Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Nov 1954

Vol. 44 No. 3

National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1954—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Finance (Mr. Sweetman)

The existing legislation in respect of national monuments is that comprised in the National Monuments Act of 1930. There have been some practical difficulties which have arisen over the years in the administration of that Act and this short amending Bill is introduced for the purpose of clearing up some of these difficulties and enabling solutions to them to be found.

The Principal Act, the Act of 1930, defines the word "monument" in a very comprehensive manner and enables either the Commissioners of Public Works, on the one hand, or local authorities, on the other, to become guardians or owners of any monument, the preservation of which is a matter of national importance by reason of historical, architectural, traditional, artistic or archæological interest attaching thereto. Senators will agree that that is a fairly wide definition. There are, luckily, in Ireland many monuments of such interest. We can pride ourselves on being rich in monuments, but unfortunately it is not possible for the State to take over and assume ownership of every monument which might be considered worthy of preservation. We, therefore, have to choose some of these monuments and to select those which we consider to be the most important.

At present, there are about 500 monuments or groups of monuments in the ownership or guardianship of the Commissioners of Public Works. About 200 of these were dealt with under the Act of 1930, the balance having been dealt with in earlier Acts. In addition, preservation Orders under the 1930 Act were made in about 200 cases, preventing demolition, removal, injury or defacement of the structures covered by the Orders.

As I indicated this Bill is a Bill to amend the 1930 Act and the amendments which are proposed are mostly of a machinery or administrative character. There is a power included to enable the transfer of monuments, if it is considered desirable, from local authorities to the Commissioners of Public Works. Under the existing law, local authorities cannot so transfer such monuments and the Commissioners of Public Works cannot accept them. There is also a provision included in the Bill to expedite preservation Orders in case it is necessary more urgently to take steps to preserve some monument or some structure.

There is a special provision dealing with temporary preservation Orders which will afford protection to monuments which are discovered to be in immediate danger of injury. There is at present no power for the Commissioners of Public Works to transfer a national monument which they own to the site of another national monument, if that should be considered desirable. Members of the House will, I am sure, visualise circumstances in which that might be extremely desirable and accordingly, the Bill contains a provision enabling that to be done. A part of the Bill also strengthens the position with regard to restricting the illegal export of archæological objects and we have included a more appropriate basis for the National Monuments Advisory Committee. By these arrangements, the tenure of office is changed and more latitude given in the nomination of ex officio members. While, as I say, the general question of our monuments is one in which we are all interested in a general way, the framework of this Bill within that general statement is one of machinery, machinery by which the aim we all have in mind can be achieved and again it is a matter for discussion on Committee Stage.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Seo Bille eile gur maith linn é a bheith ann. Is Bille é nach é amháin go bhfuil áthas ar lucht an tSeanaid, ach ar mhuintir na tíre fré chéile, é a bheith ann. Ba mhaith liom go mbeadh an t-am agam cur síos oiread agus chomh iomlán, agus ba mhaith liom ar an mBille, ach tá cúis ann nach féidir liom mórán ama a chaitheamh air. Ba mhaith liom, áfach, achaine a dhéanamh—go dtiúrfadh an tAire agus go dtiúrfadh an Rialtas áird ar an riachtanas, mar mheasaimse, atá ann faoi láthair leis an moladh atá le déanamh agam seo? Is deacair sainmhíniú cruinn d'fháil ar céard is séadchomhartha ann ach is dóigh liom go bhfuil na sammhínithe— na definitions—atá againn sáthach láidir agus sáthach leathan leis na rudaí atá im aigne agam a thabhairt isteach fúthu.

Sa nGaeltacht tugaimid faoi deara go bhfuil athruithe móra ag teacht, agus cuid de na hathruithe seo is maith linn iad agus cuid eile ní maith linn iad a bheith ann. An saghas tighthe a bhí ann leis na céadta blian, tá siad ag imeacht. An té a cuireann spéis ann tiúrfaidh sé faoi deara na hathruithe seo ó theach go teach agus ó cheantar go ceantar. An cineál troscáin a bhí sna tithe seo, tá sé ag athrú freisin; an cineál éadaigh a chaitheadh na daoine, tá sé siúd ag imeacht agus an cineál nua ag teacht isteach ina áit. Ar an slí chéanna tá athrú mór ag teacht ar an gcóras bídh, ar an gcóras cocáireachta, ar an gcóras tionscail agus ar an gcóras talmhaíochta. Sé an rud ba mhaith liom, agus is dóigh liom go bhfuil sé in am againn tosú ar roinnt mhachnaimh a dhéanamh air, go gceapfaí in áit éigin sa tír ionad a mbeadh Muséum na ndaoine le bunú agus le cothú ann. Ní heol dom aon áit abfhearr in Éirinn lena haghaidh sin ná Gaillimh. Theastódh 8, 9 or 10 n-acraí talún lena aghaidh agus níor mhór tithe d'aistriú isteach ó na Gaeltachtaí, agus bailtí féin d'aistriú isteach ann. Níor mhór na seanghléasanna, idir gléasanna tís agus gléasanna ceirde a bhailiú agus a chur ar fáil sa Muséum sin chomh maith. Is dóigh liom gurb é an rud ba cheart a dhéanamh freisin, a leithéid sin de Mhuséum a bhunú agus é a fhágáil faoi stiúrú Ollscoil na Gaillimhe. B'fhéidir le Seandalaiocht gur cheart go mbeadh an tOllamh le Léann agus lucht Ceilt mar chomhairleoirí i stirúrú a leithéid de Mhuséum. Ní rud nua é sin. Tá a leithéid le fáil sa tSualainn agus tá sé le fáil san Ioruaid agus tá sé le fáil i dtíortha eile—in aon tír a bhfuil meas acu ar a stair. Sílim go bhfuil sé in am againn tosú ar a leithéid sin a chur ar fáil faoi choimirce Ollscoil i nGaillimh. Ní féidir a leithéid a dhéanamh i gceart taobh istigh de thalamh an Choláiste féin. Ní mór dúinn dul amach agus áit cheart lena aghaidh d'fháil chun é a bhunú i gceart. Cosnóidh sé airgid é a chur ar fáil, ach ba cheart dúinn é a dhéanamh mar gheall ar chomh tábhachtach agus a tá na rudaí seo.

Chosnóchadh sé cuid mhaith airgid a leitheid de Mhuséum a chur ar bun. Ach is dóigh liom go dtiúrfadh a leithéid de Mhuséum a lán airgid isteach sa tír agus go n-íocfadh sé as féin i gceann tamaill. Is maith liom go mór spéis a bheith ag an Aire sna sean-nithe seo agus ba mhaith liom go dtúirfaí faoi deara go bhfuilimid ag fuagairt an spéis atá againn sa stair agus go bhfuil tuiscint againn ar chomh tábhachtach agus atá na nithe seo. Do mheabhraigh mo chara, an Seanadóir Ted Ó Sullivan, dom go bhfacamar greanta i bhfocla ordha ar cheann dena príomh foirgintí i Washington an abairt seo: "The heritage of the past is the seed that brings forth the harvest of the future. Study the past."

Sílim gur cómhartha an-mhaith é go bhfuil an tAire agus an Rialtas ag cur oiread spéis sna nithe seo agus atáid. Ba mhaith liom-sa dá dtéadh sé amach mar ghairmscoile go mbeadh an spéis chéana ag na daoine sna nithe a luadhadh.

An t-Ollamh Ó h-Aodha

Táim ar aon aigne leis an Seanadóir Ó Buachalla. Séard a bhí beartaithe agamsa i dtaobh rud amhain adúirt an Seanadóir go mbeadh an musaem so i mBaile Átha Cliath in ionad bheith i nGaillimh ach do bheadh sé fuirist an cheist sin do réiteach ar ball.

This is a very desirable Bill. The Principal Act was good enough at the time. Some difficulties have been found in connection with it. The real difficulty is not so much the administration of any Act of this kind but the purposes with which the Commissioners of Public Works will be animated. They have done a great deal of good work. In view of the amount of money which would be available for this purpose, the Minister was, of course, absolutely right when he said that we cannot preserve all our ancient monuments as we would like. May I say on this point in relation to what Senator Ó Buachalla said, when concluding, that this matter of the preservation of ancient monuments is not only a question of sentiment? People who have no care for the past can have very little hope for the future.

We should endeavour to preserve all our past without making a choice merely of things that are Gaelic. We should preserve the beautiful objects of any of the peoples who came here whether as invaders or otherwise. A choice must be made as the Minister said and it is not always easy to make that choice. The Principal Act and the Bill itself provide that the choice should be made by the people who can give the best opinion on the matter.

It seems to me that this whole question is one of arousing interest and that interest should be aroused by teaching as far as possible local history in the schools. The people who lived in this country and who never heard of constitutions, laws, parliaments or republics for the matter of that were very patriotic but their patriotism was of a different nature from the fashionable patriotism of the moment. They lived and loved their own districts, not their own counties. They knew the name of every field, hill, stream and cliff in their own area. The decay of the Irish language has meant the decay of that knowledge has lead to a diminution of love of the land. The money spent on matters of this kind would not be wasted. It would have the effect of improving national morale and possibly would have important economic effects as well.

I should like to make a special plea for one particular scheme associated with a particular building. The Royal Hospital at Kilmainham is the very best 17th century building in this island. I happen to have some knowledge of it because as far back as 1923 a proposal was made to move the Oireachtas to the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham. At that time, therefore, I had to make considerable acquaintance with the building and I learned that it was a very beautiful building and I got to like it both inside and outside.

At the moment, I understand that there is dry rot in the roof. I do not know precisely what expenditure we will require to make that right but I would like to suggest to the Minister that since it is actually Government property and the land surrounding it is also State property it would be a great shame if this building were allowed to fall into decay. I should like to make a proposal similar to that made by Senator Ó Buachalla. It is a great reflection on us that we have nowhere in this country an open-air folk museum. Indeed, I should have said a folk museum because when properly run and managed one may not only require a considerable space outdoor but also buildings for the exhibits which must necessarily be indoor. The suggestion I was going to make was that if the Royal Hospital were restored it could be used to house folk material. It is a very beautiful building. You would also have available about 40 acres for the display of everything connected with the life of Irish country people.

As Senator Ó Buachalla has said, there are museums of this kind in Sweden. The one in Stockholm attracts 1,000,000 visitors a year, and therefore, it must have a considerable income because a charge is made for entry. I would propose also that there should be a charge for entry here. There is a fine folk museum in Holland. There is also a folk museum in Wales, in Cardiff in a building donated by a nobleman there. A folk museum is planned for Edinburgh and also for Belfast so that it might happen in this country that if you want to know how the Irish countryman lived, what tools he worked with, what kind of a bed he slept in or what kind of a house he lived in, you would have to go to Belfast instead of Dublin or Galway to find out. The position here is that this particular building, the Royal Hospital—when I was a youngster it was called the Old Men's House—has a wonderful situation. It is actually within the City of Dublin. It has splendid views and there is plenty of land attached to it, so that nothing at all would have to be done from the point of view of purchasing either a building or ground.

Immense changes have taken place in this country in my lifetime. I am constantly in touch with very young people, and I find that things that were quite common to me, a person born and reared in Dublin, are now quite unknown to them. I found lately, for instance, that out of 22 people only one had ever seen an earthen floor. The Irish language should certainly be used for the purpose of showing people what Irish country people were like. It is essential that that should be done through the language. There is a new generation growing up, some of them who never saw the inside of a thatched house, who never saw a forge and who think that the shoemaker is a person who stands up with rivets in his mouth and hammers them into a shoe on an iron last. They do not know the meaning of the word gréasaí in Irish or shoemaker in English at all. They have never seen a man making a shoe. That applies to the ordinary trades and crafts, apart from basket-making and boat-making which might be regarded as important but perhaps unusual.

In this country we have records of the history of Irish chieftains, of Gaelic aristocrats as well as a good deal of history about Anglo-Irish nobles and English Queens and Lords Lieutenant, but almost nothing at all about the Irish countrymen who bore the brunt of all our history and who, up to the 19th century, fought all our battles. It is quite clear that whatever happens the Irish language, Irish folk life is bound to go.

No one wants to stop people getting better houses or from using machinery instead of hand crafts, but the State certainly should do everything that possibly can be done to preserve a picture of what Irish life was like a 100 or even 50 years ago. The changes during the last 30 or 40 years have been at an extraordinarily fast rate, so that before it is too late I think exhibits should be collected and set out in an appropriate place.

The place that I suggest is the Royal Hospital with local museums in other places. If you had something of that kind it would prove very attractive to our own people because they cannot love their country unless they know something about it, and the most important part of it I think was life in rural areas. It would also, I think, prove attractive to tourists because what tourists like most when travelling is to see what is most native and most peculiar to the particular country they are visiting. It would be possible to set all that out in an attractive manner and to get a considerable sum of money from visitors if we were able to show them all those things which were so characteristic of the life of the country and which are now disappearing—the work of various people like blacksmiths, wheelwrights, basket-makers, saddlers, coopers, sieve-makers with a general collection of their tools and implements.

During the war, for example, people discovered that a sleán was used for cutting turf, but how many knew that the word had 20 or 30 different meanings—that there were different sleáns in different areas. The same thing applies to turf ricks, hay ricks and to houses. Anyone travelling northwards will notice the change in the style of houses when he crosses the Boyne. One of the advantages of the proposal which I should like the Minister to consider carefully is that if you had a building like the Royal Hospital you could put into it domestic features such as a kitchen, a dairy and bedrooms. That would obviate the necessity of building an outdoor erection. I think it could become a centre of folk life and of research with prints and pictures of country life. All that would provide a picture of what the country was like 100 years ago. A great deal of that is disappearing daily before our eyes. I think that before it passes we should make a determined effort to see that we preserve it for future generations. Not only would it be good from the national point of view, but it would be a duty fulfilled, and we would reap economic advantages from it as well.

I have here a handbook of the National Museum of Wales at Cardiff and it defines pretty well what a folk museum is. I might read two sentences from it:—

"A folk museum represents the life and culture of a nation, illustrating the arts and crafts, and in particular the building crafts, of the complete community, and including in its illustration the activities of the mind and spirit—ceremonial, drama, dance and music—as well as of the hand. Such museums are in two parts: a building for the systematic display of the materials of life and culture, where the research student can study the details of folk life in exhibits emphasising the evolution and distribution of types, their chronology and many other problems. The environment of the national life is presented in the open-air section."

This is something which concerns by no means research students only. Here we have folk life and folklore which are of very great interest to continental scholars and students. Apart from this altogether, it would be a wonderful thing for our young people to be able to see how the Irish countryman lived and worked. The Minister will have accomplished a great deal in his time if he can do two things. One of them is the preservation of a very beautiful 17th century building—though by the way, the site has historic associations going back to early times—and Bully's Acre, a burial ground where it was thought for a time that Robert Emmet's body rested. It has an historic association that would capture people's imagination and if it could be preserved, it would have not only an effect upon ourselves but would be money well spent—money which might bring in an unexpected return.

Professor Stanford

Professors are naturally interested in the preservation of the past—or some of them at least. Some of us would be out of our jobs if the past were not preserved and if it were not worth preserving, so I may be forgiven if I make some remarks on this Bill.

I very much welcome the suggestion by Senator Hayes in connection with the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham. It is a magnificent building and very greatly deserves preservation and restoration. Also, his suggestion of a folk museum is most desirable. I have seen something of the kind elsewhere. It is certainly a blot on our national life at the moment that we have no such museum. Senator Hayes makes the point that we should be interested in all buildings that are of beauty or of national interest. I would underline that. I think the best way of ensuring it would be to watch the constitution of the Advisory Committee suggested in Section 15. It is important that in constituting that committee there should be representatives on it interested in all periods of our history— not only the pre-Christian periods, the Early Christian period, the Norman period and the later times, the Tudor period, the Stuart period—the Royal Hospital is a Stuart building—the Georgian and even, I venture to say, in special circumstances the early Victorian period. Already some historic Georgian houses have been allowed to fall into ruin. We have heard how Grattan's house at Tinnahinch, County Wicklow, has been allowed to become a derelict ruin. Similarly, Coole House, which was a centre of the Irish literary revival, is now not even a ruin: I understand it has been pulled down and the materials used to build other houses. That was a house where Yeats and other great figures of the national literary revival lived. It was the house that led to the great success of the Abbey Theatre, which brought great fame to our country. It is very sad that houses of historic importance like that Georgian house are allowed to disappear.

We must face a prejudice here. I think there is a prejudice in the case of these later buildings, that is, say, those later than the 15th century, that they carry with them a certain aura of taint, should we say, of landlordism; and, consciously or unconsciously, that affects our national attitude to them. However, I think this is something that is passing. There was a similar situation in France shortly after the French Revolution. Then the magnificent chateaux of the aristocrats were regarded as symptoms of tyranny and landlordism. But it was not very long before the French people began to see them in another light; and now, with a few exceptions, these chateaux are cherished and are a source of pride in France. I suggest that our Georgian houses should be cherished in the same way. As far as this Bill is concerned, a good way to do this would be to see that some of the members of the Advisory Committee are interested in the later periods of our national history. Senator Hayes has very rightly said that all buildings, if they are beautiful and of historic interest, should be preserved.

There is a second point which I would like to mention on this Bill. There is need for increased co-operation with our tourist organisations on matters of this kind. I think, for example, of a magnificent site and a magnificent building in County Cork— Charles's Fort over the harbour at Kinsale. In my opinion, it is one of the finest pieces of architecture of its kind in Western Europe. It commands a magnificent panorama of the Bay of Kinsale. As far as I know, nothing is done to develop it as a tourist site or as an historic monument. As far as I can see, it is neglected for all publicity purposes, when it could be one of the show places of County Cork.

Again, there is another magnificent castle to the north-west of Dundalk. Its name escapes me at the moment, but many will recognise it by the description. It is about ten miles to the north-west of Dundalk. There is a great Norman keep on a high hill looking north-west to the Gap of the North, on one of the finest sites for a castle I have seen anywhere. It is falling to pieces. No one seems to go there. The cattle graze through the walls, and there it lies—yet if the tourist organisations took an interest in it I believe it could become famous in Western Europe. Quite close by is Cuchullain's birthplace, and not more than five or six miles away is the place where Edward Bruce was crowned, I think, during his invasion of this country. There is a triangle about six miles in extent, where you have three extraordinarily interesting national manuments, monuments that have a wonderful geographical site and yet they are neglected as far as I can see. I suggest that although the tourist organisations are doing very much they should do more, and I recommend to them in particular these two striking buildings.

The third point is in connection with restoration. It seems to me that we could do more restoration of our national buildings. There is a tendency to leave them alone. Perhaps we still suffer from the romantic fallacy that a ruin is more picturesque than a natural well-preserved building. An experience I had in Athens just before Easter is relevant. I found both on the Acropolis and in the Agora that Athenian craftsmen were working away every day at the restoration of those buildings. Here a second point becomes significant; the craftsmen were working there. As has been suggested in the Dáil, very rightly, on this Bill, we must preserve our tradition of native craftsmanship in stone-working. It can die very easily and unless the Board of Works does something to preserve that tradition it will go completely. If you walk down Kildare Street you will see on the Kildare Street Club some of the last specimens of free carving in the City of Dublin. It may be that throughout the country there is very little more hope for free carving unless that craftsmanship is preserved and encouraged.

I suggest that the Board of Works should do more restoration, that they may learn also from the Athenian politicians and architects to use these restorations as living museums. For example, the American School of Archæology in Athens is restoring in white marble the ancient Stoa of Attalus, over 2,000 years old. They are going to use that as a museum. It will be one of the finest museums in the world, both for its merit as a building and, secondly, for what it contains. I suggest we could do something in that way. Restoring our buildings would exercise our native craftsmen in stone work and we could use the restored buildings as museums.

These are three points in connection with the working of the Bill. I come to the fourth, in which I venture to suggest a possible improvement in the Bill. The reason I suggest this is something that happened very recently in our country. In one of the midland towns there is a very fine round tower. Quite recently a hideous garage was built right up in front of that tower. Also, on one side of it a shop has been built, not merely beside it but actually round it. It has been built so close to the tower that it takes the contours of the tower to make use of all available space. The result is that that tower is ruined from the æsthetic point of view. It has become spoiled completely by these monstrosities that have been put up beside it. It is a desecration of a national shrine. I venture to suggest that we could do something to prevent a recurrence of that kind of thing. I think that possibly an amendment might be introduced to the Bill something on these lines: the Minister should be empowered to define a controlled area around national monuments under State care and within this area no new development should be allowed without his consent. He might be given, perhaps, town planning powers in the matter to prevent the desecration of national monuments. The details would have to be considered but the extent of the area might be limited to approximately 100 feet from any particular monument.

Under present legislation, I understand there are three forms of preservation. There is preservation under the commissioners; there is guardianship; and there are preservation areas. We have provision in this Bill for preservation of historical monuments. But under present conditions if there is a single-storey house close to a national monument, the commissioners have no power to prevent the people from rebuilding that house to any height that they might wish. It is not always desirable to step in and take over land surrounding national monuments in fields, but something should be done to prevent any undesirable new development in the immediate vicinity of a national monument. The round tower which I have mentioned is a case where the commissioners were unable to prevent a national monument from being surrounded by unsightly commercial premises. There is a provision, I understand, similar to that which I have suggested in the French Historical Monuments Act, and the French are people who know well how to preserve their monuments. I can see objections to these proposals, and I would make them myself, if they proposed any infringements on the rights of property, but I do not see that they are doing anything unfair in limiting the distance to 100 feet.

If these historical buildings were occupied by some person, the law of ancient lights would prevent people from putting up a large building nearby. There are other provisions to prevent people in occupation from being upset by developments in surrounding areas. It does seem right and reasonable to respect that right in regard to buildings where we may imagine the spirits of our historic dead to be living. I do not believe in interference with the rights of private persons. But there have been large-scale interferences in one form or another. There has been confiscation of lands when we wanted to build an aerodrome or when we wanted to run a road through a certain place. I am against this interference with private property and with private rights as a whole but, in this particular case, I think that some interference would not be unfair. I would like to point out that it is not intended in my suggestions to prevent any development of the area nearby. That would be a hardship in many cases, but my aim would be to prevent unsuitable and unsightly development in the immediate area of a national monument.

My further suggestion is that it would be at the Minister's discretion to control these matters. If we look at Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the Bill we see that there is already certain interference with the rights of private property. I suppose the rights of property are involved in allowing or not allowing a building to fall down. Now if the State decides that it should be built up and repaired, it will be built up and repaired. Therefore, I suggest that the infringement on the rights of property in the things I have advocated is small and because of the historical monuments involved, it would be justifiable. I do advocate the granting of these powers to the Minister. I think the suggestion is a reasonable one. I would ask the Minister in the interests of the monuments to introduce these powers or to consult with those concerned and to give his views at a later stage in the Bill.

I would urge that we are not likely to have a Bill of this kind soon again. This probably is the last Bill of its kind which we will have for many years and we should take steps in it to prevent the development of unsightly buildings in the vicinity of our national monuments. I hope the Minister will agree to some amendment towards this end.

Mr. Quirke

I welcome this Bill and the provisions it contains and, in doing so, I would say that there is nothing further from my mind than the suggestions made by Senator Hayes. Notwithstanding that, I think I should say that I am 100 per cent. in agreement with his suggestion. I happen to know the Royal Hospital. I have been in and out of there a few times and, though I cannot say that I ever thought of it as a national monument, I think it is a very beautiful building. Nobody could look on that square and the building surrounding it without getting that impression. As to the condition of the roof, I imagine it is pretty bad but it could probably be reroofed. I believe that the buildings are of very excellent quality being made of heavy cut stone and in those circumstances I think there would be every justification in reroofing the entire buildings now known as the Royal Hospital. I think the suggestion of Senator Hayes that it should be reconstructed is an excellent idea. In matters of this sort we are far behind people whom we regard as primitive in so far as we make very little attempt to hang on to the ideas of the past and to preserve the things of the past for future generations.

Senator Hayes amazed me when he suggested that out of 22 buildings in Dublin only one building had a clay floor. That is incredible.

Professor Hayes

I have since learned that there is one in Ranelagh with a half-door.

Mr. Quirke

I think that is an exaggeration. I know several buildings in the city with half-doors. It is a little astonishing to find so few buildings nowadays with clay floors since it is only a few years ago that the clay floor was a common thing in houses in rural Ireland. I have on a number of occasions myself slept in bedrooms with clay floors and, while there was a smell of damp in certain cases, generally speaking the clay floor was not a bad floor if it was properly laid down.

Senator Hayes has stated that we do not have any products of the wheelwright. That is work that is passing out in this country and we are reaching the position where we will have no man capable of producing a wheel. The same applies to the blacksmith. That is work that is rapidly passing out and we have been reaching the stage for some time now where no man will be able to take on the work of conducting a blacksmith's premises. We have reached the situation where there are many people in rural Ireland who have never seen a blacksmith turn out a shoe.

Blacksmith's shops are going to ruin all over the country, possibly because horses are passing out of use. This, to my mind, is also a great mistake, as far as this country is concerned. The fact is, even now, horseshoes are being imported, ready-made, into this country. It is a sad state of affairs that a trade of that kind, which, in the past was so important, should be allowed to die. It is more regrettable that people should be left in a position where they would not have an idea of what the trade was like, or what the work was like in the horseshoeing industry.

We might also have an example of harvesting methods used in the past —100 years or 200 years ago—and it would not be out of place for an exhibition to be held showing the reaping hook and the kind of work done by it, and by the scythe, and with the mowing machine, and I think if we are to judge by the experience of this harvest, many of the implements then used, could have been used this year. There are, as I say, several other things which should be installed in a building of this kind, and it would take a building, such as is now known as the Royal Hospital, to house all the things which Senator Hayes and myself have in mind for such a proposition. We are far behind people whom we regard as primitive in those matters. I have travelled amongst Indian tribes on the American Continent, and down into Mexico, and there is no place where one does not find, on a small scale, something of the kind suggested by Senator Hayes. In practically all those areas they carry on work in silver ornaments. We ought to have at least as much sense as they have, and do our best to preserve the arts and crafts, so that succeeding generations might know what their forefathers have been doing.

With regard to monuments, as such, unless we are going to take this matter seriously we will be accused by future generations of gross negligence. I am glad to see that in this Bill provision is being made in Section 3 to step in, and repair any building which is in serious danger of decay. The section reads:—

"(1) Where it appears to the commissioners, on a report made by the advisory council or otherwise, that a monument which in their opinion is a national monument is in danger of being or is actually being destroyed, injured or removed, or is falling into decay through neglect, the commissioners may by order (in this Act referred to as a preservation order) undertake the preservation of such monument".

I think that is a very important section, and that we should take it seriously. If we look around the country, we find there are important national monuments being allowed to go into decay, into a state of dilapidation, and unless something is done within the next number of years, many of those monuments will be gone. We are all conversant with cases of old castles which through the ravages of time, storms and bad weather, are regarded locally as dangerous. I believe many of them are dangerous because they are likely to topple over at any time.

I would like to draw particular attention to one of those monuments which I regard as the most important monument in this country—the Rock of Cashel. No man, I do not care who he is, can go into the cathedral in the Rock of Cashel and fail to be impressed. I have seen people from various countries, people who could not talk our language or were not our colour, impressed. I believe that steps should be taken immediately to restore, in so far as it is possible to do it, that magnificent building. I would go so far as to say that we should restore it to the extent of reroofing it, and furnishing it in the same manner as when it was occupied.

It is scarcely necessary for me to tell anyhere here the history of the Rock of Cashel. We know that it dates back to the dawn of christianity, and that it has housed some of the most important people that this country ever produced or ever will produce. Its associations with Ireland, and with christianity, stand out over and above any other building in this country. From the point of view of its magnificence and its size, I do not think any of the other buildings could compare with it. Reroofing and furnishing would cost a lot of money but it would be worth it as it would become the centre of the tourist interest of the world. Even as it is to-day, with practically no publicity, we find a little picture of the Rock of Cashel on the top corner of some tourist magazines, and it is simply amazing the number of people who visit it, and the great interest taken in it by people of foreign countries. I believe that we should carry out this work, because we should realise that every year, considerable damage is done to walls, which are in no way preserved. Some attempt was made years ago—a very weak attempt—to preserve certain sections, and I think we should now seriously consider putting plans into operation to restore it. I believe it would meet with the general approval of people who have any interest whatever in the national monuments of this country.

Another national monument, Cormac's Chapel, has stood the test of the years. The fact that it is roofed with stone is in itself a matter of great interest. An attempt should be made to restore the other buildings to as good a condition as the latter.

With regard to Senator Stanford's worry about confiscation of property, I think it is all a matter of what word one selects, to deal with matters of that kind. If we use the word "acquire"—if we had to acquire some land on the way into a building of that kind, and if we told the people that we wanted to acquire a passage into a place of national interest, it would not sound quite so good, if we told them we were going to confiscate it. I think every national monument should be preserved, and I think that people will not fall out with me as far as the Rock of Cashel is concerned. In addition to the rock, there are other abbeys, such as the Holy Cross Abbey, without going outside Tipperary. There are several monuments of that kind in the country but the one that stands out, and is the most important, is the Rock of Cashel, and I make an appeal to have that monument dealt with.

Mr. McGuire

At this stage I think that everything I was going to say has already been said, and I am not going to go through tediously some of the points that I had in mind. I would like to say that I welcome support for this Bill if it means we will preserve our national monuments. We all know that there are historic, æsthetic, national and even commercial reasons why these things should be restored, and, as Senator Quirke has said, if something is not done about some of them soon, there will be nothing left of them. We have already lost large numbers of our monuments which have been completely swept off the face of the land and others are in a very bad state. The task is an enormous one, but under this Bill we have the power to do something towards going about the job of restoring some of these monuments.

There is one factor, however, which has not been mentioned yet. It is a factor which I know will be of particular interest to the Minister in charge of the Bill—the question of money. It is going to cost an awful lot of money to do these things and I should like to hear from the Minister from what source we should get the money to do the job that has to be done and the extent to which it would be possible to get money. We have general agreement amongst all Parties as to necessity for doing the job from a national, historic and aesthetic point of view and no Government could put up the argument that the Opposition would be against it. We could get agreement on a matter like this and it ought not to be very difficult in these circumstances to find the money, if we could only decide how much we could afford. The next question then would be to see how best to spend the money.

Professor Stanford has referred to the large Georgian buildings and I am a great admirer, as we all are, of the Georgian period and the great mark it left in parts of our country and cities. Although we are at present losing some very important Georgian houses through demolition, there is on the whole a comparatively good representation in the country of 18th century buildings and art generally, but we are not so well served so far as the period previous to that is concerned. Indeed, the castles, the Norman castles, the castles of Irish families and the churches of the earlier period are the things which are in immediate danger.

They are ruins and I have heard some people speaking of ruins as something aesthetically good, which should be left in ruins. I have heard people in archaeological societies arguing that it would be desecration to do anything to a ruin, that it should be left as a ruin, but that is the old romantic idea that it was picturesque to preserve these ruins as ruins. All an artist had to do was to paint, no matter how badly, an old cottage with a thatched roof, with water coming into it and with an old woman at the door and it was supposed to be a very nice picture. We have got past that idea nowadays, and, in all forms of art, it is accepted that a picture should be clean and that these buildings should be put into good condition and into the state in which they were originally.

In the same way, I feel that, in relation to our churches, they should be restored to be living things and these little chapels and abbeys, large and small, all over the country should be roofed over, even if it is done only as a temporary measure with corrugated iron to start with. That may seem a rather startling suggestion to some, but it is better to have them roofed with corrugated iron than not at all, until such time as we can do a proper job on them. I notice some Senators laughing, but I think it is a sensible suggestion, because these sacred buildings and national monuments generally are deteriorating every day and their restoration is going to cost more money every day and there will be less of the original building left. They should be restored and they should be made not only monuments in themselves, but they should be made to live as well.

They should be restored to their original purposes or, if not, made into local museums. There is scarcely a town or village in the country which has not adjacent to it some building of historic or artistic interest, and, if each of these little places were restored and filled with items of local interest they would provide something which would be of immense importance to the people living near them. The children and the people in these places would then have something which would stimulate them nationally and aesthetically and which would be as well tourist attractions.

We know that when people come to visit this country—I find it day in and day out—the first thing they ask is what there is to be seen. I answer that question every day of my life and luckily in Dublin we have a large number of places of historical interest which we can show these visitors and to which they can be directed. I am sorry to say, however, that down the country the most we can show them in some cases is a very battered old ruin, the approach to which is very difficult and which may involve walking through long grass and climbing railings and barbed wire. There is a lot in the suggestion made by Senator Stanford as to the necessity for the preservation of the surroundings of these buildings. Even in Dublin, we have in the Casino at Clontarf an artistic structure, but unfortunately the surroundings are not at all in keeping with it. Steps should have been taken long ago to provide for a decent space around that building to put it in its proper setting. It is rather sad to see it in its present surroundings. It has been pretty well kept by the Christian Brothers, but certainly the surroundings are not at all in keeping with the building itself. It seems to suggest to visitors that we in Ireland are not aware of how important that structure is and have no knowledge of the setting in which it should stand.

I want to say a word about the Advisory Council. It is a matter which I will bring up on Committee Stage, but I hope that, when the Minister is appointing the Advisory Council, he will see that people are appointed who have a professional knowledge and interest in archaeological matters, rather than people who have administrative qualifications. I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Dr. McHugh

First, I should like to say that I join in welcoming this Bill. Secondly, I want to say that after so many eloquent addresses, concerning not only such national monuments as the Rock of Cashel, but turf cutters' implements, half-doors, clay floors, and a good many other things which cannot be described as national monuments, it may seem somewhat pedantic to get to the Bill itself.

I should like to raise one or two points which I hope the Minister will consider. They are points which can be discussed better perhaps on Committee Stage. The first refers to Section 9 which sets out:—

"Where the Commissioners are the owners of a national monument as defined in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the principal Act they may, if they think it desirable to do so, remove the monument to the site of such other national monument as they may think fit and approve."

I wonder if the Minister would consider inserting the words "or to such other suitable site" after the word "monument" in line four, because the section as it stands restricts the removal of a monument by the commissioners to the site of another national monument. It seems possible that the commissioners at some time or another might think it desirable to remove a national monument under their control to another site which was not a national monument site, so that it might be desirable to consider the inclusion of these words.

My second point relates to Section 16. I should like to see the wording of that section changed in order to admit the possibility of emergency excavations. At present, somebody who wants to carry out an excavation may be 100 miles or 200 miles away from the source of authority in the matter, and, by the time written permission is got to excavate, it may be too late.

My third point is a matter raised by Senator Stanford. I think his suggestion is an excellent one, but I doubt the advisability of pressing it at this stage. It would involve such a wrangle about private property that it would hold up the Bill. It would be more desirable to put through the Bill now and take up this matter later.

Mr. Burke

I do not want to delay the Seanad but there are certain points which have been raised upon which I would like to lay emphasis. I was glad to see there was such unanimity about this measure that all the things we wanted to say were said already.

I want to support Senator Quirke with regard to the Rock of Cashel. The Rock of Cashel ought to be something in the nature of a national shrine. It should be the duty of the State to restore it fully. Senator Stanford referred to craftsmen. The men who succeed our present craftsmen should be trained so that they would be able to restore historical buildings of the type mentioned in this debate.

Restoration work of this sort is all important on the continent. When in Toledo last year, I saw buildings, erected in the third and fourth centuries, being restored and repaired. The same thing was being done in Salamanca. The university there will be at the end of this century one of the finest pieces of architectural art in Europe. The Escorial accommodates monks. The first monks were put in there by Philip the Second. That building has been preserved.

I think we should be given power in this Bill to hand back to the monks places like Holy Cross. At least one such abbey in each province should be handed back to the monks. Let us hear again the chanting of the monks in Jerpoint Abbey and Holy Cross. The Minister would not have power under the laws as they stand to hand over these buildings, but if they were handed over by some means adequate safeguards would be given that the spiritual descendants of the monks would maintain the building for posterity. That would remove from the State the annual cost involved in maintaining these abbeys. In England the Benedictines went back to Buckfast Abbey. I believe we could do the same thing in this country. I think it is the desire of each and every one of us that something along these lines should be done. The castle of Kilcash should also be preserved. The famous lament of Kilcash is associated with our literary heritage. The castle was at one time a Butler stronghold looking down on the homes of Tipperary.

Someone should be encouraged to use it and it should be preserved. We should have regard to the past in order to encourage those who come after us to emulate earlier generations.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am afraid that the Minister must marvel at the fact that a Bill presented by a Minister for Finance should have been received so properly, and rightly so. I am sure it is rather an occasion for him. As far as the Advisory Council is concerned, I agree with what Senator Maguire said. I would appeal to the Minister and to the officers responsible for this Bill to associate themselves as far as they possibly can with local historical, antiquarian and archaeological societies. In connection with the working out of these Acts it is not always easy for the administrators of the Acts to work in close collaboration with such local societies. Senator Quirke stressed the importance of local people who have local knowledge. The local people have done great work in connection with the preservation of monuments. The small societies have worked without funds out of pure love of country and they deserve any recognition that can be given to them under this Act by associating them with the work now undertaken and defined in the Bill.

Might I make a plea for a wider conception of what a national monument is? I do that with sorrow when I think of Lady Gregory's house at Coole having been scrapped. It cradled the Irish literary movement and was associated with great poets, litterateurs and dramatists. I would have thought that such a house would have been preserved as a national monument. I hope the house of Maria Edgeworth is being preserved.

Might I say that since the 1930s we have a lot of new national monuments. We have one, the Martello Tower, immortalised by Joyce. I hope that the Commissioners of Public Works will put some commemorative tablet on that tower so that the memory of Buck Mulligan will live in the minds of the generations to come. One thing is being done very quickly. They are creating a national monument in this House itself. I saw on my way in that the porticos are being removed. There is work in progress apparently on portion of this House. I doubt whether the Board of Works will be sufficiently equipped to give back to that portion of the House where they are building at the moment the quality which the rest of the House possesses. When one comes in through the main gate one is convinced that national monuments are being created all round us. Whatever is taking place between the two pillars on the right-hand side of the House will tend to make the House more of a national monument than it is at the moment. I understand new premises are being built. I cannot understand how new additions to that portion of the House can add to the quality of the remainder.

I want to make a further appeal to the Minister. I do not know whether or not it comes under the control of the commissioners. There is quite a number of buildings under State control in this city which are rapidly approaching national monument status. That would apply even to this House itself in the sense that I do not know when the front of it was last cleaned. I think it should get some attention. There are other properties under State control at the moment which should get some attention to save them from being classed as national monuments before their time. When these national monuments are being tabulated, I suggest, if it be possible, that another Government Department should consider giving an instruction to our transport companies to establish tours of historical interest in the City of Dublin. What I want to see done here is what is done for tourists on the Continent. We have a great number of buildings of historical interest. The transport companies should not only arrange tours but should provide people equipped to tell tourists the history of our historic buildings. I suggest that if something on these lines were done it would have great value from the tourist point of view. It would be of help to tourism in this country and would enable us to sell something to people abroad so far as our antiquities are concerned. I hope that something will be done about it.

Professor Fearon

I hope that the discussion on this Bill, and the general interest it has aroused, will direct more attention to what the Bill is trying to do. I support the Bill. I feel, however, that we want a little bit more force behind the national monuments' preservation movement. When this legislature was first constituted there was a Minister for Fine Arts, a very distinguished Irishman. He with various friends, surveyed parts of the country and took a personal interest in all these things. Now, we have no Minister. There ought to be some individual who would make a tour from time to time and submit a report on our national monuments. Under the principal Act, the definition of the term "national monument" is very extensive. I think it included even a cave. I should like it also to include beauty spots such as the Bride's Glen, near Bray. It was one of the beauties of my childhood days, but now it is being mutilated and cut down in a horrible way. I should like to see the term extended so as to include all these things of beauty and of historic interest in our country. In Section 3 of the Bill, we find the following words: "Where it appears to the commissioners, on a report made by the Advisory Council or otherwise." Are not these words rather vague? We have an Advisory Council adumbrated, but I suggest that the wording of the section is rather vague. The Advisory Council is to include the representatives of three very learned bodies, and the Minister is being given power to nominate other members to the council.

I hope he will nominate some live wires, and in saying that I am not suggesting that the admirable representatives of the Royal Irish Academy are not live wires. The instance which I have just given of the type of thing that is happening in the country is not the sort of thing which could conceivably interest the Council of the Royal Irish Academy or other bodies, unless they happened to be in the vicinity. Take as an example Monkstown Castle which, to a certain extent, is preserved, but which is being surrounded by an outcrop of new buildings. I think that where old structures of that sort are being gradually encroached on by present day civilisation, the opinion of the commissioners should be invoked. I do not quite see, however, who is going to invoke the powers of commissioners. There was, for example, the removal of the market cross at Blackrock. Was there any report made to the commissioners about that? That is an example of the kind of thing to which the attention of the commissioners should be drawn. When the market cross was removed there should have been some mark put there to indicate where it was, so that if one were trying to reconstruct the position it had occupied one would be able to pick it out by reference to a map. My view is that where old monuments are displaced, the commissioners should have power to give some indication of what had been removed and a record made of it in that way.

I think that in discussing this Bill everything circles back to the point which was made by Senator McGuire and that is the question of money. If we had the money, I suppose we could do wonderful things, but how are we going to get the money? One way, I suggest, would be the issue of a series of stamps that would show the real beauties of our country. As an elementary stamp collector, I realise the gorgeous stamps that are turned out by some European countries. These stamps illustrate aspects of these countries which are no more beautiful than we have to show. The U.S.S.R. for example, got away with a wonderful series of pictorial stamps of the Crimea. We could do wonders with Killarney and these various historical sites we refer to, like the Rock of Cashel, for instance. We could produce a series of stamps from time to time that would have a sale and that would advertise these things. That would help the revenue and help the long-suffering Minister to put up with the numerous suggestions we have been making as to the implementation of this Bill.

I feel that the commissioners want something more than a report made by an advisory council. There should be someone going around the country. They have their inspectors, inspecting after the report has been received; but I feel that something very violent is required. Otherwise, these things quietly happen and it is not noticed until afterwards that they have happened. Apart from that, I support this exemplification of our respect for the great past in the shadow of which we live.

Mr. Cox

Perhaps the Minister would consider in Section 14 giving representation to the National Trust on the council. The National Trust is a voluntary body and contains a number of very enthusiastic people who have been endeavouring on very scanty means to do what they can. Possibly it is a body which could be included.

I thoroughly support the Bill, but, arising out of what Senator Quirke has said, many of us must feel that a ruin such as the Rock of Cashel should be restored not merely as a monument but for the purpose for which it was built, that is to say, as a national cathedral.

Mr. Sweetman

We had certainly on this Bill a most interesting discussion, a discussion which was quite a natural one but which perhaps did not advert to the fact that the Bill is more an enabling one than a direct method of dealing with the problems which were mentioned.

The main difficulty in regard to our national monuments is, of course, as Senator McGuire said, one of money. It is natural enough for the members of this House, on a subject on which they have strong views, to advocate as strongly as they can the expenditure of money from the Central Fund on the objects of their interest. We would all like to be able to do very much more for the preservation of our national monuments than we are able to do at present and have been able to do in the past, but unfortunately in all spheres of life we must cut our coat according to the cloth and we have that difficulty in regard to the expenditure on national monuments.

The present position is that about £25,000 a year is being spent on such preservation, quite apart from the moneys that are spent on the provision of the inspectorate and other staff in the Board of Works. Some of the work being done by the commissioners has been well worth while. The suggestion that was made by Senator Hayes in respect of the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham and supported by other Senators is one worthy of consideration, but again it is one on which it is impossible to express a final opinion unless one could tell exactly what would be involved from a cost point of view.

Senator Stanford mentioned something of which I have a little knowledge myself and he was followed by Senator O'Donnell—that is, the tragedy of Coole House having been pulled down, a tragedy that is far worse when it is remembered that it was done by a State body, by the Land Commission. It was a pity that something could not have been done there to preserve the foundation of the Abbey movement. I find some difficulty in some of these suggestions put forward by Senator Stanford in regard to making what would amount to a sterilisation order around some of our national monuments. It would be an undesirable power for the Minister to have. I might have my own views on what was in keeping with the monument there, but I would certainly not set myself up as a person suitable to judge the artistic merit or demerit of any building which was to be put up in the neighbourhood of a monument, nor would I think it desirable that the Minister should be put in that position, unless there was at the same time some method of having an appeal and of inserting compensatory provisions. As regards the case that Senator Stanford mentioned in Tipperary—which I believe occurred in the town of Roscrea—I am at a loss to understand why—if the circumstances are such as the Senator mentioned, and I agree they are—the local authority did not move under their powers under the Town Planning Acts. I presume the Town Planning Acts have been brought into operation in North Tipperary, and if so it would have been necessary for the people who were erecting the garage and shop to have sought permission from the local authority. If that is the position, then it would seem that the local authority, the local county manager acting for council, did not consider, nor did his advisers consider, that the buildings that were to be put up would be of damage to the monument. It may be that what one person considers a monstrosity another considers beautiful. I had my own views, and have them still, about the erection that was put up by Dublin Corporation on O'Connell Bridge over the Liffey. I presume someone must have thought it was a nice erection to put there, but I have yet to meet that person. It is, I suppose, a matter of opinion.

Senator Quirke suggested that he should be considered as an ancient monument at one stage, when he was speaking in a lighter vein. Without any such suggestion about any member of this House, I think we have here some work that has been done towards the preservation of something that was worth while—and done extremely well by the Board of Works—and that is the ceiling here.

Mr. Quirke

I suggested, Sir, with all respect, that the man who might object to the use of the way leading in to what might be regarded as a national monument, might himself be regarded as a national monument.

Mr. Sweetman

I think the work done recently by the Board of Works on the preservation of the ceiling of this building has been something well worth while.

There are provisions, of course, for local advisory committees under the 1930 Act and, as the result of an amendment suggested by Deputy Doyle in the other House, we have extended the membership of these committees; so that a local authority can now put more people on those committees and in that way keep contact between the members of local authorities and persons with archaeological interest in the various countries. I said in the other House and would like to repeat here that it is eminently desirable that we do everything we possibly can to encourage local interest in our monuments. Without local interest, anything that might be done by the Central Government would be really of little value.

Many interesting suggestions were made during the course of the debate and I will take an opportunity between now and the Committee Stage to consider those of them that are appropriate to this Bill. The real trouble in regard to doing as much as we would all wish to do to preserve the evidence of our historic past is that, unfortunately, these things require money and often require substantial sums of money. In every sphere, interests are always anxious to advocate the expenditure of money by the State; but when it comes to raising the money necessary we are all rather shy of making any suggestions that might affect ourselves. We all hope that whatever suggestion is put forward the provision of the funds will affect someone else rather than ourselves. That must be borne in mind, of course, in all these things. I will consider the suggestions between this and the Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 1st December.