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

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

Minister for Justice (Mr. Ruttledge)

I do not think it is necessary to burden this House with details of this Bill to the same extent that they had to be dealt with in the Dáil. I am quite sure Senators are conversant with the reasons and the grounds that were put forward for the introduction and the passing of this Bill and the alleged grounds that were put forward against it. The main principle of the Bill, its keystone, is the prohibition of the wearing of uniforms. Subsidiary objects to that are prohibitions against the assumption of military titles and the wearing of badges which might be considered to put an undue strain on the police forces. Another is the prohibition of parading at public meetings of bodies of men who may be armed, in a certain way, with lethal weapons, cudgels, and so on. These are the main objects of the Bill. The other sections of it may be described as the machinery that is necessary for making it effective.

There is nothing new and there is nothing strange in the introduction of this Bill. We have only to look around us in other countries and we will find exactly the same provisions, exactly the same law and exactly the same steps taken by the Governments in those countries to deal with a similar situation. I might quote from some of these with your permission. The first I would quote from would be the Belgian Bill. Nearly all these Bills have been introduced in the various countries, to which I propose to refer, within the last twelve months. I quote the following extract from the Belgian Bill:—

"Whosoever shall publicly wear any uniform or any part of a uniform, or any armlet, or any article of dress whatsoever belonging to a political group, shall be punishable with imprisonment."

From a recent decree of the Governing Commission of the Saar Territory I quote this prohibition:—

"All badges furnishing or likely to furnish an external indication of the affiliation of the wearer to a political group, as well as all clothing or parts of clothing or equipment (for example, armlets) which, by reason of their specific form, colour or shape represent the distinctive mark of the political group."

In Latvia the wearing of uniforms is similarly restricted and prohibited. In Switzerland, by a decree of 12th May, 1933, the wearing of uniforms by political groups is forbidden. Amongst its provisions we find this:—

"It is forbidden for members of political groups to wear any uniforms or parts of uniforms or armlets or other easily observable external indications that the wearer is affiliated to a political organisation."

I could quote from other countries such as Sweden, Norway and so on. Before proceeding to refer to those countries, perhaps I may be permitted to quote from the speech of the Belgian Minister for Justice when introducing the Bill in that country. He said:—

"No doubt, some of these groups cultivate the appearance of defensive or protective organisations and claim that their object is simply to render assistance to the public authorities. Even in these cases the exhibition of uniforms compromises the public security and tranquillity because those who do not believe in the sincerity of the claim made by those organisations, or in their singleness of purpose in the pursuit of their avowed object, reply to them with similar demonstrations. The preservation of order is the duty of the public authorities: it is for the citizens to respect it: it is not for them to take it upon themselves to get themselves up in uniforms in the pretence of assuring it."

He then proceeded to talk about the danger of wearing uniforms:—

"Apart from the fact that the wearing of uniforms by individuals is interpreted by their opponents as a provocation to adopt themselves a uniform also, it is the wearing of uniforms which enables political groups to rally their members without difficulty, to measure their own strength and the strength of their opponents in any given place, and thus to form a due appreciation of the chance of the success of violence. The temptation to have recourse to violence is particularly great when one feels oneself the stronger party and when there is a prospect of securing a triumph for the uniform that one is wearing. The uniform reinforces the sense of solidity of the members of a group: it puts them under a sort of moral obligation to take part in violence from which they would, perhaps, have abstained if, wearing no uniform, they had been able to remain inactive without attracting attention."

Now, one further quotation. I think it is particularly apposite and appropriate because it has the same name and the same uniform as what this Bill, in its first aspect at any rate, proposes to deal with. It is a quotation from Captain Meyerhoffer, leader of the League of Youth, Blue Shirts, Sweden, so that we find where the name originated. Captain Meyerhoffer moved the rejection of the Bill chiefly on the ground that the wearing of uniforms was not in itself a criminal action, but added that if the law was passed he and his organisation would see that the law was respected. I hope that this House, at any rate, will not give any countenance to some of the rather double-sided remarks that were made in the other House with regard to moral laws and immoral laws, and that when the Bill is being passed by this House we will get a clear indication that the law is going to be respected.

Now, I have looked through the arguments that have been made in the other House against this Bill. The only argument I could find with a certain amount of candour at any rate about it, was the argument made by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins. He said that they had found the Blue Shirts the best card that was ever thrown on the political table. Of course, if we pursue that metaphor we could find ourselves in the position where you could equally justify, in a game of poker, one player presenting a gun and saying this is the best card. It is not a logical argument. At any rate, it is not an argument that will get us anywhere. At a later stage he proceeded to state how it had come that they had adopted the blue shirts. The grounds he gave were that there was a house burned in Dublin in which some of the badges that were associated with the movement then were found, and in order to prevent any of their men being complicated or implicated in any of these things that were not desirable, and that would not savour of good for the organisation, they decided to adopt the blue shirt. That may seem to some people hard pressed for reasons to have some force, but I suggest as an answer to it that one is just as likely to find in a house after it is burned the remnants of a blue shirt as a Fine Gael badge, so that there is not much force in it when you take it that way. Now, it was also stated, and has been stated in the Dáil, that the reason for the Blue Shirts was to preserve and secure the right of freedom of speech. Has the introduction of the blue shirt secured the right of freedom of speech or has it been conducive to security or order? There has been no meeting about which I have received reports of a parade of Blue Shirts at which there has not been disorder.

Mr. Milroy

None by Blue Shirts.

Mr. Ruttledge

What are we told?

"There is no doubt that the presence of blue shirts and berets at meetings is a source of irritation to the majority of the people, and is mainly the cause of reviving bitterness and provoking disorder generally."

And again:—

"The display of blue shirts at such meetings certainly militates against the public peace."

And again:—

"The organised exhibition of blue shirts and berets will doubtlessly continue to compromise the public peace and security, and further embitter the already strained relations between the association and other groups."

Mr. Milroy

What are those extracts from?

Mr. Ruttledge

From police information. I am not going to go into details of the various incidents which have occurred at meetings but I think every Senator is conversant with conditions obtaining at those meetings. It has been said, of course, and will probably be stated here, that all this arises from hooliganism. Nobody can justify interference with the right of free assembly and free speech, but what we have got to quarrel with is this: the preservation of the right of free speech is a duty imposed on a Government and no body of citizens can arrogate to themselves that right or, in other words, usurp police duties. That is the position we have taken up. It is the duty of a Government to govern. It is the duty of a Government to rule. It is the duty of a Government to preserve freedom of speech for the citizens of the country and the right of free assembly but it is also the duty of the Government to see that there are no provocative displays in the country. We have done our best to preserve freedom of speech and General O'Duffy, who is now the leader of a political Party, can testify to many of his followers and supporters the instructions he had at all times as to the preservation of free speech. That cannot be questioned. On more than one occasion he got instructions to preserve free speech no matter who the parties were or their policies, without any distinction. But there comes a time when there is a strain imposed on police or on the officers of the peace. There comes a time when that strain is an undue and an unfair strain. Now I quoted here in this House on a previous occasion when a measure, perhaps, such as this was not contemplated, General O'Duffy's own view when he was charged with the duty of preserving order and peace in this country, and I am going to quote it again to-day. This was a minute to the Secretary of the Department of Justice, dated November 8th, 1928, and I am quoting it in full:—

"I agree with Colonel Nelligan. The attached military order is similar to what would issue from a recognised Army headquarters, and such military activities as detailed should, in my opinion, be confined to the forces of the State. This is intended much more as a military display than a bona fide commemoration service for the dead, to which latter there can be no objection, though there appears no necessity to perpetuate this form of ceremony in the Saor-stát. If we allow this military display in Dublin we cannot very well object to similar displays elsewhere on the occasion. I am aware that in certain quarters these activities are looked upon as provocative, particularly in view of the fact that similar activities are prohibited, and punished by imprisonment if indulged in by other organisations.

Were I in a position to do so, I would very definitely prohibit all military activities, other than by the recognised forces of the State. No section would then have a grievance, and the work of the police would be made easier. There can be no doubt that companies of Baden Powell Boy Scouts marching through the streets in uniform lead to increased activity on the part of Fíanna Eireann, and similarly these 11th November displays lead to drilling and other activities of a military nature on the part of the Irregulars. I suggest that the Secretary of the British Legion here be very definitely informed that the parade is to take the form of a procession, and that no recognised military words of command be allowed.

I attach a cutting from the Independent of the 5th inst., showing British Fascisti marching in uniform. I consider this should not be allowed.”

That was at a time when General O'Duffy was charged with the preservation of order and peace in this country. At that time from the records we can find the cutting which he supplied showing a parade of British Fascisti marching in uniform. That parade of Faacisti, so far as one can count, would amount to 13 or 14—I do not think they ever got much more strength. In all that we could discover, or rather, the Department was unable to discover anything in the programme of the Fascisti which was either revolutionary or unconstitutional but General O'Duffy saw that to allow even constitutional people like that to march in uniform was not a thing that could be tolerated and he very definitely stated, and put it on record, that it should not be allowed. Similarly, it cannot be contended that the British Legion was an unconstitutional body and we see the steps that were taken at that time by General O'Duffy. He goes so far as to say that this ceremony should not continue and that no words of command should be given. Is it suggested that when he was in that position he was in any way prejudiced? I suggest he was looking at it purely from the point of view of the preservation of the peace and in order that he might not be obstructed or have to put too much strain on the forces under his command to try to preserve peace and order. That was General O'Duffy's view at that time. Is there any suggestion that until he left his office as Commissioner of Police and got himself at the head of another force that he approved of things similar to what are going on to-day? Can it be suggested that his attitude at that time was that he was trying to preserve order and that now it may be taken that his policy is to create disorder? We have been told that this Bill is going to be held up. General O'Duffy stated that immediately it was introduced and I think Senator Blythe stated it since. It may be all very well for political Parties to regard certain supporters of theirs as mere automata. It may be all very well to regard certain adherents or supporters as merely engine-drivers who will recognise the signal that goes up but I put it to this House that a very serious situation may develop in this country and it is because we recognise the possibility and danger of such a serious situation arising that this Bill is being introduced. Might I say I know what will be raised here as was raised in the other House about the I.R.A. and those who are going out with guns? So far as the opponents of this Bill are concerned, they do not seem to have any grievance against the I.R.A. They repeated on a number of occasions during discussions on the Second Stage and Committee Stage of this Bill in the other House that the interference at public meetings did not arise from members of the I.R.A. That was made quite clear and definite, and side by side we have General O'Duffy stating outside that large numbers of the I.R.A. are joining his Party. He stated a few weeks ago that 500 members of the I.R.A. had joined his Party within a few weeks. Our information about the I.R.A. position is that if that rate of conversion goes on there is no problem with regard to the I.R.A. At that rate of absorption there must be practically no members of the I.R.A. who are not members of the League of Youth. It might have been communistic before, but apparently it becomes very reformed when members join the League of Youth. There has been nothing in the other House but praise for the I.R.A., for their discipline and non-interference with public meetings and all that. I do not think that can be disputed. It was repeated on a number of occasions that the I.R.A. were not interfering with public meetings. This Bill will deal with I.R.A. or anybody else wearing uniform. I stated candidly in the other House and I state candidly here that this Bill is intended to deal with the League of Youth uniform. That is our problem at the moment but if other people get into uniforms it will deal with them also. I ask Senators who want to regard this position in a fair and calm spirit to realise what can happen. I know and other members of our Party know, that pressure and persistent pressure has been made on us within the past couple of weeks to allow people to uniform themselves in green shirts. What is the position going to come to? I could bring over from my office samples of cudgels used at meetings. I know they are called batons but some of them have nails in them and others are made of iron, and these are being carried around at public meetings ostensibly in self-defence. Let us see, however, where that self-defence is going to get us. Does not everybody know perfectly well that if one body of men can go out with lethal weapons, you will have other bodies going out, and then you are going to have the argument of force to counteract force? For example, if a large body of men were allowed to uniform themselves in green shirts or in blue shirts, what are you going to have? You are going to have trials of strength. If you admit that they are entitled, if you wish you may call it methods of self defence, it is very hard for indisciplined people to judge what proper amount of self-defence is justifiable. It is very hard to judge that.

Mr. Staines

What I mean by self-defence is that when meetings which have been properly announced are attacked the people at these meetings are certainly entitled to defend themselves.

Cathaoirleach

I do not think the Minister should be interrupted to deal with that.

Mr. Ruttledge

I will deal with that aspect. The question of the amount of the self-defence that is justifiable is a very dangerous one to leave in the hands of indisciplined people. It can be argued that, on an occasion, or in a certain set of circumstances, a cudgel, as it is called, or a baton, might be justifiable, and that in another set of circumstances a machine gun would be justifiable.

I will hear a good deal about interruptions at meetings. Every Party has experienced that. I think I was the last person to come off "the run" in 1924, and on the occasion of the reinterment of men who had been executed during the civil war, I remember being rushed away from Glasnevin by Deputy Oscar Traynor while shots were ringing out over the graveyard. I had been going about Dublin openly at the time. A few days afterwards I went to Ballina to try to insist on the right of free speech. I was received in my own town with a salvo of shots. You may call them hooligans, or what you like, but they came from members of the Army at the time. In other parts of the country where I addressed meetings I was howled down. I remember being stoned in a certain place. I am only making these points to show that whether you are anxious to do so or not order was not always preserved and cannot be preserved in every circumstance. We have done our best to do so.

I challenge any of you who may be opposed to the measure to ascertain from General O'Duffy if that is not the case. I suppose some people are so credulous that they will not believe anything that may have happened since he left office, but, while he was there, he got definite and clear instructions that at all costs he was to preserve the right of free assembly and free speech. These instructions have not been altered. They have not been whittled down in the least detail. We are as determined now, as when he was in charge, to try to preserve freedom of speech. All we ask people wearing blue shirts to do, if going out as a political party pure and simply, is to discard this question of uniform. No body can see the advantage of it as a political party. It has been mentioned it shows people their strength at a particular time. It strikes me that it shows something more, because if you have people with different political favours or uniforms you are going to have everyone knowing what his nextdoor neighbour is. You are going to have bitterness between these people. Political differences have led to a great deal of bitterness in this country. You are going to perpetuate bitterness and, at a given place and time, one side will try to measure the strength of the other. That may be between people who may not be disciplined, and who may not have the judgment that is requisite as to what is self-defence, about which some people talk so glibly and so flippantly.

I put it to the House that this is a measure any political party should be willing to accept. It is a measure that has been adopted in other countries on the same grounds, and for the same reasons that this House is asked to adopt it. The reasons given are the preservation of peace. I ask it for the same reasons. I put it to Senators, after the Bill has been passed by the Dáil, that they have the responsibility of saying what may or may not happen within the next 12 months if this Bill does not become law.

Mr. Bagwell

This Bill is one of very great importance. It is very simple, being entirely non-technical and deals with a question on which we have all thought a great deal. I think most of us understand it. There is a case for this Bill and, if I may say so, with great respect, the Minister has put it with great ability. There is also a case against it. We have got to decide which case is the stronger. I recognise that this is a difficult situation. The implications of the Bill are by no means as simple as they look. In some respects this Bill is without precedent in Ireland. I do not say that because it is a coercive Bill. We have had many Coercion Bills, both before the country achieved independence, and since. Previous Coercion Bills have all been aimed at the suppression of associations which have hitherto been known as unlawful associations, disorderly, intimidatory, or carrying on illegally. As far as I am able to judge, the Blue Shirt organisation is not distinguished for these things.

This Bill is aimed at the suppression of it. The Minister for Justice said that he would not go over the ground that had been covered in the Dáil. In that I think that he was quite justified because I imagine that almost every member of this House must have read the debates in the other House and it is not necessary to have the arguments repeated. The Minister was quite frank in the other House in dealing with the object of the Bill. He said:—

"The object of it is, frankly, to deal with the Blue Shirt position in this country. Our problem at the moment is to deal with the disorder and to deal with the position that we allege arises from the fact that Blue Shirts are here in this country."

The Bill, if not aimed at the suppression of a political party and, incidentally, the party in opposition to the Government—it might not be fair to say that—is, at least, aimed at the suppression of a course of action which the United Ireland Party have taken for reasons known to us. Whether that course of action is desirable in principle or not, many of us hold that, under the circumstances, it was quite justifiable. I am not a party man. I belong to no political association, and I may say, quite-frankly, that I do not, in all respects, dislike the principles contained in this Bill. For instance, I find myself quite in agreement with the principle of Section 3, which has to do with the use of military titles by members of political parties. I have nothing to say against Section 6, which has to do with the prohibition of the carrying of weapons at political meetings. In fact, if I were to accept the premises which the Minister would wish us to accept, I might vote for this Bill, with some amendments. But what are the premises? In effect, they are that this Blue Shirt organisation is the clement which is primarily responsible for the political violence and disorder which exist in this country. We are asked to believe that, but for the Blue Shirts, there would be, if not an absence of rows at meetings, at all events, less rowing, and that there would be plenty of free speech and plenty of toleration. In these circumstances, we are told that the forces of the State would be quite adequate to the occasion. Do we accept these premises? I for one do not, for what I hold to be a good reason.

The Blue Shirt movement was started because the United Ireland Party speakers were denied free speech in various places. I have yet to be convinced that it is the Blue Shirt organisation which starts these disorders, this violence and this intimidation. It may be that the presence of Blue Shirts, as has been stated by the Minister, so infuriates those people who do not believe in free speech for anybody but themselves and their friends that they attack the Blue Shirts. But, then, such people would also attack public speakers. We must remember—there is no use in our putting our heads in the sand about it—that there is a tendency to faction-fighting in this country and always has been. There has been a great deal of it. That may be a pity but it is also a fact. I quite recognise the danger which can be connected with physical associations of any kind other than the forces of the State. But which is the better—the existence of the state of affairs to which I have alluded or the existence of this association of Blue Shirts whose avowed object is to secure free speech and to combat violence and who, in fact, so far as I am able to judge, have done so on many occasions? Against whom? The initiation of this disorder, violence and intimidation is, in the main, not proved against this organisation, to my satisfaction at all events. That this association should be suppressed and that the elements which attack members of this association and public speakers should have things much more their own way than they have now is very questionable. Which is the better as a manifestation of political adherence—the wearing of blue shirts openly by people who, in the main, have behaved well or the writing on gates, walls and roads of "Up the I.R.A.,""To Hell with O'Duffy,""No auction here; the land for the people" and many other slogans of that kind, some of them of a most intimidatory character? These emanate from a secret society which cannot be connected with any individual but they do intimidate. That is the element of violence and intimidation, but for whose existence the Blue Shirts would never have come into existence, so far as I know.

This brings me to another aspect of the question. There exists an association known as the Irish Republican Army—"army," mark you. That is an armed force or purports to be an armed force. To what extent it is an armed force I do not know. It is known as the "Irish Republican Army," and I have never heard of an army without arms. By its nature, it is definitely what has hitherto been known as an illegal association. Whether it is a political party or not, is a matter of opinion. Under the Bill, it is not a political party. Therefore, I consider myself justified in going so far as to say, in the words of the Bill, that the I.R.A. is affiliated to the Fianna Fáil Party. That is quite a serious thing to say. Why do I say it? I have yet to learn that the I.R.A., or their sympathisers, have ever criticised the policy of the Government now in power which, I may say, has resulted in throwing away the natural advantages of this country, which is, perhaps, the finest livestock-producing country in Europe, alongside the finest market in the world for that sort of livestock. It has already reduced that great industry by which the country mainly lives to poverty and, if continued sufficiently long, will reduce it to bankruptcy and the nation with it. That is all for hatred of England and with the desire to harm England. Everybody has a right to hate whomsoever he likes, and there are all sorts of tastes amongst a community, but I hold that hatred is bad national policy. There is no quality of nationalism which I despise so much or for which I have so much contempt as hatred. Any fool can hate and tear down but, when it hurts one's own country, hatred amounts simply to silliness. So far as I can judge, the I.R.A. element are in sympathy with that policy. They never criticised the Government. All they say is that the policy does not go far enough. More compelling proof that the I.R.A. is, in effect, an ancillary association to the Fianna Fáil Party is that during all the time the Fianna Fáil Party have been in power they have never proclaimed that association, never effectively interfered with it and never seriously criticised it. About a fortnight ago, they openly condoned it. In the newspapers of the 8th March, we beard of court proceedings relative to a funeral firing party, when there was illegal use of arms. If there had not been illegal use of arms, there would not have been a police court case. According to the report, "Mr. Geoghegan, speaking on behalf of the Attorney-General, expressed his sympathy with the proceedings and said that, in such cases, the Government would lend rifles for such a purpose." In view of this state of affairs, which is common knowledge, the Bill stands out, to my mind, as a Party Bill. Of course, many Bills are, in a sense, Party Bills, but this is so to a much greater extent than could be asserted in most cases.

I recognise the dangerous possibilities of all physical associations. The Minister's observations on that aspect of the question have not escaped me at all. I recognise the responsibility upon me personally, as a member of this House, as to how I shall vote on this Bill, and I hope to God I shall vote in the right way. But I hold, without any hesitation, that it is not a right or fair Bill. If I thought that the Bill was really aimed at the suppression of all political disorder and all political violence and intimidation, if I thought it would operate in these directions all round and without discrimination, I should, with some amendments, vote for the Bill. But having regard, not only to the text of the Bill, and the arguments of the Minister, but to all relevant circumstances—we, as public men, are quite able to judge these circumstances from the way we educate ourselves from time to time by reading of the happenings in the country and hearing of them—this Bill appears to me to be a thinly disguised attempt to suppress all effective criticism by the party in opposition. For these reasons, I suggest that the Bill should not be given a Second Reading and I earnestly hope that it will not. I myself shall vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. MacLoughlin

I am not surprised at the introduction of this Bill. It is only what might be expected from a Government of men whose most signal service to the State of which they are now Ministers was to try to uproot it. We have revealed in this measure exactly the same mentality that challenged the sovereign authority of Dáil Eireann when it decided by a deliberate vote to accept the Treaty and we have revealed the same idea of fair play and tolerance of opinion that dispersed meeting by rifle fire held in support of the Treaty. If the methods to-day are not quite so crude, the objective is the same—to suppress any opinion that does not regard President de Valera as a reincarnated Washington and his policy of muddle-headed economics as a divine inspiration.

From the discussions that took place in the Dáil we can see that there is not even a pretence that this Bill is intended to deal with a menace to the State, or with some grave national peril. The spokesmen of the Government shamelessly admit that the object of this Bill is to ban and outlaw a political organisation which is a menace not to the State but to Fianna Fáil. This is not a Peace Preservation Bill. It is a Fianna Fáil Preservation Bill. The Blue Shirt movement is nothing more than organised public opinion. But Fianna Fáil does not like organised opinion. It wants the rule of the mob. It wants anarchy rather than order. It is a child of anarchy itself, and it wants to drown the voice of the people and submerge public intelligence in riot and commotion. The Blue Shirt organisation has stood up against the mob; that is its offence. This unarmed organisation has had its meetings attacked, the houses of its members fired into, its halls burned, its members assaulted and two of them beaten, to death. It has not retaliated in kind or in any way, but it has persevered in its work and that perseverance has been crowned with a success that is admittedly phenomenal. Instead of dealing vigorously with the political parties responsible for the attacks, the Government, which is supposed to deal out even-handed justice to all citizens, becomes the open ally of the perpetrators of these outrages when it introduces this Bill and seeks to effect by legislation what the rowdies failed to do by murder, pillage and riot. No more shameful piece of punitive legislation was ever put before any modern legislative assembly than this attempt to make criminals of decent law-abiding citizens, banded together for political and cultural purposes, with the perfectly legitimate object, amongst others, of changing the Government of this country by legal and constitutional means.

This Bill is introduced by a political Party that climbed into power by denouncing coercion and by advocating an almost anarchic measure of individual liberty. Their first act on attaining power was to release the prisoners in Arbour Hill and Mountjoy who had been convicted of illegal possession of firearms, of shooting at members of the State forces and of ownership of dumps that constituted regular arsenals. We all remember the thrilling account, by a special war correspondent of the Government Press, of the spectacular dash to Arbour Hill of the Minister for Defence, with the Minister for Justice panting at his heels, and of the dramatic meeting with a prisoner there who patronisingly received the new Minister with the historic greeting "Glad to see you, Frank," while the august Ministers on taking leave of the prisoner uttered, according to the Government organ, the famous farewell, "Beannacht leat."

We can also remember certain events of the previous year, 1931, when trial by jury, in criminal cases, had completely collapsed through the murder of jurors, and when several other foul murders were committed, responsibility for which was accepted by an organisation that justified them as "executions." When the ordinary law was paralysed by that series of murders, and when the then Government came to this Oireachtas to seek powers to deal with the situation we can remember how they were met with a shrill chorus of "Coercion, Coercion" and how they were told that they were adopting the methods of Hamar Greenwood. When they proposed, in certain criminal cases, to substitute for trial by jury, which had broken down, trial by a tribunal of five military officers it was denounced as a proposal to put five bloodhounds on the track of patriots.

Even in the Seanad, when the Constitution Amendment Bill was introduced to cope with murder and the breakdown of the courts, it was denounced as an abrogation of individual right and as a tyranny that would lead to civil war. So that the House will observe that when it was a case of dealing with murder and an organisation that openly declared that its object was to subvert the State by force, an organisation that neither recognised the State nor its courts, the Constitution Amendment Act was regarded by the people who have since adopted it as "a vile instrument of oppression." But when it is a case of dealing with an unarmed and peaceful organisation that enjoins respect for the State, for its courts, its judges and its justices, then the "vile instrument of oppression" is not drastic enough and it has to be supplemented by Greenwood legislation. How, I ask, can any decent man have respect for a Government which aligns itself with the flouters of the law against the upholders of the law?

In introducing this Bill the Minister for Justice failed to give one solid or even shadowy reason for putting on the statute book such a discreditable expression of political malice. In the Dáil not a Minister advanced a single convincing reason why such a Bill should be enacted. The Minister for Justice gave instances of legislation introduced in certain continental countries where, apparently, there was a menace to the Governments of those countries from organisations wearing certain kinds of uniforms. But he gave us no evidence of the conditions in those countries or whether the organisations were armed or were engaged in military training. The organisation which this Bill proposes to ban here has no arms, and is not indulging in military training. It does not propose to fit itself out with arms or to train militarily. Since August last the forces of the State, under the Minister's control, carried out raids in the homes of almost every well-known man connected with the Blue Shirt movement throughout the Twenty-Six Counties. They have failed to find an average of even one lethal weapon per county or a single document which would show that the organisation was the slightest menace to the State. The Minister's sole attempt at justification is that the wearing of blue shirts "resulted in the creation of disorders and the creation of disorders had imposed on the authorities a strain which the authorities cannot adequately deal with."

The Government of Northern Ireland could, taking a leaf out of the book of our Government, prohibit the wearing of Hibernian or Forester regalia in that area on the ground that the forces of Orangeism would be provoked into disorder. On the same principle of penalising the orderly in the interest of the disorderly, freedom of speech could be reduced to a statute book fiction. The argument of danger from the mob could be utilised to do the work of the mob in a more formal and much more effective way.

I always understood that the right of free speech implied the right to utter what sentiments one wished with the risk of answering to the courts if they constituted an infraction of the law. Now, the mob has only to indicate anticipatory dissatisfaction, and freedom of speech will be annulled by our Government. Instead of dealing with the mob as mobs are dealt with in every well-ordered country, the Government prostrates itself before the mobsmen and outlaws the orderly section of the community. There is only one explanation of that, and that is that the aim of the mob and the aim of the Government are identical, namely, the stifling of free speech and the silencing of criticism. If the Government wants to achieve its purpose completely it should go a step further and insert a clause in this Bill proclaiming and outlawing by name its political opponents. It is becoming acutely sensitive to criticism by its opponents. Some such clause as I have suggested will be necessary in view of the announcement made in the Dáil by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that his opinion and not the Attorney-General's will determine in future what is "sedition" and what is "subversive of public morality." A speech of Mr. McGilligan's delivered at Lucan was quoted as a flagrant example of sedition by our new autocratic law officer. I defy anyone to find anything in that speech but legitimate political argument. Passages in United Ireland which the Attorney-General passed as innocuous were held to be seditious by Mr. Lemass. So it is not “political militarism” which this Bill is intended to deal with. It is unwelcome and embarrassing political argument.

Since they have attained office Ministers have developed a sensitiveness to criticism which is remarkable for men in public life. They seem to be almost as sensitive as the princess whose skin was so tender that she had to lie on a bed of rose leaves. We had from them during the discussion of this Bill in the other House very edifying appeals for the exercise of Christian charity in politics. The greatest exemplar of this virtue was the President of the Executive Council. He preached a sermon of three and a half hours' duration on brotherly love, and devoted a couple of columns of the Official Report to a revelation of the enormities of some unknown joker who described him as a Jew. The man who described the President as a Jew possessed a sense of humour even if his knowledge of ethnography was defective. Nobody but a person with a malicious sense of humour would describe the architect of the present costly economic war as a Jew. Jews do not do that sort of thing. But the President was scandalised by the wicked platform speeches of his opponents. They do not attain to his seraphic standard of Christian virtue. I am sure that those who did not know the President were impressed by his declamatory exhortation to his opponents to exercise charity of word. But there are a few uncharitable people like myself whose memories are inconveniently tenacious. As I read the President's long sermon I could not help wondering if this was the man who, 12 months ago, confessed in the Dáil that the supreme pleasure of his life was to administer "gall and wormwood" to his political opponents. Or if it was the same man who, in the Dáil, had levelled a baseless charge of Art McMurroughism against General Mulcahy. I suppose we must take it that these things were done in the interest of Christian charity and brotherly love. President de Valera is the last man who should preach on the subject of charity in politics. He, more than any other man in politics, has put a premium on slander, abuse and misrepresentation. It is true that he himself merely enters the ring of the slanderers when he thinks that it is within his power to blast a man's reputation. But he has his slandering done for him and he measures out the reward. Let me prove what I assert.

The President was very eloquent about attempts by certain newspapers to undermine confidence in the Government. Let me quote a remark by a Fianna Fáil Deputy in the Dáil when the Bill to protect jurors was going through:

"In view of the fact that the Hell Fire Club dump will not be sufficient to carry off this by-election, would it not be well to organise a few more shooting outrages?"

The following week the Poblacht published this item officially:

"The sober truth is that one small dump has been captured by the forces of British Imperialism and the dump contained 26 rifles, 2 revolvers, 2 automatic pistols, 1 Lewis machine-gun, some bombs, explosives and spare parts for firearms."

Mr. de Valera was listening to this criminal charge of Sergeant Sheridanism being made against the then Government and to the suggestion that they should organise shooting outrages. It was not a charge calculated to inspire confidence in the Government. Did he protest? Not at all. He promoted the Deputy who made the outrageous charge to be Governor-General. Another gentleman on the Front Bench of Fianna Fáil also figured in that little episode. He referred charitably to:

"a Minister who can, as a matter of fact, manufacture dumps in the Dublin mountains."

The same distinguished exponent of Christian charity was, later on, to refer to ex-President Cosgrave in these terms:

"We will have his name spat upon as the names of Carey, Nagle, Leonard McNally, Pitt and Castlereagh and every other man who betrayed the Irish people.... He was unclean and a leper among politicians."

Did President de Valera protest against this outrageous diatribe as an offence against public decency as well as an offence against Christian charity? Not at all. The gentleman responsible received his reward in due course. He was made Minister for Finance. His qualifications for the office—that he had vilely slandered Mr. de Valera's rival.

Another front bencher of Fianna Fáil, after the fashion set by his friends, charged Mr. Cosgrave at a meeting in this city with intriguing with the British behind the backs of the Government and said there was a name for that sort of thing. For that and other services of a like nature the Deputy in question was made Minister for Industry and Commerce—another exhibition of Christian tolerance and love of one's neighbours. At Malahide during the election in 1931 a young and enterprising lawyer told the people as "absolutely correct" that the ex-Unionists were building up a huge fund to keep Cumann na nGaedheal in office and Fianna Fáil out and that the figure mentioned, was £100,000. Now I, for one, should not have hesitated to accept that £100,000 if it had come along, remembering that Wolfe Tone was an ex-Unionist. But the lie was spread to prejudice the ignorant. The man who set the lie going is now Attorney-General. It was a remunerative invention for him. A member of the Fianna Fáil Party told the people of Carrick-on-Suir not so long ago that "he loathed the Free State Parliament." The same gentleman in a fine frenzy of Christian charity yelled across the Dáil on one occasion at his political opponents the delicate epithet, "Murderers, Murderers." Did Mr. de Valera rise in protest and immediately enlarge on the virtue of charity and politics? Not at all. When the time came, he rewarded the Deputy by making him Vice-President and Minister for Local Government in the Free State Parliament.

On another occasion a member of Fianna Fáil made it plain that to give information regarding the murder of a former Minister of State "would put one into a position of odium." That was not a high lesson, in civic virtue. But the gentleman in question was rewarded with a Parliamentary Secretaryship.

I need not pursue the matter further. Every member of Fianna Fáil who made himself conspicuous by his abuse of Mr. de Valera's political opponents has been rewarded by Mr. de Valera, who then lectures members of the Oireachtas on Christian charity. His ideas of Christian charity consist of having the slandering done by proxy if at all possible. The only member of the Front Bench of Fianna Fáil, when in Opposition, who was passed over in the allocation of offices was a gentleman who relied on legitimate argument. Mr. de Valera had no use for him. He was left out in the cold.

I have seen in the newspapers that I, one of the most submissive members of this House, was taken to task in the Dáil in the debate on this Bill for the use of irreverent I anguage. The Minister for Industry and Commerce evidently regards the President as a man of inferior intelligence for he rushes to his defence even at the most inappropriate times. If Mr. Lemass were possessed of greater taste he would pay the President the compliment of pretending to believe that he was able to defend himself. The Minister for Industry and Commerce was scandalised that I should have referred rather pointedly in a speech in Donegal to two Dagos—one in the North and the other in the South. If Mr. Lemass had improved his education by consulting Mr. Webster before rushing unnecessarily to the defence of the President he would have found that "Dago" is defined as:—"A common proper name, also a person of Spanish, or, by extension, Portuguese, or now most commonly, Italian descent." The Attorney-General would also have been well advised to look up a shilling dictionary before working himself into a state of hysteria about my lack of charity.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce was also much concerned last week because he could not get from the Leader of the Opposition in the Dáil a satisfactory definition of "hypocrisy." I do not pretend to be apt at definition, but I think I could help the Minister by illustration.

Colonel Moore

May I ask if this is in order, or if it has any reference to the Bill?

Cathaoirleach

I thought it had as the Senator's contention is that the Bill is more political than otherwise.

Mr. MacLoughlin

I am answering the arguments put forward in the Dáil in support of it.

Cathaoirleach

Quite. The Senator is in order.

Mr. MacLoughlin

I shall give an illustration which might help the Minister to find a definition for hypocrisy. For instance if a man said this in 1930:—

"They thought the Government should leave the Imperial Conference severely alone. The purpose of the Imperial Conference was to consolidate the British Empire. The aim of Fianna Fáil, was to get Ireland out of the Empire. Every decent Irishman must have felt a sense of shame at the flunkeyism that has been displayed by the delegates of the Free State attending the Imperial Conference."

And, if the same man attended an Imperial Conference and joined in this message in 1932:—

"Representatives of the Governments of the British Commonwealth assembled in Conference at Ottawa at their first meeting and as their first official act desire to present their respectful duty to the King and to thank him for the gracious message which has just been read by his Excellency the Governor-General. They join in thanksgiving for your Majesty's continued health and earnestly hope that your Majesty and her Majesty the Queen may long be spared to strengthen the feelings of love and devotion shared by all the peoples of the British Commonwealth of Nations."

I would call that downright hypocrisy. I wonder if Mr. Lemass would agree with me.

To spare the feelings of Senator Moore I will get back to the Bill. It is the product of charity-mongers whose political career has been a trail of mud. It is a classical example of political vindictiveness, political spite and the mean things that animate the petty politican who feels that his future is menaced. Legislation conceived in the interests of a Party does not effect its purpose. This Bill may succeed in inducing contempt for the Parliamentary institutions of this country. It will do nothing else. As I said at the beginning, the Blue Shirt organisation is merely organised public opinion. Organised public opinion will make headway despite the best efforts of a partisan Government to smother it. When the Constitution. Amendment Bill of 1931 was discussed here we were told that it was a degradation of this Assembly to put such a Bill before it. Senators who were not officially affiliated with Fianna Fáil were then much concerned with the sanctity of the Constitution —especially with the sanctity of Article 9, which guarantees free expression of opinion to minorities, and lays down that the laws passed in this State will contain no political, religious or class distinction. Other Senators hoped that God would give them courage to vote against that Coercion Bill, which meant simply voting against the coercion of men who were out to smash this State and murder its functionaries. I hope that an equally pious hope will be expressed now for courage to vote against the coercion of men who have obeyed the law dutifully in spite of the most malicious provocation. Whether that courage is vouchsafed or not I shall, at all events, give my vote against this Bill with as much pleasure as President de Valera derived from the preparation of his mixture of gall and wormwood.

Mr. Douglas

I agree with Senator Bagwell that the Minister made the best possible case for this Bill when he introduced it here, and I think that, although to some extent he fathered a good many of the arguments used in the other House, he did not weaken his case for the Bill by leaving out a considerable number of them. When the Bill which has just been referred to by Senator MacLoughlin, Constitution (Amendment) (No. 17) Bill was being debated here, we had the general principles of freedom stated by almost every person who was opposed to the Government. I suppose if one attempts to suggest that one is a convert, if you like, to these principles we will be told that it is because one is opposed to the Government of the day. When the Bill which proposed to reduce the Constitutional powers of this House was under discussion, Senator Dowdall was good enough to compliment inc on a speech setting out the work done by the House but he suggested that one great flaw in my argument was that this House had, under drastic closure, passed the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 17) Bill which, to use his own words, "gave the Government practically any power it liked over the subject." That was to some extent, though not perhaps as much as was thought by some people, true. I could not reply to him in that debate, but before I make the remarks, which I want to make on this Bill, I should like to say quite frankly that I believe he was right and that for my part, I believe I was wrong when I voted for that Bill. I believe it was a mistake. Influenced by my desire to support the Government in dealing with acts of violence, I voted for a measure which gave autocratic powers to the Executive, which, I have now come to the conclusion, should not to be given to any Executive, whether of the last Government or this Government. I suggest to all members of the House that, before another Bill is passed giving similarly autocratic powers to the Government, whether it be this or any other Government, it should take into consideration not only the argument of Senator Dowdall but the arguments which were put forward by a large number of other Senators at the time.

I am still prepared to vote for drastic powers for this Government or any other Government to deal effectively with violent resistance to the State. I am prepared to give them powers to prevent violent interference with the political liberty or with the personal liberty of any section of the people. But I do think that I will never again support a measure which gives the Executive power to interfere with the rights of free expression of opinion and peaceable assembly, or with the formation of associations, or which gives, as the last Bill did, and as this Bill does, to a considerable extent, the Government power to act as judge, jury and prosecutor combined, and declare without public trial that an association is, under the last Bill, illegal, or, in this case, not entitled to wear its political colours. It may be old-fashioned, but I am personally convinced that the right to form associations is just as essential to political liberty or to good government as the right of free speech or of peaceable assembly. I am well aware that these rights must be restricted, but, in my opinion, the less restrictions the better the government.

I will not take up the time of the House by going into political theory, but in general terms I would say that the State is only justified in restricting these rights—the right of free speech, of free association and peaceable assembly—for the purposes of public morality, to prevent treason and, in particular, to safeguard the same rights being given to other people in the State. But, to my mind, the object of this Bill is to enable the Government to deal as they think desirable with the Youth Movement which has been organised in connection with the Fine Gael Party. I do not propose, for my part, to deal at length with that aspect of the question. There are other Senators who can do that much better than I can, but it does seem to me that you must either accept the statements and such evidence as you get from the leaders of that Party or you must accept the statements—not the attitude taken by the Minister here to-day—made by members of the Government with regard to that movement. If you accept the views of the leaders of the Fine Gael Party or their statements that the Blue Shirts are unarmed and loyal not only to the State but to the principle of democratic government, then, I challenge anyone here to deny that this Bill is an absolutely unjustfiable interference with liberty.

If, on the other hand, you accept, and I confess I do not, the views which were stated, I think, on a previous occasion by the Minister for Justice and which certainly have been stated by a number of Ministers in the other House that, in spite of their protestations, the Blue Shirts are really a revolutionary body, prepared to overthrow the constitutionally elected Government by force if they got the chance and to set up a dictatorship against the will of the people, then in my opinion this Bill is the most futile and stupid way of dealing with such a situation. You cannot suppress a dangerous movement simply by preventing it wearing its colours and by forcing it underground. We ought to know that, I think, from the past history of this country.

But, whatever the immediate object of the Minister is—he admitted that the immediate object was to deal with the Blue Shirts—I want to suggest to the House that this Bill should be considered from a wider point of view. The Bill does not confine itself solely to the Blue Shirts. It seeks to prevent the wearing of colours or any distinctive sign by any combination of persons, whether small or large, which the Government of the day chooses to declare to have objects which are political in character. The Executive in their wisdom may, if this Bill becomes law, declare any associations, with or without name, with or without organisation—I am quoting from the Bill—to be a political Party. No reasons need be given, and no one can challenge the decision in a court. To my mind, the wearing of political colours or badges on suitable occasions is a thing to be encouraged rather than suppressed. The wearing of colours and badges or the carrying of flags has been customary, in connection with politics, both in this country and in Great Britain for a very long time. It has always been regarded as perfectly honourable. Almost all successful organisations, whether political or otherwise, have had some badge or flag which they used on ceremonial occasions, at any rate, and it seems to me that the right use of some mark or badge or flag is almost inseparable from the right of free association. At any rate, in this country and in the British Isles, it has been customary for a great number of years. At election times if you cannot always have colours you have posters to "vote for so and so," and there has been no attempt to hide it. Everything is done openly, and is it not a thousand times better that it should be so?

It is my honest opinion that in a healthy State there should not be and there is not anything provocative in the wearing of colours. Notwithstanding what the Minister for Justice has said, I hold the view that if there were two or three organised Parties in this country, whether they were wearing blue shirts, green shirts or a shirt of any other colour openly and above board you might have less and not more interference at public meetings. After all, it is not the open wearing of colours that should be condemned. It is the attitude of mind which cannot bear to hear opinions or to see some colour contrary to what it believes in or what it likes. All the talk about freedom which we have had here for years is a sham if we cannot agree to live and let live: if we cannot see that it is just as important to the country that our opponents should have just as much freedom of speech and organisation as we claim for ourselves.

Mr. Dowdall

Who is denying it?

Mr. Douglas

Many people are denying it. It is a fine thing to have strong convictions, but it is a miserable sign of weakness when you try to force these convictions on somebody else. Almost every Party in this country professes to believe in democratic government, but there are a very large number of people whose actions, at any rate, belie their professed beliefs. Democratic government means that the people shall be allowed to judge, even if they make mistakes; it means that every point of view, no matter how stupid, is entitled to be heard. We are all agreed that there is no dispute between Parties as to that. What I want to suggest is that it is intolerance, and particularly mob intolerance, that is the greatest enemy of democracy and the greatest enemy of democratic government in the world to-day.

I am inclined to think, in fact I believe it, whether it be the intention of the Government or not—I impute no motives—that the passing of this Bill will be regarded by many people in the country as simply a surrender to that spirit of intolerance which is a thing which we ought all to condemn and fight. To put the matter in a nutshell: the attitude taken by the Minister here to-day is that because there are people who are aggravated when they see their opponents wearing particular colours or shirts and who cannot control themselves, therefore, the State, in the interests of order, should prohibit the wearing of these colours and shirts. Now, I believe that attitude is absolutely wrong. It is not, to my mind, an attitude by which you can get political freedom in this State. Certain persons say that they have been provoked into illegal action because they were aggravated at seeing badges or colours with which they disagreed: therefore, make the colours illegal. A certain enterprising shirt manufacturer in this country published a very clever and ingenious advertisement last week. He showed not only that he had a sense of humour, but, to my mind, that he understood something of the mentality of some of the people, at any rate, who support this Bill. He assured an interested public that his staff were working hard at the production of a shirt which would change colour at the right occasion, presumably, so that no one would be aggravated.

I seriously suggest to the Government that, before they try to pass a Bill making the wearing of colours illegal, they should make an effort to combine with the leaders of the other Parties in condemning and fighting this spirit of intolerance which has led largely to the breaking up of meetings. Now, I am not suggesting that the leaders themselves instigated that, but I do believe that there is enough feeling and spirit in the political leaders of this country who, if they combined—not necessarily jointly— could get fair play here for all types of political meetings.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to some of the specific provisions in this Bill which I think are extraordinary. For instance, you find in the definition clause that an association means "any combination of persons," presumably that means two or more. If the association is a political party none of its members may wear a uniform, which means any distinctive article of apparel. This would seem to me, if I have read the Bill correctly, to apply to all parties which in the opinion of a court at the present time would be regarded as political parties even if the Executive Council does not make an order under Section 4. But, apparently, the Executive Council consider that the ordinary meaning of the term "political party," as we understand it, or "associations ancillary to a political party" was not wide enough. Therefore, they are taking power to declare that a certain body, which may be two or more, with or without organisation and with or without name, can be regarded as a political party, and once the Executive Council say so then no one can challenge it and no reason need be given.

So far as I can see from reading the Bill, the prohibition in regard to uniform applies to all political parties and to all people whom the Executive think fit to call a political party. The wearing of badges, armlets, or any other distinctive sign or to carry flags does not apply to all political parties. The section only applies to any particular badge which a superintendent of the Guards, acting under the instructions of the Minister for Justice, may think it desirable to prohibit. If you are going to have a law made to prohibit the wearing of colours, well I think that is a mistake, but if this Bill or any similar Bill is going to become law, then I say that, in the interests of fair play and decency, apply it to all parties and do not give the Executive of the day—it may be this Executive or some other—autocratic power to, in their goodwill and judgment, say that it applies to such and such a body and not to others.

I would like to ask the members of the House, and particularly those who sit on the opposite side, do they really believe that it is a good thing to include a provision of this kind in the permanent law of this country. These powers could be very easily used against trade unions. It would not need a great stretch of imagination or conscience to say that the objects of a trade union are political. It could be used against religious denominations or churches who often have to take action which could be described as political. I do not suggest for a, moment that this Government would be likely to attack either churches or trade unions, nor do I suggest that there is any likelihood, as far as I can see, of an antireligious Government in this country, but it has happened elsewhere. One never knows what may happen in the future. We are being asked to make this a part of the permanent law of the country. It is not a temporary measure, something that will occasionally be brought into force. Members of the Labour Party are terribly afraid of a dictatorship, but I put it to them that this Bill, when added to the Emergency Duties Act and to the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 17) Act, all of which are law, would leave a new dictator, if one ever does come, extraordinarily little power which he would have to assume to himself.

Section 8 of the Bill is to my mind also very objectionable. Under this section any meeting may be dispelled by force because some persons, presumably more than one, are wearing badges or uniforms. That means that any uniformed people can make it impossible to hold a meeting by going there and insisting they will not go away. The net result would be that if any perfectly harmless non-political body were holding a meeting in the country you could have an organisation arranging to go in there in uniform and the police would be justified according to this section in breaking up the meeting by force. In Section 10, which is also much too drastic, any person may be arrested not because he is wearing a badge but because a Guard thinks he wore the badge at one time of what the Guard thinks is a political party. Section 11 gives power to remove a uniform or badge and the Guard may do so whether he arrests the man or not. In other words, it sets the Guard up as a judge to decide whether or not a man's shirt or badge is or is not illegal without having to bring the man to justice. I think that is an outrageous position. I am puzzled by Section 13, which prevents an appeal under any circumstances from the District Court. I should like to hear the Minister as to why he proposes to prevent an appeal to any court above the District Court.

I have only indicated what seem to me to be the worst features of the Bill although I could criticise almost every section. Indeed, there are only two sections which I would be prepared to give any support to. I agree with him that the use of political or military titles is highly undesirable, and I consider, personally, that all forms which suggest militarism in politics ought to be abolished and kept out of it. I agree with the Minister that if the Bill becomes law it should be obeyed. I have no sympathy with disobedience of law except on matters of personal conscience and then the person concerned takes the consequences honourably, and I think there is not any substantial section of opinion on its side. I am asked however to approve of the principle of this Bill, not because of its merits as legislation, but because it is necessary in the abnormal circumstances. That is the line taken by the Minister and it certainly was the line taken in the other House.

I have already dealt with the main argument used by the Minister that the wearing of colours is provocative and that therefore the Bill is justified. The other argument which is used very widely is that the wearing of special shirts has been the open and visible sign of movements towards dictatorship in other countries and that, therefore, steps must be taken to stop them in this country. I am not impressed at all by the arguments made by the Minister that certain European countries have taken action against the wearing of special shirts and colours. I cannot pretend to know the circumstances, but I have good reason to believe that the reason why steps were taken against the wearing of special shirts and acquiesced in by other parties, is that because there was a fear of a movement from outside which might be controlled from outside and, therefore, might endanger the State. I do not think that we have any reason to fear anything of that kind here. Whatever may be said for or against the Blue Shirts, it is a purely Irish movement which has not been suggested or organised from anywhere else. For my part I am totally and absolutely opposed to the method of government which is commonly described as dictatorship, and I confess I would be tempted to vote for this Bill if I believed honestly that it was likely to save us from this danger.

Dictatorships have grown out of mass movements of the people and the shirt or badge has only been the symbol, not the cause of the success of the movement. They have grown out of dissatisfaction with Governments and with political conditions coupled with the desire of young people to do something for their country. There has been a great deal in these shirt or Fascist movements which cannot be criticised. There have been discipline, good-fellowship, readiness to sacrifice and the desire to reform, which are excellent things, and these have given the movements a wonderful appeal to the best of young men and women after the demoralisation of the war. I challenge anyone to deny that a great deal of good has been achieved in both Italy and Germany as the result of the Nazi and Fascist movements. But for my part, that good has been achieved at the cost of individual political freedom, and it is a price which I, for one, am not prepared to pay in this country if I can help it. What I most object to in Fascism and Nazism is the assertion of the absolute supremacy of the State over the individual. They claim an allegiance to the State which I, for one, am only prepared to give to God. Little or no recognition is given to individual conscience, minorities have no right to organise, and even the expression of individual opinion against the Government is treasonable. Persons who do not share the opinions of the majority are dubbed antinational—traitors, undesirable people, who may perhaps be tolerated if they keep their opinions to themselves.

One of my co-religionsts in Germany was in jail for three months because he stated privately to a friend in a restaurant that he did not think Hitler should be in the position he is in at present. In a lecture in Dublin last week Sir Norman Angell pointed out that you cannot say that modern dictatorships are undemocratic. They are, he said, democratic in the sense that a lynching party is democratic, but not in the sense that a trial jury or a court of law is democratic. Ordered democracy requires the type of mind which listens to every point of view and then forms its opinion freely. It is the exact opposite to the democracy which shouts down minority opinion and is aggravated by the sight of a shirt which it dislikes. It is not so much individual dictatorship which I believe to be the real danger in the world to-day. It is the dictatorial state which, in the guise of popular government governs autocratically, suppressing, often by violence, all opinion, no matter how honest, which is opposed to it. The day when one man can ever act as a dictator, or govern the people as an autocrat, is gone, I think, for ever. Before you can get the dictatorial State made effective there has to be a great deal of preparation. The mass of the people have to be taught to forget all the old ideas of political freedom. Their feelings have to be worked up against some real or imaginary enemy, whether inside or outside the State, and mob prejudice and intolerance have to be allowed to develop. Usually you get extreme forms of narrow nationalism preached. Anybody who believes, as I do, that nationalism and internationalism are complementary, and that the very existence of nationalism is dependable upon international goodwill is, in the dictatorial State, regarded as a traitor. You had something very much the same in England during the war. The people were full of the kind of patriotism which was a mixture of fear and hatred, and anybody who did not believe in the theory of a war to end war, or who refused to believe in the stories of German atrocities, had a bad time of it.

An English lady, also a co-religionist of mine, who is well known to many people in this country, found herself in jail for six months because she signed a manifesto on behalf of a religious denomination in favour of goodwill. Is there any danger of this country becoming a dictatorial State? I think there is a real danger, but I do not believe you can prevent it by banning shirts or colours, and I am not at all sure you will not increase the possibility by any kind of action which forces organisations underground. The danger, to my mind, has not arisen suddenly. It has been going on for a considerable time, and the first cause, in my mind, has been that there has been not only a kind of row which comes at times from Party meetings but there has been a growth of mob intolerance.

To my mind the spirit which leads to the suppression of opinion creates the very condition in which the idea of the dictatorial State thrives. The second cause lies in the tendency on the part of a great many of our political leaders to depart from the fine nationalism preached by men like Thomas Davis, Mitchel and many others and to substitute for it a narrow nationalism which mixes up the idea of national freedom with the idea of a successful State as if the two were interchangeable. I believe the greater danger exists in the tendency in which all Parties have acquiesced more or less to give more and more power to the Executive. In a very short time you will have a position—you may call it democracy: it may be democracy of a kind—in which the Executive of the day will have practically complete powers over the people. With mob organisation and a sufficiently successful movement, it seems to me you will have a very short step to the dictatorial State.

I would like to suggest to those who are rightly afraid of a dictatorship that they go back to 1922 and compare the powers which the Executive had then under the Constitution with the powers which they now have. They will see that we have already gone a long way on the path. Now the Government asks us to pass a Bill giving them more autocratic powers, and we are to do so to avoid the danger of dictatorship. I suggest that is absurd. I have tried to make it quite clear that the reason why I oppose this Bill is because I believe the principles underlying it are all wrong—simply and solely because it is an attack on the Blue Shirt movement. I am not a member of the Blue Shirt organisation but I do know a lot of young men who have joined and I know them to be the very best of the citizens. I do not believe there is the slightest danger of that movement becoming a revolutionary movement. It is natural that the members of the Government here should be blind to its good points because it is politically opposed to them but I am satisfied that this Youth Movement, taking it all round, has been a good thing for the country.

It has made a great appeal to the young people, who have not been impressed by the promises of Fianna Fáil, or by its blandishments. It has given them something to think over. It has provided good fellowship and has broken down class distinctions in many places. As far as I can find out it is spreading in many parts of the country. Do you imagine that by taking away what has become recognised by these young people as their symbol or sign, just because it is aggravating to other people—which was the main grounds given by the Minister—you are going to ensure its having a lesser element of danger? I do not believe that. I think there are dangers in the Blue Shirt, as in every movement, but if they keep to their original ideal, and remember to encourage people to think for themselves, it will do untold good. The greatest danger you have in any movement is the same danger that you have in a closely pledge-bound political party. Loyalty to leadership is splendid. It is a great thing to subordinate honest opinions for the good of party, but it is a very bad thing if most people have no opinions at all, or cease to think for themselves. Then it can easily become a curse. I do not want to see the militarisation or the regimentation of politics. I do not want to see people forced into movements against their will. I do not believe that danger exists at present. There is danger in any movement of the kind. We see it in the Party opposite. Since this Government came into power we have had very few amendments to any Bills from their supporters. You could certainly count on the fingers of one hand the number of amendments that came from them to Bills introduced by the Government. When the previous Government was in office there was a continual series of amendments from this side of the House. I believe there was then keen Party discipline. I hope the Blue Shirt movement will avoid that danger. While there are dangers in this movement I am convinced that these dangers can be avoided. They will not be avoided by simply endeavouring to suppress them, or by taking away what is recognised as their sign or colour. If this Bill passes I believe it will be obeyed. I do not doubt that, but I am perfectly certain you will leave in the minds of those who obey a feeling of dissatisfaction and of bitterness which will not be good even from the point of view of the Party now in power.

Sir William Hickie

I feel that it is incumbent on an independent Senator, such as I am, to explain his attitude towards an important Bill like this, and to give the reasons for which he is prepared either to support it or to declare against it. I have always held that no State should tolerate within its boundaries any military or semi-military organisation, or any body or bodies of armed men, except such as are under the direct control of the State itself. I have very carefully followed the speeches made in the Dáil during the debates on this Bill, and I have come to the conclusion that the measure is aimed at one particular body, and that one body alone. If I could feel that it was going to be a genuine attempt, once and for all, to put an end to our private armies in this country, I would vote for it even though its passing might be a hardship on a section of our community, which it would be stretching the imagination to call a military organisation. I feel that the Government, having since it came into office swallowed the I.R.A. camel, are now straining at the United Ireland Party gnat. I regret to say that the measure is a Party measure, brought in, not for the safety of the State, but for the safety of office, and for that reason I will vote against it.

Mr. Milroy

When I heard of the introduction of this Bill, in common with many others, I wondered what could be the motives behind it. I was in that state of public bewilderment until suddenly I recalled that during the period when the present Minister for Lands and Fisheries was indulging in historical retrospects at the Economic Conference, there was at the same time at one of the London places of entertainment, a revue known as "The Crazy Month." I came to the conclusion that the Minister, being in the environment of that revue, decided it was time to introduce a crazy month into the politics of the Irish Free State. Hence, this Bill. If that was the motive, certainly, from one point, of view, it has brought about a great deal of success. It has been a successful revue. It has brought packed houses to see the revue but, from another point of view, it has been rather disappointing and unsatisfactory. To-day, which will, I think, be the concluding performance of this revue, we have had the old stars strutting on the stage, with the prospect of anarchy, menace to the State, the threat of private armies, all manoeuvred like puppets by the Minister for Justice. But the actors appear to have performed to-day in a limp and unspontaneous fashion. They must know that the end is at hand. Whenever the identity of the genius directly responsible for this Bill is revealed, I think, when the hysterics of this period come to be written, he will be allotted a very noble place in the ranks of the Micky Mouse statesmen of the time.

That is, I am sure, the greatest fame that some of our present Ministers can ever hope to achieve. This Bill should be called the Fee-Fo-Fum Bill, because it produces this effect: If any police officer or Government agent is prepared to go, on certain authority, and to say "Fee-Fo-Fum, I smell the blood of a Government critic," that is sufficient to place the person suspected in durance vile. The Minister spoke of some other situations in other countries. I want to say simply this, that if the circumstances are not identical with the situation here, then they have no relevance to this Bill. I say further, that if the circumstances of the other countries are identical with the circumstances here, the action of the Governments in these other countries in introducing such Bills was as unjustifiable as the introduction of this Bill.

The present Government of the Free State seem to be incapable of exercising the ordinary routine functions of administration without appearing sensational, without being spectacular. They seem to be obsessed with the idea that the Irish nation must be taken into custody for its own good; that the spirit of liberty must be taken into custody by the Government. I am afraid the spirit of liberty is finding the embraces of the present Government more stifling than caressing. If this Bill should reach the Statute Book, I am afraid, for our generation the spirit of national or individual liberty will be very nearly extinguished. The Minister to-day did not trot out to any great extent the thing that was his trump card in the Dáil, namely, that the League of Youth was an organisation aiming at seizing power by violence. There is no necessity for the League of Youth or the United Ireland Party to seize power by violence. That power will automatically pass from Fianna Fáil to the United Ireland Party organisation, whenever the people get a chance to exercise their rights as free citizens. I put this point to the Minister very definitely and very emphatically. He declaimed to-day as to what may be the consequences if this House takes upon itself the responsibility of holding up this Bill. He sketched in a brief way the possibility of chaos and anarchy ensuing upon that decision. I tell him that there is a very definite way of meeting such a situation, and I invite him and his Government to pursue that way in the immediate future.

I say that to smash and destroy political opposition that is in no way infringing the laws of the country is the only purpose of this Bill. I am sorry that Senator MacEllin is gone. I wanted to bring his attention and the attention of Senators to what I conceive to be a definite incitement to violence on the part of the daily organ of the Government Party. I am sorry also that the Minister in charge of the Bill is not here, but the Minister for Lands and Fisheries may be able to deal with it. On Saturday, the 23rd September, a demonstration of the United Ireland Party was held in the City of Limerick. This is how it was described on the following Monday in the Irish Press:

"Demonstrations of hostility, stone-throwing and baton charges occurred when General O'Duffy, Mr. Cosgrave and Mr. Dillon visited Limerick on Saturday night last. Thirty-three persons received hospital treatment and several members of the Gárda were hurt. A sergeant received injuries said to have been caused by a knife, and a man has been remanded in connection with the affair. While the meeting was in progress, there were clashes in the outskirts of the crowd. The Gárda stated yesterday that shots were discharged when members of the force were pursuing persons who engaged in stone-throwing."

This is the editorial comment, and if it is not an incitement to this sort of thing, I do not know what it is:

"The one thing that could defeat the people now is disorder and we ourselves are convinced that the gentlemen who have made a profession of parading in blue shirts are determined to create that division. Their purpose is to persuade a large section of the electorate that the Fianna Fáil Government cannot preserve internal peace. Once that impression were established in a sufficient number of minds, the ground for a tyranny would have been prepared; and the Irish people in the past have sad memories of how brutal such a tyranny can be. The scenes in Limerick are not accidental, or an outcome of momentary excitement. They are, in our belief, a policy deliberate and calculated."

Senator Milroy has expressed his opinion, and I am entitled to express mine. In my opinion, these meetings are deliberately aimed at provoking a state of affairs which would make government impossible. It is for that reason, and that reason only, that all the elements in this country which are disruptive of order must be dealt with. It cannot be charged against the present Government that they have shown any partiality to anybody. On the contrary, it has been charged very deliberately that we have been deliberately protecting the forces of the U.I.P. and attacking deliberately the forces of the I.R.A. The truth is that we are trying to preserve law and order throughout the country and that is what we are out for and that is why this Bill is necessary.

Senator Milroy suggested that we would welcome the cessation of Blue Shirts. We certainly would welcome the cessation of the Blue Shirts, just as we would welcome the cessation of any shirts, but what we are afraid of is, and I am more afraid of it to-day than ever, that it is not reasonable to expect that the Blue Shirts should be allowed to develop without the developing of a corresponding opposing army to deal with the Blue Shirts. Either Senators believe that ordinary governmental measures for the preservation of the peace and the administration of the law are to be maintained, or they do not. I suggest that it is a very serious responsibility indeed that Senators who for many years talked of law and order and insist upon majority rule, and the rest of it, should allow their bias to assume an entirely different attitude because they do not assent to the Government in power at the moment.

Senator Sir William Hickie apparently has come to the conclusion that this Bill is aimed at the protection of the I.R.A. and the destruction of the Blue Shirts or the United Ireland Party. I have said enough, I think, to convince any reasonable person that such is not the case. The position of those arrested, the comparative numbers, the steps we have taken in all sorts of places, to try and preserve law and order, indicate very clearly that the Government wants to preserve the peace. What Government would not? What has happened is that certain people in this country, not being used to being in Opposition, are resentful of any Party in power but themselves, and are not going to tolerate any ordinary Government in power. That is the situation. It is a situation which has developed elsewhere and with some disastrous results. During the course of the debate in 1931, it is interesting to recall what Deputy Cosgrave, who was then President of the Executive Council, said; speaking on 16th October, 1931, in this House he said:—

"At long last it comes down to this, that representatives of the people in their Parliament must select an Executive, and upon that Executive is laid the responsibility of enforcing the law, order, government, liberty and all the rest of it. To that end various institutions have been set up in this State, founded upon the most democratic principles and appealing to all lovers of liberty—true liberty, liberty under God and under God's law—to carry out whatever orders and whatever statutes the Parliament and the people may decide. It does not matter what Government is in power. Upon that institution, however composed, of whatever men and whatever political Party, will rest the responsibility in the first and last degree of ensuring to the people of the country liberty, and liberty without licence. These organisations have taken to themselves all authority and power to enforce their will on unarmed people."

I submit that not only since we became the Government of this country but for years before and ever since Fianna Fáil was established that is our line of policy, and we have pursued it completely and entirely throughout our whole political campaign. We are as much concerned with the peace and good order of this country as anybody else. We do not want to restore the bitterness of the civil war. We hope, and we still hope, to get away from that bitterness. This House to-day is largely divided in its Party affiliations because of the civil war or what followed from it. I hold that unless we make up our minds that whatever Government is to be the authority over the affairs of the State it must be that authority, shall exercise the necessary power, we are going to get back to the civil war atmosphere and that is going to lead to trouble and disorder in this country. Deputy Cosgrave, of whom I am going to make another quotation in that speech in this House on 16th October, went on to say:—

"At this period in our history, when every State in the world without exception is groaning under economic difficulties the like of which have never been known in the world's history, when ordered conditions ought to prevail, when every effort should be made by every law-abiding citizen to build up his country, the whole work of this State is held up by a crowd of people who posture as nationalists, who pose as patriots, and who act in contravention of the law of the State, the law of God, and every law which any democratic State could set up."

I submit these words are more applicable to the position to-day than ever. There is another phase of the situation which interested me and that is the reactions that the whole Blue Shirt activities beget in other countries. It was interesting to note that certain paper coming across from the other side, which have a wide circulation here, boosted, featured and splash headlined all the activities of the Blue Shirt movement up to a certain point and then they stopped. It was significant that one of the papers, which specialised perhaps more than any other in its featuring of this activity, which it realised, of course, was against the interests of this country, last week and the week before, had scarcely a mention of the discussion on this Bill, but there was a reason. There is not, I think, in the mind of anyone who stops to think at all, any doubt that the activities of this organisation had its reactions on the other side. It was all right to support it during the period when it was only the mere Irish that were affected and it is interesting to see the change of attitude that came about when they saw that the Fascist movement was raising its ugly head across there. Sir John Simon, speaking on the danger of a private force, says:

"When we reflect on some recent events abroad, I do not think it is untimely or out of place to declare that we do not want any private organisations for keeping order in this country. There is nothing advanced or up-to-date in drilling a set of uniformed recruits to uphold by their physical efforts a particular doctrine or to defend a special cause."

He goes on to say:

"But nowadays if there is a threat of trouble or disturbances, sensible citizens send for the police and rely upon them to do their duty. They will preserve and restore order much better than any amateurs and they will do so in the general public interest... The existence of one private and unauthorised force inevitably tends to call into existence another. If people start expressing their political ideas, not only by the colour of their shirts but by preparations to demonstrate their physical force, there will be more colours than one."

I am not going to bore you with quotations from other papers which became alarmed when a similar movement threatened to grow up in Great Britain although, when it suited their purpose, they boosted up the Blue Shirt idea in Ireland. The situation that is facing the Seanad is one of the most important that it has had yet before it. I do not expect that anything that I will say or that the Minister for Justice or the President may say, will influence the ultimate decision. I do not think it will influence one vote, but I think it is only right on an occasion like this to indicate clearly where the responsibility lies, to indicate the moral obligation that is on members of this House either to stand by the whole idea of ordered government, the whole idea of the forces of the State being under the control of one Government or, if they so choose, to approve of a situation whereby a private army will be recruited and developed, nominally in the name of law and order, but really on lines of provocation, as it has been on every occasion on which it has been started up to the present.

Mr. Crosbie

I think that in considering this question a great mistake has been made in comparing the Blue Shirt movement to the Fascist movements in other countries. The conditions of other countries were very different from those prevailing here. The Black Shirts, who inaugurated the shirt movement, if I might so describe it, in Italy, were, I gather, not alone first of all the outcome of a conspiracy, but these members were armed. They were of the strike-breaking order that we know of in America. They were not out for liberty. What this Bill aims at and what you have been all discussing is freedom of speech. It has been strongly represented to me that it goes beyond even an attack on freedom of speech. It is going to interfere seriously, according to the people connected with the newspaper industry, with the freedom of the Press. I know that there is very great anxiety amongst people who have the responsibility of conducting newspapers as to what this House is going to do with the measure. I have taken the liberty, I might say, of saying that I believe that the House is going to reject the measure. It is curious to note, if you have been some little time in public life, how history repeats itself. I remember a good many years ago—all the principal actors in that tragedy or comedy, whichever you like to call it, have all passed away—when the circumstances then prevailing were very like those existing to-day. A certain section of the old Irish Parliamentary Party—I am sure nobody will be offended at what I am about to say because it is all past history—revolted from what we used to know as majority rule. The revolt was confined principally to the City and County of Cork. In furtherance of the revolt it was decided that no public meetings could be held to advocate the cause of the old Irish Party. Those who took that course were for a time successful.

I remember a late distinguished Irishman, Tom Kettle, coming down to Cork—and I think, perhaps, Senator Comyn can remember the time too —to lecture in the City Hall of that day. It was decided that nobody who was opposed to the mutineers would get a hearing in Cork. A lot of us came together and, though we did not consider blue shirts, we decided to put up very attractive badges. These we all wore. On the night of the meeting a brass band arrived to interrupt the proceedings. Well, the brass band did not play. It was escorted off the premises and the lecture proceeded according to plan. The same game is being played to-day. When this economic war was started those of us who opposed it were made to feel it. My own town was placarded in very large decorative letters "Crosbie is for England." Whether in the course of time it transpired that I was a better friend of Ireland than those who said I was a traitor, I will leave to the consciences of those who have seen the huge loss of trade we have suffered meanwhile. I had to walk across that motto every morning that I was going to business. It did not give me much concern, though other people who were treated very much in the same manner were rather indignant over it. I was not, and the funny thing was—I am not giving this on legal evidence—that I believe, in Cork at all events, that beautiful painting was carried out and ordered by members of the Fianna Fáil Clubs in Cork City.

Mr. Cosgrave, in the ordinary course, came down to address his constituents in Cork. He had always headed the poll in Cork and we regarded him as a very popular person there. What happened? A very small number of interrupters, who were organised, seized the tiny hall in which we hoped to hear Mr. Cosgrave address his constituents. They kept up persistent interruptions throughout the whole of the meeting. It was not shouts of "Up the Republic" that came from them but shouts of "Up President de Valera." That crowd marched in military order all over Cork after the meeting was finished. Mind you I will say this, though some people would not agree with me: as far as the authorities were concerned they did all that was possible to preserve freedom of speech at that meeting. A little time after that we had a further meeting. It was held this time in a rather large theatre. About 150 young patriots, whose idea of patriotism I should say was not exactly that of making two blades of grass grow where only one grew before, came along. This time they had heavy sticks, and only that the Guards stood between the huge crowd that was there to hear Mr. Cosgrave and that handful of young ruffians, as I call them, it would have been very uncomfortable for some of us. However, the interruptions went on. This was before the provocation of the blue shirts was given to the patriots, who can only see in their opponents, the traitor and the miscreant.

I say that all this is quite wrong. I think I may say that these decorations are not desirable, but they have been found indispensable wherever free speech has been interfered with. We had to do it in the old days. I must say that the authorities do their best to get us a fair hearing, but you know perfectly well that they do not always succeed. I think it was the President himself who said that the authorities could not make an unpopular cause popular. We know very well that in England at meetings of any consequence, whether they be in a hall or in the open air, there are very well organised bands of stewards. Probably we would call them "chuckers-out." At all events, order at such an assembly invariably depends upon the number of stewards that come there to maintain the right of free speech. As I say, I am with the Government in that I think it is most undesirable to have these decorations, but I certainly would not call a blue shirt a uniform. It is perfectly absurd to say that it is. To say also that an unarmed force openly organised, even though the members may wear a shirt of a particular colour, is a military force, is absurd. Even if one goes to a funeral here one finds that the people fall into something of the nature of a military procession. It is perfectly idle to think that such a movement could be described in any way as a military movement. Whenever a complaint was made of an assault on any member of our body, the first thing the Government or the authorities did was to search the house of the man who made the complaint. They have covered every portion of Munster in that way, in, I will not say the hope, but in the belief that they would get arms and they have not found in the whole of the province as many as the Minister could carry away with him. They have brought forward no documents to prove this enormous conspiracy that is going on outside. I firmly believe that it is a pure figment of the imagination of the people who are guiding the destinies of our country. If this Bill goes through it means that free speech is at an, end, no matter what their desire for free speech may be. I will give them the credit that they do desire free speech, and I believe they would be capable of enabling free speech to take place. Furthermore, I want to say that from the newspaper point of view, the clauses dealing with the Press provide an additional reason why this Bill should be rejected. Therefore, I confidently ask the members of the Seanad not to give this Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. O'Neill rose.

Colonel Moore

No member from this side of the House has spoken yet.

Cathaoirleach

I did not see you rise, Senator.

Mr. O'Neill

That interruption from my noble friend proves to me once more the great advantage of belonging to no political Party, and that if one commits sin one has nobody to blame but himself. One of the greatest tests of sincerity, either in public or private life, in the case of a man or a woman, is measured by consistency. To-day we have heard many Senators and, during the past week or so, we have heard many Deputies all vigorously opposing this Bill. Not so long ago these Senators and Deputies voted for what was, in my opinion, a far more drastic and far more dangerous Bill. On the other hand, we have Senators to-day, and we had Deputies a few weeks ago, supporting this Bill. They, in turn, fought very vigorously against a Bill that was introduced two or three years ago. All this naturally leads one to ask—in saying it I do not mean any offence—what is the cause of this tremendous change over? Is it Party propaganda or is it conviction?

A little over two years ago ex-President Cosgrave, from the floor of this House, made what I considered at the time one of the most impassioned and one of the most sincere speeches that I had ever listened to in which he appealed to the Seanad to pass the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 17) Bill—the ordinary law having failed—to grapple with certain lawlessness that was taking place throughout the country; and again, equally sincerely, he appealed to the fathers and mothers to protect their children and to keep them out of harm's way and from joining with others. As a last appeal, he pointed out that the Bill he was asking the Seanad to pass was intended to protect the young men and women of Ireland from themselves. The Seanad passed that Bill. Personally, I had the greatest distaste for it and I have an equal distaste for this Bill. As we have now a Government of our own, set up by the people without any outside interference, I consider, as one belonging to no Party, that it is a sad reflection on the character of the Irish people that ex-President Cosgrave at that time and the Minister for Justice to-day, should be compelled to bring in either Bill to maintain law and order amongst the Irish people. It takes my mind back to the sad, bad days when we were controlled by a foreign Parliament when Bills such as these two would be used as instruments by it to keep law and order in this country. That is why I feel so deeply about these Bills. It is a great reflection on the Irish character.

I am going to make a frank and an open confession. I am really a Government man. By that I wish to explain that I am in favour of any Government that purposes to maintain law and order. I am really a Government man, no matter what party is in power, that feels it is compelled to bring in such a Bill, no matter how obnoxious it may be to many, I am prepared to support any Government when it does that. In my humble judgment every man in this country, who has come to the use of reason, should be a soldier of the country; ready to protect it and to maintain law and order no matter what party he may belong to.

The Minister on more than one occasion has stated that the primary object of this Bill is to deal with the wearing of blue shirts. The Minister in this House and other Ministers in the other House have used the selfsame arguments in favour of their Bill that the Ministers in the late Government used in favour of Bills which they submitted to the Oireachtas. All that makes one think that in a matter of this sort, at any rate, it makes very little difference what Government is in power: it is only just merely a case of men changing their places as Ministers. I feel that what I am about to say may be considered an impertinence on my part by both sides in this House, but I ask Senators not to take me as saying anything personally disparaging to the leaders, men or women, of the Blue Shirt movement. It would be far from me to say anything personally disparaging of a man of the calibre of Deputy Cosgrave, a man whom I have known for a great number of years, a man whose heart, I am satisfied, beats as truly for the welfare of this country as does the heart of any one amongst us. I go further and admit, as Senator Crosbie has reminded me of it, that Deputy Cosgrave and those associated with him were and are fully justified in protecting themselves from the rowdy element in this country. Unfortunately we have in this country, as in all other countries, a rowdy element. If the Government could not give them the necessary help and protection, then I say they were fully justified in protecting themselves against the blackguardly attacks made on Deputy Cosgrave's meeting in Cork. But, on the other hand, it is my calm, considered and unbiased judgment that the leaders of the Blue Shirt movement seem to have put a shadow across their eyes. I am quite sure they do not mean it, but in my judgment they do not realise the harm, the sadness or the canker which they are promulgating by the marshalling of these Blue Shirt parades.

I say that if this Blue Shirt business, as I may call it without any disparagement, continues—they have been warned already by the Minister—there are few, and I say it with all respect, who have known the ups and downs of Irish life during the past 20 or 30 or 40 years more than I do, you will have another brigade of different coloured shirts, let them be green or yellow, with far more dangerous weapons than clubs with nails in them. I am appealing to the better nature of those who are connected with the movement and I would ask them to bear with me in trying to visualise and realise what will happen. Families are bound to be divided——

Mrs. Costello

They are divided already.

Mr. O'Neill

——and the sadness and bitterness of the past ten or 12 years is bound to be revived. We will be back to the days which the distinguished visitor in the Gallery—Mr. Yeats— mentioned in his writings—the days of the faction fights and all their bitterness, sadness and beastliness. If the Blue Shirt brigade continues, then farewell to the ending of partition. Farewell to the uplifting of this country, either materially or nationally, because you will have a Blue Shirt army and a Green Shirt army going through the country and there will be very little attention paid to the uplifting of the country's industries. I am afraid, too, that Senator Counihan or Senator Wilson will find that the economic war is likely to continue. If this state of affairs goes on our false friends at home and our enemies abroad will clap their hands with glee and approval, but what a sad and disgusting picture it will be for our kith and kin across the seas, particularly in America, and, again, Sir, if this Blue Shirt business continues the appeal which the President made quite recently will be frustrated and an excuse made for ignoring it. I do not distrust or seek to designate any of my colleagues or old friends as insincere, but I give every man and woman the credit of acting conscientiously and I am quite sure they will endeavour to give me the same.

The President said that all arms in the possession of unauthorised people should be brought up and melted down and a statue erected either outside Leinster House or on the boundary line between this State and Northern Ireland similar to the statue of Christ which stands on the highest peak of the Andes. If I am not trespassing too much on your usual good nature, Sir, it might interest or refresh the memory of many Senators if I would state exactly what the statue of Christ on the Andes means and why it was erected.

"The Christ of the Andes is erected on a high point of the Andes marking the boundaries between Chile and the Argentine. There stands a statue of Christ. It is cast in bronze from cannon which the people of the two countries, long enemies, had made ready to destroy each other, and on the granite pedestal are graven these words: ‘Sooner shall these mountains crumble to dust than Argentinian and Chilean break the peace which at the foot of Christ, the Redeemer, they have sworn to maintain.'"

I am in thorough agreement with the President. We, in holy Ireland, who open our proceedings here every day with the sanctity of prayer with our heads bent down—are we hypocrites asking for justice, peace and religion to reign in our unfortunate country? It would be a great thing if the warring elements would cast their eyes on the statue of Christ on the Andes. Again, the President made another statement recently. At first sight, no doubt, it might appear a little bit different, but I was watching him when he said it and it had a tremendous amount of sincerity behind it. He suggested that the Ministers on the Government Bench and the ex-Ministers on the Opposition Bench should all betake themselves to some lonely, holy or distant island where, perhaps, they could talk all these matters over. It just occurred to me when listening to the President: why should our leaders betake themselves to some foreign or lonely island to talk out their differences? Is it impossible to do it here? Why not do it at home? In saying that, my mind goes quickly back 20 years, when these men who are warring now met around the table in the Mansion House—de Valera, Cosgrave, Griffith, Collins, Harry Boland, Austin Stack, Paddy Ruttledge, Dick Mulcahy, Seán T. O'Kelly, Kevin O'Higgins, Cathal Brugha and many others, some of whom are with us, and some of whom are gone, and as I saw them gathered around that table in the Mansion House thinking out the best means to regenerate their country, each was sworn to the other, and I saw them at a later period with their hands to God promising they would do the best thing they could in the interests of Ireland. Why not do that now? And if they did, it is not a monument of bronze, a monument of gold, nor a monument of diamonds, but a monument that would be enshrined in the hearts of the Irish people in this generation and in the generations long to come. One word more, do not think me egotistical, but at one time I happened to be in a position that if I made an appeal some little respect would be shown me.

From this House I appeal to the Government, with all the depth of sincerity, that if this Bill does pass, to forgo putting it into operation unless they feel it is a case of absolute necessity to do so and I would appeal to the leaders of the Blue Shirt movement, in particular to Deputy Cosgrave, a dear old friend of mine when we worked and struggled together in many a trying and dangerous period, to discard the Blue Shirts for the reason that I have mentioned, that in my judgment it will bring about a most dreadful civil war. We will be back once more, as I have stated, to the beastly faction fights. Ah! the sadness and the bitterness and badness of the ten or 15 years past will be revived, and in making that appeal to the leaders of the Blue Shirts I would not have the presumption to suggest to them that they should not go on with their movement as they are going. In my opinion, the Blue Shirt is a red rag to the country and I say that without any disrespect. If both parties do this, in my opinion they will have done a good day's work for Ireland, if they do not——

Mr. Comyn

I have been greatly moved by the eloquent sentences with which Senator O'Neill concluded his speech. When he referred to the Saviour, two thoughts came into my mind. The first was this: seeing that men such as you are, men of substance, men of years, men of sound judgment, did what you did last night, when you were prepared to incur the risk of disrupting the armies of this country, the idea came into my mind that only the Saviour can save us now. The other thought that came into my mind was this, a thought expressed by a stranger in your land 200 years ago, a rebellious thought, that Christ never died for such a people. I do not believe that. It was in a moment of petulance it occurred to my mind. But, I return again to this thought, that only the Saviour can save us now.

There is another danger from this organisation. They do not represent all the people. They do not represent a majority of the poorer people. I am sure that certain Senators will agree with me when I say that they do not represent any of the blackguards. Of course nobody represents the blackguards, but it is admitted they are there and you all want their votes. There are in this country a lot of people who are not so restrained as they ought to be, on occasion, and I suppose that is what is meant. There are people who do not belong to the Blue Shirt organisation. Will they stand idly by? Will they be brigaded? Will they wear uniforms? Will they have a common impulse and a common purpose? Will they inspire one another with anger and hatred against their opponents and will the line of demarcation become so definite, the degree of hatred so great that a clash will be inevitable? I am hopeful by disposition. I should hate to see a conflict in this country again. I have gone through a civil war. I stood by the men with whom I was associated before the civil war. I stood by them to the end. We were defeated, but we stood up to it. I think that there were only 25 men in this city of 350,000 and we had not 25/- between us. I know what it is to be defeated in a civil war. There are men in the Blue Shirt organisation and on the opposite benches who know what it is to be successful in a civil war. Perhaps they will taste defeat. They do not know yet what it is to be defeated. I am not malicious. I should not wish any of my countrymen to endure what was endured by thousands of good Irishmen in the awful years of your conflict among yourselves. What kind of war will it be? Do not delude yourselves for one moment by thinking that the men who will fall in this civil war will be the poor fellows in Francis Street, poor creatures like those who were shot and hanged, who had not a shirt on their back, blue, yellow or red. Do you think that it is these men who will fall in the next war if it is a civil war? I promise you it is not. If there is a civil war—I prophesy this from experience—it will be a social war— mark my words for it. Any man who votes for disruption or for disorder, who votes against a measure introduced by the Government as a measure of peace, takes upon himself a very serious responsibility. Last night you did not show that sense of responsibility which the Seanad ought to have shown. I expected that the vote last night would be a vote of men of judgment and a vote of men of experience. It was a partisan vote and it will be a partisan vote to-night. If it is, remember you are being warned now.

Every one of these Senators, whether they objected to the particular measure at the particular time or not, said it was not a question of their own objection, but that when a Minister came forward, and said that a certain measure was necessary for the safety of the country they were bound to accept that as a fact, and to vote for whatever measure was brought forward. That was the way they acted throughout. Now, these same people are making long speeches trying to explain to their consciences why they will not vote for this Bill when it is introduced by this Government as they voted for such Bills when introduced by the last Government. That is an unfortunate state of affairs. However, we have to take it, and if anything comes of it responsibility will rest on the heads of those who are playing that part. I instanced also how typical a part of the soldier's life is the uniform and has always been so from the beginning of the world.

As soon as people in any country set up an army they clothe it in a uniform. That uniform represents something definite and clings people together and makes them useful in doing whatever they are asked to do. I quoted the case of Garibaldi when he set up his Red Shirts about 1860. Having adopted that plan in Sicily, and when they were trained more or less, these men crossed over to Naples, and that was the beginning of the unity of Italy. That was also the case in the Wars of the Roses. The Houses of York and Lancaster adopted special discriminations. Any body of people who adopt uniforms will very soon assume a fighting attitude. Mussolini and his teaching have been brought into fashion here. Some people in Ireland are not sufficiently independent, and they must go to Mussolini to learn some tricks from him. He wanted to march on Rome. He closed up his people, adopted particular signs, and marched on Rome and disbanded the Parliament that then existed in Rome. When we began to establish the Volunteers the first thing we did was to clothe them in a uniform. They were then considered soldiers, and they considered themselves as soldiers, and they clung together for that purpose. That attitude has always been adopted by people who want to upset Governments. People who attempt that do not begin by telling other people "We are out to make you soldiers." They tell them that it would be fashionable to put on a particular colour. After a time they tell them "You are part of the army and you have to come with us," and that is what is going to happen in this country. We have people here who first amused themselves by getting themselves up in blue shirts. It is all part of the same plan. It is a step against democracy. People sometimes talk a lot about democracy, but this kind of action is definitely against democracy.

Long ago in Ireland the landlords used to march their tenants to the polls to vote in a particular way. It was nearly impossible to stop them because the landlords were able to threaten that they would evict the people if they did not do as they were told. The polling used to last for a week. The tenants would march together in bodies, be thrown into stables, and kept there until the decisive moment. Then the landlord brought them out and they were forced to vote as he told them. All that was totally against democracy. The only way it could be stopped was by the institution of the ballot. The ballot was established to enable people to do what they thought right without any forcing influence from other persons. The ballot broke up that system. The bringing back of uniforms means the forcing of people to join in a certain way of life, and not as they wish. The effort is to do away with the influence of the ballot that enables every single person to vote as he likes. Here we are trying to abolish the best traditions that have come down to us. We are on the high road to abolish all this. We are training people to march and to obey orders and very soon we will find another party rising up in the country against that. There will be Yellow Shirts and Blue Shirts and each will be fully equipped with revolvers and rifles when they go to vote at the polls or to public meetings. I have always been against that sort of fighting. As long as we were united in 1913 and 1914 when all were one there was no such thing as Party spirit. In those days there were Parnellites, Redmondites and O'Brienites and all those different people, but when the Volunteers went out together these people who were previously in different organisations came together and said: "We are to-day, all of us, for Ireland." They joined together and there was no such thing as Party feeling. That is what I would like to see established now. I totally object to tying people together by the colour of their shirts, which is bound to set up different camps, and in that way it can only bring harm and disaster to this country.

Miss Browne

The only reason I have for inflicting a speech upon the House at this hour is that I believe, with the exception of Senator Blythe, I am the only Senator who took an active part in the organisation of the Blue Shirts. From the time the movement started I put on a blue shirt and I have great pride in saying that I organised and got into that movement for the service of the country some hundreds of men and women.

This is the most blatantly partisan measure that was ever introduced anywhere. I am glad of that, because it is going to tear the mask of hypocrisy off the Government and their supporters on the Labour Benches. The Government hitherto made a pretence of being impartial and of administering the laws impartially. The hypocrisy has now been dropped and this shameless attempt is made in this Bill to suppress political opponents at any cost. Nothing like this Bill has been seen since medieval times. There has been nothing approaching it in latter day legislation. In medieval times, when kings were supposed to be absolute monarchs, the methods adopted were, of course, totally different from modern times. Something quite new in methods of government is proposed in this Bill. I could give any number of examples. We find something like this is now going on. Instead of punishing the violent and the lawless people who are attacking law-abiding citizens, it is proposed to deprive the latter of their lawful possessions in order that the lawless may not be tempted to attack them.

It is something like this. A policeman comes up to me in the street and he says: "You have got a gold watch. I am sorry I have got to take it from you because there is a thief here who will take it from you if I do not, and I do not want to expose him to that temptation. You will have to give it to me because that thief is a friend of mine." The Government was returned to power to administer the law impartially, but no matter what they may say to the contrary, they have not used the forces of the State to ensure free speech, and free speech would not have been allowed yet if it had not been for the Blue Shirts. This is also the first time, I think, in the history of Legislatures that the word "political" has taken the place of "criminal" or "unlawful." Why? The Blue Shirt organisation is a political organisation. It is part of a great political Party. It is under the control, as we heard already to-day, of the National Executive. It is part of the political Opposition.

The other army which we have heard about from the Minister is an army and he speaks of it as an army. The Blue Shirt movement is not an army. It is an organisation with a distinctive dress, but there is an army—the Irish Republican Army. They call themselves an army. They are not a political Party. They are an armed revolutionary body; a military body whose avowed object is to overthrow the State by force of arms. The fact that the word "political" is in this Bill prevents the Bill from being used against the I.R.A., because they are not a political body. I believe that the word is put into the Bill especially for that purpose. They do not pretend to be a political body so that this Bill cannot be used against them. They are free to go around the country— armed gun bullies, shooting people, burning property and preventing free speech at meetings, but this Bill cannot be used against them. The arrangement is very clever, but it is revolting to the minds of all decent people, even to many people, whom I know, who had been hitherto members of Fianna Fáil. In plain words it is a penal measure, launched by the Government in office against the political Party in Opposition.

This Bill, which strikes at the very root of personal liberty, is supported by the champions of liberty, equality and fraternity. This Bill, which strikes at human liberty, the very first God-given right of the people, is supported by the champions of the working class. Senator Comyn gave expression to an extraordinary statement here to-night. He said something to the effect that the workers had no part in this movement. I forget his exact words, but I think that was his meaning. He said that it was run by people who were not in touch with the working people. I gathered that was what he said and he will contradict me if I am wrong.

Mr. Comyn

I said that they were out of touch with the very poor, the people you say disturb meetings.

Miss Browne

The fact is that, in my part of the country, of 2,000 Blue Shirts, whom I know personally and amongst whom I go three or four times a week to meetings, 80 per cent. are working people. I believe the vast majority of members all over the country are working people. Our main complaint in organising meetings is that people of other classes are not coming into the Blue Shirt movement as they should. They are leaving the useful work, which the Blue Shirts are doing in the country, to the poor people. That is a fact.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to a matter which I think has not been mentioned yet, namely, the social work of the Blue Shirts. Apart from securing order at meetings, we have organised large numbers of social gatherings because we believe they are useful. They bring people together. They give an opportunity to people of knowing each other, and they help to do what many of us always have tried to do—to brighten rural life. I am speaking about rural life; I am not speaking of the towns or cities. The great social work which the Blue Shirt organisation has done and which has never been done in Ireland before is this: It has brought together people of all creeds and classes on a status of equality. I have attended dozens of social gatherings—dances and other social functions—and I have seen the lord and the peasant, the farm labourer and the farmer, the town worker and the business man dancing and amusing themselves together in different ways on a status of perfect equality, without any shadow of patronage or anything of that kind. The ideal of all patriots has been to bring all creeds and classes in Ireland together in a movement to work for the common good of the country. The Blue Shirt movement is the first movement in history that has done that.

Every action of the Blue Shirts and their leaders, every word, every statement is above board. I deny absolutely that there is any secret body in the movement. We make a point of being open in all our actions and, when we are engaged in organising work at meetings, the door is open for anybody who stands outside to hear what we say. When we are enrolling young Blue Shirts the door is open for everybody to see what is being done. There is no secrecy whatever about the organisation. I speak with very intimate knowledge of the Blue Shirt movement from beginning to end, from the time it began to the present moment. The principal plank in the Blue Shirt movement is to combat Communism in this country. We are accused of being Fascists. Ours is not a Fascist movement, though I am not one of those who has any criticism to offer of Fascism. I believe it has done tremendously useful work on the Continent. At the same time I deny that we have any aims in common with that movement because to combat Communism is the principal plank in our organisation.

President de Valera went to great length in the Dáil to prove that there was no Communism in the country. Senator Connolly has said the same thing here. President de Valera quoted, when he was dealing with that matter, a report of two years ago. It would be much more interesting if we had an account of how Communism has prospered in the country since Fianna Fáil came into power. It has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the leaders of the I.R.A. are Communists, that their aim is to establish a Communistic Republic in this country. There is not a shadow of doubt about it. Numbers of young innocent boys, who wanted to render some service to the country, were trapped into the movement without realising what they were doing. Since the Blue Shirt movement has come into being these young boys have realised that they were trapped in joining the I.R.A. and they have left it. Many of them have come into the Blue Shirt movement. I heard the Minister in the Dáil saying: "I know nothing about the I.R.A. except that General O'Duffy says that they are coming into the Blueshirts." He said the I.R.A. were coming into the Blue Shirt movement, but they are not the leaders of the I.R.A. They are the young men who were trapped into the I.R.A. without knowing what it meant and who only discovered what it meant recently. They are leaving it now to come into a patriotic movement like the Blue Shirts.

The blue shirt is not a uniform in the sense that Senator Colonel Moore has stated. It is an identification dress, just the same as a football jersey, and there is an absolute necessity for it. If this Bill were passed and our young men could not go in their blue shirts to a political meeting, every stone that might be thrown, every blow that might be struck, every word that might be raised to shout down the speakers, every action of lawless men, would be attributed to the Blue Shirts, but as long as the shirt is on them that cannot be done. That is one of the reasons why we have this Bill before us. Another reason is the extraordinary success of the movement. It is becoming positively embarrassing to people like myself who have done a good deal of organising work. Every post that comes in brings letters begging me to go and organise the women, to give them a chance of getting into the movement. I have a dozen meetings awaiting me which I cannot find time to attend but which I should certainly like very much to attend. This extraordinary success of the movement is due to the fact that people are beginning to recognise that it is a patriotic movement and that its social work is very valuable to the country. I only wish that I were like Boyle Roche's bird and that I could be in two places at the same time, so that I would be able to do double the organising work at these meetings.

Senator Comyn put forward the most extraordinary argument yet urged against the Blue Shirts when he said he objected to them because they are a disciplined body and under control. Does he want them to be like the I.R.A., free lances through the country, with guns under nobody's control? The Blue Shirts are under the control of the National Executive and not one single crime can be attributed to them. The self-control of the Blue Shirts is one of the marvels of the country because hitherto we have been inclined to be a lawless people. The extent to which they are under control is a marvel. Out of 2,000 Blue Shirts, which I mentioned as familiarly known to me, three have been cashiered out of the movement for breaches of discipline. Any man who commits a breach of discipline or who will not obey the orders of those in control, will be told to get out at once. Is it not better to have a disciplined movement than to have young men going around the country in the lawless fashion to which we have been accustomed? Should not every right-minded person be proud to have a disciplined body in this country whose object is unity and peace and not war, not civil war above all?

This bogey of civil war has been nearly run to death. We have had it here from several speakers. Why should a body whose victory by constitutional means is absolutely assured want civil war? The leaders of the movement are all experienced soldiers. They have been soldiers both in guerrilla warfare and in the regular army. They know perfectly well that a rebellion would be a failure in this country, even if they thought of such a thing. Mr. de Valera's rebellion against the people was a failure and every rebellion against the authority of the people here will be a failure. There is no such thing as an idea of civil war amongst the Blue Shirts. It would not be tolerated amongst them. It takes two to make a fight and the Blue Shirts are not going to be one of them in any civil war again. Their aim is not war. Their aim is peace and unity. I believe that if this movement goes on it will eventually bring about the unity of the whole country. That object is foremost in the programme of the Blue Shirts. We see from the Estimates that have been placed in our hands that a very large amount of money is to be devoted to secret service. Whom are the spies going to spy upon? The C.I.D. or any other people employed to spy by the Government are free to come in and hear everything that we do. The door is open. Everything is above board.

The Blue Shirt movement is a great spontaneous movement of the people. It is an uprising of the people against the tyranny, the incompetence and the humbug that we have been treated to for the last two years. It means to put an end to that, but not in a warlike way. The Blue Shirts are under leaders who control them perfectly. The number of leaders that we have could not, in the ordinary way, have of themselves brought that great movement to the point that it now numbers, in or about 140,000 men and women. These men and women have risen up themselves, and I say again that their object is to secure order, peace and discipline in the country. If any of us had the least idea that civil war was in the backs of their heads then we would not tolerate it for one moment. I am proud of the work that I have been able to do for the Blue Shirts. I believe it is a patriotic work and I shall continue to do it. This Bill, I believe, is directed solely against the political opponents of the Government. All the talk about civil war that we have heard from the Minister and others is simply an excuse to put down a political Party. I hope that the Seanad which now, I believe, represents a majority in the country will not allow this piece of legislation to go on the Statute Book.

Mr. Duffy

As a member of the Labour movement and representing the workers of this country I am under no delusions whatever as to the necessity for this Bill. I hold that view in spite of what Senator Miss Browne has said. Two years ago we heard a number of speeches from the other side of the House as to the necessity for a Coercion Bill against the so-called menace of Communism that was supposed to exist then. Some of us pooh-poohed the idea of there being any danger of a Communistic character in the country. Our opinion is now borne out by the reports recently made available of the then Commissioner of the Police, reports which were in the possession of the Government at the time that Coercion Bill was introduced. We are quite satisfied that at the moment the menace of the Blue Shirts is undoubtedly a grave danger to democracy. We know that the methods adopted in the various organisations under the control of General O'Duffy imitate, in almost every word both in their constitutions and actions, those undemocratic organisations on the Continent which have succeeded in abolishing every vestige of democratic right in Italy, Austria and Germany.

The method of approach to the ordinary people of this country has been exactly similar to that followed on the Continent. In Germany the workers were told that it was a great Nationalist and Socialist movement: that it was for the good of the working classes, that it was to improve their conditions, but what is the position of the workers in Germany to-day? Every vestige of right that they ever possessed as democrats has been wiped away, every shilling collected from them over very many years and the sums of money they had accumulated in their funds, have been seized by the Hitlerite Government as well as every paper they possessed, premises which they possessed and schools and colleges which they had built out of their contributions. The same thing has happened in Italy, and we have seen that the same thing has taken place in Austria within the last fortnight.

I will. It continues:

"If there were any of the new police present they could take that message back to the Minister for Justice and he could have him before the Military Tribunal."

Mr. Milroy

On a point of explanation. The Senator must know that that is a brief summary of the statement of Deputy Belton. He must know also that the statement which is a summary was that the annuities had been already paid by the farmers through the medium of tariffs.

Mr. Quirke

I think I have given the reader of "Gulliver's Travels" and Deputy Belton a fair show. I did not try to quote a piece of the speech without giving the full text. I am sure if I had read it without quoting the Irish Independent I would probably be accused of quoting from the Irish Press. Lest there be any mistake I will also quote from the Irish Press of the same date. The report is headed “Payment of Rates and Annuities.” It says:

"So long as John Bull was taking £5,000,000 of the Irish farmers' money to compensate himself for the non-payment of land annuities it was his opinion that there was no moral liability on the farmers of this country to pay rates or annuities."

Mr. Milroy

That is another story.

Mr. Quirke

But it does not take away from the fact that Deputy Belton has been disbanded from the U.I.P., as he was from various other parties, or else he is a responsible member of the U.I.P. and was preaching the policy of the U.I.P. to the farmers of South Tipperary. If that is not an incitement to disorder I would like to know what it is. Of course, we will probably have Deputy Belton, Senator Milroy or some of the others coming along to reply one of these days. Perhaps they will get Deputy Belton to contradict what he said a few days ago. Perhaps he will get a dose of the medicine that is dished out to some of the other leaders of the U.I.P., who have got to be experts at swallowing what they said the previous week, or even what they said the day before. I say definitely that it is the same campaign that was carried on by the U.I.P. in connection with the rates in South Tipperary and in several other counties.

Having more or less fallen down with regard to the "No rates campaign," when they saw that the Government was not going to be bullied by such tactics, I have sufficient confidence in the Government to believe that they will handle the situation with regard to the annuities just as well, and that before very long we will have outlying branches of the far flung people of the U.I.P. passing resolutions that they have come to the conclusion that there is no use in further resistance and deciding to pay the annuities. As a matter of fact I believe that a great percentage of the land annuities is in already and if the truth were known many of the people who were cheering Deputy Belton in Golden under the banner of St. Patrick had paid their land annuities and their rates and more power to them.

We have had considerable discussion as to what was the real object for which the Blue Shirts were started. We had various speakers in the Opposition going great rounds to prove that the organisation was started for this, that and the other purpose. I was foolish enough to believe that there were amongst the Independents in the Opposition some people who were really non-political. I took these people at their word and I took it for granted that they were really not tied to any political party. To-day we have had definite indication of the mentality of these people and as to where their interests lie. While Senator O'Neill brought us back to the days of faction fights, I listened attentively. I expected him to develop the argument to show that not alone was there an attempt being made by supporting the Blue Shirt organisation to bring us back to the days of the faction fights, but that the very people who sat back and laughed at faction fights in the past, were now ready to travel long distances and to come here to vote for this Bill, to protect the Blue Shirts from the Government elected by the majority of the people. At the same time they were ready to finance the Blue Shirt organisation by generous subscriptions in order to bring us back again to the period of faction fighting, when they sat back enjoying the fact that the Irish were fighting between themselves. Why cannot members of the Opposition examine the situation as it presents itself to any sensible individual? Is it not a fact that the Blue Shirt organisation or the A.C.A., as it was known previously, was formed definitely, not to ensure freedom of speech, but to ensure, as far as they could, that no such thing would happen as the leaders of the Opposition said would happen, that is, that their pensions would be interfered with by a Fianna Fáil Government? They were told by leaders and by ex-Ministers of Cumann na nGaedheal that if Fianna Fáil got into power they would see what would be done to them. These men got into the A.C.A., now known as the Blue Shirts for the purpose of protecting themselves. Later on they were made tools of by the leaders of the then Cumann na nGaedheal organisation. These went round and preached a "No rates campaign" through the country.

When some level headed farmers asked them: "What are we going to do if the Government takes a strong hand, or if the sheriff comes along?", they told the farmers: "We will look after that. We are organised in the A.C.A., and we will guarantee that no Fianna Fáil Government will be able to insist on the collection of rates." They told the people the same thing about the land annuities, with the result that they got the ex-Unionists, who were fooled into the belief that the land was going to be confiscated, into their organisation. They got their financial support on the understanding that the Blue Shirts were there to defend them against the elected representatives of the people. That was what the Blue Shirt organisation was started for. Why cannot responsible members of the Opposition, who are tired telling us they are non-political and independent, examine the position and accept facts? Other people were dragged into the blue net with the idea that they were coming in to put down Communism. They were told by leaders of the Opposition that there were many Communists here and there, although it was proved beyond a shadow of doubt, and on the highest authority in the land—by ecclesiastical authorities and civil authorities— that there were not sufficient Communists to cause any unrest whatever in this country. If, for argument's sake, there was Communism, is it suggested that the Blue Shirt organisation would be any remedy? Admittedly the Blue Shirt organisation is a Fascist organisation. Many people who join a Fascist organisation in order to put down Communism do not know what Communism means. What is Communism? What is Bolshevism? Bolshevism is Communistic dictatorship; Fascism is conservative dictatorship. Does anybody believe that a conservative dictatorship is a remedy or an alternative to Communistic dictatorship? I say without fear of contradiction that the spirit of democracy is too strong amongst the people of this country to stand for any kind of dictatorship. When the time comes they will let members of the U.I.P., the Blue Shirts and the rest know in definite terms what their idea of dictatorship is, no matter what colour its flag may be. We have been told by different speakers what a great thing the Blue Shirt organisation is, how far it has gone to do away with past bitterness, to unite every section, and to bring them all on the same level. I felt sorry for Senator Miss Browne when she said that she had considerable difficulty in getting certain people into the organisation.

Miss Browne

On a point of explanation, I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. Quirke

I am very sorry Senator Miss Browne found that difficulty, but I understand the same difficulty exists all over the country.

Miss Browne

Will the Senator withdraw that because it is not true? He is misrepresenting me.

Cathaoirleach

If Senator Miss Browne says that she did not state that she had difficulty in getting people into the organisation, the Senator must accept that.

Miss Browne

I said that I had not time to go to all the meetings of people who were clamouring to get into the organisation.

Cathaoirleach

I am sure Senator Quirke will accept that.

Mr. Quirke

Until Senator Miss Browne has time to look up the records, I accept it. But I shall not take back the statement that down in South Tipperary, at least, the same difficulty exists that, I am told, exists in other places. Certain sections of the people do not seem to agree with this policy of "We are all the same crowd." They dance a couple of nights a week down our part of the country and the dance halls are not very big. It is not possible for people to keep away from the riff-raff. They find considerable difficulty because the halls are too small. While they may be able to get these people in as honorary members, they cannot get them into the organisation proper and they cannot get that very desirable state of affairs in which we would be all on the same level. With regard to the statement that the Blue Shirt organisation was organised to put down Communism, I say that if this Blue Shirt organisation, which is Fascism unadulterated, did by any chance succeed, it would have the effect it had in Italy of driving the workers over to Communism. During the rise of Fascism in Italy the workers were driven over to Communism, with the result that, between two elections, the number of Communist Deputies elected in Italy increased almost two-fold. The result would be the same in this country. I am glad to see that the representatives of Labour are not blind to the consequences which would naturally accrue if, by any chance, this Fascist move ment should get ahead. I support the Bill in the belief that it will be welcomed by the majority of the people and not merely by the followers and supporters of Fianna Fáil, as suggested by the Opposition. It will be welcomed by many of the people who have been within the past month or two cheering Senator Miss Browne and company on their tour through South Tipperary.

If and when this Bill becomes law, it will give an opportunity to many of those unfortunate farmers who were fooled into this organisation in the belief that it was really a political organisation to get out of the blue net in which they are being dragged into a fight which they never foresaw. It will give them a chance to get out of the position of a fighting cock that is being brought along under the owner's arm and dumped into the pit to fight whether it likes to do so or not. It will be welcomed by the agricultural workers, many of whom were forced to put on blue shirts to hold their jobs. It will be welcomed by their wives and children, who are ashamed to see their breadwinners wear the uniform of any such party as a Fascist party in this country. It will be welcomed by every honest-minded Irishman and Irishwoman, and I believe that this debate will be remembered by the long-absent members of the Opposition as the last round-up of the United Ireland Party.

Mr. Johnson

Senator Douglas opened his speech by expressing a certain regret that he had voted for the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill. Because of that regret, or in harmony with that regret, he said he was opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. I am supporting the Second Reading of this Bill though I opposed the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill. I should be very glad to support a Bill repealing the 17th amendment, but the difference between the position to-day and the position before the passing of that Bill is this: when there arises an organised, disciplined, uniformed, political body, in my opinion, democratic, parliamentary representation is killed. There is no compatibility between democratic, parliamentary representation and organised, disciplined, uniformed political parties. Free discussion ceases when you have bodies, the members of which are bound by pledge to obey their officers, organised in battalions or companies of a military type. Both Senator Crosbie and Senator Douglas stated that the position in the Free State was not analogous to the position in Germany or in Italy. Senator Douglas made a reference to this being a purely Irish movement, not promoted from outside. I should like to remind the Senator that the Nazi movement was not promoted from Italy——

Mr. Douglas

On a point of correction, I said that the action taken in certain countries referred to by the Minister—Belgium and Holland—was not analogous. I did not make any reference to the two countries where this movement has spread.

Mr. Johnson

Senator Crosbie certainly said that they were not analogous but I assert that the position of the movement here is analogous both to that of Italy and of Germany. The whole spirit of the movement, the method of organisation, the method of approach, the atmosphere they are creating and the circumstances surrounding the development of the movement here are identical with the circumstances surrounding the rise of the Nazi movement in Germany and the Fascist movement in Italy. A good deal is said about the object of this movement being to combat Communism. Senator Miss Browne has left the Chamber, but not very long ago she was saying what many people have asserted in this House, that the present Government was a Communist Government and that the legislation that was being introduced was Communistic legislation. A leading man in that Party spoke of the "veiled Communism" of the present Government. We are finding, day by day, a growing volume of suggestion that the body of legislation which this Government is introducing and the Oireachtas is passing is tending towards a Communist State. There is a certain fear abroad that the Government will he introducing still more radical social legislation. These people want to create the impression throughout the country that this is Communistic legislation. It is said, for instance, that the Government are being prompted by the I.R.A.; that they are at the direction of the I.R.A.; that they are introducing legislation on the prompting of that body. And, of course, they say the I.R.A. is a Communist organisation. Right up and down the country that atmosphere is being created. On the other hand, we have Senator Miss Browne, Senator Blythe, General O'Duffy and the others asserting that the prime object of the League of Youth is to destroy Communism. That is the atmosphere that is being created: the Government is Communistic; we are out to destroy Communism. How are they going to destroy it? How are they going to oppose it? We are told how democratic the League of Youth is. Yet, the leader, General O'Duffy, stated:

"We do not believe that the establishment of a Communist régime could be validated by any Constitutional process or by any majority of votes. In short, the attitude of the National Guard towards Communism and all it stands for is aggressive. We will not have it."

It is not going to wait until a Communist organisation or a Communist State is established. It is going to be aggressive against that thing which they pretend is Communism. They are trying to create a state of mind which suggests that there is a Communist movement, that a Communist Party is in office, and they are going to be aggressive and will not have it no matter what majority stands for it. How are they doing it? They organised the National Guard and they have altered the name of the National Guard to the League of Youth. The National Guard was formed last year and declared at first that it would not be allied with any political party but it might, in certain circumstances, develop into a political party. Then, developments occurred and it changed its name. It became an integral part of the United Ireland Party. Of course, the League of Youth, as Senator Miss Browne has told us, is under the direction of the National Executive of the United Ireland Party. Therefore, it is purely constitutional and everything is all right. But the United Ireland Party has as its head and leader, General O'Duffy. The League of Youth, an integral part of the United Ireland Party, has as its Director-General, General O'Duffy, and the League of Youth is declared to be the active element in the United Ireland Party. It is to be the driving force and the dominant part of the United Ireland Party. The youths of 40, 50 and 60 years of the League of Youth, as Senator O'Duffy said—most of whom have had military experience and, not only military experience but conspiratorial experience—are pledged to act under the direction of their officers. Bear in mind the constitution of the League of Youth and the constitution of the National Guard. There has been a revision of the constitution of these two bodies. What was the method of revision? There is no longer a divisional organisation. The titles of some of the staff are altered. Senator Miss Browne contradicted Senator Comyn when he made some reference to military terms. I think he spoke of majors and she said there were no such military titles in the organisation. If Senator Miss Browne will refer to United Ireland of March 3rd she will read this:

"The officers of a unit are the Captain, the Vice-Captain, Secretary, Treasurer and Reporting Secretary. The Captain has full responsibility for the success of the unit and it is his duty to supervise the work of the other officers and to consult them regularly in regard. to the affairs of the Company."

Now right through the revised constitution we find that while, in the old organisation—the National Guard —the unit was the company, in the new organisation, except for that one paragraph, the unit is the unit and the word "company" is dropped out. But there is still the pledge of obedience which every member of the League of Youth must take and the organisation is such as Senator Comyn pointed out, that the Director-General appoints his immediate subordinates; these appoint their subordinates; and again these appoint their still lower subordinates and in that respect authority is derived from the officer above. There is one election in the year. It is pointed out that the League of Youth is a disciplined organisation in which authority is vested in the officers appointed from above and throughout each the principle of individual responsibility is strictly preserved.

"The Director-General appoints the central staff and the county directors who make up the Central Council which between meetings of the annual Convention is the governing body of the League. All members of the central staff and the county directors are individually responsible to the Director-General in everything relating to the discharge of their duty as officers. Each county director appoints the district directors in all districts under his charge and they are responsible to him. No appointment of district director becomes permanent until confirmed by, or on behalf of, the Director-General. And so on right down through the gradation."

It must be clearly understood therefore that the only right of election in the League of Youth is that of the Annual Convention consisting of the Central Council and district staffs and of unit captains to elect a Director-General. There is therefore one annual election. But who are the constituents? The constituents that are to appoint the Director-General at the annual Convention are the persons appointed by the Director-General. That is the scheme which rules what we are told was the democratic organisation known as the League of Youth. I do not know whether any supporters of the organisation are prepared to assert that it not only changed in name but that it has changed the object and spirit and purpose of the National Guard. Assuming what I think I have a right to assume that the National Guard in spirit, intention and purpose still exists under the name of the League of Youth with that slightly modified scheme of organisation.

Now what was the purpose of the National Guard? It is quite clearly enunciated in a document issued by the organisation at the time, and here one comes very closely not only to the Fascist movement, but the Nazi movement. Liberalism, of course, is out of date. Liberal ideas in politics, economics, and social life is something that is anathema. As a democratic system at any rate, they must be destroyed or superseded. I will not say destroyed because that might be an exaggeration, but superseded. Parliamentary democracy has fulfilled its work; it is out of date; it is no longer suited to this country. That is a fair paraphrase of the statement made by General O'Duffy on behalf of the National Guard. He is not renouncing them although the name is changed. We were told on August 12th with regard to the Blue Shirts:

"That it is the duty of the State to assist in the organisation of the various economic groups and interests of the community for the purpose of collective bargaining, for the purpose of internal self-discipline and for the purpose of helping to bring the political institutions of the State into harmony with the realities of national life rather than the whims and vagaries of the electorate viewed as an aggregation of street mobs. Not only does the National Guard, in accord with its conception of national comradeship, think the State should assist in the organisation of economic groups, but it believes that the State should fix the constitution of the various unions and federations and take care that they are controlled by men of good character, public spirit and sound national views."

And they are to be the judges of the character and the spirit and national views. That is identical with what has happened in Germany, in Italy and only a fortnight ago in Austria. I quote from the Manchester Guardian special correspondent referring to the new labour unions:—

"The Members of the Executive are appointed by the Minister for Social Welfare, who is a Heimwehr Member."

So it is in Italy; so it is in Germany. These union organisations and vocational organisations are to take the place of the trade unions and are to be appointed in accordance with the desire of the Ministry, to be commissioned by people appointed by the Ministry, and to conform, in every way with the plans and directions of the Minister. That is what we are protesting against. I do not want it to be taken that I am utterly opposed to the idea of vocational organisation. Senator Blythe, at least knows that what is talked about as vocational organisation is nothing new either to Italy or Germany or Austria or to the Blue Shirt movement. Such sentences as these might be taken out of a speech by Senator Blythe or by General O'Duffy:

"The socialist thinker when he paints the structural form of the new social order does not imagine an industrial system directed or ruled by a body of men or women elected from an indiscriminate mass of residents within given districts, said residents working at a heterogeneous collection of trades and industries. To give the ruling, controlling, and directing of industry into the hands of such a body would be too utterly foolish."

And again this other quotation is very like what appeared in the propaganda of the corporate institution:

I have been here for 42 years. I know that the elements that created the movement which led to the rising of 1916 are quite capable of turning the League of Youth into an armed organisation without very much difficulty but I do not mind whether they are armed or not. That is not the point I am making. I am making this point: that the scheme of the organisation, the spirit of the organisation, removes it entirely from the field of democratic representative government and places it in the field of organised disciplined bodies against organised disciplined bodies and that means war at some time or other. I think that consciously or unconsciously the activities of the movement are undoubtedly going to follow the course of similar movements on the Continent, and for that reason some attempt ought to be made to stop them in the early stages. The best way to stop them is to turn them into ordinary political activities giving them the fullest and the greatest possible protection. I think the claim that this great movement that is talked about is solely dependent for success on the wearing by the members of a blue shirt proves that it is not anything but a disciplined body, out for some aggressive action against normal democratic institutions.

Mr. Quirke

Therefore, you stand for the same policy.

Mr. Blythe

Probably I do, if I saw what was said. I should like to know what was said precisely. I do not stand for urging people not to pay their land annuities, and I do not stand for urging people not to pay their rates. That is explicit enough. There was talk by the Minister for Lands and Fisheries about the formation of corresponding armies which would deal with the Blue Shirts. What were the Blue Shirts to be dealt with for? What was that threat thrown out for? If they are doing anything illegal they can be prosecuted. They have offered no resistance to the police in any circumstances. I think the Minister might have forborne uttering these threats of some sort of private vengeance, or whatever it means, when he talked of the formation of some sort of other armies to deal with the Blue Shirts. The history of the Blue Shirts organisation is within the knowledge of all Senators. They know very well that but for the formation of the Blue Shirts it would have been impossible for the Opposition to have held meetings in any part of the country. There was an organised campaign of interruption, not merely interruption in the nature of heckling, but interruption which aimed at breaking up meetings and making it impossible for speakers to be heard. That was the old policy of the Government's followers. It has continued that for a long time. Even when Deputy Cosgrave's Government was in office there were in many parts of the country organised and sustained attempts made to prevent meetings being held. I venture to say that not only did that increase after Fianna Fáil came into power, but it was encouraged by the Government. Whether they meant to encourage it or not—and they may deny it—all their acts and words encouraged interruption at Opposition meetings, and there was an incitement to interrupt these meetings.

A statement was quoted by Senator MacLoughlin and it could have only one aim, if the people who made it thought anything about the matter, and that was to make it impossible for the Opposition to carry on political activities, as they were entitled to carry them on. I know that the Irish Press, the policy of which is controlled by the President, definitely set out to magnify every incident for the purpose of blooding people to go and interrupt meetings. The need for the A.C.A. was there as a result of the direct action and of the direct incitement and the irresponsibility of the Ministers who talked of clearing this accursed crowd out of their path and so on. They knew the material they were dealing with. I believe if they took any steps during a period of four or five months to deal with the campaign of attack and the campaign of interruptions, there would not be any need for the formation of the A.C.A. Instead of that they spoke as if those opposed to them were seditious and traitors to the country and they stirred up this mob. After the National Guard had been suppressed General O'Duffy, at Cootehill, made an offer to the Government which was not accepted, but was ignored. He made the offer that if the Government would deal with the I.R.A. position he would undertake that no Blue Shirts would be worn again. Instead of doing that, the Government extended its toleration to the I.R.A., just as the President, in the Dáil, talked about the fault in the constitution of the House, words which I think were deliberately calculated to be at least pleasant to the I.R.A., for fear the I.R.A. would withdraw their support from the Government. Having refused to do that, the Government went to the extreme length of attacking the Blue Shirt movement and interfering with it.

When a Bill like this comes before the House asking for powers for the Government, we are entitled to see how the Government has used the powers it has in its hands at present. The Constitution (Amendment) (No. 17) Act is a drastic Act. Drastic as it is, it was not sufficient and the Government was obliged to strain and to prostitute it by putting their Cabinet seal to a deliberate lie under that Act. Section 19 (1) sets out the various facts that will make an association an unlawful one and Section 2 enables the Government to declare certain associations unlawful and forces the courts to accept that certificate of the Government. The National Guard, which was suppressed, and the Young Ireland Association, which was suppressed, did not come within the requirements of Section 19 (1), so this Government, with all these drastic powers, strained and prostituted it and put the Cabinet seal to a deliberate lie in order to attack political opponents. I think a Government with such drastic powers which behaves in that way is not entitled to get more drastic powers from the Seanad.

I may say that people urged at the passing of the Constitution (Amendment) Act that it was dangerous to put these powers into the hands of a succeeding Government. It was pretty obvious at that time, in 1931, that there would be an election in 1932 and that the time was not far off when a Fianna Fáil Government would be in power. I remember people telling me that the Public Safety Act was a dangerous power to put into the hands of a Fianna Fáil Government. I stated then that I was confident that any group which got into power, and was burdened with the responsibility of government would act up to its responsibility, and would try to behave impartially and fairly between various sections of the people. We find that this Government has not done that. They may try to justify their attitude. I suppose there has been an attempt to justify it by the statement that the Blue Shirts were provocative, and that the Government were bound to do things because the Blue Shirts were provocative. I believe these attacks on the Blue Shirts are due to the attacks made by the Government, and that the people who are wearing blue shirts are doing a perfectly lawful thing, just as I believe that the interruptions and rows before the Blue Shirts were there, which we had at Cork, Kilmallock, Mallow, Ennis, and other places, were brought about by the irresponsible talk on the part of the Government.

Whatever provocation attaches to the Blue Shirts is due solely to the propaganda of the Government against them. If the Government had recognised that people wearing blue shirts were doing a perfectly lawful thing, which they were entitled to do, and if they had not in Press and platform made attacks on them, attacks by the mob would not be stirred up. It is easy to stir up a certain section of the people. I believe the Government has done that. In so far as there is any provocation by Blue Shirts, it has been artificially produced by Government propaganda. The Minister in his opening statement said he had never seen a report of a Blue Shirt meeting at which there were no incidents. The Minister must know that is not so. I have only been at a small fraction of these meetings but most of them have been peaceful. Those at which there were incidents were in the minority. I was at two meetings on St. Patrick's Day and I marched through Naas and Baltinglass and there was no incident at either place. At the great majority of the meetings no attacks were made. Where there were attacks the ground was generally prepared by Government incitement, or deliberately organised by somebody who does not like to see the progress that this organisation continues to make.

There was talk about military titles and the suggestion was made that anything in the nature of a uniform produced a military atmosphere. There are no military titles. The title "captain" is used, but there are captains of football teams and of boat clubs, in fact all sorts of captains. It is absurd to refer to the title "captain" as being a military title. As to the talk of uniform producing a military spirit, I am sure Senator Colonel Moore knows very well that that cannot be so. There are all sorts of uniforms, from the ordinary garb of the clergyman, which do not produce anything in the way of a military spirit. It is a fantastic suggestion. No charge has been made and sustained against the Blue Shirts, except that the Government does not like them, and that the left wing supporters or half-supporters of the Government do not like them. That is certainly no reason. The President made a speech in the Dáil suggesting that if the Blue Shirts were abandoned he would take steps to maintain order. He did not take steps up to the present. He did not take the obvious steps. Sending out the police or the military are not the obvious steps. The obvious steps would be for him and the Ministers to try to exercise on their followers influence in favour of reason and toleration and to avoid imputing treachery in the country to those in opposition, to recognise that the members of the Opposition are as much entitled to their views on national policy as the Government is to its views. If he begins there, and if that had been done earlier, he would not have been faced with this problem. It is not now a question which has become a purely political question. The blue shirt was adopted in order more effectively to secure the right of free speech at meetings. As it has proved a political asset the Government is very anxious we should abandon it. There is no reason why we should oblige the Government.

Some explanation must be put forward, but there is no use in trying to bring forward the bogey of civil war. There is no danger whatever of civil war. No one knows that better than the Government, unless they take steps to produce it. There is no truth in the suggestion that the mere wearing of some distinctive mark by members of a political organisation destroys the basis of political democracy. You might as well suggest that a trades union badge, or any mark of that sort, destroys a political democracy. People are not changed in their nature by the wearing of a distinctive mark. They are not removed from the possibility of changing and they are not removed from consideration for their neighbours. Nothing is done in the organisation of the Blue Shirts that weakens the democratic position in this country. While I would not say that no member of the Blue Shirts has ever done anything he should not have done, as it is impossible in an organisation not to have some fault committed by some member or by some group of members from time to time, I say that they have never gone out as an organised group to prevent a political meeting being held by their opponents. There is a marked difference between the behaviour of those in the League of Youth and the behaviour of those opposed to them, the supporters of the present Government. There is just one way in which the Government could deal with this question, and it is the right way, and that is to make free speech absolutely secure. If they wanted to take away the "jizz" and the force behind the Blue Shirt movement, they would have to so arrange the work of the police, and so influence their followers, that there would be obviously no danger at all to freedom of speech. I could go on a lot longer but I shall not occupy the time of the Seanad. I shall just say this—that the policy of the Government has not tended to make their police measures as effective as they ought to have been. They have sprayed a large measure of demoralisation through the police force by the policy of victimising the men who do their duty and making a large number of men afraid to do their duty where supporters of the Government are concerned. Therefore, they should pursue a new policy in that regard if they want to show everybody, as they seem to want to do, that there is no need for the Blue Shirt organisation.

Sir John Keane rose.

Cathaoirleach

I understand that a desire has been expressed from all sides of the House that the debate should conclude to-night.

Sir John Keane

I think that in an important debate like this, an Independent member who feels his responsibility very keenly should be allowed to explain his position with the utmost brevity. I rise, merely because I feel very acutely my responsibility-in this matter. I feel it particularly acutely after the speech delivered by Senator Comyn. Senator Comyn began by saying that he hoped to be persuasive and he ended by practically making threats. He said that, if we threw out this Bill, we should be promoting civil war and the responsibility would be on our heads.

Mr. Comyn

I repudiated any intention of making a threat but, from my past experience, I prophesied a certain thing. I also said that I would have nothing to do with it myself.

Sir John Keane

Senator Comyn left the impression of a threat upon me. He said that the war would be a social war, a war directed against the social order—whatever he may have meant by that. After a speech like that, the responsibility on Senators to state the reasons why they are supporting this measure is immensely greater. I had considerable notes prepared but I am going to be very brief, indeed. It is very difficult in this country to get away from party feeling. There is I admit, a very great danger of being borne along simply by party pressure to the ticket vote. I have resisted that to the very best of my ability as I already had a warning from my action two years ago on the Public Safety Bill. I never liked my action on the Public Safety Bill. If I had to make the same choice again, I very much doubt whether I would support that Bill. I supported it then largely because I knew that, in a few months, there would be a general election and the people could reverse that policy if they so desired. The Government was reversed but the policy was continued. Presumably, the country does approve of legislation of that kind. The Labour Party has also changed its mind and has voted for legislation of that kind.

What I am chiefly concerned with in this matter is the record of this House. I do feel strongly that the independent Senators should be able to resist the charge that they are drawn at the heel of any party. I think that they are able to do so in this case. This legislation is unprecedented. It is applying penal measures to a political party. It is applying penal measures to a party merely on account of the colours it supports. If the country wants that, well and good, but I think that before we pass legislation of that kind, the country should be asked for its opinion. It is within the power of the Government to ascertain the opinion of the country. The Government have three measures of importance on which they can go to the country—the Bill extending the local government franchise, the Bill limiting the powers of this House and this Bill, if it be rejected. If the Government feel so strongly on this measure and if they think that the country is behind them, they can dissolve and go to the country to-morrow. I think it is for this House to give them the opportunity to do so.

Mr. MacEllin

You have had two elections.

Mr. Milroy

Another one will not do any harm.

Sir John Keane

The Government asks us to give them powers, which are unprecedented, to oppress a political party. I am not going to make charges as to why they are applying penal measures against a political party. But this is unprecedented legislation and would bring a political party under proscription by Act of Parliament. I think that the verdict of the country should be obtained before that is done.

A word about the attitude of Senator Johnson. He calls himself a democrat. He is a democrat so long as he gets his own way. If the people want a revolution to the right, which they have a perfect right to demand, he is not a democrat. But as long as the revolution goes to the left, he is satisfied. My idea of democracy is that the people should have a right to say what they want. Heaven forbid that they should want a dictatorship but, if they say they want it, they have a right to have it. Further, I say that every political party has the right to have any domestic organisation it wishes.

Mr. MacEllin rose.

Mr. MacLoughlin

There was an arrangement made between Senator Robinson and myself that, after Senator Blythe had spoken, the President would speak and the debate would then conclude.

Cathaoirleach

I understood that there was some such arrangement.

Mr. MacEllin

I shall only deal with one point and I shall not break any arrangement. Senator Sir John Keane talked about a general election. Senator Milroy proceeded on the same lines. Now, there are counties along the western seaboard which four ex-Ministers represent—South Mayo, Galway and Kerry. Will these four ex-Ministers resign and see what the result will be in four of the poorest counties in Ireland? That test ought to be accepted. You have got two decisions already at general elections and, surely to goodness, if you are ever going to accept majority rule, a decision twice given ought to be sufficient.

"That is, I was going to say, latent in both these creeds but I would say it is not only latent but blatant, for this reason, that both alike believe in force as the means by which they can get their way and set up their dictatorship. They further believe, as you have seen, in contending that, having got into power—and it does not matter for the argument whether it be Communistic or Fascist—all free opinion, all opinion that does not agree with them, must be suppressed and suppressed by force."

Now, that is a statement of somebody of whom it cannot be suggested that he is an Irish politician having some vindictive spleen to exude upon his political opponents. That very self same fear is here in the minds of the majority of the people in this country. It is a fear that an organisation of this kind may be built up to such an extent that although it is only a minority it can, by its discipline and force command and subject the majority. If that is their opinion liberty is going to be destroyed in this country. There is one cause for which most Irishmen would be willing to give up their lives, and I am one of them. There is no cause for which I would be more willing to give up my life than the preservation of the rights of individual citizens in this country and there are men of my feeling right through the country, and every one of those who feels like that is determined that he will not stand idly by and see this menace occur in our midst. That is what we have to look at. Of course we are told there is nothing in this. Senators would say there is nothing in this but a simple shirt. Recently that same thing was suggested in Britain and this time a Liberal statesman there pointed out what the meaning, as it seemed to Liberal opinion in Britain, was. He said:—

"As we see on the Continent, a black shirt soon adds to itself a military tunic; the tunic is incomplete without a Sam Browne belt and it is not long before the belt attracts an automatic pistol."

That is the sort of process that the average person in this country who has no political vindictiveness tells us is behind this movement. He sees that in the movement, particularly because there are at its head such people as Senator Blythe and General O'Duffy.

Now, Senator Blythe talked to-night as if he believed he was the champion of democratic right and as if those people never did anything but in accordance with democratic principles. He forgot that he and General O'Duffy have already accomplished a coup d'état. We had to go to the courts as an Executive, face their decision and submit to them where we thought they would help us to maintain law and order. On a former occasion when these gentlemen were an Executive their answer to a habeas corpus of the courts was to suppress the courts. And when the Dáil was due to assemble they prevented its assembly and kept it from assembling until such time as they had their civil war well under way and felt that they had conquered by their arms. As I said, under any circumstances there would be suspicion of a movement like this. If there was any person not inclined to be suspicious his suspicions would be aroused by the statements made by General O'Duffy at an earlier stage of the movement. The changes that have come in the movement since are changes by which they might be able to advance more easily under the shelter of law and order until they could snap their fingers at any section of the community that might want to resist them. I have spoken of the statements made at the beginning. We had, the other day, a former Attorney-General speaking in the Dáil and this is the comparison he makes. He says: “the Blackshirts were victorious in Italy, the Hitler shirts were victorious in Germany and assuredly, in spite of this Bill and in spite of the Public Safety Act, the Blue Shirts will be victorious in the Free State.” In other words, the same type of process is indicated here as their objective as was successful in other countries.

I will tell the Senator why not. Because if we did we would not be able to maintain order at the present time. Every Senator here knows that, and that if we had Blue Shirts going about the country we could not maintain order. We had two expressions of regret from Senators that they gave a former Executive this power. I do not know how many others there may be who feel regret. Two were brought to my notice—Senator Douglas is one and we have Senator Sir John Keane also expressing the same opinion. Listen to what one of the judges said to-day about this thing, which you passed and passed without any hesitation. You passed it after a speech delivered in the Dáil by Senator Blythe which would make any decent man's blood curdle. One of the judges in delivering his judgment to-day said:—

"Undoubtedly this Tribunal has great powers, especially in respect of sentence within its jurisdiction— powers beyond those of any Constitutional Court in the State. For example, there is no limit upon its sentence either to length of imprisonment or as to any of the cases in. which it could give sentence of death, and it could in any case, if it thought it expedient or necessary deport or flog convicted persons or order the forfeiture or destruction of their property. This was admitted by the Attorney-General. Their sentences may be carried out by civil or military authorities. They can order execution by the military and order it to be in public or in private. There is no control whatever over them in that respect and no coroner's inquest can be held on the bodies of those executed by their order. It undoubtedly has absolute and unheard of powers within its own jurisdiction."

Mr. Duffy

And no appeal.

The President

This Act that you passed gave this Tribunal these absolute powers.

Mr. Staines

That was after three terrible murders had been committed.

The President

There was no question at all about the Executive then. Of course, that was the Cumann na nGaedheal Executive. It was not a Fianna Fáil Executive. It was an Executive elected several years before. It was not an Executive that had been elected that year; but Senators of course, these responsible gentlemen with a full sense of their responsibility, do not mind coming in now to prevent the Executive to-day from taking powers to prevent this militarisation of politics, this wearing of uniforms which, as Sir Herbert Samuel pointed out, is only the first step towards wearing other military habiliments and military accoutrements. The Executive has as its first duty the duty of seeing that order is maintained and kept. We, as the Executive, feel our responsibility in this matter and we know the provocation which these shirts cause. They are provocative not merely in Ireland. They are provocative in London, in Brussels, in Geneva and in other Swiss cities. They are provocative in Holland and other countries and have been stated as such. That is one of the reasons why Acts have been passed in these countries to prevent the wearing of these shirts.

It is not blue shirts you are banning by this Bill. It is the wearing by politicians of these distinguishing badges which are provocative and lead to breaches of the peace and which make the work of the Executive and the forces responsible for maintaining order almost impossible. In the Dáil other considerations were mentioned, but I put it to Senators, if they are men of responsibility, they ought to give the Executive power to maintain order by having this Bill passed into law. If there are some details that may be questioned, that does riot matter. The details can be fixed up afterwards. What we want to do is to prevent these provocative displays which are likely to create disorder and this militarisation of politics which is likely to lead to the use of military force.

We have had a speech from Senator Blythe in which there were many "ifs." In other countries where similar Acts were passed, when it was clear that the Acts were going to be passed, the responsible men who were opposed to them said, "Very well, then, if this Act is passed we will obey the law." We have no suggestion of that kind from the Blue Shirt people here. They have suggested at different times, when the Government has taken measures to ensure public peace and security, that we are responsible for violence and civil war. That is an attitude that is supported by Senators here. As I say, some Senators who support that attitude here are the very people who will praise statements such as Mr. Baldwin made about individual liberty and statements such as Sir Herbert Samuel made, as to what the wearing of shirts would lead to. At any rate, we put on you definitely the responsibility for depriving us, the elected representatives of the people, of the powers which we deem necessary to preserve public order on the one hand and the public safety on the other.

Question put: The Seanad divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 30.

Tá

Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.Comyn, Michael, K.C.Connolly, Joseph.Cummins, William.Dowdall, J.C.Duffy, Michael.Foran, Thomas.Johnson, Thomas.Keyes, Raphael P.

Linehan, Thomas.MacEllin, Seán E.MacParland, D.H.Moore, Colonel.O'Neill, L.Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.Quirke, William.Robinson, David L.Robinson, Séumas.

Níl

Bagwell, John.Bellingham, Sir Edward.Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.Blythe, Ernest.Browne, Miss Kathleen.Costello, Mrs.Counihan, John C.Crosbie, George.Dillon, James.Douglas, James G.Duggan, E.J.Fanning, Michael.Garahan, Hugh.Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.Granard, The Earl of.

Griffith, Sir John Purser.Guinness, Henry S.Hickie, Major-General Sir William.Keane, Sir John.Kennedy, Cornelius.MacLoughlin, John.Milroy, Seán.O'Connor, Joseph.O'Hanlon, M.F.O'Rourke, Brian.O'Sullivan, Dr. William.Parkinson, James J.Staines, Michael.Toal, Thomas.Wilson, Richard.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Séumas Robinson; and D.L. Robinson; Níl, Senators Staines and Milroy.

Question declared lost.

The Seanad adjourned at 11 p.m. until Thursday, March 22nd, at 3 p.m.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 21 Mar 1934