Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Jun 1929

Vol. 12 No. 14

Public Business. - Legal Practitioners (Qualification) Bill, 1928—Report Stage.

Cathaoirleach

Certain Senators are interested in this Bill, and as they have certain meetings which they wish to attend they wish it to be taken now.

Agreed.

Will the Minister be able to be present? It is very important that he should be here.

It is a Private Bill. The Minister is not concerned in it.

I think it is very shabby, when the Minister for Justice was here to deal with an item on the agenda with which he is concerned, that he should be unceremoniously told to leave after making arrangements to be here. I think it is unfair to him.

I am not moving the first amendment, as I understand an arrangement has been come to by the promoters of the Bill and those opposed to it.

Cathaoirleach

The motion I will put is "That the word ‘ten' stand part of the Bill."

Senator Milroy has an amendment on the Paper:

"Section 2. To delete in line 23 the word ‘ten,' inserted in Committee, and to substitute therefor the word ‘fourteen.'"

In his absence, am I in order in moving the amendment?

Cathaoirleach

It depends upon whether you want "ten" left in the section or not.

I am in favour of "fourteen."

Cathaoirleach

If you are you object to "ten." If the House passes "ten" the other amendments go. If the House disagrees with "ten" we will take the other amendments.

On a point of order. Did we not insert "ten" on the Committee Stage? Therefore "ten" has already been inserted in the Bill as it stands.

Cathaoirleach

I am following the procedure which is followed in the Dáil. It simplifies matters very much, because if "ten" is eliminated I propose to take the amendment proposing to insert "fifteen" as the strongest amendment, and if that is defeated I will take the amendment to insert "fourteen."

I have an amendment that the age should remain fifteen.

Cathaoirleach

Then you are against "ten." That amendment will be moved if "ten" is defeated, but if "ten" wins the other amendments are defeated. I am following the procedure of the Dáil which I think is a very sound procedure. It will simplify matters. If the majority of the House agrees to "ten" obviously they disagree with "fourteen" and "fifteen."

There is an amendment in my name. "Section 2. To delete in line 23 the word ‘ten' inserted in Committee and to substitute therefor the word ‘fifteen.'" I put down that amendment because it appeared to me that the substitution of "ten" for "fifteen" was unconstitutional, and I would submit now to you and for the consideration of the Seanad, that I should have an opportunity of discussing that amendment before any question is put, or before any decision of the House is taken.

Would it be in order to move as an amendment to delete ten and to substitute therefor such and such? The reason I suggest that is that we would have a more satisfactory and a more informed decision, if before a vote is taken on "ten" the reasons were advanced why these amendments have been tabled. If such is not done you might possibly have a repetition of the voting that took place on the Committee Stage.

Cathaoirleach

I will allow you to advance reasons against "ten" now.

And in support of my own amendment. The amendment was not tabled in any contentious spirit, or simply to try to reverse the decision that was arrived at on the Committee Stage. I am very anxious to secure that when this Bill leaves the Seanad it will be a Bill on which finality will have been reached so that it will not risk the possibility of being radically altered when it returns to the Dáil. I have great apprehension that if the word "ten" remains in the section not only might the Bill be altered in that respect, and possibly an even higher age introduced than appeared in it originally, but other provisions of the Bill might be also similarly dealt with. I am anxious to avoid that. The amendment is intended to meet some of the objections that were raised to the age of "fifteen" in this House. It is also intended to avert what I fear might occur if the Bill went back to the Dáil with the word "ten" remaining in it. It is for that reason I have tabled the amendment to substitute "fourteen" for "ten." I think if that is agreed upon, speaking certainly for those who sponsored the Bill, I would accept "fourteen" in preference to "fifteen," because I think it gives reasonable accommodation between two points of view, and that it ensures that such amendments as are inserted in the Bill in this House will be received in a common-sense spirit when they go back to the other House. That is why I tabled the amendment. I hope it will be acceptable to the House, and especially to those who opposed the age "fifteen" on the Committee Stage.

I understand we are now speaking on the question whether the word "ten" be retained in the section.

Cathaoirleach

Quite right.

I very strongly urge on this House that the word "ten" should not be included. When the principle of this Bill was accepted Senator Brown stated that it would be loyally accepted by him, and I regarded his words as expressing the sentiment of the House.

On a point of explanation. What I said was this: that having been beaten on the Second Reading of the Bill, and having voted against it, I then loyally accepted the decision of the House, and that my efforts in Committee by amendment would be towards making the Bill as workable as possible.

That is, according to my recollection, exactly what Senator Brown said on the last occasion. I now propose to deal with the statement, which I accepted absolutely as conveying what was in the mind of Senator Brown, and what he was prepared to carry out as far as he could. Was that amendment reducing the age from fifteen to ten loyally accepting the principle of the Bill? I submit that it was not. I go further and submit to this House that it is trifling with the Bill, and that it is unconstitutional. If you have the word "ten" retained, the meaning is that this Bill shall not come into operation for six or seven years, that is to say, that it shall not be in operation during the present Parliament. I say to Senator Brown and all Senators: "Legislate for yourselves." I think the fair attitude to adopt towards this Bill, once its principles were accepted, is to make it as good a Bill as possible for immediate operation. In the course of the debate one Senator observed that there was an advantage in postponing the operation of the Bill for five or six years, because, he said, by that time the enthusiasm for Irish might have abated, and there might be an opportunity for repealing it. That was the reason that was given. It reminded me of a story that I read many years ago of a mad king of Persia who wanted to teach his ass the Persian language. He sent a proclamation throughout his kingdom calling for a professor to teach the ass. Every professor refused to do so; but one, who was more ingenious than the others, came forward and said he would teach the ass the Persian language in seven years. A friend said to him: "I thought you were a sensible man. What do you mean by undertaking to teach an ass the Persian language within seven years? The king will remain mad for seven years and at the end of that time you will surely be beheaded.""Ah," said the professor, "I have considered the matter much more carefully than that. Seven years is a long time. No doubt the king will remain mad as long as he lives, but at the end of the seven years either the king, the ass, or I will be dead." That is the spirit in which some amendments are proposed.

Now, the Senators who introduced the amendment expect that at the end of five or six years the enthusiasm for the Irish language will have abated, and they certainly think that the Seanad will have come to an end, as at present constituted. I think that is not a fair way of approaching the discussion of a measure the principle of which has been accepted —to put in an amendment the effect of which will be that the Bill is not to come into operation in our time. I think it is treating those who are behind this Bill—the Gaelic League and people of Irish sentiment and outlook—as if they were like the mad Persian king, that they will either change their minds or die out within the next seven years, and I for one hope the House will not accept this trifling with the measure. Those of us who were in favour of the introduction of the Irish language into the profession stated our grounds fully and frankly. We want to make this ancient Irish tongue a cultured tongue. I may not be as enthusiastic as others. When Senator Brown made his reasonable statement I went as far as I could, in the course of the debate in Committee, to meet him. I may have incurred a certain amount of censure for what I did, but I was prepared to take risks in order to meet reasonable men of all parties. That being so, I think we ought to be met in a reasonable and statesmanlike spirit, and that if legislation comes before us, it ought to be legislation dealing with the present time and not with the next generation, and not with matters that will come under the purview of the next Parliament. There is another reason, and I think it is a conclusive reason, why the House should not accept the word "ten." Senator Brown has an amendment on the Paper which I am sure the House will accept, providing that there are to be two examinations each year, a preliminary examination and a final examination.

An examination before apprenticeship and an examination in the last year.

If I may say so, I think it is very reasonable that for every student there are to be two examinations, one for apprenticeship and the other for the final.

For solicitors' apprentices.

Yes. I think that involves the holding of two examinations in each year.

I do not know.

That is a matter for the examiners. You see how reasonable Senator Brown is. The first examination will be a minor one, not requiring any great knowledge of the Irish language to pass. There is no great mystery about these professional examinations. When I was going up for my preliminary examinations there was one language which it was necessary for me to show some proficiency in, and I acquired that proficiency in less than three months. Any law student or solicitor's apprentice can acquire the necessary knowledge of Irish to satisfy the preliminary examination in two or three months.

Things are more strenuous now.

Senator Johnson thinks things are more strenuous now. I think some of the older scholars were as good as the new scholars, and Senator Johnson himself is not such a chicken. I think Senator Brown's amendment providing for two examinations is very reasonable, and admits of the raising of the age from ten to fourteen or fifteen, as the case may be. He has guarded himself; he has done this thing very well, and he has almost secured agreement. I say there is no hardship whatever in requiring that a student next October or next October twelve months shall pass the preliminary examination in Irish. For that reason, I urge upon the House, with all the vigour at my command, not to accept the word "ten." We have a great responsibility. We are supposed to revise legislation. We are supposed to be an assembly which in a crisis will hold the country in rein. We must make a reputation for ourselves, and we cannot make our reputation by humbug. Unless we adopt a reasonable course and show that we are willing to fall in with the wishes of the other House in a reasonable way, when the time of crisis comes, we will not be able to stand against the other House.

I believe that the other House will not accept this amendment. I have no knowledge of what the other House will do, but Senator Milroy says the other House will not accept the amendment. I believe they will not accept it and if they are men they will not accept it. The Minister said he will not accept it. The Gaelic League and all the others who are behind the Irish movement will not accept it. They are not madmen; they are sane men. If the amendment is accepted you will get into a struggle with a representative body upon a question on which you will undoubtedly be in the wrong. I have spoken with a little warmth on this question and the reason I did so is that I did not expect, after what Senator Brown stated—that he would loyally accept the principle of this Bill—that this amendment destroying the Bill, so far as it relates to the present time, would be pressed.

I think I should explain my attitude on this question of "ten" and "fifteen." I did loyally accept the principle of the Bill, once we were beaten on the Second Reading, and there is nothing further from my intention than to trifle with this House. My reason for preferring "ten" to "fifteen" or "fourteen" is this: I want to make this Bill a workable Bill, and in my opinion if you insert "fifteen" instead of "ten" you will not make it a workable Bill. My reason for saying that is this: In the present state of development of the Irish language, I do not believe that it will be so generally known, or so generally acquired, that boys or girls who will not be more than fifteen years of age on the 1st October next will know Irish sufficiently well to qualify, within the meaning of this Bill. It is purely for the purpose of making it a workable Bill that I voted and intend to vote for "ten" as against "fifteen." As to the constitutional objection which Senator Comyn has raised, that this is practically preventing the Bill from operating as soon as it passes, every Bill which goes through the Houses receives the assent of the Governor-General and operates from the date it passes. It does not necessarily operate on certain persons or in certain events or for certain purposes as soon as it receives the Governor-General's assent. We all know that in a number of Acts of Parliament a particular appointed day has to be fixed. My friend Senator Comyn knows that in the Land Act of 1923, passed six years ago, there are appointed days to be fixed, and that the most important of them have not been fixed yet. So that in that way the Act has not yet come into operation, but the Act is in operation immediately the Governor-General gives it his assent.

I imagine that the promoters of this Bill ought to be satisfied by the way in which it has been received in this House. They will get their Bill, with a few reasonable amendments. I think this House has gone as far as it could reasonably go, or as far as the country expects it to go, by fixing the age limit at ten years. Senator Milroy and some of his friends spoke volumes at the recent by-election, and spoke very effectively, but I never read one single reference in their speeches to this question of compulsory Irish. That was because they know that the majority of the country is not so enthusiastic about it as they would lead this House to believe. We have fixed the age at ten years for the good of the Irish language. We are convinced that that will do more good than if fifteen years had been inserted, because with ten years every section of the House will accept the Bill, and it will be an agreed measure.

It will not pass.

I think there is a good deal to be said for the change that was made. There was a full and free discussion of it in Committee; everything that could be said for and against it was said, and the majority of the House agreed that ten years was the proper age. I appeal to the House to stick to ten years, and not to stultify itself now by changing what was agreed to in Committee. The promoters of the Bill hope to stampede those Senators who voted for that amendment. They hope by their propaganda in the Press to do so by describing every Senator with any independent views as a West Briton, a shoneen and an anti-Irishman. I deny that that is so, and I appeal to the House to stick to their decision and not to be intimidated by the threats which the promoters are hurling at those independent Senators who passed that amendment.

I cannot accept Senator Counihan's suggestion that all sections of the House gave this Bill a welcome and were prepared to work it. We must face up to the facts, and the facts are that if you continue this proposal in the Bill you will kill the Bill. When will those students who must have a knowledge of Irish have to pass an examination if you insist on the ten years?

In six years' time.

In ten years' time.

No, in six years.

At what age will they come up for the preliminary examination?

At sixteen.

Cathaoirleach

Very few, I think.

There will be very few at that age. How many of them will there be? I am afraid that, like myself, Senator Counihan does not know much about the law, but I have sufficient knowledge of it to know that very few students enter on their course at sixteen years of age. Senators should not suggest that they are in favour of the Bill when they are trying to kill it. They should be straightforward. If this House has any serious intention with regard to this Bill, it will accept fourteen years of age. That is more than a fair compromise, because it will mean that in six years' time students who are now fourteen years of age will have to pass an entrance examination in Irish. Surely it is not too much to expect that, with the facilities that are being afforded in all the schools to-day, young men and women of twenty years of age should have a sufficient knowledge of Irish to pass the preliminary or entrance examination.

Senator Counihan talked about the friendly reception we gave this Bill. Let us face up to all the facts, and, above all things, let us be honest. If we do not want this Bill let us say so and let us kill it; but let us not pretend to be friendly towards it when in our hearts we intend to kill it. I am perfectly satisfied that this ten years will kill the Bill, because scarcely a present-day student will have to pass a test in Irish for his preliminary examination or for his final, five years after, so that there is no use in humbugging about the matter. If we are to deal seriously with it let us accept a reasonable age. I believe that fourteen years is a reasonable age. I go so far as to say that every boy and girl of fourteen years of age who is at school at present and who will be attending school for the next four or five years will have ample opportunity, if he or she has any intelligence at all, to obtain a sufficient knowledge of Irish to pass the preliminary examination. When they are students it is not too much to expect them to continue to learn Irish, just as they learn foreign languages. I did not hear any protests about the time wasted by people learning Latin or Greek, and all those other things.

They are not compulsory.

But there seems to be a dead set to see that boys and girls should not have a knowledge of the language of their own country. I appeal to the House, if it is in earnest about this Bill, not to be hypocritical, not to be pretending that it is in favour of the Bill while wishing to kill it, or to prevent its practical operation.

As one who originally supported the amendment in question, I would like to say a few words. I expressed my reasons for supporting it quite fully on the Committee Stage and I have not got anything to add to them, particularly because, as far as I can see, not one single new reason has been produced by Senator Milroy or by Senator Comyn as to why we should alter the decision to which we came a fortnight ago. If new reasons were brought forward on the Report Stage, I agree that we should reconsider the amendment, but not one single new reason has been adduced for us to do so.

There is one important point to which I would like to refer, and that is that a Senator who supported a return to the age of fourteen or fifteen warned the House of what would happen if we insisted on our opinion. I think that that is an important point. I think that the House should consider it in reference to its dignity as a legislative body. This House was appointed as a criticising body, to review legislation which had been initiated in the Dáil, and which it returns to the Dáil, sometimes with amendments made to it; and I think it is wrong, not only to this House but to the Dáil, which originated the legislation, to say that Senators should not express their opinions; that they should try to make a compromise, as two Senators suggested, in order to save their faces when the Bill goes back. I certainly think that the age of ten should remain in the Bill.

It must be remembered that the amendment in question was put to a vote at the end of the day when the attendance was very bad, and that it may be quite different to-day, that we may have a majority instead of a minority as on the last time, when there was a snap division, so to speak. I will reiterate what others have said—that this will be the death of the Bill. I feel quite confident, whatever they may say, that they have done it intentionally, that those who voted for the age of ten, if they could, would deliberately strangle the whole Bill. I am backed up in that opinion by the knowledge of what certain people are saying outside. A certain band of people outside within the last few days have been declaring against Irish as a language, and doing everything they can to stop it. They have been declaring their religious principles to be involved in this matter. I think it is very wrong for any sect or religious body to make an attack on what is being done by the majority of the people. I think that is very foolish from their own point of view, more particularly as it will lead to no good. During my lifetime I have been trying to smooth over these difficulties as best I could, but I am sorry to say, they continue.

However, putting these very discreditable subjects aside, I cannot understand how any person who has been educated can consider that one cannot learn a language within five, six, seven or eight years. Boys who are fifteen at present have already been learning the Irish language for two or three years, and perhaps for more. They will not be asked to pass an examination for another five years or so. Does anybody say that if they wish to do so they would not be able to learn the language in that time? In many countries, several languages are spoken. I did not hear anybody objecting to Welsh being spoken in Wales.

It is not compulsory.

It is practically compulsory, because everybody has to learn it. Latin is compulsory in practically every school in Ireland at present. Why is it compulsory? It was compulsory in my school. People who say that they are against Irish because it is compulsory are talking nonsense. We know perpectly well that the only compulsory thing they are against is Irish, because they do not want Irish spoken; they would prefer it to be dead and buried long ago. Many people did their best for hundreds of years to kill and to bury that language.

By compulsion.

Now that we are trying to revive it, the same types of people are against it in a left-handed way—going around corners. These things should not be tolerated, and I think it is extremely unwise that they should be put forward here. We must recognise that the other House passed this Bill practically unanimously. Both the great Parties in the other House agreed to it. We are standing up, not against the small matter of voting on one side or the other, but in the face of the whole Dáil. It seems to me a very dangerous situation. As I understand it, nobody can become a solicitor until he is twenty-one years of age. If the age of fifteen were agreed upon, there would be six years in which to learn the language before he could become a solicitor.

Have they six years before the first examination in Irish?

They could do that after three months.

The preliminary examination would be held in less than the six years, but the final examination would not. But we may take it that for several years hence they will not be examined. I have been in countries where the natives —black people, who got no education—spoke three or four languages. In Belgium everybody speaks two languages, and it is compulsory for the people there to learn two languages. It is compulsory in other countries also. In Canada, everything is published in two languages. It is practically compulsory in Quebec to learn English, because a great deal of work there is conducted through the medium of English. What is being done in the case of this Bill is a clear attempt to do something in a sinister or left-handed way rather than by going straight for it. What will happen. I suppose, will be that when this amendment goes back to the Dáil it will be rejected, the Bill will be sent up here again, and then these people will have to ask themselves what will they do. If the worst comes to the worst the whole Bill will be held up for eighteen months and then passed over their heads.

On this day fortnight I had an amendment down for "twelve" instead of "ten," but it was not taken because the amendment in favour of "ten" was passed. An amendment in favour of fourteen years has now been put down, and all this argument has arisen, which I deplore. I regret that I cannot speak Irish myself. I strove to learn it in Galway when I was young but my father told me not to continue because it would never be a commercial language, but I regret that I did not continue. As this matter stands at present, and as it appears that there is a possibility of some difference of opinion between the two Houses, I would suggest that it should be twelve years instead of ten, as one of our chief characteristics in the cattle trade is to divide the difference. My suggestion would be a fair divide. I put it forward for peace and quietness and in order to have agreement between the two Houses.

Cathaoirleach

I am afraid that we cannot do that. Later, we may consider amendments for fourteen years or fifteen years. What we are now discussing is whether ten is desirable or not, and that is what the House will vote on.

Senator Moore and one or two other speakers suggested that there was something left-handed and dishonourable about certain people expressing their opinions frankly in regard to the development of the Irish language.

As a sectarian question.

It seems to me that that will not help this House to a decision on the question which we have now got to decide. There are some people who do not wish to see the Irish language grow and expand. They are entitled to their opinion, and they are entitled to say so honestly. There are others who do want to see it develop and who believe that it can best be done by means of legislation and by means of compulsion. That is an honest opinion, and they are entitled to express it and to carry it into effect if they can. There are others, whose views I share, who do want to see the language develop, and who have always wished to see the language develop, and who still hope to see it spread, but who are doubtful about the wisdom of hasty methods, of coercion by means of legislation. I suggest that all these opinions are perfectly honest and perfectly proper opinions to be expressed, and that, no matter what anyone may say, they have nothing whatever to do with any religious belief, or with any political belief either. We are not now concerned, I respectfully suggest, in considering whether Irish should be compulsory for members of the legal profession. That was decided and accepted on the Second Stage. We are considering simply the question as to what date it shall come into effect for boys or for girls, as the case may be.

Surely there is room for honest difference of opinion as to whether it is wise to bring that into effect quickly by making the age fifteen or fourteen, as the case may be, or to bring it about slowly by making the age ten. On the last occasion I gave my reasons for voting for ten, and they were these: I believe that there are a number of boys, through no fault of their own—through the fault of their parents, if you like—who have not up to this stage learnt any Irish. By bringing the Bill into effect immediately, it would somewhat penalise them and it might have a tendency to tempt them to go elsewhere. I do not want that to happen. I believe that the effect desired by the promoters of the Bill would be gained by leaving the age at ten and by making it clear, as the Bill does, that, as far as the future is concerned, lawyers will have to know Irish. Some people here seem to think that, just because it does not become compulsory in effect on the red hot moment, nobody will start to learn it, or prepare to learn it, unless it immediately becomes compulsory. If that were really true, then I think the study of the Irish language would not be achieved by any Act that we might pass, but I do not believe it is true. This is simply a matter of the age which, in effect, means the date that this will come into operation, as far as the learning of Irish is concerned. I do not think that what the other House may do has anything whatever to do with our desire to get a decision here at this stage. If we believe that ten is the best age, then we should say so. That is what we are here for. If we do not believe it, then we should equally frankly say so by a vote. A time may come, if certain things which are prophesied here happen in the other House, when we may have to consider whether it is wise or not to hold up the Bill, if there is a majority. I cannot see any reason why the two questions should be mixed. This House should give its honest opinion on the matter before it in the first instance, and then send it on to the Dáil, whatever the result may be. If there is a difference of opinion, then there are ways out of that, but that does not often arise.

Discussions on subjects such as the matter of this amendment are almost invariably monopolised by two sets of extremists. There are those who, on principle, object to the revival of the Irish language in any shape or form. On the other hand, there are those who profess to believe that the economic, social and intellectual future of Ireland depends upon the restoration of the Irish language as the vernacular in the everyday life of the people. In between those two sets of extremists there is the great body of ordinary people. They object, and very rightly object, to be crushed between the upper and the nether millstone of these two sets of fanatics. I hope that I represent the ordinary average citizen whose composition is usually made up of a very good admixture of common sense, free from the fanaticism which enters into the composition of superior beings, particularly linguistic superior beings.

The Senator is not a bad hand himself at it.

The Senator is a good judge. The Senator gave us his definition of the manner in which this House might make its reputation—by complying with the wishes of the other House in all reasonable matters. I hope that we aspire to something more responsible than that—of complying with the wishes of the other House in all reasonable matters. If we cannot make our reputation by some more lofty method than that, and on some more business-like basic principle, then I am afraid that we are only going to make for ourselves a rather transient and inglorious reputation. The restoration of the Irish language, from a purely sentimental point of view, is a very desirable aspiration, and those who object to it on intellectual grounds are, in my humble opinion, in an indefensible position. But, on the other hand, those who contend that great economic importance attaches to its restoration, people like the Minister for Finance for instance, are in an absurd position. Fanaticism in the realm of intellect is, as a rule——

Are we really discussing the abstract question of whether or not the Irish language should be revived or the amendment before the House?

Cathaoirleach

The Senator is doing that.

The Senator is giving a pen-picture of his colleagues.

I am sorry if I have put my finger on some sore spots, but I am prepared to take my medicine when it comes along. I suggest that fanaticism in economics is going to end disastrously for the nation, and that we should proceed cautiously. Seemingly in this amendment we are narrowed down to the question whether we shall have the Irish language as the vernacular in our law courts in ten years' time or in fourteen years' time. The question involved is one of four years. Four years is a very short time in the life of a nation. Great nations and great institutions like, for instance, the Papacy, think in terms of centuries and not in terms of weeks, months or years, and the ability of any people to succeed is very largely judged by their ability to think in terms of decades rather than in terms of months or years. If the sincere promoters of this Bill believe that by postponing its coming into operation for four years longer than has been suggested in the amendment you will kill the use of the language in the courts, then we are on a terribly narrow edge, and the language is certainly in danger if there is only this question of four years. Senator O'Connor, I think, suggested the age of twelve. Of course that is only, to use a common phrase, splitting the difference. That is a procedure that is rather common in the cattle markets. Perhaps it is not an undesirable one, seeing that we live in an age when, in order to progress, you must have a certain amount of compromise. I would not be averse to voting for twelve years as against ten or fourteen years. In order to make the Bill workable, I think that we should try to arrive at a figure that would secure the maximum of unanimity. After all, when endeavouring to bring about any great reform it is a good principle, I think, that statesmen should try to placate those who are opposed to them, without, of course, giving up their principles, and give concessions that do not injure the principles that underlie their reforms, although these concessions may delay to a certain extent the coming into force of the reforms aimed at.

We hear a lot about patriotism in these debates. Some of the speeches we have heard suggest the reflection, "Patriotism, what crimes are committed in thy name!" It is very difficult really to repress a cynical smile when you hear people getting absolutely excited over this Bill and over matters of this kind who cannot speak a word of the Irish language, and who have no intention of ever learning it. It is even worse when you hear people making strident speeches who admit that they have tried to learn it and have failed. The only explanation they have given for that is that they were over 40 years of age when they started to learn the language. Some of the best things in life are learned after a person has passed the age of 40 years. It is even worse, to me at all events as a married man, when you hear a bunch of crusty old bachelors telling parents how they are to rear and educate their children. I should imagine that one of the first civic duties of a man who does not enter, and has no intention of entering, religion, and who is in a position to do so, is to take unto himself a wife, to set up a home and to rear his children, if Providence blesses him with any—children who will not only perpetuate the species, but will also be a credit to the State and a benefit to humanity generally.

Is all this in order?

Would not the Senator's observations come much better under the Censorship of Publications Bill?

I did not suggest that Senator Milroy was a bachelor, because I really do not know, but I do suggest that practically every bachelor in the House has supported the idea of making the age 14 as against 10. I suggest that as a matter of good taste the bachelor members of the House should stand aside while the question of the education of children, and what is good for the children of the future, is being decided.

The people who have children to rear and educate realise what that responsibility means. It is very easy to be patriotic at the expense of another person's children. It reminds me of the arm-chair warrior who in war-time speaks of fighting to the last drop of somebody else's blood. The bachelor flits, like the butterfly, from flower to flower, but he commits himself to no domestic responsibilities, and he is quite prepared to resort to all sorts of intellectual and other extremes because he knows that he personally is not going to be involved. The parent who has a responsibility to his children has to face the task of educating them, of finding positions for them, and equipping them for the battle of life. He is more disposed to step cautiously in these matters than the person who has no responsibilities. The same applies to the person who is a parent but has his children reared. His children will not be affected by this Bill, and the same may be said of the person whom Providence has not blessed with children. As I pointed out on a previous occasion, the boys and girls who reach the age of fourteen or fifteen years next October will be boys and girls who have been taught the language by teachers who, in the main, have only learned it hurriedly themselves and under duress. As regards a language learned under such circumstances, as is the case in many instances, it can have been learned but very imperfectly. A person who has learned the language imperfectly cannot possibly impart a knowledge of it efficiently to somebody else. At present, colleges are being set up for the training of teachers in a knowledge of the Irish language. Teachers at present entering the schools, and those who will come on later from the training colleges, will possess a far higher degree of efficiency in the matter of imparting a knowledge of the language to their pupils than those who have been teaching it in the last six or seven years.

It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the pupils who will acquire a knowledge of the language from them will have a better grasp of it than the pupils now leaving the schools. The pupils turned out by them will, in the years to come when they seek to enter commerce or the professions, I imagine, possess a reasonable degree of proficiency in the Irish language. For that reason, I suggest that it is too much to assume that in six or seven years' time there is going to be any serious demand for the use of the language in the courts. Until there is a serious demand for the use of Irish in the courts, it is running altogether too much in advance to say that those seeking to enter the legal profession must have an intimate knowledge of the language. When that demand arises, means will be found to supply it. That, I think, applies to Irish as to other things.

The only people this will penalise are the poor man's children. People who can afford to take a university course will have all the opportunities necessary to learn the language. The poor man's son has to educate himself. Recently, in the Labour movement, we had a man who, under great difficulties, studied for the Bar. He advanced himself so much that he was actually called to the Bar. If that man, in addition to all the other obstacles that he had to overcome in order to get called to the Bar, had to learn the Irish language he would certainly be placed under very great difficulties indeed—greater difficulties than he actually had to experience before being called. I heard a Senator say that he knew that the poor man's son was prepared to make all those sacrifices. I certainly have got no mandate from any poor man's son that he wishes further obstacles put in his way before he can succeed in gaining admission to the legal profession.

Cathaoirleach

The House has already accepted the principle of the Bill.

I am dealing with the amendment.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator is dealing with the teaching of Irish which is a matter outside the scope of the amendment before the House.

I am dealing with the amendment, and I submit that I am quite in order.

Cathaoirleach

I have ruled that the Senator is not.

I am dealing with the obstacles which the proposal before the House would place in the way of a man seeking admission to the legal profession. If this proposal is carried it will mean that a man seeking admission to the legal profession must possess a knowledge of Irish at a date four years earlier than I and other Senators say he should be required to have that knowledge. That is the question that is before the House, and that is the point I want to make. I do not know what the House will do with regard to this Bill. To put it mildly, it is a very inartistic method of proceeding: to reverse on Report what we do on the Committee Stage. The House, of course, is quite entitled to do that. I do suggest that any threats as to what will happen elsewhere should not weigh with this House. If we are not to pass any amendment here except amendments which are guaranteed to be put through the other House, then, I think, the sooner we shut up shop the better. We really have no place in the Oireachtas as an Assembly. Senator Moore accused us of all sorts of things, as to what the people outside were saying. I would not mind the Colonel at all in matters of this kind. He accused me, on the last occasion, of running away from the Second Reading debate. I suppose he will accuse me of running away from this. If I were to reply to that, I should say that he was a good judge of running. For two years he had experience of running before the Boers, one of whose principles was the establishment of their national language. Late converts in patriotism, as in other matters, are generally extremists.

I do not know if one should answer accusations and statements of that kind. Of course what the Senator has said is absolutely untrue from beginning to end. If the Senator knew anything about the Boers, he would know exactly the opposite.

I do not propose to say very much on this. We have listened to a very interesting, if somewhat mixed, lecture from Senator O'Farrell, on everything from fanaticism to bachelors. I think it is a mistake to suggest that there is any element of fanaticism about this question of the Irish language. I think it is a reasonable proposition to say that boys and girls who are now fourteen years of age and who contemplate entering the legal profession are not having any hardship imposed on them in being asked to acquire a knowledge of the Irish language for entrance to the profession. Senator O'Farrell mentioned that it is the children of the poor man who are going to be handicapped by this test in the Irish language. I respectfully suggest that is not so. Children attending the national schools will be better catered for in the matter of acquiring a knowledge of Irish than children attending perhaps any other class of school, for the reason that Irish is a compulsory subject in the national school, and it will be kept so. They will be better catered for than children whose parents, say, have sent them to be educated in schools outside of the country. Of course, these children can come back to Ireland and sit for the examinations prescribed for entry into the legal profession with children who have been attending schools where Irish has been a compulsory subject for years.

I suggest the advantages are with the children of the primary schools. I do not think it is unreasonable that those who are to enter the legal profession should qualify in Irish, seeing that we are fixing the age at fourteen years or fifteen years next October. There is nothing hasty or rushed about that. It is a question as to how long we are going to carry on in this country with an open or secret hostility to the very idea of Irish being spoken at all. Many of us when we were at school did not get the opportunity of learning Irish. Some of us have tried to avail of other opportunities since we left school. I can assure Senator O'Farrell that I am not speaking as a bachelor, but as the father of a large family, and I hope that none of them will sit for an examination at which Irish will not be a compulsory subject, whether for the legal or any other profession.

It seems to me that a great deal of the discussion has dealt with questions much wider than are involved in the amendment. I resent the implication that because I am in favour of "ten" consequently I am out to destroy the movement for the establishment of the Irish language. I think this is a practical question affecting, first, the education of children; and, secondly, the qualifications required for the legal profession. If the promoters of the Bill were really frank they would admit that the real purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the secondary schools will place in a strong position in their curriculum the teaching of Irish. We have to take the position of the boy or girl, as the case may be, who is now fifteen years, and who may be expected to choose the legal profession. A boy, let us assume, has gone through a primary school and is now in a secondary school. As a primary school scholar he had a certain number of lessons in Irish. I suppose that in the great majority of cases boys of fifteen this year have had lessons in Irish and have learned some Irish, but the great majority of them have no practice in the use of Irish since they left the primary schools, and the amount of proficiency they gained as primary scholars was very low.

I believe that is going to be changed, and that as the years go by there will be a much greater proficiency in the use of Irish amongst the primary school boys and girls, and they will continue that through their secondary school education. Therefore, when they come to the initial examination for the legal profession it will be a simple matter for them to pass this preliminary examination, and it will be comparatively simple for them to keep up the use of the Irish language and to pass the final examination with Irish in it. That is the situation I expect to see develop if you have a foundation of Irish in the primary schools and a continuance in the use of it. Take boys and girls of fifteen years this year. Who is going to claim that they have proficiency, even moderate proficiency, in the use of the Irish language, even across-the-table talk? There are very few. Therefore, as secondary school pupils, they have to begin with a close attention to Irish. That may be desirable, but it is much more desirable if they had a close acquaintance with it as primary scholars. If, as Senator Farren has said, it is merely a preliminary examination which anybody could pass after a few months' tuition or stewing, if I might use the word, then it means that to become proficient and to be able efficiently to receive instructions, advise clients and conduct the examination of witnesses, and follow the proceedings in the Irish language by the time of the final examination, the period prescribed for close attention to legal studies must be devoted to obtaining this proficiency. I want to see that the Irish language is not going to be treated as a subject for examination, but rather that it should be assumed as part of the normal course of education that in every primary and secondary school, and university it will be the language of common communication between boy and girl and man and man.

Therefore, I believe that the true foundation for the use of Irish in common day-to-day work should be upon the primary schools, and we should rather assume that boys and girls of ten years of age in 1929 will be used to the Irish language, and that their passage into the legal profession will be a natural and simple matter, and not requiring this particular application one assumes when you are dealing with a subject for examination. I am told, and I think it is a sound proposition, by active and very proficient and enthusiastic advocates of Irish that one of the things that is going to kill it is the treatment of it as a subject of examination. I think that is the point of view that prevails with me, that one should assume that it is going to be part of the ordinary day-to-day intercourse, and that the passing of an examination is a trivial matter.

I am strongly in favour of fifteen, but I would not object to fourteen if the majority of the House prefer that. I think it is nearly time we tackled this question in earnest. I agree with what Senator Farren has said regarding the attempt to kill Irish, or to prevent its survival. I differ very much from Senator Counihan, when he said that on this matter he speaks for the country. Week after week we see in the papers where Feiseanna are being held all over Ireland at which strong appeals are made for the revival of the language. Speaking from the educational point of view, we know that the study of Irish has not interfered with the learning of other subjects. There has been ample proof of that. Most of the county councils have established a system of scholarships, and a knowledge of Irish is necessary for those competing for those scholarships. It will be found that those who scored the highest marks in Irish in these scholarship examinations also did equally well in the other subjects. The schools and colleges where they teach through the medium of Irish have scored the highest percentage of successes in the Intermediate examinations.

I appeal to the members of the Seanad to realise their duty towards the language of their country. It is now the recognised language of the State, which is some satisfaction to people like myself who have been connected with the Gaelic League for the last thirty or forty years. We all know the efforts made by the Gaelic League for the preservation of the Irish language through the Céilidhthe and the Feiseanna, and one thing and another. We put our hands in our pockets and subscribed to keep the work going for the revival of the language. Now that we have our own Government they should see that a knowledge of the language is spread. With reference to what Senator Johnson said regarding proficiency in the use of the language, so far as this Bill is concerned it is only necessary that students should have a knowledge of this language for the preliminary examination. They are not expected to be proficient in the language. I hope the Seanad will turn down the figure ten and establish fifteen.

I wish to say a word or two in reference to what Senator Johnson has said as to one having to commence a rather intensive study of Irish, commencing at fourteen. A point missed by all the speakers is that since 1923 Irish has been taught in the elementary schools in this country, and in practically all the secondary schools, so that any prospective entrant to the legal profession will have, except it is his own fault, a reasonably adequate foundation of Irish when he reaches the age of fourteen.

I am glad a few of the speeches we have been listening to lately have dealt with the real heart of the matter, which is the children for whom we are at present making laws. In the first part of the debate certain adults were given a lecture. I think the Seanad might recognise that people who are advocating that ten is the proper age limit to be fixed in the Bill are not in the slightest doing so from any point of view except from the right point of view as regards the children, and the best way to bring this measure into force. It is nonsense to tell us that we look at this question in a particular way because we hate Irish. I say, nothing of the sort. None of us who live in Ireland to-day and who have to live among our friends should talk that sort of nonsense. It is all right to get up in this House and say that, but we know that the vast majority of the people of the country have made up their minds that the people of the Free State are going to talk Irish. Irish is to be taught, and we are not fools and are not going to put our heads up against it.

We are debating what is the right age for school children to learn sufficient Irish to be able to pass an examination. Our contention is, if you put ten, or even fifteen years, as the limit, that those who will be starting in the solicitors' profession within a year or two have to pass an examination, not, as Senator Farren thinks, in five or six years, but in two or three years at the outside, and possibly within a few months. To say that the ordinary education in the different schools in Ireland is going to give the boys a knowledge of Irish sufficient to enable them to pass an examination is nonsense. That is our belief. That is why we say imposing the fifteen is not fair. It is not good for the young people or the profession. Take the instance of a relative of my own, a boy of ten years old. He knows no Irish. He is in a school where they teach no Irish. That boy is now being sent to learn Irish in his holidays. There are a number of other young people in exactly the same position. If that boy was fourteen he would be faced with this brand new law, a new set of conditions. The country should certainly consider that it is not fair a boy of fifteen should be faced with that. I suppose many of us here can remember when we were fifteen, and what we knew then. If we were suddenly told at that time of our lives when we were about to enter a university that we would have to take up a new language, it would have been a serious handicap, and would have spoiled the chances of learning the essential subjects of whatever profession we went in for. That is why we say ten is the proper age, and not fifteen.

It is not because we want to stop the march of the Irish language, or are afraid of the reputation of the Seanad, for the Seanad is quite well able to take care of itself, and it has not the reputation of doing anything foolish. We support here what we believe to be the right principle to carry out, and that is why, so far as I am concerned, I believe ten to be the right age, and not fifteen. Fifteen would inflict hardship on a great many boys and girls and ten would not. Are we to be told that the march of the Irish language is going to depend on whether boys of fourteen, twelve, or ten take it up? Is that what the language is coming to? Cannot we look at it from the point of view of what is best for the children, and let the language and the nation take care of itself?

In some of the speeches it was suggested that it is specified that the examination has to take place in a couple of years, according to the provisions of the Bill as it stands. That is not so. The Bill as it stands provided ten, and we changed that to fifteen. The examination, according to the Bill, would be held when the final examination was being taken.

Cathaoirleach

The preliminary examination.

There is no preliminary in the Bill.

There are three examinations.

With all due respect, no. There are three amendments down regarding these examinations, but these amendments have not been passed.

As the Bill stands there are three examinations for solicitors.

In the Bill as it stands the examination is spoken of as the final examination.

No, read Section 4. There are three examinations.

Let us take the children. Everyone seems to imagine that every child at school where Irish is not taught is going to be a solicitor or a barrister. Of course that is not so. There will not be one out of a hundred of them who will be affected by the passing of this measure. Senator Douglas spoke of children ten years old who have no knowledge of Irish. Has he any knowledge that these children are all going to be legal practitioners? Senator Jameson says the same thing. He spoke of a child now ten years old. Is that child going to be a barrister?

I do not know.

Of course he is not going to be a barrister at all. There has been a good deal of exaggeration in some of the things said here. For instance, on a former occasion Senator Brown spoke of the time when Irish would be used in the courts, and he said that it would be necessary to employ skilled legal translators to translate the English version of law in cases that had been decided in English. That is wrong. When Irish is the language of the courts the people will be bi-lingual, and a case could be cited in English or Irish as the case may be, and the barristers will be qualified to do that themselves. Senator Brown spoke of the expense all that would mean to litigants, and that kind of thing. That style of argument is mere exaggeration. There is no harm being done by this measure. For the past few years the children have had a ground work in Irish, and if they are going to be barristers they have a long time before them. If they are fifteen next October they will not be barristers until they are twenty-two or twenty-three, and they have eight years before them for preparation. For that reason I think it is foolish to keep this ten years in the Bill. Why should we be legislating for people in the future? Let a new Parliament make a change if it likes. It is our duty to legislate for the people of to-day. We should adhere to the principle in the Bill.

Question—"That the word proposed to be deleted stand part"— put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 22.

  • John Bagwell.
  • Dr. Henry L. Barniville.
  • William Barrington.
  • Sir Edward Bellingham.
  • Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
  • Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
  • Alfred Byrne.
  • John C. Counihan.
  • The Countess of Desart.
  • James G. Douglas.
  • Michael Fanning.
  • Henry S. Guinness.
  • Major-General Sir William Hickie.
  • P. J. Hooper.
  • Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Sir John Keane.
  • The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • John T. O'Farrell.

Níl

  • Michael Comyn, K.C.
  • Joseph Connolly.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • William Cummins.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • Cornelius Kennedy.
  • Patrick W. Kenny.
  • Seán E. MacEllin.
  • Francis MacGuinness.
  • James MacKean.
  • Seán Milroy.
  • J.C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
  • Thomas Farren.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • Joseph O'Doherty.
  • M. F. O'Hanlon.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • Séumas Robinson.
  • Thomas Toal.
  • Richard Wilson.
Motion declared lost.

I move:—

Section 2. To delete in line 23 the word "fifteen" in lieu of the word "ten," inserted in Committee and now deleted.

I have already expressed to the House the reason why I consider the age ought to be fifteen. I do not want to weary the House by repetition of these arguments, and, therefore, I merely move the amendment.

I second.

Amendment put and division called for.

On a point of order. In the original Bill fifteen is laid down. According to an amendment in Committee it was reduced to ten. Ten has been defeated and, therefore, it seems to me we revert to the fifteen. I see no necessity for a division.

Cathaoirleach

The House will decide for itself. There is nothing in the Bill at the moment.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 20.

  • Michael Comyn, K. C.
  • Joseph Connolly.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • William Cummins.
  • J. C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
  • Thomas Farren.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • Cornelius Kennedy.
  • Patrick W. Kenny.
  • Seán E. MacEllin.
  • Francis MacGuinness.
  • James MacKean.
  • Seán Milroy.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • Joseph O'Doherty.
  • M. F. O'Hanlon.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • James J. Parkinson.
  • Séumas Robinson.
  • Thomas Toal.
  • Richard Wilson.

Níl

  • John Bagwell.
  • Dr. Henry L. Barniville.
  • William Barrington.
  • Sir Edward Bellingham.
  • Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
  • Samuel L. Brown, K. C.
  • Alfred Byrne.
  • The Countess of Desart.
  • James G. Douglas.
  • Michael Fanning.
  • Henry S. Guinness.
  • Major-General Sir William Hickie.
  • P.J. Hooper.
  • Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Sir John Keane.
  • The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
  • Sir Walter Nugent.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • John T. O'Farrell.
Amendment declared carried.

Cathaoirleach

The amendment being carried, that disposes of Senator Milroy's amendment.

Question—"That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.

I move:—

Section 4. To delete the section and to substitute therefor a new section as follows:—

"4.—(1) In addition to the examinations mentioned in Section 8 of the Solicitors (Ireland) Act, 1898, the Incorporated Law Society is hereby authorised and required to hold at least once in every year a first examination in the subject of the Irish language (in this Act referred to as a first examination in Irish) and a second examination in the subject of the Irish language (in this Act referred to as a second examination in Irish), and the provisions contained in the said Section 8 shall apply to every such examination in the subject of the Irish language in like manner as they apply to the examinations mentioned in that section save that such examinations in the subject of the Irish language shall be conducted only by examiners for the time being approved of by the Minister for Education and that every second examination in Irish shall be so prescribed and conducted as to secure that persons who pass such examination have a competent knowledge of the Irish language.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Solicitors (Ireland) Act, 1898, no person shall be capable of being bound by indentures of apprenticeship to serve as an apprentice to a solicitor unless he has obtained from the Incorporated Law Society a certificate that he has passed a first examination in Irish, and no person shall be admitted a solicitor unless he has obtained from the Incorporated Law Society a certificate that he has passed a second examination in Irish within one year before the expiration of the term of his apprenticeship or, if he is admitted without service as an apprentice, within one year before being so admitted."

This amendment is almost identical with that standing in the name of Senator Brown. I think it will be difficult to find a distinction. However, there is a slight distinction, and one particular phrase in Senator Brown's amendment is weaker. For that reason I prefer my own amendment. I want to draw attention to two phrases in the concluding phrase of the second paragraph of the amendment. "If he is admitted without service as an apprentice, within one year before being so admitted." That was intended to cover the case, as far as I understand it, of a barrister who may wish to transfer to the solicitors' profession. Since the discussion commenced this afternoon my attention was drawn to the fact that the requirements of such a person are already provided for in another section, so that these words are really unnecessary, and I suggest their deletion. I think that secures real understanding in essential matters, prescribing that there shall be two examinations, a preliminary and a final, for those intended for the profession, but that they shall be so arranged that they will not necessarily conflict with the examinations in law. Judging by the tone and wording of Senator Brown's amendment, and it being almost identical with mine, it is apparent that there is agreement on the matter with which the amendments deal. I think, therefore, that it is unnecessary to delay the House by going into any further details.

I agree with Senator Milroy that these amendments are practically identical. They have the same object in view and they carry out that object in the same way. Personally I have no choice. I am quite willing to accept the Senator's amendment, with the deletion of the words which he has mentioned. Those words were intended to meet the case of a barrister changing his profession to that of a solicitor, but the barrister, to whom this Act applies at all, will already have a competent knowledge of Irish, or otherwise he could not have become a barrister. The words are unnecessary, and they would have the unfortunate effect, if they are left in, of preventing a solicitor's apprentice, if he failed at the final examination in Irish, from having a second chance. If these words are omitted I will gladly support the amendment.

Cathaoirleach

Do you accept that suggestion, Senator Milroy?

There were references to the deletion of the words with which I was in agreement, but I would like to move an amendment to the first paragraph. The amendment says that these examinations are to be carried out by the Incorporated Law Society, and that the examiners are to be appointed by the Incorporated Law Society, but are to be approved of by the Minister for Education. At a meeting of the Incorporated Law Society held in Dublin some weeks ago reference was made to this Bill—and no attempt was made to camouflage or conceal it—and we saw how Irish was regarded by the Incorporated Law Society. I look with great suspicion on any function of the Incorporated Law Society in regard to this Bill, and I would like to propose an amendment that examinations shall be conducted only by examiners appointed by the Minister for Education.

Cathaoirleach

I am afraid I could not accept such an amendment on this stage.

This amendment comes up for the first time now. I only got it yesterday.

I am not very clear what Senator Dowdall is referring to.

My proposal is that such examinations should be conducted only by examiners appointed by the Minister for Education.

Cathaoirleach

If it was the general wish of the House to make such an alteration, I would like to accept the amendment, but as a matter of custom I do not think it would be wise to accept it in this fashion. If the House thought otherwise I would accept it.

It is not a formal amendment. It is a matter of an amount of importance, and I think, as a matter of practice and procedure, it would be unwise to accept an amendment at this stage.

Cathaoirleach

I think it would be unwise to make such a precedent. I think the Senator had better not press it.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Question—" That Section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.

I move:—

"Section 5. To delete the section."

This is a consequential amendment as the matter dealt with in Section 5 is dealt with in the second part of my other amendment.

I second.

Question put, and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Legal Practitioners (Qualification) Bill, 1928, be received for final consideration."

Before that question is put I desire to call attention to a matter of drafting that it is well that the House should be aware of. We say in 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 we refer in certain parts of the Bill to the Chief Justice. He is a person, and it would seem to me that the word "person" would require some definition.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share