Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jan 1940

Vol. 24 No. 5

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

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I have a few short remarks to make on this Bill. In the first place, it seems to me that the present situation is due to two different legal opinions, and possibly if the other set of lawyers happened to be the advisers of the Government quite a different situation might be put before us. I think that probably the present Bill is the right solution. Let it work out, and we will hope that the result will be what the Government and the country require. I think it is certainly a better solution than further alterations of our Constitution. Since we became an independent sovereign State, we had some 26 amendments to our first Constitution. We then drafted a second Constitution, and we have already had one amendment of it, so that it means that we have had continuous change. In 160 odd years the American nation have made only 19 or 20 amendments to their Constitution, of which only four were really major amendments. One of those has been found unworkable, and has since been repealed. The French, in a slightly shorter time, have, I believe, made practically no amendments at all. They have managed to carry on. They are two great nations, more experienced than we, and I think that if we can in any possible way avoid these continuous amendments of the Constitution we will probably bring about greater stability and devise some means of governing ourselves without these continuous changes which have been taking place.

On reading the Reports, and from listening for a short time to the debate in the Dáil yesterday, I was somewhat exercised in mind by a matter which has been referred to already here—the remark by the Taoiseach that in certain circumstances, judges might be regarded as being perverse. It seems to me that the whole foundation of our justiciary here, which again is based on a justiciary which has been in existence for some hundreds of years in England, should be that, once you lay down a law, the interpretation of that law must be left to a judge, and any suggestion that any of our judges, in practically any circumstances whatever, are perverse is an unfortunate thing, and is liable to alarm the people who have to come before the judges of the country for trial of their cases. I do agree with some of the speakers to-day, and particularly Senator Professor Tierney when he spoke of the vacillating policy which has governed the present administration for some years, and although I do not think that the results could possibly be suggested by anything like what happened at one time, anybody who reads history will find an almost exact parallel for the last seven years in vacillation with regard to the opinion of the public in the policy of Necker and Brienne during the seven years before the French Revolution. I am quite satisfied that a very much stronger line in the particulars which have been mentioned by other speakers, should be taken by the Government from now on.

There is only one other thing that I will mention on this Bill. That is arising out of the original statement of the Minister in charge of this Bill on the question of the incident of the Magazine. I know that so far as the officer and men in charge of the Magazine are concerned, an inquiry is in progress and, for that reason, I have naturally no remarks to make on the incident itself, but it is very hard to agree with the statement which was made in the Dáil by An Taoiseach to the effect that the ordinary precautions were taken to make quite sure that an incident such as occurred did not occur in fact. You had there a very large amount of ammunition. You had knowledge by the Government, admitted by the Minister, over a number of months and which is confirmed by the fact that during the last Session we were asked to pass the Offences Against the State Bill and the Treason Bill. You knew there was a situation in which there was a party and an organisation banded against the State and yet, Sir, an isolated fort, where very large quantities of ammunition were kept, was left entirely by itself with only a vulnerable telephone line to connect it with the forces of the State. I must say I do not consider that, under the present circumstances in the State, those precautions were adequate and although, Sir, the custodians of the themselves—the underlings—are now the subject of inquiry I hold very definitely that the chief responsibility lies on the Minister for Defence downwards who had full knowledge of the facts and of the situation in the country, and that the staff of the army should have made certain that there were other precautions as well.

In the British time I believe that the fort was garrisoned by a captain, subaltern, and 30 men at least. They had rocket apparatus, and they also had what is a usual thing in most armies where there is a brigade—a brigade field officer who visits isolated places like that at certain intervals in the night. Sir, I submit that the ordinary precautions should have been supplemented in this present state of unrest which, as I say, was well known to the Government, and I feel that the responsibility for the loss of this ammunition, which is a very unfortunate thing for us in the present circumstances, is a blow at the prestige of the Army and the prestige of the Government which could have been avoided if better precautions had been taken by those people whom we, as the simple public, assume have got the experience and the energy to see that precautions are put into operation.

Professor Alton

I wish to say a few words before I vote, if it comes to a vote, on this Bill. A challenge has been raised by a party to the Government elected by the free vote of this people, and the Government asks for power to deal with that party, and I would have a feeling that I was not doing my duty if I did not strengthen their hands against what is nothing less than rebellion. I, like all of us, regret the occasion, but I think we should be none the less firm in supporting the Government in this crisis. It is a serious crisis. As regards the actual method or form in which the Government desire their powers to be embodied, really I am not a judge. I am not a jurist. I listened to the speeches in the Dáil yesterday, and I listened to them to-day. Some speeches convinced me that this Bill will be ineffective and others convinced me that it will, especially the specious pleading of Senator Magennis. I followed his tracks through the different Articles in the Constitution and he, anyhow, satisfied himself conclusively that this is a proper and effective instrument. I sincerely hope it will be, but I would like him to reinforce the appeal of certain Senators that the Government should be firm, that there should be no wavering now in the resolution and determination to put down this defiance of their Parliament. We have come to the turning of the ways. We can go straight or we can take a side path to destruction. I am Irish, and Irish enough to sympathise with the follies of some of my fellow-countrymen, but I realise that a duty is on us, a dire duty, and sorry am I that it is on us, but we should discharge it.

Senator Goulding asked: "Can we not persuade them to take a more reasonable attitude?" If I could find an answer to that question I would give it to you—I do not believe you can. I do not believe you can, so long as we indulge in dangerous and almost morbid sympathies. Senator Magennis, who, by the way, recognises there is a conspiracy to overthrow the rule of law and order, himself appeals to our sympathy. He would urge that there is a difference between a political offence and a real crime. Is that much comfort to the widow of a dead man and to a fatherless child? I think I will say no more, but I will vote and support the Government in this measure, and I sincerely trust that it will be an effective measure and that they will use it efficiently and without any wavering or shrinking from criticism or perhaps unpopular consequences.

Mr. E. Lynch

In speaking on this measure, I want to say that we of the Labour Party have refused to vote for measures of a similar character before. I also want to say at the beginning that it is difficult to debate an issue of this character, because of what appear to us to be the very many side-issues brought into the debate; also that feelings, bitter feelings engendered by past incidents in this country seem to have influenced very largely many of the things which were said on this measure in another place yesterday, and which were said here this afternoon. We on our side view all those matters from a very different standpoint to all others who have spoken, whether they have spoken for the Government or whether they have spoken against the Government. We have voted against these measures in the past, because we bring to bear upon the whole question of politics in this country a very different outlook, because of the social policy which is part and parcel of our programme. A good deal of, I think, rather febrile feeling has been indulged in, and I think I may also say without any exaggeration that a fairly large measure of Party politics has been indulged in with a view to prejudicing this issue. I will deal with that aspect of the subject later.

Our objection is based entirely on the maintenance of what we consider to be the fundamental principle of citizenship. In endeavouring to maintain that fundamental principle of citizenship—the right of personal liberty—we are maintaining a sound democratic principle. We think that that democratic principle, that right of personal freedom, should not be easily removed from the citizens. We say quite definitely—no matter what has been said here or elsewhere, and all the heat with which it was said—that the circumstances in this country to-day do not warrant the Bill which is before this House, or the prejudicing or jeopardising of that fundamental principle of personal liberty which should be guaranteed to the citizen until such time as something has occurred to take that right away from him. We are told that that situation has occurred, that a war situation exists, and that it is because of the existence of such a situation that this legislation is necessary. We challenge that. We say that such a situation does not exist, and I understand that one eminent lawyer in another place yesterday said that very likely this legislation would be challenged elsewhere. He expressed a doubt as to whether it would be legally sustained in the courts that a war situation did exist, and if it did not exist, then this legislation would not be held as being satisfactory legislation in the circumstances.

It occurs to me that the question of habeas corpus as a fundamental right of the citizen was placed upon a statutory basis in Great Britain 30 years after the ending of a civil war in that country. Nineteen years after the Restoration, and 30 years after England had been ravaged and torn for a decade by a civil war, the English people thought it advisable to place the right of habeas corpus on a statutory basis, because they considered that on the then basis of the Common Law it was not being satisfactorily carried out. Surely after England being ravaged by Rupert of the Rhine and Cromwell's Ironsides, the institutions of the England of that time must have been considerably more disturbed than the political or parliamentary institutions of this country to-day; in other words, surely there was a more dangerous situation existing in England when the English Parliament thought that habeas corpus should be placed upon a more solid and proper basis than then existed. It is a strange commentary on the Irish people that here after less than 20 years, we consider it necessary to take from the citizens this fundamental right, and in circumstances which appear to us in no way to warrant what is being done.

Incidents have occurred, and they have been belaboured as giving rise to the necessity for this legislation. Some of those incidents are sub judice at the moment, and therefore reference cannot be made to them. The Minister in charge of this Bill, in the course of bringing the Bill before each House, gave a list of incidents which had occurred, and which would seem to be the basis on which this legislation is considered necessary, but when he was asked to give an estimate as to the size, significance or importance of the organisations that have been considered to be subversive he said, first of all: “An estimate is no good; I am not prepared to give an estimate”, and he went on to say: “I do not think it is very strong numerically, but in certain places it is very highly organised and I may say pretty efficient and very dangerous”. There you have an organisation which the Minister—who surely has in his possession greater information in regard to the existence of this organisation than anybody else— considers to be of a minimal character. If that be the case—and we have the Minister's authority for it —where then is the necessity for all this legislation which will take from the people, if they are arrested, the right to be charged and to be tried in accordance with the process of law? Some people, apparently, look upon that right as of no matter, as of flimsy character but it has been well laid down as one of the foundations of British liberty, started with Magna Carta, carried on through the Habeas Corpus Act and enshrined in the Bill of Rights and of profound and fundamental importance to the citizen. British liberties, British social institutions and political institutions and customs, have been boasted of throughout the world, and one of the most important of these was that a man could not be taken and thrown into jail and left there without being brought to trial within a reasonable and proper time. It seems to me, having listened to the debates here and elsewhere, that there is not that regard for that fundamental right which there should be. Why the Government felt it necessary to introduce legislation of this character last year or this year is not clear to us. Probably, it will become clearer in the course of time, but it is certainly not clear at the moment. No case was made, either yesterday, or to-day, or in the latter portion of last year, when the original Bills were brought in, which appeared to us to be a satisfactory case for such measures.

References have been made to the incident in the Park and to inefficiency in holding that Government property securely and safety, but was not the German Reichstag burnt down, and no one is going to accuse the Germans of being inefficient? Was not the Beer Cellar in Munich blown up the other day after Herr Hitler had left only about ten minutes? It just shows that incidents of this character can occur and valuable property can be destroyed or stolen despite all the watchfulness there may be in the circumstances. I do not see, therefore, why this particular incident should be singled out more than any other. I think that if there was a state of anarchy, a state of disturbance, a state of insurrection threatened in this country, the Government here would have taken far greater precautions, and even doubled the guard on the Magazine in the Park. They did not do so and surely, if they did not do so, then it would appear that they were satisfied that a normal state of affairs existed in this country. If all this talk about subversive organisations and their practices was real the Government would have proceeded and taken those precautions. They did not do so.

We think that the past in these matters cannot be ignored. From some speeches—rather super-heated I think myself—that were made here this evening, it would appear that some people would entirely ignore that past. I think we cannot ignore that past. The Government of this country has come to the parting of the ways in regard to its administration here. It can either become ultra conservative or it can become still more democratic than it is. It alleges that it is extremely democratic, but its recent actions prove conclusively that the tendency and the trend of its mind as expressed in its legislative activities are definitely towards reaction and conservatism. Now, others have tried coercion here and elsewhere and I think I may say that it is axiomatic in regard to political affairs, in this country at all events, that coercion has failed and coercion will fail. There is no use in our saying that we have given ourselves a Constitution. Unquestionably we have given ourselves a Constitution and we are entitled to do so, but we must not, in my opinion, be so foolish as to say, because of the very fact of giving ourselves that Constitution, that from that date forward the whole character of this country changes overnight. It does not change overnight. We cannot ignore the past, a past that has been built into the fabric and structure of this Irish nation through coercion and political outlawry lasting over many centuries. We have, therefore, if we are wise, to take into consideration the effects of that long outlawry built into the character, not alone of the nation but the character of the individuals constituting the nation. If we refuse to recognise all that past and plunge back again towards coercion then we are bound to fail.

However, that is not what we advocate and Senator Tierney sums the case up when he says that if we do not have strong government and keep within the rule of law we must have anarchy or tyranny. Presumably he was thinking—although he did not express it—of anarchy if the country got into the hands of subversive organisations or tyranny if the Parliamentary institutions break down. He went on to say that the strongest course would be the best course. In fact, he would meet the situation by taking life. I think that was his phrase. That is the contrary view again. That is again the law of the jungle. That is the suspension of the rule of law, and it will mean that force has to be met by counter force, and consequently, probably the anarchy which he fears will arise.

Can those alternatives be avoided? Our position is that they can be avoided. Rightly or wrongly, we feel that the Government of this country is not taking the people of this country into its confidence as it should. We have been talking and acting in a certain manner. We are entitled to do that. We are entitled to speak of this country as if it were independent. We know that still there is much to be done before that independence which everybody dreams of and desires will be achieved.

There are people in this country regarding whom somebody, in a moment of clarity of mind this evening, said that still they were entitled to think that they ought to look for independence. There are still people in the country who dream of that independence and who are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the objective which was the objective of many people who now consider that a halt should be put to that demand.

Sir John Keane

Why are they not satisfied with parliamentary methods?

Mr. Lynch

That reminds me very forcibly of what Grattan said about the Volunteers. When Grattan would not subscribe to the further objectives of the Volunteers he referred to them as "an armed rabble." Now, possibly there are people who consider that those who still think of the independence of this country are an armed rabble. If there are such people, they ought to remember that history is merely repeating itself.

The McGillycuddy

Why does the Senator not finish the sentence and say that there are people who are thinking of the independence of this country just as much as the others?

Mr. Lynch

To what extent these opinions are held in the country it is difficult to say. The Minister says that in so far as an armed section representing that opinion is concerned, it is small, but outside of that armed section I think it is correct to say there are many people who still believe—whether they are prepared to use the armed methods or not I do not know—many people who dream of, and desire, the objectives which many sitting here this evening set out for themselves years ago. I think we should not endorse the bloodthirsty method of Senator Professor Tierney, but rather that we should think of some method by which these people could be brought to realise that here you have in this country a Government anxious to perform all that they desire, and bring these two forces into harmony, and so remove opposition.

Mr. Fitzgerald

What method do you propose?

Mr. Lynch

I did not interrupt the Senator when he was speaking. This is more of the dictatorship. In our opinion, the issues before the Government—I think Senator MacDermot referred to this matter also—are economic and financial as well as political and constitutional. We are of opinion that much of the trouble which this legislation proposes to meet has arisen from economic difficulties, that there has been a failure on the part of this Government which has not been a political failure. It has been very largely an economic failure. To-day, despite measures for the relief of unemployment, you have insecurity brought into the homes of thousands upon thousands, arising out of present-day issues, where insecurity never entered before. Surely all those things which destroy stability at the base of the nation penetrate upwards and disturb the whole mind of the nation, causing it very easily to gravitate towards actions which are now considered to be subversive. Are we satisfied that as a Government or as a Parliament, we are doing all we should do to rectify, not alone the political affairs of the country, but the economic affairs of the country also?

We think that if the Government were to proceed on those lines and address themselves to the economic betterment of the country to a considerably greater degree than they have done they would very largely solve their difficulties. They say they have done all it is possible for them to do and that there are difficulties over which they have no control. These difficulties are to be found within the existing economic structure of the country. Are they prepared, as I understand on one occasion they were prepared, to consider other methods of dealing with these economic difficulties? Remember there is no human economic difficulty that cannot be remedied. The right to food, clothing, security and shelter is a mundane matter which can be rectified even if we have to disturb certain economic laws which some people consider sacrosanct and immutable. I invite the Government to view the situation from this basis. If they do, they will find that the coercion which they are looking for will be rendered quite unnecessary. I know that viewpoint will not find favour with many people sitting here. However it is the viewpoint of an increasing number of people in this country, holding far more responsible positions than perhaps some people on these benches would be prepared to credit. You may be driven inexorably to view matters along these lines and it is far better to take time by the forelock rather than be driven to adopt such measures after these institutions have fallen down because of their incapacity to stand up to this test.

I therefore say that the right of the citizen to his liberty until such time as he has been proved guilty of some crime is a right which should be sustained. That right is now to be taken definitely from him by this legislation. If you proceed to reorganise this nation, or even the portion of this nation of which you are in charge, on right and proper lines, your difficulties will largely disappear. Coercion, which some Senators still seem to think is a cure for these matters, has been tried before. It failed and it will fail if it is tried now. The present Government knew the difficulties that they would be shouldering when they took over office. These difficulties were patent in the time of their predecessors. They must have been patent to the Government then and they must be more patent to them now. Coercion has been stressed by representatives of the Fine Gael Party in the other House and by their representatives here. Was it not their coercion that drove that same Party from office in 1932? Are their successors following on the same road? It seems to us they are. If they want to avoid following the same lines, then we suggest that, instead of trying coercion as they propose, they should try to remedy the economic ills of this country. Having done that, the political institutions of the country will not founder through subversive organisations.

The Taoiseach

I find it difficult to know where to begin. I have special difficulties, since Senator Tierney reminded me that I would need to have a board of exegetes—I think he called it—to interpret me. It is very easy to suggest that one can never talk in plain language and that one is always talking oracularly. I have been accused of it a good deal. I have always tried to say, as simply as I could, exactly what I meant. Because things are not always black or always white, when I try to express exactly what I mean I am accused on the one hand of saying they were black and on the other hand of saying they were white. When I have been talking to the Irish people at any time, or talking to any assembly, I do not think that anybody who really wanted to understand had any difficulty in following what I had in mind.

This legislation, as I am sure the Minister has pointed out to you in his introduction, is brought in because of a certain High Court decision. It did not matter what view we took of the decision, whether we thought it right or wrong; we did what it was our duty to do, we acted upon it. That, to my mind, is the highest expression of acceptance of the rule of law. Judgments will be given; you will find lawyers, having stated cases to judges, holding—even after the judgment has been delivered—that the judge was wrong, but accepting the finding. That must be the way; there must be some body to determine a certain issue and somebody to determine it finally. We accepted the court decision as finally determining the issue of the liberation of the men concerned. If it should happen that the interpretation taken by the courts is different to that intended by the Legislature, the Legislature has, in general, the power of changing the law so that its own intention—taking into view the decision of the judges—will be expressed. Again, even a second time, you may find that the judges do not accept the interpretation that was intended and it may be necessary for the Legislature to go a second and even a third time to the task. Surely, however, that ordinarily should not happen. Ordinarily, the Legislature—with expert draftsmen and people who are experienced in preparing legislation—ought to be able to express itself in a way in which there would be no difficulty about getting from the courts the interpretation which was intended.

Where there is no written Constitution there are rarely difficulties of a serious character, when there is a difference between the judge's interpretation and the intention of the Legislature. If some interpretation is taken which was not intended, the Legislature of itself can mend its hand. Where there is a written Constitution, however, to which the Acts are subject, if it is held by the judges that a certain Act which may have been found necessary, say, for the safety of the State, is contrary to the Constitution, you have got to change your Constitution or devise some other methods of getting the protection required. In this case I can say quite frankly that the Government, its advisers and all of us interested in passing the Constitution and in the meaning of the Constitution were taken by surprise when we found that the Act which was passed here was held to be unconstitutional. We were still more surprised when we found that the Supreme Court held that there was not a right of appeal even in a case in which the validity of an Act—in view of the Constitution— was in question.

It is in those circumstances that we are coming to the House. A certain measure was felt to be necessary for public safety. Last June we passed a certain Act intended to meet, not merely times of crisis, but the peculiar circumstances of our conditions here even in ordinary peace time. That instrument for preserving the safety of the public was broken in our hands by the court's decision. We have got to remedy that situation. It is suggested to us that we should remedy it by amending the Constitution. There is no use in minimising my connection with the Constitution; no doubt, I had a principal part in determining what the Constitution should contain. On that account I have, perhaps, more feeling about it—as was suggested here —than a person who had nothing to do with its drafting. But it is not my Constitution; it is the Constitution which was recommended by Dáil Eireann to the Irish people and which was enacted by the Irish people. This is much less my Constitution than an Act of the Oireachtas is the draftsman's Act. This Constitution is a basic law enacted by the Irish people; I think it is very unwise to start tampering with it and changing it to meet changing circumstances. If particular circumstances have to be met, it is desirable to meet them within the Constitution.

After three years, following the installation of the President, we will have to do that, unless we take a plebiscite, as it cannot be changed otherwise then. Within three years it is possible to change it by legislation, unless the President takes the view that the change is of a vital character and is of such fundamental importance that the people should be consulted about it. Within three years, therefore, it can be changed by legislation with, if I may call it so, the concurrence of the President. If the President takes the view, in regard to any proposed change, that it affects the Constitution fundamentally in such wise that the people's act would be changed without their consent in a vital matter, then he would consider it his duty to refer it to the people and we would have to get the change by means of a plebiscite. After three years, if a difficulty like the present one arises, the change will have to be made within the Constitution and not by changing the Constitution itself. During these three years, if the change suggested appears to the President to be of a fundamental character, it would be his duty as guardian of the Constitution to see that the change was referred to the people. I was taunted in the Dáil with the idea that I was afraid of having the matter referred to the people. That is not right; it is not that. A plebiscite is a costly affair; it means a campaign to educate the people regarding what they are being asked to decide, and it means a certain amount of disturbance. It is not a thing to be lightly undertaken. From these points of view we, the Government, came to the conclusion that the change ought to be effected without, if possible, a change in the Constitution.

That brings me to another matter. We ought not to change the Constitution, in any case, before a change has been proved necessary. As I pointed out in the Dáil, what has been decided in court is this: a High Court judge has, under habeas corpus, caused to be liberated by his judgment a number of people who had been interned. In giving his judgment in that case, he expressed opinions about the unconstitutionality of the particular Act under which they were interned. In accordance with an Article of the Constitution which we believed gave us a right of appeal in all cases, we appealed, but the Supreme Court held that an appeal did not lie. What has really happened, therefore, is that it has been definitely and finally decided by the Supreme Court that an appeal does not lie. The Supreme Court has not given a final judgment on the Act, and it is only the opinion of the Supreme Court which can be a final judgment; they have not said that this particular Act was unconstitutional. In other words, the opinion expressed by the High Court judge could possibly be reversed by the Supreme Court, and I think it is right that that issue should be tried, if there is any way of trying it out. There was an appeal, and it was to try out that issue rather than the mere question of the liberation or retention of the particular prisoners that was the cause of the appeal.

We wanted to have that matter tried out, and it seemed to us, at any rate, that the judge, in delivering judgment, and in giving what was called a speaking order, had the view that an appeal did lie. The Supreme Court have definitely said that an appeal does not lie, and therefore, that method of getting the question of the constitutionality of the Act tried has failed. Another method may get the result we wish for, namely, a definite and final decision on that matter, and what is proposed is that that Part of the Offences Against the State Act which is intended to have what I might call a more permanent character, which was objected to by the judge, should, with whatever slight modifications may be regarded as necessary, be re-enacted. We are presuming that it is likely that the President, having before him the decision of the judge of the High Court that this particular Part is contrary to the Constitution, will cause the new Bill to be referred, according to the Constitution, to the Supreme Court for an authoritative decision. When that decision has been got, we shall know whether or not the view expressed by the High Court judge, which would imply, I think, that we would not have powers, under the Constitution, of internment, is right or not.

I said—perhaps it was a rather unfortunate phrase, but it expressed exactly what my thought was—when I was being urged to take the other course, namely, to amend the Constitution, that in view of what appeared to me to be the plain language of the Constitution, it was only if I had the conviction that the judges were going to be perverse, that I would amend the Constitution rather than assume that the Emergency Powers Bill cannot be invalidated by the Constitution; in other words, it would be a confession on my part of an inner feeling that the judges were going to act contrary to common sense and to the plain language of the Constitution, if I had such a doubt of getting a judgment in our favour as would make me decide to amend the Constitution.

When the Constitution was passing through the Dáil, I adverted to this particular difficulty that courts which are administering ordinary law have been held by many constitutional writers to be very imperfect courts for dealing with constitutional matters. Their whole training of a narrow legalistic type makes them look for an interpretation in a Constitution which it is quite impossible to have. Constitutions last over a long period and we refrained in drawing up the Constitution from getting the Parliamentary Draftsman to draft it. We asked him to look over, and he agreed with us that it was better that it should be put in the every-day simple language of the ordinary man, instead of in definite legal phraseology. On the same basis, I think, if you want to make a will, people tell you not to go to the lawyer, or the half lawyer, but to write it down simply on a piece of paper and keep away as far as you can from legal expressions which have special connotations and are interpreted in a definite way. This was intended to be a simple, straightforward, common-sense document and our hope was that, as it would need to be interpreted from time to time in accordance with developments—if it were to last without change and if circumstances were to change, the document might be, so to speak, frozen in its existing words— there would be a living body which would be able to take account of the changing circumstances and interpret the Constitution in accordance with those changing circumstances.

That was the view taken by the Supreme Court of the United States and if there have been so few amendments of the Constitution of the United States, it has been due to two reasons, the first being that it was extremely difficult to make any changes and they were, therefore, in this position that either the courts had to interpret that fundamental document in accordance with its spirit, its general intention, or the whole thing would be smashed in a very short time. The second reason was that the Supreme Court of the United States took the attitude that the Legislature was to be presumed to be acting honestly and within the Constitution, and that an Act was to be declared unconstitutional, only if it was quite definite and clear that it was so; that is, the presumption was to be always in favour of the Legislature.

This whole difficulty was so much present to my mind that I think you will find in the Dáil Debates on the Constitution that I spoke of the devices used in other countries with regard to written Constitutions by which a special Constitutional Court is set up, not being the highest court in the land in ordinary legal matters, but a court composed of some judges and other people experienced in public affairs— for example, the Council of State, as we have it here, or something of that sort—and that body is the body to interpret the Constitution, the reason again being the difficulty I have been speaking about of taking an instrument of that kind and interpreting it in regard to legislation from time to time. I still have the hope, and it was with this hope that the Supreme Court in the Constitution was intended to be the final authoritative body, that the Supreme Court in dealing with these things will deal with them in a way which will make it possible to have the Constitution a workable instrument.

I can now pass away from that particular matter, namely, the reason for proceeding in this way. I have spoken not only of this particular Bill, the Emergency Powers Bill, but also of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Bill because it was in connection with the Offences Against the State Act that we had the difficulty. We are trying to get immediate powers and the process of reference to the Supreme Court will take some time. The Supreme Court will have to consider the Bill and they are given in the Constitution something like 60 days in which to consider it, if they wish to take so much time, but we want immediate powers. We had the second question: How are we going to get immediate powers? When the war broke out, we realised that although we were not actually going to be belligerents, yet we were going to have circumstances here which would approximate to those of a war condition, and that for the preservation of the State, for the welfare of our people, during this time, we might require extraordinary measures. To enable us to deal with that, we, first of all, had to make clear that the term "time of war" in the Constitution would refer to a time such as the present in which, although we were not belligerent, circumstances were such that we were suffering effects and were in conditions which were practically those of a war situation.

We therefore defined by the amendment the expression "time of war", as it is in the Article, to cover a time like the present, under certain conditions, when there were resolutions of both Houses and so on. Having done that, we brought in the Emergency Powers Bill, which gave us powers of a certain kind—powers to make orders covering numbers of things that might be necessary for the welfare of the community during this particular time. That Bill gave us power of internment. It was worded in such a way that it would cover natural-born citizens — Irish citizens—as well as those who might be naturalised or aliens.

When it was going through the Dáil, it was pointed out to us that we already had the powers which would enable us to deal with Irish citizens, namely, in the Act passed in June—the Offences Against the State Act—and, because we had the power there, it was suggested there was no need whatever to take it in the other Act and, really, that the Emergency Powers Act, what I might call the war measure, was not designed exactly for that particular purpose and there was no need of having, so to speak, two strings to our bow. Because we believed that was the situation, we consented to modify, in accordance with the suggestion of the Opposition, the Bill as it was introduced and exclude from its operations natural-born citizens.

Had that not been done, in our opinion, the moment the internees were released, or the first of them, under the writ of habeas corpus as applying to the other Act, we would immediately have had warrants to intern them under the other Act which, in our opinion, could not be regarded under any circumstances as unconstitutional because, in accordance with the war situation and the amendment holding that this was a time of war, we were in a situation in which the other Articles of the Constitution did not apply. That is the position we believe exists at the moment and I have found nobody—I have been trying to follow the arguments put forward by legal men—I heard none in the Dáil, and we have lawyers there, or in this House— to give me any reason as to why it could be held in view of the Article and the amendment, which excludes this type of legislation from the other provisions of the Constitution, that there was any chance that the Emergency Powers Bill could be held by any court to be unconstitutional.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I tried to make the point quite clear.

Mr. Hayes

There is no state of war. It is argued that no court would hold that there is any state of war or armed rebellion—I am only giving the arguments.

The Taoiseach

I must say that I have never found good law anything other than good common sense.

Mr. Baxter

That is what it ought to be.

The Taoiseach

There may be practice and a growth of practice that, as a layman, I have not understood and have not fully appreciated, because there is in all these things the question of consequences that might flow from decisions, and I can honestly say that I have never yet seen what would prove to be good, sound law that was not good sound common sense.

Senators

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach

In this particular case unless I am dreaming, we have an Article in the Constitution which says that in a time of war certain Articles of the Constitution do not apply. That is the first point. Next, we have an amendment which says that the present is a time of war. Therefore, in the present time, which is a time of war, legislation which is expressed to be for the preservation of the State during this time, nothing in the Constitution can be invoked to nullify. That is as I read it, and that is as my advisers read it. If a case was made, I think I would be able to see it, and I have heard no case that this Bill is unconstitutional— perhaps I will wake up and find I have been dreaming all this time, and that the Supreme Court will show me otherwise. But I hope I am not dreaming. It will be a serious matter, if when people are interned under the Bill, when it is enacted, we should have a habeas corpus application action again and the people who are interned in the interests of the State have to be released again. It will be serious. It will be bad for the prestige of the Government.

Senators

Hear, hear!

The Taoiseach

It will, undoubtedly. When we were dealing with the situation that existed some years ago, a court decision added to our difficulties tremendously, so I sincerely hope that that will not occur again. As I am talking about that, I am just a bit nervous lest my words again—but, perhaps, I had better keep off that field. I was going to speak of the necessary co-operation between the various organs of the State, so that they may not bring each other to frustration. At any rate, if we should find that this new Bill is unconstitutional, then the sole remedy left would be to change the Constitution. Exactly what changes would be necessary is another matter.

Mr. Baxter

You would certainly have to change it.

The Taoiseach

Meanwhile, there would be a serious risk. If the case is made on the ground of greater caution and the possibility of danger to prestige, I can quite understand it on that basis. I may say that that was the first view that occurred to myself, but then the other considerations intervened and the advice I got was such as to convince me that my second thoughts were best. That is the position as it is before you. We hope that this particular measure will not be invalidated by reference to the Constitution——

Senators

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach

And that, in accordance with it, we will be able to protect the State in the way we think it is necessary to protect it. Perhaps I could pass away from the immediate matter of the Bill and come to the question of the circumstances which necessitate it.

I have heard all sorts of words used here, vacillation—it was used in both Houses—coercion, and a number of words of that sort. I can only say this, that this Government has been as fully alive as any section or body in the country could possibly be to all our past, to all the circumstances of our past, to our whole history in this matter. If anybody wishes to go back to the foundation of the Fianna Fáil Party they will see that the foundation stone was laid on the desire to get some common way of settling our political differences here in this country other than by force, because we were convinced, those of us who were in the foundation of it, that that was the wrong way, the way of frustration, the way that was going to end everything. We believed that if ever there was going to be any advance we would have to have some method by which every section of the people would be able to put forward its representatives and have representatives in Parliament according to its strength, and if they were sufficiently strong numerically in the country—if they were in a majority—that that majority would determine national policy. It was with that design and that purpose and that hope, that we would end this contest amongst ourselves in regard to what national policy should be carried out, that Fianna Fáil was founded. There were certain obstacles at the time in the way of getting all the representatives of the people into the national Parliament, and we tried to remove those obstacles. We had hoped—our hope was to prove vain—that when those barriers were removed, and when nobody was asked to accept anything except the fact that the decision of the majority of the people should determine national policy, our internal difficulties would cease. That was done, and some of our internal difficulties continue still.

Next, we set out to try to remove the fundamental law here which was held to be objectionable in a variety of ways to a large body of the people. We proceeded to try to remove that, until finally we reached a position in which the fundamental law of this land was made by the Irish people themselves. If that is not freedom, if that is not democracy, I do not know what it is. We had disputes of various kinds with Britain. Our ports down here were held and we succeeded in getting those ports back. We proceeded to a point when there is nobody who can say that there is the slightest restriction on the full sovereignty of the people over these Twenty-Six Counties. That to-day is without question. Nobody can question it.

Mr. McDermot

The Lord Mayor of Cork questioned it in the Dail last night just the same.

The Taoiseach

I do not see how he could.

Mr. MacDermot

Neither do I, but he did it.

The Taoiseach

Nobody can put forward any argument to show that there is any power interfering here in this part of Ireland with regard to our political sovereignty. We have as democratic a Constitution as any country in the world, but it is true to say that the whole of the traditional national territory is not under the control of the Parliament here. That is an unfortunate fact, something which the majority of the people down here would like to remedy, something which they would make very big sacrifices to remedy if they thought that by those sacrifices they could remedy it. We are up against this situation, that we are here a completely sovereign community, with portions of the national territory outside the jurisdiction of our Parliament and our Government, and the question is how it is to be got back. Whatever way it is to be got back, of this we are certain, that it can only be got back by the policy which will be backed by the majority of the community down here, and by no other method. The community down here have got to safeguard their own welfare and their own rights, and they are as anxious about the general national rights as any section of the community. But we cannot have frustration and we cannot have anarchy down here. There is only one rule which will save us from that, and that is the rule that national policy is to be determined in the national Parliament by the duly elected representatives of the Irish people. I am surprised when people say there is vacillation or something of that sort on my part in regard to that. There never has been; not since 1926 has there been the slightest question of it, but until certain obstacles were removed we could not say Parliament was free to everybody to enter. When Senator Tierney talks about Coalition Government and all the rest of it, there is a fundamental difficulty in the way of anything of that sort, and that is, that there are two sets of people who believe in the different lines they took in the past, that they were justified in taking those lines.

Mr. MacDermot

That does not matter now.

The Taoiseach

It does not matter now.

Mr. M. Hayes

Certainly not.

The Taoiseach

And I wish to heavens it were generally accepted that it does not matter.

Professor Johnston

But there is a very important difference now.

The Taoiseach

My anxiety at any rate is this, that having got to the point at which we are satisfied here, satisfied to the extent that we accept those institutions, that we should be able to settle any internal political questions by a peaceful method. No group in this country has any right to speak for the people except the duly elected Government.

Professor Johnston

And the duly elected Opposition, too. They have a right to speak for their section of the people.

The Taoiseach

There is only one national policy.

Professor Johnston

And does the Opposition not contribute to that, too?

The Taoiseach

There is only one national policy at any time. For instance, suppose it were true that the Opposition, which is a minority, held that we should go into this war, as long as the national policy decided otherwise then duty would demand and loyalty would demand that the national policy be made operative.

Professor Johnston

Are we to keep our mouths shut in that case?

The Taoiseach

No. You have a legitimate way here, and so would those people have a legitimate way, of criticising the Government and criticising the national policy. Whether it would be wise in the national interests, in an emergency, to exercise it or not is another matter. That you would have a right to do it is true, and nobody is denying the right of anybody in this country to go out politically and say: "We want the repeal of the External Relations Act," which is the only thing which is necessary to have here a republic in name as well as in fact, to say that they are going to do that, and to have any policy that they choose for bringing about the reunion of the country. There is nobody preventing anyone from going out and doing that on a political platform. What cannot be tolerated, because to tolerate it would mean to bring us back again into civil war, would be that a body should take upon itself to advocate the use of force or to use force.

It is true that this Government has been more than patient. We have been so, of set definite policy, because we wanted to give time, if possible, to settle down. We wanted to give an opportunity of the effects of the present situation sinking into the minds of the people, but there is a point beyond which we cannot go. That we have come to that point is my opinion. I am sorry that it is so. As I have said, if I could persuade these people I would go any distance to do it, but if people are going to be a law unto themselves and say that they are the Irish people and that, no matter what the majority think, they are going to go their way, all that will have to be said is that the majority will have to make their will effective against them. We will have to do it. I have never preached more force in any particular matter than is necessary, and I do not want to exaggerate the position. If there had not been the added condition of war, I think we could have managed this thing very much more easily than it can be done in war conditions. There is no doubt that the war has added to the difficulties of the situation. It has caused a ferment. It has caused people to think back in terms of 25 years ago, or something like that. It does not matter to them that circumstances are changed. They have not changed in their views. But there cannot be two national policies. We have undertaken the responsibilities of governing and we will have to carry out our responsibilities no matter how painful it may be. That is my attitude and that is the attitude of the Government in regard to this matter. That we can handle this situation we have no doubt. The ‘only' thing that is necessary to handle it is proper public opinion. If public opinion is right about this matter there will be very little need of force, I assure you. The more that there is a wrong attitude on the part of people who will not see this thing clearly the more danger there is that force will have to be used.

I thought myself that Senator Lynch's speech was a good example of what is called the muddled thinking that was being referred to as obtaining somewhat in the country. It is too serious a matter to allow ourselves to have any wrong ideas about it, much too serious, because if the Government were to stand by idle and allow this thing to go on we would undoubtedly have to use very strong measures and a great deal of force would have to be used and many lives would have to be lost later. That is a certainty. It is very much better, for the people and for the country generally, that we should handle this matter as firmly as we can. It is not an economic matter. It is wrong to suggest that this thing fundamentally is an economic matter.

Professor Johnston

I never suggested that. I said it might have an economic aspect.

The Taoiseach

It is political. Fundamentally this is a political question. Its whole root is political. I do not say, and would not suggest for one moment, that certain economic conditions might not tend to make the political movement more dangerous.

Professor Johnston

That is what I was saying too.

The Taoiseach

That is true, but fundamentally this is a political movement; it is a political problem, a political difficulty. If it were within our power to solve that in the way we have solved the difficulties down here and in the way that Senator Tierney referred to, I would solve it that way. I have been trying to get a solution in that direction. I have been trying to get other people to see that it was to their interest that the roots of this would be taken up. There are three parties to it — the people in the North principally, the British, and ourselves. If some wisdom would descend upon the three communities and those who are governing them at the moment and a solution could be got in that way it would solve our difficulties in this particular matter much better than any force could solve them. That is true. But this community, no matter how it wills it, cannot bring about that solution and it is absurd for people to think that they can do it by force because it is obvious that they cannot.

Are we then here, the community here, to be kept in turmoil because they are not able to effect a solution of this particular problem? We here will have to get a definite policy agreed upon; we have to get a definite rule by which policy can be decided upon and that is that the majority of the elected representatives in these institutions which have been set up by this community here will settle it. There can be no two ways about it. If people are thinking back in the days in which we did not have Parliament here, they are thinking absurdly out of history. That is the case with some. Unfortunately, they are thinking back in the 80's or 90's or some time like that. We have here a new situation created by the fact that we are a sovereign community here. We are the greater part of the nation and the only people who can decide general national policy. There cannot be two national policies at the same time and there cannot be two directing heads. The only head that is possible is the head which is responsible to the elected representatives of the people and none other. We have come to the parting of the ways and it is most unfortunate for the people if that has not been accepted generally. If we are going to have any peace, any progress in any direction here, it is essential that the majority should make their will effective in that particular matter.

Mr. M. Hayes

Under any kind of Constitution?

The Taoiseach

Under any kind of conditions here. For goodness' sake, let the Senator be satisfied with my statements as I make them. Do not let him try to bring me back into past controversies. Under any Constitution, in which their sovereignty is recognised here, that the Irish people from this time forward may dictate. If we want to make headway, for Heaven's sake, let us not always be going back into past controversies.

Mr. M. Hayes

This is a question of the present, not the past.

The Taoiseach

I am talking of the present here. There is a Constitution which has been freely enacted by the Irish people in an open vote, first of all, recommended by a majority of an Assembly which was freely elected. I can say no more. If there is on this earth a free Constitution then our Constitution is such and if the people change it in any way whatever or if the people approve of any change in it whatever then it will be their Constitution still. If the Senator is referring to any future Constitution then I am altogether with him. But do not let us get into past controversies. If we have differences of opinion about them we will have to agree to differ.

We regret that we have to take these measures. Senator Lynch has suggested that in taking them we are interfering with certain fundamental rights. There is nobody who has a greater regard for individual freedom than I have. I believe that every member of the Government has regard for it. I believe that the majority of the Dáil, which has given us these powers, and I hope of the Seanad, has a very high appreciation of the importance of individual liberty. Nobody wants to see that liberty of the individual imperilled but we are living in a community; we are not living as isolated individuals. We are living in a community and if the individuals are going to have freedom in the community they can only have that freedom in an organised community. Otherwise, they are going to be bullied. The value of the institutions of the State is that they protect the individual in the exercise of his normal rights and I hold that preventing people from using force against the institutions is a defence of individual liberty and that we are observing better — far better — the views and desires of those who want individual liberty than those who say we are taking away individual liberty here.

The right of individual liberty is a right which is not by any means absolute. There are no such things really as absolute rights. All our rights are conditioned by the fact that we are living in society. Individual liberty can be abused, and abused to the detriment of the liberty of the people generally. We see no less severe method of trying to preserve the liberty of the citizens who want to live their lives in the ordinary way than by restraining those who are going to deprive them of that liberty. We are told that this is an arbitrary action on our part, and we are asked: "Why not bring these people to trial? Why not get evidence against them and bring them to trial?" If we had been living for the last 20 years in some other State, we might possibly ask questions of that sort. Is there anybody in the Seanad or the Dáil who honestly thinks that we could have preserved the liberties of the plain citizens of the State by simply depending on bringing definite evidence that would be regarded as legal proof against people who are engaged in this organisation? Does not everyone of us know how these things are done? I tried to point out in the Dáil that evidence is not left by these people. Care is taken so that evidence is not left behind. You have to catch people red-handed, so to speak, actually doing something, before you can get proof, because such documents as they have they are careful to see are not legal proof. Say that something has to be done by this organisation. A group of people meet in a private house. They decide on a plan and they decide on the part that each man has to play. They decide where each one has to go to communicate with somebody else without actually knowing what particular action is intended to be carried out. You get action taken and people can disperse, but there is no evidence left behind. The Government may get information as a result of which they would be morally satisfied that certain people were the people responsible for that action, but still they would find it very difficult to get what would be regarded as legal evidence that would result in a conviction. It is because of that particular difficulty that the power of internment is necessary.

It is a pity, for a variety of reasons, that that power has to be secured at all. It would be very much better to proceed by the other method and, whenever evidence is available, the other method is the method which will be utilised. If for instance certain people are well known to be leaders in this particular organisation, their names will be pretty well known. I doubt if you could get what would be regarded as legal proof that they were such, but being morally certain that they were the people who were active, are we not entitled to restrain them to prevent them from acting like that?

It will be said that you may make mistakes. You will have to depend on police reports and the police may be mistaken. You may bring in people who are really in no way engaged in those activities. I admit that is possible but everything that can be done to eliminate that possibility will be done. Even when you have taken all possible precautions, a mistake may still be made. You want to take care to see that there is some safeguard to prevent your interning or depriving of their liberty people who are law-abiding citizens. It is proposed that there should be a commission set up to do that, a commission which will examine all the grounds that have been given to the Minister for internment and see whether these grounds do in fact give reasonable cause for believing that the people affected are engaged in these activities. In the Dáil certain amendments were proposed to that procedure. It was said: "Well, if you have a commission, and any members of it are removable, you are going to have a situation in which it will be said that the Executive will control their decision." A certain suggestion has been made and the Minister for Justice promised to examine it. There are difficulties which, apparently, did not appear to the proposers, in regard to this. It is going to be examined and if that particular line is feasible — a method under which there will be an appeal to a High Court judge — it may be adopted.

I should like to point out to the Seanad that the worst thing you can do is to adopt measures which are, in fact, futile. If we adopt certain measures they have to be effective, otherwise it would be better not to have recourse to them at all. The problem then is to make sure that the method you adopt will not lead to futility. We know that the circumstances are not such as to make the ordinary citizen believe that the Executive is going after him to deprive him of his liberty in some arbitrary manner. The only thing that has to be safeguarded against in ordinary circumstances is the possibility of mistakes. There is that possibility. What we say is that any law-abiding citizen who is taken up on wrong information will have an opportunity of going to this commission, which will be set up by order, and of giving to the commission the facts of his position. The commission can examine all the evidence which he will put before them, and the grounds on which the Minister acted. I think that any reasonable person would say that if a person is interned by mistake it must be due to his own fault. He has a way of bringing to the notice of an independent body what the circumstances are. I think it would be almost impossible for anybody who is really a law-abiding citizen, accepting the obligations of the membership of this community here, to be interned by mistake.

There has been, of course, in the past a sort of code established by which those who were interned in these circumstances chose not to go before the commission. The first thing you want from the average law-abiding citizen is a recognition that there is no humiliation in being taken up by mistake or in seeking release by the channels that are provided. We want to make it as easy as possible for everybody. We want to make our laws effective. I am perfectly certain that, if the community realised the dangers that exist in this situation, if it were allowed to develop, we would have considerably less difficulty than the average person thinks. I think the best thing to do now is to create a proper public opinion, to prevent muddled thinking of various kinds, to get the people to recognise that it is not through wilfulness or vindictiveness on our part that these powers are sought but simply that it is our duty to protect the community and to see that the community is allowed to live its life. If we have everybody realising that, we shall have very little difficulty indeed.

If the people of this community co-operate with the Government in dealing with the situation we will have no difficulty. If there is wrong thinking, misrepresentation of the position here and of our attitude, then we will have difficulty. Whether we have or have not, we are going to do our duty to the community. I can assure the Seanad of that, and I can assure the Dáil equally.

Perhaps I should say a word or two about the raid on the Magazine. I do not like to go into it in any detail, for the simple reason that an inquiry is taking place. The Government is, of course, responsible, and I wish to say that we share a feeling — perhaps it is too strong a word to use — of humiliation, that such a thing should have happened. The first thing that came into my mind was something that I read about Lord Northcliffe. He was engaging his motor driver and I read that the terms of the engagement were very good, the man was paid very well, but there was one condition. Lord Northcliffe said:

"The first accident I have, you go; you are fired; it does not matter who is responsible, who is at fault, you are fired."

I felt that that was a rough and ready way of seeing that due care would be taken. It may not correspond to rules of justice or anything like that. I had a feeling that if the Irish people were to say: "Well, we fire the whole lot of you," it would be a rough and ready way of dealing with the situation. I have to take responsibility. I know the explanations, so far as they have come in up to the present, but I do not want to see any excuse whatever for it. I am quite prepared to believe that the people would not be unreasonable if they treated us as Lord Northcliffe was supposed to treat his driver should he get into an accident, even one due to no fault of his own. We are responsible; we have to take the full responsibility. We do not try to shirk it; it is a disgraceful thing that it should have happened. But we understand how it could happen. I got out of Lincoln Jail through neglect of routine.

From time to time these things have been done because simple routine was not followed regularly. Suppose, for example, that you have two doors and put two men on them and one man is to open one door and is responsible for the keys. Having opened the door he lets a man out and the moment the man leaves he is to lock it; then the man may go to the other door and see who is there and if the person who is there has a right to come in he lets him in and then locks that door; that door is to be locked as soon as the man passes through. You carry out that routine regularly and ten men will hold the position against 1,000; you make a mistake and carelessly, through laziness, through want of appreciation of the value of the routine, you either have only one man instead of two or one man is saving himself the trouble of locking the door after him and leaves it open while he goes to open the other one, or any such mistake, and the whole thing is finished. Frequently, it is through carelessness in carrying out routine properly, through lack of appreciation of what the routine is designed for, that things like these happen.

What happened in the case of the Magazine Fort, the inquiry must determine. I am not going to go into what happened. Various exaggerations have been made. I am not objecting to the exaggeration if it wakens our people to the danger. That danger, if it is grappled with now, can be dealt with; but it could not be dealt with if the danger did not appear. When we were bringing in some Bills before, we were told: "There is nothing to it; the country was never quieter; there is no danger to be apprehended; it is ‘wolf! wolf! wolf!'; you are trying to frighten us when there is nothing there." There is a thing there. It can be dealt with if it is taken firmly now, without grave danger to the State; but if it is not dealt with now it will be a serious danger and incapable of being dealt with without a good deal of bloodshed. That is the situation.

We ask the members of the Labour Party to consider this question: who is it in the community that suffers most when there is political disturbance of this kind? Is it not the poor who particularly are going to suffer if there is bloodshed? We have been talking of the economic difficulties which the present situation has brought about; does anybody say that it will make the difficulties easier to solve if there is internal disturbance? Is not the one thing that is most necessary in order to solve them, peaceful conditions? If there are peaceful conditions and the Government is not able to solve them, let the people get another Government if they have a better method.

Mr. Foran

May I ask the Taoiseach a question: was this Emergency Powers Act used in the case of the farmers' strike?

The Taoiseach

Again, it is a question whether we make light or not of certain happenings. Will the Senator say that we were to treat lightly the stopping of fairs throughout the country by an organisation which took upon itself the ordering of people not to take cattle to fairs? In times of emergency, with our knowledge that there were arms available behind them and people who would take advantage of that situation to create a more serious situation, could we contemplate that situation lightly and use less effective methods? Do not suggest that this was an ordinary strike; I am sure the Senator does not intend to say it was. There was an attempt made right throughout the country to stop fairs, there was the taking of produce and throwing it on the ground, and all the rest of it. That was not a light affair. But there was another matter: what was the purpose of this strike? They said they would strike until they got their political demands, until they got derating and other things which they said they wanted. If there is going to be one body which will be allowed to hold up the community like that and to prevent people from selling produce, it is going to interfere with the ordinary life of the people. Remember that the whole economic system is a very delicate one; you can bring this community into disorder and create hardships of various kinds by economic methods just as you can by military ones. It was because of the nature, the aim and the purpose of the strike that we felt in the circumstances that it was very important that this thing should not occur, that we were entitled to use these powers. We did use them, certainly.

Mr. Foran

My object in raising that question was to find out if the Government will give any positive assurance or guarantee to the organised workers of the country that in any dispute with the employers in this country this Act will not be used against them.

The Taoiseach

That would be asking me to give in advance a promise that would cover all circumstances and I cannot do it. Supposing the strike were of such a serious character — take the question of the supply of milk, were we going to allow the children of the city to starve for want of milk? Was I by a promise to prevent myself from taking action, if action were necessary, to see that that supply of milk would be available? Supposing it were bread or light. We have a big responsibility for the community as a whole and it is the welfare of the community as a whole that we have to safeguard. We have to safeguard that, giving to each particular section of the community their fullest possible rights. Those are the principles which animate any action we take and there is no intention to use powers in any way which would be contrary to what has been the accustomed practice. We would have to know the exact circumstances before we could decide. Supposing it were intended to put us all in darkness during a war time like this, when the danger would be increased and when people who had arms might make use of the darkness? Is it not obvious that we would have to use strong measures in order to see that the community would get the light necessary for the continuance of work?

A community organised as modern communities are organised is a very complex business and the Government that has to see that organised life goes on has a very serious problem and has in all cases to consider the welfare of the community as a whole against the particular interests of a class. That is my philosophy, at any rate. Those are the principles on which I have acted in the direction of the Government in any particular case. We had no doubt whatever that there was a dangerous movement going on to hold up the whole economic life of this country at a time when we could not afford to have that happen. Moreover, that was going to be a basis and a background for those with political objectives — the organisations which we have got to deal with through this Bill —to bring the whole community here into a state of anarchy, though anarchy is a much-abused word, meaning without any Government, without any rule of order at all.

I think I have kept the Seanad sufficiently long. I have tried to talk in restrained language, for in this particular question I do not believe that threats of various kinds are effective. The right thing is to go steadily, for the Government to carry out its duty and to ask the community as a whole to co-operate to see that the organised forces in the State are as well organised as possible.

There is one thing that remains for me to deal with. Senator Tierney spoke about the Army being treated as if it were hostile. That is news to me. The fact is that the former Minister for Defence, who was Minister for a long period, was on the best possible terms with the Army, and I doubt if it is true that there has been degeneration and demoralisation. It is true that an army in peace time, like ours, is a very difficult type of army to keep up to the mark, so to speak. Other armies of which we have some knowledge have immediate objectives of various kinds, and they are put on active service from time to time in one place or another. The fact that our Army is not on active service means that there is not the same necessity, apparently, for rigid discipline which there is in other armies, but, in fact, there is more necessity. The trouble is that there is more necessity for rigid discipline. An Army such as ours, under our conditions, requires to have a higher standard of discipline than some of the other armies which, from time to time, get the discipline of immediate active service, but I think this community has been well served by the Army, and I am sure that there is not an officer in the Army who does not feel as keenly as the Government this thing which has happened. They have done their utmost to recover the property which has been taken, and, so far as they have been able, to undo the damage to their prestige and our prestige, and, indeed, to the prestige, in a sense, of the country as well as they can.

I think it will be a warning to them, and I have no doubt whatever that they will learn from the lesson. We can certainly learn from it, and I think the Minister for Justice has pointed out already that we are quite willing to learn from it; but, at the same time, I think it will be found that we were alive to these things, that the Government pointed out these dangers and that the same protective measures were taken as were taken in previous times.

It might be said that they should have been more effective now than before, but the fact is, according to my information, that the number of people on guard at the Fort was the same as in the past. There was no change and, so far as I know, there was no change in the regulations. I have visited the Fort since this happened. I have seen the whole place and I have had pointed out to me exactly what the regulations were. I wish to make it clear that there were carefully considered regulations in force for many years and that it is wrong to think that no care is taken. It would be just as true to say that because there is a railway accident, the people in charge have been careless. We often see cases of railway accidents—and the example has been given before—and a commission examines why the accident happened. Rules are made in an effort to make it less possible for accidents to happen in the future, and yet there are occasional railway accidents.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

With all due respect, is a railway accident a reasonable parallel?

The Taoiseach

Perhaps it is not. I was going to add that I do not want to minimise this affair in the slightest because I think it would be bad to do so.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

The responsibility of the High Command. That is the main point.

The Taoiseach

I do not want to minimise it. I think the more we realise that this was a most damaging thing, a most dangerous thing, to have happened, the better for us all. At the same time, I do not want people to take fright and to imagine that, because it did happen, everything is completely wrong and upside down in the Army. I do not think it is at all.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I never suggested that, but I do not want all the weight thrown on the sentry.

The Taoiseach

I am not thinking of what the Senator said in particular, but of what people are talking about and thinking about. Something over 1,000,000 rounds of ammunition were taken. It is suggested that the whole Magazine was cleared. It was not, but there was enough taken out to do tremendous damage, and those who took that much out could probably have blown up the rest, if they wanted to. Therefore, I do not want to minimise it in the slightest, but, at the same time, people should not think that, because it did happen, everything is lax, there is no discipline in the Army, and no authority is exercised at all. I think that would be a completely wrong notion, and I am perfectly certain that if the Army were required for service, the Army would give a good account of itself.

It has also been said that the police force is demoralised. I do not know if that has any basis in truth. I hope it is not so, because I think it would be a terrible thing, but, again, I say that the people of the country will have the police force and the military force that they themselves will deserve by their attitude. If the elected representatives of the people realise what these forces are for, and realise the necessity of having a high standard of discipline in them; if there is a proper inspection from time to time and the supervision which we all require, from top to bottom; if the people co-operate and inform the proper authorities, when they can do so, we will have the necessary safeguards. We all require inspection and supervision, and it is not a bad thing for us to have to come here and give an account of what we are doing to the people's representatives, and, in the same way, it is a very good thing for any organised force to have to undergo proper inspection to see that they do their work, because we are all human and the natural tendency is to slack. It is only in some perfect State that we will all be on our toes all the time. That does not normally happen, and if you want people to be on their toes, you will have to have a proper system of inspection and visitation, and above all, you must have discipline and a realisation of the importance of routine instilled from the moment they enter the force. That is the thing we forget most — that a proper routine, carefully devised and particularly for protective purposes, is the safeguard most to be relied upon, and that if you break that routine, whether it is the case of a warder in a prison leaving his keys about, or anything else which he is supposed not to do, if there is a lack of observation of due routine and a proper understanding of what it is intended to achieve, you will have disasters here and there, and things happening like that which happened in the Magazine.

I think the country has got a shock. The people have been wakened up to a realisation of what the position is, and I think that if we all of us face our duties properly and duly appreciate the situation, and if the Government get the support they want, there will be no real danger that a serious catastrophe will come upon the people; but if we neglect to do so, there is no doubt that we will go in the way that Senator Tierney said we were likely to go. That I have been convinced of for a very considerable time. I think, perhaps, I had better stop at that.

Dr. Rowlette

I think no one in the Seanad will question that the Taoiseach has made a speech which contains many matters of great interest and several matters also of great importance. He has made a statement of his policy, in some directions perhaps going farther and being more precise than on previous occasions. I may say at once that the greatest part of his speech and what he was leading the House to had already been accepted in the main by the House and by almost every member of the Seanad who spoke to-day. I do not feel myself going quite as far as some of the other Senators in the rather light-hearted way that they took the view that anything the Government asked for should be granted — they had only to come in and ask and they would get it. I do not think the Seanad would be taking its responsibility with due seriousness if it accepted any light-hearted view of the question we are asked to decide and vote on, apart altogether from the gravity of the present situation in the country, but I think that the Seanad and the Dáil should guard with the greatest jealousy any encroachment on the liberty of the subject.

I am not suggesting that it may not be necessary to control his liberty at some points and particularly in times of emergency, but I think the Seanad should in every case act with jealousy and with the utmost reluctance to grant emergency powers of any sort. This is the third time in 12 months that the Government has asked the Oireachtas for special powers. On both previous occasions they got what they asked for; I have no doubt that they will get what they ask for on this occasion also, but I must confess that to some of us the granting of the request on this occasion is made with somewhat greater reluctance than on the last occasion when they appeared before us four months ago, almost to a day. Everything they asked for was granted.

Bills of immense importance were passed in a single sitting of the Seanad, but we have a right to ask, when we are invited to grant further powers, what dangers may arise in the passing of emergency legislation and the granting of emergency powers. I think it is a common failing in the nature of every Government, when they get emergency powers, to endeavour to hold on to them as long as they can and to apply them in circumstances quite different from those for which the powers were originally granted. In the neighbouring country, we remember that the emergency powers granted during the Great War of 25 years ago remained, as regards some of them at least, in existence up to, I think, the outbreak of the present war. Many of them remained for many years after the ending of the state or condition of war, and what I am pointing out in regard to our Government here is no different from what is done by other Governments, and it adds to the dangers that it is a common vice of all Governments to hold on to emergency powers once granted.

We had numerous instances in our own recent history where emergency powers were used for purposes other than that for which they were granted. I must say I was rather surprised by one answer which the Taoiseach gave to a member of the House, Senator Foran, as regards the application to a state of civil disturbance of powers which were given in view of the state of war. We could not say that the conditions arising out of a milk strike had anything in common with war, and I cannot conceive that there was anything in them which could not be dealt with by the ordinary machinery of justice. No doubt, the Minister for Justice knows more about the actual conditions than I do, but so far as the general public know there seems to be no justification for the application of war powers to disputes of that sort. I was surprised to hear the Taoiseach remark that there were weapons or guns behind those engaged in that dispute. I do not know if he is suggesting that the parties acting in that dispute were associated in any way with the parties we are concerned with to-day, but it was news to me that it was an armed dispute or an armed rebellion.

The Taoiseach

I do not want to have any misunderstanding going about and being furthered by developments. I said there were arms behind it. I meant there was a second line where there were arms which would have taken advantage of the situation. What I meant was that in a war situation a disturbance of that particular kind would be availed of by people only anxious to have that kind of disturbance in order to enable them to proceed. There is a second organisation which would avail of the situation. I did not suggest they had arms themselves.

Dr. Rowlette

I am very glad I commented on it because the Taoiseach has had an opportunity to clarify a dangerous statement coming from one of his authority. I can see that there may have been views properly acting on the minds of the Government as to the danger in the present situation of allowing such dispute to go on, though I am not as yet convinced that it was a proper decision of the Government to use the machinery of a war measure. But we have had many other examples of legislation given for a definite purpose being applied for other purposes. Our whole system of tariffs and taxes is carried on by measures given for what was amusingly called the economic war. There are tariffs imposed by the direct act of one Minister by virtue of an Act which he maintained was a necessary thing to have during what he called the economic war with another country. Our whole system of taxing has undergone a change by an emergency measure passed to deal with a passing emergency which has now passed. We have had recently some surprising results of the emergency legislation passed some four months ago. I am not going to take up your time giving many examples, but the way the Press censorship is working is something that neither this House nor the other House thought possible at the time when they authorised the establishment of a Press censorship.

The freedom of the Press was, we thought, secured in the terms of the Constitution. The State was to recognise the right for liberty of expression by the Press, including criticism of Government policy, but it was not to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State. The Taoiseach referred to-night—I am in entire agreement with what he said on that subject, as I am with much of what he said to-night—to the necessity of having national policy carried out by the whole nation, and he gave as an example, I think in reply to an interruption by Senator Johnston, the question of neutrality. Neutrality is the national policy at the moment, probably by general assent.

Professor Johnston

Including my consent. I am not opposed to neutrality by any means.

Dr. Rowlette

The point I make is this, and I think it is one of some importance, that a free discussion of this national policy is not permitted in the Press. The Government which is responsible for framing and leading national policy, has deprived itself of any advice or criticism or help it might get from the Press as to the opinions that were being held on this one point of national policy. I am not arguing for or against that national policy. I accept that it is the opinion of the people at the moment, but I do not think any opinion of the people should be regarded as so sacrosanct that they should not be permitted to discuss it. That seems to me to be an example of the gross misuse of the emergency powers granted to the present Government four months ago.

Quite at the end of his speech the Taoiseach devoted some time to consideration of a very unfortunate incident which occurred in the Phoenix Park recently. I regret very much the line and the tone he took in his remarks. I think most of us were prepared to accept the view that this matter was at present the subject of investigation, by a suitable Military Tribunal, as regards military discipline, and we were willing to await the findings of that tribunal, and not to permit ourselves to embarrass anybody by asking any questions or raising any suggestions as to how that incident occurred.

The Taoiseach has, I must say, shown bad example. He has told us that he and his Government take entire responsibility; that he will not shirk any responsibility. The Minister for Justice last night went further. He said the responsibility might, if we liked, be put on the Minister for Defence. To-night the Taoiseach has thought fit to throw the responsibility, in the first instance, on the subordinates furthest from the Minister for Defence. It would be improper for us to discuss that, and I think it is unfortunate that he has taken a line which leads every one of us here to-night to the opinion that there was gross neglect of regulations, gross indiscipline, taking place in the Magazine Fort. I think that is unfortunate. The one person responsible to the Oireachtas is the Minister for Defence, and nobody else.

The Taoiseach

That is right.

Dr. Rowlette

He is the only person that the Oireachtas can criticise, and the Oireachtas has a right to demand why the blame should be taken from the shoulders of the Minister for Defence, who is responsible, and brought down to the unfortunate corporal and men who were guarding the Magazine Fort.

The Taoiseach

If I may interrupt at this stage I should like to say that nothing was further from my mind. What I was trying to do was to give an illustration of how important it is— I think it is a very important lesson to learn—to attend to routine, and the importance of instilling that could go back to me or to the Minister for Defence or to the Chief of the Army or anywhere else. I have said again that we regard it as no excuse. We do not know exactly if that was the cause even, but I did want to say, and I think it was right that I should when people are so anxious about the whole situation—I have heard remarks here this evening which seem to suggest that the whole Army was rotten and that the whole Civic Guard was rotten —that I think it would be a very serious matter that anything of the kind should be said at the moment.

Dr. Rowlette

No such suggestion has been made, I think, by any members of the Seanad this evening. The only slur cast on those men in the Magazine Fort were those we assumed to have been cast on them by the Taoiseach, which he now repudiates. I cannot think I have said too much about the tendency in that part of his speech. The Oireachtas has the right to put the Minister for Defence on his defence. In other countries with a democratic Constitution the first thing that would have happened in the event of such an incident as occurred in the Phoenix Park a fortnight ago would be that the resignation of the Minister would go into the hands of the Chief of the Government. Was it offered to the Chief of the Government and refused, or was it not, or is the Minister for Defence being kept there in order to throw the blame on others? I do not know. I would not have said those things if I did not think that the Taoiseach had made it necessary for someone to say them.

The Taoiseach

The Minister for Defence was quite willing to give me his resignation.

Dr. Rowlette

Then we may take it that the Taoiseach would not accept it. The only question is whether it is the present Minister or the one who was in charge of the Army for the past seven years who should have resigned, or both. I say that has been the custom in other countries. We have had two examples in a neighbouring country where something occurred for which the Ministers could have no direct responsibility whatever, but they resigned and their resignation was accepted. The first incident of which I am thinking is the Curragh incident which took place in the month of March, 1914. The War Minister at that time, Colonel Seely, handed in his resignation at once. It was accepted by Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister, who took on the duties himself. Two years later, we remember what happened after the insurrection of 1916. The Chief Secretary for Ireland immediately handed in his resignation and it was accepted. I am sorry that the Taoiseach has thought fit to establish a different precedent for this country, and thereby lessen its status as a democratic country.

The Taoiseach also said that the precautions taken, and the regulations, were as far as he knew—I hope I am not misquoting him; I do not wish to do so—were those always in existence. He also admitted, what everybody knew, and what the Minister for Justice makes the claim for this Bill, that there were dangers in the country which did not exist before. Were the precautions tightened up? Was any more attention paid to discipline in view of the greater danger? We are told there was a state of war in existence, and we have the Taoiseach pointing out the necessity for strict discipline and strict obedience to regulations.

There has been a good deal said to-night about internment and more severe measures of dealing with the situation. I cannot say I agree with the views expressed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in another place that internment has a high educative value. He said he would not agree with the view that if lukewarm persons were brought into an internment camp they became zealous in the cause which had brought them there. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has probably a larger experience of those matters than I have, but I have a great many friends who took very little interest in politics until they were put in internment camps, and they came out very determined in their political opinions against the authority that had wrongfully put them there. I can conceive of nothing more likely to create hostility to any Government than to be put wrongfully into an internment camp. The Minister went on to say further that he believed that the effect of internment on many men between 1922 and 1924 was proof of his view and that there were many excellent examples in the House of the beneficial effects of internment. I am looking around me and have not identified them yet. I hope the Minister is right.

Earlier this evening Senator Magennis referred to certain coercion measures as far back as 1881. Shortly after that time a popular Irish novel appeared in which Kilmainham Jail was spoken of as the university because it was the training ground for Irish patriots and a man had not finished his education as an Irish patriot until he had put in a term as a suspect prisoner in Kilmainham or some other jail in the country. So that the view that the Minister for Industry and Commerce holds is apparently a modern view. It does not go back as far as Kilmainham, and it certainly does not agree with my own experience of many internees, both in 1916 and later.

I cannot agree with some of the views expressed that the cure for disaffection is the shedding of blood. I do not think that unbridled severity, unbridled rigour should be part of the practice—it may be of the law—but I do not think it should be part of the practice of a humane, civilised country, and I cannot think that determination to shed blood is what the Government most needs. I am not suggesting at all that the Government should not carry out whatever powers they are given, rigorously, carefully and evenly, but I do not want them to be excited—I do not think they are likely to be excited. I do not want them to accept the view that in governing the only human factors that are to be considered are intellect, reason and judgment. I think humanity should not be lost sight of, and I think understanding of the offender is a necessary part of any civilised penal code. I am not opposing this measure. I am giving reasons why I think the Seanad should exercise its careful judgment but, having given it, as far as I can, my own personal judgment, I will support the Government with a certain amount of reluctance which, I am sorry to say, has been growing during the last few months.

Sir John Keane

In the course of time, when we get the country's history in its proper perspective on this matter, I hope it will not appear quite so imminent and so overpowering as it does now. I feel that there is at least this advantage: what has happened may be a blessing in disguise in that it has brought from the Taoiseach a clear statement of his policy in this matter.

We only hope now that he will be resolute in the discharge of the principles which he has enunciated.

This question of law and order cannot possibly be regarded as a Party matter and any Government, democratic or totalitarian—it does not matter which—must be resolute in the protection of the community against armed violence from minorities from whatever quarter it may come. What the Taoiseach has said is copybook maxims and at least the House should be gratified and the country should be gratified that we have got so far.

I was not quite so happy when the Taoiseach referred to public opinion, because I am afraid in general terms he will not get that. We are a long way from that. It will probably take another century to get a proper civic sense amongst the masses, but there is an educated public opinion in this country, a minority, who have been seriously concerned for some time past at what they consider vacillations in Government policy, only too great a readiness to make excuses for breaches of law and order. I think those who feel like that are quite prepared to let bygones be bygones and to take the Taoiseach on what he said to-night, that he is now at the parting of the ways, that the Government is going to be resolute, and that from now on we can look for action to support the words of the admirable principles the Taoiseach has laid down. I am not going to say anything more on the general principles except perhaps to disagree entirely with the doctrines enunciated by the last speaker. It is ridiculous to suggest that a Minister should be held responsible for every breach of discipline in the Department which he controls. The thing has to be judged on its merits and one isolated breach of discipline, however serious the consequences, should not involve and need not involve the resignation of the responsible Minister.

I have certain remarks to make on the more limited aspect of the habeas corpus and I have got an amendment down which will enable me to do so at the proper time.

Mr. MacDermot

Are we taking the Committee Stage to-night?

Cathaoirleach

That, I am informed, is the understanding.

Mr. Boland

I think the Taoiseach has dealt with the Government's point of view in this matter. Not very much remains for me to say. Certainly, the speeches of the two leading members of the Opposition were anything but helpful. They were on the lines pursued by the Opposition in the other House.

I think they did a great deal of damage to the Government and the country in the line they adopted. They said quite clearly that they had no confidence whatever in us. They threw odium on the Government from practically every point of view, in all spheres of our activity. They did not hesitate to go back to the 1922 period, reference to which, of course, whenever it happens, is always inclined to raise the temperature, mine in particular, for this reason, that we have our case as far as our action in that period is concerned just as much as the others. An invitation was issued to have that question settled once and for all so that the country would have full opportunity of hearing the ins and outs of it. That was declined. I do think that if the line adopted by Senator Tierney had been adopted it would be far more helpful. Let us make a new start now. When I say that I will be taken at once as running away from my past, which I never did and do not intend to do. I have no apology whatever to make for the attitude I took up in 1922, but I do not wish to discuss it.

Mr. M. Hayes

May I submit that I made no attempt to discuss it. I said only four words in that matter.

Mr. Boland

The other ex-Minister did, in the most offensive terms and followed the lead of the main Opposition in the other House. I shall only quote Senator Professor Tierney in that respect and say that what he said about that matter was quite right, that there was no need to go back to that period. We want to deal with the present and the future and let other things be forgotten.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Hear, hear.

Mr. Boland

The Senator says "hear, hear," but I wish he would follow that example.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I did not discuss that. I referred to something which appeared in last night's paper and showed the sequence—that the Taoiseach had appealed to another Government on behalf of certain men.

Mr. Boland

The Senator referred to the cowardly civil war and used the most offensive epithets. I wish he had not done so. I do not want to go back on that period and I appeal to Senators to meet us in that sense. It is not that I want to run away from my part in the civil war. I never did and I never shall. I still feel that we were justified in the action we took on that occasion. We find a different situation now.

Mr. Baxter

These men outside will say a different thing.

Mr. Boland

Senator Fitzgerald said that we had a connection with this organisation up to the time we took over the Government.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I did not say that.

Mr. Boland

I understood the Senator to say so.

Mr. M. Hayes

I am afraid I said it.

Mr. Boland

It may be that I am mixing up matters as between the two Senators, but they are entirely wrong in that. After all, how are we to know which is which? The fact is that one of the leading members of the Opposition said that. I want to pass away from that because there is no use in discussing that aspect now, but I do not want to be taken as running away from my part in that incident. It is our human weakness perhaps that we want to see that chapter closed, but it is not because we are ashamed of the part we took. I want to have that chapter in our history closed, and from the first day I entered the Dáil I did everything possible to see, as far as I could, that there should be no further references to that unfortunate period. I deplore these references and I do hope that those Senators to whom I have referred will control themselves and resist the temptation to go back on our shady past, as they call it, because we do not admit that it was any such thing.

If the Government is not to get these powers then I would prefer that the Opposition should say so and oppose this measure. What is the use of saying: "We are giving you these powers, but we know that you will not use them?" That is the attitude taken up by the main Opposition—an unworthy and an unfair attitude in a crisis like this. Senators should have refrained, especially the leading Senators who spoke here, from speaking in that way and should have resisted the temptation to go on that line. Some of the things said by Senator Tierney were not correct, but I certainly say that the opening portion of his speech was very good indeed. He took a line which, I wish, had been adopted by other speakers. As far as the suggestion of a national Government is concerned, if all of us could be relegated to Flanders, and if people who had no part in the controversies of recent years could form a Government, it might be a good thing for the country.

Mr. Baxter

Where are they?

Mr. Boland

I do not know where they are. We were told that the people had lost confidence in this Government and that everybody was out against it. I can say that, in that respect, our record, as regards public opinion, compares favourably with that of the previous Government. Any time we felt that there was the slightest doubt that we had the confidence of the public, we did not hesitate to go to the people again. What was the record of the last Government? They hung on by the skin of their teeth, with majorities of one or two, for a number of years. They had outrun their mandate, as Senator Tierney said, before they quitted office. If we thought that this recent incident in the Park had caused us to lose the confidence of the people, do not doubt that we would test the people on it. If it transpires in this debate, which has been offered by the Taoiseach in connection with the unfortunate happening in the Park, that there is any sign that we have lost public confidence, I am sure the Taoiseach will do what he has done on several occasions—submit himself to the people again and that is all that can be expected of any Government.

We have been very reluctant to ask for these powers and we hesitated quite a long time before asking for them. I think it was Senator Tierney who said that perhaps it was a good thing that our other method was tried first, that we had tried the conciliatory method. That was our policy when we were in opposition and it was not to back up these other people, as I think Senator Hayes suggested. We asked the Government of the day to try the conciliatory method. We did believe then that if methods of persuasion, and less drastic action than was taken, were tried it might have good results. We tried these methods, as I said yesterday. I am satisfied that they have not been a success, but we are satisfied anyhow that they have been tried. People cannot say that we have not tried them.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Certainly the More-O'Ferralls and the Egans cannot say that you did not.

Mr. Boland

That is so, unfortunately, but there were other terrible murders for which people have not been brought to book. The thing has gone on for quite a long time. In the time of the last Government, with all the powers they had at their disposal, many of these crimes went unpunished. I am not blaming the last Government for that. I am just pointing out our difficulties. Senator Lynch made some reference to our having sufficient information to deal with the small organised body he spoke of. I admit we have the information but there is a difference between information and evidence on which you can convict these people. That is the trouble. Any person on whom we are able to lay hands and to whom we can bring home guilt before a court, will be brought before a court. We have done so already and we shall continue to use all the powers at our disposal to bring home guilt to them. There are, however, several of them, quite a number, about whom we have information which makes it almost quite certain that they are engaged in these activities but we have the gravest doubt that that information would enable us to secure a conviction against them. These are the people in respect of whom we require powers of internment.

There has been practically no opposition to this Bill except from the Labour Party. I think the Labour Party are entirely wrong in their attitude. If there is one body of people in the country who should support the Government, it is the Labour Party because they stand most of all to gain by the survival of the democratic system. It is the democratic system that has been attacked by this body of people who, any time they went before the electorate, could not get sufficient support even to save their deposits. They have gone before the public on several occasions and on each occasion their candidature turned out to be a miserable failure. They represent nobody. People who were elected 21 years ago —and only elected once most of them— are the people who claim still to be the Government of this country, while we, who have been elected time and again over a number of years, do not represent anybody, according to them. That sort of thing is the very negation of democracy. I think the Labour Party ought to think twice before they decide to oppose this measure, the purpose of which is purely and simply to preserve the democratic system and to ensure that the elected representatives of the people, and they alone, will decide what the policy of the country is going to be in any matter, either external or internal. What right has any small body of men to say: "We will make war; let the Government stand out of the way; we will do this or that?" Why should the Government stand out of the way? The Government will not do so. It has to stand in the way of anybody who attempts to usurp its authority. I appeal to Senators here not to stand in our way either. Will they cease bringing us back to a period about which there are at least two opinions. Will they stand out of the way and allow us to deal with the problem? We shall deal with it, and deal with it expeditiously and well.

Mr. Conlon

I should like to ask the Minister would it not be wise to refer more specifically to the point raised by Senator Tierney, who asked for a certain assurance from the Government. It might relieve doubts in my mind and in the minds of a great number of people —probably in the minds of the Gárda Síochána and the Army authorities also —if we were assured that the Government are in earnest in saying that they will put into force the powers which they are seeking. I should like to have an assurance now that these powers will be put into operation against these illegal organisations and persons connected with them.

Mr. Boland

I certainly do not see that we can give that assurance. What I have said has been assurance enough. I would like to remind Senators that, when we were asking for these powers, we were told that we were going to use them in all sorts of ways. We were warned of the dangers of what we were being given—and given reluctantly—a few months ago. We were told that we had not made a case for them. We were not able to point to definite cases occurring at that moment, but we had the information and we had difficulty in persuading the other House that we had it. I believe that we amended that Offences Against the State Bill in a way in which we would certainly prefer not to have amended it, but we did so in order to give assurances that we were not going to abuse it.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Minister should look up the Dáil Debates.

Mr. Boland

I will. As I am on my feet now, if it is in order——

Mr. Baxter

The Minister is the Minister for order.

Mr. Boland

Well, this House is more liberal in that way, and it may be all the better for that. If you have not said a thing the first time you get a chance of saying it later.

Cathaoirleach

With the indulgence of the Chair.

Mr. Boland

Yes, with the indulgence of the Chair. As far as the milk strike is concerned, we would have had to try to get milk to Dublin; but we were met with another problem. There was an organisation coming in behind the milk strikers, an organisation which has put down as a political object something which was before the country at several elections—a moratorium, derating, and matters of that kind. Here they were, starting off by physical force of a kind, to force the Government to give them something about which the people had decided in at least two elections. As far as arms were concerned, luckily, arms never were used to any important extent but, as I pointed out in the Dáil, there was one case where firearms were used, without fatal results, and that night people on the other side came along with arms and fired into the house of the person who had used them. That was only a beginning, but luckily it was nipped in the bud or there might have been a very serious state of affairs later.

There was also the fact that Peace Commissioners were refusing to act and that there was intimidation all over the country. We felt that, if we allowed that to grow in extent — thanks be to God, it did not—things were going to happen and, as the Taoiseach pointed out, persons who were watching those strikers might have taken advantage of that with the arms which they had. Those were the considerations we had in mind, and it was the permanent Act we used.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

Before the Minister concludes, could he give us the guarantee which the Taoiseach gave us, that if the promises made to-day are not carried out, we fire both of you?

Mr. Boland

That is a matter for the Taoiseach. If he wants to fire me to-morrow, he can do it. I can give no guarantee.

Question put and declared carried.

Mr. Foran

Votáil.

Cathaoirleach

Would the Senators challenging a division please rise?

Senators Campbell, Cummins, Foran, Hogan and E. Lynch rose.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 6.

Tá

• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Butler, John.
• Byrne, Christopher M.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Counihan, John J.
• Crosbie, James.
• Doyle, Patrick.
• Farnan, Robert P.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Goulding, Seán.
• Hawkins, Frederick.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Healy, Denis D.
• Honan, Thomas V.
• Johnston, James.
• Johnston, Joseph.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kennedy, Margaret L.
• Lynch, Peter T.
• MacCabe, Dominick.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• McEllin, Seán.
• Mac Fhionnlaoich, Peadar
• (Cú Uladh).
• McGee, James T.
• McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
• Magennis, William.
• O Buachalla, Liam.
• O'Donovan, Seán.
• O'Dwyer, Martin.
• Parkinson, James J.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Quirke, William.
• Robinson, David L.
• Rowlette, Robert J.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Stafford, Matthew.
• Tierney, Michael.

Níl

• Campbell, Seán P.
• Cummins, William.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Lynch, Eamonn.
• Tunney, James.

Tellers:— Tá: Senators O'Donovan and Goulding; Níl: Senators Cummins and Hogan.

Question declared carried.