Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jan 1940

Vol. 24 No. 5

Emergency Powers (Amendment) Bill, 1940—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I am sure the Seanad is aware of the reason for the introduction of this amendment to the Emergency Powers Act. By a recent court decision the Government was left without power to intern people who were believed to be engaged in activities prejudicial to the safety of the State. It is a question to be decided yet whether that particular Act, which one court held to be ultra vires to the Constitution, is or is not so. It is hoped that the Uachtarán will submit the other Bill which is before the Dáil now to the High Court for decision on that point. For that reason that Bill or the part of that Bill which is being amended is following as nearly as possible Section 6 of the old Offences Against the State Act. This Bill on the other hand is simply an Emergency Bill. It can only run for 12 months. But if the war in Europe by any chance happened to end soon, as everyone would like to see happening, there would not be much justification for continuing this Emergency Act after the war had ceased, but I think it will be generally admitted that power to deal with organisations such as it is intended to deal with will have to be here for some time to come; let us hope it will not be for a long time, but certainly for some time to come. The position is that before we can get a decision on the other Bill we will have to wait some time; the court will have to consider it. We want those powers immediately. I am sure everyone is aware that there is a very dangerous situation here. That is the reason then why we are asking to have certain words deleted from the Emergency Powers Act, words which were inserted at the request of the Opposition at the time the Bill was going through the Dáil, on its being pointed out that there was already power to intern natural-born citizens. The Opposition brought in an amendment, and the Government accepted it, in the belief that they had power to intern natural-born citizens. It has been decided in one court that we have not. Therefore, we are asking to have the appropriate amendments made, so that there will be power in this Emergency Act to intern persons who in the opinion of the Minister are engaged in activities prejudicial to the safety of the State.

The Opposition in the other House had their doubts as to whether we would be safe even with this Bill. Some were of the opinion that that also could be successfully challenged in the courts. Our advice is that that is not so, that it is covered by Article 28 of the Constitution, sub-section (3) of clause 3. That is our advice and, consequently, we did not accept an amendment offered by the Opposition to amend the Constitution because, as I said already, we are not satisfied that the Constitution does not empower us to do the things we have been doing and until we get the Supreme Court decision on that point we do not propose to amend the Constitution. We are acting now in the full belief and on advice that when this Bill is passed the action that we propose to take cannot be challenged. It is an emergency measure appropriate to a period when there is a war situation and, therefore, the ordinary Constitution will not apply in this case.

I do not know if it is necessary for me to make a recital of some of the events that have made it necessary for us to bring in this amendment or to intern people at all, but I think, although I did it fairly exhaustively in the other House, I must at least mention some of the things that have happened so that the Seanad will see that we have a really good case for asking for the powers we are now asking for. Of course, I do not propose to go back very far because everybody knows what the past history has been. About this time last year, some time in December, a resolution was passed by a body, most of the members of which had been elected about 20 years ago and almost all of whom had been beaten in elections subsequently. These people called themselves the Government of the country and purported to hand over the powers of the Government to an armed body and that body almost immediately declared that they were entitled to make war in the name of the Irish people and proceeded, to a certain extent anyhow. We had a campaign in part of this country anyhow. We had huts blown up on the Border and in part of the Twenty-Six Counties an explosion occurred in which three of these people, who were obviously engaged in that work, lost their lives. That was about 12 months ago. Since that there has not been much activity in this part of the country up to about September or so, but we had information that something was contemplated and we were in the position that we had not got proof. We could not produce concrete evidence that would satisfy any court that these people were engaged in these activities, but we had full knowledge of it. We knew something was in contemplation. Exactly what it was we were not in a position to say, but when war broke out, and in view of certain documents that were captured in the headquarters in Rathmines, we came to the conclusion that we must act and at least intern some of the people who were likely to be the leaders in this violent action which we had information was about to occur. Somewhere about the middle of September we did intern a certain number of them. There was a raid in which documents were captured. Large sums of money—very large sums for ordinary citizens to be carrying about—in American currency, were also captured. There was almost 8,000 dollars found on one man. The raid on this house in Rathmines was on the 9th September exactly, and when the premises were searched the police found a large amount of aluminium powder, that was powder used for these explosions that had been taking place, together with two Smith and Wesson revolvers and one Colt automatic with ammunition. On one man the police found a sum of 7,950 American dollars and on another 315 American dollars. We got a rather large quantity of documents. I do not think it necessary to quote from them all, but there are a few which I quoted from in the Dáil and which I may quote here to show the type of thing that was going on. We are fairly satisfied that this was the headquarters which was captured. I shall read some of the documents that were being issued. One document is headed: "Oglaigh na hEireann, 6th September, 1939. Drogheda Battalion to Department of Intelligence. Report on enemy forces in area." It goes on:—

"(1) As far as I am aware there are about 20 ‘Free State' troops posted at Drogheda railway station ostensibly for the purpose of guarding communications. According to a report a strong force of ‘Free State' troops are about to be billeted in the Whitworth Hall for the purpose of garrisoning the town.

"Battalion Adjutant."

I draw attention to the fact that the Free State troops are referred to as enemy troops in the area.

The next one is from the same battalion and is a requisition on the quartermaster. It says:—

"Please supply electrical detonators, delay action, red oxide iron, aluminium powder, sulphuric acid, carbon disulphide and phosphorus, gas bomb. The training officer has given me this list of materials he requires for his classes."

Then there is another one which shows pretty clearly that men were being forced into active service, as they call it. It is about an absentee from a parade at Bodenstown. It says:—

"The absentee from Bodenstown parade is volunteer ——, late of —— battalion."

"He is very unsatisfactory and seems to think army was formed to ornament him. The O/C. desires you to billet him in training class with a view to early transfer to active service. This is urgent. If you can arrange it all billet Q/M. Finglas B. coy. who wish to go active service. Good and intelligent."

He was not being forced apparently, but you can see that the other was being forced. A Longford battalion was looking for some material. What they wanted to do with it I do not know. It is a rather formidable list. They have a requisition on the quartermaster-general's department for the following arms and ammunition:—

"One Thompson sub-machine gun with 2 butts, drum magazines, 2L, 2C type, 20 Lee-Enfield service rifles, 10 revolvers, 8 Webley, 1 Colt, 1 Smith and Wesson and 4 automatics, 10,000 rounds of 303 and 4,000 rounds of .45 revolver, 50 rounds of Peter Painter, 6 grenades charged and primed, 2 grenades for lectures and throwing practice, 2 signal outfits, buzzers, lamps, telephones, flags and wire, complete instruction on signalling and first-aid."

Then there was a short letter. It reads:—

"Dear Seán,

"Just an urgent note before bearer leaves. The war has changed the whole position here. The lads are anxious to have you back as soon as possible. You will be needed here at once. Ask Clann to try and rush supplies. In haste.

"(Signed) Busher."

That letter was from Dublin. It is a copy of a letter that was sent to America. When we got that document it confirmed the report that we had heard that activities were intended and we decided to lay hands on the people we thought would be likely to be leaders. If we got evidence we, of course, prosecuted. In this case we did get the evidence and we did prosecute and the men are in gaol but there are others that we knew were likely to be engaged in these activities and on whom it would be impossible to get any documents or anything that would enable us to convict them. Consequently we decided that these people should be interned. If, when they were arrested, we got anything that would enable us to convict them we would, of course, proceed and have them tried before the Military Tribunal. That was in September.

We discovered a well-equipped laboratory in a house in Killiney. It was a large empty house but there was a fully-equipped laboratory in it. I shall mention just a few particulars from a very long list of stuff which was found in that house and which shows that people were being instructed there in the construction of trap mines and these alarm clocks for causing time bomb explosions. Amongst the articles found were switch connections, a hand-book on oxy-acetylene welding, alarm clocks fitted with contacts for time bombs, rat traps fitted with explosive traps, all sorts of wires, a quantity of gelignite, all sorts of military cables, thermometers, hydrometers, test tubes, capsules, etc. There was a full supply of chemicals necessary for the manufacture of explosives. In addition there was a sack containing a large number of toy rubber balloons. All over the place were found traces of aluminium oxide powder showing that not alone were demonstrations being carried out there, but that the manufacture of these explosives was being carried on also. Nobody was arrested in connection with that incident. The owner of the house was able to satisfy the Guards that he was not aware that it was being used for that purpose.

Quite recently, on the 3rd December, a party of men was arrested coming back from machine gun practice in the Dublin mountains. At any rate, it is believed that that was what they were engaged in. They were sentenced for refusing to give an account of their movements. If they had given an account of their movements, it might be very difficult, no matter how sure the Gárdaí were that they had been engaged in this activity, to get a conviction. They were proper subjects for internment as the Gárdaí were well aware of the activities in which they had been engaged. There had been a van with them but the van escaped as it went a different route. On the site where it was believed they had been practising there were found 381 discharged .303 cartridge cases, eight undischarged .303 bullets, 12 discharged .45 cartridge cases and an ammunition box. There was also found a target which had been well perforated and there were traces of explosive materials round the place.

Lastly we had the attack on the Magazine in the Park with the result we all know, an attack which caused such consternation throughout the country. That was the culminating point. The Government probably were to blame for having taken a chance over the Christmas. When the power to intern was taken out of our hands by the court decision, I am prepared to admit that we were somewhat culpable, but we had hoped to summon the Dáil at an early date and to get the power for which we are now looking. We took a chance as we thought they would be satisfied with their victory in the courts especially as they paid such tributes to our Constitution. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Unfortunately, a large number of men were mobilised, how many we do not know, but it must have taken a considerable number of men to carry out that raid. That can not be tolerated. No Government could possibly stand aside and allow an organisation of that kind to exist with the money they have at their disposal and with the arms which they have and which we have not been able to get. The previous Government was not able to get these arms. I was asked in the Dáil, if I could give some idea of the quantity of arms which we had recovered. The last Government may have got some but I do not think they got very much. I think on several occasions a large quantity of arms were taken during that time. I remember myself—I was a prisoner at the time—that members of the Army went away on an occasion in 1924 with a large quantity of arms. What became of them I do not know. I do not know whether they were recovered but there is a large quantity of arms hidden throughout the country. I would be glad to think that they are all rotten now but I think, unfortunately, not all of them are rotten. I think some of them have been kept in a good serviceable condition. There must be a large quantity of arms at the disposal of these people judged by the fact that they wanted this huge quantity of ammunition.

Whatever damage in prestige the Government may have suffered as a result of this raid, I hope at any rate it has had the effect of wakening the people to the danger of the situation. It should make us all resolve to see that nobody will be allowed to get away with arms and ammunition in this way. I am glad to say that we have recovered about four-fifths of the ammunition taken, but there is still a large quantity that we have not got. In addition, I am quite satisfied that there is a large quantity of other arms, munitions and explosives in the hands of these people which we have not been able to get. It is a pity that people who have an idea of where these arms and munitions are dumped would not let us know of their location, even anonymously. There might be a chance of recovering the arms from these dumps by an intensive search. We have succeeded already in discovering three or four dumps in which the arms had been stored for a long time, but there was not a very large quantity of arms in these dumps—just a few Thompson guns and rifles. We are quite satisfied that there is a large quantity still hidden in different parts of the country which we have not been able to get. Therefore, we want power to hold the people who, we think, are likely to use these arms. If we get evidence on which a conviction can be secured against them we shall bring them before the courts, but if we do not get such evidence, and if we are satisfied that these people are likely to engage in these activities, we intend to intern them.

Mr. MacDermot

Might I ask the Minister one question? He said that he intended to intern these people. Does he intend to continue to hold them if they go on hunger strike?

Mr. Boland

I certainly hope so.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Say "yes" or "no."

Mr. Boland

The intention certainly is to hold them, hunger strike or no hunger strike because things have gone too far altogether. Under this Bill there is power simply to intern. Everything done under this Emergency Powers Bill is done by order. The order is put on the Table of the House and it is under the powers given in Section 2 that the order is made. In that order, provision will be made for places of detention for these people and for the setting up of a commission before which anyone who feels he has been wrongly interned may appeal.

Mr. M. Hayes

May I ask the Minister, for the information of Senators and for the guidance of the debate, whether he could indicate what type of person he thinks will be on the commission, apart from the legal person defined in the order? There is one legal member. What are the others? I am not asking for the particular individuals, but what type is in his mind?

Mr. Boland

The last two were two military officers and I think it would be the right type to have on again.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Of a certain minimum rank?

Mr. Boland

Yes; not below the rank of major.

Mr. Crosbie

Could there be a police officer?

Mr. Boland

No.

Mr. M. Hayes

This is a very short and apparently a very simple amending Bill to a Bill which was brought in at the outbreak of the European War to deal with a situation in this country as affected by that war. It is by no means simple, but asks for very considerable powers and for my part, I would like to say, at the very outset that, in all the circumstances and in spite of my having no confidence in this Government's capacity or desire to use powers properly, I intend—if there should be a division—to vote for the Bill.

The Bill indicates two failures. It indicates the complete failure of Government policy with regard to illegal armed organisations in the country; it indicates also the failure of the Government in the drafting of their legislation. They have proved singularly unfortunate—perhaps one should use the words singularly incompetent, but certainly, singularly unfortunate—in the legislation drafted since they came into office. As time goes on they do not seem to become any better, but constantly find the courts rejecting the meanings which they and their advisers deem certain words to have. As regards powers under this Bill, they ask for power of internment, a power which when in Opposition, and when a situation was apparently—in the number of dead bodies, for example—much more grave than it is at the present time, they decried and refused to the Government then in office. They came into office themselves and assumed powers. I think they abused them to some extent. Recently it was found they had been illegally exercised.

I think we may consider very, very briefly who it is asks for these powers and whether the powers being asked for do furnish a remedy for the present difficulties. The persons in Government now are a group who in the main opposed the Treaty, fought and lost a civil war, advised arms to be dumped and not surrendered to the legal Government of the country when the civil war was over, and who remained in active association with—if not in real leadership of—an armed organisation right up to the time when they became a Government and perhaps for some time later than that.

We have a Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures now. When Fianna Fáil got into office and for some time afterwards it certainly had in the Government a person or persons for the co-ordination of the Government's efforts to retain political power with the efforts of armed illegal organisations outside. They also are a group who have never given anything but qualified support to the rule of law and order in this country. The Minister, I was glad to see, towards the end of his speech gave expression to a sentiment with which I am in complete agreement. He said he hoped that the recent happenings would convince us and would make us resolve that whoever had arms and ammunition should get no opportunity to use it. I am wholeheartedly with him in that particular wish, but I doubt if the powers he is asking for will bring him any distance on the road he desires to travel. I think the harm that has been done, and that was done even as late as last night, by qualified support only, of the rule of law and order, is impeding the Minister's progress and that of all of us, towards that very desirable end.

It seems to me that the remedy is doubtful; in the first place, I am not so sure that this particular amendment of the Emergency Powers Act will not in itself, when it has been passed into law, be found invalid. Frankly, I hope it will not be found invalid but certainly a single amendment of the Constitution would have the desired effect and would leave none of us in any doubt and would not entail either delay or any appeal to the Supreme Court. The Constitution, however, is a sacrosanct document and cannot be amended, even to save life. The remedy is doubtful, therefore, on the legal aspect. I think it is still more doubtful on other aspects. The Minister went a certain distance this evening about that. What we need is rather clear thinking and honest speaking on the question of the use of armed force against the State. What we need is honest and unequivocal speaking on this subject. There is an opinion abroad—and what has been said by members of the Government gives considerable colour to it—that they believe that no arms should be used against them when they are in government and when their particular Constitution is in force. In cases like that there must be no use of arms, as it would be unpatriotic as well as illegal. But that particular view is confined to the time that they are in office and does not apply to anybody coming before or after them. That doctrine is the doctrine which is causing so much harm at the moment. People have been misled by the speeches which have been made by the present Government since they came into office.

I listened on a Friday night—I think it was last Friday night week—to the so-called I.R.A. broadcast. It was the usual dope, but what struck me about it was this. I have heard the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice and their friends speaking a great deal at various time and in various places and, listening to this broadcast, I was struck by the fact that almost every single word of it might have come from the mouth of de Valera or Aiken or Ruttledge or Boland. I am not, Sir, transgressing the rules or order. I do not mean the Taoiseach, the Minister for the Co-Ordination of Defensive Measures, the Minister for Local Government, or the Minister for Justice. I mean exactly what I say: the words were exactly the words one might hear from de Valera or Boland at particular moments—the same stuff, the same false slanderous history of recent times and the same stupidities of more remote times.

Mr. McEllin

They are different circumstances altogether. Do not misrepresent the position.

Mr. Hayes

This is the muddled thinking which sends people to death.

Mr. McEllin

They are different circumstances.

Mr. Hayes

Senator McEllin cannot be a Senator in a semi-conservative Party in a State, and enjoy the emoluments of the State, and at the same time endeavour to be an I.R.A. man. He can speak when I have finished.

Mr. McEllin

More misrepresentation.

Mr. Hayes

I will make my speech whatever Senator McEllin says. He cannot have different things at the same time. I will make my speech and he would need to be much cleverer to put me off. I do not think he can do it. He would need to have a lot more parliamentary experience and learn a lot more English before he would succeed in that.

We need to do a lot more thinking. I am on the point, then, of dealing with this I.R.A. broadcast. It contained the Fianna Fáil dope and the Fianna Fáil history, the very same stuff: the success of the Irish Republican Army in 1919, 1920, and 1921, the Truce the British asked for and were granted and —an absurd form of history—our liberty signed away on the 6th December by the men who signed the Treaty. The Irish Press on the 6th December, 1939 —the Taoiseach's paper—had that very same vile lie and scandal upon the men who signed the Treaty. That very same lie appeared on the 6th December, 1939. A gentleman is paid for spreading scandalous lies about people alive and dead. That kind of thing is misleading young people and leaving us in a situation that internment in my judgment, even if it is necessary, is not going to prove a lasting remedy.

We need to have clear minds and to do some honest thinking. We must acknowledge that the elected Government of the people must govern and that it does not matter what the name of the Prime Minister is or to what Party he belongs or what particular kind of Constitution there is. Now, to come to Senator McEllin's point, there is no change in the Constitution. If anybody had the right to use arms against Ministers in 1922 the same right exists to-day. Let us have some clarity and clear thinking in this matter and to stop this doctrine which is being sprung upon us in newspapers—some of it under the guise of the Catholic religion and some of it in the schools—a pernicious doctrine that must be destroyed or the State itself and something much more important than the State—the future of our children—is going to be destroyed. We had an example of it last night: the very same thing again. That I.R.A. broadcast assured us blandly that there was going to be no civil war. We heard the same thing before. That seems to be the case so long as nobody interferes with them. Just as before, if the minority were allowed to impose its will on the majority there would be no civil war. In other words, there is going to be no burglary in my house if I hand over my watch to the burglar. The Minister told us that he wished— and I wish it also—that people would reveal the dumps, but the Minister's colleague, the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, rose in his place in the Dáil at another time, full of indignation to say that no Minister should expect that he would be an informer. Of course, he would not be an informer but he is Minister now and wants other people to do it. He wants people quite rightly to inform and to give to the Irish Government the information which was not given in very different circumstances to a foreign Government.

One Minister last night did make considerable progress along that line and I think he deserves every credit for it, but the speech of the Taoiseach last night put me in despair. He was the same as ever. He did not give any clear indication of any principle on which this country could be governed. We are in a grave emergency, and everybody inside the Oireachtas and outside it, as the Minister suggests, should help to solve it. It is in the interests of all of us; it is in the interests of those of us who have children who must grow up and live in this country, and who have no refuge anywhere else. We are in serious danger of seeing this State collapse. We are in serious danger of proving that the people who said that the Irish people could not govern themselves were right, and I think that all assistance should be given by every good citizen to the Government in solving the problem, but it is very difficult to know how to help people who are themselves vacillating and bewildered.

Take, for example, the simple question of hunger-strikes recently. I do not want to go into the merits of whether they should or should not have been released, but it is fortunate that they were—in the light of the court decision that some of them, at least, were illegally held—but what is one to say of a Government which makes a declaration in the most solemn possible form that men will not be released and then releases them the following day, or the day after that? The same thing applies to the man the Minister himself has mentioned. When this habeas corpus application was being tried in the courts, anybody who had any acquaintance with that kind of thing, without being a very good lawyer at all, could have seen that the case was going to go against the Government. That was pretty clear at an early point, and they then could have got the Opposition which expressed its willingness, to meet late, to meet at any time, in order to fill in the breach which the courts had found in our legislation, but that was not done.

It is a mystery to me how the Minister can tell us that he hoped he was going to have a truce over Christmas. If anybody knows these people, it should be the Minister and his colleagues. Of course, he did not get the truce, and there were two results from not having the co-operation of the Opposition on that occasion, one, the raid on the Magazine Fort and the other, this Bill. After 18 years of Irish government, it is difficult to speak at all about a situation in which we have to consider this Bill, and in which we remember that last night an officer of the State was shot dead in Cork, and that there are people in this State and in this Oireachtas who tell us —the Taoiseach himself tells us now and again—that the English are responsible. Those who say that the English are responsible for our difficulties at the moment are simply speaking from a slave mind. The English are not responsible. We ourselves are responsible, and we cannot place our troubles on the back of any person, or persons, or any Government anywhere. They are our responsibility, and we have to our hand a method of solving our difficulties.

We must face up to our problems ourselves instead of whining; we must stand on our feet rather than sit down and sigh for a better world. We are on trial and, so far as I am concerned, after the Taoiseach's speech in the Dáil last night, I am in despair of this Government doing anything with these powers, or accomplishing anything at all in this direction. I may say that my view at all times was that the anti-Treaty Party would come into the Dáil, and I actually built here seats for them to sit in. I was glad to see them coming in because I thought it was an enormous advance for the State, whatever its political repercussions might be. I argued from the time they came in—I have never said it before in public—and some of my friends did not agree with me, that this country could never be right until these anti-Treaty people—call them Fianna Fáil or anything you like—had had experience of office. I was glad to see them going into office for that very reason. I thought it was a step forward in the development of the State. I think I was wrong. Nobody can have any other opinion now when they have been nearly eight years in office and this type of Bill still has to be introduced, and we still have to read the headlines which we read in this morning's newspaper.

Remember that there is a very considerable difference between the situation now and previously. Up to 1932, illegal organisations had the second largest Party in the State to speak for them consistently, inside and outside the Dáil. I do not want to give instances, but there are any amount of them, and the Minister can remember plenty of them himself. I remember that some kind of a State employee shot a man up in Dartry Road. The Fianna Fáil Party made great fuss in the Dáil about it. They went to his funeral and paraded him as a hero and accused the man who shot him of being a murderer. Since 1932, not a single political voice in either of the two Houses has been raised to support these people, and still the Minister can tell us to-day, and could tell the Dáil last night, that they are strong and armed, organised and rich in money. It is the most extraordinary indictment of a Government that could possibly be made. Nothing could be worse, and the only voice that has ever been raised in favour of these people is the Taoiseach's own voice when he explained to us that the British were responsible for Partition, that the fight against the British must go on, and so on. I know that his words are capable of many meanings, but people in public life must remember the sense that will be put into their words by young people with a certain history and a certain background who listen to them.

It is something to be thankful for, that one Minister, at any rate, had the courage to say that he was changed, and if we could get to the position of which the Minister for Justice told us this evening, when we would be all united on the principle that, not when you have a particular kind of Constitution and not when you have a particular type of man in office, but when you have people in office who have been legitimately elected, you must always obey them, we might get further, and the Government could give up the attempts to justify all their past errors which are pursuing them. There is no use talking about the past, but if we could be assured about them in the present, one could give them these powers and feel that something had been done. On account of the occurrence last night, their last recent activities, and the recent time when they have debauched the Guards and demoralised the Army, what is the use of giving them power to do anything? There was a time not so very long ago when a Guard who reported drilling would be shifted from Kildare to West Donegal, and when County Mayo was a closed borough, and no Guard could report anything because it was the Minister's constituency.

So far as I am concerned, I think the Government, being the Government, and having been put in office, must get the powers it asks for. If the powers are necessary it is the fault of the Government themselves, but the evil will fall upon more than the Government. It will fall upon the lot of us. This Bill is only a sample of many blunders in the political, the industrial and the constitutional sphere, and in the Army and police, but, for my part, I hope the Government will get the powers they are asking for now, and I hope they will be able to do something much better than merely interning people who are deemed to be carrying on illegal activities.

I hope they will get themselves straight on principles and straight on history, and that we will have the young people taught something really national to inspire them—not to blame the British and not to blame the people who signed the Treaty—but to give due regard to everybody and to solve their own problems in their own way, to tell the people that they have the power and to endeavour to lead the people towards exercising it. For my part, nothing I have heard in the Dáil debates last night induces me to believe that there is any sign of improvement. In spite of that, however, the Government is in office and needs the powers. I hope the powers they need are in the Bill and I shall vote for them.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I also want to say that I will certainly give this Bill, or even a stronger Bill, to any legitimate Government. I know there is a great feeling against Governments having excessive powers, but as the condition of a country arises out of actions which people may have in mind, one can never at any moment say that we have a condition of perfect peace which is going to last indefinitely. The Minister, in the early part of the statement, stated that there would not be justification for this Act after the present European war is over. The Minister, and the Taoiseach, I think, stated in the Dáil that they are absolutely convinced that this Bill which we are now prepared to pass is in accord with the Constitution. The Taoiseach implicitly stated that for any court to decide that this Bill is not in accord with the Constitution could only arise from perversity in judges. I personally cannot see that. The Minister for Justice, earlier to-day, hangs the Bill upon Article 28, sub-clause 3, of the Constitution.

As I understand that sub-clause, as amended, it adverts to three possible conditions—a war in which we are participating, i.e., a war with an outside power, or a war between two outside powers which has repercussions on conditions here, creating what might legitimately be called an emergency, or, a state of armed rebellion in this country. I am not purporting to be a lawyer in this matter, but I do not see how anyone could say that only perversity of mind could object to this Bill when it hangs upon and seeks to derive justification and legitimacy from an article which only affords those conditions of armed war between this country and another, armed war between two other countries with repercussions here, or, civil war here. It was stated in a recent subversive broadcast that there would be no civil war here. I think that is quite true. I think that it is quite evident since 1922 that these people have no intention of engaging in civil war—their whole record is one of dastardly cowardice. We know they have never sought for trouble where the bullets might go in two directions, but only in one. They are experts in caution when dealing with armed people. They are experts in intimidating and suborning to get information so that they can carry out their outrages.

What is the history of this period? I do not want to go over it. Only last night it was revealed that the Government is not taking this matter seriously. During the last 18 years or so the people in this country with perverted minds, naturally tending towards crime, and, towards self-glorification in crime, have been brought up with every assurance that when they go out to perform the crime, the organisation, first of all, will make sure that on no account can they be arrested. If they should be arrested and brought to trial the method then was to use force towards the jury, if it was a jury, to be false to their oath, to commit perjury and to find an obviously guilty man innocent. If that course failed, it was understood that in any case the worst that could happen would be that the offender would be in prison for a month or two and would then come out to be escorted home by brass bands.

Last night the Minister for Industry and Commerce made one of the finest speeches ever heard in the Dáil—a speech, if I may say so, which showed great patriotism and great courage.

A Senator

Hear, hear!

Mr. Fitzgerald

It was unfortunate, I thought, that speech did not come from the Taoiseach but, at least, one must pay a tribute to the man who made a speech like that, a speech worthy of a Minister of any Irish Government. In his speech, he gave some justification for the emergency legislation. He referred to various dastardly crimes committed in this State. He referred to the murder of More O'Ferrall, to the murder of Admiral Somerville, and to that foul crime, the murder of the boy, Egan, which one assumes, was a crime flowing out of the crime of the murder of Admiral Somerville. It happened, he said, that that was the only case in which evidence was secured to enable the crime to be brought home and, thanks to a courageous jury, the judge truly and appropriately sentenced the man to death. What happened then?

A Senator

It was the Military Tribunal.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Yes, it was the Tribunal. The Government, although this most dastardly crime, with its particular heinousness in that it had behind it an organisation and bore all the marks of the work of an organisation, scandalously commuted the sentence of death to a sentence of penal servitude for life. Was that enough? The Constitution was amended with enormous dishonesty and misrepresentation. In order to bolster up the misrepresentation regarding what was happening in the Constitution, a mere amendment—a bad amendment, I think, was made, and the man with the blood of that poor boy on his hands was released in a matter of months, and was duly welcomed by his criminal associates.

But all that is passed. I would be very happy to believe that, at last, it was borne home on the Government that the old stories they put out would no longer hold water. You remember their coming into the Government when this country was in a condition of absolute peace. I remember saying to a priest from County Kerry that I was rather glad they came into power, at the time, that it was necessary they should know the responsibilities of office. This priest said to me:

"It is a great disaster. When the Constitution was amended a great change occurred in the country. Before that these blackguardly and cowardly bullies went around with their guns terrorising the people and nobody dare say a word to them. When you brought in that legislation, these cowardly bullies went back into their holes and the people were able to hold up their heads again but, the moment the word came out that de Valera was coming into power, out came the cowardly bullies again."

That was his statement and that is all passed now. As soon as the Government came in they released the men who were put where they should be, in gaol, on the assumption that when the Government was in power it would be all right. Then the Oath, whereby people who came into the Dáil swore allegiance to the Constitution. The fundamental law was abolished and we were told that these people would see the error of their ways. Then the new Constitution was brought in and that was to improve everything and we were told that there would be less of these things happening. I would pass over all that if I thought the Government would realise that it had a responsibility. For everything that has ocurred in this country through the ineptitude of the Government, the Government shares the guilt. I believe myself that we have a right to demand of our people and to expect from them a moral standard at least as high as that of any other people in the world. In England when men go out and murder people, they are brought to justice. They are tried, the evidence is heard, a verdict is brought in, in accordance with the evidence and if that verdict is "Guilty" the men are appropriately hanged and the British people accept it because their standard of morality is such that they abhor murder and recognise that men guilty of it deserve to be punished in the name of the people. In last night's paper just when this Bill was introduced in the Dáil one read that in some miserable local town council or something of that kind a letter was read from the head of this State, telling them that he had made representations to the British Government to save Irishmen over there from the penalty for their crime. What is the implication in that?

Cathaoirleach

I suggest that the Senator should not proceed further on those lines, as the matter is sub judice.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I was not aware of that.

Mr. M. Hayes

Yes; there is an appeal.

Mr. Fitzgerald

If men go from this country into England and murder people, what do we ask of the British Government? That the British Government should apply the same standards to our people as they do to their own, and not to say that we are inferior people. When a young child does something wrong, one recognises that it has not complete moral responsibility. When a weak-minded person does something wrong we say there is not really a moral responsibility on that person. There are even certain criminal races whose whole tradition has been a tradition of murder and loot, and one knows that we cannot expect from those people the same moral standards as we expect from people of the European, Christian tradition of morality. But when our people over in England show innate criminality, and disgrace their country by committing crimes crying to heaven for justice, then the head of our State apparently is prepared to appeal to the British Government not to apply the law which would appropriately be applied to Englishmen.

Mind you, that is typical of his Party. Some time ago a member of the Fianna Fáil Party came to me and asked me would I or would my Party participate in an appeal to the Spanish Government for the release of some Irishmen convicted of some crime over there. I asked him what was the crime for which the man was in jail. He had not bothered to ask that. No matter what an Irishman does in Spain the law should not apply to him, because apparently we are so morally debased that the law and the punishment which are appropriate to people of other countries cannot be appropriately applied to our people. Last night an officer of this State was murdered in Cork. The appropriate punishment for that according to our law and according to justice is that the guilty man be duly hanged. Is not this Government that we have now absolutely stultifying itself? Its duty to the people of this country and to the dignity and the honour of this country, and to justice itself, is that the guilty man be hanged. How is our Government going to carry out the law here, and fulfil the demands of justice and the needs for the protection of our people here, while at the same time it is appealing to the Governments of other countries to see that Irishmen, when they are guilty, do not suffer the punishments applied to the citizens of those countries? That is the most disheartening piece of news I have seen in any paper for a very long time.

I propose voting for this Bill. I believe that it can appropriately be challenged in the courts as against the Constitution, and I believe it is quite possible that in all good faith a learned judge, judging it only according to a true interpretation of the law, may find that we are stultifying ourselves here now in passing a Bill which is ultra vires. That is a matter for the future. The Minister did give us a pretty good assurance that, when men are arrested for association with this criminal conspiracy, and resort to the whining and cowardly device of bogus hunger strike, they will be duly kept in gaol. We were told that. It is only a month or two since the whole business of the Dáil was interrupted while the head of the State came in with one of his impassioned statements, and with tears in his voice said in regard to the men who were on hunger strike that their duty to the country demanded that they should not release them, but that the men should either come off hunger strike of their own will or die at the end of it. The whole operations of the Dáil were stopped for that perfervid statement. We were all delighted, or at least I was, that at last there was going to be some sense of responsibility in the Government of this country; that at last there was to be an end to this humbug of pandering to criminal classes in this country. But within about a week we read that the criminals were released.

Mr. MacDermot

Was it not the wish of the Opposition?

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Opposition as a Party, to the best of my knowledge, had nothing whatever to do with it. I am not personally responsible for the individual acts of any member of our Party. The Minister for Justice has come in here to-day; we heard a member of his Party in the Dáil yesterday making a most blackguardly speech in defence of the criminals we are now trying to deal with under this Bill, but we do not blame the Minister for Justice for that. Personally, I have never asked for any deviation from the proper course of the law against this crime which is much worse than when a man, out of lust or cupidity, murders his fellowman. Everybody recognises the punishment due for that. There has been an act of injustice against that individual. But in the murders committed by this organisation there is not only a crime of injustice against the individuals who suffer from them; there is the crime of injustice directed against the establishment of ordered conditions in this country, and the crime of injustice in disgracing the honourable name of our country, with all its glorious associations. It is my grave concern for the honour of my country that makes me desire to see that everybody who rises up and, with dishonest phrases about Ireland and all the rest of it in his mouth, embarks upon a cowardly course of crime, should be duly caught and should duly suffer the most extreme penalty that the law can impose. There is no penalty too extreme for them.

We have had 18 years during which cowards organised together in order that they might commit their crimes with absolute safety. They had an assurance that if the very worst happened, and they were caught and were judged and were found guilty, they would have the Sligo Council—I remember them in 1922—or the Midleton Council or some other council setting up the sentimental, dishonest cry of "Release the prisoners". If our people are worthy of respect, those men who break the law should be duly punished. My colleague here a while ago—I was almost disagreeing with him—talked about the time when Fianna Fáil came into the Dáil, and the implication was that one should do everything one could to entice them in. That does not seem to me to be the appropriate way to deal with men who require enticements of that kind to accept the institutions of the State. If they object to the institutions of the State, if they operate against them, then the State should vindicate itself against them. I am happy and shall be happy to accept any assurance from this Government that they are going to act, and act rigorously and expeditiously against this organisation and this criminal condition in the country.

I shall be more happy when I see them carrying out their promises. It is only a few weeks ago since I got up in this House and told the Senators that the action of the Government, with all its vast expenditure upon the Army, had definitely been injurious to the Army. One might almost say that what I said then was more than exemplified on the day before Christmas Eve. I want the Government to carry out all that it is now asking powers to carry out. I believe that this is not the appropriate way to do it. Reading Article 28 of the Constitution, it seems to me quite clear. Article 28 says:

"Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to invalidate any law enacted by the Oireachtas which is expressed to be for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion, or to nullify any act done or purporting to be done in pursuance of any such law."

I think that is done in the sense to make that condition of war apply to war in which we are not actually participating.

I do not believe there is going to be civil war in this country because I do not believe that these people who are causing all the trouble, who are guilty of all these crimes, are ready to participate in anything in which the bullets would be going in two directions. They have only participated when they went in one and it was a most unfortunate accident for them when the bullet went in a contrary direction. Therefore, there will be no civil war. The action in looting the Magazine Fort and the condition in this country cannot be clearly derived from the fact that there is war in Europe to-day. I, therefore, think that what we are doing may be nullified. What is objectionable in that is that first of all it brings State institutions into ridicule but, secondly, it means that the Government by not now taking the appropriate steps is actually leaving themselves without proper machinery for dealing with these people. And, again, into that, perhaps perversely, I read a certain attitude of mind of the Government. It seems to me that obviously the appropriate method of meeting the situation is an amendment of the Constitution. You have a position where the Constitution has been amended in order to secure conditions in this country in which order will prevail and the life and property of our people will be safe. The Government hope to do that and I do not want to attribute to them unworthy motives of which they are not guilty. Our Constitution, which was absolutely integral, when the present Government came into power, was described as a thing of rags and patches. It was nothing of the sort. And the Constitution as it is amended is integrally whole in its amended condition. Obviously, one of the best ways of developing a Constitution is to incorporate into it the result of experience. You might just as well say that any one of us here— it might be true of a great many of us —is a thing of rags and tatters because we are different from what we were when we were children. Like Constitutions, we have been constantly amended ever since but that does not make us less integrally ourselves. The Constitution that the Government received was a document laying down a code of law and though that was the result of amendment and growth it was not a thing of rags and tatters. It does seem to me that all that rather humbugging propaganda put out about this present document is one of the reasons why the Government is not taking the appropriate course. I hope that this Act that we are passing will be an effective machine in the hands of the Government and I hope the Government will realise that everything else must be put aside for them to secure the thing for which they exist as a Government, that is, to secure a condition in this country in which order prevails and in which everybody who militates against that order is duly made innocuous and brought to book and appropriately punished.

I have always pleasure in getting up here and saying unpopular things. It is about time that the Government did face up to the position in this country. Are we going to have the same thing over again as happened before? What has happened regularly since the Government got into power? There are sporadic outbursts of crime and the Government takes steps to meet it and as soon as these steps are likely to make it dangerous for these people they become quiescent. Then there is quiet for a time and sentimentalists get up crying out about these poor people who are in jail, saying that they are patriotic nationalists. Then they are released. There was a blackguardly civil war and people were arrested and put in jail and then at another time a wide outcry against the Government for keeping men in prison. That has happened steadily ever since. The arsenal was raided. A man was murdered last night. The experience these people can judge by is that it is good policy for them to keep quiet for a while. Men found guilty of murder or whatever it may be, will be duly released in recognition of the beautiful, peaceful condition of the country and then everything will be smooth for them to start over again.

If we are going to intern people, are they going to be interned for really substantial periods so that they will not be released on some bogus temporary quietude happening in the country? If men are found guilty of murder are they actually going to suffer the penalty of murder? If men are sentenced to penal servitude for ten or 20 years are we going to have the assurance of this Government that, as far as it is concerned, if it should by any chance stay in power for 20 years, that the end of those 20 years will find those men in jail or, should any unfortunate man be so unlucky as to get into jail, will he go into jail with the absolute assurance that it is only a matter of three months? In 1916 I saw written in a prison cell, "Roll on 1929," and I thought the man must be in a bad way to get comfort out of that. I wonder if these men are sentenced to a long term of imprisonment will it be a case of "Roll on 1962" or whatever the year may be or are they going to assume that it is "Roll on February 19th or March the 24th"? I, personally, want an assurance that the Government is going to use these powers and that everybody who raises his hand against the established order of this country is going to receive the fullest and maximum punishment that the law permits to be given to him. If we do that, and if the Government does it, I think we shall all be very happy in having given the Government the powers we have given them.

Mr. Robinson

I do not wish to speak to the measure. I just want to refer to something which Senator Fitzgerald has said just now, which he gave as an example of the mentality of the members of the Government Party. He referred to a prisoner in Spain, and I wish to speak more in the interest of that prisoner in Spain than in the interest of the member of the Fianna Fáil Party, who is myself, who asked Senator Fitzgerald to assist in obtaining his release. If Senator Fitzgerald will cudgel his brains he will remember that I told him what the man was accused of at the time. It was of shooting women and children in the civil war in Spain. Perhaps Senator Fitzgerald will remember that in Spain, as in China, as in Russia, as in Poland, large numbers of women, and sometimes children, have taken part in these so-called wars. This man was sentenced to death and representations were made to the Spanish Government by a very high ambassador, who is not a citizen of this country, and whose country, small as it is, would not be regarded as having fostered the sort of ideas that Senator Fitzgerald suggests exist in this country. That very high ambassador got that sentence commuted to 30 years' penal servitude. Representations were made by ambassadors of several other countries and all sorts of distinguished people to have him released and representations were made also by our Government and the British Government.

Mr. Fitzgerald

On a point of order. I suggest that this is quite irrelevant although if the Senator wishes to assure me that he asked me to support that appeal on the grounds that this man had been condemned for a crime of which he was innocent I shall accept that, but otherwise it is entirely irrelevant.

Mr. Robinson

It was used as an example of the mentality of the members of the Government and the people generally in this country, and I think that the implication is entirely wrong. If it is an example of how Senator Fitzgerald judges the mentality of people then I think a great deal of what he has said falls to the ground. Large numbers of people were released from Spain who had been accused of the same crime, and I think it was a very natural thing, if the Spanish Government was in a mood to release some of its prisoners, that we should ask for the release of this particular prisoner.

Mr. MacDermot

I have no desire to intervene now if any member of the Party opposite would wish to take the responsibility of speaking on the substance of this measure. I think it is very unfortunate that we so often have to make a series of speeches in criticism of the Government while the Party opposite sits silent. I repeat, that if any of them feels inclined to come to his feet now I shall gladly give way.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator is in possession.

Mr. MacDermot

That being so, and Senator Robinson just having said what he did, I should like to say on that particular point that, while I know nothing about what Senator Robinson told Senator Fitzgerald or what Senator Fitzgerald replied to Senator Robinson, I do think it deplorable that for a long time this appeal has been going around the country to everybody to take part in trying to secure the release of Mr. Frank Ryan without anyone condescending to tell us what he was accused of.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Or whether he was guilty of it.

Cathaoirleach

That matter has been sufficiently debated now.

Mr. MacDermot

I think Senator Fitzgerald, whatever happened between him and Senator Robinson, is justified in referring to it as typical of the mentality of a number of people in this country—that to them it seems almost irrelevant what a man has been charged with, or whether he is guilty or not, so long as he is an honest-to-God Republican Irishman. I am not suggesting that is Senator Robinson's point of view for one moment.

Mr. Robinson

It is rubbish to say that we did not know what he had been accused of.

Mr. MacDermot

I did not say that the Senator did not know what he had been accused of, but I said that appeals were being circulated without the people being told what he had been accused of. I have seen nothing in print to this day to say what he was accused of or whether there were any grounds for imprisoning him.

I rise to support the Bill, and I shall even go so far as to say that the Government are going the right way about the solution of the problem with which they are confronted. I know, of course, that the Taoiseach has a feeling about the Constitution probably more ardent and more tender than anybody else in this country has, that he probably regards it as something like an inspired document and that it would cut him to the heart to make any changes in it if he could possibly avoid it. Apart from that, I do think that he is right in urging that the Oireachtas should be slow to make changes in the Constitution until it has been established that other methods will not effect the object equally well. If it turns out that he is wrong in the opinion that the Supreme Court will uphold his views, then there will be ample time to make the necessary change in the Constitution afterwards. It may sound arrogant to say it, but I happen to agree, speaking as a layman—and I do not agree that this is a matter on which a layman is not entitled to express an opinion—with the Taoiseach in thinking that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong and that the decision of Mr. Justice Gavan Duffy was also wrong.

Mr. M. Hayes

Is it in order to say that a decision of the courts in this country was wrong?

Cathaoirleach

Senator MacDermot.

Mr. M. Hayes

I should like to get your ruling, Sir. Are we entitled to say in the Parliament of this State that the ruling of a particular judge was wrong and to invoke a Minister's name in saying that it was wrong?

Cathaoirleach

The rule has been that judgments of a court are not open to discussion in either House.

The Taoiseach

This is a matter of very serious importance. I see no reason at all why we cannot say that in our opinion a judgment is wrong. I see no reason at all why we cannot say that—none whatever. This is not the particular thing I understand that was ruled out in the Dáil.

Mr. Douglas

Might I suggest that we should not debate this point at this stage and that it might be referred to the Standing Orders Committee? It is a matter of very considerable importance and should be discussed entirely on its merits. If you can say a decision is wrong, you can also say it is right, and it might lead to a terrific debate.

Mr. Hayes

Surely without any standing order, as a matter of common sense, it is not open to a member of the Dáil or the Seanad to say that a judgment given in the courts is wrong? It is open to a Minister representing the Government to say that the meaning which a judge took out of an Act was not the meaning that the Government or the Dáil meant to put into it, that is to say, that Parliament did not succeed in saying legally what it meant to say. If we are to be in the position now that Parliament can criticise a judgment of the courts and say that it is wrong, then that is a very bad example with regard to the rule of law. It is certainly antagonistic to every conception of the relations between Parliament and the judiciary. The Taoiseach of course is incomprehensible at all times.

The Taoiseach

I should like the suggestion that this question should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee to be accepted because I think there are certain rulings which people tried to have accepted here which are more incomprehensible to me than I appear to be to the late Speaker of the Dáil.

Mr. Hayes

Nobody was allowed in the Dáil by the last Speaker or by his successor to say that a ruling of a court was wrong. It was never said in the Dáil at any time without being checked, whether by the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle or an Acting Chairman.

The Taoiseach

Because the view of the former Speaker who established the rule is not accepted, it must be wrong.

Mr. Hayes

The former Speaker's view was accepted and was enforced on all occasions. As a matter of fact, Sir, the most potent thing you could possibly say in the Dáil now is that a ruling was given before 1932. That is bound to be accepted by the Chair.

Cathaoirleach

I will have the matter set down for consideration by the Standing Orders Committee in due course.

Mr. Hayes

It is just another example.

Mr. MacDermot

It occurs to me to observe that whether the decision was right or wrong, the Constitution could, with advantage, have been somewhat more explicit and conclusive than it was. It is possible that less attention has been paid by the Government than should have been paid to the value of having lawyers of eminence in Parliament. I believe I am right in saying that there is not a single practising barrister in this Assembly. Yet it has been open to the Taoiseach to put eminent barristers into this Assembly. He could have selected barristers who were apart from the Party conflict.

Mr. Hayes

There is not a single eminent barrister in the Party, not even one.

Mr. MacDermot

He does not have to be a member of the Party.

Mr. Hayes

To be nominated by the Taoiseach? Oh yes, he does.

Mr. MacDermot

I would respectfully suggest to the Taoiseach that the opportunity should be taken when it presents itself to strengthen this House and perhaps strengthen the other House, if he is in a position to influence the selection of candidates for that House, to include some lawyers of eminence. It cannot be expected, even if there be lawyers of eminence sitting on the Opposition Benches, that they will give unbiased views to the Government, because after all they have the Party game to play. As I am talking of playing the Party game, perhaps it is not wholly irrelevant to remind ourselves of the position here. Senator Fitzgerald has spoken of the unfortunate position in which he finds himself, of having to say unpopular things, but he has only got to say things which are unpopular with one Party. I, too, often find myself saying things which are unpopular with two Parties.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I choose to, because I have to.

Mr. MacDermot

I clearly recollect that at the time of the discussion of the Constitution, the Opposition in the other House fought with fury the clauses without which it would have been utterly impossible for the Government to deal with these illegal associations they are now trying to deal with. The Constitution contains very wide general principles, and then, with an eye to future emergencies, there are certain qualifying clauses without which the Government could not have introduced legislation such as is before us to-day or legislation remotely resembling it. Those clauses were fought obstinately by the Opposition. If there is to be talk about inconsistency and past records, the talk need not be confined to one side.

While I am supporting this Bill, I share the view of Senator Hayes that not this Bill nor the Bill I believe we are going to consider to-morrow, nor any other measures such as used in the old days to come under the general heading of "Coercion Bills," are going to suffice in themselves to clear up the situation with which we are faced. I yield to no man in my hatred of murder and outrage and my hatred of secret societies and intimidation. After the More O'Ferrall murder to which Senator Fitzgerald referred I took a prominent part in the other House in pressing the Government to proclaim the illegal organisation which was responsible for that murder. On looking back on the history of our country—its remote and recent history—or even without looking back at all, but looking out at what is going on in the country to-day, I do not know if one can adopt that attitude of illimitable moral superiority and unmitigated fury in regard to those people which some of us seem inclined to adopt. The roots of the disease go very deep. They are partly economical and partly political; I would say they are as much economic as political. All this disorder and violence spring not from the mere depravity of the minds of our young men but also from frustrated ambitions, disappointed hopes and deception after deception which leaves men's spirits broken and their minds confused.

I was present at a Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis a few weeks ago, as an interested spectator. I saw a speaker on the rostrum wave his hand in the direction of the platform, upon which a serried row of Ministers was sitting, and heard him explain to the assembled multitude: "Look at them, boys, the cream of the country?". Whereupon there was perfunctory hand-clapping. A few minutes later the orator referred to the "blood-stained British Empire" and broke out into an eloquent period about "no peace or happiness for this country or for the world in general until the blood-stained empire had been humbled into dust". That secured an amount of applause which I assure the House was greatly in excess of that which was given to the reference to the "cream of the country". The "cream of the country" continued to sit on the platform, looking, perhaps, a trifle curdled, but what occurred to me was that it was the duty of the "cream of the country" to spring to their feet—that is rather a mixed metaphor—to point out to the assembled delegates that, whether the British Empire was blood-stained or not, we Irishmen, even Catholic and Gaelic Irishmen, had a great share in the responsibility, for good or ill, of building it up and could not afford to talk about it in quite that spirit of detachment. I think they might have sprung to their feet and pointed out that, whether Great Britain is blood-stained or not, the maintenance of her prosperity is a major Irish interest. Ministers know this to be true. If so, what are we to think of their allowing speeches of the kind to which I have referred, to be made and wildly applauded by the assembled hosts of the Party which supports the Government of the day in this country.

How are we to get the confusion out of the minds of our young men if the Government is continually doing one thing and saying another? Ministers are not acting as if every misery in this country sprang—as the Lord Mayor of Cork yesterday in the Dáil alleged it sprang, and as a member of the Government Party in the same debate alleged it sprang—from the hidden hand of England. They are not acting in that way but their supporters frequently speak in that way, and speak in that way without rebuke. There must be some sort of consistency and solidarity between the actions and speech of the Government. How can we blame too severely our young men if their minds are completely addled and led astray by the difficulty of coming to a rational conclusion as to the political philosophy of this country? Here we find people seething with discontent—I will go so far as to say that the country as a whole is seething with discontent—and we find both big political Parties, in my opinion, acting in a manner which takes very little account of that fundamental fact. They will wrangle happily in the Dáil for hours on end about the competence of the Government, as to whether the Government is going the right way about such a matter as they were dealing with yesterday afternoon. The Opposition will spend its utmost efforts in the Dáil and throughout the country in damaging the prestige of the Government. Of course, that is the business of an opposition, but is it a business we can afford to have carried on in our midst in the present crisis? I submit it is not, and one of the measures I would once again urge, for the tranquillisation of this country, is the strengthening of the Government by a coalition between the two principal Parties.

The situation, as I see it, is that there are two Parties in substantial agreement about political ideas and in substantial agreement about economic ideas; yet they make it their business to carry on the Party game at a moment when this country is in very grave peril. There is a tremendous amount of poverty and discontent throughout the country and there is— as alleged by the Opposition, I think, truly—a great deal of incompetence in our administration. That incompetence can best be cured by assembling from the two big Parties the most competent men—and there are none too many first-class men, even if you take both big Parties together—and making those ablest men in the country responsible for facing the fearful crisis which we have got to face. Europe is at war; we are at war, too; and as I have said here, our war is an economic war—much more truly an economic war than the dispute with England which we called an economic war a few years ago. I would plead with the Government to take the country far more into its confidence and to invite its co-operation to a greater degree than at present in carrying on this economic war. I think that either by summoning the Dáil or Seanad more frequently, or by using the method of the wireless, the Government should take pains to show the country that it is alive and active in dealing with the economic situation, that it should take pains to organise a national attack on economic evils, that it should try to dispel the feeling which is widespread—I think it is unjustified, but it is widespread— that all the politicians care about is their own jobs and their own salaries and that they are divorced from the people and lacking in the interest they ought to feel for the welfare of the common man. It appears to me that the Government and the Opposition are, to a considerable extent, shutting their eyes to the depth and strength of the feeling that things are not as they ought to be and to the disgust that is felt throughout the country with politics and politicians.

I hope we may take it that the Prime Minister will not put up with lack of competence in high places. I hope we may take it that, if the inquiry into the raid on the Phænix Park arsenal shows that there has been incompetence, that incompetence will be faithfully dealt with, and that if it shows that there has been collusion or treachery anywhere, high or low, that collusion or treachery will be faithfully dealt with.

A strong attack was made yesterday in the Dáil on the Taoiseach for having said that if he believed that force would be successful in getting rid of the problem of Partition, which he believed to be at the bottom of all our unrest, he would be in favour of using such force. To my mind, that attack was not altogether justified. The Taoiseach has recognised that to bring those parts of Northern Ireland in which the vast majority of the people is Unionist and Protestant into our State by force would be to create for ourselves a sort of Sudetenland that would give rise to infinite trouble later on. As I understand him, all he has said is that if the use of force could succeed in joining to us those parts of Northern Ireland adjacent to the Border, in which there is a decided majority of Catholics and Nationalists, then he would be quite prepared to use force. I think that, in principle, that statement of the Taoiseach is sound and not in any way immoral. Whether it is a statement which it is expedient to make is another question. I am inclined to think that it is not, but I do not think it is one that ought to draw on him attacks of the ferocity I listened to in the Dáil in that connection yesterday.

I have, however, a bone to pick with him on other heads. I do not believe that it is fair to our young people to make speeches or broadcasts describing Partition as an act of aggression against us by England, or as an outrage on our people by England. Even if I thought it was an act of aggression by England, or an outrage by England, I would say that unless this country is prepared to go to war, and to go to war forthwith, against England, it would be far better to refrain from such language. It is language which is apt to drive young people to desperate courses, and I cannot imagine what possible sort of good it can be thought to do. Personally, I have often expressed the view before that the Partition problem is an internal disease which nobody but ourselves can cure, and if you want to sum up in the briefest possible words what the Partition problem consists in, I do not know that you could do it better than by saying that when a man is able to go and listen to the proceedings——

Professor Magennis

On a point of order, is there any hope of our resuming the discussion of the Emergency Powers (Amendment) Bill, 1940?

Mr. MacDermot

I submit that I am at least as much in order in what I am saying as the Taoiseach was in what he was saying yesterday. I also submit that both the Taoiseach and I, in fact, are in order because on this, as on many a Coercion Bill in the old days, in the House of Commons 30 or 40 years ago, occasion has been taken by those commenting on the Bill to try to get down to the real roots of the question. I am in favour of this Coercion Bill, but in spite of being in favour of it, I do not think that Coercion Bills by themselves are going to be enough. I do want to get down to the roots of the question within reasonable limits. I do not want to turn this into a discussion of Partition, but I do say that if a sensible man is able to attend the meetings of the Black Preceptory of the Orange Order in Ulster without disgust, and if he is then able to attend a Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis without disgust, we will be near the beginning of the end of Partition.

Professor Johnston

If you find both equally disgusting, what then?

Mr. MacDermot

I do find both equally disgusting, and it is no good pretending that it is the hidden hand of England which creates the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, or the Orange Black Preceptory. They are both native to our soil, I am sorry to say, and the Orange movement in Northern Ireland is not an aristocratic movement imposed from above. I can assure Senator Kelly, whom I see looking at me sceptically, that the Northern Ministers have to mind their p's and q's very much, so as not to offend their democratic Orange supporters by showing any glimmer of broadmindedness. These evils are native to ourselves, and we alone can cure them. When the time comes that we realise that what we have to do is to bring closer together the Orangemen and the Fianna Fáil wild men, whom the Ministers do not agree with but allow to say their say, then I think we will be in a far better position and far more advanced on the way to curing Partition than we are at present.

I would appeal to the Government to show a greater psychological insight than they have done hitherto. We Celts pride ourselves upon the gift of imagination, but it has always seemed to me, and I have said it before, that as regards the Northerners, we show a completely atrophied imagination. We seem to make no effort at all to enter into their point of view and the best the Taoiseach can do is to say that 800,000 Irishmen should be thrown out of the country. Is that going to get us anywhere? And similarly in regard to psychology, I would appeal to the Government to think of the psychology of the members of the organisation which we are forbidden to call the I.R.A. These people are amazed and confused by the enormous gap between what is done and what is said. We go on talking as if we are aiming at self-sufficiency here, as if we believe in the economics of Arthur Griffith, but nobody believes in the economics of Arthur Griffith to-day——

A Senator

Cad chuige é?

Mr. MacDermot

——outside the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis and the Seanad of this country. Nobody believes in them in the Dáil.

Cathaoirleach

That does not seem to me to be in order, Senator.

Donnchadh Ó hÉaluighthe

Very few believe in the Senator, anyway.

Mr. Byrne

You do not know much about Arthur Griffith.

Mr. MacDermot

We go on talking about self-sufficiency, but actually the Government is just as eager as any member of the Opposition Front Bench to expand to the greatest possible degree our production for export to the people across the water. They are anxious to expand their exports and they have reconciled themselves to the necessity of taking a reasonable quantity of imports in exchange for exports. They do not believe that every economic evil we are suffering from is due to the hidden hand of the Bank of England, but they allow their followers to go on saying it without protest.

More than that, we find this country at present, whether in spite of or because of this obvious distress, is going through a wave of religious feeling. I do not know that the churches have ever been more thronged than they are at present with people attending Mass and going to the Sacraments, and I have listened on a series of Sundays to the members of the congregation being adjured from the altar when they leave the church to go out and buy what are called "Catholic" newspapers; I believe it is improper to call them clerical newspapers.

A Senator

Surely that is not in order?

Cathaoirleach

The Senator is wandering very far afield.

Mr. MacDermot

I merely want to make the point, Sir, that I find in newspapers that have the authority of that sort of recognition a stream of propaganda alleging that there is some mysterious hidden force, whose operation is centred in England, which is preventing this country from attaining the prosperity it ought to attain. That sort of thing must have a great effect on the minds of the young people. The Government does not believe it, but the Government tendency is to let things drift and let streams of political thought come into being and then to adjust their own course so as to be in the middle of the river that is formed by those various streams.

I think that the Government take too low a view of their duty—they ought to contribute more to the formation of public opinion, instead of striving to adjust themselves to public opinion once it is formed. I think that the Government ought to do more, and not only the Government but the individual members of their Party and the individual members of every Party, ought to do more throughout the constituencies to try to draw people away from courses of violence. I think they ought to be much more careful than they are about making heroes of those who have followed courses of violence in the past. Senator Hayes has referred to the past record of the Fianna Fáil Party and has suggested that they have been guilty of similar actions to the actions which they are now trying to quell. I belong to a still older generation than Senator Hayes and there are many things that were done by those with whom Senator Hayes was associated of which I for one very much disapprove. I have no desire to rake up old sores— far from it—very far from it. I think that members of both Parties are often immoderate and thoughtless in glorifying without reserve acts of violence and bloodshed that have been committed in the past, and I think a strenuous effort should be made by all the members of both Houses of this State to draw away the minds of the young people from admiration of violence and bloodshed. Every effort should also be made to teach the young people economic truth and put it in the place of economic humbug, and to improve the condition of our agriculture along the lines that Dr. Kennedy of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society is so constantly preaching.

Mr. Goulding

Senator MacDermot was very anxious to give way to some member on this side of the House. I wonder was he of opinion that Senators on this side of the House are not supporting this measure. We are supporting this measure. We are anxious, just as anxious as the Senators on the other side of the House, to put down violence in this country, to endeavour to preserve a state of peace and the good of the country but speeches such as that delivered by Senator Fitzgerald, do not tend very much to make that situation more possible.

A Senator

Nor Senator MacDermot's.

Mr. Goulding

I will not follow Senator MacDermot's discursive speech. There are some things I will deal with and others I will not, but one thing which I wish to stress is this: I do not agree with Senator MacDermot in dropping everything with which he or Senator Fitzgerald—I am sorry he is not here—do not agree. He mentioned the civil war, "This blackguardly and cowardly civil war." I do not agree with that statement and I think I have a considerable number of Irishmen behind me who do not agree with it either. For many years past the present Government has been endeavouring to do away with the bitterness of the civil war and if we should try to do anything we should avoid any going back on the events of that period. We are a small nation, one of the small nations whose freedom will perhaps be threatened again and it will take our best effort, all the Irish people pulling together, to save ourselves. Why are we wasting time going back into the past and awakening again the bitterness of the civil war? Let us try to forget it and let us try to do all we possibly can to get all the people of this country to think on national lines. Senator MacDermot is inclined to decry this, I am afraid. He thinks we are ultra-national and we are inclined to forget things economically, that we are inclined to glorify the soldier and to put the soldier on a pedestal and almost worship him. We are not. The men who in this country were soldiers inevitably ought to be soldiers. It is impossible for them to be anything else. I am not going back to blame England for everything and to say that it was England's fault that this, that, or the other thing was not done, but, to a great extent, from the purely economic point of view, we certainly can blame the English for our unfortunate position in the past. Now, I will not go further into that. Senator MacDermot and I would not altogether agree. But it is historical truth and there is no use in denying it. I think we had better look to the future. There is no earthly use in this constant referring to the past, and pointing out our failures and faults in the past. We Irish people are human beings just like the people of every other country in the world—the Germans, the Russians, the French and everyone else; you will find the same types of people everywhere. For the future, the thing for us Irish people to do is to try and persuade those who want to adopt a different way from ours now that it is a foolish policy, and a policy which, instead of doing national good will cause national disaster. Remember that all those people are not criminals. According to Senator Fitzgerald they are. They are not. There are some very earnest and some very honest people among them. They are not people who go out and shoot anybody. They are people who really are convinced that we are going the wrong way; that not alone were Cumann na nGaedheal wrong but we are wrong. Many of them are honestly convinced that we are not tackling the situation in this country, either nationally or economically, as it should be tackled. We are undoubtedly opposed to violence, because we believe nothing can be got by it, and we are anxious to persuade those people to adopt a more reasonable attitude. I am not going to go back into the history of the civil war. I am sure Senator Hayes and myself would not at all agree.

Mr. M. Hayes

We might, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Goulding

It does not lead to anything. In this country, if we are to get anywhere at all, we will have to try to get there together. Senator MacDermot accuses the Taoiseach of wanting to drive 800,000 Irishmen out of Ireland. We do not want to drive any Irishmen out of Ireland. Those people are not Irish.

Mr. Douglas

Question.

Mr. Goulding

They are not Irish. I believe they would be highly insulted on being told they were, judging by their attitude.

Professor Johnston

Will the Senator say whether I am an Irishman or not?

Mr. Goulding

Those people's spiritual home is London, not Dublin.

Professor Johnston

No; it is Belfast.

Mr. Goulding

It certainly is not Ireland. If we could only get those people to look to Ireland before they look to the British Empire! Would Senator MacDermot deny that those people put the British Empire before Ireland?

Professor Johnston

They do not— not before themselves.

Mr. M. Hayes

Not before Belfast. That is in Ireland.

Mr. Goulding

It is their own particular little centre. But the spiritual home of those people is England and not Ireland. We do not want to drive them out——

Mr. MacDermot

Senator Goulding perhaps forgets that the original Orange Oath pledged undying loyalty of the Orange Order to the House of Hanover so long as they maintained Protestant ascendancy.

Mr. C. Byrne

But they continued the support when they dropped it.

Mr. Goulding

Everyone in this House believes—at least we believe— that the policy of violence adopted by the men with whom we are dealing under this Bill before us will not succeed in solving this question. We believe it could be solved by reasoned argument, but I am afraid no reasoned argument will go down with the 800,000 people whose spiritual home is England.

Professor Magennis

At the risk of appearing eccentric I propose to discuss the Bill before the House. The leader of the Opposition, of whose speech I carefully took notes, contrary to my custom, says that the remedy is doubtful and the amendment faulty. That is to say, he fears—I deliberately say "fears" because he is going to vote for this Bill—that it will meet with the same fate as its predecessor; that it will be brought before the High Court and dispatched. Those who fear that, insist that the real remedy— I think that is what Senator Hayes has in mind when he says that the amendment is faulty—is to change the Constitution, and it is alleged that the reason why we on these benches are averse from changing the Constitution as a means of dealing with the difficulty that has arisen is some tenderness on the part of the Taoiseach with regard to what is called his Constitution, that is the Constitution which the Irish people adopted when it was put before them by way of plebiscite. The Constitution, as a code of fundamental law, should be regarded, to my mind at least, as something sacrosanct and not to be dealt with lightly.

The previous Government, whose misdeeds I have no intention of going into, was so frequently amending the Constitution and the Treaty that the people lost all interest in the original instrument, because it was so hard to know where exactly the country stood in regard to either of them. If for no other reason than what we have had given to us in the bad example of our predecessors, it is highly advisable that, where the Oireachtas is available to meet the situation in the ordinary way, we should not resort to the other and less acceptable course. This is said to be—

"An Act to amend the Emergency Powers Act for the purpose of making better provision for securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war."

That is a part quotation, as we all recognise, from the Constitution. There is a reference to emergency conditions that call for emergency powers being vested in the Executive authority. That is Article 24. So that I shall not be accused of inaccuracy if I rely merely on my memory of it, with your permission I propose to read parts of Article 24. This is in reference to a Bill which is to be certified by the Taoiseach in an address to the President, but it is for the purposes of the language used in the Article that I am referring to it. It says:—

"If... in the opinion of the Government, the Bill is urgent and immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace and security, or by reason of the existence of a public emergency whether domestic or international...."

I can imagine the present Bill, which is exceedingly brief—an excellent fault by the way—containing a Preamble so that, in addition to the descriptive Title of the Act as being—

"to amend the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, for the purpose of making better provision for securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war,"

you might continue the quotation a little further and add "or armed rebellion" and then the Preamble declaratory of the opinion of the Oireachtas that this emergency state of affairs exists which entitles the Executive to ask from the Oireachtas these special powers. With your permission, I shall go into the argument with regard to that. It might be alleged— I am sure it could be argued by one of those lawyers of eminence whose presence in the House Senator MacDermot desires—that the words used in Article 28 of the Constitution would not be sufficiently clear and determinate to meet criticism. This is Article 28, Section 3, sub-section (3):—

"Nothing in this constitution shall be invoked to invalidate any law enacted by the Oireachtas which is expressed to be for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion, or to nullify any act done or purporting to be done in pursuance of any such law."

Now, the proclamation of a Minister declaratory of what the state of affairs in this country is at the moment will not do. It must be set out in the face of an enactment. That is what is meant by the words "which is expressed to be". This Bill, in that part of it I have already quoted, expresses it to be for the preservation of the State and the securing of public safety in time of war. It has been argued here, and it might be argued in the court, that "in time of war", even with the alteration going into detail cases, would be dubious. Are we in a time of war? Are we, that is to say, the citizens of Éire, in war?

Mr. Baxter

No.

Professor Magennis

Well, now, it is rather extraordinary that those who criticise the Constitution are unaware that it is claimed as the right of the Irish nation, in the opening Articles of the Constitution—again I will not rely upon memory—that

"the Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible and sovereign right to choose its own form of Government, to determine its relations with other nations, and to develop its life, political, economic and cultural, in accordance with its own genius and traditions.

"The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.

"Pending the reintegration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory..."

That is sufficient quotation for my purpose. Northern Ireland is at war. It is true that Northern Ireland was annexed to the British Empire and now forms an integral element in what is described officially as the first political unit of the British Commonwealth of Nations. But, in that relation, it is at war. There can be no doubt about that. Consequently, we who set out in plain and unmistakable language the right of the Irish people in regard to the whole of our island are, to that extent at any rate, embroiled, if not actually, at least by implication, obliquely if not directly.

Furthermore, as everybody knows, who is aware of the facts, economically we are affected by the war. It is, therefore, a state of war in so far as the dislocation of our trade and commerce is concerned and in so far as what possibly may be the effects upon even our currency. I am only a non-practising lawyer and make no pretensions to eminence in any department, but suppose one of those eminent lawyers argued before the court that "state of war" for the purpose of this Bill must be that we are a belligerent or if not professedly a belligerent, secretly aiding and giving comfort to a belligerent. We would get over all the difficulties of this legal point if that preamble figured in the Bill, that "whereas the present state of the country in the opinion of the Oireachtas (or words to that effect) is one (and then I adopt the language of Article 24) where it is urgent and immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace and security to invest the Executive with these emergency powers, by reason of the existence of an emergency both domestic and international——". It is not beyond our capacity as a House of the Legislature to make the measure watertight. I am sure we all regret the necessity—I join with Senator Hayes in that regret—that these powers are required, above all that the need for them should be urgent because it points so far as there is urgency to something that is not altogether healthy in our State.

A great deal was said here about fixing the responsibility for that upon one nation and one people or another. The fact, however, is what we have got to confront. Personally, I have no hesitation in saying that I add to the ordinary regret of the ordinary citizen that these measures should be asked for the regret of an Ulsterman deeply interested in the question of Partition and in the removal of the dismemberment performances that made our country become two countries under two wholly different Governments, parts of two wholly different polities. I regret that so much of the disorder and the civil commotion and disturbance that this Government has to deal with should be occasioned by the mistaken patriotism, the over-ardour and zeal of my people. I enter into their view.

I am not, I claim, one of those that come under the stigma of Senator MacDermot of having an atrophied imagination. I can well understand what the outlook of the Ulster Nationalist is. He reads in the papers day after day a glorification of Finland for the magnificent stand that this little people is making against an atrociously overpowering State with enormous resources of men and military materials, but there is not one word of sympathy, not one word of consideration, for the position of over 600,000 of our kith and kin, doomed to live outside their own country, deprived of all share in building up their own country and helping to make its new institutions. If these men lose patience with our Government and think that we are doing nothing south of the Boyne but uttering pious protests and lamentations over the lost glories of the Ireland of Cuchulain, if they deem that that is all we are doing—because that is all they are aware of—and they take the law into their own hands and try to make war upon the Power that they deem to be guilty of the wrong done to them and theirs, my sympathy is with them in that though I condemn their lack of judgment. As good democrats, they should bear in mind that we have here a Government elected, more than once elected, by a majority of the votes of the Irish people, that it is the lawful authority to which every right-minded and well-disposed Irishman should bow in allegiance, that we have a Minister for External Affairs whose business it is, under the Article of the Constitution to which I have just referred, to discharge all functions connected with our international relations. We have a Minister in our Government expressly for that function.

Impatience is no defence, but it is, perhaps, in some slight measure, an excuse for the lamentable lack of loyalty to the Irish ideal of good government that is involved in this resort to arms. Personally, I regret to have to take any share, however slight, in vesting the Government with powers to do away, no doubt only for a limited period, with the great shield of individual personal liberty known as habeas corpus. It is urgent, it is necessary, it is imperative for the good of the State that it should be done. No matter how one's heart speaks, one's judgment must predominate. Undoubtedly, what we are doing here to-day is nothing but the suspension of habeas corpus. Now, some people talk as if the temporary suspension of habeas corpus were a denial of the rights of the individual person to freedom, but we all have to submit to limitations on our freedom in various departments of life. In the exercise of this or that right there is the qualification of the public good. Even in the exercise of the right to private property, there is the right of eminent domain. If the good of the community requires that a railway should be run right through a house, to which the occupant or the owner attaches a sentimental value, a value beyond all measure, the railway can be driven through that house. Some people may call that an outrage on the right of private property, but that is merely putting into exercise what we know to be a fact, that the enjoyment of these rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution to right-minded citizens, is subject to the consideration of the common good.

We cannot allow the safety and the continuance of this State to be imperilled. Neither can we allow our neutrality at the present moment to be imperilled, much less left out of the picture. Some of our newspapers, and even some of the speakers in this House, do not hesitate to disregard the fact that our safety and the continuance of our State require absolute neutrality. No one is at liberty to give voice to his own prejudices, whatever they may be, if in doing so he risks bringing our policy of neutrality to a nullity.

Senator MacDermot spoke just now in language which reminded one of a leading article in one of our daily newspapers. If we do not proceed against the men who lawlessly seized upon the ammunition of the State to employ it for their own purposes, what would outsiders say? That there was collusion between the authorities in the State and those in rebellion against the English Pater Noster in the Six Counties of Ulster. Undoubtedly the charge would be made openly and freely that is now hinted at, even more than hinted at. The reverse view of the fact I dwell upon is that in acting as those men have done they have jeopardised the neutrality of the country. They are in fact waging war although the Constitution declares that no power in this country can declare war except the Oireachtas. That is armed rebellion therefore. It is treason in accordance with Article 39 of the Constitution which defines treason. It is arrogating the powers and the functions of the Executive Council. That is done by men who have no mandate from any considerable proportion of the people because to have the sympathy of individuals, say like me, with regard to some of their proceedings—mere sympathy with condemnation of judgment—is in no way to have executive authority. I am speaking rather as a parent reproving his children would speak—more in sorrow than in anger. Perhaps instead of saying that I had sympathy with them, I should have said that in thus chiding them I spoke more in sorrow than in anger. The powers which the Government seeks are necessary to prevent armed rebellion becoming a fact, open and unashamed. One act of rebellion, one act arrogating the powers of the Government and the State, that goes unpunished, is an encouragement for further sporadic efforts in the same direction until eventually we shall, in a minor degree, have something approaching civil war.

It is extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition in this House should say that he will vote for this measure, that he will give these extra powers, that is, that he will vote for the temporary suspension of habeas corpus and, at the same time, that he should say that he is more than doubtful—that he is almost satisfied—that the Government will not make use of these powers to the full. Why then, may I ask, does he give them? Is it a counsel of despair? His own leader calls on the Government to resign. These are not his words, but the effect of the speech which I read in to-day's paper as having been made in the other House yesterday. Is this a time for going to the country? That surely was not meant seriously. To give to a Government which ought to go to the country, which ought to go back to be crushed by an offended people, the power which the leader here in this House proposes to give, while also assuring us that he has no belief that they can or will exercise those powers when they get them, is very curious statesmanship. I put it in terms no worse than that. To speak of it mildly, it is very curious statesmanship. If he does not believe that the Government can exercise those powers as the Government ought to exercise them, he should refuse them— if only as a gesture, to show how unworthy of public confidence the Government is, in his estimation.

With all respect, I would say he is playing with the matter. He simply tells us that he is going to vote for the measure, because he knows that neither he nor the Party to which he belongs dare face the country again if they refuse to give these powers in this emergency when there is real risk. Senator Fitzgerald's libellous attack on the Irish people is made in order to try to save his face when he will come as a speaker for his party before a public audience and say he trounced the Government. How does he trounce the Government? I will take him down some of the gems of his oratory. A priest told him that if Mr. de Valera's party came into power it would be a great disaster for the people. Surely that is not a serious argument? I remember in Pickwick a witness is reprimanded by the judge that "what the cook said is not evidence." Without meaning any disrespect to our clergy, I would say that what a priest said to Senator Fitzgerald is not evidence.

Not only will the coming into power of a Party which is given power by the majority vote of the Irish people be a great disaster, but the Irish people themselves—according to the Senator —have innate criminality. "It is useless," says the Leader of the Party in this House who will vote for the Bill and give it a chance of being used or misused, as the case may be, by the Government. He believes that it is impossible to cure the people of this innate criminality, so our legislative measures are futile, doomed to failure, because of this double dose of original sin with which the Irish nation is afflicted. We are morally debased: that is another of the gems. Who debased the people? What was done with them in the ten years of government under which everything which was good in the Treaty—or nearly everything—was given away? Then, there is the graceful reference to those men who fought for liberty as the "criminal classes". An extraordinary mentality is exercised sometimes by the critics of our national movement, when they see no difference between crime as a criminal lawyer sees it and political offences which have a distinction that has been recognised in civilised countries for many a day. The man who is led away into excesses of violence and disturbance of the public peace because his patriotism is over-ardent and ill-judged is surely not to be put in the same category as a man who is an habitual burglar—I think that was one of the things the Senator mentioned—or a murderer or a man who takes part in the working of a conspiracy for the defrauding of widows and orphans. Surely they are different things. The fact that the Irish people never gave up the fight for freedom and independence—which is their God-given right—is not a matter of innate criminality. On the contrary, it has won the esteem of every historian who has surveyed the fight for liberty put up by democratic aspirants throughout the ages. I think it is an outrage upon this House, when we come here with hearts full of regret that it should be necessary to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, even in the period mentioned, that we should be told that these measures are futile as we are dealing with an insensate and non-reformable people.

I got up merely to argue that there is no necessity for going to the Constitution to alter it. The whole thing, I submit, can be done easily by putting into it a preamble which is not here, a declaration — the considered serious declaration of the Oireachtas—that the state of the country is one of civil commotion amounting almost to armed rebellion, and the implication of the country in the present international war is such as to make for the purpose of this Act a state of war. Then the important clause becomes effective in Article 28:

"Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to invalidate any law enacted by the Oireachtas which is expressed to be for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion...."

That is sub-section (3) of Article 28. There is a clear reference to this in Article 40, which says:—

"No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.

"Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person that he is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof shall forthwith inquire into the same and may make an order requiring the person in whose custody such person shall be detained to produce the body of the said person so detained before such court or judge without delay and to certify in writing as to the cause of the detention, and such court or judge shall thereupon order the release of such person unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law."

That Article is almost word for word the Article which was in the first Constitution of Saorstát Éireann, and those of us who took part in enacting that Constitution hardly can jibe at it as faulty or bad. Article 6 of the original constitution runs:

"The liberty of the person is inviolable and no person shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with law. Upon complaint made by or on behalf of any person that he is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof——"

From that point they run almost with verbal exactitude, as far as:

"Provided, however, that nothing in this Article contained shall be invoked to prohibit, control or interfere with any act of the military forces of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann) during the existence of a state of war or armed rebellion."

Those are the identical words of the Article in our present Constitution—"a state of war or armed rebellion"— and I take it the reason for the difference "that nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to prevent", etc., while in the older Constitution it was provided that "nothing in this Article shall be invoked to prohibit, control or interfere with an act of the military forces" was that at the time this Constitution was enacted—some portion of it, I may say parenthetically, under duress—it was the year 1922, and at that time the civil war was in progress, so that the reference is to a state of war.

Now, we have here, in a state of peace, a reference to "nothing in the Constitution shall be invoked to prevent the suspension of habeas corpus”. That is what it amounts to. After all, it is not unusual in the history of Ireland to have the Habeas Corpus Act suspended. I am old enough to remember October, 1881, when Mr. Gladstone boasted that he had at last imprisoned in Kilmainham the head of all the troubles in Ireland, the arch-foe of the Empire and even of international civilisation. That might be used as an argument against us, that the history of Ireland for so many generations is a history of successive Coercion Acts, each one worse than its predecessor, but in this House this evening the present measure was rightly called a coercion Act. All laws, however, are coercive of those who want to disobey them; all laws are coercive in so far as they are restraints on the liberty of the subject to do what he pleases in disregard of the public weal, so if it pleases any one that I should call it a coercion Act, I do not hesitate to call it a coercion Act, but I appeal to history to show that even those who framed the Habeas Corpus Act—if one can speak of framing it—contemplated the need, in special emergencies, of suspending it, even to the detriment of the righteous citizen who was entitled to go his way unmolested. He had to allow himself to be subjected to that restraint upon his personal liberty for the good of the State, that it might apprehend and deal appropriately with the malefactor who aimed at the destruction of the State.

All this Bill proposes to do is to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. That is an Act of Ireland because those of us who are familiar with the history of Ireland know that one of the first measures enacted in Grattan's Parliament, towards the end of 1782, was the Habeas Corpus Act, in respect of which, again and again, the heads of a Bill for giving this to Ireland had been sent to England, and refused, and the Government in England had notified their agents here in Dublin that it was not to be sent back any more. So though it appears in textbooks of history that the Irish Parliament never had a Habeas Corpus Act, as it had no Bill of Rights, the fact that these measures are lacking is not explained. It was part of the tyrannical interference of a foreign Government with the limited powers of the Government existing in the Parliament of the Pale in College Green.

The very first act of Grattan's Parliament after the Declaration of Irish Rights in 1782, was to introduce this, which is the bulwark of individual personal liberty, the Habeas Corpus Act, but the people in England, and their settlers and representatives here who prized that liberty so much, and rightly prized it, were not blind to the necessity for suspending it at certain times, and such an emergency exists here to-day. That the Minister made very clear. I took notes of what he said. Turning over a new leaf, and depending no more upon memory, the Minister gave us a detailed account of facts that have come to the notice of the Administration and what he revealed clearly points to a conspiracy to overthrow the present rule of law and reign of Government in Ireland. That is quite clear, and it is because he made that so clear that I took the liberty of suggesting the extension, in the Title of the Bill, that it is for the preservation of the State in time of war "and armed rebellion". With that declaration and the preamble I have suggested, we can go before any court in Ireland.

Just one word more, as the courts were mentioned. Senator MacDermot would like to have lawyers of eminence in this House. What would happen, then, if Senators like Senator MacDermot challenged their authority, the correctness of their view, of legal opinions given professionally? If he will do it with regard to a court, what would he do with regard to an individual lawyer speaking here, and what regard would he have for legal views in any case? I think it is very much to the credit of the people who are supposed to be imbued with criminality, who are innate criminals, that you have the spectacle that, when a judge of the High Court declares a piece of legislation faulty, when, referring to Article 37 of the Constitution, he rules that for a Minister to decide who is to be detained and for what period without trial before a court of law is to invade the functions of the judiciary, and that to depend on the proclamation of a Minister instead of the thing being expressed on the face of a piece of legislation, is an impairment of the judicial authority, we immediately come here to the Houses of Parliament to make a new law, to mend our hand, so to speak. Surely there is a law-abiding spirit and a reverence for the authority of law— for what is called, in all civilised countries, the rule of law—when we specially call together the members of the Dáil and this House to pass an amending Act. Surely that is an expression in unmistakable terms, and most significant, of our reverence for the rule of law. It is because I stand, in my small measure and according to my capacity, for the rule of law at all times in the country that whenever I had the opportunity I pleaded that in the new State we should be careful to do nothing that would not pass on a worthy tradition to those who will come after us, and it is because of these considerations that I have spoken so long with regard to this matter of the rule of law.

Professor Tierney

I propose to vote for this Bill, and I may say that, in doing so, I am animated neither by the extreme optimism of Senator Magennis nor perhaps by the rather extreme pessimism shown by some of the speakers on the other side. I think it is a mistake, in dealing with an emergency like that which we are facing at present, to bring in questions of motive or character on either side. It is an equal mistake, to my mind, to spend time denouncing the men with whom this measure is intended to deal as degraded criminals, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, to enter into their psychology and to explain how we have a certain limited sympathy with their motives and how we have a tension in ourselves between our heads and our hearts. What we are up against in this situation is really a very simple matter, and it is often lost sight of: that the initiative for all this has not rested and does not now rest with the Government or the State. The initiative has been taken by the men who, through a long series of operations, over a long term of years, have persistently put themselves outside the law of the State and in such circumstances, especially when we are living under a democratic form of Government, if the State allows its authority to be set aside, continually flouted, continually cheated, or circumstances created in which the very machinery of the State can be used against its own existence— if a democratic State allows that situation to continue, then the democratic Government of that State is performing an act of abdication. When a democratic Government abdicates its functions, there is no other alternative but anarchy or tyranny; and if this situation which we have now, and have had so long, is allowed to go on, there is no question but that within the next two or three years we will walk into serious anarchy or some absurd form of tyranny in this country.

There is always a certain danger in a debate like this. We can take one of two attitudes. We can abuse each other and go into past history and say it all sprang from long distant issues, or we can get down to the exact situation as it exists, and look towards the future and see what we can do in the future to prevent this situation continuing or ever arising again. We can spend hours, if we like, discussing the rights and wrongs of the Treaty and the situation after the Treaty, and how far these things are responsible for what is happening now; but, in doing that, we are not serving the interests of the country in the slightest degree. On the contrary, we are doing harm to the country, because the great factor in all this trouble is the continuance of the old squabbling and the old wrangling about the Treaty and who was right and who was wrong.

I have very definite views about who was right and who was wrong in that situation, but I am perfectly convinced that until by some act of heroic virtue, if you like, we get off that old question and put it behind us, and stop wrangling about it, we are going to continue to have a certain degree of anarchy and confusion in our politics. Although, as I said, I have very strong views about the Treaty situation and what followed it, still I cannot help having a great deal of sympathy with the Government, on two grounds. There is a lot to be said, from an entirely impartial point of view, for the attempt the Taoiseach made to bring about, even at considerable risk, a situation in which there might, as far as possible, be no dissatisfied citizens within the State. In looking back on it now, in spite of the dangers and difficulties it gave rise to, there was something to be said for it and perhaps, in the eye of time, it may appear to have been a policy well worth trying. There is no reason why we should not extend sympathy, as it had to be tried in the circumstances. On the other hand, we ought to have more sympathy than, perhaps, we are always willing to give, for a democratic Government elected by the majority and placed in the situation that they have to take citizens and intern them or, perhaps, even, take stronger measures.

In speaking on this whole question I do not want to be misunderstood. I do not speak as a political opponent of the Government or as a person in the least degree anxious to score a point or make capital against the Government. My reason for that is my belief that anything that is done to undermine the Government of this country is a blow against this country. Above all things, the first necessity in this situation is to establish and to have a Government in existence, and to keep it in existence, which will have full authority to take the strongest necessary measures against the men who have set themselves up to this degree against the State.

As I said, I do not altogether share the complacency with which Senator Magennis addressed himself to this topic because I cannot help having a certain amount of doubt as to whether the Government has made up its mind how far it is going to go. The whole question of success or failure depends upon the extent to which it has made up its mind that it is going to go the whole length if necessary. If it has been made clear that we have a Government ready to take the most extreme steps that are necessary, then you have gone a long way towards overcoming this difficulty, but, if, up and down the country, among the people, there is confusion and doubt as to whether they can be certain of the extent to which the Government are resolute—if you have feelings like that, we are taking a step on the road which leads ultimately to anarchy and tyranny. The first necessity is to have a Government which is resolute, which is determined to take back the initiative that has been lost, and its right to say who will bear arms in this country is the paramount right so that nobody, whatever his sympathies may be, will have any doubt that nobody is to be allowed to bear arms without the authority of the Government. If any body tries to flout that authority the Government must be prepared to go the full length and, when I say the full length, I mean the length of taking life, if necessary, in order to put down that conspiracy. If that is not done, the Government individually and collectively are going to be responsible not merely to the people of this nation but to God, for any blood that may be shed in the pursuit of this conspiracy here or elsewhere. If there are civilians, women or children, injured or killed or robbed up and down the country, the responsibility will rest, not in the first instance with those who committed the crime, but with the Government which was there with the power to stop it and did not use that power. Because I have certain doubts whether the Government will use these powers to the fullest necessary extent, I am a little uncertain as to what is going to happen after this measure is passed.

Speaking as an ordinary citizen and not as a politician—and I am sure my feelings were shared by thousands of people in the country—I was shocked to find, when I opened my paper this morning, side by side with the Dáil debates, the report that the Taoiseach had interceded with the British Government on behalf of people convicted of crimes in Britain and acting in the name of the people of this country. That undoubtedly has shocked and bewildered and confused people up and down Ireland, and until the Taoiseach himself, most of all, is prepared to come down unequivocally, finally and definitely, on the side of law and order and to say that he is going to the full length, if necessary, then we are going to have doubt and confusion and, ultimately, anarchy. I do not want to make a personal attack on anybody, but I have the feeling all the time—I have had it for years—that our greatest difficulty in all this situation has been a kind of ambiguity at the centre of our whole political system, a tendency to try to be on both sides of the fence at the same time. The tendency was, to some extent, I think, illustrated by the speech of Senator Magennis a few minutes ago. We have that tension between the heart and the head, and we do not realise that sooner or later, if we allow what we call the heart— if we let that warm sympathy that we may feel for certain courses of action because of certain things that happened in the past——

Professor Magennis

That are happening.

Professor Tierney

That are happening, certainly. If we let that warm sympathy carry us against the conduct that is dictated to us by our intelligence and our judgment, we are walking straight into perdition, as a country and as a State. There is one thing that will save this country in the future in any situation of this kind, and that is cool, deliberate, careful, resolute judgment, and no question of sympathy or of popularity or of propaganda or of feelings of the heart, should be allowed to go against that judgment. Otherwise, sooner or later, not merely the Government, not merely the legislature, but the ordinary innocent people of this country are going to pay for that error in their blood. We should make up our minds about this thing. Government is not a matter of sympathy. Government is not a matter of whether you like a fellow's eyes or the colour of his hair, or whether you think his father was badly treated, or that perhaps his cousin is being badly treated now. It is a question of setting up authority and giving that authority power of life and death over the people of the country. Unless that authority is prepared to wield that power when it takes it, then it is, as I said, abdicating. It is not worthy of power, and the sooner it gets out of the way, and let somebody who is worthy and capable and willing to use that power get in, the better for itself and the better for the country.

There have been many other indications of that sort of ambiguity about which I have spoken. The Taoiseach has a way of speaking which reminds me a little bit of the Delphic Oracle in antiquity, and I have often wished that side by side with the Taoiseach we had some sort of a board, a board of exegetes, who would give a clear and authoritative definition of what the Taoiseach meant when he said certain things. There was an instance in the debate in the Dáil yesterday, when the Taoiseach made some remark about the judiciary. The remark was attacked by some speaker on the other side shortly afterwards. When I looked up the speech in the newspapers I found that the Taoiseach was indeed being slightly misunderstood. It was a misunderstanding that probably made a big difference, but to my mind the misunderstanding arose largely from that apparently ineradicable tendency of the Taoiseach to be Delphic in his utterances. I suggest that one way in which we might get over all this difficulty we have had for so long is that he should condescend, when he does make a pronouncement, to make it in a way that not merely satisfies himself, satisfies his own subtle sense of what is sound and right, but will satisfy and be clearly intelligible to the people of the country.

What I am saying may sound rather trifling, but to my mind the whole of this situation comes back ultimately to the fact that the Taoiseach does not like to come down flatly on one side or the other. The Army is a great example of it, a great case in point. I have often remarked lately on the doubts I have felt on this question of the Army since Fianna Fáil came into power. They were elected by the majority of the people and had all the rights and authority of Government. One would have imagined that among those rights would be the right of control over the Army. It was given to them to do what they liked with, and to use according to their judgment. I may be wrong, but the conviction I have had for years is that the Government, after getting into power, continued to look upon the Army not as their instrument but as their enemy, and they set themselves—whether consciously and deliberately or unconsciously, I do not know—to rotting that Army, to use a word somebody else has been using; to corrupting and weakening the discipline and authority of that Army.

Mr. McEllin

That is a very serious charge. State a case.

Professor Tierney

I do not know what the Senator means by stating a case. I am stating what I believe to be a fact, and I have any amount of evidence of different kinds to back me.

Mr. McEllin

Give us some of it.

Professor Tierney

It may not be exactly evidence of the kind the Senator wants.

Cathaoirleach

I think the matter should not be pursued further.

Professor Tierney

I am not going to make an attack on anybody or to mention anybody by name. I was not surprised very much by what happened in the Phoenix Park about a week ago, for the reason that I was aware that certain things have already been happening or very nearly happened not so long before. I heard of a case, for instance, where there was a manoeuvre ordered down in County Sligo during the summer, and a battalion, I think, was sent down from Gormanstown to take part in the manoeuvre and repel a so-called invasion. In order to carry the battalion down to Gormanstown, civilian lorries were hired in the city here, and on one of those lorries, under the charge of a civilian driver and, I think, one or two soldiers, was the whole supply of ammunition belonging to that battalion, amounting to something like 12,000 or 13,000 rounds, as well as machine guns and so on. During the course of the manoeuvre that lorry was lost. It was lost for a whole day, and was found in the end in a farmyard. I was given that information some time ago. I think it is known to a good many people.

Knowing that, and knowing that things were being done in that way, I asked the Taoiseach a question during a debate here a few months ago. I asked him was he satisfied that in the Army he had sufficient competence, sufficient direction. I do not want to make any attacks on anybody, as I have often remarked, but at the same time it has been patent to anybody who has been within miles of the Army for a long time back that the situation in it is very bad; that discipline was being undermined; that there were considerable irregularities; that all sorts of things were being done which should not be done and would not be done in any ordinary army; and that, as compared with the army of any European country, even a small country like Finland, for instance, the Army for which we are now paying £5,000,000 is practically not worth £5,000,000 shillings if it came to a question of defence. That is a serious charge if Senator McEllin likes, but it is a charge which, I believe, would be proved up to the hilt if any serious crisis arose. We have had that sort of thing going on for years back, and the same thing applies to the Police Force, as everybody knows. That sort of information is not confined to Deputies and Senators. It is far better known to the people in public-houses down in County Galway and County Mayo than to me or to Senator McEllin. There is no question about it; we have been enjoying that form of political ambiguity now for a long time; that attitude in which the men entrusted with the power of Government did not take a straightforward attitude towards the powers with which they were entrusted, but looked on themselves to some extent, while having the power, as being the enemy in some way of that power; considered, in some extraordinary complicated way, that their authority and the authority that the people had given them was not legitimate. A situation like that could not prevail for years and years without strange things happening, without acts of indiscipline, acts of various kinds of crime which, in spite of Senator Magennis, I think every reasonable and clear-headed man will persist in calling crime. To my mind, the man who, in the pursuit of a political object is responsible for the death, say, of a woman or child, is almost more criminal than the man who commits a crime because of some kink in his mentality and who is a criminal by nature. In any case, there is very little distinction to be drawn between them.

There has been a system in this country for a good number of years under which there was a tendency to say that, after all, crime has something to be said for it, that our tradition, and the wrongs under which we are suffering, and have been suffering, and all those other things, in some way or other justify crime or what, to the ordinary man in any case, cannot be distinguished from crime. It is in that situation that the danger really lies. It is not in the existence of this small conspiracy, or even in the existence of these large funds to which the Minister referred either here or in the Dáil. They are not the danger. They could very easily be coped with, no matter how large the funds are and no matter how wild and determined these men are, if the Government could resolutely make up its mind, once and for all, to cope with them, not saying they will intern people, not saying they will resort to this or that constitutional method for dealing with them, but by being prepared, if the worst came to the worst, to take life. No other means, in the last resort, will put down a conspiracy of that kind.

Professor Magennis

Would you try a suspected person?

Professor Tierney

Certainly.

Professor Magennis

You would not detain him on suspicion?

Professor Tierney

Certainly.

Professor Magennis

Very well, that upsets your whole case.

Professor Tierney

How does it?

Professor Magennis

I cannot enter into that argument.

Cathaoirleach

The Chair would not permit it.

Professor Tierney

I think I have said all I have to say on this matter, except to make one point. I have the greatest sympathy with all that Senator Goulding said and with practically all that Senator MacDermot said. It does seem to me that we come up against the fundamental principle—can we create a Government and a governmental system in this country which will transcend our Party divisions? Can we get any form of national Government during the dangerous and difficult years that lie ahead of us, and, in order to meet a situation like the present situation and the similar situations which will inevitably arise in the near future, can we do anything at all to break down those barriers of stupidity, hate and misinformation that have been built up between our two great Parties?

We have had a great deal of talk about the virtues of the Party system and about the necessity for playing the game in the Party way and so on. Personally, that is a kind of talk for which I have never had any sympathy because I believe that the Party system in itself is a very defective method of carrying on Government and, above all things, that a Party system founded, as our Party system has been, on civil war, is the most unfortunate foundation you could get for any Government anywhere. Until we can do something —and the responsibility, I think, lies with the leader of the Government and with the principal leaders of the Opposition—until they can find some means of bridging over their differences, which, as Senator MacDermot has pointed out, are not vast, until they can find some formula, some scheme by which they can unite, not merely in the Oireachtas but in the country, we are going to be in danger, and our danger will go on increasing. The last Government Party had pretty well exhausted its mandate—I think there is no harm in saying that—by the time it was put out; the present Government has been seven years in office and is in the process of exhausting its mandate. It has three years to go and by the end of that three years it is quite on the cards that it will be impossible to form any Government if we let this situation go on. In this matter time is the most important thing of all. Any arrangement or settlement that could be come to now in this year would be infinitely better than one which would be come to in two years' time. If the two principal Parties are not careful they are walking into a situation when the country will have no use for either of them and very little use for Parliamentary Government either.

I would conclude by a plea to the Taoiseach and to everybody concerned to think seriously about this matter of trying to form some kind of Government of national union even if it were only for the duration of the war. We heard a lot to-night about Partition. I shall not go into the Partition question except to say two things: In the first place I do not think it is right to attribute this particular crisis we have at the moment to Partition at all. I believe that even if the Taoiseach had succeeded in uniting all Ireland under one Government, things having been what they have been, history having taken the course it did take, we would still have a group of irreconcilables in this country; we would still have people claiming to be more truly republican or something else than the leader of that united Irish Government, and they would still have to be dealt with by the same means by which that sort of conspiracy is dealt with by every civilised Government.

That is the first thing I would like to say about Partition in this connection. The second thing is this—although it is perhaps less relevant, but I think it is worth saying at the moment: In all our talk about Partition, and about whether you can solve Partition by force of arms or otherwise, the one thing we leave out of account is the fundamental and absolutely bedrock fact that only a united nationalist Government in this part of the country is ever going to make any impression whatever on the Partition problem. No single Party in the Twenty-Six Counties is ever going to be able to solve the Partition question. The Taoiseach may think he can do it, but even he cannot. What is more than that, if you could get a united movement in the South, if you could transcend these divisions, that hatred, and all this stupid digging up of the past that we have so much of, and if you could get down to paying attention to the future under some form of united national Government, there would be a better hope of ending Partition than there ever will be by force of arms. You could do it then by the sheer power of the united Irish nation, a power which has immense possibilities that we can hardly conceive now after these nearly 20 years of division. Until we can get that we may as well shut our eyes, not merely to having democracy and discipline and respect for law in the country, but to all hope of seeing the Partition problem brought to an end in our time. I think I have kept the House long enough. I vote for this measure in the hope—but not by any means in the certainty—that it will bring an end to the dangerous situation in which we find ourselves.

Professor Johnston

I would like to bring to this discussion the detached point of view that one might expect from a member of that community of 800,000 foreigners referred to by Senator Goulding, who happens to find himself a very happy and contented citizen of Éire. Perhaps one of the reasons why we find ourselves so happy and comfortable down here is that it is part of the national tradition to be friendly and hospitable to strangers and precisely because you all instinctively regard us Northerners or ex-Northerners as strangers, you have treated us with the most extreme friendliness and hospitality. That position has its attractions, but it is also, I think, our duty occasionally to assume the position of our fellow-citizens and to rise, if we can, to the responsibilities which citizenship of this community imposes upon us.

I would like to say, to begin with, that I support the principle of this Bill, and I yield to no one in the conviction that the State must arm itself with all lawful force and be prepared to go to the extreme limits in the use of that force in order to defend itself from forces of lawless aggression. I add to that the statement that this House and the Oireachtas have already agreed to the principle of the internment of citizens in the Offences Against the State Bill which we enacted some months ago, and that we agreed then to a form of legislation which we thought was constitutionally law, and, consequently, logically, we cannot refuse to agree to another effort to put on the Statute Book the thing which we thought we had effectively placed on the Statute Book at that time.

This Bill, so far as it goes, is a Coercion Bill, an effort to repress the ill-conceived and dangerous activities of certain misguided fellow-citizens of ours. I for one would hate to be associated with a policy of mere repression if this revolutionary activity has any other roots in our social and economic conditions besides those purely psychological roots that derive from a misinterpretation of our history and our present constitutional circumstances. If it has any other roots in material discontent and economic hardship, then I think it is the duty of the State and of the Government to do what it can to remove all those causes of economic discontent which would tend to feed the flame of any revolutionary activity which may happen to exist.

Now, in my opinion, the Government has by its policy in the last seven years failed in its constitutional duty to maintain conditions under which the country as a whole might advance in economic prosperity. In my opinion, many of the real economic hardships which exist and which are acutely felt by hundreds of thousands of our countrymen, are in no small degree attributable to the failure of Government policy. At the same time, I should not like to confine myself to criticism of the Government, because more than the fate of the Government and the Government Party is at present at stake. The fate of democratic institutions as a whole may possibly be at stake. Not only has Government policy failed to remove the causes of economic discontent, but Opposition policy has also failed. In a normally working democratic community, if Government policy produces obvious hardships and a sense of oppression, that sense of oppression is canalised and directed into channels of constitutional opposition, and it helps to swell the sails of the Opposition Party. In due course that Opposition Party, when opportunity offers, becomes the Government, replacing the former Government Party. The danger to our democratic institutions is that the very real economic hardships which are rife throughout the country are not helping to swell the sails of the constitutional Party, but are finding an outlet in revolutionary directions. For example, we had recently a farmers' strike—in my opinion an ill-conceived and ill-advised proceeding. One of the principles of that organisation, so far as I understand it, was, that it should have no contact whatever with any politician of either Party. Now, if the Opposition had the influence in the country that the Opposition ought to have it should have been the obvious means by which the discontent of which that strike was evidence, would attempt to find a constitutional outlet. It is evidence of the failure of the Opposition, as well as the failure of the Government, that these kinds of movements which are taking place up and down the country should find an outlet in revolutionary directions.

I, as an independent member of the House, have lost no opportunity, especially since the outbreak of war, in attempting to co-operate with the Government. I have made suggestion after suggestion, in motions before the House, of concrete methods and policies which in my view the Government could have accepted, consistently with their position, with considerable advantage to the welfare of the State. These suggestions, one after another, have been treated with indifference and contempt. I spent hours speaking and listening to others speaking on a motion, the object of which was to try a method of dealing with the problem of unemployment and the Minister in charge of the debate walked out of the House before I had been on my feet two minutes in replying to the speeches made on that motion. That is the extent to which the Government co-operates with me; and that is the kind of thing which makes it extremely difficult for me to co-operate with the Government. On the other hand, I find equal difficulty in co-operating with the Opposition for my mind bulges with ideas of one kind or another, good, bad and indifferent, but, at all events, ideas. Some of them, if presented confidentially to the Opposition Party might become useful ammunition for Party warfare. But I do not want my ideas, at all events in times of national or international crisis, to become ammunition for Party warfare. Consequently, I find myself incapacitated from co-operating with the Government or the Opposition.

What are the political effects on our people? We have a Government in power which has been in power for the last seven years. That Government commands the support of rather more than 55 per cent. of the Oireachtas and perhaps less than 55 per cent. of the electors who returned it to power at the last election. Is that the measure of the moral authority of the Government to exercise Governmental powers at all and especially to exercise the very considerable powers which it needs for dealing with the events which have called us together to-day? I am afraid that a Government that does not possess even a 55 per cent. moral authority in the eyes of the ordinary plain people of the country as a whole will not receive universal loyalty. It would be a fine thing, if it could be achieved in some way or other, if a Government could be constituted which could command the moral support of 90 per cent. of the people, in fact, of all well-disposed citizens in the country.

Another of my difficulties in co-operating with this Government is that I have no confidence in their competence to deal with economic problems, especially with the serious economic problems which have been affecting the country and which are affecting it now more than ever. I feel myself rather to be in the position of a doctor who is not called in but who is aware of a case in which a certain person has been taking dangerous drugs for a number of years. This doctor knows that there are perhaps other drugs in themselves dangerous which might, if used by competent hands, be utilised as antidotes to the dangerous drugs which the patient has been already taking, but he hesitates to mention the names of these drugs lest their administration by incompetent hands might make the patient worse instead of better. From that point of view it is eminently desirable that there should be a Government in power in whose competence I should have confidence so that I could make use of these dangerous drugs with a clear conscience. That seems to lead definitely in the direction of a coalition. Now I am aware of the extreme difficulties that exist with regard to this whole question of a coalition Government.

First of all, there are personal antagonisms and antipathies which have their roots in history and are perhaps, more obviously apparent in the case of prominent personalities in both Parties than in the case of the rank-and-file. I speak all the time as an outsider, and I have observed that these personal relations between the ordinary run of members in this House and the other House are friendly and admirable; I think even the personal relations of prominent personalities are, on the whole, improving. Apart from that altogether, there are real incompatibilities, especially of economic and commercial policies, between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael; and a coalition which merely lumped together the policies enforced by Fianna Fáil with those advocated by Fine Gael would produce the most impossible result. These policies in combination are quite incompatible. There would have to be an agreement to abandon all controversial aspects of policy, especially economic and commercial policy, if such a coalition was to produce a coherent and working policy for dealing with the economic evils of our country. Whether that is possible or not I am not prepared to prophesy.

With regard to a possible method of bringing about such a coalition, I make this suggestion with a complete sense of irresponsibility, as I know perfectly well that it will go the way of all other suggestions made in this House; in other words it will be treated with contempt and indifference. If every member of the Oireachtas were asked to state, in the form of a secret ballot by proportional representation, the order in which he would place the ten or 12 members of the Oireachtas in whose hands he would best like to see the executive government of this country placed, one would, I think, have a very interesting list. Undoubtedly, the Taoiseach would head it, but it would contain some surprising inclusions among the other nine or ten, and there would be some surprising omissions. It would, of course, contain representatives of all Parties, since proportional representation can be trusted—if honestly and properly worked—to lead to mathematically precise results. I do not know whether it is feasible or not, but it would be an interesting experiment to see what kind of procedure that would result in. The ten or 12 at the top would have the responsibility of choosing one of their number to be Taoiseach, and he would have the responsibility of fitting each of the other nine into the executive departments he thought their qualities most suited them to. That is a counsel of perfection, and I know perfectly well that there is not the slightest chance of its being carried out. If we were living in a more or less rational country, and agreed on giving effect to that kind of policy, if the present international situation really required it, we could write down on a half-sheet of notepaper the kind of principles which ought to animate a Government of national concentration of that kind in its efforts to run the country during the present period of emergency.

First of all, I think it would regard as a primary object the effort to secure by feasible means the reunion by consent of all Ireland under a common national Government. That would be an ideal, but it would be an ideal never to be lost sight of. In the second place, it would base its economic policy on the principle that the economic prosperity of the community can only be advanced if there is everywhere the determination on the part of each individual and each section of the community to contribute to the wealth of all, as well as seeking self-advancement in wealth. There would have to be a recognition that the only source of the wealth of the nation is organised labour, not meaning labour organised for a fight in the trade union sense, but labour organised and equipped for production in a spirit of mutual service, such labour being applied to the very considerable natural resources with which Providence has been good enough to endow us.

There should be a further recognition of this obvious and very elementary fact, that a continuation of our industrial life as it is requires the continuous import of some £20,000,000 of industrial raw materials and semi-manufactured goods, and that we can only continue importing those goods if we are able to maintain the export of an equivalent or greater amount of agricultural goods. In other words, we should seek to develop and maintain our export capacity as a means of making our industrial life possible.

That is all I wish to say, except to add that I am in favour of the enactment of this very necessary measure.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.35 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Before proceeding with the business, I have to announce that it has been agreed that the Seanad shall meet to-morrow at 11.30 a.m.