I must say I was a little bit surprised by Senator Hearne, because I felt at the time that Senator Sir John Keane and Senator O'Sullivan were speaking on this motion that they were confusing, very much, two entirely different points. I am afraid that though I listened to them, and though I read with care in the Official Report both speeches after the debate, I found nothing in them to suggest to me, at any rate, that there was in either of their minds any question of endeavouring by this motion, or by a discussion on it, to involve us in the present conflict.
I think, however, that it was very undesirable, and I say so with respect, that they should have confused what are two entirely different questions. The first question is what I might perhaps describe as the political question, as to whether or not the matter in this book should or should not have been suppressed. I have not read The House of Gregory and I have no intention of reading it, and do not propose to discuss for a moment here in this House whether the book should or should not be suppressed, or whether the review which was read out should or should not have been suppressed. Still less do I propose to suggest—this might perhaps be understood—that the real purpose of this motion should have been to raise the censorship question, because if that was the real purpose, then the whole question of censorship should have been raised in a far more direct manner.
What I do want to say is purely on the question of procedure in this case and in other cases. So far as I can understand the facts, and I do not think the Minister contradicted them, the proofs of this book were submitted to his Department in the ordinary galley forms, and having been submitted to his Department, the Department returned those proofs with certain amendments and stated that the book could be printed with those amendments.
Some time later, the Department called again for the proofs, and I differ very violently from Senator O'Sullivan's suggestion that it was a very reprehensible thing to call again for the proofs. If the Department decided, even at that stage, that a mistake had been made, so long as nobody had been harmed in the interval, I can see no objection to recalling the proofs to consider the question again. So far as I can ascertain, there had been no additional expense incurred in that interval, and therefore, no interest had been harmed. But then, having again passed the proofs, we find that this step was taken by the Minister, that the man who had laid out his money in printing this book in good faith, was prevented from being able to get back that money. I am not going to question the wording of a review because I say this, that the Minister could have quite easily, if he wanted to deal with the matter, deleted such portion of that review as he considered objectionable, and have refused to allow that portion to be published. Where I find myself in real conflict with the Minister on this question of procedure is on his refusal to allow the publication in The Bell of the fact that the book came from Browne and Nolan at 15/-. I cannot see what possible harm that would have done. I cannot see what possible controversy it could have started and I cannot see either, if it started a controversy, why the Minister could not have shut down, and shut down very properly, on such a controversy.
My whole reason for rising at all to discuss this motion is to protest against the manner and the procedure in which this particular censorship has been adopted in this case, with a view to ensuring that people in the future who are allowed to expend their money will not be prevented from getting it back in the ordinary way. The Minister in his reply had one sentence towards the end: "I am sorry that the publishers concerned do not seem to have been fully aware of the law and of the Emergency Powers in this matter." I would very much like to hear from the Minister some enlightenment as to the law of which they were not aware, because, so far as I can find out, the only law for them is to submit the proofs and when they submit the proofs they can publish what has been passed by the censorship. It seems to me that there ought to be a clearer procedure in the censorship office in the future, so that when a man is allowed to go to a great deal of expense, he will be permitted, unless he is warned, to get back that expenditure through the ordinary channels, unless he is warned exactly how he would be prohibited from using those ordinary channels.
Let us take it for a moment that that warning is not given, as it was not given in this case, and afterwards the Minister, in his position as the Controller of the Censorship Department, decides that it is unwise to allow the man to go ahead as he had originally intended. That is what he decided in this case. If the Minister decides that, then I entirely agree with him that the question of inconvenience must not be allowed to override the security of the State, but, if inconvenience means also monetary harm to an individual, then while that inconvenience must be suffered, I suggest it is up to the Government to reimburse that individual for the mistake made by the Government Department in the first instance.
I want, too, to refer to another point. That is the question of the censorship of the agenda of this House. We are not in this House merely to give effect to our own opinions. Neither are Deputies in the other House there merely to give effect to their personal opinions. We are all here to give effect, so far as we can, to the opinions of the people we represent, and I would suggest to the Minister that it is quite impossible for us to know the opinions of the people we represent unless the business on which we are to be asked our opinion is published in the daily Press. I am not going to suggest that the Minister is incorrect in prohibiting an editorial, or something like that, but I am suggesting that it is an abuse of the privileges of this House to prevent the agenda being published and that unless the agenda of this House is published, it is impossible for the members of the House to obtain the opinions of those people we are supposed to represent here.
I think that is a point as well as the question of procedure which should be considered very carefully by the Minister and which should be considered clearly by this House, and may I say, finally, that in my opinion, one of the great things that has come out of this emergency is the spirit of unity among the people and the spirit that we got from the voluntary defence services, that we were willing to consider Irishmen for what they are to-day, and not for what they were otherwise. So long as men are of the right Irish outlook at present, it should not matter what their outlook had been before. I think that spirit is not quite frankly assisted by going back into the antecedents of members of this House, or members of any other House.
