Offences Against the State (Amendment) Bill, 1940—Second Stage.

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

Mr. Boland

The main object of the Bill before us this morning is to get an opinion from the Supreme Court. We are hoping that that will happen, and that we will get an opinion from that court as to the validity of the Offences Against the State Act. This Bill is almost a copy of another Act. Some slight amendments were made in the Dáil yesterday, and we took the precaution of scheduling the warrant. Perhaps I should point out what changes there are in the Offences Against the State Bill, Part VI, compared with the old Act. Part I is exactly the same. In Part II, Section 3 is really the old Section 54. Section 4 is like the old Section 55, but there is one change. In line 10, instead of the word "satisfied", as in the old section, we are putting in the words "is of opinion". My legal advisers believe that the word "satisfied" was quite all right, but other people have expressed the opinion that that might be taken as forming a judgment, doing something of a judicial nature, and that by putting in the words "is of opinion" they would not have the same meaning. We have amended that section by inserting the words "is of opinion" instead of the word "satisfied". Up to that the wording is the same. There is also a change in sub-section (4) of that section. It is a new sub-section. Perhaps I had better read it:—

(4) Whenever a person is detained under this section, there shall be furnished to such person, as soon as may be after he arrives at a prison or other place of detention prescribed in that behalf by regulations made under this Part of this Act, a copy of the warrant issued under this section in relation to such person and of the provisions of Section 8 of this Act.

That makes it compulsory on the governor of the prison to furnish these papers to any person interned. That was not in the original Act, but, in practice, although a copy of the warrant was not served on an interned person, a notice of his right to go before the commission was served on him. We are making it now a statutory obligation that these papers shall be served on an interned person. Then sub-section (5) reads:

(5) Every warrant issued by a Minister of State under this section shall be in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act or in a form to the like effect.

That is also a change. There was no schedule before. Then the next section, Section 5, is the old Section 56. There is no change from the old Section 56. Section 6 reads:

6.—A Minister of State may by writing under his hand, if and whenever he so thinks proper, order the release of any particular person who is for the time being detained under this Part of this Act, and thereupon such person shall forthwith be released from such detention.

That is an exact copy of Section 57 of Part VI of the original Act. The next one, Section 7, is the old Section 58. There is one change in that from the old Section 58, and that is in sub-section (2). I will read that for Senators in order to show the addition we are making:

(2) Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling such regulation is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which such House has sat after such regulation is laid before it, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulation.

As I say, that is something new. Section 8 is a copy of the old Section 59, but there was an amendment inserted in it in the Dáil. I do not suppose I need read the whole section. I think if I read the amendment inserted it will suffice. Sub-section 2 (b) refers to the commission that is set up to which people who think they have been wrongly interned can appeal. The original Act provided that one member should be a legal person, either a judge or a barrister. In the Dáil yesterday, an Opposition amendment was accepted as to the constitution of that Appeal Commission and it now reads:

(b) the Commission shall consist of three persons of whom one shall be a commissioned officer of the Defence Forces with not less than seven years' service and each of the others shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing or be or have been a judge of the Supreme Court, the High Court, or the Circuit Court or a justice of the District Court;

Then there is a slight change in paragraph (c), but it is not very important. It provides for payment of members of the commission. There was a proviso in the old Section 59 that any member of the commission who was being paid out of public funds was excluded from payment. This sub-section deletes that and provides that fees may be paid to any member of the commission, as the Minister for Finance shall determine. Sub-section (3) is the same as in the old section down to paragraph (d) and a change has been made there. That paragraph now reads:

(d) if the commission reports that no reasonable grounds exist for the continued detention of such person, such person shall, with all convenient speed be released.

The original Act provided that he should be either released or brought before a court and charged with some offence within seven days. That is a change in favour of the interned person, although what really happened in practice was that, if the commission recommended the release of a certain person, he was released almost immediately. In practice really, therefore, there was no difference, but this reads better and looks to be more in favour of the person interned. Section 9 is a new section inserted yesterday in the Dáil and is as follows:—

The Government shall once at least in every six months furnish to each House of the Oireachtas particulars of (a) persons detained under this part of this Act, (b) persons in respect of whom the commission has made a report to the Government, (c) persons in respect of whom the commission has reported that no reasonable grounds exist for their continued detention, (d) persons who had been detained under this part of this Act but who had been released on the report of the commission, and (e) persons who had been detained under this part of this Act who had been released without a report of the commission.

As I say, that is something new. Then we have the warrant inserted as a Schedule. The idea of putting it in the Schedule is that we are of opinion that in that way there cannot be any doubt as to the validity of the warrant. That may be only a pious hope, but we believe it is more than that. We do not want to say that a judge cannot say otherwise, but we might be accused of something else. We hope that it will be taken as proof that the warrant bears its authority on its face. For that reason we thought it wise to leave as little room as possible for argument as to the form of the warrant. As I say, the main object of this is that we hope to get a decision from the Supreme Court as to its validity.

Mr. M. Hayes

I am supporting the Second Stage of this Bill. The Bill is introduced, I think, in order to remove doubt about the validity of Part VI of the Offences Against the State Act of last year. Unlike the Bill we considered yesterday, this is intended to be a permanent measure. That is to say, the Offences Against the State Act is a permanent measure, and I think the Minister will agree with me that this is introduced merely to make absolutely certain, if that can be done, that Part VI of the Offences Against the State Act which is now being reenacted is valid.

It is perhaps a melancholy commentary that this State requires this particular kind of legislation. But I do not think we need be unduly perturbed about that, because it is practically impossible to run a modern State without giving this kind of power to the Executive in certain crises and with certain safeguards. The intention is, I understand, to submit this matter to the Supreme Court and to get the opinion of the court upon it. It is not for us to say what the opinion of the court might be. But it is, I think, proper that we should say that we have no right here to criticise the opinions of a court, and that it is very subversive of public order to say that opinions given by a court, or hypothetical opinions of a court, are perverse. I think we need a great deal more clear thinking on that particular matter than we have had heretofore displayed. It is a very considerable advantage to the ordinary citizen that people entirely removed from politics and people who work on a set of rules, which are not the set of rules by which either statesmen, politicians, or Parliaments work, should examine the Act and say what, in their judgment, it means.

It is an old rule and a sound rule that when you are endeavouring to put a man into jail, whether with or without trial—and, particularly, when putting a man into jail without trial—all your forms must be correct. The judges—I think, rightly—examine with great care any situation in which a person gets into jail, and, if they find a flaw in the procedure, they rightly decide that the imprisonment is illegal and release the man. It is the responsibility of the Government and its officials and of Parliament to make legislation watertight, and it is entirely wrong to say that the courts take up a perverse view if they happen to disagree with the Executive. That is a very serious thing to say. It would be very serious in this State now that there should be any implication that the Government have a grievance against a judge or judges because of particular decisions. The judges, according to the Constitution under which we are working now and according to its predecessor passed in 1922, are independent in the exercise of their functions. If anything is don to disturb that independence, very grave injury will be done to the State and ultimately very grave injury will be done to executive authority.

The safeguard the judges have is that they can be removed only for a grave misdemeanour by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas. Under our present Constitution, this House is bound to be a reflex of the other House. A Government which can, in the other House, get a majority always has a majority in this House, so that, granted an unscrupulous Government—I do not say we have such now—with a majority in both Houses, they can do what they like with the judges—a very bad state of affairs. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, whether in a fit of bad temper or after serious consideration, it is very detrimental to the best interests of the State and of the citizens that a Minister should accuse judges of taking a perverse view simply because they disagree with the view taken by the Executive and by Parliament in respect of a particular Act.

More than the powers of internment given here, we really need, as I said yesterday, clear thinking and honest speaking on this question of the State itself. The only safeguard for the State—a better safeguard than internment even if there has to be some internment—is the public opinion of citizens and the avoidance of shallow sentimentalism and muddled thinking, of which we have had examples even in this House. Yesterday, we were told by a Senator, whom I might describe as a grave and reverend Senator—he could not be accused of speaking out of the exuberance of youthful spirits— that his heart was with certain people who are pursuing what I regard as immoral as well as illegal activities in England and, to a certain extent, in this State. The Senator said that his head was not with these people but his heart was. I do not intend to characterise that particular kind of statement but it cannot but do harm. So far as we are concerned in this House and so far as every good citizen of the State is concerned, our hearts, our heads and our efforts should be with the forces of the State who are the servants of the State and who cannot do their job for the preservation of the State unless the hearts and heads of Senators and Deputies and members of the public are with them. Our hearts should go out, as the Minister has suggested, to the widow of a Guard who was killed in the execution of his duty a few nights ago in Cork rather than to people, no matter how sincere they may be, who are pursuing activities which are not moral, nor legal nor national. We ought to have clear and unequivocal statements on that matter. It is not sufficient to say that a particular method is wrong and that you do not approve of the method. That kind of thing may be all very well for the metaphysician who can explain his meaning but we should have clear thinking and honest speaking for the public. Then, the necessity for using this Bill when it becomes on Act may not, perhaps, arise. I rose to say more than anything else that it is our business and the business of all good citizens to say that, with our hearts, our heads and all our efforts, we shall assist the people who are servants of the State who must be supported and who must feel that they have the support of all good citizens. Members of the Oireachtas should give example in that particular way.

The Bill we have to consider to-day has, as the Minister said, been amended in a few particulars in the other House. The amendments are, I think, for the better. Some of them are merely for the purpose of covering legal flaws, but the commission which is now to consist of two lawyers and one soldier of seven years' standing is, I think, an improvement on the body which was provided for in the original Bill. It is also an advantage that the Oireachtas should have returns laid before it every three months. For my part, I recognise the necessity for the Bill and I am supporting it.

Mr. Baxter

I should like to make a comment or two on this measure, not that I, more than any other Senator, can have any enthusiasm for the situation which necessitates its introduction. I agree with Senator Hayes that those who have any appreciation of their responsibilities should not only try to speak clearly, but to think clearly as well. If we could do that, and if we could make our contribution to the shaping of measures like this in a way that would indicate we were taking our responsibility seriously, the passing and implementing of such a measure would be much simpler for the Minister responsible. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister in having to father a measure like this. He must have passed through a bitter period of disillusionment. I can understand it very well because I went through it myself. When I first became a member of the Oireachtas, I suppose I was very simple. I thought you had only to treat human nature in a particular way and it would immediately respond. Away back in 1924 I thought that if we had the prison gates open and everybody released, we would all be happy and could look forward to a future of constructive, rather than destructive, work. That is a good many years ago, and we are still having measures like this. I am quite certain the Minister felt his position in this case. I am inclined to agree with what Senator Tierney said yesterday, that it is probably as well that the Government experimented in the way they did, so as to see what the reactions to their policy would be.

They are not in a happy position in having to come to the decision they did, nor does it make any of us happier either. When you look out at the world to-day, you would think that our common Christianity in this country would make us all grateful to God that, here on the western fringe of the Atlantic, we are so far removed from the seats of war, from the bloodshed and the killing and the destruction that other nations are experiencing. One would think that we would more or less pull together; and although we might have differences—and, naturally, we will have differences—there should be no necessity at any rate to take measures that can only end in the shedding of blood, in order to put forward or carry out any particular internal or external policy. The greatest thinkers in the world to-day are indicating that in their view the shedding of blood, even in the world war, is not going to be the final solution for the difficulties that are facing the world. You would think that our own people here would take that to heart and realise that we are not going to make things better in this country by pursuing a policy which can only end in obtaining the possession of arms which will be used eventually in the shedding of blood.

Now, apparently, we have to take measures to protect the State against certain people who think that their objects can be achieved somehow or other in this fashion. That is regrettable. I assent to the view, of course, that the teaching of the past has created an attitude in the minds of the young people of this country to-day which causes them to feel that they are justified in the course they are pursuing, and I should like to see something done to unteach or to dissipate that false teaching, because it was false teaching. In that regard, I think that enough has not been done by the Ministry to dissipate that false teaching. I am saying that, of course, not in the full conviction with which Senators Hayes and Fitzgerald can speak out of their experience of the past, but I am saying it in what I consider to be a more detached way, because my responsibilities have been very light indeed with regard to the happening of the past. When, however, the Minister and the Taoiseach talk about creating public opinion and how important it is to have public opinion with you, so that these Acts can be properly operated, they must understand that they have a responsibility more than anybody else for creating public opinion.

They have done a great deal in creating public opinion in the past, and I am sure the Minister recognises that. They have still great responsibilities and it seems to me that if others of the Minister's colleagues were to pursue the line which the Minister for Industry and Commerce took the other night it would be much easier to get that co-operation which the Minister seeks and which he wants, and which any Minister must want and must get in this State if this State is to stand.

There is no use in blinking the fact that there are dangers to the State, external as well as internal dangers, and that we can bring external dangers upon us as a result of our internal dangers. We must be clear about that. If what happened in the Phoenix Park had happened in England, and if such a huge quantity of ammunition, worth a great deal of money—and a greater loss because of the potential danger—had been seized and carried away, what do you think would happen? I imagine that the citizens would be called upon and that they would come out in hundreds and thousands to help in getting it back, but they would not dream of doing that here. That, however, is the sort of thing that should happen. Every farmer and every business man and everybody in this country who value their lives, liberty and property, ought to have the spirit to come out and cooperate in the collecting of that property of the State and restoring it to its proper owner, to the people who would hold it when they got it back, but they do not think of that here because there has never been a real effort to cultivate that kind of public opinion and bring up that kind of citizenship in our people that is essential for the better government, progress, and development of this State.

We have to face that fact, but we cannot ride two horses at the same time, and it will not do to have people on this side of the House, so to speak, being expected to make all the running and say all the hard and unpopular things and to have, perhaps, other people, who ought to have greater responsibilities, inasmuch as they support the Government Party, doing a sort of wobbling in connection with this. That is a thing that must be taken into account. I wonder what these people think they are going to accomplish, by exploits like this, in building up the country economically. For instance, had that ammunition been seized some days before you put the loan on the market, I wonder what the consequences would have been? The loan was not fully subscribed, but if that had happened before it was put on the market it would be true to say that you were not giving the subscribers confidence in the future stability of the State when things like that can happen. These people do not seem to understand that such exploits as these are not helping their own cause politically but that they are going far to deal the State a death blow.

I am inclined to the point of view of those who might say that the agitation that is going on, while having political grooves, has also an economic and social background. I am convinced that it is much easier to get recruits to carry out certain things where there are idle hands and where there is disappointment, and what Senator MacDermot described as frustrated hopes, and the Ministry will not be doing their duty in trying to remove the causes for the present situation by merely getting powers to detain these people. Much more has to be faced and much more has to be done. It is with reference to this matter that I want to say particularly that I have not absolute confidence in the way in which this measure may be administered in the future. I disagree with the Minister and with the Taoiseach with regard to the steps they took in applying the Act, as it was before, to the farmers' strike. It is things like that—errors of judgment, miscalculations of a situation, and a lack of understanding of the people—that are the cause of your failure to get public opinion behind you. Whatever about the merits or demerits of the farmers' strike, we all know that the farmers have very great difficulties, and whether they were right or wrong—and my view is that the way in which they went about achieving their end was not, even from the farmers' point of view, the most effective method that could be followed—if there are any people in this State whose interest it is to preserve constitutional government and to follow constitutional methods in order to achieve their ends, they are the farmers and the labourers in this country.

Now, completely misunderstanding the situation, in my opinion, the Government mixed up two things and sought to drive two extremes together. If they did not succeed, they very nearly succeeded in some places, and if they did not succeed it was not their fault, because they took exactly the right method to bring these two forces into line.

You cannot expect to cultivate a healthy public opinion when you go out and treat responsible individuals in the farming community as you have done. A great many of these people are very responsible individuals. Some of them have a considerable amount of property and there were some of them with, perhaps, not very much property, but both of them combined with a sense of grievance and a feeling that the Oireachtas and responsible people in positions of authority were not listening to their appeals in the manner in which they should, and were not giving their representations the consideration which they should give them. I do not say that they went about achieving their ends in the best possible way. It was not the way that I would advise.

I am quite convinced that if the Government left the problem with the Minister for Agriculture, and took no action themselves, the Minister for Agriculture could easily have received a group of these people and there would never have been any necessity to apply the provisions of the Offences Against the State Act to them. It would be much easier in such circumstances to cultivate that public opinion which the Minister wants. It was a rash step, a great mistake, in my opinion. The necessities of the situation did not demand it. What is the effect of it? The effect of it is, of course, that if these people intend to do something like this again they will go about it in a much more effective way. The Minister told us yesterday that they had to get milk for the poor and for the children of Dublin. He said that people cannot starve. But you were only able to get milk by commandeering it at the creameries down the country. I would like to point out that that milk was going to the creameries from a great many supporters of the Government Party and many of these people were displeased with the Government policy. The next time these people are confronted with a situation like that, you will not be able to get any milk because the farmers will not send it to the creameries and then if you want the milk you will have to go and milk the cows yourselves.

Mr. O'Donovan

That is not trying to educate the public.

Mr. Baxter

I am merely pointing out that it is better to see the dangers of this thing in time. If I were to do the things that these people did, I would do them more effectively; I would plan in such a way that my policy would be more effective. Wise men will see that it is much better to anticipate things like these in time. I have voted against Public Safety Acts before. Curiously enough, I voted against them when they were going to be applied to some of you people over there. There are certain others of you who got over to that side of the House, although you were on this side then. I was probably the most disillusioned citizen in this State, I must confess, when I had to vote on the Public Safety Act in 1927, after the assassination of Kevin O'Higgins. It was to me an astounding situation which confronted me, and the position was worse then than it is to-day. I might mention that when I was going into the Lobby with my group of farmers to vote for that measure, the head of the Government came to me and asked me to relieve a certain member of my Party from voting for that measure. He told me that they had actually discovered that there was a plot to assassinate him— he came from the country—and that it might not be easy to afford him sufficient protection and to save that man's life. I released that man from his responsibilities in regard to voting for that measure. You people over there were not in the House at that time. I did not know what was going to happen, but I took a chance. It was not a popular thing to do, but that was the type of thing we had to face in the past. I did not want to go into that, and I would not have done so if Senator O'Donovan had not butted in.

I believe that there are certain dangers in the possession of this instrument. There are certain people who like to bully others and who feel, when they get power, that that power must be absolute. They are so right in everything they do, in their own opinion, they feel, whatever they do, and however they may treat people, that they are quite justified. I am not questioning the moral right in certain situations, but there should be wisdom used in the exercise of powers such as are now sought. If I were consulted, I would have said to the Minister who used such powers on another occasion: "Let us see what a few of us could do to settle this thing and, instead of using drastic powers like those and throwing dissatisfied farmers into the hands of other people, let us try and remove those farmers from the position in which they are going to be put and endeavour to get a peaceful solution." I think that would be the better way to approach such a situation.

There are certain people in the Government Party who, if they had their way, might not be too cautious. I do not suggest that the Minister is one of them. I do not know the Minister very well, but I am convinced, from what I have seen of him in his handling of another Bill in this House, that he is not that type of man. But there are people who would not be too cautious as to whether a course of action that might be decided upon would be just or not. I do not want to pursue that matter any further, but if you want to cross-examine me in regard to it I am quite prepared. We want to be quite clear that there are certain dangers to the State, but let me point out that there can also be dangers in the misuse of powers given to the State. I believe that the Government have a great responsibility in cultivating and educating public opinion. I believe the Minister is frank enough to say more than he has said up to the present, and I believe that if he did that he would get more co-operation from the Opposition and some of the things which are being said would not have to be said. The Minister, because he is a member of the Government, has to do things that the man who is not charged with responsibility need not do.

I put it to the Minister that in trying to get public opinion behind him in the exercise of these powers he should give a definite lead. I think he is capable of giving such a lead. The country wants stability and peace and there are enough sensible people in it to realise that you cannot disturb conditions and expect to progress at the same time. I suggest that the people of the country will only follow when they are quite satisfied that the people who are in a position to lead are clear and precise about where they are going, what they want to do and that they mean what they say. You cannot have wobbling in a situation like this and we all must accept a share of responsibility. Irishmen, generally, even the worst of them, are good-natured and very human and, while we may say severe things about each other, with a loss of temper possibly at times, and possibly do some desperate things, underneath it all, taking the people generally, they do not want to be cruel or even unkind. There is a good deal of wobbling and a good deal of uncertainty and sometimes people do rash things, although they do not mean to do them. They are led into that position and they find themselves in it and they can hardly explain why. We want to clarify our minds and take our responsibilities in these matters and not be wobbling.

I hope the Minister will never use these powers against groups of farmers again. I hope he will find another way of dealing with farmers, if there are farmers' problems to be dealt with. I hope there will be a realisation of this fact, that there would not be any great danger to internal order in this country if you had only to deal with those who, in their own judgment, have political ideals to fight for; that if you had not a background of economic disturbance and dissatisfaction, you would not have anything like as fertile a field in which to sow what some people might call anarchy. It is because there is a field where these scattered seeds can grow that there are fears on the part of a great many people. While we are all reluctant to vote for a measure like this, it seems that when you are confronted with a situation such as faces the Government we have all to discharge our responsibilities as citizens to the State and we find we cannot refuse to give this measure to the Government. We can only hope that, in the use of it, they will exercise courage where that is essential, and wisdom and discretion as well. If they are confronted with a situation like that which faced them when they got those powers before, we hope that they will try other means first, as they tried other means first with other people, before they use the powers they are getting against them.

Sir John Keane

I am very glad to be able to admit that, in my opinion, the recent amendments inserted by the Dáil in this Bill are an improvement, and that to a great extent they provide a safeguard against the very unpleasant, unnatural and unjudicious powers of detention. I cannot reconcile myself to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. As regards the exercise of those powers, I have to admit that in certain circumstances they are necessary, but I am still afraid that the Government will fall into the temptation to detain when they have reasonable evidence for trial.

It is, of course, a matter of opinion to what extent cases, in the absence of powers of detention, will go to trial— cases where the Government would take a risk of trial. The Government will now follow the line of least resistance, and use the powers of detention. I think that is undesirable in the interests of justice and in the interests of the formation of public opinion. If you want to form public opinion you must do it through the machinery of justice and the use of the courts. I rule out the traditional method of trial by jury, because I see no hope of that being effective in our life time in anything resembling political offences.

Let me put myself in the position of a member of this commission. I examine a case and say to myself, not only are there reasonable grounds for detention, but in my opinion there are reasonable grounds for trial. How should that operate? I consider that if the commission found that there were reasonable grounds for trial, they should also have the power to release a person detained, and see that he is put on his trial. My view is, and I ask the House to agree with it, that where the grounds for detention are sufficient to give evidence for trial, the person detained should be released and put on his trial. I desire to call the attention of the House to paragraph (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 8, where it is provided "if the commission reports that no reasonable grounds exist for the continued detention of such person, such person shall, with all convenient speed be released". I should like to amend that paragraph by moving something to this effect: "that if the commission reports that no reasonable grounds exist to detain or to withhold trial, such person should be released". I propose asking the Chair for permission to move an amendment, without notice, on those lines, on Committee Stage. I should like to ask the Minister now whether he would consider the acceptance of an amendment of that kind: that the commission should have power to release, if there are no grounds for detention, or if there are grounds which, in the opinion of the commission, would justify trial. I think an amendment on those lines would tend to safeguard the sanctity, and I call it the sanctity, of the Habeas Corpus Act.

Professor Tierney

Before dealing with the Bill there are just a few words I would like to say, first in connection with the question of the amendment of the Constitution. I had intended to say something on this yesterday but omitted to do so. I, for one, entirely agree with the point of view that the Government have taken on this matter, that it would be very injudicious and very inadvisable, so long as there was any good chance of being able to get this whole question properly settled without amending the Constitution, to proceed with any sort of hasty legislation to amend that document.

There is another matter on, which I would like to say a few words, namely, the charge that was laid against myself yesterday evening by Senator Lynch. He accused me of adopting a bloodthirsty attitude on all this matter, and said that I was advocating the suppression of this conspiracy by, I think he used the words, the infliction of the extreme penalty, or something of that sort—by the taking of life. I suppose my words must be as much in need of interpretation as the words of anybody else, but I am quite clear that I neither advocated bloodthirsty courses nor the suppression of this or any other conspiracy by the infliction of the extreme penalty. What I was talking about was a very different thing altogether. I was saying that in a conflict like this, because undoubtedly a conflict has arisen, the surest hope of getting a speedy decision, and the surest way of saving life and preventing the destruction of life and property and of other things even more valuable, is to have a Government which shows from the outset that it is determined to resort, if necessary, to the most extreme means. I put that forward, not because I believe in blood shedding. It would become me least of all the members of the House to advocate blood shedding or bloodthirsty courses, but I believe that in a Government of that kind you have one of the surest safeguards, in the long run, against blood shedding. I do not want to inflict any more of this on the Seanad. I should not have mentioned it at all except for the interpretation that was put on what I said by Senator Lynch. I will just say, in winding up on that, that I think Senator Lynch's interpretation was fairly characteristic of other rather unfortunate propensities on the part of members of the Labour Party. I have seen them do that sort of thing before.

There is one other point that is perhaps worth making. I find all this anxiety about habeas corpus and about the indefeasible right of the individual citizen rather strange, to put it mildly, in an assembly like this. We here pride ourselves on being Gaels, on being anxious to restore the Gaelic State and to get back the institutions of our ancestors. I would like if any Senator could tell me what part habeas corpus played in the Gaelic State, or what the Gaelic for habeas corpus is for that matter. Senator Lynch again last night treated us to a piece of history about the Habeas Corpus Act. He talked about that Act and of the right that it preserves as being, I think he said, a pillar of British liberty. I quite agree, but I felt myself that it was a rather amusing situation, if one could be amused by such a situation, for us here in Seanad Eireann to have an institution of that kind proposed to us for our adoption and admiration as a pillar of British liberty. It does not seem to have struck anybody else.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Oh, it did.

Mr. M. Hayes

It did indeed.

Professor Tierney

It was in my mind all along, and I think there is some point about it, because it is possible for us in this whole matter to make too much of a fetish of habeas corpus and of the liberty of the subject. I entirely agree with what the Taoiseach said last night, that in a matter of this kind there is only one real danger to the individual citizen and that is the danger of a mistake. There is no real likelihood that the Government are going to arrest people who commit no offence; there is no danger that they will deliberately arrest them and hold them. It may happen through a mistake of some official or otherwise, but if that does happen it should be easy and simple to provide machinery for it. There is no necessity, and I do not think it becomes us in a country like ours, to preach too much about the Habeas Corpus Act and about the liberty of the individual citizen. To me, at any rate, the Habeas Corpus Act was in the beginning the instrument of revolution against legitimate authority in Great Britain, and the victory of those who put it into the law in Great Britain was the victory of a revolutionary party. The Act has very often since been used as an instrument by people whose object is the same as the object of that party in the seventeenth century, the subversion of the institutions of the State.

Professor Magennis

I have sincere pleasure in joining with Senator Sir John Keane in the speech that he made just now. Notwithstanding the childish and ill-informed criticisms of the last speaker on what is usually referred to as habeas corpus, I join with Senator Sir John Keane, and I think with the majority of thinking men throughout the civilised world, in regarding that institution which is referred to usually as habeas corpus as the very bulwark and shield of individual personal liberty, and the freedom of individual man is the highest of liberty.

Professor Tierney

British liberty always!

Professor Magennis

Senator Tierney is wholly unaware of the history of what is called habeas corpus, though he professes dogmatically to give it in a few short sentences. Habeas corpus as an English instrument had its beginning in Runnymede, not as the 31, Charles II, Chap. 2. The Papal Legate, Archbishop Stephen Langton, was the institutor. It was from his brain that sprang this declaration of personal rights which is referred to as Magna Charta, the great Charter of the people. To Christendom is due the foundation principles of this thing which is now referred to as habeas corpus.

Professor Tierney

Perhaps we should have a commission to go into the real meaning of Runnymede, and what happened there. I think there is a good deal more to be said about it than has been said by Senator Professor Magennis.

Professor Magennis

Although I am not a learned light, no luminary of the Bar, at any rate I am a member of the Bar. I did a course of law, not merely in preparation for being called to the Bar; and throughout my life I have taken a profound interest, a more than usually warm interest, in constitutional and international law. Senator Tierney has deliberately — I will not say with malice aforethought; there is never malice in anything Senator Tierney says or does — set out to appeal to popular passion; he urges the need for Gaelicisation as against British institutions, to mislead the House. 31, Charles II was the product of revolution no doubt. It was the reaction to the tyranny of the unconstitutional action of Charles I, of corrupt judges pandering to the court for promotion; it became necessary to put into an Act in definite and unmistakable terms the Magna Charta. The habeas corpus, however, that we have in view is of much later date.

It belongs to the reign of George III, and that is why it was easier for Grattan to get his Irish Habeas Corpus Act passed immediately after that declaration of Irish rights which won for a brief moment the right of the "King, Lords and Commons of Ireland" to be the sole and exclusive authority to bind the people of Ireland. Senator Tierney must not get away with this attempt to mislead us. I remember when I was twitted with the "inconsistency" of maintaining that there was no Oath and yet referring to it as the Oath. This sort of quibbling is all very fine in a nisi prius court but not in a solemn and serious assembly such as this.

Professor Tierney

I disclaim any connection whatever with a nisi prius court. I was never in one in my life.

Professor Magennis

When we speak of habeas corpus, it is the principle of the thing we are referring to and nothing else. There is no doubt about what it is; it is the sacred right of personality. I am speaking now in terms of the philosophy of morals adopted throughout Christendom. It is indeed not the doctrine of Catholic philosophers merely but of philosophers even in earlier times than Christianity. It is the right of the person to freedom. It is declared in the American Declaration, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of wellbeing, or “happiness” as they called it in those days.

It is undoubtedly something to be viewed with suspicion—even mistrust— the effort of any Government, no matter who may be the personnel of it, to diminish or derogate in any way from this right of personal liberty, the freedom of personality; and I think we are doing the best service that can be done to Irish freedom, and for the setting up of right public opinion in Ireland, when, though we support the Government and are anxious for its prosperous conduct of the administration of the State, we bring close scrutiny, almost meticulous criticism, to bear upon any proposal such as this which might have the effect (even for a temporary period) of interfering improperly with the fundamental right of the citizen.

Cathaoirleach

In making an accusation of that description it is necessary that the exact words be quoted.

Professor Magennis

Are you, Sir, asking me to withdraw? If you do, I shall withdraw. But it is unfortunate that we have not access to the official report of the speeches.

Mr. Foran

Are we to infer that we need some authority on interpretation such as the famous figure in Egyptian mythology referred to yesterday?

Professor Magennis

I turn again to deal with the leader of the Opposition and my references to the men who were guilty of those offences in England. He made the criticism that my comment would do harm. He follows that up with a statement which I have taken down. The import of this is that I subtracted from the support that all right-minded people should give the Government in these efforts for the preservation of peace and the security of life and property in this country. Senator Hayes said that I declared that "my heart was with them", and he adds to-day: "All our hearts, our heads, and our efforts should be with the forces of the State." Those are his exact words. Senator Tierney yesterday demanded from the Government an assurance as to their use of the powers they are getting from the Oireachtas. Now I see in the speeches of both these two Senators something calculated to do great harm: the very reverse of helping the formation of a right public opinion.

I want it to be understood that, in what we do in these measures, we are not hostile to the demand that Irishmen make an assertion of the rights of the Irish nation. We do condemn their lack of judgment in resorting to action for which — mere individuals — they have no mandate from the people and, at the moment, when there is a lawfully constituted Government functioning here, a Government which contains amongst its members a Minister for External Affairs, whose voice is the sole authoritative voice that will be listened to by the Government of Britain. When the Irish nation puts forward a claim of right, that claim should be put forward by the Minister for External Affairs, in the name and on behalf of the lawfully constituted Government of this country, and any usurpation of Government authority by unauthorised individuals is wrong, is action to be condemned and be punished.

I thought I had made myself unmistakably clear in regard to this my attitude. To say that I do not consider men who from over zeal act so foolishly and so much to the detriment of the attainment of the rights of the Irish people, to say that I refuse to regard them as actuated by the motives that are usually styled criminal motives, in no way substracts from the support I give and have given to the Government in their present measures. Senator Fitzgerald must be reminded of Burke's diatribe against "cold hearts and muddy understandings". If we oppose and condemn certain of our fellow-countrymen for their activities in Britain, let it be well understood that this does not spring from the hostility of cold hearts to the nationalism that animates them. If they realise what is our attitude they are less likely to resent condemnation and they are more likely to be won over finally to the constitutional pursuit of our rightful claims. Because I foresee the psychological effects, am I to be dismissed as "a metaphysician"? Clear and consecutive thinking apparently is an object of reproach to some of our colleagues in this House.

Now there is little else really worth while beyond a reference to Senator Baxter's allusion to the disposition of some people in authority to bully others. These are the exact words I beg to assure Senator Fitzgerald, "to bully others". Is not precisely what we are most anxious concerning the legislation before us to-day this: that there should be no grounds, at least no reasonable grounds, for anyone to complain that he is being bullied by the undue exercise of authority and power?

If the Minister, who is possessed of special information and who is of opinion that an indictment cannot be met and successfully sustained before the law and who for the preservation of peace requires the detention of a man in question, if he by warrant orders the arrest of such a person, there is no bullying in it because there is set up a body — a competent body —to deal with a situation of that kind. As a matter of fact, all that Senator Baxter asks for and requires is provided for in this measure.

Mr. O'Donovan

This question has occasioned considerable discussion in the Seanad to-day, though there is really very little alteration in the Bill before us from the Act which we have already passed. It is unfortunate that such heat—I think I may call it heat— has been engendered in the debate, and that the debate should have been taken outside the actual scope of the alterations contained in the Bill from the Act already passed.

When the previous Act was being passed, I expressed the hope that this section would never come into force. I wish to express my disappointment that not only had it to come into force but that we have now to re-enact it in a somewhat altered form. In this deliberative House I am puzzled by some of the alterations that have been made. One alters the clause "Whenever a Minister is satisfied" and changes it to "Whenever a Minister of State is of opinion". There are legal men in the House; though I am not one of them, to my mind if I think a thing is so I must be satisfied the thing is so. It is one of those phrases that seem to cause people outside to wonder where the difference is between when you are rather of the opinion and when you are satisfied that a thing is so. I must express the opinion that legal people see these finicky differences between words which mean the same thing. We have had, unfortunately, a discussion in which people have made statements referring — as Senator Tierney did — to a commission which it was said would have to be set up to interpret what other people said. Then the Senator comes along this morning himself to try to explain what he said yesterday. It is terrible if even we in this House, speaking to each other, cannot understand what is said.

I am quite satisfied that the interpretation which has been given by Senator Magennis to what Senator Tierney has said is correct. Maybe he spoke under the influence of sentiment yesterday and wants to try to explain it to-day. Even though he tries to withdraw it to-day, the impression given to me yesterday was: "While I am in favour of this Bill going through, I am not satisfied that the Government will be rigorous enough." A whole lot of adjectives were used in classifying what the Government should be. One other virtue a Government should possess — and I think the present Government does possess it and has demonstrated it — is the quality of mercy. Shakespeare has given us a quotation on that quality. Mercy has been shown and demonstrated during the past seven years by this Government, and by the individuals of this Government over a far greater number of years. No Senator need stand up here and request that they should be rigorous, that they should show no mercy.

Cathaoirleach

If there is not agreement, there must be a division.

Mr. Foran

Take a show of hands.

Mr. Baxter

I suggest to Dublin Senators that there are some Senators who have to go long distances to the country this evening. We have not been sleeping in our own beds for the last few nights, like the Dublin Senators.

Question put and negatived.

Peadar MacFhionnlaoich

Rud róannamh liom-sa, táim ar aon aigne leis an Seanadóir an t-Ollamh O Tighearnaigh san méid adubhairt sé annseo indiú, go bhfuilimíd ró-thugtha sa Teach seo do shómpla na Sasanach do leanúint. Sórt rud ó Dhia an habeas corpus seo, ach mar adubhairt an t-Ollamh O Tighearnaigh, níl sé dúthchasach dúinn-ne. Ní raibh Rialtas in Éirinn nach mbíodh giallacha ar láimh ag muintir an Rialtais. Ó Niall Naoi nGiallach anuas, bhíodh daoine a thógadh achrann sa tír seo faoi ghlas; agus an rud atá sa Bhille seo, tá sé an-chosúil leis sin.

An habeas corpus seo a bhí ag na Sasanaigh, is annamh a thugadar dúinn-ne é. Tá cuimhne fada agam, leath-chéad bhlian nó níos mó, agus is annamh a bhí an habeas corpus againn. Bhí sé tarraingthe siar aon uair a bhí dúil ag na Sasanaigh dul thairis. Ní dóich liom gur fiú é sin do thabhairt dúinn mar chuspóir annseo. Sé'n rud atá ag teastáil uainn ná go mbeadh saoirse againn sa tir seo agus tá mé sásta go bhfuil saoirse againn agus go mbeidh an saoirse sin againn — ins na Sé Conndaethe Fichead, ar chuma ar bith—ach amháin an Rialtas atá toghtha ag na daoine coitcheanta do leanúint. Nílim i bhfábhar aon Rialtas a cuirfí i gcomhacht le neart gunnaí agus le neart bombaí. Rialtas den tsórt sin a cuireadh suas sa Ghearmáin, agus tá Hitler againn anois; agus níl aon bháidh againn do Hitler. Rialtas den tsort sin a cuireadh suas sa Rúis agus tá Stalin againn anois; agus níl aon bháidh agam do Stalin. Rinneadh an rud céana san Iodáil agus tá Mussolini againn anois, de neart claidhimh; agus níl aon bháidh agam do Mussolini. Sa Spáinn cuireadh Rialtas suas le neart claidhimh agus tá Franco againn anois agus níl aon bháidh agam do Franco.

Ba mhaith liom a rá gó bhfuilim ag cuidiú leis an mBille seo. Isé mo thuairim go bhfuil sé de dhualgas orainn an chomhacht atá ag teastáil ón Rialtas do thabhairt dóibh.

I should like to say that I intend to support the Government in the matter of this Bill. Before I proceed I should like to say also that I got a great deal of satisfaction out of the debate so far inasmuch as Senators, generally, have borne in mind the appeal made last night by the Minister for Justice and by the Leas-Chathaoirleach that questions that really do not arise out of this Bill, questions which are not really before the House, should be left aside for the present. From that, as I say, I have got a great deal of satisfaction. I do not know if it is in order to refer to some matters raised by Senators last evening. In the ordinary course I could have taken part, if I wished, in the debate, but I felt that the proceedings were dragging on far too long, and for that reason, I refrained from taking part in the discussion. But there are a few points which arose last night to which I should like with the permission of the House, to refer now.

This whole problem with which we are confronted to-day, and in connection with which this Bill is introduced, arises out of Partition. I do not think there is any question whatever about that. Some Senators will dispute that. They disputed it last evening, and they are entitled to their opinion. But the point that interests me now, in connection with this matter, is the claim made by some Senators that the problem of Partition is one to be solved by ourselves and by ourselves alone. I do not subscribe to that. I claim that the British Government has contributed to this problem; that the British Government, by its contribution in money, in men, and in munitions is the main obstacle to the solution of this problem. That is a fact, and the sooner the British people are got to realise it the better.

Senator Fitzgerald made a very strange speech. I agree with his contention that the rights of the Government and of the people must be maintained and maintained in full. But I do not agree that there is a wholesale disregard for law and order in the country. In the vast majority of the homes in the land, and, mainly, in the humble homes—in the hearts of the people—there is respect for law and order, a respect which is most admirable, to say the least of it. It is not fair to accuse people of being indifferent in these matters. In some instances they are pretty helpless—for certain reasons. I hope that this Bill will ensure that their helplessness in these matters will be ended, and that they will be able to come forward and give all the help in their power to the Government, to ensure the reign of peace and social security.

I support the Bill for two main reasons. In the first place, I support it because the powers which are being sought are absolutely essential if social order is to continue. I might as well say that I know some of the people who seem, according to names which have appeared in the Press, to be involved in all this trouble. A few of them, as a matter of fact, were old comrades of mine. I mention that for this reason—that I should like the House to know that to this Bill and to this whole problem I have given a great amount of thought. It is a problem which has caused me a great deal of worry. I sincerely regret that I must support such a Bill as this, and that against old comrades of my own. But I have no hesitation and no qualms in doing so. There is no doubt whatever in my mind as to where my duty lies. There is to-day in this country a national, sovereign Parliament, open to every man and woman in the land. That it is open to every man and woman in the land, that it is open to me and that it is open to those who were comrades of mine and to whom I have just referred is due to the work, action and energy of An Taoiseach. Through this Parliament alone can national action be taken and national policy decided. Action by or through any other means or any other organisation is sheer anarchy and must involve this nation in untellable suffering and ruin.

Secondly, I support the Bill because on the maintenance of peace and order in this country depend economic and social well-being and progress. There is, in my humble opinion, more loss and more wastage in the economic life of the country because of political and social disturbances than can truly be attributed to all other causes combined. Our economic prosperity and progress depend on the maintenance of peace and on respect for our institutions of justice and order. The Government must be given the powers it requires to secure the maintenance of that peace and so secure economic and social well-being and economic and social progress.

An Taoiseach has been appealed to to give up referring to the question of Partition. I sincerely hope he does not listen to this appeal. The people of Ireland desire that Partition should end, and they demand that it shall end as soon as possible. They rely on the Taoiseach to do his best to end it. He undertook certain work for this nation and he has achieved most of it. The people rely on him to spare no opportunity to push the case against Partition. No man is better fitted to handle this question; no man is better fitted to push this case. The Taoiseach is Minister for External Affairs. He is the head of the Government. He is one of the few statesmen in the whole of Europe whose word, opinions and whose ideals command respect. I certainly hope he continues his campaign, as he sees fit, against Partition, and that he will push it in every way and on every occasion he possibly can. I have sufficient faith in him to know that he will not spare himself in this matter. Like the majority of the Irish people, I rely on him to do all that is humanly possible to end this scandal.

Appeals were made to An Taoiseach to use very stern measures as a consequence of the powers which are being given to him. The only appeal I am going to make to An Taoiseach—I know there is no need for it—is that he maintain the coolness of head and the fixity of purpose which have characterised him from the days in 1916 when he struck his first blow for the freedom of this country, down to the present day. That is the only appeal the Irish people will make to him as a result of whatever powers he may ask and which may be given to him. He has been criticised because of a recent gesture in the direction of leniency towards certain political opponents. I refer to the action he took in respect of the recent hunger-strike. So far as I am concerned, I fully appreciate his action on that occasion, and I believe the country appreciates it, too. It was said here last night that it was well that that gesture of conciliation should have been made.

All Parties know now where they are. Unfortunately, the parties to whom he made that gesture have not thought fit to show that they appreciate it. All I can say is that I hope the law will be administered as law, that is with fairness and with firmness, and not in the spirit of blood and iron.

For the Minister for Justice on an occasion like this I have the greatest sympathy. His task at any time is a very serious, a very difficult and a very onerous one—the maintenance of those institutions of justice and peace on which all security and progress rest. In addition to these grave responsibilities, the Minister for Justice also carries, indirectly, the responsibility for economic and social progress. No matter what the Minister for Agriculture may do or may plan, and no matter what the Minister for Industry and Commerce may do or may plan, their efforts surely will be sterile unless peace and order are maintained in the country. The task of the Minister for Justice is undoubtedly a very grave one, and he is entitled to the utmost support and confidence of the Oireachtas and of the people in general. I do not know whether it is in order in this House to pay compliments to Ministers. Since I have come here I have heard criticism levelled at them —some of it very general, perhaps some of it deserved, some of it not indeed hurtful; but I have heard some of it, and, I am glad to say, only a small portion of it, which was savagely vicious. However, if I am in order I certainly should like to express my appreciation of the Minister's work, especially in regard to the difficulties with which he has to contend, and I should like again to appeal for the utmost support from this House and from the people in general for him.

There is one other point to which I should like to refer before I conclude. Senator Rowlette last night criticised the Taoiseach because he referred as he did to the Army and to the Police. He was then replying to certain statements or certain criticisms that had been made by Senator Tierney. Very much the same kind of criticisms were made a few minutes ago by Senator Counihan. I, for one, thank the Taoiseach for taking the line that he took last night on these points. I can assure Senators that I was genuinely astonished by the statement made by the Leas-Chathaoirleach on the question of the Army and the question of the Police, and have been still more astonished to have heard these statements repeated to-day by Senator Counihan. I may say that I would have been very much dissatisfied and uneasy as to the future of this country were it not for the assurances that were given last night by the Taoiseach and, although I have not seen to-day's papers yet, I hope that the assurances that have been given have got full publicity, because I think that the statement made by the Taoiseach will have tremendous repercussions throughout the country irrespective of whether or not the views expressed by Senator Tierney are held to any considerable extent throughout the country.

Sé'n fath, ar eirigh mé, mar dubhras i dtosach, le rádh go bhfuil mé sasta na comhachta atá a teastáil o'n Rialtas a thabhairt dóibh. Tá na comhachta seo riachtanach má tá an corus sóisialach, síbhialta, le seasamh. Sin a bhfuil le rádh agam.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Sometimes when I am in here it seems to me that the old phrase, "save us from our friends", is very appropriate. I think that everybody on this side of the House intends to support these Bills, and I think that the division last night showed that these Bills have the support of the whole House, with the exception of the Labour Party. If I were the Government—God between us and all harm— and were trying to be quite impartial in the matter, I think that we would be quite fair in the support that we would get from this side of the House or the other side of the House. Now, Senator Magennis speaking to-day—I did not hear him speaking last night— quoted verbatim a remark made by Senator Hayes, which was also a quotation, presumably, or may have been a quotation from what Senator Magennis said yesterday, and which was to the effect that although his head condemned these people who are taking certain action in England his heart was with them. He did not bring that into his text afterwards, but only quoted it from Senator Hayes, but I noticed that he did not deny that that was the purport of something that he said yesterday. His argument then came on to develop that, in saying that he denies that there was necessarily a criminal motive or impulse actuating the people who were taking this action in England, that was not to suggest that he was not supporting the Government in connection with these Bills, and that it was scandalous to suggest such a thing, and so on. Now, I do not want to misrepresent Senator Magennis and I am ready to accept from him a complete contradiction that he made any statement with regard to a movement of sympathy of his heart with regard to the action of these people in England. I notice, however, that that is not contradicted.

Now, with regard to the question of the morality of this business, people forget that there is a binding law of obedience, and when we talk about sincerity I must say that the personal sincerity of these people does not convince me at all. There is great sincerity amongst some people in wanting to be outstanding persons when there is any justification for being so. A burglar goes to burgle a house and he sincerely desires to enrich himself, but no man desires evil as evil. Every sin that is committed comes from a desire, not for evil as evil, but for evil under an aspect of good, and if you take as the supreme end anything less than the absolute good you then create a condition of absolutely diabolical immorality. There was one great hero in this country, whom I shall not name—he was a hero, but he lacked intelligence—who exalted the finite aim of the Irish nation over the supreme or absolute aim of the nation. The proposals he made were diabolical, and if they had been carried out, would have written us down as a criminal race, and that was because he took the finite and exalted it as the absolute.

Now, let us consider the actions of these people whom we are considering, and the methods they have employed. Let us remember the time when they tried to terrorise juries in this country and when they demanded of the jurymen that, having called upon God as witness to the truth that they would find a verdict according to the evidence, they should find a verdict contrary to the evidence. Now these men who are going over to England and taking the actions they have been taking are criminal and immoral. They exalt themselves and they deny the whole law of obedience. They claim to themselves the power of life and death.

Now, the Government, necessarily, has the power of life and death, and has power to bind under sin, but these men, in their maniacal vanity and blind and arrogant ignorance, take to themselves the power of life and death and go over to England and blow up unfortunate citizens and send them to their doom. Then, yesterday or the day before, we had the case of a servant of this State, down in Cork, who was carrying out the duties imposed upon him by this Legislature and by this Government, who was murdered in the street. Are we going to say, therefore, that because a man was doing a thing sincerely in the course of his duty, he was sincerely murdered, just as the burglar sincerely burgles a house?

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

Ní doigh liom go bhfuil an Seanadóir in ordú tagairt do dheanamh do rudaí atá faoi scrudú faoi láthair.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I appreciate that, and I do not want to go into matters that are sub judice. I was just giving that as an instance, but I do not want to deal with a matter that is sub judice, as I say. I am referring to this doctrine that an individual who desires a thing sincerely has a right to subordinate all good to the attainment of his end. John O'Leary, a good and sincere Fenian, many years ago said that there were some things that you should not do, even to save the country, and I wish that that doctrine were more recognised in this country. I should like to say this, however. We know that the Bishops of the Catholic Church in this country order Catholic parents to send their sons to the National University rather than to Trinity College, but I shall say this, with all respect to the Bishops: that if I thought that my sons, having been sent to the Catholic University, were going to be under the moral direction of a man who publicly stated that his heart is with the blackguards and criminals who have been discrediting the country and committing injustices against ordinary citizens, then I would send my sons to Trinity College rather than submit them to the diabolical, subversive and immoral influence of a man with doctrines like that.

We have all this talk, this mawkish sentimentality, this ignorant sentimentality, about men who go out and murder other men—men with no sense of justice in their hearts, no sense of natural humility, men denying all allegiance to responsible Government. They deserve nothing but condemnation. There has been a suggestion that we are calling for bloodshed. What we are calling for is the cessation of bloodshed.

The last Senator who spoke here mentioned that the Taoiseach said: "All Parties now know where they are," and he commends the action of the Government, in releasing the hunger-strikers. How does the statement of the Taoiseach yesterday, that all Parties now know where they are, fit in? He went into the Dáil and he stopped the operations of the Dáil, departed from the whole procedure there, to give a public assurance that there would be no release for the hunger-strikers, and then he released them. Yesterday he gave us an assurance that the Government are going to take their responsibilities seriously and see that any means that may be necessary will be used to put down this criminal organisation. He may tomorrow change his mind, just as he did with regard to the hunger-strikers. How are we to know where we stand, and how are any Parties to know where they stand?

I object very much to too much Government butting in. There is always a great difficulty in the whole question of government. On the one hand, you must have power which will cover any possible contingency and, on the other hand, you must preserve the right of the human being against the Government. Our criticisms have been directed towards giving the maximum protection to the rights of human beings in this State, while not leaving the Government with inadequate powers. The Government have an appalling responsibility. It is only just that they should be given the necessary powers.

Mr. Boland

I wonder is the Senator referring to the Attorney-General. If he is, I do not think that ought to be done.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I am not sure who it was.

I was gravely alarmed when I saw that the head of the Government here, responsible for the maintenance of law and for the administration of justice, had, for some reason or other, which is quite inexplicable to me, appealed to the British Government in relation to certain cases over in England. What would happen if the position were reversed, if Englishmen were over here blowing up our public buildings and murdering our people: if finally some of them were caught, found guilty of murder and sentenced, and if then the British Government began to make representations to us? Suppose our Government yielded and that those men did not receive the normal penalty of their crimes, you would have an opposition got up here —not this Opposition—howling that this country was now, as ever, dominated by England, saying that we were not free, and that our Government was only a machine and a tool, that it had no power whatever beyond carrying out the behests of England. There would be an awful outcry against British injustice and all the rest of it, but, judging from what one reads in the newspapers, that apparently is what has happened. We are not going to get anywhere in this country on the contemptible doctrine that anybody can do what he likes as long as he assures us that he is sincere about it. You must have a fixed norm of good and evil and a norm of morality. The norm of morality is that the Government is responsible for the well-being of the people. It has the power of life and death over everybody in the country. The law of this country is that, when a man illegally takes another man's life, he is duly sentenced with the appropriate penalty for that crime.

When you have such crime organised, it gives it a particular heinousness to my mind, a particular danger. As long as you have a situation when, by merely having a strong organisation, you can commit any crime you like, and win a certain amount of sympathy from ill-informed public opinion, then you are going to have a continuation of this cancer here. It is our duty to the unfortunate dupes, who at this moment are in the hands of their unscrupulous leaders in this organisation, to do all we can to make it abundantly clear to them that the course they are embarked upon is a course of darkness and of devilishness. This soft talk, recognising their sincerity, feeling that they are moved by no criminal motive, and all the rest of it, is unjust to those men as it is unjust to the people of this country. We have seen those crimes in almost every year. The murder of More-O'Ferrall has been referred to, as well as the murder of Admiral Somerville and the murder of that boy in Dungarvan. It is our duty to unfortunate possible victims that we should see that that thing ends for ever. It is our duty to our country that this slur on her good name should be removed once and for ever. It is our duty to ourselves and to our country that we should make it abundantly clear that our standard of equity, our norm of morality is as high as that of any other country in the world, and that we should put an end to this whining which has implicit within it the affirmation that we are an inferior people. It is, to my mind, a greater crime for an Irishman to go to England and blow up Englishmen than for Englishmen to come to Ireland and blow up Irishmen, because we rightly assume that our people have a higher standard of morality than the English, and, therefore, it would be a greater crime for us than for the English. I am going to support the Government on this Bill. I think that the support that we are giving is really a wiser and a better judged support than the kind of support that they got from their own side. I hope, in fact, there will be no division on this Bill.

Mrs. Concannon

When Senator Goulding was speaking from these Benches he reminded us of the importance of democracy and democratic institutions. It is a great pity, it seems to me, that most of the Senators had not that fact in mind before they made some of their speeches. I cannot imagine anything more likely to bring democracy and democratic institutions into disrepute than some of the things we have listened to for the last two days. Certain things were said here to-day that are calculated to do a great deal of harm. For instance, when Senators in this House talked about an undisciplined Army and a demoralised police force, they had no proof to offer. That is a frightfully dangerous and frightfully alarming thing to say. It should not be said by responsible Senators, and all Senators are responsible; the very word Senator means something responsible. Such things should not be said unless there is very grave proof for them.

It was a terrible thing to hear a Senator refer to the brave, unselfish young men who offered their services to the country in the hour of national need—the Volunteers; portion of them were referred to, at any rate—as a gang of scallywags and jailbirds. That is a very dreadful thing to appear on the records of this House. I did not mean to speak at all, but I did not think that should be allowed to go without protest. They were brave young men, who were unselfish enough to give up their time to come to the aid of the country in a national emergency, and it ill befits a Senator to speak in those terms. I think before Senators came into this House to take part in this debate it would have been a good preparation for their speeches if they had, first of all, read the Bills. Yesterday we had Senators telling us they were going to vote for the Bill which we were discussing, but apart from that they just took the opportunity of discharging all the personal bile and bitterness that they could, and of making very dangerous statements. It was simply deplorable.

I deplore, too, the implication that the Government is not fit to be charged with the powers that we are going to give them in those Bills. It is illogical to give them those powers if we do not think they will use them properly. When I say "use them properly" I do not mean what some of the Senators mean, that is, "use them ruthlessly". Ruthlessness defeats its object. It has never achieved anything in this country or in any other country. The Government is in the position of a father of a family, and all the people for whom they are legislating are the Government's children. They must be stern fathers when the occasion calls for it, but they must be understanding fathers, and they must know what is in the minds of those people. It is quite right that they should know what is in the minds of those people, and should not dub them criminals because they think they can do things which we think they are very foolish to try in the way they have adopted. At all events, the father of a family cannot be using the methods of bloodshed. He must be stern, but he must also be understanding. The Government must keep discipline in the country, and that is why we are giving them the wide powers contained in those Bills, but we do not want them to be ruthless; we do not wish them to be wanting in understanding. We must remember that the Government has a very difficult task.

If one looks at the map of Europe one sees the whole continent submerged by a rising flood of war and bloodshed. We stand, happily, amongst the peaks that emerge, but it is very easy to slip off into the tide, and no word should be uttered that will imperil the neutrality to which the country has committed itself. I say deliberately that those Bills are very important in maintaining the neutrality of the country, because we want to restrain people from committing us to make war whether we want it or not, and that is what certain people are doing.

We want to prevent that, and, therefore, we are giving the Government those powers to preserve our neutrality. At the same time, that is not enough. We ourselves, especially Senators, must have regard to the slippery slope on which we are, and must not forget how easy it is to slip off the emerged pinnacle on which we stand. I did not mean to speak at all, but I was anxious to point out that no word should be uttered in this or in the other House which would endanger our position. Every Senator should have a great sense of responsibility in what he says. Those speeches are carefully read all through the country. Ours is a politically minded country, and our people read every word of those speeches. Keeping that in mind, we should be careful to utter no word which would endanger our national safety, our neutrality, and would prevent the Government from acting in the way that would best secure our national aims.

Dr. Rowlette

There seems to have been an understanding in the early part of the debate to-day that every Senator who spoke should either declare his faith in or his hostility to the principle of habeas corpus, so I may as well preface the few sentences I wish to speak by declaring my own faith. In this matter I am on the side of the angels. I classify myself with Senator Sir John Keane and Professor Magennis, as well as with other notable authorities. It took me rather by surprise, and disappointed me in many ways, that some Senators did not believe in the sanctity—I have no hesitation in using the word— of individual liberty. I was particularly disappointed in the speech of a Senator who sits near me, who apparently said something which at any rate had the effect of prejudicing the minds of the Senators of this House against a Gaelic State. I do not want to pretend to be one of those who with great enthusiasm promote the idea of a return to a Gaelic State, but I learned to day that in such a State we could not expect to have regard for individual liberty or individual life.

Without being an authority on Gaelic history I must admit that that information, which reached me for the first time, has given me certain prejudices against the mission on which that Senator is, I think, employed. In another matter also he took me by surprise. He talked with vehemence—the word has been used already to-day— of revolution against legitimate authority, and it struck me as rather anomalous that he should do so. We are sitting in this House to-day as a result of a revolution which has taken place within our own memory. That habeas corpus became part of English law and practically, I suppose, in its present form, within the same generation as the revolution had taken place does not seem to me to be anything against that doctrine as embodied either in British law or in our law, and I think, as I said speaking on another Bill yesterday, that it is a doctrine which we should be very slow to tamper with either in theory or in fact.

Speaking yesterday, I expressed a certain reluctance to follow in full the advice, advice which was repeated in the address we have just heard from Senator Mrs. Concannon, that we should be willing to give full power to the Government in such an emergency as we have at present. I agreed with the rest of the Seanad in voting in favour of such powers being given, but I did so yesterday with some reluctance. I must admit that the reading of this morning's papers has greatly increased that reluctance. We had yesterday in this House and the other House responsible Ministers declaring that the recent raid that took place in the Phoenix Park was a matter of grave importance, that it was a matter the responsibility for which they would not shirk, that it was a matter the importance of which they would do nothing to minimise.

These statements were made by various Ministers. Speaking to-day, Senator Baxter stated—and I think he was correct in stating—that he believed that the people of this country are willing in an emergency to give full and cordial support to a Government which is prepared to do its best to end the disorder which unfortunately at present threatens us, but that the people should know what the mind of the Government was in the matter, whether they were really sincere in what they were asking or in the use to which they meant to put the powers for which they were asking the Oireachtas.

We heard many frank statements made in this House yesterday and in the Dáil a few days ago as to the seriousness of the present position in regard to the raid on the Magazine Fort. I took those statements at their full value. I believe that the Ministers who made those statements regarded that event of the 23rd December as a grave blow to the prestige of this State. It was, in my opinion, the greatest blow to the international prestige of this State since the termination of the civil war nearly 20 years ago. I believe that those Ministers regarded that incident as a slur on the reputation of our Army. All of us, whatever our party politics may be, and those of us who prefer not to assume that we have any party politics, took pride in our Army. We believed that its reputation would be above any attack either in regard to its gallantry or its loyalty. But, it is a slur on the reputation of the Army. Whether it is a slur on the gallantry or on the loyalty of the Army one would not attempt to say nor would I attempt to go into such a matter at the moment but there is a slur and definite damage to the prestige of the State when there is a slur on the reputation of the Army whose honour comes home to all of us.

What did I read on this morning's paper? That the Minister who more than any other member of the Government has been responsible for the Army during the whole time of their period of office regards the raid on the Magazine Fort as a "stunt." His colleagues regard it as a serious matter the importance of which they would not minimise. The Minister most responsible, who has been responsible for the longest period of time, regards it as a stunt, a joke, I suppose. I do not know the dictionary meaning of the word "stunt" or if it is in any dictionary and I know that many Senators are careful of the meaning of words. I have to use the word as it is used. Are we in the position that Senator Baxter said that the people of this country would like to be in or had the right to be in, that is to know what is the mind of the Government? Are we to accept the attitude of the Prime Minister, the attitude of the Minister for Justice, the attitude of the Minister for Industry and Commerce as representing the attitude and outlook of the Government or are we to take the view of the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence, that this whole thing is a stunt? I do not know. I do not know which represents the settled and mature opinion of the Government but I do suggest that these two opinions cannot be held together in a Government which is coherent and which can command the loyal support arid co-operation which the Minister I think quite properly asks for and which Senator Concannon has quite properly asked for. Until that is remedied I cannot see that they can hope to get that support to which as a Government representing the majority of the people of the country they are entitled. This view of mine has embarrassed me very much. My whole attitude is to support the Government. My whole wish is to support the Government which has been put into its position by the majority of the people of the country and in time of emergency I do not think that support should be withdrawn but I do say that the Government is making it very difficult for those who are most anxious to maintain this State in a position of respect at home and abroad, that they are increasing the difficulty of those supporters when they permit such differences of opinion to appear within the Government itself.

Mr. Brennan

I intend to detain the House for only a few moments. Listening to the debate in this House yesterday and to-day, it does seem to me that, whatever criticisms may be levelled against the present Government, it cannot be suggested that the Ministers comprising that Government have used any powers which have hitherto been entrusted to them either vindictively or extravagantly. That being so, I hope, despite the appeals which have been made in the debate yesterday and to-day, that the Government will continue that policy, that they will not allow themselves to be rushed into unnecessary extreme action which, in my view, will accentuate rather than alleviate the problems with which the country and the Government are faced at the present moment. No one realises more than I do the necessity to preserve individual liberty, but that does not blind me to the fact that there is something greater even than individual liberty, something greater than the Bill of Rights and greater than habeas corpus, which we have heard so much about yesterday. I had forgotten a great deal of my history in these matters until I listened to some speeches which came from Senators yesterday. But there is a greater thing even than the rights of the individual, and that is the very existence of the community. The rights of the community surely are of greater moment than the rights of any individual. If, as we were told in the course of the debate yesterday, and as has been repeated to-day, the existence of this State and the existence of its citizens is at stake, it does seem to me, not being charged with the government of this country, and not being in any way responsible for the government of this country, that I would be failing in my duty as a member of the House if I was not prepared to give to the Government the powers which they assure us are necessary in the present emergency. At the same time I would like to say to those who will be responsible for administering those powers, to the Minister and to the Government, not to be too ready to use those powers to any greater extent than is absolutely necessary, because I do feel that already in this country far too much blood has been shed in the past, and I am quite sure there is no desire on the part of anyone giving these powers to continue that policy. I do not consider that even at the present moment there is any necessity in this country for a policy of blood and iron. I am quite sure that the Government, when we give them these powers, will not use them in that way.

Senator Fitzgerald asked the Government to use these powers appropriately. I hope that is the way these powers will be used, and it is because I have the fullest confidence that the powers which will be conferred by this Bill will be used appropriately that I have no hesitation myself in voting for this measure as I voted for the measure which was passed by this House yesterday. As I have already said, I feel that far too much blood has been shed in this country in the past, and I hope that the aim of the Government will be not to take life, lightly or otherwise, but that their aim will be to save life; that their aim will be to use these powers in order to preserve, as I say, not merely the liberty of the individual but the liberty of the community and the liberty of the State.

Finally, there is one other matter to which I should like to refer. In the course of yesterday's debate one appeal was made which I felt should be listened to. That was the appeal made by Senator Tierney with regard to a united policy and a united front on the curse of Partition, which is largely the cause of the trouble and the difficulties with which the Administration is confronted at present. I feel that the sooner we have a united front in this part of the country with regard to that problem the better. After listening to the Taoiseach's speech yesterday, I feel that no one would be more pleased than he if a united front could be brought about on that question. In any event, we have to rely on the elected representatives of the people to produce a policy calculated to end that blot, that crime, against this country. In the meantime, until it is possible to bring about some measure of unanimity in this part of the country in regard to that problem, I feel that order and peace must be preserved and that the Government must not be denied the powers which they feel are necessary for the preservation of that peace and order.

Mr. Cummins

Many of the troubles with which we find ourselves confronted to day have their root in the immediate past. Listening to the speakers in this House yesterday, one was inevitably forced to think of what had brought about all this trouble. One section blamed the other. The Opposition blamed the Government and the Government, I must say, wisely abstained yesterday from saying much in their own defence. They could say a good deal. To my mind, the roots of this problem will be found in the actions of both Parties in the past. None of the two Parties, neither the big Party in power nor the Opposition, can throw stones at the other. Least of all can they throw stones at the Labour Party, who from the beginning of this quarrel, have been the chief factors in trying to establish peace. They are the one Party who have consistently stood out for peace and goodwill. If that peace and goodwill had been exercised, if forbearance had been exercised on both sides, the present position would not have arisen. In 1922 the Labour Party were largely instrumental in sending a united Party into power. That Party broke up for certain specific reasons. Unfortunately, political aspirations, ambitions and views—patriotic views, perhaps— rent them asunder.

A Senator

And jealousies.

Mr. Cummins

While the nation was in turmoil for the last 18 or 19 years, and while these same jealousies were in existence, that existed in spite of the Labour Party. The Labour Party tried to hold the balance of power, well knowing that the probability was that they would not be in a position to take office themselves. While the nation generally suffered economically as a result of these political quarrels, the people whom the Labour Party represented suffered most, as they always will in times of unrest. In warfare, whether it be warfare conducted with lethal weapons or economic warfare, the people who suffer most are the people whom the Labour Party represent. In spite of all our entreaties, in spite of all our pleadings, to-day when the two Parties find themselves in difficulties, they alternately lash at each other ferociously, and throw themselves into each other's arms. It is a rather peculiar position. I am sorry to say that I can give no credit to the Opposition. I think their speeches in both Houses betrayed evidence of a virulence that is not likely to promote peace.

Their speeches have exhibited a virulence and a desire to cast aspersions on some of our people that cannot be helpful. Some very objectionable speeches have been made on the part of the Opposition, speeches that are not helpful to the Government in power. They are not helpful to the prestige of the nation and they are of no use for any purpose except for the purpose of political propaganda for their own side. They have got a very good Press this morning, I see. Their speeches have been tabulated in a wonderful way in the Press and that, unfortunately, will leave its mark upon the country in a very undesirable way. I must say that in this House and in the other House the Opposition have done great discredit to themselves.

On the other side, I should say that the Government were very remiss in allowing an Emergency Powers Act to go through that could not stand the test of the courts. I believe that before, and not now, was the time for the Government to be alert in that matter. Whether they were ill-advised legally, or for what reason it was, I do not know, but an awkward position was created. I do think that the crisis was precipitated by certain decisions of the courts. I have very great sympathy with those people who are out for the attainment of ideals which they believe have been let down by both Parties. I believe that was the origin of the trouble when certain sections remained outside the Oireachtas. I will not say that all individuals concerned are included in that section but certain sections which remained outside have the idea that the ideals which were at one time generally held, were not being realised and that there was no prospect of their being realised except through the medium of force. I sympathise with those people but I should say at the same time, that I have no faith in their methods. The fact that the Labour Party are voting against this Bill is a gesture rather of censure and reproof of both Parties—the Opposition and the Government. The Labour Party believes that this Bill would not be necessary had the Government or their predecessors done the job with which the people entrusted them. I should say that this vote should not be taken as an expression of approval on the part of the Labour Party of those who are using subversive methods to attain what they believe are the ideals which are at the back of their heads.

Partition is a big issue in this matter. Most of the ammunition which has disappeared from the national Magazine has made its way north which is an evident indication of the purpose for which it is intended. That is a pity. I believe that while partition exists any Government in this country will have some elements to contend with and while those elements cannot do it in the open in organised political groups they will—as in all generations for the last 700 years —resort to subversive methods. I say, therefore, that the vote of the Labour Party should not be taken as an approval of those subversive methods but should be taken rather as a gesture upholding the Government of the present and the Government of the past.

We have to vote against this Bill but would be glad to give any possible powers to the Government to maintain order in this country, knowing that the Party we represent will be the first, the last and the principal sufferers. On this occasion, however, we cannot do so but say at the same time to the people outside responsible for these subversive methods that the vote of the Labour Party should not be taken as approval of their persistence in those subversive methods, that there are legal ways of doing that which they seek and that they should adopt those instruments.

Mr. Madden

I did not intend to say a word and my words to-day shall be but few. Sitting here last evening and to-day I could only hope that we had no foreign visitors listening to the invective, the trade, the personalities and bitterness that were evidenced here yesterday and to-day from each side of the House. The speeches unquestionably were a disgrace, in my opinion, to the most moderate and least intelligent old board of guardians that existed thirty years ago. I was amazed to hear Senator Cummins say that the Opposition—as it is termed here, though I disagree with it—and the Government Party were in each others arms yesterday. I saw no amiability at all and I saw none of that amorous disposition of which he spoke.

Mr. Cummins

They were in the same lobby.

Mr. Madden

We have come here after a period of peace on earth to men of good will. Happenings during the last week or ten days have come upon that atmosphere of peace and created reactions and perturbations upon the whole balance of the mind of the people. What has created that awful atmosphere? The clearing out of that place in the Phoenix Park. The primary and fundamental duty of a Government is to maintain law and order, and every citizen has the right to select that form of government and that policy to which he is prepared subsequently to submit. The Government has bilateral obligations to the people. They are supposed to give service to the people and to give them a fulfilment of the basic promises they made which extracted from the people the authority and right to govern.

There is only one reason why I stood up to-day. I regret to have to do it. I did not like the imputation made by my friend and colleague here, Senator Counihan, against the Volunteer force. I did not like that; I really think—and I say it most respectfully—that he ought to withdraw the allegation. He may have been speaking only about a small percentage of the Army. Personally, I was glad at the creation of that Army and that for one specific reason, which I gave to quite a number of my political colleagues. They may have argued adversely, but I said to them that there is one good thing it will do. The Government are going to get something in the region of 17,000 young fellows, many of them probably not occupied, and the one good thing that will be the ultimate and reasonable outcome of the creation of that force is that it will make them useful citizens of the State, it will teach them discipline and respect for authority, it will be an inspiration to them to respect the institutions of the State and to recognise that there is such a thing as a Government elected by the people to direct the interests and energies of those institutions. I said that it will create both in the physical and mental capabilities of that section, about 17,000 of our youth, a splendid outlook, vision and anticipation of what their duties as soldiers and citizens of the State ought to be. That was my concept of the creation of the Volunteer force and I have seen no reasons, except very few, to disabuse my mind that it was so.

There is only one thing that gave me reason to wonder. There are many things which can be stated with only a certain amount of authenticity. Another Senator may stand up and say: "Senator Madden, will you give proof of that?" There are many things which it is hard to establish in fact, but which one accepts in perfect good faith from a friend of whose veracity and whose reliability you are in no doubt. I am sure some Senators must be in possession of the information which I am going to give now in this House. The one thing I did not like about the force was that they brought into their barracks a political atmosphere. There were political disputations going on. That is perfectly true, and this is my point. These political disputations and arguments are continued indefinitely between what was known as the established regular Army and the Volunteer force. I have given my opinion about the purpose and spirit in the creation of that force by the present Government, and in that I was at variance with many of my colleagues. There is only this one thing which might be the cause of very serious reactions and repercussions of the incident which happened in the Park and which we are talking of this evening, and that one thing is the political talk going on in the barrack rooms. I am afraid that I cannot give definite proof here upon this question, but I have been told by authorities whose word I cannot doubt, that it impaired, endangered and had certain ill effects upon the discipline of the established Army which may have been the cause of what happened in the Park.

I was greatly impressed by the remarks of Senator Mrs. Concannon, and I deplore many of the speeches that we have heard here in the last two days. They did not, in my opinion, raise the tone or the dignity of the House. Senator Mrs. Concannon definitely said that Senators, no matter to what Party they belong, ought to appreciate the responsibility of every statement they make, in their capacity as Senators, and I have carried that out outside this House. I may have said hard things and strong things here, and I shall say them again, and I was predisposed to go with the current of argument here, but on seeing that much of it had no regard to justice or equity, or even democracy, I refrained from doing so. I agree with Senator Mrs. Concannon and, since being elected to this House, at meetings of the many public boards with which I am associated, I am extremely careful of every word I say, lest I should say anything which might interfere with the responsibilities of my office, or bring danger to the position of the Government. I believe that, especially in these critical times, the whole country ought to be united behind the Government in the maintenance of law and order and in assisting them to give what it is the primary duty of the Government to give to every citizen, the maximum of comfort, peace and prosperity, with the minimum of taxation, the minimum of bullets and the minimum of the hangman's rope.

Mr. E. Lynch

The similarity of the Bill before us and the Bill we discussed yesterday makes it unnecessary for those of us who spoke extensively on the Bill yesterday to speak at any great length on this Bill. The Bill yesterday, however, was of a temporary character, while the Bill we are now discussing is of a permanent character, and to that extent there is some fundamental difference. This Bill is in more detailed form and lays down, in a detailed and permanent manner, many matters to which we in this Party took exception yesterday. Before I proceed to discuss some aspects of this Bill to which we take exception, I should like to make special reference to the remarks of Professor Tierney in relation to some matters on which I spoke yesterday. When discussing the Bill yesterday, we did so from the point of view that the right of habeas corpus was being destroyed by that Bill. I regret that I was not here this forenoon when Senator Tierney professed to take me to task, for what he considered my undue appreciation of British law. I think Senator Tierney ought to recognise that in speaking of habeas corpus yesterday, I was speaking of an enactment taken over and embodied in our law here by the Adaptation of Enactments Act, 1922, and that, consequently, I was speaking of the Act of 1679 as an adapted enactment of this country.

We discussed the Bill yesterday on that basis and, briefly, our objection to this legislation is that we feel that the right guaranteed by habeas corpus should not be treated lightly. We think it is being jeopardised, and we feel that, no matter what has been said here or elsewhere, there are not circumstances in existence in this country to-day to warrant the destruction of that fundamental right of the citizen.

However, the Minister in charge of the Bill tells us that there is such a state or condition of affairs existent in the country. He says, in the same breath, that the Government, while it has knowledge, has not got power to bring what they would call culprits to book for their activities, because they are unable to produce evidence which would prove the guilt of such people. All we can say in reply to that is that such a mental condition in a Government is dangerous because it is the negation of all law. The right of the citizen to freedom is fundamental, and can only be taken from him if he is in some way culpable, or, as the lawyers say, in delicto, in some shape or form. The moment the Government of a country gets into such a condition of mind as to say: “We are unable to prove that you are culpable, but we propose to take from you your liberty”, I say that that Government has reached a state of nerves which the circumstances in this country do not warrant.

I notice that in Section 4, it is the "opinion" of a Minister of State which may cause the arrest and detention of a citizen. Why should it be a Minister? Ministers are human beings, and, being human beings, may have prejudices. Why should not a person, if he is to be detained, be detained by the authority of the Government collectively, and not by a Minister personally?

I hope the Minister, when replying in regard to this Bill, will tell us why the individual Minister is endowed with this supreme power and authority. Surely, there must be some reason for substituting the collective action of the Government, and giving such an extraordinary power to a particular Minister. There might be some safety if it were an action and authority proceeding from the Government collectively, but I say the danger, to which I referred originally, is emphasised and developed by leaving the sole right and authority to a particular individual, such as a Minister.

I want to call attention to the Schedule to the Bill, which is in the form of warrant under Section 4. This warrant proceeds from Section 4 and the court to be set up is to be composed of one officer and two legal men. Why should there be such a court when we have already in existence a judiciary? Of course that brings us back to our fundamental objection to this Bill. Our point, which I need hardly emphasise, is that anyone considered a malefactor should be tried in accordance with the rules of law. Where a person is arrested for being a malefactor then he should in our opinion, be brought before the ordinary judiciary and thereby tried.

Sir John Keane

And a jury.

Mr. Lynch

I said the ordinary judiciary. Surely that is clear enough to anyone who knows what a judiciary is. In regard to the commission, the onus is left on the individual to make a case before it. Under the ordinary rules of our criminal procedure, where a man is indicted for an offence the obligation is on the State to proceed against the individual by way of indictment, but here the onus of making the case before this tribunal to be set up under the Bill is left on the shoulders of the individual. I should point out in the first instance, that in regard to this mixed court of soldiers and lawyers, like all mixed ingredients you will not get as much satisfaction as if it were a court composed altogether of soldiers or altogether of civilians and lawyers. If composed entirely of soldiers it would undoubtedly be a courtmartial to all intents and purposes. Some one has well said about martial law that it is no law, and if this commission was composed of three soldiers, then it would be a courtmartial, and the individual to be brought before such a court would receive no law. Here you have a mixed court of soldiers and legal men.

In regard to legal men, being legally trained in the rules of evidence, they can only entertain the case submitted to them in accordance with the rules of evidence. A legal man's mind is trained under rules of evidence which have grown up over a long period of civil society giving the benefit of the doubt to the arraigned, because it has been said that it were better that ten culprits should escape rather than one innocent man be punished. Consequently, the rules of evidence under our law are extremely stringent, giving that benefit of the doubt to the person arraigned. Here in this commission a legal man, with his mind influenced, as it must be, must throw aside entirely all the rules in which he has been trained, of giving the benefit of the doubt to the individual arraigned before him, and he is expected to analyse and give a decision in a case where, apparently, rules of evidence are non-existent. If they are introduced at all, they can have no influence whatever on the minds of one-third of the court, because one-third are soldiers who have not been trained in the rules of evidence. What kind of decision one can get out of such a court I do not know. No one, having regard to such a mixed court, could give an opinion. Perhaps the Minister with his better knowledge of the circumstances might be able to give some opinion as to what is likely to transpire from such a mixed court sitting on cases of this character.

Another point arises where a person, who has been arrested and placed in one of these concentration camps, has decided to bring his case before this commission, and has been acquitted. Will a right of action for wrongful arrest and detention of that individual lie against the Minister or anyone else who has been responsible for his detention? Surely, having regard to human frailty, we might have vexatious arrests. It is clear from the debates in this House, and in other places, that political gentlemen with controversial views do not like one another. That was fairly evidenced here and elsewhere yesterday. Supposing this power of arrest and detention were vexatiously applied, and a person was put into a concentration camp, and his rights invaded by being kept there any time, no matter how small the duration of time, and if he subsequently brought his case before this court and was allowed out, has he any right of action? Is he entitled to any damages for that wrongful detention or for detention? It is not clear whether being free, and with no stain on his character, he is entitled to any damages for being so wrongfully arrested and detained. To us these are some of the weaknesses which go to emphasise the dangerous nature of this legislation but, having made our protest on the entire principle of the Bill, the subsequent matters are not of very great importance. However, I wish to call attention to them.

Mr. O'Dwyer

Despite the speeches that have taken place during the last few days, there does not seem to be any doubt but that it is our duty to support this Bill if the liberty and the peace of the county are in danger. We have absolute freedom here, and what I might call a perfect democracy. The people are the supreme governors of the country. They have elected a Government and when the time comes they will have the opportunity of electing an alternative Government, if they wish to do so.

There has been a growing revolutionary movement by an armed force that does not recognise the institutions. set up by the people of the country. We may sympathise with some of their objects, but whatever their immediate objects or professed aims, we have only to look around the world to-day to see what the result of such a movement may be. The only possible end of such a movement, if it succeeded, would be the overthrow of the people's Government here and the establishment of a military dictatorship. There is no use in blinking the fact that that would be the result of an armed revolutionary movement, if it succeeded, and it is well that we should face the situation.

We know well, and we are told by the Minister, that the trouble for the Government is that they are not in a position to bring those who are responsible before the ordinary courts. Although they know the people who are responsible and what the movement is being prepared for, they have no evidence, and could not possibly obtain evidence, on which they could bring those responsible before the ordinary courts. Every one of us knows that the Minister spoke the truth when he said that that is the case. That being the case, if that movement is not checked it can only mean the overthrow of this State. There is no ordinary means of checking that movement. What can the Government do? The only possible thing, the only humane thing, was to bring in the present Bill. There was no alternative for them. If they did not bring in this Bill, the only alternative would be to wait until the movement had grown to its full strength and the country was faced with a civil war.

The purpose of the Bill is not to apply any ruthless methods. Its object is clear on the face of it. These men clearly are engaged in an organised or revolutionary movement, and, for the sake of the country, for the sake of the victims of what might become a civil war at any moment, and for the sake of those engaged in that movement, all of them young people who are easily misled, the Government have brought in this Bill which enables them to take these men and put them into detention. The passage of time, a few months or a year, may change the whole situation, may bring peace in Europe, and a general spirit of peace all over the world. At any rate, this Bill will save this country from what is practically the only alternative—a civil war. I am surprised that the Labour Party should have seen fit to oppose this Bill. I think it is a Bill which is brought in in the interests of democracy and humanity, and it is the duty of every member of this Seanad and the Oireachtas to support the Government in the effort they are making to preserve the lives and the peace of the community.

Mr. Boland

As one Senator said, I do not think that the debate to-day or yesterday, either in this House or in the other, is going to be of much help to the Government. As I said yesterday, I would prefer if some of the people who supported us had refused to support us, because they attacked us at the same time, and said that we were incompetent and unworthy of being given these powers, and so nullified what they had said in support of the Bill. It was as if a man took away with one hand what he had given with another. I was surprised that Senator Counihan should have made the remarks he made about the Volunteers, because that is a very bad thing.

There may be, in fact there is bound to be, in any large body of men some who are not all that we would like them to be. It is a pity that a man of the Senator's experience in public life should have gone as far as he did. It was really too bad. The worst of it is that he did not see his way to withdraw his statement. I was amazed at it. I did not think the Senator was of that type at all.

We are starting off now, having got these powers, with the handicap that we have been pilloried in the most vicious way—I will not say in this House; it was not too bad here. There were two speakers here who were bad in that respect, but they were not so bad as those in the other House. Therefore, I really feel that we are starting off with a great handicap. But, whether we are or not, I can assure the House that we are going to go through with this job; that we are not going to take any more of this nonsense; and that is all about it. I do not care how people take it; they can take it anyway they like. I was listening to Senator Fitzgerald for a long time and I must say that I must agree with some of the things he said, although I did not like the way he said them. I suppose we are tempted to blow our own horns occasionally. I sometimes do it myself.

As regards this movement outside I, as an individual member of the other House, made my position quite clear years ago. As I said last night, I do not want to debate the 1922 position any more; neither do I apologise for it. I wish we could all agree to that. But, my attitude as to the continuance of that physical force movement was made clear, not on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill in 1931, but I believe on a Supplementary Estimate brought in afterwards. I gave my account of it on that occasion. I told how I had met an old friend of mine, a man for whom I had the highest regard at one time; an old comrade, as Senator Ua Buachalla has called some of them, with whom I had the pleasure of going through a very difficult time. During a conversation which I had with him on the street he accused me, of course, of having gone down the slippery slope and all the rest. I told him that, in my opinion, he had gone down a far more slippery and far steeper slope and that he had unconsciously become a criminal. I took the opportunity, when speaking on that Supplementary Estimate, of repeating in public what I had already said in private—that he and a lot of my old comrades, carried away no doubt by mistaken enthusiasm, had unconsciously become criminals, but none the less criminals. I still feel that way; in fact, I feel more that way now than ever I did.

It is all very well saying that people are not criminals, but, if crimes are committed, the people who commit those crimes cannot be called anything else. That is the attitude of the plain man, and I hope I am a plain man. I have heard many Senators here saying, "I speak as an ordinary citizen." I may want an interpreter, but I try to be as plain as I can. What I say is that a man who commits a crime is a criminal. If that is not clear enough, I cannot make it any clearer. I do not care whether a man was a friend or comrade of mine in the past or not—it is all the same to me; if he commits a crime he should be made amenable for it and should be treated the same as any other criminal. The audacity of people who, as I said last night, were only elected once, and that 20 years ago, and who claim to speak for this nation is simply appalling and I cannot understand it.

I can certainly say, so far as the Government's attitude is concerned, and so far as I am concerned personally, that we are not going to tolerate any more of this. We have been charged with vacillation and all the rest. I am not going to make any apology for that, because, as some Senator said, the roots of this thing are undoubtedly in the past. We have got to deal with it whether it comes from the past or not. I should like to remind some of the present-day saints, as I described the ex-President in the other House—some of them became saints a year before I did, if I am yet one—that these things did not start in 1922. I do not mind making another confession regarding the time I was attached to the Volunteer movement. I do not refer to 1916. I was very proud of what happened at that time. Many a time I blushed, I admit, for the things done by both sides after that, and I often asked myself if I was justified in continuing in the movement. Whether I was right or not, I do not know. I often had a big question mark to my mind as to whether I was justified or not in remaining in a movement which did some of these things. The excuse I made for myself was that circumstances probably justified me. In any event, I was chancing it because I was hoping we would succeed. The roots go back to these days, and it is no use for a Senator who was a Minister for a few years forgetting that he took part in this movement and making no allowance for anybody else. There was a dead stop since. Years have gone by since then and there is no excuse on God's earth for any group to say that they are determined, whether the Government agree or not, to right our wrongs. They are not able to do it, and they have no right to attempt to do it. They have every opportunity to get the people of the country to adopt their policy.

In one of these pirate broadcasts— I think it was on the night the set was captured—a voice was heard saying: "Let de Valera step out of the way." The cheek of that! "Let the Government elected by the Irish people stand out of the way and we will finish the job for them." Let them go and put that policy before the Irish people and if the Irish people say it is the right policy, we shall all follow it. At any rate, I certainly will. If it is the opinion of the Government of the country at any time that there is a chance of our winning a fight with Britain with arms, if I am young enough to help, I shall do it. But not till then. There should be no more nonsense about this, no more muddled thinking. I hope I am making clear where the Government stand and I am speaking for the Government.

As regards the question of vacillation and letting out the hunger-strikers, I do not want to run away from that either. I admit that, on the surface, it looks bad. It looks like weakness and it may be very hard to justify making a statement and going back on it. But there are all sorts of considerations. We have got to deal with a very delicate problem and members of a Government have to listen to cases made by responsible members of the Oireachtas who come to them and put up propositions. These propositions were not made in public, but I may mention a matter that was put to me. I am breaking no confidence because I shall mention no names.

A prominent member of the Opposition said to me in private—I mention no names and I hope I am breaking no confidence; this was a man who had taken very strong action against these people—that, in his view, we were not entitled to let these people die on hunger strike because, due to our attitude and general policy towards these people in the past, they were entitled to believe that, if they went on hunger strike, we would let them out. He said:

"You did not make this announcement before they went on hunger strike and I believe you are bound not to let them die."

Things like that had to be borne in mind, but I can assure this House that we are not going to let people take the law into their own hands and that we shall not be prevented from detaining them if we are satisfied they must be detained. Our patience has certainly been tried. Our policy of conciliation has got perhaps an over-trial. I think that is on the credit side, and I wish to pay a tribute to Senator Tierney for having said so much—that it was well worth while to have tried it. We tried that ad nauseam. We may have gone too far, but that has got to stop. There is no question of ruthlessness or rigour, but I am sure that there is going to be insistence that everybody in this country will obey the law.

We have had a lot of talk about the suspension of habeas corpus. There is no such thing as suspending habeas corpus. We need not go back to Runnymede or Magna Charta in this connection; we have our own Constitution. I am fully aware of the significance of Magna Charta. I am not a great historian, but I read my history when going to school and, though it is not very fresh in my mind, I know at least one side of the story about Runnymede. We have our Magna Charta here; we have Article 40 of our Constitution and that should be good enough for anybody without going to Runnymede or anywhere else. Clause 4 of Article 40 says:

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

As a matter of fact, we let people out because the judge held they were not interned according to law. This Bill is intended to make sure that nobody shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the law and in accordance with the Constitution. That should be sufficient for Senator Sir John Keane, no matter how often he wags his head. The law passed by the representatives of the people is there and it ought to be good enough. The guarantee of personal liberty will not be taken away except according to law. That is all I have got to say on the question of habeas corpus—that the liberty of the citizen is not going to be interfered with save in accordance with law.

Senator Fitzgerald brought us to task for using the Offences Against the State Act in the so-called farmers' strike. He purported to quote somebody else in the other House as saying that the law officer of the State has prostituted his position by certifying that the ordinary courts could not function. He gave way to allow me to correct him and I pointed out that there was no question of the ordinary courts not functioning but that there was a question of the ordinary courts being adequate.

That is the certificate we got—that the courts were inadequate. The situation was very menacing and it was growing daily. Outrages were occurring all over the Leinster counties. People were prevented from going about their lawful avocations. They could not bring their produce to fair or market. Where cattle and agricultural produce had been sent to markets and fairs against the ukase of some of these people, fines were actually imposed.

As I said last night, very little arms were used. We saw to that. But it was starting and, when one person fires a shot, we know what happens. I think it was in Carlyle's "French Revolution" the opinion was given that if one shot that was fired had not been fired the whole affair would have been avoided. One Swiss Guard let his gun off and there was a massacre as a result. One shot is enough to start a big conflagration. We saw people being stopped from doing what they had a perfect right to do—attend fairs and markets. We saw that position when the world was in a state of disorder, with war all round us. People are not the same during a time of war as they ordinarily are. We knew that these other elements were in the country. We also saw Peace Commissioners refusing to do their duty—whether through fear or favour, I am not prepared to say. That was the position with which we were faced and we saw that these conditions were going to increase and magnify. The object of the people concerned was to procure something which they had failed to get the people to agree to in two or three general elections. In other words, they were using force to compel the Government to concede something which the people had refused at a few general elections. How in the face of that can we be accused of using these powers unjustifiably? We have no intention of doing any such thing. Senator Foran and other members of the Labour Party can be perfectly certain that, so far as trade disputes are concerned, we have not the slightest intention of using these powers. But if a strike takes place and people use force, whether guns or sticks, we shall have to interfere. We cannot allow that.

Mr. Foran

Hear, hear!

Mr. Boland

The Senator says "hear, hear," and I know that that is his sentiment also. There is no fear that we will allow that kind of thing to take place. That, however, is the kind of thing that is being done here, and we are not going to allow it. I do not want to prolong this debate. I am only trying to make the best case I can for this legislation. The primary object of this Bill, as I have said, is to ensure that what we are doing is done in accordance with law. That is all there is about it. If this Bill is passed, we are satisfied that the Uachtarán will present the Bill to the Supreme Court and that we will get from that court a decision as to whether or not it is in accordance with law, and then, on that decision, our future course will be decided. That is our main object in connection with this Bill. In the Bill that was passed yesterday we have got the powers to enable us to carry on for a period. I do not think I have anything else to say on the matter except that we can carry on now and that we are going to be firm in administering this. In saying that, I do not mean that we are going to be unjust—I do not think we ever have been unjust—and if we make mistakes, there is a remedy there.

He has not, but he is the man who knows what the situation is; he has got the reports about these people and knows all about them, but when it comes down to giving evidence in black and white before a court, the Minister will fail, although he has the full knowledge of what is going on and could swear to it. We cannot wait until these people come out, as I think Deputy McGilligan said in the Dáil, and do something desperate before we would be entitled to move against them.

Surely we are not living in a fool's paradise. We are practical men and men with our eyes open. We know the facts of the situation—the actual hard facts—and why we are in a hurry for this Bill is that we are afraid that these people mean to do some of these things very soon, if they are let. That is why this is so urgent. We cannot get the guns; we do not know where they are; but we shall do our best to hold those who would be in a position to lead any such movement or take active part in it. We will do our best and we will try to convict them, but, if we cannot, we are taking no chances. I think we can risk making a few individuals lose their liberty for a few months, or as long as may be necessary, so that the whole country may survive and the ordinary citizen may go about his every-day affairs, and so that this Government will carry on as any Government is entitled to do in modern times.

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

The Seanad divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 6.

Tá

Alton, Ernest H.
Blaney, Neal.
Brennan, Joseph. Byrne, Christopher M.
Colbert, Michael.
Concannon, Helena.
Conlon, Martin.
Counihan, John J.
Fitzgerald, Desmond.
Goulding, Seán.
Hawkins, Frederick.
Hayes, Michael.
Hayes, Seán.
Healy, Denis D.
Honan, Thomas V.
Johnston, James.
Keane, Sir John.
Kennedy, Margaret L.
Lynch, Peter T.
Mac Fhionnlaoich, Peadar (Cú Uladh).
McGee, James T.
Madden, David J.
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.
Stafford, Matthew.

Níl

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

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

Question declared carried.

Seanad Éireann debate - Friday, 5 Jan 1940