Amendment 4, dealing with Section 1, is not moved.
PUBLIC SAFETY BILL, 1927—COMMITTEE STAGE.
Question—"That Section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move:—
To insert before sub-section (2) a new sub-section as follows:—
The following words, expressions or phrases appearing in the text of this Act shall be interpreted as bearing the same meaning as has been applied to them in previous legislation and not otherwise, that is to say: "Treason,""Treasonable or seditious character,""appearing to be issued by or to emanate from,""purporting to aid and abet.""in the possession of such person or on or in premises belonging to and occupied by him or under his control,""offence of a seditious or treasonable character,""having possession of."
This clause contains definitions of certain expressions but not of others equally important and prominent in the Bill. I hope that this omission was due to the fact that these definitions have been established by previous legislation, but, if not, I would like to know why certain definitions are given of certain phrases and not of others.
Special definitions have been given of certain phrases because they are intended to have a peculiar or specialised meaning in the context. As to the rest of Deputy Hewson's amendment, I hope I am not treading the same path as the unfortunate reporter who was criticised by the Deputy this morning. What definition does he want, for instance, of the phrase "purporting to aid and abet"?
Is the expression "military courts," for instance, to be interpreted without reference to previous legislation?
If that is all the satisfaction the Deputy wants, In may say that military courts operates within a code of law and will be bound by the ordinary rules of interpretation. What more can the Deputy want? As to the others, they are simply a collection of words with meanings which ordinary words in that collection will have.
Will they be interpreted more widely?
Having been used before, their meaning will vary according to the context. To what previous legislation does the Deputy refer? Have we to go through all previous legislation and indicate what meaning and force are to be given to certain words? In my opinion the amendments is absurd.
Am I to understand that the meaning of the words is to be further varied?
Where is that suggested?
It is suggested by the Minister's statement.
Where is it suggested in the Bill?
I am partly divided between relief and regret that the Minister has not accepted the amendment. I am relieved because I do not want the definition of "treason" to be very widely extended. That, whether the Deputy intends it or not, would I suggest be the effect of the Deputy's amendment. On the other hand, I confess to a certain regret because I am a very humble member of a very great profession, and though my practice has lain elsewhere, I can imagine, if the Act unhappily were to operate more largely than we anticipate and many cases arose under it, there undoubtedly would be under this clause a wealth of gold flowing into the pockets of the members of the Irish Bar, and my learned colleagues, Deputies Redmond, McMenamin and Rice, would probably get a large share of it. I want to express, if I may, on behalf of the Irish Bar, my appreciation of the generosity of Deputy Hewson. I cannot help looking on him as I have been accustomed to look on that old lady whom I have been searching for all my life—that old lady who, because one picked up her handkerchief in the street or gave her a seat in a railway carriage, bequeathed him an annuity of £10,000 a year, a hunting lodge in Meath, and salmon and trout fisheries in Connemara.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce asks, very properly, what previous legislation is referred to. I can imagine, on the widest interpretation of the term, that it should be necessary to take evidence on commission in Egypt, to interpret the hieroglyphics on ancient monuments, and to penetrate the jungles of Middle and Southern America to discover what legislation was previously adopted in the matter of treason by ancient civilisation. Even if we take a somewhat narrower interpretation, and suppose all we have to look for is these words—some of them very common in the English language—we would have to consider not only the ancient statutes of Israel, but those of the neghbouring island of Great Britain, of Scotland, the enactments of the Empire of India, and the great Dominions, the provincial, as well as the central, enactments of the United States, and also the enactments of every Crown colony.
That, I suggest, would be a very large and pleasant task for the members of the Irish Bar. We would get into further difficulties if this amendment were adopted because previous legislation would appear to include not merely Acts which are actually in operation and on the Statute Book somewhere, but all legislation that has ever been made in the whole world at any time, even though those Acts should be repealed. If I were of a suspicious turn of mind I should be afraid that the Deputy, by a side-wind, was trying to reintroduce the penal laws, because, undoubtedly, it was at one time an act of treason to declare in the time of his late and lamented Majestry, Henry VIII. that Princess Elizabeth was not legistimate. It was also an act of a treasonable and seditious character to attend Mass at which a bishop or unregistered priest was present. I suggest therefore that the wording of the amendment is slightly unfortunate, and its clear and necessary effect is not to restrict—I am sure that was the intention of the Deputy—but immensely to enlarge the treason clause.
Not going back to Egyptian hieroglyphics, I should like to ask whether the meaning to be given to these phrases will be narrower or wider than the meaning applied to them in most of the legislation passed during the last five years. We have had a good deal of coercive legislation, emergency Acts, and so forth, and I want to know whether these definitions will be treated in a wider sense than they have been treated in previous legislation, because we have had this Bill described by a well-known journal as one that would bring a blush to the cheek of Buckshot Forster. I wanted to know if these definitions are justified, and, accordingly, I began at an early section of the Bill.
It is refreshing to have a lesson in the art of Parliamentary discussion from Deputy Law. He has had experience of the kind which it would be my wish that Opposition Deputies would be able to follow with, perhaps, usefulness to the legislation of the future. I think that a good deal of the doubts about the merits of this amendment is justified, but there is a certain importance attached to parts of it in view of the changes that have taken place in the phrasing of this Bill as compared with that of the Treasonable Offences Act. The section says that the expression "treasonable or seditious documents" includes any documents relating to or concerned with or issued or emanating from or appearing to issue or emanate from an unlawful association. An unlawful association is any association or body of persons described as such by the Executive Council. A seditious document, may be almost anything. I draw attention to the fact that in the Treasonable Offences Act—the greater part of it, at any rate; I am not sure whether it is so in every case—the word "sedition" does not appear in connection with treason. What is a seditious document? The late Lord Halsbury wrote:—
"As to sedition itself, I do not think that any such offence is known to English law."
In previous Acts there is reference to "seditious intentions," but this Bill speaks of actions of a "treasonable or seditious character." There may be no such thing as sedition itself known to English law, but it is authoritatively expressed that the term "sedition" is a very elastic one, including offences ranging from libel to treason. Again I quote Lord Halsbury:—
"A seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatered or contempt or to incite disaffection against the person of the King or the Government and Constitution of the United Kingdom as by law established—
That is now the Saorstát—
"or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or to incite the King's subjects to attempt otherwise than by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to incite any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of His Majesty's subjects."
Some of these phrases will be very wide indeed as to a document which might be considered, under this definition, seditious, if emanating from an association, and appeared to "incite discontent or disaffection, or promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of his Majesty's subjects." There may be acts which go very far in the promotion of discontent and ill-will that are reprehensible and, in fact, criminal, but within that definition very many other things besides these most reprehensible acts can be included. The term "seditious documents" may include anything that the judge or, as it will appear, the court of military officers considers likely to incite ill-will. There is, therefore, a very serious reason for giving consideration to the definition and interpretation, and I hope before the Bill becomes law the references to sedition will be excised, or that we shall have some narrower definition of the word "sedition" than the law authorities have up to now given to the word.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 3.
Every provision of this Act which is in contravention of any provision of the Constitution shall to the extent of such contravention operate and have effect as an amendment of such provision of the Constitution.
I move amendment 6:—
On the page 2, line 35, to insert after the word "amendment" the words "for so long only as this Act continues in force."
This affects the purpose I mentioned last night, that the Constitution is amended only so long as this Bill is in force.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
With the purpose of the last amendment. I need scarcely say I am in full accord. In regard to the section itself, it will be practically impossible, if so desired, to amend it, because the section proposes virtually the suspension of the Constitution, and, if the section were deleted, the Bill as it stands would be worthless and inconsistent with the Constitution. While I have no objection to the amendment of the Constitution for some of the purposes of this Bill, I do object to this method of amendment. We have in this State, fortunately or unfortunately, a written Constitution, and if it is proposed to introduce and pass Bills with a section such as this—shall I call it a portmantean section—then certainly our Constitution, for what it has been worth, will stand for very little in future. My view is that, as we have a written Constitution, the only proper way to amend that Constitution is by express and specific legislation, showing in every detail how the Constitution is to be amended. This section provides that wherever this Bill is in contravention of any provision of the Constitution, the Constitution shall be thereby amended for the period of the Bill. I do not know from this section, nor have we been informed by any Minister, where the Constitution is amended, and I think that we are entitled to that information. Presumably it is amended as far as Article 70 is concerned, which provides, in effect, that there shall be no other courts in the land but the courts set up by the Oireachtas. But the Constitution may be amended in other directions also— in fact I think it is. I think there is an implied, and, therefore, according to this section an actual amendment of the Constitution under Section 4, sub-section (3), which I shall not go into now in detail, because I have an amendment down to that sub-section. But I would suggest in all seriousness and sincerity to the Government that when the Constitution is sought to be amended it should be done explicitly, in detail, and by express legislation. I can very well understand that it is not convenient to do so, but on the other hand, are we to treat our Constitution in a manner as lightly as this? If any Bill can be brought in with a general portmanteau provision such as this, I say that it is making little of our Constitution and might eventually render that Constitution of very little worth.
I suggest to the Government that this section should be deleted—at any rate that during this stage of the Bill it should not be proceeded with, and that later on a schedule should be framed to the Bill giving details of where and how the Bill will amend the Constitution. I think that we are entitled to know, on the authority of those who are seeking these powers, where, in their opinion, these powers will conflict with the Constitution; otherwise it is left to us to endeavour to discover that for ourselves. In making this proposal I want it to be understood that I am not doing it in any sense of obstruction to this Bill. I am merely desirous that in dealing with the Constitution this Government should set an example to future Governments that the Constitution should not be interfered with in a temporary manner or in a rather ambiguous fashion. When the Constitution is sought to be amended, I think that it should be directly and expressly amended, and that full details should be given to the House and to the nation as to how it is being amended. Therefore I would ask the President if he would consider the advisability, whether he lets this section stand or not, of putting in a schedule to the Bill, pointing out in detail where, at any rate, the promoters of the Bill consider that the Constitution is being amended. Of course, the Government cannot say where it is actually being amended. That might rest with a decision of the Supreme Court. But they can give the House, and the country, their view, and they have the means of obtaining the very best legal authority as to whether the Constitution and how the Constitution is being amended by the Bill. I would, therefore, make this suggestion, in all good faith and earnestness, to the President because I think it is due both to himself and his Government and also to the Dáil and the country.
I should like to support Deputy Redmond's suggestion. This section is clearly in contravention of the Constitution, and it clearly refrains from disclosing or defining the extent of that contravention. In other words, it is an invitation to Deputies to pass alterations to the Constitution, the nature and extent of which are unknown to them, and, personally, I must decline such as invitation to-day or on any future occasion. I think if there was a clear understanding on this point. and perhaps on other points, it might allow Ministers to attend the Horse Show in top hats with that measure of complacency which would be supplied by a perusal of their speeches in the Official Reports of the week before. I shall have amendments to propose to other sections of this Bill, and I do not propose to waste the time of the House any more than is necessary.
I want to support the view expressed by Deputy Redmond in regard to the unwisdom of introducing provisions of this kind in such a Bill. Deputies will notice that in the short title of the Constitution (Amendment No. 6) Bill, the words "Amendment No. 6" are in parenthesis. Deputies who were members of the last Dáil will remember that a certain discussion took place as to how the title of such Constitution Amendment Bills should be written. There was general agreement that no Bill should be considered to be an amendment of the Constitution unless it was specifically declared to be such, and it was with a view to ensuring that no Bill should be considered to be an amendment of the Constitution that the title was written in the form in which the titles of such Amendment Bill have been written. This Bill is a kind of accidental Amending Bill. It may amend the Constitution or it may not. If it does, it is to be considered superior to the Constitution and as automatically amending the Constitution.
There is a very serious consideration involved in Article 50 of the Constitution. It says: "Any such amendment may be made, within the said period of eight years by way of ordinary legislation." And it is known to those who have given any thought to this question that in one of the courts a judge did declare that any Bill passed by the Oireachtas, if it in effect had contravened the Constitution within that eight years, was, in fact, an amendment of the Constitution. So, if that judgement were to be held as valid, every Bill that is passed has equal authority to the Constitution; the Constitution is not a superior document. The declaration of that judge is supported by high legal authority outside the courts, and it was having regard to that opinion that the Dáil agreed that no Constitution Amendment Bill should be passed without a specific declaration on the face of it that it was a Constitution Amendment Bill.
If this section is passed in its present form it certainly weakens the claim that was made that the Constitution is, in fact, a superior document, and that all legislation which was passed within the period of eight years as in subsequent years would be invalid if contravening the Constitution. If you may contravene the Constitution by the insertion of a provision of this kind, supposing it were desired, or by accident or inadvertence a certain phrase came into any Bill which ran across the intentions of the Constitution, there is a very considerable danger that the interpretation of the judge in regard to the effect of ordinary legislation upon the Constitution would receive support by the introduction of a section of this kind in an ordinary piece of legislation. Such a legislative change, if it were, in another direction—a direction completely at variance with the directions of the present Dáil—would be considered to be an amendment of the Constitution, and the policy of the present Ministry would, by that method, be utterly traversed and upset.
Apart from the merits of the Bill— I am not discussing it from that point of view—I strongly urge that we should not introduce into the Bill a section of this kind which makes it, if perchance anything in this Bill is a contravention of the Constitution, an amendment to the Constitution, although we have no intention or may have no intention of amending the Constitution. We do not know whether this amends the Constitution. If it does, then the Constitution is amended. That, surely, is no way to treat the Constitution. Notwithstanding what has been said, I believe the Constitution is a piece of legislation which ought to be treated as of binding importance, overriding ordinary legislation, and unless we are deliberate and purposeful in making an amendment of the Constitution then any legislation of the kind ought to be thought of as amending the Constitution. I certainly think, whether it is to be done in this Bill or by separate legislation, we ought not to pass such a provision as this, which does not make it clear that the Oireachtas is intending to amend the Constitution in specific particulars. I think it is a most important consideration, and that very great care ought to be given to it before we go any further with the passing of this section.
In listening to the debates which have taken place so far on this Bill I have had brought clearly to my mind the unpleasant position of the ordinary layman who gets into the hands of the legal luminaries of the country. It is with fear and trembling that I push myself into the debate. So far it has been altogether between the lawyers who are representatives in this Dáil, and I am hoping, before this discussion is finished, that they will not turn on me and mutually agree to rend me to pieces. I have a feeling about this amendment, and I think it is only due to myself that I should give expression to it. I have been led by the discussions which have taken place in this Dáil to regard the Constitution as something that was practically sacrosanct, and which ought to be approached with the greatest care, and which could only be changed after considerable notice and with due regard to every implication of the changes we were making. I have a distinct memory of its being stated in this House—I cannot remember whether it was stated from the Ministerial benches or by Deputy Johnson —that no amendment of the Constitution should be passed unless it were specifically defined as a Constitution Bill.
I may have an undue regard for the sacredness of the Constitution, but that has been impressed on me by many things. It has been impressed on me by the fact that after the expiration of a limited number of years the Constitution becomes static, and that it can only be changed by a referendum of the people. The only meaning I can adduce from that is that the Constitution is something that must be regarded as sacred, and that it should not be lightly tampered with. I certainly see that there is great force in the objections which have been made by Deputy Johnson and Deputy Redmond that the Constitution should not be changed in an ordinary Act and, further, if such a change is liable, that change should be made in such a way as to make it clear as to what the change is. Undoubtedly, if this section is passed the changes will not be clear, and it will not be possible for any man to approach the Constitution, read it, and say: There is the Constitution of the Free State. Nobody can say it without legal opinion, and even there there is a very considerable difference of opinion. I give those views, perhaps, rather tentatively as a layman thrusting himself in amongst legal luminaries of this Dáil, but I feel that I could not let this change in the Constitution which is taking place pass lightly without opposition from these benches.
This amendment to the Constitution must be read in the light of the first section. The necessary amendment which this Bill makes in the Constitution is not in the nature of an ordinary amendment to the Constitution. This Bill has a limited life; it is necessary for the circumstances of the time. It is clear on the face of the Bill and in the section that the Constitution is amended by reason of this measure and I do not think that the section calls for any explanation other than that.
I must say that I am not clear as to where the Constitution is amended.
Can the President give us any indication of what parts of the Bill he intends shall amend the Constitution? Is it his intention that only that portion of the Constitution which prohibits the setting up of courts is to be amended? Does he intend that there shall be any other amendment to the Constitution? Is he prepared to take the risk that the Constitution may be amended by some other provision of the Bill without the Dáil knowing whether it is amending the Constitution or not?
The section on the face of it declares exactly what it means.
Undoubtedly there is the feeling that the position is still very obscure. The President has not clearly indicated the position, and Deputies may be pardoned if they feel they do not know where they stand with regard to the Constitution. Deputy Redmond has made what seems to me a practical suggestion and a suggestion that it is not impossible for lawyers to put into technical form and insert as a schedule to the Bill, namely, that where any clauses in the Bill contravene the Constitution, or may be interpreted as contravening the Constitution, that they should be inserted in some form in the Bill at a later stage. I think it is due to the Dáil that that should be done. It is advisable to do that, and then we will know where we stand and we will know how far we are being asked to amend the Constitution.
I would like to give a few of the instances in which the Constitution is proposed to be amended by the Bill. I do not pretend they are exhaustive, but at all events they are some of them. Article 6 of the Constitution will be amended as a consequence of passing Sections 13, 16 and 24. Article 6 of the Constitution is the one that provides that
The liberty of the person is inviolable, and no person shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with law. Upon complaint made by or on behalf of any person that he is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof shall forthwith inquire into the same and may make an order requiring the person in whose custody such person shall be detained to produce the body of the person so detained before such court or judge without delay and to certify in writing as to the cause of the detention, and such court or judge shall thereupon order the release of such person unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law:
Provided, however, that nothing in this Article contained shall be invoked to prohibit control or interfere with any act of the military forces of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) during the existence of a state of war or armed rebellion.
That Article of the Constitution is, of course, a re-enactment, so far as our Constitution is concerned, of the Habeas Corpus Act, and, looking at Sections 13, 16 and 24, the Article would be modified by the enactment of those sections. Sections 14 and 15 also vary Article 7 of the Constitution, which provides:
The dwelling of each citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered except in accordance with law.
Article 9 of the Constitution is affected by Section 4, sub-section (1) (f), because Article 9 provides:
The right of free expression of opinion as well as the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, and to form associations or unions, is guaranteed for purposes not opposed to public morality....
Then Article 70 has been referred to as being affected by the passage of this Bill. Article 70 provides:
No one shall be tried save in due course of law and extraordinary courts shall not be established, save only such Military Tribunals as may be authorised by law for dealing with military offenders against military law. The jurisdiction of Military Tribunals shall not be extended to or exercised over the civil population save in time of war, or armed rebellion, and for acts committed in time of war or armed rebellion and in accordance with the regulations to be prescribed by law. Such jurisdiction shall not be exercised in any area in which all civil courts are open or capable of being held, and no person shall be removed from one area to another for the purpose of creating such jurisdiction.
Article 72 of the Constitution provides:
No person shall be tried on any criminal charge without a jury save in the case of charges in respect of minor offences triable by law before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and in the case of charges for offences against military law triable by Court-martial or other Military Tribunal.
I have not suggested those are exhaustive. They may or may not include all the sections of the Constitution. I did not look at the Bill from the point of view of taking part in the debate, and it was only for the purpose of replying to some questions put by Deputies that I have intervened.
Deputy Rice, with very great thoroughness, has dealt with a really essential matter. If anybody has got serious doubts as to why this clause is necessary, the answer can be put in a couple of words. The Constitution lays down, among other things, a large number of rather general principles, dealing with freedom of the Press, the inviolability of dwellings, and so on. This is, as the President has said, a Public Safety Bill. It is an emergency measure framed to deal with what we all hope and believe is an exceptional and passing phase. It is plainly not intended to be a permanent amendment or change in the Constitution. Exceptional moments require exceptional remedies, and there are times when you must give exceptional powers to your Executive, powers obviously not contemplated originally by the Constitution, powers no one would dream of conferring on the Executive in ordinary normal times.
A clause of that sort in the Bill is absolutely essential in some form or other because otherwise every time a man was arrested and brought to trial for some offence under the Act, some offence which the Oireachtas declares is an offence punishable under the Act, you will find he will be able to plead as superior to the Act some clause or other of the Constitution. That is the whole purpose. It will be used only in so far as a person is declared by the Oireachtas to be really an offender. It does not wish to go from the general principles laid down in the Constitution. It is only to that extent and in so far as that operates that the Constitution is for the moment amended.
I quite agree with the last speaker that this, of course, is an emergency Bill for a temporary purpose, and I also agree with him that it is necessary that extraordinary powers should be given under this Bill; but I think it is due to the Dáil that we should be informed by the promoters of the Bill what those extraordinary powers are and how they are going to amend the Constitution. We have heard from one Deputy how, in his view, the Constitution is going to be amended. He himself, though learned in the law, has confessed that he is not able to say that his view is exhaustive. I think the Government should state in some form or other in the Bill how, in their view, and what portion of, the Constitution is amended. I do not think that, by any stretch of the imagination, can be described as an extravagant demand. We want to know what we are doing; we do not want to be taking a leap in the dark. Are we amending everything in the Constitution?
No.
Are we amending portion of the Constitution? What portion are we amending? I am not in the position honestly to be able to state how and where the Constitution is being amended. I ask the President if, between now and the final stages of this Bill, he would have the question authoritatively examined and have placed in the Bill, whether in the form of a schedule or otherwise, the Government's view, as the promoters of the Bill, where and how the Constitution is amended. I was not quite aware before Deputy Johnson spoke of the position we were in as outlined by him. I take it, as that has not been questioned, that our practice so far has been accurately described by him. It appears from what he said that it has become the practice here, owing to certain decisions of the courts, that any Bill which proposes to amend the Constitution shall be definitely and specifically termed an amendment to the Constitution. If that is so, I cannot see why this Bill, which seemingly goes a very long way towards amending the Constitution, even though that amendment may be, as it is, temporary, should not be in conformity in that respect with other Bills. As I said originally, it may be inconvenient to introduce specific Bills for this purpose apart from this, but I do not think it would be very inconvenient for the President to accede to my request that a schedule should be put into the Bill to give us and the country at large some indication of what portions of the Constitution are being amended. That is the full extent of the request I am making. We might have had speeches from every Deputy in the House. They might have got up and said that in their view this portion was being amended, and that in their view another portion was being amended, but I think it is due to the House and, as I said before, to the Government themselves, that they should give both the House and the country their view as to what they are doing, even in regard to this temporary amendment of the Constitution.
I think this can be very simply explained. This section in the Bill is no amendment of the Constitution, and the wording of the section is very specific. It says: "Every provision of this Act which is in contravention of any provision of the Constitution shall to the extent of such contravention operate and have effect as an amendment of such provision of the Constitution." This Bill is merely a legalising of what we know to be certain acts and provisions of it which are in the ordinary and normal way contrary to the rights of the Consitution, but this is no amendment of them. It is simply a legalising of contraventions against the Constitution. It might be argued for twenty-four hours that we were amending the Constitution. Take Article 70 of the Constitution, which lays down that the jurisdiction of military tribunals cannot be extended to the civil population, except in times of war or of armed rebellion.
This, as the President properly pointed out, is a Public Safety Bill, and we are taking certain rights under it which, in normal circumstances, according to the Constitution, we would not be entitled to take. In other words, we are contravening certain Articles of the Constitution under this Bill which have got to be legalised, and this Bill is the method of doing that.
There is no definite amendment of the Constitution being made at all. There is no alteration or amendment of the Constitution being made, but we are simply dealing with certain exceptional circumstances. This Bill merely gives exceptional powers to deal with them, and there is no infringement of the Constitution at all. There is no definite suspension, for instance, of the rights of free speech, but under this Bill we are taking certain powers which, in normal circumstances, according to the Constitution, we would not be entitled to take. That is the position.
It appears to me that there is rather something unreal about the request of Deputy Redmond, because the information he asks for he could easily acquire himself. As a matter of fact, Deputy Rice has acquired that information for himself, and has given it to the House.
I would like to remind the Deputy that I am not speaking for myself in this, but for my constituents in the country.
The Deputy's constituents in the country will know that themselves if they read the Constitution, and also that, in the course of this debate, every section was taken up and debated. From that debate they will know what sections are or are not contrary to the wording of the Constitution. It is almost certain that every section which may be against the wording of the Constitution will be debated, and that it will be pointed out whether or not they are against the Constitution. It is undoubtedly a difficult question to decide whether or not certain sections are against an Article of the Constitution. If there was a particular schedule setting that out, as Deputy Redmond suggests, it would be to that extent and no further that the Constitution was interfered with, but then that might give rise to very difficult legal questions and a great deal of litigation. I take it that when this Bill is passed the House will know what it means. The House will know what it has done and so will the country. It seems to me that if, as Deputy Redmond suggests, there was a schedule set out to the Act, there would have to be, to shut up possible loopholes, a general clause such as the clause contained in Section 3 of the Bill.
I agree with the last speaker that the speech of Deputy Rice has shown clearly the absolute necessity for some such clause as this in the Bill, if it is to become law at all, unless we are to open wide the doors for litigation. At the same time I do not like to let pass without challenge the list of acts given us by Deputy Rice as being contrary to the Constitution. For example, take Section 6 of the Constitution. Deputy Rice quoted that as being in contra-distinction to some of the provisions of this Bill. But that clause of the Constitution specifically refers to an arrest in accordance with the law, and if this Public Safety Bill becomes law any action under the Bill will be in accordance with the law. Therefore, it seems to me that such action will not be in any way opposed to Section 6 of the Constitution. I rise for the purpose of making this form of protest against the suggestion that this Bill was contrary to such an important section of the Constitution as Section 6.
The statement of Deputy Thrift illustrates the necessity for something of the character that Deputy Redmond is advocating. Deputy Rice, who is a lawyer, has gone through the Bill, and has indicated to the House certain sections which seem to contravene certain other sections of the Constitution. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, also a lawyer, I understand, said that different questions which will be dealt with in the House will make the public understand in what sense we are amending the Constitution. I always had the idea that, whatever the public may say regarding the discussions in the Legislative Chamber, what bound them was the Act, and not the discussion. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney said that the country will know what the House has done after having heard or read the discussion in the House, but the country will not know to what extent the guarantees of protection which the Constitution gives have been contravened. Deputy Law reminds us that this is exceptional legislation to deal with an emergency, but it is an emergency that lasts for five years, and it is to deal with a very large area of public life when no emergency has been declared, and when no special courts are set up.
An emergency lasting for five years is something not common. A state of civil war or external war may justify extraordinary measures of this kind. In many Constitutions one reads a clause to suspend certain protections, but in those Constitutions, so far as I have read them, they indicate what particular sections of the Constitution are suspensible in time of civil emergency, widespread civil disorder, or in times of war. There are certain specific protections for the public that are indicated in some of those Constitutions which say these may be suspended during a time of civil strife or of warfare. No doubt, if we were to declare that for five years there is to be a period of civil war for this country that would be another matter, but no case has been made for that. Let us remember that we are legislating for a period of five years, a period during which we may hope that no emergency will have been declared at all.
We have on the Statute Book an Emergency Powers Bill which declares that certain things may be done after such emergency has been declared. In this Bill it is proposed that certain special courts shall be set up by proclamation. The setting up of those courts will indicate a state of emergency of one kind or another. But in the period during which there is no state of emergency in operation several clauses of this Bill, according to Deputy Rice, who is quoted by Deputy Law and Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney as having been in suspense, do actually suspend the protections of the Constitution for all the period, not merely the period of emergency.
Only while the Bill is in force?
The Bill is to be in force for five years, and the contention seems to be that for the five years we shall be in a state of emergency, and that such an emergency justifies the suspension of the Constitutional provisions for the protection of the citizens. If there is anything more likely to bring the Constitution into contempt it is this kind of legislation. We have been assured, time and time again, that the political system we have adopted, and the Constitution under which we are living, gives protection for the people. Anyone who has experience of life will agree that there are occasions when the civil authority, in times when there is no emergency and when there is no extraordinary strife about, even in ordinary times, may be tempted, even by accident, to overstep the bounds of the Constitution. The Constitution is intended to meet that case and to protect the citizen against the Executive, an Executive which may be acting by deliberation or by accident.
Let us imagine that an over-zealous police officer takes certain action which affects the liberty and the rights of the citizen, rights which are guaranteed under the Constitution, not in connection with civil strife at all or in connection with any uprising or any secret organisation for the subversion of the State. That action of the Executive against the citizen is going to override the Constitution, and the protection of the citizen is withdrawn and is in suspense by these courts. I ask Deputies to recognise that we are not only dealing with a state of emergency, we are not only dealing with civil strife or any attempted armed subversion or overthrow of the State in this Bill, but we are dealing for a period of five years with any matter that may come within this Clause 4, and it is quite enough in all conscience. Paragraphs (e) and (f) may bring in almost anything in the way of political agitation, and there is no protection for five years under the Constitution against the over-zeal of a police officer.
It strikes me that there has been a great deal of talk about nothing. To a layman Section 3 seems to mean what it says—that any person or any combination of persons proceeded against under the provisions of this Bill shall not be able himself, or through his attorney, to state that the proceeding is prohibited by the Constitution. The clause simply means that and nothing else.
Was the Deputy dealing with Section 4?
With Section 3.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 33.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Michael Davis.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark C. Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Patrick M. Kelly.
- Hugh A. Law.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Martin McDonogh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- P. McGilligan.
- Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín.
- James E. Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- P. S. O Dubhghaill.
- E. S. O Dúgáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
Níl
- Richard S. Anthony.
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- P. Belton.
- Henry Broderick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- William Davin.
- Edward Doyle.
- Michael Doyle.
- William Duffy.
- Hugh Garahan.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- Richard Holohan.
- John Horgan.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Timothy J. O'Donovan.
- David Leo O'Gorman.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- William Archer Redmond.
- James Shannon.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Coburn and Cullen.
Motion declared carried.
Section, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 4.
(1) The Executive Council may by order declare any association which in the opinion of the Executive Council—
(a) has amongst its professed objects, or advocates or encourages, or professes to encourage the overthrow by force of the Government of Saorstát Eireann or the alteration by force of the Constitution or the law,
(b) without lawful authority organises or maintains or endeavours or purports to organise or maintain an armed force, or
(c) promotes or encourages the unlawful possession of firearms by its members, or
(d) engages in, promotes, encourages, or advocates any act, enterprise, or course of action of a treasonable or seditious character, or promotes, encourages or advocates the attainment of any object of a treasonable or seditious character, or
(e) promotes, encourages or advocates the commission of crimes or offences or the obstruction or interference with the administration of justice or the enforcement or the law, or
(f) promotes, encourages, or advocates the non-payment of moneys payable to the Central Fund or any other public fund whether by way of taxation or otherwise or the non-payment of local taxation, to be an unlawful association.
(2) Every order made by the Executive Council under the foregoing sub-section shall continue in force until revoked by an order of the Executive Council.
(3) Every order made by the Executive Council under this section declaring an association to be an unlawful association and every order of the Executive Council revoking any such order shall be published in the "Iris Oifigiúil" as soon as conveniently may be.
I move amendment 7:—
In sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (f).
There are six clauses in this sub-section. With the object of the first three I am in entire sympathy. If I had a reasonable definition of the fourth clause, I dare say I should also find myself in sympathy with it. About the object of the fifth clause I am not quite so sure. From the object of the sixth clause, I feel myself justified in dissenting. The connection between local taxation and the assassination of the Vice-President is not at all clear to me. If this clause had been directed against secret societies, if it had disqualified from holding public positions those who had been members of secret societies within the last five years, I would not only have voted for it, but I would have voted for its extension from seven years to seventy years. Those things, however, do not seem to have been in the mind of the drafter of the Bill. This section is framed in undesirably wide terms. To "promote" and "encourage" are very vague expressions. One might "encourage" indirectly and without intention, as the result of perfectly constitutional action for the protection of rights about to be infringed in which one is not protected by the Government or any administrative department of the Government. That being so, I find the wording of this sub-section entirely too wide, and I oppose it.
It is not clear to me, from what Deputy Hewson has said, what part of this sub-section he is opposed to. It is not proposed to take from any person by this clause any legal rights which he has. A person may, if he so desires, challenge the legality of an income tax demand or of a rate assessment, or anything of that sort, as long as he acts legally. We are dealing with persons who take part in an association which has for its object an anti-legal act. There has been an association formed in one part of the country for the non-payment of Land Commission annuities. A development of that association was an armed attack on an estate agent's office. Lives might easily have been lost. Any legal right which any person has at the moment is not affected, and will not be affected, by the passage of this sub-section.
In consequence of what the President has said I would like to know what he means by "legal rights." Does he mean taking legal proceedings in court? According to the section, if an individual calls together the people of a townland, holds a meeting and addresses it, that is an unlawful assembly. The President says that people can do these things so long as they do them lawfully. What is the meaning of "lawfully"? They can take legal proceedings if they feel they are injured by any taxation, but if they take any other step, owing to the adoption of this section, ipso facto they are an unlawful assembly and can take no part in, say, the affairs of a local council. We should be definite and specific as to what we do in this matter. It will not do to leave it in an ambiguous way. On the face of the sub-section, the moment a man opens his mouth on any of these matters he is an unlawful assembly and can be arrested under the Bill.
I think the point is a good one and that the phrasing of this paragraph of the sub-section should be reconsidered with a view to making it read as it, apparently, is intended to read. The President has given an illustration of what the sub-section is directed against, but it goes much further. It refers to an association or body of persons gathered together which promotes, encourages or advocates the non-payment of local taxation. That, according to the sub-section, is an unlawful association. That is altering the law. That would be the law when this Bill becomes an Act and you cannot refer to any previous law and say that it protects as against this. I can conceive of attempts being made to withhold local taxes as part of a legitimate agitation and enterprise, to withhold, not necessarily to refuse to pay what is legal. The non-payment of local taxation may mean a general refusal to pay rates over a period of a particular kind.
I suggest that this really covers a much wider field than is intended by the President's statement. I think the President would be well able to conceive of agitations against an unfair and indiscriminate collection of rates to withhold payment with a view to having the matter altered. That might be done without any subversive intention whatever. Let us take a practical, concrete illustration. Suppose there are houses belonging to a county council, an urban or a city council, and there may be what may be deemed to be by the tenants very excessive increased charges for rates or rents. It may be claimed, though there is a legal right to increase rents to a certain degree, that they are unfair and unjust and there is an agitation to withhold rents with a view to getting a settlement. I think there is nobody in the Dáil who will not agree that that may be awkward or inconvenient, but it does not constitute an association of a character which would bring its members within the terms of this section. The section, unless altered, brings the members of such an association within the Bill, they become members of an unlawful association, and they are subject to all the penalties of the Bill. In that respect, as in others, I think that the Bill is going much beyond the declared intention of the Minister.
Deputy Johnson's argument is that that which is now illegal should be made legal. There is a legal liability to pay rates and there is a legal remedy against the improper levying of rates, as Deputy Hewson well knows. I do not think that Deputy Hewson would prefer to settle the matter by means of a strike, though I can well understand Deputy Johnson doing so. The argument of Deputy Johnson is an argument of the right to strike against a legal obligation. If we adopt that doctrine we are adopting the doctrine of anarchy. We declare that it is an illegal association to combine to break the law. The law imposes responsibility for the payment of rates. I would like to hear Deputy Corish on Deputy Johnson's argument. I am a member of a very small local authority. How any local authority is to carry on, if it is proclaimed to be lawful to withhold the payment of rates, I cannot understand. I will have no hesitation in voting against the amendment.
As the proposer of the amendment, I had better endeavour to make my position clear. The President has referred to acts of violence.
I am utterly opposed to violence of any sort, but it seems to me that this section, as worded, covers many other things besides violence. The President says that people may take legal steps, but I suggest that this section would prevent a meeting being held to discuss the possibility of taking legal action as to the validity of rates. If the President's mind is, as I take it to be, I would propose to insert after the word "advocate" the words "by violent means." If these were inserted my objection would be met.
Would the Deputy consider what amount of violence would be required to persuade a person not to pay his Land Commission annuities? Would the Deputy hesitate for a moment in his consideration of this section and consider the previous one, which says that the Executive Council may by order declare that certain associations are unlawful? The Deputy will bear in mind that of all the jokes I have heard here the biggest is the statement that, by reason of representations made to a local authority, they would alter the rate.
I gathered from what the President said that violence is not the only question that he has in mind, but that he also has in mind the matter of rate collection. I should like to be quite clear that this Bill is not intended to operate against the free criticism of taxation, which is clearly illegal. I regret to say that such taxation is supported by Government Departments. I am speaking from knowledge of a recent case.
I think from the remarks of Deputy Cooper that he apparently misunderstands our attitude towards the section. We do not seek to make legal what is now illegal. Our attitude is that we should not make it possible to declare unlawful an association that may now be lawful in regard to the payment of rent or rates. We know that on the north side of the City of Dublin within the last few years there was an association of tenants which contended that the rents fixed, not by a local authority but by a private company, were unjust. These tenants banded themselves together in that association. They were a perfectly legal body of peaceful citizens with no intention of overthrowing the State, yet under this section such an association could be declared unlawful and made liable to all the penalties contained in the Bill. It is in order to prevent that that we believe this amendment should be agreed to.
If my recollection is the same as that of the Deputy with regard to that association, I will tell the Dáil in a few words what the component parts of that agitation were. There were people in support of Sinn Fein who would not go into the Recorder's Court; there were people in support of the Parliamentary Party attitude who would not go into the Sinn Fein courts; and there was a third section which objected to all capitalists.
I am not concerned so much with the particular motives in that regard, but no matter how ridiculous their attitude might be, and no matter what their political opinions are, they do not merit to be termed an "unlawful association" subject to the penalties set out in the Bill.
Under this section they would not.
By accident. We might well have on the other side of the street people who would be under a local authority and who would come under the Bill.
Deputy Cullen evidently distrusts local government and democracy.
No.
I think there is a good deal of discussion over a comparatively small matter. The only objection that could be taken is as regards sub-section 4. I think there is no objection until we come down to the phrase "or the non-payment of local taxation." It appears to me to be rather a matter of drafting. Perhaps the Minister would undertake to draft it in such a way as to make it clear that when Deputy Hewson again proceeds against the Limerick County Council in regard to their rates, and does it legally, he should not be imprisoned.
Does the Deputy as a lawyer consider that the section would give the Executive Council power to declare Deputy Hewson's association illegal?
Yes. I admit that Deputy Hewson will be protected by the fact that the Executive Council must make an order declaring it illegal. That is why I say it is a matter of drafting. It might appease his feelings to know that if the section is drafted in such a form the Executive Council could not make an Order which would declare one of these new associations of his illegal. Deputy Hewson started a great agitation, to the limited advantage of the Bar—I think he had only junior counsel there—but he did succeed in upsetting the rate for County Limerick for last year. He might possibly discover a flaw in the new rate, and want to form an association for the purpose of testing the new rate. Consequently, if the Government will redraft the last line of this in such a way as to secure Deputy Hewson in the formation of these new associations, I think his object would be achieved.
I should like to be clear as to what is objectionable in the last line of that particular sub-section. Let us take the case of Deputy Hewson's association. I did not understand that Deputy Hewson advocated the non-payment of local taxation.
He did.
He advocated that certain local taxation, as struck, was, in fact, illegal, and should not be paid if proved illegal, and he made his point that it was illegal. Deputy Hewson having an association—if he has one—sets out to ask people not to pay what, in fact, has been declared to be legal. Do you think then that there should be permission to have him and his association declared unlawful? If, on the other hand, he has an association to urge that certain payments called for are, in fact, illegal, and brings a case before the courts and gets a verdict, that could not by any stretch of the imagination be brought within the Section.
My answer to that is that local taxation, once it is struck, is legal until it has been declared to be illegal.
And should be paid until such time as it is declared illegal.
The Limerick rate was legal until he got an Order from the Court of Appeal declaring it to be illegal, and his association, if he had one, could have been declared an illegal body under this section, if it were in existence. It would be an easy matter for the draftsman of the Government to word this in such a way to reassure Deputy Hewson and other people who may be troubled by it.
As a personal matter has been introduced—I did not introduce it—I should like to make it clear that at no time did I advocate the non-payment of taxation. On the contrary, I was at the very greatest pains, although the proceedings lasted over six months, to see that the utmost precautions were taken to prevent people being under any misapprehension. I explained specifically that the rate remained legal and collectable until the last day of the time for showing cause. I was written to by various people who asked if they should pay rates, and I invariably replied that they certainly should pay. It is not with a view to one particular case that I bring this forward. Quite apart from my previous experience, I think this is really too wide, and I think that some wording should be introduced which would meet the objection.
It seems to me that, in the administration of this, discretion would have to be exercised. If the President would make it clear that the necessity for issuing an Order against such an association would only be considered when it was clearly evident that the association which was encouraging the non-payment of annuities or rates was an association which was endeavouring to do this for the explicit purpose of seeking to overthrow the State, or put the State at a disadvantage, it would, I think, be desirable. There would be a very great difference between such a body and a body of ratepayers coming together to discuss in a legitimate fashion their local affairs, and, possibly, taking steps to remedy a grievance, which would be a justifiable act on their part. That is my interpretation of what the section means, and I think the President should make it clear.
Any undertaking I could give in that respect would have no force. What one has to consider is, what discretion will be exercised by the Executive Council in making an Order under the section? Section 4 states:—
"The Executive Council may by Order declare any association which in the opinion of the Executive Council ..."
That is a very responsible opinion which is not to be given lightly. Apart from other considerations, the giving of an opinion of that sort lightly would increase the cost of administration, increase the difficulties and the number of steps to be taken, once the Order is made. That is the only answer I can give to that.
As it has been suggested that I put this forward for my personal protection, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment, after the President's assurance.
I should like to assure the Deputy that I did not suggest that.
I am not saying that the President suggested it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 8:—
In sub-section (3), line 22, after the words "may be" to add the words "and such order shall take effect not less than 24 hours after such publication."
As the time was rather short for framing amendments, I must ask the indulgence of the House to be allowed to correct the amendment. It will be seen, even from the amendment as it stands, what my intention was, but I desire to delete the word "less" and substitute the word "sooner." The amendment would then read:—
"In sub-section (3), line 22, after the words `may be' to add the words `and such order shall take effect not sooner than 24 hours after such publication.' "
According to this sub-section as it stands, an Order might be made by the Executive Council declaring an association to be unlawful, and that Order would be published in "Iris Oifigiúil" as soon as convenient. But from the wording of the sub-section it would appear that the Order would take effect from the date when it was made. The object of the amendment is to secure that the Order declaring the association unlawful shall not take effect until, first of all, its publication, and, secondly, 24 hours after its publication. When calling attention to the procedure adopted in section 3, whereby the Constitution would possibly be temporarily amended, I had this particular sub-section in mind. As the sub-section reads, it seems to be in contravention of Article 43 of the Constitution, which reads:—
"The Oireachtas shall have no power to declare acts to be infringements of the law which were not so at the date of their commission."
That, in effect, means that this Parliament shall not have the power to make people guilty of unlawful acts which, when they were actually being done, were perfectly lawful—in other words, that this Parliament should not have the power to make citizens of the State retrospectively guilty of unlawful acts. According to this section, as soon as the Order is made by the Executive Council that an association is unlawful, everyone who has been a member of that association up to the time that the Order was made, which association was not declared unlawful up to then, will have been made guilty of an unlawful act. I propose that the Order should not come into force until it is published in "Iris Oifigiúil," and not until twenty-four hours after that publication. In the first place, that would not be legislating to make people retrospectively guilty; in the second place, it will be giving people an opportunity, short though it may be, of amending their ways; thirdly, it will be giving them at least some notice of the Executive Council's intention to render any acts which they may engage in, which they have been permitted to engage in in the past, unlawful in future. I think that it is necessary, in the interests of equity and justice to all concerned, that such a provision should be made. It seems, on the face of it, hardly fair, as well as being against the canons of equity, that people who have been permitted to do certain acts up to a certain stage should, at a moment's notice, be declared as being engaged in unlawful acts. I do not think that my proposal would in any way interfere with the purpose of the sub-section. It would, as I say, prevent the very undesirable practice of legislating retrospectively, of making acts criminal which previously were lawful, and it would give a very limited notice to people who have been engaged in those acts, which have previously been regarded as lawful, that if they continued to engage in them, by the end of twenty-four hours they will have been guilty of unlawful acts.
I do not see a great deal of difference between the amendment and the section as it stands. With regard to what Deputy Redmond has talked at length about, that is to say, ante-dating criminality and illegality, there is no ante-dating in the section as it stands. It simply means an Order is made and thereby an association is illegal or unlawful. The Deputy wants to give twenty-four hours notice. There is no harm in giving twenty-four hours notice; passibly it is a desirable thing. I do not admit the Deputy's argument in the matter of the ante-dating of the criminal idea, and I would ask the Deputy to take notice that I do not see any analogy between this amendment and a later one which is framed.
I accept the Minister's assurance that he will embody the twenty-four hours. I am not going to argue the question with him, but I think the very fact that there will be a space of twenty-four hours after the Order has been made during which these acts will be illegal proves that this will not be retrospective legislation.
The Deputy will realise that it may have to be drafted in another way to put it in this section.
I quite realise that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed:"That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, I want to draw attention to paragraph (e) and the two words "or offences." I am not conversant with the special legal significance of the word "offences" as compared with crimes, but I imagine that any contravention of the law, even of a bye-law, is an offence. If there is any such interpretation possible, one can see the powers that are given to the Executive Council by this section. These two words mean a tremendous power indeed. The Minister will say I am reducing the argument to absurdity if I quote a league against vaccination. It is not at all impossible that an agitation against vaccination will be promoted, and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health will have very strong reason for repressing that agitation. To advocate the non-vaccination of children would be, I think, an offence under this section. If that is so, then that association may be declared an unlawful association and the penalty for membership may be five years penal servitude. I think the power, therefore, is too great. I think it is wrong to have a section of the kind which is going to allow even the possibility of declaring such an association an unlawful one to bring it within the terms of this Act.
I come a little nearer home. I think that this sub-section allows the Executive Council to declare a trade union which may promote or encourage and advocate the commission of an offence, which may be termed to apply legally to a strike, to declare it by Order to be an illegal association, with all the consequences that follow under these subsequent sections. Anything I am saying on this and anything I shall say in the future depends entirely upon whether my suggestion that the term "offences" covers these breaches which are merely technical breaches. It has been declared—I think this is a fair statement to make—that conspiracy in restraint of trade is an offence, and to advocate a restraint of trade, even to become a member of a trade union which has a specific object and which may need a strike constitutes an offence under this provision. If that interpretation is at least even possible, it would allow the Executive Council by Order to declare such an association and membership of such an association illegal, leading to a liability of five years penal servitude. I draw attention to it at this stage with a view to getting some assurance of the intentions preparatory to further inquiry into the possibilities of this section.
Question—"That Section 4 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Michael Davis.
- Michael Doyle.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- James E. Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Timothy J. O'Donovan.
- P. S. O Dubhghaill.
- E. S. O Dúgáin.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark C. Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Patrick M. Kelly.
- Hugh A. Law.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Martin McDonogh.
- P. McGilligan.
- Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Vincent Rice.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
Níl
- Richard S. Anthony.
- P. Belton.
- Henry Broderick.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- William Davin.
- Edward Doyle.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- James Shannon.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Cullen.
Motion declared carried.
Question proposed—"That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I am going to protest against the provisions of this section, on the ground that the term penal servitude for five years for membership of an association possibly may mean membership of a trade union and is unjust and unfair. You may declare under the section just now passed a trade union to be an unlawful association. It may be an unlawful association, but I am not going to assent to be taken as agreeing that membership makes a person liable to five years' penal servitude. I register a protest against this penalty, and we will take a division upon it.
Question—"That Section 5 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Michael Davis.
- Michael Doyle.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark C. Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Patrick M. Kelly.
- Hugh A. Law.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- P. McGilligan.
- Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín.
- James E. Murphy.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Timothy J. O'Donovan.
- P.S. O Dubhghaill.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Vincent Rice.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- George Wolfe.
Níl
- Richard S. Anthony.
- P. Belton.
- Henry Broderick.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- William Davin.
- Edward Doyle.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- James Shannon.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Cullen.
Motion declared carried.
SECTION 6.
If any document (of whatsoever date or bearing no date) issued by or emanating from an unlawful association or appearing to be so issued or so to emanate or purporting to aid or abet an unlawful association or otherwise relating to or connected with an unlawful association is found on or in the possession of or on or in premises belonging to, occupied by, or under the control of any person, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or at the discretion of the Court to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
Before Deputy McMenamin proceeds to move the amendments in his name, might I ask what the procedure will be? There are two amendments in the name of Deputy McMenamin, one in the name of Deputy O'Hanlon, and one in my name. I should like to know whether it will be in order to discuss all the amendments together, because it appears to me that Deputy O'Hanlon's amendment covers only part of the ground covered by the others, and I am not quite sure that Deputy McMenamin's amendments cover everything that is covered by my amendment, which is wider.
Possibly I might be able to ease the situation by indicating that we are quite prepared to accept amendment 12, which we believe covers amendments 10 and 11 and deals with more than either amendment, and it is in better and more precise legal form. With regard to amendment 9, we think that, in so far as it makes any addition to the section, that addition is also covered by amendment 12; in fact, amendment 9 hardly adds anything at all, because there are certain things that would have to be proved to the satisfaction of the court.
I am quite satisfied with the Minister's statement.
Amendment 12 is accepted in lieu of amendments 9, 10 and 11.
I think my two amendments are covered by the amendment submitted by Deputy Rice. What I had intended was that it would have to be proved the document was in a person's possession or on his premises, and that a person would have an opportunity of disproving any charges made against him. I think Deputy Rice's amendment covers all those things. We got the papers rather late at night when we were in our respective homes and we had not time to discuss them together. I think Deputy Rice's amendment substantially covers what I had in mind with regard to protecting the citizen.
Amendments 9, 10 and 11 not moved.
Amendment 12 agreed to:—
After the words "such person," line 36, to insert the words "unless he satisfies the Court that he did not know such document was in his possession or on or in such premises or that he did not know the nature or contents of such document."— (Deputy Rice.)
I move the following amendment:—
In line 38 to delete the word "fifty" and substitute therefor the word "five" and in line 39 to delete the words "three months" and substitute therefor the words "one month."
My object in moving this amendment is that I think a smaller penalty than fifty pounds and a shorter period than three months would be quite sufficient for the purpose of the section, seeing that the same person will be liable for the penalties contained in Section 7.
The amendment is unacceptable. The proposed penalty would be entirely too small for the offence set out.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question put—"That Section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Michael Davis.
- Michael Doyle.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark C. Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Patrick M. Kelly.
- Hugh A. Law.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Martin McDonogh.
- P. McGilligan.
- Micheál Óg Mac Pháidín.
- James E. Murphy.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Timothy J. O'Donovan.
- P.S. O Dubhghaill.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
Níl
- Richard S. Anthony.
- P. Belton.
- Henry Broderick.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- Edward Doyle.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- James Shannon.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Cullen.
Motion declared carried.
SECTION 7. (2).
(2) A person who is deemed by virtue of this section to be a member of an unlawful association shall not be deemed to have proved that he is not then a member of such association and was not a member thereof since it became by virtue of this Act an unlawful association unless (in addition to such other evidence as satisfies the court of such non-membership) he—
(a) declares on oath (which declaration the Court shall give him an opportunity of making) that he is not then a member of such unlawful association and was not a member thereof at any time since it became by virtue of this Act an unlawful association, and
(b) produces two reputable witnesses who depose on oath that they are well acquainted with him and that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief he is not then a member of such unlawful association and was not a member thereof at any time since it became by virtue of this Act an unlawful association.
I move amendments 14 and 15:—
14.—In sub-section (2), lines 59 and 60, to delete the words "(in addition to such other evidence as satisfies the court of such non-membership)."
15.—To delete sub-section (2) (b).
I think it is unfair to a prisoner charged with an offence under this section to ask him to get two reputable citizens to testify that he is not a member of some secret or other society. How could any reputable citizen who has any conception of his duties be asked to state that, or to say, for example, whether any member of this House is not a member of a secret society? It would be utterly impossible, and I submit that the thing is useless. When the State proves, so far as the evidence they have got goes, that a man is a member of such an organisation, then it is set out here that he can make a declaration on oath that he is not a member if he so desires. I submit that it is absolutely futile to ask anybody, with any sense of responsibility as a citizen, to declare that any man, no matter who he is, is not a member of any secret society. It would be utterly impossible, I submit, for any one to say that such and such a person was not a member of a secret society. If you delete the sub-section it will be a question for the court that tries the accused person to say whether they believe the declaration he has made. I am assuming that the procedure to be adopted by the court will be to determine whether or not they believe his declaration to be true.
I would remind the Deputy that the two reputable witnesses are not asked to depose that the person charged is not a member of an unlawful association. They are only asked to depose to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, and any law-abiding citizen should be able to produce two reputable witnesses who would make a deposition of that sort unless it is well known to most people associating with him that he is, in fact, a member of such an association.
I would like to add to what Deputy McMenamin has stated by pointing out that the oaths of the person himself and of two reputable witnesses are not enough to satisfy the court of non-membership. He must produce other evidence. If the other evidence is sufficient to satisfy the court, that ought surely to be enough without having to produce two other persons to come and declare that he is not a member, or that, in their opinion, he is not a member of such an association, and putting those two persons to the risks that are supposed to be involved in any action of this kind, because the Bill itself is based on certain suppositions that there are risks inherent in the social situation.
There may be a difficulty in a person who is charged, in these circumstances, persuading his best friends to come and declare that he is not a member of such an association. I put it to the House that if the court is to be furnished, on the one hand, with evidence, plus the oath of the person concerned, there is certainly no need to throw upon the charged person the liability of producing two further witnesses, who must depose to certain things in the conditions that are supposed to exist when this Bill is in operation. I certainly think there is no necessity for these three tests.
I should like to have an explanation. A person who is charged with being a member of an unlawful association has to declare, first of all, that he is not a member. Secondly, he has to get two witnesses who are, I presume, to testify his character, and to state that to the best of their information he is not a member of such an unlawful association. Has that man, in addition, to submit further proof? If he has done what I have mentioned, is that not sufficient for the court without producing other evidence?
It might be.
I think it should be.
That is for the court to decide.
If the man declares on oath that he is not a member of an unlawful association, and if two witnesses give the evidence required under the section, what other evidence can that man produce? That certainly ought to be sufficient for the court.
The Deputy will have had experience of statements by judges, after witnesses have given their evidence, that they did not believe a single word they uttered. Suppose a judge, in a case of this kind, forms the same opinion, surely he ought to be entitled to ask for further evidence.
What other evidence can possibly be given?
Such other evidence as would satisfy the court.
I cannot imagine what form such evidence would take.
Suppose, in the hypothetical circumstances to which I have alluded, the judge states that he does not believe the evidence of the person charged and the two other witnesses. Surely the court cannot be expected to act on that evidence.
It appears to me to be perfectly plain that, in a great number of cases, evidence could be called in addition to that of the prisoner. It is a most common thing to find witnesses—very often a great number of witnesses—called for the defence when defending prisoners. The charge might be one of being in a certain place. The defence might be an alibi—a very common form of defence —and there might be many witnesses. There might be a great number of other forms of evidence which it would be difficult to enumerate without having the specific charge before one. I do not think it would be sufficient to assume, immediately a man declared so on oath, that he was not guilty. I do not think any court should be asked to do that. Nobody who has had anything to do with the administration of the criminal law would think that wise. I have had a certain amount to do with the administration of the criminal law, and I regard the matter from one particular angle. When engaged in criminal cases I have always been for the defence. I have never prosecuted in a criminal case. Therefore, I am inclined, rather, to look at the matter from the point of view of the prisoner. To say that a declaration on oath by a man that he is not guilty of a particular charge should be sufficient to free him from that charge would be altogether wrong.
I find myself in disagreement with Deputy Johnson in another matter which he mentioned. The Deputy said that there might be difficulty in producing two reputable witnesses, that in the present alleged state of danger—I am not quoting the Deputy's exact words—it might be dangerous for people to come forward. There have been a number of periods in the history of this country in which it was dangerous for people to give evidence for the prosecution, but I do not think there has been the least danger, at any time, in giving evidence for the defence. I am pretty certain that there would not be any such danger now. I think there need be no fear that any person coming forward to give evidence in defence of a prisoner will incur any risk. He incurred no risk in the past. That is my experience and, I think, everybody's experience. Deputy Johnson, if he will allow me to say so, should, I think, dismiss that fear.
My objection to the sub-section is that there is no use in two witnesses deposing on oath that to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, "X" is not a member of the particular association, unless he can specifically declare that he is not. If the accused person declares that he is not a member of the association, and if the court does not believe his oath, how are two reputable witnesses to declare that he is not a member of the association?"
The court does not make up its mind until it has heard all the evidence.
On the appearance on a man's premises of a document which may possibly have been "planted," possibly forged, which has no date, and may, therefore, be out of date if genuine, which purports to relate to an association which might have been quite lawful at the date of the authorship of the document in question, that man is to be placed under the onus of disproving membership of an unlawful association, with the consequent liability, on failure, to penal servitude for not less than three years. In addition to the onus of disproof of membership, he must perform a work of supererogation. He must obtain the evidence on oath of two reputable witnesses to the effect that he never was a member of an unlawful organisation. If that organisation happened to be of a particularly dangerous character—a secret organisation—nobody could possibly say the prisoner was not a member except persons who were members of that organisation. Nobody else would know whether he was or not. Does not that rather suggest that this section is directed against peaceable activities rather than against really dangerous ones?
I support the protest of the last speaker and also of Deputy McMenamin. I do not see how two reputable witnesses can convey any conviction to a court unless they put their own heads in a halter and swear that they belong to the branch of the organisation in the area in which the person charged would be a member and that he is not a member in that area. It is a low, mean, contemptible felon-setting plot, because no person, except a person in the organisation, would know whether or not another person belonged to it. Then it might happen that a man would have in his house what was referred to here some time ago—antique furniture. He might have some antique documents in his house. Deputies on the opposite benches know that we deliberately printed those documents without a date in times gone by. They know, too, that we ante-dated and postdated documents as it suited us. I am quite sure that if I dug up old archives in my house—which may not be immune from search—some of those documents, authorised by Deputies on the opposite benches, would be found bearing no date. I should then have to look out for witnesses and I should have to ask the gentlemen who are putting these penal enactments through to come forward and testify on oath. I do not know if their testimony on oath would be accepted. If I were adjudicating, I certainly would not accept it.
If those documents are got, the onus of proof is put on the owner of the premises. He is supposed to prove an impossibility. It seems to me to be putting on the citizen the onus of proving a negative. At a court-martial at which I was charged, the fellow who called himself a presiding judge knew less about law than I did. He had his mind made up that I was going to "walk the plank." The Minister for Industry and Commerce stated that, when all this proceeding is gone through and when reputable witnesses are called, the court may not believe them. Of course they will not believe them, because they will have made up their minds as to what sentence to pass on the unfortunate prisoner. Peadar the Packer would be only trotting after what we will have in the course of the next few weeks. Why not prove, if you get a document in a man's premises, who is responsible for having it there? Why not prove, if a man is charged with belonging to a certain association, that he is a member of it? Why not devise machinery for finding out whether he is or is not a member? If you are not prepared to take a prisoner's declaration on oath, then why ask for it? Naturally, the prisoner will be put on his oath if he is being tried. Anything he says will be a declaration on oath. That is a matter of course in criminal prosecutions, as far as I know. If two respectable people are brought forward and swear that, to the best of their information, knowledge and belief, the man is not a member of the organisation in question, what use is that testimony if they have not inside knowledge of the association? Will any man tell the truth if he has inside knowledge? If he did, the moment he left the witness-box he would walk into the dock. What a fool he would be! I think the whole section should be wiped out. It is a pity the whole Bill cannot be wiped out, and it is a pity the promoters of the whole Bill cannot be wiped out politically.
This section, if allowed to stand without amendment, is one which will create an amount of suspicion and doubt in the minds of many citizens. It will also be the occasion, in my opinion, of a very rich harvest for the agent provocateur. Taken in conjunction with Section 18, to which I referred yesterday, this section is one of the most objectionable in the whole Bill. There is a new and added responsibility thrown by both of these clauses on, perhaps, very good and useful citizens. Personally, I hold no brief for persons against whom this clause may be directed, but I suggest that its terms are so wide and, in part, so capable of various constructions, it would be a difficult thing even for an innocent man, one who had absolutely no connection with the associations and societies mentioned in the Bill, to prove his innocence. There also arises in connection with it the question of the value of an oath. A person who comes within the terms of this clause, and who is charged with membership of an unlawful society can satisfy the court as to non-membership by a declaration on oath. I want to ask what value is to be placed on the oath of a man who is conspiring against the State and against society as a whole? Is that any safeguard?
In my opinion we are travelling on wrong lines by means of legislation of this kind in trying to prevent crime. I do not wish to reflect on the administration of the law by the Civic Guards because I hold them in very high esteem, but I say that this clause would be one of the best instruments possible to put into the hands of an agent provocateur. In view of the history in this country of such crooks as agents provocateurs we should be the last Assembly in the world to put into the hands of any section of the police force, whether uniformed Guards or members of the C.I.D., powers of this kind, especially under existing circumstances and in the present atmosphere. I regard this clause as being one of the most objectionable in the whole Bill, though there are many others to which I also take grave exception. Even to an innocent citizen, a man innocent of any crime against the State or its citizens, this clause, if adopted in its present form, would be a menace and a danger. I think the Dáil should approach it, as I have tried to do, in a reasonable frame of mind, and as one who is anxious to give every possible help to the State in stamping out crime and criminals.
I want to have it clearly understood when I vote, as I intend to vote at every opportunity, even if we are to have fifteen divisions, against the section that I do so in what I regard as the best interests of the State and the best interests of law and an ordered community. I sincerely hope that Deputies who are present will be able to influence Deputies who are absent. It is a pity to see during the discussion of a matter so serious as this, a matter, perhaps, involving the lives of many of our fellow-citizens, that there are on the Government benches only seven Deputies—one Minister and six Deputies. Deputies apparently do not think it worth while to attend here and discuss this very vital question. It is, perhaps, a sad thing, and to me, taking as I do a serious interest in the affairs of the country, it appears to be a criminal thing to see so little interest taken in the matter, but that is just what I would expect from some Deputies. I do not include amongst them the Ministers, for I recognise that Ministers have certainly faced up to their responsibilities like men, but I cannot say the same of many Deputies who are simply part of the machine and who will only come in here in answer to the gong and vote like machines.
Deputy Anthony, who has just come into the Dáil, is very angry.
I was here all day except when I had to go to lunch.
Deputy Anthony comes here and gets annoyed because Deputies on the Government side are not here to discuss a matter which he says may affect the lives of citizens. I think the Deputy is discussing the wrong clause. This clause affects no life. The Deputy has not even read the clause he is so angry about.
I used the word "lives" in its broadest sense, and I am not going to be told by the Minister what the meaning of "lives" is. I meant living.
I doubt if the Deputy left anybody under the impression which he has now tried to convey. The Deputy thinks that this is a very serious clause, and indicates his point of view as graciously as he can on an amendment to take away the provisions for getting two reputable witnesses to depose to certain things. Deputy O'Hanlon also objected to certain things, but I think Deputy Anthony has answered him. Deputy Anthony holds that such statements on the part of two reputable persons would be no good, whereas Deputy O'Hanlon thinks that they would be quite good and that the court should not ask for any further evidence. Deputy Anthony denies that and says that the type of person likely to be charged would swear anything.
I thought that we were discussing amendment 14.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE
Yes, but we have allowed the discussion also on amendment 15, and it has been freely referred to by many Deputies.
The two amendments are being taken together. In this discussion the point is again being made that no man could swear as a reputable witness what he is asked to swear under 2 (b) unless he is a member of the organisation itself. What two reputable witnesses are asked to depose to is that they are well acquainted with the person against whom the offence is alleged and to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief he is not a member of an unlawful organisation. There is no necessity to say that they clearly know that the person is not a member. Having the particular circumstances to which Deputy Belton referred and having two members of such an association coming along to swear, they would be the very persons whom the court would not believe and further evidence would be required. Now as regards to the date, the late Minister for Justice gave an example in this House of a particularly subtle trick that had been discovered by some people who were engaged in unlawful activities whereby documents were being printed and dated back two years. Such a case was brought into court and that trick was resorted to because those engaged in such activities knew that the court had made up its mind that such documents were not going to be made use of. This section is necessary to guard against that and that is the reason it is included.
The innocent apart from the guilty must be protected. Must an innocent person in addition to making a declaration and getting two reputable people to swear that to the best of their knowledge he does not belong to an unlawful association, have to get further proof?
Not necessarily.
That is in the Bill. Why not agree to Deputy McMenamin's amendment to delete the words. The court may be already satisfied that the person arraigned is not a member of an unlawful association; but, even so, it is necessary that such person should take an oath declaring that he is not a member and must get two witnesses also to swear that he is not.
And no innocent person ought to find it impossible to get two reputable persons to swear to that. He should have no difficulty.
Why should innocent persons be asked to do that when they have already satisfied the court that they are not members?
Because a prima facie case has been established by the discovery of documents in their possession.
The point made by Deputy O'Hanlon seems to me to be valid: that a person is first to be required to furnish such evidence as satisfies the court of non-membership, and then to declare on oath that he is not, and produce two reputable witnesses that, so far as they know, he is not a member of the association, as to which he has already satisfied the court. It is fairly clear, I think, that the intention is to bring the person who may have deceived the court successfully into the open, and if he, in fact, is a member of the association, that he will make a public declaration on oath that he is not a member, thereby bringing against him the enmity of the other persons who are members of the association in secret. Such a person having declared that he is not a member of the association, of which he in fact is a member, brings himself into disrepute amongst his fellow-conspirators, and he is subject to their enmity and attack. If such a state of things prevails over a few cases, and there is a certain amount of terrorism invoked against a traitorous member, what is going to be the position of the innocent person who, in fact, is not a member of such an association, and is quite prepared to declare on oath that he is not a member? What is going to be his position in regard to reputable witnesses outside, when this state of terrorism prevails? Reputable witnesses may or may not know about the man's secret activities. So far as they know, he is perfectly innocent. But if this terrorism prevails, there is certainly going to be difficulty for an innocent man to produce reputable witnesses, notwithstanding the assurance of Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney that it is always easy to get people to swear in defence of a prisoner. This is in defence of a prisoner who is up against a prosecution, having reference to an illegal assembly of secret conspirators who are prepared to act as terrorists against the person who is a prisoner. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney gave an assurance, that there was never any difficulty in getting people to give evidence in defence of prisoners. No doubt that is true. But, I say that if such a state of things exists as is aimed at in this section, there is the other side of the picture to be taken into account. I believe citizens may well be terrorised against coming forward to declare that, so far as they know, a person is not a member of such an association, and the innocent man is thereby made culpable and liable to penalty. If the Court can be assured of such non-membership, surely that ought to be enough without our having to lay down what kind of evidence shall be brought forward?
resumed the Chair.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 52.
Tá
- Richard S. Anthony.
- P. Belton.
- Henry Broderick.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- William Davin.
- Edward Doyle.
- William Duffy.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Mícheál O Braonáin.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- James Shannon.
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Michael Davis.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Ftzgerald-Kenney.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark C. Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Patrick M. Kelly.
- Hugh A. Law.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Martin McDonogh.
- P. McGilligan.
- Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín.
- James E. Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhar.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Timothy J. O'Donovan.
- P.S. O Dubhghaill.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Coburn and Cullen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed:"That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
I have opposed these various sections regarding penalty for membership of unlawful associations, and will continue to do so because of the fact that, in my belief, Section 4, which deals with what may be declared an unlawful association, does include in its present form a trade union, and I oppose a penalty for membership of a trade union.
Question put—"That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided. Tá, 53; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Michael Davis.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark C. Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Patrick M. Kelly.
- Hugh A. Law.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Martin McDonogh.
- P. McGilligan.
- Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín.
- James E. Murphy.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Mícheál O Braonáin.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhar.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Timothy J. O'Donovan.
- P.S. O Dubhghaill.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
Níl
- Richard S. Anthony.
- P. Belton.
- Henry Broderick.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- William Davin.
- Edward Doyle.
- William Duffy.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- James Shannon.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Cullen.
Motion declared carried.
Ordered that progress be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported, the Committee to sit again on Tuesday, August 2nd.
The Dáil adjourned at 4.5 p.m. till 3 o'clock on Tuesday, August 2nd, 192.