Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Jul 1942

Vol. 87 No. 19

Committee on Finance. - Vote 63—Army.

I move:—

That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1943, for the Army and the Army Reserve (including certain Grants-in-Aid) under the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Acts, and for certain administative Expenses in connection therewith; for the Expenses of the Office of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures; for Expenses in connection with the trial and detention of certain persons (No. 28 of 1939, No. 1 of 1940 and No. 16 of 1940); for certain Expenses under the Offences Against the State Acts, 1939 and 1940 (No. 13 of 1939 and No. 2 of 1940) and the Air-raid Precautions Act, 1939 (No. 21 of 1939); for Reserve Medical Supplies for Civilian Hospitals; for certain Expenses of the Local Defence Force (including Grants-in-Aid) (No. 28 of 1939); and for certain Expenses in connection with the special Commemoration of the 1916 Rising.

Deputies are aware that, when the main Army Vote was up for consideration, it was suggested that, instead of matters affecting censorship being raised on that Vote, a token Estimate should be introduced later in order to give Deputies who might desire to raise matters connected with the censorship an opportunity of doing so. It is for that purpose that this token Estimate is introduced.

I move:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

In putting down this motion, I was influenced by the unfair, unjust and reckless manner in which the powers of censorship over the Press have been exercised. On the 26th March I put down a question to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, which was as follows:—

"If he can state (1) why the Irish Farmers' Paper was prohibited from publishing in full a recent letter from the Bishop of Ossory on food production; (2) why words in the same letter, emphasising the point that the best inducement that the farmer can get is a fair and generous price, were not allowed to be published in heavy type; and (3) why the Irish Farmers' Paper was prohibited from publishing a report of a debate in this House on the price of wheat."

The Minister's reply was:—

"The reply to the first part of the Deputy's question is that it was felt necessary to delete one passage which, if published in the paper in question, in the middle of the sowing season, might have been used as an excuse for the non-sowing of wheat by a certain type of farmer."

Now, the peculiar point in connection with that is that this letter of the Bishop of Ossory was published in full in the Kilkenny People on, I think, 17th February. I should imagine that the 17th February would be nearer to the middle of the sowing season than the date upon which it was proposed to publish this letter in the Irish farmers' paper, and if this paragraph could have any deterrent effect whatever upon the sowing of wheat, it surely would have had that effect when published in February. However, it was allowed to be published in the Kilkenny People on 17th February. Further, a letter from a farmer in Kilkenny was addressed to the Kilkenny People, thanking the Bishop for his advocacy of the farmers' rights. That letter was also published in the Kilkenny People in its next issue. Later, a meeting of farmers, in connection with the wheat growing campaign, was held in Kilkenny and was addressed by, amongst others, the Minister for Education. A vote of thanks was passed at that meeting to the Bishop for having advocated the legitimate claims of farmers, and no objection was made by the Minister on that occasion to the paragraph in question.

It is clear, therefore, that the paragraph in question could not possibly have been considered at that time to be likely to have any deterrent effect on the growing of wheat, and the question arises: Why was it not allowed further publicity, because, in a communication addressed later on to the Kilkenny People by the Chief Press Censor, the editor was asked to refrain from publishing that particular paragraph? Now, I want Deputies to consider the paragraph which was deleted, and to consider it from the viewpoint of a farmer reading it. Here is the paragraph which the Censor proposed to delete from the Bishop's letter:

"Let the farmer get the same price per barrel for his wheat, barley and oats, as it costs at present to import those commodities into the country, and there will be wheat and barley for export in Ireland, and why not give these prices? Is it not better and wiser to give the Irish farmer and his family, and the Irish agricultural worker and his children the Irish money that now goes to the ship owners, to the insurance companies, and to the grain growers of Canada and America?"

The Bishop's letter was addressed to the Kilkenny People and it was also addressed to the clergy of the Bishop's diocese, with instructions that it was to be read in the various chapels throughout the diocese, and the purpose of the letter was to induce farmers to increase their acreage under wheat. The Government, apparently, not having sufficient moral courage, or whatever else is required to enforce a legal obligation on farmers to grow the necessary wheat to supply the nation's need, it was therefore thought desirable that farmers should be reminded of their moral obligation in this connection, and this letter from the Bishop of Ossory was directed simply to the purpose of reminding farmers of their moral obligation in regard to the growing of wheat.

First of all, we have to consider whether this letter was best calculated to achieve the purpose for which it was intended. I think, in the first place, that the Bishop of Ossory would have been the best judge of that. He knew the farmers and the people of Ossory, probably, better than any of the members of the Government did, and he knew perfectly well that if he were to concentrate simply upon the farmers' moral obligations to the community, without making any reference whatever to the difficulties under which farmers were labouring or to the moral obligations of the Government to the farmer, his appeal would not have as satisfactory an effect on the farming community as an appeal in which he took both sides of the question. Anyone who has any experience of asking a citizen of this country, or of any country, or asking a neighbour, to perform some public duty, must realise that if you express a certain amount of sympathy with the person whom you are asking to perform that duty, and if you express a certain amount of appreciation of the sacrifices which he is making in performing it, you will have a much better chance of influencing him than if you were to make no reference whatever to the difficulties in which he would be involved, and simply direct him to do his duty. Now, the Bishop certainly understood that, and I, as a farmer, knowing their feelings generally, know that an appeal made to them, which shows an appreciation of the obstacles in their path and of the difficulties under which they labour, has a much greater chance of having effect than one which concentrates simply and solely upon their obligations. Therefore, I think that from the point of view of expediency the Bishop's letter, as it was addressed to the Press in full, had a much better chance of securing a larger acreage of wheat than the letter which the Censor had pruned.

There is, however, a more serious aspect of this question. This letter was a deliberate and carefully considered address by the bishop of a diocese to the members of his flock in regard to their moral obligations. I think it is a very serious matter if the Executive Government of this country is to take it upon itself to prevent a bishop from addressing his views on the question of their moral obligations to his people. It seems to me as if it is a serious infringement of one of the four freedoms about which we hear so much at present — the freedom of religion. It is also an infringement on freedom of expression, but on this question of interference with the divinely appointed spiritual directors of the people, in their lawful function of guiding the members of their churches in regard to matters of moral duty, this House should not under any circumstances tolerate any interference by the Government, because once the principle of interference with such pastoral letters is accepted there is no limit to which it may go. I think, therefore, for that reason alone this House should very strongly decline to pass this Estimate.

There is another aspect of the deletion of those words which ought to receive consideration. There is, as I have pointed out, no foundation for the statement of the Minister that this particular paragraph would have had any deterrent effect on the growing of wheat. We have then got to ask ourselves, why did the Minister, through his censorship department, decide to delete this paragraph? The only conclusion that we can come to is that this particular paragraph was deleted because it was bad Government propaganda, bad Fianna Fáil propaganda, bad Party propaganda, and it certainly is because it stresses the failure of the Government to govern in accordance with the ordinary principles of justice. There is a further aspect. The Minister may say in reply to the point I have made, that this interference with the Bishop, in the exercise of his lawful duty, could not have any ill-effect because the portion of the letter which dealt with the moral obligations of the farmers to the community was allowed to be published, and that it was only the portion dealing with the moral obligations of the Government that was deleted. The Minister may say: "Well, the portions of the letter which dealt with the farmers' moral obligations were allowed to get free publicity amongst the farmers and, therefore, neither the Bishop nor the farmers have anything to grumble about." As far as the portion affecting the Government is concerned the Minister may say: "I, as a member of the Government, could bring that particular matter to the notice of the Government and, therefore, the Bishop's wishes and views have been brought to the knowledge of all persons concerned." If the Minister were to take refuge behind that line of defence I think it could very easily be demolished because the Government of this country does not consist of the members of the Government alone. They are the servants of the people. Therefore, the people govern the country, and they have the right to know what are the moral obligations of the Government since the members of the Government are their servants. The people are responsible for whatever failures or faults the Government may commit. That was the Minister's reply to the first part of my question.

To the second part of my question the Minister replied that:

"The paper proposed to take out of its context and over-emphasise the words in question for the purpose of creating an effect not intended by the writer, and detrimental to the wheat-growing campaign."

Now, the words which the paper proposed to publish in heavy type were:

"An Unselfish Example.'‘Bishop of Ossory's Inspiring Message to the Farmers.'‘Getting the Last Ounce out of the Soil.'‘National Duty in Food Production.'

"The Church has appealed to the farmer and worker to do their national duty in food production. They have responded nobly and have set an unselfish example to the whole nation, even without adequate return for their national effort."

That much of the heading was allowed to be published in heavy type, and another portion of the heading which it was proposed to publish in heavy type was allowed to be published in ordinary type, but not allowed to be used as a heading. It was:

"We emphasise what we have already said, that the best inducement the farmer can get for the maximum production of his farm is a fair and generous price for what he produces with his sweat and toil."

I think if that heading were added to what was permitted it would not have had any ill-effect, and it would, I think, have been a fair representation of the important point in the Bishop's letter. Yet it was not allowed to be published in heavy type. It was allowed, however, to appear in ordinary type in the letter. Again, I can only suggest that the reason why it was not allowed to be published in heavy type was that it was bad Party propaganda, and for that reason it was desired to hide it away in an obscure portion of the letter.

I come now to the third part of the Minister's reply to my question. He said:

"To Part Three, that full publicity was allowed to the report of the Dáil debate at the time it took place, and that the matter which was stopped in the paper in question was not a report of the debate, but consisted of speeches by two Deputies—one of whom is the proprietor of this paper—which, if published in full, without being balanced by other speeches, would have given a completely one-sided account of the Dáil proceedings, which resulted in the motion under debate being defeated by a vote of 53 to 20."

In the first place, the report in question was not confined to the speeches of two Deputies. I have the report here. It is headed:

"‘Wheat at £3 a barrel.'‘Dáil Rejects Deputy Belton's Motion by 50 votes.'‘Labour Member's Call for an immediate All-Party Conference.'‘Dr. Ryan and the 1942 Crop.'"

The speeches published were those of the proposer and seconder of the motion, the speech of Deputy Davin and the speech of the Minister for Agriculture. The division list showing the names of Deputies who voted for and against the motion was also published. I submit that that is as fair and reasonable a report of a debate in this House as anyone could expect. I think this reply deserves very careful consideration. In the last part it is suggested that the effect of the debate was to secure the defeat of the motion. Everybody knows that it was not as the result of any speeches made in this particular debate that the motion was defeated. I am certain that the overwhelming majority of those who voted against the motion did not hear the speeches and were not listening to the debate.

This reply of the Minister raises a very important question. It raises the question of whether it is the function of the censorship department to adjudicate in connection with reports of proceedings in this House which appear in the Press. Does it mean that the Minister becomes a kind of referee in the journalistic sphere whose function it is to see that each Party and group in this House gets what he considers to be their fair share of publicity? That is the only interpretation that can be put on the reply suggesting that the report was not fair to all Parties in this House. I wonder did the Minister ever go down to a place called Burgh Quay. He will see there a building called the Grand Lyrical Hall, and find there is a newspaper published there which is owned by a gentleman with the high-sounding Irish name of de Valera, which publishes what purports to be reports of the proceedings of this House. I wonder did the Minister ever set about finding out whether all the reports published in the Irish Press of the debates in this House conformed to the principle he has laid down, that each Party and group should get a fair and reasonable amount of space. So far as I can see, the speeches of the proprietors of the paper and their colleagues receive the lion's share of the publicity in that newspaper, and even very often elbow out of the front page of the paper news of General Timoshenko and General Rommel and other important figures in the world.

And other Generals.

I was going to remark that the Generals and the leaders of the Opposition usually find themselves crowded into very obscure corners. If the Minister is going to act as a referee over the Press, he ought to go down to the Grand Lyrical Hall and see about refereeing the Irish Press. That would be a good beginning instead of concentrating upon this farmers' paper. I hope he will consider that suggestion, as I am sure he has more knowledge of football than I have and that he will act as a good referee and, whenever he finds even his friends and the members of his own team fouling, he will blow his whistle and award a free kick to the opposition.

The Deputy is now getting serious.

He is more likely to award a kick in the pants whenever he gets an opportunity. I do not think it is right, or wise, or desirable that a member of one political team in this House should have the right to adjudicate over all the other teams in regard to Press space, and that is a right which he has definitely claimed in his reply to my question. He has definitely asserted that the amount of space given to the Parties opposed to this particular motion, that is to the Government, was insufficient, and that is a right which, I think, cannot be allowed and which he does not legally possess under any rules, regulations, Emergency Powers Orders or anything else at present in force.

Now I asked a further question on April 15th:—

"Why a leading article dealing with food production intended for publication in the Kilkenny People of April 4th was completely suppressed by the Censor.”

The Minister's answer was that no article dealing with food production was suppressed by the Censor. On that date, however, the Censor did suppress an article headed food production. That is a rather extraordinary answer. We get in this House at Question Time all sorts of answers. We get long answers, short answers, smart answers and crooked answers. But that answer is unique inasmuch as it is no answer at all, because I asked why a particular leading article was suppressed and the Minister replied that it was suppressed.

Here is the article which was submitted to the Censor and which was suppressed, and I think it is for the House to judge whether or not the Minister was justified in suppressing it. As Deputies will notice, I will have some difficulty in reading it as it went through the censorship office and it appears to have had a rather rough time. This is from the Kilkenny People of April 4th, 1942:—

"We reproduce in another column exactly as it appeared in the Irish Independent a report of a question asked in the Dáil by Deputy Cogan, T.D. (Wicklow), relating to the censoring of certain passages of a letter on food production written by his Lordship the Most Rev. Dr. Collier, Bishop of Ossory, and published in our issue of January 17. This letter was printed by us at the request of the Bishop. It dealt with what he justly termed ‘the vital question of food production’, and in the paragraph introducing it his Lordship wrote: ‘The clergy will read this letter in their churches on next Sunday, 18th January, and will follow up the subject in public and private during the sowing season.’ We take leave to say that no more important pronouncement was made on this ‘vital question’ than that of the Bishop. ‘The Government are anxious,’ he stated, ‘to enlist the help of the Church in their efforts for maximum food production in the present year.’ In clear and incisive language the Bishop urged the farmers and farm workers ‘by determined and untiring work’ to make their contribution to the utmost of human endeavour to the carrying out of the Government policy, and ‘to get the last ounce out of their farms, their gardens, their plots, in food for human and animal life’, and he invoked a blessing on their work and their lives. We can call to mind no more forcible propaganda—if we may use such a word, which has acquired questionable implications in the hell into which the war lords have plunged the world—in support of a truly national policy directed towards the preservation, not the extermination, of human lives.

But while the Bishop in no uncertain words impressed on farmers and farm-workers their plain and inescapable duty, he was not unmindful of the fact—how could he be when the welfare of his people was so deeply concerned?— that if farmers and farm-workers have their duties, they also have their rights, and these rights he set out in plain and moderate terms:—

The Church has appealed to the farmer and worker to do their national duty in food production. They have responded nobly and have set an unselfish example to the whole nation even without adequate return for their national effort. We desire to thank and praise the farmers of the country. But this is not sufficient. It is thin diet, and will not pay rents or rates. We emphasise what we have already said, that the best inducement the farmer can get for the maximum production of his farm, is a fair and generous price for what he produces with his sweat and toil. Let the farmer get the same price per barrel for his wheat, barley and oats as it now costs at present to import these commodities into this country, and there will be wheat and barley for export in Ireland. And why not give these prices? Is it not better and wiser to give to the Irish farmer and his family, to the Irish agricultural worker and his children, the Irish money that now goes to the ship-owner, to the insurance companies, to the grain-growers of Canada and America? The prices of non-necessaries have been allowed to soar to three and four times pre-war values and there is haggling and bungling over fair prices to farmers for the absolute necessaries of life. It does not seem fair or intelligent.

It will be noted that Mr. Cogan in his question in the Dáil addressed to Mr. Aiken asked why the Irish farmers' paper was prohibited from publishing in full the letter from the Bishop of Ossory on food production and why the words emphasising that the best inducement the farmers could get was a fair and generous price were not allowed to be published in heavy type. Mr. Aiken, replying to the first part of the question, said it was felt necessary to delete one passage which, if published in the paper in the middle of the sowing season, might have been used as an excuse for non-sowing of wheat by a certain type of farmer, and to the second question he replied that the paper proposed to take out of its context and over-emphasise the words in question for the purpose of creating an effect not intended by the writer detrimental to the wheat-growing campaign. We make no comment on this matter."

That article is simply a reproduction of portion of the Bishop's letter and also of a report which appeared in the daily papers, with the closing words:—

"We make no comment on the matter."

It appears that a provincial newspaper is not allowed even to make a comment on a matter of this kind. That seems to be going further than anyone could have contemplated in regard to censorship and it seems to be altogether unjustifiable interference with the right of a leading provincial newspaper to comment upon matters of very vital public interest, to reproduce what had appeared in the daily papers and also in previous issues of the Kilkenny People, and even to assert that the editor of the Kilkenny People“made no comment on the matter.”

I do not think any Minister could justify that suppression, and the Minister did not attempt to justify it. He simply stated that the article in question was suppressed, and he left it at that. Having got away with the suppression and with the kind of answer he made here, the Minister went on to make a further attack on the Kilkenny People. He suppressed another editorial article which was submitted to him. It is undated, but it was submitted to the Censor's department for consideration. It is entitled “The Liberty of the Press,” and it states:

"Debates in both Houses of the British Parliament recently raised important issues concerning the freedom of the Press. They arose out of matter—it was really a cartoon —published in a London newspaper, the Daily Mirror, which the British Government appeared to think was injurious to the war effort and the newspaper had been warned by the Home Secretary, Mr. Morrison, that if it were not more careful it would be suppressed.

What is of particular significance in the debates is that they revealed in no uncertain way how tenaciously Members of both Houses of Parliament cling to the great principle of the freedom of the Press. There was little or no sympathy with the newspaper, but it was evident that Parliament was not going lightly to surrender rights which it took centuries of struggle to win.

Three centuries ago—in 1644 to be precise—John Milton published his ‘sublime treatise,'Areopagitica, in which he proclaimed the right of free speech and free publication. Laws directed against both he likened to ‘the exploit of that gallant gentleman who thought to pound up the crows by shutting his park gate.’ Milton was on the side of the Puritans as opposed to the monarchy because it was the side which he took to ‘stand for liberty of the spirit,’ but ‘he was presently to learn that liberty as the Puritans understood it meant no more than liberty to restrain the liberty of their opponents.’ The same phenomenon has been observed in other countries.”

There is a remarkable fact in connection with this article. In returning the article to the Kilkenny People, the Censor, first of all, suggested that the title of the article should be changed from “The Liberty of the Press” to “The Liberty and Licence of the Press.” As regards the paragraph which ends:—“The same phenomenon has been observed in other countries,” the Censor suggested over the telephone to the editor of the Kilkenny People, who carefully noted all suggestions, that this should be added at the end of that paragraph:—

"Another curious phenomenon which has been observed recently is that certain editors understand liberty to mean no more than licence to hurl abuses at the Government and at the representatives elected by their own people, which they would not have dared to hurl at a foreign tyranny when robbing and dragooning the country."

In suggesting to the editor that he should include this new paragraph in his editorial the Minister, through his censorship department, was asking the editor of a leading provincial paper to incriminate not only himself, but every other newspaper editor in this country. He was asking the editor of the Kilkenny People to plead guilty to using the liberty of the Press to hurl abuses at the Government and the elected representatives of the people. I think an editor of a long established provincial newspaper, having a very wide circulation, has a right to criticise the Government and the elected representatives of the people and it is not justifiable that the Minister through his officials should endeavour to intimidate the editor of this particular paper into admitting that he was engaged or had been engaged in a policy of hurling abuse at the Government of this country, or the elected representatives of the people and, further, into pleading that in hurling this abuse at the Government of the country he was doing something which the editor of the Kilkenny People would not have done to a foreign tyranny and which—he was asked to admit—the editors of other papers would not have done either.

As far as the Kilkenny People is concerned, I have here positive proof that the Kilkenny People did not hesitate to stand up against a foreign tyranny when it was robbing and dragooning the country. I have here a photograph of the British military with full military equipment and supported by other armed forces, engaged in the suppression of the Kilkenny People in 1917. That photograph clearly proves that the admission which the Censor wished to intimidate the editor of the Kilkenny People into making was without a shadow or semblance of foundation. The Kilkenny People in those days, when the country was under a foreign tyranny, was one of the most honest, courageous and outspoken upholders of freedom in this country.

The censorship department made other suggestions which they desired should be embodied in the editorial in question. In order that the House may be in a position to understand it, it would be necessary for me to continue reading the editorial of the Kilkenny People which was suppressed by the Censor. It says:—

"More than a century afterwards another milestone on the road to the freedom of the Press was reached when the controversy raged around the famous case of John Wilkes and the North Briton in 1763. Wilkes criticised in his newspaper the Speech from the Throne which was held to be a libel on George III. A copy of the paper containing the attack on the King and the Government was publicly burned by the common hangman amidst scenes of great excitement and violent commotion, for Wilkes had rallied the mob to his side. Long legal battles ensued which resulted in a victory for Wilkes who was awarded £4,000 damages. Although in many respects not a desirable public character Wilkes, as one of his biographers writes, ‘was the means of asserting and securing several of our most valuable liberties’. Another phase of the struggle developed when Wilkes published a report of Parliamentary Debates. Publication of debates was then technically a breach of privilege and Wilkes and the printers were cited before the House of Commons. The ultimate result was that the right of newspapers to report debates in Parliament was finally and firmly guaranteed.

In connection with that the Censor suggests, near the end of last paragraph, after the words, "was finally and firmly" the following:—

"guaranteed subject to their being censored by the House of Lords and House of Commons Select Committees on the publication of the debates and to the established practice in case of war as at present, and when national security requires that the debate should take place in secret session."

The editorial goes on:—

"The only exceptions to the established practice in the case of the British Parliament are when the country is at war, as it is at present, and national safety requires that debates should take place in secret session. Those are of rare occurrence. Ordinarily the proceedings of Parliament are conducted in public session and are, so to speak, public property. Any Minister of the British Government who would dare to prevent, or seek to prevent, debates held in public session being reported in the Press would receive short shrift."

The Censor in his telephonic communication with the editor of the Kilkenny People said:—

"Take out the last sentence altogether and substitute: ‘During the war, however, special editions of Parliamentary debates are published for circulation abroad and quite recently it was made an offence to despatch abroad anything appearing in Parliamentary debates or in the British Press which might affect adversely the relations of Great Britain with her Allies or with neutral States."

These suggestions were made to the editor of the Kilkenny People by an official of the Minister's Department. It means in effect that the Minister is using his privileged position to enter the lists of journalism as a free lance journalist, I suppose, when he has in his hands all the machinery to tie, and very effectively tie, the hands of his rivals. This suppression, and the suggestions which accompanied it, drew from the editor of the Kilkenny People a reply to the Chief Press Censor. A citizen of this country is usually very slow to express his opinions of a high official of the Government and I am sure that it was only because he was labouring under a very great sense of injustice that this humble and law-abiding citizen was induced to protest to the Chief Press Censor. This is a letter of protest addressed by the editor of the Kilkenny People and it shows how unfairly he was treated and how strongly he resented, not only on his own behalf, but on behalf of the provincial Press and the Press of the country generally, the unjustifiable interference. by the Minister's Department with their lawful activities. The following is the letter, addressed to Mr. Michael Knightly, Chief Press Censor, dated 13th April, 1942:—

"Sir,

I want to draw your attention to the 'phone message sent from your office and by your authority and received by me about 5 o'clock on the evening of Thursday, April 9th. I dictated the message as it was received over the 'phone to a reporter and I send you the printed transcript of his notes.

I should like in the first instance to have your interpretation of the word ‘suggests' as used three times in the course of the message. Was I to take it that it was not an ‘order' and that I was at liberty either to reject or accept the ‘suggestions' and, if I rejected them, was I at liberty to use my own discretion as to the publication of the article sent to you for censorship? I am entitled for my future guidance to have this information. I did not accept the ‘suggestions' and I did not publish the article. On Saturday morning, April 11, more than 24 hours after the issue of the Kilkenny People had been circulated, I got the proof I sent to you returned by you marked ‘stopped by Censor,’ the entire article. This seems a queer way of doing business.

I wish to draw your attention to the paragraph in the message which reads as follows:—‘Another curious phenomenon which has been observed recently is that certain editors understand liberty to mean no more than licence to hurl abuse at the Government and representatives elected by their own people which they would not have dared to hurl at a foreign tyranny when robbing and dragooning the country.' I regard this as a grossly improper use of the censorship and a mean and cowardly attempt to make me responsible for false charges against the editors of other newspapers. I challenge you to name the newspapers whose editors have ‘hurled abuse at the Government and representatives elected by their own people.' It is a malicious charge without a particle of foundation and it is a contemptible thing to ‘suggest' that I should be made the medium of advancing such a charge while you, the real author of it, skulk in the background. I have no doubt that one of the newspapers against which you have made this charge, merely on the grounds that it has legitimately criticised the Government, is a newspaper on which you yourself were glad to get a job and earn your bread and butter for several years.

Mr. Aiken is a well-paid member of the Dáil and I am not aware that he or any other member of the Government from his place in the Dáil, where there would be an opportunity of answering it, has charged ‘certain editors' with ‘hurling abuse at the Government' although I know that a newspaper in which he is interested hurled abuse at the President of the United States and helped to create antagonism to this country amongst a people allied to us by close kinship. I regard this infamous attempt to use me as an instrument for doing your dirty work as simply a method of using the censorship in the interests of a Party and not in the interests of the State, and certainly not using it to preserve the neutrality of the State.

With regard to your statement that the ‘certain editors' referred to ‘had not dared to hurl abuse at a foreign tyranny when robbing and dragooning the country' which they were now employing against the ‘Government and representatives elected by their own people,' I should like to point out that the ‘robbing' and ‘dragooning' of this country was not always or altogether done by a ‘foreign tyranny.' No ‘foreign tyranny' had ever practised ‘robbing and dragooning' the country in the same way that it was carried out by supporters of the present Government during the civil war. It was not a ‘foreign tyranny' that was responsible for the killing of Seán McGarry's child. As regards my own relations with the ‘foreign tyranny,' I have been editor of this newspaper for half a century and I always maintained it as an organ of opinion aiming at achieving the liberties of my country. How the ‘foreign tyranny' dealt with me is illustrated in the picture I send you and which Mr. Aiken might get framed in his office of the scene at the first of the two suppressions of the Kilkenny People, one in 1917 and one in 1919. No doubt if my views had been as acceptable to the ‘foreign tyranny’ as those of that distinguished Kerryman, Mr. Tom O'Donnell, who felon-set the men who were fighting for Irish freedom, I would now like him be high in the favour——”

Perhaps the Deputy would state whether he is reading a censored article?

Is it proposed to rule out the censored article? I should like to have a ruling on that as I propose to read the censored article.

It is not the censored article.

A Deputy may contend with reason that, to support his objection to the censorship administration, he should quote certain articles which had been censored. If the Deputy were to go on indefinitely quoting editorial articles and comment in support of his case the debate would be interminable and the articles in question might be quite irrelevant. Some of the matter which the Deputy has read has no bearing on the censorship and includes attacks on named citizens who are not in a position to reply.

This is the only letter which I intend to quote. It is a letter which was written to the Censor setting forth the reasons why the Minister and the Censorship Department should not have suppressed this particular article and should not have attempted to incorporate in that article suggestions of which the Censor himself is apparently the author. I feel that it is necessary to read this letter in order that the House might understand the viewpoint of an editor of a newspaper whose editorials had been suppressed.

The obvious conclusion from that is that if any newspaper objects to the censorship, and contains a series of leading articles giving the editor's views on the matter those articles may not be read here. The Deputy should make his own case.

I quite understand that, but as this is the only letter I intend to quote and as I have touched upon the main points in it already, perhaps the House would permit me to read the last paragraph of the letter which summarises the editor's objection to the censorship.

The Deputy may do so but I trust he is not going to read any more leading articles.

The last paragraph reads:—

"I regard this attempt to make my newspaper the medium of dishonest propaganda in the interests of a political Party by labelling as ‘hurling abuse' what is no more than legitimate criticism, falling far short of the criticism levelled at the previous Government by the present Government and their newspapers when they were in opposition, as such a startling departure from the principle which should govern the administration of an impartial censorship that I shall seek to have the matter raised in the Dáil. Whether I shall succeed in this effort or not, or whether if it is raised, the debate will be allowed to be published are, of course, matters beyond my control.

Yours, etc.,

E.T. Keane."

That is a very natural protest coming from a law-abiding citizen whose rights have been trampled under foot. The attempt on the part of the Minister, through his Department, to dictate to a provincial newspaper what it is to publish in its editorials is going far beyond the limits which have been prescribed in the regulations governing censorship in this country and going beyond anything which could be conceived in regard to censorship. As we understand it, censorship is the deletion of matter which it might not be desirable to publish, but no one ever visualised a position in which the Minister, through his Censorship Department, would seek to intimidate editors into publishing his views in their editorial articles. I think that the House should protest very strongly against such abuse of the Minister's powers. We should protest, and I want to protest emphatically, against his interference, in the first place, with freedom of religion, and, in the second place, with the freedom of newspapers to publish the reports of this House as they think fit. I must protest finally against the attempt on the part of the Minister to write editorials for leading newspapers of this country.

I desire to second the motion proposed here by Deputy Cogan to refer this Vote back, the object being if not to have censorship entirely removed as an institution from our midst to have its more nefarious activities limited and confined inside a rather small scope by regulations which this House might seek to pass, or by instructions which this House might, in debates, give to the Minister or those who operate under him. I feel a great deal of pleasure at finding that before the censorship was a month in existence, in September, 1939, I raised the first protest against the extravagances of the use of censorship at so early a date. It is a far cry back to those days when this House was induced to give wide censorship powers, untrammelled by any directions or by the viewpoint of any advisory committee. The House was induced to do so on the statements that were then made in the House that what would be censored would be news and not views. There was added to that, for fear the language was not explicit enough, that there was no doubt about the discussion of policy being quite free except in so far as there might be a question of national interest in regard to our relationship with other States. Those were the statements on which the House was asked to give censorship powers at an early date in September, 1939. News that was of value to the belligerents was to be censored, but, when it came to views, censorship was to be almost entirely excluded. As far as the policy of this country was concerned, the only limitation put by the Taoiseach upon the possibility of fullest freedom of discussion in that respect was that there might be a question of our national interests in regard to our relations with other States.

The use that has been made of the censorship has gone very far indeed from those guarantees given to this Parliamentary Assembly when it was asked to hand over those exceptional powers to the Government. I want to contrast what I will go on to describe as the use of the censorship here with its use in England. A discussion took place in the English House of Commons in the month of March this year, and an editorial appeared in The Times of 27th March. Those words—I take them as a good guiding line for a proper censorship—were used in that editorial:—

"The attitude of both Houses yesterday left no doubt of the importance of the issue. The censorship was conceived from the outset in terms of simple principles, which have been confirmed rather than shaken by the fate of nations that have been otherwise guided. Great Britain held in 1939—and in 1914— that the purpose of a censorship is to prevent military information from reaching the enemy, not to silence critics at home. Its purpose must not be to maintain moral—not because moral should not, but because it cannot, be maintained by suppression. The lesson of France on that point is final. If moral is bad, mere censorship will make it worse, will destroy it."

That is the attitude that a great nation, fighting for its existence, takes up with regard to freedom of discussion. At a later stage I will give more quotations from those people, beleaguered and hard pressed, as to their attitude to freedom of speech, freedom of report, and freedom of everything in the nature of the printed Press, newspapers and otherwise. I submit that, in 1939, we conceived censorship here in the same simple terms—to prevent information that might be of use to some of the belligerents leaking out inadvertently through Press reports in this country; to prevent some damage being done in a military way; to prevent a suspicion lighting on this country that the newspapers were either deliberately or inadvertently siding with one side or the other, and were giving access to the parties on one side to information which they could not get elsewhere. Everybody agreed in this House that such censorship was permissible and was demanded. In the very early days, in 1939, when we had no idea of the way in which censorship was going to be applied in this country, people were allowed to put in the House those questions about policy, and to get that statement that in any event there would be free discussion of policy except in so far as our interests in relation to some neighbouring State might be prejudiced.

Let us follow the course of censorship very briefly from that point. I am not going to worry the House with all the material. I have a bundle of material here with regard to censorship as it has operated. I have gone carefully through a larger bundle that I got. I could honestly say to the House here that all that is contained in that bundle represents a use of the censorship that never was thought of and never was conceded to the Government, but I prefer to extract one or two things, and not to worry the House with detail. Like Deputy Cogan, I am going to segregate, first of all, the position of the Kilkenny People. The treatment of the editor of the Kilkenny People can be described as nothing but despicably vindictive, and, if one seeks for a reason for the specially harsh treatment meted out to that gentleman, I think it can only be found in the fact that that gentleman is a particularly harsh critic of the Government, and when he cannot be answered by activities of the Government he can be just quashed by the Censor.

Deputy Cogan has referred to two editorials. They are two of the principal editorials that I know of in connection with which censorship was operated. The first refers to this letter from the Bishop of Ossory. The editor was asked originally to leave out one part of that letter. First of all, let us examine the folly of what was being done. The letter in full was read in the churches in the diocese of that Bishop, but, when it came to giving it possibly a somewhat wider publicity through the columns of the Kilkenny People the editor was told that there was one very serious passage in the letter. The letter was an appeal to farmers, in which there was a statement by the Bishop urging the farmers and farm workers, by determined and untiring work, to make their contribution to the utmost of human endeavour to the carrying out of the Government policy. It was not that this Bishop was setting his face against Government policy. He was an upholder of what was being done. Having urged the people of the country to carry out that work, he then said that if those workers had their duties they also had their rights, and he proceeded to set out those rights in language which was sober and restrained. He used this sentence in the paragraph:

"Let the farmer get the same price per barrel for his wheat, barley and oats, as it costs at present to import these commodities into this country, and there will be wheat and barley for export from Ireland."

Is this the policy: "You ought not to argue with farmers. Just tell them there is some price and suppress anybody else who tries to urge that some other price should be given"? The Independent, at the same time had an editorial in which it asked that the question should be examined, and that the price guaranteed farmers for food production should bear some relation to the increased cost of production. That was censored, the mood at the time being that the Government had command, and until the command changed or the Government beat a hasty retreat, as they did in the matter of food production, while there is a guaranteed price, there can be no criticism of that price. While imploring farmers to bend themselves to that work, and to produce all the food required, the Bishop is not allowed to raise that question. He made the suggestion that farmers might be given, as an incentive to production, a price for wheat, oats and barley that bore some relation to the import cost of these commodities. Of course, that was a lunatic suggestion. The price has been raised considerably since the editorial was written and since the letter of the Bishop was read in the churches. It has not yet approached the price we are paying for imported wheat.

One has to ponder on the sanity of a policy which would pay more to get precarious cargoes brought enormous distances across the sea, at a huge price, instead of offering the same price, or about that price, to the farmers of this country or, as the Independent asked, having the whole situation examined to see that the price bore some better relation to the cost of production. That advice the Independent, through its editorial columns, was not allowed to give the people, but it was advice which had to be followed in the end.

There is more mystery about another editorial to which Deputy Cogan referred. It was headed: "Liberty of the Press." It referred to the debate in the British House of Commons and no point has ever been made to the editor of the journal, in which it was suppressed, that the reference to the debate in the British House of Commons was not a proper one. I am not going to read the editorial. It was read, almost at length, by Deputy Cogan. I challenge anybody to say that there is one word in it which would hurt our relations with any of the people at war. I challenge anybody to say that there is one word in it which would excite unruly passions in this country.

The first retort of the Censor to that was that the heading had to be changed to "The Liberty and Licence of the Press." That is cheap-jack folly—The Liberty and Licence of the Press. The Censor arrogated to himself this power, that he was going to say to the editor of that newspaper: "You write that editorial as I want it or you will not have it at all." Remember there was no suggestion at the beginning that the editorial was to be suppressed. There was no suggestion that it was contrary to any of the censorship regulations. Somebody instructed by the Minister, at the end of the 'phone, made the suggestion— cheap-jack is the only word to be applied to it—to change the title to "The Liberty and Licence of the Press." Part of the article to which the Deputy referred traced the history of the freedom of the Press, that is to say, everything recorded through the medium of writing, traced it as it grew in England and referred to John Milton. It had this sentence, which was criticism, by implication, of misuse of the Censor's power:—

"Milton was on the side of the Puritans as opposed to the monarchy because it was the side which he took to ‘stand for liberty of the spirit'..."

This is also part of the quotation:—

"... but he was presently to learn that liberty as the Puritans understood it meant no more than liberty to restrain the liberty of their opponents."

He made the perfectly fair comment: "The same phenomenon has been observed in other countries." He might say that the phenomenon has been observed in Éire. And the cheap-jack comment at the other end of the 'phone is to add this:

"Another curious phenomenon which has been observed recently is that certain editors understand liberty to mean no more than licence to hurl abuses at the Government and representatives elected by their own people which they would not have dared to hurl at a foreign tyranny when robbing and dragooning the country."

If the editor had accepted that suggestion it would have been representing to those who read his newspaper that certain editors had availed themselves of the liberty of the Press to abuse the Government. It is not a serious crime to abuse the Government. It was one of the things referred to in the Dáil on the 3rd September, 1939, when Ministers held up their hands in horror at the thought that anyone should suggest that criticism of the Government would be a matter for the censorship. The Minister, not able to get his own way directly, would have the editor of the Kilkenny People insert what I have quoted in the editorial. Naturally, as it was written in Kilkenny, it could not be taken to refer to the editor of that paper, but to someone else. Later on, as Deputy Cogan pointed out, the article stated:

"Another phase of the struggle developed when Wilkes published a report of Parliamentary debates. Publication of debates was then technically a breach of privilege and Wilkes and the printers were cited before the House of Commons. The ultimate result was that the right of newspapers to report debates in Parliament was finally and firmly guaranteed."

That had to be altered in this way: by adding to the end of the sentence, words which would make it read:—

"the right of newspapers to report debates in Parliament was finally and firmly guaranteed subject to their being censored by the House of Lords and House of Commons Select Committee on the publication of the debates ..."

I wonder could we get a single member of the Fianna Fáil Party to come into the House to sit behind the Minister and listen to this talk about liberty?

Not a single one.

While the call goes out, I will continue with the extract:—

"... and to the established practice in case of war as at present and national security requires that the debate should take place in secret session."

I have used the word cheap-jack. What scholarship there is in the remark I have quoted! Someone, overworked in the censorship department, being out of bed, day and night attending to the importunities of people whose messages are being censored, someone with rare talent for research had time to look up the references. It is a far cry to the days when there was another such censor. Some niggling little mind instructed the Minister that a little effort in the way of scholarship would embellish the quotation. We come to the end of the article:—

"The only exceptions to the established practice in the case of the British Parliament are when the country is at war, as it is at present, and national safety requires that debates will take place in secret session. Those are of rare occurrence. Ordinarily, the proceedings of Parliament are conducted in public session and are so to speak public property."

The paragraph ends:—

"Any Minister of the British Government who would dare to prevent or seek to prevent debates held in public session being reported in the Press would receive short shrift."

It was suggested that that sentence should be omitted. That was the only sentence to which exception was taken in the whole article, that if any Minister in England would try to prevent a report appearing in the Press of debates that took place openly in Parliament, that Minister would received short shrift. Here is what was said: "Omit that sentence and add on this little bit of refinement:—

"During the war, however, special editions of Parliamentary debates are published for circulation abroad and quite recently it was made an offence to dispatch abroad anything appearing in Parliamentary debates or in the British Press which might affect adversely the relations of Great Britain with her Allies or with neutral States."

Who conceived the bright thought of adding that? What was the object of adding that? The editorial was an actual statement of fact—a brief, historical tracing of the right to freedom of speech, as recorded. Who thought of asking the editor to put in this note, that special editions of the Parliamentary Debates in Britain are published for circulation abroad? The editorial had nothing to do with circulation abroad. It dealt merely with freedom of publication of things spoken in England-free publication of these in the free Press of England, subject only to the simple principle, laid down earlier, that information of a military type should not get to the enemy. The Minister, through his Department, decided that that article could only be allowed through if one sentence was excised. The reason for that suggested excision was not stated to the editor of the Kilkenny People. There were four suggested additions to the article —two petulant bits of scholarship, one bit of bad temper, at the start, and, intermediately, a perfectly otiose comment on a matter that had no relation to the article as an article.

The editor made up his mind that he would not accept these suggestions. He did not convey that to the Department, but, on the day the paper went to press, he received intimation that the editorial was totally suppressed. They did not wait to get his acceptance of the suggestions. Apparently, the "Smart Alick" commentator at the end of the 'phone had made some report as to what he had done. A better view obtained, and it was considered that the best way out of the mess was to suppress the article. What is wrong with that article? May an editor in this country not trace, in that brief way, through John Milton and John Wilkes, the growth of this idea of freedom of Press reporting, and may he not apply that to this country? Is there anything wrong in saying that the only time England verges from the straight road—subject to the laws of blasphemy, obscenity, and so forth—of the fullest freedom in reporting is when the country is at war? In connection with the Parliamentary Debates, there are, of course, secret sessions, but these are very rare. Surely it is fair comment to make, and one which our neighbours would be proud to have made in their regard, that any Minister or person in high authority who would seek to have any impediment put upon the free reporting of anything discussed in Parliament would get short shrift. I want to know what was wrong with that editorial. I want to know why it was suppressed, eventually, and whether it is accepted by the Minister that those who act on his instructions can suggest to editors that they must model their editorials in certain ways, and can make certain suggestions to them as to the points they must incorporate in their articles, the alternative being to have their articles suppressed.

There was an earlier stage in which the editor of this paper had fallen foul of the censorship. At one time, he printed an editorial headed: "Swift, Socrates and Frank Aiken." He commended to the said Mr. Aiken the following passages from Swift's fourth Drapier's Letter:

"Eleven men well armed will certainly subdue one man in his shirt.... Those who have used to cramp liberty have gone so far as to resent even the liberty of complaining, although a man upon the rack was never known to be refused the liberty of roaring as loud as he thought fit."

A delightful letter came from the Department afterwards and there was a postscript to that letter as follows:—

"The Minister directs me to add, with reference to the leader in last Saturday's issue of your paper, that if you feel the necessity of obeying the laws with respect to censorship which the representatives of the Irish people deem necessary for national security is a torture beyond your endurance, you may roar as loudly as you please, but it remains unlawful to broadcast your roars in your paper."

For the mind that conceived that postscript and for the slavish hand that penned it, there is, of course, occupation. There are countries where there are concentration camps, where men of bullying, sadistic nature are chosen as guardians, where they can squash everything by brutality and where there is no necessity to argue or listen to complaints. If that is the mood the Minister is in with regard to censorship, he is losing his time here. He is not using such talents as the Lord has given him in the best possible way for himself or for another country.

Other principles were asserted by the Minister in respect of censorship during the year. I have referred already to the editorial printed, eventually, in the Independent on the 17th February, 1942, which referred to the cost of bureaucracy. That editorial, after counting up the number of civil servants employed at one time and comparing it with the more swollen number employed at a later stage, said, or rather wanted to say:—

"For every 107 in the population men, women and children, a civil servant is maintained."

Then, this sentence followed in the original editorial:—

"The inclusion of teachers, Civic Guards and Army would result in a ratio that would provide a State keeper for almost every family."

That sentence was obliterated. The excuse given was that it would prevent recruiting for the Army. It would not prevent recruiting for the Civic Guards or teachers but it would have prevented recruiting for the Army.

I had occasion to raise here another matter about which there was correspondence between the Minister's Department and those in charge of the Independent. It had reference to the censorship of a review of a book written by Professor Binchy: Church and State in Fascist Italy. When I raised the matter here, the Minister made the facile comment that, eventually, leave was given to publish the review. The statement the Minister made was that, in fact, the review had been, eventually, released but the Independent did not publish it. What does that sentence mean to anybody who understands English? It means simply that, in the end, they passed the review for publication but, for some reason, the Independent would not publish it. What are the facts? The facts are that it was suggested that the review might be published if certain things were excised. The writer of the review replied stating that these things could not be excised and this is what the Censor wrote:—

"I note that you find the suggested changes unsatisfactory.... In making certain alterations in the proof copy of the review, all I had in mind was to indicate one way in which our objections might be met, leaving it to the reviewer to submit an alternative or to rewrite the review should he think fit to do so. It appears, however, from what you say, that no such accommodation is possible, since the reviewer feels that he cannot make his point unless he is allowed to refer to the author's ‘dislike of Fascism', to his search for a weapon to use against Fascism...."

The Censor's letter finished:—

"This, unfortunately, is just precisely what I feel it would not be in the national interest to allow him to do and, accordingly, it looks as if we had reached a deadlock."

There is correspondence behind the scenes which results in the Censor saying to the Independent:“You can publish the review if you omit certain things.” They say they will not omit certain things. The Censor says, “I thought you would not,” and the Minister's gloss on that was that the review was, eventually, released but the Independent would not publish it. That is a falsehood—how near it goes to being a lie the Minister is the judge. When the editor of the Independent wanted to answer the Minister's statement with regard to that false comment on the whole circumstances, the editorial was suppressed. The Ceann Comhairle has made reference in this House to the principle we have that people are not attacked unless they have an opportunity to reply. That code does not operate with the Censor. The Censor did not want to reply. All he wanted to do was to expose a falsehood. The Minister could ride away with his statement, false as it was, because the reply was not permitted publication.

I have referred already to the editorial which the Independent wanted to publish on the nation's food supply in December of last year. They had a paragraph at the end of the editorial—it was a three-paragraph editorial with the heading, “The Nation's Food Supply”:

"Although the farmers are compelled to till one-fourth of their arable land, it is not made compulsory on them to cultivate 650,000 acres of wheat. Inducement may, however, be more effective than compulsion, and this leads to the question of price. The guaranteed price of 1942 wheat, first fixed at 41/- per barrel was later raised to 45/- by the Government. The farmers maintain that 45/- is not an economic price, and Deputies representing all Parties in the Dáil have urged the Government to increase the figure; and they promise that, if this is done, the requisite quantity of wheat will be produced. The production of food being a matter of vital importance, a scheme of national insurance, the farmers, who acted so splendidly this year, are entitled to whatever may, on a full examination of all the relevant factors, be considered a reasonably remunerative and economic price for wheat, especially in view of the fact that imports, even if procurable, could not be obtained except at an immoderately high cost."

Is there a word astray in that? Is that not sober comment? What is the Dáil here for, if it is not to allow members of all Parties to urge the Government to increase the price offered as an inducement to farmers to grow the necessary foodstuffs for the community? The Independent writes that article and speaks of the fact that Deputies of all Parties have so urged, and they go on to say that the farmers are entitled to whatever may, on a full examination of all the relevant factors, be considered a reasonably remunerative and economic price for wheat. They are told they may not publish that. Why? Is one not allowed to argue with this Government? Even when Deputies of all Parties have united in this House in arguing with the Government, it is not possible for that editorial to be produced. That is a startling fact.

Deputies in all Parties join in urging the Government to raise the figure they are paying and make an appeal to the Government. Is it not possible to ask, in the end of that cautiously-worded article, that farmers should get whatever may, on a full examination of the relative factors, be considered a reasonably remunerative and economic price? Are the Government afraid of such an examination? Were the Government serious in their attempts to get increased food production in the country? Why could they not have taken the opportunity of that article and entered on a reasonable calculation or have shown that the figure on which the price was based was a reasonable calculation? Again it is just a question of the concentration camp: beat that article out of the Independent, do not let them publish it, and if they complain about it their complaints are not to get to the public. We know, from old times, when the Government made statements with regard to this country being beleaguered, that a Deputy of this Party —and no panic-stricken Deputy, either —wrote a letter to the papers, putting certain things on record, and asking if it was a fact that certain people, more likely to be in possession of accurate information than Ministers, gave it as their view that one of the belligerents was helping to get food into the country rather than beleaguering the country. That expression of opinion— a letter from a Deputy in this House —was ruled out.

Ministerial pronouncements with regard to beleaguering are, apparently, not subject to censorship. I should not say that all Ministerial pronouncements are not subject to censorship, as, in September or October, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who was then Mr. MacEntee, warned the people at an L.S.F. meeting that, when this war is over, this country might find itself without a friend. That escaped the eye of the Censor at the beginning, as it got into the evening papers, but it was ruthlessly suppressed from the next morning's editions. A Minister, with a full sense of responsibility, goes to a meeting of all Parties—an L.S.F. meeting—in a particular part of this country and warns them, with regard to the progress we are making in certain directions, that when this war is over we may find ourselves without a friend. He had some purpose in saying that: what it was I do not know, but there was something in it that appealed to his sense of proportion and reason. That was a proper comment for him to make, and the papers naturally expected—when a Minister who, under the Censor's regulations, is an authorised person himself to pass things for publication, had so spoken publicly at a meeting—that they might publish the comment, but it only got into the evening editions. The Minister felt that his colleague was guilty of an indiscretion, and that that particular comment of his should not get any wider circulation than amongst those who happened to read that particular evening newspaper. So the Minister was censored by his colleague.

Two principles have been stated by the Minister's Department in connection with the use of censorship. One is that stated here, in answer to a question by Deputy Mulcahy, in respect of a notice issued by an executive committee in his constituency regarding bread. The Minister suppressed that on the ground that it was likely to cause a panic situation with regard to bread. The matter could be raised here in the Dáil and apparently there was no panic, but again what was said in the Dáil could not be published because panic might ensue. Out of that welter of inconsistencies, is it possible to get a policy? The only one I see is the flat-footed statement of the Minister, that Deputies will not be allowed to make statements with regard to what is happening under the people's eyes, the forming of bread queues in the city. They are not going to be allowed to publish a statement or resolution in the papers asking for an inquiry into that matter and the steps taken with regard to it.

I would like to read correspondence which I read on another occasion in this House. One of the Minister's officials put himself on record that:—

"At a time when the unity of our own people was more than ever called for, it would be contrary to the public interest to allow a fresh controversy to break out in the Press regarding either the Civil War or the Blueshirt movement."

The Censor added this second paragraph:

"Naturally the weight to be given to the last-mentioned consideration— which could be urged in support of the suppressions of all political controversy—must depend a good deal on the circumstances of each particular case."

The Taoiseach said in September, 1939, that policy would be a free subject for discussion, but even that promised freedom might be entirely taken away if, in the mind of the Censor, controversy might break out and that controversy might have some effect on the unity of our people. The Censor writes that, adding hurriedly that he knows that this consideration could be urged in support of the suppression of all political controversy. As soon as I got word of that, I raised the matter here, to get from the Minister at least some limitation upon the adoption of that as a standard. I asked that we be told what reservations or limitations there were going to be with regard to it. We failed to get any. The Minister stands over that, and stands over it although his official wrote in a letter to the Independent that he knows that the argument could be used in support of the suppression of all political controversy.

I said at the beginning that we had travelled a long way from September, 1939. That was November, 1941, and the Censor there adopts as a standard that argument which he himself says could be used to suppress all political controversy, although, in September, 1939, the Taoiseach said, with regard to policy, that "there is no doubt whatever it would be quite free, except in so far as there might be a question of national interest in regard to our relations with other States." Now, we have got to domestic matters, and we adopt, and the Minister backs the adoption of, a standard which may lead to the suppression of all political controversy.

These are the standards I object to. I object to the Minister taking power to order editors to interpolate matter into editorials which they have written. I object to the Minister taking power to suppress reasoned, argumentative editorials on the ground that something has been recorded here in the Dáil and the editorial asks for some advance on it. I object to a standard being adopted like that used in reply to Deputy Mulcahy that something might cause a panic amongst a certain part of the population. Finally, I object to the adoption of the standard that things are to be tested by the repercussions which, in the Censor's mind, might take place on national unity, even though we recognise that the adoption of that standard can be used to suppress every item of political controversy. It is the adoption of that standard which has led the Government to its present position.

The Minister views journalists in the way the Minister for Supplies views traders, or in the way the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of turf production views bog workers whom he has driven to England. It is that particular mentality which is responsible for what everybody recognises has come upon the Government in the last six months—the spirit of arrogance, the feeling that, if they are criticised, they are insulted and the idea that they are superior, and so superior that they cannot consult expert people on special matters. Of course, that spirit is naturally going to be bred when Ministers are living together in a close huddle, hearing nothing from the outside world because the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures spends most of his time preventing criticism of the Government from creeping into the Press.

Somewhere in the month of April this year, a Reuter message came from Australia phrased in this way:—

"The appointment of a Press Advisory Committee of five, to assist the Government in ensuring that censorship is imposed for security and not political reasons, was announced to-day by Mr. Curtin, Prime Minister of Australia. It will be representative of newspaper proprietors and the Australian Journalists' Association."

That was suppressed as an item of news. How is that going to hurt the belligerents? What effect can that have on the war situation? What standard operated to rule out as an item of news that, in order to ensure that censorship in Australia is imposed for security and not political reasons, there was to be an advisory committee of journalists? But that was refused publication here. Quite obviously, it had to be. It was a bad example, and even the phrasing of the reason given for the setting up of that committee —"to ensure that censorship is imposed for security and not political reasons"—cut too near to the bone here, so, as an item of news, it had to disappear. It appeared in the North of Ireland papers and in the English papers, but it was suppressed here. Why? Is it not permissible—I do not think the journalists here would have it; the journalists in England would not agree to any such suggestion—to advocate that such a committee should be set up? Is it not permissible to argue as a reason for setting up such a committee that it is necessary here in order to clear the air and to make sure whether censorship is used for security or political reasons?

That again is the childish outlook of the Minister. It is a dangerous thing to have running through the Irish newspapers, because somebody might decide that it was a proper scheme to have here, and where would the Minister be, if his censors had to argue and reason with people who are in the business, with people who have been used to freedom, with people who probably have the national interests more at heart than the Minister, because they are not prejudiced by any political consideration, with people who have a fair record in journalism, or who are ready to have their record laid open for examination, with a view to seeing if on any occasion they prejudiced the national interest. The Minister will not treat these people as human beings at all, and certainly not as adults. He is going to lecture them and make suggestions about the incorporation of pieces of propaganda for himself in their newspapers, and, if all goes to the worst, he can always squash, and so the mentality of the guardians of the concentration camp grows worse.

Earlier I quoted from an editorial in The Times that the British conceived, according to themselves, censorship in terms of simple principles, the purpose of it being to prevent military information reaching the enemy and not to silence critics. I read a little further from it, but there is one part I did not read which is appropriate here. It says:

"The immunity from criticism which the hostile dictators enjoy is sometimes cited as an advantage to them in waging war."

So far as the Press of this country are concerned, the Minister is a dictator over them, and that is why I think the comment appropriate. The editorial continues:

"That is a very short view. To the extent that the dictator imposes ignorance upon his subjects, he himself remains ignorant of something vital to his strategy, the real state of their minds; and public confidence founded upon ignorance must be brittle. Sooner or later policy immune from criticism always lands itself in the fatal blunder— fatal because it cannot be retrieved. The power to retrieve blunders depends upon criticism which gives the whole community a responsible share in the remedial action."

Further, the editorial says:

"In the long run, and not such a long run either, deeds rather than words count in the maintenance of popular resolution and confidence. Too much importance can be given to wild and abusive strictures and there can be too much brooding over ‘morale'."

Any time we have questioned the Minister about things we have been told that it will lead to sapping confidence in the Government. The Minister must have realised by this that whatever little confidence is left in the Government bases itself upon facts and not upon the Press, because everybody is convinced by this time that the Minister will let into the Press as little matter harmful to himself as possible. The Minister must know that it is policy that counts and policy is illustrated by activities, and that he is not going to do himself, his Party or the Government to which he belongs, any lasting good by simply preventing the appearance in a newspaper of what people are saying in the back streets, the public houses, the clubs and everywhere that men congregate. There is the tale of the foolish doctor who broke a thermometer rather than let it indicate to him the particular sign of a disease. That is what the Minister is doing. The Minister will fail, or, at least, he will find that the results he is looking for will not be achieved by the methods he has adopted.

I have spoken already about the result of all this, the mood that is bred in Government and that has broken out in their speeches recently. The best example of that was given here the other day. We had a debate on supplies, lasting four days. It ranged over a wide variety of details. The Minister who was under criticism could have rehabilitated himself by doing just one thing: by taking out of the long range of commodities on which this country depends one single commodity and telling us in detail what his Department had done in respect of that one example and asking to be judged upon it; it would have been an easy weapon in his hand if he had effectively used powers in respect of a single commodity useful to the people. The Minister opened his speech in reply. Instead of doing what I have suggested, by referring to criticism, and all criticism is wiped out—the Minister whom I am now addressing would like to wipe it out in the newspapers, but the Minister for Supplies wipes it all out in the Dáil with this phrase: "Criticism actuated by malice." Anybody who criticises the Minister is actuated by nothing but the spirit of malice in making that criticism. And then the Minister gave us four categories of these maliciously minded people. He said:

"Vested interests have been vocal in their criticism of the Department —traders who think that the distribution of supplies should be controlled in their interests and not in the interests of the consumers who deal with them, manufacturers who want to get, at the expense of their competitors, an undue share of the limited supplies of material available, agitators"—

Presumably, he means this Dáil

—"who get, or hope to get, a livelihood from the propagation of discontent, and the remnant of the old ascendancy who are always ready to sneer at the efforts of an Irish Government."

After four days of a debate, with cases, in connection with details running up and down the whole card, being made against the Minister, all he could say in the end was that it was not worth bothering about, that it was all a case of malice, and he proceeded to exemplify the different classes of people actuated by that malice, such as the people of the old ascendancy gang, and so forth.

Sir, are we discussing the Vote on Supplies now?

The Deputy ought to be in the censorship office.

On more than one occasion, Sir, I had to appeal for one single member of the Fianna Fáil Party to come in and sit behind the Minister and listen to what we are talking about.

Of course, this is typical. The Party opposite have so definitely decided that silence pays them best that they do not even want discussion in the House. They will not have it here, and the Minister to whom I was referring wipes it all out by the general comment of "malice", and if anything does get through the portals of this House, the Minister for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures is always there to rule it out by the adoption of any standard that he is pleased to take. I said before that that sort of thing does not do any good. I shall take another comment from journalists in England, made at about the time of the editorial, to which I referred. They said that "Ministerial resentment of criticism, or rather of Press articles, may easily become resentment of all criticism which, in the end, means, of public opinion itself, and yet it is this opinion which must make, remake, or unmake Governments". The Minister thinks that he is going to prevent that process, that working of public opinion, or that growth of public opinion adverse to himself, by simply using, here and there, the big stick which he has to prevent people publishing in the Press the free expression of opinion. I suggest that by the way in which the censorship is being used it is a vicious instrument and that the sooner we get rid of it the better, and the Minister should at least try to put some limit on the powers used by his officers in dealing with censorship matters.

It seems to me that one of the last things that ever occurs to Minister's minds in regard to their respective Departments is the little matter of how and when economies can be effected, and in my view the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures is no exception to that rule. I wonder has he given any attention whatever to the question of what adjustments might be suitably made in the machinery of his Department to deal with a new situation which will arise, inasmuch as a very large volume of work previously undertaken by his Department will become unnecessary. I am referring to the fact that because of the present shortage of newsprint, and the printing famine in that regard, considerably less work will be necessary in connection with the Censorship Department, and I am curious to know what steps the Minister contemplates for the purpose of effecting economies in his Department, hinging on that situation.

Repeatedly, complaints have been made in this House regarding the distorted version of the reports or broadcasts by Radio Eireann of the proceedings in this House. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who is responsible for that Department, appeared to me, in his recent observations regarding those complaints, to throw the onus of what appeared to be the glaring defects in the reports of the proceedings of this House by the broadcasting station, on to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, inasmuch as he said that the reports filtered through that Department. Now, whilst it is generally recognised that an undue portion of time is given for Ministerial statements, as compared with statements by members of the Opposition in conflict-with them, more glaring still and more unjust is the suppression of the names of Deputies, especially in regard to Question Time proceedings. Almost nightly, when the Dáil is sitting, the reports broadcast of the proceedings at Question Time in the House would lead any uninformed listener to think that statements made by Ministers on important issues were made voluntarily by those Ministers, whereas the truth is that more often those statements are made as a result of skilful questioning by members of the Opposition, and more often than not the information is given reluctantly by the Minister concerned. That is a matter concerning which I hope we shall have a better explanation from the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures than we had from his colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I draw the Minister's attention to the comparison between these reports and the reports of questions in the House of Commons in connection with which members' names are properly given. This defect has been going on here for a very considerable time, and, so far as I can judge, no effort whatever is being made to put it right. It is quite unjustified and is one which, I believe, could be set right immediately.

From the limited information at my disposal there are just a few points that I wish to bring before the Minister. On the 6th June a report of the sinking of The City of Bremen vessel was stopped from publication in the Sunday Independent. On the same date I am informed that a report, giving details of the sinking of that vessel, appeared in English newspapers circulating in this country in competition with the Sunday Independent. I am not so ingenuous or simple as to think that it was because of any desire on the Minister's part to favour British newspapers that that stoppage was brought about. But, actually, the report giving details of the sinking of that vessel was released for publication here on the following day, the 7th of June. I am suggesting to the House that the reason why that was done was that it is part of the calculated policy of what I may call antagonism to this paper on the part of the Government because of its outspoken criticism of its administration. I believe, too, that this is only one of the many injustices that have been done to that newspaper, and that the possibility is that the Government who are very jealous of the interests of a paper that on one occasion was suitably described in this House as the kept organ of the Government—I refer to the Irish Press—did that, of course, to some extent to preserve the interests of that paper. The Irish Press, as we all know, is not issued on Sundays, while the Sunday Independent is the principal paper here which circulates through this country on that day. I am sure that Deputies who have open and impartial minds as to the relative merits of the various newspapers cannot feel other than shaken in their belief and confidence in the Censorship Department when they see injustices of this kind being perpetrated.

Another matter that I wish to draw the Minister's attention to is the action of the Censor in connection with a meeting recently held by the coal carters at Castlecomer mines concerning a coal rationing Order which adversely affected their livelihood. This meeting was addressed by Deputy Pattison, a member of the Labour Party, and other speakers. The Censor refused to allow any report whatever of the proceedings of that meeting to appear in the newspapers. The coal carters are, I suppose, a very small community, but when we compare the attitude of the Censor towards their little meeting of protest against a matter that affected their livelihood with the unrestricted publicity given to the drapery trade—and I have no fault to find with the unrestricted liberty that was given to the drapery trade in their protest against the injustice originally inflicted upon them by the Minister for Supplies—but when you compare the treatment meted out to the two bodies, the injustice becomes apparent. You have, on the one hand, a very small and insignificant body entirely of no account from the political standpoint, and on the other hand a big organisation like the drapery trade, and if you compare the treatment meted out to both it shows that matters are not done fairly, squarely and above-board by the Censor.

When the Estimate for the Department of Local Government and Public Health was under discussion in the Dáil recently the Minister nearly went blue in the face in an effort to defend his attitude regarding the abolition of various local authorities. What I have to complain about in connection with this matter is the treatment of the report of that debate in the Kilkenny People when it came before the Censor's Department. The Censor made a deletion in the report which appears to me to be altogether unjustifiable. What I propose to quote is portion of the speech delivered in the Dáil on that Estimate by Deputy Pattison as reported in the Kilkenny People. He said:

"I am going to quote now from one of the best-known provincial papers in this country, in fact, a paper which was suppressed by the British Government and very recently has been threatened with suppression by the Fianna Fáil Government."

The Censor deleted the words "And very recently has been threatened with suppression by the Fianna Fáil Government" from the speech. What is the explanation for a deletion of that kind? The only interpretation that can properly be put on the Deputy's words is that they were a criticism of the Government's action in relation to this newspaper. I am rather anxious to hear what the Minister's observations are on that particular matter.

So far as my recollection goes, the practice adopted by the Minister regarding complaints made in the House of the inefficiency of his Department has been that mistakes are inevitable: that the officers in his Department have to work in accordance with a time schedule which, inevitably, must lead to blunders here and there.

It is not an unreasonable kind of explanation. But what I am concerned mostly about is what steps the Minister takes to secure that there is not a recurrence of these errors. Glaring as some of the injustices perpetrated by the Minister appear to some of us who differ politically from him, I am prepared to believe that these mistakes are not made deliberately and consciously by the Minister. I think many of the blunders are largely due to bias. Perhaps the Minister is oversensitive of anything that might be said in criticism of the Government or his Party; that he cannot help that and that his actions and his Department are governed accordingly. There can be no great check on the Minister in his Department because, I understand the officials in his Department are hand-picked and more than likely are anxious to see the Minister's point of view and please him.

I suggest that there is a way out of this difficulty. All of us appreciate the necessity for censorship, and I think we all equally well appreciate the valuable work done by the Censor and his officials. We are cognisant of the fact that the censorship is one of the most powerful weapons in the hands of the Government in preserving the neutrality of this country. But I believe that all the difficulties that now obtain with regard to this Department could be got over if a committee formed on the lines of the Defence Conference was set up representative of all Parties in the House in the form of a censorship board. I think it will be conceded that the Defence Conference has done most useful work, work which could not have been done by any single Minister of State. I am at a loss to understand why, in view of the widespread complaints by every section of the Opposition in this House against the Censorship Department, some steps are not taken by the Minister to get over that difficulty. I suggest that the solution of the difficulty is as I have indicated. I am confident that there will be no reluctance on the part of any Deputy or any section in the House to co-operate with the Minister to the fullest extent in any changes which he is prepared to introduce in the direction I have indicated.

I do not think it is required that anyone should dot the i's or cross the t's of anything Deputy McGilligan stated. I do not want to add anything that would come between the statement of Deputy McGilligan and any answer that the Minister has to give to it. I rise just to make a suggestion on the lines of that made by Deputy Hannigan. It is almost impossible to understand what is in the minds of the Government with regard to almost any aspect of policy. It ought not to be possible for any Deputy, keeping in close touch with the situation and trying to understand the situation and what is being done, to make a statement like that; but I do make that statement. We are discussing here a matter that comes under the control of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures If we have any defence to co-ordinate in this country, the first thing we have to do is to co-ordinate the minds of the people on important matters. If we cannot get a co-ordinated mind on the part of the people, with the confidence that it brings, then we have no defence worth talking about in this country.

I take it that the Government are sincere when they speak even in an apparently exaggerated way about our dangers here. We have very serious dangers and there is no necessity to exaggerate them. But the presence of these dangers would demand, at any rate, that the Government should allow us to understand their minds. In my contacts in various critical moments with members of the Government I have had to ask myself: Are they insane, or are they simply deceptive? I have to say to myself: "What is wrong with them is that they are keeping something from you; they are not telling you what is in their minds, and not giving you fully their opinion of the situation." That is a shocking state of affairs. If we cannot do something to overcome that, then there is no use in talking about co-ordinating the work of the L.D.F., the L.S.F., the Army, the rescue squads and the A.R.P. organisations. There will be no strength in these unless the people of the country have confidence. I know nothing that is striking more at the confidence of the people at present than the methods which are being used through the censorship to prevent proper criticism of the general aspects of the situation here. When I asked could we get any single member of the Fianna Fáil Party to come in and sit behind the Minister and hear what Deputy McGilligan was saying, I asked it earnestly, because I do not think there is any use talking to the Minister in regard to this matter. The Minister has set himself in a particular type of groove.

We can guess what he would say.

I am hoping that there are some members of the Fianna Fáil Party sitting behind the Minister who are concerned with the co-ordination of defence, who are concerned with creating confidence in the minds of the public, and I would like them to have listened to Deputy McGilligan's description of the operations of the censorship in order to get the concerntrated picture that he gave them an opportunity of getting.

If it is not a brief.

I should be anxious to hear Deputy Victory speak on the facts Deputy McGilligan brought out. If gathering information throughout the country, putting it together in an ordered way, so that we can get ordered thinking over it and place it in an ordered way before Parliament here, is to be despised and derided, I do not know what brought Deputy Victory here. But, in the interests of the co-ordination of defence, there has been put before this House by Deputy McGilligan a serious statement of facts. He has drawn certain deductions from them and appealed to members of the House to say what deductions they are capable of drawing from them and to point out whether he is wrong in thinking that these facts, as indicating the policy of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures in relation to the censorship of opinions bearing on vital matters, are disruptive of our national strength or not. I consider they are.

Deputy Hannigan has asked that a Parliamentary committee be set up to control the censorship. I suppose he would agree to have that committee called a Parliamentary appeal committee in connection with censorship, so that when there were complaints, instead of being dealt with in the way in which they are now, by the Minister acting as appeal judge to his own judgment, they would come before a small committee representative of the various Parties in the House and the circumstances could be quietly and dispassionately discussed and rectified, if necessary. At any rate, after a month's working of such an appeal committee there would be moulded, in my opinion, a constructive and a just kind of censorship. I do not know whether there is any other way of getting it at the present time, but, if we do not get a more just and rational censorship, one that we can have more confidence in, we are going to experience increasing disruption of public opinion.

When the Emergency Powers Bill that gave the Minister the powers he is now using was first presented to the House, the Government had prepared an Order for presentation to the House under which the Bill would be passed through all its stages between three o'clock in the afternoon of 2nd September and eight o'clock that night. We appealed to the Government on that Saturday morning not to stifle, by limiting the time, the type of discussion that was going to take place on that Bill. We said: "If you are going to restrict the discussion of this measure to five hours, instead of the facts of the situation, the difficulties of the Government, the type of powers necessary and how they will be used being discussed, what will be discussed is that you are suppressing the voice of Parliament in a time of emergency." They listened to reason and there was no time limit on the discussion of that Bill.

The very same thing is going on now, There is a type of suppression proceeding that disturbs the public mind; it makes the public feel that there is no free discussion of anything and, if that is going to be allowed to continue, then we will get a very unsettled public opinion and we are not going to bring a unified mind to bear on the problems confronting us. If we cannot get co-operation from the Government on this matter, we ask for co-operation from the Party behind them. We do not want to deny that the members of that Party have the interests of this country as much at heart as we have, and they ought to have as clear an understanding of the things that are required. We are not getting the co-operation from the Government in serious matters that we ought to get, if they have any appreciation of the dangers around us.

I told the House before that from 13th September, when we drew their attention to the importance of our economic situation in relation to our defensive strength, until the fall of France eight months afterwards, we were never approached by the Government on any aspect of our danger, our defence or our economic position. I think I told the House that when the Taoiseach at that time approached us after the fall of France to say that he wanted to increase the Army and build up a force to assist the police, it was my personal opinion that the Government were not in a frame of mind in which it was any use expecting to co-operate with them. It was Deputy Cosgrave who considered that if we were going to build up such a force as the L.S.F. was then contemplated to be, there should be a parliamentary body brought together to appeal to the country as a whole and give the country a chance of bringing together all parties and all classes into whatever defence forces were subsequently to be built up. I surrendered my judgment completely to Deputy Cosgrave in that matter, and when the Defence Conference, such as it was, was set up, I was prepared to act on it.

At that time Deputy Cosgrave wanted a Parliamentary Council of Defence. A Defence Conference was set up, nominated by the Taoiseach, consisting of persons suggested by the other Parties in the House. As Deputy Hannigan has said, it has achieved a lot. It has given all parties throughout the country a chance of coming together, a chance of organising themselves and of understanding that at any rate the spirit guiding the use of these forces and the spirit drawing them together is reflected in a conference drawn from all Parties in the House. That conference might have been much more useful and much more authoritative if it had been set up as a Parliamentary Council. As it is just a conference, we have no responsibility for the administration of any branch of the forces; they are entirely the responsibility of the Government. But the very fact that there has been a conference drawn from different Parties in the House has enabled the country to rally into the Defence Forces.

We are now concerned with public opinion and with the strength it is to a country to know that it can discuss its serious problems, and I suggest its confidence in that situation is undermined by the type of censorship that exists. I am definitely of the opinion that the operation of the censorship has been one of the reasons which brought about bread queues in this country. I believe that if we had not the censorship of public discussions on cereal prices and such matters, we would not have a shortage of wheat. Deputy McGilligan has spoken of the way in which the discussion of my constituency executive on the subject of bread queues was suppressed. I do not want to go into that matter, but I would like to emphasise one aspect of it. The suppression of reasonable public discussion on what is wrong with some aspects of our production is a thing that is bringing about deficiency in production and, as long as we have the type of censorship that has been outlined here, there is going to be a danger to our production.

People's minds were confused recently as to what is likely to happen with regard to elections. Our institutions rest upon the electorate. They have no other foundation and, except they have under them a responsible electorate, an informed electorate, goodness knows what may happen these institutions. Local elections have not been held for eight years. A Bill was introduced in this House further to postpone them. There was only one interpretation to be put on that, that is, that they were going to be postponed. Certain other matters suggested that a general election was going to be held. Then it is brought out here in the House that, while a measure was being introduced to postpone local elections, local elections were being prepared for. But we did not know anything about it. The withholding of these facts is not the type of censorship that we blame the Censorship Department for, but it is part of the same thing. It is part of the same thing when, say, the Government Press, after discussion on the Local Government Estimate here, where this question of local elections was raised, at a time when, as we now understand from them, they were planning local elections, they completely left out of their Press any reference to my contribution to that debate because I simply dealt with that matter. When we were dealing with supplies, the same Government Press left out of that Press any reference to my contribution to that debate, because I pointed out that in September, 1939, three weeks after the emergency developed here, the organised drapers of this country went to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and discussed, first with him, and then in an elaborate way in public, at a meeting of their organisation, the type of co-operation that they could give the Government and that the Government could give them in order to keep up supplies of clothing in this country.

This Minister is not responsible for that.

I am only referring in a casual way to certain classes of suppression with regard to ordinary facts.

For which this Minister has no responsibility.

I do not know if you were here, Sir, when I indicated that we were talking here about the co-ordination of defence and that there can be no co-ordination of our defence here if there is not co-ordination of our people's minds, so that they understand the main aspects of important matters and can have confidence in the way in which the Government is treating public discussion and the public presentation of facts. I just show that, even outside what the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures is doing in the matter of official censorship under the Emergency Powers Act, there is a lack of confidence on the part of the Government in dealing with us here and that it extends even to their Press.

The Minister for Co-ordination is not responsible as such.

No, Sir, but I am talking about phenomena in the country that bear upon what we are trying to discuss here now. I am referring to it in a passing way and I do not want in any way to go into it in detail.

The Deputy has heard it contended that a passing reference would justify a long reply from another Deputy.

I think it would serve this country if somebody from the far benches could be allowed an hour in which to reply to some of the suggestions I am making.

He would not be allowed.

However, I do not press that on you, Sir, but I hope that at some of their public meetings throughout the country some of them will take an hour to do so. All I ask of them here is that they will make some suggestion to us, who are trying to help to strengthen all the defensive elements in this country, as to how we can overcome the undermining of public confidence and, therefore, the undermining of public courage, by the type of Press suppression of opinion and of the fact that has been described here by Deputy McGilligan and particularly that they will indicate whether they would not be prepared, having thought over what the public require of them in the country, to see that—we will call it a conference if that makes things easier for the Government—a conference of appeal be set up to which can be presented in the most systematic, orderly and formal way, complaints arising from the Press of the country that opinion and facts bearing on the interests of the country and, in their opinion, proper to be matters of publication and discussion, are being suppressed under the Emergency Powers Act that was given here on the understanding and with the stipulations from the Taoiseach that Deputy McGilligan read out this evening.

This is a matter affecting the defensive strength of the country and it is a matter upon which we should have the opinions of the various Parties in this House. Again I say that the members of the Party opposite are stronger than we are to get their views accepted. When our views are expressed here they are taken as intended to be mischievous and intended to be biassed and as bickerings, but if there are views to be expressed on the far side they would be listened to more easily and accepted more readily. All we are asking in this Parliament is whether there should not be a Parliamentary conference set up as an appeal conference to which, in the present difficult circumstances, appeals may be presented from the Press in a formal way in order that, by bringing different minds in an orderly way to bear upon the subject we are complaining about now, we will get an orderly and a reasonable way of dealing with these matters while safeguarding the interests of the country.

I do not intend at this stage of the debate to go into details with regard to the management and control of the Censorship Department. I think it would be a mistake, after Deputy McGilligan's statement, for any Deputy to intervene in this debate in a detailed way because it might possibly submerge or destroy the recollection of some of the particularly glaring points, particularly exciting facts, which he brought out with regard to the mismanagement of the particular Department under discussion. I would prefer to intervene in this debate in a more general way.

In the first place, I would like to state very clearly, for the information of the Minister and his Party and the public outside this House, that from the first shot of this war this Party as a whole held that this country could not be brought through this war without the use of censorship. We are as strongly in favour of censorship at the moment as we were at the beginning of the war.

Our confidence in the personnel managing the Censorship Department is completely shattered. Anybody impartially perusing the files which can be secured in any leading newspaper office with regard to the activities of that Department will be far more impressed with the degree of political cunning behind this censoring of particular extracts than with the success of the Department in preventing danger to this country or in preventing publication which would jeopardise its neutral position. Any person perusing these files with an open, impartial and detached mind, will be convinced that the weapon of censorship is being used far more freely for narrow, bigoted, political purposes than for the protection of the State or the safeguarding of the present position of the State. The extracts quoted will prove that. If that were challenged or were doubted, extracts proving that particular point could be quoted hour after hour for many months.

When we first from these benches subscribed to the establishment of the censorship machine in this country, our outstanding fear was that the public confidence would be destroyed in the censorship machine by the utilisation of that instrument for political purposes, or for the suppression of legitimate views, possibly different from those held by the Government. On that night when we gave those powers to the Government without a vote, we pressed the Taoiseach very fully on that particular point and finally a formula was suggested which allayed our fears and seemed to meet the point we had in mind. That formula was to the effect that the censorship would be used for the censoring of news but not for the censoring of views, that no censorship would be exercised to prevent the publication of a person's views if they were not definitely, clearly, and palpably harmful to the country. That was the undertaking given by the Government, backed not by the words of an Act, but backed by the honour of the Government for what it was worth. Nobody will deny the fact that the censorship ever since the first month has been far more freely and extensively used for the censorship of views than for the censorship of news.

The first shock the Opposition Parties got, having given the Government unlimited powers under the shadow of a very real crisis and in face of a very terrible danger, was when we learned the choice of the particular Minister to control censorship. I say that in no controversial spirit or in no derogatory manner. I could name colleagues of my own who are not sufficiently elastic to control with tact and sense a Department such as the censorship. It is a Department which needs tact, experience and a mentality capable of giving and taking. A more unsuitable selection in my opinion could not have been made from the whole of the Party opposite. The next shock, a continuing shock, was the operations and the activities of that particular Department. I do not want to state that the censorship is all bad; much useful work has been done by that Department, and if it were not for such a shield, propaganda of a provocative, belligerent and excitable kind, would little by little creep into the columns of our papers from abroad. That type of propaganda would provoke a reply and the original propaganda and subsequent replies would provoke tension, bad blood and generally add to the insecurity of the country. That work has been done and that work is valuable work, but the good of that was entirely undone by the huge wave of distrust and the manner in which public confidence has been entirely sapped and undermined with regard to the impartiality of that Department. That has been done by the narrow, vindictive and political way in which the censorship has been used at times.

Quotations have been given and I content myself merely by giving one example of a major kind. One of the Catholic bishops of this country addressed a pastoral letter to his flock. In the course of that letter, sentences were included which would appear to criticise the policy of the Government and the wisdom of the policy of neutrality. Certain phrases were used which brought charges against one of the belligerents. Taking that particular portion of the letter, it could be argued that the publication of the letter would be provocative abroad and that, at home, it was a challenge to the policy of neutrality. These portions of the pastoral letter were suppressed and the Minister's defence of the suppression was somewhat along the lines that I have given. Some time later, the Vice-President of this Party gave utterance to somewhat similar sentiments— charges against one of the belligerents, advocacy of engaging in war and a challenge to the policy of neutrality. Every single line of that speech appeared in the newspapers. Was it because it was not harmful to the policy of neutrality? Every single line of the letter was censored and every single phrase of the speech was allowed through.

Why that discrimination? Because it was clear that the publication of one would create embarrassment for the political Opposition in this House and provided it could create sufficient political embarrassment for the main Opposition Party, then it did not matter one bit whether it jeopardised the neutrality of this country or caused offence and provocation abroad. It is open to no other explanation. It cannot be argued that the Vice-President of this Party is more important to the life of this State than a member of the Hierarchy. Yet, the utterances in both cases were somewhat similar. They were suppressed in one case because they would give offence abroad, because they might jeopardise the neutral position of this State. But, when the same sentiments were expressed by a prominent member of this Front Bench, every line was released. The motives behind the censorship in one case and the release in the other were so apparent that it should not be necessary for anyone to call attention to them.

The weapon of censorship has been so freely used in order to stifle in the Press any criticism of the Government or the Government's policy, even on the details of home administration, that I believe the biggest danger within this country is the direct result of the censorship. People are discontented for very many reasons. People are discontented with the activities of the Government, and with the particular manner of their living under the Government. Those people look to Parliament and look to members of the political Opposition to express and ventilate their grievances. That is what Parliament is for. When those grievances are expressed and ventilated here, if they are politically awkward to the Government, politically embarrassing merely from the narrow party point of view, not one line of the criticism is allowed into the papers. What is the effect of that? It may be, in the short view, wise for the political Party in Government; it may bolster them up for the time being; it may present a picture of a Government Party that is satisfying everybody; it may suggest that nobody is discontented, nobody dissatisfied. But what, in the long run, is the result of that stifling of criticism, that bludgeoning down of any expression of discontent? When the people with the grievances, the mass of the public outside—having first got fed up with the Government, and then expecting, through Parliament, to have their grievances raised— see no evidence of their grievances being ventilated, they turn against Parliament as a whole. That is the outcrop of narrow, bigoted handling of the censorship weapon. It is well for the Minister opposite, and for the Government as a whole, to realise that, through the operation of the censorship, people feel that their grievances cannot be expressed, discussed or ventilated in Parliament. The result of all that is a general wave, not big but growing, against Parliament as an institution. Speaking as a firm believer in a democratic State and in democratic institutions, I can see far more danger in that than I can see from any outside forces, no matter how heavily armed. Yet, that particular danger is being fostered and brought nearer and nearer by the narrow, inelastic, politically bigoted manner in which the censorship is being handled.

Suggestions were made here that some form of appeals committee should be established, constituted from within all the Parties in this House—established for one purpose only, to ensure that the censorship machine would not be used for political purposes. Is there Government objection to that? If there is Government objection to that, it can only be because the Government desires to continue to use the censorship for political purposes. It cannot be stated at this stage that there is not sufficient confidence, in a matter of grave importance, between the different Parties. It cannot at this stage be suggested that such a committee would not be conscious of the importance of the work, and stimulated by a real desire to safeguard the State. By far a more important matter than the censorship, namely, the whole question of the defence of the country, has been given over to an all-Party committee for the very simple reason that it was necessary to get the confidence of all the people in the country behind our defence forces, such as they are. It was recognised that the only way in which that all-round confidence could be secured and built up was by having all matters relating to defence come under review by a committee representative of all Parties in this House. It is just as necessary that there should be public confidence in the censorship. The cleaner the censorship machine is, the more desirable it should be on the part of the Government to have an appeal committee representative of all Parties. If there is any reluctance to have such a body, it can only be because the Minister in charge of that machine will not tolerate having an all-Party committee there to hear an appeal when the grounds of that appeal are that such-and-such a thing was censored purely on political grounds. The Minister will not suggest that a committee of that kind would abuse its position and act foully to the State in a time of crisis.

I really intervened in order to urge that such a committee be established in the interests of censorship, and so that the censorship weapon will be left in the hands of any Government. whatever Government is there, as long as danger threatens the State, or whenever danger threatens the State. It is because I am a firm believer in the necessity for having a censorship impartially administered, it is because I am in favour of the censorship weapon in the hands of the Government, that I suggest that an appeals tribunal should be established so as to ensure that the censorship weapon is used only in the interests of the State and for the safety of the State, and not in the interests of one political Party to the detriment of other political Parties.

Nobody denies the necessity for the censorship. No speaker has in any way tried to argue that the censorship should not have been set up. What I want particularly to refer to is not the political aspect to which Deputy O'Higgins referred, or the general aspect that was so very ably argued by Deputy McGilligan, but what I might call the senseless operations of the censorship. I want to know why, in the name of goodness, it is considered necessary to style the farmers "Public Enemy No. 1" because that is what the censorship has been trying to do for the past couple of years. In the view of the Censor, it is considered likely to cause a panic situation for farmers peacefully to demand better prices for their products. It is a crime against the State and a thing which might prejudice the safety of the State for some friend of the farmers—even a clerical friend—to write a letter to the Press advocating fair treatment in the matter of prices for the farmers. Was there so nonsensical a use of censorship in the mind of any Deputy when this House was giving powers of censorship to the Government? The Minister, in reply to a remonstrance from a paper as to censorship of a paragraph advocating an increased price for wheat, said that it would prejudice the further growing of the crop. That was the effect of the Minister's reply. That is arrant nonsense. If there is an obligation on the Minister to see that statements prejudicial to the production of food are not published, he ought to have the same moral obligation to see that statements issued by the authority of the Government, which are more likely to prejudice the production of food, are not published? Is it more likely to cause a lessening of the acreage under wheat or any other cereal for some friend of the farmers to demand a fair price for the crop than for a Government Department to print a statement in the Press guaranteeing farmers a fixed price for any wheat which they may grow? That statement appeared in all the daily papers all through last spring. The farmers were told that they would get a fixed price of 40/- for the wheat which they would grow. What happened? When the farmers grew their wheat, they were paid not 40/- but from 30/- to 39/-.

The Minister is not responsible for wheat prices.

The Minister, in his reply to some people about the publication of a paragraph advocating a higher price for wheat, said that a demand for a higher price would prejudice the growing of wheat. I say that the Minister had an equal obligation to see that what was contained in the Government statement was true and to see that the guarantee was kept. Apparently, there was no intention on the part of the Government to see that they got any price.

In this debate, the Minister is responsible only for censorship.

But he should have censored statements for which he himself was partially responsible when he censored statements which no reasonable Deputy here would say could possibly prejudice the growing of food. If there is an obligation on the Minister in one respect, there is a greater obligation on him in the other respect. That statement was issued by the Government, and the Minister is as responsible for it as any other Minister.

He has no responsibility for it in his capacity as Minister in charge of censorship. It was dealt with at length on the Vote for Agriculture.

If the statement was not right, it should have been censored.

That matter is not relevant now.

If it was never intended——

A discussion on the price of wheat is not, directly or by subterfuge, relevant to this Vote.

I do not quote your words in retaliation but, by subterfuge, the Minister has argued that, because some friend of the farmers advocated a fair price for wheat, the growing of wheat would be prejudiced. If he can argue on that line, he can argue on any line. He ought to have seen that anything that was prejudicial in another way to the growing of grain should be censored and he ought to have censored the statement published in every issue of the papers for 12 months guaranteeing a fixed price to farmers.

I rose mainly because I resent the treatment of farmers as public enemies. It has been the tendency of different Ministers to refer in that way to farmers. When they use the censorship to vilify the farmers, it is up to any Deputy who knows what farmers have done for food production to express his resentment. I think that the whole operation of the censorship—and not in relation only to the agitation of farmers for better prices—has been contrary to what Deputies expected and I add my voice to the voices of Deputies Mulcahy, Hannigan and O'Higgins for the setting up of some committee to which appeal might be made when censorship operates unfairly, as it has operated unfairly.

I am satisfied that the censorship machine has been used, and is still being used, for narrow-minded, Party purposes. I have been furnished by daily newspaper owners and also by the owners and editors of weekly newspapers in the provincial areas with copies of articles submitted to, and suppressed by, the Censor. I am surprised that the Minister who is in charge of the censorship machine should take upon himself personal responsibility for suppressing such articles as I have seen. These articles dealt with demands for an increased price for wheat, for increased wages for turf cutting and for the lower paid wage-earners. These are matters which have nothing whatever to do with the external policy of this State and which are not likely, by any stretch of imagination, to endanger the policy of neutrality or seriously injure the prestige or power of the Government. I remember, during a very long sitting, listening to a positive assurance by the Taoiseach that the censorship machine would be used only for the purpose of suppressing articles or speeches of a nature that might endanger the safety of this State or involve us in trouble with other countries. Positive assurances given by the Taoiseach are on record and have been quoted on previous occasions, to justify that statement.

Some time ago I read one of a number of articles submitted for publication by the editor of the Kilkenny People. The article was addressed to the official Civil Service head of the Censorship Department and was in a very friendly tone but criticised the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures and his fitness for the position he holds as political head of the censorship machine. If the editor of the Kilkenny People, whom I know fairly well, criticised me, and if I happened to be in the position which the Minister occupies, I would have laughed at and enjoyed such criticism. I do not think an article of that kind should be prevented from appearing in a provincial journal.

Will the Deputy quote the article?

Is the Minister denying that the article was suppressed?

I deny that any article was suppressed merely for criticising me.

I am amazed to hear that. I think it would not take very long to produce it.

I can produce the paper and show articles criticising me to the Deputy if he wants to see it. There are millions of words passing through the Censorship Department but, if the Deputy wants to make allegations, for goodness sake let him take the trouble to bring the articles.

I am coming to the most recent action of the Minister. That is why I am taking part in this debate. I am referring to a recent article submitted by the same journal, concerning a meeting of carters and workers associated with Castlecomer colliery, which was held last Monday week, at which a colleague of mine, Deputy Pattison, was present. The meeting was purely of a non-party nature and, if I am correctly informed by Deputy Pattison and others, the majority of those present consisted of people who supported the Fianna Fáil Party at the last general election. The meeting was summoned for the purpose of dealing with a situation created by an Order made by the Minister for Supplies, which is likely to have the effect of depriving 106 carters, lorry owners, and owners of horse-drawn vehicles from earning a livelihood in the same way in which they have been earning it, and also their fathers and forefathers, since the Castlecomer colliery was first started. The speeches made were of a non-revolutionary nature. Suggestions were put forward. I want to know why the report of that non-party meeting, which was submitted to the Censor, has been suppressed. Surely if we are entitled to carry on constitutional agitation of any kind, even of a non-party nature, there is no justification for the suppression of a summarised version of a report of a meeting of that kind. I challenge the Minister to read the report that was submitted, and to indicate to the House what was in it which he would regard as injurious to this State, to any Government or to any Party. I have been asked to raise this matter by my colleague, Deputy Pattison, who furnished a report about it to a Party meeting last night. I think it is an outrageous thing that the censorship should be used to suppress a report of a meeting of that kind. It would be far better if the Government had taken their courage in their hands and told the superintendent of the Guards to suppress the meeting. I object to the suppression of that kind of a report. I want to say to the Minister that suppression of some of the articles submitted by the Kilkenny People is regarded locally by some of his own followers as a political act, directed against a political opponent who has the happy knack of being able to criticise very severely his political opponents. The editor of the Kilkenny People is not a friend of this Party. He has criticised me in his leading articles on many occasions. He is a good employer of labour and he pays his workers well, and it is for that reason only that I think, as a good citizen and as a good employer, he is entitled to get the same treatment as is meted out to other provincial newspapers.

No matter how fair a Censor tries to be he leaves himself open to criticism, but the danger which the prudent man would set his mind to avoid is the temptation to use censorship for the purpose of cheap political Party motives. I want to suggest that on more than one occasion the present Minister has stooped to that expedient. As he stated, millions of words pass through the Department, and when a country like ours has been stupefied by censorship for two years it becomes extremely difficult to collect the instances that arise from time to time, so that abuse of the censorship could be recapitulated in this House. There was one occasion when I took the liberty of giving in this House an extract, in which I demonstrated beyond all doubt or question the folly with which the Minister was using the censorship powers, and the impropriety with which he had used these powers on many occasions. Since then repeated instances of that kind of thing have occurred. On the occasion of the last censorship debate we asked that there should be the same share of responsibility for the rights of representatives of people who are not in the Fianna Fáil Party, so that substantial justice might be done to all, so that the main purpose agreed on by the principal Parties would be served, so that, at the same time, legitimate political discussion would proceed, and that everybody, whether of the Government Party or not, would get fair access to the people's mind. The present situation is that if the Taoiseach or the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures delivers a public address, they get all the publicity they want, but if a member of the Opposition engages in perfectly legitimate political agitation, his speech is liable either to be suppressed or so turned, when it passes the Censor, that it is made to appear in the newspapers as something quite different from what the speaker actually intended. I think that is very injurious to the morale of our people and a great injury to the country as a whole.

Let me give one case that occurs to me of a peculiarly blatant misuse of censorship powers. Some time last autumn the Fine Gael Party, of which I was then the Deputy Chairman, had a meeting and discussed the prices which had been fixed for cereals in this country. They came to the conclusion, in council, that those prices would not secure the output of cereals necessary to protect our people from serious shortage in the ensuing cereal year. Consequent on that decision, they sought an interview with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture, and the interview was arranged. As is customary, a short memorandum was prepared, in order to spare the Taoiseach's time. When we waited on the Taoiseach as representing the principal Opposition Party in this House, we communicated the contents of the memorandum to him. The members who waited on him in his room added verbally whatever they desired to say, and the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture undertook to communicate our observations to the Government and take a decision at the earliest possible moment. We laid special emphasis on the fact that time was of the essence of the matter, since every day that passed increased the difficulty of getting a sufficient acreage sown, and that, therefore, it was vital, if the price was to be increased, that there should be no undue delay in making the decision so to increase it.

Acting in accordance with the normal practice of any political organisation in the world, we communicated to the Press of this country the text of the memorandum which we had prepared and read to the Taoiseach. That communication was suppressed by the Censor. Now, there was no word in the memorandum suggesting that, if our view was not met, we would agitate against the sowing of cereals. There was no sentence in the memorandum which could be twisted by any living creature into a justification for any farmer who refused to comply with the terms of the Compulsory Tillage Order. There was not a suggestion that there would be approval—tacit or otherwise —in any part of the Opposition, for any person who attempted to stage a strike for the purpose of forcing the Government's hand. There was merely a statement that, in our considered judgment — quite apart from the equities of the case — expediency demanded that this alteration should be made in the prices to be paid for cereals, and made forthwith. Simply because the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures got it into his head that this would be politically embarrassing to the Government, the thing is suppressed. He could not have for a moment imagined that the whole of this incident could have been kept out of the newspapers indefinitely, as he must have realised, with his political experience, that, if we had determined at that time to make a political demarche, we would have taken the opportunity to convey it to the people by public speech or by motion in Dáil Eireann. But he did not want it to appear that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture were coerced by the Opposition into giving higher prices for wheat than was originally intended. He wanted that the announcement by the Government that they were prepared to increase the price should be published on the same day as the representations to this end by the Opposition. While that matter was not of vital significance to this State, to my mind it is perfectly clear evidence that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, instead of addressing his mind to the question whether anything should be published that would jeopardise the safety of the State, was anxious to ensure that nothing would be published which would jeopardise the political position of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Taoiseach. That is a contemptible abuse of the power he has got.

In public life, sometimes one has to discharge disagreeable duties. I propose to discharge such a one now. No man likes to talk about his own affairs. I am now a solitary individual who might be described as in a minority of one. The rights of such a minority, the rights of the humblest individual in this State, are rights which should be most solicitously protected by the Oireachtas. If a precedent can be established for interference with the rights of the humble individual, without let or hindrance, that precedent, once established, will subsequently be used to encroach on the privileges of every citizen of the State, great and small. I allege the following facts, which I believe constitute a gross abuse of the powers of the House and of the Minister. At the recent Fine Gael Árd Fheis I delivered a speech with regard to international affairs. One delegate at the Árd Fheis got up and expressed his entire agreement, while two delegates dissented from my view. On two occasions, at least, the Press inserted in the text of my speech a note that applause was given to certain statements I made. I now allege that the Minister permitted the publication of my speech but directed the Press to remove the statement that applause had punctuated my observations, that he forbade the Press to publish the observations of the delegate who agreed with me in his speech, and directed them to publish the speeches of the two delegates who disagreed.

Let me emphasise most strongly again that the personal affairs of any individual in the country—be he Deputy or citizen—are of no significance whatsoever of themselves. The Legislature should bear in mind that, when a person desiring to exercise tyrannical powers is resolved to do so, he will try it at first on someone whom he conceives to be discharging an unpopular duty, in the hope that the unpopularity of the line being pursued by that individual will strip him of popular sympathy and that his political antagonists, glad to see him brought down, will consent in his case to an infringement of his fundamental liberty. That infringement, having been tacitly approved, will be quoted as a precedent thereafter for similar treatment in larger and larger bodies, until eventually the petty tyrant claims the right to deny freedom to every citizen and quotes, as his justification, the tacit consent of all when he so denied it to someone who stood virtually alone.

There is nothing the Minister can do to me that will cost me a night's sleep. I and my people are long enough in this country to face him and beat him wherever we meet. I am thinking of the individual who has not got that position. I am thinking of the rights of the individual, which may be assailed subsequently by the man who is trying to assail mine, and I am warning this House that unless it shows determination to fight in the defence of an individual's rights, whether they agree or disagree with them now, the time will come, and come quickly, when they will have no chance of fighting. It is not the individual that should be defended, it is the principle at stake, and unless men are prepared to fight on matters of principle, whether they sympathise with the person assailed or not, the principle will go down; and, having perished, it will not be there to protect anyone when protection is required.

I put forward these two specific instances to demonstrate the tendency, which has become manifest in the Minister's administration of these powers, to use them for political ends. Everybody knows that judging the Fine Gael Party by his own standards, he thought that because I deemed it my duty to tread a different path from that of my colleagues, by giving publicity to that fact, he could wreck the Fine Gael Party. He could not understand how honourable men react in a time of difference arising from principle; he naturally expected a dog-fight. That is what would happen in the Fianna Fáil Party, but in that expectation he was, of course, disappointed. What is mean and contemptible is that because he expected that, because he expected a dirty little political advantage, he prostituted powers which he had most solemnly undertaken to administer as a trustee. That is to debauch public life.

Everyone enters public life with the knowledge that it is a stormy and tempestuous business; everybody enters it knowing that it is an arena in which hard knocks are given and taken; but there are certain unwritten codes which operate, and one of them, I think, is that if a man in public life gives his word to his political opponent, it is generally deemed to be more valuable than his bond. It is felt that if he gives a written undertaking, he is entitled to stand on the letter of the bond, and, by skill or astuteness, escape from his liability, if escape be possible in accordance with the letter of the script; but when he gives his word, it is expected that in any question of doubt he will interpret the agreement against himself and scorn to wriggle out of the liabilities he undertook.

These are not the standards shown by the conduct of the Minister in the administration of these powers. Whenever there has been any doubt in his mind as to whether he was justly dealing with a political opponent, the dagger has come stealing down his sleeve to effect that individual's political assassination, were he in a position to do so. Happily, to date, he has found that the weapon has broken in his hand, but I am reminding Dáil Eireann that if they do not make it perfectly clear that attempts of that character will not be tolerated within the powers they conferred upon this Minister, great damage will be done not only to our country but to our people. A standard of morality in public life will be accepted which might be acceptable in the banana republics of South America, but which would disgrace the name of this country, if universally admitted as being suitable to the Irish people.

Before passing from that topic, I beg to assure the House that I have no personal feeling about that incident at all. It is not a matter which causes me any undue concern. So far as the publication of my observations on that occasion is concerned, I have nothing but a feeling of gratitude to the Minister that he let them go through and that he gave me the opportunity of getting out to the people that which I wished them to know; but, on the principle of the thing, I warn the House that it is a clear evidence of the Minister's use of his powers for political ends, and, as such, should be condemned in no uncertain language, if we are to preserve a decent standard of conduct in the life of this country.

Censorship is designed for the protection of the State. Recently a German agent arrived in this country, having been dropped by parachute from an aeroplane, to carry on espionage for the German Government in our country. He was arrested and locked up. His name is Hans Marschner, and, having been locked up for some time, he got out of Mountjoy Jail where he had been interned. This astonishing situation developed immediately. If there was a chance of getting that man before he went a considerable distance, it was by making his appearance and description universally known, and by making it manifest to our people that the patriotic Irishman would co-operate with the Government in bringing that individual back under control. What actually happened? For five days after he escaped, no syllable of his escape was allowed to be published in any newspaper in this country. Deputies may say: "Oh, well, there was some dark reason for that which cannot even be explained now. It was not desirable that his description should be published and why it was not desirable is a State secret"; but Deputies will remember that after the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures had let Marschner escape, the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Justice, plastered the whole country with his photograph and declared that he would pay £500 if he were apprehended and brought to book.

Astonished by this apparent inconsistency, I asked the Minister for Justice if he had caught this man yet and the Minister, on the occasion of my question, replied: "No, we have not been able to trace him." I said: "Do you know that he got five days start on you because the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures would not allow the fact of his escape or his description to be published?" The Minister said: "I never heard of it," and I then asked: "Are you telling me that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures interfered in the apprehension of this man without consultation with the Minister for Justice?" and the Minister for Justice said: "I never heard that he in any way deterred anybody from publishing this man's description, as I propose to publish it now." As a result of that glorious piece of co-ordination of defence affairs, we had this agent gallivanting around the country.

Now, that is not all, because this warrior was gallivanting around the country and apparently getting help from certain misguided persons, and ultimately certain misguided persons had to be brought to book and certain penal measures taken against them, because they were left in doubt for some time after the man's escape as to whether the Government really wanted to get him at all or not. Who kept Hans Marschner for the eight weeks he was at large? He was found in somebody's house ultimately. I know a house where he was within four days of his escape—a nursing home in this city. I suggest that the proprietress of that nursing home rang up the police and asked them to come around and collect him, and that the police reply was that they would not come. She was not in a position to say that she knew that this suspect person who had come into her nursing home was the sought after Hans Marschner, because on that date his photograph had not been circulated, although the fact of his escape had been published. He had been at large for some time before, and apparently, up to that time, he had been unaccompanied by accomplices and was wandering about. Since nobody had his photograph or description, he was not likely to be recognised casually by a passer-by in the street, and eventually he sought shelter in the nursing home. The public-spirited proprietress of that home got in touch with the police but, as I have said, nothing happened, and the man moved on elsewhere and remained at large for two months until, eventually, he was caught in the circumstances that we know of. Now, what kind of co-ordination have we if the Minister in charge of censorship would prohibit the publication of photographs which his own colleague in the Government says that it is in the public interest to publish in the most widespread way? I see no evidence of malice. I see no evidence of roguery. I merely see evidence of gross incompetence. The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures—and he is sitting cheek by jowl with his colleague in the Government—does not seem to know what he is doing and interferes in the administration of his colleague's own Department.

Is it any wonder that Nazi agents would be skipping around this country? Would anyone tell me that it is going to jeopardise the interests and rights of this country if a person engaged in treasonable activities is brought to book and sentenced for his crime? I should imagine that it would be a salutary thing to proclaim to our people at home and to all foreigners abroad that any citizen of this State who is seduced into treason by an outside or an inside influence will be dealt with effectively, ruthlessly and promptly, but the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures does not seem to think that it is wise to publish these facts at all. If you steal a bicycle below on the Quays, your conviction is given the widest publicity. Your name and address are published and you are held up to public odium, but, by Heaven, if you jeopardise the rights and liberties of this country, you are bustled into jail in secrecy and nobody is ever to hear a word about what you did. High treason has become a discreet offence in this country to-day, but petty larceny is a crime, the punishment for which is exposure to public opinion as well as purging your offence in prison, whereas in the case of treason not a word is uttered.

I say that traitors should be exposed. I say that any person who, for money, would sell this country should be exposed, and I think that the persons who are responsible for placing traitors in the position in which they can sell this country should be exposed. I say that a member of the Marine Service in this country was trying to sell information to the German Government for money, and, all credit to the authorities responsible for the administration of that service, was quickly brought to book, put on his trial, convicted, and sentenced to penal servitude, and no syllable of that incident has ever been published in the Press of this country. What shame is it that that man was so rapidly apprehended and so effectively dealt with? Was that suppression done lest someone should inquire as to how that gentleman got into the public service? Was someone embarrassed lest a question should be asked in this House as to how was it that a man who was known to have been in Russia, who was known to have fought on both sides in the civil war in Spain, who was known to be a person utterly incapable of discharging any responsible task, who was known to be a man of habits which made it unthinkable that confidence would be reposed in him in any matter of consequence, was admitted to a responsible position in the coast-watching service of this country and permitted, over a protracted period, to wear the honourable uniform of a public servant of the State? Was that the reason for the suppression? Is that the purpose for which the powers of censorship were given to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures? I do not think so.

Now, everybody in this House knows well how the Minister's mind moves in these matters. Mind you, charity is a desirable virtue, I suppose, to employ in public life as well as everywhere else. I think it is conceivable that this Minister believes himself to be right, but if he does, then the danger is all the greater. Had he a sense of guilt, there might be some hope of remorse reforming him, but if he has acquired from his leader, the Taoiseach, that exquisite faculty for persuading himself that wrong is right, then our danger is very considerable. I think he has persuaded himself that he is an impartial man, that he holds the scales evenly, but that there are just some individuals whom everybody hates and that therefore, it is always legitimate to have a crack at them. From that position, he advances to the stage of saying that there is a large number of persons in the world to whom our attitude is one of complete indifference, but that there are other persons about whom we know that, though they may be behaving themselves temporarily, they misbehaved themselves so long that, any occasion that arises for stirring up the fine old embers of resentment should be given full scope, and so you eventually arrive at the position in which the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures suppresses everything which he believes is liable to create any incident in connection with the Axis Powers, and passes for publication a nice selection of those things which he believes will have a limited but, in his judgment, salutary effect on our two potential enemies, moryah, Great Britain and the United States of America.

Now, that is a dangerous game, and it is all the more dangerous if the Minister himself does not know that he is playing it. If he does not realise that, there comes a time when the best of goodwill amongst our old friends will give up in the face of continuous pin-pricking; we may wake up some day to discover that a nation, whom we have always looked upon as an unfailing friend and a bulwark of strength, has come to the conclusion that we are its friend no longer and that our destiny, or our future in the world, is no longer a matter of vital concern to them. We will then find that the solicitude which we have demonstrated for the feelings of the Axis bully of Europe will have purchased us nothing more than the assurance that the Gauleiter chosen for this country will be somebody with a protracted experience of Ireland, that the planters will not come in as great numbers as were originally anticipated, and will be more carefully chosen than those who have been sent to CzechoSlovakia, Rumania, Hungary, Holland and other countries in Europe.

I want to warn this House that the censorship is being used at the present time, whether by design or by some ineptitude, to permit a misunderstanding arising between us and the United States of America, and is being most sedulously used to prevent any resentment or misunderstanding arising in this country against Germany. I could quite understand the Minister's position if he said, and were in a position to prove: "I am resolved to persuade our people to stand any abuse from anybody without offence or resentment against anybody because we cannot afford to show resentment", but I cannot understand a censorship which publishes manifestos resenting bitterly, as an act of aggression against this State, the arrival of American troops in Northern Ireland, but which prohibits absolutely the expression of any resentment, as an act of aggression against Ireland, at the arrival of German high explosives which drop in the form of bombs for the slaughter of our people in Northern Ireland. I cannot see that the censorship is preserving impartiality when it cheerfully permits the publication of acrimonious remonstrances directed against the Allies, representing that they are conducting a blockade of this country, and permits nothing but a bald official statement when the Germans have sunk another Irish ship, when that sinking has taken place, as it did in connection with The City of Bremen within one month after an agreement was negotiated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this country with the Germans to the effect that if our ships would not sail under convoy they agreed and undertook not to follow them in pursuit.

Now, it may seem to Deputies in this House that it is impolitic to touch upon those affaírs, that it is better to leave them alone and not stir up dangerous waters, but, so long as I am in this House, the powers of the present Government will not be used to force our people into the hands of Germany and to estrange us from the United States of America without that tendency being brought clearly before the eyes of the elected representatives of the Irish people who are the trustees of the destinies of our country. I do not condemn any man. I do not know the Minister's mind. I do not know whether he does that consciously or unconsciously. All I know is the objective fact of the things that are done. I do not profess to speak of the subjective theory of the reasons which actuate his action. But everybody in this House knows that the slant I have described as being given to news relating to international affairs is true.

There are various explanations of it, but I am not in a position to evaluate them all. All that I state is a fact, and all that my duty demands is that I warn Deputies of all Parties, but more especially of the Government Party, that that is a dangerous road to tread, and that if they stand by and allow a situation to develop it will create the impression in the United States of America that, while outspoken criticism of America is permitted in this country, not a syllable referring to the Axis may appear. Because of that the old friendship will be strained beyond breaking point, and when it is, it is we who will be the sufferers. I know that every Deputy in the House is aware that as to 98 per cent. of our people in Ireland their hearts and hopes are with the United States of America, that next to our own country we feel most deeply for the welfare, prosperity and happiness of the United States of America. If the presentation of news in this country creates any other impression abroad it is a false impression. But what a lot of people do not realise is that while we who are living in the country can evaluate the news that is published here, on the background of Irish life with which we are familiar, the individual living in Washington, New York, San Francisco, Cleveland or Detroit has nothing to guide him as to the public opinion of this country but the résumés that are provided for him by American correspondents of the news that appears in the current Irish newspapers. If we allow supinely the censorship subtly to distort the atmosphere and tone of the newspaper impressions in this country, content in our own minds that we realise of how little significance that subtle contortion is, we are treading dangerous paths because those who do not know Ireland as well as we know it may get an entirely false impression of where our people stand. Remember this little country has little or nothing to depend on for the preservation of its independence except the goodwill of the American people. Stripped of that we are as defenceless as it is possible for a State to be. Do not let us delude ourselves on that score. Stripped of the figurative Irish-American alliance, this country is the plaything of any great Power that chooses to assail us. Let us not consciously throw away that mighty asset, for if we do we may suffer disaster that generations will be unable to repair.

Now, I have, I think, placed facts before this House which show that the Minister in charge of this Department is not fit for the Department he administers and should not continue to administer it. He was never fit for it and he never will be. I have not much hope that the Cabinet of which he is a member, although they have trotted and changed him around a lot from one place to another, will shift him from the job he at present holds. The Cabinet that could send him to America to do and say in America the things he did and said are not likely to realise the necessity for shifting him into some harmless berth at this stage. The Minister who could go to America and say in America the things he said and who could have been seen abroad with the people that he was seen abroad with, who could have appeared on platforms in America under the patronage of the kind of person whose patronage he accepted, is a public menace. Just imagine this Minister appearing in America under the auspices of the Irish Association for the Recognition of Irish Neutrality. Was not that a lovely high-sounding Gaelic name under the auspices of which to apear on a public platform in the United States of America. He came home. That institution continued to flourish partly as a result of the activities of its protégé and partly for reasons into which I do not propose to go in detail, but which Deputies will be well able to guess when they hear that the morning after Pearl Harbour the Institute for the Recognition of Irish Neutrality folded up and disappeared. Why? Had their activities become high treason from the moment that America was involved in war with Germany? There was nothing wrong, if they were merely an organisation for the recognition of Irish neutrality, in carrying on their work after America had gone to war with Germany; there was nothing improper, nothing treasonable according to the law of the United States of America. But it would have been wrong, it would have been treason, if that organisation was deriving part of its funds from sources too closely connected with the isolationist groups that were being financed by the German Embassy in Washington. Whatever the facts are, the morning after Pearl Harbour the institute which was the patron of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures in the United States folded up and vanished. Its name is known no more; but the record is imperishable that its most distinguished protégé was the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures who went out from this country as our Envoy and who, while he was the protégé of that organisation, was also the guest of the American people. Does that display a prudence, a discretion, and a farsightedness which would qualify this man to be the custodian of the fundamental liberties of the Irish people at any time? I do not think it does. If we had any other Government but the Government we have got, it would not think so either.

It is very difficult to know what note to start on after the able address we have just heard. Personally I think a lot of it was good stuff, but I also think that a lot of it was very indiscreet and should hardly have been spoken here. That is only my opinion. Deputy Dillon knows his own affairs better than I know them. Anyway, I pay him this compliment, that although he holds that opinion strongly, an opinion that I do not agree with, he has the pluck to voice it on any occasion that presents itself. I have great respect for the man who is not afraid to voice his opinion. However, the opinions of a man, however great and however worthy, should be considered very carefully when you have to consider the interests of the country. It is very difficult for us to steer the ship of neutrality if we allow personal friendships, old-time national friendships, to weigh with us, and, if you like, continue an alliance. You cannot have an alliance with one side if you claim to be neutral on the other side. I daresay I had closer association with the side that Deputy Dillon condemns than any other Deputy. In a Fascist country I was received officially by the head of the State, and I was invited by the head of the State of another Fascist country. But I do not think I would be loyal to my own country, even if I did believe in Fascism—which I do not say I do—if I were as a public representative to give voice to opinions that would lead non-Fascist countries to believe that public representatives and members of the Legislature in this country have pronounced Fascist sympathies.

However we may fight with the Government in regard to internal affairs, they have been elected above everything else in times like these to steer the national ship of Ireland through the troubled waters in the greatest and most calamitous war the world has ever seen. However, we may fight with the Government, however we may magnify their mistakes, there is one thing we should settle down to, and that is to recognise that the Government are the only authority to deal with international affairs, and that every member of this House should be loyal to the Government in international affairs. That is my view, In matters of censorship, I doubt if there is anybody in this House who would object to their interference in our most fundamental and private rights, because however fundamental these rights may be and however private they may be to the individual, when the State requires it the State's rights must supersede the rights of any individual. If it is necessary for the protection of the State that our individual rights should be curtailed, then they must be curtailed, and the Government would be failing in their duty if they did not curtail them.

Very often the rights of the individual and the rights of the State are the same.

Of course they are, because if the State does not help the individual, then it is not exercising its rights properly.

That is the whole point.

I think I have said enough on that line and that it would be just as well to leave it, except that any Deputy who speaks should make it quite clear that the policy of our Government is neutrality, and that the policy the country wants is neutrality. As I said in the beginning, I admire men like Deputy Dillon who hold another view; I admire their courage in expressing it. But that does not bring me any nearer to sharing it, and I do not think it should be expressed so often as to give foreign observers the notion that we are not neutral. I do not think there would be much to discuss on this Vote, if the Government in exercising the censorship would consider and protect our neutral position. Is there anything else that the censorship could be used for? I cannot see it.

Deputy Davin mentioned a meeting that was held down the country. It was only a local meeting, dealing with a very local matter, and yet the report of it was suppressed. Deputy Cogan was interested last December in a monthly publication, The Farmers' Paper, and the harmless but useful business that we transacted here on the 11th December, namely, discussing the revocation of an Order made by the Minister for Agriculture dealing with the fixed price of wheat, was prepared for publication in this paper, but the publication would not be permitted. Speeches delivered in this House on wheat growing and the price of wheat were not allowed to be published. To put it in another way, in its true perspective, it was the case made in order to secure an adequate supply of wheat, and it was based upon giving fair prices. There were certain arguments used on that occasion. I do not wish to go into them now and I do not wish even to read the report that was suppressed, but these speeches appeared in the official records of this House.

The report prepared for that paper did not mention neutrality. It was not treading upon anybody's corns. It was merely a case honestly put up by practical men, and yet it was kept from the public. I figured largely in that report, and so did Deputy Cogan. I consider the best tribute that could be paid to the case that we made for wheat growing and how to grow enough wheat was when the Government decided to suppress the publication, through the agency of the Censor. It shows that we won the argument in this House and that they had no answer for the case we made. They were using the censorship for their own purposes, but it has all come back upon them now. From day to day we do not know when we will be short of bread. We are waiting until the next harvest comes.

I should like to know why that particular report was suppressed. Why was it found necessary to suppress the case made to have a good cereal year this year, to have a sufficient supply of home-grown wheat for our people? We made a definite case and the Government are coming to realise the importance of it now. Even the Minister for Supplies, a couple of days ago, told us that the problem we have to face in the matter of supplies for live stock is to make up the deficiency in the feeding stuffs that we hitherto imported, but that we no longer import. We have to fill up that gap, he said. That is the first time that a member of the Government has made that statement. Deputy Cogan and I have been saying that for the last three years and pointing out the necessity for it. We stated it in the document that was suppressed, the document that was withheld from the public by the Censor. I cannot understand why it was withheld.

I read an article some time ago in a Dublin publication, a paper to which I have been subscribing for years. It was one of the first of its kind to be published in this country. I have been a reader of this paper, The Leader, for 40 years. It must be 40 years since I started calling every Sunday morning at Camden Passage in Islington, London, to buy The Leader and The United Irishman. The Leader is now under the control of the daughter of the founder. For a number of weeks, up to 25th April, this lady had been calling the farmers of this country anything but gentlemen. Everything that came into her extensive vocabulary was hurled at them. She said they were doing anything but their duty in the present emergency and then she made a startling discovery.

Under the heading "Current Affairs" in The Leader of 25th April, this appeared: “We have all been definitely informed at last that considerable quantities of wheat have been fed to pigs since the last harvest, while little oats or barley has been put on the market. Meantime shipping space has been occupied with wheat which we should not have had to import while industrial goods which are urgently necessary to maintain employment have been left on the far side of the ocean. We cannot believe that in all the circumstances our Ministers will have the nerve to expect the public to be thankful to them for their handling of the food situation. Obviously we are trying to carry too much live stock”—she must have been injected with the bug for killing the calves—“in view of the quantity of cereals needed for human consumption. The Government, which knows how admirable the Danish authorities handled during the last war a situation much more difficult than we are likely to experience, ought to have taken firm steps long ago to reduce the numbers of both cattle and pigs which we are feeding.”

I wonder has she the same opinion in relation to pigs now? According to the Minister for Supplies we have very little bacon and we are not producing enough even for ourselves. The article goes on: "It is an admitted fact that the Danes, by diverting to human consumption practically the whole of the home-grown grain which had been used for pig feeding and a large part of the grain that had been used for cattle feeding, succeeded in maintaining themselves in better health than in peace time, the deathrate falling appreciably." That was allowed to be published by the Censor. After reading that and similar articles for a number of weeks, I thought I would answer them; I thought I would enlighten the readers of that paper from a practical farming point of view. I wrote an article which this paper set up in type but they were not allowed to publish it immediately. They were told that in about a fortnight some of the article could be published.

I will not burden the House by reading the whole of the article, but it was all published in The Leader on 16th May, with the exception of one paragraph. I stated this to the editor:

"You seem to have made a won-ful discovery that wheat was fed to pigs."

Was this article censored?

This very paragraph I am reading was censored.

"Even if it were, it was only exchanging wheat for bacon and pork and producing an invaluable quantity of farmyard manure."

I might say, without reading it, that I opened the article by saying that our food supplies in present circumstances depend not quite so much on the area tilled as on the area manured. Now, the key to our existence during the emergency depends upon the amount of manure that we can produce to fertilise our lands. I challenge contradiction on that and the man is a genius in agriculture if he can prove that we, from our own resources, can till more than 25 per cent. of our arable land.

We are not discussing agriculture now.

No; I am just mentioning that in passing so as to show the force of the paragraph that was censored. I know we are not discussing agriculture. We are nearly tired talking to the people over there about agriculture. I would like to take them out to a field and see if they know the names of the crops that we are growing and that we should grow. I do not think they do. I do not believe that they know that land must be manured to grow crops. However, we will have a day for that next week, if we are alive, and it will be a day. I made the point in the preamble to this article that we require to produce manure. We have no fertilisers and the greater our live-stock population the more manure we will have. If we kill off the livestock population, as was suggested in this periodical, we must of necessity contract our tillage. Our yields from crops will be less and we will be travelling faster to the famine period. In the paragraph that was censored, I said:—

"You seem to have made a wonderful discovery that wheat was fed to pigs. Even if it were, it was only exchanging wheat for bacon and pork and producing an invaluable quantity of farmyard manure. I suppose you are aware that if 5 per cent. of our arable land was put under wheat as an average crop we would have enough wheat to give us bread for a year. Now, take a good farmer who puts 10 per cent. of his land under wheat and sells half of this wheat for bread for the nation. Would he not have done his duty to the nation and would he not be within his right in saying: ‘I will convert the other 5 per cent. of wheat into bacon, pork, eggs, poultry, milk and butter for the nation?' Instead the nation prosecutes him...."

—as it did six or seven farmers around Youghal. If I were to stand alone in this country—I do not know a single one of those farmers—I would stand four square behind those farmers. The Government are wrong and if this emergency last many years they will then realise, when it is too late, that they were wrong.

The Deputy is digressing again.

I am dealing now with what was censored. This paragraph was censored and I am reinforcing my case that it should not be censored. Not only is the advice that I have given here good advice, but it is absolutely essential that that advice should be carried out if we are to continue in production. If we grow nothing except what we will eat ourselves, how are we going to fatten pigs, how are we going to produce milk, how are we going to stall-feed? If we do not do these things we will have no farmyard manure. If we have no farmyard manure we will have nothing to put into the land and it will be only a matter of two or three years until the land will not be able to grow enough for the nation. What price our neutrality then? I shall resume the paragraph:—

"Instead, the nation prosecutes him and holds him up to public odium, while farmers who grow no wheat at all..."

—here is the tit bit—

"farmers who grow no wheat at all are not prosecuted and pass as patriots."

The farmer who grows wheat and who feeds it to animals will be put in jail, but the farmer who grows no wheat at all is a decent fellow. Johnson was right when he said patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel. It is time that the censorship was lifted and that we exposed the scoundrel. The paragraph continues:—

"You seem to endorse this attitude on behalf of the Government. I would like to hear you justifying it."

After I had asked questions here, the Minister for Agriculture, answering for the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, promised the House that publication would come but that that paragraph would be left out. The article was ultimately published and that paragraph was left out. Why was it left out? I hold that the advice contained in that paragraph is absolutely essential for the nation if we are to have any hope of continuing our neutrality because we cannot remain neutral, we will not count in the world, if we cannot feed ourselves. I may as well anticipate what I believe the Minister will say. I was told that this would be an inducement to people to feed wheat to pigs and to cows. Will there not be an obvious inducement to them not to grow wheat for feeding to pigs and cows next year? I put the case to the Minister for Agriculture on that occasion that farmers were being prosecuted for feeding wheat to cows when the Minister for Local Government was prosecuting milk producers in my constituency, Sallynoggin, County Dublin, because their milk was not up to standard. The case made, the natural case, the true case, was that they had no concentrated foods with which to feed them. The Minister for Agriculture had the hardihood to say in this House that the balanced ration, about which we hear so much from the Department of Agriculture, has no bearing on the quality or standard of milk that a cow will produce.

Would the Deputy say what bearing it has on censorship?

I was expecting that. I was reading a paragraph in an article that was censored.

And that paragraph was censored?

This was not censored. I did not burden the House with the whole of it. I gave only the paragraph that was censored and I express the firm hope that the Minister will not censor it any longer. While I make these criticisms, I will not say the Minister is not fit for his job. I am not in a position to know whether he is or not, but I appreciate that it is a difficult job. It is a very easy thing to distinguish between that wall and this wall, but there is a fine thin line in the middle and it is there that I am sure the Censor and his staff have the difficulty.

As I look on the administration of the Censorship Department—I may add with no knowledge whatever of censorship except that of an ordinary man viewing it from a distance—I do not think it wise for censorship to be exercised over matters that have not some bearing on our foreign relations. If a member here has a row with the Minister no foreign nation is going to bother about that, but if a member should get up and say that a large section in this country wants to take a step that would be inconsistent with neutrality, I think it would be the duty of the Minister, charged by the Government with implementing our neutrality, to see that a statement or an attitude like that did not get wings. But in facing our own internal troubles here—and we have many of them; they will be growing every day as there is a shortage of almost every commodity—I think the Minister and the Government generally will make their task more difficult if they continue censoring as they have been censoring. I cannot think of any case just now, nor had I in my mind at any time any instance of censorship which convinced me that it was done simply for political advancement. There may have been such cases but no instance of that kind ever came to my knowledge.

In facing the question of supplies— and that is our big national problem just now—I am certain that the worst service that could be rendered to the country would be to prevent the publication of any criticism, no matter how wild or foolish, of Ministerial action. Let it go to the public and if there is anything in that criticism which might be of advantage, it will be all to the good, but do not suppress it because, if you start the suppression racket, you do not know where it will stop. I would strongly advise the Minister to use the powers of censorship very sparingly, certainly more sparingly than has been done in connection with the discussion on wheat prices. I know that from November to May no paper was allowed to publish a single word in regard to the demand for a proper price for cereals, particularly for wheat. That sort of attitude will not help.

This is not a question of politics; it is a question of survival that is facing the country and the Minister in dealing with this matter will have to consider himself not as a Minister for a Party, or even for a Government, but a Minister for the whole country. Where you get people even inclined to offer opinions, do not suppress publication of them. Let them go to the public and the Minister will get no better help than will be derived from the criticism of the public whereas if he suppresses these opinions, such help would not be forthcoming. Let the Minister make up his mind that none of us knows everything, that we can all learn and in the job in which he finds himself, if anybody tenders him advice, he should not turn it down or censor it.

One pleasing aspect of this debate, which has been pretty protracted, is that apart from the Deputy who very truthfully described himself as "our minority of one", all the Deputies who spoke appeared to be satisfied with the operation of the censorship in regard to our international relations and neutrality. I think that that, to begin with, is a very healthy state of affairs. We can afford to discuss here various allegations that may be made against the Government as to the handling of internal affairs, and I agree that that is not going to do very much harm. It is a very healthy situation that a Minister such as myself, whose activities touch particularly on our external relations, has the support of the House in regard to that particular phase of his activities.

Apart from the statements made by our "minority of one," the debate generally ranged over three or four particular items of the administration of censorship. There was firstly the question of wheat, then that of bread queues—in fact, practically all the points raised had relation to wheat. I propose to deal with those points. I think that everybody must admit that in our present situation food is almost as important as arms.

Mr. Morrissey

Much more so.

It is very important anyway. When the Government decides, and the House concurs with the Government, that a particular policy should be adopted regarding the food campaign, I think that policy should stand until it is amended in a constitutional way. We are not living in a state of idyllic peace. We cannot postpone the making of decisions to deal with the national crisis for two or three years. From day to day, from year to year, from one sowing season to another, we must make up our minds what is going to be the policy in regard to the food situation, and having made up our minds and decided upon a policy, then it is up to the Executive of this House, the Government, to push that policy through.

And to stifle all comment.

If there should be disagreement with the way in which the Government, as the Executive of this House, carries out a policy which has been approved by this House, there are plenty of ways of raising the matter and criticising it here. Turning to the question of wheat, the Government decided on fixing a certain price for wheat for the past growing season. It was debated here in this House and was approved by a huge majority.

I think the Minister is putting the cart before the horse.

Let me deal with the matter in my own way. I did not interrupt the Deputy. During the sowing season—there is only a limited number of days in the springtime when wheat can be sown—a man or an organisation that would advocate the non-sowing of wheat, or discourage the sowing of wheat, is acting in as treasonable a manner as a man who would advocate the disarming of the Army, because food is as important as arms in our situation. Deputy Belton raised a matter here to-day about a long article on wheat prices, which, if it were published in the sowing season, would have had a discouraging effect on wheat.

It did not advocate the non-sowing of wheat.

I said it would have had the effect of discouraging wheat. If a man is discouraged, it does not matter whether his non-sowing was due to his discouragement or to his being told by somebody not to sow. The effect is the same; we do not get the wheat.

Deputy Belton sowed 120 acres. He was not discouraging anybody.

Deputy Belton pointed out, in regard to this article which, if published in the sowing season, would have had a discouraging effect on wheat, that the editor of The Leader was informed that she was free to publish practically the whole of the article on the 16th May, at the end of the sowing season. Now, there is a place for everything and there is a time for everything, and I think that Deputies in this House and the people of the country have a long enough open season from 16th May till 16th October to discuss the price which should be paid for wheat. Let us debate it every day if we like.

We will have it this year, any way.

There was nobody stopping the Deputy since 16th May from publishing anything about wheat, but that is the time he decides not to talk about it. I say that from 16th May to 16th October is a sufficiently long time in which to discuss the price of wheat. Let us decide the price of wheat in that period, and then spend our energy on sowing wheat rather than on talking about the price of it. During the sowing season nobody was allowed to publish anything which would discourage wheat growing. That policy may be right or it may be wrong; I will talk about that later, but I am telling you what the policy was. During the sowing season nobody was allowed to discourage the growing of wheat. The sowing season ended, in our opinion, somewhere about the middle of May. It ended a little before that, but, in order to make sure, we extended the date to 16th May. From 16th May up to now and from now to the middle of October people can talk about the price of wheat as much as they like, and Deputy Belton can advocate 100/- a barrel or 200/- a barrel for it if he likes. It will not do any harm now, but it certainly would have done harm when the farmers were, in my opinion anyway, hard pressed, and finding it difficult to get in their crops, to have somebody going around saying that they were martyrs, that they were badly treated, that they were being kicked around and being made slaves of by the Government and by the Dáil, simply because they would not get 100/- a barrel or whatever price somebody liked to advocate for them. My opinion about wheat is that I think the Government should pay a fair price to the farmers for growing wheat; but I say this much, that, if the Government were so mean as to give to the Irish farmers only the 12/- a barrel that American and Canadian farmers grow it for, even then in the present circumstances the farmers of this country should grow wheat.

We grew it before you made up your minds what you would give us for it.

At no time were the farmers of this country offered less than four or five times what American farmers were getting for the growing of wheat. At no time during the last ten years did the farmers of this country not get double or treble what the American farmers were getting for the growing of wheat. At no time, even during those last two or three years, have the farmers of this country been offered less than the English farmers. They have been offered more, notwithstanding the fact that it is well known that the English farmers' overheads and expenses are very much more than those of our farmers.

At another time we can answer that.

I am dealing with the circumstances surrounding this suppression of the advocacy of the non-growing of wheat. As I say, that policy may have been right or it may have been wrong, but I am telling the House the reasons why we stopped articles or speeches that would have had the effect, during the sowing season, of discouraging farmers from growing wheat. There were exceptions to that. When the case was debated in the Dáil, or when any question was raised in the House about the price of wheat, it was all published in the papers. We did not allow The Irish Farmers' Paper to take out a couple of speeches and send them around the country during the sowing season, because it was not a balanced account of the affair, and would undoubtedly have had the effect of discouraging farmers from growing wheat.

Side by side with that, we had Deputy Mulcahy's complaint that we prevented the publication of news regarding the bread queues in Dublin. That was done because the people of Dublin were getting into a panic. Early on, photographs were presented to the censorship showing bread queues. I think the effect of the publication of those photographs and other news items regarding queues would have been to extend the queues. In my opinion, if we had not stopped some gentlemen who, for their own purposes, wanted to prevent the farmers of this country from growing wheat, the queues would be very much longer next winter.

Deputy Cogan compared the relationship of the Government and the Opposition to that of two football teams: he calls them political teams. That is a completely wrong outlook on the situation. Whether any Deputy on any side of the House likes it or not, the Government elected by the people, elected by the representatives of the people here, is responsible to the people in this situation.

If we are to regard this present crisis as something like a football match, in which each side is playing for a political win, and that all that is going to happen at the end is that people on the side lines would cheer the winners, I think we are very far away from realities. This nation at the moment is fighting for its life. I have been accused of running this censorship in a political way. If I attempted to use the great powers which the Dáil has entrusted to the Government, and to me, in any mean, narrow or political way, I think I would be guilty of treason and treachery. Seeing that Deputy McGilligan raised the question some time ago and accused me of running the censorship in a political way, for the political advantage of our Party, I challenged him on that. I said, and I say to him again: "I am prepared to go out on the street with you and to take the first dozen men we meet, and to put it to them as to whether or not the censorship has been run in the interests of Fianna Fáil." I do not care where the 12 men come from. I think I could prove to the majority of them that the censorship has been run for the security of this State, in order to ensure that our people would get through this crisis as well as is possible from the political, military and economic point of view. Deputy Mulcahy, Deputy Cogan and other Deputies referred to the question of having a committee of the Dáil. I accepted the idea two or three years ago, when the crisis started, that there should be a committee of the Dáil with whom I could consult on censorship matters. Nearly three years ago, on September 27th, 1939, Deputy Costello raised some point about the censorship and in column 323 of the Parliamentary Debates for that date I said:—

"I am prepared to consult from time to time with a Dáil Committee consisting of three members to be selected by the Dáil Committee of Selection in regard to the censorship."

I should also point out that that was not to be taken in any way as detracting from my responsibility, because I believe that whoever is in charge should be personally responsible to the Dáil and to the people for the activities of the censorship, and should have authority to see that the censorship was run in the way which he thought was best. Authority and responsibility should go hand in hand and, while I am prepared to consult with members of the Dáil, if any Party in the House wishes to set up a committee of three, and to discuss with them any questions raised by any newspapers, I am not prepared to put any of the responsibility on them for my actions, because I do not want my actions so circumscribed by a committee of three. I will be responsible to the Dáil as long as I have authority from the Dáil.

Deputy McGilligan raised another point to-night, and raised it wrongly. It will be remembered that he stated this afternoon that I had forbidden the newspapers here to publish a report which was sent from Australia. He said that somewhere about the month of April of this year a Reuter message came through from Australia phrased in this way:—

"The appointment of a Press Advisory Committee of five to assist the Government in ensuring that censorship is imposed for security and not for political reasons was announced by Mr. Curtin, Prime Minister of Australia. It will be representative of newspaper proprietors and the Australian Journalists' Association."

The Deputy said that that report "was suppressed," and "that it was refused publication here." There is no doubt that he said that it "was refused publication and was suppressed." I have here, however, a copy of the Evening Herald which contains a report headed: “Censorship in Australia” which is word for word with what he read. Even that type of committee of consultation I would not object to. As a matter of fact, I have not during almost the three years that I have been in charge of this work, refused to see a single individual who had any matter to raise regarding the Press censorship.

No T.D. can say that I ever refused to see him, and no reporter and no editor can say that I refused to see him. I am prepared to see any member of the Dáil, or any representative of the newspaper world any time they want to see me about any grievance they have in regard to censorship. We are trying to run the censorship in a fair and open manner. I do not object to any investigation by anybody into the running of the censorship. If a jury was appointed I could prove that on many occasions things were suppressed that were to the political advantage of Fianna Fáil but, because they were to the national disadvantage, they were suppressed. That was done more often than anything was done that might adversely affect members of the Opposition Parties.

Following on the question about wheat, Deputy Cogan referred to the Bishop's pastoral. What I said about Deputy Belton's communication to The Leader covered the portion about the Bishop's pastoral. The pastoral was published in full to the Bishop's flock, and in full also in the newspaper that circulates amongst his flock, but when Deputy Cogan wanted to make a point, and wrote an article which would have a discouraging effect on farmers who wanted to grow wheat, in which he wanted to over emphasise and to take out of its context portion of the Bishop's statement, we refused to allow him to do it. Let anybody who wants to see why we refused read Deputy Cogan's speech, and I suggest that if he agrees with the premise I laid down —that wheat is as important as arms, and that the discouragement of the growing of wheat should not be allowed—he will agree that Deputy Cogan's over-emphasis of that particular passage should not be allowed to go. Deputy Cogan went on to refer to certain articles that were suppressed in a Kilkenny journal, and he read at length an article which was headed: “Food Production”. That article was suppressed in toto because we have taken up the attitude that we do not think the censorship could be run if we did not do so. We simply say that we will not allow the censorship to be criticised by newspapers because, if we allow newspapers in their leading articles and columns to criticise the censorship for cutting something out of their news columns, it means that we may as well throw our hats at it as we would have no censorship.

We have had in that matter to act rigidly. We have had to take the line that we shall not allow criticism of the censorship. Having said that, we have got to stand by it, though on certain occasions matter is suppressed about which people can make points. I know it is a bad strategic position for a Minister to be in to say that he suppresses an article which adversely criticises his own Department. But I believe in censorship. I believe that the security of this nation depends upon our running the censorship in a reasonable way. Simply because somebody links my name with criticism of the censorship, he is not going to get away with it, though the point may be made that I am trying to protect myself. We have to see that the newspapers conform, even though their articles may appear, on an ordinary reading, as quite legitimate.

One of the articles with which Deputy Cogan dealt at length had reference to the liberty of the Press and was submitted by the Kilkenny People. That article was, quite obviously, directed at the institution of censorship in this State. The editor was told that it would not be allowed as it stood because, if censorship is a critical part of the national organisation at the moment and if it is to be criticised, it should be criticised in a balanced way. There is no use in criticising censorship here on a wrong statement of the facts with regard to censorship in England. It is wrong to say that any Minister in England would get short shrift if he interfered with the publication of debates in Parliament. In certain circumstances, in England the Minister would get very short shrift if he did not interfere with the broadcasting of information occurring in the public debates in the British House of Commons. That is a long cry from the statement made in the article.

We did not say to the Kilkenny People or any other paper: “You must do this.” We say to them—and it is quite legitimate, in my opinion— if an article is in its general effect bad or running contrary to the policy of censorship, that we cannot accept it in that form. We say: “If you want to amend it and resubmit it, we shall have a look at it.” Generally speaking, I must say that, apart from one or two instances, we have found the newspapers very helpful and on-coming just as the censorship has been understanding and on-coming to the newspapers. In the past three years we have had very few cases where any little bit of acid crept into the relationship between the Censorship Department and the newspapers. Irish journalists, as a whole, and the editors have done their utmost to conform to what they conceive to be the national policy agreed to by this Assembly and approved by the people. We have had very little trouble indeed with them— very much less trouble than I thought we would have when I was taking over responsibility for this Department almost three years ago. The charge that we are suppressing criticism of members of the Government or of Government policy is utter nonsense and hardly deserves refutation in this House. The Minister on my left is well aware that millions of words have been written in unfair criticism of his Department. He is well able to take it and we are all well able to take criticism as long as it does not result in immediate or ultimate danger to this country. If the publication of any matter in any paper has that effect, I do not care whether you accuse me of political bias or not, it is going to be stopped. I cannot trace the alleged stoppage of an item regarding workers down in the coal mines in Castlecomer.

Deputy Pattison has been shown the letter sent from the Censor's office.

We have not been able to trace it. I wish you had sent it to me, so that I could have had a look at it.

The Minister does not suggest, though his attitude rather conveyed that, that I was pulling his leg. The other document is dated 3rd March, 1942. I have it and would be very glad to put it on the records because it is a very amusing publication. Anybody with a sense of humour would have a good laugh at it.

We all know that old gentleman. Every week I see articles from him and I have been very amused at them. He speaks of me as a two-penny-coloured Minister and likens me to lord high falutin' something or other. He goes on with that kind of thing and nobody objects to it because it does not do any particular harm. But if he introduces that sort of thing in an article likely to do national harm otherwise, he will not get away with it simply because it contains that sort of stuff.

Anybody with a sense of humour would enjoy it.

I am willing to show the Deputy files that pass through our Department every day in the week. Because he broke down and would not conform, we have had to make him submit his leading articles. I will show him these leading articles passed by censorship and the Deputy could not write anything half as pungent even if he put a wet towel on his head.

I overlooked one matter in dealing with Deputy McGilligan's complaints. He spoke of the critique of Professor Binchy's book which appeared in the Irish Independent. I must say that the review was very poor stuff for such a very fine book. He said here to-night that I uttered a falsehood when I stated we had released the review. All I can do is to go on the records. In a letter to the editor of that paper, dated 13th November, these words appeared:—

"I am prepared to reconsider our decision and to allow you to publish the review substantially as it was written, with the minor deletions and alterations indicated in writing on the duplicate proof enclosed herewith."

If that does not satisfy Deputy McGilligan, I cannot satisfy him.

There is one other little point that Deputy McGilligan made about the cutting out of the Independent of the words “State keepers” in relation to soldiers. It was a phrase that should not have been used and, even though the Independent slipped into the phrase, I think it never should have appeared. Anyone who looks at that article as passed and published would say that though the whole effect of it was a fierce criticism of the Government, all that was cut out was the phrase which in regard particularly to the soldiers who have surrendered comfortable positions and gone to the Army to defend this country, would be looked upon as contemptuous. They would have been well advised to have dropped the matter, as the phrase should never have appeared in an article. I do not mind their having a crack at the Minister and at civil servants, and so on—they are well able to stand it—but the soldiers of this country have the right to be protected from anything that might even approach suspicion of being contemptuous.

A question was raised by Deputy Hannigan regarding the report of the sinking of the City of Bremen. He accused us of political bias in refusing to allow that report to be published by the Sunday Independent. I do not think that the Sunday Independent has any grumble about that matter. I wrote to the editor and explained the circumstances. The report came in late on Saturday evening, and it was difficult to get confirmation from our representative abroad, who might have some knowledge about it. In regard to these sort of affairs—the sinking of ships or incidents of that kind—we take reasonable precautions, before releasing them and worrying our people about them, to see that they are true. Even though it appears in a foreign newspaper, that does not say we are going to accept it as true until we have it verified. It so happened that all that occurred on a Saturday night and the Sunday Independent, unfortunately, was cut out of that little bit of news for the Sunday, but they had other news, and I do not think it would affect their circulation one iota.

Deputy Hannigan, in his fair and kind and just way, alleged that the motive was to keep it back, because it was an item of news, from the Sunday Independent and keep it for the daily papers, including the Irish Press on Monday. I do remember this: a more important item of news than that—the Government protest— was given out on the following Saturday afternoon—I remember the date— and the Sunday Independent had first crack at it, at least before the daily papers, including the Irish Press. These sort of things happen and we cannot help them. Even though we are accused of political bias for behaving in that manner, we have to put up with it.

I had intended to ignore one speech that was made here to-night, in so far as it was an attack upon myself, but I do not think it should be ignored altogether. Deputy Dillon was careful to explain what everybody knows—that he is in a minority of one in this House in regard to his attitude on this war. He is also aware that his speeches before have been used as a basis of attack on this country, and I feel pretty certain that the speech he made rather deliberately here to-night will be used as an attack on this country— perhaps to a dangerous extent. I challenge Deputy Dillon or any other Deputy, or any other person or organisation in this State or outside it, to give any substantial facts that would go in the slightest way to prove that the censorship here has been operated to the detriment of one belligerent or one set of belligerents against the other, or that it has been operated, as he said, to the detriment of the United States and the British.

Deputy Dillon was very careful to make that suggestion in a vague way, without bringing forward even one fact or suspicion of a fact, even one concrete rumour, in regard to it.

I have, I think, more respect for the people of America than Deputy Dillon, and I have that respect because I have respect for myself and my own country. Deputy Dillon is the sort of crawler who says that it is treachery and disloyalty for the people of this country to take their own decision on peace and war. A man who has such a warped idea of loyalty cannot be relied upon when any question of honourable loyalty is under discussion. I say I respect the people of the United States more than Deputy Dillon, and I have too much respect for them to think that they believe that, just because they want a certain thing to happen, the people of this country should be forced to obey their will, even against what they consider to be their own best interests. This Dáil and our people have taken the decision on this war. The American people and the American Government have respected that decision. They have acknowledged publicly and privately, that we have the right to decide for ourselves the question of peace and war. In pushing himself forward here as a friend of the American people, and saying that we should submit to some outside pressure in regard to this question, Deputy Dillon is no friend of the American people. It is treachery, not only to his own people but to the people whom he is calling friends.

Deputy Dillon talked about the case of Marschner, the German parachutist who escaped from Mountjoy, and hinted that, for some unworthy motive, the news of his escape was held back for four or five days. I do not propose to go into the reasons for its being held back. The Government are responsible for discipline, for order and for security, and I think that, by and large, the vast majority of the people will say that in that matter they have done a good job in very difficult circumstances. We have that particular German parachutist, and every other parachutist who came down, safely under lock and key. The measures taken by the Gárda, with whatever cooperation we gave them in that matter, were as effective as they could be in the circumstances.

Deputy Dillon went on to accuse the Censorship Department of having suppressed a case which was heard in camera, and he linked the suppression of that case with the Marschner case in order to prove that some deep, underhand motive was at the back of the suppression of that news. If the Army authorities, to whom Deputy Dillon gives such great praise for their arrest, detention and conviction of this gentleman, thought it was wise to hear that case in camera, I think Deputy Dillon should leave it to them and trust in their judgment. I have a much better trust in the judgment of the people concerned than I have in Deputy Dillon, in whom, indeed, I have very little trust—trust either in his judgment or in himself. Some of the points of his behaviour here lend themselves, indeed, to a construction which is anything but favourable to his honour.

He accused me also of having suppressed a speech in support of his attitude at the Fine Gael Árd-Fheis. That is absolutely incorrect. The trouble we had with that particular report was to see that it was all published, that some of the newspapers did not "dicker" with it or do their own censoring on it. The only thing which was suppressed in relation to that report was a few lines from some gentleman who criticised the censorship, and I have already given my reasons for dealing with that sort of thing. I do not want now to go into the point that we insisted on one newspaper which was leaving out a few very vital things—principally, what one man said—in regard to Deputy Dillon's speech. The censorship in relation to that was positive rather than negative.

I think I have fairly well covered the various points raised. I must say again that, with the exception of "our boy who wants to be different", Deputies, I am glad to see, are in general agreement with the running of the censorship in relation to external affairs, and that is the principal matter. So long as we are united on that, I do not mind, but I hope that no Deputy is really convinced that we in the censorship are so short-sighted, or that I, as a Minister responsible, am so short-sighted as to run this very vital service in a Party interest. We have a long road yet to travel before we get through this war, and I am more concerned that there should be an Irish Government selected by the Irish people in charge, than as to what particular political Party is selected by the Irish people. If we can retain the position in which, at the end of this war, we still have the freedom of this portion of the country, I think we shall have done a very good day's work in these strenuous and dangerous times, and I for one would be perfectly satisfied, even though some other Government should take over. Indeed, by that time we might be very glad of a rest; but in the meantime we have to carry on.

I repeat the challenge I made to Deputy McGilligan: I am prepared to put the operation of the censorship before any 12 men selected at random at any point of the country and to prove to their satisfaction, or to the satisfaction of the majority of them, that censorship has been operated fairly in the interests of the country and not in the interests of a Party. If there is anything in this idea of a committee of three for consultation purposes, I am quite in favour of it. I was in favour of it three years ago, as I have shown. On 27th September, 1939, I said that if the Committee of Selection wanted to appoint three people with whom I could consult, I was prepared to agree with them; but if that committee is appointed, I want to reiterate that it will have no responsibility for censorship nor will it have any authority over censorship, beyond the giving of advice to me. Whoever is in charge of censorship should have the responsibility of running it and should have the power and the authority to run it in the right way.

Question put: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."
The Committee divided:—Tá: 33; Níl: 50.

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William J.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Davin, William.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Hurley, Jeremiah.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Reynolds, Mary.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Smith and Seán Brady.
Question declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.
Vote reported and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn