We have been charged with having attempted to obstruct the passage of this Bill, with refusing to shoulder responsibility such as devolves upon Deputies in the ordinary course of their duties, with taking a course which, in effect, is an attempt to save our skins, and with not having put forward any counter-propositions or moved any amendments. Deputy Baxter, who has made these references to myself and to this Party, has said on several occasions that he did not like the Bill, that certain provisions of the Bill were not satisfactory to him or his Party and that he would like to have seen several of those provisions amended. Notwithstanding his dislike of certain provisions of the Bill, notwithstanding his desire to see some of them amended, he contented himself with putting down one amendment on behalf of himself and none on behalf of his Party. That one amendment was designed to secure that the Bill should be in existence and operative for a period of five years, as against the original proposal of seven years. That is the measure of Deputy Baxter's dislike of the Bill. Assuming there is any validity whatever in the Deputy's comments upon my not having put down any amendments, then the criticism applies equally to himself, except for that one small proviso—but I should not say small proviso, because it is a very large proviso, a proviso that all the provisions of this Bill shall be operative for five years, including even those powers which he dislikes.
It has not been my practice to avoid putting down amendments to important Bills. The amendments that were put down by other Deputies in the main, not wholly, met most of my objections. It was therefore not necessary, even had I desired it, to put down further amendments, but I want to point this out, that the section after section which I am blamed for having opposed, while at the same time claiming to have been willing to give extended powers if shown to be necessary, depended on earlier sections of the Bill. When we were informed on the First Reading that these were the minimum powers sought for, and when all these sections depended on section 4, which was insisted upon at all and any cost, it was inevitable that I should oppose every section which depended on Section 4. I need not make any apology for opposing this Bill. I began the discussion of the Bill in the Dáil with the statement that it was the general scheme of these three Bills as one scheme that led to my antagonism, inasmuch as I believed that the effect of the Bill was going to be a bad one and was not going to promote the peace, order and good government of the Saorstát.
I believe that the combination of these Bills, on their introduction, the the manner of their introduction, the speeches associated with their introduction, are calculated to make for disorder rather than to maintain order, and are not likely to provide better for the maintenance and preservation of the State and for the public safety. I tried, in whatever way I could, however unsuccessfully and however foolish it may be said to have been, to prevent the introduction of these Bills as part of a policy, and, from the first mention of the intention that they would be introduced as such, I opposed the proposition, and continued my opposition to that proposition until now. I say that, and I affirm it without fear of contradiction from anyone. This Bill goes further than is necessary, and has not, to my mind, been shown to be needed. It goes immensely further than the in-goes immensely further than the intentions ascribed to it.
In so far as any Bill that was necessary to make an end to treasonable conspiracy, to unauthorised military organisations out to upset and destroy the State or the State institutions, I would have given the fullest support, but, when we had a Bill, or, rather, a series of Bills, introduced with the announcement that they were intended to be a wholehearted attack, not only on military organisations, but on organisations of a non-military kind, organisations of a political kind, which were alleged to be creating an atmosphere in which military organisations could survive and maintain themselves, then I thought that the position was entirely changed in such a way as to justify opposition to this Bill. I am still of the opinion, notwithstanding what has been said, that the Bill may be used to make for the suppression of legitimate organisations which ought not to be suppressed under powers of this kind. If there are offenders against the ordinary law, they can be dealt with under the ordinary law, but this Bill gives powers of a very much more drastic kind than that, and I am not—notwithstanding the allegation of fearing to accept responsibility, fearing to support a Bill of this kind because of possible consequences—going to say that the Executive Council has asked for these powers, and that I am going to throw my responsibility upon that Council.
That is what it means. I have, perhaps, found it very much easier, when I could support Government measures, to say "Aye" to proposals of the Government than to oppose them, and when Deputies suggest that it is an easy thing to oppose, while they themselves know how much easier it is to support, they are not doing justice to the position of an Opposition of any size or quality. I have not attempted, I think, in any period of my public life to go out of my way to save my skin, and I suppose I have had the average number of threatening letters within the last five or six years—a fairly considerable number, it may be. I take very little notice of them, because I know they are usually the emanations of rather morbid-minded people, but this suggestion, that in our action in opposing this Bill we are seeking to save our skins, is about as contemptible a suggestion as I know.
There have been things said during the course of this debate which, I suppose, in the course of a few years we may regret. There has been an atmosphere created round about the Bill which astonished me, and I did not think that it would have lightly developed. Perhaps I had better not pursue that line, but I will say this, that I entered on the public discussion of this Bill and these Bills with every desire to assist and not to obstruct or make difficulties. I went out of my way a good deal to assist, and the motion that was put down in my name upon the introduction of the Bill was carefully designed to assist and make easy what I thought would possibly be a difficulty on the part of the Ministry, if the opinions that had been expressed very widely, both by members of this Party and others outside, had found expression. The proposal I put forward was drafted in such a way as to make possible the recognition of criticism and in the hope that there would need to be no defeat of the Ministry, but that some change of policy might be agreed to. Notwithstanding what was obvious in the terms of that resolution, the discussion took a different form. I am not sorry for my attempt. I am sorry for the results of the attempt. I cannot say that I am sorry for the part I played in it.