I would like to make my contribution to the very interesting debate in which, I may say, the high lights were contributed by An Seanadóir Sir Seán O Catháin and the Minister——
Censorship of Parliamentary Debates—Motion (Resumed).
An Ridire.
You are making a great attempt at it.
I would like to make the remark that the Senator's name goes more readily into the Irish tongue than either the Minister's name or my own name. It is possible that he is racially and psychologically the best Irishman of the three of us. I would like to believe that the ideals to which he gave expression in his speech command a certain amount of sympathy in the breasts of many of us, though I can understand that there were certain things he said which annoyed you and with which I, personally, would not agree. However, I approach this matter from the point of view of keeping to the facts of the case as closely as I can and, if possible, emphasising those aspects of the matter in which the debate rambled rather farther away from the point of the motion than was appropriate.
The first fact to which I would draw your attention is a geographical one, that the Minister comes from County Armagh, just as I come from County Tyrone. I suspect that he and I are willing exiles from that part of the country and willing residents in this part of Ireland, but that is about all we have in common.
I am not so sure, Sir.
A well-known Irish judge said about 30 years ago with reference to County Armagh in the month of July, following Cicero, Inter Armagh, leges silent. In other words, there is no such thing as law in the County Armagh. That may be a libel on the county in question, but if there is any element of truth in that statement, it accounts for a lot of things, and it accounts, in particular, for the mentality of the Minister who is a typical product of the County Armagh, in the sense that he is incapable of appreciating the arguments and rational considerations that go to making the administration of the law. Now, George Bernard Shaw said on one occasion, if I am not libelling that eminent Irishman, that a woman is incapable of understanding any argument except a poker and a pair of hobnailed boots. That is perhaps a libel on the fair sex.
Perhaps.
If there is any element of truth in the statement at all, I suspect that the Minister has a somewhat feminine mentality. On the other hand, I have no intention of coming in here with a poker and a pair of hobnailed boots in order to deal with the Minister, because I believe that I would not get the best of that form of argument with him. May I explain the Minister's mentality by another little story? There is in County Armagh, and especially in the southern part of it, a certain remnant or fraction of the population whose ancestors came there as Cromwellian planters, and they still retain, both in physical appearance and mental outlook, many of the qualities of those Cromwellian Ironsides, and most of them, I need hardly say, are Orangemen of the deepest dye. Now, in the year 1918 there was a well known and very important election held in this country, and a friend of mine——
On a point of order, Sir, is this ethnological statement relevant to the matter before the House?
I think, Senator, that it is rather by way of a prelude to the main argument.
Well, at the time of that election, a friend of mine was canvassing on behalf of Sinn Féin, and he and others visited the house of an Orangeman in the district and tried to persuade the owner of the house that it would be sound and good policy to vote for the Sinn Féin candidate in the coming election. My informant told me that the man of the house listened calmly to all they had to say, while they told him all about Ireland's cause, and so on, and that then he said: "Wait till I get my stick"; and according to my informant his heels were not visible for dust until he went down the lane and visited a neighbouring house, where, probably, he had a similar experience. Now, I am only giving that as an instance of a typical Cromwellian answer or method of reasoning, and I suggest that if the Minister wants to see a twin brother to that Cromwellian Orangeman, he has only to look in the glass.
Senator Sir John Keane seemed to look at Cromwell with a certain amount of admiration. I am afraid that I cannot share his admiration for Cromwell, and I do not think the Senator was justified in his remarks. The Senator seemed to regard Cromwell as a great advocate and defender of Parliamentary institutions, but, in my view, Cromwell was the most successful leader of a Fascist Revolution in his own or any other European country. Accordingly, I suggest that when a man with Cromwell's temperament, such as the Minister seems to have, is on the warpath, nothing in our Constitution or in our Parliamentary institutions is safe, and he is going to decapitate the one or disembowel the other, and then what is left of our Constitution? I suggest that there will be very little chance that our Constitution will ever be restored in its organic wholeness.
Let me remind the House that the issue concerned here is the right of publicity of debate, which we claim to be a constitutional right of this House, and which has not been abrogated so far. Might I ask, what is the Constitution for? I think that the answer might best be given if we consider the circumstances of Great Britain and ourselves. In Great Britain, for instance, there is, in a certain sense, no constitution—no written constitution, at any rate. For instance it is literally true that if the British Parliament chose to legislate that every man, over six feet high, should have his right eye put out, it would be entitled legally to enact such a measure.
There is no limit to the power of Parliament there and, therefore, from the point of view of our Constitution, the British Constitution simply does not exist; but there is a need for a constitution of one kind or another in practically every country in the world, because, without a constitution, there would be considerable danger that the personal, fundamental, human rights of members of a minority—not only political minorities, but religious minorities—might be violated by reason of a temporary majority holding absolute power, and we know what has happened under the conditions of modern government in other countries. One of the principal features of our Constitution is the guarantee of the rights of minorities, with a view to putting an end to what otherwise might be the tyranny of majorities. I quite admit that, ultimately, the only possible safeguard for the rights of minorities lies in the forbearance and the inherent decency and good will of the members of the majority parties, but, all the same, it is desirable that there should be this additional safeguard, in case tempers should arise and majority parties might be inclined to make a somewhat immoderate use of their majority powers. We are all familiar with the distinction between totalitarian government and democratic government, and we claim to have a democratic constitution here. I think it can be claimed that all of us in this country would deny that we have any instinctive sympathy with the various forms of government which are called totalitarian, but I may point out that it is possible, even under the forms of democratic constitutions, to work—perhaps unconsciously—towards the substance of a de facto totalitarian regime. Where democratic or parliamentary government exists, and where such a form of government expects to be able to work, there must be at least two parties: a government party and an opposition party; and there must be a reasonable prospect that the opposition party, in due course, or in the not too distant future, may become the majority party, by a simple decision of the electorate. Now, the present Government Party in this country, I must admit, has been so successful in putting the “comether” over on our people here that I see no prospect of any other party becoming the majority party here for many years to come. They have been so successful that they have practically unlimited power and can do practically what they like, and that makes it all the more important, from the point of view of the Constitution, that every effort should be made to safeguard the rights of minorities.
There still remains a very important difference between our form of democratic government and totalitarian government. We still have, in the Dáil and in this House, popular representation of all parties, and that involves, in my opinion, what I might call the constitutional right to squeal. Now, the right to squeal about our grievances is of considerable importance, even though our squeals may not lead to anything; but our right to squeal as loudly as we can is important because it is the only way in which we can appeal to the public and ask for their sympathetic consideration of our problems and also because our squeals may, perhaps, lead to some sympathetic consideration by those members of the majority Party who are not entirely apathetic to our claims and who realise that we have a right to voice those squeals and make them heard both by the people inside this House and outside it. Now, we claim that right to squeal about our grievances, and that is why Senator Sir John Keane's motion was put down, protesting against the way in which the Minister exercised his powers of censorship. Undoubtedly, we certainly squealed about that, but the Minister prevented our squeals being published in the daily Press. I feel that we are entitled to squeal about such matters, and it seems to me that the action of the Minister in this connection was something like that of a dentist in Northern Ireland in former days who used to turn up on market day to pull teeth, and in order to drown the noise made by the squealing of his patients while he was drawing teeth, he hired a brass band to play and thus drown the squeals of his victims.
It seems to me that the Minister, by his action in this case, is performing the same kind of function, by trying to drown our squeals, and I suggest that that is not the constitutional way of drowning our squeals, and that, as a matter of fact, the Minister's action in this matter is entirely against the Constitution. Not only is it an injustice to the minority but it is an implied injustice to the people of the other Parties who would possibly alter their views and join with the minority protest, but that they have never heard the arguments which the minority were trying to use, and were prevented from making themselves audible by the intolerable action of the Minister.
We all know that there is an emergency on at present, and we know that in the emergency it is essential that certain aspects of the Constitution should be suspended. The Opposition readily agreed to the suspension of these Articles or perhaps not to the suspension of these Articles but certain extra constitutional powers were given the Government which in some respects are inconsistent with the Constitution.
On a point of order, are they not part of the Constitution?
Which?
At all events it is a modification of the normal Constitution.
It is the Constitution.
Of course the reason given is salus populi suprema lex, or the safety of the State is the supreme law. I think it follows however that every extra constitutional act done by the Minister under these powers must be definitely related to the safety of the State. Otherwise they are not being bound by the spirit of the Constitution and are a violation of that spirit. The Minister forbade any reference to the debate of 6th December. I was present at that debate, and I challenge anybody to prove that the public safety would have batted an eyelid if every word of the debate had been published in the newspapers and read by the people.
If I may intervene, who is to decide when the safety of the State is involved?
That is my view and I think it would be the view of all right thinking people.
It seems very difficult to reply to the speeches that have been made on behalf of these motions. Senator Hayes quoted Article 15 of the Constitution which provides for the Seanad to go into private session. But what has that to do with the publication of reports of Seanad Eireann? Nothing whatever that I can see. Senator Kingsmill Moore made some extraordinary statements and spoke with great vehemence. He said that the Minister was ashamed of what he had done, or otherwise that he was afraid that the people would know what he had done. How Senator Kingsmill Moore came to make that statement I do not know. Of course the Minister said: "I have done it," and did not seem to be the slightest bit ashamed that he had done it. The Minister said that he had done it in the interests of the State. Senator Johnston's salus populi suprema lex gives the whole reason for the action of the Minister in that case. Why should he say he did not want the people to know? It seems an absurdity. Then there is another statement that Senator Kingsmill Moore made. He said that the Minister has power to do what he did but whenever he does that he ought to let the public know how often he is doing it. Did Senator Kingsmill Moore mean that statement? I do not think he did. I do not think he could.
I did.
Well there is a report of a debate here—it appeared in Volume 28 of last year's Debates, on page 98. Senator O'Loghlen, now Deputy O'Loghlen, was speaking and I am sorry to hear that he has had a bereavement in his family recently. He made the statement referring to 1918 that Senator Kingsmill Moore was then British Censor in this country. The file is there.
That is not correct.
There is no denying that, I take it.
That is not correct. If you like, I will give you the details. Am I asked to make a personal statement? I will do it now or in the ante-room.
This has no bearing on this motion.
I thought that, if the Senator did occupy that position, he should know what the duties of a censor are. Probably, he does know that no censor ever publishes a list of the censorships or suppressions he has made in respect of newspaper articles, letters or other such matters.
On a point of fact, I think that Senator O'Dea has not quite understood what I said and, because I wish to hear his criticisms, I should like to make clear that I did not suggest for one moment that the censor necessarily has to insert blanks or anything like that. What I did say was that, if the Minister relied upon his prerogative rights, if I may use that phrase, that should be allowed to be published. In so far as the Minister came here and said: "I will not discuss the matter because it is of such importance," the public should be entitled to know that a certain subject had been withdrawn from discussion. I was not referring to the details of censorship. I have mentioned that because I pay the greatest respect to anything that Senator O'Dea says, and I want him to be able to meet the point I make.
Senator Kingsmill Moore may have intended to say that but what he did say was that, when the Minister exercises his power, he should let us know that and how often he does so. I think that those were his words. If those were his words, they could only bear one interpretation. That is, that whenever a censor prevents a publication, he should announce the fact to the world. What would then be the position with regard to censorship? A document is suppressed because, in the opinion of the censor, publication of it is against the interest of the nation. He proceeds on the principle: Salus populi suprema lex. Nobody will question that as a maxim—“the safety of the people (or State) is the supreme law.” The Minister is charged with the protection of the State by the office which he receives. It is his duty to protect the State. If he did not carry out that duty, he would be unworthy of the position of trust in which he is placed. He is the judge—not Senator Johnston or Senator Sir John Keane or anybody else—as to whether it is in the interest of the State or not that a certain document be published.
When I first saw this motion, I believed that the Minister had prevented the publication of the official report of a debate in this House. I looked up the Official Report and found that the statement made by Senator Sir John Keane and the reply made by the Minister were correctly reported. The report showed that the Minister gave to Senator Sir John Keane the reason why the letter was not allowed to go——
Why not to the public as well?
The Senator got an answer. He was told that it would not be in the interest of the State that that matter should be disclosed. In face of that answer, Senator Sir John Keane thought well to bring the matter up in this House. I think that the motion should be one to condemn Senator Sir John Keane for having made use of his position in this House to bring up this matter rather than one of condemnation of the Minister for doing his duty.
That could be done.
If it were considered worth while. Perhaps it will be dealt with in another way by this motion. We must consider the interest of the nation. There are, probably, many members of the public and some members of this House who think that this country should not have remained neutral. They are, probably, against neutrality. They would, probably, like to see that neutrality broken. It is the duty of this House to prevent anything like that from happening. We owe a solemn duty to the people of the country and that duty we shall carry out. I think that Senator Johnston gave the answer to Senator Sir John Keane and the reason for what the Minister has done when he quoted Salus populi suprema lex.
Senator Sir John Keane, in his speech last night, held up to us as an example of a defender of democracy, Cromwell. Whatever reputation Cromwell may have in England, in this country the name is one that stinks in the nostrils of the decent Irishman.
Not in the nostrils of the monks of Mount Melleray.
As I was leaving the House last night a Deputy with whom I was discussing this matter reminded me of a saying which still prevailed in the Irish-speaking districts of Connemara. They use the phrase "Dlí Chromail" when they want to describe something iniquitous. It amazed me to think that, in the House of an Irish Parliament, Cromwell, the monster of iniquity, would be held up as a model of anything. Senator Sir John Keane, in dealing with his amendment to what he described as "this innocuous motion", denied the accuracy of the Minister's statement, that there was any sort of a censorship of the Official Report of the debates in the House of Commons. I am prepared to accept the Minister's statement as being accurate rather than the contradiction of Senator Sir John Keane. Senator Sir John Keane, if he is so anxious for the truth, can test the accuracy of this statement—that there are two editions of Hansard, one for home consumption and the other for export. The edition which is exported is subject not to a committee appointed by the House of Commons but to the censor, the Minister of Information. When I was passing out of the House to-day, I heard Senator Kingsmill Moore question the accuracy of the statement made by Senator O'Dea regarding his position in the British military machine which held this country in thraldom up to the time of the signing of the Treaty. Senator O'Dea said that Senator Kingsmill Moore was Press censor during that time and the Senator denied that. Senator Kingsmill Moore is right. He was assistant Press censor.
Not even that.
We have had a lot of talk about this matter.
I am just telling you that it is not accurate. I have told you the facts outside the House.
First of all, the question has been raised here as to whether the Constitution is now enforced in its entirety or not. The Government has a certain responsibility. Since the Government assumed that responsibility, the people have had a chance of giving their verdict on how the Government had exercised the duties and responsibilities imposed on them in 1939. Under the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 the Government had power to do almost anything. I am speaking purely as a layman, giving the plain meaning of the wording of the Act.
The things which the Government could not do under the 1939 Act were very few, and they were explicitly laid down in the Act. Section 2 of the Act states: "Nothing in this section shall authorise (1) the imposition of taxation, (2) the imposition of any form of compulsory military service, (3) or any form of industrial conscription, (4) or the making of provision for the trial by courts-martial of persons, not being persons subject to military law.""(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising a declaration of war or the participation by the State in any war without the assent of Dáil Eireann."
No. 4 has gone out in subsequent legislation. That will only help the Senator's argument.
It will strengthen my argument.
That is what I said. I am a stickler for accuracy.
It is because I am a stickler for accuracy that I challenge the statement made by Senator Kyle and by Senator Sir John Keane, that the Minister was acting unconstitutionally. We have, I may say, a united front on this motion, what might be described as the white hope of capitalism joined with the Red Star of the proletariat in a united attack on the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures. The Minister in accordance with the powers conferred on him by Parliament and the people had the right to do what he did. There can be no question about that. Senator Hayes in his speech agreed that he had the right and said that it was a question whether he had exercised that right with due care and discretion. That was not satisfactory to Senator Sir John Keane.
I never challenged the right. I wish the Senator would quote me.
Unfortunately the official debates are not yet printed.
I have sent for the proofs to see if we can get the matter right.
In order to dot the i's and cross the t's of the right of the Minister to act as he acted, I shall quote again the Emergency Powers Order, 1939, Section 2, dealing with propaganda. It is a rather long section and I will just give the gist of it. It provides that the Minister may make provision by Order for preventing publication or unrestricted publication. Here is where I join issue slightly with Senator Hayes. Senator Hayes's main point was that the suppression by the Censor of mention of a matter that was discussed in the House was not the exercise by the Censor or by the Minister in a proper manner of the powers given to him. I think that in this matter unrestricted publication in the newspapers might lead to undesirable controversy and because of that the Minister had the power to act as he did. He had the power to do it and he alone was the judge as to whether it was right or not to do it. On him—again I stress this because it is the important point in the whole question—was the responsibility and on him was placed the onus of taking action. No one else outside the Government had the responsibility. Since these powers were given to the Government the people have had an opportunity of expressing their opinions as to whether the Government had acted wisely or unwisely in the exercise of these powers.
The people could not express the opinion that they have always acted wisely.
The Minister and the Government are the judges—not Senator Sir John Keane, not even Senator Johnston, not even Senator Kingsmill Moore. A comparison has been made with the action of the Censor in England in similar cases. I was interested enough to jog my memory in regard to instances that were at the back of my mind for a number of years. There were three outstanding examples of censorship in England. In one case it concerned a publication of a friendly Government that had its headquarters in London, its own country being occupied. The first of these cases concerns the Daily Worker, and this is a matter that will interest Senator Sam Kyle.
"The Home Office announced on January 21st, 1941, that Orders had been made under Regulation 2D of the Defence General Regulations suppressing the Daily Worker, the organ of the Communist Party since 1920.”
Here are the reasons given by the Minister of Information: "The systematic publication of matter calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution of the war to a successful issue." There was a paper that had a fairly wide circulation in England and a small circulation in this country suppressed. We have the next instance which is even more important in view of what is happening at present in Europe and I would ask Senators to bear this in mind. The Polish paper, Wiadomosci Polskie, the Polish News, published in London as the organ of the exiled Polish Government whose country had been overrun by Germany and Russia, was suppressed on February 11th, 1944. The grounds given by the Minister of Information were that “passages in the paper were calculated to stir up discord between the United States Nations.” The next paper, not so important——
Might I raise a point of order? Are we not again leaving the question of the newspaper reports of Parliamentary debates?
I am merely relating my argument to the examples put up in support of the amendment by Senator Sir John Keane, that things are done better in other countries. I am merely pointing out that things are being done much worse than they are being done here. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
The third paper to which I should like to draw the attention of the House, while we are on a comparison of the treatment meted out by the Censor here with the treatment meted out by the censor in a neighbouring country, is La Marseillaise. It was the organ of General de Gaulle, the head of a friendly Government, functioning from London. Its licence for publication was revoked on July 7th, 1943, and publication in England prevented. That action by the British censor was taken in the interests of England. It is not my place to comment on it. I merely draw the attention of Senator Sir John Keane, who is so anxious about the rights of the Press on all occasions, to the fact that that happened in a country which, on all occasions, he holds up as a model to us in this House. Senator Sir John Keane persisted in this—I use the word advisedly—propaganda. He had already been informed by the Minister, in connection with the case he had raised, that it was a security matter.
Despite that statement made to him by a responsible Minister of this State, he used his powers as a Senator to raise the matter here in the Seanad. There again, the Minister's words were: "I have already informed Senator Sir John Keane, that this is a security matter, and as it is a security matter I regret very much that I cannot deal with it fully here." Senator Sir John Keane, not content with that, continues with his propaganda; he persists in his efforts to make propaganda out of this incident.
In a time of emergency, when all Europe, I may say, is on the verge of civil war, despite the fact that the nations are described as being liberated, I submit that that is a gross breach of the privileges of this House by a member, and a gross breach of the hospitality of this country on the part of people who were formerly associated with the British military machine, which only 20 odd years ago, we were fighting, and fighting bitterly. I suggest to Senator Sir John Keane that this should end. I may say that if Senator Sir John Keane—who behaved in this way despite the repeated statements of Ministers of State, who are charged by the Irish people with the security of this State, that certain matters are security matters—had, as a member of the British House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments, which he holds up to us here as the be-all and end-all of all parliamentarianism, conducted himself there as he has conducted himself on this matter, and on the previous occasion when he raised this question of censorship, he would have shared the same fate as Captain Ramsay, who, despite the fact that he was an M.P., and a Conservative M.P., was interned by the British Government in the interests of the British people.
Surely, the Senator is not suggesting that Captain Ramsay was interned because of what he said in Parliament?
I am not going into what he said in Parliament. I am merely stating that he was interned because of subversive activities, and I am likening those activities to those of Senator Sir John Keane in persisting here in describing an unconstitutional and illegal, the action of the Minister and the Government in taking the stand they have taken in connection with censorship.
He was a member of the House of Commons and I am sure that when Senator Sir John Keane heard over the wireless that his quondam colleague, Captain Ramsay, was interned he said: "Hear, hear." The Minister adverted to the fact that we have now passed through five and a half years of war. At times, the waters of that war washed the shores of our island. At times, it looked as if those who carried guns would have to do as they did 25 years ago.
We may have left the worst of the dangers behind us, but we are not out of the wood yet. That is not my statement. It is a statement made recently by people who are charged with the control of affairs in the Twenty-Six Counties, and I think it is time that the propaganda that Senator Sir John Keane insists on making out of these censorship motions should end. It is time efforts of the Quislings—who were Quislings before the word was invented, and of the Fifth Columnists who were Fifth Columnists before Madrid came into the news and brought a new term to the English language—to embroil us should cease. I will give one quotation which I think will be of interest to the House in connection with this matter:
"Under war conditions, the ordinary peace time safeguards must be flexible, or liberty will be entirely destroyed."
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
What is the source of that quotation, Senator?
I will give the reference now. That statement was made in the British House of Commons when Mr. Morrison was challenged on the matter of censorship, and that I present to Senator Sir John Keane as the basis on which we should work here. It is the basis on which the Minister has worked, that in times of war, the ordinary peace time safeguards must be made flexible, or liberty will be entirely destroyed.
I think that five and a half years of war have proved that the use made by the Government of this power of censorship, the use made of the powers granted by an Irish Parliament under the Emergency Powers Act of 1939, have proved that they have fulfilled their trust to the people. We have escaped embroilment, and at the risk of being boring, I would like to repeat that there should be a cessation of the propaganda which it is sought to make by putting down such motions as these by Senator Sir John Keane, and his new-found ally of the proletariat, Senator Sam Kyle.
May I point out to the Senator that I did not put down this motion?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the Senator giving way?
I only want to point out that I did not table this motion.
I accept the correction. It is the Senator's amendment.
That is right.
Senator Johnston, in a lecture full of high-sounding phrases about liberty told us what uses should be made of it in safeguarding the rights of minorities. It had very little to do with the motion, but I would say this, that I hope his words will be listened to in the other part of Ireland that is not under the control of this Parliament and will also be listened to by some of his colleagues who are University professors and in the Queen's University of Belfast. He mentioned one thing—I am trying to get his exact words—that he had very little sympathy with the Fascist regime.
Very little sympathy?
Yes, with the Fascist regime.
Who had? I thought he said that Cromwell was the first Fascist.
He did, and he said that he would agree with him.
Let us say this in honour of Senator Professor Johnston, that he did not agree with him in 1919, 1920 and 1921, and let us give him his due.
I am adverting to something he did say here—not what he did say in 1918, 1919 or 1920, but in looking through the debates of Seanad Éireann I came across a very interesting remark made by Senators in connection with the interests they have in Fascism. Senator Sir John Keane would deny the totalitarian States, as they are called, any right at all, but some of those who are associated with him to-day were of a somewhat different mind in 1934.
Oh!
Surely this is not relevant?
Senator Johnston was allowed to go back to the 1918 election.
But he was brought back from it.
I submit, with deference to the Chair, that I should be allowed to do the same if necessary. Senator Sir John Keane is the first man who brought us back to Cromwell——
I went back farther, to Magna Charta.
I correct myself again. He went back to Magna Charta.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Will the Senator please give the reference to his quotation?
It is Volume 18, Seanad debates for 21st March, 1934. The quotation is from a debate on the Wearing of Uniform (Restriction) Bill, and here is what Senator Douglas said —I am glad he has come back to the House:—
"Dictatorships have grown out of mass movements of the people..."
This extract shows what Senator Johnston's friends were thinking of at the time:—
"There has been a great deal in these Shirt or Fascist movements which cannot be criticised. There have been discipline, good fellowship, readiness to sacrifice and the desire to reform, which are excellent things and these have given the movements a wonderful appeal to the best of young men and women after the demoralisation of the war. I challenge anyone to deny that a great deal of good has been achieved in both Italy and Germany as a result of the Nazi and Fascist movements." (Column 785).
That was merely drawn out of me by Senator Johnston's reference to the fact that he had no liking for Fascism. I think, Sir, and I make the statement before I sit down, that in future matters like this should not be put on the Order Paper—they lead only to interminable debate and to irrelevancies.
No one was more irrelevant than yourself.
Man is only human and one sometimes has to be irrelevant to reply to irrelevant things.
You have not come here to debate at all.
I said in the beginning that there was very little in the motion with which I could not agree. I join issue with Senator Hayes in the interpretation of the Minister's powers in the matter of publication. The Minister has power, under the Emergency Powers Act of 1939, to limit publication, even of the records of this House. Senator Hayes does not agree with that.
No, I do not.
Yes. It might be held that the Minister exercised that power, perhaps not judiciously, but Senator Sir John Keane goes much further, and I submit that the Minister was acting perfectly legally and constitutionally in doing what he did. I return now to the suggestion I want to make to this House, that in future these matters concerning censorship should be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges before bringing them up here. If the matter is one of outstanding importance it can be discussed here, but these things, in my opinion, should first be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I feel strongly about this matter, because I think that anybody who tries to use his privilege as a member of the Oireachtas to embroil or embarrass this country should be prevented from doing so, in order that the hard-won freedom that we have in this part of the country will not be jeopardised.
I do not know what it is in the approach of some speakers to a matter like this that stirs one to engage in a debate in which one would prefer not to engage. The motion itself was not discussed by the last speaker at all. He devoted his remarks to Senator Sir John Keane's amendment to the motion. Surely, anybody has a right to move an amendment to the motion, and certainly I believe that anybody who comes in here should not be criticised for exercising his rights. I cannot understand the approach of Senator Michael Hearne to this matter, because, outside the House, he is a very agreeable Senator and colleague, but something seems to change him when he comes into this House and engages in a debate with other members of the House. That is quite an honest statement of my personal reaction to the Senator's attitude in this House.
I must make sure to avoid the Senator in Longford in future.
I am quite sure the Senator does not misunderstand me. Senator Hayes put down this motion on the Paper. He did not put it down in collusion with Senator Sir John Keane. Senator Michael Hearne did not suggest that, and I am sure that when Senator Hayes put down this motion, he did it entirely on his own responsibility.
He certainly did.
And, again, Senator Sir John Keane would not have put down his amendment to the motion except on his own responsibility. I think that the approach of certain Senators to Senator Sir John Keane's amendment is all wrong. When I think of the Minister's decision to censor publication of the business of the Oireachtas in the Press, when I think of Senator Hayes requesting information, and when I think of the Minister's answer as to his reason for the decision he took, I find difficulty in understanding how Senator Hearne can stand behind that, since, actually, the only case made by the Minister was that he wanted to teach Senator Sir John Keane a lesson.
Oh, no.
Well, I only want to understand this position clearly. Senator Hayes made his case very clear and intelligible to everybody, and we got the information from the Minister, as far as I understood it, that he took this action in order to teach Senator Sir John Keane a lesson. Of course, the Minister is all-powerful in this matter, but when I heard him make that statement it seemed to me that he must be the worst psychologist in this country because, if there was one method by which to approach Senator Sir John Keane, that was certainly a wrong method. So far as Senator Sir John Keane is concerned, I think that that was the very worst method of approach, and I can think of no more futile attitude being adopted, in regard to that Senator, than that taken by the Minister. As I have said, the Minister is all-powerful in this matter, and nobody can challenge him, but when you are all-powerful, there is all the more responsibility on you, and particularly in regard to the powers given to you by the Oireachtas. Now, let it not be thought that the people are happy about this thing. They are not.
I could quote many cases of censorship actions which I could not understand, and about which as a member of this House I should like to be able to go down to the country and explain, as a plain, practical man, the reason for the action taken by the censorship authorities and defend what the Censor had done. There are many instances of the exercise of censorship, which would require explanation, but I think that even the explanation would not satisfy the people. In this particular instance, however, the Minister gave as his reason for the action he took the security of the State. Of course, the whole object of the powers of censorship is the security of the State, and to secure our neutrality in the midst of total war. That is the purpose of the censorship, but I am quite satisfied that a great many people believe that the Censor is making undue use of his powers. That is the trouble about the position in this country at the moment: That while you have some people, such as Senator Hearne, who seem to think that people like Senator Sir John Keane wish to destroy our position of neutrality—something that I am not prepared to accept, as I have no evidence of the fact—on the other hand, there are people who feel that there are others of our citizens who would be quite as ready to have our neutrality destroyed from another point of view, and that the powers of censorship must be used against both of these. Nevertheless, the fact is that the use of these powers is, in fact, a denial of the ordinary rights of the ordinary men and women of this country to make known their views as to what is happening in this country or in the world to-day.
Now, that is the rather tragic position that I and many people like myself find ourselves in to-day. Senator Hearne, arguing in defence of what the Minister has done, quoted instances of what is being done in the British House of Commons. They banned the Irish Worker years ago for its outspoken Communistic doctrines. More recently they banned the official organ of the Polish Emigre Government, but I do not know whether Senator Hearne is aware of the fact that in this country not alone would we not permit an organ speaking on behalf of the Polish Emigré Government, but Irish organs cannot say what they think about the Polish situation. That is true. Even some of the Lenten Pastorals of our Bishops have been censored. It is important that people should have knowledge of these things when they quote certain arguments in defence of what the Censor is doing. I do not want to get away from the main purpose of the motion.
And doing it pretty successfully, I would say.
The Minister did not interrupt his colleague Senator Hearne, and if Senator Hearne had not introduced this matter I would not have made the statement.
Surely the Senator is not denying that the Minister has the right to do this.
He has the power.
And the right.
He is given power by Parliament to do certain things and he is utilising the power in a particular way. A great many people remained silent and have not been critical of the Minister and his Department but they are anything but happy because they are doing a number of things that those with the ordinary Irish outlook would like to be able to stand behind and defend and cannot. I say that quite frankly and honestly. I feel very strongly on this matter. I do not understand it at all. It is not a question in this particular instance of Germans on one side and British and the United Nations as they call themselves on the other. It is a question of two peoples supposed to be in alliance and a particular case where a friendly Catholic nation is being partitioned. Our people should not like to see that kind of thing. A good many people would not stand for it. When Senator Hearne cites what the British House of Commons has done we should know a little more about what is done here. The kernel of this matter is that the Minister took a decision and the case made in defence of that decision was that it was to teach a particular Senator a lesson. Is that the sort of argument that should be used? There ought to be an argument in defence that would commend itself on the lines of reason. Otherwise it does not teach anybody a lesson, least of all Senator Sir John Keane. It would not intimidate somebody much less belligerent than the Senator. The Minister knows very well what his own personal reaction would be if somebody had put that to him. I do not know what Senator Hearne has in mind when he suggests that Senator Hayes was not entitled to put down his motion. He also suggested that Senator Keane should not have put down his amendment. What sort of liberty would we have if that was to be the case, that one Senator is entitled to adopt a particular line and that another is not entitled?
Might I say that I did not suggest that Senator Keane was not entitled to move the amendment. I said it was a gross breach of privilege for the Senator to use that power, and I suggested that a way out would be to bring it before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
If it was a gross breach of privilege he should not do it.
Senator Douglas says if it was a gross breach of privilege he should not do it. I do not know how this suggestion of Senator Hearne's would work. Examining it superficially, I do not know how it would work at all. Unless there were general agreement, I do not know that anything could deny the right of a Senator to put down a motion. I am quite convinced that it is not by some of the methods that we had here that the atmosphere which Senator Hearne's proposal calls for will be created in order to have reasonable discussion. I feel that it is not patriotic for any citizen to take any action the results of which might lead to the worsening of our national position, in other words, the destruction of our neutrality. On the other hand, I would not like to see the Censor's power used in such a way as to destroy independence of thought, so that we were brought to a position in which we were afraid of voicing our opinions or, if we voice them, we do not have the courage to have them published. There is real danger by the use of the powers the Minister has used in a particular way that we can be brought to that pass. It is all very fine talking about what was achieved as a result of an election. You can, if you persist long enough, hammer us all down to the same dead level, but that is not going to be very satisfactory nationally, and it is not a position at which we should aim. The House could accept this motion. Perhaps I should not say that I am not prepared to accept the Minister's statement, but I wonder if he thought that it was going to ensure the security of the State by not publishing it.
I do not think we are in such an insecure and weak position that we cannot afford to publish these things. The refusal to publish indicates fear and a sign of weakness that, even though it were a fact, we should not reveal. In fact to have confidence in the strength of our island position and to demonstrate that confidence by action is the best way of maintaining our stand. Had we been fearful at the beginning and had we not been able to pull together that position might not be what it is to-day. The Minister ought to act reasonably in these things, take a chance and see what happens. He did not take a chance in this instance. The Minister indicated in reply to Senator Hayes that this was something that had not occurred previously and he hoped would not occur again, and he wished for the day when he would be rid of his responsibilities. They cannot be pleasant. They are difficult and one of the troubles about the whole position as far as the Censor is concerned is that one never knows what he is going to do. The Censor will do one thing to-day and something different to-morrow. People who are dealing with the Censor are always in that position. They just do not know where they are. I have means of knowing that. What one would like to get from the Minister is some indication as to when his powers are going to be shed, when he is going to cast them from him. When will he regard the situation to be such as to make him decide that it is no longer necessary to utilise these powers and when will he be able to say and do the things people normally want to do?
I believe that an amendment like that by Senator Sir John Keane has its origin largely in the fear that this situation will be a continuing one for a long time. That is the fear at the back of the minds of a great many people and it is a pity it should be so. If the Minister were able to give an indication that if the war in Europe were to end in a month or two we would have an end of the censorship, it would be an answer to a dozen motions like this which are at present in the minds of members of the House.
Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon ghá mórán a rá ar an gceist seo, go háirithe tar éis an méid atá ráite ar an taobh seo den Tigh. Dúirt an Seanadóir Baxter cupla rud agus ba mhaith liom tagairt do dhéanamh dóibh ar an gcéad dul síos. Dúirt sé go mba cheart dúinn aontú leis an rún seo a chuir an Seanadóir O hAodha os ar gcomhair. Is trua nár cuireadh deireadh leis an díospóireacht seo nuair labhair an Seanadóir O hAodha. Da ndéantaí sin, b'fhéidir go mbeimis i ndon réiteach a dhéanamh ar an gceist. Ach, tar éis an méid atá ráite; ní feidir liomsa a rá go mba cheart aontú leis an rún. After all that has been said, especially on this side of the House, with regard to the motion before us, I do not think there is any need for me or any other speakers to take up additional time. The Minister complimented Senator Hayes on the manner in which he presented his case. It is a pity that the matter did not rest at that. I should like to pay tribute to the first member of the House who showed an appreciation of the motion and concerned himself with it—Senator Ryan. I might use the happy phrase of his own and say that he "kept his eye on the ball" all the time. He landed some fairly hefty kicks and each time he secured a major result. The point at issue, apart from what Senator Hayes has said, is, as far as I have been able to gather, that the Irish people have not the right to do certain things. There is no use in trying to put the Minister in the dock. Ostensibly, the speeches on the other side have been aimed at the Minister. In effect, they have been an attack not on the Minister for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures but on Frank Aiken. The Minister is there as the representative of the Irish people and the question at issue here is whether this Irish democracy has the right to take such steps as it thinks fit to protect itself. Do we challenge that right?
I do not challenge it, nor did Senator Douglas challenge it.
I am admitting from the word "go" that, if the matter had rested with Senator Hayes' speech, the whole thing could have been got over by the reply of the Minister, which would have been a reasonable one. In the circumstances, he gave a most reasonable reply. A question further emerges as to whether the Constitution has been violated. That question has been raised time and again and not as an "aside". Speakers have implied that the action of the Minister was unconstitutional. Senator Ryan very clearly and very simply dealt with these matters last night. He stated the issues and I would have been very interested to hear speakers to-day address themselves to the points which he raised. It would have been helpful if they had addressed themselves to each one of these points and shown us whether the Senator was wrong or not. Has the Constitution been violated? Senator Douglas thinks that at this hour of the day it would not be worth while to go into the courts to challenge the Minister's action. I am certain that if Senator Douglas had the remotest idea that he would get away with it, he would go into the courts in the morning. The cost would not trouble him.
What is the implication in the statement that the cost would not trouble Senator Douglas?
I shall be more explicit. He would be in a position to get people to put up sufficient money to fight the case if he thought he could successfully fight it in the courts.
He would not get any money from me.
I am sure he would not. I am sure Senator Hayes feels very uncomfortable in his present company. He has my sympathy.
Is it not grand for me?
Another question that seemed to be worrying people on the other side was whether the Minister had violated the powers given him in the Act of 1939. Will somebody show us whether he has or has not? There is no use in Senators getting up and making assertions and expecting that, simply because they make these assertions, they are principles and truths and must, accordingly, be believed. If they make an assertion, it should be possible for them to put forward arguments in support of them. The Act has been quoted, the relevant section has been mentioned and the words have been given. If the Minister had not power to do what he did, it ought to be possible to show that he had not that power.
There is, then, a further argument. It is urged that he has violated the privileges of the House. In what way has he violated the privileges of the House? Will anybody tell me that it is a privilege of any member to use the House as a platform for propaganda of a type likely to land this country into trouble? The Minister must be the judge. What privilege has been assailed that we need worry about? As a further argument, it is suggested that it is not so much what the Minister has done on this occasion that matters as the probability that he will frequently act in a similar way in the future. I am bored listening to that type of argument since I came here. I am tired watching tears being shed about the loss of freedom in this House, and I am tired listening to the prediction that more and more freedom will be filched from us as time goes on. Some Senators are very nervy and uneasy without justification.
Reference has been made to some words used by the Minister, that he was going to teach Senator Sir John Keane a lesson. The emphasis laid by speakers on the other side on these few words is sufficient indication that they have not a leg to stand on—that they have no case to make. Was there anything wrong with that statement? Without doubt, Senator Sir John Keane's speech was deliberately propagandist. Most of the speeches on the other side had the same object. If members of the House think they can get away with turning the House into a publicity platform, and if the Minister declares that he will not allow them to get away with it, that he will use his powers to teach them a lesson, I see nothing wrong with these words.
Teach them a lesson is right.
Senator Baxter with his interjections certainly annoys me, I must say.
It is too bad, is it not?
Too bad. His main contribution to the debate was that we should take our courage in our hands and, in effect, that we should trail our coats before the nations of the world—that we should take our courage in our hands and do this, that and the other.
Keep our coats on.
In effect the Senator's recommendation was that the best thing we could do was to trail our coats to show how independent we are, to suppress nothing, to act literally as an "amadán" would in our circumstances. That was his main contribution to the debate. Senator Johnston very aptly described the speeches that were made on the other side—and from these speeches I exclude the genuine effort made by Senator Hayes——
There must be something wrong with me. I am beginning to get a bit worried.
There is no need to worry. I would not be surprised if the Senator were a bit alarmed, having regard to his associations, but there is nothing about which he need be worried. Senator Johnston described the utterances of Senators opposite as squealing. In truth, they amounted to nothing more than squealing. It was the squealing of people who know they have no right to speak for the people of this country. That brings me to the point at issue. The Minister is there as the spokesman of the people. He is there as the spokesman of Irish democracy. By the people and by law, he is empowered to act, and he has acted in accordance with the wishes of the people, notwithstanding anything that Senator Baxter may say to the contrary. I know there are people who are uneasy in regard to the Minister, who are not satisfied with his methods but the vast majority of the Irish people are not uneasy. They are perfectly satisfied and have given their verdict on that matter more than once.
The motion asks us to express concern at the action of the Government in preventing the publication in the Press of a certain report. As Senator Ryan pointed out last night, as far as the people are concerned, the suppression of the report does not matter two hoots. I am not going to express concern; I am going to express my confidence in the man who fills the position of Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures. I am not willing to subscribe to this motion that we should express concern, which in effect means that we should express our uneasiness as to the competence of the man who is in charge of this very delicate national work. The second part of the motion requests information as to the grounds on which the Government claims the right to interfere with the constitutional provision that sittings of the House shall be public.
I think the Minister is quite right when he declines to fall for Senator Sir John Keane's bait. Senator Sir John Keane wants to embroil him in a difficulty. If the Minister, in view of the information at his disposal, in view of the responsibility that rests on him, in view of the responsibility placed on his shoulders by the Government and by the people, feels that there is certain information which in the national interests he should not give, I for one am prepared to agree that he is perfectly right in not giving such information. Listening to the debate, I thought that I might say more than I have said, but I think sufficient has been said on this side of the House to show that the House should not accept the motion. I think in all fairness it will be admitted by the people on the other side that the only Senators who dealt with this motion in an objective fashion were the speakers on this side of the House, both yesterday and this evening.
There is one great thing to be said about censorship motions, and that is that they provide us with a spectacle which we do not see in the consideration of legislation in this House, namely contributions from the Front Bench on the Government side.
There is no Front Bench.
I am concerned with one point and one point alone and that is the challenge I seem to sense in Senator Hearne's speech and, in a slightly less definite manner, in Senator O Buachalla's remarks. It appears to me clear that, so far as any member of this House is concerned, he has the right, the privilege and the duty to get up and say in this House anything he sincerely believes to be true or to put an aspect or a view of public affairs that should be considered. As to whether Senator Sir John Keane has not got that right— and so far as I can see that is purely what Senator Hearne's speech amounted to—I would remind Senator Hearne that he made a somewhat similar speech about a year ago. It was practically on the same lines as his speech to-day, in principle. When last August came, however, the Taoiseach did not back up Senator Hearne's view because I am certain that if the Taoiseach thought that Senator Sir John Keane was the Quisling or the Fifth Columnist that has been alleged, he would not have re-nominated Senator Sir John Keane to this House. I think that should be a sufficient answer to those who question his right as a member of the House to raise such points as appear to him proper.
So far as the incident of the 6th December is concerned, I have certain views and my views are these: I did not think that the Minister could conceivably have thought that Senator Sir John Keane in the remarks that he was going to make would have been so discreet as he was because I am quite frank in saying it amazed me that Senator Sir John Keane was as discreet as he was on that occasion. If that is so, I suggest that the Minister's proper attitude should have been to take the initial step of saying to the House that this was a security matter and that if the House wanted to discuss it they should discuss it, as they were permitted by the Standing Orders, without the Press being present. If the Minister had said that to the House, I can conceive no reasonable House refusing to do as he asked.
I think that was the correct and proper way for the Minister to have dealt with the situation. If it had been dealt with in that way, I personally would not have raised the slightest objection. It could quite easily happen that the Minister might have thought that Senator Sir John Keane was going to be discreet, and found afterwards that he was not, but the Minister and Senator Sir John Keane are fairly old antagonists, and I do not think it could be suggested on this occasion that the Minister could have thought he was going to say anything so inoffensive. I really think the Minister dealt with the matter last December in the wrong way. If he had dealt with it in the other way I think there would have been a great deal less friction and a great deal less trouble for everybody. Be that as it may, I really got up only to say that I think every member of this House, and particularly one who has been nominated and renominated on many occasions by the Taoiseach, has the right to make statements without being assailed for making them.
It is not my intention to occupy very much of the time of the House, but by my silence I might be taken as not being in agreement with the motion. I want to say that I am entirely in favour of the motion. It is a well-reasoned, well-thought-out motion. Listening to the debate here, one gets bewildered. Other parliaments are quoted, and so on. Do we not all know that minorities in the parliament of every democratic country are fighting for their rights? In this matter, we are only doing what is done in every democratic country in the world. As I said, the motion is well reasoned. It does not unduly condemn anybody. The Minister met it very fairly, I think, the other evening when he said that this is the first time in five and a half years that the rights of Parliament itself have been encroached upon, and very likely it would never occur again. Now, having said that, I am fairly well satisfied that the motion was worth while, and that Senator Hayes and the people responsible for putting it down did a very good service to parliamentary institutions in giving an opportunity to Parliament itself to voice its opinion as to its rights in order to preserve its functions. I am one of those who object and objected all the time to the Emergency Powers Order. I said then and I say now that Ministers given those powers are likely at some time to abuse them. On this occasion, whether through a mistake or not, I believe that the Minister has abused his powers. I think he has been chastened somewhat by the motion, because he intimated or at least almost intimated—he satisfied me at any rate—that the thing would not occur again. Quotations from what the British did or what somebody else did are immaterial. What we do is the thing that matters. I believe that this motion is reasonable and fair. I believe that every person interested in democratic government would be in favour of the motion, no matter with what politics he may surround himself. Consequently, I declare myself entirely in favour of the motion.
It seems to me that the motion rather than the amendment is in the second part an egregious example of what in the days when I studied logic was called the fallacy of the double question. The classic example is when we ask: "When did the Minister leave off beating his wife?" The fallacy is quite evident. The motion asks for information as to the grounds on which the Government claims the right to interfere with the constitutional provision that sittings of each House of the Oireachtas shall be public. The Government does not seem to me to have made such a claim at all. What is meant by the sittings of the House being public? We know that the public galleries were full, as they always are, I am glad to say, when Senator Sir John Keane puts down a motion. There is always publicity, and striking publicity. Also, the proceedings were embodied in full in the Parliamentary Debates. When Senator Sir John Keane puts down a motion, we all know that the Seanad debates for that week are best sellers.
That is news.
Therefore, those two elements of publicity having been secured, it is quite obvious that there was no attempt to interfere with the privilege of the House as far as the public nature of the proceedings is concerned. That is what is in the Constitution—that the sittings shall be public, except when the House itself, under procedure which is carefully defined, wants to have a private session. The sittings were public, and therefore, to my mind, there was no interference, nor was any desire shown by the Government to interfere with the constitutional provision that the sittings of the House shall be public. As to the question of a report of the proceedings appearing in the papers, very often the Press never even mentions that the Seanad sits. If the public nature of the sittings of each House of the Oireachtas depends on a report of the proceedings in the Press, I think the Press must act unconstitutionally very often.
I merely want to add a little more water to the rather muddy ocean that has appeared since this debate began. I want to say, with reference to the remarks of Senator Foran and others, that the Act of 1939, Section 2, expressly provides that the Government shall have all-embracing powers in this emergency. What they do here is not done illegally or unconstitutionally. The Minister is the sole arbiter; the Minister has full power. What exactly, I wonder, is the gravamen of the Minister's offence? Is it that he has exercised the powers which he has a perfect right to exercise, or is it that he has acted, perhaps, a little recklessly? I do not think we can condemn him on the first point, and, in view of the fact that we have had five and a half years of turmoil and of emergency conditions, during which the newspapers have from time to time suppressed various speeches, no doubt owing to want of space and so on, I think we can hardly complain of the Minister's attitude in refusing, once in that five and a half years, to allow the report of a certain speech or of the proceedings around a certain speech to be published. We cannot condemn that as an arbitrary action. The fact remains that, under the Act of 1939, Section 2. the Government has the powers which the Minister is now exercising. In view of that, I think a lot of this debate is not germane to the subject. In the motion, or rather in the amendment—I think it is the amendment we are considering now—the word "condemn" is used. That is a very strong word, and I think we in this House should be slow to condemn the action of a responsible Minister who has a heavy weight on his shoulders, apart from whether he is right or not. He certainly was right. He has the powers and can exercise them, and we should be very slow to criticise him for doing his duty. I can understand a verbal indiscretion such as that into which Senator Sir John Keane lapsed yesterday. One can forgive, but it is not easy to explain it away. In viewing motions of this kind, I find it impossible to disassociate them from their movers.
When I examine the motions and think of their movers, I see in a vague way their mental background, and I find myself inquiring into what might be their spiritual homes, appreciating that heredity, environment and education predispose persons to take certain attitudes. That is what we have to avoid in these emergency conditions, and even if the Minister were tactless—and I am not saying for a moment that he was in view of the condition of the country for the past five and a half years—he was justified. During that time we walked a tight rope over a Niagara falls in Europe, and a single verge to left or right would have plunged us into the abyss. We cannot, therefore, withhold our meed of admiration for the man and men who guide us over that rope. I should be very loth to impute tactlessness to any Minister, much less to condemn him. The position of Ireland — Ireland, mark you — has been one of peculiar difficulty.
We have been in the position of the travellers in Alpine countries one sometimes reads of, where the merest whisper will precipitate an avalanche and we cannot afford to play tricks with the Constitution. This country has faced a very difficult crisis—those conditions may or may not be lessened in intensity, and to suggest that we should modify the attitude we have hitherto taken up is cowardly. If it is right to be perfectly neutral and to maintain our neutrality at any cost, save that of honour, that attitude should be maintained, and it is not because the war clouds may be lifting now, that the Minister and the Cabinet of which he is an honoured member should vacillate in the least.
Senator Baxter queried rather plaintively as to the cause of Senator Hearne's outburst, so to speak. Outside the House, Senator Hearne appears to be a genial individual, according to Senator Baxter, but inside the House he is the epitome of ferocity.
Not ferocity—that is not correct.
That was implied by the Senator.
I did not mean to imply anything of the kind.
I cannot understand why a Senator should be charged with ferocity in the House. After all, look into a court, and you will find solicitors and barristers flagellating each other, and then look outside, and you will see that they are boozing companions in the bar.
That is a monstrous statement to make about Senator Hearne.
These variations of human nature have often been the subject of comment. It is hard lines on a man of impeccable demeanour and imperturbable suavity like Senator Hearne to be flagellated by Senator Baxter.
He will survive it.
I was a little surprised at the conclusion of Senator Baxter's speech. He complained bitterly that Senator Hearne is usually the mildest man unhung, but that when he heard some of the debate he seemed to have been inoculated with a microbe. I would call that microbe a Baxterian microbe. I think we have laboured this question too long, and the debate, if continued, is likely to degenerate into an acrimony that I would be glad to see banished from this House. I believe that the Opposition have not really a leg to stand on. They may quarrel with the Minister's manner.
Mention has been made of the Minister's action in forbidding or preventing publication of Senator Sir John Keane's statement, but, really, I think he was more merciful to Senator Sir John Keane in forbidding publication and I think he saved Sir John from himself and the obloquy which would descend on Sir John's noble head.
The Minister forgot to make that point himself.
Latin tags have been bandied about freely in this debate, and I may be excused in furnishing another one for the benefit of our records: Inter arma silent leges. I believe that is an excellent tag, but there is another: “Hard cases make bad law.”
It may be that Senator Sir John Keane feels himself rather aggrieved, but one swallow does not make a summer, and if the security of the State, in the opinion of the responsible Minister, who must be taken to be a man of commonsense, requires it, he must use the powers given him. We know that all Ministers are not endowed with magnetic qualities, we know they are only human but at the same time they consult with each other and take measures to elicit public opinion.
But, above all, since this emergency, they have gone to the country and have been returned with an increasing majority. I do not say that is proof of their impeccability, but it is a very definite endorsement of their authority, and anything which would derogate from their authority, even if that authority were exercised unwisely at the present juncture—which I do not say it is—would be very detrimental to the country. I can tell the Seanad that not one person in the country gives a tuppenny ticket about the censorship; they are quite satisfied to leave it in the hands of the responsible Minister. Farmers are doing their work and the industrialists are doing their work, and all the excitement here does not make one ripple on the ocean of politics in the country, except, perhaps, in the imagination of the movers.
I suppose that having put down this motion I should be congratulated upon having evoked the last speech, and I think that Senator Kehoe could be congratulated on being the only Senator, speaking from that side of the House, who did not devote himself to a considerable amount of abuse of Senator Sir John. Keane. The motion, Sir, has, I think, been successful, in so far as the Minister's reply concerns the terms of the motion which, in themselves, are narrow and which were definitely framed not to be condemnatory. The Minister met the case to a considerable degree, and I think that if the matter had been left, as it had been understood that it was to be left after the Minister had spoken or Senator Douglas had spoken, we would have undoubtedly reached a method between us which would have preserved Parliamentary privilege, and would have preserved to the Minister such powers as the Minister desires to exercise. I think there can be no doubt about that.
When I was putting down this motion I had considerable misgivings, and a political friend said to me: "Look, when you put down that motion Senator Sir John Keane will support you, and if he does you are lost." Very fortunately, Senator Sir John Keane did not support me, and, therefore, I have undergone the rather peculiar experience, for me, of finding the Minister praising my views, and absolutely cooing like a turtle dove about me, and directing himself in all his fury against our unfortunate colleague, Senator Sir John Keane.
I do not understand at all, Sir, how it is that Senator Sir John Keane comes between the Fianna Fáil Party and the exercise of broad commonsense, common judgment, and common politeness. It baffles me entirely. He is a member of this House—not elected like me, but nominated by the Head of the Government and having the same rights as I have. He has been nominated more than once. I do not know whether I would be accused of being Cromwellian. Nothing could be more objectionable than all this pharisaical talk we hear here from men who throw out their chests and proclaim that they alone have the national tradition, that they alone are concerned with this country's neutrality, and that other people without the same traditions have no concern for the country. The most objectionable character in the Gospel, in my opinion, is the Pharisee, and surely, in this debate we have had a very large amount of pharisaical talk. I was reared in a sound-Irish national tradition and I have studied it in Irish and English. Surely we were all agreed that once this country was free every Irishman who had roots in the country and who accepted our institutions would be welcome everywhere and would not suffer harm or abuse for his previous associations. That is sound nationalism, before Wolfe Tone and from Wolfe Tone to Patrick Pearse. If that principle is not accepted then I do not know what freedom is for.
The case made by members on the other side of the House is that if you do not agree that this Government is the best Government in the world and that the Minister is the best Minister in the world, then you are not really Irish, really responsible, or even morally sound. A good deal of that kind of talk comes from the slave mind and from nothing else. The Taoiseach put Senator Sir John Keane in here. I would be prepared to bet that he votes for the Fianna Fáil candidate in every election. I say that I would be prepared to bet that but, of course, I do not know it. I am not a bit out of touch with politics. Senator Sir John Keane is not a political friend of mine, but I must say that although he has had his share of abuse here tonight, he has also his uses. I admit that he is "contraptious", difficult and stubborn but, mind you, he is always here when there is a debate on, and he is always vocal. He certainly can be contrasted with the "yes-men" who agree with what is said by the Government spokesmen but who never open their mouths and only use their feet to walk through the lobbies.
I think it is time that we should get rid of all this ridiculous business of referring to a man's previous connections, such as whether he was a censor during the British regime. If the records, during the British days, of the various members of the House, were examined, they might not be found to be spotless in that regard; even some of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, if their records were examined, might not find themselves entitled to drape themselves in the spotless, green mantle of Caitlín Ní Ullacháin, any more than Senator Sir John Keane.
It was suggested that this matter should be brought before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges instead of being brought before this House.
I made no such suggestion. I suggested that it should be first brought before that Committee, and in any case I was not the only one who referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Well, Sir, I am sorry. I speak a good deal of Irish, and perhaps I don't understand English.
There was the question of the amendment and the type of discussion.
Senator Hearne certainly referred to the motion.
Well, if anybody wanted to refer the amendment or the motion, or the motion and the amendment, to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, that was open to the House, but no suggestion was made to me. Nothing could be farther from my mind and, I am sure, from anybody else's mind, than to do or say anything in this House which would embroil us in difficulties, but the fact that there is an emergency should not be used as a sciath-cosanta, a defence shield—in other words, use the emergency to the extent of saying, in effect: “You cannot touch me or say a word while the child is in my arms.” That is not good enough. The problem here is simple enough, but this debate revealed a number of lamentable failures. If Senator Sir John Keane was going to generate heat, I think he failed, and I think that the Minister failed to generate any light at all in giving his reason for suppressing this report in the newspapers. Certainly, if, as he said, he stopped it for the purpose of teaching Senator Sir John Keane a lesson, that was the most lamentable failure of all. Speaking, personally, as a professional teacher, I would say that that is not a task that I would lightly undertake. I think that Senator Ryan misunderstood the true import of this. He said that the Minister had a right to do this thing. Nobody said that he had not. I went to the greatest possible pains to explain that the Minister was within his rights in doing what he did, but there can be no doubt that when the Minister goes to the extent of preventing publication of the records of this House in the newspapers he is going beyond bounds, and it is certainly a matter for me or any other Senator or Deputy to draw attention to it and to ask for a reason, and also to suggest that if such a thing is to be done it should be done by a different process from that which was adopted in this particular instance. It was also suggested that my case for Parliamentary privilege was good in normal times, but that these are abnormal times.
If Senators, however, will read the motion they will see that it is expressly framed in the light of the abnormal times in which we live. I wanted to know whether there was any special reason why this particular matter should not be published. I can see nothing whatever in it, applying my own commonsense to it, that could do us any harm; but if the Minister were to mark it for the newspapers: "Hold," and then say to the Cathaoirleach: "I should like to see this matter kept out of the newspapers for reasons I will give you," I think the Cathaoirleach would consult with some members of the House and we would all be reasonable about it. There is a good deal of confusion here as to the rights of Ministers and the rights of members of the House. It is a fundamental matter here that members of the House have a right to criticise Ministers, but if a Senator criticises Ministers of another State, such as Goebbels, Hitler and others, that would be ruled out of order. The fundamental thing is that you are here for the purpose of criticising the Government in regard to certain things and that you have the right to do so, and when Senator Ryan spoke about keeping his eye on the ball, I suggest that he was keeping his eye on the courts and that in doing so he failed to see the Parliament.
Senator Ryan on consideration will probably find that is correct. I do not want to have an interminable debate about this matter. At the beginning I had hoped we had a very simple question to deal with. We have rambled off on a great many things since then. Senator Joseph Johnston at one point ranged to the Boyne and the Ganges and when he had gone to the Ganges Senator Hearne, who is very zealous in making points of order when other people are speaking, went on a little excursion to the Vistula. Having gone to all these places, I want to come back to the Liffey which is much more our concern. The Minister has got certain powers. I made it very clear I did not question that he had the powers, but we are a Parliament, and in exercising his powers about Parliament he certainly would have to be extremely careful. If it is desired to censor or delete a reference in our proceedings we should have something to say. I do not see how any member of the House can fail to agree with that. It was suggested that in Great Britain there is a committee. I take leave to doubt if any such thing has happened as the deletion from the newspapers of a whole proceeding in the British Parliament. Their remedy is a Secret Session. They have held such sessions and, therefore, the fact that Senator Hearne alluded to—that the British Parliamentary Debates that are sent out of the country are censored, may be true. That surely arises from the other fact, that the British Parliamentary Debates published in Great Britain are not subject to censorship except in very rare instances and in a particular way. The debates for home consumption are so very free that the debates that are sent outside are censored. There is no analogy with this country. Britain is a big Empire taking part in a war on a great many fronts. Naturally when books are sent out of the country they want them to be of a particular character. I do not want to go over all the points that have been made.
In this House, in spite of a certain amount of heat now and again, very rarely indeed, there is one thing that we have always succeeded in doing in a most amicable way from 1938 up to yesterday, and that is the arranging of our business. Senator Quirke will confirm this, that we had an informal meeting before the Seanad met in 1938, which I had the honour of attending. We made certain arrangements for the first day's proceedings. Either through certain leaders in the House or through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, since then, we have made what were sometimes very difficult arrangements for Bills, for Ministers and for motions and we have always displayed towards one another in the doing of that business the greatest possible reasonableness and consideration. No later than yesterday evening it happened that I desired to be at University College from half-past six to half-past seven. It was a most difficult time, and I would not have been able to move my motion here but for the fact that the House, by agreement, adjourned at a quarter or twenty minutes past six. I got that arrangement made by consultation with my friends on the opposite side of the House, and I have no doubt that the Minister was consulted. I am very grateful for it, and I give that as the latest example of what has always happened in this House. If any question of censorship of the debates or of the reports in the Press arises I have no doubt the Minister in charge of censorship would find the Cathaoirleach and such members of the House as the Cathaoirleach may consult; very sensible and fair-minded men who are willing to meet him. I suggest if, in the future, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures desires to do what he has done—he says that this was the first time in five and a half years, and that he hopes it may never occur again—he has a very simple remedy. He can simply say to the Press: "Hold that copy."
That is commonly done. The Minister gets in touch with the Cathaoirleach and either the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or such members as the Cathaoirleach may consult will advise on the matter. I think in that way, we would preserve the privileges of the House and at the same time meet the emergency situation. We would not be denying the Minister any rights because even after that process had taken place the Minister, I agree, would probably still have the right under existing legislation to delete the whole proceedings if he liked. I do not think he would do it. I do not think in the circumstances he would find any difficulty. It is because my point of view in this matter concerns the House and not any particular Party or group in the House that I put the motion down. It is for that reason that I reject entirely the phraseology of the amendment. I deliberately adopted my own wording because I did not want to make a matter which in my judgment concerns the House the subject of a division and, possibly, of acrimonious debate. I did not contribute anything to the acrimony, and I now suggest that in future a certain procedure could be adopted. If it were adopted everybody would be satisfied. The Minister would get all he wants or is likely to want, without giving up any of his rights and Senator Sir John Keane would still have the right to put down a motion on censorship. That cannot be helped unless you abolish the Seanad or abolish Senator Sir John Keane and I do not think you are going to do either one or the other in a hurry.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I would like the sense of the House taken on it.
Amendment put and negatived.
Will the Minister state whether he would adopt the procedure I have suggested or some analogous procedure? I do not stand upon any particular details. Senator Quirke can confirm what I have said, that we have so far never disagreed on matters of procedure.
I think that the procedure outlined by the Senator seems quite a reasonable one; one that would meet the situation.
Very good. I will withdraw the motion.
With the consent of the House.
I take it if the Minister agrees to a procedure by which there will be consultation with the Cathaoirleach or the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or certain other members, there is nothing to be concerned about now and the motion falls to the ground.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.