The Minister for Justice, in moving the Second Reading of this Mussolini measure, stated that he was prepared to give the most careful consideration in Committee to any amendments that were brought forward. Yesterday he endeavoured to throw dust in the eyes of the Deputies by asking them to accept the view that this Bill was the main issue in the recent elections and that it had received an overwhelming endorsement from the people. Well, if the Minister's speeches in the many parts of the country that he visited to support his candidates are to be taken as any indication of what the real issue was, the real issue certainly was not the Treason Bill.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - TREASONABLE AND SEDITIOUS OFFENCES BILL, 1925—THIRD STAGE.
Debate resumed on amendment 17 to Section 9.
What was it?
The real issue, as I understand it, was the extinction of the State. The non-recognition of the existing Constitution was the issue raised by the Minister's political opponents. Peculiar to relate, however—and it is a remarkable fact—in one of the constituencies in which a supporter of the Minister was seeking election the people were so inactive or so ignorant in realising that that was the issue that they elected a man who was not prepared to recognise the Constitution or this House in preference to a man who, if elected, would have come into the House. I sincerely hope that this big issue that means nothing to the people, but is only blindfolding them, the issue of the Treaty versus a visionary Republic, will be dropped; that issues, like the present Bill, and other measures for which the Minister and his colleagues are responsible, will be put to the electors, that they will have an opportunity of voting on these issues, and not on blind issues and others which the people who were opposing the Minister have been raising for the past three years. I am prepared, and have always been willing, to vote for the giving of the widest possible discretion to the judges appointed by the Executive Council in interpreting and administering the Acts that are passed here, but I am not prepared as a layman to allow to go through in a Bill like this words which it is not possible even for a judge to understand if he should be called upon to interpret them. It states:
In this section the expression "secret society" means an association, society or other body, the members of which are required by the regulations thereof to take or enter into, or do in fact take or enter into, an oath or other engagement not to disclose the proceedings or some part of the proceedings of the association, society or body.
I think it is not an exaggeration to say that many men before joining the Army belonged to or were associated or connected with tontine societies, insurance societies, and other bodies of that kind, that from the clause as it stands could properly be interpreted as being undesirable associations. I also know that members of the police forces belong to tontine and sick fund societies, so that to allow the sub-section to remain as it is, without any explanation from the Minister as to what is in his mind when he asked the Dáil to include such vague wording, is something I do not stand over. Any person who joins any organisation composed of six or more individuals can be said to belong to a society, association or body. Most organisations of such a nature have some kind of written constitution. Surely it is going beyond all reason for the Minister to include in a Bill like this words that would prevent a policeman or a soldier from belonging to a tontine, a burial, or an insurance society, or even a football club or the Cumann na nGaedheal organisation. Perhaps even hurling clubs, athletic clubs and coursing clubs might be brought within the meaning of the sub-section as it stands. I hope the Minister will explain to the Dáil what he had in mind when he inserted these words. I also hope that Deputy Gorey will support me in asking for the deletion of the words in view of the strong language he used yesterday evening, and that he will not walk into the lobby and not vote, but show what his convictions are by voting on this amendment.
I want to correct the Deputy's impression; I did not go into the lobby and refuse to vote. The thing was so long drawn out that I had to leave for another engagement.
The definition of a secret society has been criticised on the grounds that it is too broad. I am prepared to meet that view by inserting instead of the words "or other engagement," the words "affirmation or declaration," so that the definition would read:—
In this section the expression "secret society" means an associaciation, society, or other body, the members of which are required by the regulations thereof to take or enter into, or do in fact take or enter into, an oath, affirmation or declaration not to disclose the proceedings or some part of the proceedings of the association, society or body.
I think that is as near as I can go to a satisfactory definition, while I am open to consider any alternative definition that may be proposed. As I pointed out yesterday, the gist of the objection is that people might enter into commitments and obligations that from the nature of the position cannot be known to the general public, and may conflict with their obligations to the general public. It is easy to criticise the definition in the Bill on the grounds that it is too broad, and that it embraces, or might be held to embrace, bodies which there is no need in fact to cover, and which are not in themselves objectionable. I will consider any alternative definition which any ingenious Deputy may put forward, and if it is considered more satisfactory than the definition in this Bill, I will certainly insert it.
I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurance that he will bring forward the sub-section with the altered wording on the Report Stage.
It can be put in now if Deputy Davin alters his amendment so that in sub-section 2, line 24, the words "or other engagement" are deleted and "affirmation or declaration" inserted in lieu thereof.
I agree.
Amendment, as altered, put and agreed to.
Question:—"That Section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
Níl
- John Daly.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
Tellers:—Tá: Séamus O Dóláin, Liam Mac Sioghaird. Níl: Domhnall O Muirgheasa, Tomás de Nógla.
Motion declared carried.
SECTION 10.
(1) Every person who shall administer or cause to be administered or take part in, be present at, or consent to the administering or taking in any form or manner of any oath, declaration, or engagement purporting or intended to bind the person taking the same to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) to commit or to plan, contrive, promote, assist, or conceal the commission of any crime or any breach of the peace or any other unlawful act, or (b) to join or become a member of or associated with any organisation, association, or other body having for its object or one of its objects the commission of any crime, or breach of the peace, or other unlawful act, or
(c) to abstain from disclosing or giving information of the existence or formation or proposed or intended formation of any such organisation, association, or other body as aforesaid or from informing or giving evidence against any member of or person concerned in the formation of any such organisation, association, or other body, or
(d) to obey the orders of any committee, council or body of men not lawfully constituted or of any leader or commander or other person not having authority by law for that purpose, or
(e) to abstain from disclosing or giving information of the commission or intended or proposed commission of any crime, breach of the peace, or other unlawful act or from informing or giving evidence against the person who committed such an act,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on conviction thereof to suffer imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years.
(2) Every person who shall take any such oath as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and be liable on conviction thereof to suffer imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years unless he shall show—
(a) that he was compelled by force or duress to take such oath, and
(b) that within four days after the taking of such oath if not prevented by actual force or sickness, or where so prevented then within four days after the cessor of the hindrance caused by such force or sickness, he declared to a Justice of the District Court or to an officer of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or the Gárda Síochána the fact of his having taken such oath and all the circumstances connected therewith and the names and descriptions of all persons concerned in the administering of such oath so far as such circumstances, names, and descriptions were known to him.
I beg to move:—
In sub-section (1), page 6, line 45, to delete the words "or any other unlawful act," and on page 6, line 49, and page 7, line 2, to delete the words "or other unlawful act."
It was stated on the Second Reading that the words referred to caused a certain amount of ambiguity and uncertainty. On reconsidering the matter it was found that the intention to be covered by the section is really covered without the inclusion of those words.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move:
To delete sub-section (1) (d), lines 57-60.
That paragraph seems to be out of keeping with paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e). These paragraphs deal with questions of crime or a breach of the peace, but there is no specific reference to crime or breach of the peace in paragraph (d). As it stands it would mean that a person present at any affirmation or declaration to obey the orders of any committee, council, or body of men not lawfully constituted, or of any leader or commander or other person not having authority by law for that purpose, is guilty of a misdemeanour. That is, to obey the orders of any such people, beyond what snag there may be in the words "not lawfully constituted," is a misdemeanour. It seems to me the paragraph would hit against the Cumann na nGaedheal party, or might hit against many an ordinary group of business people who would be associated for the purpose of transacting their own business. It seems to be out of keeping with the section as a whole.
The object of the sub-head was to prevent people from simply making a neat parcel of their wills and intellects and handing them over to the custody of some other citizen or citizens, undertaking implicit obedience to any instructions that might come from a particular quarter. One can see the objection to that unless we are to assume that in any such engagement there is at all times the mental reservation that such instructions must be in accordance with law. The instructions over a period may be perfectly harmless and lawful, but at some other time they may become of a different character. That was the idea in which the sub-head was written in. It has ocurred to me that possibly it is too broad and that it might, for instance, be held to cover such things as vows of obedience by religious orders, and so on. I am willing to accept the Deputy's amendment. As a matter of fact, I do not believe any prosecution will ever be brought under this section. I regard the section as of very little practical value.
Delete it.
If any Deputy seeks immortality by putting down a motion to have this section deleted I will give very careful consideration to it. It is largely in terrorem. Undoubtedly the things that are sought to be guarded against by the section are objectionable and dangerous, but one could scarcely ever visualise sufficient evidence being forthcoming to support a prosecution under the section. I do not undertake absolutely that if a motion is put down to delete the section, I will accept it automatically, but I will consider it very carefully, because I attach very little value or importance to the entire section. For present purposes I am prepared to accept the Deputy's amendment to delete sub-section (1) (d).
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I hope the Minister has had time since he spoke a moment ago to consider whether he will press his motion to include the section. It is quite clear from the Minister's own statement that it is a useless section. It is not going to be ever enforced. It is merely to be in keeping with the rest of the Bill, largely in terrorem, to be held over the people as a terror so that you make people good citizens by holding over them the big stick of five, ten, fifteen or twenty years' penal servitude. That is the conception behind the Bill as a whole, but in this case it is quite clear the Minister is not enamoured of the section, and I think in view of what he said that the House should vote against the inclusion of the section in the Bill.
I wish the Deputy had made a better case for its deletion. In any case I have not had time to consider all the profound things he said on that point. The things that are sought to be guarded against here are, beyond question, wrong and dangerous, and perhaps that is a sufficient reason why they should be formally prohibited in an Act. I repeat what I said, that I think the practical value of the section will be small because it is a kind of offence regarding which it is very difficult, if not impossible, to substantiate a prosecution from the very nature of it. If, by chance, evidence were to come into the possession of the Executive regarding this offence, it would be an eminently proper thing to have a prosecution, and for that reason, and in the absence of anything more substantial urged against the section, I will stand for its inclusion.
Can the Minister say, as one who must have considered these questions, whether or not there is at present on the Statute Book laws dealing with the administration of unlawful oaths? I think he will find there is such a Statute, and all that now remains in this section, after the amendments have been accepted, is a prohibition against the administration of unlawful oaths. If that is already prohibited by law, and a penalty imposed by law, why add another section to the Bill when it is entirely redundant?
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 13.
Tá
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Connor Hogan.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Caoimhgíh O hUigín.
Níl
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- John Daly.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
Tellers.—Tá: Séamus O Dóláin, Liam Mac Sioghaird. Níl: Domhnall O Muirgheasa, Tomás de Nógla.
Motion declared carried.
SECTION 11.
(1) Where a Justice of the District Court is satisfied on the information on oath of an officer of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that there are treasonable or seditious documents in any specified building, land, premises, or other place, such Justice may issue to such officer such search warrant as is mentioned in this section.
(2) A search warrant issued by a Justice of the District Court under this section shall be expressed and shall operate to authorise a named officer of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent, accompanied by such other members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or the Gárda Síochána (as the case may require) as such officer shall think proper, at any time within forty-eight hours after the issue of the search warrant, and if needs be by force, to enter and search the specified building, land, premises, or other place aforesaid (which place shall be also specified in the warrant) for treasonable or seditious documents and to seize and remove all documents found on such search which appear to such officer to be treasonable or seditious.
(3) The officer conducting the search of a place under such search warrant as aforesaid may demand the name and address of any person found in such place during such search and (without prejudice to any other power of arrest vested in him by law or by virtue of any lawful warrant) may arrest without warrant any such person who refuses to give his name or his address to such officer or gives a name or address which such officer knows or suspects to be false or misleading.
(4) In this section the expression "treasonable or seditious document" includes any document which relates, directly or indirectly, to the commission of any act which is by this Act declared to be treason or to be a felony or a misdemeanour and any document which is a seditious libel.
I beg to move the following amendments:—
In sub-section (1), line 30, sub-section (2). lines 43 and 45, sub-section (4) line 54, to delete the words "or seditious."
In sub-section (4), lines 57-58, to delete the words "and any document which is a seditious libel."
These amendments seem to be consequential on the deletion of Section 5.
At first sight these amendments would seem to be almost consequential and to follow naturally on the dropping of Section 5, but the Deputy will remember that I said that certain offences of sedition would still be indictable in common law, and consequently it could be argued that the words sought to be deleted have their value in this section. At the same time I do not propose to oppose these amendments. I am willing to accept them and to confine the power of search to search for documents of a definitely treasonable nature.
Amendments put and agreed to.
Question proposed:—"That Section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I would like the Minister to tell us, if he can, what is the present power of search regarding treasonable or seditious documents and whether there is any justification for enacting new legislation. I would imagine from the experience of the last 25 years that police officers have ample power to make searches where they may believe documents relating to unlawful conspiracy, sedition, or treason may be. Searches of that kind have been made and I assume that they have been made under law. Perhaps the Minister would tell us what is the need for a section of this kind.
The section really bears its meaning and its reason on its face. There is no power of search for documents at the moment. While the Deputy could, of course, remember many cases where such searches were carried out by military and police in the past, they were carried out simply in a forced situation and had no statutory authority.
I mean pre-1914, pre-D.O.R.A.
Pre-1914 there was, so far as I have been able to find out, no power or right of search for documents. There are many rights of search in the police. There is, of course, the right of search for arms under certain Acts. There is the right of search under certain of the customs and excise regulations and so on. But there is, so far as I have been able to find out, no specific right of search for documents, and I think it is proper that there should be such a right and that the police should not be in a position of resorting to the subterfuge of saying that they visit a house in search of arms when, in reality, they visit in search of treasonable documents. I think there ought to be a definite right of search to cover this particular matter, but it is new legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed—"That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."
With regard to Section 12 is an amendment necessary, or in the title?
I will consider that. I do not propose any amendment at this stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Title put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported with amendments.