Seanad Éireann debate -
Saturday, 2 Sep 1939

Vol. 23 No. 10

First Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1939—Second Stage.

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

The Taoiseach

A Chathaoirligh, this amendment is required to resolve a doubt which has arisen as to whether, under Article 28 of the Constitution, a "time of war" means any time except one in which the State is actually participating as a belligerent. My view was that a "time of war", as defined in the Constitution, covered an emergency of this sort—an emergency such as we are now facing. However, if we get from the Oireachtas the powers that are sought in the Bills that are now before you, it would not do to have at any time the possibility of legal action being taken, questioning the validity of any orders that may be issued, on the ground that such powers were not contemplated at the time of the enactment of the Constitution, and that, therefore, any act that might be taken would be ultra vires and that the powers we seek would be also ultra vires. To remove that doubt we want to include in the phrase “time of war” a time when an armed conflict is taking place, which armed conflict might menace the vital interests of the State. It has been suggested in the Dáil, and may be suggested in the Seanad, that the moment you leave it to a majority of both Houses of the Oireachtas to determine when a time of emergency of this sort exists, you make it possible for a majority in both Houses of the Oireachtas to suspend the Constitution, and that therefore there is nothing to prevent an unscrupulous Party, with a majority in both Houses, from changing the Constitution, even in accordance with law.

Apart from normal times, I think it must be recognised that, in certain times of emergency, it is essential for the service of the State that the Executive should be furnished with ample powers to face any contingency that might arise. I notice that an amendment has been suggested which tries further to define a time of armed conflict as a time when a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations would be engaged in war. I do not think, however, that that would cover possible emergencies. One can visualise a case in which, let us say, Canada might be at war in the East, and that war might not in any way affect our vital interests. Neither would it be of much help to suggest that, because Great Britain, let us say, were at war defending her own interests in the East, such a war might menace our vital interests. Even if Great Britain were engaged in a European War, that might not necessarily affect our vital interests, but one can easily visualise circumstances in which a particular war, although it might not menace our territory actually, might affect our vital interests.

Mr. MacDermot

Has the Taoiseach observed that the amendment does not touch that phrase about vital interests, that it leaves that intact?

The Taoiseach

I have, but it is an attempt to narrow down the circumstances under which a particular type of conflict, which causes conditions here approximating to war conditions in which we would be not actually a belligerent, could be said to exist. I do not think it is within the wit of man to devise a phrase which will prevent, in certain circumstances, an unscrupulous majority from betraying its democratic obligations and overturning democracy if it considers itself strong enough to do so. I think there is no use in trying to provide against all possible things of that sort. A democracy, any representative government, in order to be successful has to be run according to rules, has to have popular opinion behind it and to be supported in that way. If at any time, an occasion should arise, when the majority could so flout the ideals of representative government, it would be done otherwise and there would be an end to this system of government. I think, therefore, we would give ourselves fruitless trouble in trying to devise a phrase which would narrow down the definition. There was a suggestion made in the Dáil that the President as guardian of the Constitution —it was not put in these precise terms —might be brought in as an outside referee to say whether such an emergency had in fact arisen and that his concurrence with the resolutions of the two Houses might be obtained. Well, that was an idea which had not suggested itself in that particular form to us who were dealing with this matter though it had existed in another form. Difficulty would arise if we go beyond what is obviously a verbal amendment of the Constitution, because I held the view, when the Constitution was being discussed, that when we spoke of a time of war, we had in mind conditions such as the conditions which would obtain in this country when Great Britain went to war and our vital interests would be affected in such a manner that it would be necessary for the Executive to be armed with powers such as I have indicated.

I think the Oireachtas can agree to this amendment of the Constitution. I promised in the Dáil that I would consider the matter again before the period has elapsed in which it is possible to amend the Constitution by legislation, to see whether it is possible to give some further guarantees such as might be implied by having the concurrence of the President. In this particular case, we shall have the concurrence of the President, because if the President thought there was an attempt being made at this particular time by a majority in both Houses to subvert the Constitution, he could refuse to sign this measure and he could insist on the will of the country being obtained about it.

The President, as you know, according to the Constitution, has the power to say: "I cannot sign that; you have got to get the opinion of the people upon it". So, if the President in this particular case, signs the Bill, we may take it as his concurrence with the opinion of the Dáil and the Seanad that the emergency which we envisage in this Article in the Constitution immediately occurs. That does not, of course, provide for the future. I shall consider whether similar concurrence of some such sort should not be necessary in order that the Dáil and the Seanad by majority resolutions should say that a state of emergency exists.

I do not think it is necessary for me to say more. Members of the Seanad are aware of the situation that is facing us. It would appear that we are going to be faced with another terrible European War. As I said in the Dáil, the interests of our country, in the view of the Government, would be best served by trying to keep our country out of it. One of the Deputies in the Dáil asked whether that meant that we were indifferent. I do not want to suggest by that that individuals in this country are indifferent to the conflict that is taking place, but our individual sympathies are one matter; the action which the Government should take on behalf of the nation, for the protection of the vital interests of the nation, is quite another. It is in our capacity as guardians of the interests of our people that we put before Parliament a policy to try to preserve this nation from war, and to keep as neutral as conditions will make it possible for us so to do. Undoubtedly we are a next-door neighbour of Britain and, being in that situation relative to her, and not in a similar situation relative to the other parties to the conflict, it does mean that, in that particular case, there will be difficulties which we have not, perhaps at the moment at any rate, got to face in regard to the more remote contestant. There will have to be an arrangement made for carrying on our trade, the greatest part of our trade, in the market in which we sell most of our supplies and the source from which we get most of our essential commodities. Arrangements will have to be made for the continuance of that particular trade and in a variety of ways like that we shall be brought into closer contact—"contact" is the best word I can use in the circumstances—with Britain than we are likely to be with the other parties to the contest. However, we are determined to keep our country out of war if we can.

I said a long time ago in the Dáil, but it was not appreciated, that it is one thing to desire to keep neutral, to desire to keep out of conflict, but that it is not sufficient to have the will. We want to have the way and the power to prevent use being made of our position in favour of one or other of the parties. It is necessary for us to have the power to do that. It is not sufficient to have a good-will towards other people; they may not have good-will towards you in return. It may happen that though you may not wish to injure any one of the contending parties, they may make up their minds that it would be useful for them to pretend, let us say, that you were injuring their interests and, therefore, try one way or another to use whatever power they might possess to interfere with your legitimate rights. One, therefore, has to prepare oneself to preserve one's rights. I have no doubt, anxious as are the times that are ahead, that our people will, if called upon, defend our interests as other people would defend their interests if they were attacked. We are anxious about the situation, naturally. We deplore the situation that has arisen, but I think we can face it as courageously and with as bold a heart as any other people can. Therefore, whilst I mention this necessity, I do not want to make it appear at all that we find ourselves in a position in which we would not be able, reasonably, to defend our rights. I think we shall.

I said also that, whatever might be the individual opinions of members of the community, our history and the fact that portion of our territory is still cut off from the nation makes any other course for this nation—whatever sympathies it might have—or for the responsible Government in this country, impossible. So not merely is it a question of our opinion that it is important for the State to keep out of this war, but I believe it is the only course possible and that, no matter what Government was in office, it could in the circumstances adopt no other course. I ask the Seanad to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. M. Hayes

This is a Bill the Second Reading of which I think ought to be passed. It is interesting and quite understandable that a doubt should have arisen on the first emergency with which the new Constitution was confronted. That Constitution was framed in an atmosphere of peace and the work took a considerable time but it has been discovered in this particular emergency that legislation is necessary to amend it. Certain suggestions may be made with regard to the form of the legislation. Article 28 of the Constitution made provision for dealing with an emergency created by war or armed rebellion and there is no doubt that such a provision is necessary in every Constitution. If there is now advice from the legal advisers of the Government that the Article may prove to be defective in the present circumstances, then, undoubtedly, the need for this particular measure arises. It seems to me that there can be no doubt that there is, in fact, an emergency affecting the vital interests of the State. Not only that but that there is confronting the Government and the people of the country an emergency the ultimate nature of which nobody can foretell. We are entering now upon unknown country and the problems which will confront us no Government, however wise, and no Parliament, however earnest, can possibly foresee. We are discovering that the freedom for which we fought so long carries, besides rights, very grave obligations. It may involve not only more work but graver risks to exercise our freedom than were necessary actually to obtain it. I agree that neutrality is a desirable thing for this State if it can be preserved and that we should cease to believe, as I think a good many people in the country do believe, we are one of the most important nations in Europe. In a world war, we are certainly no such thing. But we have our own problems to solve and it is from the point of view of our own problems and of the interests of our own people that we must have regard to a conflict such as that which is, unfortunately, upon us to-day. Whether in our journey in an unknown and unpredictable state of things we shall be able to preserve our neutrality is, as the Taoiseach said, an entirely different matter. Certain things we must have and certain difficulties we must confront but we really do not know in what direction we are proceeding.

With regard to the Bill proper, we ought to understand and the public ought to understand, exactly what it is the Bill does. It creates a situation in which, taken with the other Bill which we are to consider to-day, the Government will have immense dictatorial powers. This Bill places beyond doubt the fact that a citizen will have no right to appeal to the courts against the deprivation of his rights under the Constitution whether the right concerned be that of free speech or any other class of right. For the preservation of democracy that may, of course, be necessary. I agree that it is necessary but we should be quite clear as to exactly what we are doing. We can discuss in detail the powers which the Government propose to take in the Emergency Powers Bill when we come to that measure. So far as this particular Bill is concerned, it abrogates the Constitution by a simple majority of both Houses. While I agree that it is impossible to write into the Constitution safeguards which will prevent an unscrupulous majority from doing wrong things, still we should, in our circumstances, do the best we can to see that that cannot happen. When we see in this Bill a provision that a resolution must be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, that means in fact a resolution by one House of the Oireachtas because, under our Constitution and under the Act which creates this House, care has been taken to provide that this House is, in its Party constitution, a reflection of the other House. The Party which has a majority in the Dáil is bound to have not only that majority but a rather larger majority in this House. Therefore, the requirement that the resolution has to be passed by both Houses provides no safeguard.

In the case of this particular Bill Article 51 of the Constitution does give the President a certain right. I recognise that, in the present emergency, it is not desirable to insert an amendment in the Bill with regard to the type of majority in both Houses which would be necessary for the passing of the resolution but I suggest to the Taoiseach that when there is no emergency and when he is considering—as we all hope he will—a permanent amendment of the Constitution, he might consider whether more than a simple majority of both Houses should be necessary—say, a majority of two-thirds or three-fifths.

I am very far from saying that that provision would be quite satisfactory but, if the matter is going to be considered, apart from giving extra powers to the President to concur with both Houses before an amendment of the Constitution becomes law, consideration might be given to the question whether more than a simple majority of both Houses should be necessary for the passing of the resolution. The Taoiseach dealt with an amendment to the Bill which can be considered in Committee. In the meantime, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, it seems to me that no alternative is open to us but to give the Government the powers which they are now seeking and to hope that any group of Irishmen entrusted with these powers will exercise them wisely and that the Oireachtas will have opportunities to discuss the exercise of these powers from time to time. Therefore, I intend to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Sir John Keane

If I voice a dissentient note, I hope Senators will not think that I wish to embarrass the Government in any way. I realise the responsibility of every member of the House in these grave times and I appreciate the difficulties of the Government, but I am voicing the opinion not of the majority but of quite a substantial section of people in this country who are unhappy about this attitude of neutrality. The way I put it is this: we are undoubtedly a sovereign State with no obligations to any other country but to our own people. As a sovereign State I feel sure that we must all of us abhor the causes and regret the causes that have brought about this present conflict. We must surely—and I claim that nobody will deny it—be in sympathy with the democracies in this matter. If that is accepted, I cannot help feeling that there is a very thin dividing line between our national interests and our national honour. Unfortunately, I feel this trend of thought is influencing the mind of the Government, in connection with our relations to the British Commonwealth in this matter. The Taoiseach even suggested that our attitude must be in some degree determined by the fact that our country is divided and that that division is maintained by force.

I do feel that although that consideration is present it cannot override and should not override our responsibilities as a sovereign power, which we are, towards the issues that are involved, issues which I feel we ought to hold to be sacred, to be essential, to the civilisation of the whole world. It will, I know, be urged that other countries who feel as strongly as we do in this matter of the vital rights of civilisation and democracy are also remaining neutral, but I would suggest that that attitude is determined largely by strategic considerations, and when we come to examine strategic considerations we find that their strategic position is very different from our own. If the Government had the courage to come out, as other Dominions have done in this matter, and say: "It is not because we are a member of the Commonwealth at all, but because we feel so deeply the issues involved that we are prepared to declare ourselves as siding openly with the democracies," I believe we would do more in that act alone to unite our country and break down the unfortunate barriers that now divide it.

Mr. Baxter

This is not the time nor are the conditions such as to demand very long speeches on the Bill before the House. An Taoiseach is asking in this Bill for greater powers than have ever been conferred upon him before, and he has exercised, I should say, very great powers all through the course of his political career. He has faced difficulties as many of those who were his colleagues at another time faced difficulties too, but, collectively, we have never faced anything like what the future unfortunately holds for all. Grave as is the situation in the world to-day there must be for An Taoiseach and others in this House a certain measure of satisfaction that we have won for ourselves the right and the power to decide what part we are to play in the days that are ahead, and that we are not dependent on the will of others to decide for us whether we are to fight or not to fight. There ought to be appreciation of the liberty which in our own day we have secured.

It is important that this liberty should be preserved for our people and that our nation should be preserved. The manner in which we use these liberties and the discretion and the sanity and calmness with which we approach the problems that confront us are going to determine what the life of this nation in the future will be. We cannot refuse these powers to the Government, whatever our feelings may be about how they are to be exercised. The liberties which the citizens enjoy under the Constitution are going to be taken from them. Let us hope that it is in order that they may be preserved for them in the future that they will have to abandon them now for a short time. Let us hope that An Taoiseach and those around him will exercise these powers in such a rational, sensible way that there will be no cause for apprehension in the hearts of our people about the conduct of affairs in the future.

As to the attitude which our country is to adopt and our position in this conflict which evidently has come upon the world, I think there can be no doubt as to what the great bulk of our people think. When An Taoiseach says that as far as this Government is concerned, they want to keep out of war, I believe myself that there would not be any Government here which would have any other point of view. I am convinced that when An Taoiseach says that, he speaks for the great majority of his country. Self-preservation is the first law of nature. While we may have our individual sympathies as to the rights and wrongs, while Senator Sir John Keane has adverted to the fact that we are not doing what a minority here would like us to do, that we are doing as other nations on the Continent are doing for strategic reasons, we can say this for ourselves—and perhaps few other nations can say it—that the conditions of the world to-day were made yesterday and the day before, and in the making of these conditions we had very little responsibility, less than any other nation in Europe.

Senator Hayes has said that we are not great and mighty now but I say that the part we are to play in the future is going to depend on the vitality which we display in a policy of neutrality. I do not like to hear anyone say that we are going to be neutral "if we can". I believe that what we ought to say in the interests of this nation is that we are going to be neutral, that we must be neutral and that we are not going to be drawn into the conflict. I know it might be argued that if we want to maintain here a standard of life and comfort that we can only enjoy by bringing in commodities from abroad we might be forced to do certain things and to adopt a certain attitude but I believe it would be far better for us to reduce considerably our standard of living, to go without much that we are enjoying to-day and keep all our people alive. I believe we would be serving the best interests of the nation by doing that than by any other course we might pursue. Let us hope that all our people will face that path and make their contribution towards achieving that end. Perhaps by doing that we may make a greater contribution to the reconstruction of the civilisation of Europe, if there is any of it left when this conflagration is over, than by any little way in which we could influence the conduct of the war even if we were prepared to throw our weight in on one side or the other. An Taoiseach or anybody else at the head of the Government in this country to-day would have to be given these powers. I would like to think that in exercising these powers An Taoiseach will take into account that there is a great body of people who may have a different point of view as to how these powers ought to be used in the best interests of the citizens. I think myself that there should be consultation and discussion with regard to the use of them but the necessity for doing that is something that cannot be questioned at the moment.

Mr. Douglas

The few remarks I propose to make will be confined entirely to the first measure and not to the measure which has not yet reached us, a measure which is of a different nature, and which will be criticised in some respects. I entirely agree with the Taoiseach when he states that this is exactly the kind of emergency which was envisaged when the Constitution was introduced, and if there is in that Constitution a flaw, in consequence of which we may not be able to deal with this particular kind of emergency, then there is no possible option but to give the Government the powers which are necessary to them.

I do not like the exact form of the measure, but I am prepared to accept the promise made by the Taoiseach on behalf of the Government that within a reasonable time he will reconsider the provisions of this Bill, and that he will not be satisfied that an amendment introduced hastily in an emergency should necessarily be a permanent part of the Constitution without further consideration. I think it will be found that it would be possible to safeguard the position, possibly by the method suggested by the Leader of the Opposition to-day by something like a two-thirds majority and not by a bare majority in both Houses. I agree that that cannot be done hastily. To introduce hastily now and to draft amendments would possibly serve no useful purpose. I, therefore, agree that the House should pass this Bill.

I do not agree with Senator Baxter when he says that self-preservation is the first law for every State. I think there are times when you have to be prepared to lose your life in order to save it. There are times when the State must be prepared to take risks. For my part I do not think this is a war between democracies and a particular form of government. I think the events of the last few days are such that almost all of us are perfectly clear as to where our sympathies lie. I have just returned from a visit to two of the most democratic States in Europe and they are going to remain neutral as long as they can. I have no doubt as to where their sympathies lie. Nevertheless they do not believe that they can do any good by entering into the war and I do not believe that any purpose of any kind can be gained, no matter how intense our sympathies are—and I make no secret of my sympathies— by saying our country is not going to be neutral and that we are going to fight Germany in the war between that country and France and England.

No matter what we might have felt with regard to the Government in the past, they deserve our support and sympathy in everything they have in hands in the next days, weeks, months or perhaps years for all I know. It may be that hell is going to be let loose and that the worst that we have been able to conceive may happen. Or it may be quite the contrary. It may be that we may have to undergo a certain amount of economic difficulty which will have to be dealt with. If the Government use the powers which may be given them as a national Government and use them in friendly consultation, such as they are entitled to and such friendly co-operation as they will get from every section of the community, then there may be no danger to our ultimate position as a democratic State. But if the Government abuse these powers, the possible damage that can come from them would be worse possibly than if this country had been engaged in the war. Nevertheless, I do not believe—sympathetic as I might be in some respects to some of the remarks made by Senator Sir John Keane—that we could be serving this country, the British Commonwealth of Nations or the world by saying "we can be neutral but we will not".

Mr. Quirke

I rise to support the Bill and while doing so I would like to congratulate the Taoiseach and his Government on the calmness with which they have handled this whole situation up to the present. I believe it was largely because of the example shown by the Taoiseach and his Government that the people as a whole have retained the calmness which is almost inexplicable in the circumstances. I feel proud, too, more proud than on many other occasions, that I am an Irishman and that I have lived to see the day when the members of this House and the members of the Dáil regardless of their political affiliations can rally to the flag of their country when they realise that that flag is in danger. I believe that the attitude of the members of both Houses of the Oireachtas in this crisis will go out to the world as proof that whatever differences we may have, we all realise that Ireland is ours and that it is our duty to protect her in the hour of danger. I am not going to go into the statements made or into the arguments put up by Senator Hayes about the majorities in both Houses and the majority in this House being a foregone conclusion. I think I am right in saying that, on a few occasions, Government amendments have been defeated here. However that question does not arise.

I would like to say that I disagree 100 per cent. with the attitude of Senator Sir John Keane and the views expressed by him as representing certain sections in this country. When the Senator says that very large sections of the people in this country are unhappy about our policy of neutrality, I want to assure the Taoiseach what he already knows, that Senator Sir John Keane represents a very small minority in the country and that that small minority, or at all events a great number of the people who formed that minority, have already left this country to perform what they believe to be their duty. I want further to assure the Taoiseach that as long as he and his Government pursue that policy of neutrality they will have behind them the overwhelming majority of the plain people of this country. We all realise the difficulties which may crop up from time to time but the people of the country will welcome the statement made by the Taoiseach on this policy of neutrality. I am 100 per cent. in agreement with Senator Baxter—and it is very seldom we do agree in anything—in his attitude on this problem of neutrality. I do believe with the backing of the people and the overwhelming majority of the people behind the Government that they will be able to protect the people and to protect that neutrality which is so essential to the well-being of this State. Some people may expect miracles. I do not and it is ridiculous to expect that we here in this country can escape altogether the curse which is bound to follow this unfortunate European war. I believe that we are definitely the happiest country in Europe to-day. I believe that we are to-day possibly faced with the happiest conditions of any country in Europe. I appeal to all the people with whom I have ever been in contact to take this question up and throw in their weight with the Government. I am convinced that if the Government get the support they ought to get, we will maintain our neutrality and come out of this crisis with our country intact.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I only intervene for a minute, and I only intervene because it seems to me that most people who spoke did not seem to advert to the Bill we have in front of us. We are talking about neutrality and about the present Constitution. What happened is this. When the Constitution was passed it adverted to a thing that might arise—armed rebellion or a state of war. A state of war could mean nothing but this, that you are actively belligerent. The Constitution has now revealed to us a weakness. Without there being a state of war or active belligerency on the part of our country, and without there being armed rebellion, there is a situation in which for the national good it is necessary to give the Government extraordinary powers. We have a situation now in which we are not at war or actively belligerent because it is impossible for us to be in such a war at present. Up to the last news that I heard even Great Britain is not at war. Yet, with Great Britain not at war, and with our country not at war, you can have such extraordinary circumstances that it is necessary for extraordinary powers to be given to the Government. I think every side of the House realises that these circumstances and what may arise out of them are so extraordinary, and may have such an effect that we must give the Government not merely powers specifically directed to what we know at the moment; but, in order to see that the Government have adequate powers, we have to give them practically unlimited powers. That is the situation.

We are now changing the Constitution as a permanent thing, although I think the Taoiseach has indicated that when we have more leisure and when we get over the immediate situation he may bring in an amendment changing this amendment. At the moment, what we are doing is changing our Constitution, so that in future, until such time within the next two years as the Constitution is again changed for all time, under circumstances which do not involve armed rebellion or active belligerency on the part of the country, a resolution may be passed giving power to abrogate the Constitution. We recognise that, in the peculiar circumstances which we are under, by immediate contact, it is necessary to do that. We recognise that in the unforeseeable future and the contingencies that it may bring about it may be necessary to do the same thing again. All this talk about neutrality and the rest of it is, to my mind, completely irrelevant.

Having protested against that irrelevancy, I want to be irrelevant myself on the same subject. I do not agree with Senator Sir John Keane in what he says on this question of neutrality, because our geographical position and one thing and another mean that if we wanted to be actively belligerent we cannot be actively belligerent, and if you are not actively belligerent you are effectively neutral. To my mind then, it is rather useless to argue whether you are neutral or not on the principle of Senator Sir John Keane. I want to say now that if I were a native of Patagonia and not of Ireland I would still desire in such a situation that as large a part of the world as possible should be kept outside the sphere of war. This modern theory, particularly of what I might call Left Wing people, that if one country is going to fight another, or a few countries are going to fight a few others, automatically you must have a universal totalitarian war, is a doctrine which is diametrically opposed to the well-being of the human race and of civilisation. First of all, I would desire at almost any price to avoid war; but when war is taking place, the next best thing we can do is to circumscribe the area of activity. I do not entirely agree with my colleague Senator Baxter in saying that the only way is one of self-preservation. I think other considerations come in. But the suggestion that, if you do not uphold that egotistical doctrine, you must accept the other, that every war is to be universal and totalitarian, is one that I do not accept.

We are bringing in this Bill because it has been revealed to us that there may be circumstances that were not foreseen by the Constitution when drafted and we have to meet them. That involves giving the Government extensive powers, more powers than we think they need for fear we should give less than they need, so that they will be in a position to provide for the well-being of the people of the country in the circumstances that may come. That is what we are dealing with now. A resolution comes afterwards stating that the circumstances of the moment are such circumstances. The thing could arise on many other occasions. When the Constitution was going through I remember thinking that if the League of Nations was still operating and sanctions were being applied against England you would have had to have such a Bill as this. I ask the House to remember that what we are doing now is changing the Constitution to give the Oireachtas power from time to time, when circumstances demand it, to hand over to the Government power to abrogate the Constitution, and to do that even when there are not such circumstances as armed rebellion or active participation in war. That is what we are doing now, and most of what has been said to my mind is utterly irrelevant.

Mr. MacDermot

The question of the merits of neutrality does not seem to me to be as irrelevant as Deputy Fitzgerald thinks, and I suggest therefore that he may be pardoned for sinning against his own definition of what is relevant and what is not. The stupendous powers we are going to be asked to hand over to the Government are not powers that would be required by any ordinary neutral. The amendment put down by Senator Sir John Keane really points to the reason why these powers are being asked for. He has generalised to the extent of saying that they might reasonably be asked for in a case where any member of the British Commonwealth was involved in war. But, in point of fact, these powers would not be asked for in connection with any war in which Great Britain was not involved, and it is because of our very peculiar and intimate relation with Great Britain that these powers are now being sought.

That fact brings us to consider whether our neutrality is not going to be of a very special and peculiar kind. Now, I quite admit, as a practical politician, that the vast majority of the people of this country are in favour of a policy of neutrality, and that it would not be practicable at present for any Government to follow any other policy than that which the Taoiseach has announced he is going to follow. Nevertheless, I think the duty lies upon those of us who feel as I do to say whether or not we think that that view on the part of the country is right. I do not think it is right. I do not think it is right, even putting it on the narrowest ground of self-preservation, to which Senator Baxter refers. In my opinion, there is not a single country in the world whose spiritual and material interests are so immediately and overwhelmingly affected by this war as our own. If France, England, and Poland are defeated, everything spiritually that the Irish race has stood for will be defeated too, will perhaps go down into oblivion and destruction. More than that, this country will be reduced to a state of rags and beggary that it has not known for many centuries.

It has been argued—and that is an argument which has more apparent force in it than anything else which has been said on the subject—that if we abandon neutrality it will not do any good. I disagree with that view. I am not suggesting that it would be practicable for us to send an expeditionary force to the Continent; I quite appreciate that our resources would not admit of anything of the kind. But I do think that our entering into the war would mean a practical co-operation in the defence of the British Isles as a whole, and in the defence of the shipping upon which we ourselves depend just as much as England, that would be of great value. Moreover, I think the moral effect of our standing out of the war is bad and that the moral effect of our coming into the war would be exceedingly good.

I confess I am amazed by the discrepancy between the terms in which Senators and Deputies talk about the position of Ireland at different times, according to the sort of point they are trying to make. At one moment we are an unimportant little country, tucked away on the fringe of Europe, a country that has no concern in any sort of issues at stake in this war. At another moment we boast ourselves to be a mother country, a mother country that has sent out her sons to all parts of the world, in particular, and what concerns us in regard to this conflict is, to such countries as America, Australia and Canada, countries in which our attitude is of significance, countries in which our spiritual influence is strong. If we have a place in history, if we are a mother country, if we always have stood for the ideals of liberty and justice, if there is a special parallel in history between the case of Ireland and the case of Poland, surely this——

Mr. Foran

Is there any limit to the extent we can travel under this Bill?

Cathaoirleach

It is desirable that there should be, and I am sure Senator MacDermot will bear that in mind.

Mr. Foran

I merely ask for a ruling.

Mr. MacDermot

I have gone no further than other Senators who have taken part in the discussion.

Mr. Foran

I have asked the Chair to rule if there is any limit to the extent we can explore or travel under this Bill. We seem to be going from bad to worse.

Cathaoirleach

Undoubtedly there is a limit and I am sure Senator MacDermot will bear the Senator's observation in mind.

Mr. MacDermot

I will bear the objection in mind, but if Senators point to the insignificance and lack of influence of this country and the lack of interest in this country in the issues now at stake, I submit that it is open to me to put the opposite case.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Only in so far as it is relevant.

Mr. MacDermot

I think that what I have said is enough to make any Senator reflect on the subject. While agreeing that no other course but neutrality is possible for a Government of this country, with the sentiment of the people as it is, I wish to put myself on record as saying that that sentiment is wrong and some day or other realities are going to change it. An object lesson is going to be provided that will change it, for this war will have tremendously important effects in regard to everything we hold dear in the spiritual world and on our every hope of prosperity in the material world.

Mr. Goulding

I do not agree with Senator Fitzgerald when he says that the question of neutrality is irrelevant. The powers sought in this Bill are powers to enable the Government to do what the vast majority of the people in this country want—to keep the Irish people neutral. There is grave danger in this country, and probably in other countries, that sections of the people may be swayed by one sympathy or another and may endeavour to force this country into the conflict. The powers asked for are powers that the Government need in order to see that the wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people are preserved. I believe the members on both sides of the House are quite willing that those powers should be given and it is hardly necessary to labour the point any further.

I am afraid I cannot agree entirely with Senator MacDermot. It is quite possible a grave misunderstanding might arise as to the attitude of the Irish people in a European conflict. There are in this country people who feel strongly, perhaps, on one side or the other. We Irish people have a problem of our own to solve and we should be very careful in what way we display our sympathies. We have portion of our country held against the wishes of the majority of the Irish people and it would be very invidious of the people of Ireland to display any sympathy with any Government in Europe that might endeavour in any part of Europe to preserve the same state of affairs that exists in our own country.

Mr. Foran

I want to say on behalf of the Labour Party that we agree to this alteration in the Constitution. We have heard the Taoiseach give an assurance which makes it somewhat easier to approve of the change. I do not think it is necessary for me to go further than to say that we are in favour of the alteration in the Constitution because we believe there is going to be a world-wide conflict and however we may wish for neutrality the big powers will not respect our neutrality for very long.

Professor Tierney

I do think it is rather a pity that this whole question of our neutrality and our attitude towards this conflict should come up in this particular way. There was plenty of time to discuss this question of our attitude towards European countries and Great Britain. We are now standing on the edge of a most tremendous danger, and I suggest to everybody that the time has passed when it is safe for public men to make elaborate pronouncements about the sentiments of the people of this country or the attitude this country ought to adopt in relation to the terrible struggle that seems to be upon us. We do not know from one week to another what frightful dangers may arise for this country out of a war of this kind and we do not know what use may be made of speeches and statements that responsible public men may make in this country on any side in a war of this kind.

I am not going to make any pronouncement myself, having uttered this warning, because I believe the dangers we have to face may come from any side, and it behoves all our public men to be extremely cautious in everything they say and not let their sentiments or feelings or ideological beliefs draw them into making statements about what the people here ought or ought not to do. We have met here to-day in order to entrust our Government with very wide and far reaching powers so that they may protect the life of the people of this country in this conflict. We ought to be extremely cautious, at least from now on, in what we say about anything connected with the conflict that seems about to break upon us.

Dr. Rowlette

I hope in the few sentences that I utter I will not go against the advice given by Senator Tierney. Like Senator Foran and other Senators, I see the seriousness of the amendment which the Taoiseach has put before the Oireachtas, but, like other Senators too, I recognise that the Government have a tremendous responsibility, and that they do not ask for such great powers without considering that they cannot shoulder the responsibilities which rest on them unless they get these powers. I think in a case like this, while we recognise the gravity of the decision we are making, we must also realise the gravity of the task they have to face, and we must, I think, give them every support.

The few remarks I wish to make are rather intended to deal briefly with the background of the legislation which the Taoiseach has put before us. While recognising the danger of arousing opposition so early in my speech, I say at once that I agree with the greater part of what Senator MacDermot said a few moments ago. I do not propose to argue the question at any length, or to follow the arguments he has used but I do in general agree with the line of thought that he has told us is his, and I suggest that there are certain considerations which some Senators have not borne in mind in making the very pronounced statements that were made to-day. The Taoiseach has told us, and we approve of it of course, that his first interest and the first interest of his Government is the protection of the immediate interests of the people of Ireland. The Taoiseach might have gone on to say—it would have been becoming to him, as it has been in the past—that he recognises that there are other interests, and that the people of this country have other interests, in no narrow sense. Before the world, in prominent positions, he has maintained other interests, of importance not merely to the people of Ireland but of interest to the people of every country in the world, and he has recognised that when he held a responsible position in Geneva in the past that he had responsibilities which went far outside the constituency of this country which he represented. I am sure that he has them in mind, although he has not given expression to them to-day in the few remarks he made in his speech as to the background of this legislation. I make these remarks not to criticise him but to encourage him to keep those considerations in mind perhaps even more fully than the pressure of daily affairs permits him to do with ease.

Even taking the narrower point of view of the immediate self-centred—I will not say "selfish," as I do not want to use an offensive word—interests of the people of Ireland, I think it is necessary to consider whether the policy which the Taoiseach has pursued, and of which some Senators have approved very vehemently, is likely to be either a practicable one or a useful one. Is neutrality likely to be practicable during a war such as, unfortunately, we appear to be on the brink of? It seems to me to require a good deal of consideration. The Taoiseach himself has suggested some of the difficulties which are certain to arise. We are very closely associated, by propinquity, by business relations, by personal relations, with a country which will be one of the principal participants. Difficulties will arise on a thousand points of contacts. The Taoiseach has suggested that himself, but he has not dwelt on the point. I should like Senators to dwell a little further on the matter. Take for instance the control of shipping, the protection of shipping, the trade between the two countries; is that really likely to be an easier task with a policy of neutrality than with another policy? I am not giving an answer to that, but I think it is a point which should be seriously considered.

Is a policy of neutrality likely to help us in any other way? I do not know, but I do suggest this: The war will not last for ever, we hope. There will be a future policy for this country. The future policy of the Taoiseach, if he is still the leader of the country, will be, as it is to-day, to promote the reunion of Ireland. Will he find that task easier if this country has pursued a line of neutrality during a struggle which has endangered the existence of other States to which we are closely related? That may be taken as a selfish argument. I do not mind in what way it is taken; it is an argument of which I am quite sure the Taoiseach cannot afford to lose sight. I am not offering any alternative policy to that which the Taoiseach has declared to be the policy of his Government. I do not know, as he knows, the difficulties that face him, but I do suggest that Senators ought to weigh these matters in their minds and should not keep on repeating the word "neutrality" which may be an impossible dream, and a dream which, if it were to come true, might prove a very bad dream indeed.

Mr. Honan

I naturally rise in support of this amendment. In doing so, I do not think that congratulations either for the Taoiseach or the Government are necessary at all. The course they have adopted was of such an obvious nature that all we might reasonably do is to assure the Taoiseach and the Government of the approval of 90 per cent. of the people of the country. I think the Government have adopted a very proper attitude. We ourselves have been in conflict for many years, many centuries, and none of us can find anything in history to show that any country in Europe went at breakneck speed into war in our support. We have been left to our own resources at all times, and, now that we are in a position to adopt an attitude of neutrality in regard to all other people who have neither offended nor helped us, I think it is a very proper attitude. Let us all hope that it will be possible for the Government and the country to maintain that attitude to the end. Of course, if any country should deem it expedient to invade or attempt to invade our country in any way, I am sure the full resources and man power of this country would be at the disposal of the Government to repel any such movement.

Professor Alton

I did not intend to speak on this amendment, but I feel it my duty to be perfectly frank. I think everybody here, all sections of Irishmen, should stand behind the Taoiseach and the Government at the present juncture. Whatever our individual opinions are, or have been in the past, we should give him all the powers that he may want or he does want, because this is a time of extreme danger and gravity, and the situation is changing from hour to hour. The world is in an hysterical condition, and we want to give our doctors, as it were, full powers to control the patient. I think we ought to give the Government all the powers and all the encouragement they require. The Taoiseach said that neutrality did not mean indifference.

It would be straining human nature too much to think that we can view this horrible quarrel, this awful struggle, completely unmoved. We all have our feelings and our sympathies; we have very strong sympathies certainly with one side— perhaps with one side and the other— but I think the majority of our sympathies in this country are with the peace front. I hope that nothing will be done to muzzle those opinions and that the efforts of this country will be felt in the world as a compellent and as an effective force to stop the spread of this horrible war and to bring it to an end quickly if possible. I do not see how at the present moment any other course but neutrality is open to the Taoiseach. The opinion of the country at large is in favour of such an attitude. A minority of individuals—indeed I possibly am one of them myself—has a different opinion, but I think we have to face what is possible and not expect miracles.

I would like to say just one thing more. I join with those Senators who took exception to that principle of Senator Baxter's that life is the most important thing in a nation. Any nation that has risen to greatness has learned to risk life and that was the characteristic of this nation where there were vital adventures and spiritual adventures. Please God, we will always be ready to take risks of that sort. We cannot say what the morrow will bring us, but I think it is right to give the Government full powers to take whatever steps are necessary and that they should have our support, though it may happen that they will have to take another line before this awful struggle is ended. Let us stand together, however, behind the Government.

Mr. McEllin

I did not intend to intervene in this debate, thinking originally that it would be rather short; but, in view of some statements in which it has been advocated that a country like this should participate in the catastrophe which is about to take place, it rather strikes me as a reason for intervening. After all, we are a small nation of 3,000,000 people and after generations of fighting everyone's battles but our own we are now faced with the position of responsibility, as a sovereign State, of safeguarding the interests of our country. It seems to me that it will take all the ingenuity of the Government and the wholehearted co-operation and rigid discipline of every section of the community behind that Government to help this country to pull through the morass that is facing the world.

As I see it now, whether we like it or not, our whole commercial enterprises and trade channels are likely to be thrown out of gear; the whole food supplies of our people are likely to be upset and seriously curtailed. As I see this country in the last 24 hours, the people are not fully alive to the danger and do not appreciate the serious difficulties ahead. While we are all talking here, Senator McDermot and a few more irresponsible narrowminded people are watching the war and talking about self-sacrifices in the best interests of it. What is the British Government or any other country going to gain from what they are fighting for? The whole lot of them have gone mad. Let us at least show a certain amount of practical commonsense in our own small way.

Let us ask the people down the country in the different parishes to organise and discipline themselves and to subject themselves without criticism —I lay emphasis on the words "without criticism"—of the efforts of the Government to secure the food supplies and the peace of the country. That is going to take a lot of doing and I think that the only hope of successfully carrying it out is through committees of all Parties in every parish, which should be set up within the next 24 hours. If we succeed in disciplining ourselves and accepting the dictates of the Government loyally and with full co-operation, we are doing far more to preserve the western flank of Britain, as well as preserve our own security, than we could do by such methods as are advocated by irresponsible people who are asking us to join in the catastrophe which is about to take place. I sincerely hope that this discipline and loyal wholehearted co-operation will be manifested by our people. I hope that we shall tell the people the truth and ask them to give us that co-operation in the interests of our own country.

Mr. Madden

I feel that I would be wanting in my responsibility and in my duty here as a Senator if I allowed this meeting to terminate without giving my views. I am very sorry to have listened to some of the speeches in this critical atmosphere in which the country finds itself in the present time. I would rather agree with the terms suggested by Senator McEllin in the closing remarks of his speech. From time to time over a number of years I have offered criticism to the Government at present in office and to the Fianna Fáil Party. I offered criticism in another capacity to the Government anterior to the present one. Now, as a citizen of this State and as a member of this House and as an Irishman, I can visualise the serious and terrible outlook that is before our country and before civilisation. Those of us my age who lived through the last war saw the terrible and continuing consequences, which are even alive yet, saw the cripples and the economic consequences to the States which were involved as well as to the States which were not.

My contribution to-day is this: we have here a Government elected by the people; they have been returned successfully by the considered and serious vote of the people. I am perfectly sure that, noting the manner of expression and the language used by the Taioseach in the other House to-day and here to-night, anyone could realise the feeling and the temperament and the anxiety that characterised every word that came from his lips. It appears to me that he too sees the terrible consequences that are facing Europe and the world to-day. I am perfectly sure that the Executive Council responsible to the people of this country—we have been told in the other House that they have been sitting day and night; I do not know for how long—must have examined from A to Z all the consequences and ramifications of the action that they were indicating that the Irish people should take and that they as the elected Government of that people indicated as the best and proper course to pursue in the interests of the nation. It is my opinion that Senator McEllin's appeal to-day should be heard, that there ought to be a unification of the forces of this country to stand in these critical days behind the Government in what they consider should be done. We ought to do that and I, for one, am prepared to give them all my support as an individual unit in this House.

The Taoiseach

I do not think there is anything I could add to what has been already said. I saw from the remarks that have been made that we are going to get the Bill without opposition. This is only the preliminary to a good deal of other work that has to be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the Committee Stage now.