Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Jun 1929

Vol. 12 No. 15

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

Question proposed—"That the Legal Practitioners (Qualification) Bill be received for final consideration and do now pass."

Sir John Keane

There are occasions on which, in my opinion, at at least, things can be said on the Final Stage of a Bill more appropriately than on the earlier stages, and this Bill is a case in point. I am painfully aware that in certain quarters I have the unfortunate habit of saying things in a somewhat provocative manner, but hoping that this Bill might have led to a large measure of conciliation and agreement I abstained from speaking as I felt on the earlier stages. But as no conciliation, and, in my opinion, no betterment of the Bill has come about, I feel that I must now say certain things which I might perhaps have better said before.

I am not concerned specially or mainly with the effect of this Bill, even upon the legal profession. I am more concerned with the indirect and more damaging effect that the measure may have upon certain classes in this country. After all, if you conceivably reduce the status all round of the legal profession by an arbitrary measure of 33 per cent., I do not suppose it matters very much either to the lawyer or the litigant. You can have as good a race, you can have as close a finish, and you can have as good a bet, if you like, between half-breeds as between thoroughbreds, and the result generally may be the same. But I do consider there is a danger which requires notice, a notice which the Bill has not yet received.

I find it hard to believe that this measure is wholly or even mainly inspired by a desire to do justice to the language. Else why has one profession, and one profession only, been selected? Why has a profession, moreover, been selected which does not come into very close and intimate intercourse with the citizens, nothing like as close and intimate intercourse as the profession of the Church or that of medicine? Presumably, it may be said that their turn will follow. I am far more concerned to feel that this measure is directed—I do not say consciously directed—against a class of citizens who mainly, not entirely, can avoid compulsory education in Irish as it is enforced in this country. The legal profession is drawn largely from a class in the community who, if they do not wish to learn the national language —and I submit they have every right to use their choice in the matter—can afford to be educated elsewhere, and can come back and be called to the Bar or can enter the solicitors' profession in the ordinary way. As one of a minority—not as one who contemplates entering the legal profession—I think it is an injustice to those who wish to enter the legal profession to be forced by this means to conform to a certain national mould. After all, we all have different views of national ideals. I do not think any man is a worse Irishman because he does not conform to a certain test which other people feel very strongly. He should be perfectly free to take whatever course he may wish in the interests of his country and of the community at large.

After all, there is the point of view, rightly or wrongly, that every citizen should be allowed to indulge in—the cosmopolitan point of view. In these days when travel is so easy, when we have wireless and world intercourse, we have the increased call of the world and a vast intellectual range of opportunity of operating, as it were, and a person should not necessarily be forced into any sort of mould, territorial or political, or into any form of thought. Let those who wish by all means do so, but those who do not wish should be free to choose otherwise.

Whether it is intended or not, I believe that this Bill will have the effect of preventing a large number of the minority class in this country from entering the legal profession— not of preventing them directly, but in the sense that they can only enter by learning the Irish language. They will not, for one reason or another, submit to this language test, and they will, therefore, have the legal profession closed to them. You may say, and some do say: "Why all this squealing? Why not take your medicine like a man; realise that conditions are changed, and not have all this fuss about it?" I assure you, sir, that the fuss I am making is not on my behalf. Many of my friends will not be in any way affected by this measure. But I do say that the country will be poorer if, by indirect methods of this kind, you exclude any section, and, I think, a considerable section of the minority, from entering an honourable profession like that of the law. They have always entered that profession in large numbers, but do not think, and do not let it be assumed, that because they have always entered that profession in large numbers that profession has always stood for ascendancy. By no means. If you search through the list of men who have done great service to Irish nationalism you will find that many of them were drawn from the Bar— names like Curran, Flood, Plunkett, the Healy brothers, O'Connell, and many others, and last, but by no means least, our present Chief Justice Kennedy. All of these men have been ornaments of the legal profession and have done great service in the cause of Irish nationality. Is it in the country's interests that, through a measure of this kind, you should instantly set up a state of affairs which will prevent—I admit of their own free will—a large number of a certain class, a class contributing very largely to the welfare of the country, from entering the legal profession, and, I am afraid, will have the effect of driving quite a number either into obscurity or into exile? That is the reason why I think this Bill is so bad, and it is for that reason that I felt it my duty to make the remarks that I have just made.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I thought that Senator Sir John Keane intended to make some harsh remarks judging by the way he started; but his comment does not call for much in the way of reply, except to state that, as far as I am concerned, and I am sure I am speaking for many others, we had no purpose in our attitude to this Bill, and were not making any attempt to exclude the class to which he belongs from taking their part, as they did in the past, in the legal profession. Men of the class to which he may be said to belong have taken their part in that profession. I am sure that they will take their part in the ranks of those who profess the calling of law in this country in the future. Many of those who belonged to Senator Sir John Keane's class have studied the Irish language; many of them have become very proficient in the Irish language; and many of them will become very proficient in the Irish language. In that respect we have no fears whatsoever. It is not our purpose to inflict any particular hardship on any class; and if I thought that this Bill was intended to inflict hardship on any class, I would be opposed to it instead of for it. I will say this much for Senator Sir John Keane, that he has stated his opinions frankly. Senator Douglas, speaking on another occasion, took to himself and to those for whom he spoke certain credit for expressing their opinions frankly. We welcome frank expression of opinion; there is no repression whatsoever in regard to the expression of any opinion. We preach and practise, in so far as we can, the policy of tolerance, and in these matters we want to go easy.

I am not going to say that because a man is an extremist on the Irish question he is a much better Irishman than those who are opposed to the study of the language. He is not necessarily, for that reason alone, a better Irishman. There are men who do not stand fundamentally for the Irish language who are better citizens, and perhaps better Irishmen, than those who take what might be considered a very narrow and short-sighted point of view on it. I concede that. But we have to go a little further in our consideration of this matter. We are striving to be reasonably tolerant, and we want to make haste slowly. There is no policy of repression or oppression, and the frank expression of opinion to which we have

I would call attention, by way of just listened is welcome. comparison, to the fact that there are countries where, if any attempt is made to slight the national language, to slight the national anthem, to slight the customs and traditions or the national flag, those who are responsible are treated very differently from the way in which they are treated in this country. We close our eyes to a number of things here, and we do not want to be taunted with being over-extreme in other respects. I submit that we are not. This measure is not extreme.

I spoke at length on this matter before, and I want to make a few comments on it to-day, as well as on one thing which struck me recently when considering this measure. That is that two years has been added to the course at the King's Inns. If two years has been added to that course, it must be for one of two reasons. One reason must be because the general standard of education of those who aspire to the legal profession is not particularly high, and it needs, if I may put it that way, to be toned up a little. On that line of reasoning there can be no particular objection to this Bill. The Bill in itself makes for a higher standard of general education in aspirants to the legal profession than obtained under the old system. The second reason for the addition of these two years to the course might be that there are too many aspirants to the legal profession; that there are too many lined up, wanting to seek the plums which apparently fall to those who practise law; that perhaps it is necessary that there should be some little bar, and accordingly these two years have been added. I think that this measure will rather help to raise the bar a little to a point higher than it has been.

Senator Sir John Keane, speaking here a few days ago, and referring particularly to what I stated, said that when it suited us those of us who were making the case for this measure were able to refer to the sanctity of the Constitution, and that so far as the Constitution was concerned, the Constitution had been trenched upon and amended in a very drastic fashion, but notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution had been trenched upon and had been amended in a very drastic fashion, we were able to refer to the sanctity of the Constitution in respect of Article 4 of the Constitution when it suited our purpose. If I may say so, Senator Sir John Keane lost sight of the circumstance that in the Constitution itself provision has been made for the alteration of the Constitution. It embodies a clause which admits of the alteration of the Constitution, and if it does admit of alteration, surely there is nothing very wrong in altering it. On the other hand, Article 4 still remains in the Constitution unaltered, and Irish is still the national language. The national policy is to develop Irish, and until the Constitution is altered in keeping with the will of the majority of the people, as expressed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, that Article of the Constitution will remain, and I think we are quite justified in pointing to it in support of our contention that Irish is the national language and that our policy must be to establish it on the lines of the Constitution——

Sir John Keane

I rise to a point of personal explanation. What I referred to was where an Article of the Constitution has been allowed to stand, but by specific legislation a case that arose was excluded from that Article. I refer to a case that went before the Privy Council.

Mr. O'Hanlon

The question of the Privy Council has been raised, and Senator Sir John Keane points to one particular instance. He may put forward a case in respect to that instance, but he can go no further than that; he cannot prove the one particular case which might justify his contention. That is a case which could be argued. As I said, in my opinion no great hardship will be inflicted on any class by this measure. I can understand the contention being made that hardship would be inflicted if, for instance, this Bill provided that we should change in one year's time and have Irish the language in the courts then. I could understand this measure inflicting hardship if it set out to ensure that Irish should be the language of the courts in five or six years' time. I could understand the Bill inflicting certain hardships on persons if it tried to establish that in five or six years time all solicitors should have a competent knowledge of it. But what are you taking? You are taking the last degree; you are taking the one degree which inflicts the least hardship. You are meeting the position which Senator Brown set up when he pointed to the absence of legal terms, as if this Bill were attempting to establish it that Irish should be the spoken language of the courts in five or six years' time. This Bill does nothing of the sort. All it is endeavouring to do is to establish that, in keeping with the national policy, there is to be a development in respect of the language, that those who practise the legal profession should be in a position to use the language in the courts if developments seem to require it. I think that that is perfectly reasonable. All that you are asking is that those who are now at school and at college who are setting themselves out to follow the legal profession should take up the study of the language, should at least acquire a competent knowledge of it, and should be able to pass a certain examination in five or six years' time. That is not inflicting any great hardship; as a matter of fact, it inflicts a hardship only in the very least degree.

Those who brought the Irish Free State into existence made use of certain implements and instruments in bringing that result about. They were dependent upon certain things. I suppose they were dependent upon the the proper utilisation of their own brains, on the loyalty of the Irish people, and on their disregard of suffering and hardship. They were dependent upon a number of things: they had a number of companions on the road, and one of the things they depended upon in their endeavours to bring the State into being was the language movement. It would be a sad commentary on this State and on the people who brought this State into being if, now that the State is actually operating, those people who had the companion of the language along the hard road which they had to travel, were now to drop the language. I do not think they could do that if they are to act in keeping with the policy to which they were committed in other days. Our policy in this is one of tolerance; we want to be fair to all people and to all classes in the State. This is a critical day for the Irish language. In other days the language was suppressed and driven under ground. A few people kept the language alive, and made themselves responsible for keeping it alive when it was suppressed and driven under ground. The force making for that suppression was a force which did not arise in this country. But now, if we do turn down the language and allow it to die, it will fall by the wayside through the action of our own people. The least we can do is to be reasonably true to the policy mainly upon which this State was brought into being. Article 4 is still in the Constitution; Irish is the national language, it is our own tongue, and upon us rests the responsibility for making, at any rate, a reasonable attempt to restore that language rather than allow it to die.

Mr. Dowdall

I was rather pleased to hear Senator Sir John Keane referring to the Irish language as the national language. If we want an object lesson in the necessity for the language a trial which is now proceeding would provide one. There is a case in the courts at the moment in which two persons stand in peril of their lives—a murder trial—and it is clear from the evidence in that case that it would be infinitely better if the judge, the jurors and counsel had a knowledge of the Irish language, because some of the questions put to witnesses and some of the evidence has had to be translated into Irish, and possibly some of the witnesses and some of the jurors are not sufficiently conversant with the Irish language to understand the proceedings.

It is difficult to appreciate the opposition to this very reasonable and moderate Bill. Senator Sir John Keane holds out a possibility which does not in any way frighten me, because I do not believe that it will ever happen that a class of persons who have done service to the nation, or shed lustre on the profession, will now be prevented and deterred from going into the profession by reason of having to acquire a knowledge of the Irish language. I have no doubt that exactly the same bogey was put up to deter lawyers from practising in the English language when Norman-French was the language of the courts. That is really an analogous case. It would be an extraordinary thing if Norman-French were still the language of the courts in England. There is no valid case against this moderate Bill, and I was pleased to see that it has been received almost with unanimity.

Mr. Wilson

Before entering this House every Senator has got to take an oath to the Constitution. I am wondering how far the opposition to Irish is impinging upon that oath. Article 4 of the Constitution says that the official language is Irish, and if you oppose Article 4, are you not, in effect, perjuring yourselves? How far in your opposition can you go without impinging on that oath?

I bring that forward in view of Senator Sir John Keane's speech here on a previous occasion. Senator Sir John Keane said that he was morally bound by the Constitution, but that he could see no sanctity in it, and the reason why he could not was because it had been changed by Parliament in various ways, and that citizens of the Free State were deprived of the right of appeal to His Majesty on account of the action taken in connection with the Lynam and Butler case. I daresay he argued from that that as we changed that to suit ourselves he would not obey Article 4, though he has not said that that was his conclusion. I was one of the people in the Provisional Parliament who passed Article 66 of the Constitution, and I want to assure this House that it was never contemplated that there was to be appeal to the Privy Council on a question of domestic legislation. I can prove that. That Article, which is one of the essential Articles placed in the Constitution by the other contracting party, was brought before the Dáil. I was a member of the small Farmers' Party, and I was asked if I was going to support it. We said we wanted to know from some authority whether that Article was in exact accordance with the Treaty. We were brought to Merrion Street in the night-time, and the present Chief Justice and several other lawyers explained to us the meaning of Article 66. Article 66 definitely states that there is no appeal whatever from a decision of the Supreme Court in this country.

Cathaoirleach

You really cannot discuss that, Senator. It is outside this Bill.

Mr. Wilson

I want to show that there is nothing in Senator Sir John Keane's statement that everyone was deprived of the right of appeal.

Cathaoirleach

You should leave it at that.

Mr. Wilson

Just one moment, if you please. The law, custom and constitutional usage of Canada were supposed to be the law, custom and constitutional usage of this State, but in connection with that particular Article the law, custom and constitutional usage of South Africa were to apply in the case of a domestic question, and this case of Lynam and Butler was concerned only with the ownership of a plot of land. It went to the Privy Council, and the Executive Council had no other course open to them but to quash it, so there has been no change in the Constitution in that respect. Senator Sir John Keane is bound by the Constitution, and he is bound not to oppose Article 4, because Article 4 says, in effect, that the national language is Irish, and therefore it should not be opposed by us.

Senator Sir John Keane also referred to cosmopolitanism and said that this Bill was contrary to the idea of the community of nations, which is also in the Constitution. That is no argument, because in South Africa everybody knows that Afrikaans is an essential language. I was in South Africa for a long time and I had to learn it. It is essential for all public appointments—just as essential as English. Nobody here has ever said that that is against the idea of the community of nations, and therefore there is no argument in saying that Irish is against the free communication which should take place among the British Commonwealth of Nations. As Senator O'Hanlon has explained, the Bill as it leaves the House is not an intolerable Bill. We have endeavoured to meet in every way the points that were put up by Senator Brown. We would not agree, and I did not agree last week, on the question of ten years of age, because if we had done so the Bill would be unworkable in out time. I believe that the Bill is now a workable one, and in view of the fact that we have sworn to the Constitution, I believe that we should give the Bill a unanimous vote and that Senators should not oppose that which they have sworn to uphold.

Mr. Connolly

I do not propose to go into with any great detail the remarks of Senator Sir John Keane and the other speakers. I merely want to stress one point, and I put it to Senator Sir John Keane and to other Senators who, if one might so describe them, belong to his class or party. I would ask them to remember that this is Ireland, and that in any examinations in any other country it is the generally accepted rule that those who sit for those examinations take their papers in the national language. It seems to upset quite a number of people to think that the youths who belong to families who have been settled in this country for 200, 300 or 400 years should be asked to take up the Irish language as one of their subjects at examinations; but these people should remember that but for the activities of their predecessors these youths would be sitting for examinations set entirely in Irish. That would be the natural thing. We are not to be blamed and we make no apology for trying to restore the language to that position. I hope that many of us will live to see the time when in all the examinations, whether for the Universities or for professions, the entire papers will be set, not in English with an examination in Irish, but entirely in Irish, and that students sitting for these examinations will have to take them in Irish.

There is no undue haste in putting through this Legal Practitioners Bill, which, as we have continuously stressed, is really only asking that boys at present 14 years of age should take up enough Irish to qualify at an examination. If these people, instead of taking the perspective that they do take, would put themselves, so to speak, into the skin of an Englishman and try to look at the question from that point of view and could conceive English people setting their examinations in French and making English a single subject for an examination, then they might try to understand what the ordinary average Irishman feels about this. That is the position they have got to reach, and whether it is going to come sooner or later I cannot say, but at all events, in my opinion there is no undue haste being shown.

Senator O'Hanlon has spoken with regard to tolerance. I believe that tolerance is a very desirable and praiseworthy thing, but I am also forced to the conclusion that what we exhibit as tolerance here is very often misinterpreted and that it is looked upon as the slave spirit. When the showing of this tolerance is actually imposed on the people, it then becomes the slave spirit. That is something that we cannot look upon with equanimity. Surely a great deal of tolerance has been exhibited in every Department of the Free State towards people who are hostile and opposed to the aspirations of the Irish people. They have not to go out of this country to find a contrast. They can find that contrast in the North of Ireland, and in the position of the minority there. It is not pleasant for me to have to say those things, but one is forced to say them, because one continuously comes up against them.

Senator Sir John Keane made what I might call a rather unhappy reference, but perhaps it was not untypical of the Senator. What he said had not much bearing on the Fifth Stage of this Bill. But, in a semi-aside, he suggested that one could have as good a race between half-breeds as thoroughbreds, and as good a bet about half-breeds as thoroughbreds. I agree, but I ask the House to remember that the half-breeds in this country are not the people who are the descendants of the ascendancy gang planted in this country but that the real thoroughbreds in this country are to be found in the Gaeltacht, and are at present speaking Irish.

Mr. Milroy

I thought that this Bill was going to make its exit from this House quietly and unostentatiously. Certainly it would have done so without any further comment from me were it not for the rather pathetic note that was struck in the swan song of Senator Sir John Keane. Now I am not sorry that he made the remarks he did make, because his doing so affords me the opportunity of adding one or two observations which I think it well should be made before this Bill leaves the Seanad. I want to disclaim very deliberately and very emphatically certain rather heated arguments that were made by certain supporters of the Bill during some stages of its passage through this House. Certain supporters of the measure seemed to think that it was necessary to import into their remarks denunciations of the attitude of other members of the House, and to ascribe that attitude to unworthy and unpatriotic motives. I think that no greater disservice could be done to the language than to introduce that tone into the discussion on the Bill here. Certainly anything which should serve to utilise the language as a line of further cleavage and of further estrangement between different sections in this country would in my judgment be exceedingly regrettable. We are seeking in this Bill not to impose penalties on a particular profession. We are seeking to enact legislation which will ensure that the services and talents of the members of that profession shall be enlisted on the side of the Irish language and of the Irish nation. Senator Sir John Keane spoke of a measure directed against a class of citizens. Much as I deprecate certain, as I think, extravagant and nonsensical things said in support of this Bill I deprecate much more that kind of description. A measure directed against—I emphasise the word "against"— certain classes of citizens. The Senator went on to say that he supposed that as regards other professions and other classes that their time would come, too. I can conceive no more malignant approach of mind towards this subject than to describe the development of the Irish language in any walk of life as being something directed against a certain class of citizens as if its development was something obnoxious, something evil, and something to be deprecated. There is no intention in any steps taken to promote the language whether it be in this Bill or in any other part of the State's life that can be so construed. This is not a measure directed against any class, but rather a measure directed to secure that at the expiration of a certain reasonable period of time the energies and the life and the functions of the members of the profession with which it deals shall be directed through an Irish mould which will bear the impress of a national personality, a national entity, a national distinctiveness and a national characteristic.

This State has undertaken no easy task in attempting to revive the Irish language. It took three or four centuries to root out the language by statute and other means. From area to area, and from house to house the hand of the exterminator of the language worked until it was almost rooted out of the land and until one of those tongues in which are enshrined some of the most memorable messages of civilisation was almost extinguished. It is no easy task to restore that language to-day to the position which it ought to occupy, and the position which it ought to occupy is a position equivalent to that which it did once occupy in this land. Are we to be charged when we undertake a task like this, we, the legislators of a Free State, of a liberated country that claims the heritage of that language, are we to be charged with trying to enact measures against a particular class of our fellow-countrymen or against a particular profession? I say it is wrong and that it is utterly fallacious to say that. If it were said deliberately I should say that it is an utterly malignant thing to say, but I cannot really believe that it is so meant. I can only regard it that Senator Sir John Keane does not appreciate what is the real meaning and motive power behind this. It is not to destroy but to build up, not to extinguish anything within this State which it is worth while to retain, but rather to bring back into the functions of the national life that well-spring of national thought and inspiration which was the motive power of anything that was really valuable in our country's past. Certainly it is not in any spirit of antagonism to any section of our countrymen, or to any profession, that I have sponsored this Bill in this House. I believe that the development of the language—at the moment it may be the cause of hostility to some, but eventually I believe its influence will be perhaps the most unifying influence in this State, and that it will do more to bring about the unity of this nation, such as all sections of the people desire, than any other influence that we can conceive at the moment. It is devoid of political significance. If it is anything it is essentially and vitally national. It is the language of the country, and it is in the hope that this measure will do something to produce the results to which I have referred that I have sponsored the Bill in this House. For these reasons I hope that the Bill will receive no further obstruction.

Question put and declared carried.