Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Apr 1925

Vol. 5 No. 1

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - TREASONABLE OFFENCES BILL, 1925—SECOND STAGE.

Question proposed—"That this Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. O'FARRELL

Since this Bill was introduced the Minister has extracted some of its worst fangs, and eliminated some of its ugliest features. When he saw it in cold blood, even he realised or was shocked at its appearance and certain of its possibilities. Notwithstanding the extensive amendments that have been made, I think the Bill still has many sinister aspects and serious possibilities. It should be the policy of all good citizens at present to get away from that atmosphere of hatred and revenge associated with the civil war. That is necessary in order to create that feeling of security which is so essential to the prosperity and, indeed, to the existence of the State. You do not create a sense of security by enacting an elaborate and vigorous penal code, any more than you do by multiplying in a hurried manner implements of war. On the contrary, I think by adopting a measure like the one before the House you tend to suggest the possibility of a recurrence of all those things that make for destruction and insecurity. It is quite plain from the general aspect of the measure that it has been conceived in a spirit of war, in an atmosphere of civil strife. The amendments which have been suggested by the Minister himself indicate that he changed his mind considerably from the time that he first suggested the draft of the Bill to the draughtsman. His explanation to the effect that one generally asked for more than he expects is an extraordinary explanation from a responsible Minister in reference to a Bill of this kind, where the safety of the State is concerned, and where the liberty of the subject is at stake.

In my opinion, the whole Bill is ill-timed. When you are going to legislate for the future in a vital matter of this kind—one of the first importance not only to the State but to its citizens —it should be considered in a calm and collected way, far removed from the incidents with which it is intended to deal. Otherwise, human nature being what it is, it is almost impossible, it is certainly unlikely, that a measure which will be good for the State, and at the same time fair and equitable to its individual citizens, can be enacted.

The first few sections, the first particularly, breathe the spirit of death in every line. The death penalty covers a wide range of offences, and, what is more extraordinary, is the fact that the court is allowed no discretion. It is death or nothing. One can quite conceive that the same offence may be, technically at all events, committed with varying degrees of guilt, and to deprive the court of discretion in any case of that kind is certainly prejudicing justice. Again I think that goes to show that the Bill has been conceived in a civil war spirit, and that if the Minister had given himself a greater opportunity of getting away from that time when he introduced so many ugly ducklings—some of them might have been necessary—he might have turned out an instrument that would make for greater safety and security, and at the same time ensure as far as that is possible that no citizen would be treated with undue severity or injustice.

I approve as absolutely necessary the provision governing secret societies in the Army and police, but I would like to know how it is proposed, if it is proposed at all, to apply the Bill to present members of the Army. It is no secret that there are secret societies within the Army and that prominent officers are members of these societies. One would like to know whether it is the intention when this Bill becomes an Act to submit each member of the Army to a test as to whether he at the present time belongs to any of these societies. I take it this is not retrospective legislation, and if an Army officer has been a member of a secret society up to the present, he may argue that was not a crime at the time and that he could continue in the society. That may be a strange interpretation of the Bill, but it is certainly one that may fairly logically be placed upon it. I wonder if the Minister would have the firmness to put this Bill to such a test in its practical application.

The other section dealing with secret societies can in the hands of a strong anti-Labour Government be used with harshness and injustice as far as trade unions are concerned and especially in respect of trade union business that trade unionists desire to conduct in private. It is quite clear to anyone that an interpretation can be placed on certain sections of the Bill whereby every trade union will have to make public, particularly at the request of any responsible Government authority, the nature of their proceedings.

Particularly obnoxious is the sub-section referring to people inciting civil servants to refuse or to neglect to perform their duties. At first it was argued that this had no reference whatever to trade unionism within the Civil Service. The Minister for Finance, with his usual frankness, frankly declared that it did mean that a strike was prohibited and that to that extent it was a direct interference with trade union rights of civil servants. Apart altogether from the merits as to whether civil servants should have a right to strike at all, I do not think this Bill is the place to deal with regulations of that kind. The Minister for Finance has power to make regulations prohibiting strikes if he so desires under Section 9 of the Civil Service Regulations Act, 1924. The section reads:—

"The Minister for Finance may from time to time make regulations for controlling the Civil Service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann,"

and so forth, and any of these regulations may include prohibition to withdraw labour except on penalty of dismissal. Why is there this insinuation that the Civil Service is honey-combed with sedition? The Minister for Justice, speaking at Dun Laoghaire on January 10th, said:—

"I would like to say of the Civil Service that if all ranks had not worked with good will and loyalty we would not be as far on the road to recovery and reconstruction as we are at present."

On the same day the Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe), speaking at Carlow, said:—

"There had never been any failure on the part of civil servants to carry out the policy of the Government as they were directed to do."

In view of these unsolicited testimonies from the two Ministers who have taken the most prominent part in defending this sub-section, it seems very strange that each of them should consider it necessary to bring into a Bill dealing with treason a regulation that is tantamount to governing the affairs of the Civil Service. The civil servants are undoubtedly discontented, but that is no reason to say that they are seditious. They have been deprived of many things that their colleagues in Great Britain enjoy. They have been deprived of Whitley Councils, and are denied access to the Minister except in a form that they very emphatically object to. Now comes along this penal measure which, in fact, brands them as being infected with sedition. I think that is an insult to the service, and tends to create disaffection rather than prevent it.

On the whole, I think it would be better if the Minister would leave well enough alone and not anticipate all those terrible possibilities that seem to be giving him such worry. The State is always able to deal with many of the things which the Bill seems to think possible, and it is not going to make for our credit abroad, any more than it is going to promote security and good work at home, to enact this vigorous penal code at the moment. I do not know when it will be considered good policy to adopt towards our own countrymen with whom we do not agree the same policy of forgiveness and forgetfulness that we have adopted towards our late foreign enemies. Surely the time must come sometime, and I think it has come now, when the same policy should be adopted in respect of enemies of the State within as has been adopted to the late enemies of the State without. This is no mere sentiment or excess of tenderness of heart. It is just good practical common sense and good statesmanship and patriotism in a useful although unpicturesque form.

I know that the Minister, because of his very keen contact with what he would term sedition and what was sedition in many forms during the past couple of years, finds it much more difficult to get away from that warlike atmosphere in which he revelled than it is for the ordinary citizen whose mind has not been so taken up with these affairs as the Minister's. The citizen would thank him very much more if he did not stir up these smouldering fires which have been settling down because of the fact that no wind has fanned their embers. This Bill in many respects has been a godsend to certain people, because it holds out a prospect of future martyrs. This is a great land for martyrs. We are constantly glorifying dead heroes and starving live ones, and this offers further opportunity. In that respect I think the Minister has undoubtedly given something to his political opponents that they should thank him for. I think if he had not taken out some of the sections which he has seen fit to take out, they would thank him to a greater extent. It will be necessary to move certain amendments on the Committee Stage, but on the whole I would suggest that the Bill is ill-timed, and that some further time should have been given before an enactment of this kind was introduced which, on the face of it, is unnecessary now and which everyone hopes will not be necessary again for a very considerable time.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

With reference to the statement that it will be necessary to put down certain amendments to this Bill, I had intended to ask the House to take this Bill in Committee to-morrow. I do not want to force that idea on the House if there is any substantial objection to it. I mention it for this reason, that unless amendments are received by the Clerk within an hour it will be impossible to have them circulated for to-morrow. It is advisable that the amendments should be on the Order Paper. I mention that so that if the House is satisfied to consider this Bill to-morrow it can be considered. Some amendments have come in, and any others should be sent in at once.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I did not think that your reference applied to this Bill, because I thought that our special regulations were created for non-contentious measures. I did not think it was intended to take this Bill to-morrow, and that is why I did not put down any amendments.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The notice sent out intimated that it was intended to take this Bill to-morrow.

Colonel MOORE

I think there is some objection to the Bill being taken to-morrow as being too soon. I am not personally concerned, as I have already sent in amendments. We would, however, like to hear the arguments to-day before putting down amendments.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Of course there will be a full discussion on the Second Reading to-day, and that will be unlimited. If we do not meet to deal with this in Committee to-morrow I do not think that we will have any other business. I think it is rather a pity to bring Senators here for one day if we can avoid it. I do not wish to rush the measure, but if Senators could leave it over for the Committee Stage it would, perhaps, meet the convenience of the House.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

In view of the extreme importance of this measure I do not think that we ought to deal with it too hurriedly. I think it would be much better to adjourn the Committee Stage until next week. Further amendments may be sent in, and I would not be inclined to move too hurriedly.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I shall let the discussion proceed, and when it is closed, if there is any substantial wish from any substantial portion of the House that suggestion will be considered. I am informed that if we have the Committee Stage to-morrow there would be no work for the House next week.

Mr. HAUGHTON

I wish to endorse the remarks of Senator O'Farrell with regard to capital punishment. In any remarks which I have to make on the subject I do not wish to convey the idea that I am not in agreement with the common feeling of the country. I wish to express appreciation of the way in which the Minister in charge of the Bill has endeavoured to meet the wishes of the Dáil on this subject in lessening to some extent the penalties in this Bill. I think opinion is rife in this country, and there is a growing feeling across the water, that capital punishment should be abolished for all crime, and that the alternative of penal servitude should be largely adopted. I would like also to remind the House, apart from agrarian or political crimes, that there have been very few sordid cases of murder here such as have been perpetrated in other countries. I believe that in this country we should face this question of the total abolition of capital punishment. The majority of countries in Europe, and a number of the States across the ocean, have for years adopted this course with satisfactory results. Across the water our sister nation, Great Britain, claims the extreme penalty for treason, murder, and the destruction of Government hospitals and dockyards. There is a growing feeling, however, in favour of the total abolition of the death penalty. One hundred years ago, or a little more, there were 180 offences for which people suffered the extreme penalty. In this enlightened age the words of a celebrated legal authority sound singularly absurd. When opposing a Bill for the abolition of the death penalty for stealing, Lord Ellenborough, in addressing the House of Lords, used these words, "Your lordships will pause"— this was in the year 1833—"before you consent to a measure pregnant with danger to the security of property. The learned judges are unanimously agreed that the expediency of justice and the public security require that there should be no remission of capital punishment on the part of the criminal law." On its abolition, we all know that stealing and other offences for which the death penalty was inflicted did not increase, but, on the contrary, largely diminished as social conditions improved.

I submit to the Minister that it is not necessary for us to follow Great Britain slavishly, much as I personally respect its law, though not in all details such as these. We should strike out for ourselves, set them an example, and help those who are trying to bring this much-desired reform, the abolition of capital punishment, about. I also agree with what Senator O'Farrell has said as to the effect of capital punishment in making heroes and martyrs of men. In my area in the south of Ireland, and I expect in other parts of the country as well, demonstrations are annually taking place for a deed that was committed in Manchester many years ago, and for which Allen, Larkin and O'Brien were hanged upon the scaffold, because they were members of a crowd that attacked a prison van, with the result that a sergeant of the police was killed. Such things as that ought to be avoided, and such things as occurred only a few weeks ago when the Home Secretary, Sir Joynson Hicks, had petition after petition sent to him signed by hundreds of thousands of people pleading for the life of a wretched criminal in Hull. The name of the man, I think, was Smith. He fought during the great war, and proved his bravery in the battle field. Because his wife was unfaithful he killed her in a fit of frenzy. Another man who was drunk split his wife's head open and received a sentence of 10 years penal servitude, while this poor ex-soldier was sent to the scaffold.

I think that the Minister, and the Executive Council, should recognise that it would be much easier to obtain verdicts in difficult cases if the people knew that the extreme penalty would not be inflicted, but that a person in the dock would be sent to penal servitude for life. Then, perhaps, in subsequent years, when the country would quieten down, the prerogative of mercy might be availed of. These sentiments have been passing very much through my mind, and I think that the Minister would be well advised in visualising the future of this country to see, as I am sure the majority of the people of this House do, that there is a bright future before it. We appreciate fully the improved condition of the country as compared with twelve months ago, largely owing to the services the country has received from the Ministry. I trust, therefore, that the Ministers who have shown such amazing courage will also take their courage in both hands on this important question. We all appreciate what the Minister has done in meeting the Dáil in this matter, and I hope that he will also meet us in abolishing this penalty of death, and accept the amendments that have been handed in substituting penal servitude for life, or such lesser sentence as the judge at the trial may deem suitable to meet the case.

The EARL of MAYO

This is a Bill "to declare divers acts of a treasonable nature or otherwise injurious to the State to be offences, and to make provision for the punishment thereof, and for other matters connected therewith." I do not see very well how you can deal with treason unless you have an Act. After all, it must be admitted by everybody that treasonable offences have been committed in this country since the Free State was established. We have a written Constitution; on the other side there is no written Constitution, and treasonable offences have been dealt with by successive Acts of Parliament, one of them a very old one indeed, which even now has not been repealed. Senator O'Farrell spoke of sub-section (f) of Section 3, which reads as follows: "Incites any person in the Civil Service (other than a police force) of the Government of Saorstát Eireann to refuse, neglect or omit to perform his duty." Naturally, civil servants, who are paid by the Government, must, to put it quite plainly, behave themselves and not join in strikes. I do not see why Senator O'Farrell should quote from speeches of the Minister for Finance that he made when he was not dealing with this Bill at all. However, I do not fathom Senator O'Farrell's arguments in any way. He wound up by saying that the Bill was ill-timed.

The whole truth of it is that we must have an Act to deal with treasonable offences. We have nothing of the kind. I have just said to the Minister, "Have you an Act dealing with treason?" and he said, "No, we have not." One cannot allow treason to be carried on in our country. We have had experience of it, terrible experience, and we cannot allow it to go on. If you do not have an Act to deal with it, it will go on. There is no use in applying a little sub-clause to general strikes, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the Civil Service. Everybody has a right to strike; the question is whether it is sensible to do so. Senator Haughton quoted a speech by Lord Ellenborough, made in the year 1833. Well, hanging was very easy in those days, because people were hanged for sheep-stealing. It seems to me to be stretching the point rather far to go back to a speech made so long ago. Of course Senator Haughton has every right to object, as many people do, to capital punishment. Many people think that it is very wrong, and they are entitled to their opinion. The truth of it is, that it is the law on the other side, and I am afraid that we must have that law on this side, because if we did not, it is very likely that gentlemen who commit murder on the other side would slip over here, and that is not a very agreeable prospect for people living here. I shall support the Bill most decidedly, and I am astonished at my friends on the Labour Benches making such a fuss about a matter which is really a very serious one, because of the fact that we have no method of dealing with treason.

Mr. KENNY

A previous speaker interpreted this Bill, in connection with Section 1, sub-section (2), in a manner that I think the context does not warrant. Senator O'Farrell, if I understood him aright, said that any tribunal trying a person charged with any of the offences enumerated here would appear to have no option but, as he put it, death or nothing, as punishment for the proved offence. The wording of the clause is: "shall be guilty of treason and shall be liable on conviction thereof to suffer death." I take it that that does not mean that it is not within the discretion of the tribunal to impose a lesser sentence. The maximum certainly would be death, and there would be nothing more extreme than that. In all legislation you will find maximum penalties that are rarely, in practice, ever inflicted. In sub-clause (3) you find a maximum penalty of £500, which may be inflicted for a certain offence described there. In practice we find and we know that tribunals rarely, if ever, inflict the maximum penalty. It is introduced to act as a deterrent.

Persons feel that under certain circumstances that maximum may be applied, but under the fishery laws, and other laws that were made, which contain extremely high maximum penalties, from my experience I have found the maximum fine of £100 or £50 reduced to 1/-. The offences in connection with which the death penalty is liable to be inflicted, it will be noted, refer to the levying of war on the State. There may be some in disagreement with the death penalty, but in the case of murder, cold-blooded, with malice aforethought, and premeditated murder, I do not think anybody will disagree with it. One could quote Scripture in approval of the death sentence in circumstances like that. But what does the person do who actually engages in levying war against the State? What are the possibilities and probabilities of the policy that he incites and instigates? What are the possible and very probable results of that policy if it should fructify or arrive at maturity? It will result in the spilling of at least some innocent blood. So that the person who does that knows that as a logical result of his action innocent people must inevitably be done to death. We have these offences in connection with which the death penalty may be imposed confined to the levying of war, the incitement of war against the State, and I for my part cannot see that anything short of the death penalty— and if there were any penalty more extreme than that I would advocate it— should be meted out to the person or persons convicted of any of these offences.

Coming to sub-section (3) of Section 1, "every person who encourages, harbours or comforts any person engaged in the levying of war," is, I think, a sentence that may require to be amplified or qualified, because it is difficult to know what the word "comforts" means in that connection. With regard to clause 8, dealing with secret societies, we have a secret society defined as "an association, society, or other body, the members of which are required by the regulations thereof to take or enter into, or do in fact take or enter into, an oath, affirmation or declaration not to disclose the proceedings or some part of the proceedings of the association, society or body."

I was at one time a member of a society that came within that definition then, and that possibly comes within that definition now. I was expelled from that society. It was a very celebrated case in the law courts. I contested the right of those who were in authority to expel me. It was my case against the A.O.H. Society. It was fought out, and I think it will be in the recollection of some Senators here that it was fought out some years ago. I know that there are some parts of the proceedings of that society that members are bound under a declaration and oath not to disclose— under a very solemn declaration. I question whether the doors of the A.O.H. Society would not be closed or that they may be compelled to alter their constitution and their Standing Orders if this Bill in its present form is given effect to.

I think there can be no question at all about the Masonic Order—that so far as that society goes, in Ireland it has always been looked upon as a secret society, and I think that without any knowledge of its inner working it may possibly be found to come within the definition here. That would be a very serious thing for that society. I think the definition or the wording of the definition requires some alteration.

Generally speaking, the Bill has my approval. It may be said that legislation should not be of a panicky character or that it should not be introduced in any special circumstances to deal with those special circumstances. That may be a sound argument, and it may be argued that legislation should have a wider outlook and should have a wider forecast and should be of a permanent character. I think you will find that condition of affairs in all countries owing to political and other changes and agitations. Every Government has found at times the necessity of introducing special legislation to deal with special circumstances or with the special conditions in which they find themselves. A Senator quoted the eulogium by the Minister regarding members of the Civil Service. Well, generally speaking, I think it was deserved. But those Senators who have not the knowledge possibly that the Minister or the Executive Council has, know of certain currents that are flowing even now in the Civil Service, of the doings of certain individual members of that service. I have no doubt that certain Clauses of this Bill which read rather drastically and seem uncalled for from the point of view of the knowledge of the general public, would be absolutely justified if the general public and if Senators knew all that the Ministers know.

Colonel MOORE

I suppose everybody will agree that it is desirable that the position of the State with regard to revolting citizens should be put in order. We have gone through a very bad time, and we have had legislation, hurried legislation, very often, and legislation which, to my mind, was undesirable. I think all these rules and regulations and laws do not depend altogether on matters of principle and matters of law and points of justice, but on policy. It is very often undesirable to put in force laws at certain periods. I opposed these Bills for certain reasons, and I believe now as much as ever that I was justified in doing so. I oppose this particular measure because I think it is an undesirable time, and that the conditions are unfavourable for putting it in force. There are times when any amount of compulsion and any amount of severity may be justified. We had it in the past, and during the period of fighting between one country and another measures were adopted which no ordinary person would justify in ordinary cases but which were justified in the particular circumstances of those cases. Many of us did not flinch facing and supporting them in the case where they were necessary for the freedom of this country. In the present case I do not see that it is at all wise, or that it is the proper time to bring in these Bills.

Everyone of us knows that there are a great many people who do not agree with us and who will not come into the Dáil at the present moment, but who would like to come in. These people are not likely to be induced to come in by threatening measures, by threats of hanging them and shooting them and doing all such things. The Minister, I suppose, knows that as well as I do. There was a time when Ministers stated how desirable it was that these people should come into the Dáil, and how much easier it would be for the country if it were so. I think the Ministers have changed their minds; I think the last thing they wish for now, for their own political reasons, is that these people should come into the Dáil. I must confess that I think this Bill was brought in at this particular time for the very purpose—it was just before the election—of preventing these people from coming into the Dáil. The Minister has not spoken. I think you, sir, suggested at one time that Ministers should explain their Bills. He has not explained it here. I think that is unfortunate, because there are certainly several points in it which I do not understand, and which I hope will be explained by the Minister. Now Section 1, sub-section (2), reads:—

Every person who, being a citizen of or ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann, commits outside Saorstát Eireann any of the acts mentioned in the foregoing sub-section (other than levying war against Saorstát Eireann) shall be guilty of treason and shall be liable on conviction thereof to suffer death.

It makes exclusions there, very extraordinary exclusions, "other than levying war against Saorstát Eireann." Now, any person living in Saorstát Eireann who declares war against the State is liable to be punished by death. But citizens of the Saorstát who are living outside the country may declare war and cause a great deal of trouble to the Saorstát without being liable to suffer the death penalty. I confess that is a matter that I do not understand. Does it mean that if this country is invaded and if a citizen of the Saorstát goes out and joins the opposing forces and attacks this country, that he is not to be subject to any penalty? There may be some explanation of that, but I do not understand it. I think those people who keep themselves clear, and the Seanad should take care to be guarded, should be subject to the same punishment as those who raise up a rebellion in this country.

The next sub-section is rather indefinite: "Every person who encourages." That person may not know anything about it. There ought to be some amendment of that sub-section. Under Section 3, for certain offences against the State, such as refusing to obey certain orders from a commanding officer, the same punishment is provided. Anybody who has had experience of military law knows that there is no offence which varies so much as that. It might cover most extraordinary things. It might cover the action of some person who deliberately refuses to obey the law with treasonable intent and who disobeys a direct order of a superior officer. It also might cover the offence of a man who has some fatigue duty to carry out, such as carrying away ashes, and who, when some person says to him not to be bothered doing that, walks away and does not do it. Both these people would be subject to the same penalty. In all military law that I know of there is a great distinction made in cases like that. In English military law they are put into two entirely different classes. One would be punished by the severest penalty and the other by a light penalty. Acts like these should be provided for under different headings.

Another matter that I would like the Minister to consider is the refusal to obey orders given by a superior officer. All orders are not lawful. A superior officer may give unlawful orders. That does not seem to be recognised in this country, because during the last military performances here people seemed to think that if an officer gave a junior an order to commit murder, or to commit acts that he had no right to do, the junior was bound to obey. Nobody is bound to obey an order which is not lawful. For instance, if a senior officer orders a man to shoot into a peaceful crowd it is an unlawful order and the person who receives the order is entitled to refuse to obey it. There are amendments of that sort necessary in the Bill even if it is passed. I do not think that any Executive Minister should be allowed to give certain orders —I should say it is the Minister for Defence. I wish the Minister would consider these matters and give some explanation. Another matter which I do not understand is, that certain people are to be tried in the same way as if they were being tried for murder. Probably there is some legal explanation for that, but to me it means nothing. Perhaps the Minister will explain what it means.

Mr. BAGWELL

There are many points in this Bill which can be considered in Committee and which it is desirable should be closely considered. Broadly speaking, I should like the Minister to know that some Senators consider this a good and necessary Bill. There could hardly be any greater crime than civil war. Murder may only involve one death, but civil war involves many deaths, widespread suffering and unhappiness, all of which we have very recent experience of in this country. It is true that the Bill gives power to impose the death penalty for a fairly wide range of offences, but, as has already been stated, there will be a final appeal to the Minister, and it is optional with him to say whether it should be enforced. I doubt whether the death penalty would be inflicted where there were extenuating circumstances. Reference has been made to the abolition of the death penalty. In my opinion it is just as necessary that that penalty should be retained for murder as it was necessary that it should be abolished for theft in the early part of the nineteenth century. Theft and murder are two different crimes. I think it is agreed in all civilised countries that there is no greater or graver crime than murder. I think if a man takes another man's life it is fair punishment that his life should be also taken. Apart from that, the death penalty is a deterrent. I do not think any argument can be put up that penal servitude for a crime is a greater deterrent.

Reference has been made to the undesirability of celebrations such as took place on occasions of executions. I do not know that they do anyone any great harm. People's opinions differ in every country as to political crime, and I do not think any great harm is done by that kind of expression of feeling. If a man is put into prison for murder, and if an effort is made to get him out, I think there is an advantage in having to deal with one Minister.

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)

I rather regret that I was not present at the opening of the Seanad proceedings to-day. I had one or two questions in the Dáil, and as I thought there was a possibility of supplementary questions arising out of them I thought it better to be present myself. I could have, of course, as Senator Moore suggested, spoken briefly in exposition of the Bill, and possibly to do so would have been helpful in the discussions. On the other hand, the Bill has been a long time before the public and in the hands of Senators. One Senator, I think it was Senator Moore, when speaking reminded us that the Bill was before the public when the recent bye-elections were held. Of course, there can be different opinions as to the extent to which the Bill affected the result of the recent bye-elections. I, of course, have very definitely my own view, as I have no doubt Senator Moore has his view.

The main criticism of the Bill was that it was ill-timed and unnecessary. On the question of time, the Public Safety Acts, within which the State has defended itself and dealt with certain offences over the last two years, have expired. One of them expired in January of the current year and the other on the 26th of this month. The legal position is, these Acts having expired, that the State has no power by which to deal with many of the offences set out under this Bill. The Executive Council has responsibility for the safety of the State, for the welfare of the State, for the peace and dignity of the State, and, in the discharge of that responsibility is bound to come to the Dáil, and subsequently to the Seanad, for all the powers it deems necessary for the due discharge of these responsibilities. Consequently, it is simply in the routine discharge of our duty and our responsibilities to the people that we come with this Bill to the Seanad. So much for the question of time. It is simply that the occasional temporary Acts having expired, we are faced with the situation that we require statutory and adequate power to deal with offences against the State. One would think that the proper thing to do was to live in a world of make-believe and to tell ourselves that these offences are not occurring and that to contemplate their occurring in future is to contemplate something so highly improbable and so much outside the range of probability that one ought not waste the time of the Seanad or the Dáil in providing for them. That is not my conception or the conception of the Government as to the way in which we should discharge our responsibilities. These offences have occurred in the recent past, and they are capable of occurring in the future, and, facing the facts, we seek statutory power to deal with them when and where they arise, while sharing all the hopes that have been expressed that they will not arise.

I am told that the Bill is conceived in a spirit of hate, conceived in a war spirit, and in the next breath I am told that it is a godsend to the opponents of the State and of the Government. I am prepared to recognise that when the Bill was introduced many opponents of the State and many political opponents of the Government, believed that it was a godsend. They believed that for a week, or possibly for ten days or a fortnight, and then somehow they ceased to believe it. It gave them something to talk about. They went up and down the country and talked about the "green Coercion Act." The people went home, however, and talked it over, and gradually arrived at the view that there must be something in this "green Coercion Act" which was so unpopular with certain people, and the more unpopular it was the more the average man was inclined to believe that there was something in it. It was made, not by me, but by others, practically the issue of the nine bye-elections which were held, and seven of these nine elections resulted in the return of Government candidates pledged to support the "green Coercion Act." The capital penalty in Section 1 is, of course, arguable, just as the capital penalty for any offence is arguable, and there are those who hold the view which Senator Haughton holds, that the State ought not in any circumstances take the life of a citizen. It is scarcely opportune to discuss the question in the abstract or discuss the question in relation to any other offences than those set out in Section I. I would like to put it to Senator Haughton whether the offences set out here are more or less deserving of the capital penalty than murder.

It seems that the man who precipitates civil war within the State is more blood guilty, and that the greater includes the less, that every hideous crime that occurs within the civil war period rightly rests on the shoulders of those who precipitate that situation. This capital penalty attaches to the crime of levying war against Saorstát Eireann or assisting persons in so doing, conspiring with or inciting any person to levy war against Saorstát Eireann, attempting to overthrow by force of arms the Government of Saorstát Eireann, and conspiring with or attempting to take part in such attempt. We have here a Constitution which established a democratic State, and which recognised the people as the source of political authority, and which laid it down that that authority exercised by any Government here must be the delegated authority of the people. The first Parliament passed a measure of adult suffrage, and in its electoral arrangements made specific provisions for the representation of minorities. One would say that, in a State of adult suffrage, and with special provision in its electoral law for the representation of minorities, there is even less excuse and less justification for unconstitutional onslaughts on the State than in other countries.

This much criticised Bill is, in fact, a public safety Bill, a Bill for the defence of the people, and for the preservation of the fundamental rights of the people to be the arbiters of their own destiny, and to decide their own political issues and their right not to be bulldozed by any armed minority within the State. I am told that it is wrong and unwise to advert to the fact that these things have happened, that we should legislate in the abstract without reference to concrete circumstances, learning nothing from our past but simply in an abstract academic way. I disagree. I am not much of a believer in ad hoc legislation. This is not ad hoc legislation. It is the kind of legislation which is quite apart from what has happened here in the last three years. The Executive ought to have power to deal with offences mentioned in this Bill, but equally one has to have regard to the fact that there is still through the country a definite tendency towards unconstitutional action. Many people are very busy in endeavouring to hold together a military or quasi-military organisation with a view to unconstitutional action. There is surely a medium between living in a world of make-believe and pretending that facts do not exist and the other position of overstressing certain tendencies and circumstances. I could bring Senator O'Farrell through a foot and a half of documents captured a few weeks ago in a house in Strand Road that would surprise him, and, having read them, it is unlikely that he would stand up and make this speech he has made to-day. One does not want to make selections of these documents, and it would not be well to publish them; and it is not good, having made a selection of these documents and having handed them to the Press, to upset the tendency which exists throughout the country to settle down to a wholesome normal mentality; but, equally, we must not be supposed to be bloody-minded tyrants when we bring in legislation which, from all the circumstances at our disposal, we know and believe to be advisable.

The Public Safety Acts having expired, the dilemma is this. By what means is the Executive, with its very definite responsibilities, to deal with such offences as are set out in this Bill. One cannot prosecute out of a void, and the position would be that many of the offences set out in the Schedule of the Public Safety Acts could be committed with impunity in the absence of some such legislation as this.

I could have come to the Dáil and the Seanad and asked for a renewal of the Public Safety Acts. I did not want to do so, because I do not think that the impression ought to go out that there was still a situation in the country which demanded the renewal of the Acts which were passed in an abnormal situation, and which were referred to as emergency occasional legislation. Instead of doing that I asked the Dáil to take the view that the time had come to consider what permanent legislative powers should be vested in the Executive for dealing with offences against the State. Every State, or every State I know of, has its own treason code, by which it deals with offences directed against it. But there seemed for a while to be the view that this was the one country in the world, the one State in the universe that could do without any such code; that it had no need for it; and that the mere thought of treason or anything in the nature of treason arising here was the fantastic dream of a lunatic-and that in spite of our experiences. I do not believe that the State is likely to find itself gravely challenged here in our time, neither do I believe that the state of affairs here is going to be so peaceful and so idyllic that we will not have prosecutions for certain of the offences mentioned here.

If the view be that we ought to wait until the offences occur, or until we are in the midst of such a situation, that is a view in favour of ad hoc legislation—that we should wait until people do something and then legislate to punish them. Take, for instance, to get down to a practical matter, Sections 6 and 7, which prohibit unauthorised military exercises. Is it the contention of those who oppose, this Bill, and oppose it, mark you, on the grounds that it is ill-timed and unnecessary, that a second unauthorised military organisation, not responsible to the people, and not answering to any recognised political institutions of the people, should be allowed to grow up, and that the people should be subject to the menace of such an organisation operating openly through the country? Surely it is not. The duty of defending the people goes somewhat wider than defending them from actual physical onslaught. It imposes on them the duty of preserving them from the fear of such onslaught. It is part and parcel of the duty of good and sound government to see that the people can live their lives in peace, and do their business in peace, and that, quite apart from actual physical injury and wrong, they shall not be subject to the mental worry and fear of any such attack. Therefore, we are endeavouring to bring about a situation in which there will not be in the country any military organisation, save an organisation responsible to the people through a Minister in the ordinary way, and save such an organisation as the Minister will answer for daily in the Dáil. Senators expressed approval of Section 8. I was surprised at Senator O'Farrell who, while expressing such approval, asked what about the present Army and the present officers. Senator O'Farrell should surely know that in the Defence Forces Act officers take as a condition precedent to the issue of their commissions a declaration to the effect that they disclaim membership of any political society, or any secret society whatsoever, and that every officer from the Chief of Staff down to the lowest lieutenant has taken such a declaration.

If Senator O'Farrell has evidence or information that any officer in the Army who has taken such a declaration is living in breach of it, I would put it to him that it is his duty as a Senator and a citizen to give such information to the Executive Council.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I might say that the statements I made were on the strength of statements made by Ministers when dealing with the Army crisis a year ago in which they indicated that there were two secret organisations within the Army, and we have no evidence that these have been eliminated from the Army.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It is since the events to which the Senator has referred that the declarations I have mentioned have been taken under the Defence Forces Act. Senator Kenny spoke of the definition of secret societies as unsatisfactory. I took the position in the Dáil that I was open to suggestions, and that it was no use criticising this definition without putting up one which purports to be better. I found considerable difficulty in framing a satisfactory definition, and I stand over this in the absence of some better one:—

"The expression ‘secret society' means an association, society or other body the members of which are required by the regulations thereof to take or enter into or do in fact enter into an oath, affirmation, or declaration not to disclose the proceedings, or some part of the proceedings of the association, society, or body."

Senators in referring to this Section spoke of it as if it were a general prohibition of secret societies that was proposed. That is not the proposition. It might be right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary, to do that, but it is not the step proposed in this Bill.

The Section is a prohibition against forming, organising, promoting, or maintaining any secret society amongst or consisting of or including members of any military or police force lawfully maintained by the Government, or attempting to form, organise, promote, or maintain any such secret society. It prohibits the taking part, assisting, or being concerned in any way in the formation, organisation, promotion, management, or maintenance of any such society, or inducing, soliciting or assisting any member of a military or police force lawfully maintained by the Government of Saorstát Eireann to join any secret society whatsoever. So that it might be summed up in the expression "any member of a military or police force so far as any secret society whatsoever is concerned," whether it be the A.O.H., or the Ancient Order of Buffaloes, or the organisation that calls itself the I.R.A., or the I.R.B., or the Masonic Order, or any other society. It comes to this: the members of these forces have, in the Acts regulating their organisations, definitely contracted with the Government and with the people not to belong to any such societies. This section is prohibitive on the general public to interfere in the keeping of that contract, and officers of the Army under the Defence Forces Act, and officers of the Gárda Síochána under the Gárda Síochána Act take definite declarations abandoning the right to belong to any such societies. We are saying to the general public, "You must respect that position, and you must not form or attempt to form a secret society that will have amongst it those persons who have abandoned that right." I have not seen the amendments that are handed in, but on the Committee Stage I will be prepared to go through the Bill, section by section, and sub-section by sub-section, and to show that nothing is being done lightly or recklessly, or in malice, or in a spirit of hate, or in a spirit of war; that we have simply attempted to set out these powers which we believe should be the permanent powers of the Executive to deal with offences against the State, actually existing, or potentially arising in the future. It is really no reply to this Bill to say that a great many offences set out in it are not, in fact, occurring at all and have not occurred for weeks. One Deputy pointed out in the Dáil that that might have been said about the Ten Commandments when Moses brought them down from Mount Sinai: "There has not been a murder around here for months." This Bill purposes to embody the kind of powers that an ordinary, sane Government should have for the preservation of the peace, welfare and dignity of the State. If it can be shown to me that it contains any section or sub-section embodying some strange kind of power that the Executive ought not to have, I am open to consider it.

Question put and agreed to.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

With regard, Senator O'Farrell, to these amendments and the question of taking the Committee Stage to-morrow, I do not know whether it would meet your view if I remind you that, of course, the Report Stage will remain. We do not propose to take that this week, and on the Report Stage I would allow any Senator who, through want of time or forgetfulness, did not deal with a matter in Committee to do so then. Perhaps on some understanding of that kind it might be desirable, as a good many Senators seem to be in attendance, that we should utilise to-morrow for some business purposes, and we have no other.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Of course, there is not very much in it, but if we had this business only for to-morrow there are not many amendments to the Bill. Given a little time, there may be a number of amendments, and is it worth while meeting to-morrow for the sake of the Committee Stage, seeing that as far as the Bill is concerned, it is not an urgent measure by any means? After all, the matters with which it deals are of infinitely more consequence than the convenience of Senators. Seeing that we cannot finish it to-morrow and that there is no urgency, it might be as well to put it off for a week.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That is a matter for the Seanad, whatever their views may be. Perhaps Senators would intimate their views and we might find out what the feeling is.

Mr. GUINNESS

Are there any amendments in yet?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think there are about twelve amendments in and, of course, I would not rule out an amendment to-morrow merely because notice of it had not been given to-day. I would accept it there and then.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

I think the feeling is that we might leave the matter over until next week. I move that the Committee Stage be taken on next Wednesday.

Motion put and agreed to.