Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Dec 1945

Vol. 30 No. 14

Censorship of Publications Bill, 1945—Report (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 9:—
In page 5, Section 8 (1), line 24, after the word "order" to insert the words "issued by the Censorship Board" (Senator Magennis).

I was in possession when the debate was adjourned, and I understood that the continuance of discussion on my amendment depended upon the result arrived at by arguments on law raised by Senator Ryan. Consequently, I consider that I am to remain mute until that is decided.

I have something to say on that matter when I get the opportunity.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Perhaps it would be better if the Minister intervened now.

I had the whole point inquired into the Attorney-General's office. The Parliamentary draftsman is quite satisfied that Section 15, as it stands, brings prohibition Orders made under the Act of 1929 within the scope of Section 8. He considers that Section 15 is apt and unambiguous and that there is no reason for changing it. Section 15 (1) (ii) is most explicit in its terms. Every provision, other than Section 13, relating to Orders made under Section 7 is to apply equally to Orders under the 1929 Act. Section 8 is such a provision. Therefore, it applies to Orders under the 1929 Act. Incidentally, amendment No. 8, which the Seanad have accepted on Report, is not intelligible on any other reading. No new prohibition Order would be made until after the Act came into operation. Consequently that amendment applies to books prohibited before this Bill takes effect.

I raised this question as to the right to appeal to the new appeal board, constituted under this Act, against an Order which had been already made under Section 6 of the Act of 1929. In the course of my speech on amendment No. 9, which Senator Magennis moved, I merely expressed that opinion in a passing way, because I submitted that Senator Magennis's amendment was unnecessary, as the words "prohibition Order" in the Bill, as defined by Section 1, meant an Order under Section 7 or Section 9 of the Bill. I stated, as far as I could see, that that was the only right of appeal given by the Bill. I was reminded that Section 15 of the Bill gave the right of appeal to the new appeal board against an Order already made under Section 6 of the Act of 1929. I stated that I had not fully considered it, but that I thought it did not. I am still of opinion that it is by no means clear from the Bill we have in front of us that a right of appeal to the new appeal board against an Order already made under Section 6 of the Act of 1929 is given by this Bill. It has been laid down in several cases, and is well established in law, that there is no right of appeal from any tribunal unless that right of appeal is given expressly by Statute. A right of appeal cannot be given by implication. It has been submitted here that a right of appeal against an Order made under Section 6 of the Act of 1929 is given by Section 15. It is not so expressly stated in the section, and if not, it could only be given by implication. I submit that that is not sufficient.

Furthermore, Section 15 of this Bill states

"the provisions of this Act, other than Section 13, shall apply in respect of the Order as if it were an Order under Section 7 of this Act".

The effect of excluding Section 13 of the Act in respect of an Order made under Section 6 of the Act of 1929 is that, even assuming that a right of appeal to the appeal board exists, a revocation of that Order cannot be made effective, because the revocation of such an Order cannot be published in Iris Oifigiúil under Section 13 because Section 13 does not apply, and no order made by the appeal board revoking a prohibition Order can have effect except so published in Iris Oifigiúil, and takes effect only from the day it is published. Therefore, I merely expressed the opinion that there is a doubt that a right of appeal is being given by this Bill. Personally, I am in no way concerned whether a right of appeal lies or not. I am merely expressing my opinion for what it is worth. The Minister has been advised by his advisers. I am giving my opinion, free, gratis and for nothing and it may be worth only what I shall get for it. Mr. Justice Cardozo, an eminent member of the Supreme Court of the United States, formerly a chief justice of the Courts of Appeal of New York State, in a book written by him, reproducing a series of lectures, entitled “The Nature of the Judicial Decision”, says that “Law never is but always will be”. In this case it will be impossible to say what the law is until the law will have been decided by a court. Until a court gives a decision the whole question is merely a matter of opinion. Therefore, the question is: Whose opinion is correct? In order that the matter should be placed beyond doubt, the Legislature has full power to insert in the Bill express words. While having no feelings as to whether a right of appeal should be given or not, I express my opinion for the assistance of members of the House, so that those members who desire an appeal should make that desire bear fruit by having express provisions inserted giving such a right of appeal.

When I first read this Bill, my opinion was clearly in consonance with the opinion of the Attorney-General. I was considerably affected by the arguments of Senator Ryan yesterday and I took the opportunity to-day, with the aid of Senator Ryan, to go into certain decided and reported cases which have some bearing on the subject. It is beyond doubt, in the case of an appeal from one court to another, and I suggest, by analogy, in the case of an appeal from one Censorship Board to another, that a right of appeal must be given expressly and clearly. I am still of opinion that it is probable that a court would so construe this Bill as to say that there was an appeal to the appeal board, but I am equally clearly of opinion that no person could lay down for certain that a court would do so. It is not, I submit, a question as to whether the Parliamentary draftsman or the Attorney-General is of opinion that a court would do so. It is not even a question as to whether the Parliamentary draftsman or the Attorney-General is sure that a court would do so. If two lawyers in this House are of opinion that there may be some doubt about it, I imagine that the Attorney-General would be the first person to say: "Although I hold by my opinion, yet if two lawyers, accustomed to practising and having had a certain amount of experience, are of the opposite point of view, I may be wrong and they may be right." If that is the position, surely it is the business of this House so to clarify the Bill that there will be no doubt.

The doubt arises in this manner. The Bill is not consistent with itself in drafting. Section 7 does not, in the body of the text, use the term "prohibition Order". It states that if the Censorship Board, having duly examined a book, are of opinion that it comes within (a) or (b) and that "its sale and distribution should be prohibited, they shall by order prohibit such sale and distribution". These are ordinary words to which no particular signification is attached by any definition contained in the Act. When you go to Section 8, you find that the wording has been changed and that there is a provision that the author or the publisher may appeal from a "prohibition Order"—not from an Order prohibiting the sale and distribution. When you find the phrase "prohibition Order" used there, you have at once passed from ordinary English words to words which have been given an artificial meaning by the definition section and which cannot mean anything else.

The definition section—Section 1— states that "prohibition Order" means not an Order prohibiting a book but an Order under Section 7 or Section 9. With that in mind, if you get to Section 15, you will find in regard to books which are now ornamenting our index, (i) "The Order shall continue in force"; (ii) "the provisions of this Act other than Section 13"—about which I shall have a word to say in a minute—"shall apply in respect of the Order as if it were an Order under Section 7"—as if it were an Order prohibiting sale and distribution and not as if it were a prohibition Order. Section 8 gives only a right of appeal from a prohibition Order, which is defined as an Order under Section 7 but not an Order which is deemed to be under Section 7. Therefore, I think the most charitable interpretation one can put on this matter is that it is a bit of loose drafting. It can, I think, be put right very simply by deeming an Order which is in existence at present to be a "prohibition Order". Then, everything will naturally flow. The difficulties to which Senator Ryan and I have called attention are reinforced when you consider that, from the operation of Section 15, the provisions of Section 13 are excluded.

The exclusion of Section 13 means that an Order under Section 15, when revoked, shall not be recorded in Iris Oifigiúil as revoked. Section 13 again refers only to prohibition Orders. It is perfectly reasonable that Section 13 should be excluded from the provisions of Section 15 (1) and (2) if the existing Orders are not to be regarded as prohibition Orders, because Section 13 refers to prohibition Orders. But it reinforces Senator Ryan's contention that you cannot regard an existing Order under Section 15 as being a prohibition Order, and, therefore, the appeal provisions of Section 8, could be held not to apply.

Or, if you look at it the other way, if it is a prohibition Order, and the provisions of Section 8 apply, then Section 13, would provide for publication—the only section which provides for publication — and you would have no method inscribed by the Legislature whereby there was any obligation to let the people know whether a book had or had not ceased to be a prohibited book.

Those matters do show that the drafting of this Act is inconsistent with itself, and unless the Minister was prepared to adopt the amendment which I suggested unofficially yesterday, namely, that after the words "the Order shall continue in force" in Section 15, and in the sub-sections (1) and (2), you should add after the words "the Order shall continue to be in force and shall be deemed to be a prohibition Order", I would feel that if Senator Ryan would move to recommit this Bill I would certainly support him and would feel it would be necessary to do so.

I do feel that this Act is not in harmony with itself and that when doubts arise—they may be small doubts —if they can be resolved, they should be resolved by this House. It is our business so to pass legislation as to ensure as far as possible that it will not raise future questions in the courts. The argument that the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary draftsman consider a thing to be clear and free from doubt assumes its due proportions when you remember that no Bill would pass unless the draftsman and the Attorney-General did think it was clear, and yet, over and over again, the courts have had to condemn Bills as either meaningless, or because they did not carry out what was the admitted intention. Therefore, I remain profoundly unimpressed by the consensus of opinion. Although they are two great persons, I am sure that they would be the first people themselves to disclaim any such absolute knowledge of law as would warrant the Minister saying that because they were in agreement with a certain view, that view must necessarily be one the courts must adopt.

I do not desire to move to recommit this Bill to Committee because, personally, I am not in favour of an appeal from a prohibition Order made under Section 6 of the Act of 1929. If any member of the House wishes to move to recommit it, that is a matter for himself.

I second that motion.

I think it would be rather dangerous for the ordinary Senator to disagree with the various Senators who have such a very fine legal training. I intended only to refer to some remarks made by Senator Ryan, regarding Section 13. He seems to feel there would be a difficulty as regards prohibition Orders made under the Act of 1929. I suggest that that section might be altered to read:—

"The Censorship Board shall as soon as maybe cause to be published in Iris Oifigiúil every prohibition Order whether such Order is made subsequently to the passing of this Act or is made under the Act of 1929.”

I think these words would cause the difficulty envisaged by Senator Ryan to disappear.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I shall now put amendment No. 9.

My amendment appeared on the Committee Stage and I proposed it with full cognisance of Section 15. I consider that Section 15 in its effect—although Part II of the Principal Act is repealed in Section 23, 24 and the Schedule—enables prohibition Orders issued by the Minister in virtue of the powers given him under the Act of 1929 to be made the subject of appeal to the new appeal board.

To my mind—I may be presumptuous —it is absolutely clear that is the intention of Section 15, to bring the prohibition Orders issued by the Minister under the Act of 1929, within the ambit of the appeal to the new board. Paragraph 2 of Section 15, ordains, that section shall apply in respect of appeals as if they were appeals under Section 7 of this Act. It seems undeniable that that is so. Section 7 is very clear. If the Censorship Board have found against a book on one or other of the two grounds that it is a case for prohibiting sale and circulation, they shall by order prohibit such sale and circulation. Consequently, by Section 15, the parts I have cited, the old prohibition Order becomes a new prohibition Order to all intents and purposes and my amendment has no meaning at all unless that were so.

My amendment, if Senator Ryan were right, would be superfluous as redundant, but under my interpretation of the intentions of the Bill, my amendment has some part to play for there are two types of prohibition Orders to be dealt with, the prohibition Order now to be "deemed" an Order under Section 7 and the prohibition Order actually issued by the new Censorship Board to be appointed under this Bill when it becomes an Act. I, therefore, put in my amendment to distinguish between those two, and I try to persuade the Minister to have no appeal permitted on Orders "deemed" to be new, and to allow appeal in respect of prohibition Orders issued by the new board.

Thus it becomes a question whether the Minister will persevere with his intention of giving the right of appeal to all, whether old or new. My point was made in another amendment already, which I take the liberty to repeat, that in regard to prohibition Orders issued by the Minister under the Act of 1929 there had been an appeal possible to the Minister. While a prohibition Order could not be issued by the Minister unless he had received a report from the Censorship Board of a certain character, yet the Minister could, of his own volition, revoke or vary a prohibition Order. My case was that inasmuch as there was that remedy provided in the Principal Act for all who felt aggrieved by a prohibition Order, it was not fair, when they did not use that remedy, to provide them with an opportunity to rake up old matters after the board concerned had been changed in personnel, frequently as the Minister pointed out, through death or retirement. When I was a law student a long time ago I learned a principle of equity: Vigilantibus non dormientibus lex succurrit. Equity provides a remedy for a wrong but the wronged person must be awake about his rights and not fall asleep on them. I suggest that those who did not appeal against the wickedness of the old Censorship Board when they could have appealed, and when the appeal to the Minister was provided, are the dormientibus and it is not our business to legislate for their relief.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 5, Section 8, sub-section (4), lines 34 and 35, to delete the words "the joint application of any five persons (each of whom is a member of Dáil Eireann or Seanad Eireann)" and to insert instead the words "any of the persons set out in sub-section (5) of this section"; and to add to the section a new sub-section (5) as follows:—

(5) Any of the following persons may appeal to the appeal board from a prohibition Order in respect of a book—

(a) any Archbishop or Bishop of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church;

(b) any Archbishop or Bishop of the Church of Ireland;

(c) any person acting on the authority of the governing body of any religious denomination existing in Ireland;

(d) any person acting on the authority of any association in Ireland, which, in the opinion of the Minister, was formed for the promotion of culture or the study of literature;

(e) any person acting on the authority of a trade union.

This amendment is one of some importance. The Minister indicated very definitely that the two things with which he was most concerned were to get himself out of the position in which he was placed in having anything to do with the censoring of books in his individual or Ministerial capacity, and, secondly, with the wish to avoid any dissatisfaction that might arise. I think he stated that yesterday. I am presenting him with an amendment which does that for him even more completely than the Bill as it stands. It is true that in the Bill as it stands he gets rid of it in its Ministerial capacity, but he holds on in his capacity as a member of the Oireachtas to the right to be one of the five members who can make an appeal. It may be that that is very dear to him, but I do not think it is. I think he is not any more enthusiastic about it than I am.

On amendment No. 7, Senator Professor Magennis was good enough to read my remarks on the same subject during the Committee Stage. If he had read them to-day he would save me the necessity of repeating them. I think perhaps, as they will appear in the debates, and as I stand over everything he read, it will possibly be sufficient to say that I am still of the same opinion. But the fundamental difference between us is that, while he was using these remarks against the proposal to have members of the Oireachtas as persons, in addition to the author, editor and publisher, who might institute an appeal, he wanted to abolish that without putting anything in its place. I am not satisfied with abolishing it unless something is put in its place.

For my part, I do not believe that the Minister will get rid of the legitimate dissatisfaction which must arise in regard to a measure of this kind— when I say legitimate dissatisfaction I do not say that it is necessarily right— if he still retains a form of words that may make the appeal virtually impossible except by an author, editor or publisher. If there is nobody other than the editor, author or publisher— he may be in England, in America or in Timbuctoo, though I do not think there is much editing done there—I do not think that is sufficient. There would be no one then who could express an Irish desire for an appeal. I would much prefer, though I dislike the proposal, to have five members of the Oireachtas empowered to institute an appeal.

This amendment, as distinct from the amendment of Senator Magennis, is designed to remove the five members of the Oireachtas as they appeared in the Bill—I agree that if it is carried it will entail some consequential amendments which I have not provided for here for reasons which I need not go into now—and to provide a substitute. The question arose what could be a substitute. I do not claim for one moment that my suggestion is the wisest or the best and I think it quite possible that, if the Minister were to accept this amendment, in the other House might make some changes. The amendment which I put down indicates the kind of person who to my mind might be the proper person to institute an appeal and who would be definitely preferable to members of the Oireachtas. I have put them under the headings (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Those included under the headings (a), (b) and (c) are intended by the wording to be persons acting under the obvious and undoubted authority of one of the Churches existing here. Incidentally, I heard that some members objected to my description of the Catholic Church in this amendment. The only thing I can say in that connection is that I referred to the Constitution and used the words exactly as they are given in the Constitution. The wording of (e) is also copied from the Constitution. As regards the wording of (c), if there is anyone offended I am responsible, but I do not think there will be. These three headings are clear and need no explanation.

The heading (d) raises a point of some difficulty. I had in mind the Royal Irish Academy or Royal Dublin Society or bodies of that standing, if they thought fit, to have the right to institute an appeal. I did not want to set out a list and I felt that if I were simply to say, bodies formed for the promotion of culture or the study of literature, the Minister might say that that was not sufficiently definite. I therefore decided that the wisest course was to leave it to the Minister to decide what bodies could be so included and so prevent any abuse of that particular sub-paragraph. Some people have been puzzled by (e), that is any person acting on the authority of a trade union. I had two reasons for that. One was that if by any chance there was any case in which organised labour might wish to institute an appeal—it is most unlikely to occur—I think they would be proper persons to act. My second reason was that if the Irish authors wished to form a trade union, under the law they are quite entitled to do so. That would not cover, of course, authors who reside outside, with whom I am not concerned, other than their own individual rights which are safeguarded under the Bill. I suggest to the Minister and to the House that that would be very much preferable to the provision of five members. I think Senator Sir John Keane likes the five members provision. I think I heard one other member of the House say he rather liked it. There are possibly some members, other than the Minister, in the Dáil who like it, but so far I have not met anyone else who really thinks that the provision in regard to five members of the Oireachtas is a desirable provision of itself. Many think that it will prove embarrassing and difficult. Some dislike it altogether. A good many, like myself, are prepared to submit to it. I do not regard it as a privilege; I regard it as an unpleasant duty to be placed on members of the Oireachtas, and for which I do not think they are peculiarly suited.

Did we not vote on it yesterday, and the majority of this House seemed to contradict what the Senator has said?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This deals with the variation of an Order.

Unfortunately, for quite a few years the majority of the House generally disagrees with what I say, and it does not perturb me in the slightest. In fact, if it were to the contrary, I would begin to examine more closely what I am saying.

What did the Senator vote for?

With great respect, I voted against the removal of the five members provision without any suggested alternative. I am now providing a method by which that can be removed, with a satisfactory alternative. I think Senator O'Donovan will see that that is not the same thing.

I can see the subtlety.

It is not a matter of sublety; it is a matter of principle.

Subtlety is a Gaelic characteristic, too, the Senator should remember. We are very subtle.

Whether subtlety was intended by Senator O'Donovan as a compliment—no doubt it was by Senator Hayes—I do not know. It takes possibly a certain type of mind to understand what is or is not subtlety. I have never regarded it as a matter for which one need apologise. What I do want to make clear, if not to Senator O'Donovan at least to other Senators, is that this is an opportunity by which the House can decide against the five members but after providing for an alternative. Obviously, if you do not approve of the alternative, you will not vote for the amendment. I am not suggesting that anyone should. On the other hand, if you want to get rid of the five members, and you see this as a suitable alternative, then the amendment should be voted for.

In considering the merits of this amendment it is perhaps desirable to cast our minds back to what has happened in the past and what has been said in the past. We are all of us aware by this that, in regard to one set of publications which fell under the disapproval of the Censorship Board, an Archbishop considered it his duty to make a public protest. Therefore, we may assume with a certain amount of assurance, that if power had been given to him to appeal he would have appealed. I think we might also even take the not very rash step of assuming that a Bishop or an Archbishop of any Church is a responsible person, acting responsibly and under a sense of duty. In as far as the clerical gentlemen are concerned then, we have already had an example of the desirability if not the necessity of giving some such right of appeal.

Passing next to the last class, the trade union, it may or may not be within the knowledge of Senators that there is a strong feeling—whether it be right or whether it be wrong I do not know, but that it exists I do know— that certain books have been banned ostensibly under the head of indecency or obscenity but actually because the doctrines put forward were considered to be so far to the left as to be subversive from a political point of view. I want expressly to state this, that I have no view whatever on that subject.

May I say that this is a specific charge of abuse, of illegality, on the part of the Censorship Board, and I think the framer of that charge should be called upon to name the books——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

No.

——or to withdraw it. It is a foul aspersion on the character of the Censorship Board personnel.

I stated that there are people who are under that impression. I stated further that I myself have no view on the subject, because I have more to do than to read every book which——

May I, Sir, point out again that the Senator is giving circulation to this calumny, and should name the books or withdraw the charge?

I have not got here a list of the books in regard to which this has been stated. I confine myself to the fact that I have heard it stated, and I am willing——

The Senator heard it stated, too, that a certain French book had been banned. He was greatly surprised to find that it had not, but still repeated that it had been told to him by several people.

What book? I do not want to be led off on that.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think we should not discuss books on this amendment.

He should withdraw the calumny.

I will confine myself to this: I am willing to admit at once, if it will satisfy and appease Senator Magennis, that the people who formed that impression may have formed their conclusion completely erroneously, but I am stating that that conclusion has been formed by people——

Again, Sir, may I interrupt? Since this debate began, Senator Kingsmill Moore has repeatedly made similar aspersions on the honour and integrity of the members of the Censorship Board. I did not think it worth while to challenge him until now. This is a particularly bad case. I think if he cannot name the books to which he referred, he should withdraw.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I hope he will not name the books.

He is repeating a gross slander on honourable men who have been serving the public voluntarily.

If I am allowed to make my point the Senator will understand that I am doing no such thing. What I am saying is this, that if such statements are made, and if they are believed, it is exceedingly important that an opportunity should be given for removing any such impression. You will get that opportunity if you allow members of a trade union to make an appeal, if they should be under that impression. So far from casting aspersions upon Senator Magennis or upon his colleagues, I appear here—although he is not willing to recognise it—as a person who is anxious to provide a method whereby their fair name may be rendered or may remain spotless, and whereby anybody who is under the impression that they are in any way influenced by any unworthy considerations will be able to test the matter and, by having his appeal refused, disabuse if not his own mind at least the mind of the public.

This is the first time that I have heard a person suggest that a questioning of his judgment, with the result that his judgment might be upheld, or anyhow that the grounds on which it was questioned could be dispelled, was a reflection on his fair fame. How ever, I shall pass from that. Certainly, I have tried to conduct this debate without aspersing in any way Senator Magennis's conduct of that office. In fact, I thought that I had gone out of my way to praise him——

Praise of the abilities of a scoundrel!

——for his attendance and devotion to duty. It seems to me, however, that that great body which is represented by the trade unions, who, after all, do represent, not only an enormous number of people, but a stratum of people, should, if they desire, be entitled to appeal against the banning of a book, because, from their particular outlook, that particular book should not be banned. Now, that leaves only one of the classes which, as was suggested by Senator Douglas, should be considered by the House from the point of view of whether it is worthy or not of being given this privilege, and the mere wording of the sub-clause referring to the remaining class is the best answer to that. Is there anybody in this House who will seriously contend that "an association which in the opinion of the Minister is formed for the promotion of culture and the study of literature" should not be allowed, if it considers that the Censorship Board has gone wrong, to promote an appeal to the appellate board? If there is one class of persons more than another who should be capable of forming an opinion on that question, where the Act itself says that the literary value of the book is one of the matters to be taken into consideration, I, personally, am unable to think of a more suitable type of appellant.

On all those grounds, then, looking at it from the point of view of the experience of the working of the Act in the past and from the viewpoint of the people who, however erroneously, or as Senator Magennis might think, from the phantasmagoria of their minds, might have a grievance, I would press for this appeal because the object is to do away with any feelings of grievance, however imaginary. If grievances, however imaginary, are felt, then let us do away with them, and let us introduce this in the interests of such people. I also say, if this further provision is introduced, let us take out the five members of the Oireachtas who, after all, are only a substitute for the other bodies specifically mentioned by the Senator in his amendment.

I think that, after Senator Magennis's challenge, issued quite properly, and after Senator Kingsmill Moore's obvious embarrassment on the issue of the challenge, we are all pretty well of the mind that Senator Kingsmill Moore was a complete failure in his arguing of the case for this amendment. I think that there is not much need to waste time over it. Yet, when we came to amendments Nos. 6 and 7, if I remember rightly, the Cathaoirleach, more than once, drew our attention to a certain relationship that existed between these amendments and amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10. Some of us felt that we could dispense with the idea of giving authority to the five members of the Oireachtas to lodge an appeal. While we felt that that was a power that we did not like to take, or would rather not take, still we were influenced in favour of leaving it in the Bill for the reason that we could not get or suggest any better alternative. I, certainly, in coming to a conclusion as to whether I should support Senator Magennis's amendment or not, fully adverted to the proposals contained in amendment No. 10. I dislike the amendment for a variety of reasons. I do not need to go into them in detail, but the first one of them I would state simply in this way: that I think we would be wise to leave the churches out of this matter altogether. The idea contained in paragraph (d) definitely decides me against the amendment: that is "that any person acting on the authority of any association in Ireland, which, in the opinion of the Minister, was formed for the promotion of culture or the study of literature", may appeal. Exception was taken here to certain suggestions that definitions might be improved by the addition of certain words, and we opposed them because we felt that we were casting our net too widely, and that the definitions, in fact, would not be definitions by the inclusion of those words. The same defect applies here. What is "an association for the promotion of culture", or what is "an association for the study of literature"? We are asking the Minister to undertake the responsibility of deciding what societies are legitimate societies for the promotion of culture or the promotion of the study of literature. With regard to the last one, I cannot think of its being any thing more than a bait for certain people in this House. If they bite, well and good, but I doubt if they will, and I certainly hope —as a matter of fact, I am quite sure —that the Seanad will have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that this is not an advisable amendment.

I desire to speak against this amendment. I objected altogether to the idea of a third factor being introduced into the censorship scheme. It ought to be adequate for all purposes, for all the needs of the State, to have a Censorship Board and to have an appeal board, if these are properly constituted and the Minister's regulations with regard to them are, as I am sure they will be, proper likewise, and if the requisite machinery has been provided. I spoke on this yesterday on my own amendment to the effect that when the Minister had appointed five persons it was to be presumed that he had confidence in those five persons, and if there were no challenge of his selection of the personnel of the board, in this House or the other House, we might presume that the public approved of his selection, and that, consequently, it was quite a work of supererogation on the part of the Minister to provide, as he said, a safeguard against the Censorship Board. I can enter sympathetically into his position if the Minister considers that there ought to be some minimum power of Parliamentary control or Parliamentary interference in view of the fact that the direct responsibility for the issue of prohibition Orders, formerly held by the Minister, is being withdrawn. There would be a good deal to be said for his attitude in that case. I am quite willing to concede that, but I hope my friend, Senator Douglas, will forgive me if I describe it as window-dressing to put in, as one of the persons who would be allowed to lodge an appeal, "any Archbishop or Bishop of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church". Now, I state quite frankly, and without any intention of being offensive to my friend, Senator Douglas, as I have said, that I regard that as being merely window-dressing. He knows perfectly well that any dignitary of our Church is not at all likely to be called upon to exercise it. As to a person acting on the authority of a trade union, I believe the only purpose that could serve would be window-dressing, because a member of a trade union is a citizen of the State and he would be provided with books otherwise than through trade unions. Senator Kingsmill Moore has chosen to give as justification for the trade unions a charge that I already described as a calumny.

I have been for 11½ years on the Censorship Board. That board has functioned since 1930. There was a period during which I did not belong to it and for which I have no responsibility whatever with regard to it. I remember that one of the members of the board, before I was a member, was the late Provost of Trinity College, Professor Thrift. The charge made applies to Senator Fearon, who has left the board, as well as it applies to those of the surviving members. I think if Senator Kingsmill Moore claims that he is entitled to slander the board here under his privilege as a member of this House, because he praised me, it is to assume that I am absolutely childish, and to treat a man of my years as a child is to declare me suffering from senility. His compliment gives no licence to make the deliberate charge of having broken the law and of being dishonourable. What is it but a charge of dishonourable conduct? I think the Senator should be asked to withdraw that charge. I can speak of what happened over 11½ years. No book was ever condemned as indecent or obscene while I was on the board because it spoke disrespectfully of trade unionism, or because it advocated some doctrine of which the members of the board did not approve.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Can we get away from the books and deal with the amendment?

I was speaking of the board.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Better deal with the amendment.

I think I should tell my friend, Senator Douglas, that it is a very fortunate thing that the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Barton, was not provided with the opportunity that Senator Kingsmill Moore desires for him, to protest against the banning of a certain book. I speak with the utmost respect— unfeigned respect—for the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I thought we were getting away from the books. This is not the occasion to discuss books that were banned.

I was discussing the proposition to permit the Archbishop to be provided with a right to call for an appeal. Am I in order in that? There is one argument I am using against it, that not possessing the right saved him from a very awkward situation in which I would be very sorry to see him placed. I leave it at that.

Are we discussing individual books or the rights and wrongs of making statements about books and their contents?

I had to make reference to books because Senator Kingsmill Moore introduced the subject.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I hope we will hear no more about the contents of books; let us deal with the amendment.

I oppose the amendment.

I am opposed to the amendment. I doubt very much if the different persons mentioned in the amendment would be thankful to have that privilege. In providing that five members of the Oireachtas should have that right, associations of that kind have their remedy. They can go to the most representative people in this country, members of either House. That is quite sufficient. The amendment is unnecessary and is unacceptable.

I put down the amendment in perfectly good faith. I am still of opinion that it is not a desirable method, whereby persons of the class referred to generally by the Minister, and which I tried to cover, should first go to five members of the Oireachtas. I think that principle is very bad. It is a principle that has grown up, with the result that if a person wants a licence for anything he must get a T.D. or a Senator to intervene. There is scarcely a thing in which people have not to go to a Senator or a T.D. I am still of opinion that some such group of persons should be there, but I do not intend to press the amendment to a decision or ask it to be put. There was one matter raised by Senator Magennis to which I wish to reply. Apparently the Senator thinks that I should have suggested churches without the Catholic Church.

The Senator said that this was window-dressing. I respectfully suggest that if I or any other person want to provide an appeal or that right for the churches it must be for all the churches. If I had done anything else it would be highly improper, and I venture to suggest that Senator Magennis would be the first to point that out. That being the case I think it is unworthy to suggest that something was done for window-dressing. I believe it to be desirable that the churches should have the right to ask for an appeal. I do not think any church would oppose that. The request would be rarely used. I am entitled to that opinion. If I left out any one of the churches I might be accused of window-dressing. I have made my case for this amendment. The Minister does not like it. Senator Magennis and Senator O Buachalla do not like it. I suggest that the amendment be now put.

Amendment put and negatived.

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

Government amendment No 11:—
In page 5, Section 9, to insert after sub-section (1) a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The word "advocated" in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of this section shall be construed as including the publication (whether by advertisement or otherwise) of any matter advocating, or any advertisement or notice of any publication which advocates anything referred to in the said paragraph.

This amendment is introduced to meet Senator Magennis's point and it provides that the word "advocated" includes publication by advertisement or otherwise.

I accept that amendment instead of my own.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 12:—
In page 6, Section 10, sub-section (1), line 20, to delete the word "five" and insert instead the word "ten".

This amendment is similar in principle to amendment No. 6 which was defeated on a previous section.

I move the amendment but I am in a difficulty. The principle of the amendment was defeated previously but I think that it was defeated without proper consideration by members of the Seanad. The debate was, for the greater part, on a subsequent amendment dealing with the elimination of the members of the Oireachtas for this purpose. I do not think that the amendment got fair discussion. The Minister himself offered to change the figure to seven but that was not agreed to. I think that the question could now be discussed on this amendment. It is similar to the amendment which was defeated on an earlier section but that did not govern this amendment. I think that the Seanad should again consider the question of replacing the figure "five" by the figure "ten". That would necessitate the alteration, at some later stage, of the figure with which my previous amendment dealt.

Although this amendment refers to a slightly different matter, we have already discussed the question whether we want to have five or ten members for this purpose. We decided that by division and, whatever the Senator's technical rights may be, it is most unusual to discuss the same question again and will appreciably protract the proceedings on this stage. I think that the decision arrived at might be accepted.

The point I want to put forward is that the amendment did not get fair consideration in view of the subsequent amendment.

The question on it was put and negatived.

I agree that it was put and defeated and, if you rule that it cannot be discussed further, I shall submit to your ruling. An offer was, however, made by the Minister, which was not, I think, properly considered by the House, to insert an amendment providing for the insertion of "seven" instead of "five".

May I suggest that the point that something was not properly considered is never a sound one on which to allow the same thing to be discussed again? Any of us who puts up an amendment which is defeated will always go away with the idea that it did not get proper consideration—"if my amendment got proper consideration it would always be accepted".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 13:—

In page 6, Section 11, to delete paragraph (c), lines 37 to 40, and substitute therefor the following paragraph:—

"(c) a prohibition Order shall not be made unless at a meeting at which a quorum is present, and the majority of those present and voting vote in favour of it. In the event, however, of a tie, the chairman, or acting chairman, may exercise a casting vote."

Paragraph (c) of Section 11, as it stood in the Bill, provides that a prohibition Order by the Censorship Board shall not be made unless at such meeting three members at least are in favour of making the Order, and not more than one member votes against it. At the time I set down this amendment, the Minister had not changed the appeal board as he has since done.

In the interval, I had an opportunity to study in the report of the debates of the House the reply which the Minister made on my amendment, and I was more impressed on reading it a second time than I was on hearing it in the House. He pointed out, for example, that the procedure prescribed here in the Bill is just what we followed in the board all along: but our report had to go to the Minister, and, if the decision was arrived at in the absence of any member, that member had to be communicated with by registered post.

On reconsidering this position, I arrived at this conclusion: there are to be two boards, the Censorship Board and the appeal board, made up of the same numbers, and the number of members provided as forming a quorum is the same for the appeal board and the Censorship Board, so we might proceed advantageously to have the entire regulation of both boards on the same lines. If the Minister will look favourably on that, I will withdraw my amendment, and leave paragraph (c) as it stands in Section 11. I submit that for the Minister's consideration. Otherwise, I would argue in favour of this amendment as regards the Censorship Board.

It means briefly, that the two boards of five members have a quorum of four each. One requires certain voting to issue a prohibition Order, and the other should require the same voting to revoke a prohibition Order.

I think I have provided for that in amendment No. 14:—

"Four members shall constitute a quorum at any such meeting. A prohibition Order shall not be revoked or varied unless at such meeting, three at least of the members vote in favour of such revocation or variation."

In Section 11 as regards the Censorship Board, what is prescribed is:—

"A prohibition Order shall not be made unless at such meeting three at least of the members vote in favour of the making of the Order and not more than one member votes against it."

If we did that for both boards——

I could do that.

Is paragraph (c) not actually in the Bill?

I put down an amendment to it.

As I understand it, what Senator Magennis wants is to have the same procedure in respect to the appeal board as in respect of the other board.

As a matter of fact even if two voted against it in the appeal board the majority could carry it.

It was against that I put down my amendment. As I told you, Sir, in the light of my study of the Minister's speech I am willing to let paragraph (c) stand and then I am suggesting it should be the same for the appeal board.

In the provision I am making here I am giving the Censorship Board the benefit even if two are against it on the appeal board. Even though two vote against it, the appeal board can uphold the decision. The law so far has been that, if two vote against the prohibition Order, the Censorship Board cannot make a prohibition Order. There was also the right of an absent member, in case only four were present, to be informed of the decision and he could exercise his right to express his view. If he agreed with the one in the minority, a recommendation to the Minister could not be made. Under this Bill, if somebody is absent four members can act and, if it is a majority of three to one, the board can make a recommendation for a prohibition Order.

In other words, you must still have a majority?

If four turn up, you still must have three in the majority.

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Yes, if the Minister is willing to make the two identical, otherwise I shall have to fight for my amendment in regard to the Censorship Board. I am willing to admit the principle that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I think Senator Magennis would be satisfied if the Minister in his amendment would add the words—"and not more than one member votes against it" so that the amendment would read: "a prohibition Order shall not be revoked or varied unless at such meeting, three at least of the members vote in favour of such revocation or variation and not more than one member against it".

I think we should not allow new amendments to be introduced at this stage. It is outrageous. This Bill has occupied two days——

This is a very important Bill, much more important to those who were on the inside track working it and who know what the difficulties are. If it were a question of the standard price of a bushel of wheat there would be no objection to giving a lot of time to it. The spiritual requirements of the nation are at least equally important.

May I point out that if the matter is of such importance surely it deserves proper consideration before we come in here and are asked to give permission to introduce new amendments at the last minute?

It is nothing short of outrageous that anybody who gets up here to ask that Standing Orders should be observed should be accused of not being interested in the spiritual side of this nation's affairs. We have had this over and over again. I object to Senator Magennis being allowed to introduce a new amendment at this stage and I refuse to be pilloried here as a person who is not as interested in spiritual matters as Senator Magennis. The thing is absurd.

On a point of personal explanation, I have not accused anyone.

Yes, Sir, he has. I know English quite as well as he does. When Senator Duffy makes a point about the Standing Orders, Senator Magennis makes some comparison between a bushel of wheat and the censorship—in other words, insinuates that Senator Duffy is a Labour man who is interested in bushels of wheat and not in spiritual things. I want Senator Magennis to stop this nonsensical and pharisaical attitude of his being interested in spiritual things in which others have no interest. We are just as interested as he is. It is just sheer pharisaical humbug and I object to it.

Is it in order to impute by implication or otherwise that a Senator is a Pharisee?

Could we not have a ruling that no new amendment will be permitted at this stage?

No new amendments can be introduced at this stage.

Senator Magennis has now tried to introduce a new amendment.

I think no one will accuse me of being too insistent in this House, but I must again ask is it in order for any member to be called a Pharisee. I want an answer to that?

I think, Sir, what is more fundamental is the point I have made in personal explanation. I have not charged anyone with anything. I have spoken in general terms. I was careful to choose my language and use general terms. I do not use intemperate language. It seems to me that when an implication which I disclaimed is repeated by another member that is highly disorderly and merits the reprobation of the Chair.

Let us not pursue this matter further. Amendment No. 13 is before the House, and I would ask the Senator does he intend to press the amendment?

Yes, to this extent: the charge of introducing new amendments I want to refer to incidentally. The Minister has been good enough to put down an amendment, No. 14, and that amendment has its impact on the one which I repeated from the Committee Stage of the Bill. In view of that, I propose to withdraw my amendment if the Minister will make this change. I do not see that that should be the occasion of great heat. My intention was to help the simplification of the proceedings, and to get the Bill dealt with without unnecessary delay.

On a point of order: there has been an interval between the Committee Stage and the Report Stage. The Minister made his view clear upon a similar amendment, I understand, on the Committee Stage. Senator Magennis is a member of the Minister's Party, and has easy access to the Minister.

I am sorry if I have insulted the Senator by suggesting that he is a member of the Minister's Party, but those of us who are not members of the Minister's Party have easy access to the Minister, and therefore, a fortiori, as Senator Magennis would say, Senator Magennis has access to the Minister.

I have repeatedly denied that. I am not one of those who haunt lobbies, corridors and back stairs. Again, at the risk of being slandered as a Pharisee, I say that this is a highly important vital matter for the State.

My point is a simple one. Without being a lobbier or a haunter of corridors, it is not difficult to meet the Minister for Justice. It is quite simple to meet the Minister for Justice and it is common form in this House and in the other House for people who are in the Minister's Party and for people who are not in the Minister's Party—whether it is this Minister or a Minister of the previous Government —to say to the Minister between the Committee Stage and the Report Stage: "Look, we had a disagreement about this amendment; will you take this on Report Stage?" Does not the Minister for Justice know and do not we all know that that is quite commonly done? You can do that without being a fawning suppliant of the Minister at all. You can do it by exercising your ordinary rights as a member of either House. If this is a matter of importance, Senator Magennis should have approached the Minister privately instead of doing it in this particular way in the House. I submit that, after all the discussion we have had and all the liberty Senator Magennis has had, neither Senator Magennis nor indeed the Minister should be allowed at this stage to bring in any new amendments, and I think the Minister will not be sorry if you rule in that particular direction.

That was a very long point of order.

I have already ruled. I have no option in the matter. I have no power to allow a change in an amendment before the House at this stage.

With all respect to your authority, I submit that a charge has been made against me. I have repudiated the charge. I have declared that the statement made is not a statement of fact, and yet the Senator persists in it. I think I am entitled to the protection of the Chair, even though I am a member of the Minister's Party.

Is amendment No. 13 being withdrawn?

No, Sir. It is not withdrawn. I still say that this amendment by the Minister was not present to my mind. I had no knowledge whatever of it until it appeared on this paper, and its impact upon my mind was to make me see a differentiation perhaps between the two bodies which were the joint machinery for the better censorship of books. It occurred to me that I could simplify matters by letting Section 11 stand. My idea was to simplify matters and to get on with the work. I had no idea that all this personal attack was going to arise out of it. I submit the amendment to the Minister.

There is no justification whatever in the case of a board which has penal powers; as the Censorship Board has, for making a provision which gives one member of the board two votes. I think the lawyers present will agree that it is quite unheard of in the courts. I suppose I will now be accused of being entirely against censorship, but the position is that five members of the board have to consider whether a book will be banned or not. What is provided here is that at least three members will have to be in favour of banning it. What Senator Magennis seeks to provide is that, if four members are present and if two— including the chairman—are for banning the book, it will be banned. If the chairman happens to be one of those who wants to ban the book, the book will be banned. That is contrary to the spirit of the Principal Act. It is contrary to what the Minister has brought in under this Bill. It is contrary to all practice, because you are imposing a penalty and the penalty should be imposed by the majority of the court sitting and hearing the evidence.

I will not press the amendment. I am merely submitting it to the Minister.

I will not agree to change my amendment.

You could not change it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 14:—
In page 6, Section 12, to delete paragraph (d) and to insert after paragraph (a) two new paragraphs as follows:—
"() four members shall constitute a quorum at any such meeting,
() a prohibition Order shall not be revoked or varied unless at such meeting three at least of the members vote in favour of such revocation or variation;".

This amendment is moved as a consequence of changing the appeal board from three to five.

That is four members, including the chairman?

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 15:—

In page 8, Section 16, to delete sub-section (5) and insert instead the following sub-section:—

(5) From time to time the Censorship Board shall cause a list of all prohibited books and prohibited periodical publications to be printed and shall have copies made available to whom and in such manner as the Minister may by regulation prescribe.

I tried to study this Bill as far as lay in my power, and I have already proposed some amendments which were not agreed to. I think that if the House studies the wording of sub-section (5) it will be seen that, no matter what good opinion we may have of the draftsman, it is not quite correct. I put it to the House that there is only one register and the word "register" in Sections 4, 7, 8 and 9 refers to the one register which is kept, I presume, at the headquarters of the Censorship Board. But sub-section (5) says that the Censorship Board shall cause a register to be printed, published and made available to the public. I am not a lawyer, but I have heard some of the lawyers talking here in divers tones to-day, and when a thing is published I cannot understand why it is necessary to provide that it be made available to the public subsequently.

The register, to my mind, reading the other section, is the book kept at the headquarters and in which the various entries are to be made. I would point out that in sub-section (6) it says that:—

"It shall be the duty of every officer of customs and excise examining the baggage of incoming travellers to exhibit on demand a list of all prohibited books and prohibited periodical publications".

The word "register" is not used there, and my suggestion to the Minister is that a similar phraseology should be used in sub-section (5) The sub-section would then read:—

"From time to time the Censorship Board shall cause a list of all prohibited books and prohibited periodical publications to be printed and shall have copies made available to whom and in such manner as the Minister may by regulation prescribe."

So far, I have dealt with the wording of sub-section (5) and I suggest an alternative therefor. The remainder of my amendment deals with what I referred to on the Second Stage, and that is the proposed restriction on the method of publication. I spoke on the Committee Stage against having this list, as I shall call it now—I do not use the word "register"—being made available for general purchase anywhere throughout the country, and by the amendment I only want to leave it in the Minister's power to prescribe to whom and in what manner the list would be made available. The Minister may prescribe that by regulation, and I suggest, as it may be offered in criticism afterwards, that the list should be available to all newsagents, as the register is available at the headquarters of the board. That would be done according to regulations prescribed by the Minister, but I should not like the list to be placed on the counter of every bookstall in the country so that anybody could come along, buy it, and scrutinise it, if they wanted to do so. I am simply leaving it to the Minister to make regulations prescribing the method under which the list can be sold and to whom it can be sold. That is the power I am proposing to give him to act on. How he does it is another matter, but I would not have it a matter for general publication as it is at present.

With regard to the other point, I think that the phraseology of sub-section (5) is not very apt. There is only one register, and that is the one at headquarters in which alterations are made from week to week or from day to day. There must be alterations. If, on appeal, a prohibition Order is reversed, there must be an alteration in the register, and that goes on from day to day or week to week. Nobody, of course, would have an opportunity of examining the register from day to day, but it should be possible to publish a list, such as I have suggested, which does not purport to be the register or a copy of the register.

I do not think I could agree to this amendment at all. If the board have banned books I think that the public are entitled to know that these books are banned, and I cannot see how you can get out of that. I do not see either to what extent a citizen by buying a book that was banned, could be held to have committed an offence. Distributing such a book is the main offence, and if a citizen should lend himself to the circulation of a banned book he could be held to have committed an offence, but I do not think it would be right to hold that because a citizen had bought a banned book he had committed an offence, since the average citizen might not be aware of what is wrong. Consequently, I do not see how the publication of this list would help people in the matter of buying books. You might have the case of, say, a father who was buying a book at Christmas for his children and who would want to make certain that the book was not banned. That could happen. I think it would be impossible for people to know that they were breaking the law if they were not in a position to know what the law was. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.

I think the Minister is quite right, and, frankly, I am puzzled to know what is meant by the amendment. Under the Bill itself, the Minister can enable these things to be done in such manner as he may direct. I have not the remotest idea of the names of the books that have been banned—I think there were 12, but if there were a question time here and I were asked to give the names of the books I could not do so, because I cannot remember them. I suppose I could look up the records later, but the ordinary general public would not know the names. Newsagents, of course, have to watch these things generally and particularly in the cases of people who buy up second-hand books. I suggest that nobody wants to buy a list of such books, and certainly if anybody wanted to buy the list from purely pornographic motives they would be disappointed. In any case, there is no evidence that this list is being abused, and I suggest that the Minister already has that power and that he can make it available at such times and in such manner as he thinks fit. If he found that they were being bought in shops for, say, 6d., then he could charge £5, and so on.

It seems to me that the difficulty Senators have is to try to discover what is the difference between the amendment proposed and the section which is suggested should be amended. Senator O'Donovan went to some length in trying to explain the difference between a register and a list, but, as far as I am concerned, I am not convinced. It seems to me that all that he wants is available in the section as it stands, where it says that the Censorship Board shall cause the register to be printed, published and made available to the public in such manner and at such times as the Minister may direct. What more the Senator seeks than that I cannot make out.

The important thing is that the list should not be freely available for purchase by people who want it for improper purposes, and I cannot see how this amendment would give the Minister any more power than he has already under sub-section (5). I think that the Bill itself is really more sound from the point of view of accomplishing that purpose than the amendment.

Is the Senator pressing the amendment?

Mr. O'Donovan

Am I not entitled to reply on my own amendment?

Mr. O'Donovan

Nobody who has spoken, with the exception of Senator O Buachalla, has referred to one of the principal points, and so far as I am concerned I am fairly convinced that my case is just. A list can be published from time to time, but the register cannot be published and circulated from time to time. If that were so, then why did we not use previously the same terminology, where it speaks of a list of periodical publications? Therefore, when the Minister publishes what purports to be a register, which may be altered in two days' time, it is not the register. I am pointing out that to describe it as a list would be correct, as it could not be a register, two or four days after publication. As I have said, I am not a lawyer, but I have heard lawyers argue over points that were less important than this.

Would not the list also be out of date a few days afterwards?

Mr. O'Donovan

Yes, but it is not a legal document.

As to the date.

On a certain date.

Mr. O'Donovan

A list will be a list at a certain date. If it is described as a register it will not be a register four or five days afterwards. The references to the register in the other sub-sections are quite correct, but the reference here to this as a register is not correct. If the amendment is not acceptable to the Minister and the House I ask leave to withdraw it. I believe my point is sound even though I am not a lawyer.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'Donovan

Compulsorily.

Why compulsorily? It is never compulsory to withdraw an amendment.

Order. In view of the spirit developing on the opposite side of the House, Senators should take their duties seriously.

Government amendment No. 16:—
In Section 18, sub-section (2), to delete the words "or that the book or periodical was not prohibited at the time he ordered it" (inserted by the Seanad in Committee) and to substitute instead the following words: "or that it was not a prohibited book or prohibited periodical publication at the time he ordered it."

I think this drafting is better.

As I moved the original amendment I am quite satisfied with this.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 17:—

In page 9, to add to Section 18 a new sub-section (3) as follows:—

(3) Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a person who is a member of Seanad Eireann or Dáil Eireann from importing or otherwise acquiring a prohibited book.

The principal reason why I put down this amendment on the Report Stage is that I want to know from the Minister what is the position now that we are placing the responsibility on five members; how they are to be entitled to get a book for the purpose of reading it, and to decide whether they will appeal or not. The book will be censored, so that it will be illegal to sell it or to import it. No doubt, application could be made to the Minister for a licence, but in principle I consider that to be highly undesirable. I object to telling the Minister about every book I may be asked to read, to see whether it should be censored or not. I do not see why he should know whether I decided to sign an appeal or not. If he insists that I must write to him for a licence he will know whether or not I have decided to appeal. I am drawing attention to the position, if he maintains that five members are to decide whether there should be an appeal or not. Senator Magennis and I agree that in the majority of cases a book has to be read before deciding whether there should be an appeal or not, but the book must first be obtained.

I could not agree to accept this amendment. If a Senator asks for a book and informs the Minister he can grant a permit. I think that is good enough. It would be far more dangerous to a Senator or a Deputy if he had a free right to import books. If all we hear about people wanting these books is a fact Senators and Deputies would have a nice time.

It is not true.

No. If there was any truth in it they would have a worse time importing books than in refusing people who want to appeal. If any Senator or Deputy feels that he wants these books, if he asks the Minister about them he will not refuse.

Do I understand that the Minister will make available to us a list of the books we want?

Within reason.

Are we to have a definition of reason?

I will have to be the judge of that.

Unfortunately it is too late now to get a definition in the Bill. I put down the amendment to draw attention to the present provision, that is, when someone suggests that a book should be read, I have to ask them to get me a copy of it, or I have to write to the Minister to produce one. I think that is bad.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 18:—

In page 9, Section 20, in sub-section (1), line 27, to insert after the word "may" the words "in consultation with the Censorship Board".

In Committee I put down an amendment proposing that members of the Board and the Minister should be present at the consultation, as otherwise arrangements could be made by the Minister to inform the board that he proposed to make such and such regulations, and that he supposed the board had no objection. Personal contact in the making of regulations is important.

Is not that made by the next amendment?

If there is to be personal consultation, yes, but it might be by an intermediary.

The intention was to have what the Senator suggests.

On that understanding I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 19:—
In page 9, Section 20, to insert after sub-section (1) a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The Minister shall, before making regulations under this section affecting the Censorship Board or the Appeal Board, consult with the board concerned.
Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to
Agreed to take the next stage now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

May I say that this is a very important measure? We have to consider it in the form in which it came from Committee, after we passed certain amendments. The history of censorship here is that an Act was passed in 1929 about which there was considerable discussion, during which there was considerable misrepresentation of certain people. I was not one of them because I was in the Chair. They endeavoured to amend the Bill in certain particulars. That Bill was in the nature of an experiment. It was recognised that it could not be entirely satisfactory, that no Bill of the kind could be entirely satisfactory.

But what actually happened was that, in respect of periodicals and newspapers, the Act of 1929 was entirely satisfactory and successful. With regard to books, there was a complaint from certain people on various occasions and on various grounds. I should like to put it that there is no reflection whatever on any Censorship Board when some citizen —I never did it myself because I was not interested in the matter—asserts that a book has been censored which ought not to have been censored. When a citizen says that, he is not in any way reflecting on the members of the particular Censorship Board at the time. The great difficulty the Minister and the Minister's predecessors have experienced in administering the Act has been in securing suitable people to act on the Censorship Board, people whose opinions were worth having, people who had leisure to do the work and sufficient public spirit to undertake it. I think that a tribute should be paid to the members of the board who, during all that time, under various Ministers, undertook that very distasteful task. I, in my position, happened to know quite a number of them because they were chosen—perhaps naturally—from amongst my colleagues at University College—some of them lay and some of them clerical. Every one of them rather unwillingly performed the task but they had the public spirit to undertake it, under successive Ministers, by way of service to the State. I think it can be said that Ministers, no matter who they were, did make an honest effort to get the best kind of people for the board.

The present Minister determined to make certain changes and these changes are embodied in the Bill which we are now about to pass. There are two main changes: the Minister removes himself from the position of being the censoring authority and, in order to satisfy certain people, he provides an appeal from the decisions of the board. The Minister has said —we are all in agreement with him— that the provision of an appeal is a difficult thing. He provided an appeal board of three members, one of whom was to be a legal personage. I suspect that the Minister had in mind for that position a judicial personage. One could say quite a lot, from the logical point of view, against having five members of the Censorship Board and three members of the appeal board. On the whole, the view I took was that it was better to accept the Minister's bona fides, let this new provision stand and see how it would work. For that reason, with the exception of the one point dealing with personal luggage and the action of the customs authorities in relation to it, my inclination was to let the Bill through. I felt that it was a difficult problem and that I could not really be of much assistance to the Minister. I thought the best thing to do was to let the Bill through and, as in 1929, see how it would work. That was, perhaps, the view taken by a great many members of the Dáil.

I think that the Bill, as we find it before us on the Fifth Stage, is not as good a Bill as that which the Minister introduced. He inserted a very good amendment with regard to personal luggage entering the country, and the rights of customs officers to search for and take books, but I think that, in accepting the amendment to make the appeal board consist of five persons—however logical that course may have been—he rendered the Bill more difficult of working. I heard a predecessor of his say, many years ago, with regard to a particular amendment: "Under duress of long speeches, the Government is accepting this amendment." The Minister was not well advised, under the duress of long speeches in the Committee Stage which we have just finished, to accept an amendment to make the censorship appeal board consist of five members. It would be difficult to find five members, it would be more difficult to find eight, and still more difficult to find ten suitable persons to work this Bill, and what I am concerned with is that the Bill should work.

The Committee Stage of the Bill, which resulted in the insertion of these amendments, gave me considerable pause, and made for me certain considerable difficulties. The attitude taken up was that nobody could exercise his right to say that certain books had been censored which should not have been censored without insulting the board. I do not think that the average member of the board would take up that attitude at all. It was suggested here—quite wrongly—that those who tried to amend this Bill were in some way assisting in the spread of indecent and obscene publications. In fact, the suggestion was made, at one point—as it seemed to me and to the Minister—that the Minister himself was in league with certain foreign publishers who wanted to flood the country with indecent publications. That kind of advocacy can do nothing but harm to a cause, even when the cause is good. I suggest that it was very ill-advised. We are in the position now that we have before us a Bill on the Fifth Stage which, I think, will give the Minister very considerable trouble. In this small country, there has been difficulty in finding a board of five, and now the Minister will have to find two boards of five, which will be more difficult. It would, I think, have been better if we had made provision for an appeal board of three members, instead of yielding to the argument that, on logical grounds, it should consist of five members. If we had recognised the Minister's difficulties and his bona fides, allowed the Bill, as it was, to go through and seen what would happen, it would have been better. I think that the Bill was worsened, and that the Minister was ill-advised to accept the amendment to which I have referred.

We are all in agreement that censorship, in principle, is good, but the working of a censorship, particularly a censorship of books, is very difficult, indeed. Anybody who could help in the work of making this Bill a proper Bill should have been encouraged, instead of its being suggested that he was interested in the spread of obscene publications. Periodicals stand in a class by themselves and the Act has been very successful with regard to them. With regard to books, it can be said that this type of Bill is but a very small contribution towards keeping people morally right. It is only one of a great number of things that could be done and should be done —on the material side, the giving of a good living to people, the creation of interest in the country, the creation of a natural spirit of interest in national affairs. It is rather more important that people should read good literature than that they should be prevented from reading a certain quantity of bad literature, because there are many things which many of us would like to ban but which no conceivable Bill could ban. There are certain types of printed matter—for example, murder stories, which do not come under this Bill—which, if constantly read, have an evil effect on the mind. Although this Bill is necessary, it is of much greater importance that positive steps should be taken to encourage people to read good matter than that elaborate steps should be taken to prevent them from reading evil matter, such as is dealt with in this Bill. I accept the bona fides of the Minister and his Department and I wish the Bill well.

When this Bill came up for Second Reading I took it upon myself to say that I recommended the House to pass it, and I indicated that I thought it would be a better Bill if the House at the same time accepted certain amendments which it was my intention to introduce. I regret very much that, with the exception of the two most unimportant of those amendments, the House has not seen fit to accept them, and I think the Bill is a much worse Bill than if they had been accepted. It is in fact, a worse Bill for the reasons given, but also a worse Bill than when it came before the House.

There is one matter which I might make clear, because certain misapprehensions did arise on the Second Reading, and very probably, I am responsible for those misapprehensions. I may have used phrases which in the atmosphere of the law courts would not be regarded as provocative but which produced a most surprising reaction—to me at any rate —among my friends in the Seanad. I want to safeguard now my position, and to make it clear that although I approve of this Bill in so far as it improves the censorship method, I do not want to be considered now or at any time, as lending my voice to the principle of censorship.

I want to say that now in a way in which no one can object to it. On four different occasions in my lifetime, it has fallen to me to make certain investigations into censorship from the point of view of the science of legislation and the theory of politics. I had to do it in 1915, in 1918 and again last year. What I compressed into one paragraph of the Official Report as the general objections to censorship were merely the truisms of the textbooks written by people who had studied and who had written on abstract political science.

I confess I was surprised—more than surprised; I was astounded—by the reaction which that drew from certain members of this House, and I read very carefully through the speeches which had been made to see how I had provoked that reaction, and also what arguments had been used against me. After carefully reading them through and discovering there had not been one single argument used addressed to the intellect, but merely repetitions of highly coloured words which are not only no argument but merely indicate that the person using them cannot find an argument, I came to the conclusion that I had not been so far wrong as possibly I thought I was. I became determined that before I again addressed this House on general principles, I would make it my business to try to read everything that had been written on the subject of censorship from the time I made a considered study of it in 1915 and 1917 to date.

The best bibliography of censorship is issued by the University of Oregon and is not available in Ireland. There is a subject index in the London Library catalogue and there is a bibliography in the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, and in many other books. Since the Second Reading, I have read every book that is available in the big libraries in Ireland dealing with censorship from the abstract point of view, and I can assure the House that from 1916 onwards, there is no book which is available in the public libraries in Ireland, Trinity College or the National University which has one word to say in favour of the principle of censorship.

I go somewhat farther than that. I had occasion to consult all the League of Nations publications that were available. As you know, the League of Nations has a special committee for dealing with obscene literature, and you will find in the National Library these reports, the latest of which available is 1932. You will find there the legislation of other countries. You will find statements that pornographic literature is decreasing, that it is a dying traffic and that countries have had no difficulties in dealing with it by the ordinary police procedure. You will not, as far as my recollection goes, find any recommendation of censorship procedure.

You will find certain difficulties, among them being the extraordinary difficulty of getting an adequate definition of these words "indecent and obscene", but I think I am correct in saying that nowhere in the proceedings of the League of Nations, or in any other book available in our recognised public libraries, will you find a word to be said in favour of the system of censorship we have here. I am, of course, aware, although at the time I was not able to consult continental works on the subject, that since 1916 articles have been written in favour of censorship in Germany, since the Nazi régime was instituted, and in Russia under the Bolshevist régime. So far as I know, those are the only countries which have upheld this system. I am also aware that in Spain there is a doctrinal censorship. Before the passage of this Bill I got a 15-page letter from a very prominent Catholic in Spain, complaining of the working and effects of the censorship there. From a Catholic point of view it is a doctrinal censorship, but the writer regarded it as disastrous.

I have endeavoured to put those facts before the House. I am not going to attempt to give the arguments against censorship because they are so well known and it would take some time, and I could not hope to convince the House. But I ask the House to realise that those who have gone into the matter, in the majority, do not think this is a good way of dealing with obscene literature. I ask the censors-to-be, the ten just men who are going to operate this Bill, when they are so doing it, to familiarise themselves, as I am sure they have done and as Professor Magennis has done, with the dangers and disadvantages of the system, because only by keeping within very rigid lines can you ever avoid the result which I indicated to the House at an earlier stage, that though it may do some good in the ultimate analysis, yet in ways which are not obvious when you are working it, it will do more harm than good.

It is, of course, the natural thing that everybody thinks of when he sees something he wants to stop. He takes the easiest way of stopping it. You can find an analogy in prohibition legislation in the United States. It was felt that the easiest way to stop people getting drunk was to stop the sale of liquor. Those familiar with the history of prohibition legislation foresaw clearly what was going to happen in America, and everything that was prophesied did happen, and I would only say this: if you want to avoid similar evils I would strongly recommend to those who are going to be censors a study of the history of censorship of the past and the evils which it was introduced to avoid, and the evils which were produced when they came to put it into operation.

I feel there is a sinister suggestion in Senator Kingsmill Moore's speech that the only three countries in the world where there is censorship are Russia, Germany and Spain. I want to ask him if there is any comparison whatever between the censorships in those three countries and the Bill we are passing here. Are their censorships rather not on the economic side than on the moral side?

It covers all.

But ours is confined to immoral literature only.

In Spain, it is not.

There is no comparison.

May I make it clear that there are two types? You can have police interference ex post facto or you can have prohibitive censorship, such as here. This type of prohibitive censorship beforehand exists, I believe, in those countries but I think it existed also in Massachusetts. I have not been able to get recent information as to foreign countries. I prefer the old method, the prosecution of offenders in the matter of obscene literature and confiscation by the police.

I rise to say that I think the Minister has gone out of his way to give consideration to the various points that were raised. I think that he at any rate has endeavoured to treat this Bill as I think it should be treated —a non-Party measure, a measure which everybody was anxious to see worked in the most effective way without abuse and without undue interference. I feel like Senator Hayes that he has made one or two mistakes. I take it that this Bill is also regarded in the Dáil as a non-Party measure and, that when our amendments go back, they may be liable to reconsideration there. There is no certainty that they will be accepted or that they may not come back here for reconsideration. Senator Hayes has referred to one amendment which caused him some concern, namely, the increase in the Censorship Board of five. I am inclined to agree because I think it will add to the difficulties of getting suitable members but I do not know that it is a very vital objection.

There is one amendment which the Minister accepted which I think requires further consideration before the Bill becomes law because I think it may cause a decidedly complicated position. That is the decision to take out the words "in its general tendency". I have been making inquiries but for the life of me I could not discover whether that narrows or widens the terms of the Bill. I am rather inclined to think that it will have the effect of letting more books through but I suggest that it may lead to serious complications and that the Minister might very well go back to the old phrase for this reason. We have for a long period a pretty fair measure of consent as to what the phrase means and it has been pretty effective. When you start introducing a new phrase, it will take quite a long time to find what is the difference between the new phrase and the old phrase. The board will have to consider whether there is a change or whether there is not and, if so, what is the effect of that change —is it a widening change, has it the same meaning as "in general tendency" or has it the effect of narrowing the measure and making more books liable to be censored? The appeal board will have to consider the point and quite a considerable time must elapse before we know the recognised meaning of the phrase. The Minister will appreciate that it is not a question of getting a dictionary to know what it means, but that it is a question of practice.

There is a further point. As the Bill stands now, unless by any chance our lawyers discover a flaw in it, books that have been censored up to the present are liable to be made the subject of appeal. Such books were censored because in their general tendency they were obscene. Is the appeal to be taken now on the question of whether they were in their general tendency indecent or obscene or is the appeal to be taken according to the new wording of the Bill? The Minister, no doubt, has given that point serious consideration and I should like to get an answer from him because it is not clear to me. It seems to me to create a rather peculiar position. The old board operated on the phrase set out in the Act that if any book was in its general tendency indecent or obscene it was to be censored. The appeal is now going to be made to a new board. Surely the new board must have regard to the same phrase as that on which the book was first censored? If they are to operate merely on the new phrase "indecent or obscene" the board will be in a quandary in regard to the older books. It is quite possible that books which were quite properly condemned under the old phrase will become uncensored because of the new phrase. The Minister, no doubt, will be able to tell me under what term the appeals will be considered. I suggest to him that there is a situation there which requires careful consideration and that wisdom would have dictated the retention of the same phrase in this Bill because it has worked quite well over a long time and there is no evidence that books, which were really improper and that should have been censored, were not censored.

I have just one or two remarks to make. Firstly, I should like to say that I am not quite happy concerning the alteration we made with regard to customs inspection. I still feel that we were unwise to alter that section in the way we did. Our aim is to prevent the circulation of a certain type of literature which the Censorship Board and the appeal board may consider unsuitable. One has only to think of the many ways in which passengers enter this country and one has only to reflect on the enormous numbers of people coming and going, to realise the danger there is of a large importation of such books and the possibility of their circulation. I think Senator Fearon suggested that the difficulty might be got over by a person's signature being written into the book. That would not make any difference because books could be distributed as secondhand. In any case, if people have the desire to get rid of them, to circulate them, they will find a way of doing that.

I can be optimistic enough to hope that the great majority of the Irish people are not interested in that type of literature but the aim of the Bill is to prevent the accumulation or the circulation of such literature. I am afraid that having altered the section relating to customs inspection in the way we have, we have undermined to a very considerable extent an otherwise very commendable Bill.

I should like now before we send the Bill on its way to appeal—perhaps Senators will feel it is uncalled for and still I feel it a kind of duty that the appeal should be made seeing that we have given ourselves the right to institute appeals—to every member of the Oireachtas to take that responsibility in the most serious manner possible. I can see quite easily the danger of members of the Oireachtas being approached. I can see these people quite reasonably agreeing to endorse a requisition for an appeal and so holding up the whole work of the appeal board. As I said yesterday, it is possible, if we find that happening, to have the Bill amended, but this is the main reason I have for making this appeal. We have done something here which if it is not unusual is certainly something I do not like and it is this; that as legislators we have given ourselves a certain privelege. We have given ourselves the right to initiate these appeals. That is a right we have not given to any other body and it is a right that I do not think we should have given to ourselves but since we have taken that right, I hope that by its conduct in the matter the Oireachtas will prove worthy in every respect of having taken such a step.

It might appear from the discussions that our attitude here was one of hostility to the general body of Irish writers. In fact, some of the Irish writers feel that they have been "put on the spot." in a most uncalled for manner. I think it is not an inopportune occasion to pay a tribute to the excellent work of the general body of Irish writers. I think they will be glad of the discussions we have had here; that we will have given them a line as to what we consider to be reasonable; and, I think above all that, having now got their appeal board, writers will feel themselves relieved of any stigma which seemed to have been attached to them arising out of certain comments and certain discussions here.

Except to join with Senator Hayes in paying tribute to the members of the old board, I have nothing more to say. They certainly deserve well of us. They had to map out the course. They had no previous experience to guide them. I am not going to say that they made mistakes—I do not know that they did—but one thing is certain, that the new boards will have every reason to be grateful to the old board for the work that they did, and for the way that they charted their course for them.

I congratulate the Minister. The Bill is now a very much better Bill than it was when it was brought into the House. It has been amended in certain important respects, and very much to its improvement. It will make censorship easier, more effective, and more acceptable even to some of the disgruntled critics of the past. If I were to particularise, I would say that if we had done nothing more than put in the amendment dealing with books which, under the appearance of condemning those practices, make a case for what I can only call the taking of human life, we would have effected an enormous improvement. On the other hand, I was one of those who looked forward to the introduction of an amending Bill, and hoped that the opportunity would be taken to do away with the disabilities —and there were many—under which the board had laboured. The Minister is aware of that himself, and I have disclaimed any intention to put the blame for their continuance on the Minister for Justice. There is a certain restriction on expenditure, and members of the Dáil, when the Bill was passing through that House, demanded to be assured that the new measure would not add to the expense on the State. I am sorry that the opportunity has not been taken to do away with that restriction. In this I am speaking on behalf of the future board, for when the amending Bill becomes an Act I pass out automatically. As regards the tributes paid to the work of the old board, the tributes belong to the men who undertook this work in the first years. They had a very difficult problem. They had to create traditions, as well as to create procedure. What very few critics of the Principal Act bear in mind is this: that it was a fine attempt to do one of the most difficult things that a Legislature could undertake. In England, the task of dealing with books and similar matters was part of the criminal law, and the publishers and the authors were living within the jurisdiction of the British Law Courts. But the difficulty here was that the chief offender—the British and foreign publishers—was outside the jurisdiction of the State, and the whole criminal procedure had to be adapted to confront that factor.

It was the principal factor in the whole problem. It was idle to declare certain things illegal, or to attach penalties to the publication or circulation of indecent literature or literature advocating what I can only call murder. It would have been like passing a resolution abolishing the devil. The devil would go on just the same. That was the trouble. There was a deluge from the foreign Press not alone of periodicals but of books. Some of the periodicals were of that low type that in the United States are called pulp magazines. They are printed upon what is not really paper but a kind of pulp, and sold at a lower price. The board had, as I say, to manufacture— if that is a permissible word—the censorship, in face of the fact that they were substituting something like civil procedure for criminal procedure. I think they deserve well of the State, those men who made censorship a practical reality. There were tributes paid to the members of the board, but the value of them is detracted from by the personal accusations that have studded this discussion of the amending Bill from beginning to end. I will not pursue that, but I do say that we are going to be faced—by "we" I mean the people of this State; I do not mean the Censorship Board, because I know I am going out of office the moment this Bill becomes law, so I am speaking dispassionately and impersonally in that regard—with a flood of this foul literature. Senator Kingsmill Moore says that the word "filth" applied to it has no meaning. That simply means that he knows nothing at all about the works that come our way.

One further word, and I have practically finished. Senator Summerfield said that the board, which has been praised for what it did, did not do as much as was expected from it, and he was right. I have admitted it already. Of 990 books that ought to have been stopped, about 90 came our way. That is the fact. When Senator Johnston, in the course of the debate, proceeded to show that sexual crime had not been diminished, he failed to take account of the fact that, even if it were conceivably possible to make the process of dealing with books an effectual stopper of the sort of crime to which he referred, it was not possible for the board to do that work because, as I said, they were not in touch with the books. They could not get them.

That is why I laid stress upon this, that the board does not claim to have done everything that might have been done, but it has done as well as it could, in the circumstances, what it was possible for it to do. The country will have to face up to the fact that if they want to keep the countryside clean, and the little country town shops pure and undefiled, they will have to be prepared to spend more money in the defence of the fatherland.

Now, as regards the complaints of fine works being kept from readers, I ask if those readers read all the good literature that is already within their reach? We have excellent Irish authors. Do these people read those Irish authors? The opponents of censorship choose to regard as Irish—authors who are penalised by an unconscionable board—people who are not Irish authors at all. A man who is a personal friend of a friend of mine is put down as an Irish author because he has an Irish name. He never was in Ireland, nor was his mother, nor was his father, nor was his grandfather; and yet he, supposedly, is an Irish writer whom we have forced into an unwilling exile in the United States of America. The man has never come here at all. He is an American. So it is with a lot of the others. I had not the time to go into the list of all the banned books written by people, possibly, bearing Irish names, and for whose exile we were held to be responsible, but so far as I could get information from biographies, and so on, a large number of them are not Irish authors at all. That is a fact that ought to be taken into account when we are charged with these iniquities. In the case of another author—I shall not name anyone, so as not to incur the Chairman's displeasure—there is alleged our guilt of forcing into exile an Irish writer. Now, the book by that author which we banned was one of the foulest books which could be imagined, and her departure from the three English-speaking countries was due to the fact that if the public prosecutor in England could be certain of getting a verdict, he would have instituted proceedings.

It is well, then, when generous tributes are being paid to the board, to remember that a great many of the accusations that are launched against the board—tributes of another order altogether—are made in a spirit of hostility and not with any judicial calm or with any sense of fairness or justice, and I say that especially, I repeat, on behalf of the first board. I do not want to appear unfair in any way to anyone. I have said that the board has suffered from lack of funds and from lack of an office staff, but I in no sense impute that disability to the Minister for Justice or his predecessor. It is simply due in some respects to the fact that the enormity of the problem has not been sufficiently realised. I shall end by saying that I congratulate the Minister on going out from this House with a very much better Bill than he came in with.

I had not the pleasure, if I may call it so, of introducing the Bill here on Second Reading. Mr. Little was kind enough to do it for me, and he complimented the board on behalf of myself and the Government, and I wish to do the same now. They have done a very good piece of work and I wish to pay my tribute to them. Although it was a very thankless job, they did it very well. With regard to the point of expenditure I am somewhat puzzled, because I understand that whatever money was granted was not spent.

That is true, but I gave an explanation of it which, perhaps, did not reach the Minister.

Well, I should not like to have any impression created that the work of the board was curtailed in any way by any reluctance on the part of the Government to advance money. As I say, I am not aware that any request was made for money which was not granted. I do not want to make a particular point of that, but I feel that an impression might be created that there was an attempt to starve the board, and I think that the very fact that the money granted was not spent is a sufficient answer to that. At least, it appears to me to be a sufficient answer. Again, I want to pay my tribute to the work of the board. I am satisfied that the board as a whole has done very good work; that as regards periodicals it has been a complete success, and that there is very little reason or ground for the complaints that have been made in certain quarters in this country about the operation of the book censorship. I think that it is highly desirable that, as far as we can, we should get acceptance of the principle of censorship. Senator Kingsmill Moore objects to the whole principle of censorship, and I suppose everybody would object to it if it could be avoided.

I, personally, would not be in favour of censorship if it could be avoided at all. I think that none of us like censorship generally, but there are circumstances in which it cannot be avoided. During the war, for instance, we had another form of censorship, which could not be avoided, and although nobody may like it, nevertheless it is a necessity. At any rate, I think that it is very necessary, and the Bill was brought in on the understanding that the Oireachtas accepted the principle which, of course, it has done. The Act was passed in 1929 and on this Bill there was no objection, except the one made here by Senator Kingsmill Moore to the principle of censorship. As I have said, we should all be pleased to do without it, but we cannot do so.

With regard to Senator Hayes's point about the five members, I thought that three would be better on the appeal board. I came in here with a fairly open mind, prepared to hear the case for five members or for my own proposal of three members and, unfortunately for Senator Hayes's point of view, I got nobody to speak in favour of my proposal and I accepted it as the view of the Seanad that five would be a proper number. I saw the difficulty of getting 10. I hope we will be able to get over that. I do not think it will make the Bill any worse but I should not like it to go forth, as seemed to be suggested by some speakers, that if we had three on one board and five on the other board the three would be regarded as better than the five or people of a superior type. I do not think there was anything in that point, but it was made and it was suggested that when it came to getting people to act on that board they might have felt that and it might have been difficult to get people to act. That point weighed with me.

With regard to the point about "general tendency" raised by Senator Douglas, I imagine that the board will act on the wording in the new Act. I do not see what else they can do.

That means that they will be deciding on a different definition.

I would not say that. Naturally, it is a matter of opinion as to whether it is of great importance or not, but in any case it is a matter for the board.

As far as I understand it, the Act will lay down what books are indecent. We will have to see how it works. Like every other Bill, if we find that there is a call for its amendment, we will have to meet that situation when it arises. As Senator O Buachalla stated, I would not like any writer to think that his work was not appreciated. We are aware that the vast majority of Irish writers are worthy people, and that they have done good work for the country. I would not like the idea to get abroad that there was any question of maligning them in any way. I should like them to know—and I think Senator Magennis said so—that the Censorship Board appreciates the work done by the vast majority of Irish writers. The amendments to this Bill which I have accepted in this House I shall recommend to the Dáil. A more satisfactory debate took place here than in the other House. There was less attention paid to the Bill in the Dáil. I think some of the discussion might have been shortened, and that some amendments seemed rather frivolous, but, on the whole, I think the Seanad gave the Bill a far closer examination and was more helpful than the House to which I belong. There is no doubt about that. I did not try to rush the Bill in the other House, but there was very little debate on it there.

Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil with amendments.
Top
Share