Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 May 1930

Vol. 13 No. 22

Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That this Bill be read a Second Time."

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (General Mulcahy)

In connection with this Bill there are certain matters to which, perhaps, reference should be made at this stage. On the question of area and the boundaries proposed for the city and the borough to be set up, the position with regard to the Bill in its present shape is: Taking the city first, the area which the old city had was 8,358 acres; the new city will have added to that 3,316 acres, this being the area of Rathmines and Pembroke, and 7,099 acres being the added rural areas. Therefore, the area of the new city will be 18,773 as against 8,358. Taking the 1926 Census figures, the population of the new city will be 403,961, made up as follows: Population of old city, 316,693; Rathmines and Pembroke, 73,367; added rural areas, 13,901. The valuation of the new city will be £1,747,000, as against the valuation of the old city of £1,335,000. The area of the new borough formed into one local government unit by the association of Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire, Dalkey and Killiney, will be 4,182 acres. The population will be 37,079, and the valuation, £171,908.

The acreage of the old county area, including urban area, was 219,581 acres. The area of the new county, including the urban area, is 209,166 acres. The population of the old country area was 188,961, as against 101,693 for the new county. The valuation of the old county was £942,822, as against £530,661 for the new county. The extension of the city proper has been very considerable in area— from something over 8,000 to over 18,000 acres. The density of the old city was 38 persons per acre. In the new city it will be 22.5 persons per acre. The density in the case of the borough will be 8.9 persons per acre. Comparing the density in the city with the density in the case of some other cities, we find that in the case of Liverpool, where the population in 1922 was 826,000, the density is 39. In the case of Bristol, with a population of 383,000, the density is 21.5; Birmingham, with a population of 945,000, has a density of 23.2 per acre. London, with a registered population of over four millions, has 60 persons to the acre. In Belfast the density is 27 persons per acre, and in Cork the figure is 29.23. The density as an index of the extent that is brought in, from the point of view of being urbanised, is fairly normal. A great deal of discussion took place as to whether the area of the borough ought not to be included in the city.

I failed to be convinced that there could be efficient administration of the borough in 1930 and 1931 immediately after a very considerable extension of the city area had taken place, and immediately after the setting up of a new system of council and manager. There will be sufficient problems to be dealt with following the introduction of the new system that will require the closest possible attention from the new council, problems for officials in co-ordinating the administrative machine with the new circumstances. All these problems will be sufficient to tax the labours of the members of the new council without asking them to look after the coordination and administration of an additional four areas that, up to the present, have had four separate councils. The farthest point of these areas from the centre of the City is nine and a quarter miles. Apart altogether from the fact, as indicated in the Private Bill brought before the Seanad in the beginning of 1924-25 by the Councils of Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire and Dalkey, that there is the clearly expressed public opinion in that area that they require a council to look after their own area—but, apart altogether from that, we feel that the separation of the borough from the City at the present moment will mean a better and more concentrated administration of the City's affairs. It will certainly mean a better and more concerntrated administration of the borough's affairs by not taking away the borough from the county and thereby reducing considerably, in addition to the reduction that has already taken place, the financial foundations on which the administration of the county rests.

There has been a considerable amount of feeling that the area around Dublin which is administered as a city should be very much greater than is proposed in this Bill. I do not know that the extension of the present area is going to be as rapid as a lot of people think, but in so far as there is such urbanisation going on outside the area of the proposed City Borough, we are making provision in the Bill by which after inquiry, by means of provisional order procedure, other further areas can be taken in, into the borough, into the City, or into the urban district of Howth. We have extended the City on the northern side to touch the urban district area of Howth at Kilbarrack lane. Therefore, the whole circumstance of Dublin Bay is under urban control. The extension of the City to Howth controls the main road approaches from the City to Howth, so that the Bill contains provisions by which, under the simple machinery of provisional order procedure, the City or the borough can have its area extended.

There was also considerable talk as to the desirability of having a central control for certain special services. If we take water as an example of that, I am not persuaded that there can be a more satisfactory arrangement at the present time than the one that exists, whereby the City supplies Howth with water under an agreement and at a price on the quantity taken and registered at the meter. In the same way the City supplies the borough at certain points under a special agreement. There is a further provision in the Bill under which the borough and the City can arrange between themselves for the laying of pipes or the repairing of pipes, or for the further extension of pipes either in the City or the borough. The borough, if it wants an extension of pipe mains in the borough, can arrange, if it wants to, to have that carried out with the City machinery. In so far as there was a very strongly expressed desire that there should be an examination as to whether some superstructure raised above the City Council and above the City Manager could not more satisfactorily and more economically carry on what are called common services, provision is made in the Bill under Section 100 by which the Minister for Local Government will set up in five years' time, and then inside 10 years' time, an inquiry directed to consider the general question as to whether any amalgamation of areas or extension of areas should take place in the neighbourhood of the City, what services might be more satisfactorily and economically run centrally, and any other financial arrangements arising out of that. So that there will be an inquiry in five years and inside 10 years' time whether any more satisfactory arrangements or any other arrangement is required in connection with the matter.

As subsidiary to that idea it was rather pressed that there should be set up now some kind of conjoint body that would do joint work on matters of common interest. I do not consider that a standing body to deal with matters of general interest would be of any use. In the first place I very much object to the setting up, at this particular moment, over the Council of the City of Dublin any other kind of authority. We are focussing responsibility and authority in the Council of the City of Dublin, in the council of the borough and in the county council, and I think it would be only diffusing their responsibility and undermining their authority if any superstructure of authority was raised above that. And we made provision in Section 77 by which, on the application either of the Council of the City or the borough an ad hoc body of reference can be set up to consider any special matter definitely stated in the resolution to be a matter of common interest, and requiring discussion. The body set up in an ad hoc way at the moment by the borough council or the City Council to consider an important matter will, in the first place, be a most suitable body to discuss matters that require discussion, and in the second place it will only be set up on some specific matter of real importance, because the Council of the City and the council of the borough and the council of the county council are not completely cut away from one another in ordinary circumstances, and you will have the ordinary exchanges on matters of public interest and the ordinary interdiscussion by members of the City Council, the borough council and the county council. There are many matters of common interest that may, in a harmonious way, be dealt with by one or other of those bodies without formal investigation and without a more elaborate and wide-flung arrangement. I think that if there is a real problem requiring extension of area or requiring further organisation, adequate provision for investigation and for taking action is provided for in the Bill. The Bill provides for the necessary financial adjustments and for transferring debts and assets and all that from any of the abolished bodies to their successors.

Both in the borough, and in the City, the principles of the managerial system of local government is introduced more or less on the lines of the arrangements in the Cork Bill. There are certain points of difference that might be referred to. In the first place the Seanad will remember that the principle as arranged in the Cork Bill was that certain reserved powers, including powers over money, were reserved to the Council. The Council had responsibility to pass the estimates in whatever form they liked and to strike whatever rates they liked; all other responsibilities and duties were conferred upon the Manager.

Some things that were implicit in the Cork arrangement have been made explicit in the present Bill, and some additional powers are given to the Council. As regards the reserved functions it will be found there is explicitly further reserved to the Council the control and sale of municipal estate, the position with regard to the attendance of the Manager at meetings, the provision of information and the preparing of any necessary plans and details of work for the Council. As I say, these were more or less implicit in the Cork arrangement but they are explicit in this Bill. The period required to elapse between the receipt by the Council of the statement of expenditure and the estimates has been extended from fourteen, to twenty-one days, so that there may be more adequate consideration by the Council of the proposed expenditure for every year prior to the striking of the rate.

The majority required before an application can be made to the Minister for further extension of reserved functions has been reduced from two-thirds to a plain majority. In addition there has been introduced into the Bill an arrangement by which, after suitable notice, and on the passing of a special resolution to that effect, either a majority of two-thirds of the members present at a special meeting, or more than one-half of the total members of the Council, can, on passing a resolution, in connection with any specific thing which is normally the function of the Manager, require the Manager to carry out that matter. But that power is given only in respect of specific matters and the resolution cannot be passed either in a general way or covering a whole class of matters. In addition the Council is given power to frame rules regarding the acceptance and general dealing with tenders, the power of accepting contracts being still reserved for the Manager.

The Council of the City will consist of 35 members, 30 elected by ordinary local government electors, and five elected on a special commercial franchise. The City will be divided into five electoral areas. The Council will consist of 14 members, and there will be one electoral area. The introduction of the special representatives on a commercial franchise into the Council of the City calls for comment on two matters. In the first place the local government franchise is based mainly on occupation of premises in respect of which rates are paid by the occupier. Taking the figures for the old city, approximately, £600,000, out of a valuation of £1,200,000, represents business premises occupied for business purposes as distinct from premises occupied for residential purposes. Hitherto the greater amount of that valuation while paying rates, has been unrepresented in the Council by direct representation of the persons who pay those rates. It was felt that that was not equitable and in accordance with the general principle of the local government vote, and the difference, when you take into consideration that this valuation is 50 per cent. of the total valuation, is inequitable, and fails to recognise that. It also secures that companies as distinct from the private individual should have votes. Up to the present they were debarred from having votes. At the same time by making a special franchise for persons occupying premises wholly or partly for commercial purposes, giving them that small representation of five elected members on that register out of a total Council of 35, we are integrating into the general administrative Council of the City a class of persons that in the first place is entitled to be represented there, and whose services there will be valuable, that is those people responsible for the management of the general business of the City. So that both these desirable matters are met by the provision of this special franchise.

Senators will realise that under the old system of rating there were a very large number of different rates raised in the City; the incidence of those rates in many cases differed. The powers of recovery differed, and generally the incidence differed in a number of ways. All these are now consolidated into the general municipal rate. There is only one rate which was left outside, and that is the police rate, which is a vanishing rate. A very considerable amount of laborious and unnecessary work will be saved in the Accounts Department in the City as a result of this. Arising, however, out of that consolidation of the municipal rate, certain exemptions that existed in the past have to be provided for. There have been certain properties in the City that did not pay the improvement rate; others, the domestic water rate, and so on; and it has been considered that such exemptions as existed up to the present should be secured to the persons who enjoyed them in the past. The amounts of money they paid for a certain number of years have been taken, and the Bill provided that in future there will be rated to the full municipal rate in respect of a particular percentage of their total valuation— that particular percentage of their total valuation being shown in one of the Schedules. These exemptions apply to certain institutions, and to certain classes of hereditaments, such as railways, and, in the case of agricultural land, a general percentage is taken, so that agricultural land in the city in the future will pay half the municipal rate or the full municipal rate to the extent of one-half of its valuation.

There is a general application of the 1925-27 Act in the county. Thus the rural district councils and the board of guardians will be abolished. The position of the county, from the poor laws guardians aspect, is that there are three areas in the county that were separate board of guardians areas—Balrothery area, Rathdown and the area which came into the City which includes North Dublin and South Dublin and Celbridge guardians. The guardians in each of these areas are abolished, and powers are given to the county council to set up, as a temporary measure, a certain number of persons to carry on for them the work of the guardians in these particular areas. These areas will, until the change is made in the new Rating Bill, which will have to be introduced before the 31st March next, continue to be the areas of charge. Rathdown will be a self-contained area of charge, and so will Balrothery, but the county will be made one whole when the necessary legislation is prepared.

The Bill makes general provision for the transfer of officers from the present bodies to their successors, and deals with general matters arising out of their continuing to serve, giving them credit in respect of pensions and gratuities for service with the abolished bodies, and making provision for compensation in the case of persons who are found to be redundant as the result of the rearrangement of staffs that will take place. I think these are the important matters that require to be commented upon at the moment.

Mr. Farren

I may say that the Bill as before us here to-day is a much better Bill than the Bill as originally introduced. A good deal of the objections that I had to the original Bill had been dealt with and amended in a manner that, I think, will meet with general acceptance. The problem of the local government of Dublin City and suburbs is a problem that needs very careful consideration. It is a question of very great importance to the people who are resident in the locality and, I think, to the country as a whole. The Bill is, I think, a good attempt to grapple with the problem of local government. It has in it some very good features and, also, to my mind, some very bad features. With the general principle of City Manager I am in agreement. I have been, I suppose, the greatest critic in the Oireachtas of the system that has been prevailing in the City for some years. I was opposed to it because of the manner in which it was brought about and carried on. Speaking as an ex-member of the old Dublin Corporation, I want to approach quite frankly and honestly this question of City Managership. While I was a member of the old Dublin Corporation I would have been in favour of seeing City Managership established as the system. I go further and say that in the old Dublin Corporation there were men and women with a sufficient sense of civic duty and of citizenship who would have been prepared to bring about a managership system similar to that proposed in this Bill. As a matter of fact, I think they were endeavouring to evolve some better system to that prevailing at the time, and eventually I think it would have led to something on the lines of the present Bill. The proposal with regard to the City Managership itself as introduced in this Bill is, to my mind, the proper way to deal with it.

The proposal with regard to the City Manager which is introduced is, to my mind, being done in the wrong way, but much of my objection to the City Managership has been removed by the fact that the City Manager to be appointed will be the Town Clerk. I always believed that the Town Clerk in the City of Dublin was in reality the City Manager, and for that reason I have no objection to the City Managership as outlined in the Bill, when the present executive officer of the municipality will be the City Manager. With regard to the powers of the City Manager, I think the amendments that have been made have improved the position as between the respective powers of the Corporation and the City Manager. The machinery in the Bill, in case any question or dispute may arise, has gone far to improve the situation.

While this is not the proper time to deal with the matter of the boundary, there are certain lines of boundary that are not satisfactory. I am sorry the boundary was not enlarged. There are certain large tracts which were proposed to be included by the Report of the Greater Dublin Commission, embracing on the northern side, Portmarnock and the Malahide areas. It is a mistake that the natural playground of Dublin—Portmarnock—is being excluded from the operations of the Bill. I think it is right to say that Portmarnock Strand is the natural playground of Dublin. Those who know it for the past eight or ten years know that crowds of people who live in the slums of Dublin bring their families there on Sundays, so that it is a pity Portmarnock is not included in the extension of the city boundary. Of course, Portmarnock Strand will be there still for the citizens of Dublin, but I am afraid that that wonderful strand that nature has provided within a few miles of the City will not be properly developed. I think it is no exaggeration to say that it is one of the finest strands in this country, and it is no compliment to say that it is an heirloom for the citizens. I am sorry it is not included in the City because it will not be properly developed. A rural district council cannot be expected to develop it on the lines on which it could be developed if it was within the City boundary. When I speak of development I do not mean development by erecting houses, but development for the protection of public health and for the convenience of the people using it. It is lamentable to think that there is no pure water supply and no attempt made to provide sanitary accommodation for the poor people who go there from Dublin on Saturday and Sunday evenings. It is the mercy of Providence that there has not been an outbreak of fever of some kind in recent years. It is lamentable from many points of view that that area is not included in the City.

I am sorry the City boundary was not extended at least to Dun Laoghaire. As long as I can remember, the claim of the citizens of Dublin was, with regard to the extension of the City boundary, to include the old Dublin Metropolitan Police area. On the south-east that area extended as far as Dun Laoghaire, and I think it is a pity, when a new Bill is being passed, that that is not done. I agree that the amendments made in the Bill with regard to the coastal borough have modified to some extent my objection to the original proposal, because it is not proposed to set up a rival borough to the metropolitan borough. The original proposal has been modified to the extent that provision has been made whereby the question of an extension of the City boundary will automatically come up for consideration at a future date, without having to go to the trouble and extent of promoting a new Bill. There is machinery provided for the extension of the City boundary at a later stage if those concerned and the Minister for Local Government agree. An inquiry can be held and the matter arranged, without the introduction of a new Bill in Parliament.

The one blot on the Bill, and to my mind the greatest blot, is the proposal to set up a commercial register. In this age of democracy I think it is a very retrograde step to set up a form of plural voting. It simply means that people who have business premises, or moneyed people, will have votes according to the extent of their valuations. I do not think that is right. I do not suggest that there are not good men among the business element, but I say that the possession of money does not make good citizens. I object to people having plural votes. The proposal in this Bill is that these people will be entitled to vote at the ordinary election for thirty members of the Corporation which are to be elected on the local government franchise, and that, at a later stage, they will be entitled to elect their own representatives. I do not think that is fair. I am opposed to the whole principle of plural voting. I think it is the blot on the Bill and I hope this House will reject the particular section that deals with that matter.

It is extraordinary that in the Cork City Management Act there was no provision made for commercial votes. They have no commercial register in Cork. Surely there are large business establishments in Cork like Messrs. Ford's works, and if merchants in Dublin are entitled to a special register for representation on the City Council, surely they are entitled to the same thing in Cork. That is an anomaly. I go further and say that in the new borough there is no provision for a commercial register. That is also an astonishing state of affairs. The unfortunate poor Dublin jackeens are to get the benefit of this proviso. I do not think that is fair and I protest against it. There is no such provision in the Cork Act, and no such proposal in the new borough. People who were described some time ago as pieces of antique furniture are now to have special representation under this Bill. Not only are they to be entitled to vote for thirty representatives in the Corporation but, in addition, they are to be entitled to have five representatives of their own. There were some business men in the old Corporation; some of them were good and some of them very bad. Some of them did not make the best citizens or corporators. I think Senator Mrs. Wyse Power will agree with me in that. Some of them gave good service to the city while others did not. These are my main objections to the Bill. I am in agreement with the general provisions, but this particular section I regard as a blot on the Bill, and when it comes up I will vote for its deletion.

Mr. Connolly

I desire to express my entire agreement with the views Senator Farren has expressed regarding the commercial vote for membership of the Corporation. I agree with him that it is an entirely reactionary step, one that should not be contemplated in this age at all, and one that I can see no argument for. He has said practically everything that could be said against the proposal, so I will content myself by supporting his attitude with regard to that portion of the Bill dealt with by Section 30 and the succeeding sections.

There is one other point I would like to deal with, and it is with regard to Section 52:

(1) The Council may, if and whenever it thinks fit, make regulations prescribing the procedure to be followed in regard to the reception and examination of all or any particular class or classes of tenders for the supply of goods, the execution of works, or any other thing for which the Corporation may lawfully have invited the submission of tenders.

I suggest to the Minister that if he is not desirous of stating definitely under what terms tenders are to be lodged, the clause is superfluous. It is true that subsection (2) states:

All regulations made under this section shall be subject to the approval of the Minister and no such regulation shall be of any force or effect unless or until it has been so approved.

But there is nothing in the first sub-section which compels the Council as such to make arrangements for the consideration of tenders or to ensure that these tenders will be treated on a fair basis of competition. In the main, the Bill has been tremendously improved in its progress through the Dáil, and with the exception of these two points, and particularly with what might be called the commercial privilege clause in it, I have really nothing further to say.

Mr. Comyn

This very long Bill represents a great amount of thought. It represents also considerable research into the municipal laws of this country, and shows a thorough grasp of what I might call the details of local government. But it seems to me that in going into so much detail there are one or two matters which, apparently, escaped attention, and which might be observed by anyone who takes even a cursory survey of the ground covered by the Bill. The first one was that so ably referred to by Senator Farren. Here you have a scheme for a great city surrounding Dublin Bay, occupying, as the Minister said, one way or another, all the shores of Dublin Bay. But immediately adjoining the city, you have a lovely strand, and land adjoining that strand at Malahide and Portmarnock which is crying out for development, the development of which is quite essential for the health of the city. It is a place which cannot possibly be developed to the advantage of the City of Dublin by private enterprise, and the Minister, with all the microscopic accuracy and attention to detail which he has given to this Bill, has failed, I think, to grasp the importance of that area to the city. It cannot be developed properly as a unit in itself, and it cannot be properly developed by private enterprise. There are no drains or roads in the area; there are no adequate road approaches from the city, and as an eminent Senator has reminded me, that is, as I think, a blot on this Bill.

A property qualification has been introduced for, I suppose, the protection of the commercial interests. If the commercial interests are to be protected and secured by the scheme which the Minister has adumbrated in this Bill, why should not all the commercial activities of the city be under the one authority? I refer now to the Port and Docks Board. The port of Dublin is not under the authority of the city. If the city government is to be so framed that it will give proper protection to commercial interests why should not the port of Dublin itself be under that central authority? Some amendments were introduced in the Dáil for the purpose of securing that the port of Dublin should come under the authority of the City of Dublin. In the early stages of the Bill, as I understand it, the amendments were ruled out because their drafting was not satisfactory. At a later stage when unobjectionable amendments were put forward it was then said to be too late. Of course, there may be grave reasons why the port of Dublin should not be included in the present Bill, but I think the segregation of the government of the seaport from the government of the remainder of the city is unique; it is an anomaly. These, I think, are the two matters which have escaped full consideration. They have been omitted from the scope of the Bill, and the reasons for the omission ought to have been fully stated and fully debated. In my opinion, these two matters have not received the consideration which they deserved, and I hope they will receive consideration in the Seanad, when, perhaps, the Minister may be able to explain why it was that in this most comprehensive Bill, which shows a minute attention to detail, these two glaring things have been omitted from his scheme, and apparently without explanation of any kind. There are a good many matters in connection with the Bill which I am sure will receive attention in the Seanad. The Bill has been greatly improved in the Dáil, and I am sure it will be still further amended, and, I am certain, improved, in the Seanad.

Mr. Barrington

I have been asked by certain people living in the coastal borough to express their views on this Bill. They are people to whose views very little attention is given. In fact, the main attention they receive is from the tax gatherer, who never neglects them, and in all probability they contribute the bulk of the rates. Their view generally is that this Bill is good in patches, but they think that the Bill will fail if every effort is not taken to ensure under its working that economy which is most necessary. When making his introductory speech, the Minister said this Bill is based on the Cork Act. It will probably be within the recollection of some members of the Seanad that when the Cork Bill was before us for consideration I called attention to some aspects of it. I said that I thought it would not lead to economy but to extravagance. For that I was taken to task most severely by some members of the Seanad, and I think the expression, as well as my memory serves me, was used that "Senator Barrington was never tired of spitting venom on the representatives of the people." I was not spitting venom on the representatives of the people, but I made a forecast of what was likely to happen and, strange to say, that is exactly what has happened. If the spitting of venom is fearlessly to call attention to matters without any regard to circumstances that will arise and to point out with accuracy what is likely to happen, I will spit venom as long as I live. There was a provision in the Cork Act for the payment of the Lord Mayor as well as the payment of the City Manager, who was to do the work. The Senator who took me to task is a sport, and as a sport he is entitled to his fancy. Well, he has got his fancy, which he is never tired of trotting out for the admiration of the Seanad, and I think he calls it "Civic Probity." Well, "Civic Probity" has romped home in Cork. The Lord Mayor receives a salary of £1,000 a year, a Minister's salary and which if capitalised means £25,000 of the ratepayers' money. My friend here shuddered to think of what would happen if the same provisions were allowed to remain in the City of Dublin Bill, and the same favourite is entered for the Greater Dublin stakes. We do not know what it will amount to in the case of Dublin, but whatever it may be the money could be better spent than endowing sinecures.

While this money was voted away with such hilarity in the City of Cork there is a tragic procession passing through the streets of Cork week after week, and some of the best youth of the country, selected by competitive examination, are driven away from here because they cannot find work. The reason they cannot is that some of the smaller industries are being stamped out by the taxation which is unnecessarily being placed on the country. You need only go to some of the country villages or towns, including some of the larger towns, to see many of the best business premises closed or about to close down. People are driven into exile because there are no industries at home to give them employment. The old excuses that served so well in the past are worn out. We were told the reasons for all this emigration were the exactions of the landlords or the exactions of the foreign Government. These excuses will no longer serve their purpose. Emigration still continues, and, there is no doubt about it, it is largely caused by the excessive pressure of taxation here. We must also bear in mind that under this Bill the people who will be elected as Lord Mayors will not be the class of people we were accustomed to in the past. They will not be the people supposed to be able to do the business, because somebody else must be employed and paid to do it for them. This Bill will be judged by the amount of good it does in the way of reducing taxation. I hope before it passes through this House it will be put into such a form that unnecessary expense and extravagance will be wiped out.

Mr. Jameson

I agree with what Senator Comyn has said with regard to this Bill. It must have taken an immense amount of research, labour and thought to produce. I think that even Senator Farren, with his knowledge of the old Corporation, will admit that in this Bill the Minister has placed before us the results of an immense amount of consideration of a most complicated problem. Three matters have been referred to —business men in the Corporation, the Port and Docks Board, and the Portmarnock Strand. I hope when Senators express a wish for the development of the Velvet Strand at Portmarnock that does not mean turning it into a Brighton or a place of that kind. The real beauty of Dublin is that all the local areas where we go to enjoy ourselves are as God made them and are not destroyed by the hand of man. Now, in Portmarnock the fields are filled up with tents. The sanitary question at Portmarnock has been referred to. Some of us interested in the matter have had discussions with the sanitary authorities, for the real difficulty is the want of powers by the sanitary authorities. That is a matter that could be dealt with outside of this Bill. So far as Portmarnock is concerned, it is easy to get at. I hope we will not have people coming there and putting up big piers and bathing places, and having mixed bathing along the place, but that, as far as possible, the place will be allowed to stay as it is. As to the Port and Docks Board, if Senator Comyn had been present when the discussion took place with regard to the Act which created the Port and Docks Board he would have some knowledge of the difficulty of the problem, especially as regards the selection of the class of people qualified to do the necessary work on the Port and Docks Board. That Act was passed in the British Parliament after very careful and exhaustive inquiry. I doubt if any body selected in that way is a complete success, but the Port and Docks Board certainly is a practical success, as may be judged by the loans of the Board and how high they stand. We have got a fairly useful body of men to manage the Port. The people who will be elected under this Bill now before us will not be elected for that purpose, for they will have no special knowledge of the kind that will enable them to manage the affairs of the Port.

I hope the House, when it comes to consider amendments with regard to the Port and Docks Board, will look seriously into the matter beforehand and make themselves acquainted with the work the Board has to do and consider whether the people, including the business men elected under this Bill, would be competent to carry out the duties of the Port and Docks Board. Senator Farren talked about the ancient pieces of furniture, called business men, in the City of Dublin. This Bill is for the management of an enormous business, involving the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds each year. It is quite evident that the object of the Bill is to try and get what any of us in our business try and get, and pay large sums to get, and that is the application of the best business brains to the management of City affairs. That is what is meant, and whether we will get it or not I do not know. People who get elected on a large franchise are always gifted with commonsense, and, in the case of any gathering of men selected as those under this Bill will be, will probably come out right in the end, but in the management of great financial matters, if possible we should try and get people connected with big business affairs. This proposal with regard to a commercial register is an attempt to get them, and I should say it is an attempt worth trying.

Probably Senator Farren and Senator Connolly are right in saying that it is undemocratic, but I have never heard very much good coming in a financial way from democracy. It may be an excellent thing for liberty, but it is not good for the pockets of most of us. It does not produce economy. We have seen the results in England where democracy ruled in West Ham and in Poplar. Under the existing system in Dublin our rates have gone steadily down. We believe that our affairs have been very well looked after. When it comes to electing a City Council, that we should try and get representation for the business element seems to me a sound policy. If the City were owned by any small body of men working as a dividend paying concern, what would they do? They would get the biggest business man they could and give him an enormous salary to manage the business. This Bill is an attempt along the same lines. From a business point of view it is sound if we get the right man. Taking the business men of Dublin all round, we have no reason to be ashamed of them. In many ways their businesses are well managed and are a credit to the City. We have business men who would give good service to the City, but they have never had a chance. Business men cannot go fighting elections and things of that sort, but in the election of business men under this Bill the electors to whom they will appeal will know the men who ask for their votes, will know their qualifications, and the best business men are likely to be picked out. That, in my opinion, is preferable to the democratic system of picking out men. You will have plenty of excellent people elected on the democratic basis, and this election of business people on the commercial register will not do the slightest harm.

Mr. Bagwell

This Bill is introduced by the Government which set up in the City of Dublin the system of administration by Commissioners, which we have had for a period of years, and which has been attended in results by very marked economy and efficiency. For that the Government deserves credit. This Bill is intended to replace that temporary arrangement. As to how long a system like that of Commissioners, successful as it has been, could be allowed to continue, being so diametrically opposed to the principles of self government, is a matter of opinion. But now the Government that set up that system which has proved very successful think it has lasted long enough and that it is time to put something more permanent in its place. The Bill aims at doing this while retaining the economy and efficiency associated with the Commissionership system, and applying it in a very much larger scale to an area containing practically all the urban and suburban population of the County of Dublin. I am not a citizen of Dublin but I have been associated with it for a number of years, and the Bill seems to be well devised for that purpose. I think there is good reason to hope that the system embodied in the Bill will prove successful. The commercial register is a novel feature. Whether that is good or not is a matter of opinion. It commends itself to me, but of course a good many other people think quite differently about it. It is quite true, as Senator Farren remarked, that the possession of large commercial property is not necessarily a guarantee of good citizenship, but at all events it tends to be a far better qualification for a voice in the affairs of the City than the ownership of very little property, because a big stake induces a feeling of responsibility. I think the commercial proposal on the whole is justified for that reason. The Bill seems to me to be a very good commonsense measure and well thought out.

Mr. O'Neill

Like my old colleague, Senator Farren, I join in congratulating the Minister on the amendments which have been introduced in reference to this Bill. With most of them I am in entire agreement.

It was news for the Minister, and it may be news for the Seanad, that the question of a City Manager was very often discussed at meetings of the Corporation. Without egotism I could go a little further in stating that it was a pet hobby of my own. Consequently, as far as that goes, I am in entire agreement with the Minister. I think that the powers of the Manager are too great, but that is a matter that perhaps can be remedied when the Bill goes into Committee. I did not intend to join in this debate at all, only for the underlying cynical feeling which seems to permeate some speeches in reference to the old Corporation. Everything possible has been done, to use a common expression, to boost up the City Commissioners. But not a word, not a solitary word, of fair play have the old Corporation received. Indeed, sir, as one who was born in this City, as one who has mixed amongst its people all my life, as one who for 15 years or more was a member of the old Corporation, it is only natural, without egotism, that perhaps I can claim to know a little of the citizens' wishes in regard to City matters. I speak as one who for seven and a half long, sad and weary years helped in a small way to frame the destinies of this City as its civic head. I was helped by courageous and honourable colleagues who never shirked their duty or responsibilities to the City or to the country—not like now, not like the time of the Commissioners; these were days of actual danger. No Lord Mayor at any period and no Mayor—a position which goes back for close on a thousand years— was ever flanked by more faithful friends or more loyal colleagues as Lord Mayor or Mayor than I was during that period. Out of their loyalty to me and my loyalty to them, I refused at the hands of my friend, President Cosgrave, the Chairmanship of the Dublin Commissioners, retaining the title of Lord Mayor with emoluments and salary of £1,600 a year. That may be a personal matter. I appreciated the kindness of President Cosgrave at the time, but, as I have said, out of my sense of loyalty I felt bound to refuse the offer. I wonder how many of the Corporation traducers would do the same?

During the discussion of this Bill in the Dáil I noticed that Deputy John Good, speaking on the debate on the 26th to the 28th February, Col. 1130, made a statement. Deputy Good is a business man. Every Senator here knows Deputy Good and they know that when he gets one of these mystic inspirations which come only from the skies, clouding from the heavens the sordid surroundings of this life and the troubled waters of this world, they know what a wonderful output of oratory comes to him. He is really a scholar, a diplomat and a gentleman. In one burst of oratory he sparkled out this wonderful gem: "Why, all the water in the Liffey would not whitewash the old Corporation." Deputy John Good in the Parliament of the State could not even refrain from talking shop. One can always forgive one's youthful opponents for being bitter or for being biased through want of experience. But when the bitterness and the bias of early environment pursues them into old age no hope of redemption can ever be expected. When a public representative in a Chamber of the Parliament of the State makes general charges against a corporate body and that corporate body the Corporation of the capital of Ireland—without specifying those charges, without naming a solitary individual who was guilty of these charges, all fair-minded people must agree that such a representative is neither worthy of credence nor respect and that his presence is a menace to the Parliament of the nation.

I did not intend to speak a solitary word here to-day on the discussion on this Bill. I wanted this Bill, as a Dublin-man, to be discussed in an atmosphere of calm, but I felt owing to the position which I held so long, that it would be cowardice on my part not to stand behind my colleagues who stood behind me so long. That is why I have spoken. Many attacks have been made on the Corporation of Dublin. I understand that even within this House—I was not a member of it at the time— the Dublin Corporation has been attacked. Subject to you, sir, whose kindness I appreciate in giving me this latitude, I will just say this, although it may be wearying to you, I am one of those peculiar beings and when I am brooding over things it eases my mind to speak out. As the reputation of the citizens is at stake, as the reputation of the Dáil is at stake, I consider I would not be transgressing your kindness if I might briefly enumerate some of my own colleagues in the Corporation that have been from time to time traduced—Senator Mrs. Clarke, Senator Mrs. Wyse Power, Alderman James Moran, Alderman Alfred Byrne, and others. Will anyone say that Councillor Farren was not an ornament to any council? Last, but not least perhaps, there was the Right Hon. Laurence O'Neill, Lord Mayor of Dublin City. Then we had stalwarts in the Dáil like President Cosgrave himself, who on many occasions acted as my locum tenens in the days of trouble and danger. It may be of interest to those who do not know a great deal about what was going on fifteen or sixteen years ago, that Alderman Cosgrave acted as my locum tenens at that time when there was a price on his head and when a notorious Black-and-tan was told off to shoot him.

At that time President Cosgrave, like General Mulcahy, faced danger and carried out his duties. We had other stalwarts also in the old Corporation, men like Seán T. O'Kelly, Dr. Myles Keogh and Peadar Doyle, considered of sufficient importance to keep the Government together in those days. There were officials in the Corporation whose capabilities enabled them to climb up to high office in the State and many of the officials of the Corporation were taken over by the Government. I could go on, but it might weary you, dealing with members of the Corporation who have been traduced in this way, but I will give you an example of one of them. You have a man of the type of Alderman Thomas Kelly, elected Lord Mayor of Dublin, but owing to the destruction of his health in an English gaol he never sufficiently recovered to take up office. Alderman Kelly and Alderman Cosgrave, the father and the son of the Corporation in the old Sinn Fein days. Senator Mrs. Wyse Power will bear me out in saying that no son was more loyal, no son more trustworthy, no son more loving, than Willie Cosgrave was to the Corporation of Dublin, a man who abhorred the sword, a Dublin-man to his finger tips, who loved its poor, its alleys, and its lanes, and who longed to do what he could for the City.

It pains me beyond measure that some of my colleagues who are in high places to-day will allow men of the type of Alderman Thomas Kelly to be traduced. I could go on enumerating many business men of that type in the City, but I am not going to delay you, although lately we had it stated on a very high authority that business men were too much immersed in their business to take any interest in municipal affairs. But there were people, sir, of the type of Councillor Mrs. Wyse Power, Alderman Kathleen Clarke, Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington, Mrs. Margaret McGarry and others, each and every one of them having more intelligence and more honesty in their little finger, and who have suffered more for Ireland in one hour than all their traducers, if they were mobilised into one, would undergo if they were to live for an eternity. But there were others just as intelligent and just as honest, whose names do not come before the public eye. Now, sir, as an old Parliamentary hand, if you will forgive the expression, there is one thing that I have been leading up to in all this. You, sir, who have proved yourself a capable and refined gentleman, will hardly credit that a month before the Corporation was dissolved, one might put it, to ginger up the Local Government Department, a leading article appeared in the columns of a responsible Dublin evening newspaper. It is only right that I should state that these things emanated from the Local Government incubator before General Mulcahy took office. Remember it was a leading article, not a letter, not a chance paragraph which might have gone in. It was a leading article. That appeared in the columns of a responsible Dublin newspaper, describing my colleagues in the Corporation, of which I have been endeavouring to give you examples. That leading article described them as "a gang of corrupt and unscrupulous brutes." That appeared in a responsible Dublin evening newspaper. These men, such as I have mentioned, with President Cosgrave at their head, were described as "a gang of corrupt and unscrupulous brutes." In that way was laid a solid foundation for the vilification of the Corporation that has taken place since in the Dáil and Seanad by the Bads, the Goods, the Toms, the Dicks and the Harrys. With such brutal, vulgar criticism, is it any wonder that the citizens of Dublin became apathetic towards municipal affairs, and is it any wonder that we have heard the Corporation traduced many times since? Senator Jameson will pardon me for saying that he insinuated, but said nothing but—like charity—that covers a multitude of sins. Is it any wonder with such brutal and vulgar criticism that the people of other countries have come to look upon the Dublin Corporation as a kind of Hell's Kitchen?

General Mulcahy

Before we leave that point, the Senator gave me the impression that he was suggesting that this criticism in an evening newspaper emanated from the Local Government Department. I would like to be clear as to whether I understand the Senator rightly or wrongly.

Mr. O'Neill

No. I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. Nothing in the world was further from my mind than to suggest that the Local Government Board had hand, act or part in reference to this leading article. I venture to suggest that it was done for the purpose—whether it effected it or not is a very different thing—of poisoning the minds of the citizens and gingering up the Local Government Board. If my friend, General Mulcahy, thinks that by the remarks I have made I have thrown any reflection on the Local Government Board I will promptly withdraw them. Is the Minister satisfied?

General Mulcahy

Quite.

Mr. O'Neill

I shall not again trouble the Seanad with the brutal remarks to which I have referred, but a benevolent Government, I presume I can call it that, stepped in and handed over the management of the City to Senator Jameson's friends, to three of these gifted "mothers." Before leaving this rather vulgar and nauseous subject—as far as I am concerned I feel that it has been dragged out of me; I have been waiting for this opportunity for the last five years—it is only fair that I should state—I was taught in my early life to be just to all men—that the largest owner of that newspaper, which his father had founded, called upon me at the Mansion House in evident distress and produced a resolution that was passed by himself and his co-directors condemning the article that I have mentioned and, further, apologising to me as Lord Mayor of Dublin on behalf of my colleagues. That was at least an honourable act, which was spoilt by the fact that not a line of apology or regret appeared in the columns of the newspaper.

No public representative should object to criticism. Criticism is the very breath and essence of progress, but no respectable Pressman, no newspaper with a reputation to defend, would use language of that kind. Perhaps at another time I will deal with the unfair methods adopted to dissolve the Corporation, but for the moment I will let it rest.

I will just pass to a few remarks on the section of the Bill which has been dealt with by Senator O'Farrell. Quite recently I was travelling by tram, and let me say, it is in the street, in the tram, by the fireside or by the roadside that public opinion is moulded. The tram conductor greeted me with "Good morning, Lord Mayor; you have done more in your day than the whole of them put together." I do not know whether that was flattering or embarrassing or whether it is what my friend, Senator Milroy, would call balderdash. The conversation took place at the time of the last Presidential election. The tram conductor asked me, "Who will get in, Lord Mayor?" I said, "President Cosgrave will get in again." He said, "No matter who gets in or out, I will have to keep punching my tram tickets." He was a character, and evidently being one of Dublin's disillusioned citizens, I ventured to ask him what he thought of the Greater Dublin Bill. Without any hesitancy whatever he said, "That is the Bill that gives the rich man six votes and the poor man only one. These are the fellows who want to stuff it down our throats. We went out to fight for freedom for them, and having helped to get that freedom, they now want to take it from us. Heaven help us." Other sections in this Bill are of the greatest importance to the City, but in my opinion this section, I think it is Section 35, raises a big broad political issue—six votes for one man, the rich man, and one vote for the poor man.

In my opinion this is a most dangerous and insidious section. It is more far-reaching in its effects than many people realise. It is, in my opinion, resurrecting class distinctions in public affairs in their very worst form—by money. It is an encouragement to the Communists to make their attack on our present social system when every effort should be made to retard and not to encourage them. It is a piercing of the main fabric of democracy laughed at by Senators here to-day —one man one vote. It is a direct incitement, in my opinion, to strife between capital and labour. Worse than all, it is a glorification and a wholesale recognition of the activities of the moneylender and the profiteer. It puzzles me to find men who claim to be democrats supporting a section like this. In my opinion it is all moonshine, trying to convince themselves by the chopping of cheap logic that they remain democrats still.

If such a proposition as this were brought forward by the old Local Government Board a few years ago, what an uproar would have been created throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, as it was called then! What glorious propaganda it would have provided in our fight against English methods! How some of the young men who have become prominent since would make the rafters ring with eloquence and stagger humanity with their writings and condemnation of this proposal. How some of our young men would be told off to perform quick action, with the sound of which some of us were familiar at the time.

After a fairly varied experience of political life, I generally found that a brave soldier made a bad politician, and that he found it difficult to handle politicians. My great friend, Senator Bryan Mahon, who, I am sorry to see, is not here—if he were here I would be satisfied he would agree—would tell you that when he was Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces in Ireland in 1917, only for his tact, his bravery and his humanity, the citizens of Dublin would have been butchered in cold blood. I have documents in my possession to prove that some permanent officials were anxious for that. Senator Sir Bryan Mahon, finding his position was becoming unbearable, like a brave man resigned, and that relieved the situation somewhat.

I am sure the permanent officials are very different at the present time to what they were in those days, but I would just like to speak of one little incident that may be helpful to my friend, General Mulcahy. When I was recognised as Lord Mayor of Dublin by the British Local Government Board, I had many interviews with Sir Henry Robinson on civic matters. It was generally assumed, rightly or wrongly, that Sir Henry Robinson was the Local Government Board himself. An order was made by a high permanent official against a member of the Corporation. The order was so ridiculous that it was never carried out. Speaking to Sir Henry Robinson I had the temerity to twit him on the matter. What was his reply? I hope the ladies in the Seanad will not be shocked at the language, but perhaps coming from a very high British official it may not be considered vulgar. He said: "Damn these fellows, they are always getting me into no end of trouble but, blast them, I must stand behind them." In the official report of the debate in the Dáil on this Bill on February 26-28th, column 950, General Mulcahy is reported—it is extraordinary the amount of ammunition an official report provides—as having stated: "Men engaged in business are very much immersed in their own affairs and do not go again for either national or municipal honours." If this is the well-considered and studied opinion of General Mulcahy, his experts and advisers——

General Mulcahy

I make my own speeches.

Mr. O'Neill

— it is only natural to ask why so much fuss is made about compiling a register, while according to the Minister himself it will not be availed of by the business community. I would be very curious to know what did the business men in the Dáil who voted for this section think of General Mulcahy's statement.

Is their presence in the Dáil not a direct negative to that statement? I would be very curious to know what Senator Jameson—Senator Douglas has gone—and other business men in the Seanad think of the Minister's statement, that business men are too much immersed in their own affairs and do not go into national politics. I think I may pass from that; Senator Farren has dealt with the business men in the Corporation. I, like Senator Farren, am not going to claim that the business men are the end-all and the be-all of intelligence or capacity in the Corporation, but my colleagues who are around me will bear me out when I say that when they did happen, by any chance, to show intelligence or capacity they were placed in the highest positions of trust. The business men in the Corporation, although they did not agree with what was going on during the national crisis, must get credit for this from me, that when the membership of the Corporation was depleted by the arrest of some of its members they ran the risk of arrest themselves. They nobly stood by their colleagues and carried on their work in their absence. I could give any amount of data with regard to the business men in the Corporation. I could give any amount of data as to how the Corporation was availed of. It is well that this House and the country should know—this is strange but true—that before the despised and rejected Corporation in 1918 was taken over by the Republican element, at a time when the country was floundering about for a lead and when the eyes of Nationalists and Imperialists were turned to the Corporation, Dr. Sherlock, in conjunction with Alderman Byrne, carried through a resolution at a meeting of the Corporation by a majority of 39 votes to 3, which eventually resulted in the defeat of conscription. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why a rankling is left in the minds of so many, and why there is so much bitterness against the old Corporation. When a national emergency arose Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins, Eamon de Valera and Richard Mulcahy came to the Corporation, to the Lord Mayor and to the Aldermen to seek their aid.

One of the great arguments in favour of this section is that it is to meet what has been described as inequitable—that is, taxation without representation. During the past 30 years not a single meeting has been held in the Dublin Chamber of Commerce at which that parrot cry— taxation without representation—has not been heard. It has been mentioned in the Dáil and it was referred to here to-day. The question has been asked: "What about the big business places? What about Guinness?" I ask, is not the humblest individual in this City of as much importance in voting for the election of members of the Corporation as the figure-heads connected with big business corporations? Is not the humblest individual in this State not able to use the intelligence which God has given him just as well as any of those figure-heads? In my opinion he is far better able to do it, because he knows the wants and the sufferings of the people far better than the moneylender, than the profiteer, than the moneyed man who spends his time gambling, perhaps, in Monte Carlo or in a saloon in Paris, or who hurries home from his night club in London and knocks at the lodge door or at the Cumann na nGaedheal or Fianna Fáil office and, with his bundle of votes, asks for instructions as to how he is to vote. That is taxation with representation. Then the loud timbrel sounds in the halls of the Chamber of Commerce, in the gilded apartments of the moneylenders, and in the cocktail parlours of the profiteers. Jehovah has triumphed, and taxation with representation is free.

There is one thing in this Bill which grieves me and it is the anomalous position in which General Mulcahy is placed. Up to this it was admitted that the citizens of Dublin, as a whole, were capable of electing members to the Dáil to legislate for the State, but according to this new Bill the citizens of Dublin are not capable, as a whole, of electing their municipal representatives. The anomaly which sincerely hurts me is the invidious position in which General Mulcahy is placed. I am quite satisfied, knowing what he has done in the past, knowing the temperament of the man and knowing his honesty, that he cannot have his heart in this section of the Bill. Richard Mulcahy, the man, goes before the citizens of Dublin and, like other candidates, he tells them in his election addresses, what a fine people they are, what a great and incorruptible people they are and what a charming people they are. As a whole, many of them may be, they are honest and they can do no wrong by electing Richard Mulcahy as a member of the Dáil, but General Mulcahy, Minister for Local Government, tells the people who place him in the position of being able to become Minister for Local Government, that he cannot trust them as a whole to elect representatives to the Dublin Corporation, except they have sandwiched in between them, as a kind of watch-dog, men who have large banking accounts. I have heard a great deal about the merchant princes, that they are fine fellows and have great ability. Senator Jameson sounds the loud timbrel and tells us what they will do if sent into the Corporation.

I wondered when Senator Jameson was speaking how many Senators had ever read what the moneyed register accomplished in civic affairs in the past. The annals of Dublin tell us that in the years gone by—I think it was previous to 1840—the Dublin Corporation was known throughout the length and breadth of the land as the rotten Corporation. The money furnace was in full blast, and the money register was then a reality. It may satisfy Senator Jameson to know this, that none were then elected to the Corporation except those who might be called merchant princes— those great fellows who are going to do so much according to this Bill. These fine fellows, these merchant princes used to sit down of an evening over a glass of milk—cocktails had not as yet come to hand—and the annals of Dublin tell us, they religiously sliced out the citizens' property amongst themselves.

Mr. Farren

What about the Pembroke estate?

Mr. O'Neill

And when they were tired doling out amongst themselves they gave long leases for a song, as Senator Farren has reminded me, in the case of the Pembroke estate and others. The conduct of these genteel rogues and blackguards became so alarming that the British Government, not behindhand itself in its infamies, got frightened. As a result of the labours of the great O'Connell who afterwards was Lord Mayor of Dublin, the moneyed franchise became a thing of the past. Under successive Acts of Parliament there has since been no moneyed franchise in Dublin, but now the money franchise is going to be restored, not by the British Government—they had better sense than to do it—but by a Government of our own. If ever a Government was elected to uphold the principles of democracy it was ours, but I am afraid it has fallen by the roadside. If only Arthur Griffith was alive! How his loss is felt more and more every day. The poor fellow, what did he work in the wilderness for 30 years for? What did he die for? Is this to be the reward of his sacrifices? Recently the English Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported as having stated that "while millions of men were dying, or exposed to death on the battlefield, the profiteers at home increased their wealth by £4,000,000,000." Would one want to be a merchant prince to understand that? Our Government, instead of taking some of that from these people, is, by this section, going to give them increased powers. That statement made by the English Chancellor of the Exchequer awakens in us, in our quiet moments, feelings of loneliness and sadness for those who are gone, and in our public moments would urge us to stand firmly by the principles for which they fought and died. Were there any class distinctions or moneyed qualifications between the millions of men who died or were exposed to death on the battlefield? No, they all stood shoulder to shoulder. What did they die and fight for? To make the world safe for democracy, the principle that has been laughed at here to-day— one man one vote. What did Pearse and his comrades sacrifice their lives for? What did the Republican Army fight for? What did the people of high and low degree suffer for? What is the meaning of the silence which takes place on Armistice Day? What is it, but to give thousands of ex-soldiers time to reflect on what they have gone through for the establishment of democracy.

It is just as well that I should speak plainly here to-day. I am anxious that the special attention of the citizens of Dublin should be focussed on this section of the Bill. I am afraid that the citizens of Dublin generally seem to be rather apathetic on that point owing to the fact that their minds have been saturated with a lot of vulgar writings. Perhaps it is just as well that cant and humbug in public life should be nipped in the bud and stripped of its veneer of finery. It is just as well that the people of this State and of this city should understand, as I understand, that the underlying motive in this section—I do not impute this to General Mulcahy, but I impute it to some of those around him—is to pander to the fancy of the few, and is a dole to those who, at the moment, have the balance of power. In referring to moneylenders and profiteers I am not to be taken as making any wild and unjust suggestions that the industrious and honest shopkeepers of this city are profiteers. In fact, most of them suffered from the monopolies created during the war.

I have spoken strongly on this matter, but it is because I feel strongly as a citizen of Dublin that I have used such language. I had to speak as I have done because my colleagues in the Corporation have stood abuse and got no opportunity of defending themselves during the past five years. Before I sit down I would make an earnest appeal to the Minister to withdraw this section. Do not let it be said, General Mulcahy, that you are the man to put back the hands of the clock of progress. Do not, my friend, destroy the edifice that you helped to build. You were prepared to lay down your life in the building of it. Do not let it be said now in the years to come that Richard Mulcahy, Chief of Staff of the Republican Army; General Mulcahy, who bravely and nobly stepped into the breach when Michael Collins was killed, as Commander-in-Chief of the National Army, that you let down the comrades who stood beside you and fought for you. Do not let it go out that you believe they are not capable as a whole of electing representatives to the Dublin Corporation except with the help of a moneyed franchise. In calmer moments I may feel that I have said things which may have been a little hurtful, but I did not mean them. Honestly and frankly, I felt somewhat overstrung that this obnoxious section should be forced on the citizens of my native city, to belittle and destroy their reputation, and that by a Government of their own. In my last appeal I would say to the Minister: think of the comrades who fought with you and are still scattered throughout the city. Do not insult them by this section. Narrowing the issue down to a few words, this section means, if it means anything, that you, General Mulcahy, Minister for Local Government, will not trust the lowly citizens of Dublin.

Mr. Johnson

Perhaps it would be an impertinence for me to congratulate Senator O'Neill on what is in fact, but what it would not be literally correct to describe as, his maiden speech. I think that the section to which he has directed his remarks, that is the section dealing with the merchant franchise, is well described as an insult to the electors of the city. I want to follow the Senator's criticism of that particular section. The Minister, in the course of his opening statement, referred to the basis of the local government franchise as being a property basis, and on that statement he built up his case for an extension or intensification of the property franchise, and he quoted in support of that statement the fact that the business community, that we intend to specially cater for in this section, occupy premises valued at nearly half or about half the total valuation of the city. I cannot understand the logic that starts by saying the local government franchise is based on property valuation, as property valuation, and then follows that by saying that the property owned by the business element of the community is in valuation half the total and then confines that representation to five members in a council of 35. If there is any consistency in the argument then it should have half the direct and separate representation of the membership.

Senator O'Neill pointed out that people who elected members to the Dáil are the citizens of Dublin. In asmuch as they are recognised by the legislature to select competent men for the work of legislation and the overseeing of the Minister's administration, they should, one would think, be equally capable of selecting competent men to oversee the work of the City Manager. The Minister says no. We must have additional representation, specially confined to the representatives of business men. If it is necessary to have a special and separate franchise to be sure that business men will be elected for the Dublin Council, I cannot, for the life of me, see what is going to prevent the next Franchise Bill containing a provision which will ensure that business men —men of a certain property qualification—shall have a special and separate set of representatives in the Dáil. I think that, probably, is in the mind of some of the supporters of this section. I should like to put it to the Minister, and to those who support this section, that its effect is likely to be contrary altogether to that which they would like to secure. I would ask the Minister if he remembers the pre-1918 period in the Corporation, when there was a general qualification and no separate franchise of a fancy character. Did that electorate refuse to elect business men? I remember, although I was not resident in Dublin at the time, that there were on the Council of Dublin such men as Councillor Beattie, Alderman Corrigan, Councillor Hubbard Clark, Sir Joseph Downes, Senator James Moran, Sir Patrick Shortall, Maxwell Lemon, and Michael Moran, and numerous others elected by the popular vote, even though they were business men. Now it is suggested that a new electorate will not elect business men because of some new influence that is supposed to have come into public life.

What is the new influence? and what is going to be the likely effect? It would seem to be almost inevitable that the consequence of making a separate franchise for business men to elect five business men, will tend to consolidate the rest of the electors against electing business men. They will say "Business men will elect business men. Let the rest of us therefore elect others than business men." And I predict that the result of this particular section will be to have fewer business men in the council than you would have if this section was not embodied in the Bill.

But what is meant by a business man? Who are the men that are to be elected as business men? Perhaps the Minister will give us a little more information as to how and why this register is to be compiled. Every person being a rated occupier whose premises are valued at not less than £20, and if such premises are occupied by such individual partly or wholly—I am leaving firms and corporate bodies and so on on one side—for the purpose of carrying on business, profession, trade or manufacture or other commercial or industrial pursuits. What does that include? I take a street that I am familiar with. I picture a certain house of £20 valuation. The occupier is a dressmaker with one room set apart for dressmaking. She is entitled to a vote under that particular qualification. Take the case of a woman who has a house and carries on the business of catering for lodgers. Is that a business qualification and does it entitle her to vote under this franchise? I can see no reason why she should not. It seems to me quite inevitable that such persons should seek and should succeed in seeking to get on the new register. Is an insurance agent not a man who could claim to carry on some business if he lives in premises over £20 valuation and sets a part or portion off it for the conducting of his business? Is he then not entitled to get on the register? It will widen no doubt the number of registered electors but is that going to ensure to the business man that the particular type that it is sought to ensure representation for will be elected? I think it will not.

There is an implication in this section that you cannot find enough business men to be so public minded and to have interest in public affairs of sufficient depth and width as to face the electorate, and that the organised bodies which may be presumed to be in the field at election times, will consistently and with malice aforethought refuse to put all business men upon their list of nominations. The Minister seems to forget that the whole basis of election is still on the proportional representation system and, consequently, to have the effect that is sought, there is no necessity for this particular section. I wonder if the Minister would go down to-morrow to Longford and state that what is now proposed in respect of Dublin is to be extended to the rest of the country? There are, for instance, more farmers holding farms under fifteen acres in extent than farmers holding fifty-acre farms. The necessary conclusion to be drawn from this section, to my mind, would be that in a future revision of the local government franchise the farmers having the larger valuation will have a larger number of votes than the smaller farmers with a smaller valuation.

I cannot for the life of me see why one can introduce, or shall I say reintroduce, into the electoral law a principle of this kind of the multiple vote for propertied people unless one intends to extend it to other parts of the country. I have no doubt this whole question will be discussed in greater detail during the Committee Stage of the Bill, but I think for our guidance the Minister should inform us, if he can, what is his estimate as to the number of voters under this Section 35 in respect of the different categories. That is to say, how many does he anticipate of those propertied persons will be entitled to one vote, how many to two, how many to five or six, and so on, and how many there will be as regards the total? Also, would the Minister explain to us how it is proposed, and when it is proposed, to proceed with the making of the new register, and whether there will be opportunity of thoroughly informing all those who might be entitled to be placed upon the register under the definition of Section 34 of their right to be there, because there seems to be an impression that it is only intended for the larger business people and the larger property owners, whereas, as I pointed out, it is apparently intended that any person who partly or wholly carries on business in premises of £20 valuation and over shall have a separate vote for a separate class of representatives.

There are several other parts of the Bill that, I think, should be amended, but I shall not deal with them now. I am in agreement with my colleague, Senator Farren, when he says that the Bill with the amendments that have been made on it makes it much more preferable when compared with the Bill when originally introduced. But I hope the House will follow the advice of Senator O'Neill and delete all references to this particular franchise.

Mr. Douglas

As only one Senator has spoken in favour of the general principle of the clause against which the last Senator spoke strongly, I think it might be no harm to give some reason why I think the principles embodied in the section dealing with the commercial register are a very desirable experiment. I do not propose to deal with some of the criticism by Senator Johnson, as his remarks as to the effect of the £20 vote are interesting and the proposal may require amendment. I think a great deal of the talk with regard to democracy and fair representation is very largely wide of the mark and completely ignores certain fundamental facts in the situation. It is well known that in many cases ratepayers who were directors of limited companies were not able to obtain a vote. In the past you had a situation in the guise of fair play and democracy by which a large number of ratepayers were unable to vote. Take the case of one comparatively small business which I know personally. Before it became a limited company there were four votes for four individuals. When it became a limited company there was no vote for the local council. Actually because of the valuation I find under this Bill there will be again four votes. That is supposed to be undemocratic and something which cannot possibly be thought of. I am not prepared to prove that in every case it will work out as equitably as in the one I mentioned. What I suggest is that it is a desirable growth and that limited companies, some large and some small, have undoubtedly made a case for a change and in the Bill have, possibly, not a perfect but an interesting experiment, which is not one to be turned down lightly or brushed aside as something which is undemocratic and not to be considered. I have read so much about it that I have been unable to understand what is democratic and what is not. I take it that what we are concerned with is that there shall be fair play and representation reasonably proportionate as regards those who have to pay the rates in the City. While there may be excellent arguments in detail against the proposal in the Bill, I think any arrangements by which sections which were unable to vote because companies had become limited, and who will now be able to exercise some say in the management of the City, are ones which ought to meet with our commendation. I am not able to say whether some of the objections which Senator Johnson raised might not necessitate amendments. I do not think the House should assume that provision is being made for a vote based on wealth rather than on the rates paid. A company may represent a thousand shareholders, and in that case four or five votes are provided. To pretend that that is undemocratic and something to be pushed aside is, I think, absurd. The reason I spoke was because of the tendency of some of the criticism to ignore one of the fundamental factors of the case.

General Mulcahy

On behalf of the greater part of the staff of the Department of Local Government, which has done so much work in connection with this measure, I feel very grateful for the expressions of appreciation of the Bill. I might have had a certain amount of trouble in connection with it, but I think for every point of trouble I got, I gave the Department about ten points, in addition to the very great amount of work the staff did themselves. For that particular reason I am grateful for the appreciation of the measure expressed in the Seanad. I do not quite realise what Senator O'Neill meant, but I certainly have nothing to blame the Department of Local Government for, for what he saddled me with, or for any of the points I brought up in my speech. I do not feel that I have any reason to say anything in respect to anything I did.

Mr. O'Neill

Would the Minister ask for an explanation if I have not made myself perfectly clear and I will endeavour to give it?

General Mulcahy

As long as I make myself clear I am quite satisfied. The Dublin Council can look at Portmarnock to-morrow and see what they want to do with it in the interests of Dublin. What I was not prepared to do was, simply because there is a big strand there, to add, in addition to the very large area being added to Dublin, another area of 2,177 acres populated to the extent of one person per seven acres, and make the City of Dublin responsible for the local government of that area, which would mean not only looking after drains and the water supply, but dealing with every matter affecting the health and lives of the population. I realise that there are areas outside Dublin that can give service to Dublin and that will want service from Dublin. Let those responsible for the local government code, which is a very definite code, look the facts straight in the face, and take such action as they want to take with their eyes open, after a clear examination of the financial commitments involved, and say where the finances are to come from. Neither the Dáil nor the Seanad is in a position to examine the stretch that runs from Kilbarrack to Malahide and say that the City of Dublin should take that area over as a part of the local government. We have a much more satisfactory machine to carry out that examination, and with definite authority to take such steps as it thought proper to bring in those areas, or to assist them in any way. I am perfectly satisfied with the situation as regards that, and I think the Seanad will be satisfied.

In reply to a casual remark with regard to the extension of these areas without introducing Bills into Parliament any extension by provisional order will involve attaching to that provisional order a short Bill in the usual way and the running of the proposal through the gauntlet of the Dáil and the Seanad. That simply means that the Dáil and Seanad will have to review all these proposals before any of them are carried into effect.

The suggestion was made that Dublin should be extended to Dun Laoghaire, leaving Dalkey and Killiney outside. I think that impracticable for many reasons. I do not see why Dalkey and Killiney should be left outside if other places are taken in. You have the position that if the drainage of Dalkey is to be satisfactorily dealt with it must be drained into the Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire drainage system. It cannot be linked up with the city. You would then have the position that you had the drainage system of Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock in the city, but in order to provide proper drainage for Dalkey you would have to drain it into the Dun Laoghaire system, so that nothing would be served in the way of the interests of Dun Laoghaire or Blackrock by taking these places in.

As to the Port and Docks Board the Seanad will remember that a tribunal dealing with these matters has been sitting for some time and, I understand, we are on the eve of a report dealing with all the ports and harbours in the country. The Seanad will have an opportunity of seeing the results of that report and will, I expect, have their views heard in dealing with legislation for the general control of the ports.

Senator Connolly referred to the section dealing with tenders. I put in that section dealing with the making of regulations for the reception of tenders in response to pressure, so that the control of contracts generally should be in the hands of the Council. I do not know that there is anything really involved in it. If the Council do not make regulations dealing with the acceptance of tenders the Manager will have to make them, and probably the Manager will have to make them in any case.

As to the business franchise Senator O'Neill claims that he has fixed the attention of the whole world on this matter.

Mr. O'Neill

Oh, no.

Cathaoirleach

More or less.

General Mulcahy

At any rate that he is trying to do it, but I suggest to the Senator the thing he will succeed in fixing the people's attention on is that he has forgotten or has conveniently left aside any knowledge he has of the basis of the local government franchise, because it is not a case of one man one vote. Whatever the British Army, the Republican Army and the soldiers have been fighting for for years past, it is the first time I ever heard they were fighting for one man one vote in the local government franchise. If we want to examine the whole basis of the local government franchise and change it, let us do it, but let us do it after examination. There has been no examination of the basis of the local government franchise in the Dáil, and I do not know if we are going to have it here. If Senators are to approach the matter in the way it should be approached, then I think they should put down proposals and have an examination.

Mr. Johnson

Would it be in order to do it on this Bill?

Cathaoirleach

Probably not.

General Mulcahy

Do not misrepresent the present proposals. You cannot change the proposals here on the Dáil attitude. Our whole attitude of mind, formed, no doubt, by legislation and tradition, is to regard as rather reasonable the difference that exists between the local government franchise and the Dáil franchise. What Senators who want to criticise the present proposals have to show with regard to the business franchise is why a person occupying a residence in the city of a valuation of, say, £20 should have a local government vote, and his wife should have a vote, if she comes within the age, while if they occupy business premises ten times the valuation for the purpose of carrying on a furniture-making business, a boot-making business or a distributing business, and pay rates to the tune of the valuation, why there should be no vote, good, bad or indifferent. That is the question to be answered.

Mr. Wilson

What about the six votes?

General Mulcahy

There is an attenuation of the local government vote from the occupation of rateable premises and the paying of these rates. There is this attenuation at any rate, the rated occupier and his wife can have a vote and a lodger occupying unfurnished quarters in rateable premises can have a vote, so that you have an attenuation of the fundamental principle there that the person who pays rates has a vote. There is no desire on our part to depart in a very material way from the present local government franchise.

We propose that under the old franchise 30 persons shall be elected, and with these shall be associated five people elected on the restricted commercial franchise. There is no question of smothering them or giving the commercial people representation that their ratepaying burdens would entitle them to, because we do not want to depart materially from the tradition that has grown up and that as far as we know has proved satisfactory, but we are anxious to undo the injustice that in one form has been referred to by Senator Douglas, and does exist in another form where a private individual owns a concern and not a company, and we are also anxious to do away with that injustice.

Mr. Johnson

Will you do it?

General Mulcahy

This is our proposal for doing away with it, but we are also anxious to get it in a way that will not involve the same amount of trouble that persons are involved in in going to the hustings and joining up definitely with a political party in order to secure election. We are anxious that those who represent capacity in business would have the opportunity of being brought into our City Council, so that they could have their voices heard in the management of the City, and be saddled with the responsibility of supporting as a business community the municipal policy. Senator O'Neill quoted a remark of mine which I am prepared to stand over, and that is the difficulty of getting business people to come in either to national or local politics. To say that this proposal of mine here is inconsistent with the magnificent and most democratic frame of mind in which I approached some of my previous work is entirely a misreading on what is in the Bill. I think Senator O'Neill must have forgotten what the basis of the local government franchise was when he allowed himself to elaborate his objection to this particular proposal in the way he did, because I do not think he could have committed himself to the exact statement he made and to the general tone if he had remembered in any way that the real basis of the local government franchise is that men who occupy premises at a certain rateable valuation and who pay the rates are entitled to votes. With regard to the figures, may I say on the question of £20 that I realise that is probably too low, and it may defeat its object. However, that is a matter for consideration. Senator Johnson raised the question as to whether a girl living in a house and using one of the rooms for the business of dressmaking would be on the register. I am not prepared at present to say that she would. When you come to deal with a matter like that you are presented with a spectrum, and you come to the point where you have to draw a line, and it is because we had a spectrum-like difficulty in the matter that the word "profession" is here. Are you to put a family doctor off the register, and say that the dentist next door who employed an assistant mechanic was to be put on the register?

Mr. Johnson

They would both be put on.

General Mulcahy

Under that heading they would both be put on, because you cannot split up a class of persons when you are finding your line, so that when Senators come to discuss the details of the matter, as they will, for the machinery Bill has to be introduced in connection with the formation of the register——

Mr. Johnson

Before the register is compiled?

General Mulcahy

Yes, so that I am not prepared to say whether a dressmaker who uses a room in the premises as a dressmaker will be on the register, but I will say that we will have a difficulty in finding the particular points at which the qualifications will stop, but that is no reason why we should refrain from attempting to give this very just and useful representation. Senator Johnson asked me if I could give the figures for the different valuations. Let me say that in arriving at this £20 I had in mind that, in the first place, this £20 was a figure on which the Port and Docks Board Register is made up, and, in the second place, when I sat on a Private Bill Committee that dealt with Dundalk Harbour, the valuation of £20 was accepted generally as the valuation that made a person eligible to be an elector of the Harbour Board. That is the explanation of the £20. The only figures I have for the different sections of this valuation are the figures from the present Port and Docks Register. Unfortunately, I have not the papers with me at the moment, but the total number of votes on that register is about 4,500. It is estimated that the number on the register for the City would be between 7,000 and 8,000.

From the point of multiple vote, if any person thinks it unreasonable and that it is going back to what is supposed to have been the old rotten principle of the multiple vote, I would like to know some way in which we can discriminate between the occupier of a business premises of £20 or £30 and the occupier of a business premises valued at £250. If you are going to do what you are seeking to do here in the matter of giving a certain amount of justice to ratepayers and a certain amount of representation to persons with a particular class of experience, you must have regard to the amount of valuation, as otherwise you go deep down to the position to which Deputy Johnson has drawn attention. What is always suggested to me when I hear people making jokes about Cork and Corkmen is that it is a very subtle kind of propaganda instituted by Cork, and when you hear something suggested about what the Corporation did from 1877 or 1878 in every inquiry set up about the position in Dublin I begin to suspect, however much criticism of the Dublin Corporation may have turned in later days, that it began out of great affection for the Dublin Corporation, and was kept up almost by the Dublin Corporation people themselves out of pure love and joy and kind of self-boosting. Certainly it is impossible to read some of the evidence in some of the old reports without putting the Dublin Corporation into the same class as the Cork man of to-day, and the mother-in-law and people like that about whom jokes are made.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, the 4th of June.