With reference to the points put to the House by Deputy MacEntee I agree that the action of the Incorporated Law Society in connection with the Legal Practitioners Bill was not only absurd, but utterly unjustified and gave grounds for people being annoyed with the Society. Nevertheless, this sum is paid for a service, for a public duty, which was transferred to the Society in 1898. Up to that time the roll of solicitors and the disciplinary duties connected therewith had been in the custody of the Registrar of the Chancery Division of the High Court. It was then transferred to the Incorporated Law Society, which is a voluntary body, and an arrangement was made at that time that a proportion of about two-thirds of the cost of carrying out their disciplinary duties should be given to the Society as their disciplinary functions are not only in the interests of the members of the profession but also in the interests of members of the public. I do not think that because we dislike the action or attitude of the Society in other directions we should proceed to cut off the assistance given to them for carrying out duties imposed on them by statute, and, of course, with reference to the Legal Practitioners Bill it has, as the Deputy said, become law. I am satisfied that the society, once that Bill became law, will carry it out. If they try to evade it or refuse to carry it out I would take stringent steps against them, but not along the lines suggested. I would go further than cut off the subsidy.
With reference to Deputy Cassidy's point about the Abbey Theatre, the position, as I explained on other occasions, was that for a long period of years the Abbey Theatre continued to lose money. Over a period of twenty years there was, I think, a loss that ran to something like £600 a year. There were one or two years in which it made a profit. Some years there was a small loss and in others a substantial loss. Since this subsidy has been given the theatre every year has made a profit. If it continues for a period of years to make a profit then, though I would not like to strike the subsidy out of the Vote, there might be grounds for not making the payment. So far the theatre has not been able to accumulate any funds that would carry it over even one bad season. Therefore, I think the subsidy should be paid. I am satisfied that good value is got for this money. I believe that the educational value, not merely directly arising from the work of the theatre but from the stimulus given by the existence of the theatre, is considerable. If you look at it merely from the point of view of tourist traffic it is an asset, as strangers, especially Americans, are deeply interested in the work of the theatre. This grant is probably as effective as any equivalent sum spent on tourist traffic.
With regard to Deputy Little's remarks about the type of plays produced, I may say that my own feeling is that the Government cannot very well interfere. I do not know what arrangements are made in countries where subsidised theatres are definitely State theatres, but I believe that, in some cases at any rate, the principle is to appoint some sort of director and to give him practically a free hand as long as he is there. I do not think that it is desirable that any pressure should be brought to bear on the theatre. Experience shows that there are fashions in plays. Some author, for instance, writes a play which is very successful and which interests, not merely audiences, but other writers, and so we have a run of that particular sort of play. Some people may dislike it. It probably has its disadvantages, and the result is that audiences begin to get tired of that type of play, and then another type is produced which may be better or worse. I do not doubt that the particular type of play produced in the Abbey Theatre lately will go out of fashion in due course, and that plays of another type will take its place. As regards the work done by Comhair Dramuiocht, while I could find fault with it, I do not want to over-praise it. That work is, of course, more important from many points of view, but I do not say that more assistance should be given, because there are difficulties at present in that direction, and I do not think that more money could at this stage be usefully expended. In regard to the Zoological Gardens, I think that they are really an educational institution and that good value is given. If we take Deputy Cassidy's point of view we might not, perhaps, abolish our public parks, but we would probably abolish the flower-beds and other things on which money is spent, and spend it instead on the very utilitarian way in which Deputy Cassidy wants it spent.
