I beg formally to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill, 1931—Second Stage.
I rise to oppose the Second Reading of this measure. There is an aphorism that every instance of the infliction of punishment is an instance of the failure of that punishment. Like most aphorisms, that is but a half truth. Crime must be punished and no criminal code can so reform man as to obviate the necessity for punishment. It is significant, however, that the coercive measures such as the Firearms Act of 1925, the Treasonable Offences Act of 1925, and the Juries Protection Act of 1929, have failed to achieve the purpose for which ostensibly they were designed. They are no remedy, and force is no remedy for the national, political and economic diseases which afflict the body politic. Either the prognoses and diagnoses have been wrong or those responsible for applying the remedies have proved their utter incompetence.
If, after eight years' treatment, the disease has grown worse, it is surely time to try other remedies and other advisers. We have suggested other remedies. We are willing, if given the chance, to apply those remedies. We think that those matters could be remedied without the display of force and coercion evidenced in this Bill. The President spoke yesterday about removing the menace once and for all. The first thing to do is to remove the root cause. Deputy Morrissey spoke of two alternatives—giving this power to the Executive or power to outside bodies. We know not who they are. There is another alternative. They should let some body take office who believe they can govern without such measures as this, and let the present Government resign. We genuinely believe that we could govern without such measures as this. No Party in this House, and no Deputy in this House, desires to see Communism, Atheism or Godlessness spread in this country.
Question!
If the Deputy questions that I would like him to name the Deputy whom he suspects. Unemployment and hunger are fertile soil in which to sow the seeds of Communism. There is a danger, slight as yet, thank God, but I have realised it through speaking to the homeless people in Dublin and to people in Kerry and Connemara who knew hardly a word of English, to whom the word Communism was unknown and who know very little about Russia or Russian propaganda. I have spoken to such people within recent months. They said to me "We want work; we do not want charity." That cry is growing more clamant day by day and it must be answered. Until it is answered you will not remedy existing evils, not even by Bills such as this. The people whom I have met in the Gaeltacht are growing more insistent day by day in their demands. Nobody can accuse them of Godlessness, for religion is woven into the warp and the woof of their daily lives, as the President and others on the opposite benches well know. They demand the right to live and such demand is not against Catholic teaching, as even the Minister for Defence will admit, as is proved by Catholic teaching and philosophy, by the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII and by the more recent Encyclicals of his successors. It is quite in consonance with Catholic teaching.
The Minister for Defence yesterday gave us a great disquisition on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, with a slight tinge of Calvinism, as to the spiritual direction the State should give, and other matters of that kind. It would appear, in fact, that the Executive Council are now displacing the Hierarchy. So much has been said on the national and the political aspects of the question that I do not need to deal with them; it would be tedious reiteration to do so. In the debate on the Land Commission Estimates I referred to the extraordinary amount of land still in the hands of a few people in this country despite the operation of the Land Acts and the Congested Districts Board over many years. Emigration, owing to economic conditions in America and elsewhere, has been largely stopped. There are young men on the farms, two or three or four sons, and they are naturally throwing hungry eyes on this land which they see only half tilled and in some instances hardly used at all. To ask for that land is not adopting an anti-Catholic attitude.
Property has its rights. No man disputes the right of private property, but the State has a paramount right, giving due compensation for the use of that land for the benefit of the community. The sooner they set about doing so the better for the peace of this land. Yesterday the Minister for Defence had, apparently, little respect for the Constitution. We are glad that he had such little respect. The President spoke in glowing terms of the encomiums that the Constitution has received from authorities on constitutional law in foreign lands. He enlarged on the full political rights, the untrammelled liberty, that the Constitution gives the citizen, and then he advocated this Bill as necessary to protect the citizen from the invasion of his rights.
In 140 years, more or less, there have been eighteen amendments to the American Constitution. In nine years we have had twenty-six alterations in our Constitution. I cannot call this Bill, the seventeenth amendment, for it is the very abrogation of that Constitution. What were these amendments that we have had? Did they tend towards the enlargement of public right or getting on the road to freedom? If we look in that direction we may find some cause for the present unrest when the Vice-President of the Executive Council declares that he thinks we were better off with six counties, a British province, and this section of it not absolutely free. If we tried to get the land divided, tried to protect Irish industries, put tariffs on, gave employment and better housing, and could get a Government that would at least march on the road to freedom, we would be much more likely to get peace than by coercion.
I wonder do Deputies on the benches opposite realise exactly what they are doing in voting for this measure? Section 2 of the Constitution is referred to in this Bill and then we get 2 (a) in the Bill. After 2 (a) there is a blank, throwing into disregard, whenever the Executive Council likes, the Constitution they were so proud of. Fundamental rights were referred to by the President as covered by nine or ten sections of this Bill. Five or six sections deal with the Executive and eight sections with the judiciary. It is for the declaration which expresses freedom of the person, the subordination of the Executive to the people of this country, the independence of the judiciary and such matters that this Constitution has been praised in other lands for the good things in it. The Minister for Defence yesterday referred to the awkward period between the failure of the civil courts and the setting up of martial law. Was it a prophecy? One reading this Bill must realise that the setting up of martial law would be less drastic than the measure now before us. Martial law has been declared to be no law, but at any rate those who administer martial law are subject afterwards to the jurisdiction of the civil courts, and even if they get an Indemnity Act, any outrageous performance of theirs not warranted by the occasion may be judged. But under this Bill there is no appeal, there is no revision. Nobody can question the doings of these military tribunals, so that this measure is much more drastic than any martial law could be.
Martial law cannot be declared under this Constitution until the courts have declared that there is a state of siege, a state of war, or armed rebellion. Have we that armed rebellion now? Is there a state of siege? If you think there is, be honest about it and say so, and if not, do not camouflage your extra martial law under the name of an amendment to the Constitution. The civil courts under this Bill will have no right to declare whether there is a state of armed rebellion. They will have no right to revise any sentence passed by a courtmartial. In Article 6 of the Constitution there is the right of personal freedom. Article 7 of the Constitution deals with the inviolability of the dwelling, and Articles 9 and 19 with freedom of speech and the right of public meeting. In this Bill you are going even further than the British who have no express declaration of some of these rights, but in order to make assurance doubly sure we put them in print and then wipe them out by a vote of this House. I wonder do you realise where you are going? Not only will these military tribunals be secret, not only is there to be no revision over them, but the Article which allows the Press to comment on them is wiped out of your Constitution. The Executive Council, if they so desire, may prevent and do by this Act abolish the right of free expression of opinion about such matters in this House. Everything subsequent to Article 2 is abrogated by this Bill. If you pass it you may find yourself in an internment camp for referring to any act of a military court in this House, and the Press daring to do it outside will be suppressed and fined.
These are serious matters. There is in this Constitution an express declaration of the freedom of the Press. The British have no such thing. But under this we are to over-rule the Criminal Libel (Amendment) Act of 1888. What did that Act do? It allowed privilege for a fair and accurate report in any newspaper of judicial proceedings—that is to go—newspaper reports of public meetings, and in this Act it is said that no criminal prosecution shall be commenced against any proprietor, publisher, editor or any person responsible for the publication of a newspaper for any libel published therein without the order of a Judge in Chambers first having been obtained. That Judge goes and the military are to be the Judges. In the Constitution you laid down that certain courts were to be set up in this country. You not only declared the citizens' rights, but you provided remedies. You are abolishing both the rights and the remedies. Both are gone when this comes into force and it is to come into force as soon as an Order is passed by the Executive Council. We all know that that Order will be passed if this Bill gets through. What is the use of talking of defending the rights of the citizens? The President tells us that the ordinary citizen may go about his lawful business without fear of molestation even under this Bill. I leave it to you to consider the Constitution of these Courts. Five military officers not skilled in law. No judicial calm there. I am not making suggestions against them, but I say this to you on all sides of the House: you know the history of Ireland for the last eight, nine or ten years. Do you think there would be an unbiased trial for one who fought against them if brought up under this Act? Three will form the Court, two may give the judgment. Where have they stood in the last few years. Fighting one another perhaps on the hillside. One is to be the Judge and Jury and there is no appeal. Any Civic Guard may arrest people whom he suspects of being about to commit any crime which he considers seditious.
Who is to define what this sedition is? The opinion of the Guard arresting the man and keeping him seventy-two hours detained, and it is said that during that period any Guard may question him and if he does not give the full information with regard to anybody whom he knows to be concerned in such matters he may be punished. How do they know what information he has? Would it be possible for a Guard to bring a man into barracks and get a relay of Guards to examine him for seventy-two hours without sleep, which is really more serious than any third degree methods? Is not that a possibility under this Bill in connection with the bad blood that existed, unfortunately, between different sections of nationalists in this country? Do you think that that is only a remote possibility or that it might not happen within a week of this Bill being passed?
We are told that under the Constitution that Executive is responsible to the people. According to a section of this Bill members of this Dáil may be —I cannot say elected—appointed by the Governor-General. The Dáil may be adjourned for a month by the Governor-General. What is to stop the adjournment of this House for a month? To get it to meet for a day and then to adjourn it for another month and to set up a dictatorship without changing a line of this Bill? Do you not think that is a possibility? If certain measures have failed in the line of force perhaps it may be claimed that this is failing too and that more drastic measures, namely the adjournment of the Dáil, after meeting one day in every thirty-one, might be justified under this amendment of the Constitution. Under the Constitution you have the independence of the Judges. What independence will those Judges have who will try these men for their lives? I ask you to envisage this for a moment—a man seventy-two hours under questioning in a Guards' barracks, tried by a military court, no appeal and no reference in the Press. There is no appeal to any court and there is absolute immunity for the court that tried him. There is the possible prohibition of any discussion in this House as being against the public interests. Do you feel easy when you think of such a thing as that?
I ask you honestly, do you not think that it could happen, and even if it only happened in one case that a man was sentenced to death in the wrong, and that the sentence was carried out, would you like to accept responsibility for placing these powers in the hands of a military court? We think that much harm is being done and much unrest caused by political tests. Under this Bill anybody charged before these courts and convicted before them will lose his employment under the Government or a local body, and will lose his superannuation or his right to pension. Are such steps as that likely to bring about peace?
In the Appendix to this Bill certain crimes which are to come under it are set out—things mentioned in the Juries Protection Act, the Firearms Act, the Treasonable Offences Act—on many of those a man is to be tried for his life. I submit that under all these statutes there is a statutory penalty fixed for the crimes, and all through this Bill in addition to that this Court may inflict such punishment as it thinks proper. There is no statutory limit to any sentence that it may pass—such punishment as they may think proper. Would it not be right to fix some limit? There is a sufficient penalty, one would imagine, for perjury. Under this, not only statutory penalties may be inflicted, but such other penalties as the military courts think there should be. I ask you to weigh up these things, and seeing the possibility, whether you think you are going to make for peace in this country by passing the Bill now before you.
Mr. O'Connell
There is really very little to be said in regard to this measure. I stated yesterday that in Section 2 of this measure we are in fact making a new Constitution for the Free State. That statement has not been disproved by anything that was said from the Front Bench of the Government Party. I asked the reason of the urgency on the part of the Government of getting this Bill through the House in two or three days. No satisfactory case whatever was made to show why it was necessary that the Bill should become law within three days, denying to this House the right it was supposed to have of discussing fully any measure which was brought before it, denying the Deputies the right to give their views or to represent the views of their constituents, to go back to their constituents and consult them with regard to it, and to come here and express these views.
No sufficient reason has been put up why that course should be adopted. The only conclusion one can come to with regard to that is that they do not want to give the opportunity to the country of studying this measure to see what it entails. They are afraid of the rising agitation in the country against the measure if they did not put it into law as an accomplished fact before the people had really time to study its provisions. I believe it is the most drastic measures that has been introduced into this House since it was set up. We are asked to pass it into law without being given any opportunity whatever to amend any of the provisions in it. Even though a Deputy may be prepared to accept some portion of the measure and to amend another portion of it he has no opportunity of doing that. He must take it as it is thrown at him by the Executive Council. In fact, it simply means that the House is asked to hand over all powers of every kind whatsoever to the Executive Council and to have full and complete faith in them. I wonder what would be said to the executive of any trade union who would come forward and make a proposals of that kind.
Even the Incorporated Law Society.
Mr. O'Connell
It is quite a common comment in regard to this measure that there is nothing in it that any law-abiding citizen need be afraid of. There is nothing in this measure that any law-abiding citizen need fear if the 5,000 Gárdaí or the 4,000 or 5,000 members of the Defence Forces could be said to be absolutely infallible. I have a great deal of faith in the common-sense and judgment of the vast majority of the Gárda Síochána. I believe that in the vast majority of cases they will carry out any work that is entrusted to them, under this measure or any other measure, with calmness and judgment, but it is asking too much of the ordinary citizen to ask him to believe that every member of the Gárda Síochána and every member of the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann will carry out this impartially, without any suggestion whatever that no law-abiding citizen will come under suspicion of any one member of the Gárda Síochána or any one member of the Defence Forces.
I wonder do Deputies fully realise the extent of the powers that are proposed to be given to every member of the Gárda Síochána and of the Defence Forces—the soldiers—under Part III. of the Bill. Any member of the Gárda Síochána or of the Defence Forces, with a reservation in the case of a non-commissioned member of the Defence Forces who can only do it if he is authorised either generally or specially by the Minister for Defence— and a general order may be given by the Minister for Defence—may stop any citizen in the street at any time. The citizen may be apprehended, searched and taken to the Gárda Síochána barracks or some other place of detention for seventy-two hours, and there is no remedy whatever available to the citizen if that is done. He can be detained. All that is necessary is that the member of the Gárda Síochána or the member of the Defence Forces who stops him in the street when he is going about his business, states on oath that he suspects him to be a person who is about to commit a crime or has been about to commit a crime, or thinks that he is in some way associated with somebody who is about to commit a crime or is thinking of committing a crime. That being done, there is no right to cross-examine the Gárda or to bring forward rebutting evidence. There is no use in bringing forward rebutting evidence. "A simple statement on oath shall be conclusive evidence incapable of being rebutted or questioned by cross-examination, rebutting evidence or otherwise, that such member did at that time so suspect such person, and was then entitled to stop and interrogate such person under this section." As I said, no law-abiding citizen has anything to fear if he had supreme and absolute faith in every single member of the Gárda Síochána and of the Defence Forces. But that is asking too much. I am prepared, as I say, to go a long way in regard to the members of the Gárda Síochána. I am not in the same position to speak of all the members of the Army. Even going that distance, is there no danger to the law-abiding citizen under powers of this kind? Is there any Deputy here who will say there is not? Remember that any member of the Gárda Síochána can ask him to give a full account of his movements during any specified period, and that if he fails or refuses to give such account or gives an account which is incomplete, false or misleading, then he can be sent forward to the Tribunal and tried by the Tribunal.
There is no limit to the punishment which the Tribunal may inflict upon him. I am thinking of the law-abiding citizen in this case. I have no sympathy with the man who is not a law-abiding citizen. I am thinking of the law-abiding citizen whose only safety from being put into that position is the integrity of every single member of the Gárda Síochána and of the Defence Forces. That is his only safeguard from being put into that position. I ask Deputies in this House if they found themselves in that position and were asked to give a full and complete account of their movements for any specified period that may be mentioned—last week, a fortnight ago or a month ago —how many of them would be in a position to do it, or how many of them would be prepared to do it?
That is too personal.
Mr. O'Connell
It may be too personal for some people. I know some people who if this Act had been in force some months ago might find themselves in a very great difficulty.
The Deputy would have got off worse than he did in one case that I know of.
Give us the full details.
It was down in Kildare hunting hares.
Mr. O'Connell
Really this is a serious matter. These are the provisions of the Bill. These are the powers we are asked to give to the Executive. I am not one of those who say the Executive are going to go out and do wild things, vindictive things, absolutely foolish things. I have never made statements of that kind. At the same time, I do want some measure of right for the ordinary citizen. If there are people who commit crimes, if there are people who do not deserve the liberty they have there is no reason why the liberty of all the citizens should be interfered with in the drastic manner set out in this Bill. You have this Tribunal that is set up. I stated when the Juries Act was under consideration that if it were proved that the jury system had broken down in regard to certain classes of crime I would be quite willing and ready to agree to the setting up of some form of special court that would deal with these particular classes of crime. That is my position now.
What sort of special court?
Mr. O'Connell
I do not care, but military forces who have no knowledge of the law are to form part of these courts. It was suggested yesterday that judges should try these offences without a jury.
The Deputy will have to tax his memory a little further than that.
Mr. O'Connell
Whether they were asked or not they indicated to the President that they were not prepared to do it. I am not saying that they were asked.
My recollection of the statement was that if that Bill became law in which they would have to decide a question of fact that I would be requested to accept the relinquishment of their office or the office of the individual judge.
Mr. O'Connell
At all events, they indicated that they would go on strike.
Certainly not.
Mr. O'Connell
They would not do this duty because it was not part of the terms of their original appointment. It is well for judges, who can afford to take up that attitude. A great many servants of the State and employees of private companies can not afford to do that. They must accept new terms and conditions of service when these terms are put up to them. But even that difficulty could be got over. Surely it would be possible to appoint men of legal training to that special court—men who would be able to weigh evidence, men of judicial minds who would know the value of evidence, men who could distinguish between evidence and mere suspicion or hearsay. I believe that among the legal profession in this country men of repute and standing could be found who would be prepared to try this kind of case. The appointment of these men would be some safeguard that evidence adduced before the tribunal would be given its proper weight, and that the tribunal would act in accordance with the evidence. The President has not said whether or not that was tried or the reason—
It is so foolish that it does not warrant anyone's consideration. The Deputy knows that well.
It is more foolish to give judges a few thousand a year when they will not do their work.
Mr. O'Connell
I confess quite honestly that I cannot see the foolishness of the proposition. If any member of the Government could point out the difficulty or the folly in connection with it I would be grateful. I see very great objections to putting men into the position of judges just because they chance to wear a military uniform. Men who have no legal training are to be put into a position in which they will try people for their lives. I think that that is more drastic action on the part of the Executive Council than appointing legal men to do the work.
When complaint was made yesterday that these powers were entirely too drastic, the Minister for Defence remarked that it was better that they should get more extended powers than were necessary than that they should not get sufficient power. In fact, he made the case: "Give us all the powers that we would want in any possible circumstances, and you may trust us to use only those powers which we require." Although the Minister gave us a lecture on Catholic philosophy, he spoke quite contrary to the correct doctrine in regard to that matter. The law, according to the Encyclical of the Pope, must not undertake more or go further than is required for the remedy of the evil or the removal of the danger.
We hear on platforms frequently the plea that this Government should be returned to power because it has secured peace and order in the country. We shall probably hear more of that between now and the next general election. When, after nine years, the Government come before us and ask for those drastic powers, it does not seem to me to be the best form of testimonial in support of the statement made on their platforms that they have secured peace, order and good government. The Minister for Finance, speaking yesterday in the Seanad, said that the disturbance in the country was due to a handful of thugs, supported by a number of dupes and rogues. Let us accept that, for the moment, as the position. What circumstances would induce any considerable number of our people to fall in behind a handful of thugs or a number of rogues? Surely that is a question which deserves the examination of the Executive Council. Surely we have not so far lost faith in the good sense or in the morality of our people as to believe that without any apparent or well-founded reason they would fall in behind "a handful of thugs or a number of rogues."
Deputy de Valera, yesterday, and Deputy Fahy, to-day, called attention to the circumstances which make the growth of this movement possible. Members of our Party have also referred to these circumstances on different occasions and I have no hesitation in saying that the main cause of the trouble will be found in the economic and social conditions which prevail in a great part of this country.
In these conditions will be found fruitful soil for the sowing of these pernicious doctrines. Should it not be our aim and object, and especially the aim and object of the Government, to get right down to the root causes of the trouble? Should it not be our aim to remove the causes which induce our people to fall in behind those men? If the causes which lead our people to attach themselves to those men and to swallow their doctrines were removed, it would go much further, in my opinion, towards securing the conditions we want to see than will the bringing forward of drastic measures of this kind. We all know that this menace has grown and spread concurrently with the increase in unemployment and depression, due to economic and social causes. We have not the same problem that many other countries have. The problem here is simpler than it is in great industrial countries. It is much easier for us to find a solution of our social and economic difficulties than it is for England, America, or Germany to find a solution of their difficulties.
What has the Government done in the last nine months? What is being done now to bring about a revolutionary reform in our social and economic conditions in order to stop the growth of this menace among us? I urge the Government to direct their attention to the causes which make these doctrines possible and which make it possible that people, men and women, in out-of-the-way districts all over the country, far removed from towns, will listen to the preaching of those people who have raised their heads amongst us. That will be done until the social and economic conditions under which our people live and labour are changed. Where they see poverty and hunger in the midst of plenty, while they see these conditions round about them, many dupes will be found, because the temptation is very strong and the people preaching these doctrines are very clever. They know the lines to follow, and it is only by attempting to remove the conditions which make men listen to these doctrines that the real solution of the difficulty that faces us at the present time will be found.
I appeal to the Government to make an earnest effort to deal with the social conditions in this country. They are very fond of saying, and I agree with them, that we must not be guided by what happens in England and other countries. Surely it is possible to find a solution in our own country for the economic and social difficulties that face us here. Men who are employed and have the means of livelihood, men who find themselves living under fair conditions are very slow indeed to listen to the preaching of people who say there must be confusion and there must be chaos and there must be revolution created in the country. The man in employment drawing good wages, who sees his family growing up around him with opportunities opening up for them is not anxious to be a revolutionary or to alter the conditions under which he lives. But the man who is in despair and who sees nothing before him but hunger and no chance for his young people is apt to grasp at anything that promises to better the conditions under which he is compelled to live at the present time. I think it is along these lines that the solution will be found and I think the Government are making a big mistake even from their own point of view, giving them full credit for good intentions, in introducing this drastic measure without having made any attempt whatsoever to remove the causes that give rise to the necessity for it.
I believe the people who will welcome this Bill most in this country are the very people that it is intended to get at. I honestly and sincerely believe that. It will give them further excuse to go through the country, sow seeds of sedition and cause more trouble. I believe that that will happen. You may deal with these but if you do you will find those that you deal with elevated into the position of martyrs, and you will find others coming forward to take their places. I strongly oppose this measure. I strongly oppose the drastic interference it makes with the liberty of individuals. It was said here yesterday and loudly applauded, and it was referred to again to-day by Deputy Fahy, that if there was to be a choice between giving full liberty to the gunmen and to the murderers of Superintendent Curtin and giving full liberty to the Government, then, of course, full liberty should be given to the Government. No one disagrees with that; everyone accepts it. But that is not the alternative. No one wants full liberty for the gunmen. No one wants to give any liberty to them if you could find them—none at all. The trouble is to find them. The trouble is to convict them, and I have offered a solution which I am prepared to support with regard to their conviction.
Nothing that I have ever heard of has been so drastic as the powers asked for under this Bill. We are asked to hand over complete and absolute power by this Bill to the Executive Council, and the Executive Council or any Minister on his certificate can make anything an offence under the last section of the Bill, which provides:—
Any offence whatsoever (whether committed before or after this Article was inserted in this Constitution or before or after Sections 4 to 34 of this Article came into force) in respect of which an Executive Minister certifies in writing under his hand that to the best of his belief the act constituting such offence was done with the object of impairing or impeding the machinery of government or the administration of justice.
The Minister has only to certify. The present Ministers may not always be on the Government Bench; other Ministers may some day take their places and may find in that Article an excuse for doing something that they would otherwise have no law or authority to do. This is simply a question of asking us to hand over complete and absolute power. It would be far better for them not to go to the trouble at all of drafting this Bill but rather to say "the Executive wants complete and absolute power to do everything that they think necessary to do without question and without any right of appeal to the Parliament of the people."
It is with no light heart but rather with a sense of serious responsibility that I rise to make my contribution to this debate. I feel that there are occasions, and this is one of them, when one is called upon to set aside many considerations even to the extent of alienating and antagonising certain elements in the country in order to discharge a public duty.
Before I came into the Dáil I told the citizens of Cork that I would endeavour, as far as it lay in my power, to discharge my public duties according to my conscience. I also indicated in many public speeches that I would on all occasions that offered condemn assassination and murder. I also stated to the citizens of Cork, who know me for a long number of years, that I would not shirk any of these responsibilities, and that I was prepared to face any punishment that might be meted out to me by the gun-bullies or any armed forces that were in opposition to the Government established by the votes of the common or garden people of this country. I feel now that I am faced with that responsibility as a citizen of this State. As a public representative I am faced with a double responsibility. I am not going to play to the gallery now any more than I played to the gallery in 1922, 1923, 1924 or 1925.
A Deputy
Or 1916.
In both of these capacities, as a citizen of this State, and as a public representative, I am opposed to closure motions of any kind or character. Whilst I intend to vote for this Bill I am not in the position of other self-confessed Deputies here who stated that they had not read the Bill. I have read every line of the Bill. I have punctuated every sentence in it, and I am in full agreement with it, because of the circumstances that brought about its introduction.
I realised when seeking election to the Dáil that we had the freest Constitution in the world. It may, perhaps, be suggested that it was not a Constitution that embraced the whole of Ireland, that all of us had at one time or another envisaged. I have met newly-born patriots, some of whom have never struck a blow for this country, who have now become wonderful patriots, who tell us that this Constitution does not suffice for their ideas and that we should seek within this Constitution to give protection— mind you, little finicky debating point, every academic point that can be made is made or in favour of whom? Is it in favour of the honest working-man who wants to go about his daily work in peace and quietness? Are these points made in favour of the industrious merchant or shopkeeper? No. All the solicitude I have heard is for the gun-man and the gun bully, the murderer and the assassin, and there is none for the honest man that not one line in this Bill points against, notwithstanding all the camouflage and the wool that they tried to pull over our eyes during this debate. No honest God-fearing man in this country need be afraid of one line or one section in this Bill. That is why I am supporting it. I know it is not popular to do so. It is far easier to be on the side of the angels, the angels in this case being the fellows with blackened faces who go about pulling labourers out of bed at night, terrorising them and terrorising the countryside.
What has been happening in this country for the last couple of years? A very small but noisy and vocal minority are attempting to dictate to the majority of the people. I feel that the Government would be lacking in any sense of duty, civic or national, if they did not put this thing down even at the sacrifice of life or limb. I for one am prepared to make that sacrifice. I say that publicly and I am not ashamed or afraid to do so, thank God. I speak on behalf of a city which, thank God, is, as far as I know—and I am in contact with both the rich and poor—the most law-abiding and the most peaceful city in Europe to-day. If I were to take the parochial, the insular or the narrow view I might sit here quietly and let the statements that have been made go unchallenged and I would be safe. Then of course I would get the plaudits of the gun bullies, the gunmen, the rotters and the people who want to exploit any disturbance in this country, the looters.
I suggested to the people of Cork who sent me here that anything was possible under the Constitution under which this House functions. It is possible, and this Bill does not suggest that it is not possible. I have always advocated freedom of speech. Any doctrine may be advocated, not that I want to advocate Sovietism. I want to make that perfectly clear. But if any one wants to advocate a Soviet in this country I feel he should be entitled to do so. According to our Constitution any man or woman is entitled to advocate Communism, Socialism or any other ism, provided they do so in a constitutional way, and have no guns in their hands and no dumps in their backyards. At the same time, notwithstanding what the Constitution gives us by the way of freedom, I cannot close my eyes to the fact that this freedom is abused and that many people in this country want to translate the word liberty into the word licence.
I ask any Party in the Dáil, which may, at one time or another be in power—when Cumann na nGaedheal may be wiped out—what would they do in similar circumstances? Would they allow the abuse to go on or would they wait for a conflagration all over the country? That would be unwise statesmanship, imprudent statesmanship. The time to nip it is in the bud. I welcome this Bill for that reason. I am glad to be at one with most of the speakers who have stated that these insidious and pernicious doctrines that have been preached have not got much of a foothold or much of a following in this country. This is the time to stop it and not to wait until things have so developed that perhaps it might be too late. I am very much concerned about rights that have been at all times exercised, at least for very many years in this and other countries, the right to combine for lawful purposes. The right to combine for the killing of men is not a lawful purpose. The right to combine to subvert the authority of the State set up under the freest Constitution in the world; the right to combine by force of arms to subvert this Constitution and this State—that is not a proper or a right combination. It was quite lawful to combine in such a way as was envisaged under the Acts that allowed the people to combine for land purchase, for trade union and for other purposes. Such combinations were recognised according to law.
A lot has been said about the liberty of the citizen, the liberty of the subject. What about the liberty of poor Curtin, or poor Ryan? We have all this lip sympathy and all these mouthings in the present circumstances, mouthings about liberty, mouthings about trial by jury, when we all know in our heart and soul what is occurring in the country. I will relate a small story of an incident that occurred to me during this very week. I was followed by two policemen into a country district. I was missing for some time, and these policemen could not find me. They inquired along the roadside if anybody had seen a fowling party. I was one of the fowling party. They got no information along the road, because every person interrogated had not seen any fowling party at all, although they really had. That is quite a common thing. Nobody wanted to suggest that I had not a licence and they did not know but that the police were after me. I just want to illustrate conditions by that story. We all know if we are courageous enough to admit it that there are many crimes committed in this country. Many people know who committed these crimes, and yet, through some lack of moral courage, some sense of comradeship or something else, some indefinite sense, they do not come forward willingly to give evidence, and so the vicious circle goes on. We have had some very tragic occurrences in this country lately. We had the poor lad Ryan pulled out of his bed during the night and murdered, and no one has yet been made amenable to the law for that. All the sympathy and solicitude goes out to the citizen who is going to be roped in and held in jail for so many hours. Not one word of sympathy for the poor lad who was shot in Tipperary a couple of weeks ago.
I have this fault to find with the method of introducing this kind of legislation. I held, and hold still, that the Constitution should be sacred. There should be very grave reasons why it should be altered or amended, and I suggest in the best faith that there might be another method rather than by altering the Constitution. Perhaps the Minister for Justice could tell us whether it would not be better to introduce a special Bill dealing with this matter rather than the way that has been chosen, namely to alter the Constitution. I feel in that connection at the same time that I would scrap not one, not two, not three but every Article in the Constitution rather than see an innocent man led out on the roadside and murdered by the black-faced assassins who go about at the dead of night.
Would you scrap Article 17?
I would scrap you in two minutes if you do not mind yourself.
Will you delete Article 17?
Now, no interruptions.
To me the lives of that humble labourer and that superintendent of the Civic Guard who were murdered, brutally murdered, were of more consequence and were more sacred than every Article of your Constitution. Yet I do regret that it has been found necessary to alter the Constitution because of these terrible atrocities. I cannot envisage under the provisions of this Bill all the terrible things that it is alleged are going to occur in the country. We have been told by no less an authority than Deputy MacEntee that the pilfering—listen to the absurdity of this—of one penny will lead to the execution of the pilferer under this Bill. Did you ever listen to such piffle, such drivel, in all your life? We have been told that there are dire penalties, even if a man is seen talking to a friend in the street. Everybody who has spoken against this Bill knows in his heart, if he is courageous enough to say it, that no self-respecting, law-abiding citizen has anything to fear from the provisions of the Bill. In this matter I consider that the interests of the State are above the interests of Party. Some members of the Dáil stated that to their own knowledge— and I think the President was one of them—there is a campaign going on in this country conducted by certain Russian agents. These people may be mythical agents or they may not, but in any case we all know because of the circulation of their literature in this country, because of the circulation of some of their newspapers—I have read at least one—that these pernicious doctrines are being preached, and that they are percolating into every little hamlet and town in the country.
We had some time ago a Bill the principle of which was not generally opposed, for the suppression of evil literature. I am always an advocate of the suppression of evil literature, but in this case our Government made themselves quite ridiculous. They banned certain books, and at the same time allowed a whole stream of this kind of pernicious literature to circulate, not alone in Dublin and Cork cities, but right through the little hamlets and villages of this country. There was no ban whatsoever on that class of literature advocating all kinds of things for which this Dáil does not stand, for which no Irish father and mother stand, and for which, I do know, the clergy of the country do not stand. There is still another menace not at all touched on by any Deputy who has spoken, as far as I know, and I have heard most of the speakers. There are persons going into the towns and villages of the country week after week preaching these pernicious doctrines, and they are meeting, at the crossroads and in the villages, young lads who in other circumstances, if America or the emigrant ship had been open to them, would have cleared out of the country.
It is a well-known and accepted fact that there is a breeding ground in the country, and a breeding ground in nearly all other countries at the moment for this insidious propaganda. I consider it a highly criminal thing for any Irishman, especially an enlightened or educated Irishman, and more especially a member of the Dáil, to be a party to that kind of insidious propaganda in this country. But there are members of the Dáil taking advantage of it, and going down and fanning the flame of discontent. I believe, as a citizen and as a representative of my city in the Dáil, that they would be far better engaged in trying to counteract that propaganda than in doing what they are doing.
I do not for a moment suggest that the workers in our villages and towns should not get the highest and best possible conditions that they can get under the circumstances. I do feel that we who have been sent here by the people of the country should have a higher conception of duty than going around amongst the discontented people and the malcontents who are to be found owing to the economic circumstances of the country—that we should have a better conception of our duty than fanning into flames the ideas that have been put before them and which perhaps may one day culminate in a conflagration in this country. That, to my mind, is a highly criminal thing to do.
I do not intend to comment at any great length upon what previous speakers have said, but I do feel, when references have been made, for instance to the Gaeltacht and to what is occurring in the Gaeltacht, and the disaffection that is in the Gaeltacht, that everybody here knows that there has always been poverty in the Gaeltacht. It is now, perhaps, more acute than ever. This Government, after all, is doing something for the Gaeltacht. My complaint against the Government is that they have not done enough for the unemployed in the cities. I see no reason even now for receding from that attitude or altering that opinion. I do feel, with Deputy O'Connell, that if our programme, which would have tended to relieve them and abolish unemployment, had been adopted, the economic causes to which he refers would not have existed up to this, or if so, they would exist only to a limited extent and not to their present proportions. I want to say, in conclusion, in connection with this Bill, that if I refused to vote for it, if I refused to give the Government the powers they ask for under the Bill, I should feel, if another man were murdered in this country, that I had some kind of complicity in that crime and that I was just as guilty as the assassin who fired the shot.
I do not intend to give a silent vote on this new Constitution which is being brought in here tonight. We have been told about the terrible conditions of affairs existing in the country and of the causes of it—a condition of affairs which nobody in the country seems to know anything about except the Ministers themselves. Now I maintain that it is not the jury system that has failed in this country. It is the police system in this country that has failed. The unfortunate people of this country are paying one and three-quarter millions each year for a police force. The Civic Guard force is established for the detection of crime. Why have they not detected those crimes? What becomes of that one and three-quarter millions that we pay for the Civic Guard forces, with five of them in a village that holds one publichouse? What are they doing? Why have they not detected those crimes? Does the Minister for Justice think that drilling is going on? Does he think to bluff the people into the belief that the Civic Guards see drilling going on and do not interfere with it?
That is the case that we are asked to meet. Is there an organisation in this country existing at the present time which is able to know the particular time and place, when and where shootings and other crimes can be committed with impunity? If so, what is that organisation? Let us have this matter out. What is the organisation? What is the organisation that can go and shoot a man to-day knowing the exact hour when and the particular place where every Civic Guard is placed? What is the organisation existing in this country that has a vested interest in keeping up further shootings and turmoil in the country? What is the organisation? What is the organisation which knows that it can shoot without any fear of detection? What is the organisation that knows that its members will be the first on the scene the following morning to remove all traces of the crime? I suggest that that organisation is to be found in the secret society formed with the support of the Minister for Local Government in 1924 and which is now dignified under the name of the C.I.D. I suggest that that is where the organisation is to be found.
We had a candidate here a few moments ago for an Adjutant-General as Brigadier, a candidate who talks about himself, who talks about men with masked faces and about shootings. The very first man I ever saw in uniform in this country shouldering a big wooden musket was Deputy Anthony. He was the very first individual I saw in 1913 when I brought a load of oats into Cork. I saw him with his wooden musket on his shoulder marching up and down Parnell Bridge for fear the Germans would run away with the bridge. That is one of the men who is going to put down this thing with a strong hand. Deputy Anthony carried a big long rope down through the streets of Cork in 1914, on the anniversary of the celebration of the Manchester Martyrs; he was going to bind the gap that was left by the number of fellows that were sent out to be assassinated in France. That is Deputy Mark Anthony. This is the individual who the very moment any shot was fired for the independence of this country took his wooden musket, dropped it into the Lee at Parnell Bridge, and strolled down to the place where he got a good schooling, to the office of the "Cork Examiner" to hold a quill pen until the shootings were over. This is the individual who comes here now. He should remember young Walsh from Mayfield who was found, at 12 o'clock in the night, within ten minutes after having left the Civic Guard Barracks, on the side of the road with his head stove in by the butt of a revolver. This is the man who comes now preaching about shootings.
The President and his Ministers have endeavoured to play upon the Catholic principles of the people. I consider myself a far better upholder of Catholic principles than this smoke-screen of the Masonic League, whose rule has been carried on here, to my knowledge, for the last three years. That is so to the knowledge of every Deputy in this House. If there is any menace to Catholic principles in this House it is in the Masonic organisation. If the Ministers believe there is any menace to Catholic principles in this country they should declare that organisation to be an illegal body, and they could deal with that organisation in a manner in which they are at present dealing, or pretending to deal, with the organisation that has no being or, in fact, does not exist.
They talk of Communism. There is no Deputy in this House who does not know in his heart that Communism could not exist in the hearts of the Irish people for twenty-four hours. They know that every labourer with a cottage would be an enemy of Communism or that kind of Socialism that is supposed to be travelling round the country. We have this Masonic organisation, and a certain Deputy in this House has boasted that it has increased by 70 per cent. in the last four years under the fostering care of the Executive Council. We had this organisation using threats through their official organ. I have here a copy of the "Irish Times" for March, 1930. In that issue of the "Irish Times" I find the following declaration. It is referring to the period when this Government was put out of office by the vote of the Dáil and called back again by the votes of the so-called Independent Group here. It reads:
On the other hand, the Government has received a warning which ought to be salutary. It has discovered that phenomenon of natural history which, neglected, has ruined many Governments—the fact that even a worm will turn. Passive revolt may not be less dangerous than flagrant revolt. The Independent Group, which keeps the Government in office, has been reduced to a dangerous state of mind. It still desires to keep Mr. Cosgrave's Government in power, but consistent contempt of its wishes and interests has imbued it with a spirit of apathy. It has fallen into the category of those who, as the saying is, are not good companions on a tiger hunt. A stage has been reached, indeed, when the Independent members, though still lacking courage to oppose the Government, are losing the habit of support. They have been disheartened by Mr. Mulcahy's autocratic treatment of their views on the Greater Dublin Bill. They cannot reconcile the Government's frugal attitude to old age pensions with its orgy of expenditure on the compulsory propagation of the Irish language. The outstanding moral of Thursday's accident is the need of new relations between the Government and the Independent Party. In plain terms, the Government must recognise its debt to the Party that keeps it in office. If it continues to ignore that debt the Independent members must begin to realise their duty to their constituents. They must school themselves to use bravely the only weapon that all Governments fear.
That is the threat held up by the minority in this country to the representatives of the majority of the people. We have that threat carried further. We have the fruits of that threat in the Poor Relief (Dublin) Bill following an amendment to the Bill in troduced here by the man of iron of yesterday, General Mulcahy, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. The General introduced his amendment to the Dublin Relief Bill here. It was opposed by Deputy Good.
Would Deputy Corry indicate how this is relevant to the Bill?
I am dealing with the situation in this country in regard to the danger to Catholic principles which the President said yesterday was the principal reason for the introduction of this Bill.
I do not think the Deputy has yet mentioned anything about this Bill. We are limited to time in the discussion of this Bill. The Deputy is within his rights in speaking on the Bill, but he must keep to the Bill.
The Minister for Local Government introduced his amendment to that Bill—
The Deputy will not be allowed to pursue that line. The Dublin Relief Bill has nothing to do with this.
I am showing the policy of this Government towards the minority in this country.
The Deputy is speaking on a motion which must be decided by 6.30 p.m. If he is allowed to ramble into complete irrelevancies it is unfair to other Deputies by reducing the time during which they can speak. If he wants to continue he must be relevant to the motion.
I want to know whether this Bill is going to put a stop to the Masonic Organisation, which is a direct menace to the people of this country, and I am proving that in that organisation there is a menace to the people of this country. On 19th June last Deputy Cole of Cavan—
The Deputy will have to confine himself to this Bill, without going back to the business already decided by this House, and which seems to have no reference to this Bill. I have made up my mind on this matter. He must come to the Bill if he has anything to say about it.
We heard a lot here about the Constitution and about the freedom which the Constitution gives. I maintain that during the past two years there have been more members of the C.I.D. force, that force who are going to be given complete control of life and death in the country under this Bill—tried and convicted in courts in this country for assault and other crimes than any portion of the civilian population. We had, when those cases were brought up here, week after week, the Minister for Justice making the amazing statement in the case of one civic guard who was brought up in court and fined £10 for assault that he was a good civic guard. That civic guard, who was fined £10 for assault, is now going to have the power to take up Deputy Gorey, question him on everything he did for the last month, and question him about every hare he poached during the last month——
Will Deputy Corry come to the Bill? That is a serious matter and it must be treated seriously. The Deputy must come to the Bill.
I maintain that this is perfectly relevant.
Absolutely irrelevant—it is personal abuse.
Very well then. Article 2 of this Bill absolutely wipes out the Constitution. This Bill is in future to be the Constitution of this State. The Bill lays down that any individual who is suspected in any way in any manner by any civic guard can be taken up and questioned. If the individual does not say "Your honour, sir" to the sergeant when he meets him at the station that individual is liable to be arrested as a suspected person, as an individual who is not paying due respect to law and order. That individual may be imprisoned for 72 hours in any Civic Guard station by the civic guard. Any individual is liable under this Bill for any offence which they may pretend he has committed. He may be tried by five military officers and sentenced to death. Anyone who has been through the troubles from 1914 onwards and during the last few years from 1921 to 1923, especially knows the unfortunate differences that exist in this country between certain specified individuals. Those individuals are going to be pulled up one after another, and they will be brought before men against whom, perhaps, they were fighting in 1922. No matter what rebutting evidence is submitted, the civic guard's statement on oath is going to be taken.
A man might, for instance, be in the house of the parish priest. Something might happen in the district. That man will be arrested and he will be kept for seventy-two hours under torture by one civic guard after another. They will try to force evidence out of him and, in the finish, for quietness sake or possibly because his head will give way, he may say something. The civic guard will swear on oath that the individual who was in the parish priest's house at the time the crime was committed was actually seen on the spot. The evidence of that civic guard is to be taken against the evidence of the parish priest. This Bill is another portion of the price that is being paid by the Executive Council for the support of the Masonic group in this House. They have repeatedly paid for that support. The Minister who was accused in a leading article in the "Irish Times" of not listening favourably to them is the Minister who crawled into the lobby and voted against his own amendment because the Masonic group would not have it.
The Deputy is back on the point he was told was out of order. The Deputy is not clever enough to do that.
If I cannot allude to Catholic principles in this House, I will sit down.
An excellent idea.
My point of view on this Bill is the point of view of a democrat rather than nationalist. From that point of view I want to say that it was a pleasure to me to listen particularly to the speeches of Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Anthony. When all is said and done, no country is going to be judged finally by its army or by its police force; rather will it be judged by the character of its civilians. It is the civilian, the man in the street, who is going to make a country. Of course it is the business of the Government to establish law and order and to maintain law and order—to maintain decent government. The trouble up to the present in this country has been that the people of the country, no matter what side in politics they might be attached to, seem to think that it is the business exclusively of the Government and that they have no functions at all in the matter. That point of view is rather peculiar to this country. Take any first class country, any European country, any country like France, Germany or England. What made these countries great? It was the standard of good sense and the democratic instincts of the people of those countries.
And the freedom they enjoyed also.
Mr. Hogan
And the freedom they enjoyed. Lack of freedom has generated many bad qualities in a country, and I am making no exception of this country. It is a pity the Deputy did not realise that long ago.
And the Minister, too.
Mr. Hogan
I have not interrupted Deputies when they were speaking. As I have said, it is a pity that Deputy de Valera did not realise that long ago, because the Deputy has been consistently exploiting all the weaknesses that were bound to develop in this country as a result of the lack of freedom and the lack of self-government. Since 1922 we have been endeavouring to establish a democratic sense in this country, to make the people realise that this is their country, that they can do what they like with it, that they can make it what they like, and I may say that we have got very little assistance from the Deputies on the opposite benches. We have got plenty of assistance from outside. You can get it in any parish in Ireland. There is a big proportion of the people of every parish who are Nationalists, whose fathers before them were Nationalists, whether or not they were out in 1916— people who have a real love for this country and who want to see it advance on the road to peace and prosperity.
This is the first time since 1922 that I have seen Deputies who have no affiliation with the Government stand up here fearlessly, take their responsibilities fearlessly, and enunciate democratic principles that we all gave lip service to when the British were here. For that reason I welcome the statements that were made in this House by Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Anthony. I look upon such statements as a ray of sunlight, a breath of fresh air in the Dáil, and they form one of the first signs that I have noticed that this country is going to advance and prosper. I will contrast those statements, although I do not like making the contrast, with the speech of Deputy O'Connell. I am a Democrat even before I am a Nationalist. I believe in self-government and in majority rule, and I have given a good many hostages to it. I believe in equality.
Here we have a Constitution, adult suffrage, proportional representation, and trial by jury. Could anything be more democratic? Could any possible Constitution have more regard for the rights of the plain man? And yet it is these institutions that are being attacked. That is admitted; it was admitted yesterday by Deputy de Valera, and that cannot be denied. If anyone would deny it the Deputy would deny it, but he had to admit it yesterday. These institutions, the sheet anchor of democracy, are being attacked. That is the real issue. That is what we are debating here—the attack on these democratic institutions, institutions that ought to be more scared to the poor and the weak than to the rich and the strong. When we are debating that issue, what is Deputy O'Connell's contribution? He has not exactly justified the attack on these institutions, but he explained it. That is what his whole speech amounted to—an explanation. I will not say it was a justification, but the dividing line is very thin. He gave an explanation as to why these institutions should be attacked. I put it to him as a Labour man: Is there any legitimate explanation for an attack on trial by jury?
None whatever.
Mr. Hogan
Is there any legitimate explanation or excuse or justification for an attack on a Constitution which is based on adult suffrage, proportional representation and trial by jury?
Mr. O'Connell
None whatever.
Mr. Hogan
Could any democrat have any truck with or any mercy on any section that attacks that Constitution?
Mr. O'Connell
No.
Mr. Hogan
Should not any democrat who understands democracy and the responsibility of democracy rally to the support of the people who are endeavouring to put down that attack?
Mr. O'Connell
By what method? The Government are really attacking the Constitution.
Mr. Hogan
I asked Deputy O'Connell to answer that question and I will leave it at that. Take Deputy de Valera's attitude. I listened to him yesterday. What do I find? He made two speeches. He was for and against, hot and cold, right and wrong, moral and immoral, democratic and antidemocratic, all things to all men. His first statement was that the incidents —incidents mind you—mentioned by the President did not justify this Bill. He did not deny that these incidents occurred. He referred to them as incidents. What are these incidents? The Deputy is a past master of distinctions and phrases and of the double entendre—words that say one thing and may mean another.
Another part of the myth.
Mr. Hogan
What are these incidents that do not justify this Bill? The Deputy calls them incidents. I do not want to use extravagant language, but the murders of Curtin and Ryan and the murders of trial by jury are referred to as incidents by this democrat and do not justify this Bill. His next statement was that in five or ten years' time there will be the same need for a Safety Bill. Why will there be the same need for a Safety Bill, and what is the meaning of that statement? It does not matter what you or I take out of that statement. What really matters is what the people outside take out of that statement. What is the only meaning that they can take out of the statement—that in ten years you will have similar murders? Deputy de Valera stated it, and left it at that. Of course he did not justify them. He stopped short at that. There will be no need for this Bill in ten years' time unless you have the incidents again in ten years' time, and it was left to Deputy de Valera to suggest you would have. I do not care how he wriggles out of it, or what he says he meant, but I know what the gunmen will take out of it, and he knows it, too. He went on to say: "They preferred to imitate the activities of Hamar Greenwood." Who was Hamar Greenwood? An Englishman who was a Chief Secretary here and the representative of a foreign Government here. Does the Deputy still keep up the humbug that President Cosgrave is an Englishman, or that I am an Englishman, or that my authority or President Cosgrave's authority or the authority of the Executive Council was the authority of Hamar Greenwood? Does he still keep up that humbug; and if he does not, what does he mean? Because the country is entitled to know from the Leader of the Opposition in times like these what he meant. You and I know.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
It is the privilege at least that when words are definitely twisted by knaves to make traps for fools that I should have the right to make a personal explanation. Read the words that are there, and if I speak of methods I mean methods.
A perfect explanation.
Mr. Hogan
I will read the words that are there. I quote from the "Independent," not from Truth in the News.
Quote me.
Mr. Hogan
I have the paper.
If you quote me, give what I said.
Mr. Hogan
I have the paper.
I am not going to take any paper. Quote what I said. Get the Official Report if you are going to quote me.
Mr. Hogan
I have a perfect right to quote from a daily paper in this Dáil. Let the Deputy deny it. We will leave it to the Official Report afterwards. "The President's statement was delivered on a motion to restrict discussion, and no excuse whatever has been put forward as to why the discussion should be restricted. The recital of the long list of incidents which everyone in the House regretted did not justify bringing in a Bill of this kind. The ordinary law was quite sufficient to deal with the matters referred to by the President.... He believed that if they were there five or ten years hence, there would be Bills like this one introduced if the present state of affairs was allowed to continue."
These are not the words that the Minister attributed to the Deputy.
Mr. Hogan
Absolutely.
There is an "if" there.
Mr. Hogan
What is the distinction?
The Minister quoted half a sentence as he usually does.
Mr. Hogan
Perhaps the Deputy will explain it afterwards.
The Minister has been found out, and that is what is annoying him.
Mr. Hogan
"He believed that if they were there five or ten years hence there would be Bills like this one introduced if the present state of affairs is allowed to continue," the present state of affairs being that we are functioning under a Constitution which enshrines adult suffrage, proportional representation and trial by jury. "He believed that the gentlemen on the opposite benches ought to know the real lines on which to proceed, but they preferred to imitate the activities of Hamar Greenwood."
Yes. Now will you apologise?
Mr. Hogan
Certainly not.
You have not the decency.
You do not mind how you twist and wriggle.
Mr. Hogan
I am the only one who has been interrupted. One of the activities of the present Government was bringing in this Bill, and we are told that this activity is on a par with the activities of Hamar Greenwood. Now it does not matter what the Deputy means. No one knows what he means, but what I am concerned with is what the people to whom he knows he is talking, think he means. I am concerned with what he said.
The people will know what to think.
On a point of order, if a Deputy deliberately misquotes another Deputy, and is then compelled to admit that he has done so, is he not supposed to withdraw the misquotation?
Is the Deputy serious about that point of order?
I am quite serious.
Mr. Hogan
Let the Deputy deny this quotation when it comes to his turn.
He is denying it now.
Mr. Hogan
The Deputy has not denied the accuracy of that quotation.
I deny what you attributed to me as what I said.
Mr. Hogan
I am not on that. I am not concerned with what you meant, but I am concerned with what you said.
What you would like to attribute to me is all that you are concerned with.
Deputies must allow the Minister to proceed.
Mr. Hogan
"The arguments that would be put up to young men to join the organisations mentioned"—that is Saor Eire, Cumann na mBán, the I.R.A.—I am quoting again from Deputy de Valera's speech—"would be a repetition of those put up by Mr. Blythe and Mr. Mulcahy when they were asking the young men of the country to join the I.R.B." What is the plain meaning of that? The plain meaning of that to anybody who knows English is that there is as good reason for joining these organisations which shot Curtin and Ryan as for joining the organisations that were formed here to put the British out of the country. What else does that mean? What do you think the gunmen will take out of it? They will take out of it this, that they have the same right to shoot now as in the old days the Volunteers had the right to shoot Hamar Greenwood and the British. That is all they can take out of it. That was one part of the Deputy's speech, such as it was. As I said before, the speech was divided into two parts. But there was another part. He then went on and announced that the only authority in this country—he gave his allegiance to majority rule—was the authority of the Dáil, something for which we have been striving for the last seven or eight years.
He said that the only authority in this country that had the right to take life was the authority established by this Dáil. That was the second part of his speech. If he had made one or the other I would know where Deputy de Valera stands, but he made both in the same speech. As a rule his timing was not just as it was yesterday. He makes a speech to-day and enunciates one set of principles, and he makes a speech to-morrow and enunciates another set. Yesterday he came along, and in the same speech enunciated two quite different sets of principles. If the authority in this Dáil is the only authority that can take life, if the authority in the Dáil is the only legitimate authority in the country, why talk of the methods of Hamar Greenwood, and why say that the men outside have the same right to organise against this Dáil as Mulcahy and Blythe had to organise against Greenwood? That is what he did say.
That is an untruth, and it is known to be an untruth.
Mr. Hogan
I am not concerned with what you say is your opinion of me. I will quote your words again, and I challenge you to say these are not in the Official Report. I have not seen the Official Report, but I listened to you, and I have the newspaper report here.
Do not be trying your little petty attorney tricks here now.
Mr. Hogan
That comes very well from the most inveterate pettifogger that ever cursed this country.
That comes very well from a man who was mulcted in £500 damages for lying.
Mr. Hogan
Get up and talk afterwards. Do not get hysterical. You do not frighten me. Leave that to Deputy Boland now. He knows more about it than you do. This is what Deputy de Valera denies: "The argument that would be put up to young men to-day to join the organisations mentioned would be a repetition of those put up by Mr. Blythe and Mr. Mulcahy when they were asking the young men of the country to join the I.R.B." Does Deputy de Valera deny he used these words?
I do not deny them at all.
Mr. Hogan
That is enough. I want to say this. I have been in public life since 1921. Since 1921 I have had contact in one way or another with Deputy de Valera.
Not very much.
Mr. Hogan
Not much; a little too much for you. That has been his consistent line since 1921. He will blow hot and cold. On the one hand, he will play up to the gunmen and on the other hand he will mouth morality, and that is what has left this country as it is. Remember this, and this is why I went on the speeches of Deputies Anthony and Morrissey—that bacteria will only breed if the atmosphere is right—in a fetid atmosphere only. It is that sort of pettifogging, double dealing, confusing morality, confusing constitutionalism and physical force that has created the atmosphere that makes it possible for the sort of bacteria to breed that was responsible for the murder of Curtin and Ryan, and if there is one man in this country more than another who was responsible for that it is the Leader of the Party opposite. I say that deliberately and I have been in public life and watching him since 1921. He has injected into this country a culture which can only cause decay and disintegration. From that point of view the speeches made to-day by Deputies Morrissey and Anthony were the first sign of fresh air and sunlight which are going to dissipate them in this country. What the Dáil and the country are entitled to is this: they are entitled to know on which leg Deputy de Valera stands. He often tells us that he is the leader of the second biggest Party in the Dáil, and we hear that he is going to be the leader of the next Government. If he is, he will have responsibility, and what this country is entitled to know beforehand is which set of principles he is going to invoke when challenged by the gunmen, as challenged he will be undoubtedly. That is what the plain people of the country are entitled to hear, and they have not heard it yet. I honestly would rather if Deputy de Valera had made a speech yesterday backing the gunmen than the pettifogging double-dealing speech he made.
And then you would have made the same speech to-day.
Mr. Hogan
It has been said that if we pass this Bill and take these powers there is going to be confusion, civil war and disturbance in the country. Deputy O'Connell said that. I also heard that from the opposite benches.
From the Minister for Local Government.
Mr. Hogan
Do you think so? I put this to Deputy Lemass. He said yesterday that the organisations in question would only welcome this Bill, that it would give them an accession of strength.
That is what the Bill is designed for.
Mr. Hogan
Was that his opinion always?
Yes.
Mr. Hogan
This report may be wrong also. It is not from the "Irish Press" but from the "Irish Independent" of August 24th, 1931. The Deputy remembers addressing an aeridheacht at Roebuck House. In Roebuck House he was inspired by Cumann na mBán, the gunmen, and the rest of them. This is what he said:
For a long time the Government had been deliberately at work to produce a situation that would justify new repressive legislation. Openly and secretly they had been trying to foment unrest and produce all that would justify them in arming themselves with new powers that would enable them to appear before the people as strong men defying anarchy. If they got from the people approval of this repressive legislation at a general election or otherwise they would use that legislation ruthlessly to stamp out the last vestige of militant Republicanism.
This is the Deputy who informed us yesterday that if this Bill were passed it would mean an accession of strength to militant republicanism. We have heard from Deputies opposite that there is going to be trouble. I draw attention to this, particularly Deputy O'Connell's attention. We hear a lot about repressive legislation, the fact being that there has been no repressive legislation here. There was one Public Safety Act. It never operated, but particular portions of it were on the Statute Book for 18 months in 1927. That Act provided for military courts, and while that legislation was there there was not a shot fired or a word said. The militant republicans remained quiet, and so far as the ordinary citizen was concerned it might as well not have been on the Statute Book. There was never any necessity to put it into operation. One month after the Act was repealed, or after the section of it which provided for the establishment of military courts was repealed, a juryman was shot and a witness murdered. Since then that sort of thing has been continued. Deputy O'Connell need not be alarmed. There will be no civil war when this Bill passes.
Mr. O'Connell
I never suggested there would.
Mr. Hogan
There is nobody there to be provoked by this. The one attribute of the men outside who have been challenging the State for the last three years is that they will take no risks whatever—everything must be dead safe. Any little brat with a gun can intimidate a civilian. Once people stoop to that there is no way to protect that civilian except to have two detectives, one on each side of him, or to make it too dangerous. Deputy O'Connell need not be afraid. This Bill will not cause confusion. This Bill, I make bold to say, will solve the problem with very little necessity to operate it. I go further and say that if we had more speeches like those of Deputies Morrissey and Anthony, showing public spirit, that civilians could not be cowed, that there was a real love of democracy and good European blood in the civilians of this country, we would never need the Bill at all.
Mr. Boland
Yesterday we had some revelations from the Minister for Justice. He mentioned that there were several members of this Party in touch with Russia. He mentioned the leader of this Party, Deputy Lemass and Deputy Aiken and said that in 1925 a mission was sent to Russia which included a member of this Party and for some unexplained reason he did not mention who the member was. I happened to be the member of this Party who went to Russia in 1925. That is correct. The fact that a mission went to Russia in 1925 has been urged as a proof that this Party or the members of it have been associated with Communist activities. The Minister for Local Government made a big mistake when he said that the first Irishman to send a deputation to Russia was the leader of this Party. He was corrected by Deputy MacEntee shortly afterwards and reminded that the Provisional Government of which he was a member sent an envoy to meet representatives of the Soviet in London and we have not heard that these men have been tainted with Communism.
And we have not heard a thing of what it was about from Deputy MacEntee, or we will not hear anything.
Mr. Boland
The fact was that you were prepared to make contracts with the "tainted goods." The President, the Minister for Local Government and other members of the Government in 1917 were members of the Sinn Fein Republic.
Tell us what you were doing in Russia.
Mr. Boland
I am quite prepared to tell the House what I was doing in Russia. I followed a line that was followed by the Irish Nationalists from the days of Elizabeth, when O'Donnell went to Spain to seek aid against the British, up to the time Casement went in the last war. Casement went to seek the aid of England's enemies to smash England. I went on the same mission and followed the same line, but the Russians were too busy minding their own business to mind me. I failed completely. In all our history our friends were always England's enemies. We could not get help from the Boers, but we sent help to the Boers. I was not old enough at the time, but we did send Irishmen. There is a member of this establishment who actually fought to show the age-long hatred to Britain. I went to Russia in the vain hope that we would get Russian people to weaken the power of our enemies, and I am proud of what I did. I have a document issued by an organisation of which the Minister, and I am almost sure the President, were members in 1917. I have never heard him called a Muscovite, a Bolshevik, or a Communist, as he called others yesterday, because he was a party to this letter. This document was issued by the Election Committee of Dr. Pat McCartan in 1917, who was a Sinn Fein candidate for South Armagh about the same time as the President was elected in Kilkenny. It has printed in big letters: "McCartan to the representatives of the Russian people, London," and is headed: "Trotsky, the most respectable citizen in the world.""Trotsky insists that England shall allow the people of Ireland, India, etc., to determine their own form of government." Why did he refer to Russia? Because Dr. Pat McCartan explained the position of Ireland to the Russians. I am not going to bother you about what follows. The President is well known to be a very religious person. No one would ever attempt to call him a Communist, but he sent his agents around this country.
I did not draw up that document.
Mr. Boland
You were a member of the Committee, and I am not going to tell you that you are a Bolshevist. The really serious aspect in this matter that has been presented to this House, and which the Government pretends they consider serious, is that there is a taint of Communism in this movement. I am quite satisfied that the Government would never attempt to bring in this measure if they were not able to work up this stunt that there was a foreign influence at work. I believe they would be quite satisfied to use the ordinary machinery they have at their disposal. It is quite adequate to deal with the situation, but they have got up the stunt of failure, as a foreign delegate— apparently somebody else I do not know anything about—has succeeded. They got the twelve apostles apparently trained in Moscow to spread the gospel in a country like Ireland, which is full of individualists.
I do not suppose there is any country in Europe since the Land Commission began to work where there are so many small proprietors. To think that any serious people are going to be humbugged by the suggestion that Communism is going to take root here is preposterous. It will not work with me, and I think that anyone will not be deluded by this well-staged display of gunmen. I have a grievance too. I do not see why I should not have protection. I am entitled as a Deputy to be protected as well as some of the people I see protected, and I want to take this occasion to protest against my exclusion.
About three years ago there was a motion asking for the revision of the cases of certain prisoners, and more particularly of certain people who were on the run in Ireland at the time. I spoke in the debate and mentioned what I knew to be a fact, that there were so many men on the run in whose case the slate had not been wiped clean that we were going to create a situation in this country that would inevitably lead to a state of disorder, and that the Government would do what I said these were trying to do, on the eve of an election, to stampede the country into a belief that civil war was about to start again. I condemn gunmen. I always condemned them. I did not like them even at the time the present Minister for Local Government was organising them. That is in the old days in the time of the British. I never liked them. When a document of his was captured suggesting the poisoning of British troops it appalled me. I never liked murders and I accept the authority of this place for the simple reason that it is a fact. It is a hard fact, and there is no getting over it. I have accepted the authority as the only authority in this country. I say give these people a chance, and wipe the slate clean, instead of harrowing them, as you did for instance, in the case of Con Healy, a man I knew well who was harried for about two years. To show that he was not a criminal he could get shelter in any house in his own area in County Cork. When the C.I.D. came after him they told people if they caught him they were going to shoot him. The result was that Healy, being a spirited man, carried a gun, and when the police came he fired but he did not hit them. When charging him with this offence they charged him with firing on the police, and they gave him five years in jail.
When we came here in 1927 we made a genuine attempt to settle this question and to have the Republican movement conducted on strictly constitutional lines. We made a special appeal to the Government to wipe the slate and to give the people a chance. They never did it. I deliberately say now— I am not doing this for Party purposes —that you have done this deliberately, as Deputy Lemass said last night, to cover up all the blunders you have made in other lines—your Shannon scheme and other things. I am sorry they have been a financial failure.
They are not.
Mr. Boland
They are. They were to cost £5,000,000 and they will cost £12,000,000. That is only a difference of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000. That does not, of course, count with the President. He talks in big amounts. We have not heard much about the Drumm battery lately. I believe it is a failure, too. I did not study this Bill, but I read some of the provisions about the military court. I shall give a little experience of mine in this connection. Towards the end of the civil war, I was in Mountjoy Prison. There was a boy of eighteen years of age named O'Rourke there. He is dead now. He was brought out to face one of these tribunals, and he was beaten senseless and thrown into a cell. Deputy Doctor Ryan happened to be a prisoner in Mountjoy at the same time. He attended the boy and tried to bring him round. When he had restored him, to some extent, he asked why did they do this. The boy replied: "I do not know. They told me I was going to be shot in the morning." The Doctor asked: "Were you tried?" The boy replied: "I don't know, except that the beating I got was a trial." That boy was taken out in a bruised and beaten condition and shot dead.
They called it an execution.
Mr. Boland
I certainly hope that nothing like that is going to happen. I know people who, I believe, are still connected with that organisation, the I.R.A. I have told them privately what I thought of them, and I shall tell them publicly what I think of them. They have, unknowingly, gone from the moral plane right down to the criminal status. Without their own knowledge, they have gone gradually down, and that is where they are now. But I certainly say the chief blame is on the Government, and if they had taken the genuine advice they got here four years ago they would not have this state of affairs. I am afraid it was deliberately done in order that they might be kept in office. I say that fully and honestly believing it.
Yesterday I made my protest against the closure motion. To-day I should like to elaborate my reasons for doing so. I had two reasons. In the first place, I had not had an opportunity of consulting my constituents and getting their mandate for my vote on this Bill. In the second place, the Government themselves did not give the people an opportunity to afford them the mandate which I hold they would have got if they had asked the people for it. When I was a very young member of this House—in July, 1927—a Public Safety Bill was brought in, following one of the most regrettable incidents—as they have been referred to here—that have occurred in this country, the murder of the Vice-President of the Executive Council. A Public Safety Bill was brought in, as I held at that time, under panic conditions. We had debates on that Public Safety Bill on all fours with the debate we had here to-day. We were told about what would happen in three or four years. We were told that that measure would drive the people to revolution and all sorts of things. We were told, too—I want to emphasise this—that certain powers given to the Government would be so abused by servants of the Government that innocent people all over the country would be indicted out of private party spite. I was a young member of the House on that occasion. I suffered a good deal for having supported that Public Safety Bill, although I did my best to take the objectionable features out of it. Some of my amendments were accepted by the Government. In the few years that that Act remained on the Statute Book, I did not know of one instance where an innocent man was arraigned or brought before a tribunal because of party or personal considerations. That Public Safety Act created a furore all over the country, but, while it remained on the Statute Book, there was no injustice done to an innocent man because of it. I am prepared to go to my constituents to-morrow with a much greater sense of security after supporting this Bill to-day than I could go to my constituents a month after voting for the Public Safety Bill. If I might sum up the situation so far as opposition to this Bill is concerned, the mildest speaker, so far as I can understand, is prepared to give control of this State on a fifty-fifty basis—fifty per cent. to the gunman and fifty per cent. to the Government. That is as far as they will go. How can we run a Government under these conditions? No matter what Government is in power—I am not speaking for the personnel of the Government before me; I am speaking for the personnel of any Government which is given authority— that Government must get a hundred per cent. control of the law and order of the State. Otherwise there could be no law or order in the country.
It has been said here that for seven hundred years the people of this country have been fighting for freedom. It has been suggested—possibly with a certain measure of truth—that we have not got enough freedom at the moment, and that, perhaps, for seven hundred years more we shall have to fight on until whoever is then alive is satisfied with our measure of freedom. I would be untrue to all my principles of life if I did not vote for this Bill. I have been an upholder of majority rule all my life and an opponent of the gun. I believe that whatever extensions of freedom we will have secured in the future will be gained by constitutional methods. Nothing that occurred in this country in recent years has convinced me that I was wrong in adopting constitutional methods long ago.
What did you do with the guns you brought in in 1914?
I never used a gun in my life, and I never allowed anybody over whom I had control to use a gun which had a cartridge in it.
Who sent the guns in 1914?
I shall tell you that. I never was a believer in the gun. When the Deputy was at one end of the gun, I was at the wrong end of it, fighting the gun. I was not afraid to go out. I was at the wrong end of the gun the Deputy held, and I was not afraid to be at the wrong end of it.
What were you going to do with the guns?
Deputy O'Hanlon must be allowed to make his speech.
I shall not have an opportunity of making a speech. If I had, I would reply to him all right.
I stand here as a person whose past is an open book to anybody who knows the history of the past twenty or twenty-five years.
You were a twister from the beginning.
I never used a gun, and when the gentleman who interrupted me held a gun I was at the wrong end of it. I could give a little more history if I liked. There were men who held guns and who, I think, were not less patriotic than I was. But I did not believe in the gun. There were men who honestly believed that by the gun they could get a bigger measure of liberty than I could get by other means. But that is not my point. I would be false to my nature if I did not support this Bill, which is in conformity with my public actions during my whole life. I am sorry my friend has interjected a rather unpleasant thing, because I could tell something about the gun which would not please him.
A Deputy
Better get it all out.
I always fought for the liberty of the people, and it is for the liberty of the people I am fighting to-day. I want to know whose liberty is at stake in this Bill. For whose liberty are those who oppose the Bill fighting? Is it not for the liberty of the potential murderer?
And the liberty of the assassin!
There is another principle being fought for. There is the principle of free speech fought for by those who oppose this Bill. What manner of speech has been going on during the last few months? People talk about our fighting for freedom for 700 years. This country has been Christianised for 1,500 years. Are we to stand by and let Asiatic rats come in and take the Christianity from our people which they have held for 1,500 years? If this Bill was designed for no other purpose than to guard against that I would say that purpose alone would justify this Bill.
There are other reasons for this Bill. I opposed the Public Safety Act because it was an emergency and panic Act. I was justified to a certain extent in opposing it on these grounds. I believed a week ago that this Bill was simply going to be an emergency measure like the Public Safety Act. I found on the morning that I came up here, and only then, that this Bill was going to take the form of a new clause in the Constitution, and that the Government were taking powers now in this Bill for themselves and their successors, powers which I hold they made a great mistake in not taking years ago. I say that with all the knowledge. I have of the use the Government has already made of their powers. They had powers under the Public Safety Act to do things and acts of injustice were not tolerated. I hold that every Government in this extraordinary period of the world's history should have in its Constitution, or by some other means, power to deal with people who want to subvert the State, and who want to destroy law and order. That seems to be the new policy all over. The Muscovite policy, as the President said, has permeated the nations of the world which have not power to deal with these Russian rats and everybody else who puts up his head to subvert the State, destroy law and order and kill religion, no matter what religion so long as it is a Christian religion. That is what is being done here and in other countries. This country would not be doing right if it did not take powers to deal with these people in the future.
I have two grievances against the Government in connection with this matter. One is that they did not consult the people openly and get a mandate they could stand over. The second is that they did not think of having powers like these incorporated in the Constitution before to-day. I am going back to my constituency tomorrow with the full knowledge that not one half per cent. of the people who voted for me at the last election will find fault with me for the vote I am about to give to-day, but I complain that I have not had the opportunity of saying to my constituents: "I went up to the Dáil and did what you expected me to do." I am satisfied that the vote I am about to give is the right vote, but I regret that I did not get a mandate from my people before I came up here. I am quite satisfied that this Bill should have been brought in years ago.
This Bill has been attacked. The principal attack, as made by those who for some time have been accustomed to accept our Constitution, is that it is unconstitutional; that it interferes with the liberties under the Constitution, described by us as democratic, as giving every member of the public the right to express his political views, as giving the means to the people, if they so desire, to put any Government they like into power; and that that Constitution is being abrogated. Nothing of the kind. This Bill is being introduced as an Article in the Constitution because it is necessary for the preservation of the rights already enshrined in the Constitution. It is necessary because, as I think most people in this House ought to know, that in the last few months a campaign has been growing or threatening to grow beyond all control, a campaign which, if not dealt with and dealt with quickly, would in a short time be beyond the control of this or any other Government, a campaign to make the rights of the people absolutely nugatory. What is the good of having rights enshrined in the Constitution guaranteeing the liberties of the individual when for political motives ordinary individuals can be taken out of their houses and shot, when the ordinary man can be terrorised and prevented from giving expression to his political views?
People talk of elections, but everybody knows that there are a number of places at this moment where the free expression of opinion by the electorate would be almost impossible. If that state of affairs was allowed to continue, those who had experience in this country for the last ten years must know perfectly well that that terrorism would completely dominate the country. It is said that this Bill interferes with the rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution. This is the only way we can see to guarantee to the ordinary law-abiding citizen the rights that are his by the Constitution. If these powers the Government is asking for are not granted or if they are not effective, then the Constitution still remains, but it remains, so far as 99 per cent. of the people are concerned, a dead letter. It remains a dead letter, not because people's rights are interfered with by the Government, but because the people's lives are interfered with by the ordinary gun bully.
People seem to suggest that there is no evidence of unrest demanding a Bill of this kind. I know perfectly well the extraordinary difficulty of convincing some people when they demand evidence. We know that when dumps were discovered the suggestion was made that they were planted there by the C.I.D. for the purpose of helping Government propaganda. These dumps were openly acknowledged afterwards by the organisation from which they were captured, but there was no withdrawal of the charge made here. What is the situation we are faced with? I have met ordinary people from the country in the last few months and they have been more perturbed as to the future in store for this country than even in the year 1922. In some respects, so far as the potentialities of danger are concerned, I think that the situation if not dealt with immediately will be more serious than it was in 1922. At that period you had two big parties contending and there was all the likelihood of compliance with the will of the majority. What is the situation to-day? If the position that has developed in the last couple of months is allowed to go on unchecked, what will be the situation? You may talk of Soviets or republics or anything you like, but is it not the position that this country is going to be split up so far as control is concerned into a number of parishes or half parishes and each parish or half parish will be under the control of a local committee of men with the guns in their hands? That is the situation—dismemberment of the country in that sense, a complete lack of control, a situation created that neither this nor any other Government that may succeed it can deal with.
That is the situation we have to try to prevent from developing beyond control. Deputy O'Connell told us that he has no sympathy, except with the law-abiding citizens, and that he does not want full freedom for the gunman.
Any freedom.
Any freedom for the gunman. Unfortunately that is what the gunman has. I may say that a situation is developing, and in some places has developed, in which the only person with political freedom is the gunman. The ordinary citizens in certain neighbourhoods have not that freedom any longer. The story told by Deputy Anthony that people were afraid to give information because he was seen passing with a gun is typical. We know that strangers in certain parts of the country will not be shown the way if anything disagreeable has occurred in the neighbourhood. People are afraid and are already terrorised. That was so a couple of months ago. The danger is that if it is not grappled with it will become universal. There is no good in Deputy O'Connell and other Deputies saying that they have no sympathy with these things, if their detestation and their hatred of these crimes are not translated into current cash, into something effective. That is why I object to the attitude taken up by Deputy O'Connell on this occasion, and on more occasions than this. So far as expressions of sympathy go, everything is splendid. It is only when it comes to giving expression and practical force to these intentions that we part company. There is no good being sympathetic with a person who has been murdered. There is no good being sympathetic with people who are being terrorised if effective measures are not taken to deal with the matter.
It has been suggested, I think, from the opposite benches that the ordinary law is there. The whole contention of the Government is, and that contention is borne out by the facts as they prevail in the country at present, that the ordinary law has broken down, that it has proved ineffective to deal with these matters. The ordinary law and the ordinary tribunals are not capable of giving to the citizen the protection to which he is entitled. It is because that is so that this Bill is necessary. Therefore nothing could be more absurd than answering arguments in favour of the Bill by suggesting that the ordinary law is there. The ordinary law, as anyone who does not deliberately shut his eyes to facts knows, has broken down. The jury system has broken down. It was threatened. It has broken down. There was a certain amount of partiality in some cases. Leave that alone. On the whole that would not have been unduly effective. It has broken down because juries are terrorised, and because witnesses are terrorised.
There are portions of the country in which already people are afraid to be seen speaking to the ordinary civic guard. Why? Is it because these ordinary citizens do not respect the law? Is it because they are not friendly to the Guards? It is not. It is because already they are beginning to be afraid of the consequences. That is affecting not merely the administration of the law where quasi-political crimes are concerned, but it is affecting the ordinary administration of the law in some cases. That is one reason, but not the only one, why we are anxious that the administration of this particular Bill should be entirely removed from the ordinary administration of the law. As a result of the way in which political crime has been fostered in this country for a number of years, the ordinary administration of the law is in danger of being contaminated. We want to keep the two rigidly apart. Not merely that, but, as the President pointed out in his speech, in the circumstances that are necessary we want, when a situation of this kind arises, to have a tribunal that will not be open and that the people with whom it deals cannot hope that it will be open to any kind of terrorism.
Incidents have been referred to. It is not one murder, two murders or three murders. That is not the important thing. It is that these murders, either of Superintendent Curtin, Carroll or Ryan, and various other attempted murders, are symptoms of a widespread conspiracy. That is the seriousness of it. It is not the murder, appalling as it may be, it is the fact that they are symptoms of a disease that threatens the very existence of this country. That is the reason why it is necessary to deal with them. They are not isolated events, and anyone who refers to them merely as incidents ignores the real facts of the situation. They are incidents by which a certain number of people are attempting to arrogate to themselves the right to dictate to the people of this country what political opinions they will effectively hold, what political opinions they will give expression to, and what form of Government they will live under. These incidents, lightly referred to here occasionally, are symptoms of the gradually growing success of that policy in the last couple of months. The immunity that these people have enjoyed, the widespread conspiracy evidenced by it in most of the counties of the Saorstát—dreadful evidence of it in some cases—that conspiracy has been going on and not a single step could be taken under the present laws to bring to justice the people who were guilty of these crimes or who instigated them.
That is the situation that the House and the country have to face. The country knows it well. I met many people, even to-day, and they told me that it was with a sigh of relief they greeted the First Reading of this Bill, and the majority that it received. They felt that it was the duty of the Government to introduce it, and that if the Government had been guilty of anything it was guilty of delay in not introducing a measure of the kind before. That was the main criticism I heard. I cannot share that criticism. We waited, and we were as slow as possible before we introduced a measure of this kind. Certainly it has been borne upon every member of the Government for the last three months that unless this situation was taken in hands quickly it would get out of hand. That is no exaggeration. Any one who is familiar with the history of revolutionary movements in this country knows the speed which things of that kind can attain. I put it to Deputies in every Party that there is a duty not merely to Party, but a duty to the country.
Deputy O'Connell and Deputy de Valera spoke of getting at the causes— the economic causes. It is quite true, of course, that these people can appeal to the man out of work and to the man in hard circumstances. These doctrines that are being preached can make such an appeal. Even the revolutionary element with guns in their hands can make that appeal, and in some cases can make it successfully. Is Deputy O'Connell's knowledge of the revolutionary movement such that this thing can wait until the economic system of this country, as he calls it, is tackled in a fully revolutionary manner? The thing is absurd. There would be no economic situation or anything else if this thing was allowed to get out of hand. It could get out of hand in a couple of months if not dealt with. We have been accused of introducing this measure to make Party capital out of it. I ask anyone who listened to the speeches on both sides of the House, both for and against this measure, and I ask the public to judge, where was the appeal to popular sentiment? Where was the effort to get the support of the ordinary unthinking public? On the side of the unfortunate prisoner, as Deputy Anthony put it very clearly, why is there all the practical sympathy? It is practical sympathy I am interested in, and not in expressions of lip sympathy. Why is it that all the practical sympathy of certain Parties in this House is always with the malefactor and never for the malefactor's victim? Why is there always a shrinking from taking steps to protect the innocent? Why is it that all the pleas for every tittle of the law, every little refinement, every little rule of evidence have to be thrown on the side of those who are guilty, of those who are trying to ruin the country, while nothing is to be done for the protection of the ordinary citizen? That is the situation we have to confront.
We expect to get very little Party capital out of this. We knew it was our duty as a Government to prevent this situation from developing or else to clear out. There is no other alternative open to us. We did not expect to get any great or enthusiastic support from a large number of people in this country because we proposed it. If we do get any Party advantage out of it—and I make a present of this to the Deputies opposite—it is because of the attitude adopted in this House by the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party. That is the only reason that we could get any advantage out of this measure. As to the measure itself, it is not the kind of measure that any Government would care to introduce. It was introduced only because it was completely and absolutely necessary, because there was, if you like, a half state of war in this country. It was a one-sided war in which all the shooting, all the activities, all the deploying of armies, everything, could be done by one side, and the people and the people's Government, the Dáil, were completely bound up, tied up, and they had nothing to do but to stand bound hand and foot looking on at the destruction of the country and the institutions of the country. That is the situation.
It is because we take steps in the only possible way to protect the rights of the Constitution, and to see that those rights granted by the Constitution are not violated, are not mere paper, to see that they are a reality, that we are accused of scrapping the Constitution, but you may scrap the Constitution in reality and still let every Article of it stand. That is the attitude adopted by those who uphold this measure. This Constitution can be violated, can become a dead letter so far as the ordinary citizen is concerned. The Articles all remain sacrosanct, but the Constitution becomes a dead letter. Deputies have only to think over that fully to realise it. We try to prevent that occurring. That is the reason I ask the support of the Dáil for this particular measure.
Two main things are aimed at. The first is to deal effectively with crime. Extended powers are necessary for that. If we try to limit the powers contained in this Bill in order to safeguard against the possibility of abuse of power, anybody familiar with the administration of the law or familiar with the drawing up of Bills must realise quickly that you may kill the Bill, that a safeguard to guard against an imaginary evil that may spring up from ill-will on the part of the Executive or a deliberate perversion of the law by the Executive, will only have the effect of killing the Bill altogether. We undoubtedly seek tremendous powers in this Bill. We found it impossible to limit these powers because we felt that any limitation of them would probably mean interference with the proper and effective working of this engine to guarantee to the ordinary citizen all ordinary rights.
The second portion of the Bill deals with the question of propaganda. Does anybody suggest that there has been any undue interference with the free expression of opinion in this country? I know no country in which there is less interference by those in authority, with the expression of opinion than there is in this country. Many people are shocked not because we interfere with the expression of opinion but that we allow so much free expression of opinion, especially of certain doctrines. Somebody said that this is a Bill to prevent the expression of political opinion. It is nothing of the kind. This is a Bill, I quite admit, to prevent incitement to crime. Everybody knows — I wonder does Deputy O'Connell and others of his Party who are voting against this Bill deny it—that there has been plenty of incitement to crime in certain papers in the country for the last six months. I do not think he can deny that. This is a Bill to see that incitement to crime of that kind can be dealt with. We are asked why they were not dealt with up to the present. Again experience has shown us that the ordinary law is not capable of dealing with that particular state of affairs. It is no good to tell us to appeal to the ordinary law when our whole case is that the ordinary law is incapable of dealing with the situation that now exists.
After the passage of this Bill the expression of political opinion, so long as there is no appeal to force to back that up, will remain as free as it was before. Without the passing of this Bill Deputies know that in a very short time there would be very little free expression of opinion in this country even so far as this House is concerned. They know how the affair started with jurymen. They were visited. They were told in quite a calm, gentle way, of course, with no element of threat— far be it from anybody to threaten them!—that certain people were being tried. That was merely brought to their notice, and we know what happened afterwards. That was the first step. We all know of the visits to Deputies in the last couple of weeks when they were asked to give their opinions on this Bill. We all know what the visit to Deputies would be the preliminary to. The way in which Deputies have reacted to that threat is certainly one of the bright spots in a very black situation. Not one Deputy has been influenced by action of that kind in the attitude he has taken or will take on this Bill. That is a very hopeful sign, not merely as far as this House is concerned, but so far as the country as a whole is concerned. These visits were merely to see what Deputies' views were! Advice was given that Deputies should be visited and have views placed before them. As a visitor, you did nothing illegal. You said nothing. You only called on your Deputy. Who was better entitled to visit a Deputy than a constituent to find out how he intended to vote on this Bill?" Quite so. As I said, that is how the matter started with jurymen. We had a case quoted by the President in which a number of men visited a Limerick body because they passed a resolution condemning the murder of Superintendent Curtin. They said: "This will suffice for the present." Is that to be the case also with Deputies—a polite request: "Do not vote for this horrid Bill; that will be enough for the present"?
As I say, the responsibility unfortunately is, first and foremost, on the Government to put before the people their view of what the situation is, and not merely what the situation is but what are the potentialities of the situation. I say that because I have been convinced, especially within the last three months, that there is a situation here that, in a very short time, would mean that each half parish in this country would be completely under the rule of the local little knot of people with the gun. I ask the Deputies who are not too much committed to Party ties whether their experience of this country in the past does not appear to be that the Irish people will not succumb to Communism in this country. People are too much attached to the old principles! I wonder how long they would stand it? What real active opposition would they be able to put up against, not the peaceful visit telling them what views they are to adopt, but against the much more effective visit which has taken place in this country by people with guns in their hands?
I say under these conditions there is no future for this country, under this or any other Government, because no Government would be possible if a situation of that kind were allowed to get out of hand. This Bill has been introduced as being the only means we can use to cope with that situation. We trust and hope it will deal with that situation. We introduced it because we are the Government whose mission it is to look to the safety of the country. This Bill is necessary, not for the safety of the Government, not for the safety of Government officials, of Government servants, such as police and soldiers, but it is still more necessary for the safety and the protection of the lives and liberties of the ordinary citizens of the country.
I object to this Bill as an attack upon constitutional action and constitutional methods. It was asserted by a Deputy from these benches yesterday that if there is a sincere desire to promote the peace of this country on the part of the Government the removal of the Oath of Allegiance to King George might perhaps help to foster that so much desired peace. The Minister for Justice thereupon said: "If I remove that oath will you give me any guarantee that the people who resort to physical force will come in?" I am merely paraphrasing the Minister's words. That rhetorical challenge on the part of the Minister for Justice is a fair example of the specious methods adopted from time to time when a serious matter of this sort has to be dealt with.
Only a comparatively short time ago a complaint was made from these benches that three men whose names and addresses were given had been assaulted and beaten by C.I.D. men in the County Clare. The fact of the assault having been committed was denied by the Minister for Justice, but he did not stop there. The Minister said: "If there is any pretence of truth in that allegation, go to the courts." The men went to the courts and they got damages. The allegation was made that a C.I.D. man assaulted a citizen here in this area in which we live. Again there was the suggestion "go to the courts." He went to the courts, not like the Clare case for damages, but with a summons charging an offence against the C.I.D. The District Justice fined the C.I.D. man 40/-. There was an appeal to the Circuit Judge in this city and the Circuit Judge affirmed the conviction. In the case of these men they resorted to the courts because they accepted the invitation of the Minister for Justice. Now without argument and without excuse the Government take away from them that resort to the courts. They close and lock the doors of these courts.
It is said that that is being done because juries cannot be trusted. It was not a jury that inflicted the fine of 40/-. It was not a jury on appeal who affirmed that fine. Is it suggested that the District Justice was corrupt or had been intimidated? Is it suggested that the distinguished Circuit Court Judge who heard the appeal had in some fashion been intimidated? There is no such suggestion. Every possible fact and circumstance in favour of the defendants in the cases I have referred to were elicited by the able counsel who appeared for them. Yet the Judge gave damages or imposed a fine. That is one effect of acceptng an invitation from the Minister for Justice of the type that is made here "resort to Constitutional methods." In that same Constitution there was placed an Article giving a Referendum to the people of this country, but when that Referendum was resorted to, the very fact of availing of it was made an excuse and an occasion to destroy it.
I ask the Deputies of this House quite seriously to consider whether the Constitution in piecemeal is being made a will-o'-the-wisp. The moment that you follow a piece of that Constitution, that moment it vanishes and evaporates. Yet the Minister for Justice yesterday had the coolness again to put forward a challenge of that sort.
I am not impressed by what I have heard from the opposite side as to the need of immediately effecting such a drastic change in the law and the legal procedure in this country. Why is all this being done in such a panicky way? Why is it all being rushed through in seventy-two hours? If there was this terrible need for immediate change of this fundamental character why were we not brought together a month ago? Why were we not brought together even a week ago? We have been referred here to a document going back as far as 1925. Why were we not summoned a week or a fortnight earlier and allowed an opportunity of calmly examining and understanding the Bill? A Bill of 34 clauses with appendices was handed around yesterday afternoon. I assume, of course, that the gentlemen on the benches opposite, endowed as they are with pellucid intellects, have mastered that Bill and all its implications in the very short time that is being made available. All I do say is that I have not been able to hear of any precedent for this Bill in any other Legislature in the world.
A careful examination of the Bill, even by a skilled and industrious official or Deputy, would require, not two days—it would require at least two weeks. Is that a fair way to treat this House? Is it a fair way to treat the people of this country? We have been told that it must be done; that, to use a phrase of, I think it was the Minister for Local Government—at all events it was from the Ministerial Bench—that trial by jury has been murdered. Now it is better that we should use language exactly. Trial by jury has not been murdered. In this country crime not associated with politics is punished with a celerity and with a thoroughness that is scarcely eclipsed in any other country; and ordinary crime is punished with the whole force of public opinion behind the authority that enforces punishment. Statistics show that we are not a crime-loving people as compared with other nations. Reference has been made here to the murder of Superintendent Curtin and to another murder —murders which every decent man in this country deplored. Those murderers have not been brought before a jury. If there had been an arrest for the murder of Superintendent Curtin; a public trial by a jury, and the evidence made available through the ordinary channels to the public; if that evidence seemed convincing, and if the jury appeared to fail in their duty, I certainly would reconsider my attitude towards jury trials in such cases. But that has not occurred. Are the public of this country satisfied that everything possible has been done to bring those criminals to justice? At all events, it is not the failure of the jury system that is responsible for leaving at large the murderer of Curtin or the murderer of Ryan.
Is the suggestion that if the people aimed at by this Bill are brought before the ordinary courts, that the ordinary machinery is not adequate or proper to deal with them? Of course if anyone is tried in the ordinary criminal court he is hedged around with certain safeguards as regards evidence. He cannot be convicted on mere gossip, mere hearsay. It is true that a court of criminal appeal may perhaps be availed of. Is there any real desire to get ride of that machinery and to substitute for it a tribunal or procedure whose decisions are not to be open to review? Is this House in this hurried way, and with so little reflection and so little consideration, to confer on this tribunal of three military officers, skilled, no doubt, in the arts of war, but who, from the nature of their profession and occupation, are not apt in the judicial functions—is this House to confer upon them a power the like of which has not been conferred upon High Court Judges, not to speak of Circuit Judges, from all of whom there is an appeal? What parallel is there for it?
As the time for debate is so very short I do not propose to state in detail the many objections that even a hasty reading of this Bill has led me to formulate. It was hasty, because although I have devoted a certain amount of attention to this Bill since I received it yesterday afternoon, I am conscious from its structure and such reading or attention as I have been able to give it that caution is necessary. On looking through the Bill I feel rather appalled. I feel that good advice would be to make haste slowly in regard to it. I do not like the idea of a court whose judgments or procedure are not open to any review in any respect, especially if it is a secret court. I do not like the idea of a court consisting entirely of men who have received no training as regards the law of evidence. I think that even in courtsmartial either under the Free State régime or under the British régime, in the more important cases, even the courtsmartial had amongst its members an officer who was a member of one or other branch of the legal profession. The proceedings in those serious cases were reviewed by a Judge. Advocate-General, a gentleman eminent and experienced in the legal profession. Why are these elementary safeguards being dispensed with? Why is this blank cheque being given as regards sentences? There is nothing here at all to insure that the punishment will in any way have any relation to the crime. Why have we Section 9? Section 9 is an extraordinary section. Apparently if the witness does not give the evidence which commends itself to the Tribunal as regards its truth, very direful results may follow. The Tribunal might very easily make a mistake in regard to the evidence that the witness has given, and I must say that I have been unable to find anything approaching a precedent for such a section as Clause 9. I have seen that some years ago under the Empire in one of the provinces of China there was a rule of law which approached, but did not fully reach the point that has been reached in Clause 9 of this Bill.
I ask the House to refuse a Second Reading to this Bill. I ask Deputies to refuse to give the advocates of physical force in this country a new argument. We have heard various statements and assertions made throughout this debate. All decent people are sick of the factions that infest this country. We hear of certain Ministers here having their private secret societies. We have heard of secret societies outside. These warring societies are each struggling for its own predominance. Should we not try to rid the country of all of them? Strong government is resorted to in many countries. There are countries where the Government is at least as strong and dignified as it is in this country. But in this country only the coat is trailed. If we draw attention to anything that is unhappy here, anything that may be provocative, and say that perhaps the temptation—call it what you like—to lawlessness should be removed, we are represented as encouraging crime. Why should jurymen be pestered over cases and why should any other tribunal be pestered over cases arising because certain people want to fly the Union Jack in this City when they know perfectly well that it is provocative and will cause trouble?
The Deputy did not always think that.
Why should not public opinion express itself against that? That sort of thing is simply trailing the coat, looking for a fight. With the public opinion of the country behind the law, as I believe it would be behind the law if certain irritants like the Oath to the King of England were removed, the law would deal with these matters very strongly. We hear of Communism. I have tried in my constituency which I know very intimately—I do not know it merely as two counties; I know practically every parish in it—to get evidence of these Communistic activities. Perhaps it may be said that I am too hard to satisfy in regard to evidence, but I have tried to get it and I have obtained statements that purported to prove Communism and those statements on examination did not bear the slightest destructive criticism. They did not bear anything at all in the nature of cross-examination. They just seemed to fizzle out and the neares I could get was something to do with land. Anywhere I found anything approaching what might be called confiscation or Communism had to do with some area where the Land Commission had not fully operated and where the effects of land legislation had not fully penetrated.
People here seem to close their eyes to facts. The title to Irish land has often been assailed in the past. Most of the land of this country was confiscated once, a great deal of it was confiscated twice, and some of it was confiscated three times. You cannot draw too strong an inference from any feeling that may exist in a particular pocket of a parish where the land question has not been adjusted in the way the law of this State contemplates it will be adjusted. For these, amongst a number of other reasons that I have not time to adduce. I ask the House to refuse a Second Reading to this Bill.
This debate has had all the evidence of unreality that the debate last night had. The same smoke-screens that were thrown across the path of the Dáil last night were thrown across to-day. It is unfortunate that the Government is so much afraid of discussion or have got the wind up to such an extent that they are afraid of a revolution on Friday night, that they cannot permit a full and adequate discussion on the Second Stage of the Bill, that I will be unable to comment at length on the speeches made here this evening, one of the most deplorable of which was the speech of Deputy Anthony. Since the time is so short, the most I can do is to described the Deputy's speech as treachery to the working classes. I will described the utterance he made to the effect that even at the sacrifice of limb and life he will be prepared to stand by this Bill as a faint shadow of the utterance of another Labour leader in this House in 1923, when he pledged the last man and the last shilling to crush the Republic. All I want to say at this stage, since no adequate discussion is permitted, is that, whether you like it or not, this issue will be settled outside your House by the ordinary common people of Ireland, and every Party that brands itself as guilty of creating this situation, and allowing this situation of manufacturing a revolution to develop, will have to bear its share of the guilt, and that guilt will not be light.
Question put: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 82; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Coburn, James.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlan, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, William Archer.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clancy, Patrick.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.