Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 May 1970

Vol. 68 No. 4

Coinage (Dimensions and Designs) Regulations, 1969: Motion for Annulment.

Professor Kelly

I move the motion standing in my name:

That the Coinage (Dimensions and Designs) Regulations, 1969 be and are hereby annulled.

This motion is to annual regulations made under section 3, subsection (6) of the Decimal Currency No. 2 Act, 1969. The subsection provides that "the Minister may by regulations prescribe the dimensions and the design of the several denominations of coins to be provided under this section and every coin so provided shall be of the dimensions and design so prescribed in respect thereof".

Section 17 gives this or the other House power to annual these regulations within 21 sitting days. The Minister for Finance, in August of last year, made such regulations, and I have got a few spare copies if it is not out of order to give them to Senators who may be interested.

Mr. Keery

Some of us actually looked it up as well.

Professor Kelly

These regulations specified the denominations, in the First Schedule, and, in the Second Schedule, the design, of the new coinage. The reason why this motion has been put down and why we in this party wish these regulations to come before the House is not in any way to express disagreement with the principle of decimal currency. Neither is it in any way to express an aesthetic point of view—an area in which we do not consider ourselves especially qualified—in regard to these designs, but to draw attention to what in our view is an entirely defective procedure in regard to the adoption, or I should perhaps better say, the settling of the designs.

If the House will bear with me, I will quote from the Irish Times of the 24th April, 1969 a report of a statement issued at a press conference by the then Minister for Finance.

Details of the designs were disclosed by the Minister for Finance, Mr. Haughey, in Dublin yesterday. He also announced that the Government had decided in favour of including a 50 new pence coin to replace the ten-shilling note.

The harp on the obverse will remain on all the new coins. Of the present animal series, designed in the 1920s by a British sculptor, Mr. Percy Metcalfe, the pig, the hen, the hare, the wolfhound and the horse will disappear. The bull, the fish and the woodcock are retained.

The new designs, for the new halfpenny, the new penny and the two new pence, are by the Irish artist, Miss Gabriel Hayes. She has based them on illuminations by mediaeval Irish artists. That for the new halfpenny is from a manuscript in Cologne Cathedral, for the new penny from the Book of Kells, and for the two new pence from a Bible in the National Library in Paris. All these are bronze or "copper" coins.

The five new pence, which will be worth one shilling, incorporates the bull as on the existing shilling. The ten new pence, worth two shillings, will have the fish, and the 50 new pence—a seven-sided coin—will have the woodcock, upgraded from the farthing. These three are cupro-nickel or "silver" coins.

The five new pence and the ten new pence coins will be the first to appear. They will be introduced in September of this year, and will be used alongside the existing shillings and florins until decimal day—February 15th, 1971. Full souvenir sets will, however, be available from early next year.

Mr. Haughey said he would have liked to have retained all the old range—he admitted fighting a hard but losing battle for the horse—but it was not practicable. None of the decimal "coppers" will correspond in size and value with any present coin, so there would have been a risk of confusion of values if existing designs had been used.

But the Minister did say they might be brought back if additional coins were added to the range in future—for instance something between the ten new pence (value two shillings) and the 50 new pence (value 10s).

We, on this side of the House, take exception to the next paragraph which reads:

The new designs came almost by accident. Official thinking had been to put simply a figure denoting the value on the reverse of the "coppers". Then Miss Hayes volunteered a design, it was liked and she was commissioned to produce three. Mr. Haughey said the Central Bank liked them, his Department liked them, the Government liked them. He himself thought they were terrific.

A few days later in a letter to the Irish Times the distinguished Irish sculptor, Mr. Oisín Kelly, wrote a short letter which perhaps the House would allow me to read because he is a man with qualifications which entitle him to speak. He wrote:

Coins, like stamps, are paltry conveniences and all one should expect from them is that they be decent. We have such a set of coins, modest and harmonious as befit their purpose and not attempting to carry a load of metaphysical significance too heavy for them to bear.

To break up the unity of this set and issue coins under two formal principles is barbarous and it is depressing to think that the Arts Council, which is our only defence against the barbarian, should have condoned this absurdity.

We have no peculiar right to Celtic art. Celtic art is a "heaven-ward leading" art and as such entirely incomprehensible to us.

The rest of the letter need not be quoted because it is not relevant to the point. In the final sentence Mr. Kelly said:

To use these hieratic symbols, which we can no longer read, for our huxtering is not only silly, it is impious.

Four days later the Arts Council, feeling themselves impugned by that letter from Mr. Kelly, wrote through their secretary as follows:

In your issue of April 29th Mr. Oisín Kelly condemns as barbarous the breaking up of the unity of our present set of coins and the proposal to issue coins under two formal principles.

The two formal principles are the retention of some of the animal symbols and their replacement with virtually abstract designs. The letter continues:

I write on behalf of the Council to say that they did not condone it. The Arts Act, 1951, under which the Council operates, says:

"The Council shall advise the Government or a Member of the Government on any matter (being a matter on which knowledge and experience of the arts has a bearing) on which their advice is requested.

At no stage has the Government or any Member of the Government requested the Council's advice on this matter.

I understand also that the Kilkenny Design Centre which enjoys a reputation for advanced and civilised views on design was not consulted.

In January of this year the then Minister for Finance attended a coin fair in the Shelbourne Hotel at which he made some further remarks about this new coinage. Mr. Haughey said:

Ireland has been the proud possessor for the past 40 years, of one of the finest sets of coins in modern use.

The Minister said:

the designs and sizes of the new coins were "not final and binding" for all time.

Those words by the former Minister for Finance give me hope that the official thinking on this matter is still flexible. The Minister continued:

Some had been made for convenience during the change-over period and when people had become familiar with the use of a decimal currency, it was possible that a completely new unified coinage might be designed.

These things ...had been the envy of many larger countries for 40 years and their retention was a mark of this high regard.

To avoid confusion, however, three new designs based on Celtic manuscripts had been devised by Miss Gabriel Hayes for the three new bronze coins.

I went to the Central Bank and got some of these bronze coins. I had to buy £3 worth of them. I proposed to distribute them to any Senator who wishes to see them—approximately 4s 2d worth—so that the Senators can have a look at them themselves and see what the designs are like when executed.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

See what we do when in Opposition.

Professor Kelly

What would we do in Government? The object of putting down this motion is to draw attention to a faulty and defective proceeding. In our submission, coinage is not something which can be designed by a Department or something to which the artistic sense of the Department or the Central Bank or the Minister can be brought to bear as a final criteria. It is a highly skilled and delicate operation and one to which, on a former occasion in this country, the greatest possible care was given. Unless something happened which did not appear from these public statements it appears that no alternative designs were commissioned or invited. No competition was held and no advice was sought from people competent to give advice. If this is true, it seems very serious. Many Senators may think this is a trivial matter. It will not make very much difference to our economy or to our reputation in larger matters. It is symbolic of a decline in the modes which are thought proper in Government. On that basis I put the matter to the Minister and to the Seanad, as well as on its merits.

In 1926, when the Executive Council decided to have a coinage of our own, they appointed a committee to consider the question of our coinage and to make recommendations on it. The ordinary members of the committee were Thomas Bodkin, D. Litt., Dermot O'Brien then President of the Royal Hibernian Academy, Lucius O'Callaghan, formerly Director of the National Gallery, Barry Egan, T.D. and Leo T. MacAuley of the com-Department of Finance who acted as secretary. The chairman of the committee was the distinguished father of our distinguished Cathaoirleach, Mr. W.B. Yeats.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

All Fine Gael supporters.

Mr. O'Higgins

The former Minister for Finance said of them that they produced a very good set of coins.

Professor Kelly

In 1926 supporters of other parties were few on the ground of this House at least.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I would like to tell the Senator more about 1926 unless he gets back to the coinage.

Professor Kelly

My feeling is that often there is an accepted view of Irish history and only that view gets publicity. This committee was presided over by one of the most distinguished IIrishmen of this century. He invited designs from eight artists, three Irish and five foreign.

The Irish artists were Jerome Connor, Albert Power and Oliver Shepherd. The other five artists were Paul Manship of New York, Percy Metcalfe of England, Carl Milles from Sweden, Pablio Merbiducci of Italy and Ivan Mestrovic of Yugoslavia. These artists also submitted designs. This committee took extreme pains in trying to make up its mind which set of designs was best. It met on 17 occasions. It went to enormous lengths in discussions with the individual artists in an endeavour to discover the best set of coins—the most harmonious set and the one best fitted to the nature of the country they were supposed to serve. The committee described the issue of a new set of coins as an occassion of considerable national importance. I make allowance for the fact that the badges of a nation are deeply important for a nation which has just emerged into independence.

I shall not claim that the issue of three new coins is a matter of national importance. It is not altogether a trivial matter, either. The work of this committee was amply rewarded when they produced a set of coinage which, in the opinion of people qualified to judge—I do not attach any importance to my own aesthetic appreciation of these coins—is absolutely beautiful. It is not bombastic; it is not pretentious; it is not vainglorious. Our coins, since 1928, have been simple, dignified and most successful. I could quote passages of praise to the House from distinguished sources, but, perhaps, I ought not to hold up the House unduly.

I think it is common case that this coinage was a great success. It should, therefore, be common case that we cannot view its disappearance with indifference. Unfortunately, the entire coinage has now been barbarised in the strict numismatic sense. Not only have we now a set broken up and in which three denominations bear motifs which have no relation to the motifs of the rest of the set but even the new 5 pence and 10 pence coins are not remotely the same in design as the old 2s and 1s coins. Furthermore, the beading has gone from inside the frame. The lettering has gone and the digits which the coins bear are of a different size.

The chairman of the committee I was speaking about said "Design is like a musical composition: alter some detail and all has to be altered". So far as I know, no professional advice except, possibly, the advice of the British Mint was sought for adapting the bull and the salmon to the new 5 pence and 10 pence coins. You cannot treat a design like that. When Percy Metcalfe drew that salmon and that bull, he did so as part of a larger design carrying the words "flórín" and "scilling" and the figures 2s and 1s. Only a barbarian assumes that you will get the same design and get as good a result by merely transferring the central element. While I do not attach preference to my own opinion in this regard, I should like to indicate here the opinion expressed by those whose opinion is entitled to respect. Their opinion is that the new 10 pence and 5 pence coins are poor. The same goes for their view of the 50 pence coin. I can see, and it is obvious enough, that a woodcock which does not have to stand on the ground is, perhaps, the best symbol to use in a heptagonal shape where it would be difficult to provide the ground for an earthbound animal to stand on. Possibly, therefore, it is the best mótif for a 50 pence coin. But if you turn it over, you will find that the harp, "Éire" and date stand in a very awkward relationship to the seven sides and corners. Who decided, I wonder, where the foot of the harp would go? Was it an official in the British Mint who decided that it would face one of the sectors of that curious geometrical shape rather than a corner?

This is something which ought not to be brushed aside lightly. I do not want to worry the Seanad unduly with a matter which possibly many Senators may consider trivial. In previous days, this was not thought to be trivial. I think we should be slipping if we treated it as trivial and as something which could quite appropriately be done inside a Government Department or by a central bank and, above all, as something which can finally be decided by the aesthetic sense of the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance of those days had a reputation for having an interest in the arts: I have no reason to think it was not well deserved. As Minister for Finance, however, he had no more right or title to decide on the design of the coinage than would a Minister for Defence have to decide on the design of a machine-gun. We do not mind his fixing the amount of the tribute but to decide on the design of the tribute as well as the superscription seems to be going too far.

I should welcome very much from the Minister an assurance that it is not too late to reconsider the matter of coinage and possibly to recall the, I think, small numbers of the new halfpenny, penny and 2 penny coins that have been issued and to consider now, in time for decimal day in February of next year, whether something cannot be saved from the wreck. I advance the following suggestion with diffidence. I am not a designer any more than Deputy Haughey, the former Minister for Finance, is a designer. In spite of the supposed risk of confusion, I suggest an adaptation by an artist and not by an official in the British Mint; something like the hare on the existing threepenny bit on the very small halfpenny; the pig and bonhams, to which we were all very attached, on the 1 penny piece and the hen with her chicks on the 2 penny piece. There may be people foolish enough to be victims of confusion if this is done but surely it is much easier to confuse the new 10 shilling coin with the two-shilling piece. We have accepted that and, perhaps, have got used to it. That seems a much more likely confusion than any confusion which would arise by adapting —by a suitable artist and not by an official in the British Mint—three of the designs which appear to be going to the three new denominations. I entertain the sincere hope that it may be possible, at this stage, for the Minister and his Department to find some way out of this dilemma, whether it is really the case that we are to be stuck with a set of designs, which be they good or bad are simply the result of an individual Minister's aesthetic sense, or whether we might, perhaps, rescue in some shape or form the entire or nearly the entire set of coins which we have since 1928.

I have not mentioned the hound on the sixpenny bit because my feeling is that it may be possible to retain something like the sixpenny bit as 2½ new pence anyway. The sixpence in England, I think, is also the subject of consideration in this regard and it is possible, since the old sixpence fits not badly into the decimal scheme, that it might, perhaps, be retained in the form of 2½ new pence.

I do not want to say any more about this at the moment except to urge on the Minister that he would do a great service not merely to people who feel strongly about matters of design. We are constantly being told these days how important it is—one cannot open the paper without seeing an allocution from somebody about industrial design. It is only right to say that the standard of design has improved very much in this country in the last ten years or so. There is no doubt whatever about that. The standard of design, for example, in publishing—and let me give credit where it is due—in State publishing, has improved out of all recognition in the last ten years or so. I would urge on the Minister that he would be doing a great service not merely to numismatists, not merely to people who take an interest in such small things as coins and stamps, but to the whole process of government and to the kind of standards of government which we had, I thought, grown used to, and which we would not like to see disappear, if he would reconsider this whole matter.

Let me close by saying that we had last year or it may have been at the end of 1968 an entire new set of postage stamps. Postage stamps are not like coinage; they can be scrapped overnight. As soon as stocks are exhausted one need not print any more. They can be scrapped without loss. No great issue arises if one finds that one has made a mistake. Nonetheless, for the settling of the designs of our present permanent series of postage stamps a competition was held and great trouble was gone to by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to make sure—and they got advice from competent people outside —that we would get a harmonious, decent and appropriate set of stamps. I say, with diffidence, because I am not any more qualified than anybody else to express a view on this, that the permanent set of postage stamps has been a success. I do not like the colours of some of them but on the whole I feel it has been successful. It is not successful just by accident; it is successful because experts, people who know about these things, have been properly consulted, given an opportunity to work and to make up their minds and to consult. That is the way to do these things.

I urge the Minister, absolutely sincerely and with no wish to make party capital out of this, to do his absolute utmost to reverse, delay, postpone this coinage or in some way get us out of the situation we have, through a procedure which can only be described as defective; and to have another look at this series of new coins on which no proper aesthetic opinion seems ever to have been invited.

Mr. O'Higgins

Is it necessary to second the motion?

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I formally second it. Do I speak now or does somebody on the other side wish to speak?

Mr. O'Higgins

The Senator should reserve his right to speak until after the Minister.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I should like to speak before the Minister despite the advice of my leader. I welcome the Minister as Minister for Finance. I am sure he will grace that office as he has graced previous offices he has held, but for the shortest possible period of time.

I would ask the assistance of the leader of the House and of my own leader to quickly make relevant a suggestion I want to make through the Chair to the Minister to which he might turn his attention. When the original coinage was being established the consideration that affected the then Secretary of the Department of Finance was the profitable nature of issuing token coinage. I gather that at all times the production of cupro-nickel coinage has been profitable, whether by the Exchequer or by the Central Bank, but that there has been a loss on the copper. From the very look of the denomination and size of the metal involved in the copper coins it is quite clear that the loss involved in making these may well be turned into a profit in the introduction of these other coins. In fact, the then Secretary also, in connection with the coinage which was then issued, expressed the view that the demand for coins in Ireland at that time would not justify an Irish mint. I checked the most recent figures and the number of coins in circulation in Ireland at the moment, quite apart from the demand for coinage by the developing countries all over the world, is eight times what it was in the year in which the then Secretary gave that advice.

I take a rather more serious view of this than the proposal in the motion. I feel it is a great tragedy that one of our most splendid possessions—our coinage—has been destroyed. It has been shattered. Shortly after it was first issued the Evening Standard said:

We may well be jealous of the beautiful new Irish coins.

The Guardian, then the Manchester Guardian, said:

I think that the Irish coinage will be acknowledged as one of the most beautiful in the world.

The three coins that have been retained, to the extent that they have been retained, are wholly out of harmony with the series. It was Sir William Orpen who said of the series that they must have a unity; they must tell one story. These new coins do not tell the one story. It is not sufficient to say that certain coins—the horse and the hare—had to be got rid of. There are other animals that could have been considered. The ram, the deer, the fox and the seal have all been mentioned. A very interesting speech by Senator Horgan was reported in yesterday's newspaper in which he talked about the important matter of participation by the people in the processes of government. It is important to look at the manner in which the people were allowed to participate and encouraged to participate by this very enlightened committee when this body was established. The Royal Irish Academy, the Royal Hibernian Academy, the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, the Royal Dublin Society and even the Irish Kennel Club were all consulted on various points during the 17 months between April, 1926, when the measure was enacted and December, 1928, when the coins were finally exhibited. The manner in which the Government corroborated with the committee was extremely interesting. When they set up the committee they only made three provisional provisions—one was that the obverse of each of the coins should have the harp, the second was that the language to be used should be Irish and, thirdly, and very interestingly that there should be no effigies of modern persons. These were accepted by the committee with difficulty. I think Senator Yeats, the Cathaoirleach's father, made a suggestion which was finally adopted, that the products of the country should be taken to form the series of coins and they should be either the natural products, the sports or the industries. They finally decided it should be the natural products. The Minister for Finance at the time, Mr. Blythe, made the suggestion that natural products other than animals should be considered. The committee considered this and advised against it on the grounds that the only one that was successfully done in coins was wheat and that this had been taken by a number of countries in Europe and for this reason it was undesirable.

There was also another intervention by the Government in relation to the final formulation. When they saw the designs that were first submitted they drew the attention of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to the designs and the Minister was concerned that if the particular designs were adapted the bull, the pig and the horse might not be suitable.

An Cathaoirleach

Does the House wish to adjourn or to continue on until the motion is finished?

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I shall not be very long.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I do not know whether there are many speakers or not.

Mr. O'Higgins

How many are there on the Senator's side?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I do not think there are any.

An Cathaoirleach

It is agreed to continue?

Mr. O'Higgins

Yes.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, as I say, was concerned that the particular designs were ones which might not encourage a proper kind of production here. He asked Mr. Percy Metcalfe, the Englishman who was chosen as a result of a recommendation by the British School of Art, to come to Dublin and be shown typical examples of these products. He did revise them, and if I may be quote sentences from Senator Yeat's contribution to this debate which I would ask the Minister to consider reproducing. Even if he might wish to change the title in some fashion, it would not be a breach of copyright:

The first bull had to go, though one of the finest of all designs, because it might have upset, considered an an ideal, the eugenics of the farmyard, but the new bull is as fine, in a different way. I sigh, however, over the pig, though I admit that the state of the market for pig's cheeks made the old design impossible. A design is like a musical composition, alter some detail and all has to be altered. With the round cheek of the pig went the lifted head, the look of insolence and of wisdom, and the comfortable round bodies of the little pigs. We have instead querulous and harassed animals, better merchandise but less living.

This point of the fracturing of the unity is to be related to another matter, but they applied two principles. One was to assign the more noble and dignified types to the higher denominations. They found that of all the animals they decided should be submitted for the design the least noble and the one which should go into the lowest denomination was the woodcock, which has now been elevated to the highest peak in our coinage. The second principle was that as regards the size of different denominations, say, 6d and 3d., it was desirable that they should be easily distinguishable. Look at the difference of the sizes here. Can you distinguish between them? I do not think so.

It may be said that the necessity for changing urgently to decimals might be a justification for this production. I cannot accept this. Away back in the early sixties it must have been known to the Department of Finance that the British were changing over to decimal currency. In fact, they made the decision in March, 1966 but we did not even establish our decimal board until June, 1968. If we had pursued this matter properly we would have had five years to do what was done in 17 months by that committee.

I hope I may be allowed to conclude on a jolly note by giving the encyclopaedic definition of a woodcock, and express the hope it does not indicate the intention of the Fianna Fáil Party to continue the policy it has been pursuing in regard to the management of the economy. This is the definition of the woodcock which has been chosen for the highest denomination of our coinage:

A succulent game bird highly prized by sportsmen and epicures, famous for its erratic whistling flying.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Colley)

I take it there will be no other speakers except the proposer of the motion. I would prefer to listen to the maximum number of speakers before I speak.

Professor Dooge

Unless the Minister is provocative, no one else intends to speak.

Mr. Colley

I should like, first of all, to express my thanks to Senator Kelly who took the trouble to give me an indication a few days ago of the general lines on which he intended to approach this motion. I should also like to make it clear at the outset that the annulment of these regulations as proposed in the motion would make it quite impossible to carry out the decision of the Oireachtas enshrined in the Decimal Currency Act of 1969. That Act was passed in July, 1969, some months after the publication of the designs in question in this motion. It would be impossible to get any other set of designs by competition or otherwise in time to enable the new currency system to be introduced on Decimal Day, that is, 15th February, 1971.

As Senators will be aware, three of the coins dealt with in these regulations are already in general circulation. These are: the 50 new pence coin, value 10s; the 10 new pence, value 2s; and the 5 new pence, value 1s. It was highly desirable that these coins, which have exact values in our prescent system, should be introduced well in advance of Decimal Day to allow the public to get used to the change gradually. The remaining three decimal coins are: 2 new pence, value 4.8d; the new penny, value 2.4d; and the new halfpenny, value 1.2d.

Although these three coins do not come into general circulation until Decimal Day, it was necessary to obtain and release supplies early this year for essential staff training operations. Moreover, in order to be sure of getting in good time the large quantities of these coins required for Decimal Day, it was necessary to place a firm order well in advance.

Many people, both inside and outside the House, have spoken favourably about the work of the 1926 Committee on Coinage Design. In agreeing with the views expressed I must say I think the coinage which they produced is very attractive and, to my relatively unaesthetic illiterate eye in this matter, very beautiful.

The Percy Metcalfe designs selected by the committee are held in high esteem both abroad and in this country. This was one of the reasons the Government decided to retain the present coinage designs so far as possible. It was recognised also that the common features between the old and new coins would simplify the change-over for the general public and this has been proved by the readiness with which the 5, 10 and 50 new pence coins have been accepted. It was not possible to use any existing reverse designs for the three bronze decimal coins. None of these coins will correspond in size or in value with any of the present coins and there would be a risk of confusion if existing designs were used. This risk would be particularly great during the change-over period following Decimal Day when both old and new coins will be in circulation. Therefore, it was necessary to obtain new designs for the reverse sides of the bronze coins. It is debatable whether the holding of a competition would have been warranted for the few new designs required. Whatever about that, previous experience has shown that competitions of this kind often take from two to four years; there was certainly no hope that a competition would produce acceptable designs in time for the timetable I have mentioned.

The problem of getting suitable designs quickly was solved by commissioning Miss Gabriel Hayes, a distinguished Irish artist. She had submitted a plaster model of a suggested design for a decimal coin and this was regarded as being on suitable lines. The three designs completed by Miss Hayes were recommended to the Minister for Finance by the Central Bank and their acceptance was approved. Despite what has been said, the designs have been well received and the Decimal Currency Board has had many expressions of approval on these designs. There has been scarcely any considered criticism and this is in marked contrast to the critical outbursts about the designs of Mr. Percy Melcalfe when they first appeared some 40 years ago. Incidentally, it is noteworthy that Mr. Metcalfe himself has expressed praise for the designs prepared by Miss Hayes. We know something about the efforts made in 1926 and 1928; about the calling in of various distinguished artists and the manner in which the entire business was dealt with and, while there is no doubt that the result was worthwhile, we should not fool ourselves into believing that there was no criticism expressed. Criticism was expressed then and, to some extent, it still is today by a minority of people here.

The House might be interested to hear a postscript to the book Coinage of Saorstát Éireann 1928. It was written by Thomas Bodkin and he was referring to criticism of the coinage. He said:

The Cathedral Chapter of Tuam, with Monsignor Macken in the chair, found time to pass a resolution declaring:—

"That we consider the designs of the proposed new coins utterly unsuited for the coinage of this ancient Christian nation. We are strongly of opinion that they should give expression to the ideals which kept the national and Christian spirit alive in this land through the centuries."

He also said that a gentleman who signed himself "Beppo" and who was described by the Editor of the Irish Independent as an Irish priest, went even further and wrote:

"If these pagan symbols once get a hold, then is the thin edge of the wedge of Freemasonry sunk into the very life of our Catholicity, for the sole object of having these pagan symbols instead of religious emblems on our coins is to wipe out all traces of religion from our mind, to forget the `Land of Saints' and beget a land of devil-worshippers, where evil may reign supreme."

Another critic detected in the entire proceedings "a turning down of God". Despite the elaborate precautions taken and the success which attended the efforts of that committee, the impact of the coinage they produced and the controversy stirred up was enormous in comparison to what happened in relation to the present new coinage; it is reasonable to say that there has been much wider general acceptance by the public of the new coinage than occurred in 1928.

There have been suggestions that Miss Haye's work should have been submitted to some persons or body for opinion and advice. This suggestion may perhaps not have taken account of the time factor involved and also of the exceptional qualifications of Miss Hayes. Her standing as an Irish artist and her experience of sculpture combined to establish clearly her personal suitability for this work. Perhaps I should mention, for the information of the House, that Miss Hayes has studied art in Ireland, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal, devoting special attention to pre-Christian and early Christian Celtic art. For many years she exhibited in the Royal Hibernian Academy. Her sculpture work includes the reliefs on the Department of Industry and Commerce building at Kildare Street, the nine-foot high Madonna in bronze at the Franciscan Friary at Merchants' Quay, Dublin the limestone figure of the Madonna in the grounds of the priory of the Servite Fathers at Benburb, the Luke Wadding Memorial in Waterford and the bronze figure of Our Lady at the entrance to St. Mary's Church at The Mall, Westport.

I mention this to make clear to the House the outstanding qualifications of this artist. To suggest that her work should have been subjected to the opinions of a third party other than a clearly constituted body capable of doing this would not have been a workable arrangement even if the time factor did not exist.

The obverse design of the harp provides a unifying factor for the coinage as a whole and accords well with both the old and the new reverse side designs. The old designs will be on the reverse sides of the cupro-nickel coins and the new designs will be on the bronze coins. The different metallic appearance of the cupro-nickel and bronze coins already divides our coinage into two sub-sets. The different treatment of the reverse side designs accords with that division which is due to the metallic appearance of the two coins. It also has the advantage that it further differentiates those decimal coins which have exact equivalents in our present denominations from those which have not. I should, perhaps, mention that Miss Hayes also prepared the inscriptions on the 50 new pence, 10 new pence and 5 new pence pieces used with the Metcalfe designs on these three coins, that is, on the cupro-nickel coins.

I understood Senator Kelly to say that he was bringing this matter forward more on the basis of the procedure adopted than on the designs. He said he did not claim any particular competence in the field of design. Neither do I. But towards the end of his speech he did make his own suggestions as to how the designs might be dealt with. Perhaps he was more concerned for them than he was about the procedure adopted. I want to repeat to the House the difficulties involved in the timing available due to the fact that some of the coins had to be put into circulation some time previously in order that the public could get used to them while others, which were not being put into circulation until Decimal Day, had to be made available early this year for training purposes. We also had to ensure the availability of the requisite number of coins on Decimal Day. In all these circumstances the holding of a competition was simply not feasible. I think we were fortunate in getting the designs which we did get from an artist of undoubtedly very high standing.

Senator Kelly quoted a statement made by my predecessor, with which I agree, that when the changeover to decimalisation has taken place and the public is used to the system there is nothing to stop us producing a completely new set of coins. I am not closing the door to that possibility but I must make it clear that any change in the present coinage prior to decimalisation is simply not possible.

Professor Kelly

I should like, first of all, to correct an involuntary omission which I made in my opening speech. I want to congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. I hope that for whatever time he holds that appointment he will be happy and successful.

I am disappointed with the Minister's reaction to this motion. I am particularly disappointed that he did not hold out even the vaguest prospect of taking steps to put this matter right. There is no doubt whatever, in spite of what the Minister has said, that it needs to be set right. If the Minister had even stated that he would appoint a small committee of artists to advise him generally on coinage that would be regarded by us, and I believe by the public at large—who, for all the Minister knows, may be the silent majority —as a demonstration of the Government's good faith.

I tried to make it clear above the noise of my money jingling around the House that there was no question about the competence of Miss Hayes or the quality of her designs being criticised by me or by my seconder. Senators will recall that I did not say anything adverse either about Miss Hayes or her designs. I refrained from this, not because I did not have any views on her work, but because I did not think it was fair for someone in a public place such as this to express a view about a person's work unless he is properly qualified to do so. We did not criticise Miss Hayes's designs, but that does not mean that the Minister's remarks about her experience and qualifications are an end of the matter. If she is a great artist she will willingly submit her work for the judgment of others, and if she is not willing to have her work judged by others, the conclusion that must be drawn about her or any other artist is necessarily adverse.

I have no evidence whatever—and the Minister did not suggest that such was the case—that Miss Hayes was consulted on that matter at all. I entirely accept that no question arose about her objecting to the designs being submitted to a second opinion. But it can be implied from what the Minister has said that he takes her work to be beyond any possible criticism. Nobody in the world is in that situation. I believe the proudest thing that can be said of artists, whether pictorial artists or poets, is that they are the least pretentious of people. I do not believe Miss Hayes or any other artist would take up the position that her designs and her qualifications represented the only possible solution for this difficulty. The whole purpose of this motion was not to criticise Miss Hayes or her designs, but the governmental process which produced designs by commission and not by selection from alternatives or by competition.

The Minister has indicated some of the criticisms levelled at our first coinage 42 years ago. We are not concerned with the criticisms levelled by cranks, whether assembled in the Chapter of Tuam or anywhere else, we are concerned with getting a decent coinage and with making sure that the Government does its job properly and do not fob the people off with something which they do not really want. I do not want to make a mountain out of a molehill, but according to the people I have been talking to, and I hope I have not brainwashed them, they feel that this indicates how little the Government cares about doing things in a careful and appropriate way.

It is true there has not been a storm of protest about these coins. There have been a couple of letters in the paper, one of which I have read out. Certainly there have been a few protests. The public will swallow a great deal in the way of design and allow their rules to get away with it. One only has to walk out of the Merrion Street entrance of Leinster House and up to the new E.S.B. building in Fitzwilliam Street to see that proposition amply demonstrated.

The fact that there is not a storm of protest about a set of coins does not appear to me to be an argument of any kind and I cannot believe the Minister in his heart of hearts believes it is.

I should like to know if Mr. Metcalfe approved of the designs which Miss Hayes produced before or after the decision to adopt them had taken place. The Minister has not answered that question which, I believe is the crucial question. Certainly it does not appear that he was asked at the final stage.

It is all very well to ask a very old man if this "will go all right with the coins you designed 42 years ago" and then tell him that "we are keeping your bull and your salmon and here are the ornamental birds to keep them company."

It may be all right. I just do not know what he may have thought, but to tell us now that he approved, and that retrospectively, not having been formally invited to give an opinion as to how his coins might be properly adapted, is not convincing and, indeed, it is scarcely even relevant to the motion before us.

Mr. Honan

The only relevancy is if people can get enough coins into their pockets they will be quite satisfied.

Professor Kelly

Senator Honan's argument could equally be put up in the most barbarous country in any part of the globe. I thought we were an island of saints and scholars. That is what I was taught in school. Senator Honan has proved to me now that I was taught a lot of lies.

Mr. Honan

The same applies to professors and doctors: they want to get as much money as they can into their pockets.

Professor Kelly

The desire of people to get money has nothing whatever to do with the issue. This is the argument I can well imagine at work behind the scenes in the Central Bank or in the Department of Finance and it is equally an argument that might carry weight in the most primitive country on the face of the earth. I heard Senator Cranitch ask Senator Brugha and others talking today, in relation to film censorship, about our high standards of civilisation and our Christian principles and how we were the envy and admiration of mankind. I wish mankind could have heard Senator Honan telling us that it was not the design that mattered, it was the number of coins in our pockets.

Mr. Honan

I do not think it makes a bit of difference.

Professor Kelly

The Minister did say that this had to be done with some speed but, as Senator FitzGerald said, a long time elapsed between the decision to decimalise our currency, because the British were decimalising theirs, and the announcement of the decimal date in February, 1971. The workings of the 1928 committee were got through in 17 months, and far more than 17 months was available for this job. I put down this motion last October. I appreciate that the leader of the House acknowledged his duty to take it before 21 sitting days elapsed. I did my best with regard to this motion. I put it down when the Seanad met first and it is no use telling us now, six or seven months later, that the time is now short. Of course, it is short, and that is the reason I am suggesting—I do so with diffidence, because I do not rely on my own aesthetic judgment; I made that clear—that it might be possible in view of the shortage of time to get professionally adapted the designs on some of the missing coins—the hare, the pig and the hen. That may not be a good idea. I am perfectly willing to be contradicted on that. All I say is that someone who knows something about design ought now to be asked what we should do.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Even the fellow who knows something may produce a dud and who will correct him? Even computers are liable to err.

Professor Kelly

We are not talking about computers. We are talking about a matter of aesthetic design and I will keep on saying for as long as may be necessary, that somebody who is an artist, who lives with art and makes his living out of art, is more likely to have a worthwhile view on this than someone who does not. I am not aware that the Central Bank is full of artists or the Department of Finance for that matter.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It is very difficult to distinguish artists from the peculiar beings who call themselves artists. That is the difficulty.

Professor Kelly

The artist has always been something special and the great merit of the first Government was that it recognised that and was not too proud to submit to the judgment of those who knew about art in a matter of this kind. You did not get the Cathaoirleach's father telling the people in Merrion Street that they could get a civil servant to do the design as well. They were not too proud to go to the people who could give them advice. That is what I complain about with this Government and with what this Government have done in this very tiny governmental regard.

Mr. Honan

This is making mountains out of molehills.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I do not think we are proud enough.

Professor Kelly

I understand Senator Honan to say the public will never complain provided enough coins drop into their pockets. If that is his view, why did we not stay with the British? Or why did we not go in with the United States of America? I thought the whole idea of independence was that we had our own way of doing things, our own view of the world that we would not be bought.

A matter to which the Minister did not refer is the adapted designs for the other coins. I should like to know who did them. I should like to be contradicted when I say that this was done by the Royal Mint, so far as my information goes, and these are the people who are allowed to settle this thing for us. How much care or interest might they have taken in this particular matter——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Did not the Royal Mint make the first lot of coins?

Professor Kelly

The Royal Mint did not design them. If the Senator suggests we should have a mint of our own, we will back him.

Mr. Colley

I did tell the House that Miss Hayes designed the lettering.

Professor Kelly

Certainly, but who advised on the whole question of fitting the salmon or the bull into the shape of the old shilling or two shilling piece? Did Miss Hayes do that? It is a design problem and, if she did not do it, then these coins were not professionally designed.

Mr. Colley

It is not changed.

Professor Kelly

It is changed. There are several minor respects in which they differ. It is a design question and, if it was not professionally done, it is a disgrace.

Mr. Honan

They left out the initials.

Professor Kelly

Rightly so, since it was no longer Percy Metcalfe's design.

Mr. Colley

I thought the Senator was talking about fitting in all this. The beading has been eliminated on the advice of Miss Hayes, but the fitting in is as before. They are the same dimensions.

Professor Kelly

They are the same size, but what I am trying to get across —not too successfully apparently—is that you cannot simply take one element of an aesthetic totality, which the original was, and transpose it into a disc of the same size and say that it is the same design. The man who did the original was told to put "flóirin" or "scilling" on the coins, along with 2s and 1s and that must have been part of his approach. If he had been told not to put in "scilling" he might have produced a different design. Who knows? The Central Bank does not know. The Department of Finance does not know. Deputy Haughey does not know. That is what I complain about.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Fine Gael Ard-Fheis might have the information.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

Would Senators please cease interrupting?

Professor Kelly

Your Ard-Fheis was merely an arena for ministerial power struggles. We got some business done at our Ard-Fheis. I repeat my disappointment that the Minister has offered no encouragement that anything will be done about this beyond the throwaway line Deputy Haughey offered at the coin fair last January. The best I can say in the Minister's favour is that I cannot believe that in his heart of hearts he really approves a procedure which a Czar of Russia might have adopted. This is the way a Czar would have done things, but this is not what the Irish Republic is all about.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 25.

Tá

• Belton, Richard.
• Bourke, Mary T.W.
• Butler, Pierce.
• Dooge, James C.I.
• Dunne, James.
• Farrelly, Denis.
• FitzGerald, Alexis.
• Horgan, John.
• Kelly, John.
• Lyons, Michael D.
• McDonald, Charles B.
• Mannion, John M.
• O'Brien, Andy.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Russell, G.E.

Níl

• Brennan, John J.
• Brugha, Ruairí
• Cranitch, Mícheál C.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Doyle, John.
• Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Farrell, Peggy.
• Fitzsimons, Patrick.
• Norton, Patrick.
• O'Callaghan, Cornelius K.
• Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
• O'Sullivan, Terry.
• Flanagan, Thomas P.
• Gallanagh, Michael.
• Garrett, Jack.
• Hanafin, Desmond.
• Honan, Dermot P.
• Keery, Neville.
• Killilea, Mark.
• McElgunn, Farrell.
• McGlinchey, Bernard.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, William.
• Walsh, Seán.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Kelly and McDonald; Níl, Senators Brennan and J. Farrell.

Question declared lost.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.50 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 3rd June, 1970.