Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 May 1939

Vol. 22 No. 17

Offences Against the State Bill, 1939—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Justice (Mr. Ruttledge)

This Bill was circulated over two months ago, and on its introduction, on Second Reading and on Committee Stage, there was considerable discussion and publicity. For that reason I assume that Senators are familiar with its provisions. I propose, however, to give a short outline of its provisions. The Bill is intended to provide, in a comprehensive statute, the necessary powers to enable the State to protect itself and its citizens, to assist it in the prevention, detection, conviction and punishment of offences against the State. These offences range over a wide field, from the usurpation and obstruction of the powers of the Government, the Oireachtas, the judiciary, the defence forces, and the Gárda Síochána, to the publication of seditious matter and the holding of meetings by unlawful organisations.

The Bill, as Senators will note, is divided into six parts. The first four parts are intended to become portion of the ordinary normal law of the country and the other two portions, Parts V and VI, are intended to be emergency provisions. Part I deals mainly with definitions. Part II is intended to replace the existing law as regards offences which are directed against the security of the State, the carrying on of the work of the Government and public order generally, with certain additions and such changes as are necessary in view of the altered constitutional position. Part III is concerned with a particular aspect of offences dealt with under Part II, that is, unlawful organisations. Provisions are made, in general, similar to those which were in operation in some recent years in connection with the same matter, but it will be noted that there is given, under this Part of the Bill, a right of appeal to the High Court from an Order made by the Government—described in the Bill as a Suppression Order—declaring any particular organisation to be unlawful. It gives power to close premises used by unlawful organisations, but gives a right of appeal to the High Court against these closing orders. Part IV confers on the police certain powers of search and arrest which are regarded as indispensable in the exceptional circumstances or cases with which they will have to deal. This Part of the Bill also provides for the prevention of the holding of meetings by unlawful organisations, and it also deals with what was dealt with in a previous Act, the prevention of meetings in the vicinity of the Oireachtas, by giving notice.

Part V, which is one of the two emergency Parts, provides for the setting up of special criminal courts when the Government are satisfied that the ordinary courts are inadequate, and that they are unable to have justice done by those courts. As Senators are aware, provision for the setting up of such courts was made in the Constitution, under, I think, Article 38. In connection with these special criminal courts, I might point out that they will be set up only in an emergency, when the Government are satisfied that the ordinary courts are inadequate. While these courts are in operation, the ordinary courts will have the same jurisdiction as they had at the time of the setting up of the special criminal courts.

The special criminal courts will be subject to the same procedure and to the same laws of evidence as the ordinary courts, and they will deal with certain offences which will be scheduled, those offences which we are satisfied cannot be dealt with by the ordinary courts. Also, the Attorney-General may certify that certain other cases cannot be dealt with by the ordinary courts, and these may be transferred to the special criminal courts. An amendment was submitted in the Dáil, and accepted, which provided for an appeal from these courts to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Part VI provides for internment. That Part will come into operation, again, only when the Government are satisfied that such an emergency exists as warrants it. A position may exist in which, while we are satisfied that persons are guilty of certain offences subversive of the State, offences against the security of the State, we may not have available the legal proof which would enable us to deal with those people. The method by which both these Parts of the Bill will be brought into operation is by a proclamation issued by the Government declaring that either Part is necessary, and that proclamation will certify that such an emergency exists. The Dáil can annul that by a vote at any time, and if the Dáil has not annulled it, the Government, when they are satisfied that the emergency has come to an end, can, similarly by proclamation, bring it to an end.

As Senators are aware, the Bill, as it comes before the Seanad, is a very different Bill from that originally introduced in the Dáil. I stated at the time, on the Second Reading, that I was prepared if the principle of the Bill was accepted, to go to any reasonable limits to try to meet points that might be raised by Deputies; provided that whatever points might be raised or whatever improvements or remedies might be suggested would not render the Bill ineffective. I come to the Seanad in the same way. If the Seanad desires to admit the principle of this Bill at this stage—again, I am prepared, so far as is possible, to meet any reasonable amendments that may be suggested in this House; provided again that in making such amendments Senators will bear in mind that there is necessity for such a measure and that their amendments will not render the Bill useless or nullify its purpose.

I know what Senators are concerned about—some Senators at any rate, just as some Deputies—and it is: what is the necessity for this Bill at this time? The position at the present time is that, following the enactment of the Constitution, the powers that the Government had under Article 2A disappeared. Senators are aware that this Government had to operate Article 2A. In addition, the Treasonable Offences Act of 1925 is of very doubtful validity, owing to the changed constitutional position. So you find yourselves then with the provisions set out here in Part V, that is, under the Public Safety Act of 1926, where you had power in an emergency to intern persons; but there again, recognising that a new position had arisen as a result of the enactment of the Constitution the Government does not think that it would be right and proper that we should use that Act without getting authority from the Oireachtas in the new circumstances.

The first four parts of this Bill embody powers that every Government has had to take in practically every country to protect itself. There is nothing abnormal about the provisions contained in these four parts of the Bill.

When we found ourselves denuded of the powers that we had previously, we had contemplated bringing this Bill in immediately after the enactment of the Constitution. There was some attempt to create confusion about it, but—as I said in the Dáil—there could be two minds about it, on the part of the people responsible for such legislation. One viewpoint is that, finding ourselves without what we considered to be necessary powers, we would get those powers from the Oireachtas immediately after the enactment of the Constitution, in a time of calm—when there was no emergency apparent to the people, at any rate—and not in a time of stress, and we would calmly introduce this Bill and have it calmly debated here in such circumstances. The second view might be—and any one person could have one or other of these two views—that we would wait until some emergency would arise. I said in the Dáil that I regarded the introduction of the Bill at the present time as more or less a compromise attitude. The Bill is necessary for the protection of the State: the powers that it embodies, we consider necessary. As to the other aspect of the compromise, it is this: I read in the Dáil various proclamations that had been published—one was issued on the 8th December last—by which a body calling itself the Government of the Republic handed over its functions to an army styling itself the Irish Republican Army.

There was a further statement issued and posted up all over the country subsequent to that by this army, appealing to the people for its support. "In this last effort." I do not want to burden the House by reading these proclamations here: I read them in the Dáil and I am sure that Senators are conversant with them. We know that such an armed body does exist in the country; we know that drilling has been going on. The armed body may not be very strong, but we know that it is in possession of certain materials. We know that in Donegal three people were killed as a result of an explosion. We know of various other activities of these people throughout the country; they may declare war on some people. We maintain they have no right to declare war; not even the Government have that right; the right to declare war is reserved to the Oireachtas alone. These people are taking to themselves—or pretending to take to themselves—these powers, and we know that the statement of them, or the publication of them in documents, is not so much playacting.

There is no time more dangerous in a country that is trying to maintain peace at home and be allowed to develop its political and social institutions and organisations, than a time when there is a position such as the international position at the present time. I believe that the Government would be foolhardy, and the representatives of the people—the Dáil and the Seanad here—would be foolhardy if powers were not taken to deal with a situation like that. We ask this House for these powers: the Dáil has given them to us.

There have been a number of amendments accepted, some of which I was really nervous of accepting, for the reason that if a time of crisis did arise we might be hampered in dealing with such a crisis because, as Senators know, in dealing with a crisis the most effective way is to deal with it quickly, and not be hampered by technicalities. At any rate, the first four parts of this Bill, as it comes before you now, are parts that any country would or could have adopted—and many have. They are powers to protect the State, powers which any properly constituted Government should take to itself and should get from its Legislature. The emergency provisions are provisions which we want to have there if the emergency does arise.

I might also mention, as regards internment, that a commission will be set up so that people who are interned may come before that commission and have their cases examined as to whether there are sufficient grounds for keeping them in prison or not.

I do not propose at this stage to say more about this Bill until, perhaps, when I am concluding and have heard what objections, if any, are raised to it. Many of the powers that are being taken under this Bill are powers which were previously taken under the Treasonable Offences Act, 1925, but whether they were previously taken under that Act or not, they are powers that are reasonable and powers that we are satisfied are necessary.

Mr. McLoughlin

I do not propose to vote for this Bill. Neither do I propose to vote against it. I am a democrat and therefore, so far as the internal affairs of this State are concerned, I stand for votes rather than bullets.

If I had evidence that there was a dangerous conspiracy against the exercise of governmental authority by the people of this State, I would vote for this Bill, as I voted for similar Bills previously; but no evidence has been adduced by the Minister for Justice of the existence in this State of any such conspiracy. The Minister has alluded to the proclamations which he recited in the Dáil in support of this Bill. He also alluded to the transfer of the powers of the hereditary government of the republic of which he himself was previously a member—the I.R.A. If we are to have the Constitution ripped up every time a proclamation is issued or every time a former member of the Lawyers' League which professed to stand for Colonial Home Rule, chooses to divest himself of powers of authority as a republican governor, we shall be needlessly busy.

After all, the three tailors of Tooley Street issued a proclamation in the name of the people of England, and the Houses of Parliament did not collapse. The issue of proclamations is an ancient Irish custom. In fact, the Minister for Justice himself turned out a few choice specimens in his time, and if this Bill were made retrospective—and, in the cause of poetic justice, I am almost tempted to put down an amendment to that effect—the Minister would be the first person to be clapped into Mountjoy. He and Deputy de Valera, as he was then, issued a series of proclamations declaring the elected Government of this State an illegal assembly. That was going further than merely handing over the powers of the Government to another body. They also adjured the people in another proclamation, not to pay their income-tax or land annuities. I wonder if, since they attained to power, they have made restitution in respect of their unpaid income-tax.

When the Cosgrave Government introduced a Bill in 1929 for the protection of jurors who were being intimidated and murdered, what was the attitude of the gentlemen who now ask us to pass this Bill? In spite of the clearest evidence that there was a widespread and well-organised conspiracy to smash trial by jury, when guards had to be placed on the property and the persons of jurors who simply did their duty and brought in verdicts according to their oaths and consciences, the political organ of the Fianna Fáil Party, edited then by the present Minister for Local Government, printed contributed articles rejoicing in the fact that jurors had to be protected.

When the Bill for the protection of jurors was introduced in the Dáil, the then Deputy de Valera denounced it as coercion. He professed to regard it as proof of the "continuity of British government in this country." He quoted the speeches of Forster, Balfour, and Hamar Greenwood, in an effort to show that the then Minister for Justice, Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney, and his colleague were simply filling the shoes of those oppressors of Irish liberty. He maintained that the ordinary law was quite sufficient to protect jurors, and stated that there was no need whatever for special legislation, as "coercion and coercive Acts of the kind have always failed in the past and would fail in the future." Let me quote Mr. de Valera's own words:—

"There have been Coercion Acts in the past and brutal Coercion Acts in the past. They have been put forward mainly, except for the last four or five years, by men who did not understand this country or the aspirations of the people. Now they are proposed to be done by an Executive that calls itself Irish and by a House that pretends to call itself Irish and which is composed of Irish representatives who in the past have been fighting for liberty but who are now going to give away those rights and hand them to the keeping of an Executive of whom the Minister for Justice is typical."

Under the present Bill, these rights are to be handed over—not to the keeping of the Executive Council or to any Minister responsible to the Oireachtas —but to the keeping of a non-elected superintendent of the Guards.

Again, when the Constitution Amendment Bill of 1931 was going through, the then President (Mr. Cosgrave) submitted a tabular list of political murders and outrages to show the necessity for special legislation. What was the reaction of the Minister and his colleagues to this terrible litany of crime?

Deputy de Valera opposed this Bill also and pleaded eloquently for patience with and understanding of the men responsible for the outrages. The Executive Council, he said, knew only one way of dealing with them:—

"Anyone who gets in your power, squelch him, by God, squelch him... we go to Geneva and try to make peace between the Chinese and Japanese.... Peace for everybody but your own people."

That was the Taoiseach in 1931. His appeal for the men who were shooting and intimidating was touchingly tender:—

"There should," he said, "be some attempt to lead to the right the beautiful sentiments and honourable sentiments of these young men. These are the men who are being hounded without the slightest attempt to understand their motives, which are in themselves noble and good—the desire to have the complete independence of their country. Instead of giving them a chance to orientate themselves in the direction which is necessary these people are to be condemned...."

May I ask why the Taoiseach does not now administer the medicine which he so unctuously prescribed in 1931? Why does he not allow the pamphleteers to orientate themselves in the direction necessary? After all, they have only used paper and ink, while their predecessors, to whom he was so paternally considerate, were using bombs and bullets. "These men," said the Taoiseach, eight years ago, "are misguided if you will, but they were brave men anyhow. Let us, at least, have for them the decent respect we have for the brave. They have done terrible things... let us appeal to them and ask them in God's name not to do them. You sneer at that. It would be more effective than all your coercion." Instead of bringing in this coercion Bill, why does not the Taoiseach appeal to the authors of the proclamations, in God's name, to cease their literary work lest it imperil our good relations with the mother country? Mr. de Valera said in 1931 that the Government of the day, for whom he had less sympathy than he had for the gunmen, were "imitating the activities of Hamar Greenwood, instead of trying to get down to the problems." Why does he himself now assume the mantle of Hamar Greenwood without cause shown?

I apologise to the Seanad for wearying them with these quotations. But, when I turned up the Official Debates of 1931 I found the case against the Safety Bill of that year stated with such cogency and eloquence that I could not resist borrowing from the speeches.

Deputy Lemass said of that Bill what I would have said, only in a much more crude way, of this Bill:—

"This Bill abrogates the Constitution. They want the right to suppress public meetings, to suppress newspapers, to imprison people on suspicion without proof."

Are not these the very powers which the Government are seeking to-day?

Deputy Lemass added that the Government of that day "wanted to make it easier for Civic Guards to make assaults upon citizens and escape the consequences." I do not adopt that portion of the Deputy's speech. I have more confidence in the Guards than Deputy Lemass had. But I do subscribe in part to this statement of the position by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce:—

"We have the most glorious and democratic Constitution in the world and in order to preserve it we are going to abolish it. In order to safeguard the rights of the people, we are going to take their rights away."

That was, I make bold to say, a brilliant anticipation of the present position by Deputy Lemass in 1931. The same speaker went on to say:—

"We are satisfied that there is neither need nor demand for this Bill on the part of the public, and we ask them to test public feeling by going to the country on the matter."

May I issue a similar invitation to the Minister on this Bill?

The present Minister for Finance, as members of the Seanad know, is deeply read in Napoleonic literature. It was not surprising to find him describing the Safety Bill of 1931 as "designed to secure the incubation of a new Napoleon." I wonder who is to be the Napoleon under this Bill? Will it be the Minister himself? It might be safer for the country to have him in charge of the prisoners in Arbour Hill than in charge of Finance in Merrion Street.

The Minister for Finance was prophetic. He said:—

"The point is whether you are going to give uncontrolled powers to the Executive Council. That is a thing no democratic assembly can afford to do."

I should be inclined to agree with that in respect of the present Cabinet. The talk about "safeguarding the rights of the people," to which Deputy MacEntee alluded, we are having now, and it is being made the excuse for as drastic a Coercion Bill as was ever introduced.

I cannot help thinking that the introduction of this Bill is due in some measure to Mr. MacEntee's wild imaginings. It was on the occasion of the Safety Bill of 1931 that he hurled a sanguinary verse from Shelley, who was also a bit erratic, at the Government of the day:

"I met Murder on the way,

He wore the mask of Castlereagh,

Very smooth he looked, yet grim,

Seven bloodhounds followed him."

It would seem as if the bloodhounds were about to be released by the poetic Minister and his colleagues under this Bill.

This Bill tears the Constitution to tatters, and it does that by virtue of the powers given in that much-lauded Constitution. Under the former Constitution, which was not sufficiently democratic for the Fianna Fáil Party, legislation of this type could not be introduced without a Constitutional amendment. The Bill is introduced under express powers given by the new Constitution. It is much more a Constitutional document than the Constitution itself, because it deals with those rights which are most highly valued in every country. It was, therefore, a matter of regret to me that when the Taoiseach was recently presenting a bound copy of the Constitution to the Holy Father he did not also include a copy of the Offences Against the State Bill. However, I shall not be a party to setting aside the Constitution of the State without adequate cause, publicly stated. I shall, therefore, transfer the responsibility for the passing of this measure to my Donegal republican colleagues— Senator Cú Uladh and Senator Neal Blaney. I am sure their support of coercion to-day will be as enthusiastic as was their denunciation of it yesterday.

Mr. Douglas

The speech to which we have just listened and similar speeches have a good effect, I think, in creating a good deal of fellow-feeling between opposing sides of the House. If they are treated in that spirit, they might do a lot of good. I nevertheless think that we cannot, with a full sense of responsibility, refuse to give the Government the powers that are asked for in this Bill. This is the Second Stage and we are merely dealing with the principles of the Bill.

I had read the original Bill and, as I travelled in the train yesterday, I was surprised on reading the amended Bill to note how changed it was, and how much better the Bill we are now discussing is than the Bill that was introduced. The method adopted by the Minister was, I think, exceedingly fair. He stated certain facts, with which we might disagree in certain details, but which in the main we cannot deny; and he offered, if we accepted the principle of the Bill, to try to meet any point of view that might be expressed. For that reason, I think it is the duty of the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. To my mind, very little can be said about it that could not be better said in Committee.

There is one question about which I should like to ask the Minister because if amendments are to be put forward in Committee, I think I could possibly frame them better if I were made clear on this particular point. Under Section 16, I think, an organisation can be declared to be unlawful by proclamation and be suppressed. Under another section, one cannot be a member of a society or an organisation which has been suppressed. What is puzzling me is what is the position of an individual, in the meantime. Before the date on which the body is declared to be illegal, he is openly and admittedly a member and his name appears on the records. We will say, for the sake of argument, that his name appears on the records. There is a proclamation suppressing the organisation and we shall assume that there is no appeal against the proclamation, in the first instance. Is there any method by which members can indicate, publicly or otherwise, that they regard themselves as having ceased to belong to the organisation or would they be deemed to have ceased to belong to it by the very fact of its having been suppressed? If they did not take any other action, would they be liable to prosecution?

I think it is a matter of some importance because conceivably there may be an organisation that may become of such a character that the Government has to suppress it by proclamation and there may be a considerable number of former members who would have no sympathy with the objects of that organisation any longer. There is the other possibility that there may be a considerable number of people, many of them young people, who had become members and who would be glad to dissociate themselves from that organisation. It is not clear how that can be done under this Bill. I do not know how a person could indicate that he was not any longer a member. I should be glad if the Minister would deal with that matter and, if it is not clear in the Bill, I should like him to say if there is any way by which a person can indicate that he had ceased to be a member of such an organisation.

Similarly, and this seems to me to create a little more difficulty, another question arises where there is an appeal. The Government suppresses an organisation and a period elapses, where there is an appeal, before the appeal is decided. I take it that the body is legally suppressed until the hearing of the appeal. What is the position of members in the meantime? Are the members legally members during that time, or again is there any way by which they can indicate that they cease to be members, if the organisation is held to be illegal or can they be prosecuted during that month? It seems to me, however, that after the appeal had been decided it would be correct to prosecute such members if they continued in membership. There are some points such as these that are not clear in the Bill and I should be glad if the Minister would look into them and explain the position. I think something is needed in the Bill to provide for the case of men or women who might like to drop out of an organisation immediately it is suppressed.

Mr. Hogan

Like the Government to which Senator McLoughlin gave his allegiance, I fear that this Government has made up its mind to pass this measure whether we like it or not. Like the former Government, it has the necessary power and, under "a rule of order", it will utilise its majority. There is very little use, therefore, in doing anything more than to make a formal protest against this measure. The Minister went rather fully into provisions of the Bill. He told us what Parts I, II, III and IV, were about.

There was one very essential thing he did not tell us, and that was the need for Parts I, II, III and IV. What is the need for the Bill at all? It was said in respect of the Bill which was before us half an hour ago, that it was necessary, inasmuch as we had defined treason in the Constitution, to fix a punishment for it. That excuse cannot be made in respect of this measure. This is quite a different measure, and before one would be inclined to give it silent support one would like to know the need for the drastic powers that the Executive Council—the Government—are taking. What is the great need for giving power to suppress all organisations? That is what the Bill can do. It can suppress any organisation. It can suppress bodies that are armed, and bodies that are unarmed. It can suppress even the St. Vincent de Paul Society, if it so desires. It can suppress trade unions. Of course, I will be told that it is not intended that that should be done. I am sure the Minister knows that the law takes no notice of intentions. It only takes notice of what is actually written down, and accordingly there is no reason whatever for introducing the proposals in the Bill. What is the reason for taking such control over the Press? The Government can suppress organisations, it can control the Press, and can arrest indiscriminately. Very extensive powers are given to chief superintendents in the Gárda Síochána to arrest and detain, and then to detain still further. There is power given to set up special courts and power to intern.

We were told when the Cosgrave Government took these powers that they were blessings in disguise, and that they were left as a legacy to the present Government. We were told by those who now constitute the Fianna Fáil Government that there was absolutely no necessity for Article 2A of the Constitution. I agree. Neither was there any need for this Bill. If I cared to do what Senator McLoughlin did, I could quote, from the speech of the Taoiseach, a list of all the legislation by which these things could be dealt with under legislation current at the time the Bill was introduced. The reason that the Fianna Fáil Government operated Article 2A of the Constitution has, as far as anyone could see, disappeared, and the reasons why the Cosgrave Government introduced Article 2A are ensconced comfortably in the Dáil and Seanad. I cannot see what great necessity there is for introducing this measure and giving drastic powers under it. The Minister stated that a party that called itself a Government had by proclaiming itself an armed body assumed certain alleged powers. I have carefully read the proclamations issued by that body and compared them with proclamations issued by another revolutionary body, and I find there is a wonderful similarity in them.

Mr. Baxter

Why would you not?

Mr. Hogan

That does not detract from the value of the proclamations. I congratulate the Minister for Justice on the lucidity of some of the proclamations he issued. I have one here which states:—

"Whereas an unconstitutional and usurping Junta, set up at the dictation of the British Government and calling itself the ‘Provisional Government of Ireland' is and has been pledging the credit of the nation without the sanction of Dáil Eireann..."

I wonder has the sanction of Dáil Eireann since been obtained for the expenditure of the revenue of the State? I do not want to be raising ghosts. I have another proclamation in which the Minister for Justice and the present Taoiseach threatened members of the legal profession that they should not attempt to appear before courts established by the British Government. I wonder if that threat has been withdrawn.

Mr. O'Donovan

The British Government has withdrawn.

Mr. Hogan

At the outset, I said that I did not think there was much use in making anything more than a formal protest against the provisions which are about to be enshrined in an Act, as outlined in this Bill. I suggest to the Minister that there is enough power to deal with any offences that may be committed. I suggest that the validity of the Treasonable Offences Act has not been challenged successfully, and its invalidity has not been proved. Until the invalidity of it has been proved, the Government ought to take advantage of the provisions in it. The suppression of organisations, and the fact that this holy of holies is not to be invaded, is a thing that suggests to the mind of the impartial observer that the Government are getting as far removed from the realities of the situation in the country as their predecessors in office. If there was anything which was characteristic of the Cosgrave Government before its fall, it was the fact that it was detached from the realities of the situation in the country. Thousands of limousine cars may be brought into Molesworth Street, but we will not allow 20, 30 or 40 of the 107,000 unemployed to demonstrate there. They must not come within half a mile of the holy of holies. They must not by their presence indicate to Senators or Deputies that they are unemployed. That is one of the provisions of this measure, that they must not demonstrate near this Chamber, and yet they are very valuable people when wanted.

I have indicated my objection to the Bill. My objection is that it gives too great power to the Government to suppress organisations, to control the Press, to intern, and to arrest indiscriminately. I think that power should not be given. I also object to it because there is, at the present time, legislation sufficiently powerful to deal with any offences that may be committed. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that the proper course for him would be to get in touch with the realities of the situation in the country and to have this measure withdrawn.

Mr. MacDermot

Senator Hogan accused the Government of being detached from the situation in the country. There may be something in that, although I think it is hardly proved by this Bill, and still less proved by the unwillingness of the Government to allow the unemployed to demonstrate outside Leinster House. I think, in any case, that the reproach comes none too well from anybody who would vote a couple of months ago for increasing Parliamentary salaries.

Mr. Hogan

I did not.

Mr. MacDermot

I withdraw what I have said as regards Senator Hogan, but his Party as a whole did, and if anything showed detachment from the feelings of the country it appears to me that it was that increase. However, that is a side issue. What really brought me to my feet was what Senator Hogan said on the subject of the suppressing powers given to the Government under this Bill: the suppressing of illegal organisations. He said that under this Bill they would be able to suppress any organisation whatsoever, even the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Well, now, I think that Senator Hogan will hardly deny that in making that statement there was, at any rate, a certain amount of suppressio veri, because there is a section in this Bill of the utmost importance—Section 18—which gives to a member of any organisation which the Government is purporting to suppress the right of applying to the High Court of Justice for a declaration that the organisation is legal. If that declaration is obtained, the Government are completely defeated and blocked. Now, that used not to be the case under Article 2A of the old Constitution. Under that Article the Government of the day could suppress any organisation it liked, and it did, in fact, suppress, with the assistance of every single member of Senator Hogan's Party in the Dáil in September in 1933, a perfectly legal organisation which was associated with the Fine Gael Party, called the League of Youth. It was suppressed by a proclamation of the Government under Article 2A of the old Constitution. On a vote of censure on the Government for doing so, every single member of the Labour Party in the Dáil voted in favour of the Government and, that being so, I do not know with what face any member of the Labour Party can get up and object to this Bill, and say that it is too tyrannical because it is not half as tyrannical as the very thing they did in September, 1933.

To come back and say one word before I sit down about the question of detachment from the country. I do feel, though I do not want to overstate the case—I have said it indeed often before in the Dáil—that the Government have had a certain amount of blame to bear, even since they came into office, for things they have done and said which have tended to confuse the minds of our people and keep unrest alive in the country. I admit that, since the passing of the Constitution, things have been better in that respect, but they are still not all they ought to be.

There is a great deal of economic distress and disillusionment, political and economic disillusionment, throughout the country at the present time, because all sorts of golden dreams have turned out to be unfounded. That was inevitable. I have no doubt there was a time when members of the Government believed all the predictions they used to make, and all the doctrines they used to preach about what could be done to raise the whole standard of living in this country, to make everyone happy and prosperous and to give everyone a feeling of freedom and nationhood that they had never had before, if only they were put into office. The Government themselves have become disillusioned, and the people of the country have become disillusioned with them. There has been no such magical change as was hoped for. I do think it is a pity—I say this not from the point of view of the interests of the British Commonwealth and still less from the point of view of the interests of England—from the point of view of the interests of Ireland that so much is still often said by the members of the Fianna Fáil Party and by newspapers attached to the Fianna Fáil Party, throughout the country: that so much is often still said to create a misunderstanding of our position and to stir up bad feeling.

I am not going—needless to say, I would not be allowed to if I wanted to, but I do not want to—to start a debate here on Partition on this Bill, but I think I am in order in saying this much, that the extreme over-emphasis of the part that England plays in the continuance of Partition is something that tends to madden our young people and that the outrages that have been committed, apparently under the aegis of the I.R.A. across the water, by men who proclaim that they belong to the I.R.A. and are acting under the orders of the I.R.A., and the outrages that apparently the Government fears might be committed here, are due to what I believe to be the mainly misguided and unfounded point of view which members of the Government Party continue to make themselves responsible for fomenting. I would appeal to them to display very great caution and a sense of responsibility if they want to have peace and order internally here in our country, about what they say in regard to our relations with the people across the water.

Mrs. Concannon

I propose to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, because I hold strongly to the belief that no greater disaster could befall our people at this tremendously critical moment of their history—of the world's history—than to have a defenceless and an unstable Government at the mercy of any group with arms in their hands who might, relying simply on the "right" conferred by those arms, without reference to the people and trampling on democracy, usurp the functions of Government, flout the authority of the State the people themselves have set up, and even take it on themselves to declare war on other States, whether the Irish people wanted it or not.

It is because ours is a democratic State—and most of us wish it to remain such—that the Government we have chosen for ourselves must be provided by us with the powers necessary to protect the State, to defend its authority, and to carry out the duties and functions with which we have charged it. The most important of these is to maintain public order and to secure for the ordinary peaceful citizen the right to live his own life in his own quiet way. We have had too many examples in recent years of the dangers to democratic governments if they are left defenceless and if they have not those necessary powers. It would be very blind of us if, knowing all this, we did not face it for ourselves. We have set up a Government and have given it certain things to do. It would be most illogical for us, therefore, if we did not give it the necessary powers to carry out its functions properly.

One of the things our people want most vehemently at the present moment is peace—peace at home to pursue their lawful avocations, to try to repair, in the social structure, the ravages of long years of war and depression and to strive for those things which, for the generality of people, alone make life worth living; and peace abroad, neutrality in any world war, if it is not averted, by the mercy of God, as we all hope and pray it will be. How can we have any hope for peace at home or abroad unless we have a Government strong enough to lead a disciplined people and to see that their rights are protected? No sensible person in this country wants war, whether external or internal and, for that reason, we all rejoice that there is an Article in our Constitution, Article 28, which provides: "War shall not be declared, and the State shall not participate in any war, save with the assent of Dáil Eireann." That Article guarantees our people's right not to be dragged into war, whether they like it or not, at the sweet will of any self-constituted war-lords. This is a precious right; and it is to protect it, and the Constitution in which it is enshrined, the sovereignty, the independence and the democracy of which that Constitution is the Magna Charta, that the Offences Against the State Bill has been found necessary.

Another Article of the Constitution which has deep and vital significance for all of us, and especially at the present moment, is Article 29, in which "Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on its national justice and morality" and "its adherence to the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration and judicial determination". In the one international dispute in which Ireland is involved, and I differ completely from Senator MacDermot in this matter, or is ever likely to be involved, that with Britain over that Partition which most iniquitously she inflicted upon us against our consent, are we not bound by the implications of that Article which I have quoted to seek, first of all, a pacific settlement through international arbitration and judicial determination? But the Irish Government which will make its case and carry its weight before such a court of international arbitration must be no puppet Government, but a Government with all the power and authority necessary to lead a disciplined people and strong enough to fight for their rights, if the question must, in the long run, come to the arbitrament of war.

As we look back on our history, does it not seem to us that many of the tragedies that befel our nation came from lack of discipline and cohesion among ourselves at critical moments? It seems to me that one of these critical moments is with us now and on how we face it, how we face up to the responsibility of that moment, will depend, in my opinion, the destiny of Ireland for many generations. Shall we fritter away the opportunities of that moment by allowing non-democratic, totalitarian organisations to usurp the functions of government, or shall we advance, in ordered and disciplined ranks, towards this longdesired goal behind the Government we have chosen, the only legitimate Government of this part of Ireland?

Now, I come to a very serious matter. On every member of the Oireachtas, whether he be Uachtarán, Teachta Dála or Seanadóir, a solemn duty at the moment devolves. It is we alone who, in exercise of the powers conferred on us, under God, by the people, have the exclusive right to raise and maintain military or armed forces, and Article 15 of the Constitution provides that no military or armed force, other than that raised and maintained by the Oireachtas can be raised and maintained for any purpose whatsoever. We accepted membership of the Seanad of our own free will and with full understanding of all the duties implied in that membership. That was one of the Articles we accepted and that is the solemn responsibility we accepted. It is because I feel that I have that responsibility that I feel myself bound, in honour and conscience, to vote for the principle of the Bill which we are now considering.

The Seanad adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday the 4th May.