Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Mar 1934

Vol. 51 No. 6

Wearing of Uniform (Restriction) Bill, 1934—Report Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for Final Consideration."

Mr. McGilligan

On the Report Stage, we have now got this measure passed through the Committee Stage, with the extreme limitation that has been put on discussion and we have now before us the results of the minds of this democratic Assembly working, as they have been allowed to work, with this, the latest of the coercion measures. I should like to call attention to the position in which certain sections have been left by the fact that discussion on Committee Stage of certain amendments was precluded. Under Section 4, the Executive Council have power, by Order, to declare that any association is a political party within the meaning of this Act. To-day, we have the exposure of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, indicating that so far as he was concerned, there were certain things which an Attorney-General might have passed as not being seditious but which he considered seditious. That is the political mind that is going to rule hereafter and it is that political mind that is going to rule on the Executive Council when it is going to proclaim an association as being a political party, within the meaning of the Act. Trade unions can rest secure in the promise that Deputy Norton and Deputy Davin have got from the present Government as to what they intend to do when operating their political minds on any association of persons which they may want to make a political association, whether it is or not, for the purpose of manufacturing the various crimes that are newly made under this Bill.

Under Section 5, the Chief Superintendent in charge of any area in the country may, by proclamation, prohibit the wearing of certain badges. He can prohibit the wearing of trade union badges. The chief superintendents of the country are under the control of the Minister for Justice but they possibly will not be under his control after this measure has passed, because the Minister for Industry and Commerce has shown that he wants to be the dictator. He wants to be the little Napoleon and he wants to be able to declare seditious, matters which even the Attorney-General, with his crimes of sedition before the Military Tribunal, could not declare as seditious. There was an amendment with regard to this section that, after an Order was made by the Executive Council, it would, first of all, give the particulars on which the Executive Council formed its opinion that a particular association was what they declared it to be, and, secondly, that that Order of the Executive Council would lie upon the Table of the House and would be published in Iris Oifigiúil for a certain period before any action could be taken on it. Of course, there is no discussion allowed on that, because, clearly, that would enable people to raise the scandalous conduct of the present Executive Council in relation to a man whom they have jailed and in relation to the issuing of an Order while he was away from town and about which he had no knowledge and, therefore, could not take any action under it before the time of his arrest, leading to his jailing.

Trade unionists ought to rest very safe in their beds at night under the protection of Deputies Norton and Davin, even though Section 8 still stays in the Bill:

Any assembly of persons-

and they may be trade unionists—

who are or some of whom are committing an offence—

and the offence may be the wearing of their trade union badge—

under any section of this Act may be dispersed by force by members of the Gárda Síochána or of the defence forces of Saorstát Eireann.

There was an amendment put down to call attention to the wide powers that were there given, an amendment which would have limited this dispersal by force power until such time as orders had been given and had been given by people of responsibility—an officer of the defence forces not below the rank of captain, or an officer of the Gárda not below the rank of inspector, but the section remains as it was. Sub-section (2) also remains as it was:

Save where the giving of any warning is not reasonably practicable, it shall not be lawful to disperse an assembly of persons by force under this section without giving to such assembly, in such manner and so far as may reasonably be possible in the circumstances of the case, warning of the intention to effect such dispersal.

Some of Deputy Davin's trade unionists, meeting with badges on, might find a private in the Army or an ordinary member of the Gárda Síochána, making up his mind to disperse by force, and to call on others to assist him, those people, because he considered that they were committing an offence, and he might do that without warning if he considers that the circumstances did not reasonably permit him to give warning of the projected dispersal. Deputy Davin laughs at the prospect.

Mr. Davin

What would your General do in his corporative state?

Mr. McGilligan

We do not give any general any powers to disperse by force without warning any persons who happen to gather together for the purpose of political discussion.

Mr. Davin

You deprived them of the right to strike.

Mr. McGilligan

We do not give anybody any right to delegate that power to a private in the Army or to a member of the Gárda. That is no part of our policy.

Mr. Davin

He would do it himself. He is the head bottle-washer.

Mr. McGilligan

It is to these hypotheses that the guilty conscience flies. Deputy Davin is faced with this measure, and he accepts that an ordinary member of the Gárda, or an ordinary private in the Army, may issue orders for the dispersal of a crowd, and there need be no warning given of that intended dispersal, if that member of the Gárda, or that member of the Defence Forces, believes that it is not reasonably practicable to give such warning. The Deputy accepts that. Finally—and it is a good thing, I suppose, that one legal member of the Front Bench has departed leaving another behind him—we have the section which prohibits a particular section of the Courts of Justice Act from operating, and instead, there is put in, that a person who is arrested by anybody for committing an offence under this may, as soon as practicable, be brought before a Justice of the District Court. There is no limit of hours put on that time. That person may be detained for a great length of time, so long as there can be an argument founded that it was as soon afterwards as practicable—and Deputies are going to allow that. A District Justice is to hear the offences, and there is a special prohibition of any appeal. The legal member who has absented himself said that, after all, appeals were a mere waste of time. It would be great to hear the Attorney-General on that statement, that appeals are a waste of time.

Mr. Donnelly

And money.

Mr. McGilligan

It would almost be better to have no trial at all. Why have even one? It is almost a waste of time. Look at the trouble the Government are going to be put to because, as soon as practicable, they must bring a man before a District Justice and charge him, and the offence, remember, may be that of wearing a trade union badge, or it may be of belonging to a particular association of a business purpose which has been declared by the Executive Council to be a political association for the purpose of the Act. Finally, there was an amendment put down to ensure that, whatever were the offences under this, at any rate one piece of camouflage might have been exposed, and one obvious piece of trickery that is going to be attempted might have been stopped. Once that Bill is passed, does anybody believe that there are going to be offences brought before a District Justice? There is an easy way of not bringing them before a District Justice. A mere signature of the Minister, a mere certificate of a Minister that he believes—and he cannot be questioned on his belief— that any of the offences committed under this Act are committed for the purpose of impeding the course of justice, will be sufficient, and every one of these offences becomes an offence triable by the Military Tribunal. Deputies opposite were terribly afraid of the Military Tribunal when the Act that brought it into being was introduced in 1931. They do not seem to be apprehensive at all at having a series of crimes manufactured and left open for translation to the Military Tribunal. That is the measure we now have. I assert here that the bringing of the District Justice and the District Courts into this is a piece of humbug. There is only one thing meant about the District Justice, and that is to put down a certain procedure in order to give the Military Tribunal this footing and to give the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 17) Act this footing, because the moment people are detailed to be brought before a District Justice, at that point the Administration can come in, and is bound to come in, and say that this is not a charge that is proper to go before a District Justice, that they will get this case transferred to the Military Tribunal. Then, on the production of a certificate from the Minister that the offence, whatever it be, has been committed for the purpose of impeding the course of justice, that case goes before that Tribunal. There is no right of appeal, and this, although it sets out not to have anything to do with that Tribunal, in fact is intended to be operated by that Tribunal.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce to-night broke a little bit further through the fog that the rest have tried to surround this measure with. He criticised as being, I think, seditious, a speech I made at Lucan recently. It should be pointed out, and I presume it has been pointed out already, that nobody who spoke at that meeting wore a blue shirt, that no offence under this Act, when it becomes an Act, was committed there; but there was an offence against the Government because there was criticism of them. There is the offence—that any member of a political party, availing himself of his opportunities for criticism, should dare to utilise them. There was the offence that is always committed under those circumstances, the offence that is bound to be committed increasingly as the blunders of the Government continue to give an opportunity for criticism and for punishing criticism. The Minister wants that sort of speech suppressed, and it is going to be suppressed, he says, under this measure. Deputy Norton had a battle royal here one night with the "Minister for Unemployment" in relation to wage cutting. Wage slashing, I think, was the Deputy's word. I do not know whether he and his Party have been slashed into submission since then. Supposing the Deputy got up at a trade union meeting to make the same comments that he made in this House on that occasion, all that is required is a proclamation from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or if he can get the Executive Council to agree to whatever is operating in his mind and immediately Deputy Norton becomes chargeable at any rate with an offence under this Act. He need not pride himself that he will be brought before a District Justice and before a man trained to evaluate facts and weigh up what an offence is, because only a slight turn of the hand is all that is necessary to bring him up to a military barracks and have him brought before the Military Tribunal for criticising the Minister for cutting wages to the 22/- a week point. Does Deputy Norton believe that the Government is not going to do that? Remember, that Act is not temporary.

Mr. Norton

You have exhausted your Aunt Sallies. You ought to give it up.

Mr. McGilligan

If the Deputy thinks he has been knocked down often enough, I will give it up. That Act does not last for only a limited period. It is going on the Statute Book without limitation of time. Remember, it is always there for the use of the forces of reaction in this country.

Mr. Davin

Not since the Deputy is over there.

Mr. McGilligan

He thinks it might be sweeping back. Supposing it did. That is a great weapon for a reactionary against such a democrat as the Deputy is. Any utterance of the Deputy can be brought to nought. He can be stopped from speaking under this.

Mr. Davin

You would be in jail before us at that rate.

Mr. McGilligan

I would be?

Mr. Davin

You would be bound to be, at the rate you are going on.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not know that I would be, unless the Deputy thinks I would be marked out first for punishment.

Mr. Davin

For talking humbug like that.

Mr. McGilligan

If humbug were a crime, the Deputy would have been hanged long ago.

Mr. Davin

May I give you O'Duffy's salute?

Mr. McGilligan

I am only repeating arguments which the two Deputies used in relation to the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act. We were told that that was not for a limited period, that it was going on for all time, that it could be used in a blackguardly way. Is there no fear of that being the case here? Do they think it is right, in relation to the circumstances of the country at this moment, to take one instance, that a simple policeman in this country should have power to use force to disperse a meeting, or to get a crowd of other policemen to disperse a meeting, without giving notice? Do the Deputies believe that that is the proper way of safeguarding democratic rights in this country? Is that the power they are going to entrust to the police in this country? Is that the power they are going to entrust to a Minister who expressed himself and exposed himself as the Minister for Industry and Commerce did to-day when he said that he wants to suppress the speeches of political opponents, whether their speeches are speeches that would be offences under the Act or simply because they are speeches criticising him?

Mr. Donnelly

Nonsense.

Mr. McGilligan

It is nonsense, of course, but it was said to-day and it was said by a man who is supposed to be responsible.

Mr. Donnelly

You know it does not apply.

Mr. McGilligan

Why was it introduced into the debate to-day as matter which that Minister would like to see suppressed?

Mr. Donnelly

We always welcome criticism.

Mr. McGilligan

That may be true of the Deputy, but there is one man, apparently, who does not. If I were sitting in the Deputy's place I would not mind them being criticised. The Deputy is not being criticised except in so far as he follows them. That was quoted to-day as an example of what ought to be put down, and I think the Minister went so far as to say that he would see that they would put it down. Deputy Norton is in favour at the moment. If one got back to that November night when he and the Parliamentary Secretary staged their argument as to what would be for the interests of the workers of the country, and all that kind of nonsensical stuff that he put up that night in an attempt to justify himself before his constituents—all that can be argued against him.

Mr. Norton

I can justify myself to my constituents more than the Deputy did. He very nearly tumbled off the plank the last time.

Mr. McGilligan

Possibly. What the Deputy calls reaction is having its effect. Other people call that the swing of the pendulum. The Deputy is standing precariously poised on the edge of a particular platform. If the swing goes far enough he has got a long drop.

Mr. Norton

Some of the Deputy's colleagues dived in.

Mr. McGilligan

The big question that the Deputy has to face up to in that connection is—is he going to back the Government in avoiding the local elections or will he welcome them? Will he go down to whatever group of Labour people stands at the local elections and say: "We brought this to safeguard your rights; we allow an ordinary policeman to disperse any group of you by force if you wear trade union badges; we allow you to be brought before the Military Tribunal; we give you no right of appeal; we avoid the circumstances of the law in having you brought before even a District Justice to be transferred to the Military Tribunal under a certain authority; you may be brought before it possibly by an order made secretly by the Government and not published until you are arrested"? That is the programme they have to put before them.

Mr. Morrissey

I was hoping that either Deputy Norton or Deputy Davin would have given us some further information why the amendments which stood in their names were withdrawn. I want to ask Deputy Davin or Deputy Norton what has happened to make the Labour Party accept for the first time in this House an assurance from the present or any other Government of their intentions and to be satisfied with that. I have heard Deputy Davin and other members of the Labour Party and former leaders of the Labour Party thunder against the suggestion coming from Ministers in this House that although so-and-so was in the Bill it was not the intention of the Government to do so-and-so. Deputy Davin in those days, and, if I am not mistaken, even Deputy Norton some years ago, and certainly Senator Johnson and Mr. T.J. O'Connell, when leaders of the Labour Party, refused, and to my mind quite rightly refused, to accept any such guarantee from Ministers. I remember Deputy Davin pointing out here, in very forcible language, when the Public Safety Act was introduced, that it was not the intention of the Government that mattered, but what was in the Act; that once it went down in black and white it ought to be enforced if you were going to have the law enforced as it should be.

Mr. Davin

Are you quoting?

Mr. Morrissey

Surely, even Deputy Davin is not going to deny that every member of the Labour Party refused on several occasions to accept the intentions of Ministers, and very properly referred Ministers to the fact that it was not their word that counted but what was in the Act; that when it became an Act it was not for the Minister or the Government as a whole to interpret the Act. The Deputy knows that well. If Deputy Davin or Deputy Norton is satisfied that this Bill may not be used against trade unions, certainly I am not satisfied. Does not the Deputy know well how much the promises of the Minister for Finance, before he became Minister, with reference to the national teachers were worth? Does he not know very well that the promises of the present Government as to what they were going to do for unemployment and for wage conditions were never kept? Why are they satisfied now? Why is the Deputy satisfied that this Bill is not going to be used against trade unions?

Why did the Party agree to have sections in the Bill such as those used against a body, which is largely composed, perhaps to the extent of 70 per cent., of working men and women in this country? Certainly I can speak for my own constituency, and say that many of them are members of a trade union, many of them are members of the union of which Deputy Norton is general secretary, and many of them members of Deputy Davin's union. They are to be victimised because they are exercising their right to go into a political party and take part in the legitimate activities of that party. I must confess that I find it almost impossible to understand the attitude of the Labour Party towards this measure. I must confess, and I am sure the members of that Party will themselves confess, that they have completely changed their attitude on most things in this House. I am afraid they have never gone so far from what the Party always stood for, and, in my opinion, properly stood for, as they have on this occasion. I want Deputy Norton or Deputy Davin to tell us what assurances they have from the Government, why they are satisfied with those assurances, and whether the T.U.C. is going to be satisfied with this matter. If we heard a little more on that subject we would know where we are.

Mr. Davin

Deputy Morrissey was absent from the House when, at the end of the speech of Deputy O'Higgins, who is one of the responsible leaders of the Blue Shirt organisation, I asked him whether he would be prepared to recommend the members of his organisation to discard their blue shirts and blue blouses if the Government accepted the amendment which was on the Order Paper in his name. Was the Deputy here when Deputy O'Higgins refused to give that assurance, proving quite conclusively that those on the opposite benches do not want peace at any price? As he said, they have their blue shirts, and they will have their blue shirts whether this Bill is passed or not. That is a typical example of the mentality of the people on those benches and shows quite conclusively that Deputy Fitzgerald is not the only Deputy on those benches who is prepared to ignore the law, if it suits him to do so. Deputy Morrissey knows quite well, as a man who was a member of a trade union, that in what he said here just now he was misrepresenting the meaning of this measure. I do not say that he was doing it deliberately. He is apparently unconscious of the fact that amendment 18 was carried which makes it impossible for the things which he suggested to be done when the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy is very simple. It does not do any such thing.

Mr. Davin

I am not half so simple as the Deputy thinks I am, or as the Deputy thinks he is himself. Deputy Morrissey as far as I know has not yet appeared in this House or outside this House wearing a blue shirt uniform. I have not had the pleasure of seeing his photograph in any paper wearing the uniform of the Blue Shirt organisation.

A Deputy

Were you disappointed?

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy does not know everything.

Mr. Davin

And is not infallible either, even on the meaning of this measure and nobody knows this better than Deputy Morrissey. If Deputy Morrissey were sitting on these benches to-day he would have to view this measure and the meaning of this measure from the point of view of what is the alternative. What is the alternative provided for trade unionists in this country? I wonder did General O'Duffy, the leader of the Party that Deputy Morrissey is now associated with, consult Deputy Morrissey as to the effect on trade unions before he envisaged and published his pamphlet on the corporate State which he will bring into existence if he gets hold of the Government of this country? Did he consult Deputy Morrissey on that point? Did Deputy Morrissey agree that part and parcel of that scheme contained a section for the destruction of trade unions as they now exist? Did Deputy Morrissey agree that the right of workers to strike should be taken from them?

Mr. Morrissey

Some of the trade unions are trying to destroy each other at the present time and Deputy Davin knows it.

Mr. Davin

I know General O'Duffy did not consult the rank and file, but I want to know was Deputy Morrissey consulted and did he agree that this corporate State scheme will upset the trade unions? Did he agree with that?

Mr. Morrissey

I can give the Deputy an answer on that.

Mr. Davin

Deputy Morrissey is afraid to answer it.

Mr. Roddy

I just wish to draw attention to Section 7 (1) of this Bill. This section places the Press of this country in an extremely difficult position and amendment 77a does not in any way case the responsibilities of newspaper owners in this country with regard to the matter published in their newspapers. The section reads:

"(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to publish any statement in writing, or any painting, drawing, photograph, or other picture or pictorial representation which directly or indirectly incities to, encourages, or condones the commission of offences or any particular offence under this Act or any section thereof.

(3) Every person who shall publish any statement, picture, or pictorial representation in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds."

It will be exceedingly difficult for proprietors of newspapers so to manage their affairs as to prevent certain matters creeping into their newspapers on occasion, which may, in the opinion of the Minister, bear this interpretation and which may bring them in conflict with this particular Bill. I admit that in sub-section (4) it is stated that it shall be a good defence to such charge for such person to prove that the said statement was privileged by virtue of Section 3 or Section 4 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888. But Section 4 of that particular Act only relates to certain organisations, certain societies and certain statutory bodies. There are a number of associations in this country which are not covered by Section 4 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888. It may happen that a newspaper reporting a meeting of such organisation not expressly covered by Section 4 of this particular Act may in such report include speeches or addresses delivered by members of that particular organisation which, in the opinion of the Minister, may bear a certain political complexion and make them liable for a penalty under sub-section (3) of this Bill.

Then take the case of advertisements. As the Attorney-General knows very well, advertisements are the main source of revenue of many newspapers. In many newspapers, indeed in the overwhelming majority, the advertisements represent the main part of the revenue. Now an advertisement may be published which may bear some symbol which, again, may be interpreted by the Minister as having a particular complexion of some political society or political organisation. In such cases the unfortunate newspaper proprietor will be liable to the extraordinary penalty imposed by sub-section (3) of Section 7 of this Bill. For instance, a photograph dealing with a cattle show society may be published in a newspaper away down the country. Probably a member of the committee of that society may be wearing on his person some badge, token or symbol of some political organisation or association of which he is a member. The unfortunate newspaper owner must examine that photograph with microscopic care in order to make sure that no individual included in that photograph bears on his person any symbol, badge or token which may have some political significance. Surely the section is loosely drafted. I imagine the Minister when he was drafting this particular section did not realise the actual consequences of it, or the position in which he is going to place newspaper proprietors throughout the country. The section gives the Minister the widest possible discretion and it completely and absolutely destroys any freedom which newspaper owners enjoy in this country at the moment.

In other sections of the Bill it is clearly the intention of the Minister to destroy individual freedom, but this particular section destroys the freedom which the Press in this country has hitherto enjoyed, a freedom which the Press did not abuse, freedom which, even in the days when the British were in control of this country, they never dreamt of abusing. There was hitherto no legislation which imposed such penalties as this Bill imposes. I admit that the law of libel does give certain privileges to newspapers. But the Attorney-General knows perfectly well that there are many reports of meetings published in newspapers to which the privilege extended to them by this section of the Law of Libel Amendment Act does not apply. In future if such reports be published they can only be published at the risk of the newspaper owner, who has absolutely no safeguard whatever. It is absolutely essential if there is to be a proper circulation of news in this country that newspaper owners should have certain discretion as to the matter which they will publish in their papers.

This section really means that newspaper owners in the future will be prohibited from publishing reports of certain societies and associations altogether. It is necessary that the proceedings of agricultural societies in this country should be published in full, particularly in papers with a big rural circulation. In future no paper dare publish a report of such a meeting without a certainty of making itself liable to the fine mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 7. There is grave risk in publishing reports of such meetings. It is inevitable that in discussions on agricultural matters there will be a number of political references. That is inevitable, and the Attorney-General knows it well. And many political references which may be made at such meetings may bear an interpretation which can be interpreted as bringing the newspaper owner within the terms of this particular section. I think it is a most extraordinary section. I do not know whether the Attorney-General or the Minister for Justice fully realises the interpretation of this section which is in keeping with the other sections of the Bill. It will have the effect of muzzling the Press completely in this country and, as well as muzzling the Press, muzzling the individual.

Mr. Dockrell

I would like to call attention to Section 4. As I see it, apparently the orders of the Executive Council are to come into force forthwith. I suggest to the Government that nothing will bring the law into such disrespect as leaving people in the position that they do not know when they are breaking the law. I urge very strongly on the Government that there ought to be some time limit which would leave the ordinary citizen in no doubt as to whether he was inside or outside the law. We have heard a great deal about people who do not intend to keep the law, but I would like to urge upon the Government that this is an extraordinary state of affairs. There appears to be no time limit during which the ordinary citizen can ascertain for himself whether he is inside or outside the law. That certainly marks a novel procedure in legislation.

Mr. Bartley

It has been very difficult to get a word in edgewise in this debate.

Mr. McGilligan

Hear hear! Why not go on to-morrow?

Mr. Bartley

The Ceann Comhairle seems to have his eyes on the front benches. However, with regard to keeping within the law, I do not think the Blue Shirt organisation will be very particular. They have not shown themselves very particular up to the present. Deputy Brodrick last night referred to incidents in County Galway. What I have to say in reference to this Bill concerns County Galway only. The Deputy said two members of the Fianna Fáil Party led a party of I.R.A. into Loughrea to take part in a dispute over the appointment of a doctor. The statement is party true and partly untrue. They did lead a party of men, but they were not a party of I.R.A. I think it was particularly unfortunate for Deputy Brodrick to mention that incident, because the men who went into Loughrea went in to support the law as it has been put into operation in connection with the appointment of a doctor by the Local Appointments Commission. The members of the Blue Shirt organisation have been opposed to what the Local Appointments Commission did in accordance with the law.

One assertion has run through all the speeches of the Opposition on this Bill. It was this, that all the villainy was on our side and all the virtue was on theirs. It was because of that statement that I have intervened in the debate. Examined in the light of certain happenings in County Galway, that is not on the face of it true. There were two cases of manslaughter which can be laid at the doors of the Blue Shirts. In one case persons were found guilty and sentenced and the evidence proved conclusively that they were Blue Shirts. At all events, the man killed was a Fianna Fáil supporter. I did not intend to go into details, but as there has been a laugh about it I will say it was a most brutal thing. The man was struck from behind with a stone and then kicked and stabbed to death. He got a most awful death. Two heroes with knives and stones did that to one unarmed man. There was another case in which four persons, known to be members of the Blue Shirts, beat a man so badly that he died as a result.

An Ceann Comhairle

The details of such cases are not relevant to the Report Stage.

Mr. McGilligan

Were those facts brought out in court—the Blue Shirt business?

Mr. Bartley

That was brought out in court.

Mr. McGilligan

That they were Blue Shirts?

Mr. Bartley

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Was it brought out that they were Blue Shirts?

Mr. Cleary

Is this cross-examination?

Mr. McGilligan

If the Deputy is not in a position to substantiate that, I ask that the statement be withdrawn.

Mr. Donnelly

You are not in court now.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not know the cases referred to, but the Deputy should not make charges under the privilege of this House against individuals so particularised that they could be identified.

Mr. Bartley

They can be identified.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please sit down? Charges should not be made in this House against individuals who might be identified, accusing them of any crime which should be tried elsewhere.

Mr. Donnelly

I hope the Opposition will remember that.

Mr. McGilligan

I was last night ruled out of order because I was not able to substantiate a charge I made. Is the Deputy able to substantiate what he is saying now? If not, he should be asked to withdraw his statement.

Mr. Bartley

I certainly can say it outside without being afraid of the law or anything else.

Mr. McGilligan

That was the very point I was making last night and I was ruled out of order. Is the same ruling going to apply now?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not make such charges in this House. They should be tried elsewhere. Charges of that nature that are not substantiated should be withdrawn.

Mr. McGilligan

Hear, hear!

Mr. Bartley

Well, I withdraw, if I have offended against the rules of order as regards making a charge against an individual. What really was in my mind was that I could prove that the Blue Shirt organisation was not, as they say, keeping within the law. I was making a general charge against their organisation, and, if I have offended by referring to specific cases, I withdraw.

Mr. McGilligan

Let the Deputy either substantiate his statement or withdraw.

Mr. Bartley

I have withdrawn. We had also a case in my constituency. After the 1933 election people who voted for the Fianna Fáil candidates were waylaid and struck with an iron bar.

Mr. McGilligan

Is this going to be substantiated also?

Mr. Bartley

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

No individual who can be identified has been referred to in this case.

Mr. McGilligan

Am I to assume that your ruling is that one may make a charge——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am ruling on one case; and not under cross-examination.

Mr. Bartley

I do not wish to be guilty of a series of breaches of the rules of order, but I could keep citing cases——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy possibly could, but the Chair has ruled that the cases are not relevant to the Report Stage of this measure.

Mr. McGilligan

It is a pity it is not.

An Ceann Comhairle

Speeches made yesterday or on other stages of the Bill should not be replied to on the Report Stage; if that were allowed debate would be interminable.

Mr. Bartley

I do not wish to make a general rambling speech. I wished to cite certain cases in order to prove that the people who have been trying to hold themselves out as angels in comparison with the villainy of their opponents are not altogether what they say they are. I wished to show that, at all events, the villainy was not on our side. Having given part expression to what I did intend to say, I shall sit down.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The last speech was very interesting, because we have it from the Deputy that in Galway it is necessary to have an association coming in to help the Guards to carry out their duty. What we have been hearing from the Front Bench opposite is completely repudiated by Deputy Bartley.

Mr. Bartley

On a point of order, I did not say it was necessary that an association should help the Guards.

Mr. McGilligan

You did in the case of Loughrea.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I wish to call attention to Sections 10 and 12 because they are sections which should not be contained in any Bill. This is not a Bill that even purports to deal with anything that is in any way morally wrong. This Bill is creating an entirely new offence. It is making a thing which is not morally wrong, a crime. It is going further. A thing which is the right thing to do, not merely justifiable but highly proper and correct, is being made a crime, or they are purporting to make it a crime. Wait until we see how persons who have done nothing morally wrong, who have done not only what is not morally wrong, but who have done what is not merely justifiable but what is socially proper, and what could be described as edifying conduct, are to be treated.

Under Section 10 they can be arrested without a warrant of any kind for wearing a badge. I have got a badge up at the present moment. When this Bill becomes law any police officer can make a proclamation and this will have become a criminal offence. You can be arrested for that. If you are suspected of owning a badge you can be arrested without any warrant. You can be removed and detained in custody in any prison, station of the Gárda Síochána or other place authorised by law for the detention in custody of persons awaiting trial. Then Section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1928 shall not apply "in respect of any person arrested under this section and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that every person so arrested shall, as soon as may be practicable, be brought before a Justice of the District Court." The most serious crimes in this country are bailable crimes but this is not. A man may be charged with an offence. He can be brought before a Peace Commissioner and he can be let out on bail but the terrible offence of having had, at some time, in your possession a little badge is so shocking or dangerous that a Peace Commissioner will not be allowed to take bail from you and you will have to be kept there until a District Justice is got. You can be confined in a barracks or in a prison for a week or a fortnight, not admitted to bail but kept there in custody and that for an offence which is not in itself morally wrong. Why this great departure? Theoretically, at any rate, even in a charge of murder, a man can be admitted to bail but here because you own a little badge you become such an awfully dangerous person that you cannot be admitted to bail. The whole procedure of the courts, the ordinary civil law is to be set aside, not to deal with cases of violence, not to deal with cases of moral wrongdoing, not to deal with cases which in themselves have the brand of moral turpitude upon them, but here for belonging to a political association which is unpopular with the Government you can be put into prison and kept in prison.

Then we come to the District Justice. Why is the right of appeal being taken away? These are criminal proceedings. Why is the right of appeal taken away? It is given in other circumstances. Everybody knows, certainly any lawyer knows or ought to know, what is the history of the right of appeal. We know that for a considerable time there was no appeal from the magistrates except in certain cases, that that was considered to be completely wrong, and that then an appeal was given in every case. Here you are going right backward. You are taking away the right of appeal. What is the argument put forward for that? "Oh, we do not like the courts." The courts administer the law. The present Government does not like the law administered correctly. The courts are there to perform the first function of a court. The courts are to stand between the liberty of the subject and the tyranny of the Executive. For that reason, the courts are, as far as the Front Bench can manage it, to be completely swept away. The courts are to be swept away and the great barrier which we have in our Constitution, that there will be independent judges to see that the individual citizen is not trampled upon by a tyrannical Executive, is to be taken away.

They hate the idea that the courts should intervene. The Executive is not to be trammelled or bound in any way by the law. The Executive is above the law. The Executive will be a law unto themselves, and if the courts intervene, well then the courts are really shocking and horrible things in intervening to save the liberty of the subject. Our judges have been made irremovable in order that they will stand between the citizen and the tyranny of an Executive. That is what the judges were made irremovable for. At one time they were not irremovable. They could be removed at the pleasure of the Executive, and all confidence in the administration of justice was completely gone. Now we have judges that are irremovable by the Executive, and their jurisdiction is to be taken away from them as far as this Government can do it, because they are likely to stand between the citizen and the Executive and breaches of the law, known breaches of the law——

The Attorney-General

Is this an attack on the District Justices?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It is not an attack on the District Justices. It is an attack on the Administration that is taking away the right of appeal. Why should there be a right of appeal in one case and not in another? Why is a person who has a blue shirt or why is a person who has got a political badge in his possession going to be treated differently to anybody else?

The Attorney-General

I understand that——

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The Attorney-General can answer me after I am finished, but I am not going to give way to him now. If I am not making myself clear to the Attorney-General, I am perfectly indifferent as to whether I make myself clear to him, but it does not interest me, but it does interest me to make myself clear to every ordinary Deputy in this House. This right of appeal is to be taken away. Why? What is the reason? The reason that is to be given is this: that the courts protect the individual and that the Executive is of the opinion that the individual should not be protected by the law. The law is to be no longer a shield for the individual who is politically opposed to the present Government. That is the object in taking away the right of appeal, that and no other. You have got here a thing not wrong in itself, but a thing which is made fantastically illegal. You have got a drastic method of procedure embodied in this Bill which is not to be found in the procedure adopted against persons who have committed crimes of the greatest moral turpitude, and the House, without the possibility of amendment, is asked to pass this Bill. You may do it, but you are certainly putting a stain upon yourselves, which possibly would not matter, if you were not also putting a stain upon this House as a branch of the legislative assembly of this country.

The Attorney-General

When I interrupted Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, if he allowed me to make my interruption clear, he would not have been so severe in his reply to me. I can quite understand Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney raising the question of there being no appeal. I can quite see that there is an argument in favour of there being a right of appeal. What I wished to draw Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney's attention to was that he was making an indirect attack upon the District Justices, and I wanted to know whether he realised what he was doing. Apparently he did not realise it, or he is quite regardless of the effect of the words which he used. The charges to be brought before District Justices under this Act will be of the simplest possible character—questions of fact. Why the Deputy should work himself up to such a fury because there will not be another trial of a matter which is merely a question of fact I cannot say. One might pay more attention to his argument if he did not preface it by the suggestion that any of those offences will not be moral offences once this Bill is through. He repeated the argument of Deputy Desmond Fitzgerald that it would be quite morally forgivable to break this law, and that those crimes are manufactured crimes.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I did not say that.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

As a matter of fact, I did not make any such argument. The Attorney-General may be correct in the view he has mentioned, but I did not put it forward.

The Attorney-General

The Deputy used the words that they were not morally wrong.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Yes, and I say now that they are not morally wrong.

Mr. McGilligan

Insane, he said.

The Attorney-General

When this Bill becomes an Act——

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Which I hope will never happen.

The Attorney-General

——does the Deputy suggest that it should be morally justifiable to break it in any way his followers wish?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I do not discuss theoretical questions. I will tell you if that ever happens.

The Attorney-General

There are one or two other points. Deputy Dockrell referred to the question of time limit for a proclamation. Deputy McGilligan referred to one incident which he says justifies the insertion of some provisions with regard to a time limit for the coming into operation of an order by the Executive Council. I presume he referred to the Cronin case, where a man was charged with membership of an unlawful association the day after the proclamation was made.

Mr. McGilligan

And to the imprisonment of the Irish Press representative.

The Attorney-General

I do not understand that.

Mr. McGilligan

They hang together, you know.

The Attorney-General

I have already referred to the Cronin case. In the case of Commandant Cronin there was never any plea whatever in regard to time, so far as I read the account of his case. He made no suggestion that he was misled by anything that appeared in the Irish Press, nor did he plead that it was unfair that he should be taken unawares and charged with this offence, or that he was prepared to leave this association.

Mr. McGilligan

Do you mean to say the point was not raised?

The Attorney-General

A great deal was said about the Irish Press and the publication in the Irish Press, but when Commandant Cronin went into the box he never suggested that he saw the announcement in the Irish Press. The whole use of the Irish Press incident was a mere piece of political propaganda, and was quite dishonest from start to finish. That one incident surely is not enough on which to base any case that an unfair advantage will be taken of any persons by their being charged under an order of the existence of which they were not aware. Deputy Dockrell can rest assured that there will be no advantage taken of people who can genuinely say that they were not aware of any order having been made——

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

After having been a fortnight in jail?

The Attorney-General

——or that if they had been aware of it they would not have disobeyed it.

Mr. McGilligan

Is that right—after they had been apprehended for about a fortnight? Is not that right?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Of course it is.

Mr. McGilligan

Can it not happen that under a proclamation issued without a person's knowledge that a person may be apprehended for about a fortnight before being brought even before a District Justice?

The Attorney-General

In exceptional cases that may happen.

Mr. McGilligan

They will become the rule.

Mr. O'Leary

They will be better off in Arbour Hill soon than in the country. They will have rashers and eggs in the morning.

The Attorney-General

Deputy McGilligan referred to the question of trade unions. There is no intention whatever to deal with trade unions under this Bill, and everybody is aware of it. It is quite dishonest to suggest that there is any such intention.

Mr. McGilligan

We are speaking of power.

The Attorney-General

That point was already dealt with on the Second Reading debate. I may say that if it were possible to find a convenient formula in which the protection which is guaranteed to the trade unions could be embodied in the Bill, the Government would be willing to insert it.

Mr. McGilligan

But it is not there.

The Attorney-General

It is not there for the reason that it is very difficult to discover a formula which would be sufficient to protect trade unions and to prevent abuse. Deputy Roddy has criticised the section which deals with the freedom of newspapers. I do not quite understand why he is so alarmed about it. When he said that the Minister may do this, that or the other, he seems to have overlooked the fact that the offences under this section—as all the other offences—will be tried by the court.

Mr. McGilligan

Is there anything to prevent their going before the Military Tribunal?

The Attorney-General

There is nothing to prevent their going before the Military Tribunal upon a certificate. That is a matter which——

Mr. McGilligan

Which will arise in the first case.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order!

The Attorney-General

Which will not arise unless in a proper case for the exercise of the powers under that Act. I should have reminded Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, who is so vocal about the abolition of rights of appeal, that the Act which he wrote into the Constitution—the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act—deliberately abolished all rights of appeal.

Mr. McGilligan

Oh no, as you are finding out.

The Attorney-General

Is the Deputy so ignorant of the proceedings that are pending that he considers they are an appeal?

Mr. McGilligan

I think they will be questioned by the Attorney-General as being appeals.

Mr. McGuire

I wish to ask the Attorney-General one question. He raised the point—and I do not know what point he wished to make by raising it—that under this Bill it is only questions of fact that will arise in the District Court. Is it not true that at the present moment, in 95 per cent. of the appeals which come from the District Court to the Circuit Court, it is entirely questions of fact which are concerned? I should like to know what point the Attorney-General wishes to make when he says it is only questions of fact that will come before the District Justices under this Bill.

Deputies Corry and Norton rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

At 8.30, by the order of this House, the vote must be taken.

Mr. McGilligan

It is not that time yet.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is one minute available.

Mr. Norton

In the minute available I want to say that we again had Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Morrissey posing as advisers to the trade union movement. Deputy McGilligan was wonderfully concerned that trade unions would not have the right to wear badges. The Deputy is a member of a party which is concerned with taking away not merely the right to wear a badge but with taking away from the workers the right even to withdraw labour in the event of a strike. The Deputy is concerned about badges. He would have them retain their badge, but he would take away from them the rights they had for hundreds of years. That is the kind of solicitude which Deputy McGilligan has for the trade union movement. Deputy Morrissey comes along to advise the trade union movement as well. Deputy Morrissey was a member of a trade union up to a few years ago. I am sorry that he has left the House. I do not think he is a member of a trade union now. If he is, I should like to know what union he is a member of. I should like to know from Deputy Morrissey whether he is speaking for the trade union movement or whether we are. The clear purpose of their speeches was to try to get us to pull the Cumann na nGaedheal chestnuts out of the fire. That is not happening. Not even Deputy McGilligan's rhetorical acrobatics here this evening will induce us to do it. Here we get Deputy McGilligan, a member of the Party that wants to withdraw the right of the workers to strike, and Deputy Morrissey, who, so far as I know, is a non-trade unionist, purporting to advise trade unionists.

Mr. McGilligan

You are afraid to strike now. They are on top of you.

Mr. Norton

Deputy Dillon's contribution last night was insolence——

Mr. McGilligan

You could not strike a spark.

Mr. Norton

——and Deputy McGilligan's contribution to-night is a joke but it is a joke on himself.

Mr. O'Leary

You are a joke, and an expensive joke on the country.

Question put: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 59.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, William Frazer.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cleary, Mícheál.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corish, Richard.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Keely, Séamus P.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Daly, Denis.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Donnelly, Eamon.
• Dowdall, Thomas P.
• Everett, James.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• Norton, William.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Doherty, Joseph.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pattison, James P.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

• Anthony, Richard.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Coburn, James.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Curran, Richard.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Davis, Michael.
• Davitt, Robert Emmet.
• Desmond, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Dolan, James Nicholas.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Finlay, John.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Holohan, Richard.
• Keating, John.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McGuire, James Ivan.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James Edward.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Reilly, John Joseph.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Reidy, James.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Rogers, Patrick James.
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Bennett and O'Donovan.

Question declared carried.