Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Apr 1945

Vol. 29 No. 27

Irish Legal Terms Bill, 1945—Second Stage.

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

This Bill is intended to provide for the publication of Irish translations of legal terms and to guarantee that such translations will be accepted as having the same meaning, force and effect as the corresponding English terms. The translations will be published by the Minister for Justice after consultation with an advisory committee. The Bill provides also for the publication of Irish versions of legal forms and precedents in legal instruments. At present there is a difficulty in the way of any extensive use of the Irish language for legal purposes.

The whole of the law, with the exception of the Constitution, is contained in the English language only and numerous words and phrases used in the law have been given technical meanings, as distinct from the ordinary meanings, by statutes and judicial decisions. It is necessary to have corresponding technical terms in Irish, in order that Irish may be used for legal purposes. There is no difficulty about finding Irish translations for technical legal terms; but, on account of the very nature of technical terms, a dispute may arise as to whether any particular translation conveys the technical meaning assigned to the original English term. No doubt, if people used Irish extensively for legal purposes, a standard vocabulary of Irish technical legal terms would be established in course of time as a result of judicial decisions. That process would take a very long time, however, and people are unlikely to use Irish extensively for legal purposes until an authoritative vocabulary of technical terms is available.

This is a Bill about which there ought not to be very much controversy, but I think it is preeminently a Bill about which there ought to have been consultation before it was drafted. I am unable, however, to find if there was any such consultation. For example, I do not know if the Minister consulted any member of the judiciary, any district justice, any county registrar, or any Irish language specialist. On the face of the Bill, I would think not, and the Bill itself, at first blush, appears to be trying to do something which, in fact, it could not do, although it may very well be that the way in which the Bill is worked will improve the situation. In fact, however, if you take the Bill on its face value, that is, that a committee—a rather extraordinary committee, it seems to me—is to sit down and frame Irish translations for English legal terms, that is a procedure that might take at least 20 years to accomplish anything, and even then it could only produce a very small result. Even if the committee could produce in that time proper Irish translations of legal terms, it would be still very difficult because, if anybody thinks that you can just take English words and translate them into Irish, thus getting the proper legal terms, it simply cannot be done. In order to translate an English legal term into Irish, you would have to have the whole context before you, and there is no such thing as just taking English words and putting Irish words beside them and saying: "This is the word to be used."

Quite properly, Section 3 of the Bill provides that—

"whenever the Minister makes a legal terms Order declaring that the equivalent in the Irish language of a specified term shall be the word or words specified in the Order, then the said word or words shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as having the same meaning as, and have the same force and effect as, the said specified term."

In other words, no matter what kind of imprimatur the Minister gives to particular terms, the judges will still have the power to construe them as they please. That is quite natural, and it would be fantastic if the Minister were to try any other scheme but that. However, I think that is not the way in which it will be done, and I take it that it will not be, because there is already a very considerable body of translations of various Orders and legal enactments. What, I take it, will be done is that the vocabulary of official terms hitherto used by the official Translators will be furnished to the committee, and they will be asked to go through it. I take it that that is the intention because, if there is any other intention, it seems to me to be cracked.

It will be appropriate in this connection to mention the work already done with regard to getting a legal terminology in the Irish language. It was very fortunate that, in 1922, when the Oireachtas was being set up, we had the services of the then Clerk of the Dáil, the late Colm O Murchadha. He was a very accomplished Irish scholar; he was a man of tact, and a man who had the gift of being able to get others to work willingly with him. He had scholarship, patience and thoroughness, and he also had what a great many scholars lack: a practical capacity to get particular things done. Now, the translation of all Government documents was centralised in the Translation Department of the Oireachtas, in Leinster House, at that time, and a very determined effort was made to equip the translation staff with the very best people available. Those who were transferred from the old Dáil were, without exception, Munstermen. The Munster man was prominent and dominant in Dublin at that time. Through the instrumentality of the Professor of Irish in University College, Galway, a Connaught man, who has since been seconded to another Department, was got. A Donegal man, a teacher in Dublin, was taken in in order to provide the Donegal dialect. A number of other people like Liam O Rinn, who died recently, were taken in. Although he was a Dublin man he had an extraordinary knowledge of Irish and a great experience of translation.

The staff was further recruited for the Department in a manner which rent the heart of the Department of Finance. Special steps were taken and special salaries offered. Very early an officer of that translation staff was directed to prepare a vocabulary. I take it that the vocabulary is still being prepared and I hope it will be made available. It seems to me that before this Bill was offered to us, and certainly before this committee can go into action, that particular vocabulary should be available. The procedure was that a Bill was passed in English and was then translated into Irish. The only exception is alleged to be the present Constitution. That, of course is humbug. The Constitution was framed in English and translated into Irish. The only competent body was not, in fact, the body that did it. It was handed over to another body. I do not exactly know who they were. The document on the face of it shows that they were not always in agreement. They produced what is a very unsatisfactory document. Then the extraordinary step was taken of making the Irish, which is really a translation, and not a very good translation, the document which was valid in law. When it was seen that the thing was not satisfactory, an effort was made to bring the translation staff to the rescue. That did not prove completely satisfactory either. Recently a new copy of the Constitution has been issued in Roman script with a new standard spelling.

The success of this Bill will turn entirely upon how it is worked. I cannot believe that the Attorney-General could possibly entertain the view that you can put down a list of English terms and then go and put down a list of Irish terms instead of them. You could not do that. All you could do is to examine the translations over a period and adopt the terms in them. If there are discrepancies, and there have been discrepancies, the committee can correct the discrepancies, but you must examine the terms in their full context. You would have to put your imprimatur not on particular words but on whole texts. At the present moment there is a law suit in progress which turns upon Irish words used in a contract drawn up in Irish. Two specialists have already given evidence. I do not want to go into the merits of the case, but I want to indicate that the words that are causing all the trouble are not legal terms. They are very common words and the question is, what do they mean when combined with a particular preposition? You cannot possibly discuss words by themselves. It seems to me all that can be done now is to take the work that has been done by the Translation Department, to put it before the committee, and to take steps to see whether it can be adopted and whether there are any discrepancies which would need correction. When that is done certain progress will have been made.

As I am on this particular point now, and will not have an opportunity of dealing with it again, I may say that to those of us who read the Irish on the Order Papers there has been obviously in recent times tinkering with the spelling. I am a tolerant person with regard to Irish spelling. I am not particularly enthusiastic for a particular system, but I do feel that you ought to have a system, and if the official Translation Department is adopting a new system of spelling we ought to be told what it is. A simplified system was adopted subsequent to 1922. I do not know whether members of this House are aware that there are people who would be willing to go before a firing squad for the silent g in the middle of the Riaghaltas. I am not one of them, far from it. One of the things that happened in 1932 was that Riaghaltas was spelt with a g and the change-over of Government was indicated by putting in the g and a number of silent d's.

Is that the only change?

That is one change. I do not wish to go into the Constitution except on the linguistic side. The Constitution was framed without anybody being in charge of it as somebody was in charge of the Official Translation Staff; therefore, it varies in the terms and so on. These I feel are the only lines on which this Bill could work. Even if it does work it will still leave you in the position that, to know what the Irish form of the word means, you must have a legal decision. I do not believe that people who are enthusiastic for the language should be allowed to labour under the delusion that a Parliamentary decision can establish the meaning of a word. One of the things we have been doing since 1922, when we first had a Parliament of our own, is that we have been trying to make Parliament do things it cannot do. People like Senator Kingsmill Moore and Senator Ryan make quite a good living interpreting English terms that have been used for hundreds of years. The meaning causes disputes in the courts and it takes trained lawyers to find out precisely what they mean. Another point I want to make is a committee point. I think the Minister in Section 2 restricts himself far too much with regard to his committee. He has on the committee a judge of the Supreme or High Court. The trouble about the judiciary is that the higher you go the less Irish you find. There are some excellent district justices, and a couple of Circuit Court judges who have very good Irish, but when you go beyond that I do not know where you are going to get much Irish.

On this committee the Minister has a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court, a judge of the Circuit Court, a district justice, a practising barrister, a practising solicitor, a member of the translation staff and one other person. I think the Minister is very foolish to restrict himself. This should be a person or persons nominated by the Government. This is not a political committee. It does not matter what representation Fine Gael or Labour get on it. There are no jobs given out and no money distributed.

The last man will be paid.

Will he?

That was the intention anyhow, so that there is a job.

I did not know that. It is not in the Bill.

It is. Sub-section (6).

Oh yes, but it says "may be remunerated". It does not say: "shall be remunerated".

He will be remunerated, so that there is a job.

Well, even if there is a job the Minister will find it very difficult to get a satisfactory member to act when you come to the persons other than judges practising barristers or solicitors. I can suggest one person but possibly he would not act. There is one well-known professor in University College, Dublin, with a very good knowledge of modern Irish and an excellent knowledge of ancient Irish, and I do not think there is any other person living with a better knowledge of old Irish law generally. He is an obvious person, but he may not act. Why should the Minister be restricted? I think that the Minister should put himself in the position in which he could have one paid person and could nominate more. That would be a solution. He might choose one person to do the work and another person to give advice, but that is a point I will argue in committee. In the meantime I only want to say one other thing. I do not understand how this can be done in the absence of the publication of the vocabulary prepared in the Translation Department. I do not know any other way the committee could work except by taking the words in the Irish texts in a Bill. If a committee of this kind had been established in 1922 no legal documents would ever have been translated into Irish. That is to say this kind of committee never gets work of this nature done. What happened in 1922 was that the job was done in the Civil Service with greater speed, greater satisfaction and greater accuracy. The time may now be ripe to look back on that work, but this committee can only be a revisionary committee.

I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill. I think it is a pioneer effort to implement the Constitution so far as the use of the Irish language in the courts is concerned. I think it is really the first serious effort that has been made to put the Irish language on a secure foundation so far as the courts are concerned. Up to the present we have had a number of members of the legal profession who assumed a knowledge of Irish in legal matters, but there was no person who had the authority to say whether these people's use of the Irish language in connection with legal terms was right or wrong. In fact, I believe that a number of, I will not say, language adventurers, but a number of people who to other views seem very shallow people indeed, are able to impress the public by their knowledge of the Irish language but, in fact, that knowledge in the opinion of the people who know, is very shallow indeed. This Bill will put an end to such adventure in the realms of the Irish language so far as the law courts are concerned, because the first part of it deals with the provision of standard equivalents to legal terms in the Irish language. I take it that there are several reasons why standard equivalents are necessary. Apart altogether from the several dialects in the different parts, there may be a number of people in the legal world who have their own views as to the translation of legal terms and, therefore, the making of an Order by the Minister will make a term binding so far as the Irish language is concerned.

Unless the contrary intention was expressed.

In the Order.

In the document.

I was told some time ago of a person with a knowledge of the Irish language who was asked to translate the word "prescription", meaning the legal doctrine of prescription, which goes back to the time of Richard I. I was told by a very well-informed professor, who was well known for his knowledge of the Irish language, that the translation given was the translation of the word "prescription" meaning "prepared by a chemist". It shows that the person really took the word "prescription" out of a dictionary, the word meaning "a chemist preparation", and applied it to the law. This will, at least, put an end to this type of translation. The advisory committee will really have very little to do, because Section 3, sub-section (1), provides that the Minister, by Order, may, whenever he so thinks proper, declare that the equivalent in the Irish language of any specified term shall be such word or words as he thinks fit and specifies in the Order. Sub-section (2) provides, with reference to the advisory committee, that even having had a report from the committee, he may well adhere to his original Order, because he has discretion in the matter. The preparation of these standard equivalents will be largely in the hands of a member of the Oireachtas translation staff, nominated from time to time as the occasion requires by the Government, and by a person nominated from time to time as the occasion requires by the Government in accordance with Section 2, sub-section (2) (g). I would like to see a person having legal experience nominated by the Government.

Under the Bill as it stands, the Government could appoint a person who had no knowledge of law whatever. That person would be one of the joint secretaries of the committee as provided in Section 3 (2) and would assist the Minister in the preparation of the legal terms, so that, so far as the Bill goes, it is open to the Government to appoint a non-legal person to prepare the standard equivalents of legal terms in the Irish language. I think that that requires some amendment. If the Minister intends to appoint a person having legal qualifications under Section 2 (1) (g), I think it should be set forth in the Bill, because he is a person who will be nominated from time to time, as occasion requires, by the Government. When this matter is fresh in the minds of everybody, it may be taken for granted that the person appointed will have legal qualifications, but that person may go to the High Court or Supreme Court. If he is nominated under Section 2 (1) (g), he may become a judge, and it will be necessary to appoint somebody else in his place. Therefore, that provision would require some amendment. In Section 3 (1) the Minister is empowered to declare, by Order, the equivalent in the Irish language of any specified term. That might mean a medical term or an engineering term or any other term. I think that the word "legal" should be put before the word "term". However, these are matters which can be dealt with in Committee. I welcome the first part of the Bill, because it will, so to speak, standardise the Irish language for the purpose of its use in the courts and in legal forms.

The publication of legal forms and precedents in the Irish language is dealt with in only one section—Section 4. It is left very much at large, and rightly so. I suggest that the Minister, who is the sole authority in the matter, should have regard to the existing forms and precedents in the English language. I have no doubt that he will have such regard, so that there will be no disparity between the two versions. I think that this is an excellent idea and, as the Minister said in the Dáil, the preparation of these forms and precedents is long overdue. We are now only at the beginning of the work.

The Minister will, no doubt, implement this Bill at a later stage by bringing in legislation to arrange for the provision of legal textbooks in the Irish language. At present, notwithstanding all the talk about Irish in the courts—I think that I said this five or six years ago before the Law Society— and notwithstanding that our statutes have been translated into Irish from the beginnings of the State, not a single legal textbook in the Irish language is available. I ask those who are talking about Irish in the courts to remain silent until we have those standard equivalents, those forms and precedents and those legal textbooks in the Irish language.

A great many people are talking about the want of Irish in the courts who know nothing whatever about the difficulty of using the Irish language in legal work. They forget that the law which we took over from the British is the common law. All legal forms, so far as the common law is concerned, have at all times been in the English language. The Brehon laws ceased to function about the year 1607, when English law became, so to speak, a fixture. Since then, the law has always been administered in the English language. Now, we are trying to fight back. We have a long road to travel and there will be many difficulties which some people do not foresee. If we had a code in this country, that code could be translated into Irish, as the Code Napoleon is in French, as the code of Quebec is in French, and as the codes of other countries are in their own languages. Here, we are trying to operate a system of law which is not our own, which was forced upon us at first and which we have taken over. The difficulty will be to reconcile the language of that foreign law with our own native language which we are trying to revive. Therefore I say that the work before the people of this country in the setting up of a thoroughly Irish system is very great indeed. This is only the merest beginning. I wish it every success and I trust that the Minister will lose no time in operating this Bill and in making all the Orders he can possibly make so far as the revision of standard equivalents of legal terms are concerned. I trust that he will also get to work regarding the forms and precedents, so that he may reach the stage at which he will be able, with the financial assistance which the State will no doubt give, to supply lawyers and the public with legal textbooks in the Irish language.

Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an mBille seo. Sílim gur Bille riachtanach é. Bhí briseadh ar an reacht Gaelach ag Cath Chinn tSáile agus ní raibh an Ghaeilge in usáid sna cúirteanna anseo ó shoin. Tá súil agam go dtiúbhra an Bille seo cuidiú mór leis an nGaeilge a chur dhá plé sna cúirteanna. Táim ar aon intinn le Seanadóir O hAodha sa méid aduairt sé faoi litriú na bhfocal. Ní maith an rud an iomarca athruithe dhéanamh ar an litriú. Thug an Seanadóir MacAodha sompla dhúinn—an litir "g" do fhágáil as an bhfocal "Riaghaltas". Déantar athruithe mar sin anois agus arís agus déanann siad níos deacrat do dhuine brí an fhocail do thuigsint.

Ní dhéanann sé.

Ar bhealach, déanann sé. Nuair a fágtar an "g" as, níl sé chomh furasta an focal a thuigsint. Is dona an rud an iomarca athruithe a dhéanamh go dtí go mbeidh an Ghaeilge dhá labhairt ar fud na tíre. Taspánann an Bille seo go bhfuil fás faoin nGaeilge aris agus tá súil agam gur fás nádúrtha ionmholta atá ann.

I agree with Senator Ryan that it is a desirable matter that standard equivalents should be dealt with as soon as possible, and I think that perhaps the Minister has approached the subject in the only practical way in which it can be approached. I have some doubt, how ever, as to what the effect is going to be on the ordinary person who is obliged to have recourse to the courts even without much legal assistance. I notice that in referring to the Bill in the Dáil the Minister used alternatively the expressions "legal terms" and "legal phrases." I take it—I am now guided by the lawyers—that what we are dealing with are legal terms, not legal phrases which I assume would mean something different. In that connection I am at a disadvantage inasmuch as I am neither a lawyer nor a professor, nor have I the qualifications to discuss this matter in the manner in which it has been discussed up to the present. I think, however, there is a number of legal terms in use in the legislation of this country, legislation enacted by ourselves which are not English terms. I remember we had an argument on the Transport Bill about the use of the expression ipso facto. I remember Senator Sir John Keane protesting against the use of these words, but the Minister was adamant, and the House retained the expression ipso facto. If it is necessary to retain words foreign to the language in a Bill; I do not see what is the point of endeavouring to get Irish equivalents for English phrases when you will not accept English equivalents for Latin phrases.

Nobody has pointed out what is aimed at. Nobody has told us what is meant by legal terms. I do not know what is meant by legal terms, and apparently it has not been thought necessary to say what they are. One phrase frequently met with in legislation is "Mutatis mutandis.” Is that a phrase for which you desire to have an Irish equivalent? These are the points that occur to me in connection with this Bill. I should like to say that from the point of view of the plain man who cannot afford the services of expensive lawyers to guide him through the maze of legislation it is of tremendous importance how a matter of this kind should be approached.

I remember reading many years ago that when the Workmen's Compensation Act was being introduced in 1906 the British Minister in charge of the measure pointed out that this was legislation intended for the benefit and the betterment of the plain people and that therefore he was going to avoid the use of legal terms and keep to plain English words. What was the result? The opening sentence of the Act, if I remember correctly, runs something like this: "Every person injured in an accident arising out of, and in the course of, his employment shall be entitled to compensation under the provisions of this Act". I think I am correct in saying that that sentence has carried litigants to the House of Lords on at least 140 different occasions. Of course it is not the plain man who has gone there. It is the wealthy corporations and the trade unions. If a man is a member of a trade union which has plenty of money he can rely on his union, if necessary, to take his case to the House of Lords or to the Supreme Court for an interpretation of the words, but the ordinary Pat Murphy who may be cutting oats next autumn, whose leg or arm is cut off by a machine, and who is not a member of a trade union, cannot go to the Supreme Court for an interpretation of the words "arising out of and in the course of his employment".

As a matter of fact, I remember years ago having pointed out to me how much one could change the meaning of a simple phrase by the judicious use of punctuation marks. The story was told in that connection of an inspector who paid an unexpected visit to a primary school. The teacher was not expecting this gentleman's visit on the day in question and would prefer if the inspector were somewhere else. He passed a comment on the matter to a junior teacher in the school and the inspector overheard the remark. The acoustics of the school must have been something like the acoustics of this House.

Or the restaurant.

Or the restaurant. In any event the inspector heard the teacher say to a subordinate: "What brings that fool here to-day?" Later the inspector asked one of the boys to write a sentence on the blackboard, and the sentence was: "The teacher called the inspector a fool." After it had been written, the inspector asked the boy to punctuate it and the boy did so by inserting two commas, one after the word "teacher" and another after the word "inspector".

I imagine that we are dealing here with a subject which can be altered to the disadvantage of the ordinary layman unless we are careful. I have said that I do not know what is intended because we have not been told what is meant by the use of the expression "legal terms". Therefore I am not in a position to say whether what the Minister aims at will be a good thing or a bad thing for the plain people who are bound in their own interests and for their own protection to have recourse from time to time to the law courts, but I am drawing the Minister's attention to some of the snags which he may come up against. As he is not a lawyer himself, I have no doubt he will appreciate the need for having regard to the layman's interest when terms in the Irish language are being substituted for terms in common use in documents, in statutes, and in regulations. I am one of those who long ago faced the fact that we are bound to move in the direction of having all our work done eventually, and I think perhaps at an early date, in our own language. I think it is a foolish thing for people to set themselves against it and say: "No; by one dodge or another we will avoid that issue." I do not like that attitude and I do not subscribe to it, but I should prefer that in aiming at that goal we would adopt, or shall I say invent, terms and expressions of our own, common to the language, rather than take up expressions which, used in another language, have a variety of meanings.

I remember seeing a comment recently on a word that is commonly used in legislation even by ourselves— the word "virtue". It was pointed out by an authority on the English language that that word is entirely misused. We say that "the Minister by virtue of the powers conferred upon him by this Act" shall do so and so. The authority I have been reading says that the word should be "consideration"; that the word "virtue" means in that connection "force", which is entirely foreign to the proper use of the expression. I would, therefore, urge the Minister that the best approach to the matter he has in mind is to devise regulations, statutes, and forms of contract, entirely in the Irish language, rather than adopt phrases used elsewhere. I believe there is some difficulty—I am not an Irish scholar; therefore, I do not profess to speak with authority—in getting equivalents in the Irish language. For instance, it has been brought to my attention that there is a very considerable difference in meaning between the Irish and the English versions of the Constitution, in Article XII. According to the English version, a candidate for the Presidency must be 35 years of age. According to the Irish version, if he is 34 years and one day he qualifies.

I think it is the other way round, but it does not matter.

It does not matter very much. I think you may take it that there is a difference of 364 days between the qualifying dates. I mention that merely to draw attention to the difficulty there is in adopting phrases and terms from one language into another, and I would earnestly urge that the Minister would keep that point in mind.

Béidir nach feasach Seanadóirí gur i nGaeilge déantar go leor d'obair na gCúirteanna i nGaillimh agus gur i nGaelige ar fad a déantar an obair sin i gConamara. Is minic nach gcloisfí aon fhocal Béarla i gCúirteanna i gConamara dá fhad an suí. Tá Breitheamh den Chúirt Dúiche annsin againn, Seán Mac Giollarnáth, a bhfuil oiread eolais aige ar an nGaelige is atá ag aon fhear in Éirinn. Tá an oiread déanta aige ar son na teangan le haon fhear beo. Cathal de Paor, an Breitheamh Cúirte Cuarda atá againn is fear é a bhfuil togha eolais aige ar an nGaeilge agus i nGaeilge ar fad a phleás sé go leor de na cúiseanna ina Chúirt. Is é mo thuairm go bhfuil Gaeilge mhaith ag roinnt de Bhreithiúin na hÁrd-Chúirte. Measaim, dá bhrí sin, gur coiste an-mhaith bheas sa gcoiste atá i gceist sa mBille.

Fáiltím roimh an mBille, mar is Bille i dtráth é agus a bhfuil gá leis.

We know that there have been difficulties in the law courts in considering wills and contracts by reason of the different expressions that may be used in those documents, and we also know that certain English words have got certain meanings.

For example, when a person is drawing a deed or conveyance in English the words used are that the vendor or assignor assigns or conveys as "beneficial owner". The words "beneficial owner" mean that the person assigning guarantees that he has a perfect title to the land or house he is assigning. He guarantees that if anything further is necessary to be done to verify his title, he will do so, and he guarantees that the land or house as the case may be is free from mortgages, charges, incumbrances, or things of that kind. So that, by putting in those two words, you save all that terminology, and that, in itself, is a great advantage in drawing these conveyances or deeds. Now, if you are drawing such a conveyance or deed in Irish, in the absence of some such phrase as that, covering the matter, you will have a very long deed or conveyance, because you must put in those four extra clauses, and that would make Irish deeds rather unpopular with the people who have to draw them or read them. It is very necessary, therefore, that we should have equivalent clauses in Irish that would have the same meaning as the English words.

Senator Duffy referred to the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906. It is true that that was drawn in the belief that it could be construed readily by any layman and that lawyers would be unnecessary, but as he says, at the very start, some of the phrases used there were the cause of numerous cases being brought to the House of Lords. For instance, the words "arising out of" gave rise to a very large number of cases, many of which were contradictory cases.

Were there not also cases brought as to the interpretation of the word "workman"?

Yes, there were, but the words "arising out of" were the cause of very many more cases being brought. I heard of one case where a man working on the road was struck by lightning, and brought a case to the courts, but it was held that the accident did not arise out of his employment, and he lost his case, whereas, in another case, a man who was working on a high pole was struck by lightning, and in that case it was held that he did come within the meaning of the Act, the idea being that, in the latter case, his work brought him within the danger zone. All these words and phrases have now been defined, and we have taken them over, and I think it would be well if we could have, in Irish, an equivalent meaning, so as not to have to go all over the same thing again. For that reason I welcome this Bill, and I think it will be welcomed all around. As I have said, so far as Galway is concerned, most of the court work in Spiddal and other places is done entirely through Irish, and very often not a word of English would be heard in these courts. All the summonses are issued by the Civic Guards in Irish, in Con nemara and Spiddal. Sometimes, however, they are issued by different people, and that may create a difficulty in getting the meaning of the summons, because of the different ways in which it is issued. If we had certain definite meanings assigned to different words and phrases we would have uniformity in the issuing of these summonses, which would make things much easier all around, for the lawyers, the Circuit Court judges, and everybody concerned. From that point of view alone, I think that the Bill is very important, and I am sure that it will do a great deal of good. I think it was Senator Hayes who mentioned that there were different dialects.

No. That was Senator Ryan.

Well, if there is any thing that would tend to help to unify the Irish language, it would be a Bill of this nature. There was a time in France when there were so many different dialects that it was very hard to know which language or dialect would predominate, and I think it was in the reign of Henry IV of France that they finally adopted the language of the Ile de France. Accordingly, a Bill of this kind which would provide us with standard terms should have a great effect in doing away with any differences in regard to dialect.

You have different dialects in English also.

Oh, yes.

Although the suggestion I am tempted to make has no direct connection with the Bill we are considering, I hope, A Chathaoírligh, you will not call me to order for venturing on it. It was suggested by Senator Hayes's mention of a certain professor of the National University, who combines a unique knowledge of Roman and common law with an expert knowledge of Old Irish. Why should the professor not be put at the head of a commission for the publication of a proper version of the Brehon Laws? As we all know, the version with which we are familiar was produced at a time when Irish scholarship had not reached the level it has attained to-day. It is, therefore, defective in many respects, and the translation is, too often, guesswork.

If we had a proper version of the Old Irish laws, those charged by the present Bill with the framing of proper legal terminology would have a regular mine from which to quarry satisfying legal terms. This fact was impressed on me by the example of the late Professor Tomás O Maille— beannacht Dé ar a anam—whose marvellous knowledge of Old Irish—and the native Irish point of view, which was hereditary with him—made his contributions to modern phraseology of vital importance, because they all had the ring of the genuine metal.

I ambition for the National University the honour of giving us the desired version of the Old Irish laws— and with the professor already referred to, whose qualifications for the task are self-evident, I should like to see associated Senator Hayes himself, for no one has a more scholarly knowledge of the Irish language, while his long experience of the framing of Bills in Irish since the inauguration of this State gives him special authority.

Perhaps it might be said that Senator Hayes would not be of much use on the Brehon Laws, but apart from that the most knowledgeable man on that subject is at present engaged on it. This is not a subject on which you could gain knowledge in the street, so to speak, and I think it is a question of considerable doubt whether information could be got in that way on the framing of legal terms in Irish, even if you had a good edition of the Brehon Laws. At least, so I am told.

I think that the case made by Senators O'Dea and Ryan was much better than any case I could make, because both are men of practical experience in the courts. The fact is, however, that, as Senator Ryan stated, this is a mere beginning. A Deputy in the other House referred to this Bill as a fraud, and all the rest of it, and I think we all know who he was. This Bill, like every other human instrument, may prove to be defective, but it is a genuine effort to help people who want to do their work in the courts through the medium of Irish. Already, as Senator O'Dea pointed out, a great deal of work in the courts is done through Irish, particularly in the West of Ireland, but there is a great amount of difference in the phrases used, and the purpose of this Bill is to leave beyond all doubt the meaning of legal terms which have already been decided so far as the English language is concerned. I agree that it would be impossible to say what any particular court would agree upon as to the meaning of a particular word, whether in Irish or English. All we are trying to do is to catch up on the English words that have already been defined.

I should like to join with what Senator Hayes has said about the late Clerk of the Dáil, Colm Ua Murchadha. I knew him, personally, and was aware of the great work he did. He laid the foundation in this matter of the Irish translation of the various Acts passing through the House, and I think we cannot do better than to avail of the services of some member of the translation staff in giving us the proper legal terms in Irish. What I think will take place is that terms that are already there in the Acts will be drawn up, and the intention is to have a person with a legal knowledge as well as a good knowledge of Irish appointed to assist the secretary. They will be like joint secretaries and between them they will draw up a list of legal terms and present them in due course to the committee. I take it also that representatives of the judges, and others acquainted with court procedure, will be there to see that the thing is carried out in a proper legal way.

As far as I can see, this Bill will do a lot of good. There will be, of course, imperfections in it just as in the case of other Bills, and, if so, we shall have to come back and try to improve it. With regard to the question of the number that should be on the committee, no Minister likes to have his hands tied, but we thought that seven would be a good committee. As a matter of fact, I think there are fairly good Irish speakers amongst the judges. I am fairly sure that there are at least two good Irish speakers in the Circuit Court.

Yes, at least two.

I do not know about the higher judges.

The higher the worse.

Still, the matter will be fully explained, and if any crux should arise, it will be dealt with, and I am sure that these people will be very helpful. It is about the best we can do. If it does not prove to be satisfactory we will only have to try to mend our hand again.

Can the Minister say if we are going to see the vocabulary of the official publications in Irish since 1922? It is being done but are we ever going to see it?

All the work of this committee will be published but about the other matter I could not tell the Senator. They have, I believe, a very long list.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for next sitting of the Seanad.
Top
Share