Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas

Dáil Éireann - Volume 40 - 14 October, 1931

Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill, 1931—Allocation of Time Motion.

The President: I move:

“I gcás an Bhille Bhunreachta (Leasú Uimh. 17), 1931, go dtabharfar dhá lá do chéimeanna eile an Bhille, agus Céimeanna an Rúin Airgid d'áireamh, agus go raghfar ar aghaidh leis na Céimeanna mar leanas:-

(a) Cuirfear sios Dara Céim an Bhille mar chead ghno Rialtais go bhfreasabhra Déardaoin, Deire Fomhair 15adh, 1931, agus mara mbeidh na himeachta bhaineann leis an gCéim sin críochnuithe roimh 6.30 p.m. an lá san críochnófar iad an uair sin tríd an gceist seo do chur ón gCathaoir laithreach. eadhon, Go léightear an Bille Bunreachta (Leasú Uimh. 17), 1931, an dara huair anois, agus tar éis na huaire sin an lá san ní cuirfear Ceist ar bith ón gCathaoir i dtaobh aon leasuithe bheidh curtha síos le déanamh ar an tairisgaint go ndeintear an dara léigheamh:

(b) Breithneofar Céim Choiste agus Céim Thuarasgabhála an Ruin Airgid agus Céim Choiste an Bhille díreach ar chríochnú Dara Céime an Bhille Déaraoin, Deire Fomhair 15adh, 1931, agus mara mbeidh na himeachta bhaineann leis na Céimeanna san críohuithe roimh 10 p.m. an lá san críochnófar iad an uair sin tré aon cheisteanna is gá chun na n-imeacht do chríochnú do chur ón gCathaoir láithreach agus i ndiaidh a chéile: Ach tar éis na huaire sin an lá san ní cuirfear Ceist ar bith ón gCathaoir i dtaobh aon leasuithe bheidh curtha síos le déanamh ar an Rún Airgid ná i dtaobh aon leasuithe bheidh curtha síos le déanamh ar an mBille nách leasú do chuir an Rialtas síos agus is sa bhfuirm seo bheidh an Cheist i dtaobh a leithéide sin de leasú, eadhon, Go ndeintear an leasú; agus tar éis na huaire ceaptha isi Cest a cuirfear ón g Cathaoir chun na n-imeacht i gCoiste ar an mBille do chríochnú láithreach ná Go bhfanaidh an tAlt, na hailt mar chuid de Bhille agus gurb iad an Sceideal agus an Teideal a bheidh mar Sceideal agus mar Theideal don Bhille, no go bhfanaidh an tAlt, na hAilt (mar do Leasuíodh, má rinneadh leasuithe) mar chuid den Bhille agus gurb iad an Sceideal agus an Teideal (mar do leasuíodh, má rinneadh leasuithe) a bheidh mar Sceideal agus mar Theideal don Bhille (pe'ca ceist acu is gá);

(c) Cuirfear síos Céim Thuarasgabhála an Bhille mar chéad ghnó Rialtais go bhfreasabhra Dé hAoine, 16adh Deire Fomhair, 1931, agus mara mbeidh na himeachta bhaineann leis an gCéim sin críochnuithe romh 12 meán lae an lá san criochnófar iad an uair sin tré sna Ceisteanna is gá chun na n-imeacht do chríochnú do chur ón gCathaoir láithreach, agus tar éis na huaire ceaptha ní cuirefear Ceist ar bith ón gCathaoir i dtaobh aon leasuithe nách leasú do chuir an Rialtar síos, agus is sa bhfuirm seo bheidh an Cheistg i dtaobh a leithéide sin de leasu, eadhon, Go ndeitear an leasú;

(d) Breithneofar Cúigiú Céim an [29] Bhille díreach ar chríochnu na Ceathrú Céime Dé hAoine, Deire Fomhair 16adh 1931, mara mheidh na himeahta bhaineann leis an gCéim sin críochauithe roimh 1.30 p.m. an lá san crochnófar iad an unair sin tríd an gCeist is gá chun ns n-imeacht do chríochnú do chur ón gCathaoir láithreach.

That in the case of the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill, 1931, two days shall be given to the remaining Stages of the Bill, including the Stages of the Money Resolution, and the Stages shall be proceeded with as follows:-

(a) The Second Stage of the Bill shall be set down as first Government opposed business on Thursday, October 15th, 1931, and the proceedings on that Stage, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 6.30 p.m. on that day by putting from the Chair forthwith the question, That the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill, 1931, be now read a second time, and after the said hour on the said day no Question shall be put from the Chair on any amendment set down to the motion for Second Reading;

(b) The Committee and Report Stages of the Money Resolution and the Committee Stage of the Bill shall be considered immediately on the conclusion of the Second Stage of the Bill on Thursday, October 15th, 1931, and the proceedings on these stages, if not previously concluded shall be brought to a conclusion at 10 p.m. on that day by putting from the Chair forthwith and successively any questions necessary to bring the proceedings to a conclusion: Provided that after the said hour on the said day on Question shall be put from the Chair on any amendment set down to the Money Resolution, nor upon any amendment set down to the Bill save an amendment set down by the Government, and the Question on such an amendment shall be in the from. That the amendment be made; and after the appointed time the Question to be put from the Chair to bring the proceedings in Committee on the Bill forthwith to a [30] conclusion shall be (as the case may require), That the Section, the Sections stand part of and that the Schedule and the Title be the Schedule and the Title to the Bill, or, That the Section, the Sections, the Schedule and the Title (as amended, if amendments have been made) stand part of and be the Schedule and the Title to the Bill;

(c) The Report Stage of the Bill shall be set down as first Government opposed business on Friday, 16th October, 1931, and the proceedings on that Stage, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 12 noon on that day by putting from the Chair forthwith the Questions necessary to bring the proceedings to conclusion, and after the appointed time on Question shall be put from the Chair upon any amendment save an amendment set down by the Government, and the Question on such an amendment shall be in the form, That the amendment shall be made;

(d) The Fifth Stage of the Bill Shall be considered immediately on the conclusion of the fourth Stage on Friday, October 16th, 1931 and the proceeding on that Stage, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m. on that day by putting from the Chair forthwith the Question necessary to bring the proceedings to a conclusion.”

The best justification of this motion is the immediate necessity for the power which are sought to be conferred in this measure. That necessity will best be understood when I have explained the situation which renders the measure necessary. The long title of this Bill explains the scope and purpose of the Bill itself and the aim and intention of the Government in introducing it. It is pre-eminently a Bill to safeguard the rights of the people and to ensure to them the full and peaceable enjoyment of those right. The Constitution of the Irish Free State when adopted in 1922 was hailed as one of the most democratic Constitutions in the world. The new State was founded on principles guaranteeing to the individual the full enjoyment within the law of civil and political right and securing through [31] the medium of adult suffrage and proportional representation a menthod by which the will of the people as a whole could best be expressed and given effect to. Under the Constitution there is full and untrammelled liberty for any person to advocate and recommend to his fellow-citizens, openly by speech and writing, the adoption of any political programme whatsoever, even the adoption of different forms of Government and to put his programme into operation as soon as he has induced a majority of the citizens to support it in the polling booths. There is therefore, no shadow of an excuse for the adoption of violent or extra constitutional methods in order to attain political ends. Unfortunately such methods have been adopted. The rights of the people have been attacked, and the Parliamentary institutions set up under the Constitution have been menaced by the actions of persons relatively small in numbers who have elected themselves as dictators of the policy which the country should adopt, and who have endeavoured to enforce their dictatorship by means of violence, intimidation and murder. The object of this Bill is to protect the ordinary law-abiding citizen and the country as a whole from such unwarranted invasions of his rights. As the Bill aims at safeguarding constitutional rights, it is proper that its provisions should be inserted as an Article in the Constitution. When the Bill becomes law no hardship or disability of any kind will be imposed on any law-abiding individual or section of the community whatever his or their political opinions may be. Nothing in the Bill forbids the advocacy of any political ideals. We only ask that the advocate shall not speak with a gun in his hand.

Since the establishment of the constitution the Government of the Iris Free State has endeavoured to direct all its energies to the economic reconstruction and development of the country. That task, difficult in itself and rendered all the more difficult by reson of the depressing economic conditons almost universally prevailing during the past few years, has been [32] rendered almost impossible because of the existence in this country of the menace, never altogether removed, of unconstitutional action and revolt. On more than one occasion since the establishment of the State our energies have had to be diverted from the great work of economic regeneration because the very foundations of all economic and civil life were in jeopardy. And now, at a time of unparalleled financial stringency and depression, we have once again to pause in our work. This time the meanace must be removed once and for all. This Bill furnishes the means for doing so. The powers and machinery provided by this Bill are necessary, not merely for this Government but for any Government that may be in power if the will of the majority of the people is to precail.

There are people who affect to be unaware of any reason why legislation of this kind should be introduced; people who say “What is all the trouble about? Where are the criminals whose repression is so urgent?”

It is really very difficulty to believe that there is any sincerity behind this attitude. Nobody adopts such an attitude about other important but less fundamental matters of public concern which are no more obvious; nobody pretends to doubt that there is a housing shortage, or a tariff problem, but many people who can see these things quite plainly affect not to be able to see all any serious threat to the peace and order of the State.

I cannot see how anybody can take the line that there is not at the present moment a widely organised conspiracy to overthrow by force the Constitution and Government of the State, and that the conspirators are ready to use murder freely as a means to that end. But if any man has any shadow of doubt that the murders or other numerous outrages of all kinds, which have recently been perpetrate, might be susceptible of any other explanation than that they are the result of such a conspiracy, he has only got to read the principal organ of the conspiracy, the weekly paper calling itself “An Phoblacht,” which, week in and [33] week out, preaches the conspirators, that the true Government of the State is vested in the Army Council of the Irish Republican Army, that the Oireachtas is a mere cover or instrument of British usurpation, that the police and the courts maintaintned by us have no more authority, and that the murder of any State servant is a perfectly proper procedure and is in Fact, the only immediately practical step towards a Republic. These doctrines are preached with a directness, with a continuous incitement to violence and crime which I do not believe has a parallel in any other State in the world.

On the 14th February last, Immediately after the murder of Patrick Carroll, who was murdered because he gave information to the police repecting the I.R.A., this paper published an editorial headed “Executed by the I.R.A.”, in which the murder we explained and justified. On the 7th March it published an editorial explaining that “British Imperialism” could not be overthrown by mere votes and exhorting the leaders of Fianna Fáil to be prepared, when in power to shoot “not the I.R.A. but those who stand for English rule in Ireland,” which is its stock designation for the present Government and its supporters. On the 21st March it promised that the guns would soon make themselves heard. On the 28th March it justified the murder of Superintendent Curtin. On the 4th April is asked for recruits for the I.R.A. On the 9th May it advocated open drilling. On the 16th May it warned the Gárdai not to interfere with political crime. On the 23rd May it said that British Imperialism in this country could be overthrown by armed force only. On the 29th June it remarked “there are rifles in Ireland still” and that they would be used by the Volunteers. On the same day it deplored the discovery of the kilakee dump but consoled its readers with the reminder “there are at least some hundreds of such dumps” still available. On the 29th August it threatened the Minister for Justice by name with “the gun.” There is hardly a week's issue from which similar excerpts could not be [34] made. This journal boasts that it has a circulation three times as great as that any other weekly paper published in this State, and whether that boast is true or not it is certain that it has a considerable circlation among young men. We have passed Acts of Parliament to protect our young men from the dangers of licentious and indecent publications. It is time, I submit, that we protected them also from the continuous stream of incitement to crime.

As another instance of their efforntery and contempt for the people of Ireland who have elected this Dáil, I may refer to a recent interview accorded in the offices of “An Phoblacht” to the special correspondent of the “Daily Express” By Frank Ryan and Geoffrey Coulter. It appeared in the English edition on the 24th August, 1931. Here is the interview:

They spoke with a freedom that staggered me. They answered with astonishing candour questions I felt sure they would dodge.

They told me exactly what the I.R.A. stands for, and the lengths to which it is prepared to go to achieve these objects. They told me plainly that the I.R.A. believes in force, and, in certain circumstances, the taking of human life.

We had a long discussion on the ethics of killing, and Mr. Ryan disclosed to me all the considerations which decide the question of whether the death penalty should or should not be enforced.

And at the end of our long conversation they both assured me they had no objection to the publication of the interview, and they gave me full permission to use their names.

Both declared that they were speaking only as individuals and both are well qualified to expound the policy of the I.R.A.

I opened the interview by asking if it was true the I.R.A. objected to the “Daily express” using words like “murder” and “assassination” when referring to the shooting of unarmed men. “Yes,” said Mr. Ryan, “the shooting to which you referred were not murder; they were acts of [35] war. You must remember this, the Irish Republican Army is still at war with Britain.

“We regard the Free State Ministers merely as the agents of Britain. We shall not lay down our rms until we have achieved the object Irishmen have been fighting for these many years—a completely independent republic for all Ireland. The ‘Daily Express’ has represented us as a gang of terrorists who have only a small following in Ireland. We say that we represent the majority of the Irish nation.

“We have to meet force by force. That is why the I.R.A. will not surrender their arms. Let me tell you the inside story of these shootings you have called murders. Take the case of Supt. Curtin. As you say, he was shot after he had conducted a prosecution for illegal drilling. But that is not all the story. Supt. Curtin belonged to the Civic Guards, which is supposed to be an unarmed force that does not concern itself with political affairs. Supt. Curtin exceeded his duty. He went out of his way to persecute the I.R.A.

“We draw a distinction between members of the Civic Guard and the men in the C.I.D.,” went on Mr. Ryan. “The Civic Guard have no right to interfere in matters that do not concern them. If they ask for trouble they must not be surprised if they get it.

“Our attitude towards the C.I.D. is different. They are recruited for political work. It is their job to hunt us down, and while we do not like it we realise they are only doing what they are paid for. Therefore, we bear them no ill-will.

“There are three armed detectives watching this office at this moment.”

Mr. Ryan went over to the window and looked down on the busy street.

“I have only to give the word, he said, and every C.I.D. man would be wiped off the streets of Dublin to night. It is not fear that hold us back.”

I believe that when Frank Ryan said this he was saying nothing more than what he believed was the truth.

“You ask about the other shooting,” Ryan went on when he was back at his desk. “Take the case of the farm labourer who gave evidence for [36] Curtin. He was nothing else than a traitor.

Then there was Carroll, the young man found dead in a Co. Dublin lane. This is the truth about him. He was an agent provocateur. One night he met two Republicans, and handed them parcels of explosives and told them to take them to some of their friends round the corner. That was a police trap. It does not matter how it was known. Many curious things come to our ears. Who can say that Carroll did not meet with his deserts if his head was blown off with one of his own bombs? Military organisation cannot tolerate spies or traitors. But let me tell you this—these things are not decided lightly. Decisions are made only with very, very great reluctance. Traitors must be punished, but there are fewer in our ranks than anywhere else. Almost every day our men are offered bribes to betray us to the police. One man who works in this office was offered £5 a week to give away information.”

I invited Mr. Ryan to tell me how the I.R.A. proposed to overthrow the Free State Government. “All I am going to say is this,” was his reply, “one of these days there will be crowds in the street, and they will not be dispersed by baton charges. You know the old saying that England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity. England will be engaged in another great war soon. Then she will try to take advantage of the provisions of the Treaty for garrisoning ports in Ireland. That will be the end of England's rule in Ireland.”

I quote this interview because it epitomises the doctrines that have been for months preached in “An Phoblacht” and because it is an example of the ideas that pring from perverted patriotism and ignorance of fundamental Christian teaching.

No State could remain in existence if such people were allowed to preach their doctrines freely and to enjoy the immunity that has been theirs under existing conditions.

The existence of a serious conspiracy against the State, determined to bring about its overthrow by force, has become increasingly evident in the last tow years and especially during [37] the last nine months. This conspiracy has found expression through a number of organisations, partly independent of each other; some of them having definite affiliation, others being kept in touch by means of a certain overlapping of their controlling personnel, but all united in the immediate work that is to be undertaken, namely the overthrow by force of the existing State, as the necessary preliminary to the realisation of their utimate aim.

Among these may be mentioned the I.R.A. an avowedly military organisation, responsible to nobody but its own chiefs. Its numbers, activities and crimes have increased in recent times, and have in many cases struck terror into the hearts of the ordinary law-abiding citizen.

Closely allied with it, leading it material assistance and encouragement, is the Cumann na mBan which has taken a large part in the campaign of terrorisation, and in the breakdown of the judicial system. To it are affiliated various other organisations of women with the same general objectives. Future recruitment, active assistance, and the inculcation of subversive doctrines into the youth are secured by the existence of Fianna Eireann. There are also a number of Communistic Groups such as “The Irish Friends of Soviet Russia,” “The Irish Communist Party,” “The Irish Working Farmers' Committee,” the “Workers' Revolutionary Party in Ireland,” the “Irish National Unemployed Movement,” the “Workers' Defence Corps,” and the “Irish Labour Defence League.”

The members of this conspiracy have not only committed one crime after another against the State and against the public, but have made a marked advance in the openness with which they acknowledge their crime, and the vigour with which they repudiate the efforts of apologists to clear them of the guilt. They have shown themselves more eager and ready openly to assume the functions of properly constituted authority. Efforts to suggest that their crimes are the work of others are abandoned, and [38] they claim the right to “execute,” they deploy as an army, and proclaim public meetings. And all the time there is not even a semblance of sanction, moral or political, for their usurpations and actions.

The methods by which these dangerous organisations endeavour to enforce their will on the people are varied and terrifying and their overt acts have in recent months become more daring and more apparent. Intimidation is a powerful weapon, unfortunately too well known in this country, and it has been employed to the full limit of its terrible power. Young men, desirous only of attending to their ordinary business, have been forced by threats to join the I.R.A. and their employers forced to dismiss from their employment men who refused to join the Association. Threatening notices and letters are daily commonplaces. Witnesses or potential witnesses in State prosecutions are prevented by threats from giving evidence or information, and the detection of even ordinary crime is rendered difficult by the presence and dread of intimidation. Since the commencement of the present year —that is, during a period of less than ten months—numerous dumps of arms and ammunition have been discovered by the police; several murders and attempted murders have been effected; drilling has become common all over the country and numerous miscellaneous crime perpetrated. Let me give a summery of the crime during that period:—

On the 30th January Patrick Carroll was murdered by armed men at Captain's Lane, Crumlin. He was a member of the I.R.A. but was discovered by that organisation to have been giving information to the police. Deputies will remember that an attempt was made to attribute this murder to the police, who were in fact attacked during his funeral. On 21st March, Superintendent Curtin was murdered by armed men at Tipperary as he was returning home from duty at night. He had conducted a local prosecution for illegal drilling shortly before. On 20th July, John Ryan of Tipperary was taken by armed men at night from the house where he was employed and murdered on the roadside [39] and the body left there. He had made statements to the police in connection with the same drilling charges as led to the murder of Superintendent Curtin. John Ryan was murdered because he refused to commit perjury. For these crime it has been impossible to make any person amenable.

On 23rd April, at night, two young men crossing the Dublin mountains were fired upon by an armed drilling party and one of them was severely wounded.

On 1st August shots were fired into a dance hall at Drumreilly, County Leitrim.

On 12th September, Mr. William McInerney, of Kilrush, was fired at when entering his own house and seriously wounded.

On 15th September, shots were fired into the house of the State Solicitor for County Clare.

On 18th July warders from Mountjoy Prison were attacked, whist off duty, by armed and one of them was handcuffed to an iron rail and chained by the neck and legs.

On 11th October, an attempt was made by armed men to release the brothers Gilmore from Mountjoy Perison. Five or Six armed men entered a house adjoining the prison and held up the occupants.

On 14th April, in order to embarrass a political function, the electric cable at Tipperary was malicioulsy damage so as to dislocate the lighting arrangements.

On 15th April, Dublin shopkeepers were visited and ordered not to sell imported sweets.

On 11th May, the lighting arrangements at Tralee were interfered with for the same motive as in the case of Tipperary on 14th April.

On 21st May, an armed assault and an attempt at arson was made at the North Wall to prevent the importation of English-made sweets.

On 12th July, the railways, buses, and telegraph lines in Kerry were interfered with order to prevent attendance at the Garda Sports at Tralee.

On 9th August, the railway line at Dore (West Triconaill) was blocked with boulders; the railway telephone [40] wires were cut at Puck (East Triconaill) and the main road from Stranolar to Letter kenny was blocked with stones. The police were fired on when they interfered. Special trains had been arranged to attend the Garda Sports at Letter kenny. At Clonkeen (Portlaighise) 40 telephone and telegraph wire were cut, delaying a Dublin special to the Gárda Sports at Clonmel.

On 12th August, a public meeting at Cootehill, County Cavan (Orange Meeting) was prevented by the I.R.A. The railway line was torn up. It was subsequently announced that this was done by order of the Cavan Brigade, I.R.A.

On 24th August, a party of Boy Scouts camping at Dunleer were visited at night by about 20 armed men and their hut burned down.

On 12th January, 1931, a threatening poster was sent to Dublin residents with a view to influencing them as jurors.

On 6th February, 1931, several men were found openly drilling at Tipperary.

On 23rd April, 1931, Dublin jurors received intimidating posters.

On 30th April, 1931, a resident of Tipperary received a threatening letter signed “I.R.A.” ordering him to leave the country.

On 5th April, 1931,a very large number of men, approximately 100, were found drilling at Dangan in Offaly under Sean McGuinness who was at that time an escaped prisoner.

On 14th April, 1931, drilling took place at Loughanure, County Donegal. One of the men was in the possession of a revolver

On 18th May, 1931, a determined attempt was made to break into the explosive magazine at Mooretown, Castleknock. Gelignite was used in the attempt.

On the 21st June, 1931, a large assembly of I.R.A. units was convened for Bodenstown under cover of the Wolfe Tone Commemoration.

On 12th September, 1931, a recently completed Garda Station at Kilreacle, Co. Galway, was blown up.

Crime being the stock-in-trade of the conspirators it was essential that they should endeavour to provide themselves with immunity from their crimes. The [41] campaign to secure immunity has been conducted in a thorough-going manner; the methods adopted have been progressively bolder and more ruthless.

The police and Courts of Justice are the institutions of the State for the enforcement of law and the punishment of the offender. The attack upon the police, notwithstanding that some of them were murdered in the course of their duty, did not succeed in breaking the morale of the force, though it has succeeded in greater or less measure in different districts in rendering nugatory their efforts to detect offenders guilty of any crime which is associated, however remotely, with the activities of the conspiracy. The attack upon the Courts, on the other hand, has been a complete success. At the present moment, so far as what is loosely termed political crime is concerned, large bodies of the people have been prevented by terror from giving the necessary assistance to the police, so that evidence other than police evidence cannot be procured for production in Court, and juries, even in face of the most definite proof, refuse to convict. These facts are known to everybody who reads the daily Press.

For some years prior to 1929, efforts were made to influence jurors to refrain from conviction of persons charged with offences against the State. They were circularised and visited by members of the Irish Republican Army and of Cumann na mBan. This process of intimidation met with indifferent success, and although miscarriages of justice occurred from time to time, the jury system was in the main unimpaired. In that year, however, a new situation was created. Political pressure in the Dáil, combined with the fact that there had been an absence of serious political crime for a considerable period, induced the Government in December, 1928, to consent to repeal special legislation for the repression of anti-State activities, and within two months of the repeal one witness (Armstrong) was murdered and a juror (White) was gravely wounded in Dublin because of the conviction of certain activists. This signalised the breakdown of the jury system for this class of [42] offence. The unprotected citizen who was liable to be called on as a witness or to serve on the jury panel was reminded of the fate of the murdered Armstrong, and it would have been to expect too much of human nature to hope that this terrorism would not have its effect. Citizens were exhorted to give no information to the police and were warned of the penalties administered to traitors. The campaign against members of the public who might assist the police culminated in the murder, a few weeks ago at Cappawhite, of John Ryan, whose offence was that he had answered the questions of the police engaged in prosecutions for illegal drilling. A man named Carroll, as I have already stated, had previously been murdered in Dublin for supplying information to the police concerning anti-State activities. The result of this campaign of terror is that well-disposed persons are in fear of their lives to assist the police in any way, even to talk to them in certain districts, and that no ordinary jury will now convict in any prosecution for a treasonable offence, or in any case where the impression is created that the accused is a member of or is associated with this armed conspiracy. And so the criminal can go on his way secure.

Even if the police received from ordinary citizens all the information and assistance that could be expected; even if the actual witness of a crime had the courage to face the threat of assassination and to testify publicly in the witness box against the criminal, all this would now be useless and would merely result in an additional crime-the subsequent murder of the witness The State realised its duty to the juror and has done its best to protect him but it has failed, and the juror has made it clear to the State and to his fellow-citizens that he is not prepared to deal with political crime so long as the criminals remain as powerful and are as ruthless as they are.

A recently distributed pamphlet of the Publicity Department of the Cumann na mBan makes the proud boast “Arming and Drilling of Ireland's faithful Soldiers of the Republican Army is taking place all over Ireland. [43] And in spite of special Juries Acts passed recently by the Irish Free State Government no jury can be got to convict Irish patriots.” I say no Government, and no self-respecting nation can allow itself thus to become enslaved by the terrorist activities of a small minority. Since it became apparent that the Government proposed to seek from the Oireachtas fuller and more adequate powers to deal with the situation these organisations decided to take action against the elected representatives of the people. They decided to try on them their usual weapon of intimidation. The normal procedure was imitated. “Information” as to the attitude which Deputies would adopt to the so-called “Public Safety Bill” was politely asked for. Following the procedure adopted by them in their attack on the judicial system, the next step would be definite threats and ultimately it may be the murder of Deputies would be resorted to if drastic action were not taken. This Government, and the members of the Parliament, will not tolerate any such attempt on Parliamentary institutions.

Within the past few months a new element of danger has been added to our existing perils. The I.R.A. has accepted as its ally the new organisation known as “Saor Eire,” which is simply an organisation for setting up in this country a State on the lines of the Russian Soviet Republic. The means by which Saor Eire proposes to achieve its object may be quoted:- “(1) To organise Committees of Action amongst the Industrial and Agricultural Workers, to lead the day-to-day struggle of the Working-Classes and Working Farmers against exploitation, and to secure a revolutionary leadership for their common struggle. (2) The mobilisation of the mass of the Irish people behind a Revolutionary Government, for the overthrow of British Imperialism and its allies in Ireland, and for the organisation of a Workers' State.”

Many of the organisers of “Saor Eire” have, in fact, actually been in Russia to receive training in the authentic Soviet gospel. The actual methods of this new body are “to exploit [44] strikes, establish Communist cells in work-shops, mines, factories and trade unions, and they have a special organisation for exploiting the unemployed.”

The existence of such an organisation in our midst, in active co-operation with an organised band of armed criminals, at a time when we are endeavouring to ward off from this State the terrible economic disasters of other countries is so obvious a menace that I need not emphasise it. No State has, in recent years, been less troubled than this State by economic upheavals; we are regarded throughout the world as a rather fortunate country, but that good fortune cannot continue if we are to tolerate in our midst men whose whole labours are devoted to a wrecking of our economic system and who have enlisted armed allies in that campaign. The advocacy in this State of Communist doctrines by those same men or their close allies who are also members of a secret, illegal armed association, who put in their printed programme such words as “revolutionary leadership,” “mobilisation of the people behind a Revolutionary Government,” and who do this at a time when every decent citizen is concerned to find a peaceful and orderly way out of our difficulties, cannot be tolerated, and they have, I submit, put themselves beyond the pale of constitutional activities.

It would seem incredible, in the light of these facts, with dumps of arms and explosives still at the disposal of irresponsible gun-men, with murder and treason preached openly, with this additional menace of Communism to our whole national life, with so much of our limited resources already wasted in repairing and checking the damage caused or threatened to the country by an armed minority—it would seem incredible that any member of this House, of whatever Party, should deliberately increase the danger in which this Nation stands by impeding the passage of this Bill. That a dangerous conspiracy exists is therefore beyond all doubt except for those who wilfully shut their eyes to what is occurring all round them. As a result of the activities outlined the methods heretofore provided by the Constitution [45] and the Law, whilst adequate as regards ordinary crime have, in fact, proved entirely ineffective to deal with a conspiracy of the nature described. Thus the ordinary law-abiding citizen has been placed completely at the mercy of the least scrupulous fraction of the community. The conspirators have thoroughly grasped that fact and have brought their organisation to a state where they have secured, in practice, immunity from punishment.

In this Bill we are setting up a Tribunal which will not be amenable to terroristic methods. The suggestion has more than once been put forward when similar but less menacing conditions prevailed, that a Tribunal composed of two or more members of the existing judiciary acting without a jury would furnish an appropriate Tribunal for dealing with so-called political crimes. A moment's reflection will convince of the impracticability of such a proposal. The existing Judges were appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and they might, with every justification, object that their functions and their term of appointment did not include in criminal matters the decision of questions of fact which is a matter for a jury. These particular classes of crime are outside the ordinary scope of the criminal procedure.

I might mention that in connection with the Public Safety Act introduced here two or three years ago that I got a note—I am speaking from memory— I have seen one—from at least two members of the Supreme Court saying that they would require to relinquish their office if they were called upon to act as a Court in these matters.

Mr. MacEntee: On what grounds?

The President: Upon the ground that it was not in accordance with the terms of their appointment, which was a constitutional, a perfectly legitimate constitutional objection.

Mr. Corish: Would they not be entitled to try anybody for a crime?

The President: No; the Judges are not really Judges at all in that sense. The jury are the judges.

Under the Bill we aim at keeping separate the ordinary administration [46] of the Criminal Law and consider that the proper method of dealing with these extraordinary offences is by the method of a special Tribunal.

In putting through legislation of this character, speed is essential. Hesitation and delay in the Dáil could serve no other purpose than to encourage the criminals to believe that their intimidation has succeeded and that the machinery of Parliament is no longer of any avail against them. The will of the majority of the people must receive expression at once in the new powers so that the conspirators may have no time to prepare new attacks.

The issues are simple. The need for restoring the authority of Parliament is paramount. The time allowed is ample for the discussion of all relevant essentials. This is not an occasion for airing pet theories and grievances. The determination evidenced by the expedition with which we pass this Bill will have the effect of causing the criminals to hesitate, and will consequently lessen the extent of its operation. The Deputies who wantonly waste time attacking the measure should remember that their action will encourage crime and consequently extend the list of those who must be punished. The sooner effective powers are in our hands the sooner will this crisis be over, and the sooner shall we be able to devote our attention to the urgent problems that await solution.

As an example of the intentions of the criminals with regard to public bodies, and no doubt with regard to the Oireachtas itself, I should remind Deputies of the recent theft from the Limerick Town Hall of the Minute Book of the Borough Council and of the contents of the note left by the thieves. The note was sent by a body calling itself the Limerick Battalion Staff, and read as follows:—

“Strongly resenting your recent “resolution of condemnation of the “shooting of a Police agent in Tip- “perary, it has been decided by the “above H.Q. Staff that the Minute “Book of your Council be taken for “the purpose of deleting therefrom “the offensive resolution. It is felt “that this should be sufficient action [47] “on our part at present, and further, “that it should serve as a warning “against any further defence of Police “agents.”

The Government would have taken steps to have the Oireachtas called together at an earlier date if the Bill had been ready, and the fact that we have waited until the normal opening date of the session must not be taken as indicating any want of conviction as to the extreme seriousness of the situation and the urgency of the legislation.

This is not the first measure for the protection of the essential rights of the people that I have presented to this House. The situation which the present Bill is intended to meet is definitely much more serious than that which we had to face after the murder of Mr. Kevin O'Higgins. Murder has become one of the normal and expected elements of the present situation, and the new teachings of communism which are accepted to a greater or lesser extent by these organisations have greatly increased the danger of the permanent perversion of the youth of the country.

The Government, in introducing this legislation, is carrying out its normal function as the protector of the rights of the people. No group within the State can be allowed to establish a tyranny dictating to the people the form of their political and economic life.

Modern States have selected parliamentary institutions as the best method so far devised for giving effect to the majority will of the people. Intimidation, violence and murder are the antithesis of rule by Parliament. The two cannot co-exist and the Government that allows violent methods to grow within the State is itself aiding and abetting the destruction of Parliamentary rule. The present Bill is destined to remove the threat to the people's institutions and to restore to the people that complete freedom which is the principal attribute of States ruled by Parliament. Murder, conspiracy and intimidation are being used against the people. It is to put an end to this tyranny that we are setting up a better machinery for the detection and punishment of the [48] criminals.

The supreme duty of every Government is to provide the essential conditions in which the people may live peacefully, and make progress towards an increasingly better form of civilisation. An ordered State existence, respect for the laws of God and all authority derived from Him, come first amongst these conditions. If the majority will of the people is being opposed by murder, violence and the teaching of subversive doctrines, it is the duty of the Government to protect the people. The doctrine that a group within the Nation can use violence to change the form of Government or merely a part of the Constitution, once accepted, becomes a perpetual menace to the State, no matter what its form. If you excuse violence to-day because there is an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, you must excuse it tomorrow because property is not socialised, or for some other group theory. No State is accepted in its entirety by all the citizens, and if violence is once tolerated it becomes the normal method for bringing about every change. You see the effects of such methods in certain States of the world which have become centres of anarchy and irreligion. Order is the first principle of all progress, and its decay amongst a people is the beginning of a reversion to primitive savagery.

We have no desire to impose restrictions on the law-abiding citizen. We do intend to abolish violence and the preaching of violence, so that the peaceful citizen may enjoy his freedom. We are providing the means for his protection. No peaceful citizen need fear a law which could not conceivably be used against him.

Mr. T. Sheehy: Hear, hear.

The President: Foul murders have been committed, acknowledged and gloried in by certain organisations. Young men are being taught that murder is a legitimate instrument for the furtherance of Communist or political aims. They are being taught that the Christian Church around which our whole history and civilisation have been built up is an instrument of tyranny for the suppression of the people; that the priest must remain [49] within the sanctuary; that outside that sphere his teachings must have no sway. I believe, and my colleagues believe, that the future of this country is linked up with the traditions and teachings of the Christian religion which have governed the minds of its people for fifteen hundred years.

We believe that the new patriotism based on Muscovite teachings with a sugar coating of Irish extremism is completely alien to Irish tradition. The right to private property is a fundamental of Christian civilisation and so long as this Government remains in power it will maintain that sacred right for the people. The right to private property was the first citadel attacked by the Russian Communists in their own country, and when it fell the whole fabric of Christianity in Russia fell with it.

Let us not delude ourselves into believing that the new doctrines could never subvert the traditions of this country. Subversive movements are usually carried out by a relatively small minority, and that is no very sound reason to be convinced that large sections of our people would not, like other people, succumb to Communist teachers when allowed complete freedom of utterance. We do not allow persons to get up at the corners of our streets to preach sexual immorality. The teaching which involves Communism and murder-lust is no less subversive, and we deem it our duty to suppress the one as ruthlessly as we should suppress the other.

The Church and the State are the only bulwarks against chaos. The present movements aim at the destruction of both, and it would be deeply to be deplored if any legitimate parties in this State should find a political advantage in acting as a shield for the development of subversive organisations, whether they do so by justifying the existence of the organisations or accusing the Government of suppressing them for Party purposes. The use of such methods in Irish political life does not augur well for the future of this country. And I warn those who make use of them that they are going to increase enormously the difficulties of maintaining ordered government amongst our people, who are only [50] gradually realising that each individual citizen has definite obligations towards the State. Our task as the first Government of this country has been difficult. We have had to contend not merely with the negative difficulty of the absence of a State sense amongst large sections of the people, but with positive propaganda of a more insidious character against the members of the Government.

We have been variously described (and frequently in nominally Catholic papers) as atheists, as paid agents of England, as Imperialists, as traitors. No effort has been spared to make the essential government of the country as difficult as possible by poisoning the minds of our citizens against their representatives. These methods are dishonest, unhealthy, abnormal and fundamentally subversive, and we are reaping the fruits of them now.

The present legislation would never have been necessary—and it is a necessity—if the ordinary principles of patriotism and fair play had been observed by those who are opposed to the present Government. The Communist and the potential murderer find easy disciples amongst a people who are taught to believe the most sinister evils of those who are in authority over them. I feel obliged on this grave occasion to beg those who have influence in the country to be mindful that the future progress and prosperity of this State cannot be secured by any Government unless it is supported in the maintenance of obedience to the laws of God and of the State by the great majority of the people.

A State based on parliamentary institutions requires, for its proper functioning, not merely the goodwill but the positive allegiance of all its citizens. The powers, that we as a Government ask for—we ask for because we are convinced that without them it would be impossible for this or any other Government to carry on in circumstances such as now prevail. I appeal to men of goodwill of all parties who believe in the Irish people, in democracy and in parliamentary institutions, not merely to support this Bill but to facilitate its passage [51] into law. The things that have been happening in this country do not make us worse than other people. Intimidation, violence, Communism and kindred activities have made their appearance in the early stages of most new States. But the test of the capacity of the people to maintain a stable State existence lies in its determination to defeat these evils. We are now being put to that test and on our firm action here and now depends the whole life of our State as well as our good name before the other civilised peoples of the world. I have the utmost faith in the fundamental good sense of our people and I believe that the great majority of them will receive the measure now before us with relief and gratitude.

Mr. de Valera: The President has outlined the reasons that have urged the Executive Council to bring in this Bill. Now I would have imagined that the proper time to deal with the Bill would be when we were given an opportunity, as has always been the parliamentary practice, of reading the Bill and seeing to what extent the Bill itself was really likely to achieve the purpose which the Executive considers necessary for this House to pursue. This statement has been given to us on a motion to restrict discussion, and no excuse whatever has been put forward by the President why discussion on this matter should be restricted. It is surely a matter in which every one of us in this House is immediately and directly concerned. Every one of us wants to be able to bring to the consideration of the questions that are before us not the excited atmosphere which is created by a long list such as the President has given, but the calm judgement that will give every one of us an opportunity of sitting down and quietly asking ourselves how much truth there is in all this excitement which has been engendered by a long recitation, going over a number of years, of incidents which everybody here in this House, I am sure, regrets, but incidents which do not justify, in my estimation anyhow, the bringing in of a Bill of this sort. The [52] ordinary law is quite sufficient to deal with anything that has been referred to by the President in that long list which he has given. There are already on the Statute book of the Free State six Public Safety Acts, three Firearms Acts, three Enforcement of Law Acts, four Jury Acts, a Treason Offences Act, a Protection of the Community Act or something —I forget. What it is proposed to effect by the Bill is largely in the Treasonable Offences Act and the Firearms Act of 1925. I am sure that if we looked up the speeches that were made when each one of these Acts was introduced we would learn that it was intended by each Bill to crush out finally all evidence of activity such as the President has been talking about and that those whose duty it was to oppose that line of policy on the ground that it would not be effective said on every occasion on which these Acts were brought in that they were not going to be effective, that there was in this country, on account of historical circumstances, something which was running right across any attempt to deal with the situation on such lines. I, for one, and every man sitting with me here this afternoon think and believe that if we were here in five years time or ten years time we will see Bills introduced on lines like these if the present state of affairs is allowed to continue and that we will be dealing in the last with causes and not with results.

Let us deal with the causes of these Acts. There are very few people who know better than the gentlemen on the opposite benches what is the fundamental cause. I listened to the President talking about Secret Societies. There are gentlemen in that front bench that went around this country organising secret societies; and the latest thing that I know of a secret society was a secret society that Kevin O'Higgins denounced here in the Dáil when the present Minister for Local Government was kicked out of the Executive Council because of his efforts in organising a secret society in the Army on that occasion. I say this because I believe that the gentlemen on the opposite benches who have placed upon them at this time the responsibility [53] of Government ought to know the right line on which to proceed. But they prefer to imitate the activities of Hamar Greenwood or somebody of that kind instead of trying to get down to the problems that have to be dealt with and of trying to deal with them on a rational basis.

We have come in here from different parts of the country, but I am sure that each one of you will ask yourself why this atmosphere of immediate and terrible anxiety which has been engendered by the statement the President made here really exists outside. There is a problem, a very important problem. There are political problems, there are economic problems which have to be solved. They have to be solved perhaps over a period of time. But there is nothing of immediate urgency, or some impending catastrophe which is likely to happen tomorrow. There is nothing of that in the outside situation, nothing that did not obtain during the past two months. And why is it that the Dáil was allowed to keep out of session for two months until its holiday was completed and that we were allowed to sit quitely at home without any immediate danger that the whole State was going to be subverted during the last two months? Why cannot we sit down here calmly and consider the difficulties which have placed the Government in the present situation, and the difficulties that will confront any Government that takes office under the present conditions? Why do we not sit down calmly and consider in the general interest of the community how these problems are to be solved? The Ministers opposite know only one way in which to solve them! Anyone who gets in your path, “squelch him, by God, squelch him,” as Carlyle said of Ireland. That is the only policy apparently that the Executive Council knows how to put into operation.

I remember challenging the Vice-President as to whether they would not put the same energy which they exhibited in the Civil War into the solution of our economic problems, and the answer they gave us was:— “In dealing with the Civil War we had long examples from history to guide us as to the proper method, but [54] we could not tackle the economic problem because we had not any example to guide us.” Force is the usual remedy to take: take a stick to hit somebody on the head who doesn't agree with you. That is a very simple remedy. It may do when dealing with an individual, but it does not do when dealing with a situation such as we have here in this country. The situation that was brought about here was thoroughly understood by the British when they forced the Treaty on us. Lord Birkenhead, in asking that that Treaty be accepted, appealed to his brothers in the House of Lords and said to them: “By all means accept this. The unruly Irish will in future be put down; they will be put down by other Irishmen with an economy of English lives. We will hand over to this new body of Irishmen who are prepared to follow our dictation and work upon the lines of our policy the task of trying to stifle those who want the complete independence of their country.”

We here on these benches have never been slow to point out that we do not stand for crime. We have never been slow to point that out. I said long before we came into the Dáil that whatever might be said there was no authority outside this House that was entitled to take human life. We said that and we hold by that. We go even further and say that if there is no authority in this House to rule, then there is no authority in any part of the country to rule—I mean in any part of the Twenty-six Counties.

I made a speech here on a previous occasion on somewhat similar lines to this. Deputy O'Connell standing up after me interpreted my speech as he was entitled to interpret it, and as is done here every day of the week. He interpreted that speech in his own way. That interpretation of my speech did not hold, and was not in my speech. The statement that Deputy O'Connell made as an interpretation of my speech is the statement that has been circulated around the country as my speech and statement. Now I want to be quite clear about that. Our position in the matter is this—that there must be [55] some authority in the country. We came in here as a result of a policy that we brought forward in order to get majority rule accepted.

Mr. Reynolds: Hear, hear.

Mr. de Valera: We wanted to get majority rule accepted and we wanted to end the situation that was created by the Treaty, and the coup d'etat by the gentlemen on the opposite benches. We wanted to end that by getting a national understanding from every Party and every group in the country. Our principle was that majority rule by the elected Parliamentary representatives of the people was to be accepted.

Mr. Hassett: Hear, hear.

Mr. de Valera: We stand by that. There was no other policy. There was the time when there was a Conference shortly after the Treaty was passed and we tried to come to an understanding. A sort of understanding was ultimately settled in the Pact. I issued a statement in which I made it clear that in my opinion the matter had to be settled by force or by accepting that principle. The people had to have one or the other. On every occasion since I came into the House I have fought for that principle. I have been begging the people on the opposite benches that they would make that principle really effective by removing the barrier that is preventing a certain section of the people from being represented here. I did that because it is better to get the people who differ from you to accept that principle as being the best. Before you can hope to get them to accept that principle unequivocally you have to get them to feel that they can come in and that they are free to advocate by peaceful persuasion any of the political doctrines that they hold.

Mr. Hassett: Did the Deputy make a statement that the majority of the Irish people have no right to do wrong?

Mr. de Valera: I would be glad to hear what the Deputy said. I did not catch his words.

An Ceann Comhairle: I want to hear no interruption of any kind.

[56] Mr. de Valera: I understand I am asked by the Deputy if I ever made a statement that the Irish people have no right to do wrong. I have said that the doing of wrong is never right no matter who did it. There was an apparent and obvious wrong. Now let us be clear on that. What appeared to be an obvious wrong was being justified by the idea that it was backed by the majority vote of the people. I said that that did not justify wrong. That never justifies wrong. If you got a unanimous vote of the people telling you to go and shoot your neighbour, you would be quite in the wrong in carrying out that majority will. You would not be right. Therefore, the majority rule does not give to anybody the right to do anything wrong. and I stand by the statement that a majority does not give a right to do wrong. What was wrong in that statement? It was simply the truth. To quote Kipling, The truth I had spoken “was twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.”

Let us get back to the position. I am quite willing to admit that there is a political problem here, that there are economic problems here, and that people who are genuinely anxious to solve these problems will ask themselves questions as to how they can effectively solve them. If you deny people who are animated with honest motives, peaceful ways of doing it, you are throwing them back upon violent ways of doing it. Once they are denied the peaceful way they will get support for the violent way that they would never get otherwise. There is no use in my preaching that doctrine to the Executive Council. The Executive Council only know one way—the way of force, the way of the big stick. It is successful for a time. The British tried it and were always successful for a time, but it never ultimately succeeded. The arguments that will be put up to the young men who are asked to join that organisation will be a repetition of the arguments which Ernest Blythe, as he then was, or Dick Mulcahy, as he then was, or any other Minister, who was formerly in the I.R.B., put up to the young men that he wanted to join his organisation. Can they not at least get back to their [57] young days and ask themselves whether they did not stand up against the principles of constituted authority? Remember the British in those days said that they were the constituted authority. They bound themselves in secret and revolutionary organisations to oppose what was the established authority of the day. Can they not remember that every one of the arguments which they used then are likely to be applied by the people who go around at present trying to get young men into the I.R.A., or whatever other organisations of that kind are in the country?

The right way of proceeding is to end the necessity for such organisations. As I said, I do not believe that the I.R.A. is a secret organisation. I should like to know whether the present Minister for Local Government has abandoned the I.R.B. which he was forming in the Army at a time when he was also in the Executive Council. I believe that the Irish people's liberties have more to fear from movements in that direction than they have to fear from outside—very much more to fear, because incidents like the present one are paving the way for a section within the present Cabinet, if they get sufficient control over the Army to become a real menace, a greater menace even to the liberties of the people than would be the menace of an uncontrolled authority outside.

Let us know where we are. As I say, there are very few in this House who cannot get down to the bottom of this question and know exactly the nature of the problem to be solved. Members on the Benches opposite at any rate know what the problems are. They would do very much better service to the Irish nation if they would get down and solve these problems and do it in a way which will avoid the necessity of force, rather than by the present method. I have to admit that ultimately authority does want the sanction of force. Unfortunately we have not got to the stage when force is not to be the ultimate sanction but it ought to be reserved as the ultimate sanction. It is not sufficient for the Executive Council to have the right to do things. They have also the duty of considering whether the things [58] they have a right to do, if they are pushed, should in fact be done in the general public interest. As I have said, we have put forward our solution many times. We have no belief whatever in this solution when dealing with the political situation. If there are drastic measures taken, I have no doubt whatever they will drive it more underground. This will prevent open drillings and things of that kind, but it will not drive out or kill or end the nature of the movement in itself.

Let us come to the economic side. What is the problem we have to deal with there? We have had all these problems in the past—doctrines which are subversive of the social order that we stand for. The President has indicated certain Catholic principles. I accept them. I do not think they are denied by anyone in this House. The right of private property is accepted as fundamental and as far as Catholics are concerned there has been definite teaching upon it—the right of private property and the right on the other hand of society, in so far as the common good is concerned, of in a proper way dealing with the relations between the community and the private individual. We accept that. There is nobody on these Benches but is just as anxious as the people opposite that these principles will be the ruling principles as far as our social organisations here are concerned. My own belief is that there is no immediate danger whatever of these principles being undermined— none whatever.

There is a social and economic situation which calls for immediate attention, and we ought to approach it in the same way as in the case of the political one, and recognise that if men are hungry they will not be too particular about the ultimate principles of the organisation they would join, if that organisation promises to give them bread. Let us be careful about it. I say that what we have got to do is to remove the breeding ground of attachment to the false principles. That breeding ground is there in the present economic situation. Suppose I accept for the present that, let us say, a Russian organisation of some [59] kind is beginning to interfere here. Why would the eye of Russia turn upon Ireland at present? Because of the fact that there are social conditions here that make it possible for people to work on these lines; because there is a natural invitation wherever there are people out of work and people homeless and the rest of it. They naturally seize upon the situation and it would not be too great a stretch of the imagination to think that a movement of that sort would be very glad to try and link up, if they were able, the political movement with the economic movement on the lines they would like to have. There is ground for thinking that that is not impossible. I do not think it is a fact. But suppose we assume it is so. Again the way to deal with it is to remove the causes which make the present situation one which is attractive to people who want to preach doctrines of that sort. The way to deal with it is to deal with the conditions and see that people who are anxious to work will get work, that people who are entitled to have decent houses will get these houses, and organise the community to end the evils that are about them, and not simply to say there must be no movement of this sort in our midst, we do not want them. We may say that as much as we like. We may have as many laws to prevent it as we have Public Safety Acts and the rest here on the Statute Book. All the laws in the world are not going to prevent it unless you remove the causes.

I am just as anxious as anybody on the benches opposite that that principle of that doctrine should not be preached here or spread here, but if I wanted to stop the spread of them here I would not proceed in the way the Executive Council are proceeding, that is, assuming that the Executive Council is honest in all this. I am assuming they are honest in all this, that they are genuinely perturbed and genuinely anxious to try and settle the situation. But I may say that knowing that they know what the fundamentals are they must know themselves as well as we what is the right way to remedy them and they [60] deliberately turn back on the way which is likely to effect the remedies I must seriously ask myself is this all play-acting? Is this an attempt to work upon our national anxiety at the present time in order to prepare a favourable atmosphere for the coming election.

Of course we have been threatened if we stand for right at all and try to use reason and common sense, while they are thinking of brute force we are by that very fact giving encouragement to the lawless. I do not want to give any encouragement to them at all. I say again there is no authority in this country to take life except in so far as the present ruling authority is entitled to take it—no other authority. I say that if we were sitting on the benches opposite and that we were called upon to deal with a case where there was a serious attempt to interfere with the general will of the people, having made it quite possible for that will to be expressed, then we would have to come along and say “very well. We understand such and such, we are prepared to do so and so; but we have, however, to be the judges of policy in the long run, and having decided what was the national policy on the basis of majority rule we too if we were driven to it, in the last resort we would have to say: Very well, we are the last word upon national policy; the majority of the people have spoken and entrusted us with the present responsibility and we are the judges of what must be done.” I quite understand all that. But I cannot get excited I must confess, in the way that the President would like me to get excited by the statement he has made.

I have been through the country. I have just heard now statements about the shootings in Clare. I got a letter from people in Clare a few days after to tell me that there was no political basis as far as the local people could make out and no political motive whatever in the shootings down there—in the case of two of them at any rate. In the case of two shootings I was written to by people in the neighbourhood who knew the local gossip and had a fair idea of what was [61] happening, and they told me that it was not a fact that behind these shootings there was any political motive at all. But they are all lumped into one long category. If we had for instance, such as they have in some of the cities of America, these gang shootings that take place, and if there was some such situation as there is in some cities of America, and if that situation arose here we would have them all lumped together in the list the President read out, and every one of them would be attributed to political organisations.

I think we have made our position clear more than once. We think that the Executive is not proceeding on the right lines. We do not believe there is any immediate urgency, and that we should get time to discuss matters properly and to get calmly down to them and see what element of truth there is in the anxiety spread abroad. We think the Executive is going along blindly in the course it laid out for itself when it started on its present regime.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: In 1922 when we came into this Dáil the members of the House spent something like three months in framing the constitution. It was done with very great care, and very great consideration. The President speaking of that constitution to-day, said that it was hailed as one of the most democratic constitutions in the world, and that statement was substantially correct. The motion that is before us now, and which asks us to get all stages of this Bill through the House in two days, and, I understand, through another House in a day and a half, is, as far as I can judge, asking us to adopt what in practice will be a new constitution for this State. I have not had much time to read through or study this Bill, which has been put into our hands a few moments ago, but I read section 2 of the Bill, and I see this new article of the constitution is to be put in immediately after article 2 of the constitution. And I read in this section that article 3 and every subsequent article in the constitution shall be read and construed subject to the provisions of this article, and in the case of any inconsistency between this new article to be inserted in the constitution, and article [62] 3, or any subsequent article, this article shall prevail. So that this article is to be the new constitution of the Irish Free State. The other one is to be scrapped if inconsistent in any way with this. That is the meaning I take out of this section here. We are asked to frame a new constitution for the Irish Free State, and to do that without being given any opportunity whatsoever of studying the implications of the new constitution or even reading it.

Then we are asked and the people are asked to have respect for Parliamentary institutions. It is procedure of this kind that makes a farce of Parliamentary institutions and makes people have no respect whatsoever for them. Every Deputy in this House has a right, as a representative of the people sent here by the people, to express his views upon this measure or any other measure. He specially has a right to express his views on this when it is not merely and simply an Act of Parliament but the framework of a permanent constitution, and that right is going to be denied to me by the Government Party. It would be far more honest, in my opinion, if the Government set up a dictatorship pure and simple and told us all to go about our business and that they would run the affairs of the country.

Mr. Davin: And save money.

Mr. MacEntee: I do not know about that.

Mr. Davin: It would save Ministers' salaries.

Mr. O'Connell: I do not know what the provisions of this Bill are. I have not time to study them. Undoubtedly there will not be time to give them proper consideration before we are asked to decide one way or the other whether we support them or not. I do not want at this stage to advert to anything which may be in this Bill or that may not be in it.

I listened very carefully to the President, and during a great portion of his speech he did not pretend to make a case for urgency. After all, the motion before us is one asking the House to agree to pass this [63] measure through all Stages inside two days. The President devoted only a comparatively small portion of his speech to explaining the need for urgency, and when he came to it he began with events as far back as March last. We have been listening to speeches of the Minister for Justice for the past two months promising this Bill, or one of the kind, and if the menace which he speaks of has reached such a stage that it is necessary to rush through this Bill with such unseemly haste, surely the President or members of the Government should have called the Dáil together before this. What is the argument for waiting until the end of the holidays, calling the Dáil and saying “You must get this Bill through inside two or three days?” No argument has been put forward by the President for that, and that is the only type of argument that would be appropriate to this motion. New powers are being sought and the statement has been made that the present powers are inadequate. Has the Government used all the powers at its disposal and has it come to the conclusion that new powers are necessary?

An Act called the Emergency Powers Act was passed in 1926. If an emergency had arisen such as we are now asked to believe is in existence, under that Act the Government was given power by proclamation to declare a state of emergency and to call the Dáil together in five days. In that measure they had extensive powers to deal with a state of emergency if such a state of emergency was proved to exist. That power has not been used. They are coming now not to bring in a new Public Safety Bill but to insert a new Article in the Constitution. Since the Constitution was adopted I have on many occasions spoken publicly about the rights which were given the people under it, and I have publicly denounced as I do denounce, the use of armed force and the use of threats to induce people to adopt any particular theories put forward by any particular group of people. I have declared repeatedly that there was no need for any other weapon than the ballot box. I have [64] stated that the Constitution gave rights to every Party and to every group of people that wanted to put a particular doctrine before the country to do so as long as they did so peacefully and without arms. I have not had time to study this Bill, but it seems to me that my argument will be no longer available when pointing to the liberties of the Constitution. The liberties and the rights of the Constitution and the democratic nature of the Constitution, which the President spoke about a moment ago, seem to be one by one disappearing. Up to the present these rights were disappearing one by one, but now they are to disappear holus bolus. The Referendum is gone, the Initiative is gone, and now everything that is not in conformity with this special measure, whatever may be in it—I have not had an opportunity of seeing—is to go. This Bill is to be substituted for the Constitution about which we were so proud.

I say very sincerely, honestly and candidly that I believe this is not the way to end the state of affairs which the President spoke about and which all of us regret. The President said some things that I should like to have an opportunity of examining, and that everybody here, representing, as they do, various people in the country, should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon. I do not pretend for a moment to judge the extent of this menace, because I have no knowledge that there is a menace. The President may have, but when he made the statement that drilling is common all over the country I at once join issue with him in that. Representing the same area as the Minister for Justice, I would ask the Minister whether he is prepared to stand up and say that drilling has become common all over South Mayo.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I say there is a considerable amount of drilling going on in South Mayo.

Mr. Corry: Did you ever see them?

Mr. O'Connell: I have been very nearly all through South Mayo, and I have made inquiries from men who have supported the Minister, and from [65] various people, and with the possible exception of one area in Ballinrobe and Tourmakeady district, I found no evidence whatever of any drilling. I know several areas where there has been no drilling and where there is no question of any of the organisations that the Minister spoke of being in existence. That is the position in Mayo, and it is largely the position in parts of Roscommon that I know of. Let other Deputies speak for the areas that they know. I do not say for a moment that drilling does not exist in some areas, but there is no use pretending that it has become common all over the country. That statement is exaggerated, and I am rather surprised that it should have been made, especially in the considered statement that the President read out. A very remarkable admission was made by the President to-day. The Juries Bill was introduced in 1929, and we all know the promises that were then made. The President now says in effect that those who stated when that Bill was introduced that it would not protect juries were right, and that the Government was wrong.

He said that they have failed to give them that protection which the Juries Bill proposed to give them. Now what is the position as I understand it? Crimes have been committed. Heinous crimes have been committed, and the Government have been unable to bring the perpetrators to justice. Why have they been unable to bring them to justice? It is not the jury system that is responsible for that. First of all have they detected or are they in a position to state: “We know who were responsible for these crimes. We know the individuals, but the juries will not convict.” I said when the Juries Bill was before the House, and I repeat it, that I was prepared, as I am prepared now, if it is clear that the jury system has broken down, to give powers to deal with special classes of offences to another court. I said, as reported in column 1606, vol. 29:—

If I take that point of view the Minister will ask me, and he will be justified in asking me: What would you do to meet the special set of circumstances? If it was proved clearly and definitely that the jury system [66] failed to deal with any special class of crime I would be prepared to go the whole distance of doing away with the jury system altogether for that particular class of crime, and for that particular class of crime only, rather than attempt to make the whole jury system fit in with the special set of circumstances that has arisen. I would be prepared, for instance, to set out definitely and clearly the particular classes of crime and leave it to the discretion of the Attorney-General to apply, in cases of that kind, to have them tried by, say, three judges of the High Court. Though I believe in the jury system, I know that there are many arguments put forward from time to time by jurists to the effect that trial by judge is even preferable to trial by jury. But whether it is or is not, that would be my solution of the particular set of circumstances that has arisen.

That was the position in 1929. If the Government came before the House to-day and stated that through terrorism or for any other reason, they found that juries were not convicting, I would be with them in providing another clause for doing away with the jury system for that particular class of crime.

General Mulcahy: What kind of judge would you have?

Mr. O'Connell: I would have a judge that would have some knowledge of law in any case.

Mr. Davin: The fellows you pay a good salary to.

Mr. O'Connell: That is a detail.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Order!

Mr. O'Connell: There is the question of evidence. The same difficulty in getting evidence will be there no matter what kind of court you have. As I say, I am not going into the details and I do not propose to go into the details of the measure before us. There will be an opportunity for doing that on the Second Reading of the Bill. I want to say that I can see no reason for urgency unless it be that the Government want to cloak discussion, [67] to prevent discussion, to prevent a proper airing and ventilating of the views of the different people who are represented in this House. The President asked for the co-operation of all of us in dealing with this menace. I made a suggestion a few days ago which I believed was a practical suggestion and which would have secured a measure of co-operation, and, from steps that were since taken to see how far that was possible, I believe there are other parties in this House that would be willing——

A Deputy: Were willing.

Mr. O'Connell: I am at liberty to say were willing to see how far such co-operation would be possible. If this problem were faced up to—this problem that nobody standing here in this House wants to defend—these things that are happening in the country and which nobody is standing in the House to defend—were dealt with or if the co-operation of all parties were asked for I believe it would be forthcoming. The Government, however, take the view that they are the responsible people. Other Government Parties in other countries who have responsibilities of that kind do not think it infra dig. in any way to approach Opposition Parties and to discuss with them problems that threaten to be of a national extent or of national importance. That view, however, has found no favour in Government circles.

I believe that a basis could be found by which the interests of the whole country could be protected and by which something could be done which would be more advantageous in its effect on the whole country than the passage of this Bill. I have no doubt whatever about that. If something in the nature of an agreed measure to deal with the gunman, to deal with the man who tries to shove his opinions down the throats of anybody by the use of the gun, I believe —I may be over-optimistic in believing it—that an agreed measure could be introduced in this House to deal with that problem. If that could [68] be done it would be far more effective than any of these measures which are rushed through the House in this fashion and it would have far more public support through the country. Unless we can get public support and co-operation for the measures that are passed here, they will have little effect because all the forces that you can muster in the way of armed forces or police forces will not be effective to make your laws run unless the general body of people accept the laws as wise and just laws. After all, it is for the public outside, the people of the country, the laws are made, and unless they are prepared to co-operate whole-heartedly and sincerely in seeing that the laws are carried out and obeyed, it will be very difficult indeed to make your laws effective.

I have no doubt that laws and regulations rushed through the Dáil in this fashion are not going to get that wholehearted support from the general body of the people that would make them thoroughly effective, and that does not apply by any means alone to the opponents of the Government, but in the case of very many of those who supported and voted for the Government on the last occasion.

Deputy de Valera, in the course of his speech, referred to what he says was a wrong interpretation on my part of his speech in March, 1929. I have not the particular quotations before me, and therefore I am not in a position, and I do not propose at this stage, to enter into that matter. I shall have an opportunity again of doing so, but if I were wrong in my interpretation I am glad to feel that I was wrong, because no one regretted what I thought was Deputy de Valera's position more than I did. For that reason I congratulate him on making that position very much clearer to-day than it appeared to me then. I understood him to say on that occasion that full authority did not rest with this House and this Parliament. If he did not mean that, I accept his statement fully.

General Mulcahy: He has not said it to-day.

Mr. O'Connell: I may be wrong on this occasion, too, but I took him to-day [69] as saying that no one outside this Parliament has the right to make laws for this country—these twenty-six counties. That is good enough for me. I protest as strongly as I can protest against the methods that are being adopted by the Government. Even accepting what the President has stated, I say if this is passed into law, where is the Constitution we have been so proud of, that we have boasted about, and that we have talked about? It is all subject to this, and we are asked to frame a new Constitution inside forty-eight hours. As I say, Parliamentary institutions after that become almost a farce, and I certainly cannot agree to support a motion which takes from the representatives of the people here the right to express their views fully on a Bill of the importance of this particular one.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Fitzgerald): Deputy O'Connell talked about this Constitution of which we were so proud, this democratic institution and so on. I think so far as I can judge from the feeling of the House to-day there does not really seem to be any divergence of principle between any of us who have spoken, but I think there is a tendency to stress what I might call non-essentials and to overlook essentials. Why have we a Constitution at all? Why have we a Government? Why have we a State? If the Constitution is going to interfere with the State performing the functions it exists to perform obviously there is nothing in the Constitution to be proud about. If the State fails to perform the functions it was intended to perform then we had better have something instead.

To my mind we have a Government and a State because we were made to live in society that man, being subject to the performance of evil, requires to be controlled by law. Society requires to have a Government, with powers to enforce its laws. In effect the Government exists for the purpose of coercion. Every Bill we pass here is coercion. To try to damn this Bill by calling it a coercion Bill—of course it is coercion. The Butter Grading Bill was a coercion Bill. The Egg Grading Act, the Live Stock [70] Bill are all coercion Bills because people are not perfect. There is a tendency to evil in everybody, and in every community there is a certain number of people in whom the criminal instinct overcomes the instinct for good. This Bill has become necessary because although admittedly the people who have a tendency to crime in this country are a very small minority, they are organised and their method is the method of arms and intimidation. In any county of the twenty-six counties we have, say, several hundred police. You have tens of thousands of people in that county. The police are there to keep down the evil doers even though evil doers may be more numerous than they are because evil doers in the ordinary conditions of affairs are not organised and are not armed. The three million people in the Free State can be cowed and controlled by a small minority that is organised and is armed. There has been a tendency in this country to speak about political crime as though it was less heinous than ordinary crime. A man murders his wife or a wife murders her husband or there is a brawl and a man is killed. That is a diabolical situation, but it is far more diabolical when men come together to organise and commit a murder and by so organising are able to control perjury, to terrorise witnesses, to terrorise jurors and to make evil master in the country and not good. When a situation like that arises, and it may arise very easily in any country at the present moment when the whole world is upset, when we have come to the end of one period of the world's history, when the sanctions of morality, the traditions of obedience to authority and the sanctions and traditions of obedience to the moral law are not as strong as before, necessarily that tendency is more easily effective than at any other time.

I think it was Deputy de Valera who asked why, for instance, the Communistic or semi-Communistic Government of Russia should be particularly interested in this country. Let him put himself in the position of a Communistic Government which wishes to promote social chaos in other countries. [71] Look around Europe. Would he exclude Ireland? He might say Ireland is a Catholic and religious country where the people are mostly property owners. Is that the place to look to? On the other hand would he not say what is the tradition in that country? The people of this country being governed from outside for many generations have realised that the effective authority that was over them was denuded of moral authority, and that they had a right to overthrow that authority. That necessarily had an effect on the moral being of the people of Ireland, and made them fail to realise that the authority which comes from God must be obeyed by them according to the moral code. If I were a member of the Government Deputy de Valera refers to I would say Ireland is a likely place. I would say for many generations the method of bloodshed was recognised as a method of overcoming the ordinary existing law. We recognise also that this method has been to some extent successful, and the cowardly people who have seen other people taking risks and being successful may now be inclined to believe that success is available by this method. We know in the agrarian campaign the people took what you might call extra legal steps and did extra moral acts for the purpose of attaining what they wanted. We know in our warfare against the British regime we had to use methods which in other countries under legitimate government would actually have been the methods of the criminal. These necessarily have had an effect on the people and have made this country apparently a fruitful ground for the promotion of social chaos to promote which an attempt is being made at the moment. What is the situation in this country at the moment? Here we have a democratic Constitution. What does the Constitution, the State and the Government stand for? Is it in order that law may prevail. Deputy de Valera talks about the big stick. At the present time what is the situation? You have admittedly crime, murder, intimidation and so on. You have it organised. You have it propaganded all over the [72] country. You have it using the most dishonest weapons. In our time we did stand for some sort of principle. Now the people who are attempting to overthrow Christian morality in this country or imperialism or capitalism, or whatever they like to call it——

Mr. Fahy: Synonymous terms.

Mr. Fitzgerald: No, they are not. I am just going to point out that the method of this Party is to blur terms and mix them up. I know members of this organisation who do not care twopence about nationalism, who are dead out against nationalism, and who entirely approve of sending representatives down the country—to Leitrim, say—to talk to young men about Robert Emmet and Wolfe Tone, and having got them enthused, because of the tradition of nationalism that existed in our people for all times, they very easily turn around and explain that the landlord was English, that the top dog was English, that the employer was English—and that the English landlord and top dog and owner of property are all one and should be overcome, that everybody who possesses property is English, and, in effect, Imperialist, and that consequently the eternal moral law is overthrown and that the man without property has the right to terrorise by arms, to seize powers to take property from the man who has it. That is their method. Their method also is the method of perjury. When a crime is committed they themselves are prepared to commit perjury. We know, also, that it is a first general principle that when anybody is arrested he is to announce that the police beat him. That is part of the propaganda. Here we are with this situation, an organisation growing from day to day, armed, bearing in some respects the outward symbols of our national struggle, though it is fundamentally opposed to our national struggle, using all the accoutrements and all the decorations of our national struggle, to inculcate their doctrines amongst people who have never had an opportunity of thinking politically, integrally.

Just note their methods. They attack a Cadbury's cocoa van in the [73] docks because their method is to promote every possible type of unrest in the country, to overthrow social order, or through defiance of the law to promote social chaos and through social chaos to attain to the Communistic Republic. That is their plan of campaign. They attack a Cadbury cocoa van and if you attempt to question them what is the reply? “Irishmen out of work. Chocolate can be made in the country. You are supporting the bringing in of foreign chocolate to the detriment of our unemployed.”

Then you have the busmen's strike. These people provided guns and ammunition to shoot at buses moving. Is that part of our nation's struggle? Is that the Robert Emmet and Wolfe Tone story? What is this attempt to crush the Irish State, to make it impossible for an Irish State to exist? It is an attempt to condemn the Irish people to live without social order, to live under the conditions that they are creating and which are directly divergent from their Creator's intentions. If you attempt to condemn that, what are you doing? You are standing against the poor men who are struggling merely for a living, who are standing in opposition to British Imperialism, to the Free State Junta and all the rest of it. When Orangemen propose holding a meeting in one of the Border counties along come the so-called I.R.A. to prevent it. They know that Catholics who have a traditional grievance against Orangemen give a sentimental approval to action of this kind, not realising that those men do not care twopence what the local Catholics think. All they want to do is to get some sort of support for their attempt to overthrow social order in this country because we have not a long tradition which accepts social order and authority. One man will say, “I approve of the I.R.A. because they cowed the Orangemen,” and another man will say, “I stand for them. They are out for the worker against the bosses.” These people are content to use any method. They do not stand for high principles. As Deputy Lemass knows very well, Miss McSwiney and her people when they came to Bodenstown would not walk in a procession with people like [74] Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera, but as far as the gunmen were concerned, as far as Mr. Ryan, Geoffrey Coulter and so on, were concerned, they were entirely in favour of it. They believe in half support if you cannot get whole support. Rope in everyone with us. We have only got to weaken the existing power which is keeping order in the country. Everything that tends to weaken that is something. It helps to bring about the social chaos through which we have to pass to the Communistic Republic.

Is this Bill necessary? Deputy O'Connell referred to various other Bills that are on the Statute Book, the Firearms Act, the Treasonable Offences Act, the Public Safety (Emergency Powers) Act. The Public Safety Act does give the right, when we have proclaimed a state of emergency, to intern certain people. But of course it leaves the right of appeal to the courts to challenge the right to have these people interned. But you have a situation now when, with clear and tangible evidence, brought before a court, the jury finds a man innocent who is clearly guilty. The jury commits perjury. You have people so terrorised that the juryman commits perjury.

Mr. MacEntee: Or the servants of the State commit perjury.

Mr. Fitzgerald: They may or they may not. If the Deputy can prove it, naturally we would propose getting after them, but we are up against an organisation which entirely approves of perjury, which believes that perjury, murder or any crime you like, are justified provided they bring about a condition of affairs which will make their objective possible. In any other troubles we have had, and which I do not want to refer to, one might say if it were humanly possible for the Opposition to have succeeded, a position of affairs would have arisen which was quite all right as far as it went. But here we have an attempt to create a situation by an organisation who, if they succeeded to the full in their objective, would create a situation in this country which is opposed to all moral law. That makes it more necessary [75] than ever for us to go out against them.

Mr. O'Hanlon: On a point of order, I would like to know exactly what we are discussing? Are we discussing Item 3?

Mr. Davin: The last civil war.

Mr. O'Hanlon: Is it a question of procedure? All the speeches that have been made have been Second Reading speeches on the Bill.

Mr. MacEntee: It is the only chance you have to make them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Minister is quite in order.

Mr. Fitzgerald: To a certain extent I have been trying to refer to the points made. I would like to point out to the Deputy that there are two possible situations. There is the ordinary condition of law when a man is brought up and charged with some crime, and there is a condition of civil war when you make a proclamation bringing in martial law. There is an awkward period which is intermediary between these two. Things happened five months ago; if there was a proclamation of martial law then every Deputy would have got up and protested. It would not have been right then. You get to that stage when to come along and propose martial law and say a state of war is existing in the country is not possible, but, on the other hand, the ordinary protection of the Government is slipping away from day to day. Is the Government to stand by and see a man named Ryan murdered in Tipperary or Superintendent Curtin murdered in Tipperary and say it is unfortunate, but nothing can be done? When you have an organisation all over the country which is used for committing crimes and for the prevention of the detection of crime and for making the ordinary law-abiding citizen unable to perform the functions which the moral law imposes on him, such as giving information to the police, it is necessary to have special powers, and these are the special powers brought in under this Bill. which Deputy O'Connell seems to [76] think mars the Constitution. The Constitution is not merely a decorative thing; it is for the benefit and service of the people.

And if as a result of that Constitution people are to be murdered or cowed by gunmen, if the right of private property is to be departed from altogether, and if the people will have to submit to a regime which the interior law of their conscience assures them is a regime against morality, then the Constitution instead of being the beautiful thing that Deputy O'Connell says it is, would, in my opinion, be a perfectly damnable thing. I wish to point out also with regard to urgency that the Deputies here know perfectly well that actual threats have been made to Deputies. We have cases where men came along and made threats to Deputies. I have heard it said that these men were constituents calling upon their Deputy. To my knowledge these men were very careful not to be constituents of the Deputies. They were careful that they were people whom the Deputy would not know. These gentlemen come along to a Deputy and say “We want to know how you are going to vote on this Bill; we have come from the I.R.A.” Is that to be considered a pat on the back for the Deputy? The I.R.A. is known to be a body of men whose consciences are completely blunted, men who do not recognise the moral law.

Those who have experience of the existing conditions in parts of this country are aware that by virtue of this organisation you have the intimidation of witnesses, with perjury. We know that the Deputies at this moment are actually being threatened, and owing to the weakness of the law, owing, if you like, to the cowardice of the people, you have in this country this quite strong organisation which is well armed. This urgency is necessary because everybody recognises that the longer we spend on this Bill the more danger will come to the people in this country from this organisation. This is a Bill that should be passed in the shortest possible time. It is a question merely whether the Bill is desirable or not. I do not believe [77] that there is any such difference between us and the Deputies on the other side as they pretend there is. I think Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party know, perhaps not quite as well as we do, that this organisation exists. They have some idea of its strength. Deputies over there know that in their constituencies there are more than 1,000 men in this organisation—men with armaments. Deputies know how much armaments these people have. They know what the aims of these people and their methods in obtaining these aims are.

Fianna Fáil realises that the ordinary citizen in many parts of the country cannot perform his ordinary functions because he knows that it is not in the power of this State under the present law and Constitution to protect him against this organisation. He has evidence of the power of this organisation to make its will effective against the ordinary decent citizens of the country. If that is so, the whole State is in a condition of collapse and it is the moral duty of every person in the State to see that the Government takes all such powers as are necessary to put these down. When it comes to taking these powers some people's minds are in the painful position of being in the midst of a political tradition in which it is suggested that the eternal laws were created by Gladstone or Cobbett or by the Bill of Rights or something like that. It is the duty of the people to form themselves into a State, it is the duty of the people to have a Government, and it is the duty of that Government to have power and to assert that power against every existing evildoer. The idea of Liberalism or democracy was that the power of the Executive should be limited. We have been told that this is an election dodge and then we have been told by the same Deputies that the Bill is not going to help us.

Mr. Lemass: No, it is not.

Mr. Fitzgerald: I agree with Deputy Lemass. What are we to do? Are we to sit here having received from God power and authority and allow the gun bullies to go around and not only to [78] take the lives of the people, but to destroy the moral consciousness of the youth of the country? If the situation comes when we hand over the government of the country to Fianna Fáil is it not our duty to hand it over to them in a way in which they can make it effective? I do not think that Fianna Fáil have been distinguished by their moral courage. I do not think that their moral courage in a situation like this would be equal to ours. They may be better than us; they say so themselves, but I think we, who have faced up to the situation again and again, may not have their splendid record of high-falutin phrases, but we fell it will be our duty to hand over this Government to our successors as an effective Government.

I wish to say here that I am very far from a wish to stress any difference between Fianna Fáil and ourselves in this matter. I do believe that the majority of the Deputies of Fianna Fáil entirely agree with us. They may differ in details. But I think every Deputy here who has come from the country realises the situation that exists there and realises the necessity of having power and force, gun-work if necessary, in order to put down the propaganda of crime and the commission of crime, and to put down a whole organisation whose methods will destroy the moral principles of the youth of this country and will consequently destroy the Irish nation that we have cared about. I think Deputies opposite realise that as well as we do. They may think that perhaps we take more powers than are necessary. I would ask them to put themselves in our position. Here we are responsible for the material and spiritual welfare of the people of this country, a people with the enormous tradition of good that we have behind us but a trickle which owing to external influence has worried us in our view of political morality.

I ask Deputies to put themselves in our position. Would it be right for us to ask for insufficient powers or to ask for excessive powers? Are the Deputies opposite justified in assuming that the Executive in asking for powers sufficiently wide in order to cover all [79] loopholes, are asking for powers that are excessive? Are the Deputies opposite justified in assuming that it is right to let the organisation of crime go on in the country rather than entrust the Executive with certain powers? I admit that the tradition of Liberalism has been to limit the power of the Executive. I