mind: the case of the young fellow who may not have been educated in this country, and who, in a very short space of time, might be required to pass a qualifying examination. That case will be provided for, and I think Senator Jameson need have no doubt on that point.

By means of the standard of efficiency required by the examiners under and within the limits of the Bill. Senator Jameson said it would be quite impossible for a boy to know whether he was likely to succeed in his examination. The answer to that is very simple. The questions put at the first examination will enable that boy, his parents and teachers, to understand the degree of proficiency required. Therefore, there is no difficulty about that. I think there has been no hurry about this Bill. I think if the House accepts this amendment they will be legislating for the next generation, and perhaps the generation after that.

This amendment represents only a detail of the Bill, but an important detail. Personally, I am going to vote for it. The task of restoring Irish as a spoken language, a language that has been practically lost as far as the greater part of the population is concerned is a colossal task, and cannot be achieved in a hurry. In my opinion it cannot be achieved even in the lifetime of one generation.

It is a task sufficiently important at any rate for the enthusiasts connected with it to have a little patience. No great deed has ever yet been accomplished by nickle-plated revolution, because speed and endurance rarely go hand in hand. Taking the extreme view expressed by Senator Comyn, to the effect that the Irish language may not be the spoken language of the courts in twenty years' time. I think that if it is the spoken language of the courts in twenty years from now, that that will be a very fine achievement. It would be an achievement well worth working for and waiting for. I suggest that we should not kill the patient by making him take too much of a dose or by making the medicine unpopular. We should take some care as to the quantity of the dose and the manner in which we administer it. There is too much of the disposition of the neurotic on the part of some Senators who have spoken in support of this Bill. Generally, they have shown an impatience to get, so to speak, into the neck of anyone who expresses the opposite point of view. The recklessness of some of Senator Kenny's language was an example of a young man or a middle-aged man in a hurry. The Senator himself is normally rather slow in his movements, and yet he thinks it quite reasonable to rush a whole nation along at breakneck speed on a line with which they are very unfamiliar—trying to reach it in record time. That is not the way in which to bring about a revolution. It will be a revolution, an intellectual revolution in any case, if we succeed in restoring the Irish language as the spoken language of the country. The late Arthur Griffith had to labour for more than seven years, for more than ten and twenty years, to work up the revolution which eventuated in our sitting here to-day. Surely if we have any faith in this cause, and if we have any faith in the future we need not go off at the breakneck speed that has been suggested.

Now a great many teachers in the primary and secondary schools at the present time are, practically speaking, only learners of the Irish language themselves. They are trying to learn the language, and at the same time to impart a knowledge of it to others. In view of that fact, I suggest that the very most they can do is to impart a superficial knowledge of the language to the boys and girls of the country who are now attending school and are at the age of fourteen or fifteen years. Up to the present year, the Department of Education have had to send these teachers to summer schools in the Irish speaking districts in order that they might gain a knowledge of the Irish language. These teachers are supposed to have been teaching the language to the pupils in their schools ever since 1922. Why not take that fact into consideration? We have had the statement from great enthusiasts and great authorities on the language that many of the Irish text books in use in the schools at the present time should be burned in the interests of the language. On the authority of those who are themselves speakers of the language and enthusiastic for its spread and cultivation, the text books in use in the schools are bad.

Would the Senator tell us who the authorities are that said the text books should be burned? That is a very serious statement to make, and I think some proof in support of it should be given.

I am sure the students would all agree that the books should be burned.

I said before that there was a certain amount of undue haste even in the matter of interruptions on this Bill. I quoted, on the Second Reading debate of this Bill a statement made by Deputy Patrick Hogan; who is himself a native speaker of the language, and, in my opinion, one of the most sincere supporters of it. At the last meeting of the Gaelic League, where he made that definite statement, he was in fact supported——

Would the Senator give the quotation?

On the last occasion I gave a quotation from a Press report. It now occurs to me that I was wrong in stating a moment ago that it was Deputy Patrick Hogan who made the statement. As a matter of fact, the statement was made by Cormac Breathnach, last year's President of the Gaelic League, who is probably a higher authority, and who comes from an Irish-speaking portion of the country. Gaelic Leaguers, between themselves, have probably opposite points of view on this matter. We have had it to-day, on the authority of Senator Comyn, that it is impossible to conduct certain business of the courts in the Irish language. That comes from a man who is himself a Gaelic enthusiast. Of course, I admit that we had absolutely contrary statements from the Minister for Finance and from Senators who supported this Bill. We, at any rate, should do our utmost to take what we believe to be the correct view on this matter. There have been different points of view from the same body of supporters. I think that to-day Senator Comyn gave a very honest and intelligent exposition of the difficulties to be overcome, certainly a more honest and intelligent exposition than has come from any other source on that side.

The position, at any rate, is that boys and girls who are fourteen or fifteen years of age to-day have, in many cases, been taught the language by teachers who are themselves only pupils, and although they may pass an elementary test in the language it is impossible and unreasonable to expect them, not being native speakers, to have a fluent speaking knowledge of the language. I was in the South of Ireland last week-end and visited six schools. The teachers showed the party that I was with the work of the pupils both in Irish and in English. I have to say this in reference to some statements that are being made, that in the schools we visited we found that the boys who were very good at Irish have also proved themselves very good in other subjects, and passed their examinations exceedingly well. The teachers referred to the lamentable waste of energy that is involved. They pointed out that they could not help it. They were giving the boys what was probably a fairly good literary knowledge of Irish up to fifteen years of age. The boys then left school, and it was pointed out to us that once they left school they did not speak the language at home. They never used it in their conversation with other boys after they left school, and the result was that a year after they had left school they had forgotten a lot of the Irish they had learned, and in the course of a couple of years they had forgotten all of it.

That is the case with regard to the ordinary civilian population, and that, I am afraid, is what will continue to happen unless things change considerably, so that even if barristers and solicitors acquire a perfect knowledge of the language, it will be of very little use to them as far as courts are concerned, except of course, in the Gaeltacht. Therefore, making a knowledge of the language compulsory five or six years in advance will make little or no difference at all so far as spreading a knowledge of the language is concerned.

The position is, I think, that we are running ahead of the times. It is quite unreasonable to expect that in six or seven years' time there will be any demand in any district outside the Gaeltacht for a knowledge of Irish in the case of lawyers, except on the part of somebody who may go into court and, just out of cussedness, wants to have it spoken as he may do to-day and is quite entitled to do. He may do that not exactly because he wants it, but merely to demonstrate his patriotism. I do not think that we should legislate for the odd individual out of the ten thousand or twenty thousand individuals that we have to do with. At the present moment there are regular classes in Irish in the training colleges for teachers undergoing their ordinary training. These teachers when they get schools will be better equipped and more proficient in the matter of imparting a knowledge of the language than many of the teachers who have been teaching it for some years, many of whom had to take up the study of it when they had reached middle age. They have been teaching it for the last seven years, but it is only reasonable to assume that the teachers now in training, in view of the more adequate provision that is being made for instructing them in the language, will turn out more competent pupils as regards a knowledge of the Irish language. If, say, in ten years' time a knowledge of Irish becomes absolutely compulsory in the case of the legal profession, then according to an amendment passed a short time ago we have set a very high standard for the students taking the examination, and I think it is worth waiting for an extra five years. If it is not worth waiting for, then certainly the whole thing is a failure. It is a confession of failure. If we can bring off in that period what is aimed at, then the most sincere and even the wildest enthusiast for the language can congratulate himself on not having lived in vain.

I notice that the people who voted against the Second Reading of this Bill are the people who are advancing all these arguments to-day.

I did not vote against the Second Reading.

No, because you walked out instead.

I told the House that I was going to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not accustomed to run away from decisions that I take. I never did.

Did the Senator walk out?

The Senator had to go away on business. He did not go away because he was afraid. I am not afraid to face the position any day.

Anyway I have stated the fact. The Senator talked about breakneck speed. I think that the Senator gave an example of breakneck speed in his speech against this amendment. The Senator advocates putting this back for goodness knows how many years. This is like a person who wants a horse to win the Derby after it was over.

To start six months before the race.

All the arguments we have heard against this amendment urge delay and more delay. The ideas expressed in opposition to it show that the intention is to prevent the Irish language getting into the position that it ought to occupy. That is the whole burden and the object of these amendments. My experience of politics and of other things over a long period has been that the leaders of the people who wanted to get anything were always delayed by the Whigs. They were always told to go easy and to take one thing first, and that they would get the other after.

The Senator quoted Griffith's difficulties. His difficulties were always increased on account of the Whigs, the people who would not come in until they were whipped in, and then finally they had to come in whether they liked it or not. I think that there may be a great deal too much delay in regard to this matter. If you have a project in hands, and you delay too much about it, then people will not believe in you. If you produce a Bill and say that you are going to do nothing about it for the next fifteen or twenty years, then people will say, "They are a lot of humbugs who want to postpone this Bill to the end of God-speed." People will say that you do not mean much by your Bill. If we are serious about this Bill and feel really that its object is a worthy one, then we will take steps at once to see that it is carried out. It is because I wish to see its provisions carried out at once that I want as little delay as possible in connection with it. I believe myself that the delay in connection with this Bill is a great deal too long. We are in the habit of giving way to certain people here who always have objections to make to things that we want done. They always want to go easy, to stop things, and so on. Already we have given in a little bit to them on this Bill. Now they want to reduce the period within which the provisions of the Bill will come into operation by another five years. Senator O'Farrell talked about young people dropping their knowledge of the Irish language when they left school. That is just what we want these young people not to do. The Senator was really arguing against himself. We want to give them something to study when they leave school. We do not want it to be said to them when they leave school: "Oh, you will not require Irish any more, and you need not bother yourself about it. Drop it." The object of this Bill is to give these young people, when they leave school, something to keep them going until the time comes for them to enter the profession.

I was talking of the ordinary population. Surely they are not all going to be lawyers.

We are not talking about the ordinary population.

Cathaoirleach

Senator Colonel Moore is quite right in his deduction if he wishes to make it.

I am totally against all these delays. I do not think that anyone ever gained anything until he showed that he was resolved to get what he wanted, and stuck to it. People who are always making perpetual demands for delays are usually found at the end when the race is over.

I have been referred to as a young man, or a middle-aged man, or an old man in a hurry. This matter of haste and hurry has been stressed very considerably during the course of this debate as well as on the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not know whether any of those who made that complaint against the Bill have any real knowledge of what they are talking about. Do they know to what extent the Gaelic League, which has been in existence for a quarter of a century, has been doing the spadework in this matter of reviving the Irish language? Have they ever attended a Gaelic League conference, ceilidhe, or other social functions organised under the auspices of the Gaelic League? Four or five months ago I attended a ceilidhe held in the Town Hall, Waterford. Four or five hundred people attended. The attendance comprised old people, middle-aged people, boys and girls. There was not a word of English spoken that night at that function. A party of American friends that I had with me were amazed at that. They were surprised that conversation in the Irish language could be kept up throughout the night by the people who attended that ceilidhe. They told me that they thought that the Irish language was simply a lot of disjointed phrases like "Conus atá tu." During the night songs and recitations, as well as speeches, were given in the Irish language, and my American friends were greatly amazed at this. It simply took the breath from them. They did not know previously that the Irish language was a spoken language. They thought it was a dead language and that only a few disjointed phrases remained. They did not think it could be spoken in a connected, continuous way. Have Senators who have stood up here and complained of haste and hurry ever attended any of these Gaelic League functions during the last five, ten or twenty years?

Is not the Senator now discussing the benefits of the Irish language rather than the amendment before the House?

Cathaoirleach

Possibly he is. I think the Senator should keep closer to the amendment.

I was just mentioning that matter by way of explanation. I was referred to as a young man or a middle-aged man who was in a terrible hurry, and I think I am entitled to defend myself against a charge like that. In regard to this Bill we are asked to have a little patience. If Senators accuse those who have been engaged in an arduous work for a quarter of a century in striving to achieve an object that they believe in are wanting in patience, well, those who make that charge are entitled to do it. A Senator accused some of us of going at breakneck speed in this matter. There are other subjects than Irish in regard to which Senators who have used that phrase have not shown very considerable patience. They seem to be anxious to get along at a much quicker pace than the legislation enables them to do. This matter with regard to text-books in the schools was very properly taken up by Senator Mrs. Wyse Power as a very serious charge. In the matter of text-books, schools and individuals will have their supporters. In regard to text-books in schools, you will find enthusiasts, people with a certain type of mentality, who say: "That is not the style of text-books that should be used in the school; it should be another sort of book." That may apply to a text-book dealing with English, history, or any other subject. Some enthusiasts make a charge of that kind with regard to the Irish language. Some of them have a leaning towards a particular dialect—some may prefer Munster Irish and some Connaught Irish. When a person says a particular book should be burned, I think what I have said answers that. I am glad to have Senator O'Farrell's admission, from the experience of his visits to the schools, that the boys who are best in Irish are also the best in other subjects.

Cathaoirleach

We have had a Second Reading debate on almost every amendment. I must ask Senators to keep close to the amendment, because if we are to have a Second Reading debate on every amendment we will go on till Tibb's Eve.

As between ten years and fifteen years, I would say that Senator Jameson took it as being inevitable that if the Bill as it stands is not altered all the clever students and legal practitioners will leave the country. I say that this Bill, if adhered to in its text, will have the opposite effect, because a boy clever in other subjects will easily acquire a knowledge of the Irish language, and you will have the clever boys staying in the country and following the profession, and have the duds going to England, where they can indulge in the English language, and carry on the practice of their profession. That is what will probably happen following the passage of this measure. People who are supporting this amendment forget the twenty-five years' work of the Gaelic League, and the work that has been going on in the schools for a number of years past. Already the prospective barristers and solicitors have had the opportunity of having had a five or six years' study of the Irish language, and when they enter the profession they will have the benefit of another five years. They have not had to wait for the introduction of this Bill to learn the A.B.C. of the language, and they have another five years before they reach the professional age. If they pursue their studies and cannot qualify to reach the definition in the Bill, then the profession would be better without them.

The chances of the success of the Bill depend on the minimum amount of hardship it will inflict on individuals. I will vote for this amendment, because I believe there are a considerable number of boys in this country who, through no fault of their own, up to the age of fourteen, because they did not go to the Gaelic League classes or because their parents did not send them there, did not get the opportunity of learning the language. I doubt if they can learn it sufficiently to reach the standard of proficiency required in six or seven years. I believe that there are many who can, but that there are others who cannot do so, and that is why I will vote for the amendment.

I did not intend to speak until a member of our Party made a violent attack on the Irish language. I hope Senator O'Farrell is only speaking his personal views in the matter. He is certainly not speaking the views of the majority of our Party. His words would seem to be a gesture of despair so far as the revival of the Irish language is concerned. There will be no demand, he said, for the language in seven years' time. There is a very large section of the community —the Gaelic League—which worked for the preservation of the Irish language for the last thirty years. It is not by a vote of this House that we can render nugatory the work of that body. If we accepted this amendment we would be placing ourselves in a very strange position. The preservation of the language, I should say, depends first upon democracy. Democracy has been studying the language——

The democracy of ten years or of fifteen years.

Of twenty-five years or of thirty years. The supporters of this amendment would appear to be hoping that the Irish language, like many other things Irish, would disappear, and that the status quo that existed years before modern conditions would be again restored. It is unfortunate that that is so. Senator Douglas said there was no opportunity for the study of the language. I cannot understand why he said that when its study is compulsory in the primary and secondary schools.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that certain boys had not the opportunity of getting a knowledge of the Irish language.

I wonder who the certain boys are. Irish is compulsory in the primary and secondary schools. Those schools accept grants from the Free State, and Irish has to be taught in them. I wonder where those boys come from who did not have the opportunity of studying the Irish language? As I have said, there seems to be hope on the part of those who support the amendment that in ten or fifteen years the Irish language will be no more, as well as many other things Irish. The minimum of hardship was referred to. Is there a hardship on anybody now fifteen years of age, and who has from seven to ten years to study the language, being required to have a knowledge of it? The hardship is nil. If a person applies himself in the ordinary way to the study of the language he can acquire a proficient knowledge of it in seven years, and equally so, if he neglects it he can forget it in seven years. If he does not get the opportunity for exercising his knowledge of Irish it vanishes from his mind altogether. If this ten years' amendment is carried a boy of ten years will say: "By the time I am qualified to enter the solicitors' profession with all the influence the profession can exercise, and I am sure they will exercise it, Irish will be dead, and we shall not require a knowledge of it." If we do anything to encourage that idea we will be leaving them in a fool's paradise, in view of the fact that it is the language of the State, and it is doing an injustice to the boy to hold out the hope to him that in the course of a few years the Irish language will be dead and that he may not require to know it. Those who hold out that hope are, I believe, doing a great wrong.

In regard to the Incorporated Law Society, I understand it consists of 250 members. After all, that is a small body compared with the thousands working throughout the country. It will be impossible to make the language a success amongst the rank and file of the people if the upper elements of society turn the language down. They will be saying "Why is there one law for us and another law for another section?" That is a traditional complaint in our country—one law for the rich and another law for the poor. If a person studies for the Bar he requires to have a knowledge of Irish. Is that any greater hardship than requiring that the rank and file must know the language? You might as well wipe the Irish language completely off the Constitution if we are to accept amendments of this sort. To pass such amendments would not redound to the credit of this House. I strongly appeal to the House to throw out the amendment and not to deceive the youth of the country by passing it.

Senator Cummins referred to Senator O'Farrell's speech against the amendment as an attack on the Irish language. Senator O'Farrell gave certain facts that have not been refuted. He said that the vast majority of the teachers of the country have not a competent knowledge of Irish, in the sense the Bill demands, with the result that the great bulk of those they teach have only a smattering of the language, and that in a few years the children will lose that, for when they go home they do not speak Irish. This Bill should be preceded by a Bill establishing continuation schools in the country. I am in favour of the principle of the Bill, but I would ask those who are supporting the amendment to hasten slowly, because, as Senator O'Farrell said, speed and endurance very often do not go together. Senator Colonel Moore talked about the Derby. This is like asking a two-year-old to win the Derby. You must train it. I think it is only fair, and it would not do a bit of harm, to vote for this amendment. Seeing that a high standard of examination is set up in the Bill, it is only fair you should give them time to reach the standard.

I cannot quite understand the apprehensions of Senator O'Farrell, and one or two speakers who preceded him, about what they called undue haste. So far as I can gather, the pace they want to pursue in regard to the Irish language in this particular respect is a funeral march sufficiently slow to lose any effectiveness. I know the pace of a funeral march is one that is not very comfortable, and, to use that as a simile, and to try to measure or control the development of the language in the way in which that suggests, would be the best way of killing the language, while at the same time piling up huge expenses on the State under the pretence of fostering it. Before I come to deal with further arguments, I want to know from those supporting the amendment on what they base their allegations that undue haste in this matter is embodied in the Bill. I would like to recall the fact that the original proposal was that this Act shall not apply to any person who is only sixteen on 1st day of January, 1928. That has been altered to any person who was fifteen years of age on 1st October, 1929. That is a very reasonable concession. What is the actual consequences of the Bill as it now stands?

A boy of fifteen years on 1st October next will, with the exception of those very rare cases, and I think they will be very rare, that Senator Douglas alluded to, have already had several years' study of the Irish language. Before he qualifies he will have six years in which to develop his knowledge of the Irish language and become proficient in it. Assuming he passes the qualifying examination and becomes a barrister or solicitor, he will, as Senator Comyn points out, have four or five years in which his practice would be very slight, and in which he would be able to develop his knowledge of the language, so that under the present Bill instead of there being any unseemly or undue haste, he has already had five or six years' study of the language in the schools, and five or six years will be spent, say, between the ages of fifteen and twenty-one in acquiring a knowledge of the Irish language. There is a period there which makes it an almost grotesque provision to the Bill as it stands. I think that the arguments of those who have opposed this Bill, and their appeals for patience and delay, would have some real substance if the present proposals in the Bill were not what they are. There is no unnecessary haste involved in the present proposals of the Bill, but there is a tremendous atmosphere of unreality in these apprehensions that are voiced about going too fast and not giving people time.

This Bill suggests the pace in the development of the language, which, I think, is in accordance with the ordinary normal human requirements. I ask the House to support the Bill as it stands in reference to the age that will be required. There are occasions on which I do not agree with Senator Comyn, but the picture he drew of the effect of the amendment was not overdrawn. He pointed out that if you pass the amendment the Act would not be operative for almost twenty or twenty-five years. Let us face the reality with which we are confronted. I personally am not disposed to suggest that the motives of those who are criticising the Bill are unworthy. I have refused to take that line of argument all along. I am not suggesting anything of the kind. I say they are in error in their calculations in regard to the Bill. They do not seem to have grasped the requirements of the Bill as regards this particular section which they propose to amend, and I think a more careful examination of the section would induce a withdrawal of the amendment. At any rate, I appeal to the House not to insert this amendment in the Bill. It would not be helpful, in my opinion, and it would weaken the machinery of the Bill considerably.

I think it would have this bad effect: We all know that this Bill has aroused a very considerable amount of discussion and consideration in the country, some of it sympathetic and some of it adverse, and there is growing up, I believe, a concern that the legal profession are going to be faced with the task of acquiring a knowledge of the Irish language by the inclusion of this amendment. I am certain that those who seriously intend to pursue that profession, and who are likely to come under the operations of the Bill at present, would be taking such steps as would enable them to comply with the regulations in the Bill. I believe if you put this amendment in the Bill you would have them saying "We are safe for another five years, and we need not touch another Irish book." I ask the House not to give that encouragement to those who wish to evade the duty of acquiring a knowledge of the Irish language at an age when it is no hardship for them to do so, and when it ought to be the duty of any citizen of the State to do so.

It appears to me that the case made in favour of the amendment is: "You are going to inflict a hardship on the boys and girls now fourteen years of age, and the object of the amendment in putting it back five years is so as not to inflict any hardship." I suggest that no hardship would be inflicted on anybody coming under the provisions of the Bill, because people do not go to serve their apprenticeship to be solicitors or enter the study of the law before they are fifteen or sixteen years of age. As a general rule, when people enter into study for the legal profession they are seventeen or eighteen years of age. A solicitor's clerk may, after he has done his day's work in a solicitor's office, have to acquire his legal knowledge at night. That is the only class of person who would be hit, and I am perfectly certain from my knowledge of some of the men practising as solicitors who were originally solicitors' clerks, and who had to study at night for the purpose of passing their examination, that they would not refuse to add Irish to their other subjects. There is no sense in the proposal for postponing it for five years, for they have four years longer to remain at their studies in the secondary schools. In all those schools they are teaching Irish at present. Therefore, the case made for the amendment falls to the ground.

The case that Senator Farren has made is that no hardship is going to be inflicted on the poor man's son who may have the ambition to become a solicitor. I think the amendment is worthy of support for the very reason given to me, and stated in this House by Gaelic enthusiasts, that a competent knowledge of the Irish language so as to have free conversation and discussion, and to be able to advise clients and to be able to conduct an examination of witnesses, is difficult to attain except for a person who has grown up with the language. Anybody who has mixed with Gaelic speakers and students knows it requires a great deal of concentration to get that particular type of confidence. If a person comes to learn that language after childhood it requires a greater amount of concentration unless a person is facile in acquiring languages, and only a minority are so facile.

It seems, therefore, if we are to have regard to the opportunities of boys who leave school, the sons of workmen that are rather brighter than others and who have some opportunity of entering the profession by winning scholarships, if they have not had an early training in the language, and the opportunity also to continue the use of the language, their difficulty in attaining skill is going to be multiplied. Consequently, I support the amendment, because it means that the younger children who are now learning to speak the language in school hours, and during play hours and at home, because of the greater use of the language will be in a fairly reasonable position to compete with the boys in a more favourable position as regards a knowledge of the language. For that reason I support the amendment.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 16.

  • William Barrington.
  • Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
  • Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
  • John C. Counihan.
  • The Countess of Desart.
  • James G. Douglas.
  • Michael Fanning.
  • Sir John Purser Griffith.
  • Henry S. Guinness.
  • P.J. Hooper.
  • Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Sir John Keane.
  • Thomas Linehan.
  • The McGillicuddy of the Reeks.
  • John MacLoughlin.
  • James Moran.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • John T. O'Farrell.

Níl

  • Caitlín Bean Ui Chléirigh.
  • Michael Comyn, K.C.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • William Cummins.
  • J.C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Thomas Farren.
  • Cornelius Kennedy.
  • Patrick W. Kenny.
  • Seán E. MacEllin.
  • Seán Milroy.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • M.F. O'Hanlon.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
  • Séumas Robinson.
Amendment declared carried.

Cathaoirleach

I think your amendment, Senator O'Connor, Section 2, "To delete in line 23 the word ‘fifteen' and to substitute therefor the word ‘twelve,'" goes by the board, as that line has been eliminated.

I submit that ten as against fifteen has been accepted and I thought the House would now perhaps have the option of making it twelve against fifteen.

Cathaoirleach

I would like to point out that the word "fifteen" is no longer in the Bill so that I am afraid that I must rule out the amendment.

Question—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
No person shall be admitted by the Chief Justice to practise as a barrister-at-law in the Courts of Saorstát Eireann unless before such person is so admitted he satisfies the Chief Justice, by such evidence as the Chief Justice shall prescribe, that he possesses a competent knowledge of the Irish language. Provided always that nothing in this Section contained shall prevent the Chief Justice from admitting to practise as a barrister-at-law in the Courts of Saorstát Eireann any member of any other Bar who has practised for not less than three years and who has been admitted to the degree of barrister-at-law by the Benchers of the Honourable Society of King's Inns, Dublin, pursuant to a reciprocal arrangement whereby members of the Bar of Saorstát Eireann may be admitted to practise at such other Bar.

I move:—

Section 3. After the word "of" in line 32 to insert the words "three years standing at" and to delete in lines 32-33 the words "who has practised for not less than three years and."

The object of this amendment is to facilitate barristers and solicitors who wish to change from one country to another—from Ireland to England, or from Ireland to one of the colonies and vice versa. In order to facilitate that, the Bars of the various countries have entered into an arrangement between themselves. The provision is that a barrister of three years' standing at the Irish Bar can, on passing certain tests, become a practising barrister at the English Bar. We give the same facilities to young barristers in England who wish to practise in Ireland, but the words of the rule are “three years' standing.”

My friend is quite right about this. I have looked into it, and the words that are used in our regulations and in the regulations of the English Inns of Court are "three years' standing," and not "practising barrister." Therefore I support the amendment.

I am accepting the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
SECTION 4 (1).
The subjects prescribed by regulations made by the Incorporated Law Society under Section 8 of the Solicitors (Ireland) Act, 1898, as amended by the Solicitors (Ireland) Act, 1898 (Amendment) Act, 1923 (No. 10 of 1923), for every examination held by them under the said Section 8 as so amended shall include the Irish language as a compulsory subject, and the Incorporated Law Society may by such regulations prescribe the mode of conducting every such examination in the subject of the Irish language.

There are three amendments on the Order Paper in my name to Section 4, and two amendments to Section 5, and they all hang together. The first one is:

Section 4, sub-section (1). To delete in line 41 the word "every" and to substitute therefor the words "the preliminary."

They will all depend on the view that the House takes of my reasons for this amendment. The object of all the amendments is to prevent a possible very serious hardship. Sections 4 and 5 relate to the solicitor profession only, and they prescribe that at every one of the three professional examinations a solicitor has to pass, Irish shall be a compulsory subject. So that a student in becoming an apprentice has not only to pass an entrance examination in Irish, but has to pass two other examinations, an intermediate examination and a final. Even that does not ensure that he will be allowed to practise. Under Section 5 he has still got to cross the Rubicon of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice is not obliged to receive the certificate that a student has got from the Incorporated Law Society. He can still test the knowledge of the apprentice and refuse to admit him to the profession. That is the effect of the two sections as they stand at present. The hardship, and really it is a very serious hardship, is this: A young fellow becomes an apprentice. He spends four or five years in a solicitor's office. His father had paid a fairly substantial premium on his admission to the office, and has to support him for the four or five years of his apprenticeship. It may happen that at the end of that time, although he is perfectly equipped as far as his knowledge of the law is concerned, he will not be able to pass the final test of a competent knowledge of the Irish language. Some people are not good at languages, others are, and there will be cases in which, no matter how well equipped a young apprentice is in law, he will not be able to pass the final examination in Irish. Now, that will be a real hardship, because he will have spent four or five of the most important years of his life in his apprenticeship; he will have spent a great deal of his father's money, and in the end he may be sent back and refused admission to the profession, and the worst of it is that he is not then in a position to join another profession. For that reason, the important thing is that the test of a competent knowledge of Irish should come at the beginning of his career and not the end. The effect of my amendment is this: it puts the test in accordance with Senator Milroy's amendment at the preliminary examination, and then he is done with it. Once he passes that test he will have his years of apprenticeship before him, and he will be certain, if he can qualify in his legal studies, that he will be able to join the profession. The first amendment simply deals with sub-section 1. It proposes to knock out the word "every" in line 41 and to substitute "the preliminary." All the others are consequential, and I formally move the first one.

Cathaoirleach

Is there not an examination for apprenticeship first?

That is provided for by sub-section (3) of Section 4 as it stands. The Chief Justice, under the Solicitors Act, has the right to excuse certain persons, solicitors' clerks and others, from the preliminary examination, and also persons who have passed a University entrance examination, and sub-section (3) of Section 4 provides that these persons must, notwithstanding that exemption, still pass an examination in Irish.

This series of amendments is of precisely the same nature as the first amendment moved by Senator Brown, wherein he wishes that the matriculation standard of Irish should be the standard. I submit that as far as the title of the Bill goes, to secure that future members of the legal profession shall have a competent knowledge of Irish, the amendments are not in keeping with the spirit of the Bill. What would any of us think if Senator Brown suggested that the final test of competency in law should be the preliminary examination? No doubt some people have a greater facility for acquiring a knowledge of languages than others. Some people have a greater facility for acquiring a knowledge of law than others, and if we are urged to legislate with a view to the peculiarity, idiosyncrasy or the shortcomings of the individual, it would be so much worse for the legal profession. To suggest merely that competency to examine witnesses, to advise clients, and to follow proceedings in the Irish language should be put in in the preliminary examination, is, I submit, quite in accordance with the view of Senator Brown, when he voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. I cannot divorce my mind from the view that Senator Brown would prefer to have this Bill thrown out, root and branch, and that these amendments were largely framed to nullify the intentions of the promoters of the Bill. It would be far more fitting for this House to reject the Bill root and branch than to embody any such amendments as these, unless, perchance, if these amendments go through, that any further test of a competent knowledge of Irish might be inflicted— that is the word would be used—on the candidate. There is a further amendment that the Chief Justice should accept a certificate of the Incorporated Law Society. We know from the activities of the Incorporated Law Society how well disposed that body is to secure the real purpose of this Bill. I hope the House, if it passes this amendment, will try to do something to tear up the Bill, and let it go back to the other House.

I agree with Senator Dowdall that the effect of this amendment would be to destroy the Bill. I apprehend that we are dealing at present only with one of these amendments, but I have no hesitation in saying that whatever his object might have been—and I take Senator Brown's word that he wishes to make the Bill effective as a working measure—the effect of his amendment would be to destroy the Bill. For that reason I ask the Seanad not to accept it. My attitude on the amendments is this: I think we ought to do our best to improve the Bill, that we ought not to insist on amendments which are certain to be rejected in the other House. I think that we ought loyally to accept the principle of the Bill, and if we loyally accept the principle of the Bill we cannot pass this amendment. A great deal has been said in the course of this debate in reference to people who have acquired a knowledge of Irish, and who lose it again in three, four or five years. You have heard that there are many people opposed in principle to the Irish language. There are many young men who will become solicitors and barristers who are at present adverse to the Irish language. In the future they will not be adverse to it. The desire to learn the Irish language is growing. At present that desire is not universal. Any student who is opposed to learning the Irish language and who is compelled to have a competent knowledge of it for his preliminary examination will never open a book in Irish again in the course of his studies, and when the five years of his apprenticeship have elapsed and he comes to his final examination, any knowledge of Irish which he possessed at his preliminary examination will be considerably blurred, and he will not be able to fulfil the requirements of the amended sub-section, that is "efficiently to receive instructions, to advise clients, to examine witnesses, and to follow proceedings in the Irish language." Therefore, I say that the result of accepting this amendment would be clearly and absolutely destructive of the Bill, and for that reason I ask the House not to accept it. It would be purely a destructive proceeding on the part of this House, which has already accepted the principle of this Bill. I do not see how it could possibly be accepted in the other House as a genuine amendment tending to improve the Bill.

I do not agree with Senator Comyn that if this were inserted it would be destructive. I rather think it would be too severe to have the complete standard at the preliminary examination. I hope that Senator Brown will not press any of these amendments at this stage, and until more consideration has been given to them. At the same time I think there is an important matter underlying these amendments which could be met by consultation. As the Bill stands, a man who wishes to be a solicitor will have to pass certain examinations set by the Incorporated Law Society. At each of these Irish of a standard which will be decided by the Society —no standard is provided in Section 4—will be a compulsory subject. When he has passed the final of these examinations at which Irish will be a compulsory subject, he may or he may not find that accepted by the Chief Justice. I think that that might mean a certain amount of hardship. You could, of course, provide that the Chief Justice must accept the final examination of the Incorporated Law Society, but certain Senators do not trust the Incorporated Law Society, and think that such a provision as that would not carry out the intentions of the Bill. But that is not insuperable; a way could be found by the appointment of an examiner in Irish whom the Chief Justice could approve of and trust. In that case you would get the standard set by the examiner.

It would be set by the definition.

Yes, a standard set by the definition in the Bill and an examination set by an examiner whom they would appoint, subject only to the approval of the Chief Justice. The student would then know that his final in Irish would be in accordance with the standard of this Bill. That would be a very great improvement on the Bill as it stands. But I do not think that all these amendments exactly in the form in which they are now, particularly in view of the earlier decision, could be supported, and I hope that the matter will be considered on the Report Stage.

As far as I am concerned I think if this amendment were accepted the Bill might as well be torn up altogether. There is a certain section in the Seanad who have always opposed the Irish language, who have always disliked it, who have set themselves up to break this Bill. I rather hope that the whole Bill will be rejected and that a very much stronger and more forcible Bill will be passed through the Dáil as soon as possible so that we will have an end to all this business.

It seems to me that there is a tendency to get a little over-heated on this matter. So far as I can understand, these amendments were drafted and tabled by Senator Brown at the same time as he tabled his amendment to Section 1, and had his suggestion with regard to the definition been carried I do not think that the amendments we are now discussing would have been in any way destructive. They would be destructive to the purpose of the Bill as it now stands but not to the purpose of the Bill as it would have been amended by the acceptance of Senator Brown's amendment. I believe that it would be quite feasible at a preliminary examination for one to pass the standard that was suggested by Senator Brown's definition. But that definition having been withdrawn, and as we have arrived at another definition which imposes a standard which some people consider very high, I think it would be asking more from students than it is physically or mentally possible for them to achieve that they should acquire that standard of competency in the language which is required by the new definition and should pass in that standard at the preliminary examination. Whatever the virtues of the Bill may be as regards the future career of a solicitor or a barrister, I believe that an amendment such as Senator Brown has proposed would be destructive of any possibility of a student pursuing his career. It would make it an impossible thing for any ordinary human being to pass even the preliminary examination for entry into either branch of the profession. I think that Senator Brown must see that now. I think that he is unlikely to press this amendment, and if that were the case I believe that the same thing would hold good for the subsequent amendments. Of course, there is another point raised in his last amendment——

Cathaoirleach

Would you not wait for that, Senator?

Yes, but I hardly imagine that these are going to be pressed.

All the five are really the same.

All the amendments hang upon the one point.

Cathaoirleach

I think the deletion of Section 5 is not the same.

No, that is not the same, but you can take it that I will ask the House to allow me to withdraw that.

I think that the decision of the House on one of these amendments should settle all of them. I would ask Senator Brown not to press them. The fact which gave them any semblance of reality has been disposed of since he has withdrawn his amendment suggesting a new definition. I think that any semblance of justification for them was contingent upon the acceptance of that definition. As he has withdrawn that, I think he might very well do the same with these other three amendments.

I am not prepared to withdraw these amendments finally, but I am prepared to do this:—I quite see that a further provision will have to be inserted in order that the standard at the preliminary examination in Irish should be such as would satisfy the definition which has been put into the Bill by Senator Milroy's amendment, that is, that they should be able to do what that definition says they must do— to receive instructions and to advise their clients——

Cathaoirleach

At the preliminary examination?

Is it suggested that that is possible?

I do suggest it.

Then what is the objection to the standard?

I suggest that it is possible that the knowledge of Irish which would enable them afterwards to do that can be acquired and tested at the preliminary examination. If this Bill is to succeed—and with the additional five years' postponement of its operation I see no reason why it should not succeed— youths will be competent Irish speakers in ten, fifteen or twenty years, and then there will be no trouble whatever in establishing their competency at the preliminary examination when they become apprentices. But you have got to be satisfied that the standard of competent knowledge is to be that of a fluent Irish speaker, and there is nothing to prevent an apprentice of seventeen or eighteen years of age being so fluent an Irish speaker as to be able when he enters the profession to do what is laid down in Senator Milroy's amendment. What I am prepared to do is to withdraw these amendments and to bring in similar amendments on the Report Stage, with an additional amendment, because I see that there must be an alteration with regard to the person by whom the test must be applied. I am prepared, therefore, to withdraw these amendments and to bring them up again in an improved form, with an additional amendment, on the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 4, 5 and 6 and the Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported to the House.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday, June 6.
Top
Share