I move:—
That the Seanad do not insist on its amendments made to the Constitution (Amendment No. 23) Bill, 1934.
Public Business. - Constitution (Amendment No. 23) Bill, 1934—Message from the Dáil.
The following Message was received from the Dáil:—
Dáil Eireann has disagreed to the amendments made by Seanad Eireann to the Constitution (Amendment No. 23, Bill, 1934.
I second.
So far as I can see, the Government have made up their mind to abolish university representation before the next election, and apparently they have power to do so. Whether we insist on our amendments or not will not affect the issue, since there does not seem to be any prospect of an early election. This being the case, no question of expediency arises; and if those who voted for the amendments were not to insist on them it would appear to the public that they had changed their opinion on the main question. I, therefore, propose to vote against the motion "that the Seanad do not insist on the amendments."
My greatest objection to the abolition of university representation is that, taken with the abolition of the Seanad and the reduction of the size of a number of constituencies, it will deprive the Oireachtas of a certain minority representation which I believe to be of very great value to the State and to be especially so at this stage of our development. In his speeches on the Second Stage and the Committe Stage of this Bill in this House the Minister dealt with this particular argument at some length. He showed that he completely misunderstood the argument, at least so far as my remarks were concerned. He assumed that the arguments used had reference to the religious minority in this country and he dealt only with that aspect of the subject. I have since read his speeches and, as I thought was the case when I listened to him, I find I am in complete agreement with almost everything he said with reference to representation for the religious minority.
I have been a nationalist all my life and I have always maintained that the religious minority had nothing to fear from the majority in this country. After 14 years in public life I have not changed that opinion one iota. I believe that what the Minister stated was quite true and I have no fear whatever of any religious bigotry on the part of the leaders of any Party in the Saorstát. I wish I could say the same of that part of Ireland which is politically separated from us.
The minority to which I referred in my speech on this Bill is the minority which is unwilling to attach itself to any of the organised political Parties and which includes Catholics and non-Catholics. I received a letter a short time ago from a Catholic friend of mine in the South of Ireland which expresses the views of that minority much better than I could do, and I propose to read it to the House. It is addressed to me and is as follows:—
"Dear Senator Douglas—I suppose that, with the approaching abolition of the Seanad, your active participation in what are called public affairs will be coming to an end. I cannot find it in my heart to commiserate with you on that. As you know, I take no part in politics, but it does seem to me that there is little scope at present, and may be less in the future, for anyone who is unwilling to attach himself to either of the two principal political Parties. There are men in both those Parties whose views I respect, although I may not agree with them, and others whose views I dislike. But it is obvious that neither Party welcomes men of an independent turn of mind who think for themselves and who will not invariably be responsive to the Party Whip.
"The principal difference between them is transitory, though it will take some time to pass away. Its cause lies in the animosities arising out of the civil war; and, unhappily, I find that these animosities are to some extent inherited by the younger generation. ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge.' But on the question that transcends all others, namely, the type of civilisation which it is desirable for us to work for, the two Parties are at one. They have in mind a Gaelic State, which I regard as a figment of the imagination and the pursuit of which as a chimera. One Party calls itself the Tribe of Gaels and the other the Warriors of Fál, both forgetting that the complex and beautiful thing which is Irish life is compact of the descendants of Gaelic, Norman, Jacobite, Cromwellian, Williamite and post-Williamite invaders — descendants whose character and ideals have been moulded and brought to fruition in this land of Ireland and who in turn have given it their love. It is as if a great political party in England or France were to adopt the title of Bowmen of Senlac or Knights of Charlemagne.
"This insistence on the hegemony of the Gael has no relation to the facts of history. It would have been abhorrent to Tone, to Davis, to Mitchel or to Parnell; and it is abhorrent to me. I am a Gael by origin, but I regard the writings of Swift, Goldsmith, Sheridan, Berkeley, Burke, Carleton, Russell, Yeats and a host of others as part of my heritage; and I am not going to jettison them at the bidding of anybody.
"Both Parties profess a desire for a united Ireland, but they imagine a vain thing if they suppose it can now be on the basis of a Gaelic civilisation. We cannot, like Joshua, bid the sun to stand still. If we are sincere in our desire for unity, we ought to take pride in the heroism of our people on whatever side they fought in our old wars — of the Prentice Boys of Derry no less than of the defenders of Limerick. A knowledge of the history of one's country is a valuable thing, but when it imports into the discussion of the too insistent problems of the present day the dissensions of centuries ago it is no less than a menace.
"In a world in which religion is assailed from all sides, one of the greatest bulwarks of Christianity is to be found in the English-speaking men and women of our race who at present are free as British subjects to work in every part of that vineyard which is the Empire. For that reason, and also because I regard it as an indispensable condition of a united Ireland, I am in favour of our continuance as a member-state of the Commonwealth.
"I hope you will excuse these random reflections. The views to which they give expression are held, I know, by numbers of educated Catholics, and I should not be surprised if they were the views of many non-Catholics as well. But they are not those of either of our two principal Parties, and no man proclaiming them would have a chance of election to the Dáil. Time teaches, however, as well as heals, and I am not altogether without hope for the future."
I think this House will agree that that is a remarkable letter, and that it puts forward a certain minority view with great clearness. I do not read it as expressing my own views exactly, but as expressing the views which are sincerely held by a considerable number of citizens who are absolutely loyal Irishmen. I believe persons who cannot subscribe to the programme of either Party, whether for the reasons given by my correspondent from the South or for other reasons, would have a better chance of election for a university constituency as an independent than for any other constituency. I do not agree with the Minister when he stated that an independent educationist would have very little chance of success in either university. If he will refer to the last contested election for Dublin University he will see that the unofficial candidate was within a few votes of unseating one of the sitting members.
I do not wish to labour the point at this stage, but I wish to make it clear that my remarks on the Second Stage and in Committee on this Bill as to the effect which this Bill and the Bill for the abolition of this House may have on minority representation were not intended to refer to the religious minority as such, but to the political minority which does not accept any of the organised political Parties.
I believe that the arguments used in relation to this Bill, particularly when taken in conjunction with the other Bills which I have mentioned, will make it much more difficult for that political minority to obtain representation in the Oireachtas—and that, in my opinion, will be bad for the country.
I heard with great pleasure Senator Douglas reading this letter. I would be very glad if the letter were printed and published all through the country, because, notwithstanding what the writer says, there are a large number of people in the Party to which I belong who would subscribe to the views of that writer. I have myself expressed those views in print and on public platforms whenever I have been given a chance to do so, because these views are the only common-sense views. I am sure patriotic people of every class and creed in the country would subscribe to the views of this admirable letter that Senator Douglas has read for us.
Anyone listening to Senator Douglas would come to the conclusion that this Bill is aimed solely at the minority in this country. In my density I cannot feel what on earth the letter that Senator Douglas has read has got to do with the amendment before the House. Realising the serious responsibility cast upon the public representative who flirts with the cause of education in the interests of any other cause whatever, I asked myself the question—has this privileged Parliamentary franchise for the universities justified its continuance even until the next general election? Do we not indeed know that it is only camouflaging education in the interests of party purposes? I take it that this amendment means — at all events, the literal meaning of it is — that this Bill should be held up, in the words of Senator Counihan, to allow the professors and graduates to make their views heard. The vast majority of the people of this country have long ago found out what this Parliamentary franchise for the university means. They have found it out in the past, and they are fools if they do not know to where it is leading in the future. They are not fools not to know that it is merely a stepping stone for promotion for those who render political services to the Government in power. An argument was used here that professors and graduates are against this Bill. I had a conversation with a few professors and a few graduates, and I found that they were entirely in favour of the Bill. They welcomed the Bill as a good Bill and as a help to education — and they gave their reasons for saying so. These reasons I have jotted down. I hope I will not be out of order, Sir, in reading for the House the opinions of some professors and graduates who are in favour of the Bill. They stated that Parliamentary elections held within the universities turned them for the time being into a kind of political arena. Discipline became completely disorganised on account of many professors and graduates taking different sides, each side endeavouring to return the candidate of their political faith. Groups were formed and bitterness and friction created. In the excitement of the election the interests of education did not prevail; they became neglected. Professors and graduates, when they go out in the world, hope for advancement not so much because of their educational qualifications as because of the support and help they give at election times to the candidates of the Government in power which they were backing. We see that the argument which is used against this Bill affects none of these men. I could give their names if it were so desired. They say that Parliamentary elections held within the universities are the curse of education and merely retard it——
Would the Senator say whether he is quoting or whether this is his own composition?
Senator O'Neill said that he could give the names of the authors.
It sounds very like the Minister for Defence.
When I want defence, it is not to Senator Gogarty I shall go — God help the poor fellow! I think that those reasons in themselves should steady those who think that the Parliamentary franchise in the universities should still remain.
I should like to insist on the amendments made by the Seanad, but not for the reasons indicated in the letter read by Senator Douglas. A great many things in the letter are, doubtless, true, but it seems to me, from its tone, to be based on a consciousness of superiority, whether well or ill-founded. I do not know who wrote the letter but I do not think that representation of his type would be of great value. I do not agree that university representation is good merely because it enables men to enter the Dáil who will not attach themselves to any existing Party, or who do not find any existing Party good enough for them. The truth is that university representation, as we have seen it operate in practice, has given us men whose work in the Dáil has been of great value to the Assembly. Some of the best of them are good party men and their value to the Dáil has been none the less for their Party connection. Some of them would not have entered politics if they had to engage in the ordinary constituency contest, though they might remain in politics having once entered. There are others who could not enter the Dáil through election in an ordinary constituency, but I do not think that that is due to an attitude of unwillingness to trust or accept any existing Party or any party that may be formed. I object to the Bill because it abolishes something that, in practice, has worked out well — whatever theoretical arguments may be used against it. I object to it because it was introduced without having the seal the Government claims for all its other Constitutional measures — a mandate — and I object to it because it cannot be regarded as a vindication of any democratic principle. It seems to me to be introduced, not for the purpose of vindicating a principle, but with a view to obtaining an immediate tactical advantage. It is for these reasons that I object to the Bill and not because of a desire to have a minority who will not agree with any Party brought into the Dáil.
I should like to ask the Vice-President, who is not accustomed to run away from his statements, to give me one example to bear out his assertion of the other day— that people who were not university men had contributed just as much to Ireland as those who were. From the days of Hugh O'Neill (who was at Oxford), down to Swift, Berkeley, Lucas, Molyneux (whose books were burned by a common hangman), Tone, Davis and Parnell, down to our own time, with the exception of certain letter writers of to-day, all the intelligent moulders of Irish thought, all our idealists and all our statesmen have, in some way or other, been associated with higher education or education of a type similar to that imparted by the universities of to-day. I am sorry the robust words of Senator O'Neill died away before he could have contradicted me. Can the Vice-President give me as many names of persons who were not associated with the universities as I can give him of those who were who have helped this country or the ideal of human freedom?
Except for the question put by Senator Gogarty, I do not think that there is anything for me to answer. The Senator must have misread what I said. He was not here, I think, when I spoke. I did not speak of university men having given service to Ireland. I spoke of university men who gave service in this legislative Assembly. I assume that that is giving service to Ireland but I was not dealing with the matter in the historic sense which Dr. Gogarty has in mind. I was thinking of men of university education and representatives of the universities and of others whose names will come to mind when one thinks of membership of the Dáil or of this House since it was established. Although there are no direct representatives of the universities here, there are university men and university professors. It was with that aspect of the question I was dealing and not with the part taken by university men or university representatives in the history of Ireland. I was dealing with these men as members of the legislative Assembly.
I thank the Vice-President and I accept his explanation. Perhaps he would say whether it is his opinion that certain members of the present Ministry would benefit by a little training in grammar and prosody.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
- Connolly, Joseph.
- Cummins, William.
- Dowdall, J.C.
- Farren, Thomas.
- Fitzgerald, Séamus.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Honan, Thomas V.
- Johnson, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Thomas.
- MacEllin, Seán E.
- Moore, Colonel.
- O'Farrell, John T.
- O Máille, Pádraic.
- O'Neill, L.
- Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
- Robinson, David L.
Níl
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Bellingham, Sir Edward.
- Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Browne, Miss Kathleen.
- Counihan, John C.
- Douglas, James G.
- Fanning, Michael.
- Garahan, Hugh.
- Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
- Griffith, Sir John Purser.
- Jameson, Right. Hon. Andrew.
- Kennedy, Cornelius.
- Milroy, Seán.
- O'Connor, Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, M.F.
- O'Rourke, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Dr. William.
- Staines, Michael.
- Toal, Thomas.
- Wilson, Richard.
Tellers:— Tá: Senators Fitzgerald and MacEllin; Níl: Senators Douglas and Blythe.
Motion declared lost.