This Bill was before the Seanad on the 12th July, 1934, and on that occasion, the House will remember, it was rejected. Under the provisions of Article 38A of the Constitution, Dáil Eireann has now resolved, after a very full debate, that the Bill be again presented to Seanad Eireann. The Government remains of the opinion that, under present-day electoral conditions, the continuance of separate parliamentary representation for University graduates constitutes an anomaly and requests the Seanad to accord a Second Reading to this Bill.
Public Business. - Constitution (Amendment No. 23) Bill, 1936—Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
We are called upon, I may say under sentence of death, to deal with this Bill, but I think that we ought to deal with it just as if we were not under sentence of death and as if what we do with it were going to be permanently effective: that is to say, to deal with it on its merits. It has been said that special representation for the Universities is an anomaly. In a certain sense it is an anomaly, but that, to my mind, is a very strong reason why it should continue because, being anomalous, it would not be there and would not be such a recognised practice if there were not very strong reasons for it. It is a departure from practically all other representation. Two of the greatest dangers to democracy, to my mind, are ignorance and humbug. These dangers exist for all bodies politic, but they exist particularly in the case of a democracy like ours because of the very short experience of self-government which this country has had. People who are really wise will not go very far wrong in matters of government because if they are wise they will act decently and broadmindedly towards other people. Why do we spend £4,000,000 a year on education? I suppose we do it to dispel ignorance. Incidentally, it is a very good way of neutralising humbug and making it difficult for humbug to continue. What are Universities? They are called seats of learning, and I think that is a correct description. Voters in University constituencies are better educated than the ordinary electors. By reason of being better educated, they are likely to be more broadminded than the average person. The voters for a University constituency are far more likely to return disinterested, far-seeing, unprejudiced representatives than are the voters for an ordinary constituency, and they are far less likely to return the professional politician. That type of person does not exist in the University constituencies. At all events, he has not existed in the Universities in this country so far.
The type of representative that you get from a University is difficult to get elsewhere. The man returned by a University is not likely to be anxious to go into politics. As a rule, he is unwilling to do so. It is not his line of life and, if he consents to act, he does so with a full feeling of responsibility and with the desire to do his best for his country. As a general rule, he does not want to make anything out of the office; he has got a separate life from that. On reflection, I think it will be agreed by any reasonable person that it is a good thing for any legislative assembly that it should have a proportion of that type of independent, non-professional representative. That was recognised in our Constitution, which provided for University representation.
The atmosphere of a University is opposed to ignorance. The Universities are the crown of our educational system. If we spend £4,000,000 a year on education—more than we spend on any other service—and if it is a good thing for the nation that it should be educated, why is it not a good thing to give learning representation in our Legislative Chambers? Is a high level of education of less value in governing the country than it is in other walks of life? I should have thought that it would be of much more value. The Universities, as I said, are very unlikely to return professional politicians and pledge-bound members. They are unlikely to return extreme party men or men with little education or brains. They are likely to return a very special type of member, and I think that that has been shown since we undertook self-government here. They are almost certain to return men of a high level of education and with a certain measure of brains, and these men are likely to make a wise type of legislator. They are likely to deal dispassionately and in a scientific way with the matters that arise for discussion.
There are only six University representatives out of 153 members of the Dáil and I cannot see any good, statesmanlike reason for doing away with the representation which gives these six members to the Dáil. I can see plenty of reasons, which are neither good nor statesmanlike, for this Bill, but I do not propose to enter into that question, because I have always regarded it as bad policy to impute bad motives. I am not going to prophesy but I am certain that democracy is the best form of government for an intelligent, educated electorate. It is not necessarily the best form of government for an electorate that is not intelligent or educated. The time will come when, with the development of democracy and of education, the general mass of the people will be much more capable of dealing with their affairs than they have been. Some day, the electorate will contain so many well-educated people that they will return only wise and well-educated people to Parliament. That is the problem of democracy. When we reach that stage, democracy will be really free and you will not have dictatorships either by individuals or parties. Government will go on much more smoothly and more wisely. We are, however, a long way off that stage yet and, in present conditions, it is eminently desirable that we should have University representation. So far from this Bill being a step in advance or a step towards democracy, it is a retrograde step. The Bill deals with a question of principle and I do not see how we can amend it. I think that it ought to be rejected on Second Reading even though such rejection cannot have any tangible result. A Chamber of this kind should not consent to pass legislation which will do away with one of the best features of our scheme of representation.
I have had no connection with Universities and I have very little knowledge compared with other people of the mentality of University graduates. I always thought that people with University degrees were much ahead of the ordinary citizen—that their learning and knowledge provided them with a clearer outlook on most of the questions that came before them. On reading the speeches in the Dáil by University representatives, that opinion was somewhat shaken. I read the speeches of the President, who is responsible for the Bill, and of the two representatives of the National University—the Attorney-General and Deputy Mrs. Concannon. If we agree with their contention, that University representation should be abolished, then we must come to the conclusion that all the money spent on obtaining University degrees and all the time spent in acquiring the necessary knowledge is really wasted.
Senator Bagwell pointed out that we spend about £4,000,000 a year in educating the people of the country. According to these representatives of the Universities, University graduates have no sounder judgment or broader vision than the ordinary elector. If that be so, then all this expenditure of time and money on University education is so much waste and University education is a sham. I do not agree with that contention. Behind this Bill there must be some ulterior motive. Having no experience of Universities and no knowledge of University graduates, I do not propose to discuss the Bill at length, but I desire to put a few questions to the Minister. Deputy Mrs. Concannon said, in the Dáil, that University graduates did not want special representation. It would simplify matters if the Minister would delay the passing of the Bill until we have a referendum of University graduates. If the graduates decide by a majority that they do not want special representation, then there will be no more to be said about the Bill. If the Minister refuses to hold a referendum, will he consent to lesser representation for the Universities? If he thinks that the representation is too great, will he consent to an amendment reducing the representation or will he consent to an amendment to amalgamate the two Universities into one constituency, with smaller representation than they have at present? If the Minister would agree to any of these suggestions, I think it would influence the people on this side of the House in their further action in regard to this Bill.
Donnchadh Ua hEaluighthe
Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an mBille seo. I listened very attentively to Senator Bagwell and I expected to hear from him some cogent reasons for the continuance of University representation. I do not think that he advanced any clear arguments in favour of the continuance of that representation. We have here one of the most democratic systems of election known to the world. Those people who have the advantage of University education should, in the future, enjoy an advantage in election contests as against those who are not so equipped. When we were a very small body, we gathered round the late Arthur Griffith who was arguing in favour of proportional representation, so that every class in the community would be reasonably represented. That system of representation is now in force and, that being so, every section of the community has an opportunity of representation in accord with its numerical strength. If University graduates are earning their living in Ceylon, Pretoria or any other foreign centre, is it right that they should be in a position to dictate how this country should be governed? We have had experience of privileged representation on the Dublin City Council since the introduction of the Greater Dublin Bill in 1930. Some of us who have been in close contact with the city council are aware of the manner in which these representatives have acted. We expected when they were first elected that they would represent the commercial interests of the City of Dublin. Have they done so? Every vote they cast in the municipal council has been cast on political lines. It is only necessary to go back over the votes cast at every meeting of the municipal council to find that the votes of these privileged representatives were cast on a political issue. When the municipal elections come around in June every man and woman in the city will have the right to go before the citizens on the same broad franchise. We want no favours. We will go before the citizens on the merits, and if rejected we are satisfied. We will go on the broad issue, wanting no favours, and likewise the Independents, as they are so-called, want no favour for representation in the Dáil. There is a broad franchise, and let everyone face the electors on that franchise. Whatever Government comes into power after the next election will have the right to say that they were elected by the people on the broadest franchise and that they mean to govern. I hope that all Parties, successful as well as unsuccessful, will rally around the Government that is then elected and that we will all stand shoulder to shoulder, for the next five years, in an endeavour to advance this country in every way.
I must apologise for speaking at all on this Bill, as I have only returned from abroad and had no idea until yesterday that this Bill was to be dealt with to-day. I feel, however, that I cannot let a decision be arrived at without saying something in connection with University representation. I was sorry to hear Senator Healy making a statement about levelling everything and putting everybody out of the Oireachtas who had not been publicly elected, because really when we come to consider where we are, that argument applies against the continuance of the Senate. While I do not know what the Senator's views are on the continuance of the Senate, I would like if he had put his opposition to University representation on some other grounds. The Senator also stated that he thought Senator Bagwell had brought forward no real, strong argument in support of University representation. I rather disagree with that statement. Senator Bagwell's argument was that in a high Legislative Assembly, that dealt with the whole affairs of the country, you want to get tried people, people of brains, ability and independence amongst the members. That was the gist of the Senator's remarks. I happen to be one of those who were in consultation with Mr. Griffith, Mr. O'Higgins and other Irishmen who made arrangements with the British Government as to future conditions in the Irish Free State. I took part with them in deciding, round a table, as to how it was best to start parliamentary representation and parliamentary bodies in the Free State, and they referred to the very dangers that Senator Bagwell has referred to; that we were a perfectly new country in that respect; that our countrymen had no knowledge of affairs in the way of elections and politics on the lines on which these would require to be dealt with when we really managed our own affairs. They tried to deal with it in two ways. One was to get a Senate appointed in which they wanted to be placed all those who had done good service to their country; people of ability in business in various ways who would make up a representative Assembly of decidedly distinguished and educated people. The other way is the one we are discussing, to get some of the same kind of people into the Dáil by giving University representation. That was 12 or 13 years ago.
If we quietly think over this matter we find that there are a great many conditions existing to-day which Mr. Griffith and Mr. O'Higgins foresaw. I think we are very unwise if we turn round and completely destroy every one of the conditions which these men who established the Free State, and who fought for it, considered necessary for good government and good legislation in this country. That is what the measure we are now discussing is doing absolutely. The two safeguards which these men put down as necessary conditions of good government we are going to destroy. I cannot help thinking that if they were amongst us and that we are to turn round on the decision which was then arrived at they would say we are wrong. It was mainly with Mr. Griffith we had our discussions. Everyone will agree that few people were more thoroughly versed in the methods of government in the different countries of the world and how they carried on, than Mr. Griffith. He was a well-read man, one with great historical knowledge and also great political knowledge. I do not like to see a change and saying that what we have is no use, and that we were not going to have it. I notice that Deputy Mrs. Concannon in the course of her speech said that her main reason in voting for the Bill was that she had not had representations from her University constituents that they were opposed to that representation being taken away. I suppose the same thing applies to Trinity College. Think of how the constituents of these Universities are placed. The graduates of these colleges are all over the world and it takes a long time to complete voting. No man could possibly attend meetings and it would take very considerable organisation to get up protests. The position in the Universities is quite different from that in an ordinary constituency.
In an ordinary constituency meetings could be organised and petitions prepared. I do not see how that could be managed in a University. At this stage it might probably be a wise thing for members of the University to do that, if it could be done, in order to get an expression of opinion from the electors. It would take a lot of time and cost a good deal of money. It can be seen that the position is absolutely different from other constituencies. It is hardly quite fair for Deputy Mrs. Concannon to make that claim, because apparently she has not taken any steps to try to find out what the electors were thinking. That is the other side of the case. The Deputy did not say that she was taking steps to find out what the electors thought. She said that they had not moved in the matter. The difficulty of making a move in that direction can easily be understood. Deputy Kelly in his speech on the Bill said:—
"This Bill is brought in as part of the regular policy of the Fianna Fáil Party, so far as they can do it, to level every constituency in the country and make them all obedient to the people's will in so far as University education is affected."
I thought the Universities would be the very last places that would have been attacked. There are two ways of looking at this question. There is the point of view of the electors who may say: "Here is a man and he has 10,000 electors behind him. He is a great man and should legislate for the country." The other way is to look at the quality of the man who is to sit in the Oireachtas and who is to help to make our laws. We all know that we will lose that class of man with University education from the Dáil, because that is not the class of man to fight for a seat. Such men are otherwise engaged. Some can spare the time, as we all know from their magnificent record for the last 12 years, to sit in the Dáil. We all know the amount of time that they have given there. But if they are to sit for other constituencies and go and make speeches down the country in order to be elected, we will lose the whole of them, and, as Deputy Kelly said, all will come down to the same level. We are going to have an entirely political body in the Oireachtas. We are going to have University brains turned out of the Dáil. We are going to have the Seanad knocked out, and we are going to put government in the Dáil where one vote might carry the most vital changes that could be imagined. The first step is before us and deals with University representation.
The question is, are we going to disqualify the brains-carriers or are we going to try to give a chance to those amongst us who have special qualifications, men who could really help us and who are really independent? Are we to put them completely out of our legislative bodies? What other country or what other body would adopt that policy? Would business people adopt it? What would happen in any business we have got if workmen were asked to take it over and to elect a man and to put him in to run it? I do not know how long that business would exist. If you take an army, and if it is left to the privates to elect a general, where would that army be? If you leave it to anybody that you can think of, and that the rank and file are to carry on the business and to elect people to manage its affairs, how many successful businesses would there be in the world? Not one. I hold that it is a very bad policy for the Oireachtas of this country to adopt principles which would smash every business in the country and every concern we have got. That is what we are going to do. If Deputy Kelly is right, and I suppose he is, we are going to level every constituency and make it obedient to the people's will. What we can do, I do not know, but I should not like to hear it said that we should throw to the dogs all that those who won the right of freedom for the Free State thought was the right policy for the Free State to adopt and say: "No, they were all wrong." Those very men who got what we are all enjoying to-day said: "This is necessary for your future welfare, and you ought to do it," but we are going to take for granted that they were wrong and we are going to destroy every safeguard which they thought was necessary for the welfare of the nation.
Senator Healy said that no cogent reasons had been put forward as to why this Bill should not be passed. There are two cogent reasons why we have this Bill here. One is that out of the six University representatives in the Dáil, four are opposed to the Fianna Fáil Government; the other is that the trend of opinion in the Universities has definitely gone against the Fianna Fáil Party, as has been shown by elections to the Governing Body and in other ways. Those are the two reasons, and the only reasons, why we have this Bill. Those who say that the class of people who are represented by the University representatives, or some of them, can find representation through proportional representation know perfectly well that they are not speaking the truth. The Government have seen to it that the minority in this country will not get representation, by gerrymandering the constituencies in a Bill which we had here, and turning most of them into three-member constituencies, which makes it impossible for small minorities to be represented. That is the plain, unvarnished truth, and it is all I am going to say about the matter, except to express the opinion that the speeches of Deputy Mrs. Concannon and the other University representatives who spoke in support of this Bill in the Dáil are nothing short of a disgrace to the Assembly of which they are members and to the Universities which sent them there.
I have heard nothing that would alter the opinion I held on this measure on the last occasion on which it was presented to us. On that occasion I voted for the Bill and said that I was opposed to any privileges being conferred on any privileged class and I believe that all that has been said in opposition to the Bill amounts to special pleading for a special class —special pleading for the giving of privileges to a special class—and nothing else. Senator Jameson talked about the graduates of the Universities being scattered all over the world. That is one of my main objections to giving them special privileges. Why should men or women, whose parents happened to be fortunate enough to be able to pay for University education for their children, who have left this country many years ago and who have no stake whatever in this country, be entitled to special privileges for the purpose of electing representatives to the legislative Assembly of this country? Most of them have no interest whatever in this country, and yet we have special pleading for the giving of special representation to this type of person.
Senator Jameson and Senator Bagwell talked about having men of learning in the legislative Assembly. As sensible men and women, do we not know that the people who are selected to represent the Universities are not selected because of their learning? They are selected by the political caucuses, and that does not apply only to this country. I heard Senator Bagwell speak of professional politicians. Very recently, in a country not very far away, a well-known professional politician, who was kicked out of his constituency by an overwhelming majority against him, was provided with a seat in one of the seats of learning.
He was a Labour man.
And then we hear talk about professional politicians.
He was a Labour man, though.
He was at one time, but the Labour people in his constituency had the good sense to treat him as he deserved to be treated. They were not so easily humbugged as the graduates of the University. This is a case of special pleading for a special class and nothing else, and no case can be made to show why these people were entitled to special privileges with regard to the sending of representatives into the legislative Assembly. I do not think it is correct for anybody to say that the general body of the community has not got just as much intelligence as the graduates of a University. Some of us have not been educated in Universities. Most of us have been educated in adversity, but we do not admit for a moment that University graduates, those people whose parents were fortunate enough and well-off enough to be able to provide for their education in Universities, had any more intelligence than the ordinary working man's son or daughter. The moment scholarships were introduced to give the children of the working-class people an opportunity to get some education, we know that they acquitted themselves pretty well in the Universities, and I do not for a moment admit that the graduates of Universities have any more intelligence in the matter of selecting people to represent them in the legislative Assembly than the ordinary man or woman outside.
It is not fair to suggest that if you take away this special privilege from Universities, there will be no men or women of education to come into the Parliament of the nation, because it is a well-known fact that many of the members of the Oireachtas have been educated in Universities. The fact that a person has been educated in the University is no bar to election to the legislative Assembly, although some of the remarks made here would lead one to believe that that was so. On the contrary, the people of the country, the men and women who have sound commonsense and some education, whether University, public school or Christian Brothers' school education, have an intelligence and grasp of the science of government which fits them to carry on the affairs of the State. For that reason, I say that this claim for special privileges for a privileged class is out-of-date. It serves no useful purpose now. There is no necessity whatever for it and for that reason I am satisfied that no case can be made in favour of the retention of this special representation for the Universities. So far as we are concerned, we are in identically the same position as we were in when this Bill was brought forward. We in the Labour Party, before any mention was made of the introduction of this Bill, were opposed to these special privileges. We are still opposed to them and nothing that has been said has altered our opinion, and, accordingly, we will vote in favour of the Bill as we did on the former occasion.
I am sorry the Minister for Local Government, when introducing the Bill here, acted as he did in the Dáil and offered no argument at the beginning of the debate. In the Dáil, he spoke at some length at the end, and it struck me that even then he scarcely considered it necessary to deal with the arguments that had been put forward against the Bill. It seems to me that this matter is to be looked at somewhat differently from the way in which it is looked at by Senator Farren. It is really a practical problem and I think it should be looked at differently from the manner in which we should look at it if there were no University representation. If we had no experience of it, we might talk a great deal about the giving of special privileges to favoured classes and might speculate as to what the result would be, but, in actual fact, we have had University representation and we know how it works. If it has worked well, some reasons better than mere doctrinaire arguments ought to be advanced for its abolition. I do not think we can attach very much importance to purely theoretical and doctrinaire argument against the weight of experience.
It has been said that this system makes the vote of a University graduate, of anyone on the University register, equal to the votes of ten ordinary electors, and it is suggested that, in the interests of democracy and in the interests of good government, we should promptly end this anomaly. We have to remember that the number of University members is very small. A great deal might be said with force on the theoretical side if there were a large number of University representatives, whose presence would distort the Party balance and the representative balance of the Dáil, but when we have only six and when we are seldom likely to have those six voting the one way, I think no attention can be paid at all to the suggestion that there is some question of the guardians of a privilege being wrongly allowed to get into the Chamber. With regard to the power of votes and the special value that is attached to the votes of those who are on the University register, I think that is a very theoretical point and one of no practical importance. It may happen that any voter may be in a strategic position in an election, or have a vote of enormous value, but there are in every constituency large numbers of voters in most elections whose vote is of no value to them, because the person for whom they would wish to vote is already secure of a majority and secure of election, and they cannot return another. In many cases, it happens that a Party would return another member if they had 50 extra votes and the 50 extra votes that might be expected to cause the turnover would have an enormous value. So that one could argue a great deal about the theory of the value of votes.
As I have said, the University representatives are divided amongst themselves. It is not a question of vested interests having special guardians here. I do not know that any question of the defence of what one might call University interests has arisen and, if it were to arise, the six University representatives by their mere votes could do nothing to change the course of events. Their arguments might be effective, of course, but their presence as voters in the House would not alter the position. I think, therefore, that Senator Farren is on a wrong line when he tries to stir up feeling about this matter, when he indulges in something which is really the equivalent of a catch-cry.
I said that the matter is a very small one from the point of view of its effect on the balance of the Dáil. At the present moment, there are six University representatives. Four of them might be taken as being in opposition. There are two who vote with the Government. If the University representatives disappeared from the Dáil the Government normally would be two votes better off in a division. That is just the equivalent of the turnover of one country constituency. If the Government were to win a seat, which they had not got, in the country they would be two votes better off in a division. So the whole effect of University representation and of its disappearance at the present moment from the point of view of voting, is the same as the turnover of representation of one seat in a single constituency in the country. On that basis again the sort of picture that Senator Farren would conjure up is a very unreal one.
It seems to me because there is such a small voting strength affected that we must come to the conclusion that the object of the Government is a Party one. It might well be that after the next election the presence or absence of one or two Deputies would affect the position. I believe that the Government must feel that that is so. I cannot believe that they have introduced this Bill and are pushing it through solely for the purpose of getting a more accurate representation of the people's wishes in the Dáil. If they were so anxious as might be pretended about exact mathematical accuracy, I do not think that the Redistribution of Seats Bill would be framed along the lines on which it was actually framed. The multiplication of the number of three-member constituencies until we have 15 of them does betoken on the part of the Government a disregard for mathematical accuracy in representation, because in a three-member constituency a Party with one vote over 50 per cent. gets two of the seats, and there is every likelihood where there is a considerable number of three-member constituencies that some one Party or the other will get seats in the House considerably out of proportion to its strength in the country. I do not say that that is necessarily a bad thing. I do not even believe that it is going to work out as the Government hoped it would or as I believe it hoped it would when it framed the Bill. At any rate, the creation of this large number of three-member constituencies indicates that the Government does not really care about strict accuracy in representation, and that it is not with a view to getting greater mathematical accuracy in representation that the University constituencies and being abolished. My own feeling is that if the University representatives were four for the Government and two for Fine Gael some excuse would be found for the continuance of the present system.
I do not know what the voting of the Seanad on this measure will be. On the last occasion on which the Bill was before the House it was rejected. It may be rejected to-day. If it is not rejected, I hope that the Seanad will carry an amendment of some sort on the Committee Stage and that they will invite the Government to reconsider the date at which this Bill, if it is to be passed into law, should come into operation. The Government may decline to alter their step in the least, but there are strong reasons why they should not rush this Bill into operation, even if they rush it into law. As far as I can recollect, the abolition of University representation was not one of the many planks in the Fianna Fáil programme at the last election. All sorts of things were promised to the electorate, but if the abolition of University representation was promised, it certainly was promised in a whisper. No great publicity was given to it. Therefore, it seems to me that the Government is now carrying out a constitutional change—it may be a minor constitutional change—which they did not put clearly before the electorate. On the other hand, the Opposition Party— and the Opposition is a big Party in the Dáil—is pledged to restore University representation when it gets into power.
When?
After the next general election.
How soon after?
Immediately. It is one of the first acts that would be carried out. It seems to me that it is an undesirable thing that we should have any sort of see-saw business even in connection with what is, I admit, relatively a minor constitutional matter, and that the Government should agree that the operation of this Bill, if it is to be passed, should be delayed, not until after the dissolution, but after the general election. If Fianna Fáil have any belief in their own prophecies they will be returned at a general election, and then they can easily put it into operation. There would be a clear verdict then from the people that University representation should go. On the other hand, if the Fianna Fáil Party is not returned, then we will not have the abolition of one form of representation and its restoration after a few months' interval. Even constitutional matters like this should be dealt with, as far as possible, in such a way that they are not going to be bones of Party contention. We ought only to make constitutional changes of a kind that are not likely to be reversed. I cannot think of anything that would bring the Constitution more into contempt and that would be worse, taking a long view, for the public life of the country and for the maintenance of reasonable standards in political affairs than to have Articles of the Constitution altered and re-altered with the ebb and flow of public opinion. I believe that if the Government would take their responsibilities as seriously as they ought to they would not rush through, for Party advantages and on a purely Party basis, a constitutional change even of this character.
As I said at the beginning, this is a practical matter. In order to examine it properly we have to remember what the nature of a Parliament is. It is not merely a representative assembly. It is also a deliberative assembly, and it is as important to keep it in a state of being effective as a deliberative assembly as it is to keep it sufficiently representative of public opinion. It is an altogether fallacious idea that we should sacrifice the effectiveness of Parliament as a legislative machine merely in order to get some theoretical perfection in representation. That is acting on the view that representation is the only function of a Parliament. But, as a matter of fact, it would not be worth having sittings; it would not be worth having all the elaborate procedure which is now accepted, if Parliament were merely a representative body. If it were that we could have all the voting done by post or by some mechanical method, and the debates and stages of Bills and so forth might all be dropped.
I think if we look back we shall see that the efficiency of the Dáil has been very much added to by the University representatives actually chosen. I think it was the Attorney-General who said in the Dáil that something like 25 per cent. of the members of the House were University representatives.
The Minister.
The Minister referred to the fact that 25 per cent. of the members were University representatives, but if we look at the record it was the actual people who were chosen by the Universities who made the greatest mark. It may have been a coincidence but I do not think we should jump to the conclusion that it was a coincidence, that so many distinguished and useful members of the House were included in the small group that were chosen by the University electorates. I think it can certainly be said, if you take the five or six who have been in the Dáil from the Universities, that it would be very difficult to find any group of equal size who contributed as much towards enabling the Parliament to do its work effectively. I have dealt with this matter in the Seanad before. Of course, I see the disadvantages of basing an argument on individuals, or in purporting to describe the work that a particular group of individuals did; but it is almost universally admitted that a very distinguished and a useful group of Deputies were returned to the Dáil from the Universities—people who gave great service to the House and enabled it to do its work with an efficiency which it would not have done if they had not been present. I do not know whether there are members of the Seanad who attach little or no importance to debate in the Dáil, and whether there are any members of the Seanad who think that all that is of any consequence is to have proposals made and a vote taken. I myself, as I have already said, think that Parliamentary representation would be of very little value to the country, and would certainly not be worth the cost which its maintenance imposes on the people, if we had not the machinery for ensuring debate that at present exists. It is perfectly true that in the Dáil, where the fate of a Government may be at stake, and where Party discipline must be stricter than, for instance, it is here, no speech ever influences a vote. As a matter of fact, our political life would be thrown into confusion if it could happen that a member of the Dáil would allow his vote to be influenced, whatever might happen to his convictions, as a result of any statement that might be made in the House; but, on the other hand, because the course of a particular debate does not influence a vote on the motion before the House, it is short-sighted to conclude that that debate is useless.
The value of debate in the House, as distinct from any other discussion on a Bill, is that a Minister in the Dáil is face to face with his opponents. If a Minister introduces a Bill and there is no discussion in the House, then anybody can say what he likes about it at the chapel gates or anywhere else and the Minister is quite unruffled. Nobody can be certain that he has not a perfectly good defence if he cared to utter it, but in the House he is face to face with his opponents, and it is shown to everybody whether or not he has an answer to the arguments put up against his proposal. If a Minister is not in a position to give a good answer, it is perfectly true that his Party will vote with him all the same; but the fact that a Minister is put in that hole alters his own attitude to the proposal and it might, and will, lead to representations being made to him afterwards privately by his supporters about it. If the Minister finds that some case is made which he cannot effectively answer, then it is taken both by himself and everybody else that there is no answer to the Opposition, and he, himself, will naturally be inclined to re-examine the matter. He is forced to consider it. Opposition outside he has not to answer, and it may not move him at all. He may never turn over the question again, no matter what is said outside. But, if something is put up to him to his face that shows that his attitude is not very defensible, he must look at it again and say to himself: "Can I alter this in such a way that I can defend it and answer that fellow?"
Those of us who have been Ministers have occasionally found that we had not considered things as fully as they ought to have been considered before we came with them to the House. It is true that, before a Bill is prepared, there is a good deal of departmental examination; there is a good deal of inter-departmental discussion, and, as a rule, it is quite true to say that most points of view will have come to the Minister's notice: that he will not come into the House with a thing which he cannot give reasons for; but, on the other hand, there are occasionally points of view which are not brought forth departmentally, or which do not seem to be of importance in the department, and, therefore, are not stressed. Those points of view are put forward in the House, and, as I have said, a Minister will frequently see a matter in a new light because of the fact that he must answer there. The necessity of answering forces him to consider the exact point that is put up to him. Very often he will say: "Well, I must alter this, I must accept an amendment to it. I cannot stand over this thing." We had, very lately, a Milk Bill before us and, because of arguments that were put up in the Dáil, the original draft of it was withdrawn and the Minister brought in a new Bill.
I remember that on one occasion in the Dáil I myself introduced a Bill affecting certain small points relating to superannuation. It seemed to me all right from the departmental discussions that went on in connection with it, but when I was faced with certain arguments put up to me in the Dáil, I felt that I had no answer to them, and, after listening to the debate for a certain time, I asked the leave of the House to withdraw the Bill. These, I admit, are extreme cases, but there is no doubt that debate is as important a function of Parliament as voting. You could have a 25 per cent. misrepresentation of a country in voting, but if you had good debating power in Parliament it would get the country's views better carried out than if you had a much stronger crowd of dummies opposing the Government. Therefore, it is every bit as important to get an intelligent Opposition, representing points of view of various kinds, as it is to get the people represented with mathematical accuracy.
I know very well a Parliament that does not represent the people, no matter what ability, knowledge or the variety of point of view that there may be in it is ineffective and rotten at the base, and that it can do no real good except for a short period. But, it is wrong to go to the other extreme and say that if you get mathematical representation, then you have a good Parliament, that good work is going to be done and that you can be perfectly satisfied. If you have not debating power in it the fact that there are 70 votes against the Government rather than 60 is not going to affect Ministers or affect the Government at all. It is not going to give them help unless the discussion is of the right quality. I think it is important, in order to get good discussion and the expression of a variety of points of view, to have the Universities represented. I have frequently seen that the most helpful person you can have in any discussion is the man with the minority type of mind.
I can remember, even in connection with Cabinet discussions, that the man who kept the Cabinet right was the man whose views were not going to be accepted at all in the long run. Very often I have seen a decision radically altered by somebody who was accustomed to look at things in a particular way. I have a particular individual in mind. He was accustomed to look at things from a different angle from the rest of us, and he would make a proposal, or offer a criticism, which would not have occurred to the rest of us. We probably did not accept his view in the end, but we re-examined the matter. He threw new light on it, and the very fact that you might get such a man—you do get men of a somewhat different angle through this system of University representation—is an argument in favour of it. I have already admitted that that would not justify a big representation which was different in basis from that on which the other members were returned. It would not be a good thing to buy debating power at such a price. It is not even debating power that is wanted so much as the capacity to secure a full discussion, even if the cost is of disarranging too seriously the mathematical aspect of representation.
I do not think there is anything more that I wish to say on this point except once again to urge on the Government, if they persist in going on with this particular measure, that they should consider the period at which it will come into operation. We surely have by now reached the time when we should take what ought to be a normal view about constitutional matters. It is perfectly true that when the Constitution that now exists was being enacted it was not discussed as one would have wished it discussed with representatives of all points of view present; but it is perfectly true that many of the things in it were put into it with our eyes on those who were not present. There was a slight attempt—I do not say as great an attempt as there ought to have been or that it would have been desirable that there should be—but there was some attempt made to meet the minority as well as the majority point of view. I could, if it were pertinent now, point to various provisions which were put in in the shape in which they are in the Constitution with our eyes on those who were not in the Dáil at all. We have reached a different stage now. We have reached a stage where the people generally are pretty well represented in the Dáil, and, therefore, I think we should take up the attitude about the Constitution that, as far as possible, it ought to be something on which all will agree. That does not mean that no change is ever to be effected until there is unanimity. That would debar all changes, but a serious attempt ought to be made to get agreement on any change before it is made. There is a way, I think, in which that could be done in the case of this particular measure. Although this is a small thing we are dealing with, I think the Government should select it as one of the measures in connection with which they will show a recognition that we have reached a political position in which we can attempt to do things more nearly in the way in which they ought to be done.
I think Senator Blythe has indicated the view that constitutional changes ought not to be made without some kind of general agreement, if possible. I think it would be well if there could be agreement between the main Parties at any particular time that the constitutional provisions should be in general acceptable; but to draw the conclusion that a Constitution, which is supposed to be more or less the fundamental law governing ordinary legislation, should contain a provision requiring that the Universities should be represented is a very different proposition altogether. When it is suggested that there ought not to be games of shuttlecock between the Parties in respect of the Constitution, the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that there ought not to be in the Constitution a provision giving this anomalous representation to a particular section of the community. If at any time it is desired that that anomaly should be perpetrated, then it should be by ordinary legislation and not by constitutional obligation. It is the obligatory provisions of the Constitution that are in question in this Bill. We may take them out of the Constitution and put them into an ordinary Electoral Bill. Conceivably, that is what would happen if Senator Blythe's hopes were fulfilled. That is to say, the Constitution would not make it obligatory to have special representation of the Universities, but the Party which Senator Blythe would like to see in office would introduce a new Representation of the People Bill which would give special representation to this small, privileged class.
There has been a good deal of assumption that it is education that is being represented and that the Universities are bound to secure as their representatives impartial people who are somewhat above the battle and who will bring a new type of mind to bear upon the problems that come before the Parliament, these being highly educated people. This provision was not designed to secure highly educated people for the Parliament. The aim of the provision with which this Bill deals is to give University graduates power to choose whom they will as their representatives. It has been pointed out that a very large proportion of the graduates who have this power of voting do not live in the country at all. I do not know what the numbers are, but it has been suggested that a considerable majority of the graduates of one University and a very large minority of the graduates of the other University live outside the country. The question as to whether in making their selection they will secure the type of mind which it is desirable to introduce into the Legislature does not depend upon their judgment at all, but on the decisions of the Party managers.
Senator Blythe expressed views, with which I entirely agree, as to the value of deliberation and discussion. I think that is the most important part of the function of a Parliament. The Senator made reference to the capacity in that respect of the representatives sent by the Universities to the Dáil. I do not think that the University representatives were chosen because of their ability to take detached views and weigh up the pros and cons of an argument in a manner different from that of the ordinary politician. Looking back on the members who have represented one University—there were seven or eight—all but one had previously made their names as politicians. It was because of their powers as politicians, outside University life altogether, that they came to be selected. If Senator Jameson or Senator Bagwell throws his mind back 15 or 20 years, he will, I think, agree that the University graduates, in choosing their representatives, were not influenced by their deliberative capacity or their capacity to look upon problems with a detached mind. We know that they became capable politicians, having gone through a very strenuous and arduous struggle, not merely political but military.
It is claimed for the Universities that they bring out the powers of observation and deliberation of their students and teach them to weigh up the pros and cons of public issues with judgment and care. I think that is true to some extent and that, surely, gives the University graduate, who is not acting as a University graduate but voting and using his influence in the ordinary political life of the country, greater power. It is through the ordinary social, industrial, political and cultural organisations of one kind or another that the influence of the University on the mind of the graduate should find expression and not through a particular, select group of representatives. Notwithstanding all that, we are bound in this particular case to remember that what we are asked to do is to remove from the Constitution the obligation that the Universities shall have representation and that whenever any changes in the constituencies are being made, whenever a redistribution of seats is contemplated, nothing can be done to interfere with that representation. That is the issue before the House. I think that it should not be an obligation upon the Legislature that they must provide special representation for the Universities.
The speech of Senator Farren and, to a less extent, of Senator Johnson dealt with theoretic arguments many of which I remember in the Dublin Parliamentary Society, of which I was a member. I do not make the less of them on that account. My opinion on this subject is not in any way based on simple, theoretic arguments as to the merits of University representation on all occasions. I have read through most of the debate in the Dáil not for the purpose, as seems to be popular in the other House and to a certain extent here, of saying that I saw nothing to change my opinion, but for the purpose of finding a reason why this was being done now. I can offer plenty of reasons. There are plenty of theoretic reasons against this particular type of representation in a popular Assembly. Why was it introduced? Was it because, after discussion of the theoretic arguments for and against, the majority were of opinion that the arguments adduced by Senator Johnson and Senator Farren were false? That was not the reason.
I was a member of the Constitution Drafting Committee. I remember the discussions that took place. We did not make this a constitutional provision. That was done later. We debated the matter in theory and it was ultimately put in by the Provisional Government and the Dáil. I can only speak of my own recollection and I have little doubt that the reason it was put in was because they believed it would be possible, by means of it, to get into the Dáil a certain desirable type of representation which would not otherwise figure there. That was the vital reason why it was decided upon. There may be many other arguments as to the class of person who would be obtained, but I am satisfied that that was the reason that University representation in the Dáil was provided for in our Constitution. There is a very small minority in the country—I am not one of that minority; I have been, as you know, a nationalist ever since I took part in politics—which is sufficiently scattered as to make it exceedingly unlikely that it will ever have any effective representation in the Dáil. If partition were ended or if the Minister could tell us that partition was going to be ended, I might, perhaps, be lukewarm about this Bill. But, to my mind, the effect of this Bill is to get rid of that minority representation. That minority had considerable representation in this House as well but this House is to go at the same time.
I ask the Government seriously if, having regard to their policy, this is a wise step. Having regard to present circumstances, I honestly believe it is not. It was suggested that this unwise step was being taken because it would make a difference of two votes. The Minister assured the other House that that was not in the mind of the Government in connection with this Bill and I accept his statement. But why do this now? I think it is mischievous to do it now and that the effect will be definitely bad. I am willing to concede any theory of strict, democratic representation to those who are in favour of this Bill. On strict argument they will beat me, but I see no sign at the present time of much worry about the strict theory of democracy. We are going more and more for bureaucracy. Orders to the number of 659 were made by a privileged class elected by the Dáil—I am not objecting to their being the Executive Council—without any reference to the representatives of the people. Our tendency is against strict theories of democracy.
Is it not true that the representatives of the people gave the Executive Government power to do this?
The representatives of the people are going to give them power to do what is proposed now, but that does not make it right. My point is that the representatives of the people are giving powers to the Government which are not in accordance with what would be regarded as strict theories of democracy. It is a very poor argument in support of this Bill that it is based on a strict theory of democracy when strict theories of democracy are not at the present time regarded as of much importance. If we were acting on strict theories of democracy, there might perhaps be a case for the Bill. I should be inclined to agree with Senator Johnson that this is not a matter which normally should be included in the Constitution.
If the Minister told us that it was not his intention to remove it at present, then the argument used by Senator Johnson, that all we were concerned with was whether this was or was not a proper thing to be in the Constitution, would be removed. As I understand it, it was openly and definitely introduced to amend the Constitution so as to abolish it, and to have it carried out at once. It is, therefore, quite impossible to take the theoretical view of Senator Johnson, that that is all we are considering at present. If University representation is definitely undesirable, there may be other ways by which there might be some minority representation. I know it will be said that if this small minority could get over their prejudices, and go right into Fine Gael, it might be a good thing, as some of them would then get representation. Something like that was said in some of the speeches in the Dáil. Possibly, they would be surer still if they went into Fianna Fáil. The fact remains that a small minority exists which is not prepared to go into either Party. I cannot see how it weakens the authority of the people to have one, two or three of these people in the Parliament. You have the honest belief that it does an enormous amount of good. At the risk of being misunderstood, I would say—and I think Senator Johnson will agree—that the attitude taken up by, say, Trinity College representatives in the first year or two and their attitude towards national affairs now will show the enormous change that has taken place. These people are not likely to be represented in either of the two large Parties, and are not likely to be large enough to be able to have independent representatives under the ordinary methods of elections. All through they have thrown their lot in with the life of this State. Although they remain to a considerable degree independent, they have been willing to help and by common consent have been good representatives.
I could have understood a proposal at any time that the Universities might be represented in the Second Chamber. That was not open to this Government, because they propose to abolish the Second Chamber as well. I could understand their saying: "We do not stand for this particular method and we are going to try some other method." They did not say that, but said: "Like the Seanad, we do not like it, and we will abolish it." I suppose it is useless, but as long as I have the opportunity I intend urging the Government to see if it is not possible to get some kind of common consent with regard to the vital changes that are taking place in regard to the Constitution. I believe it would be possible. They might not get agreement on every point. Consent does not mean agreement. It means recognition of different points of view, giving way here and there. I do not know whether out of such a conference University representation would or would not emerge in some form. I believe that it is quite possible that it would emerge in some changed form, probably not two separate constituencies, but not with three members for each. Whether it did or not, there is sufficient consensus of opinion to devise a way by which the minority would be more and more identified with this country in its national development and represented in the Oireachtas. As far as I can see, the action taken by the Government in providing changes in the constituencies, in abolishing the Seanad, and abolishing University representation is leading us to a position —whether there be any representatives in the Dáil or not—where there would be very few indeed for them. These are the reasons why I am opposed to this measure and why I intend to vote against it. It is only a matter of 60 days. I will vote against it except the Minister tells us that there is any likelihood of the Government going to the country within 60 days and that it would make any difference if it was held up. I would not like to be a party to bringing such a situation about. Otherwise, I will share in the responsibility. If there is no such likelihood I see no reason why those who believe that this is wrong should give consent now to a measure which we voted against before and on which we have not changed.
I hope the Minister will not be too much influenced by Senator Blythe's suggestion that it would be playing havoc with political organisations if anyone was to be influenced by the speeches heard in the Oireachtas. I hope when he gets up to reply that the Minister will not deliver himself of the formula which seems to be the general pronouncement and mode of expression of every spokesman of the present Government in the Seanad: "I have listened carefully to the discussion, and I have heard nothing that in my opinion justifies any change of attitude on the part of the Government." On the contrary, I hope that the Minister will say: "I have listened carefully to the discussion, and I have been very much impressed by the arguments. I propose to ask the House to discharge this matter from its Order Paper, and to ask the Executive Council to cancel this Bill." I do not think that this House has been fairly treated in regard to this Bill. That may not be the Minister's responsibility. It will be within the recollection of the House that on the last occasion this Bill was before it the Minister's position was taken by a substitute Minister, the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. It will be recalled how utterly inadequate was the presentation of the case for the Bill by that Minister, how utterly ineffective, inconclusive and unconvincing that Minister was in replying to the comments made. It will also be recalled that on that occasion the only other Ministerial pronouncement was from the Minister for Lands, who confined himself to strictures on Trinity College. However well-founded or justified they may have been, I do not know. They were entirely irrelevant to the issues. That was the position when the Bill was before us on the last occasion, and the Minister must have been fully cognisant of the very inadequate presentation of his Bill on that occasion by a responsible Government spokesman.
I am glad that the Minister appears before us to-day. What is his performance in connection with this Bill? What was his presentation of the Bill and what was his case for it, or his defence of this measure? I looked at the clock when he began to speak, and I looked at it when he finished, and not half a minute elapsed from the beginning to the termination of his observations. I would be glad if a measure of this kind was discussed in an atmosphere away from Party bitterness. It is a measure of some importance, and one of considerable significance from various points of view. Is that the manner in which it has been treated by a responsible representative of the Government, or does it justify the support of this House? If the House has any self-respect the answer to that query will be "no." We are not yet abolished. We are still here as part of the Oireachtas, and if measures which make far-reaching and important changes in the Constitution of this State are brought before us for consideration, we are entitled to an intelligent, a reasoned and adequate exposition of such measures from the Government responsible for them. As another Senator asked, what is the real reason for introducing this Bill at the present time? I would almost share in his bewilderment if I had not come to the conclusion that it was an obsession to abolish this, that and the other thing that has taken possession of the Government. That seems to be the fundamental idea at the back of the policy of this Government, to compel some person or somebody to do something or to abolish some institution. The extent to which this idea has become epidemic with the Government is really pathetic. I would like to make a suggestion which would help them to find another field for this peculiar spirit of enterprise. I suggest to the Government that when the Minister consults with his colleagues on the Executive Council again, he should suggest the introduction of a Bill to abolish the Government as at present constituted. That would get, I think, the enthusiastic and ardent support of every section.
It would not need a Bill.
There would be a much sounder reason for that proposal than this one. Some Senator referred to the idea of levelling down. In the Dáil I think the phenomenon was described as an attempt to try to secure general uniformity. That is the idea which is in the Government's mind. It is a sort of inversion of the idea in the lines addressed by the Grand Inquisitor to the two kings in "The Gondoliers":—
"Where everyone is somebodee Then no one's anybody."
Was it the idea that nobody is anybody, that somebody is everybody, and that that somebody is the Executive Council? The idea of regimenting life, of sapping the conception of individual liberty, and that it is the function of the Executive Council to compel somebody to do something, to regiment the different elements that make up a State into so many different regulated sections under Government supervision, is fatal. I think it is retrogressive and that it saps that individual self-respect and State stability.
There are only two arguments that can be used in support of this Bill. There is the argument of hysterical, fanatical adherence to doctrinaire democracy, and there is the argument about the gain of two votes by a particular section. Analyse the case made by the Government— and I have examined it in the speeches in the Dáil Reports—in all its various aspects, and those are the only two arguments or phases of idea which can be brought to support the Government's contention in support of this Bill. The arguments against them are overwhelming in weight, in general range of ideas and in number. There seems to be an idea that if you could only assert a certain basic principle, you can stand upon an absolutely unchallengeable ground. There seems to be no conception of the idea that sometimes a principle, vital in itself, must necessarily be subordinated in order to secure ultimate general acceptance for something which is even more valuable than general acceptance of that principle. I daresay that if we were discussing, without any knowledge of the practical aspects of the matter, the production of footwear for the citizens of the State, the person in charge, having no knowledge of the different sizes of feet, might say: "It is only right that everybody should have the same size; what right has one person to have a bigger size than another?" But that principle does not hold when you come to realities.
I will take an even finer example of this obsession in respect of principle. I referred at the last meeting of the Seanad to a certain analogy there is between the Senate of the United States and the Seanad of this State. The question of subordinating a certain principle in order to secure a greater end is, I think, strongly illustrated there. In order to secure State unity within the American Union, the questions of the rights of territories, the extent and area of the different States, the comparative numbers of population and comparative wealth in no way entered into the securing of representation in that Assembly of the constituent States of the Union, but in order to secure that there would be that which was more valuable than mere numerical equality of representation, that is, a cohesion and a unity and a strength, each State, regardless of whether it is large or small, or sparsely or densely populated, was given an identical representation of two in that Assembly. If this idea that 2,000 people have no right to have the representation of 20,000 held good when composing that institution in the States, that vital principle which brought the United States into a coherent, organised and stable institution, could never have been acted on. The principle which is being argued in relation to this Bill would have triumphed, and what a great tragedy would have been enacted!
I say that we have something greater to try to secure at the present time in the Free State than this mere monotonous assertion of theoretical democracy. I urge, as a second consideration against this proposal, that University representation was demanded, endorsed and secured by the general public opinion of this State when the National University was created, and that demand was led by Archbishop Walsh. I say that before we dismiss that which was secured under the influence of that illustrious personality as something unworthy of modern democratic conception, let us have something more substantial than we have yet heard from the Minister, Senator Johnson or Senator Farren that we can off-set against the judgment of the Irish people and the pronouncement of Archbishop Walsh. I have one other argument. This is not —to use a phrase used by Senator Johnson, and if I quote him inaccurately he will correct me—an obligation imposed upon the Oireachtas. This University representation is a constitutional right inserted in the Constitution by the free and unfettered judgment of Dáil Eireann, sitting as a constituent assembly.
I had no thought in my mind of suggesting that an obligation to enact University representation was imposed from outside. What I meant to say was that the fact that it is in the Constitution imposes an obligation on successive legislatures.
I can see that subtle point of criticism, but let us understand why that assembly which constructed this Constitution embodied this guarantee of University representation. It was done—at least, this is my conception of it—in order to secure at that time that certain vital elements in this country which had been estranged from the national life as we conceive it would not be ostracised in the new dispensation, in the new order of events, but that they would be given a place within which they could make their contribution to the life of the State, and within which they could give expression to the viewpoint of that element for which they spoke.
Remember that that guarantee was inserted in the Constitution without any pressure whatever. It was the free judgment of the whole House. There was certain criticism, and I remember criticism by Senator Johnson at the time, but there was no division challenged. It was the free judgment of the unfettered Assembly considering this matter which brought about its insertion, and I say that it is unwarranted, undemocratic and unseemly for the Minister to attempt to annul that constitutional guarantee of University representation in this manner, without making any attempt to ascertain in a constitutional way whether or not this proposal of his has either the support or the endorsement of the country. He has admitted himself that this matter was never put before the country. In his speech in the Dáil on the Second Reading, he used what I think was a rather extraordinary phrase. He said: "I do not remember whether the question of University representation was specially put before the country; I do not think it was"; and then he said: "We have the right of a Government to do what it thinks proper." In other words, they have the right, as it were, to do what they damned well like. That is the essence of democracy as expounded by our present Government. I think it is not good enough.
I want to add one or two other considerations. The Minister can simply stand on the Party stilts and feel that he cannot make an exercise of his own individual judgment on this matter without upsetting the Party apple-cart, but let the Government consider —and it is a very serious thing—that you are about to abolish the Seanad, and to abolish University representation, and that no matter what you may say, you are going to extinguish, to all intents and purposes, representation in the Oireachtas of that minority which was guaranteed representation at the creation of this State. There is such a thing as taxation without representation and it is the sheer definition of slavery. You may say that you still leave that minority a vote, but you are taking the means, in your revision of constituencies, to deprive that vote of effective expression. That is not playing the game. It is using Party advantage for purposes which it should be beneath the consideration of Government to descend to. I anticipate Senator Quirke, after I have spoken, rising and repeating what the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said on the Second Reading debate, that there was no longer any necessity for that minority to have separate representation as it could now be merged in the Fine Gael Party.
The very thing I wanted to say.
I want to say this, and to say it with all intensity that nothing would please the spokesmen of Fianna Fáil or of the Government better than that the outlook or the opinion of what have come to be known as the ex-Unionists, would be associated with their opponents. I want to say with all the emphasis I can that my view on all matters national are not more, and perhaps less, flavoured with any contact or any conception of ex-Unionist ideas than those of many members of the present Government Party in this House. We are speaking for the true conception of democracy as interpreted in terms of the real life of this State, in saying that every section and every man and woman that plays the part of an honest, decent citizen, shall get effective opportunities and facilities to have their views and their outlook expressed in the deliberations of the Parliament of the nation, in order that no section can say that the laws are made without their views being considered or against their will or that laws are being made to render them silent in the face of conditions which they entirely disapprove of. I hope that matters like this will not be considered, by people who speak for the Government, flippantly, derided as small questions—they are serious ones. They are too serious to be dismissed lightly.
I think one of the arguments of the Minister in the Dáil was that no other country in the world except England has University representation. I would not consider that as an argument against University representation. I think that is one of the features we would do well to adhere to, the principle of University representation, and I do not believe that it is an answer to this question to say that University graduates can get into the Oireachtas through the medium of ordinary constituencies. I believe that the basic idea of representation of the institution is a sound one; it may be anomalous but that does not mean that it is wrong or undemocratic or unwise. I believe that to have in your Constitution a phrase which indicates that the Parliament and the Constitution have that respect and reverence for the seats of learning in the State, that it gives them a specific part in the councils of the nation, is something in which we should take pride and I believe there is no argument at all to say that it is an anachronism and that it is an anomaly which should be got rid of.
Senator Farren and Senator Johnson, I think in almost identical language, referred to this as special pleading for a privileged class. I do not think it is anything of the kind. It is pleading to the Government, if such, indeed, has any effect at all, and that they will not blunder into an unhappy situation that may have retrogressive effects. I ask what is the necessity for the urgency of this? Is it fair to the Universities? Have they been consulted? Has there been any expression of opinion which could be considered to be reliable which backs this proposal of the Government? I know that the Minister in the Dáil referred to a meeting of Convocation of the National University in 1935 which passed a resolution supporting the idea of the abolition of University representation but he did not say what proportion of the electorate of both Universities the resolution represented. Was it a majority? If not, how can he adduce that as evidence of the opinion of the University electorate who are to be affected by this Bill? I ask the Minister to follow the course suggested by Senator Blythe and suggested also, in a tentative sort of way, by Senator Johnson on a previous occasion, to let University representation be retained for another period of five or six or ten years. The effect of the withdrawal of this Bill, instead of being a loss of prestige to the Government, would enhance their prestige. I believe that at the present moment, the general body of intelligent people in the country who are not obsessed with partisan history, believe that this is a vindictive measure, that it is a reactionary measure and that it is a measure that is designed for mere Party advantage. I am not saying whether I assent to that or not but I say that persistence in the Bill will accentuate those opinions. The withdrawal of this Bill, instead of doing so, would leave an excellent impression on many minds. It would bring a realisation that the Government could rise above a situation where they seem to be delighted to snatch a small Party advantage by showing they were prepared, in the face of heavy adverse criticism, to hold their hand until there was real, sound and conclusive evidence from the interests affected that the proposal they made was considered such as could not be proceeded with and that until it could be they proposed to withhold this Bill from becoming effective. Therefore if this Bill does go to pass and if there is a proposal to defer bringing it into operation I do hope that this will not be resisted by the Government, because I believe that it would have a healthy effect on public opinion and might tend to allay some of the growing Party bitterness that we have at the present time.
Previous speakers have associated this Bill with that for the abolition of the Seanad. In voting for this Bill I do not intend to give any of the reasons that have been given by other speakers. I do not refer to them at all because to me they are minor matters when you think of the national crime committed by this Seanad over the Partition Act. In the Dáil there was a certain excuse because they had negotiated. They made an agreement the effect of which was they gave away the Six Counties. The Bill came here and what did this House of independence do? This House was composed of people over 30 years of age, an easy matter for some of us, and of people who were supposed to have shed lustre on the nation. That condition was almost as easily attained as the first. When this question of nationhood arose this House wiped its feet on the nation.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Bill before the House, Senator, deals with University representation.
But another member was allowed to deal with the Constitution of the United States. What relation has that to University representation?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
That was on the question whether representation should depend on suffrage. I think Senator Milroy was well within his rights in referring to the Constitution of the Senate of the United States. It would be for somebody else to answer him and show his arguments are not sound, but I think in dealing with University representation we ought not to go into the question as to whether the Seanad itself should be abolished.
I only referred to what I consider was a national crime. I consider it so still, and it is well that it should not be forgotten. There are people here who cleared their consciences in voting against partition. There are some of them here to-day. I think it was a national crime, and, though I may not be in order in referring to it, I want to say that out of a House of nearly 60 people only seven were found to vote against it. I think that the national feeling of the people should have abolished this House then without leaving it to any Government to say "Your time has come." That is my opinion still. The cry of the time was not to vote against the Partition Act, but to accept it, as it would be very good for the unity of the nation. The same cry goes around to-day: "Don't abolish the Seanad, because it is against the unity of the nation." I think, in face of the Partition Act, we can look back with pride on the vote of seven, and those who will be here in another House will realise that the abolition of this House will not prevent the ultimate unity of Ireland.
As the representative of practically every Party in the House has spoken, I suppose it will not be out of place if I say a few words on behalf of the Party I represent. The debate started this evening by Senator Bagwell telling us that the more educated you are the more broadened in outlook you become. I take a very different view from Senator Bagwell in that. In going through life, and I claim to have some little experience, I have always found that the more educated you were outside your own job, you lived in a groove—a kind of glasshouse. In my experience I have always found solid advice and common sense coming from the plain man whose mind is not clogged up with nonsensical ideas of his own importance, and has a firmer grasp of things in general, a greater vision in dealing with men, and a clearer outlook in the management of worldly affairs.
Senator Jameson—I regret that he has left the House and in passing I may say that we were all glad to see him back amongst us again—would lead us to believe, in the speech that he made, that the late Arthur Griffith had given many promises to the minority. That may be, and I am sure Senator Jameson is right in his statement, but, speaking from memory, I remember that the late Arthur Griffith, after accepting the Treaty, made a speech in which he said that the provisions in the Treaty would be open to revision at the end of ten years. Senator Miss Browne, as usual, came along with her speech and, of course, she would not be happy—I hope I am interpreting her attitude correctly—if she did not drag in the saying that this was interfering with the rights of the minority. Senator Blythe taunted my esteemed friend Senator Farren with using catch-cries. Well, I am a long time listening to speeches, and I never heard so many catch-cries used in a speech in my whole life as I heard in the speech that Senator Blythe made. He even went the length of telling us in his catch-cries that when the next Government comes along, assuming that his Party is elected, they will sweep away all the badness that has been carried out by the present Government. Then my friend Senator Milroy —I am sorry that he also has left the House—made a peculiar speech. If I may say so, it was not, in my opinion, up to his usual standard of punch and go. The thought ran through my mind when my friend was speaking that now that the Seanad is about to be abolished that, perhaps, Senator Milroy might be in the running, or have it in his head, to be appointed the professor in one of the Universities on moral obligations.
If this Bill was discussed on its merits as to whether Trinity College, Dublin, and the National University of Ireland were entitled to retain this special parliamentary franchise privilege, one could deal with the situation more easily. But no. As we went along the usual smoke screens were thrown up to cloud the issue in the Bill. We were told by Senator Miss Browne—the statement had previously been made frequently in the Dáil— that this was a Bill to interfere with the rights of the minority. It is an extraordinary fact, which I have noticed, that when the present Government introduces an Act of progressive legislation, the same mournful cry goes up—that it interferes with the rights of the minority. Has not the humblest peasant living in his isolated home in the wilds of Connemara not the same God-given rights, and is he not entitled to equal protection and equal justice from the Government of his country with those having large banking accounts and living in gilded homes?
Has he not got them?
I see that the Senator is bubbling over to say something, but he will have his opportunity later. I wish to refer to another argument that has been used against this Bill, not so much in this House as in the Dáil where I sat out the debate. I heard it used there extensively. The argument was this, that this Bill will make partition more acute. In my opinion nothing will make partition more acute that the insistent, insidious hintings which have gone on in both the Seanad and Dáil as to interfering with the rights of the minority. It is propaganda of that kind, magnified in the Press before it reaches the Six Counties, which naturally causes annoyance and uneasiness in the minds of those people—the poison-gas let out here against our own people. I am compelled to say this: are there any people in the whole world more free from intolerance, bitterness, or bigotry against those holding high positions—whatever their creed, breed or class—than the people in the Irish Free State? I consider it is unfair and an insult to the people of the Irish Free State as a whole to be constantly using this argument about interference with the rights of the minority.
I would like to quote for the House the patriotic, Christian and manly statement reported in the newspapers this morning made yesterday by the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, Most Reverend Dr. Gregg. He is reported to have said:—
"That there have been many changes during the 15 years that he had held office, but perhaps the greatest had been the change of Government. It was the Government of the United Kingdom which established this particular situation. It was, therefore, a duty of loyalty to reconcile themselves to the position. We are a very strong element in Dublin, he continued, and I am sure I am very much concerned that we should allow ourselves to think of ourselves or encourage others to think of us as an alien minority. We belong to this country. It is for us to take our part in the work of the country and not to be regarded as a small class which must be treated differently to anybody else. There is a tendency towards defeatism which is exactly what we have got to fight against. I have heard people saying: ‘I might as well get out of this country.' Why not stay in it and make the best of it? He found some people saying that they did not want their children to grow up here, but if people live in this country did they not owe a duty to it? Here they were and here let them stay, for everybody must feel that there was a real hopefulness about the atmosphere at the present moment."
I think that is a patriotic, a Christian and, as I have said, a manly statement, a statement that it would be well for some of those people, even in the Dáil and Seanad, who at every hand's turn say that we are interfering with the rights of the minority, to ponder over. People throughout the world reading many of the speeches made here to-day would be led to believe that this Bill was directed solely and entirely against Trinity College, Dublin, without any advertence to the fact that it affects to a far greater degree—and will more and more as the years go by—the National University of Ireland.
The one bright feature which I noticed in the debate to-day was that all sides joined in paying tribute to the asset which educationists are to the country. There is no doubt, if I may so put it, that educationists are a necessary wheel in the machinery which drives the affairs of this country, but I am not to be taken as admitting for a moment that Trinity College, or the National University, do anything for education which entitles them to a special Parliamentary franchise. As Senator Farren remarked, I would ask the Seanad to remember that it is not every father or mother who can afford to send their sons or daughters either to Trinity College or the National University. Are there not many teaching establishments scattered throughout the country which are doing the spade work in building up a sound and solid foundation of education for the youth of the country? If there is going to be any special franchise for those engaged in educational work, are not these establishments as well entitled to have a special Parliamentary franchise as either Trinity College or the National University? If my friend Senator Counihan were here, I am sure he would be bubbling over to ask the Seanad why the Cattle trade should not have a special Parliamentary franchise. I imagine that others would make a similar claim for the Chamber of Commerce, the Royal Dublin Society and other institutions.
I congratulate the Minister on his wisdom—it will prevent all jealousies— in proposing to do away with special Parliamentary franchises altogether, and in seeing that all Parliamentary voters in this country will jump from the one take-off. It has been stated that we do not mind so much about numbers. That is a rather novel suggestion to have made. Whether in peace or in war, whether we go to football matches or elsewhere, we find that great importance is attached to numbers. I find that on the special Parliamentary franchise for Trinity College there are 3,260 voters returning three Deputies to the Dáil, one Deputy to 1,087 voters. The National University has 4,655 voters, returning three Deputies also, or one Deputy to 1,552 voters. The combined voting capacity of the two Universities is 7,915, returning six Deputies, or one Deputy to 1,319 voters. Many of those voters I know myself are scattered all over the world and never vote at all. I have taken at random a number of different constituencies throughout the country, but, naturally, being a Dublin man, I took Dublin first. I find that the number of voters in the North and South parts of Dublin City is, approximately, 200,000. There are, approximately, 200,000 voters returning 15 Deputies, which works out at one Deputy to 13,333. Is it not an anomaly of a high class kind to have 13,333 voters with one Deputy when, in Trinity College, we have one Deputy to 1,086 voters? If for no other reason than fair play for the ordinary constituencies throughout the country, I consider that this special Parliamentary franchise for Trinity College and the National University should be done away with. As poetry has become somewhat fashionable in the Seanad, I shall, perhaps, be pardoned if I offer a little quotation. I am sure it will appear hackneyed to a great many Senators, but it strikes with equal force the high and the low, the educated and those who have not had the opportunities of education, the learned person as well as the poor lad, whose only claim was that he went a few times to a night school.
"Honour and shame from no condition rise,
Act well your part,
There all the honour lies."
I listened to the advocates of University representation and I must say that, if I were one of the people who were expected to benefit by the privilege, I should not be very grateful to some of the advocates. I shall try to give the reasons why. Senator Bagwell, who initiated the discussion, seemed to regard the mass of the Irish people as on the coolie level. He talked about ignorance and humbug. I want to assure Senator Bagwell that the people of this country are as competent to judge their representatives as any University graduate. I was not trained in a University but I passed through a much more important school. I believe I have had an education in this school which it would not be possible to equal in any University. Senator Jameson followed Senator Bagwell, and as one of those who belong to the Party who enjoy monopoly and privilege in this country, I do not think he was quite happy in the case he made for University representation. He quoted Arthur Griffith of 13 years ago to support his case. I might be permitted to quote another great parliamentarian and patriot, who said that no man should set bounds to the march of a nation. The Senator quoted Arthur Griffith of 13 years ago as if things were standing still and as if the people who came since were to make no changes. We are making changes, and changes in the right direction, in my opinion.
Senator Milroy abused the Minister for not occupying a lot of time talking about nothing, like himself. The Minister very wisely came to the conclusion that this is an intelligent body and that it required no argument to convince it that the time of privilege for Universities or any other institutions had passed. Consequently, he did not occupy the time of the House. Senator Milroy took the opportunity to occupy and bewilder the House for a very long time, dealing chiefly in political propaganda—a thing which should be foreign to this House. Senator Blythe followed in pretty much the same strain, using the opportunity to make political propaganda. Now I come to what I believe is the real position regarding University representation. As we know it in this country, it is political representation duplicated. We have proportional representation and I can see no reason why there should be special representation for any section of the community. It was argued that four anti-Government representatives were sent from the Unversities and two proGovernment representatives. That was definitely stated, and there is the case for the abolition of University representation without another word from me. To support that, during the régime of the previous Government, there was a fairly brilliant University representative in the Dáil. He happened to be an independent-minded individual and he refused to obey the Party Whip. He was ostracised. I refer to Professor Magennis. That proves conclusively that University representation in this country means dual political representation.
There is another and, to my mind, more serious aspect of this question. It will be within the memory of members of this House that, on one occasion, the fate of the Government depended on the vote of one individual. That could occur again and, ultimately, we might find ourselves in a position in which the Universities could dictate who would or would not be the Government. Because of our system of proportional representation, no Party can obtain a sweeping or large majority. Therefore, we must be very careful regarding the privileged representation for any section. I think I have said sufficient to show that University representation in this country simply means privileged and dual political representation.
We have heard nothing from Senators on the opposite benches that would justify the Government in changing the attitude that they have taken up on this Bill. It seems to me that there is only one strong line that could be taken in order to justify the maintenance of the University vote. Senator Jameson made a very strong plea for the minority vote for the class he represents. He was perfectly justified in doing so. I have not the slightest doubt that no one would give more sympathetic consideration to Senator Jameson's point of view than the Minister. On the other hand, we had Senator Milroy speaking for another political Party. His line of argument was exactly the same, that there was a minority and that the few seats represented by Trinity College should not be abolished, ignoring the fact that the National University has seats also. I consider that to be a very poor form of argument, and it shows that the Senator had very poor confidence in the case he was advocating when he had to fall back upon the few seats in Trinity College. My point of view is this: Why should Trinity College have three seats? Why should not Galway University, amidst the homes of the Irish-speaking people, not have three seats? Galway University will be a greater force as time goes on if the principle of University representation is admitted. It seems to me that the whole defence made here is to ask the Government to continue to give a gesture of goodwill to the minority. We have had self-government for some years, and this minority that everybody seems to think so much about had a very good time under the previous Government. They gave them loyal support in every possible way, including the division lobbies. With the change of Government, their status or security was not interfered with by one iota. Since there has been a change of Government the minority representatives have been even more loyal to the Party that was turned down by the people, in order to try to hold their strength until such time as they could possibly be brought back to power. I do not know why that should be.
One thing is certain, they are far from being the independent sort of people that they make themselves out to be. Everyone would like to believe that they are independent. I am judging them by their actions. Lip service is no good to anyone. It is only hypocritical. Since the present Government came into office there was a certain amount of disorder in the country, and in Belfast City we had the majority there blackguardly using force in order to abuse and to override the minority. In one or two isolated cases you had people amongst the majority here repeating Belfast hooliganism. What happened in this House? We had the Minister for Finance openly denouncing that, and calling the people who went in for that sort of tactics hooligans. Was not that an honest, open-hearted gesture towards the minority here? No respect was paid to it in Belfast. We are asked to give further gestures. I think I am as open minded a man as anyone amongst the Nationalist element, I do not care amongst which Party. We have been continually making gestures of goodwill. The time has come when we cannot make further gestures unless they are reciprocated. In 1914 Mr. John Redmond, when leader of the Irish Party in the House of Commons, gave a gesture on behalf of Irishmen and we were told that we would be given Home Rule. There, again, it was only lip service. Irishmen went out and fought in the Great War believing that they were fighting for the good of their own country. Some of these men, now known as ex-service men, when they came back and found the Black and Tan hooligans let loose, joined the I.R.A. in order to help their own people. What have we got in return for all the gestures that we made? I respectfully submit that the time has come when a gesture in practical form is necessary from the minority here.
A motion has been tabled in the Dáil by one of the Trinity College representatives and Deputy MacDermot asking the Dáil to give a gesture as to what has been done about partition. Would it not be well for the minority to take counsel with their Belfast brethren? They might not be able to find Lord Craigavon, as he will probably be on a cruise in the Mediterranean, but they could find someone to advise them as to what was best in their own interests. In a 32-county election on proportional representation they would probably find themselves in a much stronger position than if they had a few votes in Trinity College. Owing to the two big parties in the national interest fighting for supremacy they would probably hold the balance of power in the Dáil. Would not that be a much better position for the minority as it is known? As a result of such an election they might hold the balance of power. I am sure if they did that they would be much wiser than by taking the word as John Redmond took it in the House of Commons in 1914. In my opinion that form of gesture is absolutely necessary. For my part the time has now arrived for more honest and genuine service from the minority than we have got up to the present. The Government is not taking steps to abolish University representation merely because Trinity College has three seats. Their action is essentially based on the sound democratic principle that there is a popular House which is elected by the votes of the people. The three seats in Trinity College or the three seats in the National University are not going to materially affect the position one way or another. Graduates in the universities will be voters, just the same as the rest of the people for the Dáil.
There is no reason why any one man should have any privileged vote any more than anyone else in electing the popular House. I remember when the suffragettes were looking for votes it was prophesied that if young people got votes all sorts of things would happen. None of these awful things have happened, because the more responsibility is placed on the people as a whole, the more seriously will they take their responsibilities. They may make mistakes once but, as a rule, they never repeat them. Consequently I am in favour of the Bill. Taking University voters as such I believe that if it was put to a free vote, as to whether they wanted to be a privileged class or not, they would not vote for such a privilege. I believe the Government is doing what is perfectly right in this Bill, and that it will ultimately be proved to be best in the interest of Universities.
If the attendance on the Opposition Benches is any indication of the mentality in the country with regard to this measure then I think it is only reasonable to assume that there is about as much excitement about the abolition of University representation as there was about the abolition of the Seanad. One speaker after another asked: "Why is this Bill being brought up?" Various suggestions were made and various things hinted at but, if I were to try to deal with that, the best way would be to quote a statement made by one of the greatest men of his time—Abraham Lincoln—which was repeated here on another motion by a man who was not as great, perhaps —Senator Milroy. "Because we want here in this country government of the people, for the people and by the people." Listening to the various speakers from the Opposition one would imagine that, as a result of this Bill, it would no longer be possible for any graduate of a University to become a member of the Parliament of this country. Needless to say, that is by no means the case. In fact, if anything, I believe that as a result of this measure the graduates of the Universities will be pushed out where they have a right to be pushed out and will be sent where they have a right to be sent—down amongst the people whom they claim to represent at present.
We had rather a mixed speech from Senator Bagwell. For obvious reasons, I missed some of his statements, but I distinctly heard him talk about democracy and I think he indicated that the action of the Government in introducing this measure was undemocratic. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into that argument or to contradict such a statement as that coming from Senator Bagwell.
I think I am being misrepresented by the speaker. I do not think I ever did say that the action of the Government in introducing this measure was undemocratic. If I did make such a statement, I certainly do not attach any very great importance to it.
Neither do I. I should be very sorry to misrepresent my friend and neighbour, Senator Bagwell, and I accept his explanation, but I am quite certain and definite that Senator Bagwell painted for us a picture of the University graduate, and indicated to us that University graduates were looked on by the general run of people as men of superior brains, superior ability and superior independence. If there are such simple folk in the country who would set on a pedestal, or on a row of pedestals, the University graduates who have found their way into this or into the other Chamber, I think that if they came to this or the other House and listened to the debate on this measure, on the measure for the abolition of the Seanad, or on any other important measure, for that matter, they would readily conclude that their gods had feet of clay.
The question of their independence has been ably dealt with by various speakers. They never made a mistake. The Independent members of this and of the other House, the so-called Independent members, have regularly and religiously answered to the crack of the whip of the Opposition; consistently, they voted against the Government on every measure. If they had that superior intelligence, those superior brains and that superior judgment we hear so much about, we must only conclude that the Government was always wrong and that the overwhelming majority of the people of this country who elected that Government were imbeciles and fools. Is that the argument of the Opposition? Is that the mentality of these super-beings we have heard so much about?
I felt sorry for Senator Counihan when he was displaying his inferiority complex and when he said that those people, referring to University representatives, have advantages which we have not. It is too bad that a man like Senator Counihan would not examine the situation from both sides. If he did, I think he would come to the conclusion that he or any man like him, who had learned his lesson at every crossroad, and in every town and village in Ireland, has very definitely advantages which the cage-bird from any University has not got, and never would get if he stayed in the University. I do not by any means want to suggest that letters or degrees are any impediment to a man in this world, whether his life be a political or any other kind of life. On the contrary I say that the experience he would get, if he were pushed out to seek a seat amongst the people in the backward districts of the country they would show him that they were not quite so backward as he thought they were, and not quite so backward as he is led to believe by the spokesmen of the Opposition against this measure to-day and on previous occasions.
"People of superior brains, superior education, and infinitely superior judgment"—but if we go back on the records of the various elections, and particularly the records of the election of 1932, we find that in the votes cast by the people who voted as graduates of Universities there were a greater number of spoiled votes proportionately greater than was to be found in the most backward districts in Ireland amongst the ordinary voters. It does not require any great brains or education to vote in a proper manner and to fill up a ballot paper, and it is a terrible state of affairs that while we can scarcely accuse the people who voted on the University ticket of not having sufficient education to read the names, we definitely can accuse them of not having sufficient interest in the affairs of this nation to fill up a ballot paper properly, as did the people in the most backward districts of the country. It was interesting to hear coupled with the abolition of the Seanad the abolition of University representation. We were told by various speakers that this Bill was just another attempt to do away with the rights of minority in this country. We had the same old arguments trotted out, and, in fact, the same speeches repeated as were delivered when the abolition of the Seanad was before the House.
And the Oath.
Is it not a fact that we have had statements from responsible representatives of that minority in this House that there was no necessity for regulations as to the protection of that minority and that they had nothing to fear from the majority in this country? This Bill is no more an attempt to do away with representation for that minority than was the abolition of the Seanad. The fact is that that minority in the past has always got a fair crack of the whip. They will get a fair crack of the whip in future and they are entitled to no more. They have no right to claim privilege because of their position. Various regulations were made at the time of the Treaty, as Senator Jameson has pointed out, and various points were perhaps given way to to satisfy the anxiety of the minority representatives at that time, but the very people who now stand up and howl about the withdrawal of what they call minority rights are the very people who stood over the abolition of the Referendum. I believe there is no necessity whatever to put up any further arguments. I believe there is sufficient intelligence left in this House to feel sure that the House will not oppose the Second Reading of this measure. I believe Senator Milroy covered the whole argument when he said, or rather anticipated what I would have to say, "Because there is no longer any need for this method of minority representation."
Whatever one may think about the matter contained in the arguments of the last two speakers, they were a great relief after the speech of Senator O'Neill. The tear in his voice was rather depressing. Senator Quirke seems to believe what he says. He speaks with conviction and apparent sincerity, but we have come to this apparently that, from his point of view, the abolition of University representation in the Dáil is in part due to the fact that a higher percentage of the graduates in the last election failed to mark their papers in a manner other than what might be styled illiterate than did any proportion of the electors in any rural district in the country. I think that when the University graduates throughout the country read the speeches made here to-day, and when thoughtful people study what members of this House consider is the value of education, the Education Estimate will have to be considerably revised and decreased in amount when it comes to be passed in the Dáil next time.
It occurs to me that people are not able to discriminate between intelligence and education, and it is true that quite a number of people who have been only fortunate enough to see Universities from the outside were blessed by the Creator with a considerable amount of natural intelligence, but it is also true that the people who were fortunate enough to see the inside of a University in this country have, not only in the past but in our day, made very considerable contribution to the building up of thought, culture and civilisation in this State as it stands. The people of Ireland are great in their demonstrations to their dead, and when leaders are gone from amongst us, we frequently feel it incumbent upon us to raise lasting memorials to their memories, and I suppose that when Universities, as constituencies for Parliamentary purposes, cease to exist in this State, some people will consider it their duty to raise monuments to what the Universities have done in the political and social life of the State in their day. A great deal has been said about the question of privilege—the privilege which graduates have enjoyed in being able to vote through their Universities' representatives in Dáil Eireann. It is very difficult to see that it was a very great privilege. To me it seems to be that the University conferred the privilege, because they sent into an Assembly people who could never have gone there except through the votes of graduates. If there should ever be any consideration as to what privilege ought to be conferred for services rendered, I think it should be recognised that the contribution which the National University made, not only before this State was established, but away back in the times when it was educating the young men and women of this country into the principles of Irish nationalism—spreading the light to the young boys and young girls up from the country, who grew to manhood and womanhood, and who led the people of this country through most trying and difficult years, that alone would have justified the Assembly granting a Charter for University representation that could not be taken from it except by the practically unanimous vote of the elected representatives of the country.
Indeed, were it not for the fact that the National University had come into existence and had trained the brains and minds of the youth to think politically, socially and economically, the history of this State in its infancy would be very different from what it is to-day, because not only did the young men from the Universities make their contribution to the political customs and outlook which have been built up here, but they went into every branch of the Civil Service, doing a good deal to make the Civil Service what it is to-day, to have earned the tributes paid to it by every Minister of the present Government as well as by their predecessors. It may be argued, it might be argued, that there are too many, in proportion to the people on the register, representing the Universities, but to sweep away the right they have enjoyed on the kind of argument made by Senator Quirke, is not sufficient for the thoughtful people of this country. It is a rash and unwise statement and probably, like others, there will be time and cause for repentance.
I think Senator Quirke himself made the argument yesterday that if University graduates went down the country to the rural constituencies they would find the people there knowing much more than they, the University graduates, think they know.
On a point of explanation, I am afraid that Senator Baxter was not listening to what I said. I said that when they went down the country they would find that the people in the more backward areas were far more intelligent than they were led to believe by people speaking for the Opposition in this House.
I accept the Senator's explanation and I hope that it is not the feeling of the Government's supporters in this House that the Opposition here want to convey the impression that the people down the country are not intelligent. I do not think anyone said that. They are much more intelligent now than they were three years ago. In fact their wisdom is growing day by day and not year by year.
They were at the peak of their intelligence when they elected Fianna Fáil.
I think they are getting wiser now and if they had a chance to-morrow there might be a change. In fact, we probably have this Bill because Fianna Fáil fear there will be a change at the next election and that there will be such a balance that the few representatives of the Universities will decide the issue.
You are an optimist.
Issues have been decided on one vote, and if you take the situation when certain of the people's representatives met before the election of President de Valera, if the Labour Party had decided to go the other way, the Government Party would not be the Government Party to-day, but would be in opposition.
Undoubtedly there might be a case to argue that the number of people representing the Universities might be fewer, but it is unfortunately the policy, as Senator Milroy said, of sweeping away, instead of building up, which is being pursued. It is not a wise policy, and taking the long view, that will be the experience in the end. I believe myself that the National University's work and that of its graduates has been of such a character that if there is a question of privilege at all, it is entitled to it, and Senator Foran, in speaking of the question of privilege, pointed out that when the children of the poor, through scholarships, got an opportunity of showing what was in them, they indicated that they had an intelligence of a very high order. You might have taken that as indicating that some children of the poor, as well as members of the better class, cast their votes in these elections, a very high proportion of them would be University graduates who are children of the poor. Indeed, who are the rich in this State? One might add that their numbers will not be greater to-morrow.
Trinity College has been referred to. I hold no brief for Trinity. I have seen it from the outside, but I urge this consideration: It seems to me that, when you abolish University representation in the Dáil, you have created a situation where it is practically impossible for the people who are in the minority to make any contribution to the political thought or development of the State. I want to be quite frank about it. Let us look back on the history of these people. They stood for the British Government and for the Act of Union. They were brought up in a particular system of education and, though they could have gone away, they stayed here when the Treaty came, and it will not be denied that they have made considerable and valuable contributions to the nation. I respect the people who make their contribution but I have no use for those others who stand aloof. I believe they are doing themselves and their section of the community no good by such petty trifles as turning their backs or remaining in their seats when the National Anthem is played in a theatre. Trifles like that weigh with our people and breed resentment, and the leaders of thought of that group ought to point these things out.
It seems to me that while Senator Quirke may say that the minority will find a place in Fine Gael, he knows that many of these people by their upbringing find it as difficult to associate themselves with Fine Gael as with Fianna Fáil. It is almost unnatural for those people to so cut themselves from the past as to come in. Let us be quite frank. Suppose you see them going into Fianna Fáil, as some indeed have gone, what would you ask? Some of them have made very complimentary references to your Government and are aiding the new industrial policy, and quite right, but would not Senator Quirke ask himself what is the cause of this? Let the truth be spoken. There are people in the other organisation who would ask the same thing. These people know that quite well, but they have not cut themselves so much away as to enable them to change their whole life and outlook overnight.
Fourteen years—how long do you expect it to last?
It is something that will change very slowly. I know a good number of these people externally, and I think it must come by slow degrees. It would be unnatural if it came otherwise and many of us would be suspicious and doubtful of the sincerity of it. You must permit development to proceed along natural lines. Let them make their contribution through channels which ought to be kept open to them for another period. You might shorten the period. Young boys and girls will grow up, a number of them living under different conditions from those which obtained for their fathers before them, but I believe that by this act which you are taking now you will prevent that and prevent those people from making their contribution in the only kind of way that they can make it. If they try to make it in another way it will seem unreal and it will not represent themselves. The contribution may not be very great but it will be of value. My view is that the road ought to be left open to enable them to make that contribution.
I agree with Senator Quirke that they need have no more fears as to their lives and property than I. The State is fairly, justly and rightly so, protecting the lives and property of the citizens, but mind you, though you can get certain protection for life and property, a man wants something more. From the point of view of the Government, they are taking a step which it would be better not to have taken. I am wondering whether it would not work out in accordance with the anticipation. My view is that, generally speaking, University graduates have not concerned themselves with the constituencies in which they resided. As they were on the University register they did not bother about local conditions. A great many of them are bound to be profoundly dissatisfied with this decision of the Government and, as in the past, profoundly dissatisfied men carried the torch over hill and dale and drove your predecessors from office, these University graduates who were your supporters, may go out leading a way which the people will follow to pay you back for the injustice you have done to them.
That is the proper way.
The Minister to conclude the debate.
We have had a very interesting discussion. The subject raised more fire, especially in the later stages of the debate, than I had thought possible. The subject is one that has been very much in the minds of some people—it has been hammered out and worn out almost—in the last couple of years. Various discussions on it have taken place in this and the other House. I listened with attention to the debate all through. I heard many arguments pro and con. I was certainly interested to hear the views of some of those who feel strongly on this measure and are strongly opposed to the Government's proposal. But all the arguments against it, despite all the talk there was about it, may be regarded under three or four headings. One set of arguments would suggest that this was a Bill, if not to do away with education, at any rate that it was opposed to education and the interests of education in the country. Another set of arguments, mainly political, was that this was a retrograde step to take; that it was a step in the dark, one that would be likely to be hurtful to the State and that it was anti-democratic. A number of Senators used the argument that what the Bill proposes to do was against the interests of the minority. I suppose they were referring principally to the religious minority here. In that connection they suggested that it was a breach of a promise made by Arthur Griffith and Mr. Kevin O'Higgins some time in the early days of the foundation of Saorstát Eireann.
I propose to deal with those arguments briefly. I cannot for the life of me see how anybody can maintain that it makes any difference to education in the country, taking education as embracing all aspects of education, whether the National University and the University of Dublin have representatives in the Oireachtas or not. In the comparatively short history of the Saorstát, there have been, I may say, many distinguished educationists, distinguished graduates of the two Universities, in both Houses. If the numbers were examined, I think it would be found that most of those who played a prominent part either in this House or in the Dáil, and particularly those who were in responsible positions as members of the Government, were not returned by the Universities. They were people who were sent in from the constituencies. There have been a number of University graduates in each Government. There were several in the last Government and there are some in the present Government. In the last Government, particularly in its later period, there was only one member—Deputy McGilligan —who was returned from a University constituency. There may be people to doubt it, but I at any rate believe that with the backing of his Party, which is fundamental, of course, to secure the election of anybody to either Assembly, Deputy McGilligan could get a seat in a great many constituencies in the country if he cared for it. If his Party backed him, he would not be long without a seat if University representation ended to-morrow.
Some Senator said here to-day, and said truthfully, to my mind—I had used the argument myself on a previous occasion when discussing this matter— that it is not because of their distinction in education, it is not because of their University degrees or because of any particular views they may hold on education, that any of these people have been sent into either House, but rather because of the Party label, and for other reason. That applies with equal truth to the University of Dublin and to the National University with which I am more familiar. The distinguished gentlemen, against whom I have not a word to say, who represent the University of Dublin in Dáil Eireann were selected and sent in there because of their politics. If they had my politics at any time since Dáil Eireann was founded, I think they would have a small chance of being sent into it to represent the University of Dublin. They were sent there not because they happened to be very distinguished graduates——
Is that why they are not going to be permitted to come back?
There is nobody going to stop them coming back because of their distinction in education. That will assist them. That has been my experience in life. It is untrue, as Deputy McGilligan said in Dáil Eireann, to say that all that is necessary to get a man elected in a constituency is a fog-horn voice. I know that we had an example here to-day of what a fog-horn voice can be. I know it is important. There is a familiar ring about Senator Milroy's voice to me. I often stood on platforms with him and was very glad indeed then to hear the fog-horn voice. I think that he had a little more of the fog-horn voice in those days, but it is a long time ago. I think that nearly all that is left to him now is his fog-horn voice. His arguments seem to have gone with the years and the months. At any rate, something more is required—I speak irrespective of Party altogether. Look around at this House and the other House and see the types of gentlemen and ladies who have been elected. If you do you will find that, though they may possess some share of the fog-horn voice that is so essential, according to the argument of Deputy McGilligan, they had other attributes, and, above all, they happened to have the backing of their Party. Their Party would not have put them forward, generally speaking —whatever Party it was, whether my own Party, the Fine Gael Party, or the Labour Party—if they had not some personality or a representative capacity of some kind. If they had not some attribute or ability they would not have been selected. It was not because they were distinguished educationists or distinguished graduates that any of them were selected by the Universities. I would point out that even in the case of the Universities there is no obligation on them to select graduates. If they wished they could select non-graduates. Senator Counihan might be selected by the National University, although I do not think that he would have much of a chance, any greater chance than I would have myself of getting in for the University of Dublin.
He might be selected for the Agricultural College at Glasnevin.
There is an important faculty of agriculture there, and we all know what a distinguished agriculturist Senator Counihan is. We are all glad that he has done so well out of agriculture. There is no reason in the world why, if they felt he would represent their view, they should not send an agriculturist to the Dáil. They are not bound by regulation or rule to send a graduate of their University to the Dáil. Therefore, it is clear that the step we propose is not in any way opposed to education. The most distinguished educationists who were at any time members of Dáil Eireann—speaking of the National University, at any rate—were selected and elected by the people and not by the Universities. The first name that occurs to me is that of Professor Eoin MacNeill. I remember speaking for him during the campaign for the first Dáil when he was returned by the City of Derry. I mentioned the other day that a graduate of distinction of Oxford University, in the person of Deputy Frank MacDermot, had been elected by almost as rural a constituency as we have—Roscommon. I could give a dozen other examples. These gentlemen had the advantage of the Party ticket and the same applies to the Dublin University. The candidates are selected by Parties or caucuses inside the University who put them in. I imagine that an independent educationist would have very little chance of success in either the National University or the University of Dublin. It was suggested that this was a retrograde step. I feel, like some of those who spoke from the Labour side, that, on the contrary, it is, politically speaking, a progressive step. It was a retrograde step in the theory of democracy to insert a provision in the Constitution enabling the Universities to have privileged representation. It may not be a deciding factor but it is an argument of some weight that no other legislative assembly of the democratic type that ours is, with the exception of the British Parliament, has special representation for Universities. In the new Parliaments, brought into existence in our time, you will not find any such privilege for a class. In no Parliament in Europe, Asia or America, with the exception I have mentioned, is a privilege of this kind given.
In doing what we are doing, we are keeping in step with the most progressive democratic Parliaments of the world. Two arguments would weigh strongly with me. I referred to one of them when speaking in Dáil Eireann last week. If I thought there was great weight in the argument, I should certainly make representations to my colleagues of the Executive Council. As Senators know, I should not have the power, of my own volition, to withdraw this Bill. A Minister coming forward to introduce or discuss a Bill has behind him the mandate of his colleagues of the Executive and he could not withdraw the Bill without their consent. The argument I refer to is: the utility of preserving University representation because of the influence it might have on the subject of the unity of Ireland. I do not believe that there is any weight in that argument. If I thought there was, it would certainly make me hesitate. There has been no evidence of any kind that those who are voters in the two Universities have at any time since they got this privileged representation taken any account of the value it might be to them in helping, if they wished, to restore the unity of Ireland. I cannot see that there is any value in that argument.
Another argument was used by a greater number of Senators and developed at greater length. That was that this was a blow against the minority. If I thought that that were true, it would weigh with me. I was brought up in Sinn Féin. Probably there was not, with the possible exception of Alderman Tom Kelly, anybody more intimate with Arthur Griffith than I was. I worked with him, day in and day out, for years in the same office. Senator Mrs. Wyse Power was, I know, a very intimate friend of Arthur Griffith for as long a period as, or perhaps longer than, I was. But I worked with him for a number of years in close intimacy and I know that there was not a scintilla of bigotry in that man's soul, and no better Irishman ever lived than Arthur Griffith. I was brought up in that atmosphere of Sinn Féin and Irish Ireland. The principles of those movements were laid down for us by Tone and Davis and, later, in other aspects, by Douglas Hyde. Brought up in that atmosphere, I, certainly, would not have in me anything in the nature of religious bigotry, and I do not think I have. If I could do anything to put aside the political differences that do exist and the fears and anxieties which are in the minds of the politico-religious minority I should be very happy, indeed, to do it. I should be very happy to achieve anything in that direction as an individual and, especially, as I happen, for the time being at any rate, to be in a responsible position, as a member of the Government. Anything I could do in that direction would be done with very great happiness, but I do not believe we are doing the minority any harm in making this change in the Constitution. On the contrary, it is my belief that this is a step that will bring closer and closer still the politico-religious minority and the general mass of our people. That is the way I imagine it working out. This kind of privilege, given for a specific purpose—to enable the minority to feel that they have a bit of extra protection—if it can be regarded as protection—only tends to keep alive fears that ought not to be there. That is my belief. In that connection, I was interested to read, as my friend Senator Larry O'Neill also mentioned, the speech of Dr. Gregg, Archbishop of Dublin. Portion of that speech was quoted by Senator O'Neill, but the words will bear repetition. The Archbishop said:—
"I am very much concerned that we should allow ourselves to think of ourselves or encourage others to think of us as an alien minority. We belong to this country. It is for us to take our part in the work of the country and not to be regarded as a small class which must be treated differently to everybody else."
These are very important words from a responsible and important source.
"It is our business to amalgamate ourselves with the country, to take our part in its life and make others think of us, not as a separate body but as belonging to the integral life of the country."
It may not be apparent now but the step we are taking will, I think, be in the direction that Archbishop Gregg desires. The Irish Times, in commenting to-day on that remarkable speech by Dr. Gregg, stated:
"That minority did many great things for Ireland in the past, although it is not fashionable to remember them now and it represents one of the channels which, together, form the stream of modern Irish life."
I think the Irish Times is wrong in saying that what that minority did for Ireland—speaking politically—is not remembered. Those with whom I have associated, those who grew up in the political movement in which I was— some of them are here now and are on different sides—always remembered and honoured the names of those of the religious minority who stood out and joined with the people. Some of them led the movement which resulted in the foundation of the Oireachtas. It is not true that the names of Wolfe Tone, John Mitchel, Robert Emmet, John Martin, Smith-O'Brien, Thomas Davis, Charles Stewart Parnell and Douglas Hyde are forgotten. They are remembered and, I feel happy to say, remembered with pride——
What of Yeats and Russell and a few others?
I am speaking only of those in the political sphere. If we went into the intellectual sphere, we should find many men who are an honour, not alone to Ireland, but to the minority from which they sprang. Somebody in the Dáil the other day —I think it was my namesake— referred to John Kells Ingram and his magnificent ballad, "Who Fears to Speak of '98?". I had the privilege not alone of knowing John Kells Ingram but of speaking to him on many occasions. I used to meet him in the National Library. I remember asking, as an impudent boy, this distinguished professor on one occasion if he was sorry for having written "Who Fears to Speak of '98?". He bristled and said "Certainly not. I stand by every word of it still." That was not many years before his death. These names are honoured and remembered. Amongst the ordinary people— amongst even those whom some people here might regard as ignorant, in the backward, rural places of Ireland— these names are remembered and honoured. These men sprang from people who were not in sympathy with the aspirations of the vast majority. Deputy Baxter spoke of the difficulty of these people breaking away and standing out on their own. We have many examples of those who did that, with honour and credit to themselves and to the country in which they were born and which they desired to serve. If I felt that this Bill was going to hurt the minority, I should not hesitate to ask my colleagues to give it further consideration but my earnest belief, from the broad, national point of view, is that it will do a great deal more good than harm, if it does any harm.
I made copious notes of points raised by different speakers. I could occupy much of your time—though not, perhaps, interestingly—in putting forward arguments to refute those used in the debate. I have, however, nothing new to say. All the arguments I should use have been used at some time or other in the debates on this question. This Bill is not introduced for any petty, mean, Party purpose. That is entirely foreign to the object of the Bill. I can speak for Fianna Fáil since its foundation and I think I could speak for Sinn Féin before the break and I can say that there was always the determination to get rid of this privileged representation when we got the opportunity. In 1931, there was an order from the Ard-Fheis of Fianna Fáil to the new body to do away with this privileged representation if they got into power. It is not to-day or yesterday or last year or the year before but it is ten years since Fianna Fáil determined to get rid of University representation.
It is true, as someone has reminded us, that one vote is important often under our system of proportional representation. This proposition was not inspired by any mean, Party purpose. It was a determination taken long before Fianna Fáil was in Dáil Eireann, or before we thought we would be forming a Government. I could say a great deal more on this question, but I do not think it is necessary. Probably some of you are weary of the debate. Certainly I should like to see the religious political minority getting down amongst the people, as well as seeing University graduates, who had the privilege of representing Universities up to this forced to go down amongst the people. It would be for their good and for the people's good. There is an advantage in having University education, but it is not true that University education always improves a man. I have in mind some people who were in Dáil Eireann, and I could go back much further to other assemblies, to the case of men, some of whom had more than one University degree, who certainly were not fit to be members of an elected assembly. Some of them talked a good deal, but they added nothing of use or of value to such assemblies. Looking at Dáil Eireann, or looking at this Assembly, and seeing men who had not the opportunity of a University education, some because they were poor, and some, perhaps, for other reasons and, seeing the value in intellect, experience and enterprise that you can get from such men in a deliberative Assembly of this kind, it is of value unquestionably. While I should like to see the opportunity opened up for any young man or woman of brains getting University education, it does not always follow, when they have got it, that they will be better fitted to be representatives at any rate in a Parliamentary Assembly.
I occupied more time than I intended dealing with that particular argument about the minority. What put it in my mind first of all was the speeches made here to-day, and more particularly the speech of Archbishop Gregg, which is reported in this morning's newspapers. I was thinking about this University Bill, as it has been on my mind since it was discussed last week. My memory was revived with regard to the discussion, and I was certainly struck by the words of Archbishop Gregg. I thought they were timely, that they would fit in well, and that it would be no harm to emphasise them. In that connection, when thinking over what I was going to say here, I recalled a poem that was familiar to me as a young fellow when I was active like many others—some of whom are now in Dáil Eireann—in the Irish Ireland movement. It was a poem by Thomas Davis, entitled, "Celt and Saxon." I will quote these lines from it:
Yet start not, Irish-born man!
If you're to Ireland true;
We heed not race, nor creed, nor clan;
We've hearts and hands for you.
In fortune and in name we're bound
By stronger links than steel,
And neither can be safe or sound,
But in the other's weal.
Question put.
I think the question is carried.
Division.
Do we want a division?
A division has been challenged by a Senator.
It is quite common to challenge divisions here in that way. I think Senators who want a division should stand in their places.
I want a division certainly.
How many Senators want a division?
Five Senators stood in their places.
There is hardly a soul in the place and you cannot raise that question until the division bell has been rung.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 14.
Tá
- Boyle, James J.
- Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
- Comyn, Michael, K.C.
- Connolly, Joseph.
- Cummins, William.
- Duffy, Michael.
- Farren, Thomas.
- Fitzgerald, Séamus.
- Healy, Denis D.
- Honan, Thomas V.
- Johnson, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Thomas.
- Keyes, Raphael P.
- Linehan, Thomas.
- Lynch, Patrick, K.C.
- MacEllin, Seán E.
- Moore, Colonel.
- O'Neill, L.
- Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
- Quirke, William.
- Robinson, David L.
- Ruane, Thomas.
Níl
- Bagwell, John.
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
- Browne, Miss Kathleen.
- Counihan, John C.
- Dillon, James.
- Douglas, James G.
- Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
- Griffith, Sir John Purser.
- Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
- MacLoughlin, John.
- O'Hanlon, M.F.
- Staines, Michael.
- Wilson, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Robinson and Fitzgerald; Níl: Senators Bagwell and Douglas.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for 26th February.