Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 1940

Vol. 24 No. 28

Press Censorship—Motion.

I move the following motion which appears on the Order Paper in my name:—

That, in the opinion of this House, the manner in which the powers of Press Censorship in domestic matters are exercised is unreasonable.

In rising to move this motion, I claim to be making a proper use of Parliamentary methods. When, during the passage of a measure through Parliament, the Government has been criticised on the grounds that it is taking arbitrary and wide powers, frequently the reply has been that the citizen has the protection of Parliament, and that at any time the citizen considers those powers are being abused the matter can be raised in Parliament. I am acting on that principle to-day. Nobody will deny that in times like these the Government, even in countries not at war—probably even more so in neutral countries — must have exceptional powers, but those exceptional powers imply a corresponding obligation: the obligation to exercise them with due regard to the liberty and rights of the citizen, and to temper them with moderation.

Now, with regard to the motion itself, I realise fully my responsibility in moving it. It was originally my intention to put it down in an unrestricted form. The Minister, quite properly, and, I need scarcely say, without any suggestion of pressure, pointed out to me the dangers that might follow from an unrestricted debate, and, anxious not to embarrass the Government in these times, I agreed to confine the matter to domestic issues, but it remains to be seen in the future whether that will be sufficient. I am not making a threat at all, but I do say to the Minister that feeling in the country at present at the way censorship is being exercised is such that not necessarily myself but others may be forced on another occasion to widen the scope of the debate, unless some amelioration in the conditions which now apply follows. It is undoubtedly somewhat difficult to draw a hard-and-fast dividing line between domestic and external issues. I shall do my best to keep—and the Chair no doubt will see that I keep—within the terms of the motion, but I regard domestic issues as matters which have no direct bearing on external policy or the policy of neutrality, although it is impossible to conceive a domestic issue which has not conceivably some direct bearing.

The whole justification for this motion lies in supporting facts, and I might tell the House that never before in the whole of my Parliamentary experience have I had such a volume of spontaneous correspondence from people who have been affected by the restrictions now imposed by the censorship and, although I cannot give the names, I can assure the Minister that although some of the people who have approached me have not always signed their communications to me, I know them, at the same time, to be authoritative and I have satisfied myself that the cases brought to my notice are genuine. When I say: "not signed," I wish the House to understand that not only in connection with this matter but in connection with other matters too, there is great difficulty in getting at grievances, the position being that no person wants to get into the black books of the Government. The Government have such power now not only in respect of censorship but in respect of industry generally, and it is so frequently necessary to go to the Government for concessions and so much in the power of the Government to penalise an individual by withholding a concession, that it is only natural that people suffering grievances should frequently prefer to remain silent.

The first case I have is the use of the censor's powers to prevent any references to the poisoning of fish in the River Blackwater by the effluents of the Mallow factory. I have a letter herewith which I shall read, which was sent to a reputable paper and I may mention, as a preliminary, that, when this poisoning took place, certain representations were made to the Government and, as the outcome— this is not really material but it shows the background—those who were suffering and aggrieved by this poisoning were told to exercise patience, and this letter was sent from one of the conservators following that. The letter says:

"I feel your article of October 10th cannot be allowed to pass without comment. For years I have been one of those who have complained of the deadly effect upon fish life from the effluents of factories but it took the abnormally low conditions of the River Blackwater this season to show its absolutely disastrous results. Since the factory started work last week, the fishery inspector collected 75 dead salmon, mostly hen fish and over 5,000 trout in a few hours' time and on a stretch of the river reaching 12 miles below the factory. Numbers of salmon trout and eels have been seen dead that could not be reached. While fully realising the benefit of the sugar beet factory industry to the country, it should also be remembered what the value of the river means not only to all those men in the tidal waters whose livelihood depends on the river's productiveness, the amount of money spent by fishing visitors which the river used to attract, also the unfair position of fishery owners who are obliged to pay rates for the protection of fish, the angling clubs who are doing so much to improve the river by preservation and restocking. Having exercised to the utmost ‘patience'—

I understand that that is what the Department of Fisheries advocated.

—as advocated in your article, I am confident the time has come to apply the only remedy, namely, that immediate steps should be taken to erect the most modern filtration tanks."

On that, the editor of the paper says:

With reference to your letter, we regret we cannot publish the matter you refer to, as the censor has shut down all statements concerning this, except what is supplied by himself.

Nobody, I think, will deny that that is a domestic issue, and that alone, I think, should be sufficient to create very considerable alarm and apprehension.

The next matter to which I wish to refer is the question of agricultural statistics. Certain agricultural statistics were published in, I think, all— certainly in one—of the leading papers in the country. When it came to the censor's passing a letter for publication abroad containing these very statistics, that item of information was stopped. That, again, I submit, is domestic, and I cannot see any conceivable reason, direct or indirect, for that action on the part of the censor. Then, I have a case with regard to photographs, because not only printed matter but photographs are subject to censorship. I have before me a photograph of a certain well-known building in a city in this country. On the facade of that building is an historical emblem representing the old days of cruel ascendancy, if you like. In front of that building is taking place a monster rally in favour of recruiting for the Local Security Force. When that photograph was submitted to the censor, it came back with the instruction that the emblem of the ascendancy was to be taken out. The only way in which that could be done was by scraping the plate. The plate had to be scraped, and the House can imagine that the photograph was not as good as it might have been.

I have also a photograph of a certain individual, an Irishman who distinguished himself outside this country. No mention whatever was made of the distinction, but merely the fact that he had distinguished himself was sufficient to forbid publication of that photograph. I am informed on the very best authority that there is great difficulty in getting publication for the deeds, or even the deaths, of those who die outside this country.

Do things which happen outside this country come under the heading of domestic affairs?

No, I should say not.

Surely it is a matter of domestic interest when a member of our family is killed abroad?

I submit that to prohibit publication of the announcement of the death of an Irishman who dies, no matter where, is an unreasonable use of the powers of censorship.

In domestic affairs.

Of course, it was not done.

It has been done.

It has not.

I am speaking on the basis of the information I have got.

You seem to have got very bad information.

The Senator will please proceed.

The information is not bad. I have it on the very best authority. It may not be correct, but it certainly is not bad. I took no information which was without authority. Recently we had a play put on at the Gate Theatre. I happened to be present on a rather interesting occasion when the house was informed that, on the instructions of the Minister for Justice, the play could not be performed. The play actually was performed. I need not say how that was arranged. I understand it was performed in a perfectly legal manner. When it came to a reference to that occasion in the papers, my information is—again, I may be wrong—that the Press were told they had to act strictly, not on the ipsissima verba, but on the inspired instructions, of the Bureau of Information. When one editor objected to having certain words put into his mouth not believing they were true, he was told he must put in the whole or nothing at all. I suggest that that is again an unreasonable use of censorship—to say to anybody: “Unless you put in what we say, you will put in nothing at all.” It is, certainly, an abuse of censorship to suggest words to any responsible journalist.

I understand the powers of censorship are being used to prohibit references to an organisation called the Kimmage and Crumlin Tenants Association. When that association approached the responsible authorities, it was accused of having connection with a body called the Dublin Unemployed Workers' Movement. When the Government was satisfied that that connection did not exist, the ban was released, but I do ask: Is the Dublin Unemployed Workers' Movement an illegal body? If it is not an illegal body, on what grounds are its activities subject to censorship? I also understand that there is a very marked discrimination between references to the activities of the I.R.A. here and the I.R.A. across the Border. I know that when the Minister for Defence, in reply to a Parliamentary question in the Dáil, gave the number of the I.R.A. in detention, the publication of these numbers was prohibited by the censor. I think we all know that Parliamentary debates are subject to drastic censorship. I know that the Official Report is not tampered with but the Parliamentary Debates, as they appear in the Press, are very different from what the editors would like to publish of what the speakers said. I should be rather surprised to find that the Press will be allowed to publish, as they would wish to do, the remarks I am making now. I understand that the Trade Union Congress took some interest in a scheme to succour air raid victims, and reference to that was prohibited—a purely humanitarian work. I understand that the censor dictates and regulates the position in which matter is to appear, the prominence it is to have and the headings that are to be given. These are the instances I give for what they are worth. I suggest that, even if they are not all fully substantiated, there is a sufficient volume of credence behind them to create very general apprehension.

With regard to the machinery of censorship, as the Minister may have read to-day, the Press suffers very considerable inconvenience by the hours it has to work and the censorship staff that has to deal with them during those hours. As any newspaper man knows, the work is hot-news work, and has to take place between, perhaps, ten o'clock and two o'clock in the morning. During those hours, responsible officials are not available unless they are rung up and taken out of bed. The officials on duty are, according to my information, junior officials who, naturally, do not care to take responsibility and, unless the matter is of urgent and grave importance, do not care to rouse their seniors. The Press are, naturally, loath to insist that the matter should be referred to some responsible authority and the natural tendency on those occasions is for the junior official to play for safety and say: "Better not take the risk".

I feel, and here I speak with a considerable sense of responsibility—that one of the major causes of this trouble is the personnel. I do not want to make any personal attack on the censor himself. He is a civil servant and has been appointed by the Minister. He has to act according to his own lights, but I do feel that the Minister made—and here is his responsibility—an unfortunate choice in that appointment. He is not a person constitutionally—I do not think he himself would claim to be a middle-of-the-road man, a man with a conciliatory outlook——

I take responsibility for censorship and I think I have a right to object to the Senator abusing his position of privilege to attack a man who cannot defend himself. If he wants to attack anybody about censorship, let him attack me.

I do not want to attack anybody, but I do repeat that I think the Minister made an unfortunate choice in that appointment. I go no further.

The Senator will realise that it is obviously undesirable to make reference in debate to a civil servant who cannot reply or defend himself.

I think I am entitled to say that the appointment was unfortunate.

You can say quite a lot indirectly.

I consider that I am not abusing my privilege by saying that I think the choice was unfortunate.

Other people could be indirect, too.

These are the grounds on which I claim that the censorship has been, and is being, exercised on domestic issues in an unreasonable manner. I know from the correspondence I have had that there is very considerable apprehension in the country about this. I do feel that there is a special responsibility on the Government in this matter of censorship, because the powers are entirely arbitrary. On a question of other rights of citizenship resort can always be had to the courts. Even if things are done by Order, the Order has the force of law, and the citizen can go to the courts to test the validity of the Order. But here there are no rules or no Orders; the powers of the Government are entirely arbitrary, and I suggest that they have, as urged by the illustrations I have given, been exercised in an unreasonable manner. I move the motion.

There is an amendment to this motion down in my name, which I do not propose to move, because you have been good enough to give me to understand—

The motion must first be formally seconded.

I will second the motion. You have given me to understand that the amendment would not enable me to broaden the basis of this discussion to the extent to which I wished. Therefore, I wish to leave myself free to propose it as a substantive motion on a future occasion. Meanwhile, I am seconding Senator Sir John Keane's motion—although its terms do not entirely please me— because I think it is high time that we had a discussion in Parliament on the subject of censorship.

Senator Sir John Keane has asked us to say that the mode in which the censorship has been carried on has sometimes at least been unreasonable. I am not familiar with those cases which the Senator has cited. I myself am brought into contact with the censorship directly every week, and the first thing I should like to say is that there has been nothing in such contact to arouse anything in the nature of personal antagonism—quite the contrary. I should like to pay tribute to the invariable courtesy and intelligence of the particular official with whom I have to deal. But I do think that it would be nothing short of miraculous if the powers of the censorship were not exercised unreasonably under present conditions.

There are two crying needs in connection with the censorship. One is that the principles upon which it is to proceed should be promulgated by the Government and assented to by Parliament, clearly established for all men to know. At present, I at any rate, am not aware of such principles. The second thing is that there should be a system of Parliamentary control over the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, whose principal task seems to be in fact the conduct of the censorship. There is no power possessed by the Government the exercise of which is carried on in such complete secrecy and such complete absence of control as this power of censorship. I do not believe that the people of this country have any idea of the extent of this power, or of the ruthlessness with which it is applied.

Now, let us consider just for a moment what are the principles on which censorship ought to proceed. I agree that in times of such peril as the present there has to be censorship, and that a great many of the fundamental principles of freedom and democracy— for we are still democrats—guaranteed to us by the Constitution and sanctified by tradition have got to be suspended. Of those, one of the most important, without any doubt, is the right of the citizen to express freely his opinions about public affairs, and, if he thinks them of sufficient importance and sufficient value, to try to persuade his fellow citizens to that effect. That ought not to be abrogated, I submit, even in war time, to any further extent than is absolutely necessary. I quite agree that it ought not to be open to us to give away military secrets, the disclosure of which would imperil the safety of the country. I agree too; that even more than in times of peace seditious language must not be tolerated. I agree that there should be an effort by everybody—and that the censor has the right to see that everybody makes that effort—to keep language within the bounds of studious moderation, to try and keep the political temperature low, shall we say, to prevent people from getting unduly excited, to deal with everything in a spirit of perhaps greater gentleness than one would in peace time. But is it right that on any subject the people of this country, and particularly the members of the Dáil and the members of the Seanad, should be actually prohibited from making their views known to their fellow citizens when they can do so without giving away any military secrets and thereby endangering the safety of the country?

An argument constantly used by the Taoiseach himself against persons disposed to violence and sedition is that there was no need for anything of the kind in our State, because it was always perfectly open to them if they wished to exert themselves to persuade their fellow-countrymen that their views were correct. Now, by shutting out the expression of opinion altogether on important topics, surely the Minister for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures and his colleagues are presenting seditious persons and persons with a taste for violent methods with an excuse that they never possessed before, and I submit that that should not be done without very careful consideration, and without the full consent of Parliament. Such consent has not yet been obtained, nor has the matter ever been threshed out in Parliament as it ought to be.

Senator Sir John Keane has referred to the censoring even of Parliamentary debates, as reported in the Press, and I submit that that is a thing which ought not to be done, again unless there is some indiscreet disclosure by a member of some State or military secret that ought not to be made known. So far as it is a matter of expression of opinion, I submit that if democracy means anything at all the representatives of the people in the Dáil and in the Seanad should have the right to address themselves to their fellow-countrymen, and that their fellow-countrymen have a right to know what the opinions of their representatives are. I do think that we should, before long, quite seriously and definitely, come to conclusions about the principles upon which the censorship should proceed.

When we have done that, I think we have still to face the problem of establishing some degree of Parliamentary control. The Minister cannot be brought to full Parliament over everything connected with the censorship because that would mean the defeat of the objects of censorship. It would mean the disclosure to considerable numbers of people of things which it is desired by the Government to conceal, and which it may be right or may be wrong to conceal. But some measure of Parliamentary control there ought to be, and what occurs to me is the sort of committee that I suggested in the amendment which, for the time being, I withdraw. I invite the Minister to meditate upon the merits of that proposal. It has been very well established by human experience that the exercise of arbitrary power has a corrupting effect upon character. Theobald Wolfe Tone said that in the course of time it would corrupt even an angel. I have no doubt there are some angelic elements in the Minister's character, but I do not feel complete confidence that those elements would not sometimes be subordinated to others, and I have observed, without any bitterness and without any surprise, that, as time has gone on, the censorship has in fact got tighter and tighter and that the taste for exercising one's authority despotically to prevent things appearing——

Would the Senator give us an example?

On what points has censorship got tighter?

Senator MacDermot must be allowed to proceed.

I do not propose to embark on examples.

What is the use of talking at all then?

I do not think the Minister would, in fact, deny the statement that the censorship has got gradually stricter, probably he would say more successful. The appetite for exercising despotic authority inevitably grows with what it feeds upon, and there is a strong tendency all the time to exclude things, not because they are really dangerous to the State, but simply because the Government does not like them. That is common sense. That is what happens. That is human nature, and I maintain that in order to save the Minister from himself—and I would say the same about any other Minister——

Would the Senator give me an example of that?

That things are excluded not because they are against the safety of the State but because the Government does not like them.

I will give no examples, not now.

It is not allowed. The Minister knows that.

But it is not true.

Let me say this: I do not charge the Minister with excluding things although he knew they were not dangerous to the safety of the State merely because he disliked them. I do say that there is a strong tendency to consider as dangerous to the safety of the State something that is, in fact, disliked.

And who is to be the judge?

I suggest that Parliament should as far as possible be the judge.

The news would not be hot news by the time it would get to the papers.

Do not worry about that.

That is quite understood. I am not suggesting that executive authority should be taken away from the Minister and transferred to a committee. What I am suggesting is that the Minister as he goes along and makes his decisions, which generally have to be made quickly and at short notice, should be conscious of the fact that ultimately, if complaints are made, he will have to render an account to some parliamentary authority and that, if that parliamentary authority disagrees with him, further action can be taken in the way of complaint to the Taoiseach or, possibly, in extreme cases, where the public interest would not be damaged thereby, by the ventilation of the whole subject in Parliament. That covers all I have to say at the moment. I second Senator Sir John Keane's motion.

While I wish to support Sir John Keane's motion in the main, it would hardly be fitting for me to go too deeply into this question of censorship because, naturally, my views on Press censorship would not be what one might describe as entirely unbiased. I feel, therefore, that on this occasion it is far better for me to leave the amateurs to discuss this motion and for me, as a professional, to stand in the background and just touch lightly on the question of censorship in general.

As far as Press censorship as it has existed since the start of the European war in this country is concerned, I must say—and I think I can speak for most journalists—that we have always found the censorship officials willing and helpful. Of course, they have not always been quite as helpful as we would like, but then, of course, there is an old saying that nobody can ever really satisfy a journalist. But what I would like on this occasion to draw attention to is a subject that does not really apply strictly to Press censorship but which, on the other hand, does come under the heading of censorship—I now speak as a representative in this House of the Institute of Journalists—and that is, that the leader of the present Government, the Taoiseach, since he came into office in 1932, has developed a habit—and a very bad habit, in my opinion—a habit that amounts to, first of all, an insult to the Irish people and, secondly, an insult to and a lack of trust in the Irish newspapers, that whenever he has anything of national importance to disclose, whether it is a question of national policy or, as far as this country is concerned, of international policy, he does not send for an Irish journalist; he does not even send for the editor of his own paper, but he sends for foreign journalists.

That is not quite within the terms of the motion.

Within the last 12 months, on five different occasions, on questions of major national policy, he has given five interviews to foreign newspapers.

Do we understand that giving interviews is the same thing as sending for a man to give him an interview? I cannot quite make out what the point is that the Senator is making. One moment he is speaking about sending for journalists and the next he is talking about giving interviews. Surely there is a very big difference?

The motion deals with the powers of the Press censorship in domestic matters.

What is the Taoiseach's own paper referred to by Senator Crosbie?

I think Senator Healy really ought to know.

Senator Crosbie should be allowed to proceed. I would ask him to confine himself strictly to the terms of the motion.

Senator Crosbie ought to know, even if he were not what he described himself, a professional gentleman in the business, what is the idea behind such interviews without raising it in this House.

I ought to know the idea behind what?

Behind such interviews.

This is a concealed form of censorship. On the 14 August, an interview by the Taoiseach——

The Chair rules that further references to interviews by the Taoiseach are not within the terms of the motion before the Seanad.

I beg to differ with you there. As regards this particular interview with an Taoiseach the censor definitely came into it and I will explain to you how he came into it. On the 14th August, an interview appeared in the Christian Science Monitor published in Boston in U.S.A., an exclusive interview by the Taoiseach. Simultaneously, it so happend that a certain newspaper in this country by various means got hold of that particular interview and submitted it to the Irish censor and was prohibited from publishing it for four days.

I should like to draw the Senator's attention to the words in the motion "domestic matters." I am sure he will be satisfied that his statements have no relation to the motion.

Surely it comes under the heading of censorship?

If the speech has any relation to a matter that concerns our domestic affairs, I suggest it is in order.

Surely to heavens our international position is a matter of domestic importance to everyone of us? I do not want to disagree with the Cathaoirleach's ruling, but surely he will not deny that?

Might I suggest that, when you are making a ruling from the Chair, the Senator should resume his seat? I do not think it is compatible with the dignity of the House that while you are speaking the Senator should shake his finger at you.

I did not notice the menacing finger.

I must apologise to the Chair and to Senator Robinson for not resuming my seat while the Cathaoirleach was speaking. I can assure the Cathaoirleach that if I did not resume my seat it was because my friends on the other side of the House were harassing me so much, and possibly I kept on my feet when I should have sat down. Within the last five months there were five different occasions on which this kind of thing has happened. On the 28th February there was an exclusive interview given to the New York Herald Tribune; on the 20th March to the New York Times, on Partition; on the 9th July to the New York Times; on the 14th August to the Christian Science Monitor, and on the 21st November to the United Press of America. All these interviews were given to foreign journalists, and they are all dealing with domestic affairs in this country.

On a point of order, I submit that this has no bearing on the censorship; it has nothing to do with the motion.

I submit it has everything to do with it.

I have already ruled that the Senator is going outside the terms of the motion, and I must ask him to comply with that ruling.

I am relating all that to the motion in this way, that it is an unofficial censorship. The Taoiseach is the Prime Minister in this country, and when he has something to say that is of national or international importance, something respecting all our lives here, his duty is, first of all, to say it to the Irish people and to say it through the newspapers of Ireland. His predecessor did not behave like that. His predecessor, whenever he had anything of importance to say, always sent for the representatives of the Irish papers and he said it, if necessary, with brutal frankness. I do not want to go any further than that. In my opinion the Taoiseach has insulted the Irish people and Irish journalists, and I hope that in future a different Government policy will be observed. I do not, for one moment, suggest that he should send for any particular newspaper, but I do suggest, and suggest perfectly sincerely, that when either the Taoiseach or any other Minister wants to promulgate Government policy, there is no better means by which they could do it than by sending for the representatives of the various Irish newspapers, taking them into their confidence and giving them interviews. I suggest that more good could be done in that way than by sending for the representatives of foreign newspapers and giving them long, detailed and rather high-falutin' interviews of what Eire will do or what Eire will not do in a given set of circumstances.

The Chair cannot allow the Senator to proceed further on these lines.

This motion is very restricted in its scope. It refers entirely to Press censorship upon domestic matters. My purpose in rising is largely to find out how this particular censorship works. I think we are all agreed that, in the present circumstances, the censorship is necessary. I think that anybody who has access to any other papers except ours will realise that more freedom is allowed in other neutral countries than is allowed here. As far as I can make out, for example, in Switzerland considerably more liberty is allowed. There may be a reason here for not allowing so much liberty, and I admit at once there are certain difficulties in the way. But the job of being a censor is a delicate job, and it should be done on certain principles, and I hope, before the debate closes, the Minister will be able to enlighten the House as to the instructions laid down for Press censorship. It should be done, of course, as sparingly as possible.

The Minister, when mention was made of an official this evening, rather indignantly objected to any mention being made of officials. I am not sure whether, in that particular matter, there was not a misunderstanding, because my reading of the motion is that it refers to Press censorship only. In that case Senator Sir John Keane's allusion would be to the Press censor. I very much doubt that the Press censor in the person that Senator Sir John Keane had in his mind. But, in any event, there is the Minister, there is the chief censor, a Press censor and a staff. It is realised at once that the Minister cannot do all the work. Neither can the Press censor himself do all the work, and one would like to know to whom an appeal can be made at once and upon whom the ultimate responsibility rests. There is a natural tendency, I think, to go too far in censorship. The simplest thing is to say: "Take it out". But if one persists in doing that, naturally the result is that very little gets published at all. The Government have the job of selecting the Minister to take charge of this particular business, and I take it that it would be in order to say that they have made a very bad selection.

A very bad selection, I think. I think it would also be in order to say that in selecting a chief censor, the Minister, if he is the person who made the selection, also made a bad choice. One need not go any further than that, but what is really important to know is whether there are principles and what the connection is between the hierarchy from the Minister down to the Press censor and the Press censor's assistants.

There is one particular matter which I would like to raise as an example. we were asked to-night to give examples. It is difficult to give an example and to be absolutely sure of your facts, because the censorship is exercised and I understand that the Press, to put it mildly, is not encouraged to say that certain things have been censored. On the 20th of last month there was an anti-Partition meeting in Dublin. It was reported in all the newspapers in Dublin on the following day and on the 22nd a friend of mine, whose name is pretty well known and who was once a member of this House, taking exception to certain things about our domestic politics which appeared in the report of the anti-Partition meeting, wrote a letter to the Dublin newspapers. That letter, or any part of it, was not published in the newspapers. The writer has been informed, and believes, that the letter was censored. I do not propose to read it all, but I would like to give some of it as an example of its general tone. It was dealing with the anti-Partition meeting, various remarks made at which had been reported.

"TO THE EDITOR,

Sir—Mixing their ports with their politics seems to have given some of our Six-County friends rather a blurred outlook on the matter of Partition. Having read the Press reports of the meeting in the Mansion House last Tuesday night, I am still in doubt as to what the real purpose of the gathering was. It was advertised as an anti-Partition meeting but judging from statements made by some of the speakers the question of Partition had to yield pride of place to other matters. A lusty wallop at John Bull or a boosting of Mr. de Valera seems to have been regarded as of much greater importance than the consideration of how Partition can be brought to an end."

That does not seem to contain anything which might be objected to by anybody, but the end of the letter deals entirely with matters concerning our domestic politics.

What about the rest of it?

I shall read it all, if the Minister wants it.

"Mr. Eamonn Donnelly—

I think the Minister knows him—

"apparently has now little use for Parnell's dictum that Ireland cannot afford to lose a single Irishman. He is reported as inviting England to deport quite a considerable number of Ulstermen whom he dubs ‘loyalists' from their native land. That was not the way of Parnell or Griffith and it will never be the way to win the North to the ending of the Border. Another speaker got all ‘het up' about about the ports, declaring that Mr. de Valera's attitude in that connection secured him 100 per cent. support from the Six-County nationalists. The relevance of the ports to the matter of Partition is not very obvious and I would have imagined that, from the Six-County nationalist viewpoint, the basis of Mr. de Valera's claim to their continuing support would be, primarily, what he has done, during his eight years of office, to bring Partition to an end, or what he is likely to do in the future in that regard."

That seems to me to be domestic politics and not objectionable from the point of view of censorship. The letter continues:—

"The fact is, of course, that the only effect on the Border question of the eight years of de Valerian administration has been to harden rather than ease the Partition situation. Unless upon the theory that the best way to unravel a black knot is to pull it tighter, I am at a loss to understand how continued support of the Six-County anti-Partitionist for Mr. de Valera can be advocated.

"Mr. Seán McBride supplied a touch of farce with his allegation that Partition ‘had come about as a result of the Treaty of 1921'. This is grotesquely untrue. Partition was an accomplished fact before the negotiations for the Treaty of 1921 began, and one of the tasks which confronted the Irish representations at the negotiations was to devise a means of undoing that accomplished fact. That, in my opinion, they succeeded in doing, but the short-sighted and unfortunate attitude and action of Mr. de Valera and his supporters nullified its chance of operating. Nevertheless, they did secure the Treaty of 1921, which is the foundation of this State, and without which we would not have to-day a de Valerian Government in a position to assert our neutrality in the present world conflict.

"I dislike touching upon this controversial topic at the present juncture, but misleading statements like that of Mr. McBride necessitate correction."

That letter was not published. As I say, the writer of the letter, who was once a member of this House, and who is a member of the Dublin Corporation —is not that sufficient information for everybody now?—says that that letter was subjected to censorship. It may not have been, but I put it to the Minister that if it was, there can be no other possible reason except a political reason. The letter is a fair, ordinary comment upon matters of domestic concern and contains nothing which should be censored. It contains something which might be answered but not which might be censored. However, censorship is a very difficult thing to exercise and it is important that we should have a clear view as to how it is being exercised, what the principles are, and what the relations between the different persons concerned are.

Is the Press censor, for example, like the Dominions of the British Commonwealth of Nations, independent in the exercise of his own functions? What is the link with the Minister? Is it a more tenuous link than the link with the Crown or has the Minister the same powers as the Lord Lieutenant long ago? Can he override the censor or does he ever himself take the initiative in certain matters? One would like to hear that threshed out. I have heard from newspaper men that the powers of Press censorship, with regard to the courtesies of life, are exercised in an entirely sound manner, and I have no doubt, knowing the personnel myself, that that is so. The remedy that has been suggested is that Parliamentary control should be exercised. I am afraid I can see no method by which Parliamentary control could, in fact, be exercised. I have not heard the arguments in full but I am more inclined to leave the matter to the Executive of the day. If there must be a censorship, I think they should exercise that censorship in the national interest and not in a Party interest. They should leave no suspicion of any kind that they are exercising it in a Party interest. They should take Parliament and the public into their confidence by stating the principles upon which the censorship is exercised and the exact responsibilities that devolve on the different persons who exercise it.

I think Senator Sir John Keane performed a useful service in bringing forward this motion. I do not propose to take up the time of the House by mentioning the various stories I have heard of supposed censorship. My reason for speaking at all is that there is an aspect of this subject which does not seem to have been dealt with and which seems to me to be of considerable importance. I hope the Minister will see his way to answer the later questions raised by Senator Hayes. I hope he will also be willing to tell us whether complete records of the various censorships that have taken place are kept so that they can be available at some future date if a general policy had to be devised either by a committee or by a new Government or in some other way, when it may be more opportune to discuss the details. I think that there is a very wide impression abroad that things are happening inside this country which are not happening at all. There is also a general impression that all kinds of matters are being censored. You find that view amongst commercial travellers in the country. Take the case to which Senator Sir John Keane referred, the play "Roly-Poly". I could give the House, if I took the time, at least three different accounts of what is purported to have happened and in each case I could quote somebody of reasonable repute. Almost the whole of Dublin knows something about it. I believe it would have been far better to have published next morning a reasonably full and correct statement. Had that been done, the matter would have been forgotten in a couple of days, whereas it is now a matter of mystery.

I, for my part, find it impossible to distinguish clearly between what is a matter of domestic affairs and what is a matter of external affairs. I am not sure, if you take the strict reading of this motion, that I could agree with Senator Hayes when he says that everyone is in favour of a censorship. I am not convinced that if you take the narrow, strict meaning of "domestic affairs," that there should be a censorship. The very fact that the censorship is placed in the hands of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence suggests that the object of the censorship is connected with the defence of this country. So far as the matter is a domestic matter which is not related to defence, I do not think it is good policy, that it is right or constitutional, that it should be censored at all. I would not have been at all surprised if the Minister had taken the line that there was nothing to debate because there could be no censorship of purely domestic matters and that the only matters which we would want to discuss here would be matters which he would show were in some way or another liable to have effect on the defence of the State. If that were the case, because I know that on all sides of the House there is a real sense of responsibility, we would find it extremely difficult to discuss any of the questions.

I have business interests in the Six Counties and I visit there from time to time and I have frankly been much puzzled by the fact that while quite a number of matters relating to what I thought were our domestic affairs here did not appear in any of the papers published inside the Twenty-six Counties, they could be read in papers published in the Six Counties, and read in many cases, in a form in which I do not think it was in our interest that they should be published. I could not help feeling on many occasions that it would be far better from our point of view here if those matters had been published in our papers here, all of which are read in the Six Counties. There may have been reasons not obvious to me—I recognise that. There is a case in point, but I do not want to discuss particular details, as to which the Minister probably would have all the knowledge and I have only the facts which are open to me, namely, that it appeared in three newspapers on the other side of the Border and did not appear in any here.

It seems to me that the principle underlying censorship should be to prevent the publication only of matters which you reluctantly have to prevent, and that the more you can allow to be published, and the more you can allow the people to feel that they are getting the facts and getting the truth, the healthier the country will be. The danger at the present moment is due to the impression which I found amongst people of all Parties that we are not getting the truth. We have had that first with regard to foreign news. We are not now discussing foreign news. If there is anything which the Government or the Minister or this House could do to give confidence, although we cannot get foreign news on which we can rely and know that that is the whole truth that, at any rate, we can get all the domestic news and know that that is as free as it was before, I think we would be doing a very great service.

It will always be said that a certain matter is censored because the Government did not want it published. There is no doubt whatever that probably the present Minister and I would disagree as to the relative importance of certain matters, because we disagree in our outlook on certain matters. That is one of those things you cannot help. It is one of the drawbacks, or the benefits, if you like, of democratic government with which I do not quarrel. I do feel that we could get a unity on this whole question of censorship if we could believe that everything relating to our domestic affairs was not interfered with, unless the Minister or some very high up official was quite confident that it did affect the defence of this country or its safety.

I agree with Senator Douglas that the wording of Senator Sir John Keane's motion is perhaps not altogether such as meets the case. What is in question is, I think, not so much domestic matters as matters which do not concern in any very special or definite way the safety of the State. I would be very sorry to refuse to give powers to the Minister and the censorship department to prevent the publication of many domestic matters in which the safety of the State might be involved. I think it would be well that the Minister should not regard the raising of this matter and this debate as by way of an attack or as expressing any hostility. I think the Minister in charge of such a very difficult task as censorship in such difficult times should really welcome a discussion like this in which a certain amount of steam could be let off and in which a certain amount of natural anxiety which the public may feel can be given expression to. Though I have not come very much in contact with complaints with regard to the censorship, it is because I do feel strongly that there is a danger and that there is need for caution that I should like to say a few words in this debate.

It seems to me that the overriding principle in the whole question of censorship should surely be the safety of the State, and whether a matter in which the safety of the State is threatened is domestic or not, the powers of the censorship ought to be used in the interests of the community. But there is always a danger in censorship, of course, that it will go too far, and that in going too far it will do a great deal more harm in the long run than the people in charge of the censorship at the actual moment may imagine. I believe it is the principle of the censorship that in theory all news matter may be censored and that it is only by permission of the Minister that any news matter may be published at all. At least I have heard that stated as the principle on which the censorship works. That sounds very like a civil service principle, and, if that principle is held, I should like to suggest to the Minister that it is a very dangerous principle in the long run; that if the Minister and his Department take very extreme powers of that kind and act as if anything that appeared only appeared by their consent, they are doing something that may have serious consequences for the country in the long run.

There is a grave danger under Party Government, naturally, that not only matters concerning the safety of the State, but matters in which Party interests may be involved will be looked askance at by an office like the censorship office; that sometimes there will be a tendency to overstep the mark and to take what looks at the moment like the safe course, and prevent things from being published which the Minister, perhaps, may have a special reason, and from his own point of view a good reason, for not liking; but which, at the same time, it may be very much in the public interest to allow to be published. That may go very far. Even the suppression of trifling matters sometimes, if there is a great deal of it, and if it causes a sufficient amount of irritation, may do a great deal of harm.

I have only come across one or two instances of complaint in relation to the censorship. One is the case of the Mallow Beet Factory to which, I believe, Senator Sir John Keane made reference, and with which I am sure the Minister will deal. I must say that it is a matter on which I find it very hard to understand the action taken by the censor, if the information I was given about it was correct. The other matter is a much more trifling one, but I still think that it is a matter that has its use as being symptomatic of the danger that may be run in all this affair. A friend of mine wrote a review of a book dealing with recent Irish politics, and, in the course of the review, remarked that if ever a time came for a monument to be set up to the authors of the Constitution of Eire he hoped that the name of the Duchess of Windsor would not be forgotten. Now, that sentence was omitted from the review by order of the censor. There may be some doubt as to whether or not it was in good taste on the reviewer's part to put a sentence of that kind in a review, but surely it would be very hard to establish that a sentence like that had any bearing whatever on the public safety. It is a trivial matter, I know, and I do not want to make much out of it. I am only quoting it as one instance which came very much to my notice, and as an instance that does illustrate a certain danger—a danger that is always inherent in this thing—the danger that the censor or the officials of his department may, not only from a sense of their duty to the public safety, but by reason of their own political prejudices or tastes—perhaps in small matters—be influenced in any action they may take in this matter.

We should remember also that when a thing like that is done, when a writer or a journalist of any kind is interfered with in that way, the repercussions of such an action do not always stop with the particular matter itself. These things get around. They spread around, one trifle is added to another, and in the end there is a whole mass of suspicion and a feeling among the public generally that nothing that they see in the papers is true and that the untruth that they believe to be there is caused by the influence of the censor's department. You can easily create a public prejudice by trivial actions of that kind, and I think it would be well if the Minister would take warning from these things and not imagine that, by reason of the fact that he has these powers at this particular moment and can exercise them, it is always safe or wise for him to exercise them.

There have been examples in the recent history of Europe—and they have often been quoted—of the damage that a too strong censorship may cause. I am sure everybody knows what I am referring to—cases where the censorship was so strong that it helped very largely to sap the morale of the country in which it was exercised. Very often, by overstepping the mark in this regard, even in trivial matters, damage has been done, and even in this country, by overstepping the mark, damage could be done and could grow up to such proportions as, in the end, to be almost impossible to deal with. I suggest to the Minister that, while nobody will query his right and his duty to prevent the publication of anything that would be in the least way inimical to the safety of the State, it would be most dangerous for the Government, and for the party in whose interests it may sometimes seem to be done, and for the community as a whole, if that mark should be often overstepped.

I am rather diffident about intervening in this debate because I admit at once that I am an amateur, and that I have no cuttings and only impressions to give to the House, but these impressions are shared very largely—at least in the circles which I frequent—and I think it is well that the Minister should have some knowledge of them. I realise, and I am fully conscious of, the heavy and even terrible responsibilities that lie on the Ministers in these days It is their duty to think of us all and to think of the safety and the future of our State. I realise that, and I also realise that the office of censor is a difficult one. The censor is bound to be criticised from every quarter, and I admit that in days like the present censorship is necessary and that we have to forego to some extent the freedom of speech which the Constitution guarantees to us under certain conditions. It is my impression, however, that the censorship in this country has been going too far and that some definite regulations and rules would be useful—useful to the censor and useful to the heads of our State themselves, for there is a danger there.

The safety of the State is all-important, but there is the safety of the souls of our citizens to think of also. There is a tendency for a censorship to muzzle the conscience. It creates an insecurity, and as a result of that sense of insecurity one feels that one is moving in an atmosphere of whispers and fears—rumours, here and there and everywhere, on the wing. It is not wishful thinking, but fearful thinking that is often characteristic of our society to-day, and a little more open speaking and a little more frankness, perhaps, would overcome that danger. Civilisation, such as we know it, has got as one of its great foundations freedom of speech, derived from freedom of thought and freedom of conscience, and that we should do our best to preserve. Senator Tierney has alluded to the terrible results of excessive censorship in another great country. It destroyed or it sapped the moral sense of that country. It made the people of that country, I might say, moral troglodytes, who went down into the earth in their shelters. That is what I should like the Government to take measures to prevent, if it could.

I do not say that we have gone as far, or anything like as far, as that particular country went, and I hope we never will go so far, but there is always the danger of censorship being pressed too far. There is a temptation to be a dictator. We would all wish to be dictators ourselves because we believe that we could make the world much better if it was only run in our way. We cannot all do that, however, but there is that danger, and censorship induces a kind of intellectual black-out whereby we shut off the light of reason from ourselves. It is to prevent that that we should try, by regulations and rules, to say to the censor: "Thus far shalt thou go and no farther."

Safety is a great thing, and it is an important thing to preserve, but sometimes you may pay too big a price for safety, and an American paper, in a great crisis in its country's history, drew attention to that fact when it said:

" 'Tis man's perdition to be safe,

When for the truth he ought to die."

Now, I do not invite you to take such extreme measures, but I do hope that censorship will not be pressed to extreme measures, and it is my impression that it is going too far.

As we have been listening to points of view that were altogether on one side, I feel that I should give the other aspect of the matter as far as I can. Senator Sir John Keane was what I might call quite reasonable in his statement of the facts as he got them, but, generally speaking, after he had finished, I felt that he was a complete flop in making any charge, on merit, that the censorship had not succeeded in giving a reasonable amount of satisfaction. He told us about something in connection with fish down around the Mallow factory. Now, I am afraid that, generally speaking, you can divide by fifty everything that a fisherman has to say about fish. When a man reads a letter which states that 1,000 trout were killed, it is probable that only 100 or 150 were killed. While matters of that kind might affect a few people and some vested interests, they do not affect the public generally and are not current topics from the point of view of publication.

One thing we can be definitely certain about is that we are living in abnormal times. That being the case, it is far better for the censorship to err on the side of safety rather than to err by taking a chance or by taking a gamble on any subject concerning internal or international affairs. On the other hand, we have a class of individual like Senator MacDermot—it is not a joke at all—telling us it is high time that Parliament should express its opinion on this subject. High time, mind you! We are told it is high time for us, in view of all the motions that come from the Senator, that Parliament should express its opinion on all sorts of things. It has developed into a position of such serious irresponsibility that he should examine himself or have some one to examine him.

There is no doubt about it, that anybody who is knocking around the city and sitting in comfortable armchairs in clubs develops such an intense or active mind that he loses all sense of proportion from his country's point of view, or for that matter, any point of view. When we are told that it is high time that Parliament should consider something he concocts and that Parliament should sit for hours discussing it, such an outlook is becoming too serious from the point of view of this country. It must not be very lightly dealt with. After all, we are only a small country. Looking at the situation from the international point of view, while the effect in international operations in war or anything else may not be very serious, the weaker we are obviously the more careful we should be of every aspect of our life, of our sayings and our actions. That is, at least, one essential that I am sure very few will dispute. If Senator MacDermot is going to have his way he claims the privileges of Parliament and the right as a member of this House to do whatever he likes regardless of the consequences to the country. I could do the same if I had my wife and kids over in America. I could feel sufficiently irresponsible.

Those personal references should not be made.

The matter is sufficiently serious from my aspect that I should speak quite frankly and bluntly. Under these circumstances if I were a free lance perhaps I might eventually develop a sense of irresponsibility. At any rate, it is some consolation, after sitting here and listening to other Senators with all outlooks expressing honest opinions, showing a real genuine spirit of sincerity, that a very fair effort has been made in the censorship, and that in times that are very serious, they are prepared, in the circumstances, to give the powers that be all support and latitude in their work, and that they are prepared to overlook the weakness of human nature in an effort to keep things going normally and successfully. It is only that spirit will help us through. I may have been a bit heated when talking on this question, but it is too vital for the people as a whole for any excuse to be made for anybody acting in an irresponsible sort of way. Such abnormal times were never known. Such critical times were never known in the history of the world. When whole towns and populations can be wiped out in a night, when women and children are suffering, it is acting in an irresponsible way to ask Parliament to discuss some footy question such as whether a matter should be put in a newspaper or not.

We had Senator Crosbie talking about the Taoiseach giving interviews. I suppose he was acting according to his best judgment and that he is quite free to do what he did. It might be a fair argument for Senator Crosbie to quote what he did about seeing so many foreign correspondents. There is another side to the question. I suppose in nearly every case within the last 12 or 18 months the questions that were dealt with in the interviews were a counter blast to wrong publicity about Ireland in the American newspapers. In America the newspapers are pro some side or other from their point of view and that creates confused thinking amongst the American people as far as Ireland is concerned. It was obvious that the Irish leader should from time to time get a proper statement put before the American people and have it published not alone in the American papers but published widely. I often heard in the past that our only hope of getting wide publicity in the American newspapers was by giving information to American correspondents.

It would be ignoring their Irish correspondents, but they do not seem to pay the same respect to them. I do not see why that should be so, but the fact remains. However, I suppose that American papers pay very high fees to the American correspondents here in Europe and, naturally, like to hear from them on spicy questions and give more publicity to their own journalists. Besides that, I suppose that there are other aspects which I need not go into in detail.

I feel that Senator Crosbie himself admitted that the censorship office generally has worked out very well, so far. I do not know, and I did not hear, that journalists were finding things, internally at any rate, any more difficult now than they were in the past. The most important fact is that journalists, as a whole, have been able to keep things moving; they have been continued in employment and, generally speaking, there is stability in the conditions in the newspaper trade. That is a very consoling factor and, under the circumstances, while those conditions can prevail we should be rather satisfied with the way in which we are moving along, and that we are able to preserve the essentials of continuity of publicity with the peace that we have.

The spirit in which some of the speakers spoke to-day, from different sides of the House and representing different vocations in life, is a very happy one, and it is absolutely vital and essential to consolidate that and improve on it. With that atmosphere —with the one exception—I believe, if we can discuss this question next year at this time, and have another row about the censorship, we would be in a very happy position.

In all countries— whether belligerent, non-belligerent or neutral—the powers of censorship are rightly regarded as part of the system of defence. It is from this point of view that we ought to consider it, and I regret very much that that point of view seems to have been lost sight of in the discussion which has taken place. When we met here on that night of the 2nd September and gave the Government emergency powers to save us from what might be grave danger, we gave them this power of censorship.

The Government had only one way of putting it into operation: they chose the chief Press censor and the others whom they thought best fitted for the job. I regret very much that the debate so far has, to a certain extent, resolved itself into reflections on those people. They are doing a great national service and carrying out a task involving great delicacy, yet advantage has been taken of the privileges of this House to attack them when they cannot defend themselves. I listened very attentively to the case made by Senator Sir John Keane. It was very well made and he purported to be making it on facts—which is the only way in which he should make a case of this nature—but when we come to examine these facts, I do not think that Senator Keane claimed they were authoritative, though he believed they were. As far as I can gather, some of the statements made were by people who would not put their names to them.

Senator MacDermot was equally vague: he would not give facts at all. It was a case of: "Dubhairt bean liom go ndubhairt bean lei"—one person said that he heard something, and there was talk and whispers. Whether these facts of Senator Keane's were facts at all we do not know, and that is why I hope the Minister will intervene soon. Even if those were facts, they were really very trivial. People are trying to make a case about the liberty of speech. We would have no liberty if indiscreet words—and indiscreet words are a great danger—involved us in a war. Then there would not be very much liberty of speech. We talk about living dangerously. We would get plenty of it then. When the Government were given these powers they exercised their discretion. But people are human and, perhaps, they did not choose the best person: I do not know, but I think that they did. On the whole, they have exercised those powers in the right way: I think nobody will deny that. Then this House interferes with what might be a very vital portion of the national defence. That is most regrettable, and I hope that when the Minister intervenes he will tell us the exact position.

There is one case which seems to me to have been the cause of legitimate complaint. It was stressed by one of the speakers and was referred to in an article in to-day's Irish Times. It was that, when news comes in, there is no responsible person in the censorship office to deal with it and to say whether such a thing should be passed or not. That should be remedied and there should be some superior officer there. It is important that Civil Service hours and regulations should not be maintained, and that there should be a responsible person to decide in a matter of this kind. Probably, many of the complaints made to-day have been caused by people who are afraid to take responsibility and who may have been over-cautious.

I am not going to detain the House very long, but in a few short words I wish to express my views. I am disappointed, and many of the Irish people will be disappointed, to see that this House wastes its time to-night discussing the question of censorship. A very severe attack has been made on the censor. I happen to be in the position that I have no idea as to who the censor is, but I will say that, despite the fact that a personal attack has been made on him by Senator Sir John Keane, he has the support and the good wishes of 99 per cent. of the Irish people. You must always judge people according to results, and the very fact that powers were given to the Government in this country to take certain action to keep it out of war and out of difficulties— and, mind you, we were not as united then as we are to-day—speaks for itself. Judging by results over the last 12 months, I am satisfied that the censorship portion of defence—as Senator Mrs. Concannon has termed it—is very satisfactory and is fully appreciated by the Irish people outside.

Regarding that item of the letter in connection with the Border meeting, Senator Hayes complained of its not being published. It appeared at the start that it was from an ex-Senator. Now, if an ex-Senator had the right to give his views, some other person had the same right, and where would it all end?

In a perfectly futile discussion.

It would bring the country nowhere, and I, for one, say that the censor was right to cut it out at the start. Then, again, I doubt the sincerity of Senator Keane in advocating that justice has not been done to the Dublin Unemployed Workers movement. I am just as interested in the workers as Senator Keane, and I feel that, if something were not published in connection with those workers there must be some reason for it, as in the case of his remarks in connection with the I.R.A. I, for one, think that the Irish people are quite satisfied with the censorship as it is, and we hope that nothing, so long as the present crisis lasts, will alter that position.

Senator Sir John Keane, in reciting some of the bodies whose communications were censored in the daily Press, referred to the Trades Union Congress and their action in connection with refugees. I want to correct that mistake. The Trades Union Congress never considered the question of refugees and never expressed any views about censorship. I want to clear up that matter before making a few remarks on the motion before us. If I were a theorist, instead of a realist, I should unhesitatingly subscribe to the fine principles expounded by Deputy Alton and other Senators. I, too, believe in the freedom of the Press, but I am not such a fool as to think that this is a time when we can fully subscribe to the fine principles enunciated by these Senators.

I mix among the people of this State probably more than any man in the House, and I know that the predominant anxiety of the people of this State is to keep out of the war. They would be prepared to sacrifice a lot to achieve that. It is easy for these fine theorists to come here and indulge in this high-falutin' talk about freedom when what they mean is not freedom but licence. I wonder to what extent these spontaneous communications which Senator Sir John Keane received are representative of the views of the real people of the country. Would they be more representative of the views of the retired, choleric type of colonel who would like to see the country involved in the present war? I have grave doubts as to the volume of this correspondence.

I happen to have seen the correspondence to which Senator Sir John Keane referred and no part of it was from choleric colonels.

It may not be but the spiritual home of the people concerned is not in this country. I can speak for the organised workers of this country. We represent a quarter of a million of them and we have heard no great outcry against the censorship. What workers fear is not the position that might be created by some form of censorship but the economic consequences likely to affect them as a result of this war. As I said, I mix with all these people and I mix in other circles, represented by 15 or 16 bodies in Dublin, ranging from the Committee of Mountjoy Prison, where I spend a considerable amount of time, to people who are more intellectual than those who complain of the censorship, and I can find amongst those people no great outcry against the censorship. There is a little coterie in this country who affect to be devotees at the shrine of liberal thought and who do not like censorship of books, nor our divorce laws nor many other things which people of this country favour. That is the type which I think is responsible for the storm in a teacup this evening. I am saying that as, to some extent, a representative of the people.

I have been associated with newspaper life for 32 years, both at the technical end and in dealing with people at that end, and I say that there is a considerable amount of vexation not only amongst the editorial but amongst the technical staffs because of the way they are held up by censorship and the rush which is necessary at the last moment to get the paper to press. A classic example of that which was cited to me was this: in the bad weather following last Christmas, a photograph was taken of Westmoreland Street on a very wet day. There was not a soul on the street and only a bus could be seen. That photograph was refused publication. I thought that was fatuous.

Was it a choleric colonel took the photograph?

The staff of this particular paper has a partiality for that type. During August I was down on holidays in Wicklow. I read this paper every day, though Senators might think I read the other two. On the submission of the leading article to the censor, it was cut up so badly that the editor said: "To hell with it; I will put in no leading article". And he put in a paragraph on slang. I do not know whether that was a good substitute for a leading article or not, but I am informed that he was so wild he took the whole thing out and put in this paragraph on slang. Senator Sir John Keane referred to the communications of certain bodies being censored in the Press. I think there must be some good reason for that censorship. These bodies are out to cause disaffection—I do not refer to the body you are, probably, all thinking about. I do not want to incur the risk of being brought before the Special Tribunal. There are other bodies who are out not alone to cause disaffection in the State, but disaffection among their fellow workers. There is, probably, good reason for suppressing the activities of these bodies.

I do not want unduly to prolong this debate, which was very interesting. While there is a great deal of justification for the censorship at the present time, I think some effort ought to be made to relax the censorship in so far as domestic news is concerned. I make no charge whatever against the officials of the censorship office. I know some of them personally and some of them by repute. The journalist concerned is a man eminent in his profession, and very fair-minded. I am sure that he would do nothing to hurt the newspapers of this city or country. We have had something in the nature of a storm in a teacup. There is an element in this country which does not like censorship of any kind. They call themselves devotees of the liberal school of thought. They must not forget that the vast majority of the people favour censorship—not alone the censorship we are discussing at the present time, but censorship in other matters in respect of which we hear complaints from these particular bodies from time to time.

Somebody said that the censorship was becoming tighter and tighter. We are told by the Taoiseach and other responsible Ministers that the position is becoming graver and graver so far as this country is concerned. I wonder how those people, who profess so much concern about censorship, would feel if, as a result of relaxation of the censorship, a crisis were to occur here? I do not want to be personal but the vast majority of us have to live in our own homes in this country and we have got to be very careful. It may appear that I am a bit of an agnostic so far as the labour outlook is concerned. I do not make any secret of that inside my own Party or outside it. I believe that the censorship we have is necessary but I would like some relaxation of that censorship, in so far as domestic news is concerned. I know the difficulties under which newspapers are working at the present time, not alone in respect of news but in respect of the whole production of newspapers. We have a sympathetic man in the censorship office—the eminent professional man to whom I have referred—and I am sure he will see that every effort is made to render these restrictions less severe in future.

After all that has been said on this subject I do not propose to keep the House very long. I am in agreement with the last speaker as regards the necessity for censorship. These are abnormal times, and censorship is a product of abnormal times. Censorship is compact, to some extent, of tyranny and despotism. It must be, because any other weapons are incapable of grappling with such an emergency.

Tyranny and despotism?

It is compact of these two, to a certain extent, and must needs be. Desperate diseases require desperate remedies, and when the ship of State is tumbling about in stormy waters it is no time to quarrel with the admonitions, or even the curses, of the pilot. I am really intrigued as to all this pother about censorship, coming as it does from those who are advocates of this present motion. I seem to visualise a time not so very long ago, in the time of the late Arthur Griffith —shades of The Spark, shades of The United Irishman, shades of Scissors and Paste, and where were all the advocates of censorship then, or the advocates, I should rather say, of free speech then? No. They were too busily engaged in turning the screw on the unfortunate people who eventually made this Assembly possible and now they have the audacity to come forward as the advocates of free speech.

I am emboldened greatly by the latitude given by the Cathaoirleach, and if I only chose to wander as far afield as some of the previous speakers, I would probably have to range from China to Peru on this motion. I cannot help thinking how desirable it would be if the censorship were ten-fold tighter, not merely in this particular instance but in the more universal case of ordinary current censorship in normal times. More damage has been done—and I am particularly anxious to get this in—by the literature which has come to our shores by the ton from another country than could possibly be done by any want of free speech. Of course, I cannot pursue that topic.

I may add that in my opinion the censorship is not half tight enough— sensation in court! If, on the one hand, the windy and rather flambuoyant rhetoric of the Continent is debarred, I do not see why Imperial tripe should not be debarred also, but, of course, I cannot pursue that subject either. Senator Campbell referred to the fact that he mixes with ordinary people. I think I also can say that I mix with the ordinary rank and file, and, speaking for them, I can say that I know they do not give a twopenny ticket about the censorship. They are more concerned in seeing that their homes and altars are safeguarded from the ultimate maelstrom than in picking holes in a Government which has assiduously tried to do its best for the people of the country.

Journalists, on the whole, are certainly a far-seeing tactful body. I have every admiration for them. I had a little to do with the Press, ranging from being an editor for one dizzy week about 30 golden years ago, to writing notes under the title of "Linesman" or some equally nebulous name, of having my proofs and my bad grammar corrected and my solecisms regulated by competent artists, and I have the utmost admiration for the profession. Whether it be a case of judicial ignorance or not I do not know, but I heard Senator Tunney say that he did not know who the Press censor was. I think we all know who the Press censor is. He is a man who made a name for himself in instructing Parliamentary neophytes in the niceties of Parliamentary debate. I think we should be ever grateful to him. He has a hard row to hoe, particularly in times such as the present when things are looking rather ominous in Europe.

In my opinion now is not the time to quibble at restrictions, however troublesome they may seem, because they are absolutely necessary in times such as these. On the principle that out of a ton of pitch blende you can make a dwt. of radium, there may be something in the criticism voiced by the Opposition. But if I were in a position to address a word of advice to the Press censor—of course, I am addressing a mythical censor and speaking in a purely Pickwickian sense—I think I would say something like this: "Be as despotic as you please, because the more you are the more it will be welcomed; be unreasonable because censorship does not admit of reason in stormy times, but, for goodness' sake, do not be petulant and do not be fatuous." Remember I am addressing a mythical censor, one who does not exist, and I am speaking absolutely in a Pickwickian sense. I had the good fortune to see sometime within the last 12 months a blue-pencilled proof, not a very desperate document, but incorporated in that proof, which was blue-pencilled throughout, I observed that 50 per cent. of it was composed of paragraphs which had occupied space in the daily Press three or four days previously. Now I do not know what exactly one is to judge from that: whether in a fit of weariness the Press censor blue-pencilled the whole thing with a feeling of "Here be damned to it," or whether he favoured the daily Press as against the provincial Press. If so, are we to take it that:—

"What in the captain is but a choleric word,

That in the private is rank blasphemy"?

It may have been a case of mere slipshodness, if I may coin a word. If so, I think it is quite regrettable. I think the essence of censorship is that it should be perfectly impartial. We know the difficulties under which the censor labours at times. I do respectfully submit that an article containing 50 per cent. of matter which had already appeared in the daily Press should not necessarily be blue-pencilled wholesale, but that there should be, so to speak, a process of selective elimination. As I have said already, I, like Senator Campbell, have a good deal to do with the ordinary people. I have been touched by their misfortunes. They have been touched by mine, and—I have been touched by them. I have no hesitation in saying that the censorship, unreasonable as it may appear, is dictated by the exigencies and the circumstances of the time, and I fail to see what purpose could be achieved by a discussion of this kind, if it were not to assure the choleric colonels of Senator Campbell's vivid imagination an arena in which to pose as champions of freedom and an audience to which they are perhaps not unjustly entitled.

I do not agree with Senator Tunney when he says that this debate is a waste of time. I would be rather more inclined to agree with Senator Tierney when he said that it was a valuable discussion, and that I should welcome the debate. I agree also with Senator Tierney when he stresses the need for caution in censorship, and that there is always the danger of going too far. Now, it is over 15 months since the censorship powers were given to the Government by the Dáil and by the Seanad. Since that time some billions and billions of words have passed through the censorship department, and while the blue pencil has had to be used occasionally, I think it is a tribute to the censorship staff that, working at the high pressure it has been working at, all the complaints that could be made against it is what has been trotted out here this evening. I say: "All the complaints that could be made against it" and I think that is largely true, because Senator Sir John Keane's motion did not come forward here secretly or without advertisement.

He had a motion down several weeks ago in somewhat similar terms and he got the advertisement of putting that down and withdrawing it. Those who have been censored read that advertisement and, if they had any grievance, all they had to do was to send it along to Senator Sir John Keane. From his own testimony here to-day, he got huge volumes of complaints, and I take it that, wanting to make the best possible case he could for his motion, he gave us the cream of the cases he got. I am prepared to deal with the cream of the complaints he got one by one. Unfortunately, I am at this disadvantage, that I have to think of a situation that might be created if I replied to some of his remarks in the way I should like to reply, and nothing would give me greater pleasure, if this war ever ends and I and Senator Sir John Keane are alive, than to have a debate on censorship and on what has happened.

Within my limitations, however, I propose to deal with what he has said. There is one remark I want to pass in the beginning. It is that if I saw a wolf's tail sticking out through a lamb's skin, I would not be more suspicious than if I saw Senator Sir John Keane's head sticking out from an I.R.A. plus Communist robe. He accuses us bitterly here to-day of having suppressed certain figures as to the number of members of an illegal organisation in jail and of having suppressed the effusions of a Communist who was here under several aliases, whose organisation was suppressed for three months and then took on a new name, and whose principal object was to deny the right of any body, corporation, government or private individual to receive rent.

Senator Sir John Keane's big complaint, the complaint of which he made the most, was the prohibition of a report of the poisoning of certain fish in a river at Mallow. What are the facts of the case? A report on that matter did actually appear in one Irish paper and an attempt was made to send out of the country a version of the poisoning of these fish. The facts are that a couple of dozen salmon were poisoned by the Mallow Beet Factory and that every effort was being made by the Department of Fisheries to bring pressure to bear on the sugar beet people to remedy that position. A few dozen salmon were, in fact, poisoned. The report which was leaving this country was that, for ten miles, the river was choked with fish, that you could walk across the river on their backs and that for another couple of hundred years, no one might ever come to fish in that river. I must say that the censorship department yielded to the temptation to stop that sort of nonsense. It might have been going a little too far, but it yielded to the temptation to stop that story for 24 hours until the Department of Fisheries told the truth about the matter.

We have had the experience in this country for a long time of certain scare stories which would do this country, or portions of this country, irreparable damage being sent out by certain irresponsible people, who are not, in fact, professional journalists at all. Taking them by and large, the professional journalist of this country is an honourable man. He thinks of his country, and does not want to do the State as a whole, or any portion of it, any harm, and he will not earn a few pennies by crying it down, but there are some people in this country—and we have got tabs on them fairly well this last year or so—who are prepared to do anything. They are not professional journalists at all, but they are prepared to send stories out of this country, no matter how untrue and no matter how much damage they may do to this country or other countries, simply in order to get a few pence out of them.

That is aside altogether from this case. I was led on to say it and I agree with Senator Tierney that, in this particular case, it is debatable whether we went too far or not, but I am giving the facts of the case, that it appeared to the Department of Fisheries that if this lie got out and got 24 hours' advance of the truth, it would have a very bad effect on the people in the locality along that river who are earning their livelihood in keeping people who come there to fish. There should be some way of dealing with irresponsible statements of that kind and I think that, in ordinary times, we should have a law that a man who does deliberate damage like that should be taken by the back of the neck and given a couple of years in jail. However, the censor interfered and used his powers to stop it.

The next matter to which Senator Sir John Keane referred was a letter about agricultural statistics which was being sent abroad. He said he was going to deal with domestic matters and then he accused us of stopping a letter which was going abroad containing some agricultural statistics. I do not know what the letter was and the officials who are here do not know what the letter was. We have not been able to trace it since Senator Sir John Keane spoke, but if the Senator sends me the letter, a copy of it, or some reference to it, we will look it up and trace it, if we can. But, anyway, it is not a domestic matter. According to his story, it was a letter containing agricultural statistics going out of the country. I take it the agricultural statistics were published here and, if they were, I can only say that the devil sometimes can quote scripture, and people who want to cause trouble can sometimes write a letter abroad twisting statistics around. As far as agricultural statistics here are concerned, everybody knows that they are published in the country. There are certain figures which have not been published by the statistical bureau, those are the details of certain exports, but Senator Keane was not alluding to them. The next violent crime we committed was to strike out an emblem in a photograph for a Dublin paper. That was done quite deliberately. We were not going to let the editor play the little game that he had in mind. He had quite a number of photographs to publish of the same thing if he wanted to do it, and he could have done it.

As we are anxious to get the principles of censorship, would the Minister mind explaining what was the motive for suppressing that?

The motive for suppressing that was this: As far as I remember it was a photograph of the L.S.F. meeting at College Green. There was an emblem on one corner of the Bank of Ireland, and this particular photograph, we thought anyway, was taken deliberately in order to get that emblem in, and to put it over the L.S.F. meeting to try and attribute a certain complexion to the L.S.F. It was for that reason we cut it out. The Senator also said that the announcement of the death of an Irishman was prohibited. As I said before, that is not true. There might have been propagandist paragraphs about the death of the Irishman prohibited, but the announcement of the death was not prohibited. He said that we prohibited the publication of the photograph of an Irishman who distinguished himself abroad. That was probably done, but I cannot deal with it without going beyond domestic matters. The Senator said, in reference to a play which was taken off a Dublin stage, that the censorship suggested words to a Dublin editor in connection with the report on the matter. That, as far as I am aware, is not true. What was objected to was a Dublin editor censoring a Government statement. All that was said was: "You must publish those words which are in the Government statement; otherwise you do not publish it at all." If that was not what was said—I hope it was said—whatever was said was to the effect that as he would not publish the whole of the statement, he must cut it all out.

One of the reasons, I think, why newspaper editors—although we get along fairly well with them—do not like censorship is that they themselves have been acting as censors all their lives. It is no change to the ordinary people of the country to have myself and my staff acting as censor. It is only a change of function from the editor of the Irish Times to myself and my staff. It is we who have the final O.K. on what to cut out instead of the editors, and, in certain circumstances, when the country is in such grave danger as it is in at the moment, I think the people are better pleased that the censorship should be in the hands of somebody who is responsible to the Parliament elected by the people rather than of persons who are appointed by boards of directors and have no responsibility to the people, although normally they act in a decent way towards them. I have already alluded to Senator Keane's condemnation of the censorship because we prevented some publicity that was issued by the Kimmage and Crumlin Town Tenants' Association, and I do not want to go any further than I have done. There was another matter which the Senator raised, and that was that certain publicity issued by the Trade Unions Congress in regard to air raid victims was suppressed. That is true, because at that time the Government were negotiating.

On a point of correction, it was not the Trade Unions Congress.

Senator Keane said it was.

What was it?

It was publicity issued by a labour body in regard to an organisation here for dealing with air raid victims. That was suppressed.

It was the Dublin Trade Unions Council.

Yes. That is a matter with which I cannot deal fully without going beyond domestic matters. However, I can say this, that at that particular time the Government were negotiating with the British Government for the reception here of refugees —more refugees than we have had up to the present—and we did not want a body like the Dublin Trade Unions Council butting in on that matter until the Government here had settled the major question with the British Government. However, the matter is now approaching a successful conclusion, and we expect an announcement to be made about it in a short time.

Senator Keane and others raised the question of the staff who are dealing with censorship. I also saw a complaint in to-day's Irish Times that the staff who are there should get some help in dealing with leading articles written by “educated men of long and wide experience.” The gentlemen who are censoring the leading articles of this and other papers may not scatter Latin and German words around so freely as the leader writer of the Irish Times, but they are quite competent to censor a leading article or any item of news; they are quite competent to do it on their own initiative in accordance with the instructions they have got, and if at any time there is any question or any doubt they can refer to the higher officials of the censorship branch or to myself.

I can assure the House that quite frequently the 'phone is used not alone to the higher officials but to myself, at all hours of the day and night, and the men who are on duty are encouraged to consult others in the carrying out of censorship. Nobody need think that we have any exact yard-stick in the matter of censorship. This weighing up of words is a very difficult matter and, for my own part, in certain cases, I like to consult others. We like to discuss the matter with the staff and with other people in particular cases. The censorship staff who are on duty at night are encouraged to do that among themselves, to discuss and to consult higher authority if they are in any doubt. One would think, to hear the criticisms of the staff that are there at night, that they were not competent to deal with these matters. Of course they are competent. You have men of the rank of assistant principal, higher executive officer and so on, but if you had an angel from heaven, an editor, when some little word of his is cut out, wants an appeal to somebody higher. It is not because of the rank of the men that are doing the censorship; it is because there is any censorship at all. The editors of the country, as I said, have been acting for a long time as their own censors and would prefer to carry on that position if they were allowed to do it. I may say, too, that, largely speaking, they do carry out their own censorship and it is only when they have any doubt that they consult the censor. I must repeat here what has been said from all sides of the House, that the censorship staff and the newspapers get on very well indeed, and we have found that on the whole the newspapers are co-operating with the censorship staff to see that nothing gets into the papers that is either going to create internal trouble or trouble between ourselves and other countries.

I hope there will not be an impression that there is a general attack on the staff from this side of the House, because I am sure nothing of the kind was intended.

It has been mentioned several times and I think it is up to me to reply to it. Even if it were only mentioned once I would have to do it. I will drop it by saying that I have every confidence in every man who is dealing with Press censorship to do his job and to do it well, and that if he has any doubt he will consult higher authority and, if there is any doubt about any matter, that there will be a general consultation before the thing is finally cut out.

Perhaps the Minister would say, as a matter of illustration, is the Press censor responsible to the Minister direct or to the chief censor?

He is really responsible to both. The fact of the matter is that the Press censor very often deals directly with myself about matters. He rings me up—just as other members of the censorship staff deal directly with me, too—at night if there is an urgent case, and that is very, very often, I may tell you. For 15 months I have never been more than a couple of hours away from a 'phone, and it has been used pretty often, at very inconvenient hours in the morning, too.

One other criticism was that there should be somebody higher than the men who were there. As a matter of fact, the chief Press censor is there very often himself at night and always if he anticipates that anything is likely to crop up that would be a delicate matter to deal with. The newspaper editors of the city and throughout the country know perfectly well on what matters there is likely to be a dispute about the wording and all they have got to do is to 'phone and the Press censor himself would be there if necessary. But apart altogether from the Press censor, the other staff are high officials. They are a very efficient staff and are quite capable of carrying out their orders and, if they have any doubt about their orders, they consult before they act. I think that is all that was in Senator Sir John Keane's basket. Senator Crosbie more or less dealt with himself. Senator Hayes made the point that there was more freedom allowed in other countries than here.

It is difficult to establish that, but one would imagine that from a certain small amount of evidence.

I could imagine that, because this question of modern neutrality is not so much a matter of law as of location.

That is true.

I could imagine more freedom being given, or less censorship, even in a belligerent country, provided that it was located less dangerously than we are.

Far enough away.

That is actually a fact. That is happening.

And, to go a little bit further than that, take the expenditure that neutral nations and belligerent nations make on warlike preparations. In very many cases you find that neutral nations have to spend more on warlike preparations than belligerents. Again, it is a matter of geography and not of law.

I hate to interrupt the Minister, but——

I must speak without interruption, please. Take the last war. I am sure that Switzerland spent more on warlike preparations than Japan.

I should not think so.

Relative to the population, perhaps.

Relative to the population, very much more.

That may be.

Japan had the navy out but Switzerland had nearly half her man power under arms during the whole of the war. Again, in this particular war I am sure, for instance, that Switzerland has spent very much more as a neutral than New Zealand has spent. It is simply a matter of location. We are prepared here to give, either in peace or in war or in time of neutrality, as much freedom as we can and only to exercise the censorship to the minimum degree that is necessary to keep our country safe. By and large, we operate this censorship, as I think somebody said here to-night, to keep temperature down internally and to prevent it from rising between ourselves and other countries. On that matter we have to remember that propaganda is now one of the most important weapons of war, and there are some nations spending more energy and brains and man power on propaganda than they are on some other vital arms of their armed forces.

We have to realise that that is so. No matter what the law of nations, the Hague Convention, may say, and even though it allows neutrals to be belligerent in their words, provided they are not belligerent in their acts, nowadays if nations want to keep out of war they have got to be neutral in their words as well as in their deeds. That is the reason I say to Senator Hayes that it may be true, and I will not deny, that there is more freedom and less censorship in other countries than here but, if that is so, I am sure, if the governments are wise, it is because they are less dangerously situated than we are.

Now, I think I have dealt with the matter that was mentioned as to the person to whom an appeal can be made. I have never refused to see anybody on a question of censorship, and if there is any editor or any other man aggrieved, he can always, if it is one of the Press censorship staff who is concerned, make an appeal to the Press censor himself. It is true, as Senator Hayes says, that there is a tendency in human nature to go too far with everything, even with censorship; but I think we have been doing all that men can do to fight that tendency. We try to use the blue pencil as little as we can and, unless it affects the safety of the State, either in internal or external affairs, it is allowed to go through.

Might I interrupt the Minister in order to mention one instance that has occurred to me? This dates back a little time ago. I remember some months ago the censorship closing down on references to the desirability of a national Government in this country. Why should that be?

I forget the particular instance. The national Government idea might have been associated with another idea which was not quite so innocent. However, I forget the instance.

It was not, in this particular case.

I do not know. Anyway, I do not think it had any particular popular appeal with any Party.

Let us take the instance that Senator Tierney dealt with some minutes ago, some trifling thing about the Duchess of Windsor.

Let me deal with one thing at a time; I will deal with all in due course. Senator Hayes raised the question of the suppression of the letter of an ex-Senator. I cannot describe it as a letter about partition.

About partition and the ports.

Yes, partition and the ports. The ports, particularly, were a rather delicate question on the 20th November.

On the 22nd November.

It was a very delicate matter indeed, and we had to use the blue pencil very severely on the people to whom ex-Senator Milroy purported to reply. If we had allowed ex-Senator Milroy to get going, we would have had a real good, swishing controversy. We acted as we did in order to keep the internal temperature down. That was the basis of the censoring of that letter.

They allowed a report to state a particular thing about a particular party and did not allow that party to reply.

That was not so.

It was so.

It was not so. Anyway, that was not the basis of our censorship.

That is what I wanted to get.

Senator MacDermot asked that the principle should be promulgated and assented to by Parliament. Parliament did assent; the Oireachtas assented; the Dáil and the Seanad agreed to give the Government the powers of censorship.

I was talking about the principle on which it should be exercised.

I have explained the principle on which it is exercised. There are individuals like Senator MacDermot who represent practically nobody only themselves—I am saying that without offence—and they think that the rest of us should be governed by them.

That is an absurd statement from beginning to end.

Those interruptions must cease.

We think that whoever the Government elected by the people appoints in charge of the censorship, their views should go, subject always to Parliamentary discussion and question. I agree with the Senator that citizens' rights should not be abrogated, even in a time of war. But citizens' rights are always limited. There is no person in this world who has an unlimited right to do whatever he himself thinks.

Not even a censor?

Not even a censor. The censor is governed by law and by common sense.

Let us hope so.

The Senator raised another very important question, but I cannot deal too freely with it. He asked should the members of the Dáil and Seanad be prohibited from giving their views on any subject to their fellow-citizens. By way of reply to that I would say this much, that even the Government cannot declare war. The Dáil has reserved that right to itself. The Government cannot act. It is the Government's duty to keep the peace until the Dáil declares war. In these days words are sometimes very much more dangerous than bombs. The Government could without an act, without any overt or positive physical act, embroil this country in war. It could do so simply by saying something, particularly if it said something that was bad enough or something less bad often enough. The Government cannot embroil the country in war; at least it has no legal right to do it and neither has any individual.

As I pointed out before, propaganda is now a major weapon of war. We have got to treat it as such and walk warily in the zone of propaganda. Senators and Deputies will have to walk warily in that zone also, just the same as the Government does. No individual or no Government has the right to embroil the country in a war. As regards the censoring of Parliamentary debates, the only way in which the Official Report can be censored is, I think, by agreement with the Ceann Comhairle and the Deputy, or the Deputy's Party.

With regard to newspaper reports, they are censored if they are thought to be dangerous. We must realise the circumstances by which we are surrounded. We can debate certain things here in the Seanad rather more freely than we would debate them if we thought everything we said was going to appear in the newspapers. I do not like secret sessions at all. I would rather have public sessions and then cut out anything that is indiscreet.

Especially if you do it yourself.

Especially if you do the cutting out.

Of course, I have better judgment than most people in that regard. I was delighted to hear Senator MacDermot quote Wolfe Tone's statement that the exercise of power could corrupt angels. Well, I am no angel, so I hope it will not corrupt me. We have no despotic authority in this matter. We are limited by law in what we can do. We are limited by commonsense and we are open to criticism in the Dáil. Senator MacDermot made a suggestion here about a consultative committee. My reply to that point is that I made that suggestion in the Dáil over 12 months ago, and it did not commend itself, it appears, to the other Parties in the House. From my experience since, I think it was a good job.

Mr. Hayes

The Opposition was right.

The Opposition was right. I was somewhat over-enthusiastic in my offer to them in those days. I think it is better that there should be one censor, a person upon whom the responsibility for the censorship can be placed. In this particular instance, I am not shirking any responsibility. I am completely and absolutely responsible for the censorship. It is better that we should have a clear-cut and definite responsibility rather than try and put the responsibility on some committee that will not have any control because you cannot divorce authority from responsibility nor responsibility from authority in this matter.

My object in making the suggestion was to help the Minister to continue to be an angel.

I did not say that I regarded myself as an angel. I am, therefore, not so corruptible as a human angel might be. I think I have dealt pretty fully with all the points Senator MacDermot put forward. Most of the other Senators covered the same ground. Senator Douglas asked if records were kept. Records are kept of anything we cut out of matters submitted to us. They are there to be seen and can be turned up if necessary. He said that we were cutting out certain things which appeared in the Six Counties and which should have appeared here. Well, unfortunately, we have not control in the Six Counties yet, and if we had they would be cut out there, too.

That was not my point but I shall let it pass.

I do not know what the Senator had in mind, and seeing that I am not too clear, and he has not told me, I shall not delay further with it. Senator Douglas also said that there was a general impression that things were happening here which were not in fact happening, and that the people were not getting the truth. The people of this country are pretty cute and, as far as domestic matters are concerned, they do not have to depend on the papers for news. There is a real whispering gallery or some secret method of signalling by which news can be disseminated over the whole of our territory within a short time. Whatever happens within the country, they know of it pretty well. I think, as the war goes on, they will become even more accustomed to discerning truth from untruth in regard to domestic affairs. In regard to foreign affairs, they can hear both sides of the story by sitting at the many thousands of wireless sets which are in the country.

The Minister does not think they can get the truth that way?

They can split the difference. I do not see why we should get into trouble in regard to telling them things that are said by both sides. If they want to know of these things, they can listen in. I challenge anybody in this country to spend the whole of the night at a wireless set, listen to the news and views from all the countries in the world, belligerent and otherwise, and then turn to the newspapers afterwards to see if he does not get a fair representation of the news from the whole world as well as news of domestic affairs. It is recognised on the Continent and elsewhere that both our newspapers and our wireless station publish the most objective and the best reports of the war, taking practically the whole world. There is a lot of flap-doodle and propaganda cut out, but the bones of the news are left, and they can always get at the truth.

The Minister will not have that part of the speech censored.

We shall see. I think I have dealt fairly well, with every point that has been raised. Generally speaking, in reply to Senator Alton, I agree that there is a danger of going too far. It is not to-day or yesterday that we realised that. We realised at the outset that there was a danger of going too far and we decided that we would only go as far as was necessary. I think, by and large, we have lived up to our resolution in that regard. I am not going to say that we are perfect or that we may not have made some some mistakes now and again but the cases mentioned here to-day represented the entire collection that could be made after every crank and every decent man in the country, whose views were suppressed or whose anger was aroused because we had interfered in some way with their beautiful phrases whenever they felt the urge to write or to speak, had an opportunity of formulating their charges against us. They knew this motion was coming on for discussion to-day; yet these cases represent the only complaints that could be made. I think that is not a bad record after 15 months.

The Minister claims to have dealt fairly well with the arguments on the motion. For my part, I should like to pay him the compliment of having dealt well and fairly with the matter. We have no complaint at all as to the way in which the Minister has treated the motion. I am only too glad to admit that he has made a very good case for his Department but I hope he will also concede that there was justification for this motion and that on the whole it will do good. It will clear the air and set at rest a certain kind of anxiety that does undoubtedly exist, not merely amongst journalists but amongst a large number of ordinary responsible citizens. I think that the House has every reason to congratulate itself on the manner in which it has handled this debate, and the sense of responsibility which has governed all the remarks made by Senators. There are only two points which are rather vitally important to which I should make a reply. The Minister suggested that the emblem taken out of the photograph was put there deliberately. I do not think that was fair. I do not think for a moment that a responsible journalist would go to the trouble or that a newspaper would be so malign as to place responsible Ministers in a position that might be anyway embarrassing or give a false impression. If you look at the photograph you will see that if it appeared without it the photograph would be very queer. I think the Minister, on further reflection, may be inclined to agree that the word "deliberate" was not justified.

The Minister said that papers largely carry on their own censorship. I am interested to hear that, because my information is that everything is submitted. Perhaps the papers find it more convenient to submit everything. All their leaders I understand are submitted sooner than run the risk of getting into trouble after publication. Of course in England the practice is different. There editors take responsibility. The Minister also said that his powers were limited by law. I do not want to enlarge on that, but I did not know that practically there was any limitation on the powers of the censorship. I understood it cut out anything and everything. That is all I have to say. Naturally, I do not intend to carry this motion to a division. The Minister would not admit it, but I have no doubt that it has served and will serve a salutary purpose and justify the position of Parliament in safeguarding the citizens, and as a check indirectly on possible excesses on the part of Government.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Seanad adjournedsine die at 9.45 p.m.
Barr
Roinn