I think if Section 3 of Part 1 and the whole of Part 2 were allowed to pass, the later amendment standing in my name would be rendered useless and inoperative. Therefore I challenge the passage of this section and move the deletion of Section 3, as it has definitely a bearing on bodies outside the city of Dublin that are at present governed by commissioners instead of by elected representatives. I am pleased that the section gives me the opportunity of supporting the case for Cork as distinct from that of Dublin. My only reference to Dublin will be to anticipate the objection that the Minister for Local Government will raise in justifying his position with regard to Cork, as to the delay in studying the Report of the Commission that inquired into Greater Dublin. I suggest that there is no particular reason why the elections for the Borough Council of Cork should stand on a par with those of Dublin. There is no need for the postponement of the elections in Cork if the only excuse is that we are waiting for the Report of the Commission on Greater Dublin to be considered. In Cork, men of all shades of political opinion can be found at the present time who would supply this House with not alone the headings but the provisions of a Bill for the future government of Cork that would satisfy the House. We have very clear-cut ideas in Cork as to what the future system of local government should be. I can say, if we were given an opportunity in March of deciding whether the city was to be governed by a commissioner or not, the city would definitely decide the question.
I suggest, and I think the House will agree with me, that the principle of local government by an individual or individuals who are not elected is absolutely wrong. It is not justice as justice can be defined in application to public life. The continuance of government by commissioners can only be justified under three heads. I am suggesting these heads as: corruption on the part of public representatives, established inefficiently, or peculiar circumstances. The President, and I think the Minister for Local Government, have publicly stated that the first and second were definitely not established, and that that they were not even thought of. As to the third, I do not think anybody could stand up to-day and say that there are any peculiar circumstances in Cork that would prevent people from having an opportunity of selecting their representatives. The same excuse cannot be made for Dublin. Within three months, a measure could be passed for Cork, and the people could be given an opportunity next March of having an election. If that is not suitable, since there has been nothing established against the council, that has been either suspended or dissolved, why not recall them or reinstate them, even if it were only temporarily? The Minister said in a recent speech that there could be no real advantage in doing that, that the city could not materially benefit. Certainly the city would not lose, while there would be this benefit, that it would have the advice of the representatives of the people, who, I contend, are the only people who are able to give fair expression to their wishes. They are the only persons who have authority to give it, and the only ones from whom reasonable and considered advice could be secured.
It has been suggested in this House that prominent citizens are at present framing a Bill. While I have no objection to the Minister describing them as prominent, I only know one whose name has been mentioned, and I say that any elected representative of the city is more entitled to be described as "prominent" than that gentleman. The very people who are attempting to forward a Bill are the very people that the citizens of Cork are not going to accept as speaking on their behalf.
People at a Rotary luncheon in the Victoria Hotel are not the people to arrange the governing of the city of Cork. As one of those representing the city, I will try to speak with as much control as I possibly can, but I understand my own people. If there is an attempt to allow a section, and only a section, of the citizens to dictate a policy for the future government of Cork, mark you, there will be men here representing Cork who will only have to undo what this House will have done. That section of the people, I say, are entitled to express their opinions, and they will be represented on any local committee to consider the future government of Cork, but they are not to get a monopoly. To my mind, there rests the difficulty that I can see more plainly than any other objection that I could have to the system of government by Commissioners—you are cutting away from the city individuals who have a certain amount of pride in representing it. They have a pride in their own city. With that pride, they have always progressed, and they can and will do more good for the city as a whole than any individual that may be imported into it, no matter how efficient he is. He will lack that pride. For instance, to-day in Cork, which is, I may say, the next city to New York, our municipal buildings that were burned down have not been re-built. We have got our grant from the British Government to do so. But there is not a stone upon a stone, and no place to entertain a visitor. I have entertained distinguished people for the last few years, representing the city in my official capacity of Lord Mayor, in hotels and in the houses of citizens. It was always a matter of the greatest shame—I think any citizen of any city would feel the same—to have to do so in one of the most important cities in Ireland.
