I have not very much to say about this Bill, but what I say will be pretty strong. Considering the state of the country and the methods of forcing this Bill through the Oireachtas, considering the formation of these officers' courts, secret in charges, secret in deliberation, secret in evidence, secret in sentences and carrying out sentences, secret in everything, in my opinion the courts are morally illegal, and any sentence of death will be as gross and as deliberate a perversion of justice as anything the I.R.A. have been ever alleged to have done. In my opinion, if the death penalty be carried out under these circumstances, it will be murder. I will say something about my own experience in this regard. I was once in South Africa told that I was to go on the courtmartial of a prisoner, which I foresaw would result in his death, and which was the same sort of illegality as the courts now proposed. I refused to go on the courtmartial or to be present at it. Not only that, but I marched my regiment away in order that they should not be connected with any such thing.
Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill, 1931—Fifth Stage.
Mutiny.
These were the steps I took. It was a great responsibility to take, but I took it, and I came out all right. In my opinion if any death sentences are carried out by this officers' court, that court will be morally guilty of murder, and the Ministers responsible for it will be guilty of murder also. When we consider the trials that take place, that have occurred during the ages, and are occurring in England and other countries at present, where so much doubt arises and where the prisoner is tried openly before the whole world by the most experienced judges, with barristers on each side openly discussing whether the charges are true or not, with every means of bringing forward evidence on each side, and that in spite of all that care things occasionally go wrong and that it is admitted afterwards that sentences have been unjust, the objection to these courts is apparent. These mistakes occur where there is the greatest care and the greatest publicity. Here the secret court is to sit and bring up whatever evidence it likes. Nothing can be discussed, nothing has to be published about it.
These men who are to go on the court are admittedly unfitted for the job, never having been taught anything about law and having no experience of law. They are to do what no other court in the world has ever done as far as I know. In other military courts there is always a military Judge Advocate General to investigate the matter and to carry out things properly. A legal person is appointed for that purpose. There is nothing like that in this Bill. Certainly if I were in the Army I should refuse to go on any such court whatever the consequences might be. I think that would be the duty of every officer in the Army at the present moment. What will be the effect of all this? Suppose somebody is arrested and brought up for trial before one of these courts. That will be done in secret. No one will know the charge, the evidence or the sentence. The man will disappear; he may be hanged or shot. I do not know which Ministers prefer—hanging or shooting. What will happen? In all probability that man will be considered a martyr. It will be said that he was not tried fairly; there is no evidence that he was tried fairly. If such a thing is allowed, he will be considered a martyr probably. Whether he is going to be thrown into a grave within the prison walls or not we do not know. If he is to be buried outside, in Glasnevin, say, you will have the whole population of Dublin marching at his funeral as a protest. What will the Government do? Probably they will disperse the gathering. Perhaps heads will be broken and there will be shooting. What will result from that? What resulted during all our own troubles here? Objections will be raised all over the country, and the probability is that ten times more difficulty and trouble will occur than existed before.
I say this is a most infamous Bill, infamously rushed through this House without discussion. The Star Chamber of long ago in England has been noted for its infamy throughout the ages. It was the cause of the death of Charles I., but it was nothing like this Bill. The members of that Star Chamber might have been judges. They had not the power of life and death, they had not half the power of this tribunal and the members of this tribunal have not half the experience of those judges, yet despite all that the Star Chamber of Charles I. has gone down through all ages with infamy. I have said as much on that subject as I care to say.
The Minister made a plea for trust. He asked for trust on other occasions. What happened? Have we any right to trust these Ministers? The President in 1922 went over to England and signed a document by which £40,000,000 have been transferred to England. He did that without the knowledge of anybody outside his own Ministers. It was only found out eighteen months afterwards, when it was published in the "Irish Times." Then again in 1926 the Minister for Finance went over to England and signed a document to pay £5,000,000 a year over to England. This was kept dark for nine months. I am not going to argue whether these sums were due or not. I am not going into that question, but I want to point to the deliberate secrecy in which they shroud these actions. That was because they thought it would be difficult in the first case to get through the Treaty, and in the second case because they were ashamed of it, I presume. Otherwise there was no necessity to keep these things secret for eighteen months. It is to these men that the lives of the people are to be entrusted. I disapprove of the Bill, and I have no faith in the Government.
This Bill is going to be passed. I make that prophecy because in the divisions that have taken place Senators have voted, not according to their considered judgment, but according to Party allegiance. It could not be otherwise seeing the circumstances in which this Bill has been introduced. You are all under guard. That has a peculiar effect on men. I think it displaces their sound judgment. Of course these guards are unnecessary for any purposes of protection. They remind me of the people who were sent to accompany district councillors on the occasion of the election of a dispensary doctor.
Has the Senator a guard?
The guard was kept on the district councillor until he recorded his vote and then the district councillor could go about his business. That is what is to happen to the members of the Seanad when they have passed this Bill. I do not wish to indulge in words of vituperation, condemnation or abuse in reference to this measure. The occasion is too serious for that. But before you do pass this Bill I ask you to consider that even in a state of war, no courtmartial, no military court ever had the power which it is proposed to give to these three military officers. They are not to have the assistance of a legal assessor such as is required by the laws of every civilised country before military men can pronounce sentence of death or, in fact, any other serious sentence, even in a state of war. They are not limited as to the nature of the offence for which they can inflict punishment.
Military courts with which I have been acquainted, even the illegal courts which were really broken during the fight that preceded the coming into operation of this Free State, were bound by laws, by rules and by regulations. They could not inflict any punishment except for a crime. But here this military court, consisting of three officers who will be laymen, have that power. We have it from the statement last night of the Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe) that the things they will have to do are so simple that they will not need the assistance of a lawyer. They are not bound by any law as to the nature of the offence for which they are to inflict punishment. It need not be a crime. You had the definition brought before you last night that the offence for which a citizen can be tried by these military officers may include a crime but need not be a crime. There is no limitation whatever on the punishment. They can inflict such punishment as, in their discretion, they consider proper. They are not limited to fine or imprisonment or to the ordinary execution of death; they can inflict any punishment which a military man considers appropriate to the case.
You are handing over the liberties of the people to three military officers. You are told you are amending the Constitution. You may imagine you are. You are, in fact, suspending the Constitution. I want to have it on record that we are protesting against this measure upon the grounds which I have stated. The debate which took place here has been unsatisfactory. We have not had a full discussion of the amendments which were proposed. These were not obstructive but reasoned amendments, spoken to not in any spirit of obstruction, but with the intention of modifying the rigour and the injustice of this measure. That is the only complaint I make now as to the manner in which this Bill has been introduced. It is a sufficient complaint because it includes everything.
In one or two ways the debate here yesterday was satisfactory, because we got an admission from the President that no sentence of death would be carried into execution except with the consent of the Executive Council. The Minister for Finance also stated the same thing.
How can the Executive Council prevent it?
There is no power in the Bill to prevent it. We had an amendment which was not reached on account of the closure which was passed unnecessarily. We had no opportunity of bringing forward that amendment, but although we did not bring it forward we got a promise from the President and from the Minister for Finance that no sentence of death would be carried into execution under this measure except it was confirmed beforehand by the Executive Council. That was a Ministerial admission here yesterday. We got another admission yesterday and it is that people charged before military courts will have legal assistance. We got that in explicit terms from the President.
I hope that if this measure is put into force one other matter will be attended to. That is, that before any person is charged in the presence of these three military officers, a copy of the charge will be given to that person and sufficient time will be allowed him to answer that charge. That was the subject matter of another amendment proposed. Of course it is bare justice. Anything else would be stark, rank, mad injustice.
The whole Bill is unjust.
I am reminded that the whole Bill is unjust, but such a thing is not unknown in the history of this country. Anybody acquainted with the British military history or the history of British law will know that the rights and privileges of Englishmen and the English in Ireland were strictly guarded even under martial law. There was the plenary method of trial which recognised the inherent right to liberty, but there was also in Ireland the summary method whereby the native Irishman had a rope put round his neck and then thrown across the bough of the nearest tree. That was the summary method and it is the method which is at the foundation of this Bill.
In another respect the debate was satisfactory. We got what I may call almost an admission from the President that the bone of contention in this country, the oath of allegiance, is not imposed upon the President from Great Britain. I hope that that avenue will be explored for the general benefit of this country. You all admit this is a repressive measure. Some of you say it is a necessary measure. We consider it is not a necessary measure.
Some of the statements made from the Ministerial seats last night were unnecessary and provocative. I would like to refer to part of the very curious speech made by the Minister for Defence, Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald. He is here to-day, but without the aureole. I hope he will not have the interior light to-day if he comes to address this Assembly. Last night he had interior light or internal heat and I almost saw a halo round his head. He referred to some citizens of this country as blackguards and scoundrels. There were mentioned in the course of this debate a number of organisations. Mr. Fitzgerald may know more about them than I do. He mentioned the I.R.A. I hope he did not include them in the category of blackguards and scoundrels, because if he did I wish to say, with full responsibility, that I was counsel for the I.R.A., I knew them and I knew that they included some of the best men who ever lived in Ireland. Some of them went against the Treaty, some of them left us when we decided to take part in this Assembly; one or two whom I know have been in prison since that time. Whether or not they are in the organisations to be condemned, I will say that I know some of these men to be men of deep conviction and high principle. I wish to say the same thing about the Cumann na mBan, another association with which I was acquainted. I do not wish to be taken as saying this in any spirit of controversy.
I hope the President and other members of the Executive Council will not forget what I say. I have no doubt they are just as well aware of it as I am. When this measure comes to be administered, if it does come to be administered, I hope it will be administered with a full realisation of that fact. Repression never cures the wounds of a country. The man who represses may consider it a misfortune to have to do it. It is easier to go along smoothly. Let the Executive Council never forget that there must be healing in this country as well. We have a growing population and it is young. Those young people need and must get employment. In my opinion the great source from which employment can come is the soil of Ireland. A policy must be pursued whereby the distribution on fair terms to everybody will go on until you come to that economic unit where a man and his family will be able to work their own farm. That is a thing to be desired. In the meantime industry must be promoted and money spent. In the coming winter you must heal the wounds of this country. There is plenty of opportunity for doing it. There must be economy. Millions of money must be spent in promoting agriculture and other industries.
I will not take up much of the time of the House in saying my last words of condemnation in connection with this Bill. Because of the establishment of these military courts and because of the absence of safeguards for accused people, I look upon this measure as one practically incapable of being used without being abused. Frankly, I do not regard this Bill seriously. The Executive Council very well know the reactions that the injustices which will inevitably arise under this measure will bring about; they know very well that a revulsion of feeling will take place in the country which will rapidly drive out of office not only the present but any other Government that attempts to continue the administration of such legislation. I regard this Bill as an election device in order to create an atmosphere favourable to the present administration.
That is different from what the Senator said before.
This is a political device. I wish to take this opportunity of protesting against the wilful and malicious defamation of the good name of this country which has gone on in the Press within the past ten days. In the "Manchester Guardian," which is usually a reliable and careful paper, the best part of a column was published last Tuesday containing almost undiluted falsehoods about this country. The "Observer" had a rather objectionable article on Sunday last. The scribe who writes in the "Sunday Times" had this sentence: "We hear again the old familiar whine of the local politician with regard to coercion." Coercion of the Irish people— the Pigotts are not far distant. There has been no whine against coercion in this country. Thank God, the people stood up to it. I rather differentiate between this Bill, drastic and unjustified as it is, and the Coercion Acts passed under the British régime. At least, the men who are putting those very repressive measures into force are our own countrymen elected by the people. I think they are wrong. But still, they are the responsible Executive Government and I regard that as the only feature which gives the Bill any moral justification. But whoever is writing at present with regard to the "old familiar" whine against coercion had better be careful. After all, none of us want to rip up the past. Those who write such things as "the old familiar whine about coercion" might turn the interior light, of which the Minister for Defence spoke yesterday, in on their own past.
Reference has been made to a state of war. May I point out that if there is a state of war there has been a one-sided state of war up to the present. It is a state of war in which only one side is waging war and in which the people of Ireland and the Government elected by the people are completely defenceless before the conspiracy that is threatening the liberties of the people and the very foundations of social order. References were also made in the debate to "a few murders and crimes." It was pointed out that many more murders were committed elsewhere and there was no pother about them. It is not the number of murders, it is the circumstances in which these murders have taken place that makes the situation serious. These are not isolated murders springing from what I might call ordinary natural passions. They are the products of a conspiracy aimed at the destruction of the State and aimed, and successfully aimed, at the liberties of the ordinary citizen. Nothing can be more wrong-headed than to compare murders or crimes of that kind with ordinary crimes. They are much more serious from the social point of view. Any ordinary crime, any murder especially, is a crime not merely of injustice against the individual, but also a crime against the State and against society. But, this particular kind of crime is doubly harmful, doubly to be condemned, because it is aimed not indirectly against society, but directly against society with the purpose of bringing it down.
The significance of the list of crimes read out by the President in the Dáil as instances of what is taking place does not consist in the number. That significance would not be increased if they were twice as many. The significance exists in the circumstances prevailing in the country, and that, I think, in the last month most Senators are convinced do prevail in the country. The Government are convinced that if they are not grappled with quickly and immediately they would be incapable of being grappled with in a couple of months' time. That is the situation that the Seanad have to consider and bear in mind when they are determining whether or not they will vote for the final passage of the Bill. To speak of these things as "a few murders," as if, first of all, murder was an ordinary thing which we can take everyday with the morning newspaper; to speak of these things as if they were merely incidents that might happen anywhere is a proof of incapacity on the part of the person who does so really to size up the political situation and the danger that is inherent in a position of this kind. There are very few countries that ought to be as much alive to that particular danger as the country in which we live.
We have been asked to go into a conference on this matter. All this anxiety for a conference, as the President pointed out in the Dáil, was subsequent to the motion to introduce the Bill. That matter was fully dealt with by the President, and I do not intend to go into it. We have had conferences on certain matters. We had a joint conference, I think, on wheat. There are, however, certain things upon which no conference is possible. There are certain economic doctrines, such as the doctrines of one society referred to here to-day, Saor Eire, on which we, for a moment, could not even contemplate going into a conference. There are certain things involving the fundamentals of Government on which the very thought of a conference would mean surrender on our part of all that we believe to be the duties of a Government. Who were to take part in this conference? It was proposed, as I say, after this Bill had been introduced. It was proposed by one Party and advocated by another Party, when it was quite clear that the great bulk of the people wanted the Bill.
No.
Yes.
Professor O'Sullivan
When it was quite clear that any attempt to intimidate the Dáil or Seanad would fail, a conference was advocated. Possibly also when other information had come to the ears of certain Deputies. One suggestion was that the three political Parties in the State who acknowledge the Constitution should take part in the conference. What control has the Labour Party, if I might suggest it, over the people who preach these doctrines and are guilty of these crimes? Does anybody seriously think that the addition of their support to the Government would prevent these particular people from continuing their campaign of crime? The Labour Party has no truck with that particular organisation—never had. Does the Fianna Fáil Party suggest that it could deal with that section? I admit to the Fianna Fáil Party that the body now active through the country are their legitimate successors, but they are children that have passed beyond the control of their parents; the revolutionary movement in this country has passed out of their hands. The revolutionary movement against this Government may have been due to them. I never heard from the Fianna Fáil Party, and I heard a fair amount of it here to-day, quite as much anxiety as during the last week to acknowledge that the present Government is the only legitimate Government of the country. For one reason or another we have been deluged with statements that resistance to our authority is wrong. It is certainly an advance, but only in the past week have I heard it from that particular Party.
Such views should be commended.
Professor O'Sullivan
Quite. I am glad that certain people have come to Canossa but I am not sure that they are going to stay there. A gentleman who was described in one of the morning papers as ex-Adjutant-General of the military organisation against the State suggested that all parties ought to come in. The suggestion was that we as a Government on this fundamental matter should not deal with the crimes that are taking place and should not deal with the organisations that are responsible for them but that we should truck with them. Whatever was the purpose of those who first suggested it—I have never thrown any doubts on the genuineness of the particular party that put it forward—but it could have only one result, to break the instrument in our hands to deal with this particular crime and it is because it would break that particular instrument that this Government with a natural sense of responsibility to the people, naturally had to reject any suggestion of the kind. It could have only that result.
I think it was suggested here that we are going against Catholic teaching and doctrine in the repressive measures we are taking. Mercy, gentleness on the part of one individual towards another are to be commended. Mercy on the part of a Government is to be commended but no Government has a right to indulge the natural tendency to mercy and carry it so far as to endanger the lives, liberties and existence of the people whose lives and liberties are in its care. Mercy by all means, but the primary duty of the Government in so far as it is a Government is to carry out its duty to the people and to see that they are protected.
Senator Dowdall, as was pointed out by one of the lady Senators on my left, made two suggestions in two successive sentences that seem to contradict each other—that this Bill is so drastic, so horrible that if it is to become a reality it will sweep the Government or any other Government out of office in a couple of days and that this Bill is introduced in order to solidify the position of the present Government. If the different parties in this State think a political advantage is to be got out of this Bill they are invited to take part in that political advantage. If any political advantage comes to the Government through this Bill it will come from one fact alone that the two other parties in the State and especially the second largest Party in the State have practically proclaimed that they are neither willing nor able to deal with a conspiracy of this kind. If we get advantage it is not from the circumstances that have led to it, it is not for the measures that we are taking, it is because of the confession of incapacity made by that particular Party.
May I ask the Minister who said that the second largest Party could not deal with it?
Professor O'Sullivan
I had the misfortune of listening to many speeches and I think I can sum up the general effect of the speeches in that particular matter.
It is exactly the opposite.
Give it as a statement.
Professor O'Sullivan
This was to be the very last thing tried. It is very easy to challenge a person to quote a statement when everyone knows that no Official Debates have been published yet. I am perfectly entitled to give the summing up of the debate and if any Senator or the bulk of the Senators think I am wrong they can form their own impression. I think the bulk of the Senators here will agree with me in what I am saying. I do not ask Senator Colonel Moore to agree with me.
They will agree with you no matter what you say.
Professor O'Sullivan
Thank you. That is again the natural view of Senators of that kind. They have never had any respect for the majority of the Irish people except in the last week.
That is a lie.
Professor O'Sullivan
We were told in the Dáil "This is not the way to deal with these things. Attack the economic situation. Bring about a complete economic revolution so that people will have economic justice in this country," and meanwhile the people and the Government are to stand helpless, bound hand and foot, without any means of protection in face of the attacks of these organisations this Bill is aimed against. The suggestion is simply grotesque.
It is more than a suggestion.
Professor O'Sullivan
I do not think I interrupted the Senator. I listened with pain to some of the speeches to-day, but I did not interrupt.
Many happy returns.
Professor O'Sullivan
People ask the question why this propaganda is going on in our country. Some reasons were suggested in the Dáil. I may suggest, too, if a certain Power which holds a certain political view is active here at the moment she is active here because the ground has been prepared for the last eight or ten years by the contempt that has been poured on the established authority in this country, because the very ideas that ought to support any established order have been largely undermined and coming to Canossa at the eleventh hour will not undo that, especially if people will not stay there. She has found, as a result of these activities, a breeding ground and reception for her ideas. I will just make one other suggestion as to why she might be rather keen on selecting this particular country and devoting to it some special attention. She is anxious——
Who is the lady? The Minister has not mentioned any.
Professor O'Sullivan
That shows the intelligence of the Senator and his Party.
That is the old jibe.
Professor O'Sullivan
Naturally. The innocence surpasses all comprehension. If Russia came here and spread her propaganda she did it, as I said, because the ground was prepared.
Prepared by you.
Professor O'Sullivan
There is another reason. She is most anxious to spread her particular propaganda, to get her particular views accepted all over the world, to get her revolutionary ideas accepted. I can imagine two things that would be the big factor which she could achieve in her particular campaign. One of them would be if a neighbouring country of hers went over to Bolshevism; the other would be the break-up of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Whatever views we hold upon it, I am speaking now only of what her views are. I could know nothing that she would be more anxious to achieve than what I have just mentioned. We are now reaping—let there be no doubt about it—the fruits of Irregularism.
I do not know——
Cathaoirleach
You have made a speech already, Senator.
I only want to say that if there are other Ministers who wish to speak——
Cathaoirleach
You have made a speech. Please sit down.
Professor O'Sullivan
Half an hour has been spent in speaking against this Bill. A quarter of an hour has been spent speaking in its favour. That is precisely the sense of fair play that the minority in this country have always shown.
You will be as brief as you can, won't you?
Professor O'Sullivan
And that from Senator Comyn! Senator Comyn is always as brief as he can, but he can't. Senator Dowdall spoke of coercion. The Irish people will not be coerced. Why the whole stock and trade of the associations that we are dealing with is based on the belief that the Irish people can be coerced. Their whole stock and trade is coercion and terrorisation of their opponents. "This is not an amendment of the Constitution," we have been told. "It is a suspension of the Constitution." I know nowhere in the Constitution where people are guaranteed the liberty to murder, where it should be a part of the Constitution that political murder and political terrorisation can be rife, and the Government of the country shall be denied the legal means of dealing with it. The thing must be dealt with, and we are asking for the legal powers to deal with that situation. People may be worshippers of the dead letter of the Constitution. The Constitution as a dead letter may be preserved, and in reality so far as the people of the country are concerned it may cease to exist. That is the situation that threatens, if you allow the Constitution as it stands to become a dead letter, if it be to the ordinary person something written on a couple of pages, whereas in reality the rights and the liberties that that Constitution guaranteed the people have passed into abeyance. I ask that that be not allowed to occur, that these rights and liberties of the people be not allowed to pass into abeyance.
We have been accused of interfering with liberty of thought and so on. I wonder in the crises we have passed through, in the situation that we have had to contend with in the past eight years, has any Executive been less inclined to interfere, or has any Executive less interfered with the liberty of expression of opinion than the Executive that is now attacked? What is the main criticism of the ordinary law-abiding citizen of us? Is it that we have interfered too much with the expression of liberty of opinion? Is it that we have given too much licence to that particular liberty of opinion? That is the criticism that we hear from the ordinary man in the street who is anxious to go about his business. He wants to know why are these things allowed, why are they not suppressed. Liberty of opinion and all these things are subordinated to the safety of the State. We have never shown ourselves unduly anxious to suppress liberty of opinion. There is one great danger in a crisis of this kind that any country has to face, and that we are particularly liable to. Anybody who is familiar with the movements in the last fifteen years in this country knows how remarkably quickly a situation may get out of hand, how whatever the intentions of the individuals taking part in a certain movement in the beginning may be, that that movement can get out of hand. The most fatal thing that could happen would be if this situation were allowed to drift. In its potentialities you would have a much more serious condition to contend with than this Government had to contend with in 1922 and 1923, and the result, if the Government were not capable of contending with it, would be, as I expressed it in another place, the breaking up of this country into a number of parishes, half parishes and quarter parishes ruled by the local committee with guns in their hands.
The Minister broke it up.
Professor O'Sullivan
There is no difference according to the Senator between the two things. That is the reasonable, the gentle, the helpful spirit that that Party has brought to meet the situation that we are confronted with, and that this Bill is intended to deal with.
If it is intended to break up the country it has been broken up by yourselves and your associates.
You did a lot.
A lot more than you ever did, except giving the urge to the present Executive to carry on.
I did not funk arrest.
Passing a Bill of this character can be justified by one thing, and one thing only, that is the sincere conviction of the necessity for it. The great majority of this House believe that it is necessary and that is why they voted for it. I have opposed many Government measures and it is likely that I shall oppose many more. It would be easy for me to oppose this measure because it is very drastic legislation. The reason why I do not is that I am convinced of the necessity for it. Why am I so convinced? We have what is common knowledge. It is alleged that it is unnecessary, that it is an electioneering dodge, that it is panic legislation, that it is cold-blooded, cynical, political dishonesty. These things are mutually destructive. If it were one thing it could not be the other. As regards the timidity part of it, the allegation of panic legislation, what opinion have we got of the Executive Council? My opinion is that they are not people who are timid. They have never shown any sign of it. Quite the contrary. That disposes of the charge that this Bill was brought in through any feeling of timidity.
As regards the charge of it being an electioneering dodge, that is an argument that does not appeal to me at all. It is common knowledge that unlawful associations do exist in this country, that there have been political murders, and that there has been intimidation. The Executive Council who will be responsible for the administration of this measure know that very well. They have not tried in any way to evade their responsibility in the matter. If we want proof of that we have it here. Not only has the President attended here, but we have seen a number of Ministers present. Why if they send any more it might border on the inconvenient. They are taking responsibility jointly, severally and in no uncertain way. As regards it being an electioneering dodge, that appears to be a most ridiculous argument. Everyone knows, when a general election comes, and it cannot be long delayed, that this Bill will be used as a tremendous weapon against the return of the present Government. The Government realise that, but they are convinced that there is a necessity for this. If they did not, would they go and handicap themselves by a measure of this kind? The thing is ridiculous.
The opponents of this Bill talked a great deal about the terrible restrictions on freedom that this Bill will bring about. Of course this is legislation of a most drastic character, but the House knows that there is nothing so unfree as armed intimidation, nothing so tyrannical as the rule of the gun. It is a frightful tyranny. It corrupts every class in the community. Even the most courageous and the best people are demoralised by that sort of thing when it puts its head up. It is not only people who are in the forefront of public life who are likely to be made miserable by such a state of affairs but the very humblest people, cottagers and the like. They are made miserable by a state of affairs in which they cannot get justice and in which everybody can do what he likes. The great majority of this House is convinced of the necessity for this Bill, and I am quite certain that if we were not convinced of that necessity we would not have voted for it in the no uncertain way in which we have done.
In the few hours that have been devoted to the discussion of this measure, there has been no really serious attempt to examine the Bill or to give an exposition of its working or its intentions. So far as I have heard and read, there was very little consideration given to the merits of the Bill in the Dáil. We have had a great deal of recent history, charges of personal responsibility for this, that and the other, but very little discussion on the merits of this Bill. Personally, I think that any claim for respect as a legislative Chamber that the Seanad has made hitherto has been forfeited by its conduct on this Bill. I do not think it is realised that the effect of this Bill, when enacted, will be to make legal all such acts as those that were carried out by the Black and Tan régime, acting with certain authority from the Executive of the day but going beyond the Executive. The alternation of murder and reprisal until it is forgotten which was murder and which was reprisal may be repeated. The murder or the reprisal, if it happens to come from authorities who have got out of hand, will be made legal under this Act. There will be no necessity for an Indemnity Act, because we are indemnifying the perpetrators beforehand. Such action as of those elements of the official forces which got out of hand in 1922, 1923 and 1924 will also be legalised, even though they had got out of hand.
The police under this Bill are given authority to arrest, and to bring before a Tribunal which is to have absolute authority for the determination of its procedure, for the method of trial, for the pronouncement of sentence without restriction and over the authority which will carry out the sentence and the method of carrying it out. That is all embodied in this Bill, giving authority to the Executive bodies, the police and a military Tribunal, and any such bodies or persons as the military Tribunal may give directions to, to carry out the sentence which they inflict.
To say what the Minister's intentions are is beside the point. The Minister sets up a Tribunal and gives authority in another section to the Gárda Síochána. They proceed to act, and until the Ministry is formally acquainted of what is being done the Ministry can be oblivious to it; it may not know what is being done. There is nothing in this Bill to ensure that any report will be submitted to the Executive of the acts of either the police or of the military court. It may be said, and has been said, and I think quite fairly can be said, that in case of real national emergency, of civil war and the like, all constitutional safeguards may have to be overthrown and absolute power given to the Executive authority. Law does not apply. That is the fact. It is universally acknowledged. But in countries which have had stable government and any experience of constitutionality, even in such circumstances, Parliaments always retain for themselves the right and the power to say whether in respect to acts done during the abnormal period of no law the perpetrators can be made amenable under the law. We are, before the fact, depriving ourselves of that power.
There are two parts to this Bill. Most of what has been said hitherto has been said in respect to the armed associations, the illegal militarist organisations, assassination circles and the like, but there is part of this Bill which deals with unlawful associations. It has been presented to us by several Ministers, specifically by the Minister for Defence and more or less confirmed by the Minister for Education to-day, that the ideas which go to make this Bill were not concerned only with the armed associations, the insurrectionary movements, the movements to use military force or force of arms to overthrow this State, but also with what are called subversive organisations, illegal associations which in the mind of the Ministry for the day may aim at the subversion of the social order.
The Minister for Defence told us yesterday that one of the aims of the Bill was directed to people whose ends were socially subversive and immoral. Now within those terms of immorality and subversion of the social order of the State comes a very wide range of thought, organisation or agitation. Within the last century or two there have been many movements which at the time were held to be subversive of the social order and which aimed at, as was alleged, the authority of the State, the destruction of religion and all the rest. The aims of those subversive organisations, as time has gone on, have been embodied in legislation.
The Minister for Education reminded us, and I am glad that he did make plain something that ought to have been stated, that this Bill is being presented to us at a time of very widespread unrest and insecurity for the social order throughout the world. It is a time of economic crisis. The Minister for Education just dropped a hint which might have been more than a hint, of the possibility of the great neighbour of Russia coming under a Communist Government or a Fascist Government, and the possibility that the reverberations of that movement— an attack upon the financial authorities of the world, the social order which is based on the sanctity of five per cent., which is proving itself at the present time very unstable, like a pyramid resting upon its apex—may cause a crash. The Minister appears to fear that the organisations, which have recently been made public in this country, are going to take advantage of the situation that might be created by that universal crash of the present economic system. I wonder if he thinks that by the passing of this Bill, or of any such Bill, by the crushing out of armed associations, if such a crash of European civilisation took place as the Minister suggested, this country will not feel the echoes and the reverberations even if this Bill is passed and the militant organisations are crushed? I venture to say it will be of very little effect merely to put into operation these parts of this Bill which aim at unlawful associations put into effect. Any association that objects to the maintenance of social order based upon five per cent. will be deemed to be an unlawful association, its members tried by military tribunals and any sentence which the military tribunal may think fit will be imposed perfectly legally.
The Minister took pains to refer to the suggestion for a conference. I am only very indirectly responsible for any proposal for a conference, but it is right and fair to say what the purpose of that proposal was. Deputy O'Connell, speaking for the Labour Party, made a suggestion that before we entered upon the discussion of this Bill, feeling and knowing that it would lead to the kind of recrimination that did take place in the Dáil, of no value to anybody, if the leaders of the Parties in the Dáil should get together and agree upon an appeal to the young men of the country, and an explanation given to the young men of the country as to the possible effect of the kind of movement they were being inveigled into, it would have narrowed very greatly the field of operations of any military organisation, and thereby made the chances of success of any such organisation very small indeed.
I for one have been pilloried for quite a few years, attacked and threatened, for having said what I repeat to-day, that when a body of people ostensibly aiming at the overthrow of a Government make an attack upon the social fabric, it is certain that the community which is attacked, if it has any self-respect, will retort in kind and will throw in its last ounce of strength, its last penny of resource to save the fabric of society. I say that again, and I say that the people who have threatened me, time after time, for asserting that sound doctrine, are quite free to take whatever revenge they wish or make such exposures as they will of my, what they call, traitorous activities towards the working classes. They are welcome to their denunciation. While I hold that view I say this Bill, and all that is embodied in this Bill, is a greater danger to social stability because it establishes in the minds of the ruling classes a sense of absolute power, a feeling that no matter what may be the reason for agitation they, at least, are authorised, by the publicly elected legislature, to act as autocrats, to act ruthlessly with the full sense that they are protected by the law.
The field for activity of the Communist organisation is undoubtedly very much more fertile because of the social conditions that prevail. But I wonder whether there is any idea in the minds of the majority of the Seanad or the Ministry that the cause of the conditions which make this ground so fertile ought to be removed. They denounce Communism; they say this Communist movement is subversive of all religion, of all liberty and all social order. Let us assume that as true. Is the alternative to maintain intact the present system? Is there any suggestion of substituting any more just social order than we have? Are we still going to build upon the sanctity of five per cent.? I put forward these propositions of what ought to be the foundations of all our legislation dealing with these questions, which if put into effect with all those implications would make the ground for Communist activities very barren indeed. No employer has a right to receive interest upon his investments until his employees are assured of a living wage. The first charge upon the national product must be a reasonably decent livelihood for the people engaged in production. Will you put these principles into your social system and give effect to them in your administration? They will undoubtedly uproot the social order. Are they subversive of religion? Put them into effect and you will have no need to attack the Communist organisation. But repressive legislation of this kind making associations unlawful — I do not object to repressive legislation against crime — will make Communist movements very widespread and general and very effective in this country before many years.
Senator Johnson has spent a great deal of time stressing what nearly every speaker who has taken part in this debate has recognised—that in the hands of irresponsibles—I might go further and say in the hands of a criminally-minded Executive Council — dreadful things may happen under this amendment of the Constitution. I answer, that dreadful things have happened under the Constitution that this Bill may suspend. I even apply this phrase to this amendment of the Constitution, that it is putting into the hands of the Executive Council loaded rifles and no safety catches about. It is putting these into their hands, not only because traitors have paraded guns throughout the country at half-cock, but because guns have gone off and lives have been lost. It is to prevent a recurrence of that that the loaded rifles are being put into the hands of the Executive Council. Let the Senator test out the merits of the old Constitution. Would it have been any good—this may be a cheap thing to say, but I think it is sound —for Superintendent Curtin to have said to his murderers: "Here is the Constitution. Is the act you are going to commit upon me lawful under it?" Would the green copy of the Constitution have protected the Deputies and Senators who were visited and threatened within the last fortnight? Would it have been any answer to the men who visited them to hold up the green book and say: "I am safe under this"?
We are definitely facing criminals. I want to explain that word. I heard people who spoke in this debate ask was the word "criminal" going to be applied to the I.R.A. It must be applied to the I.R.A. acting as the I.R.A. have acted, if it is they who have acted, in recent weeks. What made the I.R.A. heroes at any time? Was it their high idealism, their superabundant courage? Was it these two things which made them respected in this country? It was, possibly, their great courage energising their high ideals, but only—as can only be the case at any time—because they were backed by the majority of the people of the country in whose name they were not alone pretending to act, but in whose name they were acting. May I remind the House of a phrase used to other people? "You are the salt of the earth but if the salt loses its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It has become useless, fit for nothing but to be cast out and trodden underfoot."
We had the admission in the other House within the past week—an admission made by the leader of a Party that used to be with the people now acting in a way we intend to put down —that the only thing that gave these people right was not writings of various types and not propagandist phrases, but the fact that the people were with them in 1921 and 1922. That same man made the admission that he led a forlorn hope when the majority of the Irish people had departed from these people—a forlorn hope! These people had their ideals and acted with tremendous courage under the impact of these ideals. They acted properly when backed by the people of the country. There is a certain pity to be extended to them at the moment—pity to those of them who cannot reason for themselves, pity that they get misled by the type of speech Senator O'Doherty delivered at the opening of this debate. Certain errors are spread by politicians to whom people must look for guidance as to the principles that are to order their corporate life. Amongst the remarkable admissions—I regard it as a remarkable admission—made last week was the admission by Deputy de Valera that majority rule is to be accepted as a policy. "As a policy!" That is not the correct version. Majority rule has got to be accepted as a principle, and the people who speak of it as an expedient or as a policy——
I think the Minister is misinterpreting the Deputy.
Cathaoirleach
You only think so; you are not sure.
The words are there to be read. They are even in the Deputy's own newspaper. Majority rule is put forward as a policy and fought for, by him, as a policy. Majority rule is a principle. It is not a point of expediency and it is not a point of policy. The people who stress it as policy and expediency are the people who are misleading those who may have had high ideals at one time, and possibly have still the same courage that backed those ideals but who now are on wrong lines, and are going to continue on wrong lines except the politicians who guide the corporate life of the community give direction to their efforts. Those who are so minded can regard this as a matter of policy, but if they do certain other people, more criminally minded, can say "We also may pick and choose as to what points we shall regard as policy." That is what always will happen when one departs from principle.
The same point is urged in another form—that the relative imperfections in the Constitution are the causes of tumult, and that there should be a conference held to get rid of them. I put this analogy which is far-fetched, but which has its application: you might as well say that the Ten Commandments are the cause of sin, and that there should be a conference of conscienceless people in order to get the Commandments changed. Further, the efforts that are being made and that have been made right through the past nine years, to belittle the institutions of the country can have no other effect than to mislead men whose efforts might do good if properly directed. Take the paper that has recently been produced, which backs the aims of one political party. What is the meaning of the expression always used that the "Free State" Government and the "Free State" Ministers did this or that? What are the institutions from which these "Free State" institutions have to be distinguished? What is the meaning of the use of that phrase if it is not to point to some other institutions which have greater force and effect?
It is to——
Cathaoirleach
The Senator must not be interrupting.
Which have greater force and effect and which are better founded upon the will of the people of this country. What is the effect of that propaganda except to lead people to believe that the institutions here are superimposed, that they are not here with authority and that they constitute something which can be countered even by violence?
We have had certain admissions nevertheless. We have the admission of the "forlorn hope" and the admission that it was a forlorn hope because people had departed; and the statement made further that the reason why certain people had success, and why their efforts were sound was because the people backed them in 1921 and 1922. There was the further admission that Deputy Aiken made yesterday that although he had said hard and bitter things about people who fought for the Free State against their opponents, he now wants to say that he believes in their hearts these people did not think they were upholding British Government in this country. How many lives could have been saved if that statement of the "forlorn hope"—the minority having departed from the Volunteers and all their lying propaganda about Imperial forces, about people backing British rule in this country—had been made a few years ago? How many lives could have been saved in this country? A forlorn hope. The man who supports a forlorn hope can always get a certain halo around himself, the man who had gone wrong and who is now recanting; the Prodigal is something of a romantic figure.
The Deputy is not here to defend himself.
I am not misquoting him. It is all the worse for the Senator. He will see all this afterwards. The Prodigal is a romantic figure in that way, the person who has gone astray and is now coming back. People may be inclined to welcome him in the guise of the fatted calf.
Or give him the cold shoulder.
We have had these expressions at any rate with regard to forlorn hopes and the majority having left. How many, many more myths are to be exploded later on that are now doing harm? Someone touched on economics. I read previously a statement made as to the effect upon the economic condition of the country of a secret army. I will read it again:
The continued existence of the Free State "Government" will depend largely on the ability of the Free State leaders to improve the economic condition of the country and to restore stability and security to its industrial life. They cannot do this with any degree of success while there remains in the country an armed force not under their control and hostile to their State, implying by its very existence a threat of armed action against them at any favourable moment.
That was the version in 1925 of the man who is now most vocal with regard to the lack of economic progress in the country. He summed up accurately in 1925 the condition, and the phrase could be used to-day, that no country can prosper really as long as there is an armed force on the flank ready to be thrown against it. What is the real urge now made by that man who accurately described the situation then?
What has this to do with the Bill?
Cathaoirleach
Please do not interrupt, Senator.
What was the propaganda used in regard to it? The propaganda was the same as Deputy Aiken recanted yesterday about Imperial forces, the economic grip from outside, Freemason influence and the English Galltacht, as Senator O'Doherty referred to it.
What is the Minister talking about?
These are the propagandist efforts now being used, and purposely used, in this country, which never had any tradition of government. It was said long ago that this country had no civic spirit, no moral sense, because it had no responsibility and no power; that it needed some period of autonomy to give it that return upon itself which is necessary to give it the experience which can only come by day-by-day continuously relating actualities to realities and aims to achievements and the toleration which can only come from the recognition in a person's own conscience that there is a flaw in human material which sometimes thwarted and so often deformed the image of our desires, either economic or national.
The Imperial forces myth was blown over the other day, and one of these days I suppose we will also have a recognition and a statement, a confession that all the talk there has been with regard to outside influences, the capitalist grip, and the rest is so much deliberate propaganda used now because it is felt nothing else can be successful.
On your part.
This Bill may give us great power. There are certain times when power simply must go back to a small group of people who are determined to use it, but there comes a time when the test is to be confidence, based on the experience and in the use that is going to be made of it, there will be no intolerance, no criminality, no waywardness. There is a time, not for conferences to appeal to people, but for leaders of parties to appeal to the folk before it is too late and to put proper ideas and principles before them. If the greatest hero of past times engages upon any exploit which has for its end, and which certainly results in the launching of a bullet against the meanest citizen of the country, then a criminal act has been performed and, in so far as that person has been urged to that criminal act by the muddle-headed utterances of a Senator like Senator Colonel Moore, debauched by Imperial rioting on foreign Nationalist fields, or by Senators like Senator Connolly, whose past is not going to be read of in the recent pages of political history, but rather found written up and written off in the records of certain banking institutions; or the craven abjectness of a Senator like Senator Dowdall, then there have been accessories before or after the criminal act and we are going to do our best to prevent both crime and the accessories' encouragement.
Not one word has been said about the Bill. It is all personalities; just his wild talk.
The Minister engaged in an attempt to throw some mud at me in connection with my business experience. I am quite prepared to meet the Minister here or anywhere else in connection with my record. I am prepared to meet him and to have it published in all the newspapers in Ireland in order to show what I have been doing for the last five years to carry the nursling of the Minister's bad judgment and bad management in throwing £28,500 of State money down a grate. I have been trying to do that and to keep employment going owing to that man's stupidity and ignorance of business affairs. I had to intervene, but I claim that I am entitled to make some remarks on this Bill before the close of the debate.
Running through the debates yesterday, there were suggestions that the only opposition to this Bill was by the affiliated parties in this House. I wish to make it perfectly clear that I have no affiliations and that my opposition to the Bill is grounded entirely upon the experience of a very long life, the greater portion of it spent in the various movements that went on for the good of this country. It is on that ground alone that my opposition was based, because I believe that this Bill will not bring peace. That is why I opposed it, and not because of any affiliations with any opposition the Bill met with here. If there was no opposition to this Bill in this House, I want to say that I hope God would give me courage, if I was the only one here, to vote against this Bill.
I regret that one has occasionally to intervene in the way I have now just intervened. We have certain types in the Seanad and, unfortunately, we have certain types in the Executive who know neither breeding nor manners. We have had a running commentary going on by one Senator here who had not had the courage to get up and make a speech. He has been here all the time commenting upon people, their business or profession and their moral and mental activities and I say that that man is not fit to be in the Seanad.
Cathaoirleach
That running comment has been pretty general from your benches, Senator. I want you to come to the Bill.
It is very difficult to preserve the attitude that one would like to preserve at the closing stages of this Bill, because I look upon this as one of the tragedies that has occurred since Fianna Fáil came into the Oireachtas. The Minister for Education referred to-day to our attitude. In common with some of his colleagues, he tried to bring in the red herring of Fianna Fáil's action, its intentions, influence and propaganda, and to saddle the responsibility to some extent on them. I ask, not only the Seanad, but the people of this country, what does the present Executive want? The Executive seemed to be dissatisfied when we were out of this House and they seem to be more dissatisfied since we came in. That is symbolic of their attitude through the whole country. They are going to bully everybody. They make certain codes of laws and rules governing the conduct of the House and they break these themselves. I say that truth has not prevailed in this House, that truth has not prevailed in the other House, and that the worst examples for lying have been committed by the members of the Executive.
Senator Johnson referred to the fertility of the soil for Communistic and other doctrines. In the very limited opportunities that have been given to us this week we have stressed the fertility of that soil. We have shown that if the Oath is removed, and if other objectionable features of the Constitution are removed, then the Executive can go to the country and claim full moral authority for doing anything they want to do.
It must be admitted that a certain element in this country cannot come into the Parliament of the State so long as the Oath is in the Constitution. That Oath is kept there by the present Executive when there is no need to keep it there. Some years ago Fianna Fáil decided to enter the Oireachtas. They did so feeling conscious as Irishmen that it was their duty to try to remove all traces of the war atmosphere and that they could attempt to restore things to a basis of thought, argument and reasoned judgment. What encouragement has been given to the people of this country since we came here to show that that was worth while? What encouragement is in this Bill to show that any element is being fairly treated? What is at the back of this Bill? The Ministry state it is not an election dodge. I do not know whether it is an election dodge or not. I did state here the other day when discussing economic matters that it was a smoke-screen to cover the defects of the Ministry itself and its complete failure to grapple with economic matters.
The last speaker who stood up to support this Bill here has been preaching peace all over the world. He has been interesting himself in minorities everywhere all over the world but in Ireland. He has also been responsible for the Department of Industry and Commerce. He has been responsible for the Electricity Supply Board, and a more hopeless débâcle was never exhibited to any body of men than his conduct of the affairs of the Electricity Supply Board. He has the mind of a tyrant. Dr. McLaughlin, the able engineer working under him, had to go when he had any opinions different from the Minister. The result was that the tyranny of the Minister prevailed and Dr. McLaughlin was thrown on the scrap heap. So will any man be thrown on the scrap heap who dares to criticise or express opinions outside about this heaven-sent body we have as an Executive. The Executive Council have only sneers for us during the last three years since we came in here, but we defy their sneers. They can sneer here but the public outside know what is going on. The public knows that by this Bill they are trying to place themselves in power for an indefinite period.
Senator Bagwell referred to the necessity for this Bill and welcomed it. He said he and his friends would welcome it. We are not surprised at that. He and his group belong to a race of tyrants who tyrannised over this country and who are now tyrannising over this country through the hidden hand as much as they ever were. What are we facing now? The Seanad will finish the dirty work that has been going on all the week. The Executive will have this power and the gentleman sitting in the Viceregal Lodge will be told to set up these military courts. Men will be arrested, tried and sentenced to death, there will be no publicity and not even an inquest.
It is no good at this stage to appeal to the Seanad to throw out the Bill. An atmosphere was growing up in this country tending towards peace, and that atmosphere is being ruthlessly destroyed to-day. It is cheap to laugh and sneer now. The people of the country know that the Gárda Síóchána were being obeyed and respected all through the country, but we are going to face chaos, and the Senator Gogartys will sit smugly and smile at it all.
I would like to make a remark.
The Senator has been making remarks all day.
It is on account of the mentality as expressed by Senator Connolly that this Bill is being rendered necessary—the mentality of the people who would like to be on both sides at once. We hear a lot about coming to the House and not taking the oath. Some Senators never have much mental reservation about accepting thirty pieces of gold per month and thereby betraying the Republic.
Senator Gogarty has been making continuous remarks for the last hour.
Cathaoirleach
There must be some order. This is a pitiful waste of time.
Overtures were made by Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Aiken in the Dáil, and those overtures, to my mind, did hold out some possibility of rapprochement whereby national government could be established. After hearing the speeches of members of the Executive Council to-day I am afraid there is very little hope of that. It confirms us in our opinion that it is not national peace, security or progress that is required, but merely that the present Executive may be retained in office until the Oireachtas disappears.
I would like to say one or two words in conclusion. I want to issue a solemn warning and admonition to the fathers, the mothers, the sisters or the wives of any young men or any other men in these organisations to get them to withdraw from them and to get them to withdraw from any activities which must be and will be severely dealt with if they continue in that course.
I did not intend to intervene at all were it not that we have had suggestions made by the Labour Party supported by Fianna Fáil for a conference. Those suggestions have been turned down by the Government. I wish now to put forward a suggestion or a challenge, if you wish, to the Minister of the Department responsible for the present panicky legislation, that is, that he at least would go back to the people who sent him here. He comes from the same county as I do, and I challenge him to ask the people there for a mandate for this legislation. That Minister has himself stated that Mayo is the most peaceful county and that they are the most peaceful people in the country. They are the most desirable people to give a sane responsible decision on this issue. I give that challenge to the Minister for Justice.
Tá
- Bagwell, John.
- Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
- Barrington, William.
- Bellingham, Sir Edward.
- Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
- Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
- Browne, Miss Kathleen.
- Byrne, Right Hon. Alfred.
- Costello, Mrs.
- Counihan, John C.
- Desart, The Countess of.
- Dillon, James.
- Douglas, James G.
- Esmonde, Sir Thomas Grattan.
- Fanning, Michael.
- Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
- Granard, The Earl of.
- Griffith, Sir John Purser.
- Guinness, Henry S.
- Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
- Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
- Keane, Sir John.
- Kennedy, Cornelius.
- Linehan, Thomas.
- Reeks, The McGillycuddy of the
- MacKean, James.
- MacLoughlin, John.
- Milroy, Seán.
- Molloy, William John.
- Moran, James.
- Nugent, Sir Walter.
- O'Connor, Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, M. F.
- O'Neill, L.
- O'Rourke, Bernard.
- O'Sullivan, Dr. William.
- Parkinson, James J.
- Staines, Michael.
- Toal, Thomas.
- Vincent, A. R.
- Wilson, Richard.
Níl
- Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
- Comyn, Michael, K. C.
- Connolly, Joseph.
- Cummins, William.
- Dowdall, J. C.
- Duffy, Michael.
- Farren, Thomas.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Johnson, Thomas.
- MacEllin, Seán E.
- Moore, Colonel.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Farrell, John T.
- Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
- Robinson, Séumas.