I should like to propose that the Second Reading of this Bill be adjourned until next Wednesday.
Constitution (Amendment No. 23) Bill, 1934—Second Stage.
Cathaoirleach
Is it the desire of the House that we should adjourn consideration of this Bill?
I felt that when we decided to adjourn at 7 o'clock and to come back at 8 o'clock that the idea was, as far as possible, to go right through the Order Paper. I would like to protest against the House postponing anything on the Order Paper that can be dealt with this evening.
I should be quite glad to see the Bill taken if we could get through it this evening, but I do not think that is possible. I am afraid the debate will be so protracted that it will have to be stopped, perhaps in the middle. I think the great majority of Senators would prefer to allow the Bill to stand over until next week.
I thought it was agreed, when we adjourned at 7 o'clock, that we would sit on to finish the business this evening. It was on that understanding that the adjournment was agreed to.
Cathaoirleach
I had hoped that that would be possible, but it is for the House to decide whether we should adjourn consideration of this Bill until next Wednesday. For my part I think it would be desirable to go on for some time and see what we can do. I am putting the question to the House as to whether we shall adjourn the Second Reading of this Bill until next Wednesday.
Question put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That this Bill be now read a Second Time."
This Bill proposes to delete Article 27 of the Constitution. It is really a corollary to the Bill we have been discussing in Committee. When the time for revising the constituencies arrived every constituency was looked into, and the Government could find no reason why the Universities should get special consideration. First of all, in principle, they could see no reason why things that apply to Universities should not also apply equally well to other institutions and organisations. It could not be claimed, as it stands, that University representation is educational representation, because many of the graduates who are voters on the register may not be concerned with education at all. They may be engineers or journalists or engaged in any other walk of life. In at least one University the candidates are selected by political organisations, and are definitely allied to political parties. They are selected as ordinary political representatives; there is no question of their being educational representatives at all. When the time arrives when we are to have a corporate State, about which we hear so much, there may be a case for University representation as well as representation for vocational bodies, trade unions and others; but until that time arrives I do not see that any case can be made for special University representation.
At the present time there are six University representatives. That means one twenty-fifth of the whole Dáil. The number of representatives has been fixed as three for each University and that has no reference whatever to the size of the register. There might be very few people on the register, and yet three members would be returned. I have seen a statement as to what the voting power of a University graduate may be in relation to the ordinary elector. That may be a very valuable figure. It depends on how many people may care to register as University electors. Really when a person is registered as a University elector his name ought not to be on the register for another constituency.
It is not.
It has happened that the name appeared for another constituency. It is very hard to check them. That is one of the anomalies of the position. It has happened that the names of graduates on University Registers have been on the registers of other constituencies.
Would the Minister give an instance? He has made an extraordinary statement. I happen to be on both registers, and I never met any voter in a University who voted also in any other constituency.
It is a criminal offence.
I did not say they voted in another constituency.
The Minister is saying that that is one of the things to be remedied—that persons who voted for University candidates also voted for representatives in the country. I should like some evidence that that is a fact.
I did not say they voted in other constituencies. I was speaking solely about the registers and names appearing on the registers.
It is a criminal offence to vote in both.
I am well aware of that but I have not said they voted. I said it is very difficult to check the registers in the case of University voters. I did not say they voted in other constituencies as well.
Another big objection is that people who have practically severed all connection with this country can vote by post. Some friend may write and say to them "We want you to vote for certain people" and very probably they will do so. No other citizen has any such right. If an ordinary voter is not resident in his constituency, on a certain date, he is automatically put off the register. But these University voters can settle down in any country they like and still have the right to vote. I cannot see any justification for that. The big objection I see to University representation, and which the Government saw, is that it is giving representation to particular institutions when there is no case for such representation. If a University man wishes to enter the Dáil, there is nothing to prevent him. Such people can go to the different constituencies and join the existing political Parties or, if they have personality enough, they can go up as independent candidates. If elected they will be just as much representative of their University as those elected for the Universities at the present time.
I repeat that candidates in one University now are selected by political organisations. Even in Trinity College, at the last election, there was an attempt made to nominate a political candidate, but there was a miscarriage. I can see no justification for this special representation at all. There is no such thing as a vocational system of representation yet. When that comes about it will be time enough to give Universities special representation.
I hope the Seanad will not agree to this Bill being read a second time. The Bill provides for the deletion from the Constitution of Article 27 which entitles each University in Saorstát Eireann to elect three representatives to Dáil Eireann. The proposal to alter the Constitution by abolishing the representation of the Universities in the Dáil is one of the most retrograde proposals that have ever come before this House. The reasons given by the Vice-President for making this proposal were on two main grounds. First, representation in the Dáil is in general regulated by a population formula. This formula does not apply to the University constituencies, the number of whose representatives are fixed by the Constitution. Secondly, if the Dáil, elected on an adult suffrage register according to the principles of proportional representation, is to include a special representation of a particular interest elected on a different basis it can only be because there is clear evidence that that particular interest has a peculiar national importance and cannot otherwise secure representation.
I think it will be evident to everyone in this House that the first reason does not apply as it is not a question of limiting the number of representatives of the Universities, but the deletion of representation altogether. The second reason is that there should be evidence that the particular interest has a peculiar national importance and cannot otherwise secure representation.
The Vice-President evidently overlooks the fact that the Universities were given the right to elect representatives because they occupied positions of peculiar national importance. It may be good tactics to try and place the Universities in the position that they are trying to get representation in the Dáil, whereas this Bill is for the purpose of taking from the Universities what they have already got. One of the Universities has enjoyed the privilege of sending representatives to Parliament for over 300 years. Surely we, who have such a great regard for ancient institutions, should hesitate before taking away a right with such long and honourable associations? The other University obtains its right to parliamentary representation through the agitation which was started in 1917 by the then Chancellor of the University, Archbishop Walsh, one of the greatest and most far-seeing Archbishops this country has ever had. In 1917 he called public attention to the fact that there was a Redistribution Bill then before the British House of Commons, and that no representation was being given to the National University of Ireland.
The Archbishop stressed the necessity of having the University represented in Parliament, not as an act of grace, but as a national right. He also stated that he had no desire to take from Dublin University the ancient privilege of representation which that venerable institution had enjoyed for over 300 years. A public meeting in University College was called to consider the matter. It was large, influential, and enthusiastic. It was pointed out that there were many reasons why they had a right to claim University representation. It has been stated that Sinn Féin in 1918 accepted University representation as part of their programme. The proposal was also supported by the whole Irish Party. After strenuous negotiations it was agreed to give the National University parliamentary representation in the British House of Commons. If ever there was a mandate for any particular object, surely there was a mandate for parliamentary representation, not only in the interests of the University, but in the best interests of the national life of the country? It was stated in the Dáil that the late President Arthur Griffith and the late Vice-President Kevin O'Higgins gave a promise that there would be University representation in the Oireachtas. Then when the Constitution was under consideration in the Dáil in 1922, the question of including University representation was left to an open vote of the Dáil, and it was decided by an almost unanimous vote to give the two Universities the right to elect three members each. The action of the Dáil giving parliamentary representation to the two Universities will stand out for all time as a broadminded act of statesmanship.
I cannot help admiring the liberal lines of justice and fair play on which the Constitution was drawn. It was drawn in no niggardly spirit, and the Government had good reason to be proud of their work. It is generally agreed that the University representatives in the Dáil have at all times realised their full responsibilities, and have taken a keen and helpful interest in the work of the Dáil. Their colleagues have given them credit for their public spirit, and for their valuable contributions to debate, and have added that the Dáil and the nation would be the poorer if they were excluded. This being so, why inflict this indignity upon the Universities and their representatives? Without going into details regarding the many important measures these representatives have initiated and assisted in carrying through, I might mention one Bill which was initiated and carried through by one of the University representatives which has been of enormous benefit to the sick, and that practically saved the whole voluntary hospital system. I need not refer to the many illustrious Irishmen who have been educated in Trinity College who have brought honour and prestige to Ireland. There are graduates of both Universities occupying important positions in all parts of the world. These men take the greatest possible interest in all that affects Ireland, and especially their Universities. If they have been carrying on good work for Ireland, how will they like their Universities to be degraded?
Before such a large and radical change should be proposed, the people in all parts of the country should have an opportunity of considering the reasons for and against such a change. They have had no such opportunity, not even the electors of the Universities have had this matter brought before them by those who appealed to them for their votes. I will vote against this Bill being read a second time.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Minister who is in charge of the Bill in this House, because it is not his Bill. No doubt, he is responsible, as other members of the Executive Council are, for the policy of this Bill. It is not his Bill, and that, I think, must be his excuse for the manner in which he introduced it to this House, but I am entirely willing to excuse it on that ground. The only real argument, I think, that the Minister put forward in support of the Second Reading of the Bill was that in this country we had not yet arrived at vocational representation. Now, that is an entire misapprehension of the real nature of University representation in this country. It does not represent a class of University professors or teachers; it represents a certain state of mind which is of immense importance in the political life of any country.
I would rather deal with this question and reply to the two main arguments which were put forward in the other House by the Vice-President. The first main argument put forward by him was that University representation is out of all proportion to numbers. The Minister in charge of the Bill here was not able to give the numbers. I am taking the numbers that I have from the speech of the Vice-President in the other House. In Dublin University there is one member for about 1,100 electors—about 1,100 voters on the register. In the National University there is one member for about 1,500 voters, and in the rest of the country there is one member for 11,000 voters, and, therefore, University representation has got to go. Now, that is a purely arithmetical argument, and it proceeds on the basis of counting heads. It is based on the assumption that, for the purpose of Parliamentary representation, all heads are equal. Now, Sir, for the purposes of Parliamentary representation all heads are not equal. I do not wish to be misunderstood. The 11,000 ordinary voters in the country who are represented by only one member in the Dáil have never had the chance of being equal for reasons that are due to our unhappy history in this country. The ordinary voters in this country are less educated and less experienced in political matters than perhaps in any other modern democratic State. It is not their fault. It is due to their history for two or three generations. Down to the time when the British ceased to govern this country there were practically only two questions before the ordinary elector in this country.
There was the question of Home Rule and there was the question of the land. He has got self-government; absolute free self-government, and every tenant in the Free State is now either the actual owner or the potential owner of his land. The two questions which he understood and voted on for generations are gone and, politically speaking, as far as political experience is concerned, he is at large. That explains a peculiarity in our political life, in so far as it is vocal, because our people, judging by what they shout, are people who follow persons rather than principles. It is "Up Dev," or "Up O'Duffy," or up somebody else, without any real understanding, I submit, of the principles which ought to underlie a cry like that.
There is something that men and women acquire in the University which gives them a special quality of mind, and a quality of mind which ought to be represented in a democratic Parliament. It does not come from the dead knowledge that they acquire in the University. It comes from the mixing for some years, and at an impressionable age, with men and women of different minds and with different points of view. But, as that quality of mind is represented in the Dáil by one member for 1,100, and the other qualities of mind have only one member for eleven thousand, University representation has got to go, and it has got to go in the country which wants it most.
It is symptomatic of the mind of the present Government that the abolition of University representation synchronises with the abolition of this House. They both develop a quality of mind for which the President of the Executive Council has no use; for service in this House develops much the same quality of mind as a University. We are small enough to know each other well. There is little or no bitterness here. There is a recognition that to all questions there is another side. They say that every country gets the Government that it deserves. When the Seanad and University representation are abolished in this country, this country will have the Government it deserves.
The second main argument of the Vice-President in the other House was that University representation is undemocratic. There is no word in the dictionary more abused, more misused, than the word democratic. Does any thoughtful man imagine that he is living at this moment in the Irish Free State in a democratic country? If he does, he is wrong. He is living under a dictatorship, and he is living under a dictatorship of the worst class, because it is posing as a Parliamentary Government. I agree that if our present Government is democratic, University representation is undemocratic. In a true democracy every element of the nation would have its proper share of representation, and Universities would probably have a large share; but even if they only had a small share it might well be the little leaven that would leaven the whole lump.
I maintain that in a true democracy there would be University representation. I take it that for practical purposes there is no truer democracy, no more real democracy, than the Government of Great Britain. For hundreds of years it had representation in Parliament of the two great Universities; it had two members returned for each. The growth of University education there has increased to such an extent that there are now 17 Universities in Great Britain, represented in Parliament by 12 members. That is the way the really democratic nation treats its University representation, and it is because that is going to be denied in this country that I intend to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.
I confess that on this particular Bill I have no strong views, but I have been absolutely amazed at the speech delivered by Senator Brown. He said Universities develop a certain quality of mind. They do. He has gone back to the time before the establishment of the Free State and commented on the lack of political education of the people of this country. To some extent it was true that the two main issues were, as he said, Home Rule and the land. Other matters, however, attracted the attention of the people also, but in a lesser degree. Let us go back, however, and study the quality of mind of University representation in those days. From the time of the Union up to 1920, approximately 120 years, we had University representation for Trinity College and, with two exceptions, during all that time the representation was the stepping-stone to high legal office or to the Bench. One of the exceptions was Hely-Hutchinson, of whom I think it was Peel said, that if you gave him England for his estate he would ask for the Isle of Man for a kitchen garden; and the other honourable exception was the Rt. Hon. W.H. Lecky. If that is the quality of mind University representation stands for, it is time to abolish it, and the anti-democratic government which Senator Brown defines, with all its faults and the counting of heads, is something to be desired as preferable.
I do not propose to say very much on this Bill. To me the measure is one of straight decision between yes and no. But I, too, like Senator Dowdall, was somewhat amazed, not so much at the opinions expressed by Senator Brown, as his method of expression. If I might say so, his technique this afternoon was somewhat less subtle and more direct than we have been accustomed to from him. The principle behind the introduction of this Constitution (Amendment) Bill is, I think, definitely sound and on a democratic basis.
Senator Brown went to some trouble to assume a superiority complex for himself, his colleagues and his friends in the universities. I do not differentiate between one university and another. I submit there is very little justification for representation in all we have known nationally, economically or spiritually of what has emerged from either university up to the present. I am prepared, without any admission of inferiority, to stand by the average standard of political insight, political acumen and political judgment of our people against that of any people I know. I have experience of democratic forms of government in countries other than this country. I have heard newspaper men from all parts of the world comment on the extraordinary political intelligence of the Irish people and on their grasp of the public problems presented to them. Their extraordinary knowledge and judgment in this respect, irrespective of how they may vote, have been frequently commented upon. I venture to think that that knowledge is more common amongst the people of Ireland, taken as a whole, than it is amongst those within the portals of Trinity College. There is a very definite reason for that. It is not a question of inherent ability. It is not a question of the segregation of minds of one class or another. It is a question of interest. What, after all, is the average student's interest when he goes to Trinity? His definite aim is an imperial career.
Senator Brown has referred to various distinguished graduates who have emerged from that institution and cast lustre on the Irish people. I submit that nothing in political thought which has emerged from Trinity College, with a couple of exceptions, has cast any credit on this nation as a whole. What have we got? We have invariably got the anti-Irish political leader. Go to Trinity College to-day. There is a reasonable leavening of sound republican thought there now but, taking it as a whole, it stands, as it stood when established, for the Elizabethan idea and the imperial idea. All the expressions of opinion we have had in this assembly show that it stands for the same thing still. One thing emerges—that that type of mind will refuse to accept the fact that the Irish people want to be free and that they do not want to be imperialistic or connected with the Empire. That aim is steadily resisted now, as Trinity has always resisted it. That is apart from the democratic principle involved.
I suggest to Senator Brown that he is making a very rash assumption if he is going to decry the political intelligence and the political mentality of the people. Even if it were so, there are very sound historical reasons why it should happen and these reasons are found most in the direction and guidance given in the same institution. We know the great statesmen—some of them are alive still—who have emerged from that institution. We know the damage they did in this country. We know their mentality to-day. They made Trinity College a stepping stone to preferment by means of the anti-Irish prejudice on the other side of the Channel. That is the history of Trinity. When the records of Trinity are analysed, it will be found to have been a most successful stepping stone to political preferment outside this country against the interests of this country. I want to enter an emphatic protest against the assumption, which is completely at variance with the facts, that our people lack intelligence in political matters.
I had a very distinguished representative of one of the world's greatest newspapers here in 1918. He had travelled over Russia; he had been all through the different headquarter centres of the Great War; he had gone through Britain, and he then came here to see the onslaughts that were being made on the people. What was his view? In no country in the world, he said, had he seen such political acumen and judgment displayed as were displayed by the people in this country. The Irish people do not need any defence from me against anything Senator Brown may say, but it is, I think, important that one protest, at least, should go on record against the claim that Trinity College, or University representation, gave us distinguished Irishmen. However, they may have been distinguished for service to the Empire elsewhere, they certainly were not regarded as distinguished here.
Senator Connolly was quite wrong in his interpretation of what I said. I was not referring to any particular University. I made no reference to any graduate of any University. I was defending the quality of mind a University produces.
I recognise that a Bill like this can be defended by a great number of theoretical and doctrinaire arguments. I recognise, too, that if we had a different sort of Seanad, instead of one which is to be abolished if the Government has its way, there would be a great deal to be said for having the University representatives in the Seanad. However, the proposal is not to transfer them to the Seanad but simply to eliminate them. I am not concerned with the history of University representation. So far as I am concerned, the history of university representation begins with the Free State. The original draft of the Constitution did not provide for University representation. The reason that the section now proposed to be deleted was inserted was that, during the discussions on the Constitution, the great body of the members of the Dáil were impressed with the help they got from those who were present in that Assembly as representatives of the Universities. I am not saying too much when I say that they were impressed, particularly, by the help they got from one of the Trinity representatives, who is now Mr. Justice Fitzgibbon. The feeling that developed amongst Deputies and that led to the insertion of the section was simply this: that, in addition to having the people represented in the Dáil, it is necessary that the Dáil should be an effective body and that outstanding men should find it moderately easy to get into it. It is all very well to have 153 representatives of the people, but if these 153 representatives all happened to be of mediocre ability, it would be a bad Dáil. I do not say that you are going to get geniuses from the universities. I am not as much impressed as Senator Brown is with the effects of University education so far as my observation of people has gone. It is, however, clear that men who would be very desirable members of the Dáil would get elected by University constituencies when they would not be elected otherwise. There are men whom it would be very desirable to have in the Dáil and who would go forward for University constituencies but who would not very readily go forward for the ordinary constituency and stand all the slander, all the buffeting and all the unpleasantness associated with ordinary electioneering. It is, perhaps, a very good thing that we have not too many sensitive people affected by the vulgar abuse and the unpleasantness associated with electioneering but, on the other hand, I do not think that it is a good thing to make a thick hide a necessary qualification for membership of the Parliament of the nation. If you abolish University representation, its meaning is that nobody who was not born naturally with a thick hide or who has not acquired it as a result of a lot of buffeting, need go up. University constituencies, in my opinion, have justified themselves thoroughly.
I do not want to distinguish between individuals, but I think this may be said, that we have had in the Dáil, nearly since its initiation, two outstanding men, one from each of the Universities, who have given enormous help in the work of the Dáil, whose presence has been invaluable and neither of whom would have been there but for the existence of the University constituencies. I do not want to say that the other University members did not give extremely valuable service; but I think there are two men who would be recognised as outstanding. There is Professor Thrift from Trinity College who has taken a very impartial and independent stand on everything; who has intervened always helpfully. I do not think anybody who has any experience of the Dáil will deny that Professor Thrift has been one of the most useful and one of the most valuable members of the House. I do not see how Professor Thrift could have entered the Dáil if there had been no University constituency. I take the other man who could have entered the Dáil even if there were no University constituency but who, as a matter of fact, I know would not have entered the Dáil and could not, in the first instance, have been induced to go forward for any ordinary constituency, and that is Mr. McGilligan. I think the Dáil would have been very much poorer without the ability and the knowledge and devotion of Mr. McGilligan. As I have said, he could not have been, in the first instance, induced to enter the Dáil if there had not been a University constituency.
That is only an experience over a period of ten years, but my own feeling is that over a longer period the same sort of experience would repeat itself and we would find valuable members entering the Dáil through University constituencies, who would otherwise not become members at all. We have not such a surplusage of outstanding men that we can afford to ignore that fact. The standard of the Dáil, the value of the Dáil, is not determined at all by the average ability of its 153 members. Its value to the country, its standing, is determined by the number of first-rate members in it. I do not think it is desirable to eliminate a means of getting first-rate men.
The Minister referred to the people who vote for the University constituency, although they have left the country. It is true that the general mass of emigrants do not vote once they have left the country, and I do not think any arrangements could be made to enable them to vote. On the other hand, we have our well-trained emigrants, our emigrants who are likely to be able to attain position and influence opinion in the countries to which they go, who could on certain occasions be of help to this country, whose continuing interest will always be helpful to it, whose return to the country, on retirement, is a thing that ought to be welcomed, and I think it is a good thing that this particular class of emigrant should have their touch maintained with the country through their University representatives.
I do not think the half-a-dozen University members distort the proportional character of the Dáil to any appreciable extent, and I think the practical advantages far outweigh any theoretical or doctrinaire argument that may be advanced. I do not think there is any use at all raking up what Senator Connolly raked up about the record of Trinity College during 100 years or so. I have criticised Trinity College as much as anybody, and I would be prepared to criticise it again on such an issue as was before the House the other day; but I do not think the historical references are really relevant to the present issue.
What about the quality of mind?
I do not think, on some small issue that one might disagree with, or on some special issue that one might disagree with, that we should take the step of eliminating from the Dáil, as long as the Dáil may last, one of the methods of recruiting men of outstanding ability and men who, perhaps, are specially qualified in some instances because their interests are not so wholly political. Senator Connolly talked about the political interests of the people. It is very good to have a wide political interest, but I think it is also very good to have a number of Deputies whose interests are not too political and who will not be perhaps so narrow and even so partisan on certain occasions.
Disfranchise the national.
I do not suggest you should disfranchise the national, I think you may get one sort of ability at one time and another sort of ability at another time, but I think the experience of the past ten years is, if there were no other justification at all, ample justification for the wisdom of the step that the Dáil took on practical grounds, and as a result of a small amount of practical experience, when it amended the draft Constitution and inserted this provision.
It seems to me that this is the most painful and, perhaps, the most humiliating Bill that has ever come before the House. It is easy to recognise the mentality that lies behind it. One almost hangs one's head in shame when listening to such a speech as Senator Connolly delivered here this evening. It represented the narrow, bigoted mind that cannot recognise that anything good has ever come out of an institution like Trinity College. He says that one or two people, possibly, have come out of that institution who have not been perhaps as bad as the rest. The names of Thomas Davis, Edmund Burke, and Robert Emmet mean nothing to his mind, because his is a Communist mind. That is the reason. He is not a Nationalist in the sense that has been understood in Ireland, and he is one of a number. It is absolutely painful to think what is before this country. What is the vision before the minds of these people? No doubt a dictator with a mob behind him. That is democracy—that is what it has come to. Arthur Griffith had a marvellous mind, one of the clearest and noblest minds of recent times. He had the broadest outlook, the purest National outlook. When the Treaty was signed his very first act was to give an assurance to the minority in Ireland that they would get fair play amongst their own countrymen. He was a disciple of Thomas Davis, one of the noblest men that have ever come out of any University. If Trinity only produced Thomas Davis it would be a great thing for that institution to have done, but a whole galaxy of patriots have come out of that institution.
Criticisms are being levelled at Trinity. We know quite well that the aim behind this Bill is to wipe out a few more of the Opposition to the present Government. We give a lot of lip service to learning, and we do a lot of boasting about saints and scholars. We have had too much of that kind of talk and too little of respect for learning in this country, too little respect for scholarship and culture which are at a very low ebb indeed in this country at the present time. Now we want to take away from the national Parliament the attainments which members of both Universities bring to it; attainments which it is impossible that the ordinary member can have, unless with a very few exceptions. Apart from the cultural outlook, the University mind would have a steadying effect in a Parliament such as this where political passions rise to the top so often. For that reason, University representatives would be a terrible national loss. The whole tendency of the Government policy, it is painful to think, is not to look at the national honour, not to look at what people from the outside will regard as greatness in a country. The whole trend of legislation here is to make a political advantage at the expense of everything—right, justice or anything else—no matter what comes into it.
I do not want to be particularly bitter, but I am pained beyond measure and humiliated at the mentality behind this Bill which is before us here this evening. We hear all this talk about democracy. We hate the very name of it. It has been dragged into the mud in Ireland to such an extent that the very mention of democracy here has become a national disgrace—the travesty of it that we are having here at the present time. What has it done to this country—not democracy, but the travesty of it—but to drag the national honour into the mud before the eyes of the world? I am against this Bill. I believe that every right-minded person in the country is against it, and I sincerely hope, with Senator Sir Edward Coey Bigger, that the Seanad will refuse it a second hearing. While we are here we can do something to keep out the flood of disgrace that is coming on this country. I am old enough to remember the outlook of the generation before me. I belonged to what, I suppose, would be considered the advanced thought before the Treaty, and I believe that if the men—the patriots—who visioned a national and free Ireland could have grasped what would have come about in a free Ireland—what we are tending towards now—they never would have lifted a finger to make this a self-governing country. Their ideas were totally opposed to the flood of thought that is coming upon us now and what it means. It is not the national outlook. It has never been the national outlook in Ireland. It is tending to lower the country in every way. Not to mention the economic situation—we have had enough of that—nationally and spiritually in every way the character of the people is being changed for the worse. The worst passions of the people are being brought out, and the mentality behind this Bill is responsible for that.
It is difficult, without becoming very personal or bitter, to explain what I have in my mind, but I believe people understand it very well. We always prided ourselves on looking forward to a national culture some time. What have we done? Mention a few isolated happenings in this country. Take the destruction of the Record Office. I referred to that here before. That was the most disgraceful and the most barbarous act that has ever happened in any country that could be called civilised in any sense of the word.
A few University people were concerned in that, too.
The people concerned in this Bill were the people concerned in it. They did it in the most callous and most barbarous way that it could be done. It is the blackest thing in the whole history of this country. They cared nothing about what that meant. What did they care? Nothing. They have never made the slightest apology for it. They boasted about it. The Minister for Defence boasted about it here last week. They gloried in it. What do you expect but a Bill of this kind from people with that mentality? Nothing matters to them—the national honour or anything else—as long as they can remain where they are. And that spirit is coming down from the top. I say that this Bill is a disgrace, and I hope that the Seanad will throw it out.
I do not propose to discuss this Bill from the point of view of any narrow theory of democracy. If it is any help to Senator Connolly or to the Minister I will make him a present of the fact that, in my opinion, on a bare theory of democracy, if nothing else matters, they can get the best of the abstract argument. You can always argue that, provided a constituency which has a relatively small number of voters is undemocratic in relation to the others; and I do not propose to spend the time of the House trying to prove that, if pure democratic theory is the only thing that matters in the Government of the country, then the Government are right and I am wrong. I have spoken already at some length on the question of the representation of minorities in connection with another Bill. The Minister did not agree with me that minorities could be in a better position under the scheme that I favoured than under his. But he did not deny the probabilities that in only one or two constituencies would they have any particular chance of representation. He said very frankly and honestly that he thought he saw nothing else for it but for them to come into one of the larger Parties and swallow—I think he used the word swallow—
Yes, swallow as much as they could.
Yes, swallow as much as they could. That is the best thing he could see for the people in this country who did not believe in what either of the two big Parties regard as their fundamental policy. I cannot support the general attitude of the Government in this matter, or their attitude both in the Revision of Constituencies Bill and their attitude towards this House. I have not had the privilege of University education. I cannot claim any of the special advantages that some of my friends beside me, or some of those opposite me, may claim. Therefore, I cannot in any way attempt in my own person to prove the value of University education in the Oireachtas. My father could not afford to send the whole of a large family to the University. Some of my family got there, others did not. I was one of those who did not.
I bet you are the best of them.
I am therefore not as much impressed as some others by the arguments with regard to quality of mind. But I do believe that this matter should be looked at not from the narrow party standpoint, but from the position of the country as it stands. I want you to look back to the circumstances when it was decided to include University representation in the Oireachtas. I have a very clear recollection of differences of opinion on the Constitution Committee, and I think I may say from memory that the majority of us were against it at any rate for the Dáil. We looked at it from the matter of pure theory. I believe it was ultimately accepted by the Dáil not because of any particular theory or quality of mind, not because of any sudden departure from democracy, but because it was believed that with University representation there would be representation for the dissatisfied minority who up to that time had fought against self-government, and that those would be introduced into the Parliament. I believe it was for that purpose that it succeeded.
I, with Senator Brown, was astonished at Senator Dowdall. He was no more astonished than I was at his brief reference here. He used as an argument in favour of this Bill—on which he has an open mind—the fact that Trinity College had been used as a means of political advancement in the past. He used that, when we have had clear experience that whatever Trinity College may have done by means of its representation in the past, it brought into the Dáil and into the public life of this country after we got self-government several members, some of whom were called old Unionists and some of whom were not. It brought contact between the old University and the new Parliament. It brought men in who, I say without any hesitation whatever, were absolutely loyal to the new State of which they were members. Senator Dowdall's argument is used even after all that has been departed from——
May I explain for a moment? My reference to that was to refute the particular argument of Senator Brown where he contrasts the quality of mind produced by University representation with others.
I have no wish to misrepresent Senator Dowdall. I now see better than before what his object was. But I still think that dealing with the immediate problem before us the fact is that members were got into the Dáil who became perfectly loyal and assisted a large number of other people to accept loyally the new State. That in itself justified University representation. What is the present position? You may say I am harping back to the position, but I feel it keenly. You propose to abolish this House in which there is a certain minority representation. Next, you propose to have smaller constituencies, and you propose at the same time to take away University representation, which, whatever be its merits, got into this Parliament a few people who were in touch with the minority, and not only were in touch with the minority, but were in touch with an institution in this country which is attended by a very considerable number of people from the Six Counties. It is one of the places in which there has been no partition, and the only argument for all that is the abstract theory of democracy.
When you want to cut out these six members on the pure theory I ask you is it worth it? I ask the President for the sake of getting these six members out is it worth it? These six will not always represent a particular point of view. The present balance is four to two against with no certainty that it will continue that way. Is it worth it to leave your Dáil with scarcely any representatives at all of a particular section of the people? You are getting out these men who have been giving loyal and valued services to the State. I have many friends in the Dáil in both Parties. I do not profess to know all the members. But I cannot say that I know of any man who has been there for any length of time who is of a different opinion as to the value to the Dáil of Professors Thrift and the late Sir James Craig. I found the same view from the members of both Parties who have been in the Dáil for a little time as I found from the old members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.
The first meeting that I ever attended in Trinity College was a meeting for the establishment of a Gaelic society. I went there to attend a meeting with my brother who was joint honorary secretary with a young Protestant Divinity student from the North of Ireland. At that meeting we were non-political, but I do not think there was any of us who was not a strong nationalist. I make you a present of the fact that the society was suppressed, though afterwards it was revived. I have a very clear recollection of attending the meetings of that Gaelic society. The present Deputy Kelly used to come to the meetings sometimes and I found he was the one man in the Government Party who had the courage to stand out against this Bill. Those of us who were nationalists had one thing of which we had an absolute conviction and that was that when this country got self-government the minority would be won over to confidence in the Government of this country.
When the first Dáil was created you did not stand too strictly on the pure theory of democracy. You departed a little from it, if you like, in order to get representation for the two universities. I felt then that our prophecy was being fulfilled, and when the then President nominated some persons in this House with some of whom I have been associated in the last 12 years, we felt that the same principle was being carried out. What do we get now in these three Bills? The Government have taken steps every one of which is in the opposite direction to what we all hoped for from them. And that is coming under a Government headed by President de Valera, the one man who stood out against that sort of thing. He gave us assurances that no matter how strong it was nationally, every effort would be made and sacrifices would be made—he used the word "sacrifice"—to try to get into the Government people who represented the minority. I am not pleading for the minority and I am not appealing for myself, for I do not belong in that way to the minority. I have always been a Nationalist. But I do wish to see that the steady progress that was going on of winning the confidence of the old classes who used to be called Unionists should be continued.
I say that that progress which has taken place for the last few years, and which is now being rudely shaken, was a definite step towards ending partition. I am convinced of that. This Bill, to my mind, ought to be opposed by this House because it is a retrograde step and not because of any abstract political theory. It is late and I do not want to take a great deal of time, but I think it is very unfortunate that Senator Connolly made the references he did make and introduced Trinity College, which had been introduced by nobody else. He said that he wanted to protest against the claim that Trinity College gave men of value to this country. I want to answer him with the words of the Vice-President of the Executive Council, because he will probably be more impressed by what Mr. O'Kelly said than by anything I could say here. Mr. O'Kelly said:
While on the subject of Trinity College, I may say that I endorse what my colleague and namesake, Deputy Kelly, said with regard to Trinity College and Dublin University. I stand in the same position as he, and I have honour and respect for what has been done by graduates of Trinity College to help national feeling and national sentiment, and to bring honour and credit to this country. All that has been done in that direction by men whom we all know and all sides, whatever their views may have been with regard to these men in the past, honour them to-day. Trinity College, being the Alma Mater of these men, naturally shares in the glory and honour that attaches to these men, although I do not agree that it was because of the inspiration of Trinity College or Dublin University that these men were as national or as patriotic as their lives showed them to be afterwards. All honour and glory to the college that produced them, and let credit be given to the college for whatever share is due to the teachings that made them such decent and patriotic Irishmen as they were.
That is a very different spirit of reference from that which we had from my friend, Senator Connolly, to-day. When he made his references, I felt that it was only right to read that extract from Mr. O'Kelly, if it was only in defence of the Executive Council.
We have also had the somewhat unfortunate controversy between the references made by Senator Brown and Senator Connolly, with regard to the mentality of the voters in this country. Personally, I find myself in agreement with both of them, because I think they meant something quite different. I believe Senator Connolly was quite right when he spoke of the acuteness of mind of most people in this country towards politics. I believe that Senator Brown was trying to convey that there is a need in this country for trained minds that will be applied to politics, and which you have not got in the ordinary politician, and by people who are keenly interested in politics in this country. Go down and talk to the people in the country about the land annuities or some other of these popular issues and you will be surprised at how much they know, whether they are right or not. Go and explain the question of the value of a democratic Constitution; go and speak to them about constitutional questions and you will find that they have never been explained and that they do not understand them. The political leaders have not gone to the trouble of understanding them themselves, and the people have not been taught.
They never had a chance.
I agree with both Senator Brown and Senator Connolly so far as these matters are concerned, but if you want to get at what is in my mind, when I make a contrast between the two types of mentality, I suggest that you take the debate in the Dáil on the Final Stage of this Bill and read the speeches of two members of the Fianna Fáil Party—Mrs. Concannon and Deputy Corry.
And Deputy McGilligan.
I did not hear either of them. One is a University representative and the other is a different type of representative. They both spoke on the same side. If you want to see what we mean, read those two speeches. They are both for the Bill, but you will see what, to my mind, is as great a difference as the difference between day and night. I want the type of mind that can make the speech—though I disagree with it—that Mrs. cannon made. I have read it and I believe that you are more likely to get some of that through having some University representatives than by cutting them out altogether.
I do not know what exactly is behind the Government in this move. Their political opponents tell them that it is designed purely to get two more votes for their Party. They tell us that it is nothing of the kind, but they are enormously impressed by the great value of a theoretic democratic principle. I leave it to the House to choose which is the reason. All I say to that is that I am sorry, and very sorry, they got this sudden enthusiasm for this theoretic democratic principle at the same time as they were cutting out other minority representation, and I suggest that when you take the country altogether, it is an extremely bad policy and not a policy that we ought to support.
The only speech made in favour of the retention in the Constitution of this reference to University representation, Article 27, is that of Senator Brown because he based his claim upon the quality of mind—I think he meant the quality of the voters and not the quality of the representatives—in University constituencies and on the outstanding superiority, as voters and as citizens, of those who had gone through the University course as compared with the rest of the community. He bases the case for retaining their position in the Constitution, as part of the fundamental law of the State, that their privileges as voters who have gone through the University, being so far superior to the rest of the community in quality of mind, shall be free from any attack by any legislature except by way of constitutional amendment. My experience gives no support to the claim that Senator Brown has made, as to the quality of the voters in those constituencies as compared with the quality of voters in other constituencies. I do not think, in fact, that in the choice they have made, they have proved themselves so consistently superior to the rest of the voting community.
Senator Brown made some reference to the Universities and this House and suggested that, shall I say, the quality of mind in the two bodies was somewhat comparable. I wonder whether that is consistent with the fact that in one of the Universities in question the voters have been collected up, schooled and brought into one or other political camp, just the same as the voters in any other constituency? They have not exercised any particular choice in the selection of their representatives as voters. A little political group may have made selections with judgment and concern, but the voters troop into the camp just the same as in any other constituency. In this respect you cannot claim that the quality of mind of the voters in that constituency is so different from, or superior to, that of other constituencies. I am inclined to think, having observed the conduct of debates in the other House, when the Senator speaks of the absence of bitterness and so on, that a larger proportion of the con centrated bitterness one reads of emanates from University representatives, and people who have gone through these colleges, than from the Party member who has not had that privilege.
Senator Brown says because the quality of the University voter is superior the Constitution should provide—whatever else may be provided by a Franchise Bill—that the Universities should have special representation. Senator Blythe and Senator Douglas take a different line. Their argument is distinctly based upon the expediency of University representation in the circumstances of this country at this time. I think that argument would be very appropriate to a Bill for the revision of the constituencies. If I might make a suggestion, I should very much like to support a proposal to delete Article 27 from the Constitution, and put it in some other form into a Revision of Constituencies Bill for, let us say, five years. I think it could be maintained that it would be advisable as a matter of simple expediency, to retain a certain amount of University representation for a period of, say, five or ten years—I do not mind how long. But I would do that with the clear understanding that it is simply part of the ordinary business of arranging constituencies to secure representation in the Dáil, and not as a constitutional right or part of the fundamental law. I do not think there is any justification for the claim that the quality of the votes justifies, on that account, their special selection as being entitled by constitutional right to representation in Parliament.
In the course of the discussion in the Dáil I noticed that Deputy McGilligan took the same line that Senator Brown took. He dissented from the sugges tion made, that the claim for representation was for representation of educational interests. It was because their training was in the direction of producing superior citizens—I do not want to use the word "superior" in any invidious sense—that University training gave better quality citizenship. So that Deputy McGilligan and Senator Brown appear to be of one mind as to the basic idea which is behind this constitutional provision for University representation. It would seem to me, however, that if graduates of Universities are entitled to representation being specially provided for them, because of training in citizenship and in affairs, a better case could be made for a special constituency representing, let us say, those who have had five years' experience of local government, with responsibility and contact with affairs, public needs and requirements and with practical difficulties. This would provide a stronger case for representation because of training in citizenship.
I think a much higher case could be made for that than for University representation. One could pick out University graduates, and other than University graduates, who have attained proficiency in special walks of life, but it has been disowned that there is any question of vocational representation as educationists. I am very glad that claim has not been made, because it is quite false and foolish. We are left then with two propositions, one is that University training gives special qualities to the voter which justifies that voter being provided by constitutional law with separate representation; the other is, that in the circumstances of the time it is advisable that University graduates should have representation in the Dáil. That could be done much better, if it is to be done, through an Electoral Bill. I have no argument in principle in favour of that. I can see advantages from the point of view of the expediencies of the moment, expediencies that would last, perhaps, for the next five, seven or ten years. I would even go so far as to suggest to the Minister that he should think that over as a proposition and see if it would not commend itself to him in deference to the representations made.
I am distinctly in agreement that for the five years I was in the Dáil, University representatives played a valuable part in the affairs of that House, much more valuable during that period than since. I think one or two—one, shall I say—has in recent times played a very bad part, one of the most dangerous and destructive parts, in the work of that House, and in the work of the country. He has forgotten, and I think thrown away the high character as a statesman that he won during the first five or seven years of his period of office. However, that is by the way, merely to show that even University graduates and University representatives have not always such a quality of mind as to warrant special provision being made for them in the Constitution.
I suggest that the House should now adjourn.
Cathaoirleach
It is up to the time, 10.30. The question is, when shall the House meet again? Wednesday next at 3 o'clock was suggested earlier.
If at all possible, I should like to see the House meeting to-morrow to finish this week's business. A Bill in which I am interested is not controversial. I should like if the items on the Order Paper could be completed this week. I think that would be convenient for the Seanad, and for everyone else.
Cathaoirleach
What does the House desire?
The proposition put forward to-day was that the House was to sit until 10.30 to-night and then adjourn until Wednesday next if the business was not finished.
I did not understand that there was any decision to adjourn until next Wednesday.
Wednesday was mentioned.
Cathaoirleach
I am asking the House to help me. Is it the desire to adjourn until next Wednesday and, on resuming, to take up this Bill?
Agreed.
The Seanad adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Wednesday, 18th July.