Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 13 Jun 1929

Vol. 30 No. 11

Public Business. - Juries (Protection) Bill, 1929—Fifth Stage.

I move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I merely desire to say a few words. In introducing this Bill, I said that its introduction was necessitated by the existence of a conspiracy to prevent the working and operation of the criminal law in this country. That was shown by the murder of a witness and by the attempted murder of a juryman. Unfortunately, since the Bill was last before the House, we have had further evidence of the existence of this conspiracy to break down the administration of the law in this country. The law depends upon witnesses, upon jurymen, and it also depends upon the Guards, whose duty it is to detect and to prevent crime. The night before last, in the County Clare, there was perpetrated a murder, one of the most cold-blooded in its calculation and one of the most diabolical in its execution, that has ever been perpetrated in this country. It is a murder which must fill the minds of every decent and self-respecting person in this country with loathing and abhorrence for the murder itself and with loathing and abhorrence for the persons who perpetrated a crime of that nature.

In the County Clare an unfortunate young Guard was literally blown to pieces and two other members of the Guards were seriously injured by a trap mine. No doubt, the whole diabolical design of the perpetrators of this murder was not carried out. The mine was not opened in the barrack, with the result that would have followed if it had been opened there, but the results that did happen are in themselves terrible. This unfortunate young Guard, a fine type of man, a splendid young Irishman, has met his death in the discharge of his duties —discharging, bravely and fearlessly, the duties of his position and the duties he owed to the country. He has died in the discharge of his duty and he has died for his country.

It is an awful thing that in this country of ours crimes of that kind should happen. We are, on the whole, a country which is free from crime, and it seems as if the criminality of the whole community has concentrated itself in the minds of a few of those desperate, hatefully-minded assassins. They are endeavouring to break down the administration of the law by every means; no matter how diabolical the means that suggest themselves to their minds they adopt them. It is to safeguard the lives of jurymen from this type of man that this Bill is introduced, and it is in that spirit that I ask the House now to pass this Bill.

I move that the Bill be rejected. It would be much more decent, I think, if the Minister, in asking the House to pass this Bill, had honestly told the House that it was not an attempt to protect jurors, that it was not an attempt to improve the jury system, that it was not intended for the protection of citizens, but that it was merely a camouflage attempt to do away with or abolish the jury system altogether; because that is what it means. In the many statements the Minister has made in this House he gave no indication as to the way this Bill was going to succeed in securing the safety and preserving the lives of jurymen if they were ever in danger. There has been a good deal said during the discussion on this Bill, and wild statements made, as to the conspiracy on foot. We have had trotted out here time after time the cases of a witness and a juryman, one of whom was wounded and the other killed, and that that is the justification for the introduction of this Bill. But it has been pointed out, time after time, that it took the Government a very long time to bring in this measure if they seriously believed or considered, or were influenced by that in the belief or consideration, that such a Bill was necessary.

The first time that this Bill was mooted and the first time there was any talk about it was when the North Dublin by-election was in the offing, and only that there was another by-election I do not think this House would have heard any more about it. Between these two by-elections you had the President characterising as scare-mongers the people who circulated reports that a conspiracy was on foot in this country to overthrow the State and that there was danger for the citizens of the State. The President himself, as everybody knows, was the chief scare-monger in that matter. He was the first, I think, who broadcasted the statement here in Dublin as to such a conspiracy being on foot, and the Government being about to take serious notice of it. He was the first, perhaps, after the election to repudiate the scare-mongering that he started himself. A few weeks ago the scare-mongering was started again by the Minister for Justice carrying out the political plans of the Executive Council and for political purposes. To test this matter one must examine and see how far this Bill can protect jurors. If there was ever a measure introduced to try and frighten and terrorise jurors this measure was intended for that purpose and it can have no other effect. Pursuing the policy that is embodied in this Bill means going back to nothing less than the court martial régime which this country was familiar with some years ago. It means doing away with what was regarded for a very considerable time under British law, and recognised and accepted in this country, as one of the fundamental safeguards of the citizens of this country—safeguards which the lapse of time and experience have proved necessary for the protection of the citizens and the guarding of the rights to which they were entitled.

Take one of the most potent examples of what these rights mean and how jealously they had been guarded and how jealously they had been seen to by the authorities which I think the Minister for Justice and the Executive Council will recognise. Take Section 7. It amounts to having proceedings in future before juries in camera or in a secret way. See how reactionary this measure is because in that section the judges who have been appointed by the Executive Council no longer hold the confidence of the Executive Council. I think that is a tribute to them in some sense—that they will not be so partisan as to be influenced in ways that other officials of the State may be influenced.

In Section 7 it is proposed that the judge must peremptorily, when the superintendent of the Gárda says it is desirable that the court should be cleared, clear the court, that the judge has no option but to do so. The Minister for Justice is well aware that there are certain practices and procedures already in operation that enable the judge, at any time he sees fit, to clear the court on any grounds——

Does the Minister dispute it?

Will the Deputy state on what grounds?

I am asking the Minister to say if he is not satisfied that the judge has power to clear the court?

And I want the Deputy to state his authority for that.

If the judge is satisfied there cannot be a proper hearing he has power to adjourn the court or to have the court cleared. Is not that so?

I should like if the Deputy would give an authority in that matter, or give a case in the matter.

I will quote a case in a moment for the Minister for Justice. If the Minister disputes that we can very easily get the authority. If he says it is not so I would like him to state so now. I would like the Minister to repudiate that, and to say there is no authority for that. But the Minister knows perfectly well it is so. He knows there is an authority for that, but because he imagines that a Deputy getting up here has not by him at the moment the whole 30 volumes of Halsbury available that he can, in a sleek way, get out of it. I challenge the Minister to say it is not so.

As I have stated, under the existing law the judges have ample power to do that. Why did not the Minister, if he had confidence in his judges, leave in their hands the power to clear the court themselves if they thought fit? If he thought that the powers for doing that already available were not ample or that the powers were not extensive enough or wide enough, why did he not leave in the hands of the judge, under certain circumstances that might arise, power that would enable the judge to clear the courts? No. The Minister waxes very eloquent whenever anybody on this side of the House criticises a member of the Gárda Síochána. The test of some of the partisanship, at any rate, is proved in this Bill; the Minister will not trust the judges. But he will trust the superintendent of the Gárda Síochána. He will not leave it optional with the judges. He will not leave it to the judge to be satisfied with any evidence, but the judge must, on the evidence of the superintendent of the Gárda Síochána, have the court cleared.

To say that that humiliates the judges is to put it very mildly. To some people, and in some set of circumstances, it will mean that the superintendent of the Gárda will be prejudiced. I think that goes without question. A case has been referred to. I will deal with that later. The Minister in asking the House to pass this Bill denied that the local superintendent would be prejudiced or that he would take up a certain line with regard to any person as to whose guilt he had any idea. The superintendent would make every effort that he possibly could to secure a conviction.

The judge would, I believe, be impartial, but the superintendent of the Gárda would not be impartial in such cases as these. I mentioned that I would refer the Minister to authorities for which I think he would have some respect as to how they are regarded under British law. That law has been in operation in this country, and a good deal of it is still in operation in this country. I will refer him to authorities as to how it is regarded by authorities elsewhere. Bentham is a well-known authority. He has been referred to by Lord Shaw in the case of Scott v. Scott. If the Minister wants to be so meticulously exact about it, the authority is in the 1913 Appeal Court Cases, page 477. This is what he says:—

"In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself whilst trying under trial. The security of securities is publicity." I think that the Minister might have some respect for that authority at any rate. Lord Shaw further refers to the enlightened verdict of Hallam in which he ranks the publicity of judicial proceedings even higher than the rights of Parliament as a guarantee of public security.

Bentham further says: "Civil liberty in this kingdom has two direct guarantees, the open administration of justice according to known laws and the right of Parliament to inquire into and obtain redress of public grievances. Of these the first is by far the most indispensable, nor can the subjects of any State be reckoned to enjoy a real freedom where this condition is not found both in its judicial institutions and their constant exercise."

Lord Shaw, going further than that, says that the very conception of trials in camera shocked him. He further says: "The right of the citizen and the working of the Constitution in the sense which I have described have, upon the whole, since the fall of the Stuart Dynasty from the judiciary—and they appear to me still to demand it—a constant and most watchful respect." That decision many recognise as fixing definitely and finally, in British law at any rate, the right to open trial. These authorities are the authorities of the British law and the British Constitution, and I think that the Minister cannot quote any higher. They have placed it that publicity is the only means that can secure for the citizens a fair trial. That is the major means, and the principal means, that will secure a fair trial and the liberty of the subject. But here we have in this country a reactionary measure brought in that is intended to go behind all that, and intended to secure that there will be trials in camera.

Where is the question of camera? As the Deputy knows, the Press is always present. There is no trial in camera.

I will deal with the Press in a moment. The Press also is sought to be excluded. The Press itself is being curbed. They also must have some sort of docket or voucher that they are all right, at any rate, from the point of view of the Executive of the day. The Press have not free access to it. The public can be cleared out of it. These star-chambered proceedings will go on which cannot get respect from anybody.

The Minister knows, if he has ever attempted to secure disrespect for the law, that under this section alone he has taken the surest and the quickest road towards securing it. Every authority that can be quoted on the question of publicity in the courts, open trial and trial above board, has been flung aside in this attempt to justify this political means of furthering propaganda, and it is a mean means at that.

The Minister mentions about the Press. Sub-section (5) of Section 7 makes provision for the clearing of the Press also if, in the opinion of the superintendent, there were any articles calculated to intimidate jurors generally, and so on. That is left in a very indefinite and vague way. It leaves it in a certain position so that there would be no difficulty in dealing with the Press, if there were such a Press in the country as would take a stand definitely on the rights of citizens, where that stand might be construed as running counter to the policy of the Executive of the time. It might be construed by some of the enlightened superintendents of the Guards as being a Press that might be calculated to intimidate jurors.

He has to produce it to the judge.

Of course he has to produce it to the judge. Produce what? What has he to produce under the section? Produce his opinion? The Minister shakes his head. Is not that so?

Read sub-section (5).

I read it. "In his opinion." As regards certain recognition in the procedure in the courts in this country, only certain people are experts, certain people with technical knowledge; but under this Bill a superintendent is made an expert in a number of things.

The Deputy has not read sub-section (5) of the section, obviously.

I have. I do not know whether the Minister is referring to the amendment he brought in when he tried to improve it a little, or pretended to improve it. He effected no real improvement. "Produce copies of the paper," and so on—I do not know whether that is what the Minister is at. Why does not the Minister leave it in the hands of the judge so that more evidence shall be called than the evidence of the Superintendent? Why does he not leave it open in the Bill so that any person who is interested, the Press, for example, will be entitled to call witnessess to explain the articles or the attitude adopted and satisfy the judge generally that they are entitled to be there as Press representatives for the specific and proper purpose of fairly reporting the proceedings? That is not down in the Bill.

Section 3 makes the jury panel a confidential document. It deprives the accused of any right to get a copy of the panel. If there was any means of securing a packed jury in the interests of the State. I think this is the most effective means; it is the most effective method that could be adopted by the State. The State has taken up an attitude all through this question which is the very opposite of what has been regarded as the liberty of the subject down to the introduction of this Bill. In some ways in this country it is sometimes more often discarded—particularly has that been so in the last five or seven years— than observed. But it is openly discarded with some pretence of argument on this occasion. They are discarding the giving to the person charged of every reasonable facility for enabling him to get every possible chance of being dealt with fairly.

To make the jury panel a confidential document will not secure or protect jurymen if such a conspiracy were on foot. The Minister for Justice knows quite well that, especially in country districts, the people are familiar with the persons who are brought up as jurors. In country districts, for example, if a man goes to the county town, which in many cases may be thirty or forty miles away, the people know he is going there on some particular business. They know there is a Circuit Court sitting and they know perfectly well that the man, who has not been brought to that county town before, is going on a summons to attend on the jury. The whole countryside knows that. There is some reference here about loitering about the courts. Does the Minister propose to bring jurymen to the courts from all parts of the country in Black Marias or in closed vans? Does he propose to bring them at night? Does he think that by merely keeping the jury panel secret he has secured protection for jurors? Does he think that the whole countryside in the case of country areas, or whole streets in towns, will not know all about the jurors? Does he propose—I am only putting this for the sake of argument; I am not advocating it—to make it an offence for the motor drivers or other people engaged in transferring jurors from their places of residence to the places of trial to disclose the name of the person they have conveyed?

Of course, this Bill was never intended as a protection for jurors; that is obvious to the meanest intelligence. It may go down, though, with people blinded by prejudice or embittered by propaganda. Anybody who wants to deal with the situation fairly will know that this Bill is a huge bluff, and instead of being a protection for jurors it is an intimidation of jurors. He knows also that this Bill is not intended to safeguard jurors. It is intended wholly and solely to abolish the jury system altogether, and the Bill is a sort of preliminary canter.

Section 3 (2) deprives the accused of any right to get a copy of the panel. The reduction in the number of challenges which the accused is entitled to—unlimited challenges—is bad enough. There is a reduction from twenty to five. That was in one of the Acts passed by this House some years ago. There is unlimited power on the part of the State to order stand-bys. The State will continue to weed out from the jury, without any reason being given, every person who they think will not bring in a verdict in a certain way. The Minister, of course, will say that the people prosecuting never try to get a conviction. Does he think that people are living in the moon? Does he think that there are people here who have never been at a Circuit Court or a Criminal Court in their lives? Does he think for a moment that in a matter like this people are so direfully ignorant that they will put the prosecutor on the same plane as the judge? I have seen, and the Minister has seen it time after time, where the prosecutor was watching the solicitor for the defence to see his attitude towards certain jurors as they were going into the box to take the book. At the last moment, if the prosecutor thought for a second there was somebody going in who might in some way or other, by look or otherwise, please the solicitor for the defence—it was he who would be challenging—he would order that person to stand-by.

Of course it is his duty if there is a friend or relation of the prisoner, or someone who has been squared by the prisoner.

Indiscriminately there have been stand-bys. I have seen the same practice resorted to by the State in recent years, where, in very ordinary cases, the State prosecutors have regarded the poverty-stricken people of the country as being unfit to use any of the rights of citizenship. Time after time, I have seen State prosecutors order men to stand by. I asked them why, and the answer was: "That man has not a collar on him."

Where was that? I never saw a juryman in my life without a collar.

Did you not?

Of course, some people do not see these things.

Not in Mayo?

The sort of scale of respectability, the sort of scale of "Upper Ten," as some people call it, has often been considered by the State, at any rate, as a means of saying that those people are not fit to serve on juries. Might I not appeal to the House—the Minister has made up his mind according to prearranged political plans—to say that the prisoner ought to be entitled at least to as much fair play and justice as to have his case adequately put before the courts, and that he ought to have the same opportunities for doing that as the State will have. Was it not an attempt to deprive the prisoner of those facilities that the right of challenge was reduced from 20 to 5 and that unlimited stand-bys were allowed to the prosecutor for the State? Is not this a further attempt to curb and restrict considerably more the powers and the safeguards that were given to him previously, and is not that so intended by this Bill?

As I pointed out on the Second Reading of this Bill, there may be persons on that panel, and, if the prisoner had a copy of it, he would, in consultation with his legal advisers, be able to decide whether or not certain of those jurors may not be prejudiced against him. I gave the example before of the insurance company. It was a simple example that should bring home to anyone how easily a jury might be secured which would be entirely prejudiced against the prisoner. The State will have the jury panel. It will not be a secret document from them. It will be taken over by them and marked and re-marked in every way, so that they, with their unlimited challenges and knowing all the members of the jury, will be able to pack the jury in such a way as to secure a verdict against the prisoner. Is that the intention of the Bill? Is it the intention of the Bill to make sure that every person who is arrested and charged is going to be convicted?

Of course it is not, and the Deputy knows it.

It is very easy to say, "of course it is not."

The Deputy knows it thoroughly.

It is a very different thing when the Minister brings in here a Bill which tries to curb in every possible way all the rights and facilities that might enable a prisoner to get a fair trial. The Minister mentioned other countries where there were certain alterations in the jury system. I do not think he mentioned any country where the jury panel is secret. In that respect, apparently, the Twenty-six Counties are going to show the way. They are going to show the way that the sense of justice and fair play, the sense of safeguards for the prisoner and the sense of the maxim that every man is presumed innocent until he is found guilty—that all those are to be flung away, and that the prisoner is going to go into the dock with a definite handicap against him, so that, unless some miracle happens, he is going to go to jail or even to suffer the extreme penalty if the charge is on the capital offence.

Another section in the Bill that the Minister tried to justify was Section 5 which deals with the majority verdict. If we leave out this bluff about conspiracy, if we leave that out of the discussion for the moment, on what grounds can the Minister for Justice justify the introduction of such a section? When the Courts of Justice Act was being introduced and passed through this House, passed, I believe, on the recommendation of a Committee, an Act that was carefully drafted and carefully considered, that Committee and this House were very careful to exclude criminal trials from the effect of the majority verdict. To anybody the reason was quite obvious, that a prisoner, according to the system of jurisprudence and according to every other authority, has always been recognised as being entitled to any reasonable doubt. As was pointed out here before, if three persons on the jury disagree with the verdict of the other nine, is there not a reasonable doubt there, since previously it was recognised here that even if one disagreed there was a disagreement of the jury and the prisoner might be brought up again? The usual practice, I believe, after three disagreements is to enter a nolle prosequi. Now the Minister seeks to introduce this section and to make the majority verdict the verdict—that is, the majority of nine to three. Surely it is evident to anyone that if there are three reasonable men, three men who get on that jury after all the packing and the curtailed methods that have been adopted or even visualised in this Bill, in the interests of the State, three people approved of by the State prosecutor in favour of an acquittal, there is a reasonable doubt there? Is a man to be hanged where a reasonable doubt exists in the minds of three people? It will be justified on the one ground of expediency, the one ground that it is going to be a safeguard for jurors. Is it a safeguard for jurors? Is it not obvious to anyone that if there is any feeling whatever against a particular verdict that the three men on that jury who have held the view that the prisoner was not guilty, are going to advertise it and to blazen it all over the country that they, at any rate, disagreed with the verdict? If three disagree, must it not have been the other nine that found the prisoner guilty? Will those people keep it secret?

Will there not be somebody in the court or around the court, or in the locality from which those jurors are drawn, that will know and say that it was certain people who were responsible for a certain verdict? Is that a protection to jurors? Is it intended to be a protection for jurors? It was quite plain, in the other instance, that if twelve were required to bring in a verdict of guilty, and if there was a verdict of guilty, that then the twelve jurors found the prisoner guilty. This will have the same effect. If there is a feeling that a wrong verdict has been arrived at, you will have people who disagreed from that circulating it to everybody in justification of their own action. There is no penalty provided to prevent them doing so. The Bill, as I say, is not intended for the protection of jurors. It is intended merely as a political propagandist method, and nothing else.

Section 6 deals in a very roundabout and a very ambiguous and vague way, with what is now constituted an offence—non-recognition of the court. "Any act or omission"—I do not know, and it has not been so far defined to the House in what way an omission can be construed as contempt of court. Apart from that, passive resistance has always been recognised as a constitutional and ethical method to which people were entitled to resort, and it has been recognised in this country. It has been recognised everywhere, and here again the Free State must lead the way in constituting as an offence what other nations have not done so far. If that is what they lead the way in it is not much of an advertisement for them outside this country. Passive resistance is a method, and the only method in many cases, that is left to people to try to secure some justice, or some rights, where the law may be immoral, or may become immoral by maladministration, where there is a system of law that in its ordinary application may be fair but in its maladministration may become very unfair.

What method is left to prevent an unfortunate prisoner being tried by a packed jury, by a Star Chamber, behind closed doors, with the court cleared, and the advice and opinion of the Civic Guards pressed, and in certain cases excluded, with no way of getting the light of publicity which we are told is the security of jurisprudence and the administration of the law—as I quoted from Lord Shaw for the Minister? What method is left to the unfortunate prisoner, handicapped, manacled and shackled in that way, except a resort to the method of passive resistance? I believe that when this Bill is in operation, and has been working for some little time, and when it is obvious that passive resistance is the only method which can be used against the ill-usage to which it may be brought, I believe and sincerely hope that there will be men in the country who will resort to that method of passive resistance as the only method open to them to try and break down the administration of laws that have turned out immoral, and that in their conception were immoral. It is the only method that will be open to people in that position, and as this Bill is more and more administered it will be followed more and more.

There is one other matter to which I want to refer. The Minister here, last evening, referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal as being a safeguard. When I stated that the court had not gone into facts in certain cases the Minister was shocked at the time. On that matter, as the Minister is aware, in civil cases, although the courts have the power to go into facts, it is only in very few cases they have done so. I refer the Minister to a decision in the Kerry case three or four weeks ago, where the Chief Justice in the Court of Criminal Appeal said quite definitely they were not to go into certain facts. The Court of Criminal Appeal is not, as the Minister is aware, a court of re-hearing. If the judges administering the law as they find it have come to the conclusion they are not entitled to go into all the facts of the case, what safeguard is the Court of Criminal Appeal?

They can call additional witnesses.

Perhaps, but they cannot have a re-hearing.

Not strictly a re-hearing, but they can decide if there is additional evidence to go to the court.

Is the Minister justifying the Court that because there has been some miscarriage through not calling certain witnesses the Court in its discretion may do so? Does the Minister try to say in face of that that the Court of Criminal Appeal is a safeguard? What safeguard has it proved except in certain technicalities? And a Bill introduced here even did away with that matter of technicality. Finally, what reason can the Minister give for the introduction of this Bill and passing it through the Oireachtas? Some people, I suppose, have been listening so often and so long to it they would be inclined to believe that there was a great revival of citizenship within the last few years, a great pride of citizenship within the country, and that people were not afraid to do their duty as citizens. Members on the Government Benches opposite have prattled that pretty freely through the country, and in their press organs inside and outside the country. They have tried to show that the people of this country are not afraid to exercise citizen rights, and they have tried to show that the people of this country were not afraid of the people referred to here by the Minister as assassins, gunmen and so on. Is this Bill not a contradiction of that? If there is pride of citizenship, if there is civic responsibility—I think that is the phrase used—if there is all that in the country, why is it necessary to bring in this Bill? It was brought in, as I have said, simply and solely as political bluff, and the purpose having ended to some extent with limited success would they not be satisfied even now at the eleventh stage to drop it?

Reference has been made by the Minister to the Clare case that happened the other day. The Minister was very indignant to-day about the Clare case. The Minister should remember that on his shoulders rests a certain amount of responsibility for these happenings in Clare. Time after time questions have been raised in this House and demands made on the Minister to inquire into the action of certain members, or thugs, of the Civic Guards force in Clare, as to the taking out of citizens and hammering them on the roads, and so on. These questions have been raised on the Estimates, and on other occasions.

The Minister has consistently and persistently taken up the attitude that he would have no inquiry into these cases, that he would take the word of the Guards as gospel. When affidavits were brought into the House in which the facts were sworn to by people he sneered at them and said that there was nothing in them. When people pledge their oaths and go before commissioners appointed by the Government, or before commissioners for oaths perhaps holding under the courts of the present Executive, if there happens to be a Civic Guard involved we are told: "No, you cannot inquire into that; you cannot consider it. They are above suspicion; they are above reproach; they can do nothing wrong." That is what the Minister says. Does the Minister not know that such an attitude as that must inevitably result in exasperating people in the areas where these things have taken place? Does the Minister not recognise and realise that if he continues these provocative methods and if he more or less claps on the back the men whom the citizens of Clare have testified on oath to have done this work, he will force people into an exasperated condition? There is nothing about that, but it is very easy for the Minister to wax eloquent on the other side.

I do not know how the incident in Clare happened. I am not certain whether it has been proved that a trap mine was used, or whether it is known exactly in what way it happened. The Minister may have more definite information as to what happened, and when we get all the facts we can discuss them. When all the facts are shown clearly to the public and when the public have examined them they will be in a position to consider them from the proper aspect.

The Deputy does not give an unqualified condemnation of the murder.

I have always condemned murder.

The Deputy is not doing it now.

Even in 1922, if I can go back to that, we condemned the murders that happened on the 8th December.

I am talking of this murder.

I have stated quite clearly that I have not seen it in the Press definitely stated by the Guards that it was a trap mine. If the Minister has information that would show that it was a trap mine, that it was a premeditated thing, then, of course, it is murder.

Very well.

There is no argument about it. The Deputy apologises for it.

I wish to goodness that the Minister would have the decency to get up and apologise for not accepting the statements that were made across the House as to the beatings and hammerings that were carried on by the C.I.D. in Clare. If he were not afraid of it he would have an open investigation held.

The Deputy encourages these things.

You are responsible for what has happened. You have encouraged them.

The blood is on your hands.

Promoted martyrs.

It is Deputies opposite who are responsible.

Let us keep to the Bill.

The Minister said that the operation of this Bill will depend upon the jurymen and upon the Gárdaí. The operation of this Bill will depend on the feeling in the country that must rise against it. The length of the term for which this Bill will exist will be made very clear a little while after it becomes effective, if it is ever put into effective operation. I believe that the country will very soon, very clearly, and very definitely show that they are not satisfied to keep in operation a measure that I say was intended as political propaganda. They will show their resentment in a very definite and a very clear way. They will show that they will not allow open injustice to be carried on by Star Chamber tribunals, set up in their political interest by the Government, and if this measure passes the Oireachtas we hope, and we sincerely believe, that the people will show their revulsion towards the tactics and the methods that have been adopted. We are very often told that the Free State is in advance of other nations and that it leads the way. It leads the way merely in such things as this reactionary and coercive measure. I suppose that it is proud of that. It leads the way in that, if in no other way, under the present régime. We depend on the people, when they understand this thing to its full extent, not only to root this Bill out of existence, but to root out the Executive responsible for it.

Mr. T. O'Connell rose.

The Deputy has only three minutes.

We are opposed to this measure because we feel that it will not accomplish the object which the Government purported to have in view in introducing it. We believe that the Government felt that some gesture was necessary from them to meet the situation that had been created by the two outrages that were committed in Dublin, and that they can only hope that this will be a gesture. In our opinion it will not even be an effective gesture. We think that it is altogether wrong that new and very drastic changes should be introduced into the criminal law to handle a situation of that kind. The Minister has not shown, nor has it been shown at any time during the course of these debates, that this measure will be effective to prevent the kind of thing that happened in Dublin, or the outrage that occurred yesterday, if that was a deliberate act, and as far as the facts are known it would appear that it was a crime that under no circumstances could possibly be justified. But that being so, I think the Minister would have great difficulty in showing how the provisions of this Bill would prevent a thing like that happening. In the course of these debates I pointed out that I was quite ready to support other and more effective measures to deal with matters of that kind, but that I believed that this Bill would not have the effect that it was intended to produce. I believe it is wrong to introduce reactionary legislation and to make reactionary changes in our whole criminal law in a temporary measure of this kind. I do not want to take up the time of the House by dealing with the Bill any further, but I think we have made our position very clear on the whole matter.

Mr. Little rose.

The Deputy has only a fraction of a minute.

In that fraction of a minute I would like to deprecate the extremely injudicious and unscientific introduction of this latest crime, if it is a crime. We have not the full facts before us. The Minister has not placed us in possession of those facts. It is undoubtedly a terrible thing. But we do not even yet know whether or not it was accidental. If it is as the Minister stated of course it is a crime. But we are not in possession of the full facts, and the case should not have been brought before us now. The question of the anonymous letter might point to an agent provocateur as much as to anybody else.

I will put the question now.

You got what you wanted—propaganda.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 58.

  • Aird, William P.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Cole, John James.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • De Loughrey, Peter.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, John F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Shaw, Patrick W.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • White, John.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Kerlin, Frank.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Colohan, Hugh.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
  • O'Leary, William.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Tubridy, John.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Ta: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Kerlin and Killilea.
Motion declared carried.
Bill ordered to be sent to the Seanad.
Barr
Roinn