Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 Jun 1934

Vol. 53 No. 3

In Committee on Finance. - Constitution (Amendment No. 23) Bill, 1934—Committee.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

This Act shall come into operation immediately upon the dissolution of the Oireachtas occurring next after the passing of this Act.

Mr. McGilligan

I move amendment No. 1:—

In line 31 to delete the word "occurring" and substitute the words "summoned by Proclamation to meet after the General Election ensuing."

Read in its proper place, that amendment will have the effect of providing that this measure will operate not as from the date of the next dissolution, but as from the date of the dissolution after that. The purpose of the amendment is to oblige a general election to be held before this measure shall begin to operate. I put it in that form because, in the many lectures we have got in this House as to the powers of the elected representatives under mandates which they get from time to time, it has never yet been asserted in this House—I want to know if it ever is going to be asserted—that this question of university representation was put to the electorate at any election recently held and that a definite, or even an indefinite and vague, mandate was got by any Government for the abolition of university representation. I do not want to argue the point as to the numerical strength of the representation given. I simply put the argument on this single ground—that there was a Constitution enacted here by a Constituent Assembly, that into that Constitution there was written the principle of university representation, that that constituent law was not changed by legislation in the period in which it was possible to change it by legislation and has not since been changed by referendum. Apart from these Constitutional difficulties, there is the question of right. University representation was provided for in the first Constitution. That Constitution went immediately before the people. It was accepted by them. At that time, it can be said that many points in the Constitution were questioned, but no point of objection was taken to the idea that university representation was a good thing or to the fact that it was provided for in the Constitution. Several other elections were held and at none of them was this matter made an issue. It has, more or less, been made an issue now by the introduction of this Bill. People who believe in and prate so much about democracy and, particularly, people who lean on what they call mandates should be satisfied to let this Bill run the gauntlet of a general election. If a Government places this item on its programme and it is returned, then it is entitled to go ahead with it, if it can get over the Constitutional difficulties.

At the moment, the situation is that this principle was written into the Constitution. It was not objected to or made an issue at an election. Despite all that, it is being taken out. It cannot be said that it was written in without advertence, because it had been an agitated point, a point upon which a great many people were asked to express a view in early days. The expressions of their views were entirely in favour of university representation. I have gone over these already. I want to summarise them again. The late Archbishop of Dublin, who was also Chancellor of the National University, raised the cry in the first instance. He raised it at the time that the Representation of the People Bill was before the British House of Commons. It was pointed out that representation was provided for Trinity College, Dublin. The Archbishop of Dublin summoned the people interested in the matter, and summoned everybody believed to be interested in the matter, by a letter which he wrote to the Press in the year 1917. In that letter, he gave many cogent arguments why representation should be given to the National University. He wound up his letter and his exhortation by saying that he did not want this letter to be taken as meaning other than what it stated—that he wanted university representation for a particular university and did not want, on the contrary, that the representation which Trinity College had should be taken from it. He specifically said that he did not want to deprive that venerable institution of a privilege which it had enjoyed for over 300 years. His influence and authority gave great impetus to the movement that was, all the time, growing in favour of university representation. Impelled by that letter, the Graduates' Association, then in being, called a public meeting. That meeting was attended by men of eminence in practically every walk of life. Even the list given by the newspapers of those attending showed that, so far as the professions were concerned, all the distinguished people who had come out of the old Royal University, or out of any of the constituent colleges established from time to time under other university systems, were present or represented. The present President of University College, Dublin, proposed the main resolution, which was carried unanimously. It was carried unanimously by a body which the list in the newspapers would certainly show to be a very important body. Lest it might be said that there was some sort of selfish interest involved, I must point out that the senior students then in University College, Dublin, took the matter up.

They got the acquiescence and the agreement of the students elsewhere. The Student Representative Council in the Dublin College at that date had at its head a man who is now distinguished in the administrative life of this country and previously had been very distinguished in very many ways in the national life of the country. He headed a delegation. All those agreed that such representation should be demanded, that it was a thing worth having and a thing worth agitating for. The then President of that Student Representative Council and some others delegated for the duty visited whoever were the leaders of Sinn Féin then free. Sinn Féin accepted this principle of University representation. Meantime this measure was being fought in the House of Commons and the Irish Parliamentary Party took up the matter. The Bill had gone a certain stage when, owing to their exertions, it was referred to a Speaker's Committee on which, I think, four Irish members served. The result of their endeavours was that the committee reported back in favour of the inclusion of representation for Universities on a wider scale than previously, so that in the year 1917-18 you had this combination with the Archbishop of Dublin, being also Chancellor of the University, and a distinguished figure in the national life of the country, leading the movement.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Are we to have a Second Reading debate again on this stage of the Bill, because all this has been debated already? The Deputy is not debating the question as to whether this Bill should come into operation after the next general election or after the general election later.

Mr. McGilligan

I am arguing that there is no mandate for this. I want to show that, on the contrary, there is a mandate the other way, and that it has never been disturbed. Surely it is irrelevant to remark that because a thing has been said on Second Reading that it may not be said again.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is for the Ceann Comhairle to decide.

Mr. McGilligan

There is the position that you had that mandate for University representation accepted by everybody who counted in the country at the time. The movement was led by the late Archbishop in his capacity as Chancellor of the University, and surely the Minister cannot disregard the fact that the Archbishop acted in that and ever other capacity as a sterling nationalist. You had the graduates. You had the students. You had the two political parties in the country. Both of them accepted this idea and put it as a matter to be fought for and to be pushed forward by whatever influence either or both parties had. Where has the change been in that situation? The year 1917-18 saw that. It was then written into our Constitution and there was no objection taken. The Constitution was presented to the people and there was no word of protest raised against this matter. There have been five general elections since and this matter did not emerge as an issue.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It did.

Mr. McGilligan

Somebody may have mentioned it down the country, but is it asserted in any way that it was made a plank in the programme?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It was.

Mr. McGilligan

I would like to know where. It is not in the manifesto and it is not in the plan, and we have seen most of the plan honoured by breach, and we have seen a great deal of the manifesto dishonoured in the same way. Certainly the question of University representation does not come into either. There is no demand for this. The Vice-President fell back the last day on a resolution passed by Convocation. Would he tell us the number who were present? Would he tell us how many times meetings of Convocation fall through because a quorum cannot be obtained? Does he know what the quorum is? Does he know that the Senate of the National University, with the President of the Executive Council sitting as Chancellor, passed a resolution on this matter? Does he think it is in favour of the Bill? There is all that weight on one side and what have we against it? What have we in favour of this? This resolution of a few people in Convocation. We have a number of University representatives in this House. I have not heard any voice that may be counted as that of a representative of a University raised in favour of this Bill. I have heard many against it. I have put my amendment down on the simple point that if it is thought that this is a popular thing and that there is a mandate for it, test it. The measure can come into force on the dissolution after the next one. That will give the people a chance. It will give the two University representatives of my constituency a chance of appearing before their constituents to say what they have done for the University in any way, and to make argument in an election address as to why the University constituency should no longer be allowed to exist. That is the situation I would like to see.

Professor Thrift

I do not intend to say very much about this. I would like to support, in every way that I can, Deputy McGilligan in what he has said on the amendment that he has put to the Vice-President. It seems to me to be an eminently reasonable amendment. It raises a very important matter indeed, and that is the need for taking time about these destructive changes. If ever there was a case where it was advisable to go slow it is when we are proceeding to destroy. Let Fianna Fáil take care they are not raising up a maxim against themselves to destroy hastily. I think that whatever the Vice-President is going to say about the question of a mandate he can satisfy himself very easily on one point, and that is that throughout the country this will be taken as something which was unexpected. Every one that I have spoken to about it has confirmed the view that this came as a matter of surprise to them. It may have been raised in some places, but I think it is undoubtedly true that it was not a matter that was before the public eye at all at any previous election. Therefore, there is every reason for taking time before bringing about this change in our general representation. I can only imagine one reason for refusing this amendment, and that is the hurry to gain two votes. Otherwise, having passed the general principle, there can be no gain in having it put into application at a somewhat earlier date than another. I would plead strongly with the Vice-President to take his time about this matter, and let the public have the chance of expressing their views about it in public before he makes it, as far as he is concerned, an irreparable act.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I cannot accept the amendment. On the question of the mandate, may I say that I heard this question of the abolition of University representation discussed. I can distinctly recollect two large meetings in Dublin at the last two general elections where it was discussed. I cannot say if it was in any of the documents that Deputy McGilligan is so fond of quoting. It is so long since I saw any of them that I am hazy about what points are in them.

General Mulcahy

They are put well away.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

If it was in it, I am sure the Deputy would have reminded us of it. At any rate, I know that it was discussed in public in my hearing and that announcements were made as to what our programme was at very large public meetings in Dublin on the occasion of the last two general elections in 1932 and 1933. So far as the suggestion of taking people unawares is concerned, I know it was discussed. It is also a fact, I think, that all Governments introduce such legislation as they think right or proper or for the good of the community, whether they had ever put such legislation in the forefront of their programme at a general election or not. That is a practice common to every Government that has so far been on these benches. I do not think that anybody will dispute the right of a Government to do that, with or without a mandate, and we believe that this Bill is a necessary corollary to the Bill, the Report Stage of which we have been discussing, and which was discussed here at considerable length recently, dealing with the reduction of the membership of the Dáil. Not that this Bill does not involve very distinct principles in itself, and not that it does not raise issues which, to some, are of considerable importance, but if we believe the House ought to be reduced in numbers, this certainly would strike one as one way that should be examined first. If convinced that it is not an unjust thing to do, a Government seeking a reduction of numbers could, without doing hardship or injury or inflicting any injustice on any party or section of the community, examine this method.

It cannot be said that University graduates and the Universities themselves will be left entirely without representation. There is nothing to prevent graduates from seeking election, and, in fact, we have had on different sides of the House here distinguished graduates, at any rate, of the National University, who came in from constituencies rather than from the University itself, and that will always be so. It will, in fact, probably be a help, when candidates come to be selected, to men who wish to be selected for a constituency if they have distinguished academic qualifications. I have no doubt whatever that all that Deputy McGilligan says about the history of University representation, so far as the National University is concerned, round about the year 1917 and so on, is correct. There was unquestionably a big agitation got up at that time, and a strong demand, voiced by representative people at big meetings for representation for the National University in the British House of Commons, but the real reason for that demand was the demand for equality, the demand that the newly-founded National University should have equality of representation with Dublin University. That was the raison d'être of that demand. It was not merely the principle of University representation; the principle they put forward was the right of the National University to equal representation with Dublin University.

Mr. McGilligan

Did you read the Archbishop's letter?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I think I heard the Deputy read out parts of it.

Mr. McGilligan

And is that your memory of what I read out?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is, yes. That is what gave rise to the demand at that time. There was a Bill going through which would affect the issue, and, unquestionably, Dublin University having representation, the demand was made that National University should get similar representation. That is my recollection of what happened at that time, and of what gave rise to the demand. Deputy McGilligan says that the Senate of National University passed a resolution and that the present Chancellor, President de Valera, was in the chair. I do not know whether he was in the chair or not, but I believe the resolution was passed. The Deputy talks about the members present at Convocation when a certain resolution was passed. We do not know how many were present when the Senate passed that resolution and we do not know whether it was passed by a majority of one or not——

Mr. McGilligan

Unanimously.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Then it seems unlikely to me to be true that the present Chancellor, as I think the Deputy said, was in the chair.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, he was.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

And passed unanimously?

Mr. McGilligan

Yes. You will have to do your old trick of denying things.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That cannot be so.

Mr. McGilligan

It is a fact.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Has the Deputy got that?

Mr. McGilligan

Yes.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

In writing?

Mr. McGilligan

I will produce the minutes of the meeting.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

You will produce them?

Mr. McGilligan

I will, undoubtedly.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

So far as Convocation is concerned, I do not know how many were present. All I know is that I have got, as Minister, from a gentleman who signs himself "W. J. Williams, Clerk of Convocation, N.U.I.," a letter dated 15th March, 1933, in which says:—

"Sir,—I am directed by Convocation of the National University of Ireland to forward to you the following resolution passed by this body at its meeting of the 14th inst.:—

‘That in the best interests of the University and of the State, Convocation urges upon the Government the complete abolition of the University constituencies, and directs that copies of this resolution be sent to the Chancellor of N.U.I. and to the Minister for Local Government.'"

I do not know how many were present. I know that it is true that in former years, as the Deputy reminds us, it was difficult to get a quorum to attend at a meeting of Convocation, and that often a quorum was not available, but that has not been so in the last couple of years.

Mr. McGilligan

Rubbish!

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is not. The Deputy, I think, ought to know that there have been very big meetings in recent years.

Mr. McGilligan

Because the quorum was lowered to get them.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

The Deputy has not gone there.

Mr. McGilligan

That is quite right.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Deputy has not been there recently.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not think I have attended for 12 years.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Deputy used to attend when nobody attended.

Mr. McGilligan

We had a quorum in my time and a big quorum.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Not one meeting out of four would have a quorum in those days, and the Deputy would be present. Now that the Deputy has ceased going they are able to get a quorum.

Mr. McGilligan

The quorum had to be reduced to get the meetings.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I cannot see that there is any real case put up for accepting the amendment to allow the Bill to be operated at a later period than the period we propose in the Bill. I think the matter has been ventilated and fully ventilated. I know it was discussed in public over the last two years. I know also that at Fianna Fáil public meetings it has been discussed ever since Fianna Fáil was founded, but that does not necessarily mean that it was discussed in the public sense which would enable us to say that we got a mandate for it. We certainly have had the matter up at public meetings, Fianna Fáil Conventions, and gatherings of that kind—public gatherings open to the Press. It has been discussed there for a considerable number of years—considerable in the history of Fianna Fáil at any rate. In that way it has got wide publicity. Of course, I do not suppose that reports in the newspapers of Fianna Fáil Conventions or proceedings are closely scrutinised by Deputy Thrift.

Professor Thrift

Much closer than you think. Can the Vice-President quote any reference to such a discussion which appeared in the Press?

Mr. McGilligan

Or the resolution?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I have not got them.

Mr. McGilligan

Thank you. Will we have them on the Report Stage? We will give you a long adjournment to get them.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

You will get them in the Minutes of the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis.

Mr. McGilligan

Were they published?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Will you get the Press reference?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I will get the minutes, anyway. I will not promise to get the reference.

Mr. McGilligan

So it was not a popular thing?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The minutes were published in the sense that they were circulated to everybody who was present at that Ard Fheis, and certainly to every Fianna Fáil Cumann. Is not that publication? I cannot say whether they were in the Press or not.

Professor Thrift

That is the point.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Everything discussed at a Fianna Fáil Convention is not published in the Press.

Mr. McGilligan

You would not call that a secret document.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I would not.

Professor Thrift

That is not publication which would bring the matter before the electors in any way.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I understand the Deputy and I see what he wants. I am not making the case that discussion at a Fianna Fáil Convention constitutes publication to the electors, but I do want to say that it was discussed, and I really believe it ought to have been in the Press, because it was discussed openly at Conventions in the Mansion House. I cannot say now whether it was in the Press or not, and I do not want to make the case that that discussion meant publication to the electorate. I do want to say that, so far as we are concerned, it has been discussed over a number of years, and that there has been only one opinion about it. As to the point properly made by Deputy Thrift as to whether that is to be regarded as a mandate, I do not claim that at all. It appeared, I believe, in the Press which reported Fianna Fáil matters. I have a recollection of having seen it there, although I have not got those papers by me, but I can look up the minutes and, I believe, produce the minutes showing resolutions passed in years gone by at Fianna Fáil Conventions, calling for the complete abolition of University representation.

Mr. McGilligan

There is a type of case that often comes before the Law Courts in which rights of way have got to be proved, and it is rather an amusing thing to see the collection of the oldest inhabitants of the village coming to say what their ancient memories run back to. Such a tired performance in the way of proving a mandate I have never listened to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I did not prove a mandate.

Mr. McGilligan

You attempted to do so.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No. I did not attempt it.

Mr. McGilligan

You endeavoured to encourage yourself into the belief that you were producing a mandate.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I did not.

Mr. McGilligan

Listen to it now. At two meetings—two big meetings—the Vice-President remembers this being discussed?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

At two meetings? Surely there ought to be a Press reference to it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There probably was.

Mr. McGilligan

Probably?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

But we are looking to see was there a mandate for this when the question was raised before. The Vice-President comes in here with his oldest inhabitant point of view, and says he remembers two big meetings at which it was certainly discussed. At the end of his speech, feeling that that was not too solid a prop to lean on, he says it was discussed at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis; that there certainly are resolutions somewhere in the Minute Book, but no publication. Apparently it was not a red hot subject. It was not a thing that would be popular.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It was red hot in our sense.

Mr. McGilligan

But it was not a thing that would be popular. It was not a thing that might have got two represenatives into the National University.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The strange part of it is that the Fianna Fáil bodies associated with the National University are the most red hot on this subject.

Mr. McGilligan

I am sure. There might be a good reason for it. Let us take one good test. Certain people faced the University electorate, and put their programme before that University electorate. Was there any declaration made by the Fianna Fáil candidates, say, in the National University, that they stood for the abolition of University representation?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not know.

Mr. McGilligan

Some of them have almost abolished themselves by their performances in the House, but did they actually say they wanted to abolish the institution? It would have been a proper ground on which to stand if one were looking for the mandate. There we have it, as against Archbishop Walsh and all that happened in 1919, uncontradicted down to recent years, and now we have the ancient inhabitant memory of two big meetings, and the resolutions in the Minute Books. Mind you, those are not secret agreements or secret documents.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We allowed the Press into all our conventions.

Mr. McGilligan

And apparently kept those resolutions from them.

Mr. O Cealaigh

Oh no.

Mr. McGilligan

I remember reading, in connection with the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis, that, the Vice President being in the Chair, it was ruled that a certain number of resolutions had got to be put en bloc, and passed. There was no idea of democracy in voting. They had got to be passed. The Press might not have got a look at those. Those were all incorporated later in the Minute Book?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

But those would be included in the minute given to the Press.

Mr. McGilligan

And the Press did not think it worth while to publish it.

Mr. MacEntee

Probably they did. The onus is on the Deputy to prove it.

Mr. McGilligan

The onus is on me to prove what? There is a constitutional provision. There is a Bill introduced to take it out. On whom is the onus? It is on the people who are striving to disturb the existing state of things. I proved the mandate from 1917-18 for University representation, and not what the Vice-President has said it was; I am going on to that. It is now sought to remove the representation that was put in to the British legislation first, and into the Constitution here, on foot of what the people wanted. It is now sought to remove that. On whom is the onus? At any rate, whether the onus is on me or not, I have given a statement as to what people said and thought, and the force they had behind them, two political Parties in the country joining on the idea of University representation and not simply as a counter to Trinity College. Whether the onus is on me or not I have put forward a case. Against that, we get this tired memory of two big meetings and some minutes. There is the outstanding fact that two candidates who stood for that Party in the National University did not mention the idea of dropping the Universities as electoral bodies. It was not mentioned. They kept clean away from that. There was no definite statement that that was part of their programme. The Convocation passed a resolution. Let us assume, as we must assume, that there was a quorum there. I repeat what I said before; the quorum had been lowered in order to——

Mr. MacEntee

In order to keep the Deputy away.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister's inability to pass a certain examination kept him away from that body at any rate. That is the fact; the Convocation quorum was lowered, because it was found that people were not attending in sufficient numbers. There is a lower quorum now than there used to be. Let full weight be given to that, whatever it is worth. At a meeting presided over by the President, in his capacity as Chancellor of the University, a resolution was passed relating to this.

Mr. Donnelly

What was the date of that?

Mr. McGilligan

It was after the Bill was introduced. It was two Senate meetings ago, I think. That is on record. They are not a very large body. They are culled from the three constituent Colleges. They have representatives on outside bodies, county councillors and other people. They passed a particular resolution. In the teeth of all that I have said about the people who had previously moved in this, it is said that the onus is on us to show that it should not go through. The way the Vice-President thinks he ought to discharge the onus is by that peculiar phrasing he used. I think the phrase he used shows that he realises there is no mandate for this and no approval of it. I should like to see the Fianna Fáil representatives of the University attending a meeting some day and really seeing what was the mandate for this got in the way the Vice-President said. Some of them must have a memory of those two big meetings. Surely they got all the information about them and they probably have access to the Fianna Fáil resolution book. The last point I want to deal with is the statement that Archbishop Walsh and those who fought for University representation in 1917 and 1918 only did so as a counter to Trinity College. I read the letter the last day. The only phrase in which there was a reference to Trinity College is at the end of the letter in which the Archbishop in a sort of way adverted to the fact that it might be thought he was arguing that if they could not get representation why should Trinity College. He went on to say distinctly that he did not want to take it from any institution. What is the whole object of the letter? He referred to the growing numbers and to the history of the University and the University systems which preceded it, and the privileges and status which had been carried forward from one system to the other. It was the numbers that he counted on; not the numbers in comparison with Trinity numbers, but the numbers as entitling them to vote and have separate representation. He said further that not merely had they the growing numbers from the National University, which was a recently established institution, but there was the inflow of the graduates of the other university systems. He stated further that there was an educational interest and he wrote specially about it. He also talked of the interests of the country and how the interests of the country would be furthered by representation of the universities.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

In the British House of Commons.

Mr. McGilligan

Certainly. There was no question of answering the point that it was supposed to be a side-wipe at Trinity—nothing of the sort. Nor even was the letter inspired by the thought that what Trinity has we must get. It was a clear-cut statement in regard to the university system being regarded as the third——

Mr. Donnelly

Independent of Trinity?

Mr. McGilligan

Absolutely and entirely.

Mr. Donnelly

And the question of giving the National equal status with Trinity did not arise?

Mr. McGilligan

That was not the argument. Taking the National University as covering the Royal University and the others which preceded it, the argument was that the graduates who had come through these systems were a representative body, numerically strong, educationally of a particular type, and in all a valuable electoral body. The argument was distinct and clear. There was a phrase brought in at the end with regard to Trinity because, naturally, the Archbishop must have adverted to the fact that anybody reading the letter would possibly think that he was making a case for the representation of a certain University group with the object, not so much of getting representation for them, but of being able to say eventually: "If we do not get it, why should the others." He does say at the end that he is making no claim that Trinity College should have its representation taken from it.

Leave the letter alone and read the account in the newspapers of the meeting of graduates which took place afterwards. Trinity was introduced as a comparison, and introduced as a comparison for this reason. One speaker, I think it was Dr. Hyde, said that Trinity College had undoubtedly a body of men coming forth as graduates and that when you regarded them you had to say that, from their attainments and everything else, they formed a good constituency. Having said that, Trinity College was put on one side. This group of distinguished graduates of the National University and the Royal began to speak of the way they themselves and those whom they knew and who may have qualified in their time represented a valuable electoral body, and to prove to their own satisfaction that they did. There was none of what is attempted to be read into it—the dog-in-the-manager system: that they wanted in a spirit of rivalry to say: "If Trinity has it we must get it," or "If we do not get it, they must lop off Trinity College representation." Sinn Féin accepted it, the Irish Party accepted it, and, under the suasion of the Irish Party in the British House of Commons, the British Parliament accepted it.

Mr. Donnelly

Was there no analogy shown at any time when the National was seeking this representation?

Mr. McGilligan

I am sure the analogy was used. One will use weak as well as strong arguments. I am sure it was. I do not know what arguments were used at the Speaker's conferences, as they were not made public. I did read, however, the speeches in the House of Commons. The real solid argument advanced was not that. It would have been a weak argument to say simply: "Because another body has this we must have it." That was probably alluded to in order to show the injustice. Undoubtedly the other argument was used and pressed home, that the people who were coming out of the University, who had come out of it, and who had graduated, were, numerically and in every other way, a sufficiently strong body to be represented and were worthy of representation, and they got it as being worthy of it.

At any rate, I say again that Sinn Fein accepted it—definitely accepted it. The argument was advanced there, as I say, through one of our most distinguished graduates of that time, a man distinguished in the life of this country, and it was definitely put forward. A group of three, that gentleman and two others, met another group and came back to us who sent them. Those who might be called the actual leaders of Sinn Fein were mainly in jail at the time, but the people who were next down the line and who were standing as the authoritative body speaking for Sinn Fein were met by these people, and they brought back a statement to us that it had been accepted. As far as I remember, even a letter passed to some of the people in the House of Commons saying that Sinn Fein as a body had accepted this. I state that for what it is worth. The letters can be looked up and they can be queried. There was that mass of opinion and there was no change that I know of. I heard of no vehement speeches made about this. I saw no resolutions passed. I saw no statements from people parading themselves before the university constituency and saying that this ought to go and their endeavour would be to get it out. The only thing we have is the reference to the couple of meetings by the Vice-President here and the resolution. We know what the Vice-President's opinion of a mandate is and the strength there is behind this.

Professor Alton

I should like to reinforce the arguments which the last speaker put forward, not that I have much hope that they will be listened to. The Vice-President gives one the impression of being very impartial and judicial and trying to be fair-minded, but when one examines his arguments one finds that they have no substance or body. Deputy McGilligan asked, and I think it was a fair question, what was the mandate for the abolition of University representation. The Vice-President's answer was a half-admission that there was no mandate, but he claimed that the question of University representation was discussed and debated at two large and powerful meetings and thus, he argued, was brought before the country. He did not tell us whether at this meeting any resolutions were passed or any decisions arrived at. He simply told us that the question was bruited. Anything might be raised at a public meeting, and this was not a public meeting. If I am not mistaken it was a Party meeting. That can hardly be used as an argument for taking action on one side or another on a matter just discussed in that way. I think I remember a reference to some such meeting. I do not think it was fully reported in any paper and I do not think there was any decision arrived at. The Vice-President can correct me if I am wrong. But I do hold that even if a decision of that sort were arrived at—the decision of a Party meeting—action should not be taken on such a decision. The question should have been put fully to the country. Perhaps the Vice-President does not think that University constituents are an important section of the community. I admit I am prejudiced, but I think they are important. I think a country that used to pride itself on being a land of saints and scholars might get some consideration for the scholars.

Dr. Rowlette

What about the saints?

Professor Alton

Oh, well, we are all saints. It may be that the object is to wipe out the scholars here and leave the saints. However, I cannot accept the Vice-President's argument that the Government are entitled to view a mere nebulous discussion as a direct mandate. I do hold, in all decency and fairness to himself and to his Party as well as to the country, that the principle of University representation might be put fairly and plainly before the country. It is the principle of University representation with which I am concerned. The particular party leanings of the University representatives at the present moment do not concern me. I should like to see the reasons for and against University representation put plainly and honestly to the country. The Vice-President says he put forward decent reasons for the abolition of University representation. He put forward reasons that were not convincing to me. I admit that on the Second Reading there were reasons put forward from the Government Benches which were not decent. Some Deputies there frankly admitted that it would operate as a gain to them to get rid of University representation, and one speaker on the Government side frankly stated that one of the reasons for getting rid of University representation was that it would teach the Universities a lesson. I thought his words were rather vindictive and unworthy of the House. I should like that the Vice-President himself would put the whole question and ask for a mandate fairly. I think it is only fair to the country, fair to the Universities and fair to himself that he should do so.

Mr. Minch

There was one part of the Vice-President's speech in which he referred to representation generally, and said that University graduates had as much chance of getting elected in this country as had the ordinary candidates going forward for election to the Dáil. I do not see that at all. I cannot see a Trinity College graduate and a graduate of the National University on an equal plane in seeking representation down the country. I cannot see a Trinity graduate being able to stand up and have an equal chance of election with a National University graduate. I am taking up purely the Vice-President's own statement that a graduate from the University can proceed to the country and in the ordinary state of things have an equal chance of getting elected to this House. It is too soon after the Treaty, far too soon, to abolish representation for Trinity College. In all fairness that is my personal belief. I can very well understand a Trinity graduate going down to the country and standing before the electorate with a view to coming to this House representing certain University interests, the interests that the Universities have at the present time, the right of representation here. Such a candidate trying to establish that principle out in the country would not have a chance. We all know what would happen. First of all he would be called an ex-Unionist, an Imperialist, a British henchman and the Union Jack would be tied around him. He would get no chance whatever of being returned to this House. It is far too soon after the Treaty to take representation away from Trinity College. I think a few more decades should pass before that should be attempted. I believe that more time should be allowed pass before we could be certain that the Dublin University candidate would get a fair hearing in the country. I have no hesitation in putting forward these views, and whenever I get an opportunity of speaking plainly on a subject like that I do so. I am quite satisfied that the Vice-President is sincere in viewing it from his point of view, but I am equally sincere in viewing it from another point of view. A Bill like this should be avoided. I want fair-play for every section of our community, fair-play for the minority who are represented here through the members for Dublin University. That is an argument that should be listened to in some form or another.

I know that Dublin University has had a past as far as the political aspirations of this country go. Their views were sincere as far as they were concerned but we all know they were more or less opposed to the national outlook. But since the Treaty was signed and since we have met here in the Dáil, our own Parliament, the representatives of Dublin University have done all that fair-minded people, intensely anxious to co-operate in every possible way for the good of the country, could have done. They have done a lot of good work here in this House, work, I am quite certain, that is of great national benefit, though some of the members on the Fianna Fáil Benches may not think so. On the general national view from outside the Party viewpoint, it will be admitted that the representatives of Dublin University have done credit to our country here. I would be very sorry indeed to see, at this early stage in our parliamentary history, and at this early stage in our independence, the representation of Dublin University in the Dáil wiped out. I know that was not the special aim of the Bill as introduced. The aim was to do away with University representation, but it would be mighty hard to convince a lot of people that Dublin University is not singled out to be shot at and that the shots are not directed at its gates.

Mr. Donnelly

I would not have intervened at all but for the speech of Deputy Minch. He seems to labour under the impression that anyone associated with Trinity College would not have a fair chance of getting elected in any constituency in the Saorstát. That is not so at all. I would like anyone to go down to North Mayo and tackle the Minister for Justice at an election. He is a graduate of Trinity College. I am one of those who believe that a man who is a graduate of a University would stand a greater chance of being selected by any of the political Parties, and a greater chance of being returned than an ordinary candidate. It is graduates of Universities that people want, not as representatives of the Universities, but as representatives of the urban and rural constituencies. They are the kind of people that appeal most to the electorate. Constituencies are very glad to have such candidates and are very far from crushing them out. The interest taken by the people in University representation was brought home very forcibly to me during the Leitrim-Sligo election. I remember a letter coming to the Headquarters of our organisation asking for information on the question of proportional representation. I am speaking now of the average elector and voter as the writer of this letter was and I say that the average elector and voter cannot understand why Trinity College, or the National University, with roughly 3,500 each, should have six representatives between them while it takes 8,000 voters, in a rural or urban constituency, to send one representative to this House. I agree with Deputy McGilligan when he said that Sinn Fein accepted this; but I would like to hear from Deputy McGilligan some justification of why three representatives in each University should be returned by 3,000 voters. That is what the ordinary people cannot understand. I am speaking now of numbers alone.

There are many critics of University representation in our own organisation and there are many Deputies in this House who are not convinced upon the question. I remember the arguments that took place when this matter was under discussion. It was pointed out that Trinity College had certain representation, while the National University had none. That might be the weak end of the argument, but I would like to hear Deputy McGilligan's explanation as to why he is in favour of having six Deputies elected to this House by something over 6,000 voters while one Deputy for Kildare or Roscommon, or any other constituency, must have 8,000 voters. That is the difficulty with the people generally. Deputy Minch may put it out of his head that there is any grudge against the representatives of Trinity College as such. That day is gone and gone for ever. People desire to have representatives who are graduates of Universities. One of the most critical things in the selection of candidates at the present moment is this: A vote takes place between local interests and merits in the selection of candidates.

Mr. Minch

Does the Deputy not know very well that in any constituency at the present moment if a candidate had any association in the past with institutions that were British, he is branded as an ex-Unionist or a British henchman, and that is worked against him for all it is worth?

Mr. Donnelly

That cuts no ice at present. As a matter of fact it would do a candidate good if he had been associated with a university. People are much too far advanced for that kind of humbug that the Deputy talks of. But, perhaps, this is what he may be thinking of. There are two types of candidates who come up for elections, whether they are university graduates or not. One has a good national record, the other has not. That arises and always will arise, and that is the kind of thing that determines voters how to vote on the day of the election. If a man has a good national record and has degrees from a university, then, in 99 cases out of 100, he will win the day, whether he is out of Trinity College or out of the National University, and vice versa. If you put up a man, no matter what his ability, or no matter what his educational record, who bears a bad national record some delegate will rise and make objection to him. If that is what the Deputy means I agree with him.

Mr. Minch

I am talking about speakers on political platforms, not about delegates in conventions.

Mr. Donnelly

I am talking about the merits of candidates. I have seen letters coming to our headquarters from ordinary voters asking how it is that there should be six representatives for two universities with a little over 6,000 voters while large constituencies in the country should have only one representative.

Professor Thrift

Surely the last speaker has been dealing with the question, not whether university representation should be abolished, but whether it has over-representation or not. I think the Vice-President led us astray in one direction: this is not a question whether a graduate of a particular university would or would not be likely to be elected by a particular constituency at all. University graduates, I contend, will have quite a good chance if they choose to come out and contest constituencies. But the point I made on Second Reading, and which comes out here with great force, is that those are not the kind of people we are likely to get as specialised university representatives, and people who would be more likely to be more useful here in this Dáil in their special lines than those candidates who stand on general grounds for ordinary constituencies. The people I have in mind are people who have really to be led to come here, and to be induced to stand. They are people who are amateur politicians rather than those that I think it would be very much to our good to try and get rid of, namely, the professional politicians. You are more likely to get the university type through the university representation in a specialised way than by trying to encourage university men to stand for the ordinary constituency.

I merely rose to try and bring back the discussion from the point where it is said University graduates have an equal chance with other candidates in ordinary constituencies. I should like to support Deputy McGilligan very strongly in another matter, and that is as to the effect of the agitation raised for representation for the National University at the time the question was brought forward in the British House of Commons. I am entirely in agreement with him, that the essence of the argument was in no way to take away representation from Trinity College. I rather recollect advocacy of the National University's claim from the University representatives. I think I am accurate in saying that the result was conclusively in favour of extending University representation there, because, as a result of the agitation, not only did the National University get representation, but I believe Queen's University got its representative also. The result of the agitation was that instead of the principle of University representation going, its extent was widely increased, and that was largely due to Archbishop Walsh's advocacy of the principle of University representation. It very strongly comes out, as Deputy McGilligan has shown, in the Archbishop's phrase at the close of his letter, that it would not satisfy him to produce equality by removing representation from Trinity College, but that he most definitely required in the new University that he wished for, equal representation for the National University of Ireland, and I am very glad to say he succeeded in getting it. Despite what Deputy Donnelly said, I am afraid it does boil down to this: that my colleagues and I are the sinners. We have to take the responsibility on our shoulders. We have voted too often against Fianna Fáil and we have got to go.

An Ceann Comhairle

I did not like to interrupt Deputy Thrift when replying to Deputy Donnelly, but the matter before the House was not the merits or otherwise of University representation, but the date to which the operation of this Bill might be postponed.

Dr. Rowlette

The object of Deputy McGilligan's amendment, as I understand it, is to give time for consideration, and Deputy Donnelly has given a very excellent illustration of the good that might be done by taking time for consideration. He has put forward the plea that University graduates are over-represented in this House. He has not attempted, nor have many other Deputies who wandered back to rather Second Reading points, to show that there is anything injurious to democracy, or injurious to the country, in giving University graduates as a group representation, if that representation were not over-representation. He has just raised a point that might properly come up for consideration, if time for consideration were given, as this amendment suggests. The difficulty of speaking in favour of this amendment appears to me to be that the Vice-President has very largely given away his case, in so far as it depends on reason or argument, and falls back on the numbers which he can count on to vote with him. He has admitted quite frankly—I would not say that it was a half-admission—that there is no mandate behind the Government for bringing forward this measure; that at no time was it put publicly before the country; that at no time was an expression of the country's will in the matter invited; that at no time had the country the matter before it when exercising the vote at any election in the history of this State.

He has, it is true, quoted a resolution from Convocation of the National University of Ireland. That is the only resolution of any representative body or any public body which he has been able to lay his hands on and to bring before the House. Nothing would be further from my wish than to offer any criticism affecting the National University, but we have it stated by those who know better than I could know that it is a body which occasionally fails to conduct its business, because no quorum is present. It is within the knowledge of all that at public bodies of any sort, meetings of which cannot be counted upon, nothing is easier than to whip up a quorum for a particular purpose. A whip goes around privately, a quorum is got, and a resolution can be carried by an overwhelming majority. Surely the Vice-President is not serious in proposing that a decision of the Dáil should be governed by a resolution of Convocation of the National University, however representative such might be. It must be admitted that the meeting is not likely to have been representative. The Vice-President has abandoned the suggestion—I do not know if he ever put it forward, and I do not want to charge him with putting anything forward that he did not—and has not attempted to contend that he has a mandate in favour of this measure. I suggest to him that it has been proved up to the hilt this evening that there is a definite mandate from the country going back for 20 years against this mandate. He has against him not only the authority of Archbishop Walsh and a distinguished group of university graduates, but he has against him the expressed opinion of the old organisation of Sinn Féin. There has been no propaganda in the country about it. Some Deputies smile at my quoting Sinn Féin. They need not. Sinn Féin represented a very large body of opinion 20 years ago.

Mr. Donnelly

The entire body.

Mr. McGilligan

Even with regard to university representation.

Mr. Donnelly

Dublin University would not attend the people's Parliament when invited in 1919.

Mr. Minch

Why hit them now?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Dr. Rowlette

I am in agreement with Deputy Donnelly again, that Sinn Féin represented a very large large and a very respectable body of opinion in this country 20 years ago. That body of opinion was in favour of University representation, and that body of opinion has never expressed a change from that day to this. The Government which brings forward this measure has never put before the country the possibility of changing its opinion in relation to this principle of the Constitution. I suggest, therefore, to the Vice-President that not only has he no mandate behind him but he has a mandate directly against him on the point. Supposing that mandate were not there, does the Vice-President claim, in regard to a matter affecting the Constitution of the country, that the Government is free to act without a mandate as in some ordinary matter of legislation? The Vice-President made a statement with which I am in entire agreement, though I differ from his conclusions. He said it was a common procedure for governments to introduce such legislation as they thought good. Agreed. Surely when legislation they think good conflicts with the existing Constitution, which has large support behind it, as the Constitution has with regard to this measure, it is not a common procedure for Governments to introduce legislation dealing with such a point. The Minister asked: Have the Government the right to do so? The Vice-President knows well the difference between having the right to do something and being right in doing it. No one denies that the Government has the right to do anything in the Dáil which comes within the rules of the House. It is an entirely different question, and one which requires deeper consideration, apart from political consideration, whether they are right in taking certain steps. That they have the right to do it one admits. That they have the power, and possibly the power to carry it, one admits, but is it right? I should like the Vice-President to address his mind to this: that this Bill affects the Constitution of the country. I am not going to discuss the general principles. I have no doubt I would be called to order if I did, but I suggest that where a measure affects the Constitution, it is only just to the country, and only fair to the minority, that that measure should receive more consideration, should receive more time, and that the country should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion before the Constitution is changed. It is not as if the matter was one of urgency. I do not think the Vice-President's supporters will maintain that six representatives in this House are of grave danger to the country.

The Vice-President has been kindly in his references to the representatives of universities in this House. Other Deputies have been more than kindly in their references. I do not think that it can be maintained that we constitute a great danger to the country such as was suggested in regard to other constitutional amendments which were declared to be urgent. The Vice-President said that this Bill was a natural corollary or a natural sequence to the Electoral (Revision of Constituencies) Bill, but surely that is a hasty view. That Bill had to be introduced into the House to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. By virtue of the Constitution, the Government was bound to introduce such a Bill. They were bound to revise the number of Deputies in this House in the light of their knowledge of, and in accordance with, the population of the constituencies. They were acting according to the Constitution in introducing that measure. They had no option but to do it if they were to obey the Constitution. This Bill is on entirely different lines. This Bill is altering the Constitution but it has no relation whatever to the other Bill. The Constitution demands that the representatives of the ordinary constituencies throughout the country should be in proportion to the population of these constituencies and of the country, but it deliberately left out of consideration that there should be a reduction in the number of university representatives. I do not say that such reduction might not be advisable in certain circumstances. Whether these circumstances have arisen so far, I am not prepared to say but there is no connection between these two measures.

The Minister has brought in a Bill for the revision of constituencies according to what he thinks to be right and the House has expressed its approval of that Bill. That obeys the Constitution in regard to the revision of constituencies as the population of the country changes, but there is no provision in the Constitution to deal with this question of the universities. Again, I say that I am not making an impossible demand. All I am asking is that the measure should be considered, that the country, not merely this House and the Minister, should be asked to consider it. The Minister used the phrase that the abolition of university representation was a measure which should be considered. Nobody has any objection to its being considered but has it been considered? The country has been given no opportunity of considering it. The Convocation of the National University, we are told, has considered it. Some meetings of the Ard Fheis have considered it, and some public meetings in the City of Dublin have considered it. We are told by the Vice-President that the Convocation of National University adopted a resolution which was published in the Press, but until the Vice-President referred to it on Second Reading, none of us was aware, even though we read the papers, that it had been considered at meetings in Dublin and at Conventions of the Fianna Fáil Party. The electors never considered it and the electors are surely entitled to consider a change in the Constitution of the country.

If this measure passes without further consideration some anomalies seem bound to arise. I do not know whether the Vice-President has yet considered that. For instance, if this measure passes it is clear that the present university electors will be left without votes in any constituency. Further legislation will be necessary in order to provide these people with votes.

Deputies

No, no.

Dr. Rowlette

The Vice-President agrees. If this Bill passes you are left in the peculiar position that several thousand electors are left without representation or without any vote.

Mr. Donnelly

That is not so.

Mr. McGilligan

It is so.

Mr. Donnelly

It is not so.

Mr. McGilligan

The Vice-President has assented to it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Dr. Rowlette

I leave that matter to be settled between the Vice-President and the Deputy behind him. I do not suggest that the Government has any intention of leaving these people without votes, but as the law stands at present, these people will be left without votes once this measure passes. It is possible for the Government to remedy that grievance, but that is an argument that the matter requires further consideration and that time should be given for such relief as can be afforded by a further measure.

Members of the Government on the Front Bench and many Deputies behind them often make appeals across the House for co-operation. On the Second Reading debate on this Bill, I made a suggestion that the Government might take members from other parts of the House into consultation as to the best way of dealing with this question of University representation. I do not think that suggestion received any attention from the Government Benches. I would suggest to them still that this is a measure on which they might fairly ask, without any loss of principle on their side, co-operation from all sides of the House. I am bold enough to believe in such a conference, at which opinions would be expressed and ideas promulgated which would show that there might be certain agreement as to, first of all, whether any measure is necessary to deal with University representation as it is at present, and, secondly, if it were the general opinion that such a measure was necessary, what lines that measure should take. Even at this hour, I do not know whether it is the 10th or the 11th hour, I would appeal to the Vice-President and his colleagues that they might agree to such a proposal. I am quite sure that they are honest in making their appeal for co-operation. I am quite honest in suggesting that such co-operation might be valuable, might be fruitful, might be for the benefit of the Dáil and of the country, might do a good deal to allay unpleasantness, to get rid of suspicion— which will sometimes arise no matter how one tries to drive it off—and leave the Dáil as representative an assembly as it has been in the past.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The question of a mandate has been emphasised. I want to say that I do not claim or attempt to claim that we have any mandate for this. I said, and I repeat, that a Government is entitled without having put the matter at a previous general election, or at any time before to the country, to bring in such legislation as it thinks right or proper to Parliament and seek to have it passed. Deputy Dr. Rowlette wishes to differentiate between legislation for the amendment of the Constitution and other legislation. I am long enough in this House to know that some very important measures dealing with the Constitution, and amending the Constitution in a very vital way, were brought in here for the last seven or eight years. Appeals were then made to the Deputy's colleagues such as the Deputy has just now addressed to me. Were they listened to? Was any attention paid to them? I think these Bills were much more vital in the way in which they amended the Constitution than this amendment is likely to be considered by public opinion. I am not saying that the Deputy's appeal is not a right and proper appeal or one that should not get consideration, but the Deputy and his colleagues evidently feel that this is a matter that touches them closely and that it brings home to them what a government may do and can do. I suggest that it is something that Deputies Thrift and Alton ought to have thought of at an earlier date. They ought not to have waited to have something come along here that strikes home to themselves in a particular way before these thoughts of further consideration and postponement entered their heads. When Deputy Dr. Rowlette speaks for his colleagues in their requests for co-operation, I do not say that these things are out of place now—not at all —and I welcome the type of speech made by Deputy Dr. Rowlette; but I say that it is a pity—and I am speaking now with particular reference to Deputy Thrift—that some thoughts of this kind did not enter his head before the Universities were touched.

Professor Thrift

Often.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, if they entered the Deputy's head, they were not expressed. Deputy McGilligan talked about Sinn Féin and emphasised the fact that Sinn Féin did agree to this. I was a member of the Executive of Sinn Féin in 1917 and I do not remember that the question ever came up. If the Deputy says that it did come up and that an answer was given, I do not say that it did not occur, but certainly I do not remember it. I was a member of the third or fourth rank of the Executive—not the first—but I was one that was called upon when a number of the others were put into prison. I was one of the four directors in 1917.

Mr. McGilligan

The meeting I was referring to took place in 1918.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I was there also in 1918. I was in that position up to the General Election of 1918 and till January 1919, and was Director of Organisation. So, if the Deputy has the document, I should like him to produce it.

Mr. McGilligan

I have no document. I am relying on my memory also.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Of course, I do not say that such a meeting did not take place, but I have no recollection of it. If the Deputy challenges me to produce documents in support of my statement, I can return the tu quoque.

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Donnelly agreed with what I said.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Deputy Donnelly was not a member at that time. Late in 1918 he came down to headquarters, and I appointed him as an organiser.

Mr. McGilligan

He confirmed what I said.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

He took the Deputy's word for it.

Mr. McGilligan

No, by no means. I said that he agreed with it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Deputy also talked about the Constitution. There was no University representation suggested in the draft of the Constitution that was made, and it was not until the third time that the suggestion was discussed, in what the Deputy now sees fit to call the Constituent Assembly, that University representation was inserted. Evidently it was not a very vital or live issue in 1921 or 1922. They did not think very much about it, and there were very distinguished University men on the drafting of the Constitution. Some of the Deputy's own colleagues were concerned with it. I mentioned on the Second Reading also that a Committee was set up by the Executive Council in 1926 to examine this question of University representation, and some of the Deputy's own Front Bench colleagues were on that Executive. The former Attorney-General, Mr. Costello, was a member of it. I think Mr. Blythe was a member of it, also the former Ceann Comhairle and the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins were members of it. They recommended the abolition of Article 27 of the Constitution.

Mr. McGilligan

Is the Minister pretending that all of that Committee recommended it?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Not at all. Do not be in such a hurry. I do not wish to misrepresent anything or anybody. I want to give the full facts. They recommended the abolition of Article 27. Is that correct?

Mr. McGilligan

As a full statement of the facts, it is certainly inaccurate.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is not incorrect. It is not full, but it is not incorrect. They recommended the deletion of Article 27, which meant the abolition of University representation in the Dáil but not in the Oireachtas. They left the question of University representation in the Seanad over for consideration, but University representation in the Dáil, according to their own recommendation to the Executive of that date, was to be abolished. So that, at that date, it was as much the policy of that Party as ours.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister says that the recommendation of that Committee was Party policy?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

What else was it? What else could it be? As I have said, the Committee consisted of Mr. Blythe, the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, Mr. J.J. Walsh, the former Ceann Comhairle, the ex-Attorney-General, Mr. Costello, Senator Douglas, and one or two others. I do not remember exactly who they all were. Was that Party policy or was it not?

Mr. McGilligan

It never was. Can you give me a direction as to what constitutes Party policy in that?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I gave the Deputy the names of the members of the Committee—members of his own Front Bench.

Mr. McGilligan

They certainly did not speak for the Party only.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It suits the Deputy to say so. Does he mean that Deputy Costello, who was then Attorney-General, dare not talk for the Party? Does he suggest that the late Kevin O'Higgins dare not speak for the Party? Individually and collectively they recommended that and they signed their names to that report. It was not done, because the whole question was not brought up, but I take it that that would have been the opinion of the strongest men in the Party and that it would have been the opinion of the strongest man in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party at that time. The late Kevin O'Higgins, Minister for Justice, was the strongest man in the Party at that time and would have got his way. The others were strong men too. I think that about that time Mr. J.J. Walsh was a Minister—whether for Posts and Telegraphs or not, I cannot say at the moment—and he was Chairman of the Party. They were all leading lights of the Party and that was their decision—to abolish University representation—and it must have been a fairly live issue in their own Party at the time or they would not have come to that decision.

Now, there is just one other point. Deputy McGilligan made light of the Convocation of the University. He speaks for the University and is entitled, as he is its representative, to make light or otherwise of Convocation as he pleases. That is his affair. But is it not true that a printed agenda of Convocation is sent out to every member? My recollection is that it costs a good deal of money to do so.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, it goes to several thousand.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Deputy says that it goes to several thousand. So that, whatever resolution was proposed would be printed on that agenda and known to the graduates, and none of them would bother to turn up to vote against it?

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister has stated it exactly.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, then, I am not misrepresenting the Deputy's view of Convocation.

Mr. McGilligan

About thirty turned up.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, then, they turn up now in greater numbers than when the Deputy used to attend.

Mr. McGilligan

At last we have got some approach to argument in this matter, even though it is confused argument. The strangest thing is the suggestion that, because a committee recommends a thing, it is, therefore, Party policy. The argument is that the late Kevin O'Higgins recommended it and, since he was a strong man, it was, therefore, Party policy. The records will show that the late Kevin O'Higgins, when introducing the Constitution and also at a later stage when this recommendation was brought in, said that he himself was personally against it, and said that if it was to be left to a free vote of the Executive Council it would be a free divided vote. Where was there Party policy in the matter when the point of view of the late Kevin O'Higgins was stated there? Did that represent Party policy?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Certainly. The committee consisted of the late Kevin O'Higgins, Mr. Blythe, Mr. J.J. Walsh, Mr. John Costello, the ex-Attorney-General, the ex-Ceann Comhairle—did they not represent Party policy?

Mr. McGilligan

I am referring to the late Kevin O'Higgins speaking in the Constituent Assembly when the Constitution was being put through. He then announced that he was against University representation. Nevertheless, it was put in. Why was it Party policy?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It was a free vote.

Mr. McGilligan

A free vote in the Dáil for representation in the Dáil as against the Seanad? The late Kevin O'Higgins was against it. Apparently he did not rule Party policy in 1922.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It was a free vote.

Mr. McGilligan

He did not rule Party policy, but because his signature is got to the recommendation of a committee, that is supposed to be Party policy. Will the Minister tell us if his researches show that that report was ever considered by the Executive Council, and whether there was any division of opinion about it? Will he tell us whether that report did not mainly concern a lot of the activities of the Seanad, whether there was not a view that the Seanad should be given more power and that, into that Assembly with more power, the University representatives should go? Is that a fair representation?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not think so.

Mr. McGilligan

I read and debated the whole recommendation of the committee. I know it was never brought before the Party. It was discussed in the Executive Council and, there, there was a divided view. The majority view was in favour of retaining University representation in the Dáil. Again, the Minister has made the point that University representation was not provided for in the original Constitution. It was in the original Constitution as it left the Dáil. It was not in it as the Constitution was introduced, and the Vice-President makes the point that it was put in by a free vote of the Dáil, and not by any Party. Will the Vice-President revive his memory and ascertain how many persons spoke against University representation? Those who spoke against it, I think, were two Labour members, and one member of the Government Party. About three Deputies spoke against it, and one of these was a member of the Government Party. Despite that, I do not think that the question was even put to a division.

Professor Thrift

It was not.

Mr. McGilligan

The principle of University representation was so definitely accepted by the Dáil with a mixture of Parties, that there was no division. The Constitution was put to the country afterwards with that provision. Any argument I intended to use in this connection is, to a certain extent, useless because the Vice-President says frankly "We have no mandate; we do not claim to have a mandate for this legislation." He referred however, hesitatingly and rather lamely, to Convocation. We have this peculiar situation: there is a Constitution; there is an Article in that Constitution which permits changes to be made. Changes could be made by ordinary legislation within a specified period and, afterwards, by direct access to the people by way of Referendum. Surely, if a mandate could ever be required it would be for a change of the Constitution. The Vice-President says:—

"Not merely did we not ask the people anything about this but we are not pretending that we asked them anything about it. We are not elevating this into a question on which we should seek a mandate. We say distinctly and clearly that we have not got a mandate but that we are the Government and that we are going to do this without a mandate even though it is a Constitutional change."

At any rate, that is frank.

Mr. MacEntee

More frank than the Deputy was in 1928 and 1929.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not know what the Minister is talking about.

Mr. MacEntee

When the Referendum and other clauses disappeared without any reference to the people.

Mr. McGilligan

The Referendum is still in the Constitution.

Mr. MacEntee

Is the Initiative?

Mr. McGilligan

That is a different thing, but it is all the same from the Minister's point of view; it does not matter. I am sorry Deputy Donnelly has left the House. He made a serious contribution to the debate to-night. Does he really think that what he said represents the facts? I hold, again, that he admitted my contention that Sinn Féin had accepted this idea. I am not trying to demean the Vice-President when I say that my memory never ran to the Vice-President's name in connection with the deputation which visited the men who, to our mind, as students, were supposed to represent Sinn Féin, but some people were visited. Who they were, I cannot say at the moment. A conversation with an individual would probably bring all the details back to memory. Deputy Donnelly had no scruples about the matter. He was ready to admit that that was the situation. He purported to answer a point raised here arising out of this question. He said that the old business of maligning people in respect to their past no longer cuts any ice. The Minister for Finance left the House when the Deputy was speaking. I do not know whether that was deliberate or not. Does he think that to liken people to Leonard McNally, Castlereagh, Pitt, Carey, and the Sham Squire cuts any ice?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Public Enemy No. 1.

Mr. MacEntee

Or to call people ruffians or murderers, as we were described, when in Opposition, by the Deputy and his colleagues.

Mr. McGilligan

The particular type of scurrility to which Deputy Minch was referring comes best and most frequently from the Minister for Finance. Is it accepted here that that sort of thing does not cut any ice? I have here the report of the Second Stage debate. An argument was proceeding —and a good argument—on a particular point when Deputy Flinn thought fit to interrupt. He intervened twice with the same comment. The comment was: "It is in the Lodge." That was addressed to Deputy Thrift. Is not that the very thing that Deputy Minch was talking about? That comment was made twice on 8th May, and Deputy Donnelly, with an air of sincerity, asked us to believe that that sort of thing was gone. It dies hard in some people. Those were the only two remarks Deputy Flinn contributed to the whole debate. He intervened twice with the same comment, reported on columns 599 and 600—"It is in the Lodge."

Deputy Donnelly invited me to discuss the question of six votes and the number of persons behind them. I do not think that could be made relevant to this discussion. I hope that it will be possible to make it relevant on a later stage—the Fifth Stage. I should be prepared to accept that challenge. There is a strong case to be made for six representatives in this House even on the register to which these six Deputies have to appeal to get returned. I do not think that I would be allowed to put forward this argument now and I am going to reserve what I have to say until it will be relevant. That matter was introduced and the answer came from Deputy Rowlette that that argument was not appropriate to a Bill to abolish University representation. We could debate with great relevancy and cogency the cutting down of University representation but we are precluded from debating it now. Although it is not relevant, they are driven back to that as an argument for the measure. It was the only argument available—that University representation is over-loaded. What we are at is a constitutional change to uproot the principle of university representation. That is being done by a Government which, through the mouth of the Vice-President, says that they have no mandate for it.

Professor Thrift

The most serious thing the Vice-President said, the thing that sticks in my mind—I do not think he fully meant it but it was said—was that it would have been a wise thing for us, in our generation, to have acted differently from what we did and not to vote as we did, regularly against Fianna Fáil. I thank God that we did not do that, whatever we did. We voted on each occasion as we thought best for the country and not for the good of any one Party. That we stick to. The Vice-President's words were a complete confirmation of the reason I put forward for the introduction of this Bill.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 33.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Carty, Frank.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Donnelly, Eamon.
• Dowdall, Thomas P.
• Flinn, Hugo V.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Geoghegan, James.
• Goulding, John.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Lynch, James B.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Dowd, Patrick.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pattison, James P.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl

• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Keating, John.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• Curran, Richard.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Fagan, Charles.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Reilly, John Joseph.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Reidy, James.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Rowlette, Robert James.
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and O'Leary.

Question declared carried.

Sections 3 and 4 and the Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 20th June, 1934.