I do not know whether I am in order in raising this particular point on this Stage or not. I think this Bill and the Treason Bill purport to be comprehensive legislation giving the Government full powers to deal with every treasonable activity against the State. In view of our knowledge of current happenings, I fail to see in this Bill what I think should be there, namely, provision to introduce machinery to deal with activities which are actually committed outside this country. It would be an outrage upon our liberty in this country if the Government fail to take any action against people in this country who are fomenting outrages in another country. Only yesterday in the newspapers there was a report that a rather ludicrous body set out to chide the President of the American Republic on the grounds that it was rumoured that he might take action against a man who was self-declared to be the originator of outrages in England. I think it would be disastrous if we were going to spend the whole of our future explaining that a natural inferiority exists in us by reason of our past history. We are told that we have the responsibilities of freedom. Anybody owning a house has the responsibility of seeing that it is not used for disorderly purposes, and every country is bound to assist other countries in that negative way of not permitting, or not being benevolent towards, the organisation of outrages in those other countries. I could not get up in court and swear that I know that the outrages happening in England have been organised here, but I think everyone of us is morally certain that the real guilt for what has been happening in England belongs to people in this country, or people who were in this country.

I do think that the Government for its own protection, for the well-being and good name of this country, should include in one or other of these Bills adequate and comprehensive powers to deal with men who shelter behind the security they find they have here, to order unfortunate dupes in England, or elsewhere, to embark on a career of crime leading to disaster to themselves, and bringing damage upon a country with which, although some people love to say it is our only enemy, we maintain friendly relations, and leading to the detriment of the good name of our people. I think it is eminently the Government's duty to see to it that they will have power to save our country and our people from the reproach of being an inferior people who allow criminal organisations to flourish provided they commit their outrages only in another country. We are responsible for any outrages committed in another country which have been fomented in this country under the benevolent gaze of our Government, and I, therefore, feel that if the Government cannot point out that in these Bills, or in other legislation, they have power to impose the severest penalties upon people morally and legally responsible for outrages in other countries, the Government has failed very grievously in fulfilling the responsibility which rests upon the Government's shoulders.

I should like to make just one remark in connection with what Senator Fitzgerald said. I happen to know, on very good authority, that the effect of these outrages across the water is not in the least to disconcert the Government, but to arouse a growing feeling of antipathy to Irish workers in Great Britain. That is growing every day, and I think it is something which should be known, that the intention is totally abortive and that the only effect is to react upon Irishmen who are earning an honest living and enjoying the privileges of all the social services in Great Britain.

All I wish to say on this matter is that I do not know but that there may be certain cases sub judice and I think it would be most improper for me to go into the merits, or anything else, of these cases. It is not a question of merits—the House understands the position—but it would be most improper for me to indicate anything that would prejudice cases which are sub judice. For that reason, I prefer to say nothing more on the matter.

I was very far from asking the Minister to deal with cases which are sub judice. I was possibly a little inept in referring to matters which appeared in yesterday's papers, but, on the matter of general principle, I think the Minister should point out to us that the Government, not in relation to any particular case, but in relation to any circumstances which may in the future arise, has taken to itself adequate power to control, by the sanctions of the law, anybody in this country who is organising outrages or promoting organisations for the commission of outrages, either inside or outside this country. I feel that the good name of this country and of our people require that the Government should have that power and should exercise it, if, at any time in the future, it should be necessary.

Perhaps I might put this net question: is it at present a crime, under Irish law, to organise here an outrage in Great Britain?

Is this in order at all on this Bill? I should like to have your ruling on that point, Sir, because, so far as I can see, we are developing a bit of felon-setting.

It is doubtful if it is in order. The discussion has proceeded a certain distance and I think it could now be concluded.

We are dealing with a Bill, and we can only deal with what is in that Bill. We are now apparently developing on lines of discussing matters which are not in the Bill at all.

One of the things in the Bill is its title. This Bill is called the Offences Against the State Bill, and I think it is abundantly clear that the maintenance of organisations here for the fomenting of outrages to be committed in other countries is an offence against this State, and consequently, I feel that I was completely in order in raising the point which I did raise on a Bill which is designed to deal with offences against the State.

Measaim go bhfuil go leor á dhéanamh ag Rialtas na tíre seo chun síocháin agus saoirse do thabhairt dúinn-ne taobh istigh de'n tir seo, gan dul amach ag cuidiú le Rialtais eile síochán do choinnéail ina dtiortha.

Does the Minister not propose to answer?

The Senator, I am sure, does not think I am being discourteous, but it is a question which is very difficult to answer. You have to take every case on the particular facts.

Question:—"That the Bill do now pass." Is that agreed? The Bill is passed.

I called for a Division, Sir.

The Bill has been declared passed.

The Division was called for before the declaration of the Chair.

Any Senator who dissents can be recorded as dissenting. That is the simplest method.

The Division was definitely called before you declared that the question was carried.

I did not hear the call.

That is not the fault of the person calling for the Division.

Is there not a precedent for overlooking the declaration that the Bill has been passed?

There is the procedure of recording the names of those who dissent.

I submit that that is quite incorrect, Sir. I submit that, even if the Chair fails to hear a Senator or a Deputy who calls for a Division, the Chair takes the word of the Senator or Deputy who called for it that the Division was called for in time. That is the precedent in both Houses.

That is a point I wished to make and the way the precedent has generally gone. I have often heard that done in the Dáil.

Very well. We will have a Division.