Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Nov 1947

Vol. 34 No. 13

Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1947—Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 10 agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 1:—

In the First Schedule, Part I, page 4, for the name "Dublin North (East)" in the first column to substitute the name "Clontarf".

This amendment raises the point we discussed last evening on the Second Stage. The amendments in my name on the Order Paper down to and including amendment No. 6 refer to the constituencies in the City of Dublin and the proposal is to substitute for the geographical title other titles as set out in the amendments. Whatever decision is reached on amendment No. 1, I am prepared to agree, would cover all the others, except that perhaps there are special circumstances in some cases which ought to be referred to. At the moment, however, I am concerned with the constituency described in the Schedule as Dublin North (East). That I consider a most unsuitable description. The outstanding portion of that constituency includes Clontarf. Clontarf has very historic associations, which, in my opinion, ought to be recalled in the title of the constituency which includes that historic spot.

The Minister in reply to the debate last night referred to the geographical convenience of these constituencies, but that, of course, means nothing. One could say that had he gone further and adopted the American system of referring to 56th Street or 42nd Street, it would have been better still, but he has not done that. Even under the British régime, some attention was given to the historical associations of certain places in Dublin and these assocations were carried into the titles of the Parliamentary constituencies which existed here prior to 1923. You had for instance, St. Patrick's Division, College Green Division, St. Michan's Division, and St. Stephen's Green Division. All these old historic associations were recalled in British legislation when giving titles to the Parliamentary constituencies of Dublin. It appears to me that we ought not to be less mindful of these historic traditions than were the people responsible for designating the constituencies in British Acts of Parliament, and I urge the Minister that he should accept this amendment, or insert something better, if he prefers it, in the Bill.

He referred to Drumcondra as an equally appropriate title, but I am not speaking of appropriate titles. I am making the suggestion that there are certain historical landmarks in Dublin which might reasonably give the titles to our Parliamentary divisions. The question whether they are appropriate in relation to places is another matter. Take what happens in Northern Ireland. There is a division there which covers the South County of Down, but it is known not as South Down, but as Mourne. In Britain, there is a constituency, which geographically may mean nothing, known as the Forest of Dean. There is a constituency in Birmingham called the Park Division. There is a division convenient to London called Woodstock, which returns a very well-known gentleman to the British House of Commons, but Woodstock is purely and simply the name, as I understand it, of a little village in the midst of a constituency with 40,000 voters.

Sir John Keane

An old pocket borough.

Mr. Duffy

Senator Sir John Keane is much better informed about British history than I, but I want to record the fact that, in Britain and in Northern Ireland, no inconvenience is experienced in getting titles, some of them appropriate and many of them historic traditional titles, for constituencies. Why must we follow the example of America by denoting everything by numbers or something abstract which means nothing? I urge the Minister favourably to consider the suggestions made in these six amendments and to adopt them, or to suggest more appropriate amendments for these Dublin constituencies.

Mr. Hayes

I find Senator Duffy's main thesis very attractive and I am sorry it did not get consideration earlier. I entirely agree with him that we would be much better off with historic titles which would have some colour, some roots, some traditions rather than with bald, newly-framed, colourless appellations, such as Dublin North-East, Dublin Central and so on. Whether the particular names he suggests are the best is another question, but his first suggestion, Clontarf, would seem to be quite satisfactory. I do not think that the actual voters in the areas are any more enlightened by a phrase like Dublin North-East than they would be by the word "Clontarf" because every voter in the area has to look up the list to see what constituency he is in. I know people on a certain road on the north side who are now going into their fourth constituency and they moved into the house about 18 years ago, so that the Minister's point that the title Dublin North-East or Dublin West-Central is so satisfactory that the individuals concerned who have votes know where they are has no basis in fact. While I do not know if all these names are quite satisfactory, I agree entirely with Senator Duffy's thesis that we would be much better off if this matter had been considered and if these names with associations were put in rather than bald, meaningless geographical appellations which, in fact, are not a bit more helpful than names such as those suggested by Senator Duffy.

Mr. O'Dea

I do not like to interfere in a matter concerning the City of Dublin, but it appears to me that the names in the Bill are very practical names. Senator Duffy suggests the name St. Laurence in one case. St. Laurence O'Toole is the patron saint of the whole of Dublin and why should his name be attached to only a very small section of the area?

Mr. Hayes

There is also St. Laurence's Hospital.

Mr. O'Dea

Yes, but it applies to the whole of Dublin. It would be very hard to identify the divisions by these names. The names Dublin North and Dublin Central, I think, are more appropriate and ought to be left as they are.

Mr. Hayes

The greatest sins in the world have been committed in the name of practicality.

Mr. O'Dea

Practicality is a very important matter for consideration.

Mr. Duffy

Is there no better argument for the titles than that?

Mr. MacEntee

Of course, equally great sins have been committed, let us not forget, in the name of sentiment, particularly misapplied sentiment. Like Senator Hayes, I have a good deal of sympathy with the attitude of mind which dictated Senator Duffy's amendment but, unfortunately, I have a practical task of trying to reconcile sentiment with practicality, and when we began to consider the idea of affixing historical or dedicatory appellations to these constituencies we were up against a great number of practical difficulties.

Take the case of Clontarf. It is true that the district happens to be situated within the area comprised in the Dublin North-East constituency, but the greater part of the constituency lies far west of Clontarf, and I am perfectly certain that, if we had suggested Clontarf, Senator Duffy, with that fertility of device which characterises him, would start another hare, would be quite critical of the idea that we should call that particular division Clontarf.

Mr. Duffy

Oh no.

Mr. MacEntee

And no doubt he would produce, say, "Croke Park", which is much more central, or "Archbishop Croke", or some other name, which he would contend was much more suitable than anything that would be found in the Bill. It is when we begin to consider, not merely Clontarf, but all the other divisions that, at once, we see the sentimental objections to applying names to wide areas with which in fact they are only remotely associated. For instance, the suggestion has been made here that we should call a certain constituency Saint Michan's. There are other saints associated with that constituency and the admirers of those saints and those who are devoted to them might argue that we were slighting them when passing them over in order to adopt the particular saint to which Senator Duffy is devoted. There is in that constituency a church dedicated to Saint Peter.

Mr. Duffy

Much more recent.

Mr. MacEntee

Much more recent, but though we may all be proud of the sanctity of the early Irish, nevertheless, in the Annals of the Church I suppose Saint Peter would hold a higher place than St. Michan, and those who would be ultramontane in these matters might contend that, as we were dedicating it to a saint, why not dedicate it to the first Pope.

Mr. Douglas

This is not Belfast.

Mr. Duffy

That cuts across the attitude about St. Laurence.

Mr. MacEntee

If we go down through the whole calendar, in relation to every saint who had any association with Dublin would not we find people who would contend that the particular saint whom we were chosing as the patron of the constituency was not in fact nearly so appropriate as some other that would occur to them? I say, therefore, that, even from the point of view of the Senator, there would be strong objections to adopting offhand here, without a great deal of consideration, the names which he has suggested. Senator Hayes himself has uttered a warning in that regard. He said that while he agrees with the spirit of Senator Duffy's amendment, nevertheless, he is not prepared to say offhand that the names which the Senator has suggested are the best that could be devised. Senator Douglas yesterday expressed exactly the same attitude and here we have two Senators who might be taken as being normally very sympathetic to any viewpoint expressed by Senator Duffy.

Mr. Hayes

What?

Mr. Duffy

That is a lie on some of us, either on Senator Hayes or myself.

Mr. MacEntee

We would have the Senator immediately entering caveats against his own suggestion and, if this thing went back to the Dáil, there are, I think, 18 Deputies in the Dáil each of whom would have his own particular view as to what would be the best names to put on Dublin constituencies, and we should have 18 differences of opinion to try to reconcile.

Mr. Douglas

It would not be a strong Government.

Mr. MacEntee

Precisely; it would not be a strong Government. We would be like the man and his ass trying to satisfy everybody and satisfying nobody at the end and killing the ass.

Mr. Duffy

There is a way of deciding that.

Mr. MacEntee

I am going to suggest that the Seanad at least should look at this from a practical point of view because, after all, we are here to conduct the affairs of the nation and to deal with public business in a practical way. We can, of course, wherever possible, reconcile the practical requirements of the position with historical sentiment, and so on, but the position in relation to this Bill is this: as I told the Seanad yesterday, a great many things have been done on the assumption that this Bill, in view of the manner in which it had been received, would go through the Oireachtas practically unchanged. Arrangements have been made for splitting up and identifying the existing registers in accordance with the names given to these constituencies. If this amendment were to be accepted now I would have no option but to go back to the Dáil and ask them to reject it, on this ground if on no other—that these arrangements would all be thrown into the melting-pot, that a great deal of work which has been done over the past month would have to be done over again and the election would be inevitably deferred. I know that all those who are looking to share the lion's skin are very anxious to have this election at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Hayes

Now we are off again.

Mr. MacEntee

At least, that is the impression they are trying to create in the public mind, that they are all very anxious that we should go to the country at the earliest possible moment and that this Government should submit itself to the judgment of the people, in the hope that the judgment will be in their favour. But it begins to dawn on me that this eagerness may be only simulated and that in fact what Senator Duffy has in mind is to bring in an amendment here which will cause the election to be deferred because they are not quite so eager to face the people as they pretend to be.

Mr. Duffy

It is the Government that are in a hurry to face the people.

Mr. Hayes

After these practical remarks, can we go on to the Bill?

Mr. MacEntee

Therefore, I would suggest that it would be, from the Senator's point of view, very unwise. If he is sincerely and genuinely desirous of having the election at the earliest possible moment, he should not bring in an amendment which is not, after all, a matter of great principle, which does not touch the fundamentals of the Bill in any way, but the inevitable effect of which would be, as I have said, to defer the election and to cause to be scrapped a great deal of what has been done during the past month to prepare for the election. That is the very strong objection which I have to accepting these amendments and I think that objection is sufficiently weighty to permit me to ask the Seanad, notwithstanding any views they may have as to the desirability of adopting a system of nomenclature based upon historical or personal associations, not to accept the amendments in the form in which they appear.

Mr. Douglas

I agree with the Minister's conclusion but not with the Minister's reasons. I think it is a perfectly proper thing to bring forward and a perfectly proper thing to debate but, under the present circumstances, it would, I think, be foolish and I imagine Senator Duffy would not press it in any case, to make hasty decisions with regard to change of names and I do not think anyone would particularly wish it. The Minister made alternative suggestions himself. It seems to me it is really only a Belfast man who would suggest the Pope instead of St. Patrick. Be that as it may, it is an illustration of the fact that we could spend from now until the next general election before we would be quite satisfied with regard to the names. I think it is quite likely that, if a carefully prepared and thought out and argued list of names had come, they would have been accepted with perhaps one or two changes. In general, I do not think you would get a name that you could prove was perfectly satisfactory for any of the constituencies but you might get a name of historic interest and value which in time would be attached to that particular constituency and by which the constituency would be known, such as has happened elsewhere. That is what I would have rather liked to see. I do not think now it is practiable.

I was very much intrigued by the Minister's reference to the lion's skin. I do not know what he meant. I think he was probably reading Aesop, but as for the lion's skin, I do not think that the desire to share it is as great as he thinks.

Mr. Duffy

I would suggest that if the Minister had told us at any stage in his speech where he stood, we could come to a reasonable conclusion as to what should be done about this amendment. He commenced by telling us how inappropriate these titles were. He ignored the fact that yesterday I invited him to suggest his own titles and I emphasised that I would have much preferred that the proposals should come from him as the Minister in charge of the Bill than that it should be thought that they were imposed upon him by members of the House with whom he may be in disagreement. The Minister did nothing like that but he comes along and tells us that these titles are inappropriate—I would suggest that of all the speeches I have ever heard made by the Minister the one with which he has resisted this amendment is probably the worst.

Mr. Hayes

That is a big word.

Mr. Duffy

I am suggesting that this is the worst speech he has ever made. Take the example of St. Laurence. The Minister goes on to say that you cannot apply the designation St. Laurence to a division of Dublin because St. Laurence is the patron of all Dublin. I notice that in the wards of Dublin you have, for instance, St. Kevin's ward. What is the difficulty? I should add that the Minister or his predecessor introduced a Bill to establish a hospital which he calls St. Laurence's Hospital. All the hospitals in Dublin, on the Minister's thesis, should be St. Laurence's. I would not like to describe it as ballyhoo but it is difficult to describe it as anything else. Then there was a question about St. Michan's. The advantage about the use of "St. Michan's" is that it was an old name for the constituency. That very area, which is now Dublin North (Central), I think, was for years and years known as St. Michan's division, just as the area which I am proposing to call St. Patrick's was for generations known— or the greater part of it was—as St. Patrick's division.

Is it not more appropriate to refer to this area in which we are now standing as St. Enda's, rather than Dublin South? Is there any suggestion that there is anything wrong about that, or that there is a difficulty about the adoption of that name? I think there is none and the type of speech made by the Minister in which he had no heart and no belief is evidence that there is no opposition in the Minister's own mind to the proposal on the Order Paper. I accept that it may create problems if we are now to change the titles of these constituencies. If the Minister confined himself to that and said: "This is a problem; I have done work under this Bill, I have taken certain steps; you are going to upset all that and delay this election, for which the whole country is bursting," we would understand the opposition to the amendment? The Minister does not make that point, except as a taunt.

Years ago, I had occasion to discuss with a Minister—not the present Minister—certain things that ought to be done under a Bill which was then going through the Oireachtas. It was in private conversation, but the Minister concerned told me that it was not permissible to spend one farthing under a Bill before it had passed through the Oireachtas. I understand one cannot buy a sheet of blotting paper for the purpose of an Act until it becomes an Act. Civil servants, of course, are paid to cover a certain amount of work in a certain period of time and I am sure that the Department of Finance sees to that. It appears, therefore, that the Minister can have had nothing whatever done to implement this Bill. However, if he does say that the real objection to this amendment is that it is not practicable to spend the time required in amending the Bill, going back again to the Dáil to get this amendment accepted and carrying out the work that falls to be done, I am not anxious to press it; but I want it on record that, in my opinion, the present titles are an insult to the people of Dublin. My further view is that, at the earliest opportunity, whatever Government is in office after the general election should take steps immediately to change the titles of the constituencies.

Mr. Summerfield

As one of the Dublin-born men in the House, might I join in the debate as to how the various parts of my native city should be distinguished. I think Senator Duffy anticipated me in saying things I would have said myself, but I would appeal to him to withdraw his amendment for the time being, in the hope that at some future date not merely Dublin but the whole area under the jurisdiction of the Oireachtas might be surveyed and historical names that we can all agree on might be applied to the various constituencies. I am very much in favour of the suggestion of Senator Duffy. There is a picturesqueness about the old names apart from the sentimental and historical reasons advanced by him; but he should give way to the Minister's suggestion and, because of the urgent need to get the Bill through, nothing should be done at this late stage to impede its progress. I want to go on record as expressing the hope that, as early as possible in the life of the new Parliament, something will be done to review the names placed on the constituencies, not merely in the cities and towns but throughout the whole area of the jurisdiction of the Oireachtas.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

Is cúis díombáidh dom fhéin an sórt óráid a thug an tAire ar an gceist seo, nuair a bhí sé ag freagairt ar son a mholta féin agus in aghaidh moladh an Seanadóra Ó Dubhthaigh. Is dócha nach féidir an ceartú nó an tathrú sin a dhéanamh anois. Ach is é rud atá ag cur imní ar chuid againn, an rud adúirt an tAire gur ar son "practical reasons" a chaithfear gach aon ní a bhaineann le stair a scriosadh amach as na rialacháin a deintear i nithe den tsórt so. Ní sa rud seo amháin atá sé sin tar éis a thuitim amach.

Is cúis díombáidh gur sin an aigne atá in ana-chuid rudaí a thagann ón Stát-Sheirbhís i bhfuirm Billí agus Orduithe agus foirmeacha eile—saghas neamh-áird agus faillí do thabhairt, i nithe a bhaineann leis na "practical things", do náisiúntas na hÉireann. Cén fáth go bhfuil an Tigh seo agus an tOireachtas ar fad ann ach chun gnó an náisiúin, agus an náisiún féin, do chur ar aghaidh? Is dóigh liom gur náireach an rud é nach bhfuil ainmneacha ar Bhaile Átha Cliath anois ná "Dublin North (Central)" agus "Dublin North (East)". Bhéadh sé chomh praiticiúil na h-ainmneacha eile —nó aon ainm nach bhfuil luaite ag an Seanadóir Ó Dubhthaigh—do chur orthu san. Bhéidís díreach chomh praiticiúil agus i bhfad níos ionéilithe agus ionbheirthe ná "Soir", "Siar" nó "Thuaidh" mar ainmneacha ar an geathair.

Ní hé seo an t-aon chomhartha amháin ar an bhfaillí sin atá á dhéanamh. Roinnt blian ó shoin, bhí cúis gearáin faoi na hainmneacha a chuir an Comhlucht Loingis ar na báid tráchtála. Níor bhféidir aon rud níos náisiúnta a dhéanamh nó aon ainm níos tréithiúla do thabhairt orthu ná an "Irish Yew", "Irish Ash", agus "Irish Spruce". Is dóigh liom gur náireach an rud a thuit amach fé chúram an Rialtais agus na Párlaiminte atá ann chun gnó praiticiúil náisiúin na hÉireann a chur chun cinn. Is cúis mhór díombáidh é go mbéad fáthanna mar sin ann ó am go h-am chun bheith ag gearán orthu agus chun mí-shásamh do chur ar dhaoine.

B'fhéidir, i geúrsaí an lae atá ann agus na nithe politiciúla atá ag brath air, nár chóir moill do chur ar an mBille anois. Ach ba mhaith liom— agus tá an dúil chéanna ag lucht an Tí go léir—nach mbéadh na rudaí seo á ndéanamh, gur cúis mí-shásamh dúinn iad agus a ndéantar iad faoi scáth an smaoinimh sin gur "nithe praiticúla" iad.

Mr. MacEntee

If Senator Duffy looks at the record, he will find that I did not make any extended reference to St. Laurence O'Toole. He quite misunderstood the position in relation to this Bill and the things that have to be done under it, when he told the Seanad that a Minister had informed him that until a Bill became law no money could be expended under it. That is true, where the expenditure has to be borne by the Exchequer, but in this case quite a lot of things that will have to be done will ultimately have to be borne by the returning officer and it is the returning officers in the various constituencies and the registration officers who now are taking preliminary steps to ensure that, when this Bill becomes law, it will be possible to operate it almost immediately.

Regarding some of the other remarks made, let us see what the real issue is. As Senator Duffy put it, it is as to whether we should follow the British or the American practice. In that regard, the Senator seems to be almost as anti-American as Mr. Viyshinsky himself— everything which America does is wrong and everything the British do is right.

Mr. Duffy

Where did the Minister get that view?

Mr. MacEntee

After all, what instances did the Senator produce in order to convert the Seanad to his point of view? He would stick to the historic British names, because the British have adopted the system of naming a constituency after a village or after a long-vanished forest. Senator Duffy told us that Woodstock division was named after a comparatively small village and another constituency was called after the Forest of Dean. Because they do that and because Americans adopt a practical way of looking at things and name their streets and districts in a way which can be readily recognised and easily remembered by the ordinary citizen, he says they are all wrong and the British are all right.

It is not merely a matter of historical tradition in relation to these things. Who is going to decide what particular view of history is going to be right? If we were all agreed that there were territorial names which could be appropriately applied to all of our electoral constituencies, I would not oppose them. If the territorial names to be given to any one of these divisions were incontrovertible, I would say that we should by all means have them and I would be one of those prepared to take the point of view that we should give them these names. Remember, however, in this regard, that these constituencies are not fixed and lasting for all time and that under the Constitution they are to be revised every 12 years at least. We do not know whether there will be a change in the Constitution enabling the Oireachtas to proceed on the basis of another system of proportional representation, or whether there will be such a change in the Constitution where, instead of there being a lower limit of three, there might be a lower limit of five, seven or nine members for a constituency.

This amendment would give rise to all sorts of trouble. People will say that the constituency used to be called "St. Patrick's" or "Clontarf". In fact, by reason of the extension of the city boundary, Clontarf might be entirely separated and cut off from the constituency known by that name. There is a great deal of misunderstanding of the real problem. If the case were that any of these constituencies had been known for a sensible period of time, for generations, by one particular name and if it were possible to take that name instead of another one which most people regarded as unsuitable, I could see some force in the arguments being made here. But when it is a simple choice between following, to some extent if you like, the American principle and giving a constituency a name by which it can be easily identified, and on the other hand following the British principle and giving a constituency a name which is remotely or slightly associated with that constituency merely for the sake of giving it a territorial designation, then I think all the argument is in favour of the American principle.

Mr. Duffy

The Minister knows that it is also the Russian system.

Mr. MacEntee

It is very much like saying that we should ride in asses' carts because our grandfathers rode in asses' carts before motor-cars were invented. It is very much like that. After all, we have got to remember that, when the British devised their system, the science of nomenclature had not progressed so far that they had anything more rational to apply to it than these territorial designanations. Again, in general the British constituencies embraced comparatively small areas. The Woodstock constituency was built round a small village, and the village was probably the centre of the countryside when the Woodstock division was originally mapped out. We cannot say that Clontarf, for all its historical associations, is the centre of Dublin North (East) constituency any more than we can say that Croke Park is, though Croke Park, from the point of view of geographical situation would perhaps be a more appropriate title to apply to Dublin North (East) than Clontarf. If one were to go down the list of names one could say, in relation to every one of them, that one could produce a dozen objections.

I think that, before we decide to fix these names to constituencies, we ought to be certain that they are names which will meet with general acceptance. I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed by Senator Douglas. I have a great deal of sympathy with the suggestion to call these, constituencies by territorial names or by historical names, but before we can proceed to give effect to that principle we must be certain that the names which we propose to apply to them will be generally acceptable, and from that point of view I think there is very little to be said for the amendment.

Mr. Hayes

I often wonder whether the Minister knows anything about the legislation which he puts through the House. The more I think of it the more convinced I am that he does not. I have heard Deputy MacEntee try his hand at obstruction. He was not very competent, but as Minister for Local Government he is the most competent obstructionist in regard to legislation that I have ever heard. Nobody wants to stop the Minister getting the Bill, and least of all Senator Duffy. Nobody is keeping him from getting it except the Minister for Local Government who brings in international considerations. We are asked by him, in regard to a simple name for a constituency, to consider Russia, America and England. The Minister never before, until this evening, had any idea in his mind that this was an American system. Is not that right? The Minister never before thought that this was the American system until this evening.

Mr. MacEntee

It represents a much nearer approach to the American system than Senator Duffy's suggestion.

Mr. Hayes

These amendments are not practical at this particular moment, and Senator Duffy knows that.

Mr. MacEntee

Then why put them down?

Mr. Hayes

The simple truth is that the Minister, in spite of all his talk, did not consider at all that there should be names of this kind rather than geographical names for the constituencies. It never came into his head. If the Minister had begun his speech this evening after Senator Duffy had spoken with the last statement that he made, namely, that he had considerable sympathy with this kind of proposal, this debate need not have gone on at all. The truth is that there is no comparison at all between us and America.

We must not forget that this is a very old nation and that it has certain historical roots and associations, and that we ought to make the most of them. Even when naming constituencies in the City of Dublin, we ought to take that into consideration. The simple truth is that the Minister never took it into consideration at all, good, bad or indifferent but rode away on a foolish and extremely incompetent line that this was impractical. The most incompetent people in this country are the people who are always talking that way, and if there is anyone impractical it is the Minister for Local Government in getting this Bill through.

Mr. Duffy

If the Minister was anxious to get his Bill and had availed of the opportunity which I offered him last night we could have avoided all this discussion. All that I wanted was an assurance from the Minister that he was in sympathy with this approach. He tells us now that he is, although he devoted the best part of his speech in trying to convince us in favour of American models.

Mr. Baxter

A death-bed repentance.

Mr. Duffy

It is not repentance but what Senator Hayes described it— sheer incompetence, because, strange as it may appear, what the Minister has been defending here in his speech is the Russian conception of constituencies rather than the American. Actually, it is the Russian totalitarian system that he is defending in this House and he thinks it is the American system. I am not responsible for that, but I am responsible for having put down the amendment. I want to say that if the Minister had said at any stage that he was resisting the amendment solely on the grounds that he had made preparations through the returning officers and others to implement this Bill the moment it becomes law and that money had been spent by the returning officers under that head, I would not have pressed the amendment at all. I would have withdrawn it right away. What I am concerned with is the kind of speech the Minister made in which he tried to mislead the House. Everyone enjoys him thoroughly.

Mr. Hayes

I do not enjoy him at all.

Mr. Duffy

I confess that I have a most delightful experience when I listen to the Minister talking what he knows to be rot, and trying to put across the House that he is sincere. Everyone knows that he is far from it.

Mr. Clarkin

Everyone does not know it.

Mr. Duffy

I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, but if the Minister makes another speech I will divide the House on it.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 9:—

In the First Schedule, Part II, page 5, second column, opposite to the name "Cork West" in the first column, after the reference to "Dunmanway South" to insert the words "Tretton and Castletown in the rural district of Dunmanway".

The arguments that apply to the other amendments apply here. In other words, the acceptance of the amendment would mean that the Bill would have to go back to the Dáil, thereby holding up the work that has to be done under it. I do not want to press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McEllin

I move amendment No. 10:—

In the First Schedule, Part II, page 5, third column, to delete the word "Five" where it appears opposite the name "Wexford" in the first column, and substitute the word "Four"; and in the First Schedule, Part II, page 5, third column, to delete the word "Four" where it appears opposite the name "South Mayo" in the first column, and substitute the word "Five".

I do not intend to delay the House very long. This amendment affects South Mayo in so far as it reduces the number of Deputies for that constituency. I think I explained the position pretty well last evening. When the Bill was introduced it had five Deputies, and now the number is four. I am seeking to have the original number restored. The constituency is a very large one, and is composed, to a large extent of poor people who, for various reasons, find it necessary to keep in touch with their Parliamentary representatives. All that involves a very heavy amount of work for the Deputies representing the constituency. I am sorry that there should be any clash in the matter of extra representation as between South Mayo and Wexford. I do not see why it should be mixed up with Wexford, because I have no desire to take a seat from any other area. I strongly recommend the amendment to the House, and ask that the original figure of five be restored.

Mr. Meighan

I desire to support the amendment. South Mayo is a very unwieldy constituency, much more so than Wexford. Quite a number of the roads there are almost impassable, and Deputies find it very hard to get around the constituency to do their work. Deputy Corish, when speaking on the Bill in the Dáil, said that from the population point of view there is a difference of 3,000 people as between Wexford and South Mayo. I think the very large floating population there is in Mayo counteracts the effects of that difference.

A professional man told me recently that he was called to a small village outside of Swinford not long ago to draw up a will for an old man. I think he said that there were 57 or 47 houses in the village. When he went to look for a witness he could not find in that village anyone to act in that capacity between the age of 18 and 70, with the exception of one cripple. That gives an idea of what the floating population in that area is. Some figures which have been supplied to me indicate that the total electorate in Wexford is 55,282, and in South Mayo 55,555, or 273 more than Wexford. If these figures are right, then I think a good case can be made for this amendment, and I hope that on an open vote it will be accepted. I have not done any canvassing in connection with it. I hope that Senators will freely express their opinions on it, and I confidently appeal to them to give their verdict conscientiously.

Mr. O'Dea

If what Senator Meighan says is correct, that South Mayo has an electorate of 55,555, that is, five fives, it would be a very good thing to give them a five in the other column.

Mr. Patrick O'Reilly

I am supporting this amendment and I want to put the fact on record, because I think an injustice is being done and was done when one seat was taken from South Mayo. The Minister so seldom allows free votes in the Dáil that the fact that he chose this particular matter as a matter on which there should be a free vote is a poor example of non-Party politics. I claim that South Mayo is definitely entitled to this seat, and if the Minister were aware of the difference as between County Mayo and County Wexford, I do not think that, in justice, he would have allowed that free vote. We must have regard to the fact that the land in Mayo is much poorer, that the area is much greater and that the difference in voting population is very small. We must also have regard to the fact that the people in Mayo make greater demands on their public representatives than the people in Wexford. The people in Wexford are a much richer community because their land is much better and they have better transport facilities. All these arguments indicate that the seat should have been left to South Mayo and I hope the Seanad will realise that the people of Mayo have to make greater demands on their public representatives than those in a county like Wexford.

There is also the fact that we have the tragedy of people in Mayo leaving that county because there is no economic opportunity for them there, but many of these people are coming back. Many people who left Mayo as migratory workers, who normally would return from Scotland and England, did not return during the war, due to difficulties of travel, securing of visas and so on, but when conditions are easier in that regard, these people will come back. Having regard to all these arguments in favour of the adoption of the amendment, I appeal to the House to support it, so that an area which has suffered because of economic conditions will be given this extra measure of relief, because, as I say, people in an area like Mayo must make greater demands on their public representatives than those in a county like Wexford.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

I made my position pretty clear yesterday on this matter and I support this amendment on the grounds I gave yesterday, that it is entirely unfair that, at a time when a Bill is brought in to increase the representation in the Dáil, a constituency which has had five representatives for a considerable time should be reduced by one because of a decision taken in the Dáil—a hasty decision, as I call it—a decision which the representatives of County Mayo, North and South, were not aware would be taken at the particular time. There is quite a big volume of opinion in Mayo, as in other countries, in favour of the idea that, instead of increasing the membership of the Dáil, there should be a much reduced membership, which could discharge its very important duties as efficiently as the present Dáil does. If a Bill were introduced to reduce that representation, I do not say that I would not support it, and support it strongly, but when a Bill is brought in to increase the Dáil membership by nine, I do not agree that, because of a fluctuation in population in South Mayo, that constituency should lose a seat.

As other speakers have pointed out, conditions in Mayo are entirely different from those in Wexford. There is in Mayo a migratory population—people over 21 years of age go annually to England early in the year and invariably return for the Christmas holidays. They may stay there for five or six months until they secure other employment in England, if they are not satisfied with the employment they have left. Conditions in County Mayo for a considerable time past have necessitated that annual migration, and, as a matter of fact, the attractions offered by way of wages there are attractions which any Government will have very great difficulty in counteracting. I should like to know what form of legislation could be brought in that would meet such a situation.

In the meantime, until such time as a Bill is introduced to reduce the Dáil representation, I regard it as not altogether fair that a Bill originally drafted to give South Mayo the five seats it had since the electoral areas were revised, should now be reversed, and I feel that the Dáil should have an opportunity of reconsidering the situation before Mayo is denied the seat it has held since the constituencies were last revised. I trust the House will enable us to have the matter reconsidered—that is the most we can hope for—in the Dáil before this injustice becomes law.

Mr. Duffy

The question I am concerned with is not whether Mayo should have five, four or 24 Deputies. A good case has been made for 50 Deputies, if it is to be based on poverty, but what I am concerned with is this: I understood it was the feeling of the House that this Bill should be passed into law immediately and that we should not make any alteration in it. That was what I gathered was the feeling of the House when I withdrew nine amendments that I had on the Order Paper. If, however, the House has some other view on the matter, I do not want to interfere, beyond claiming my right to re-introduce my amendments on Report Stage, if there is to be an alteration at all. I think there is a good case for the House altering the Bill in relation to the title of constituencies; I think there is a doubtful case as to whether the House should interfere with the right of Dáil Eireann to decide the manner in which its own constituencies are to be framed and the number of Deputies to be appointed.

I do not care whether there should be five or 25 Deputies in either South Mayo or Wexford. I am prepared to defend Dáil Éireann's right to decide the matter for itself, and I think it is unwise for the Seanad to interfere in a matter in which they have not got the most remote interest. Not merely was Dáil Éireann not dictated to, in relation to the representation in Mayo, but the position is that the matter was left to a free vote and the members of Dáil Éireann were free to decide for themselves. Now we are being asked to tell Dáil Éireann that it made a mistake because the Deputies were not shepherded by Whips into the different lobbies and that it must review its decision. It is a very bad day for this House when it starts interfering in that way. It was done on a few occasions before, foolishly, and one of these foolish errors led to the suppression of Seanad Éireann. Members of the Seanad should decide whether they want this House to do its own business and to mind its own business and not start interfering where it has no right to interfere.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know whether Senator Duffy will be gratified or not, but I have much sympathy with a great deal of what he has said.

Mr. Patrick O'Reilly

In other words, he is threatening the House.

Mr. MacEntee

No, he is not; but there is a great deal of force in the proposition the Senator has put forward, that it is very largely a matter for Dáil Éireann itself, with due advertence, of course, to the requirements of the Constitution, to determine in what way the representation of the people in Dáil Éireann shall be allocated. This, as Senator O'Reilly has reminded the House, was left to a free vote of the Dáil, and it was left to a free vote because there was very little to choose between Wexford and Mayo as to which of them should lose a member. We had, as I pointed out on Second Reading, allowed the maximum representation in the Dáil that the Constitution permitted. We had 147 seats to allocate and there were three constituencies, two of which might have either four or five. One was the proposed constituency of Longford-Westmeath; another, the constituency of Wexford County, and the third, South Mayo. One of these had to lose, and I, weighing all the pros and cons, decided that Wexford was the one that should lose a member. The reasons in favour of Wexford and against the other constituencies and against Wexford in favour of the other constituencies were very evenly balanced, and I decided, since it was merely a question of personal judgment as to which was the better entitled, that I should leave it to a free vote of the House.

The matter was not sprung on the House. Senator Ruane has suggested it was, that the Deputies from Mayo did not get sufficient notice. That is far from being the case. The matter was raised, in the first instance, on the Second Stage by Deputy Corish, and, I think, supported by some other Deputies. It was raised again on the Committee Stage, and, because of the facts I have given as to the difficulty I had found in determining the matter, I indicated on the Committee Stage that, if an amendment were brought in, I would leave the matter to a free vote of the House. I even went so far as to say that, in order that the matter might be brought before the House in a formal way, and decided by the House, I would, if necessary, bring in an amendment myself, but that I should not vote for the amendment, that, if anything, I might vote against it. On the Report Stage, the amendment was moved by Deputy Corish. It was spoken to, for and against, by a number of Deputies. I intervened and I put all the facts so far as I knew them in relation to both these constituencies before the House, including the fact to which Senator Meighan has adverted here this evening, that so far as the Parliamentary electorate is concerned there is a slight balance in favour of South Mayo. The figures which he gave are 55,555 in favour of South Mayo as against 55,282 in favour of Wexford. Notwithstanding all this, the House came to a decision, by what I think is an overwhelming majority, in favour of Wexford. The actual figures for the division were 54 votes for Deputy Corish's amendment and 26 votes against.

I suggest that in the light of those figures there is no probability whatever that the Dáil will reverse the decision which it has already given and I do think, as I have said, in view of the arguments which Senator Duffy has put before the Seanad, that it would be unwise, from the point of view of the Seanad, and that the House would be only courting a rebuff, for the House to accept this amendment and to send the matter back to the Dáil for reconsideration. It would involve us in a great deal of time. It would not involve us—I would like to say this—in the sort of upset which the acceptance of any one of Senator Duffy's amendments would cause. This does not relate to the actual definition of constituencies. It merely relates to the allocation of the representation to be accorded to each and in that regard it does not matter to the returning officer, from the point of view of preparing his polling scheme and his register, whether the constituency is going to have four members or five. It would matter very seriously if all the work which he has done in relation to the preparations, arrangements for printing, stamping, and so on, were to be thrown into the melting pot again. But, notwithstanding the fact that it would not cause the same confusion as the acceptance of Senator Duffy's amendments would cause, I do think it would be undesirable, in view of the fact that we are all anxious to see this Bill out of the way and to have the position definitely settled.

In view also of the very emphatic decision which the Dáil gave in this matter, it would, I suggest, not be wise for the Seanad to accept the amendment which has been proposed by Senator McEllin and supported by the other Senators who happen to have associations with Mayo. I should remind you that this House is supposed not to be constituted upon a territorial basis but upon a vocational one.

Mr. Douglas

Supposed.

An Cathaoirleach

Is it proposed to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. Meighan

I would be the last member of this House to impede legislation or to be in any way obstructive and I think I can claim that I have not been so since I came into the House. But, people I have come in contact with, of all Parties, feel strongly on this matter. Rightly or wrongly, there is a feeling in regard to it—the Minister has denied it—that the matter was a bit rushed. I have an open mind in this matter and I would like to see a free vote of this House as an expression of opinion respectfully tendered to the other House. We have to give our opinions and I cannot see why it should be taken as a rebuff or as being in any way discourteous to the Dáil if the opinion of this House, either for or against the amendment, is tendered to the other House. If the motion is carried, I cannot see why any member of the Dáil should be annoyed or should take exception to it. On the other hand, if the opinion of the House is given, I will not be in the least annoyed in regard to the decision. I am in the position that I cannot accede to the withdrawal of the amendment.

Mr. Patrick O'Reilly

I am quite satisfied with the Minister's statement that he has been quite fair in dealing with this matter. I, too, take the view that it was better to leave it to a free vote in the Dáil but I am inclined to agree with Senator Meighan that the issue was not as well known to Deputies as it might have been. That is not the Minister's fault. That would be the Deputies' fault, I am sure, if that is the fact. That has been stated. There is one part of the Minister's reply with which I disagree. He has used the statement of Senator Duffy to justify his decision.

As far as I can gather from Senator Duffy, his reason for advocating that the amendment should not be accepted was that it was by way of a threat to this House. He indicated, if I understood him correctly, that this House should have some regard to what happened another established institution here because they took a certain line on a certain matter. That, to me at any rate, was a sort of intimidation. Probably I took the wrong view from Senator Duffy. But, having regard to the fact that the voting power in Mayo at the moment is, as Senator O'Dea correctly stated, five fives, I think they should be given the sixth five. They have a slight majority of voting power and, having regard to all the other considerations that I have already outlined, the topography of the constituency, the relatively poorer community, the fact that it has worse roads and not as good transport, this House would be quite justified in passing this amendment.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

The last tough football match we had here was between Galway and Mayo, in regard to the cost of a bridge on the Corrib. It was a Connacht championship. Galway won on that occasion. It is not fair to bring us into this match between Leinster and Connacht because I do not think any of us would be in a position to decide. The Dáil has decided on a free vote on this matter and I think it is unfair to ask us to do what we are being asked to do, that is, to disagree with what the Dáil, in its wisdom or ignorance, has already done. I would ask those in favour of the Mayo constituency not to put it to a division because, between Munster, Leinster and Ulster, we cannot very well decide whether Mayo or Wexford should have the odd seat. I do not think the members of this House should be asked to rescind what the Dáil has done.

Mr. Summerfield

As this would seem to be a wasteful division, I join in appealing to those who are responsible for this amendment to withdraw it. Most of us have no hand, act or part in this little difference as to which constituency is entitled to the extra seat but I am convinced that it would be highly imprudent, to say the least of it, if we were now to send back to the Dáil what would be a reversal of the decision they so easily arrived at on a free vote. We have heard a lot of talk about practicalities and all the rest of it in debates yesterday and to-day. We must look at this in a practical way. There has been a free vote in the Dáil and by a very substantial majority the Dáil has decided what they want done in this matter. I would strongly appeal to those of my friends who are, naturally, speaking in support of this amendment because of the area from which they come, that it would be unwise, to say the least of it, to persist in the amendment and, frankly, they lose nothing if at this stage they withdraw it.

Mr. Madden

I am in a rather invidious position. I had been approached by a great number of people in my constituency to move an amendment in regard to Limerick and, in deference to the Minister, because he wanted the Bill to become law as expeditiously as possible, I surrendered the right I thought I had, not anticipating this unexpected development. This has put me in rather the same position as Senator Duffy is in. Therefore I would appeal to the mover and seconder of this amendment that they should have some consideration for us, who may have to face the argument as to why we did not do as they had done.

Mr. Douglas

I reached practically the same conclusion as Senator Duffy though I would not be quite as vigorous about it as he is. Constitutionally, we have a certain amount of responsibility for the electoral system, at any rate, to the extent of expressing a point of view. If there had been a matter which had been overlooked in the other House or which was raised afresh and which might require a good deal of discussion, there would be a good deal to be said for our sending that matter back for rediscussion. I cannot see that this is a matter in which we could exercise even the very small amount of power of delay or that we should in any way fight with the other House about it. The practical position at the moment—and I do not want to over-emphasise the practical side of it—is, that for good or evil, this matter is urgent in a way in which it would not normally be urgent and probably was not intended to be when the Bill was drafted and now to go back, simply for the purpose of having another free vote in the Dáil and another whipping up of the two sides, and delaying that length of time, with almost certainly the same result, does not seem to me to achieve public advantage. If I could see any advantage in it I would be as ready as anyone to stand up for what would seem to be our right to make suggestions but, having regard to all the circumstances, I am inclined to think that we would be wise, having mentioned it again, to leave well alone as a matter of wisdom.

Personally, when I read the debate in the Dáil I could not help wondering why it arose at all; why Wexford and Mayo did not both have 4; why 146 would not be just as good as 147, but you cannot raise that now, obviously.

Mr. McEllin

I appreciate the considerable support which I got in the House for this amendment. In view of that support, I do not think I would be justified in withdrawing my amendment. Apart from that aspect of it, I have other points of view on it. When this amendment was moved in the Dáil, there was a certain amount of hurry in connection with it. I notice that at the time the division was taken, practically all the Deputies, with the exception of one or two, representing South Mayo, were absent, including the Leader of the Clann na Talmhan Party and he thought it desirable the following week to get up and say that notice was too short and he was not aware that such a division was likely to take place. I do not know whether that is a genuine excuse or not. I suppose he had as much notice as anybody else. But at least there is evidence there of a certain amount of hurry in connection with the challenge that was put to the Deputies. That being so, I think it would be only right that they should get another opportunity of considering this on a free vote of the House again. I hope I am not misjudging the Minister. In sponsoring the Bill here, particularly with regard to resisting this amendment, he was very fair indeed but I gathered from him that there is no serious impediment or delay involved by the alteration of one figure in one constituency and another figure in another constituency. It is a simple issue and does not in any way delay the Bill. For that reason, I think we should not allow ourselves to be stampeded into the belief that we cannot challenge a division because it would hold up the Bill.

There is another aspect of this matter. This House has always boasted of the fact that it can express different points of view and can delay legislation to a reasonable extent. I think we would be justifying ourselves and the independence of the House by giving more time to the discussion of this amendment and, having passed it here, by giving the Dáil an opportunity of reconsidering the position. There will not be the excuse then for saying that people were absent from the House and were neglecting their duty. It will give a full opportunity to the Deputies of seeing justice done in their constituencies.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not want to hold the House up but I think that Senator McEllin is under a misapprehension as to what the position may be in the Dáil if this Bill is sent back. Having given a whole morning of the Dáil's time to the discussion of this matter already we cannot permit a further opportunity for a prolonged debate. We have not merely this Bill to get through but several others as well. There is the Seanad Bill, the Housing Bill, Expiring Laws Bills and a number of other measures all of which are urgent and which make the Parliamentary timetable very crowded. No assurance has been given that if this amendment is accepted here and the Bill sent back to the Dáil that there will be a free vote on it. I should like Senators to understand that by voting on this amendment and passing it they are not going to give a further opportunity for considering this question de novo. The Government is responsible for ordering Parliamentary time. There are a great many other matters pressing for attention, matters which must be passed and in the light of all this I think it would be wrong if the Government gave any more time for discussion of this matter.

Mr. Douglas

Would the holding up of this Bill for a week delay the printing of the register? I presume it would.

Mr. MacEntee

It would, and there are other matters, too. Polling schemes have to be prepared on the basis of this Bill and must be ready for submission to the local authorities, and whatever significant changes are being made must be ready for the approval of the local authorities by December 1st. I would not want to unduly fetter the judgment of the House or the Government in relation to this matter by anticipating what would happen if it should come before the Dáil again, but I would like to say that from a practical point of view it would be most unwise and imprudent to send the Bill back with this amendment.

Mr. McEllin

Would it not be left to a free vote of the House again?

Mr. MacEntee

The Government gave the House an opportunity of coming to a decision and the Government cannot shilly-shally now. That is the position. We must look on this thing with a sense of responsibility.

Mr. McEllin

If the Government has already come to a decision to allow the matter to go to a free vote it cannot now deny a free vote on the same issue or a similar issue.

Mr. Meighan

I have given an assurance already and I want to give it again, that I have no desire and never had any desire to impede legislation or to do anything that could be taken as bad form in regard to either House. I have definite requests from a number of parties to put the points clearly and strongly here that I have already put. The viewpoint is contained in the amendment, that is, that it is the opinion of Seanad Éireann that South Mayo is entitled to a fifth seat on the figures. Earlier in the debate the Minister told us that the sending of the Bill back with this amendment would not involve the same complications as sending it back with Senator Duffy's amendments.

Mr. MacEntee

But it would hold us up, not so seriously. Put it that way, Senator.

Mr. Meighan

Very well, but the position I am in is that my hands are tied. If this was a personal matter I could decide myself. There is another very strong point in favour of sending it back and that is that the voting in the Dáil was 55 to 26. The combined votes did not represent more than half the entire representation of the House. If the voting had been different and if there was a clear overall majority nobody would question it. I am not asking the House to dictate to the Dáil, I am asking that a decision of the Seanad be taken on this matter and conveyed to the Dáil and I will have no bones to make about what the decision is. I regret to say my hands are tied in this matter, as I have said before. If it was a personal matter I would be inclined to facilitate the House. At the same time I cannot see that it would impede progress to any great extent.

Mr. Duffy

It appears to me that the smaller and least significant a matter is before the House, the greatest chance it has of receiving sympathetic consideration. The case before the House is for giving-one additional seat to Mayo.

Mr. Tunney

Or of leaving them what they have.

Mr. Duffy

Nonsense. My own view is that there are far too many Deputies altogether but I am not interfering in this matter. If I were discussing this question de novo I would object to the number of Deputies being 147, but that is a matter for Dáil Éireann. They have to provide for the payment of those Deputies and they have to carve out their own constituencies. I refrained both yesterday and to-day from interfering in this matter and if the Seanad is wise it will not interfere, either. We devoted far too much time discussing this question on which Senator Meighan has confessed that he has an open mind. It seems to me the most absurd proposition I have heard in this House for the last three years and the least justifiable.

Mr. Meighan

It is more open than the Senator's.

Mr. Duffy

A man with an open mind has no opinion. Once you make up your mind on a matter you have a closed mind on it: you have fixed your mind and my mind is fixed on this matter. It is unwise for this House to interfere with Dáil Éireann and to interfere in a business that is the exclusive concern of Dáil Éireann and if the members of this House are wise they will not interfere with it. It is doubly so when a decision has been reached on the matter by a free vote of Dáil Éireann in which Ministers voted against each other and members of the same Party voted against each other. I could understand a case being made here for the amendment if the decision taken by the Dáil had been forced by the Party Whips. I could understand that proposition but I cannot understand our being asked to reverse a decision freely taken by the members of the Dáil without any pressure by any one. I am not objecting to the House accepting the proposition before it. All I ask is that if it is accepted I will be given time to repeat my amendments on the Report Stage. If it is to go back to the Dáil I will endeavour to ensure, as far as I can, that it carries my amendments also. We promised yesterday to let the Minister have the Bill to-night and we cannot give it to him to-night if we are going to insert amendments to it. The Dáil, I suppose, will not meet to-morrow and that would mean a hold-up for a week. The Minister told us that these were the sort of amendments moved by people who were afraid of a general election but the proposer of this amendment is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. I do not know whether there is any significance to be attached to that or not but Senator McEllin is still in the hierarchy of the Party of which the Minister is such a distinguished representative in this House.

Mr. McEllin

I am rather amused at Senator Duffy and I am anxious to find out the reason why he dramatises so much in resisting this amendment. Is he working himself up to defend the position in Waterford?

Mr. Duffy

No.

Mr. McEllin

All right then, but he is denying the right of this House to interfere in legislation passed by Dáil Éireann. Why are we sitting here discussing this Bill at all if we have not the right to discuss an amendment? Not an amendment of the type moved by Senator Duffy for the purposes of creating complications. Senator Duffy tells us that this is purely a matter for Dáil Éireann, that it is their business and that we must not intervene. If that is so, the matter should not come before us at all and we are wasting our time discussing it. This is not an amendment that will create complications like Senator Duffy's foolish sentimentality. I do not see what all the fuss is about. Senator Duffy tells us we should not interfere. We have every right to interfere in this matter.

Mr. Duffy

I have never challenged the right of the Senator or any member of the Seanad to interfere.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order, order!

Mr. McEllin

We have a perfect right to discuss and amend this Bill if we think fit, no matter what Senator Duffy tells us.

Mr. Duffy

I am not denying that right.

Mr. McEllin

That is a very foolish argument, and one that never counts in this House. I hope this House will always preserve its independence.

Mr. Sweetman

Hear, hear! Another death-bed repentance.

Mr. McEllin

Instead of trying to dramatise the situation it would be much better for Senator Duffy to have told us what the situation in Wexford would be if his group had a chance of having five members. That would be a more honest argument.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The House is not discussing that aspect of this amendment. Will the Senator deal with the amendment?

Mr. McEllin

I have no wish to pursue the argument. When introducing the amendment I had no wish for a long discussion but, in view of the manner in which it has been adverted to, and even with the threat of Senator Duffy, I consider that his argument was not a fair one. This amendment does not create any complications. It is only a question of changing a figure in two constituencies. Ten minutes' discussion in the Dáil will decide the matter. It is up to members of this House to do their duty. Do not let an issue of this sort be dealt with in the Dáil as if the amendment was a rotten one. There is no question of rushing legislation as there is plenty of time to consider it.

Mr. Duffy

This amendment is nearly as simple as the speech to which we have just listened. It was so simple that the Senator was obliged to reveal himself not as a detached legislator in Seanad Eireann but as a Party advocate for South Mayo.

Mr. McEllin

What is wrong with that?

Mr. Duffy

Nothing, provided there is an honest attempt to deal with it. If I was making a Party case I would vote for the amendment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Better leave Parties out of the discussion.

Mr. Duffy

I cannot. If you, Sir, tell me that I am out of order I shall immediately desist. Otherwise, I have to insist that the Senator has been accusing me of making this a matter of Party consideration. It is true that there is a member of the Labour Party representing Wexford. It is also true that there is a representative of the so-called National Labour Party for Wexford, but I have no doubt whatever that, if there were four seats in Wexford the latter would disappear completely.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are not discussing Wexford or Mayo electorates. We are dealing with numbers now.

Mr. Duffy

It took a long time to discover that. I want to point out that I have been completely misrepresented by Senator McEllin. I object to that. I was concerned solely with the line that I thought prudent for the House to take. I could be wrong in my approach. I believe I am right. I am adhering to the view that it is unwise for the House to accept a proposal of this kind. I assure the House that I am not influenced in that decision by any Party considerations. If I were influenced by Party considerations, as some other people are, I would have taken the line that only four Deputies are wanted in Wexford. That is quite obvious to anyone who knows the circumstances in Wexford. I want to bring the House back to reality.

The case made here is a case for five Deputies for South Mayo in the belief that certain Parties require five seats there in order to maintain certain numerical strength in the other House. There is no other case for it. Actually the position in Mayo is that between 1926 and 1936 the population fell by 10,000, and between 1936 and 1946 it fell by another 10,000, or a decline of 20,000 in 20 years. Still the case is being made that there should be as many representatives there in 1947 as there were in 1926, despite a decline of 20,000 in the population. I was arguing mainly as to the wisdom of this House reversing a decision already come to. I have never alleged, as Senator McEllin suggested that we cannot do so. Of course we can. There is nothing in the Standing Orders or in the Constitution to prevent this House passing the amendment, but it is often wise on occasions to refrain from doing things which normally would be done. It would be unwise to do them.

Mr. MacEntee

May I intervene to say that I am expected to be in the Dáil at 6 o'clock to deal with the Seanad Bill? With this discussion I do not see how I can do so.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I was about to say that I thought the House is prepared now to come to a decision in the matter.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 17.

Tá

• Concannon, Helena.
• Counihan, John J.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Johnston, Séamus.
• McEllin, John E.
• Madden, David J.
• Meighan, John J.
• O'Dea, Louis E.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• Ruane, Seán T.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Sweetman, Gerard.

Níl

• Clarkin, Andrew S.
• Douglas, James G.
• Duffy, Luke J.
• Fearon, William R.
• Johnston, Joseph.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, Peter T.
• Kyle, Sam.
• Lynch, Peter T.
• McCabe, Dominick.
• O'Donovan, Seán.
• O Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Smyth, Michael.
• Stafford, Matthew.
• Summerfield, Frederick M.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Meighan and Patrick O'Reilly; Níl: Senators Summerfield and Kelly.

Amendment declared negatived.

First and Second Schedules and Title agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.

Bill received for final consideration and passed.

Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil, without amendment.