Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Mar 1925

Vol. 10 No. 18

TREASONABLE AND SEDITIOUS OFFENCES BILL, 1925.—REPORT.

We will take the amendment as to Title at the close of the other amendments. Amendments 2, 3 and 4 seem to me to relate to the same matter, and I think they should be taken together.

Amendments 2, 3 and 4.—In page 2, Section 1 (1), line 29, to delete all words after the word "treason" to the end of the sub-section.

In page 2, Section 1 (2), line 34, to delete all words after the word "treason" to the end of the sub-section.

In page 2, to delete Section 1 (4), lines 47 to 53, inclusive.

I move the amendments. Amendment 2 proposes to delete all the words after the word "treason"; that is to say, that after the words "shall be guilty of treason" there follow the words which I propose to delete, "and shall be liable on conviction thereof to suffer death." I take it that the effect of the amendment, if carried, would be to leave the penalty for treason exactly as it has been. What that penalty is I do not know. I do not know whether the judges under the present law have an alternative. I think they have, because though I have not had an opportunity to refer to the matter, my memory suggests that people have been adjudged guilty of treason but have not been hanged, drawn and quartered. They have sometimes been transported, sometimes they have been admonished, but as I read this section, once a person has been adjudged guilty of treason, there is to be no alternative but to kill him by hanging. The obvious intention of the section is to treat that person guilty of that offence with the same ignominy as a person guilty of murder. I think everybody will agree that there is a very great difference between the character of the offence of murder, which is too often aggravated by covetousness, pure malice and evil thoughts, and treason, which very often has been the offence of men and women of sincere and honest purpose, whose object was to bring about a political change. It may be considered obvious by those people who believe in capital punishment as a regular system that the offence of treason is rightly punishable by death, but the offence of treason may be declared punishable by death, and I think, probably in the majority of cases, if the trial takes place, when people's minds are hot and antipathies have been aroused by political agitation, that the death sentence would follow and would meet with popular approval. Usually, however, there are regrets after the death sentence has been carried out, and these usually find expression in poems, laudatory notices, and all kinds of poetical references to the nobility of character of the man who is adjudged guilty of treason. Those expressions of view usually only follow when death has been the penalty imposed and carried out.

I want to make it possible that there shall be no change in the direction of harshness by the enactment of this Bill in respect of punishment for treason. If it is within the competence of the present law that treason may be punishable by death or some lesser punishment, such as transportation, imprisonment, fine, or anything less than death, I want to have no change. The position under these four sub-sections clearly is that if a person is adjudged guilty of treason he shall not only be liable on conviction to suffer death, but that there shall be no alternative to the death sentence. Therefore, my purpose in moving these amendments is to leave the sentence as it prevails at present, under the law that exists, without alteration. The phrase "shall be liable on conviction to suffer death," occurs in sub-sections 1 and 2, and that is obviously related to sub-section 4, which says:—"If such person is found guilty of treason he shall be convicted and sentenced in the same manner as if he had been convicted of murder." That is obviously designed to create the same atmosphere regarding a person convicted of treason as though he had been convicted of murder, and there is no alternative but death by hanging. Then, I take it, the prerogative of mercy may be invoked, and if it is not within the judgment of the administration of the time, the Executive Council of the time, that any mercy should be shown, then death by hanging must take place. I think—I am subject to correction in this—that the absence of an alternative is a harshening of the law in the matter. Judges heretofore had an alternative, partly depending on the attitude of the jury. If the jury recommends to mercy, or makes certain suggestions, I think the judge may sentence to something less than death. That, as I say, I am not confirmed in, as I have not had an opportunity of making sufficient references. I desire to delete these lines respecting the sentence, so that there may be no change in the law as regards the treatment of a man or a woman adjudged guilty of treason. It may be said that the letter of the law at present prevailing is that a person guilty of treason has not only to be hanged, but has to be drawn and quartered. If that is the case, I still desire that there shall be no change in the sentence. Whatever the present law is regarding the punishment for treason I desire to retain it until the day comes when we may all be able to look on this question with a little more detachment, and when there may be Ministers in authority who may not have had quite the same intimate experience of treason and traitors.

I second.

The effect of the acceptance of the Deputy's amendment would be to make Section 1 merely declaratory—to set out certain offences, and to say that those offences are treason and leave them there—providing by this Act no penalty for such offences. The Deputy is again like Mrs. Gummidge, thinking of the "old un." All through the debate on this Bill he has been insisting that there is in existence a law which gives all the powers we need, and is urging us back to that law, to rely on it and to have recourse to it. He urged that on Second Reading; he urged it again persistently in Committee; and now on the last ditch of Report he says, "Well, if you will not rely on it for general purposes at least rely on it and resort to it only for your penalty. Let this Bill be merely declaratory; let it define certain things as offences, but do not rely on legislation passed by this Parliament for the preservation of this State for your sanctions—for your penalties; rely rather on Acts passed in 1814 and at intervals between this and then for the penalties by which you will punish the offences which are set out in the Bill." That course does not appeal to me, and I do not propose to accept the Deputy's amendments. The Deputy is wrong in thinking that the course he advocates would leave it open to the judge to impose any lesser sentence than the capital sentence, and consequently even the grounds which the Deputy himself urges in favour of his amendment disappear.

The Deputy's comparison between treason and murder was very interesting. He suggested that murder was a low crime committed only by debased and degraded characters, and it was eminently fitting that the death sentence should be imposed for that offence. He thought that treason was in some way the monopoly of high-should people, and that it was rather a shame that people of that description should perish from the earth under the sanctions of any Bill. There is, of course, another point of view in all that, and that is the consequences of the offences, the reactions on the general welfare of the community, and, applying that rule and standard, I am afraid the Deputy's comparison between the two offences would scarcely hold. As between taking the life of one individual and precipitating a state of affairs in which the lives of many individuals will be taken, and in which great suffering and privation will ensue to many individuals, there is no real comparison. It is merely academic to talk otherwise, and I am surprised that the Deputy should talk otherwise in the light of the recent experiences which we have all had. I do not want to go again into the arguments which were worn threadbare on Second Reading and on the Committee Stage, but I simply ask the Dáil to reject the Deputy's amendments.

Shall I put the question to delete this section? Would that suit Deputy Johnson as well?

I think I might have the opportunity if the section is to be put as a whole to say a word or two.

The section has not to be put. The effect of the amendments seems to me to be the same as deleting the section.

I would prefer the amendments to be put.

Amendments 2, 3, and 4 put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 37.

  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Seán Buitléir.
  • John Daly.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • David Hall.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Seán O Laidhin.
  • Pádraic O Máille.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl

  • Richard H. Beamish.
  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Michael Egan.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Darrell Figgis.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Patrick Leonard.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Patrick J. Mulvany.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Risteárd O Conaill.
  • Partholán O Conchubhair.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.
  • Aindriú O Láimhín.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
  • Seán O Raghallaigh.
  • Máirtín O Rodaigh.
  • Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
Tellers:—Tá: Risteárd Mac Fheorais, Liam O Daimhín. Níl: Séamus O Dóláin, Liam Mac Sioghaird.
Amendments declared lost.

I beg to move:—"In page 3 to delete Section 2, lines 1 to 12, inclusive." The amendment proposes the deletion of a section which imposes a sentence of five years' imprisonment for felony. Any person who refuses to inform the authorities of what he believes to be a treasonable act is liable to imprisonment. "Every person who, knowing that any act, the commission of which would by virtue of this Act be treason, is intended or proposed to be, or is being, or has been committed, does not forthwith disclose the same together with all particulars thereof known to him to a Justice of the District Court or an officer of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, or the Gárda Síochána ...shall be liable... to suffer penal servitude for any term not exceeding five years..."

A person who overhears a conversation in a publichouse is expected to understand the intentions of the conversers. He is expected to know the minds of people whom he may think are conspirators. If you can inspire the people with sufficient fear of the law, those people at one time or another, say during periods of political excitement, will be prompted to write to the authorities to the effect that such and such a person or group of persons intends or intend to commit treason. I think the section ought to be deleted.

I beg to second the amendment. I would ask the Dáil to delete this section. So far I have not said anything on the Bill, as I had not recognised the Bill, to start with. I thought the State was quite safe without the introduction of such a Bill as this. We want peace in this country; we do not want to agitate the minds of those who may be likely to commit crime and lead them to think that we are completely against them. It would be much better if we tried to coax them and show them the right road upon which to travel. They might then probably recognise that this is really the Government of the people; they might recognise that more quickly than if the Government introduced such a measure as this, with its death penalties and its sentences of five years' imprisonment if one does not become an informer.

This section is inserted, I presume, for the purpose of making an informer of every loyal citizen of the State. Take, for instance, that in a football or a hurling field, or for that matter in any place of amusement, three or four people speak to one another, and they say something against the Minister for Justice, the President, or any officer of the State. To the mind of a loyal citizen, what they say may be injurious to the welfare of the State, and it is then necessary for that loyal citizen to get in touch with the District Justice or some other official of the State and give information that those people had said certain things, and that in his opinion they were going to commit an act of treason. Surely, we do not want to make informers of every man and woman in the Saorstát. Surely, the Government has sufficient employees within its clutches going around seeking information.

There is a Secret Service corps and also a Detective corps. The members of those bodies are paid, and it is their duty to find out information. But, apparently, the Government is not satisfied with that. It wants to make informers of every citizen of the State who happens to be loyal. If there is any sense of responsibility in any of the elected representatives of the people, they will realise fully that they cannot go back to their constituencies and say that they want every man and woman who voted for them to inform and to do their best to find out, and give information against, persons prejudiced against the Government or the Constitution of the Free State. There is not, I am sure, a Deputy who would ask his constituents to do such a thing. Take the case of men who may be in clubs. They may be playing billiards, cards, dominoes, dice, or other games. Some individuals may probably get a drink or two too much, and when the Irish spirit becomes elevated——

The genuine Irish spirit that is not in those who drafted this Bill. When that spirit becomes elevated those individuals may say something they would not really mean. The next day they may be sorry for what they said; but that would be no excuse. The loyal citizen who heard them saying it would give information to the District Justice. Those people would be arrested and, possibly, they might be sentenced to five years' penal servitude.

Surely if the Government wants to show its ability—and I personally recognise that Ministers have shown ability for the last three years—it will not ask for such measures as this. They say to the people: "We want to do good work for you; we want to show that we are democratic and we want to prove to you that we are here in the interests of the Irish people." But we are not acting in the interests of the people by passing such measures as this, to make an informer of each individual in certain circumstances. I ask the Dáil to vote in favour of Deputy Johnson's amendment because we may have thousands of people in the Saorstát who will refuse to give information or become informers, although they may be loyal citizens of the State. Then because they refuse to become informers and voluntarily to give information, they are liable to be arrested and to be sentenced to five years' penal servitude. Would any Government under the sun to-day, elected as the Saorstát Government is, by the people, introduce such a measure as this? To my mind it endeavours to turn all the citizens of the Saorstát into a band of informers. The Government says to them: "If you do not become informers we will punish you, because we are the Government." I ask the Dáil to support the amendment and to have this section deleted.

I am afraid I cannot share in Deputy Lyons' faith in the coaxable capacity of people who have taken action in this State against the State. I do not share in any way his horror of the word "informer" in present circumstances, because I agree that the circumstances have entirely changed and that the evil odour that rightly attached to the use of that word in the past is an odour that should not attach in the circumstances to which we have now come and that it is the duty of the citizen to inform if he is aware of action that is going to be taken against the State. I want to make that clear because I am in favour of Deputy Johnson's amendment and against this section on other grounds altogether. I think the manner of its drafting is such as to introduce dangers for the future of a very considerable kind.

The first danger that occurs, to my mind, is the power it will put into the hands of one citizen against another. If only a reasonable colour can be given to that other being made aware, or being aware, of action likely to be taken against the State, you will get not merely information in respect of treasonable offences, but you will get information in regard to people who are to be charged as informers. You will get, that is to say, not some person informing the responsible authorities, whoever they may be, that A. B. is about to commit a treasonable offence. You might get that, but if that was all that was to be got, so far the section would have achieved its purpose, and would have kept within reasonable limits, but you will get more. You will get a person informing the responsible authorities that A.B. was aware of other persons about to commit a treasonable offence. It will range far more widely in its effect, according to the drafting that appears here, than the original intention had been, as I imagine that original intention to have been.

Another point that occurs to me is this: If it has been found that a certain person belonging to a committee purports to have acted on behalf of that committee in some treasonable or seditious act, at once every other member of that committee will, under this section, be brought in because they will all automatically, even though no actual conspiracy might otherwise be provable against them, come under the inference that they were privy to that man's act and did not inform. I hardly think that the section was intended to have been put forward in substitution of what ought to be a charge of conspiracy, but I suggest that the actual effect of the section will be that instead of the State having placed on it the responsibility of proceeding against certain persons in respect of a conspiracy, to prove the conspiracy, it will be able to proceed against those persons under Section 2, if it be embodied in the Act, and bring them in by inference where direct proof of conspiracy might or might not be obtainable. I think the effect of the section goes very widely indeed, far more widely than it should if it had adhered to its original intention, if it could have been so drafted as to have kept within that original intention.

So far as the general idea of the section goes, I am in favour of it because I here state that I believe it is the duty of every citizen to put in the possession of the State any information that may come in his or her way in regard to action being taken against the State. I do not think it should be the intention of any Bill, while achieving that right purpose, to go so widely as to bring within its scope purposes that should not be included but that in this section, I believe, are included.

This is of course, a drastic measure from beginning to end, but if there is any one thing in it more drastic than another it is perhaps this section. We find that any person who does not disclose the fact that somebody harbours, comforts or shelters a person engaged in levying war is guilty of a serious offence and is liable to the terrible sentence that this Bill imposes. I do not know whether the Minister considers that equitable. I do not think that any person who really considers the mentality of the Irish people will think that they will accept that punishment as being equitable, that you are supposed to stand and watch your neighbour to see what he is doing, and if you find that he is harbouring, comforting or protecting a certain person you are to go immediately and make that fact known to the proper authorities. I suppose it would be rather a foolish thing for a son to go back to his mother for protection, because it is there that the authorities would be likely to look for him, but suppose it did happen that a mother thought it was right to comfort her son, is it right that a neighbour would immediately go and make that known to the proper authorities? Is it likely that the mentality of the Irish people will accept that as equitable or just? It may in a score of years time be possible to bring the Irish mentality round to appreciate that point of view, but does the Minister think that after the past eight years, people will accept that viewpoint that you are going to override every human law, not even in the interests of the State, but in the supposed interests of the State? Are you going to say to the mother or father, or sister or brother: "You are not going to comfort or succour or support your son or brother because you are A., while B. is on the hill-top watching to give information to the State?"

I wonder if the Deputy would mind me setting him right, even if it would involve the destruction of his argument. The offences as set out in sub-section (3) of Section 1 are not declared to be treason, and consequently do not come within Section 2.

That is, Section 2 applies to the offences mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 1, and to these only?

Section 2 applies to every offence which is mentioned in the Bill and stated to be treason.

And these are to be found in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 1.

The offences as mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 1 are not declared treasonable.

Do I understand the Minister to say that the offences mentioned in sub-section (3) are not regarded as treasonable?

They are not declared to be such. On the general question of the abolition of Section 2, I have really very little, if anything, to add to what I have said on this point in Committee Stage. The section imposes upon a citizen of the State the duty to disclose particulars of any attempt to overthrow the State, and for the dereliction of that duty imposes a penalty. Deputy Johnson said it renders the person liable to five years penal servitude. It is, of course, just as true to say that it renders him liable to one week's imprisonment. The maximum sentence in the section is five years' penal servitude.

Those are the words of the section, "liable to."

"He shall be liable on conviction thereof to suffer penal servitude for any term not exceeding five years, or imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years." But the Deputy knows that he is equally liable to suffer imprisonment for one year, or one week or one month.

Will the Minister alter it to one month?

He is equally liable to suffer imprisonment for one month or one week.

"The greater includes the less," is all that the Minister is saying now.

It is quite what I am saying, but it is what the Deputy ignored, because the Deputy pointed out that there may be varying degrees of guilt under the section, but that the person convicted under the section may be sentenced to five years' penal servitude. He may, and he may be sentenced to a fortnight, or a month, or six months, according to the judge's conception of the degree of guilt. Deputy Figgis quite rightly admitted the duty on the part of the citizen. He said he had no sympathy with this juggling with the words "informer," and carrying on into the present situation the mentality which has its roots in an entirely different set of circumstances. He admits the duty on the part of the citizen to inform the State authorities of any impending danger to the State, or any impending menace to the State, of which he may have knowledge. Deputy Figgis, moving on from an admission of the duty, rather demurs to the infliction of any penalty for the dereliction of that duty.

I did not do anything of the sort. If the Minister will allow me to correct him, what I did say was that if the section had been so drafted as to be confined purely to that, it would have met my intention very fully. I gave two cases where it went outside that original intention.

The section runs: "Every person who, knowing that any act, the commission of which would by virtue of this Act be treason, is intended or proposed to be, or is being, or has been committed, does not forthwith disclose the same, together with all particulars thereof known to him ...shall be guilty of the felony of misprision of treason and shall be liable on conviction thereof to suffer penal servitude for any term," and so on. The Deputy's point would be if it applied only to something in the future, to some impending danger——

My point was this: A, B, C and D form a committee. One of them is found guilty of a certain act. By inference of this section the other three of them should have informed upon him, and therefore they are brought in under this section. The correct procedure, I suggest, would be that against the others a charge of conspiracy would lie rather than one under this charge, because they were all banded together.

I am afraid, sir, I do not appreciate the Deputy's point. The section deals only with a person who has knowledge of a challenge, either an actual or a future challenge, to the State, and keeps that knowledge to himself, refusing to impart it to those responsible for safeguarding the State. Now that would, of course, be a matter of fact. It would be a question of proof before a Court. But if the evidence can be adduced, if proof can be established, I take it that the Deputy does not demur to the imposition of the penalty.

Quite. Then I am afraid I am not clear as to what he is objecting to. I endeavoured to the best of my ability to follow his point when he was making his statement, but it has escaped me. I regret that very much. If the Deputy, perhaps, would take some steps to make me clear on it I might do something in the Seanad. But at this stage I am not sufficiently impressed with the argument and I admit, frankly that the point of the argument has escaped me.

If I may be permitted, once again, I will try to make it clear. We will now bring it down to present day conditions. There are certain persons who belong to an organisation that lately was conspiring against the State. They have an Executive at their head. Now if one of these persons was taken in some act against the State, the Minister, under this section, automatically includes every one of these persons who belong to that Executive without the necessity of proving a conspiracy. Is not that a fact?

Well if that person had on him papers showing he belonged to that body, and that others were privy to his act, they come in under this section because they should have informed the State of that act which was going to be done by one of their number.

They certainly should. The Deputy is quite right there, but the onus would be on the State to prove the knowledge. If a prosecution were brought under this section there would certainly be the onus on the State Counsel to prove actual knowledge on the part of any and every person charged. But, in fact, I submit to the Deputy that cases of that kind are more likely in practice to be dealt with and covered by the new section which amendment 7 on the paper is proposing to have inserted, simply on a general charge of belonging to an unauthorised military association. I am asking the Dáil to reject Deputy Johnson's amendment.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 41.

  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Seán Buitléir.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • Darrell Figgis.
  • David Hall.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Patrick J. Mulvany.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Seán O Laidhin.
  • Pádraic O Máille.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl

  • Richard H. Beamish.
  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • John J. Cole.
  • John Conlan.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Michael Egan.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Seán de Faoite.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Good.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Patrick Leonard.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Tadhg O Donnabháin.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.
  • Aindriú O Láimhín.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
  • Seán O Raghallaigh.
  • Mairtín O Rodaigh.
  • Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • Nicholas Wall.
Tellers:—Tá: Tomás de Nógla, Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár). Níl: Séamus O Dóláin, Liam Mac Sioghaird.
Amendment declared lost.

I move:—

In page 3, Section 3, to delete all words after the word "duty," line 45, down to and including the word "duty," line 46.

The reason I put forward for the deletion of those words is that the phrase is too all-embracing and that the incitement not to do certain things which may be a duty, but the non-doing of which may not be a serious offence, should not be adjudged a felony. I understand the Minister is not averse to this amendment. Therefore, I will not enlarge on it.

I second the amendment.

I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In page 4, before Section 6, to insert a new section as follows:—

Every person who takes part or assists in the formation, organisation, or maintenance of any association or other body which purports to be a military or police force, and is not established and maintained as such by law, and also every person who is a member of any such association or body, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and on conviction thereof shall be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or, at the discretion of the court, to penal servitude for any term not exceeding five years, or imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years, or to both such fine and such penal servitude or imprisonment.

This amendment is introduced as a result of the debate on Deputy Mulcahy's amendment during the Committee Stage of the Bill. The object of the amendment is to prevent the formation, organisation or maintenance of any pretended military force.

I would like to have some information from the Minister as to the effect of this amendment and as to what it is intended to embrace. I quite understand the desirability of not allowing to exist any military or police force, or any body purporting to be military or police, except the forces established by law. To some degree, I welcome the amendment, because I foresee the consequences of the present tendencies, if worked out as they have in other countries—the formation of private detective forces and police forces, bodies purporting to be police forces, but perhaps not calling themselves such nominally, engaged in the protection of private property for the benefit of the owners, but actually engaged in other work. We have had experience at different times, more particularly in other countries—America, for instance—where private police forces have been the order of the day in industrial concerns. We have all heard of Pinkerton detectives, and I can see that the passing of this section would, to some degree, prevent the development of such forces.

I do not know how this will affect railway police. It will be an offence for a railway company to appoint a policeman after this amendment becomes law. I am sorry I do not see the Minister for Telegraphs here. I would like to have his view of the effect of this section, because I take it it would be impossible henceforward to organise a body of people which, in fact, is a police force not appointed by the Minister, to protect a public meeting. I do not know what weight to give to the term, "purports to be a military or police force." May a body be organised to act as military or police which does not call itself such, or is the term to be understood as being a body which does those things, whether it calls itself a police force or a military force or not? I think we are all aware of the existence, in recent times, of organised bodies, purporting to keep order and armed to some degree—armed, at least, with batons or sticks, or knuckle-dusters or sand bags or other weapons of offence. They will henceforward be illegal and any person—even the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs or the Minister for Justice—who takes part or assists in the formation, organisation or maintenance of any such organisation, even though it be by a subscription to a political body which has such a force, comes under the section. I can imagine the most recently elected member for North Dublin becoming liable to the penalty of imprisonment or penal servitude for a term not exceeding five years, if he subscribes to an organisation which organises a body purporting to be a police force, which is intended to keep the law and to enforce order at a public meeting. I can quite see interesting developments from this section and, on the whole, I am inclined to support it, partly from the possible entertainment one would derive from the strict enforcement of this section.

The statement of Deputy Johnson has opened up wide vistas as to the ramifications of this particular amendment. There is something in the suspicions that in the past, when there was such a thing as a strike, the Farmers' Union might readily have been brought under the terms of this amendment. It was necessary for the protection of property to organise certain people to protect property. The Government could not do it. Under this amendment, we would be liable to a fine of £200 and other penalties. Would it be possible for the Minister to insert some words, so as to leave it optional with him not to prosecute when he knows the cause of those people is a good one and not leave it to the interpretation of the legal people, who are outside our control and who will necessarily go on the lines of the law as we now propose to make it?

I rise to support this amendment. It follows upon the actual wording of the Constitution, by which the regulation and maintenance of armed forces is subject to the control of the Oireachtas. This amendment is merely a consequence of that provision in the Constitution, with certain penalties attaching. It has certainly received a wide range of interpretation at the hands of Deputy Johnson, and with that wide range I am equally in emphatic agreement, even though the result be injurious to the new body the Farmers' Union have enrolled for the protection of their property. In all seriousness, I think that any defence required at political meetings, or meetings of that kind, should be undertaken by State forces and not by anybody outside. Even the regulation of ordered political meetings should be undertaken by State forces. The regulation of order by outside forces might easily develop into the regulation of disorder. If one political party is at liberty to organise a pseudo police force to keep order on its behalf, another party will claim to be equally entitled to organise a similar body to keep order. These two bodies might interpret differently the meaning of "right order" in respect of their own adherents, and the regulation of order might become, in course of time, the regulation of disorder. I am reminded, by a conversation which I have just overheard, that if this amendment be adopted, without change in any other place, one development that has been seen in other countries will become impossible in this country—that is, the development of Fascism.

I would like to know from the Minister what the position would be if a state of affairs occurred such as was experienced during a labour strike in Waterford some time ago. At that time, upwards of 100 farmsteads were burned out and neither the military nor the police forces of the State were able to afford the farmers in that area the protection that was necessary. The rural residents there took upon themselves the organisation and protection of their own homes, and, in a crude way, organised a sort of police force. What position would members of such an organisation find themselves in in the future if such a state of affairs were to recur? I hope there will be no recurrence of such trouble, but there is a possibility that it might occur again, and I would like to hear the Minister's view.

Deputy Baxter's question raises another question. By this new provision, the right is denied to any labour organisation to use their forces in picketing during a time of strike. If you extend facilities to the Farmers' Union for the establishment of a police force, you must give the same facilities to the Labour Union. I would like to know whether the provision which is to be added to the Bill will apply to detectives employed by large firms in the cities and towns to protect their property. They are really a police force, employed by these firms to protect them against robbery. If this provision be inserted, those firms and the men employed as detectives will be liable to the penalties set out in the Bill. The amendment is too wide altogether.

The Minister for Justice said, during the elections, that allowance had been made in the Bill to enable Deputies to remove some clauses. In my opinion, the amendments made during the early stages of the Bill are now coming back to us in different words. No improvements have been made in the Bill at all. The Bill will go through in the identical form in which it was introduced. I would urge upon the Minister that traders and manufacturers should be permitted to have their own detective and police forces. That does not mean that I accuse the people of this country of being robbers, but there is a lot of people who came into the country for no other purpose than robbery, and these precautions are necessary. I think that there should be an alteration made in the measure to facilitate the Labour movement and the Farmers' Union and to enable traders and business men to employ their own detectives to protect their property.

In view of the general enthusiasm for the amendment, I need not say very much, beyond dealing with one or two points which have been raised about private persons taking steps to protect their own property. Deputies know that the ordinary unofficial citizen has substantial power for the protection of his person or his property. I suppose it is scarcely expected that I would seek to give a lecture on that matter. Deputies know, for instance, that a man, in defence of his house, may assault a person who breaks and enters, and may arrest him and, in the last resort, may kill him. Equally, Deputies know that, in respect of certain offences, the civilian—the unofficial person—has powers of arrest. Action taken by the individual, or action taken by individuals in combination, for the defence of their property, does not constitute the "formation, organisation or maintenance" of a police force.

The meaning of this section is. I hope, plain enough. It is to prohibit and proscribe unlawful, unauthorised military associations, and to make membership of any such associations an offence in itself, so that if membership can be proved, if evidence can be adduced showing that a person is a member of an unauthorised military association, or for that matter an unauthorised police force, that is an offence for which the court can impose a penalty. It is a section, like so many other sections in the Bill, like all the sections for that matter, for defending and protecting the ordinary citizen who cannot shoot, or who does not want to shoot, restricting the right to interfere with him to the authorised State forces. Any interference with his liberty, any menace to his personal rights can be prohibited.

I pointed out in dealing with one of the amendments in Committee that the right of the State to give protection to its citizens goes just a little further than merely intervening to ward off actual physical onslaught, actual physical danger, that it goes at any rate to the point that it is the duty of the State, in so far as it can humanly effect it, to see that citizens are not constrained to live their lives in fear, that there is no constant menace preying on them or worrying them, and an unauthorised, subterranean military organisation would unquestionably be such a menace. If, as was sought to be effected in Committee, men could go cut openly through the country, drill and parade as an army, acknowledging no responsibility to the Government and, through the Government, to the Dáil and the people, that would be a state of affairs which ordinary people as taxpayers and citizens would be entitled to resent. It would be a menace and challenge, and they would live their lives in fear. We want to create the feeling in the country that the organised military and police forces are absolutely responsible to and controlled by a Government which answers daily to the people and that there shall be no other organised military or police force. We want also to make it quite clear to all the citizens that this State stands of its own strength and not by grace or by permission of any minority within its borders, not by the fact that citizen "A" is managing to keep his temper, but of its own strength and of the strength of the majority of the people who uphold it.

In the case of a strike would this section prevent peaceful picketing?

Would the Minister say whether he has considered the necessity, the desirability at least, before this Bill becomes law, of defining in some way the term "military force." The question was raised on Section 6, and I think he will see that it becomes more important that the term "military or police force" should be defined in some way, otherwise you may have a body which has a form of organisation copying a military organisation, but having no purpose except physical exercises. Under Section 6 the Minister is entitled to give permission for such drill to take place, but under this section, unless the term "military force" is defined, any person will not be able to form such a body, even though he may get the permission of the Minister.

I will undertake to get the best advice at our disposal as to whether there is need for a definition of the term "military force," as to whether it is the kind of term which would be at all open to doubt, or which would require explicit definition in the Bill.

The expression "military force" might not, but the expression "police force" might need such a definition.

Amendment put and declared carried.

I beg to move:—

In page 4, Section 7 (a), to delete lines 51 to 54, inclusive.

I do not know whether the Minister will save me some trouble by saying that he proposes to accept this amendment. Perhaps not, because on the last day we were discussing this section we had a definite challenge from the Minister to table an amendment or a resolution which would raise the whole question of the existence of secret societies in the Saorstát. He said:—

I make the suggestion that whoever the expert is in the Dáil on secret societies, whoever has the biggest dossier, whoever knows most about these things, should put down a resolution to the effect that the prohibition which applies to members of the Army and members of the police forces, should be extended to embrace all State employees if you like, members of the Civil Service and members of the judiciary, or, better still, to embrace all citizens of Saorstát Eireann, and there can be full discussion and all the dreadful facts can be hauled out into the daylight...

At another moment in the same discussion the Minister said that he was quite prepared to leave this matter to an open vote of the Dáil. I am not an expert on secret societies. I do not know any of the horrible things that have been said about secret societies and their active influence upon the State or upon the administration of justice.

I do know that secret societies have existed, and have been instrumental in bringing about, sometimes very disastrous, and sometimes in other minds, very beneficial changes in the law and government of the country. The Minister himself has been a most eloquent and persuasive opponent and critic of secret societies. He has attempted in several Bills to bring secret societies into disrepute. Undoubtedly a very great majority of the public is opposed to the existence in the State of secret societies. I suppose if it were possible, assuming that this amendment is not acceptable to the majority of the Dáil or the Seanad, to refer the Bill as it passes the Dáil to the country for a plebiscite or referendum, or if it were possible to refer this particular proposal to make secret societies illegal, then I think we should have an overwhelming vote in favour of that prohibition.

I do not want to discuss the merits of any particular class of secret society. There may be some societies or bodies which have been popularly called secret, believed to be secret, which the Minister suggested on the last occasion were not in fact secret, or may not in fact be secret, but we have had presented to us by the Minister himself a definition, and it may be that some of these organisations popularly called secret, would not come within this definition and therefore will not be affected by the section if it is amended as I desire it to be. The prohibition then will be against the existence of societies coming under this definition. That is to say:

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, affirmation or declaration not to disclose the proceedings or some part of the proceedings of the association, society or body.

Of course the definition was amended during the Committee Stage. It is much more definite now and the words "entering into an undertaking" have been deleted and it is quite clear now that before a society or an association would be called a secret society the members are required to take an oath of affirmation or declaration. I think it is quite unanswerable to say that quite nine-tenths of the people of the country would favour prohibition, shall I say, the illegalising of secret societies. I am not going to pretend that it will prove that no longer secret societies shall exist. The kind of secret society that has been active in political affairs has been of a kind in which the members quite clearly and deliberately went into illegal activities knowing when they were taking upon themselves these activities they were doing illegal things and were prepared to take the risks. Although this amendment may be carried, and although we may make secret societies illegal, it will not prevent the existence of secret societies, provided there are sufficient people who believe that a certain cause must be carried through and that it can only be carried through by the aid of secrecy. If there are such, and if they are prepared to take the consequences no enactment of this kind will prevent them. We would, however, be making it known that in the view of the lawmakers secret societies ought not to exist in the country, and that they are in fact illegal bodies.

I do not think it is necessary—I doubt whether it is desirable, and certainly it would not go any distance towards attaining my end, which is quite a serious one—if we were to try to bring to the notice of the Dáil proofs of the malignant activities of secret societies. On the last occasion the Minister rather suggested that it was necessary to prove that secret societies had in fact been committing acts which were to the disadvantage and which were detrimental to the best interests of the country before you could legislate against their existence. There is a good deal to be said for that, but there ought to be some general understanding that men are free to act provided they are not committing acts that are detrimental. Without endeavouring to bring definite proofs in regard to any particular society, or any particular class of society, we have it on the testimony of the Minister that secret societies have been organised to do acts which were detrimental to the stability of the State. I would say that it should be accepted more or less as a proof that the purposes and intentions of the body were dark and evil if they thought it necessary to make affirmations, take oaths or make declarations binding members not to disclose the proceedings.

I do not think it is stretching the powers of the legislature or going beyond what the canons of liberty would lay down to say that a secret society ought not to be allowed to exist, because it is a fair assumption that the fact of secrecy implies dark deeds. Whether that is actually the fact or not, we are now faced with this general belief. As I argued on a previous occasion, the existence of a very widespread belief that secret societies exist, and that the oaths and affirmations which the members of these societies take are held in greater veneration and reverence than the oath of loyalty to the State service or their obligations as citizens is sufficient to damage very considerably the stability of the State, because of the fact that confidence in public administration is shaken. I think there is no Deputy who will not agree that there is a cynical kind of attitude amongst men very generally, that so-and-so is all right; he is a member of such-and-such an organisation. His friends are going to look after him, they are bound to look after him. The existence of that state of mind, very widespread, is detrimental, and I believe there is no Deputy in the House, or at least very few, who will assent to the proposition that an oath taken secretly—the terms of which may not be known, and the persons who take it are also not known—is liable to be held in much higher regard perhaps out of fear than from the ordinary sense of obligation that every citizen is entitled to hold towards the State. The effect of the amendment, if it were carried, would mean that the section would read as follows:—

Every person who shall—

(a) form, organise, promote or maintain any secret society, or

(b) attempt to form, organise, promote or maintain any such secret society, or

(c) take part, assist, or be concerned in any way in the formation, organisation, promotion, management, or maintenance of any such society,

and so on

shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.

The secret society is then defined in the terms which the Minister himself has set before us. On the last occasion when this matter was under discussion the form of the amendment was challenged by the Minister on the grounds that it attempted to make it penal for judges and civil servants to enter a secret society, because judges and civil servants had not, up to date, been prohibited from being members of a secret society. The Minister's view on that matter prevailed. As I have said, he then challenged Deputies that the matter should be brought forward in such a form as would embrace every citizen; not merely judges and civil servants, but that we should take the sense of the House on the question whether secret societies should be allowed to exist, and whether any citizen, judge or otherwise, civil servant or non-civil servant, should be allowed to be a member of a secret society. The amendment that I am moving takes up that challenge. I want to remind the Minister and the Dáil that this is to be an open question, and that every Deputy is free, according to the Minister's promise, to vote on this issue as his personal judgment would dictate. I, therefore, move my amendment, and ask that it shall be taken by the country as a definite decision of the Dáil that, so far as we are concerned at any rate, we desire to make secret societies illegal bodies in the Saorstát.

The Deputy makes a parade of taking up, as he said, a challenge, and so on. I want to remind Deputies of the circumstances of the alleged challenge. I said that this was a matter which I was prepared to discuss, but I wanted to hear a case: I wanted an expert with the biggest dossier to come to the Dáil with a resolution and establish his case for this further restriction, or this extension of an existing restriction. Deputy Johnson has made no case. I have attempted to keep in mind throughout this Bill that it is a Bill for the protection of the State, and that it is a Bill to define certain offences as treasonable and to impose penalties for such offences. It is not mere social legislation, The Deputy and other Deputies may be quite right in their view that secret societies, in general, are an unhealthy factor in the State; but this is a Treason Bill, not mere social legislation, and keeping that in mind I have contented myself simply with providing penalties for any person who shall attempt to form within the army or within the police forces secret societies, bearing in mind that members of the army and of the police forces, under the Acts regulating their organisation, already take a declaration against membership of any such societies. There was a question of extending that prohibition to the judiciary and the civil service. I did not criticise that proposal on the ground that it was outside the scope of a Treason Bill. I did not criticise that proposal on the ground that we were considering a measure for the defence and the preservation of the State, and that such an amendment was scarcely in keeping with the general picture, but I asked the Deputy moving it to show that there was some case, some abuse, some general state of affairs calling for the extension of the prohibition beyond the two disciplined bodies to which it applies, beyond the army and beyond the police. Now, despite the considerable cry we have had, or had some time back, no attempt whatever was made to show that, and the Dáil, apparently satisfied that no sufficient case was established, rejected the amendment. Deputy Johnson proposes now a general prohibition embracing all members of a secret society. The A.O.H.—

They come within the definition?

Would the Deputy allow me to finish the sentence? The A.O.H. and the Ancient Order of Buffaloes——

And the Cumann na nGaedheal.

—and many other long established organisations would possibly go by the board. I do not imagine that the Cumann na nGaedheal would come within the definition, but possibly the Transport Union would.

Hear, hear.

And the Railway Clerks' Association and other bodies. Seriously, if the Deputy wants to discuss the general question whether social legislation should be introduced to prohibit absolutely for all citizens membership of secret organisations, then he should do that. He can do that by means of a resolution, or by means of a Private Bill prepared possibly in collaboration with Deputy Esmonde, but it scarcely comes within the scope of a Bill like this, a Treason Bill, to take that broad range and say, generally, that you intend to impose a prohibition on all citizens against belonging to any body that takes an oath or a declaration that they will keep their proceedings, or any part of their proceedings, private. You can scarcely claim that in doing that it was of a piece with the Treason Bill, that the safety and preservation of the State demanded it, and that you were justified because of your concern for the preservation of the State fabric in imposing these restrictions. The Deputy himself, I imagine, agrees that it would be simply social legislation. He might argue that these things are bad and unhealthy in the body politic, that we would be better off without them, and that there is a case for prohibiting them, just as he might argue for some other piece of social legislation. But he has not argued, and he will scarcely argue, that the amendment he has proposed is of a piece with the Treason Bill——

I do, certainly.

And that these things are a standing menace and a standing challenge to the State. We preclude the possibility—theoretically we preclude the possibility—as far as the law can effect it, of their existence within the organised disciplined forces of the State. Members of the army and members of the police force relinquish the right to be members of any such organisation when they join, and we, in this Bill, impose penalties upon any person who would endeavour to form, or maintain, within the army, or the police force, any such organisation.

Why do you prohibit them? Is it not because you assume secret societies are undesirable organisations that you prohibit them from membership?

It is because I believe that secret societies, within the army, and the police force, are a danger to the State.

The prohibition proposed by the Minister does not merely prohibit secret societies in the police force, or in the army, but it prohibits secret societies having amongst their members a policeman or a soldier.

Yes, because members of the police force and the army, have relinquished the right to such membership on joining the police force or army.

That the secret society is a body that should not contain soldiers?

That the army is a body that should not contain secret societies or any persons who are members of such societies.

That is because secret societies are undesirable bodies.

Because they are dangerous to the State.

Secret societies are prohibited in the army and in the Gárda Síochána for good and sufficient reasons. For instance, in one of those bodies the danger and evil actually manifested themselves.

That is passed.

I was not satisfied that we could show the same case in regard to other bodies sought to be included. But if a case could be made, then, unquestionably, they could be included just as we could take the broader sweep as Deputy Johnson suggested—

Would the Minister give us the evidence he has in his dossier?

I have not any evidence in my dossier. Just as you say, you can take the broader range suggested by Deputy Johnson, and say to all your citizens that this is something so evil, or containing possibilities of evil, that you prohibit them by law from being members of such societies. A Treason Bill is not the place to do that. If we want to introduce legislation prohibiting secret societies of any kind then social legislation should be brought in and brought in in the form of a separate Bill from this. You are going wider than the range of simply protecting and preserving the State fabric and the challenge, as Deputy Johnson choose to call it, stands. I do not accept at all that it is rightly lifted on this particular measure. But if the Deputy thinks that we here ought to have social legislation, and that abuses exist that warrant or call for prohibiting absolutely secret societies in the State, and prohibiting every citizen in the State from membership of such societies, then he should do more than introduce a mere amendment on the Report Stage of a Treason Bill. He should bring in a private Bill with the assistance of Deputy Esmonde and thrash the whole matter out. I am not accepting this amendment. I take it that the Deputy will have no objection to amendment No. 9 being taken with this amendment.

No. It is consequential.

The Minister rightly claimed to-day, as he did on a previous occasion, that this was a Bill for the protection and preservation of the State and that consequently he felt bound, with the knowledge which he had at his disposal, as well as from personal experience, to include in this Bill, a barrier against membership of secret societies by members of the army and police force. Now I am not in a position to name societies in this House which are, or which are alleged to be, secret, or whose members are called upon to take an oath or affirmation or declaration, but it is fairly well known to the public generally that there are organisations in this country whose members either take an oath or affirmation or declaration and whose membership it would be no exaggeration to say extends to 250,000 or thereabouts. If secret societies are considered undesirable associations and institutions for soldiers or policemen to be associated with, simply because the Minister responsible, or the head of the police, or the army, cannot find out what they are doing inside these bodies, surely the same argument applies, with a certain amount of truth and justice, to all other State employees, if not to the citizens as a body. The Minister issues a challenge or an invitation, very graciously, but in such a form that makes it impossible for any man to come to this House and prove the things he asks to be proved. He himself, as I said on the previous occasion, admitted in this House that he was a member of a secret organisation.

Would the Deputy say, had been a member?

Certainly, that he had been a member of a secret society. Evidently, as far as one can judge, and to be generous to the Minister, he now seeks to secure power through the Treason Bill to see that that organisation of which he had been a member will no longer exist, or that soldiers, or policemen, can no longer be associated with such an organisation. That is because he himself believes from his own experience, as a member, that that secret organisation and every such organisation is bad and demoralising for the individual, and dangerous to the State. The Minister, on his own admission, makes a case for the extension of this principle to other State employees. We are told on political platforms, especially during the period of elections, that the plain people are the people who rule this country. If you have 250,000 privileged people who will be tolerated to go into meeting-places unknown—some of them may be known—and go behind closed and barred doors, and carry on certain discussions and decide and determine certain things, which may or may not menace the existence of the Government, or the State as a whole, surely the Government of the country is not secure and is not in the hands of the plain people.

Deputy Johnson referred to the suspicion aroused in the minds of plain people who do not belong to secret societies because of the powers, activities and responsibilities of those associated with such societies. I have been working in a circle where the influence of a society supposed to be secret, or a society of secrets, as it has been described, has been powerful. We hear it said, with what truth I do not know, that because so-and-so is a member of the inner circle of this alleged secret society he will not, because of his ability, knowledge or experience, find himself eventually at the top of the ladder, and if he has to fall he will not fall with the same effect as other people who have sinned. That position exists in most of the big public concerns as well as in the Civil Service. If you have 1,000 employees in a certain department of State, and if the head of that department, on his own admission and because of his public advertisements outside, belongs to that secret organisation, it is rightly presumed that when promotion comes along for the under-dog he will favour a man belonging to his own organisation. That is human nature after all, but it creates distrust in the minds of ambitious and conscientious public servants, and it tends to destroy the efficiency of the public service by reason of its existence.

This is not a Railways Bill.

Apparently it does not revolve as smoothly as the Railways Bill so far as the mind of the Minister is concerned. On the last occasion on which this Bill was discussed the Minister, as reported officially, said:—"I make the suggestion that whoever the expert is in the Dáil on secret societies, whoever has the biggest dossier, whoever knows most about these things, should put down a resolution to the effect that the prohibition which applies to members of the Army and members of the police forces, should be extended to embrace all State employees if you like, members of the Civil Service and members of the judiciary, or, better still, to embrace all citizens of Saorstát Eireann, and there can be full discussion, and all the dreadful facts can be hauled out into the daylight, or into the lamplight, but, at any rate, can be hauled out and discussed and analysed." I think that invitation, coming from the Minister, can be accepted by the Minister himself in so far as he from his experience would be most likely to hold the biggest dossier containing all those things which he demands from members of the Dáil. He has at his disposal, in addition to that experience, the secret agents of his own Government, for whom this House has to pay £35,000, which was voted last year for the secret service. I am not quite clear as to the duties of the secret service agents of the Government, or whether they are limited in their every-day work to any particular class of work, but the Minister has the benefit of their experience, and the files are available at Government Buildings, but they are not at the disposal of members of this House.

Deputy Esmonde may be an expert on this question, and I am sorry he is absent; but he asked the Minister if a resolution of that kind was brought in on the invitation of the Minister, would there be a free vote of the House. The Minister graciously said, "Certainly." Deputy Johnson accepted the challenge, and it will be regrettable if more members come in to vote as a result of this discussion than are listening to this discussion now or who listened to it on a previous occasion. The unfortunate fact is that when the division bell rings Deputies spring from nowhere and come in and vote on things about which they know nothing.

Does the Deputy suggest that the bell should ring when he is speaking?

No; when the Minister speaks. There is one thing I would like to know. If the Minister is unwilling to accept this amendment, is he prepared to hold over the further stages of this Bill until the resolution has been brought in, which he invites some member to bring in, and will he have it discussed and allow a free vote of the House upon it?

No. The Treason Bill is an urgent measure and the people want it.

It is so urgent that in principle it debars members of secret societies as being undesirable. I do not think that it would be outside the scope of this Bill, seeing that it seeks to do these things, to have that principle extended to other employees of the State and the citizens at large. Whether the Minister agrees to do that now or at a later stage, there is one thing evident, and that is, that until the Irish people so instruct their representatives to declare as illegal institutions which have to rely on their business being conducted in private behind the backs of the people, the citizens will never be the free people they are told they are at election times. Secret organisations are supposed to be, on the one hand, patriotic if they stand for the achievement of some great national object; or, on the other hand, they may stand for the achievement of some selfish motive. If the people associated with these organisations are members of them because they seek to achieve some object which is in the national interest as a whole, or if their objects are purely charitable, why should they not be prepared to come out in the daylight and let the public at large know the great patriotic and charitable work they are performing? The Minister stated in effect that he is unwilling to hold up the further stages of this Bill until a resolution such as he demands comes along. May I put a further question: Is he prepared, if such a resolution is brought in in the near future, to allow Government time for its free discussion? And will he do so, if not before, immediately after the Easter Recess?

I cannot dispose of Government time.

Then you are not prepared to give any facilities for a discussion of the Resolution which you invited Deputies to bring in?

It seems to me that the declaration the Dáil is going to make on this amendment is a declaration as to whether or not the Deputies think that secret societies are a danger and a menace, or a benefit to the State.

Or merely indifferent.

Or, as the Minister says, merely indifferent. I am inclined to think the Minister is trying to face two ways in this matter.

A great many are.

I am not. I do not know what Deputies behind the Minister may be feeling, or what they would like to do if they got the chance; but the Minister himself, I believe, has inserted this clause largely because of the experience he and the country have gained from the dangers in the army, the police forces, or in the State of secret organisations, over which the Dáil, or the people as a whole, would not have control. In his Treason Bill he has prohibited the existence of these societies in the army or police forces. He says that such organisations or societies are a danger to the State. Can the Minister conceive a situation where the secret organisations might exist, and while not really existing in the army or the police forces, might have very many sympathisers in the army or police forces, or in the Civil Service? Is he prepared to admit that none of those who a very short time ago were supposed to be members of a secret organisation were not members of the civil population and were not in the army? I think it is generally recognised that the secret organisations that have existed in the past included not only military men, as we might understand them, but men who are amongst the civil population.

Civil servants included.

Yes, perhaps civil servants included. The Minister thinks that was a danger in the past, and he is trying to a certain extent to rectify it, but he is not going all the way, and why not? If things were wrong six months ago, and certain organisations were a danger, what about the future? I certainly feel that there is every justification for Deputy Johnson's amendment. After all, as Deputy Gorey stated on the last day, when a thing is not good enough to come out in the light of day and bloom in the open air, there must be some reason for keeping it concealed behind closed doors. We have, perhaps, two or three secret organisations in the country, and we do not know how many more we may have in the future. It is all right for the Minister to say that it is only in the army or the police forces that these secret organisations are a danger. You can inculcate a spirit among the civil population through the medium of secret organisations that might be as great, and perhaps a greater, menace to the State at times than a secret organisation within the military or police forces. If the Minister thinks it is right to permit secret organisations to exist, and to continue to work regardless of what ends they seek to achieve, and that the Deputies feel that there is no danger to the State from them, that perhaps they are an asset to the State, the Dáil will, I suppose, support the Minister in his attitude to this amendment. But I think that an action like that on the part of Deputies will make the country feel that the influences of secret organisations are so strong in this State that they dominate the actions of Deputies in the Dáil who declare by their votes that they are afraid to say that secret societies ought to be interfered with, that no inquiries ought to be made about their status, rules or anything else, and that they are prepared to let them run their way. That is not an attitude I am prepared to take up. I think the Minister should leave the Deputies behind him to their own free wills and consciences to do what they think is best in this matter.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 36.

  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Seán Buitléir.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Seán de Faoite.
  • David Hall.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Patrick J. Mulvany.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Tadhg O Donnabháin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl

  • Earnán Altún.
  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • John J. Cole.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Michael Egan.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • John Good.
  • John Hennigan.
  • William Hewat.
  • Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Eoin Mac Néill.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Risteárd O Conaill.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.
  • Aindriú O Láimhín.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Seán O Raghallaigh.
  • Máirtín O Rodaigh.
  • Seán O Súilleabháin.
  • Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • Liam Thrift.
Tellers.—Tá: Pádraig Baxter, Tomás de Nógla. Níl: Seán O Súilleabháin, Séamus O Dóláin.
Amendment declared lost.
TITLE.
An Act to declare divers acts of a treasonable and seditious nature or otherwise injurious to the State to be offences and to make provision for the punishment thereof and for other matters connected therewith.

I beg to move:—

"To delete the words ‘and seditious' from the Title."

The reason is obvious. I think that all the provisions of the original Bill dealing with sedition have been deleted and it is rather superfluous to put in those words now, when the Bill deals only with treasonable offences. It is not of very much consequence what the Title of the Bill may be, and I bring this amendment forward more as a matter of form rather than substance.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."

On the main question I suppose there will be a certain number of Deputies in the House who will have compared the Bill as originally introduced with the Bill that has now reached its Fourth Stage. I am reminded of the story of a certain young man who was introduced, from a distance, in the garish lights of a music-hall, to a lady handsome and beautiful, as he thought. He was captivated by her appearance and before he knew where he was——

He put his foot in it?

He was had.

He was had, as my friend Deputy Corish says. He took the girl home to be his wife.

He was all the more had then.

And, as one may say, on the Report Stage, he found that his handsome lady was minus a leg, had false teeth——

Yes, and glass eyes. He found, too, that her beautiful bust had been padded. When all the appurtenances thereof had been removed, he had a different impression. The same applies to this Bill, and one can observe all that has been removed from it as compared with what it contained when introduced. The young man of my story was quite prepared to go before his friends, though he was a modest man, and boast and brag about his lady. I do not know whether he was prepared to boast and brag about her after he had seen her dismantled. Similarly, I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to boast and brag about this Bill now. What Bill is it that he is prepared to boast and brag about? Is it the original Bill, or the new Bill that he is prepared to brag about?

Yes. Many of the teeth have gone; a wooden leg replaces the original one. Considering that the Minister was prepared to boast and brag about the original Bill, I have no doubt that he looks with sorrow at the decapitated, trunkless, and heartless residue. The Minister, notwithstanding all his bragging, has brought in a Bill which is unnecessary. I do not think anyone will accuse the Minister of being possessed of liberal ideas in respect to legislation affecting personal liberty. I think that, by the way we are moving, we shall see the Minister leading a body of public opinion back to pre-Victorian years, or at least back into the Bismarckian era. We shall probably see the Minister aiming at being a budding Bismarck, with his views as to the relations of the State and the individual—that loyalty to the State and good citizenship are going to be induced by repressive legislation, and that what one has to do is to make an offence and to make the punishment heavy enough and thereby you will produce good citizens.

It seems to me the Minister's mind is moving very rapidly in the direction that you have to legislate and invent offences, making the punishment heavy enough, and with very little further procedure, such as education and public influences, you will be expected to produce good citizens. We have had very definite evidence in this Bill that that is the mind of the Minister and that he is seeking to bring about a state of loyalty and good citizenship by the mere passing of repressive legislattion. I think that is a wrong conception. It is a very bad proceeding to endeavour to bring forward legislation of this particular character at a time when there is a receding wave of excitement, ill-will and bad blood.

I do not believe there is any necessity for the Bill. I have said that from the beginning, and the Minister reminded me to-day of having said it before. It is quite unnecessary. The mind of the Minister evidently was looking back to the early years of the 19th century, and it is with great doubt and hesitation that he has been able to get away from that state of mind. Under his guidance, as I see it, we are likely to get back to that stage when the country will feel bound to go through the regular processes of political agitation, social and political combinations, criticisms of the powers that be, denunciations of the powers that be, conspiracies against the powers that be, repressions and revolutions, and then we shall perhaps arrive after a series of such actions on the public mind at a stage perhaps of the Ireland or the England of 1914. I look with sorrow upon that prospect. We all hoped a few years ago that we would be entering upon a period of personal and social liberty and that kind of acknowledgment of social obligations that would be induced not by repression, not by fear, but by actual positive loyalty and love for the country and the organisation of the country. I think that we are entering upon a downward, retrogressive path, and I am sorry to think that the Minister is acting as the leader and the spokesman of that group of politicians, that body of opinion, which is looking in that direction. Of course it is all done to save the State; it is all done in the public interest. I have no doubt of the sincerity, not the slightest, but I am persuaded from all the evidence that the direction of the Minister's mind, and the minds of those who were content to support him, is to produce a kind of Tory Junkerism, a kind of Prussianism, Bismarckianism in this country which conceives that the State is something above, beyond, and independent of the citizens, and that loyalty to that State is going to be induced by repression and the fear of punishment. That, I think, explains this Bill. As a consequence of that view, and because I believe that the Bill in its general tendency gives form to that state of mind, I am asking the House to oppose this reading of the Bill.

After the very able analysis of my point of view which Deputy Johnson has inflicted on the Dáil, it would be rather superfluous for me to add very much. I will not attempt to analyse—it would be a considerable task to analyse—the Deputy's point of view. Perhaps the word "point" scarcely applies at all in connection with the Deputy—his circuit of view, I should say. He approaches Bills of this kind with just a vague feeling that he has a sacred and indefeasible right to be at all times and in all circumstances treasonable, and that it is in jeopardy, and that a protest from him would be becoming. He makes a protest in a formal, mechanical way like a man talking in his sleep or a gramophone record turned on—"Let me see the Treason Bill; what should I say in connection with this? Well, I should denounce the Minister. It is always a good principle and a safe thing to denounce the Minister." We have been for three years performing the function of drawing the lightning, so to speak. We have been passing legislation that is necessary, sound and advisable, in the interests of the State, and the people of the State, and when we have drawn all the lightning, stood up to all the abuse, borne all the taunts, all the jibes of Prussianism and Junkerdom, and all the rest of it, there and then Deputy Johnson, Deputy Gorey, Deputy Figgis or some other Deputy will come along and will rule in peace, piously, justly and freely, without doing anything so terrible as introducing a Bill declaring certain offences treasonable and imposing penalties for these offences.

I am not a betting man, but I will take long odds, or short odds, that there is one thing that Deputies will not do when they come into office. They will not repeal this Bill and trust simply to the good-will of the citizens to avoid bashing the State. Not one of the Deputies, not even Deputy Johnson, will do that. He will just let well enough alone. "It is a very good thing it was done, but it is a very good thing also that it was that ruffian so-and-so who did it." Now the Bill that was introduced in the Dáil was a good Bill. This is a better Bill.

Hear, hear.

I make Deputy Johnson a present of that, while reminding him that in so far as it is a better Bill, it is improved by the amendments which I introduced myself.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 31; Níl, 15.

  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Seán de Faoite.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Eoin Mac Néill.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Peádar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Risteárd O Conaill.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.
  • Aindriú O Láimhín.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Seán O Raghallaigh.
  • Maíirtín O Rodaigh.
  • Seán O Súilleabháin.
  • Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.

Níl

  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Seán Buitléir.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • Darrell Figgis.
  • David Hall.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Tellers.—Tá: Seán O Súilleabháin, Seoirse Mac Niocaill. Níl: Pádraig Baxter, Tomás de Nógla.
Motion declared carried.
Fifth Stage ordered for Tuesday, March 31st.
Top
Share