Censorship of Publications Bill, 1945—Committee.

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps, before we take up consideration of the amendments tabled for this Bill, it would be as well if I indicated that there are certain amendments which I consider out of order. These amendments are Nos. 23, 24, and 70.

Nos. 23 I consider out of order, for the reason that it is really tabled for the purpose of amendment No. 70, and amendment No. 70 is in the nature of a taxing proposal which, of course, cannot be made by a member of the Seanad, taxation being a function reserved to Government. Apart from that feature of the amendment, there would also be an increased charge on State funds, which is also not permissible under an amendment by a Private Member.

In regard to amendment No. 24, the subject matter of this amendment is more one of administration than legislation and, of course, it also includes the feature of a charge on State funds. For those reasons, I consider that that amendment cannot be moved.

Perhaps, also, I might suggest, before we take up consideration of the amendments, that there are some amendments which seem to fall into well defined categories. For example, Nos. 4, 5 and 9 appear to have a certain dependence; also Nos. 8 and 20; Nos. 13, 18, 68 and 69; Nos. 15, 16 and 21; Nos. 31 and 33; Nos. 40 and 61; Nos. 41 and 48; Nos. 48 and 49; Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 58, 59 and 60; Nos. 56 and 57; Nos. 64, 66 and 67. In these groups the underlying principles appear to be similar, although the particular circumstances may vary. For example, in one case, the proposal may apply only to the Censorship Board, but, in later amendments, it is proposed to apply a similar principle in the case of the appeal board.

I am of opinion that these different categories might be discussed together and so obviate the necessity for repetition of argument. However, I am not making any rule on that point; I am simply indicating subject matters on which, I think, we could get collective discussion. There will, of course, always remain a right for any Senator to challenge a decision on each individual amendment. I will indicate, as we come to them, the Nos. of the amendments upon which we might take such discussion.

SECTION 1.

Professor Magennis

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 2 to delete lines 20-22 and substitute therefor the following words: "the word ‘indecent' means any matter the publication of which and general distribution thereof would be likely to affect public morals injuriously."

In the Principal Act, there is an interpretation clause—and by the way the interpretation clause is not being repealed in Part 1 of the Bill—which says:—

"The word ‘indecent' shall be construed as including suggestive of, or inciting to sexual immorality or unnatural vice or likely in any other similar way to corrupt or deprave."

That, although it appears very clear and definite, has provided opportunities in the past for a great number of attacks upon the Censorship Board— some of them wilful, others due to ignorance. Some people chose to interpret the word "including" as equivalent to a strict definition, so that the Censorship Board is not entitled to deal with a book unless it comes under some of these heads, that it incites—that, of course, is that it is deliberate, of malice aforethought, of set purpose—to sexual immorality or unnatural vice. I do not profess to understand the remaining part of the definition—"or likely in any other similar way to corrupt or deprave"— because I do not know what a "similar way" might be. That was put into the legislation of the year 1929 and in 1937 we enacted the Constitution which provided a basis for all the legislative references to indecent matters.

With your permission, Sir, to elucidate the point I shall read from the Constitution. This is under the heading of "Fundamental rights; Personal rights."

"The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights subject to public order and morality:—

(i) the right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions."

That is the right of publication and the right of utterance, subject of course, as I read out, to public order and morality.

Sub-section (1) says:—

"The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion such as the radio, the Press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law."

It is clearly necessary to implement that Article of the Constitution in legislation of some sort or other and the appropriate place with regard to this right of publication and utterance is the Censorship of Publications Bill. We have, therefore, a better basis, I submit, for dealing with the term or expression, "indecent matter" than we had prior to the enactment of the Constitution. What I have in view in the amendment, then, is to set out what the word "indecent", or the phrase "indecent matter", shall be deemed to mean. I put in, instead of "includes", "means" and I get the expression as to what it means out of the Act of 1929. It is in Part III of the Act in regard to the publication of proceedings in the law courts. It says:—

"It shall not be lawful to print or publish or cause or procure to be printed or published in relation to any judicial proceedings—

(a) any indecent matter the publication of which would be calculated to injure public morals...."

I transfer that from its context in the special reference to judicial matters and I give it a general character so that the amendment reads

"The word ‘indecent' means any matter the publication of which and general distribution thereof would be likely to affect public morals injuriously."

I referred on the Second Reading to the difference in interpretation clauses between "means" and "includes". If you will permit me, Sir, I shall read an acknowledged authority on the subject. The book from which I propose to read is called A Treatise on Statute Law, founded on Hardcastle on Statutory Law. It is by the late William Feilden Craies, M.A. The references are made to page 190 and following pages:—

"There are two forms of interpretation clause. Where the word defined is declared to ‘mean' so-and-so, the definition is explanatory and prima facie restrictive. In the other, where the word defined is declared to ‘include’ so-and-so, the definition is extensive.”

It is a peculiar use of the word "extensive". As the context shows later it means that it extends the range or ambit of the term—gives it a wider scope. It goes on:—

"Sometimes the definition contains the words ‘mean' and ‘include'"—

which I believe is the form of the amendment following mine—

"which inevitably raises a doubt as to interpretation".

The author does not commend it. The footnote is: "See Ilbert, page 281." Now, here is an important consideration:—

"An interpretation clause which extends the meaning of a word does not take away its ordinary meaning".

In a later amendment where the definition, in its extensive function, is of importance, I have introduced—it is amendment No. 29—an interpretation. It is paragraph (b), sub-section (2) of Section 6: "The expression ‘indecent or obscene' as applied to a book includes, besides its accepted meaning whatever is...". Now, if I may return to this book for a moment, it goes on:—

"An interpretation clause which extends the meaning of a word does not take away its ordinary meaning."

Those who attacked the former Censorship Board for breaking the law, disregarding the law, and other enormities, based their criticism on their interpretation of "includes" as equivalent to "means", and held the erroneous view that what followed in the Act of 1929 after "includes" confines the board to consideration of just those things, so that a book which was frankly obscene was excluded from the purview of the censorship unless it incited. I am speaking now of actual criticisms of which I was painfully aware. To continue:—

"Another important rule with regard to the effect of an interpretation clause is, that an interpretation clause is not to be taken as substituting one set of words for another, or as strictly defining what the meaning of a term must be under all circumstances, but rather as declaring what may be comprehended within the term where the circumstances require that it should be so comprehended."

If I may anticipate the amendment that I have later, I would say it was on this consideration that I introduced it as a new sub-section (2): to make it appropriate and relevant to the immediate context. I take the words in regard to "indecent matter" in the clause of the Constitution as meaning "any matter the publication of which and the general distribution thereof would be likely to affect public morals injuriously". The ordinary, plain meaning of "indecent" or "obscene" is whatever is contrary to or offensive to chastity; whatever brings shame—or, as a poet would say, the blush of shame—to a chaste cheek is indecent. But we are not dealing here with personal or individual morality so much as in the legislation providing for the protection of social morality. On that account I have preferred, instead of the plain, ordinary, natural meaning, this meaning taken from Part III of the Principal Act. I think that is all I need say at the moment.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I think the learned Senator has not fully considered what would be the result of his amendment. Whereas the section from the Act which he quoted was to the effect that any indecent matter the publication of which would be likely to affect public morals injuriously could be stopped, there the matter was already qualified by the use of the word "indecent", but the learned Senator in this case introduces no qualification. If you look at his amendment it is: "That the word ‘indecent' means any matter the publication of which and general distribution thereof would be likely to affect public morals injuriously". It does not say "any indecent matter". Probably this House will agree with me that gambling is a matter which is very deleterious to public morals, and also that drinking, especially in excess, is deleterious to public morals, and if this amendment were to pass it would be possible for a censor, keeping strictly within the meaning of the definition, to prohibit an advertisement of a brand of whiskey, to prohibit the publication of the results of races, to prohibit a book on poker, and certainly to prohibit any articles in a paper indicating that a certain horse was going to win, because the professor has sought to extend the word "indecent" to anything which may be likely to affect public morals injuriously.

I am perfectly clear that any of those matters may, in certain circumstances, affect public morals injuriously, and although the censor would probably not take too strict a view of that, he might do so. It is undesirable so to frame a definition section in an Act as to give power to prohibit such matters, which power, if you were to get a crazy censor on the Censorship Board who was able to exercise domination over his fellows, might possibly be exercised. Therefore, I think as far as that goes, the learned Professor has not himself considered the implications of his amendment. He has not realised that, in the section which he sought to apply, there is already a qualification of the word "indecent", and the House could hardly pass the amendment in that form.

As it will save a certain amount of trouble on the next amendment, it is probably correct that I should refer to the learned Senator's readings from Hardcastle as edited by Craies. Roughly speaking, there are three methods of introducing a definition section. You can say that a certain word means so and so. You can say that it "includes" so-and-so—number 2—and you can say that it "means and includes" so-and-so, which is number 3. If the form of definition section which you select is that the word "means" so-and-so, it implies that the definition cuts down the natural meaning of the word. If, instead, you use the formula that it "includes" so-and-so, it implies that it extends the natural meaning of the word as well, and gives it a wider signification for the purposes of the Bill. But if you use the words "means and includes", it recognises that the following definition incorporates the natural meaning of the word, and gives it a further extension for the purposes of the particular Bill. Now, the learned Professor objected on the last occasion to the use of the word "includes" and suggested that "means" should be substituted for it.

Professor Magennis

No; it was the Senator who suggested it.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Well, I understood that for once we were in violent agreement.

Professor Magennis

May I say that when I read the official report, to my surprise, I found myself in violent agreement with two Senators.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I thought that for once I had succeeded in convincing my friend, Senator Magennis, and was disappointed to find, on reading the report, that I had not succeeded in that darling object which I have long cherished and still cherish. However, I suggest that if you want to avoid difficulty in this connection, we could avoid it if we took the phrase "means and includes". The word in the Act both incorporates the ordinary meaning of the word "indecent" and gives it a wider significance. The unfortunate censors would be given something on which they can work, and it would also provide an opportunity for the ordinary citizens to exercise their right of ordinary criticism. Now, with regard to Article 40 of the Constitution, to which the learned Professor alluded, I should like to say a few words. He has mentioned that he will reserve an amendment in that connection for a later occasion, and, therefore, I shall not say anything more about it, but I should like to point out that that is an Article guaranteeing certain fundamental rights. At the beginning, it guarantees the right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions, and that is one of the most fundamental rights of the citizens of this State or of any other State. That, of course, is subject to exceptions. We all know and admit that it is subject to exceptions, but the approach must be that it is incontrovertible that a man is born free and that unless strong reasons are given to the contrary he should be free to have and express his opinions; and whereas I admit at once that in many cases strong reasons may be given, and that the learned Senator and the Minister can give very good reasons for showing why there should be some form of limitation. I do suggest that you should approach it from the point of view that the person who is seeking to interfere is the person who has to justify himself: that a man should not have to justify himself for speaking or writing, and that the author of a book is not to be presumed, as he was on the last occasion in the Seanad, as having done something wrong—in other words, that the matter of justification should lie on those who interfere.

Therefore, I ask the House to refuse this amendment, because this would allow the Censorship Board to interfere with the words or writings of anybody which, in the opinion of the Censorship Board, could affect public morals in any respect. I suggest that it would be impossible to open any newspaper without finding some matter which could in some way or another affect public morals, apart from indecency. I must say that I was very much affronted to see on the front page of a newspaper a picture of an execution. However, that is my own personal opinion, and other Senators might take a different viewpoint, but I would ask the House not to accept this amendment or to give the Censorship Board a sort of roving commission of this sort to inflict punishment on anybody who may do something of that kind, because that would be going altogether outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Boland

I do not propose to accept this amendment. I think that the definition of "indecency" that we have had since 1929 is very good. At any rate, it has enabled the Censorship Board to prohibit 2,000 books and to stop the circulation of a number of objectionable periodicals that formerly came into this country. I think that it is wide enough, as the Senator has told us, and that the word "means" might narrow the whole thing. I think that "includes" is a better word. In any case, it has worked satisfactorily, in my opinion. But I am quite satisfied that, no matter what words we put in the definition section or in the Bill itself, we will have some people objecting. No matter what action is taken by any board or by any Government, everybody will not be pleased. As far as I can see, no matter how you change the interpretation, some people will be discontented, and any member of this board will have to face criticism of the kind we have had up to the present. I should like to know, Sir, are we taking amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Only No. 1.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I really introduced No. 2 as an amendment to the first amendment.

Mr. Boland

I mean that what I was saying would apply to both amendments.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I am not going to press my amendment. It was really an effort to meet Senator Magennis, but apparently I was mistaken.

Professor Magennis

The Principal Act states that it is an Act to make provision for the prohibition of the sale and distribution of unwholesome literature. That is the purpose of the Principal Act, and this amending Bill is merely to provide further and better machinery for carrying out the work of censorship. I am prepared to accept what the Minister says about the previous board being able to carry on since 1929 successfully, but my purpose was to obviate unjust criticisms. It is true that no matter what we do, or no matter what word is used, there will always be offence taken by critics who believe that they have what Senator Kingsmill Moore calls the right to criticise, and, if the Minister thinks that this is good enough, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Professor Magennis

I move amendment No. 3:—

In sub-section (2), line 4, after the word "appoint" to insert the words "five fit and proper".

In the original Act, the Minister is to appoint five fit and proper persons, but in the amending Act he has to appoint merely five persons. The omission of the words "fit and proper" may be misinterpreted by the casual reader, and he may think that the standard of the future Censorship Board has been lowered, and confessedly lowered. I think that, in view of considerations that will arise under later amendments, there should be no necessity to alter the words of the original Act unless, indeed, there is the intention to relieve the Minister, in the matter of appointment, from the necessity of considering fitness in the appointee.

Mr. Douglas

I cannot see any particular point in the amendment. The net result is the same. As the Minister points out, I cannot think of any method by which you could test in the courts whether a person was a "fit and proper person".

Mr. Boland

There was no sinister intention in dropping these words. The draftsman suggested that they had ceased to be used in Bills of late years. It is quite clear that no Minister would appoint anybody whom he would not consider to be a fit and proper person, so that these words are unnecessary. I believe it has been the practice in recent years to take for granted that a Minister would appoint "a fit and proper person". It was not deemed necessary to put the words into Acts for some years.

Professor Magennis

Will the Minister permit me to say that this is an exceptional case? Presumably, no Minister, if fully conscious of what he was doing, would select an unfit person for this task. But it has occurred that a pronounced opponent of censorship was appointed to the board. That I think is some justification for my requirement, that the Minister, before appointing So-and-So Smith, Jones or Robinson to be a member of the Censorship Board, should declare that he is not a determined enemy, who has on occasions written in condemnation in the strongest terms of the very idea of censorship of books.

Mr. Boland

I imagine that would illustrate my point because that would have been done under an Act, in which it was laid down that a fit and proper person would be appointed. I am not admitting that that was the case. But such words are no safeguard. You have to rely on the Minister, who is responsible to the Oireachtas. If he appoints somebody who is not suitable, then he has to answer for it. If the wording is left as it is, it will be in accordance with the practice that, I think, was rightly adopted in measures of this kind.

Professor Magennis

I submit respectfully that it is necessary that even a Minister should be reminded that there are certain considerations to be taken into account. For instance, in the Bill as in the original Act, the Board of Censorship is told what it should do in examining a book, and in some of the amendments they are enjoined to read the book they judge. Would it be a sufficient answer in this case to say: "Of course any man who undertakes to be a censor will read the book he purports to pass judgment upon in relation to social morality"? It seems to me that it was very useful to have this phrase in the original Act. Furthermore, there was a statement made by the Minister in the Dáil on the Second Stage to the effect that almost anybody could do the work. That seems to be corroborated by the omission of the formula "fit and proper person" and implies that "any lay man or woman (to quote a famous passage) can do it."

Mr. Boland

The Minister has not said so.

Professor Magennis

I beg your pardon; I can read your letter——

Mr. Boland

I thought the Senator was referring to the Second Reading debate.

Professor Magennis

This is my recollection of the Minister: The Minister said that all that is required is a knowledge of the Ten Commandments and a sense of what is fitting.

Mr. Boland

I ask the Senator to quote me properly.

Professor Magennis

That is an accurate quotation.

Mr. Boland

It is not. I was referring to the right of five members of the Oireachtas to sponsor an appeal— not to make a decision. A Deputy stated that such a person would require to be a philosopher and to have a knowledge of ethics. I said that all the qualifications necessary to fit an ordinary person to appeal was, in my opinion, a knowledge of the Ten Commandments. That was different from saying that was all that was required for members of the board.

Mr. Baxter

If he had a good knowledge of the Ten Commandments, it might suffice.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I take it that the Senator accepts the explanation.

Professor Magennis

I beg your permission, with all respect, to read what I referred to, and, if it proves that my version is incorrect, of course I shall submit to correction.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

What does the Senator propose to quote from?

Professor Magennis

From the Dáil Official Debates of 24th October, column 521. The Minister said:—

"Under the present Act, the responsibility of banning books was placed upon me. I acted on the advice of a board, but I had to take the responsibility of imposing the ban. All the members of the board who advised me, with one exception, were laymen.

Mr. McMenamin: But they were a board of experts.

Mr. Boland: To decide whether a book is indecent or not does not require any great theological or ethical learning. A knowledge of the Ten Commandments and a sense of what is fitting are all that is needed."

I claim that I quoted the Minister accurately. There was no necessity for the Minister to be so offended. We all say inadvertently things that, after cool consideration, we would withdraw. As a matter of fact, in that very report the Minister expressly declared that the members he appointed and on whose opinion he acted—at times— were not every Tom, Dick or Harry. He expressed his own reluctance to differ from the board because they were men specially chosen for that particular work. I hope the Minister is satisfied that if he is mis-reported, it is not I who mis-reported him. the reference is Volume 98, No. 3. I submit my amendment is a desirable improvement because it is more likely to get members of the public to act as members of the Censorship Board on request if the compliment is paid to them, if it is implied in their selection that they are fit and proper persons.

Sir John Keane

In the first amendment, which I am glad the Senator had the good sense to withdraw, he used an expression called "social morality"—

Professor Magennis

On a point of order, may I ask what did I withdraw?

Sir John Keane

The first amendment.

Professor Magennis

But that is past.

Sir John Keane

I know, but I am only referring to it, incidentally.

Professor Magennis

I thought the Senator was referring to what I said about fit and proper persons.

Sir John Keane

I am coming to that. I was saying that in the first amendment, the expression "social morality" created in my mind grave apprehensions as to the scope of the measure. Luckily we are back to the scope of the measure more or less in its original form. But, I am concerned that in speaking on this amendment again, the Senator used the term "social morality". Let it be quite clear that that is not the purpose of this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is not to correct or control social morals but sexual morals. Let us get that clear from the outset.

Mr. Douglas

It seems to me that there is only one point involved in this amendment, the point whether it improves the Bill or does not improve it. I cannot see any method by which you can test whether a person is suitable or not except by the method of challenging the Minister on his appointment. I think it has been well established that you cannot go to the courts as to the suitability of an appointment by the Minister. The Minister is responsible to Parliament, and I do not care whether these words are in or not. It does seem to me a farce to put words into a Bill which mean nothing. If the Minister is not fit to appoint a person, then he is not fit to be a Minister and should be got rid of altogether.

Mr. Boland

I was relying on my recollection. We were dealing with a proposal to have five members of the Oireachtas. Perhaps it can read as the Senator said, and perhaps it could be read the other way. Nevertheless, I will not accept this amendment because I do not think it is necessary.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Professor Magennis

No, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 9 go together.

Mr. Douglas

I am in a certain difficulty. As far as I am concerned, Nos. 4 and 6 go together but they do not hinge with Nos. 5 and 9, and if you take them in that way I shall only have to repeat my arguments.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

No. 5 could be postponed. Nos 5 and 8 also hinge together. Perhaps Senator Douglas's group could be taken together.

Mr. Douglas

I propose to give my arguments in favour of Nos. 4 and 6. To some extent No. 8 has some bearing on it, but it does not hinge on it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am agreeable. Nos. 4 and 6 are being taken together now.

Mr. Douglas

I move amendments Nos. 4 and 6:—

To delete sub-section (4) and substitute instead a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) One member of the Censorship Board shall retire from office each year and subject to sub-section (5) of this section every member shall, unless he sooner dies, resigns or is removed from office, hold office for the term of five years from the date of his appointment.

To delete sub-section (5) and substitute instead a new sub-section as follows:—

(5) In the case of the first members of the board, one member shall retire at the end of one year, one member at the end of two years, one member at the end of three years, one member at the end of four years and one member at the end of five years. The date of retirement of each of the first members of the board shall be decided by agreement amongst the members or failing this shall be decided by lot. A member of the Censorship Board appointed to fill a vacancy arising otherwise than by the operation of this sub-section or by the effluxion of time shall hold office for the residue of the term for which the member, the termination of whose office occasioned the vacancy, would have held office, if such vacancy had not occurred.

The reason why I put down these amendments was because I wanted to make what seemed to me to be a reasonable and practical suggestion. One of the reasons why I have personally had doubts about the present method was that it seemed to me that five persons—it will now possibly be eight—may be kept in office for a very long time. Those five persons are expected to set up what is to be the definitions or the general standard of interpretation of the Act. Democratically, that is not good. Assuming you have got the best five persons in the whole of the State, it is still not good, because there you have the drawback that no one else is being trained.

The Minister will appreciate that I am not trying to hurt the Act in any way. I am making a suggestion as to what I consider would be a better method if the board was to be changed every year to the extent only of one member. I think in practice that it would be better if a person did not serve more than five years. That will arise on a later amendment whether a person should be eligible for reelection. I think you would get a more workable scheme by getting even a small amount of change from year to year while at the same time you would preserve continuity.

You would remove the objection of giving five persons the responsibility of setting up a State standard under the Act. I think it is objectionable to ask men for five years to go on reading books of a doubtful character if not indeed indecent. Personally, I would hate to have the job for even a year, and I think five years is too long. I need not go into all the details of the method I have suggested. Broadly, it provides for the retirement of one member every year. In order to get over the difficulty of the first to go, I suggest they would agree among themselves as to which of the members would retire. That is a common practice in the case of company directors. It is done by agreement or failing that, by lot. Perhaps I ought to say that my later amendment deals with eligibility for re-appointment.

My suggestion would be that the first two could be re-elected. My reason is that a member is now appointed for three years. I am not suggesting that anyone should be appointed for less than three years if the Minister so desires.

Mr. Boland

I do not think this amendment is desirable. If the members of the board are suitable people to act and are making a satisfactory job of it—as I must say the persons who constitute the present board are—I, certainly, as Minister responsible, would not like to have the task of looking for a new man every year. I do not think there is any point in it either, because if members do not want to act they can retire themselves. If they are giving satisfaction, there is no reason why they should be compulsorily retired. I will not accept this amendment.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I would support the amendment on the same lines as subsequent amendments. It appears to me that one of the matters which brought the practice of censorship into public discredit among those of educated opinion and people of a moral outlook with a sense of responsibility, is the neglect of a principle of legislation of which this House does not require to be reminded, that no law can be effective unless it has the support of public opinion. Any law which has the support of public opinion hardly requires the pains and penalties which may be attached to it. There is nothing more disastrous in any country than the failure of the terms or the method of execution of a law to command a strong measure of support from responsible people, because what happens then is that people who are anxious to break those laws, instead of being restrained by the influence of their friends and neighbours, are in fact encouraged to break them.

Everybody here knows the familiar instance of prohibition in America. Prohibition may be an excellent thing; drunkenness is a bad thing. In an effort to put down drunkenness, prohibition was introduced but that went farther than the opinion of ordinary men and women and prohibition was flouted with the general approval of nearly everybody in America. Evil consequences flowed from that flouting. There came the gangsters and a contempt for the law in general. Throughout the whole of the United States, there spread a kind of epidemic of lawlessness because attempts were made to enforce a law of which the ordinary public did not approve.

Speaking as a legislator and a lawyer, I have been much alarmed at the spirit of antinomianism which is growing up amongst young people. There is very little respect for the law. On questioning young people, you will find that the reason is that certain laws which are being passed have not the approval of their parents or of their friends or neighbours, or that these laws are being worked in a way of which they do not approve.

I am personally aware—I have had this complaint from clergymen of both Churches—that the method in which the Censorship Act has been worked has been such as to invite the reading of the books which have been prohibited, because the prohibition is not supported by the ordinary man, the ordinary parent and the ordinary citizen. That tendency is being extended, not merely from a desire to read books which are prohibited, and which I suggest are wrongly and unnecessarily prohibited, but by the fact that persons who get into the habit of flouting a law, or flouting the practice of a law, because they feel that public support is behind them, go on, eventually, to flout all laws. That is the complaint made to me by people who have to deal with youth and who—both lay and clerical—are responsible for their training. If you put in a censorship board for five years, with an indefinite period of re-appointment, you are apt to get people who will get into a groove and who will get out of touch with that public opinion which is their real support. It is necessary to keep this board fluid. If you have members remaining there for five-year period after five-year period, you may have one person, by his intellectual dominance, by his perseverance or by his stubbornness getting control of the board. That person may be the one member of the board with a certain element of crankiness in his composition and he may be the member who is least in touch with public opinion. I do urge this strongly on the Minister because I feel that if decisions of this board are to have respect—if they do not have respect, it is useless banning any book or establishing any censorship—it will only be achieved by obtaining the support of the family and the support of public opinion. If once the censors get out of touch with public opinion, this measure will not work. One of the ways of keeping them in touch with public opinion is to ensure that theirs will not be what I might call life appointments, that there will be a continuous coming and going, as provided by Senator Douglas's amendment. I regard this as a most important amendment and as one of the things which make this Bill a workable and unobjectionable measure. Otherwise, I fear the Bill may have unfortunate results.

I should like to refer to one further aspect of the amendment. People have stated that if the Archangel Gabriel were given indefinite power for an indefinite time it would take about ten years before he would commence to abuse that power. Human beings are not archangels. If you are given power, the longer you are in a position to exercise it, the more you are inclined to pursue your own particular objects, because you cannot be controlled. If I may use a rather homely illustration, the censorship may get like a setter dog which is taken out and, not being able to find game, starts to set bog larks.

There is a great tendency for censors to start, after a bit, setting bog larks and to commence banning books which, when they first came on the board, they would never think of banning. The tendency is to look into a book with a view to finding if there is something in it which would justify its banning. I regard this amendment by Senator Douglas as one of extreme importance. Its aim is to ensure that there will be continual change, which will enable the board to represent ordinary opinion and prevent it from getting into a rut and taking, perhaps, the rather cranky view of a person who has attained dominance on it by setting bog larks, thus bringing into contempt its effective setting qualities.

Sir John Keane

I support the amendment very strongly. My experience proves to me that there is little or no respect among the rising generation for the Act, as at present administered. I asked a young person serving me in a certain book shop: "Is that book likely to be censored?" The young person said: "I have not read it, but I will read it and let you know." That is the outlook regarding the whole of this Censorship Act. It is not an Act for which the ordinary people have due and proper respect. That is largely due to the fact that the board is one of persons who are out of touch with the younger generation, and who, on the average, are too old. The board requires renewal by those of a younger generation who are in touch with the outlook and point of view of the younger people.

I should like the Minister to deal with one other point. I take it that he has an open mind regarding the appointment of a woman on the board. As the Bill stands, it refers exclusively to males—"his" predecessor, and so forth. I take it that that is so because, in law, male includes female; in other words, "male" embraces "female". I think it would be very desirable to have on the board a woman—the mother of a family—who knows what the young people are thinking.

Professor Magennis

I cordially support the Minister's objection to the amendment. He and I speak from experience. We have heard a great deal of high-falutin talk, in the way of general principles, from Senator Kingsmill Moore. The fact is that, once a member of the board is appointed and has some experience of the work, the desire of his soul is to get out of the office. He would resign only he feels that there would be in that course a certain amount of cowardice and shirking of a task which he has discovered to be uncongenial and too heavy to permit him to deal fairly with his other occupations. The Minister knows as well as I do that, if we—I mean by "we" the State—had got the services of a good man on the Censorship Board, and let him go by the operation of this in-and-out plan, it would be very difficult to replace him. The Minister has frequently referred to that in discussions on this Bill. I know painfully how hard it is to get anybody to act.

As regards the addendum which Senator Kingsmill Moore made to the amendment, let me remind him, or let me inform him, if he is not already aware of it, that this out-of-touch suggestion, this suggestion of lack of support from public opinion, was raised here in this House in November, 1942. Following a prolonged debate and the bringing forward of a variety of books, the Senator responsible induced one other Senator, out of goodness of heart, to vote with him.

Sir John Keane

That is not public opinion.

Professor Magennis

It is public opinion. If the Senator is driven to declare that a vote of this House expresses nothing of public opinion, he is in sore straits. Is public opinion Kildare Street Club?

Sir John Keane

No.

Professor Magennis

Is it on the hillside and in the markets frequented by peasants? Is it the opinion of people interested in public morality and decent living? I regard that as public opinion to be consulted by the State, not merely that of high-minded, high-browed, cultured persons—in their own estimation.

Senator Kingsmill Moore told us on Second Reading that we were objects of contempt among cultured opinion outside. We received from the Council of Action at one time—by "we" I mean the Censorship Board—a statement to the very same effect, that the foreign representatives in this State looked on us with derision because we had censorship. It is easy to make these charges, to augment them, when this lofty person consorts with some other lofty persons and they decide there must be no censorship. To please them we must corrupt and deprave the whole community at large. They may say that censorship is out of touch with public opinion but I challenge Senator Kingsmill Moore to test the matter. Let him take a straw vote, in the American style, as to whether or not public opinion is behind us in this matter of censorship.

Liam O Buachalla

I join with Senator Magennis in supporting the attitude of the Minister in regard to this amendment. I listened very carefully to the remarks of Senator Douglas but I must say that I failed, and still fail, to see the analogy between the appointment and the continuance of boards of directors of companies and a body such as this Censorship Board will be. One thing that occurs to me is that the field from which members of this board are to be selected must be in the circumstances a very limited one. Ordinarily when Bills come before the Seanad, for my part I look upon them as being designed to curb the activities of minorities, very small minorities—in fact, to curb the activities of exceptional individuals. I think it better to use that description lest there might be any misunderstanding as to the use of the word "minority". Throughout his address Senator Kingsmill Moore implied that the reason this Bill is brought before us now is that the last Bill failed because it had not the support of public opinion. He went on to explain that it has failed because it had not the support of parents, children, their friends or neighbours. The implication was that the people of this country were opposed to censorship and that taken as a whole the people of the country would approve of many of these books that had been banned. That I think is a slander on the Irish people and it is one to which I take grave exception. It is quite true that there are people in this country who will read books of this kind. We are putting a check on these people. One purpose of the Bill is to prevent these organisations and these organs that are deliberately out to circulate this type of literature from pursuing such activities. These are the people whom we are trying to curb. Again I hope the House will refuse to accept the amendment proposed by Senator Douglas.

Mr. Baxter

I have only one or two comments to make. If Senator Douglas were prepared to add to the end of his amendment further words to indicate that persons who were members of the board would be eligible for re-election at the end of the five year period, I would be prepared to support the amendment. I would suggest to the Minister that that is an aspect worthy of consideration. Personally I am afraid I am one of those people who hold the view that there is an awful lot made about the censorship by a small number of people. The people of the country generally are very little concerned about it. They have more pressing problems to occupy their attention. It would be unwise I think to take the view that we are on the verge of an upheaval because of the activities of the Censorship Board, as any contention of that kind would be a distortion of the facts. I think Senator Kingsmill Moore or Senator Sir John Keane indicated that it was most important that the Censorship Board should be in touch with public opinion. It would be more important, I think, to ensure that the duty of the board, in so far as it has a duty to discharge, should be to help to mould public opinion, because it is true that the books which are read and the pictures which are exhibited are helping to mould public opinion. I am inclined to the view that much of the lawlessness, indiscipline, and disregard for the authority about which one hears so many complaints, is a direct result of books that are being read and pictures that are being seen which are not conducive to morality in a certain sense.

Senator Magennis put before the House the problems which confronted the original board inasmuch as some members of it were not in favour of censorship. The main purpose the Minister has in mind in this section is to get a board that will do its work —a group of competent people who will do the work satisfactorily. It is quite conceivable that when the Minister gets his board together, he may find that it will not work very well. Then he gets himself into the situation where he has got to take the rather invidious step of selecting one or two from amongst this group of specially chosen people and removing them from the board. That would probably create difficulties and I suggest to the Minister that he might consider whether it would not be advisable if the wording of the section were so framed as to make it possible for one member to retire after five years and be eligible for re-election. If the amendment were in that form——

Mr. Douglas

It is in that form. It is a later amendment that proposes that they cannot be re-elected.

Mr. Baxter

If it is in that form I am satisfied.

Sir John Keane

I agree with Senator Baxter that the bulk of the people, probably 90 per cent. of them, are not concerned at all with the working of the Act. They do not read anything but the daily paper or perhaps a weekly paper on Sunday. I would remind Senator Baxter that progress in all countries comes from the student and the intellectual minority. All progressive movements come from the minority. In these matters of social and intellectual progress, it is the minority you have to consider and it is the minority that will have to be considered in relation to a Bill of this kind.

Mr. Baxter

I should like to inform Senator Sir John Keane that the position at the present time is that we have county libraries in every county, and that there are one or two distribution centres for books in every parish.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I should like to call the Minister's attention to the fact that in each of the morning papers for the last two days I have read instances of clergymen protesting against the censorship as being deleterious. In the morning papers for the last two days, clergymen have been protesting.

Professor Magennis

I have one here.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

A clergyman?

Mr. Boland

In actual practice, what has happened is that there has been a certain amount of fluidity. Some members have resigned, and, unfortunately, some have died. In my time, in the last five years, we have had at least four or five changes on the board. I think it would be difficult to get all the members to remain for the five years, because it is very onerous work. I certainly would be very reluctant indeed to agree to a proposal which would make it necessary for people to retire.

Mr. Douglas

This amendment, which was intended as an administrative suggestion that would be an improvement, seems to have raised every possible question. The only thing the Minister replied to is not in the amendment. It is in a later one, I admit.

Mr. Boland

I thought the Senator mentioned that in his speech.

Mr. Douglas

No. I said I was not taking the later one; that I was taking these two because I thought this proposal should stand on its own merits. I pointed out that No. 7 did not stand with these two, and that I was taking Nos. 4 and 6. I put this forward as to my mind a method of election which was worthy of consideration, and I hoped the Minister would give it serious consideration. The fact that he has had the changes, and seems to view it with approval, rather suggests that the idea of a change each year at any rate does not horrify him. I cannot see for the life of me how, on this particular amendment as it stands, most of the other matters that have been raised in the debate arise.

I would point out to Senator O Buachalla that I did not suggest an analogy with a board of directors. What I did say is that, if you adopted this, the five members, in order to find out who would retire first, might adopt the same method as in the case of a board of directors, which is a very different thing. I suggested that that was the only way out of a possible difficulty. I never suggested that an elected board of directors are in the same position as people nominated by the Minister. Still, I do seriously suggest to the Minister that he might find this a convenient method. There is one rather important change in this Bill which I do think has relevance to this amendment. In the past Bill, it was the Minister who censored books. True, he was advised by a committee, but he could be brought to heel in this House or in the Dáil for the censoring of a particular book, and he could be criticised for censoring a particular book. I do not think it will be in order in future to censure him for censoring a particular book, but I think it will be in order to censure him for appointing the people who censored a particular book. That means that the control of the Oireachtas is to be operated through the appointment of the particular members. I do not think the Oireachtas will have any power whatever over the censoring of a book once this Bill is passed, if the committee, subject to the appeal board, decides that a book is to be censored. It may be that you can introduce an Act to uncensor a book, or whatever should be the phrase, but I cannot conceive of that being done.

Mr. Boland

If I may interrupt the Senator, I might remind him that there is another proposal that five members of the Oireachtas can appeal. I had that in view as an alternative to putting down a motion here to censure the Minister.

Mr. Douglas

I do not think the Minister has got my point. My point is that we are handing to a body of persons, over whom we will have no control, the censoring of a book. It is, therefore, to my mind desirable that those people should be fluctuating— should be subject to change. The Minister, if he did get five people appointed for three years before, had control over them if he found by any chance that they were abusing the Act. My suggestion is that the position is different now. There is nothing in these two amendments which raises the principle of censorship, or which raises the question of public action. Incidentally, I agree with Senator Baxter that the majority of the people are not interested in this Act at all. I do not agree with him that the Censorship Board can possibly promote good reading. They may prevent bad reading, but I do not think they can promote good reading, though it might be a very good thing if they could. I am not going to press this amendment. The Minister, I think, does not want to accept any amendments, and has said that he will not accept this one. I put it forward as a reasonable proposal, and should not be surprised if at some future date he adopted it.

Sir John Keane

Would the Minister answer my point with regard to the appointment of women?

Mr. Boland

I have not the slightest objection to that. If we can get some suitable women, the whole question will be considered on its merits. I have no objection to the appointment of women to the board.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 6, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think amendments Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 20 may be taken together.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I move amendment No. 5:—

In sub-section (4), line 11, to delete the word "five" and substitute instead the word "three".

I am not going to occupy the time of the House very long about this if the Minister has irrevocably made up his mind. This is a matter in which the last word should lie with the Minister, because the Minister is sticking his neck out in this matter and if anything should go wrong it is the Minister who is going to bear the brunt. I do urge him that he should not put himself in a position in which he will have to make a choice which might possibly be invidious. If people are appointed for three years, not being eligible for reappointment, it will automatically ensure that fluidity which I think in his heart of hearts the Minister knows to be desirable. Even if he were to accept the provision that a person should not be reappointed, it would help to provide some fluidity, especially if it were combined with some method of retiring by rotation, as suggested by Senator Douglas. The Minister has given a certain amount of answer, but he does know perfectly well that he may find himself in a difficulty through people who have not very much to do getting on to the board and making this a kind of hobby. The trouble is that the business man, the busy man, who is, by reason of his avocations, in touch with people, has not got much time, and he is the man the Minister will find retiring, so what happens is that to make this section work the Minister is relying upon the fact that busy men are going to retire and that death may remove others. Now, that is not a very satisfactory method, to my mind, of conducting legislation. This is a matter that I would very willingly leave over and not insist on an amendment, but I would suggest to the Minister that perhaps we might have some kind of friendly discussion before the Report Stage as to devising some method by which the Minister might be saved from being put in the invidious position of having to retire people who, perhaps, might not want the Act to work. Perhaps the Minister might give this matter some thought before the Report Stage. As I say, I am not pressing for any particular amendment, but perhaps it might be possible to get some amendment to enable this board automatically to retire in one way or another, and so, perhaps, save the Minister from having to take strong action.

Mr. Douglas

I do not propose to move amendment No. 7, because, obviously, it would be affected by the withdrawal of amendments Nos. 4 and 6. My object was to put down an amendment which might be an improvement. The Minister has given the reason that he does not want to be looking every year for people. That is the reason he gave as against my suggestion that they should not be eligible for re-appointment. Now it will be every five years. I really believe—and I am strengthened in my belief by what Senator Magennis has said, and from what he told me before—that people do not want to go on for a long period, and that now that it is limited to five years it is really ample time for one person to serve on this board. I think that a member of the board would find himself in a stronger position if he were not eligible for re-appointment. I know that if I were asked to go on this board — which, God forbid — I would prefer to go on it for a definite period and to serve on it for that period unless, of course, I had to be removed for good and sufficient reasons. I would not like to go on for year after year and to feel that unless I declined to accept the appointment I would be reappointed by the Minister. Whether criticism is fair or unfair, from the very nature of its work there are bound to be differences of opinion in the board. The best board in the world may have differences of opinion—perfectly honest and fair differences of opinion. I know that if I were the Minister I would hesitate about not offering re-appointment to a member of the board, because it might appear that I was weakening the Committee, or it might imply disapproval of that particular person. I would not want to do that, if I were Minister, unless, of course, there had been a very gross abuse. In connection with a Bill of this kind, if I were Minister I would want to stand behind my board. I think that no matter what Party is in power the tendency of the Minister for Justice will be to stand behind his board—with exceptions, of course— and if people are eligible for re-appointment and the Minister does not offer that re-appointment, it means a reflection on the person himself. I think it would be much better for both the board and the Minister if they were not eligible for re-appointment at all. Of course, this applies under this scheme or the scheme in the Bill.

Mrs. Concannon

Underlying the arguments for these amendments was the suggestion that the members appointed to the Censorship Board for five years would be living in a kind of cloister where no noise could reach them. That seemed to underlie the arguments of Senator Kingsmill Moore, and on the Second Reading of the Bill the Senator told us that some of the books that were condemned were a liberal education and could be regarded as a guide to modern classics. Well, then, the members of the Censorship Board for five years, according to that, will have an intensive training in modern classics and they will also have the advantage of dealing with all the criticism that will be levelled against them. I cannot imagine any body which could be more enlightened than they and more able to judge the so-called modern classics, if they avail themselves of their opportunities during the five years. So I think it would be a great pity if, having got these five fit and proper men—although these are not the exact words in the Bill— we should not continue to avail of their services. I say "men" because, of course, no woman would undertake that revolting task. You can imagine how valuable the services of these men would be after five years because, as I have said, they would have had an intensive training in "modern classics", and what more could you expect?

Mr. Douglas

Might I suggest to Senator Kingsmill Moore that he should withdraw his portion of the amendment, and I would withdraw mine, with the possibility that he could put down amendment No. 8 on Report. I still think that five years of classical or other education is not too bad, although I cannot agree with Senator Mrs. Concannon's view of men, as she evidently thinks that they can read anything without harm.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I shall withdraw my amendment, but I would ask whether the Minister or the Senator could suggest a better scheme.

Mr. Boland

I think the present scheme is quite good. I think Senator Douglas said that I was relying on the question of resignations or death. I said no such thing.

Mr. Douglas

I did not say that.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I am afraid that I was the one who said it.

Mr. Boland

Well, the Senator spoke of fluidity. I think that the people on that board are au courant with literature and that they know what is happening; but it has happened, unfortunately, even in my time, that there have been four changes in that board. All I am saying is that that was happening and that it would be a very difficult thing for a Minister to have to look around and get a suitable person to serve on the board. I do not think it would be desirable to make it more difficult than it is at present, which this amendment would mean.

Mr. Madden

I may be called to order because, when you have so many amendments, it is very difficult to confine oneself strictly to the letter, but in my opinion there has never been a time in the history of this country, in view of the tragedy of the world and the shambles that the world presents to-day, when the Government of this country, and particularly the Minister, should be over-zealous and overanxious to have such a censorship board as would at least save what is left of the remnant of Christian civilization, which is our little country. I was amazed at some of the speeches delivered here. I was really amazed at Senator Kingsmill Moore.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This is dealing with the period of membership of the members of the board, Senator. I thought the Senator was going to make a Second Reading speech on this.

Mr. Madden

Well, then, Sir, I shall join with Senator Mrs. Concannon in what she has said. It has been pointed out that acquaintance with certain modern classics should be a standard of qualification for membership of this board. Am I in harmony now, Sir?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I will hear the Senator, but that point was dealt with on amendment No. 3. This is concerned with the period of membership.

Mr. Madden

I did get up to speak, Sir, but you did not observe me. I wanted to answer Senator Sir John Keane, because the statement he made about literary qualifications in the rural Ireland of to-day was a perfectly erroneous statement and a complete contradiction of the facts. In my opinion, if I am permitted to go on, it is not so very essential to have people with great academic distinctions selected for the personnel of this board. You may have plenty of young men and young women, who have gone so far in their education as the differential calculus and the reading of Virgil and Homer, as we all did, but I think that, in this age, if the plastic minds of our young people are to be saved from the pernicious atmosphere created by the foul books and periodicals that are coming in here, you want the board to have a strong moral outlook as well as academic qualifications.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am sorry to interrupt the Senator, but we dealt with that matter on a previous amendment, amendment No. 3.

Amendments Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 20, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is now 6 o'clock, and it is the usual procedure to adjourn until 7, when Senator Magennis will resume with amendment No. 9.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 7 p.m.

Professor Magennis

I move amendment No. 9:—

In sub-section (9), line 32, to delete the word "existence" and substitute instead the words "occurrence of"; and after the word "membership" in that line to add the words "after the appointment of a board in accordance with sub-section (2) of this section".

Sub-section (9) states: "The Censorship Board may act for all purposes notwithstanding the existence of one vacancy in their membership." I would substitute "occurrence" for "existence" for a special reason. If one turns to sub-section (1), he will find these words: "There shall be a Censorship of Publications Board consisting of five persons," and the Principal Act says: "There shall be established a Censorship Board consisting of five persons." I contend that when the Minister for Justice, after the passage into law of this measure proceeds to set up under sub-section (1), a Censorship of Publications Board he shall be obliged to appoint five persons. Sub-section (9) says: "The Censorship Board may act for all purposes notwithstanding the existence of one vacancy in their membership." That is intended to cover a casual vacancy. This amendment is intended to prevent what seems to me to be an irregularity. A vacancy will be a casual vacancy occurring after the constitution of the board, and will not be caused by the appointment of only four persons. It is for that reason I suggest the word "occurrence" instead of "existence."

Mr. Boland

I cannot see that there is very much difference. Normally, there would be five members. The Senator agrees that four may act pending the appointment of a fifth, but thinks his wording is better than that in the Bill?

Professor Magennis

Yes.

Mr. Boland

I scarcely think it is worth bothering about.

Professor Magennis

It makes a difference in the filling of casual vacancies.

Mr. Boland

There may be a difficulty about filling a vacant position, and in that case a vacancy might exist for a period during which we might not be entitled to proceed without a full board. It may be difficult to get a suitable person, and that is why I realise that the word "existence" would be better. I imagine that the word "occurrence" would nearly imply that you had to fill the vacancy almost immediately. The draftsman has suggested the word "existence" and I am inclined to think it is a better word.

Professor Magennis

The difficulty I foresee could be met by an alteration in the wording of Section 1: "There shall be a censorship of publications board. The full board shall consist of five persons."

Mr. Ryan

I think from the point of view of clarity it is better to leave the sub-section as it stands. While, of course, Professor Magennis's logical mind may see some flaw in the use of the word "existence" I think the ordinary man and the ordinary mind and the ordinary judge would know what it means, but I think that leaving out the question of substitution of "occurrence" for the word "existence" a difficulty would be introduced by the introduction of the words "after the appointment of the board in accordance with sub-section (2) of this section." Sub-section (2) fulfils another purpose besides the mere appointment of the board. Under sub-section (2) casual vacancies are filled, that is, the Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, and thereafter as occasion requires, appoint persons to be members of the Censorship Board, so that the board is not set up, so to speak, exclusively in sub-section (2); it has other functions, namely, the filling of casual vacancies, lience. I think the words "appointment of a board in accordance with sub-section (2) of this section", would be in conflict with sub-section (2) as it stands, I suggest that it would be better to leave sub-section (9) alone. I would suggest that Senator Magennis should withdraw this amendment.

Professor Magennis

I think Senator Ryan has failed to see my point. I am not dealing with sub-section (2) of Section 2. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 reads:—

"The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, and thereafter as occasion requires, appoint members to be members of the censorship board."

That, as he says, is intended to cover several things at once, namely, that at the expiration of the five year period, he is to appoint the board again; also he is to fill casual vacancies if and when one occurs and so on.

I submit that a casual vacancy must be a vacancy occurring in the board. The board is declared to consist of five persons and the first casual vacancy should occur in what was a board of five persons, if words have any meaning. That situation, as the Minister has reminded me, not intentionally, did arise in the actual working of the board. He may remember that through the death of one of its members, when he came to reappoint the board in February there was a board of only four appointed. I think the Minister will corroborate me in that statement. Difficulties can arise. If we have a board of only four to start with, all the members of the board must be present to form a quorum and that is not always an easy thing to secure, notwithstanding Senator Kingsmill Moore's suggestion that we are men with nothing to do except to cultivate the hobby of reading dirty books. We are very busy men, and when there is a board of four, and four is the quorum, all must be present to make the proceedings valid.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I would respectfully support the Professor's amendments. I would like to create the precedent, which he renaged earlier in the day, of finding myself in agreement with him. This amendment ensures that the board shall consist of five members. The Minister could in theory appoint four—we know he is not going to do it—and keep four indefinitely. Let me take the opportunity of saying that I was not suggesting that the learned Professor may have as a hobby the reading of questionable books. What he might do is to make a hobby of just banning books which many of us might like to read. As to his being a busy man, I think he is now professor worthily emeritus and not professor officio——

Professor Magennis

That is not so. I am still a professor and indeed a very busy man, and I am not personally alone on the board in being a busy man.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I thought they had given you your well-earned leisure, Senator.

Professor Magennis

I suggest that before we proceed in the way this debate is going, the air should be clarified. Senators should forbear from suggestions that I alone am the Censorship Board when the Minister is the person who is the censor, the appellate authority and the appointor and dismissor of members—

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Coming events, Senator.

Mr. Boland

On that point of having appointed only four members. Senator Magennis is quite correct, but that situation is not likely to occur again. I was optimistic enough to hope that I could have this Bill ready in a very short time and as I did not like asking a man to take on membership for only a brief period, I asked the four members to accept re-appointment. My reason was that I hoped that I would soon have the Bill ready. It is not likely to occur again, and I think as it stands, the section is quite all right.

An Cathaoirleach

The amendment is not being pressed?

Professor Magennis

Oh, no.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 3.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 10, 13, 18, 68 and 69 deal with the number of members of the appeal board and the quorum, etc., and all depend on whether the number is to be five or three. Shall we take all the amendments together?

Professor Magennis

I have no objection. I move amendment No. 10:

In sub-section (1), line 34, to delete the word "three" and insert instead the word "five".

There are five members for the examination of books and for the expression of an opinion upon them and to have an appeal board of a lesser number is, I think, most objectionable. I know the Minister's mind in this matter. He considers that to ban a book is a very serious proceeding. So do I. But I consider that the hearing of an appeal from the issue of a prohibition Order is, likewise, a very serious matter. If the prohibition Order has been issued by the Censorship Board and an appeal board revokes the Order, the book in question has a superb advertisement. "Here is a book that the Censorship Board thought indecent and obscene; it has been released for circulation"; can you imagine any greater advertisement for it than that? Before permitting that to be done you should hedge the public interest around with all the precautions possible. It is a very serious matter, undoubtedly, to put the aspersion on a man's character that his book is forbidden sale and circulation in the State on the ground that it is indecent or obscene. But then think of what this Act of 1929 was enacted to do. It was not enacted primarily for the protection of authors and foreign publishers. Primarily, it is to prohibit the sale and circulation in the State of unwholesome literature. I ask the House and the Minister to consider that fact of supreme importance.

Two members, with the chairman, are to constitute the appeal board. Two members, by their vote, as you will see later, can override all the votes of the Censorship Board, even if, as frequently happens, the board was unanimous. Let me take the case to which I referred on the Second Reading. A citizen of this State invokes the Constitutional provision—for there is another clause in the Constitution which guarantees protection to the citizen—and writes a complaint that such and such a work is indecent or obscene. That undergoes examination by a quorum, at any rate. It frequently happens that there is a unanimous vote and a prohibition Order is issued. Even if the chairman of the board, and the complainant in the first instance and the four members were unanimous in condemning the book, the vote of two members of the appeal board would override them. There must be something very special in the qualifications of those two men to invest them with such superiority. Surely, in public matters the most votes carry. I do not say that that is so always, but it is more usually the case. If a decision is to be reached by taking a vote, the majority vote prevails. I contend that, if this superiority of worth is to be attributed to the two men, the proper place for those voluntary workers on behalf of censorship is on the Censorship Board. They should devote their superior qualities of mind and judgment to the reading of the books in the first instance.

Remember that, in the appeal board, the chairman is to be preferably a judge. Presumably, he was created a judge for his eminence judicially or for his dependability as an interpreter of the law. Why, then, is there not a judge in the Censorship Board to interpret the law? When I explained to the Minister, a considerable time ago, that no member of the Censorship Board would be so conceited or so stultified as to object to having an appeal from the judgment of the board, he told me—it was a very nice thing for the Minister to say—that he held the board in such esteem he did not think they would consent to have an appeal. I thought he would have understood that members of the board—some of those I have in mind are since dead—would not consent to remain—remember the service is voluntary—if the judgment of the board was to be overruled by that of two men. With all respect, the Minister has overlooked consideration of personalities. He will find it more difficult—this may sound a threat but I ask the Minister to believe it is only a prophecy; I have no desire to threaten the Minister as, I think, he knows by this time—than he ever found it to recruit the board from time to time. He will have to say to men like the late Doctor Coffey, President of University College: "I want you to act on the Censorship Board but, remember, the judgment of yourself plus all your colleagues will be liable to be set aside by the judgment of two men on the appeal board." Doctor Coffey would never accept the position on those terms. That is a typical case. The facts have always to be considered. I look at everything from the point of view of the facts and the actual situation. It is all very well for Senator Kingsmill Moore to make eloquent speeches in the air. I get down to brass tacks. The situation is: Five men are to be selected for their capacity to do the work intended, and yet their decisions are to be subject to an appeal and be set aside by two men. That is to be final.

Mr. Boland

My original intention, for the very reason put forward by Senator Magennis, was not to have two boards at all. If I recollect aright, the first Bill introduced in the Seanad provided for two boards but I could not see one voluntary board agreeing to have its decisions turned down by another. I saw the objection—I thought it would be an almost insuperable objection—that you would not get a voluntary board to put itself in what might be regarded as a subordinate position to another board. For that reason I thought of some such system as obtains in the case of the censorship of films—a paid censor with an appeal board. I was persuaded, however—I do not think I am breaking any confidence in saying that it was by Senator Magennis himself—that you could get a board which would not object to having an appeal against its decisions. The matter boils itself down now to a question of the number. I am not tied to the number three but I can see the same objection arising here, that five persons might object to five other persons reviewing their decisions. Each man on the appeal board might be held to be superior to the corresponding person on the Censorship Board. I really do not think that there is very much in this matter of numbers. It is all a question of whether the decisions of one board should be subject to reversal by another. However, I must confess that I am still somewhat doubtful.

The reason I indicated a judge was that I thought that if a judge were on the board, it might lessen the objection to the small number on the board. Senator Magennis, I understand, would not object to having only three members on the Censorship Board itself. I thought, however, that as the Censorship Board takes the initial step of banning a book, it would be desirable that as many minds as possible should be brought to bear on the question of whether a book should be banned in the first instance. As I say, I am not tied to the number three but I think the same objection would arise if the number were five, that there would be the same difficulty in getting five people to act on the board who would not object to having their decisions reviewed by five other persons on the appeal board. I then thought that if I could get a person with judicial training on the appeal board it might remove some of the objections. In fact. in so far as experience goes, we would require people with most experience on the original board because I imagine the vast majority of their decisions would not be appealed against. I believe myself that in regard to 90 per cent. of the books banned everybody would accept that they should be banned because they are only rubbish.

I do not care whether the number on this board is five or three but I think the same objection could be advanced against a board of five as against a board of three. If one member of the appeal board is a judge, it does not imply that he is in any superior position except in so far as he may be exercising judicial functions. I do not say that I shall succeed in getting a judge; that is only a hope I have. My only reason in looking for a judge is that it would give the board more the appearance of a court. I do not want to be taken as refusing every suggestion that is put up or I do not want any Senator to think that I came here with a completely closed mind on this Bill, because I have not. I have gone to a great deal of trouble over this matter and if I were satisfied that I could always get ten persons to act voluntarily on these boards I would be prepared to accept the number five on the appeal board which the Senator suggests. If the Senator wishes I shall go into the matter again but I think that, on the whole, there might be the same objection, as I have said, to five as there is to three.

Professor Magennis

May I say that the Minister has met me with superb graciousness? My original proposal was a Censorship Board of three and an appeal board of five but the Minister convinced me that three was quite an insufficient number for the efficient examination of books. You would require, for example, a doctor. There must be a doctor, because—this will come out in connection with a subsequent amendment—there are pseudo-medical books and we require a doctor's experience to inform the board whether books which are called medical books are really bona fide contributions to medical science or whether they are merely appealing to the prurient curiosity and what-not of civilians who are not at all interested in medical science as such. We therefore need a doctor on the board. I quite agree that my original proposal of three members was not quite as good as the Minister's. On the other hand, this substitution of three constituting the appeal board leaves the situation, to my mind, thoroughly bad. One of the objections raised to three as the number for the Censorship Board was that only two votes would suffice as a majority; two men would decide to ban a book and to issue a prohibition Order. It would be very much better to bring a variety of minds to play upon what is undoubtedly sometimes a very difficult problem. It is not merely a question of ability to discriminate and to discern literary values, psychological implications and ethical. Men have different outlooks, different valuations, let me say different prejudices, and all these enter into the work. That is equally an argument for a larger appeal board. No one who is a reasonable man on the Censorship Board, I hold, could possibly take exception to their judgment being referred for further consideration to a body at least as large in number as the original—because what is it, after all, but a widening of the circle of opinion? If the Censorship Board were permitted to take part in the discussion at the appeal board hearing—but I am now trespassing on another amendment of mine with which I shall deal later on. I am glad the Minister considers my proposal reasonable.

Mr. Ryan

I would suggest that the Minister should accept Senator Magennis's amendment, or at least the principle of it. The Minister has stated that he has not very strong views on the matter. I think the appeal board was selected because the Minister was afraid he might find it difficult to get a larger board on the voluntary system. I submit that as both boards—the Censorship of Publications Board and the Censorship of Publications Appeal Board—consist of voluntary workers, it might even up matters between both boards considerably, if each board consisted of the same number of voluntary workers with the addition that on the appeal board the chairman would be a lawyer. I think that the whole Censorship Act would work more smoothly, with less friction between the original board and the appeal board, if both boards consisted of the same number of members. There is no great principle involved in this amendment at all, but I think it would help to work the Act more satisfactorily and more smoothly from the point of view of the members of the Censorship Board and the persons who might find themselves aggrieved by a decision of the board, and if a decision of the Censorship Board should be overruled by the appeal board, the members of the Censorship Board would not have very much of a grievance, because the overruling board would consist of the same number of members as the ruling board. I submit that, as no principle is involved, and as the Minister appears to have an open mind on the matter, it would be advisable in the circumstances to accept Professor Magennis's amendment. I recommend it to the Minister for his acceptance.

Mr. Douglas

I have not got any very decided view as between three and five. I have listened to the discussion and I appreciate some of the points made by Senator Magennis, but before giving a vote I should like to see the way in which the five would be constructed. If the Minister, in principle, were to agree, I suggest that it would be very much better that it should be postponed until the Report Stage, so that we might see the composition of the whole five.

Mr. Boland

In what way does the Senator mean?

Mr. Douglas

For instance, if it required four out of five in order to reverse, I think that would be excessive. I would assume that it should be three. What actually brought me to my feet was that I rather disagree with the general line of Professor Magennis's argument. To my mind, the whole of this censorship business is voluntary service given to the State. I do not think the question of personal dignity comes into it. The members of the Censorship Board do a job voluntarily, for which they ought to receive the thanks of the State if they do it well. If the State provides an appeal, the responsibility has then gone from them. It is not as if you are deciding an interpretation of law. An interpretation of law may have an effect over possibly hundreds of years. This is a question of whether a particular book should or should not be censored. It does not have any very wide bearing. I am pretty well certain that there are some books in regard to which members of the board find difficulty—books which are what might be called border-line cases. I entirely agree with the Minister when he says that—certainly after a little experience at any rate—the number of appeals will be relatively small. It may be that you would get a good few to commence with.

What I am really trying to get at is this: we believe in freedom of speech; we believe in the freedom of the Press; and our attitude—which I think is the attitude of the Minister—is that we have agreed to censorship only as a necessity, not as something we want to do or something we are particularly anxious to enforce so rigidly. If there is a case on which there is sufficient doubt, so that after consideration by the appeal board they decide to reverse the decision, that is a case of an honest difference of opinion. In a matter of that kind, I cannot see that it is any reflection of any kind on the majority of the five. It is simply that there is a difference of opinion, and, in effect, the benefit was given to the particular author. I know it could be argued that the benefit should go to the Censorship Board, but what I am getting at is that, whether it happens to be five in each or whether it happens to be five and three, it is really a matter of expediency as to which the State will find most convenient to work. It is not vital, as it would be if you were providing an appeal in law, in which the minority decision might ultimately override the majority.

If the Minister has really had the difficulty which he says he has had, and expects to have in the future in getting a sufficient number, and if he decides, as I hope he will, to maintain the voluntary principle, I would suggest to him—though I will not mind very much if he decides on five—that there is not any very vital principle concerned if he finds three more convenient, that is to say if he can find three good men more easily than he can find five. In a word, I would rather have three good men than three good men plus two doubtfuls.

Mr. Seán O'Donovan

During the debate the thought occurred to me as to whether it would be feasible for representatives of the Censorship Board to appear as members of the appeal board. I understand that the appeal board can make its own arrangements for hearing appeals. There is nothing to indicate how the machinery will be set up, or whether there will be any reports from the Censorship Board to the appeal board. The thought occurred to me that if the Censorship Board were not unanimous it might be feasible that the remaining two on the appeal board would be made up by representatives from the Censorship Board. If there was a decision of four against one, then one member representing the four who were for the censorship plus the one who was against it might constitute the remaining two on the appeal board. That would mean at any rate that you would have both points of view put before the appeal board, and it would mean that better and more satisfactory consideration might be given to the question. I think it should be feasible to work that arrangement. If the Censorship Board were unanimous—if the five of them agreed that a particular book should be banned—I suppose it is still possible that we could get five members of the Oireachtas to formulate an appeal. In that case, there would be no opposition, so to speak. In that case, it would be possible that four members could constitute the appeal board, so that if there was unanimity there would be four on the appeal board, and if there was not unanimity there would be five. You would have that connecting link, which to my mind does not seem to be outlined anywhere in the Bill as it stands. I suggest it to the Minister as a possible line of approach.

I do not know whether or not it might ultimately prove practicable. Before I sit down, I should like to convey my appreciation of the fact that the Minister has said that many of those books—if he did not say "most of those books" at least he said "many"—were absolute rubbish. I am delighted at any rate that he does not regard them in the same light as Senator Kingsmill Moore, who speaks of them as everyman's guide to the modern classics.

Mr. O'Dea

I think there would be an objection to the course which Senator O'Donovan recommends, because Section 11 says that four members shall constitute a quorum at any meeting, that is at any meeting of the board. So you must have four members present to constitute a quorum. You would not, therefore, have sufficient members left to form a quorum if you have two members of the censorship board hearing an appeal.

Mr. Boland

You would want to have fresh minds.

Mr. O'Dea

Yes.

Mr. O'Donovan

My point is that you would have two fresh minds.

Mr. O'Dea

You cannot have two, because four is the quorum.

Mr. Quirke

I think there is no necessity to have much discussion on this matter on which there is considerable agreement. The Minister has agreed to the principle of the amendment, and his only difficulty is that he thinks it will be very hard to find suitable people. Like Senator O'Dea, I do not agree with Senator O'Donovan's suggestion at all, because I think it is of the utmost importance that if the first board disagrees, the matter should come clear to the second group and that they should have an open mind on it. Now, we have heard a lot of extraordinary suggestions on the various stages of this Bill, but I think the most extraordinary statement was that of Senator Mrs. Concannon to-night. As long as she has been here I have always heard her advocating the women's cause and trying to convince us that they were at least as good as, if not better than, the men for doing anything. Now, to-night, she stands up and says that the women would not be fit for this particular job at all. I think they would, and I would suggest to the Minister that if he finds himself short of suitable men, he should go to the women.

Mr. Boland

I am accepting the amendment and will try to get the best people I can.

An Cathaoirleach

I take it that that means the acceptance of amendments Nos. 10, 13 and 18, leaving the questions of the quorum to be discussed later, on amendments Nos. 68 and 69. Is it agreed that this decision covers amendments Nos. 10, 13 and 18?

Mr. Boland

No. It is amendment No. 17. Amendment No. 18 dealt with the matter of "fit and proper," and I think we settled that.

Professor Magennis

I think it is of the highest importance that they should be declared to be four fit and proper persons, because I have great misgivings about the future of the appeal board. I make no secret of that whatever. I consider that it will be in the power of the appeal board to go into every prohibition Order issued since 1930, and when I heard the speech of Senator Kingsmill Moore, I said to myself: "Thank Heaven he will not be the chairman." He holds that the technical phrase "in its general tendency indecent" will be taken strictly, and that every book that had not that definite tendency and yet was condemned with that formula would at once have the prohibition Order revoked. I am not at all easy about this, especially also when the great precept and the principle of law and justice are forgotten: Audi alteram partem, aud nemo debet inauditus damnari—a principle of law.

An Cathaoirleach

Are we not widening the discussion, Senator? I take it that amendment No. 10 is agreed to.

Professor Magennis

I am giving the reason why I want the words "fit and proper" put in.

An Cathaoirleach

We can deal with that on amendment No. 13.

Professor Magennis

Very good. I bow to your decision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I move amendment No. 11:—

In sub-section (1) (a), line 36, before the word "barrister" to insert the word "practising" and before the word "solicitor" to insert the word "practising.".

This is a minor amendment and I thing the Minister will probably accept it. The next amendment also is a minor one also, and that is to insert the words "not less than" before the word "seven"; that is, that the person should be a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing, as he would probably have acquired some knowledge of law in that period. It is well known that your knowledge of law really only begins when you start to put into practice your theoretical learning, and it is usual to find the words "practising barristers and solicitors". That is why I suggested that that should be put in, and also the qualification of not less than seven years' standing. A person with the hypercritical faculty of Senator Magennis might suggest— I do not say he would—that according to the words you have there you could appoint a person of seven years' standing but not a person of eight years' standing. In one sense, I do not care whether the Minister accepts these two small amendments.

Professor Magennis

I have much pleasure in supporting Senator Kingsmill Moore.

Mr. Boland

Well, seeing that there is such agreement, I will not disagree. I shall accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I move amendment No. 12:—

In sub-section (1) (a), line 37, before the word "seven" to insert the words "not less than".

Amendment agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

I take it that amendment No. 13 is also agreed to, as it is covered by amendment No. 10.

Professor Magennis

I move amendment No. 13:—

In sub-section (1), line 38, to delete the word "two" and insert instead the word "four".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Douglas

I move amendment No. 14:—

In sub-section (1), at the end of paragraph (b), line 38, to add the following words: "One of whom shall be a person, who in the opinion of the Minister, is a representative of authors resident in Ireland."

Amendment No. 14 suggests that one of them—I take it that the number will be five now, and I think that that strengthens the case for it—shall be a person who is a representative of Irish authors. I am not dealing with authors from outside, but I am interested in authors who reside here, and I think it is desirable that we should have a particular interest in them. I found difficulty in dealing with this because I saw that in appointing a board of this kind the Minister, possibly, would be rather chary of accepting a nomination from outside, and consequently I thought that the best way would be to face up to it definitely that it must be left entirely in his discretion to decide whether the person was representative or not. I take it that he is not against the principle that one of the five on the appeal board ought to be a person representative in that capacity. I would ask the Minister to consider this between now and the Report Stage, to see whether it is not possible for him to appoint one person who would be representative of the trade of authors. I am not so much concerned with editors but simply with authors, and I think a lot could be said to have them represented.

Mr. Boland

That would be a person "who, in the opinion of the Minister", was representative?

Mr. Douglas

Yes. I definitely asked for the opinion of the Minister because it would have to be left to him.

Mr. Boland

Yes. Naturally, I should like to see—and I shall probably be the Minister concerned—that the board to be set up would be the best that I could get, but I would not like it to be confined to any particular class of people. I should like to get the people who were most suitable for these boards. If I am to be asked to say which person would be most representative of the authors, I might put forward some person who would be turned down by an organised body of authors and told that I was wrong and that he was the last person that should be appointed. I understand that there is an association of authors, and as far as I know they are opposed to censorship entirely, and they would probably want to have someone put on the board who would be opposed to censorship. Naturally, in setting up the board, I would try to get the best people I could, and people that would be representative of the interests concerned. However, I would not like to accept this amendment, even though the Senator says that it is left to the Minister's opinion. I myself might think that a person was the most representative, but I would not say that, because I might be turned down by those who had organised themselves and claimed to be representatives of authors generally.

Mr. Douglas

It is because I recognise that, that I put it in this form. I think that the Minister is too long in politics to be over-sensitive to criticism.

Mr. Boland

After being so long a Minister, I might be more sensitive than the Senator thinks.

Mr. Douglas

Well, perhaps the Minister is not so thick-skinned as I am, but at any rate I never regarded him as being unduly thin-skinned. Perhaps I am wrong and, if so, apologise. There would be whispers about appointments. We are liable to have that no matter what is put into the Bill. I think this amendment, if put in, would go some way to meet a point of view which is not unreasonable; it is a bona fide Irish point of view. With five I feel that the case would be much stronger than it would be with three. I think the Minister is wrong if he assumes that all authors are opposed to any type of censorship.

Mr. Boland

Organised opposition.

Mr. Douglas

There is provision for dealing with that. It does not follow that there should not be organisation in a comparatively short time. I am satisfied that all authors are not opposed to all forms of censorship. I also rather object to the view that the Minister and Professor Magennis have, that because a person is opposed to censorship he could not conscientiously carry out the duties. I have been for many years totally opposed to capital punishment, but I never refused to serve on a jury and would not consider it my duty to refuse to find a man guilty because I differed from the law. I am not at all enamoured with the present type of censorship, but I recognise that something must be done with regard to indecent literature. That does not mean that I would not honestly try to carry out the law. I believe that there are plenty of people willing to serve, and to see that the law is carried out properly, even though it may not be as they would like it. Otherwise, I do not know how we would get along. I would prefer a court of law to say what was indecent. That may be a wrong point of view. My view is this, because a person takes that point of view, it does not mean that he is not anxious to make this Bill workable and efficient or not prepared to serve. That assumption is wrong on the Minister's part.

Mr. O'Dea

The difficulty I see is that it says a representative of the author who would be someone appointed by authors to represent them. Supposing the authors refused to nominate anyone to represent them, would it be possible to have a full board?

Mr. Douglas

I draw attention to the words "a person who in the opinion of the Minister is a representative".

Mr. O'Dea

Even so we still go back to "a representative". The Minister must decide that.

Mr. Quirke

It is most unreasonable to ask the Minister to accept the amendment. I never knew the Minister to avoid trouble. He is long enough in politics for that, but I think he would be looking for trouble if he accepted the amendment. There are at least two organisations, each of which would claim to represent these people. If the Minister were to get in between them I think we would be looking for another Minister for Justice.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

If the Minister were to adopt anything in the way of the general principle there would be no difficulty in striking out a form between now and the Report Stage. I have the next amendment, proposing that one member of the appeal board should be nominated by the Irish Academy of Letters, an extraordinarily representative body of authors, and if they do so nominate, and the person consents he should be one of the members of the appeal board. The amendments are designed only for one purpose. It is admitted that certain books come on what I might call "the border-line". That has been admitted by Senator Magennis. It is admitted that the appeal board is sitting as a court, and that the original board has sat as a court without the author being in front of it. Though they might take into account certain representations made under this Bill, I think it very desirable that there should be some person on that board to represent the point of view of the unfortunate author and publisher. After all, what you are doing here is, you are taking away the livelihood of a man who has given his time and his brains in the writing of the book, and also the publisher who has spent his time and money in publishing it. Are they to be just frustrated? It is most important that they should not be, and that there should be someone to put forward their case, some persons sympathetic to the extent of being able to explain it. Senator Magennis said it was desirable to have a doctor on the board.

May I call attention to the fact that amongst the matters to be considered by the board before banning a book are the following, not merely the literary artistic, scientific or historical merit, and the general tendency, upon which a representative of the organisation would be useful, but the nature and extent of the circulation which, in their opinion, a book was likely to have. Surely an author there would be able to inform the board what type of circulation a particular book would have. He might say that the book was likely to be bought only by collectors, that the cost was very high, that probably only three copies would be sold in this country, or that it was one that would be sold in one class of society and to persons interested in such matters. The author would be able to help them in that, and also as to the class of readers which, in his opinion, might be expected to read it. An author writes for a certain class and is an authority on the class of persons who would be likely to read a certain book, and on any other matter which appeared to be relevant. On that it is clear that an author would be able to put forward all the relevant points which would not occur to the ordinary layman. It seems to me that there is a very strong case there, if you have a board of five, for having on it one person who shall look after the interests of persons primarily victimised by the Order which is going to be made, and whose commercial interests are being affected.

The suggestion which I make is the best one which I could think of. I am quite prepared to consult with the Minister to see if we could get a better one, but the present amendment seeks to take that responsible body, the Irish Academy of Letters, and let them nominate one member for this board. If they nominate a member and he consents to act, the Minister should appoint him. I will go further and be prepared to meet the Minister, if the Minister thinks it is likely that somebody might be put on to sabotage the thing.

We could probably get rid of that by providing that the Minister shall nominate him if he appears to be responsible but otherwise shall request a second nomination—these are only matters of detail. Surely this House will agree that one of the five people should be able to express the point of view of the person who is going to be hit.

There is an old story of the examinee who was asked to quote a single text of Scripture, and he looked up and saw a board of examiners and quoted: "I looked up and saw four great beasts." That is really the position of the unfortunate author whose book is tried and sat upon in his absence by the Board of Censorship because there is no provision for his personal appearance, or the appearance of anyone before those who may know a great deal about one subject but who are not experts on matters which have to be considered by the board. I would have thought they would have welcomed the co-operation of a person who might change them from being a wholly censorial board, a board of five little Catos, so to speak, to a board which was most genuinely anxious to inform itself of the author's point of view.

Professor Magennis

Sir, this is an insidious attempt to have this voluntary body recognised by our legislature. There is no such thing as an Irish Academy of Letters in the sense in which there is the French Academy of Letters. If the Seanad is to make it the privilege or the right of that body to dictate to the Minister that one of their number is to be an ex-officio member of the appeal board, we ought to pause to see what we are doing: we constitute Mr. Yeats' Academy of Letters a body recognised by the State.

I have taken the trouble to consult Thom's Directory with regard to the personnel of the Irish Academy of Letters, and with your permission, I will dwell upon the membership. Some of the members are excellent men against whom no breath of opposition could be raised, but I find that out of 34 persons who are returned as actual members of the academy, no fewer than nine have had books banned.

What should we say if a claim was made by Bill Sykes that he himself or a member of his association should be put on a board to deal with convicts and with murderers of policemen who were killed because they were resisting the midnight burglar? Nine have had books banned, and I notice that the honorary secretary of this Academy of Letters is Mr. Lennox Robinson. I recall——

Mr. Sweetman

On a point of order, Sir——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

These personal references are not in order, Senator.

Professor Magennis

I am very glad to be spared the examination of the list, but when a member of this House brings forward a proposal that the censorship board is to have its judgment reversed, or a contribution made to the reversal by men who are in conflict as a business with censorship, I think it is too audacious an attempt to defeat the censorship. I have no hesitation in saying that it is an attempt to defeat the censorship—I say that advisedly.

The argument put forward in other respects by Senator Kingsmill Moore is altogether incorrect. I can speak now, as he speaks. He as a practising barrister, I as a printer and publisher connected with two firms, know those estimates of likely circulation and what type of buyer is likely to send up the sales in regard to particular kinds of books. That is part of the task of the managing director of a publishing firm, and the author is the last man in the world to be able to give an estimate of them because there are so many factors involved—his own conception of the importance of his book, not to mention any more. I would strongly resent the idea of tying the hands of the Minister to a particular type of appointment. It would vitiate the whole idea of a censorship board.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

May I call the attention of Professor Magennis to the fact that my amendment does not suggest that the council of the academy should be bound to nominate any member of the academy? I chose them as the most representative body I could think of to nominate some person, not a member of the academy, but some person who would look after the interests of authors. Senator Magennis has gone to some trouble to find out that nine out of 34 members of the academy have had books banned. The only difficulty I see is that it would seem to stultify an earlier argument of mine. Forty-four Irish authors and 170 books by them have come under the lash of Senator Magennis. That seemed to me to be an excessive proportion, and it caused grave doubts in my mind whether every Irish author of importance had not had his books banned.

While 44 Irish authors have had 170 books banned, he says that out of 34 members of the Irish Academy of Letters, nine had books banned. I thought that most of the 44 bans were wrong bans, and I am not impressed by the argument that, because nine out of 34 members have had books banned, the academy is not fit or suitable to nominate a member. I hold that nearly 50 per cent. of the bannings of Irish authors were wrong. It is not a question of Bill Sykes being put on it. It is a person who is being condemned as Sykes on inadequate evidence by a judge who has not any particular qualification in that matter. That is what the censorship means. The authors have been condemned, unheard, behind their backs.

I do not know the qualifications of anybody there. I have no doubt the world knows Bill Sykes, but the Bill Sykes's who have not been condemned are those whom the Minister is seeking to attack. I am not wedded to the Irish Academy of Letters, but it does seem to me to be the best body you can get, and if all the professor can say is that nine out of 34 have had books banned, it does not seem to be a matter of any great seriousness, especially as I am not asking them to nominate one of their own members, but to nominate a person whom they consider would be reasonably representative.

I would say that I am perfectly willing to make any amendment which will provide that the Minister will approve of the nomination. Something of that nature could be done. There is no doubt that there is a feeling among both authors and publishers of great wrong and great injury, and the Minister should go as far as he can to remove it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think that the Senator should withdraw the reference "under the lash of Senator Magennis".

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Oh, no, I did not think I expressed anything offensive. If I did make such a remark, it was not against him in his personal capacity, but by reason of the fact that Senator Magennis was put there to do a job of work.

Mr. O'Donovan

It is force of habit with you.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I would ask Senator Magennis if he placed that interpretation on my words?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think that personal reference might be withdrawn.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Undoubtedly, of course, I withdraw.

Professor Magennis

I acquit the Senator of any desire to be offensive. The Senator referred to "the unfortunate author who is the object of victimisation." I suggest that that is a thing which, on consideration, he would not say. Again what he forgets are the facts. Senator Kingsmill Moore is, to me, a prose poet. He is always indulging in fancy. He thinks in the air. We cannot pin him down to actualities. He gives no heed to what the situation is with regard to the Act of 1929. In England, as I mentioned before, this work is part of the criminal law. Work done here under the Act of 1929 is of the nature of civil procedure. I mean by the use of the word "civil" that criminal penalties are not applied in every case. We cannot deal punitively with most of the principal offenders. Most of the men we have to deal with in the Censorship Board are foreign publishers at war with our culture and civilisation. They try to reap rich results by undermining our Christian ideals of life and conduct, and they have hirelings who lend their literary talents to this fell purpose. We cannot indict the publishers in our courts. We cannot send them to prison after condemnation by a judge in our criminal court. This censoring is the only way we can deal with them. Hearing Senator Kingsmill Moore and others on those benches opposite talk on this matter, one would think that the Censorship Act of 1929 was established for the relief of foreign publishers and the authors who are in their service, whereas it is an attempt on the part of the Minister for Justice and other members of the Government to protect the people of Ireland from such assaults. We have got a wrong conception of the purpose of this legislation if we think that we should have an appeal board with nominated members selected possibly by a number of men whose publications have already incurred banning. I am quite sure that the Minister is absolutely right in refusing to have his hands tied. The assumption is that the authors need representation. How would it be if religious Orders were to ask to be represented?

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

You are not suppressing religious Orders.

Professor Magennis

I have said nothing to which that has any relevancy. This is a straight stand-up fight: Is Ireland to be Irish or is it to be subjugated again by a foreign printing press by means of a spiritual defeat? That is how I regard the situation.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Surely that is not very real. I have been accused of unreality. Surely, the Senator was acting the part of the fat boy in trying to make our flesh creep. This is a fight against foreign publishers who propose to hire members of the Academy of Letters for a large sum to appoint a bad censor, not of their own books but of other people's books! The only reason I referred to religious Orders was because Senator Magennis drew an analogy between having members of religious Orders on the board and having a representative of the authors. If this Censorship Act were aimed at religious Orders—at publications which they might issue and books which they might read—I think that it would be absolutely necessary to have members of religious Orders on the board. As the Act is aimed at distinguished Irish authors and others who are writing and publishing books, I think that it is absolutely necessary to have somebody there to look after their interests. Senator Magennis will find that, in every case where a person's interests are being affected and in which he should have an opportunity of being heard, my voice will be raised in favour of that principle and in favour of his having representation.

Professor Magennis

I referred to religious Orders as being upholders of and ministering to the survival of our distinctive civilisation. I have here —and can produce—little books at 4d. each, issued by foreign publishers, to be circulated through the country shops to teach all the secrets of sex to young children and to instruct the adult in the full technique of marital relations. I say that the publishing firm that does that is an enemy of our civilisation and I think that we are showing quite too much solicitude for those people. Our primary duty is to our own people and our own culture.

Mr. Douglas

Believe it or not, we are discussing two amendments, one of which was moved by me and the other by Senator Kingsmill Moore. One amendment suggests that the Minister should appoint a person on the board who, in his opinion, would be representative of Irish authors. The other amendment suggests that the Irish Academy of Letters should be entitled to nominate a member of the board. It appears from some of the speeches made that I am amongst those who are endeavouring to get somebody to represent on the board people from foreign countries who are circulating 4d. books on indecency. I leave it at that. As the Minister has said that he does not propose to accept my amendment, I shall withdraw it, without prejudice to my right to bring it up at a later stage, if I so decide. If I were to leave the amendment before the House any longer, I do not know of what I might be accused.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 21 will, accordingly, fall. However, I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the proposal contained in them. If he thinks that proposal should be modified in minor respects, I would ask him to indicate his requirements, because, by accepting it in principle, he will do away with a very real sense of grievance amongst Irish authors and publishers. They feel that they have been singled out, in the words of one of them, for special and determined persecution. The figures which I gave on Second Reading, at which the Minister may have glanced, would appear to substantiate that. Do you want them to go on with the feeling that they are being shut out from some avenue whereby they could get relief? If you do not, I think you might fall in line as much as possible with this proposal and either introduce an amendment on Report Stage or suggest in what manner you would like this proposal altered so as to meet your view. If you do that, you will allay a very strong sense of grievance.

Mr. Boland

I cannot agree to have my hands tied. I shall try to constitute both boards as fairly as possible. If I were to agree to have representatives of one particular body on the boards, I should be getting demands from other bodies for representation. I do not think that my hands should be tied in that way. I hope to get a board which will command respect. Of course, I am quite satisfied that no matter what board we have, we shall have somebody criticising it and that some people will be dissatisfied. We cannot avoid that and I do not think there is any remedy for it. We shall try to get the best board we can. I think the worst way to go about removing grievances would be to accept nominations from any body.

Amendments Nos. 15, 16, and 21 not moved.

Progress reported. Committee to sit again to-morrow.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 28 Nov 1945