Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney went on to refer to Edmund Burke. I think it is not irrelevant to recall that one of the greatest men produced by Trinity College, when a member of the British House of Commons, if I recollect aright, represented the electorate of Bristol. He did not represent a University constituency. The final argument of Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney semes to jettison the main argument upon which the case for University representation has been based. In the debates in this House when the motion in favour of University representation was before it, and also in the Seanad, the great case made was that University representation should be preserved, because it gave to the House a peculiar type of mind which could not find a way into it through the medium of the ordinary constituency. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney boldly throws that over now, and frankly states the fact that I am a Party politician, that Deputy McGilligan is a Party politician, that Deputy Mrs. Concannon is a Party politician, and that University representation by Party politicians is to the credit of the University. I cannot deny what Deputy Norton said, that University representation has got into the hands of the big Parties. That is true as far as the National University is concerned. The independent type of candidate seems to have very little chance there. I came here as the representative of Fianna Fáil. At the time of the election I said to my committee that I thought the only election address we need circulate, in order to obtain votes, was that we were supporters of Fianna Fáil. We came in here as such.
It is interesting to recall exactly how it came about that University representation was first introduced into the Constitution here. There has been a good deal of reference to the position in 1917 and 1918 when representation was first given to the National University. It has been pointed out that Archbishop Walsh at the time demanded that the National University should get representation in Parliament on the same terms as Trinity College, but it has been entirely overlooked that the committee which framed the Constitution before it was presented to the Dáil omitted University representation, and intended that any representation the Universities should have should be in the Seanad. Apparently the committee were unanimous in that. They examined it from every point of view, I take it, when they were considering the question of whether there should be University representation in the Dáil or not. They examined the constitutions of other countries. It was decided that the Constitution here should have a democratic basis, and apparently the members of the committee—and there were a number of distinguished men on it—came to the conclusion that it was out of tune with democracy that the Universities should have specialised representation here. They might find support for that in the fact that in no other democratic constitution, except the English Constitution, does University representation get any particular favour. I think there are numbers of countries which claim to be democratic, or which were democratic before recent changes in their Government, yet in not a single one has specialised representation been given to Universities. Everyone knows that in Italy, in Germany particularly, and in France, the Universities and everything they stand for are held in as high esteem as they were ever held in this country, yet it is rather surprising in view of all we hear from the opposite benches about the collective wisdom and the experience of constitution makers all over the world, that none of these countries deem it essential or useful or wise to accord to Universities this particular type of privilege.
I imagine that any person examining the question can readily see the reasons that inspired that. When the question of University representation was first introduced here it was by way of an amendment to insert an Article which subsequently was inserted in the Constitution. The case for it was made by Professor Magennis and by Deputy Gerald Fitzgibbon, now Mr. Justice Fitzgibbon. I see by the debate that took place in the Seanad that Senator Blythe paid a tribute to Deputy Gerald Fitzgibbon. He said that Deputy Fitzgibbon was the reason for University representation, that it was the assistance he gave which won the House round to the opinion that they ought to preserve University representation in the First Chamber. But, looking at the reasons advanced then, it is quite clear they have been disposed of. Despite the fact that Deputy Fitzgibbon was most persuasive, and made a speech which apparently affected the House extremely, it was noteworthy that the only member of the Government of the day who made any attempt to deal with the question, was the late Kevin O'Higgins, who was then the Minister for Home Affairs. His contribution was that he had not made up his mind in favour of University representation, that in fact he was not in favour of it, and had intended that the Universities should have any representation they had in the Seanad. He wound up his speech by saying that he would not tell the House what his views were and would not decide what way he would vote until he heard further.
The reasons which were advanced by Deputy Fitzgibbon were two-fold, so far as I recollect. He said, on the one hand, that it was desirable to have a University constituency, because the moment the Constitution began to work here, the country would be cloven into two parties, and that the agricultural constituencies and constituencies in the cities would be so concerned with the particular matters which were more close to their bosoms and minds than the matters, education and such things, which would concern University Deputies and that University Deputy would have no chance of being elected. He said that a professor, often of a higher branch of metaphysics, even though he sits next to a king, has small likelihood of finding a farmers' constituency which will return him to this Assembly.
Has not that been falsified in the person of Deputy Professor O'Sullivan, who has found the farmers of Kerry very faithful and loyal supporters of his, and who has been sent in here to the Dáil in election after election? Has it not been disproved by the farmers of Mayo returning Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, another University graduate, though not of professorial rank? There is scarcely a constituency one can think of in which University graduates have not found favour with the selectors and with the electors. In Mayo there have been at least two or three graduates of a University elected. I think Professor Tierney was mentioned by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney as a man who was sent in by the University, and who was a graduate of the University, and the type who would not seek election elsewhere, but he certainly fought elections in ordinary constituencies on a couple of occasions, and, if my recollection is right, he was returned for North Mayo on one occasion. The Minister for Justice is another University man who has had the support of a constituency such as North Mayo, and the Minister for Education is a University graduate who has had the support of a midland constituency. Dr. Ryan, the Minister for Agriculture, is another University graduate. The fear which was expressed at that time that if you did not give representation to Universities, you were going to lose the services of University-trained minds, has been completely disposed of.
If I might answer Deputy Dillon, who put the challenge up to me as to whether I was prepared to say that this Assembly would be better if it lost the six Deputies, including myself, who represent Universities, I would say that I had no very great ambition to contest a University seat. It is certainly a very easy seat to fight, and there is very little trouble from it, and, as a constituency, it is a very desirable place, but I have been in politics for a long number of years and I have fought ordinary constituencies and I am quite prepared to fight them again. I believe that despite Deputy Dillon's prognostications, I would probably find some constituency, other than a University constituency, to return me here and I think the same is true of Deputy Mrs. Concannon, if she cared to fight an outside seat.
With regard to the Trinity Deputies, are there not several men in this House of the type visualised by those who argue in favour of University representation? Have not the country constituencies shown a disposition to select, on the average, men of University training and men who have professional and other qualifications? Is not the argument used now the argument which was used against democracy when it first came to be adopted as a theory of government? Was it not alleged by writers, thinkers and speakers that democracy was going to reduce everything to a dead level? There were some arguments used in the Seanad about this very Bill which repeated almost in exact terms what was said by the opponents of democratic institutions. Apparently, some of the wilder members there think that this is going to produce a sort of darkness over the land. I do not want to mention the particular speakers but some of them went so far as to say that we were striking at learning and at the institution of the Universities, and that it was "degrading." I think Deputy O'Sullivan, in his earlier speech, referred to this as a degrading Bill, which reduced everything to a common dead level.
If you look at any of the books dealing with the history of governmental institutions, if you look at Bryce's Modern Democracies, you will find that when democratic institutions were introduced in many countries, the very same thing was said as is being said here against this Bill, and when you look at Bryce's view as to the result of democracy, you will find that he comes to the conclusion that all the prophecies of a dropping down to dullness have been falsified; that democracies have, on the whole, justified themselves; and that learning, art, culture and all those things in support of which some of the arguments were advanced here have flourished just as much under democracies, and democracies where there was no University representation, as under any other form of government.
I have given the history of how University representation came to be introduced here. As Deputy Norton said, there might have been some justifiable fears—and I presume it was given as a concession to those fears—on the part of the minority at the time as to what the future held. He said it might have been thought expedient to give University representation at the time to quieten those fears. In this debate the representatives of Trinity College do not make a plea on that ground. Deputy Thrift particularly avoided making the plea on the ground that here something was being done to hit the minority. He did say, I know, that it was disappointing to him and that it would not help towards that co-operation which he had looked forward to, but with proportional representation in operation, with the fact, which is undeniable, that University men have stood well with the constituencies as a whole all over the country, with the fact that the representatives of the minority have secured election in constituencies in various parts of this country before, am I not justified in saying that the minority have nothing to fear from the abolition of this particular type of privileged representation?
I know that that may possibly not be the view of the representatives of the University of Dublin. I do not want to appear, or to be represented, as striking a blow at the University, or to be committing constitutional hari-kari. I think Deputy O'Sullivan used that phrase. I have had the interests of the University at heart and I would have them at heart even if I came in here as the representative of an ordinary constituency. I believe it is a good service to the University to take away this representation. I believe that no good has been done by introducing Party politics into the University—either into the University or amongst the graduates. There is a confusion with regard to this particular representation in the minds of some people. It is looked on as a representation given to the staff which constitutes the working University, and it is spoken of as something which the institution had and of which it is being deprived. The representation, as anybody knows, is from the graduates scattered all over the country, a great many of whom have ceased to have any connection with their University, who have no link with their University and who take part in their ordinary constituencies and work in the ordinary constituencies during elections, and who therefore cannot be said, in that sense, to be the University. If the Universities, as such, were to get representation, it ought to be given to them in quite a different way. That is my opinion. However, I would favour legislation here to strengthen the position of University graduates in all walks of life. I often feel that they have not the protection that they ought to have. I feel that, if you are to have Universities, and if the expenditure of large sums of public money on them were to be justified, they ought to get more protection under the law than they do get, but I do not think that the interests of the Universities are served by this representation in the Dáil.
I am aware myself of the strong objection taken by a number of thinking people to the fact that University representation and the contact, through it, of the Universities with political parties, brings into University life bitternesses and animosities which are foreign to University life and which ought to be kept out of University life. Possibly, they have not experienced any of such bitternesses or animosities in the University of Dublin, because there has been no keen opposition there. That may be so. However—I was going to use the word "unfortunately"—it must be remembered that there was a misfire in one of the last elections which prevented an University election. However, apart from that, from what I have learned of the way in which the division of Parties has affected Universities right down from the top. through the staff, to the student body, I believe myself that it is not good for the Universities to be involved in such disputes if the view is taken, as it seems to have been taken by many of the speakers here, that the University ought to occupy a detached position. That appears to be the view expressed. The strong ground advanced has been that University representation gives to the Dáil a detached type of mind. Now, I agree with one thing that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney said; and that is, that there is very little place in this Assembly for the detached type of mind. I think that, if you are going to have Party politics, it must be genuine Party politics; and, so far, we have not seen that the professional crank has found any favour in the University, nor will he find it in the Dáil. I believe that the people who come here from the Universities should have live political beliefs, and that they should be either affiliated with a political Party or be definitely interested in politics in a general way and not in a purely detached way.
Accordingly, I would sum up what I have said by saying that University representation is undoubtedly antidemocratic. That has not been denied. That is admitted. It is admitted that University representation is illogical, and yet one of the arguments put forward by one of the speakers was that, because it was illogical, it ought to be kept, and that we ought not to reduce everything to mathematics, which seems to be a very strange argument. On the main grounds, however, I think that the justification for the removal of University representation, at a time when the whole electoral machinery is being revised, is that the hopes that were being expressed, in the first place, as to what University representation would give, have proved just as false as the arguments which were used to support it have proved to be fallacious. I have shown, I think, that the arguments which were used at the time have proved, in experience, to be fallacious, and I believe that the fears that have been expressed as to what will happen to this Dáil, or what will happen the Universities, as a result of this piece of legislation, are quite unfounded.
Let us take the case of Deputy McGilligan, about whom so much has been said. I agree with a great deal that has been said with regard to Deputy McGilligan's merit as a representative here. Deeply as I disagree with him, and violently as I have fought with him, I quite admit that he is a very useful member of this Assembly; but does anybody doubt that, if Deputy McGilligan wanted to obtain a seat elsewhere, the Party opposite would be quite well able to place him in a seat? Does anybody believe that, if this Bill goes through, Deputy Cosgrave will lose Deputy McGilligan's services, if Deputy McGilligan is willing to go forward for election, and if Deputy Cosgrave wishes to retain his services? As a matter of fact, I think that, on one occasion, Deputy McGilligan did fight an outside constituency, some years ago.
