This amendment should certainly test the good faith of the Government and offer some kind of touchstone by which we can judge their many professions. Here is an opportunity for them. I will admit their acceptance will be only a gesture because there would still remain the administration. We know how they are capable of administering Acts of Parliament. It will at least serve, so far as appearances go, to get rid of the extraordinary habit to which I have already referred that the Government has of seeing things through distorted glasses, differently from everybody else. It will get rid of the appearances at all events— because the practice will be somewhat different, I fear, even if the amendment is accepted—of discrimination in favour of illegal armies, and against political organisations. It will get rid of what is undoubtedly the professed policy of the Government, judging by their actions, of looking upon respect for the law as a crime; while open disrespect, proclaimed disregard for the law, the belonging to associations whose objects are professedly illegal, and whose aims are to be carried out by means of force, are to be treated not merely with a special leniency but even with respect.
We have had here various statements regarding the I.R.A. I think the statement made yesterday by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on this matter, if it means anything at all—and despite the vigour with which he speaks, I often wonder whether he does mean what he says—shows that he regards the existence of the I.R.A. as inevitably tending to civil war. I wonder does that statement represent merely his own personal views—does it represent even that— or does it represent the policy of the Party. I suggest that this Bill and the rejection of this amendment by the Government would openly display all that is meant and clearly meant— we can gather that from the speech of the President and from the speeches of the Ministers—is to give some justification for the threat of civil war that the President held out. I know by this time that having had long experience, the President is capable of putting his threats in the form of prophecies. I suggest that nothing could be more dangerous than that the head of the Government and his various Ministers should continually speak of civil war; especially when they are trying to beat down an organisation that is unarmed, and when they fail to take any effective steps against the terrorism which is spread through the country by those who have arms in their hands, whose constitution is definitely and clearly anti-State, and the basis for the realisation of whose aims is the use of force. We know the fatal facility, with which the President can give effect and helps to give effect to his doleful prophecies. But if the House has any respect for itself it ought to see that it does not help the President to save the bankruptcy of his policy and of his Party by threats of civil war; if necessary, I have no doubt, he will try the reality.
You have, therefore, the threat and we should like to know what the Government's attitude on this matter is—not merely expressions of opinion as to what one Minister and another Minister thinks—and what they are going to do. Are they going to allow what one of their own members confesses is practically inevitably bound to lead to civil war, while they suppress what is essentially a peaceful organisation, a political organisation, an organisation whose aims, whose motives and whose purposes are entirely lawful, praiseworthy and patriotic? Which is really the attitude of the Party—the attitude shown in the ipse dixit of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or the attitude taken up by Deputy Dowdall, who recognises that particular body of the I.R.A. and apparently looks upon it as the flower of Irish manhood? We know perfectly well which is the real attitude of the Government and something more is necessary than the hasty ill-considered statement of any Minister. We want to know what steps are being taken, not what words are being used. I admit that, even if the amendment is accepted, the administration will still be in the hands of that partial Government, but at least even if the acceptance were hypocritical it would show the homage that is due to virtue. It would at least have that significance. I cannot understand the Minister for Industry and Commerce saying that they got no help from any of those illegal organisations during the last election. I wonder where he lives! Deputy Dowdall, I have no doubt, is under no delusion as to what help they got, nor would any Deputy from any part of the country be under any doubt that—apart from the propagandist activity of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the vagueness of the President—the principal assistance which they got in bringing about their victory at the last election was from the I.R.A. That was so in the country districts, and very much so. There is many a Deputy in this House who is perfectly well aware of that, and the minds of those Deputies are represented by people like Deputy Dowdall rather than by the mere passing statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, which means nothing so far as effective action is concerned.
Deputy Dowdall can get up here, slander by means of questions a body like the Blue Shirts and praise up a body like the I.R.A., thus following the laudable example of his President, who utilises this House to circulate lies about his political opponents. Deputy Dowdall does not do that; he shelters himself behind a question. The Minister is probably just a little jealous that any praise for the victory at the last election should go to other than his own propagandist ability. Therefore, he will deny what the whole country knows to be a fact; he will deny that one of the principal factors and one of the principal forces which led to the victory of the Government at the last election was one of those illegal bodies.
The Government will take every step to beat down their political opponents. I ask anybody who has been in this House for the last couple of weeks whether it is not quite clear that their real idea is to attack a political organisation, and that they are not influenced by any fear of the employment of force by the League of Youth movement. That is absolutely clear. Their objection is to political opposition, and they are determined to utilise all the machinery of the State, helped by the anti-State machinery as well, to beat down their opponents. Let them at least carry out the pretence, in the acceptance of this amendment, that they are not hand in glove with the I.R.A.; that there are no conferences or anything of that kind between them; that they have done with all that. Let them carry out that pretence by accepting this amendment. To that limited extent, this amendment should act as an acid test of the sincerity of much of the talk of the Government. It is a serious matter that in any country, and particularly here, those in a responsible position should bandy about the words "civil war" and so on, and especially men, who, in the past, have themselves been largely responsible for catastrophies of that kind—an effort to frighten the people into thinking that if they do not bow to the dictatorship of that particular Party, the ordinary constitutional methods are going to cease. We know what their attitude, right through, has been to these organisations. These organisations may be disowned now and then when there is no serious opposition, in the way of another organisation, to the Government but they will still remain the allies of the Government and it is probably largely to placate them that this Bill has been introduced. Let the Government make it quite clear, at least so far as words and professions go, where they stand in regard to respect for the law. Political parties are to be suppressed; unauthorised armies are to be encouraged! Up to the present, that has been the attitude of the Government.
