I think it is worth reminding the House that, while there are deficiencies in the national monuments code which should long since have been repaired and which it is to our discredit that they have not been repaired, the code as drafted and crafted in 1930 provided for coping with and dealing with the very issue that is facing us today in this motion, because the Act contemplates, as well as the preservation of national monuments, their destruction also. It provides an orderly and lawful procedure whereby, with the consent of those given the duty of preservation, a national monument as defined in the Act can be destroyed.
This is a story which is so very well known that it need not be told again here by anyone but it is a story of high drama and extraordinary irony. Senator Dowling made a very sincere and feeling contribution last evening on the position of Dublin Corporation. I do not think we can look at this issue unless we approach it from the standpoint of those whose work and efforts were directed in one direction, as that work and these efforts must have been—the direction of creating a proper, efficient set of buildings in which to administer the services to the citizens of Dublin which it is the duty of Dublin Corporation to administer. That work and effort over many years led to the bringing together, an extremely difficult task, of this four-acre site. Here are the corporation, concerned as it was their duty to be, with creating a proper centre for the administration of their services: here they find themselves, having done their work of creating such a site, in fact unfolding in doing so the site, as it has been described, of Dublin's birthplace. What an extraordinary, dramatic situation. Concerned with creating a monument now, they discover a great monument of the past.
Therefore, anyone who reaches the conclusion which I have reached that this national monument, this site of Dublin's birthplace, must be preserved would be lacking in all feeling, I think—and some have shown at least that they have not fully understood the situation of the corporation, not fully shared the feeling that I have for those officials and those people who have done the work they have done in bringing about and creating this site—if he did not appreciate what the corporation have done. They have found what has been described on oath in the High Court by an undisputed authority as a treasure beyond price; what another authority, now alas deceased, described as a national monument as Tara is a national monument; described by another as the first major city of the Vikings outside Scandinavia built on virgin soil. The corporation, concerned to erect a building to serve the citizens of today, have discovered what another has described as the most important excavation in northern Europe; what another authority, quoted yesterday in this House—and I have looked at his curriculum vitae and his authority is undisputed—described as of greater international significance than the famous Russian excavations at Novgorod; what yet another, again cited in this House yesterday, and again whose curriculum vitae establishes his authority, referred to as a key site for the history of western Europe as a whole.
This is the nature of the find. This is the nature of the national monument. This is no archaeologically expendable monument. This, in archaeological terms, is of inestimable, immeasurable value.
It was contemplated, as I said, by the Act that a national monument might be destroyed with the consent of the commissioners and in this case the joint consent of the commissioners and Dublin Corporation. Therefore, a balance must be found. There can be nothing absolute in relation to this matter: there can be no question, for example, of some archaeological discovery not of such importance being allowed to be an obstacle to the solution of some current urgent problem of this city or of this nation. There can be nothing absolute about that. It is obvious that it would be unthinkable, for example, if some fine existing building should not exist where it does, simply because at some stage before it was created something of some archaeological significance was discovered. Therefore it is a matter of balance. There is nothing absolute either about economic or financial consideration. Someone in the course of this controversy has said that if we destroy the national monument for the economic elements involved, in principle we might as well sell the Book of Kells. In principle, if we give an absolute priority to economic, financial and, I dare say, even social considerations, I would say to this House that there is no justification for the continued expenditure of public money on a whole host of matters which are justifiable only in terms which are non-economic, non-financial. How do you justify any expenditure on the National Museum? How do you justify any expenditure on the National Gallery? How do you justify any expenditure on the universities or on any other institute of learning, any of which are engaged in the operations of pure research, the advancement of knowledge itself? You cannot do so if economic considerations, financial considerations, even social considerations in their crudest terms and forms are totally to determine this fact.
I do not know what is the solution to this site. I do not profess to know what the Corporation's full needs are. I do not profess to know what can be done on the site which is not part of the national monument. I do not think it is relevant for this House to hear what my view is as to how that area shall be planned. I do not think it is relevant for this House to engage in town planning. It is not our duty: it is not our function. But it is our duty and it is our function to speak to the executive as legislators, where the power is in the executive, and to draw their attention to the choices they have to make and the purity of mind that they must bring to this problem, the total bona fides involved and required. I do not suggest that anyone to date, at any level—it is not necessary for my thesis and I do not know it; I do not believe it—has been acting in other than the most total bona fides. It is not necessary that anyone should feel that he is defeated in this matter, whatever the solution. What I do argue most strongly is that if it is economic, if it is financial, then it is for the Government to provide the funds to ensure that the national monument element of that site which includes the environs as defined in the Act, the approaches to it, is not damaged.
Whether after due time and after a great deal more knowledge than anyone has at the moment, whether at the end of the excavation which should be permitted, which should not be interfered with, whether at the end of that work, whether that monument should be preserved on the site is a matter for another day. What is for today is to preserve the possibility and the opportunity of that and for that, and if this involves the pain to the corporation or any officials in the corporation of the loss and the sacrifice, if it involves them in a sense that they have wasted much of their lives, a great deal of their energies—this happens in life many times and hard decisions have to be made and pain has to be inflicted and pain has to be borne and if it is the right thing to do for us to preserve this treasure beyond price—not to spend it like we spend pages of the Book of Kells—then we must see that the cost of that is borne by the community.
It does not seem to me tenable that there is no other place in Dublin which can be found for use for the purposes for which this site has been created and brought together. I find this impossible to believe. I also find it impossible to believe that anyone in this House does not realise that if I argue, as I do, for the preservation of this monument I am not doing so as some antiquarian solely concerned with the national monument. I believe that reason should govern this matter as all matters, but reason here will be failing in its duty if it does not have regard to the passions involved, if it does not have regard to the significance for the present of the preservation of what is valuable in the past; if it does not realise that this community cannot be made to do the work that is its duty to do, that it cannot fully realise its highest potential, if it can be seen anywhere to have faltered in the preservation of such a valuable record of the past of this country and of this city.