Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 21 Jun 1929

Vol. 12 No. 16

Juries (Protection) Bill, 1929—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That this Bill be read a Second Time."
Debate resumed on the following motion in the name of Senator Colonel Moore: "That the Bill do come up for consideration in six months' time."

For quite a considerable time I have taken an interest in trial by jury. In the year 1920, when the political development of that time caused some people to move that jurors should not attend the courts, I came to Dublin and saw Mr. Arthur Griffith. I induced him to give me a letter, which I still have, authorising the jurors in Cork to attend the assizes. A meeting of the jurors of the city was held. As to the letter that I possessed, I could not very well read it. I could only hint at it at the meeting, but I was one of two in a minority out of about sixty jurors who attended the meeting who were in favour of carrying on the courts and attending in them as jurors. Notwithstanding what the President said yesterday, I still believe that this Bill is a necessity that arose out of the election in North Dublin, where if it was not an election stunt, at least it was a very prominent election feature—the murder of Mr. Armstrong and the shooting of Mr. White. The President said yesterday that that was not so, and quoted two extracts from statements made in the Dáil by members of the Fianna Fáil Party. I submit to this House that the place to answer those statements was in the Dáil. The President said that he went to a higher authority—to the people. In the Dáil he could speak to the representatives not of one constituency but to the elected representatives of the people in every constituency in the Free State, to those elected under his own Constitution. The result of that election has been referred to and I may as well refer to it. The President said that the people at that election gave him the answer that he asked for. I have looked up the figures for that election after the poll had been declared, and the figures proportionately were: three electors voted for the Government, three electors voted for the Fianna Fáil candidate, while four electors did not consider it worth their while to go out and vote for either party. The number of electors on the register in North Dublin who abstained from voting was larger than the number of electors that voted for either candidate.

Notwithstanding this election feature—if there was any measure of truth in it it was a very important matter, though I do not think an election platform was the right place to deal with it—the people were either so unconvinced by the President's statement or by his policy that four out of every ten of them did not go across the road to vote for his candidate. As I have said, three voted for Fianna Fáil and three for the Government candidate. I think that if we were to work it out in figures of three that it would be in the third decimal place you would get the Government majority.

The President seemed to be suffering from great indignation, but I think it was anger rather than indignation. I notice that in hot weather the President is very irritable, particularly when his case is a bad one. If we dare to express a view contrary to the view he has expressed we are suffering from the slave mind and are bad citizens and disloyal to the Free State and its Constitution, and a whole host of other charges are made. What was said here was more often than not misrepresented by the President when he came to reply. I thought the President would have been in good humour yesterday. His old friend and colleague. Lord Mayor O'Neill, was elected a member of the Seanad, and I thought that would put him in good humour, but it did not. I remember a letter written by the President on the occasion of the last Imperial Conference in response to an invitation to attend a ceremony at Westminster Abbey, and anything so servile from a responsible man I never read in my life. I just thought that if any English Cabinet Minister got that from Parnell he would throw it into his waste paper basket as a clumsy and stupid forgery.

The Minister for Justice gave a long and exhaustive series of reasons to justify this Bill, and I propose to deal with them. In justification of the Bill. I think, he gave as the first concrete case the murder of the unfortunate Civic Guard in Clare. I join with him in my most sincere denunciation of that infamous and diabolical murder, but the Bill was introduced before that most unfortunate murder took place. As the Minister has referred to the matter I think I may refer to it. A Deputy in the Dáil, not a Fianna Fáil member, but a very much respected Labour representative from Clare—Mr. Hogan— who at one time, I believe, was elected unanimously by the Dáil to the Vice-Chair of the House, drew the attention of the Minister for Justice on 7th March this year to the alleged misconduct of the Civic Guards in that area. One answer the Minister made to the Deputy was: "If the Deputy listened to my answer he would have heard that there was no assult committed." Mr. Hogan made further representations and the Minister said: "I am quite weary of these groundless charges against the Gárda." Mr. Hogan, T.D., was sent an affidavit by two men. It sets out in this affidavit, a certified copy of which I hold in my hand, that on the 15th February Michael Cahill visited a certain house. I will not read the whole of the affidavit. I believe it is in the official reports of the Dáil.

The following are extracts:—

Some minutes after 11 o'clock one of the police approached me and said: "Come on out here, Cahill." I got up from my seat by the fire and I went outside. I was brought by So-and-So and another policeman to the end of MacDermott's house. So-and-So then proceeded to interrogate me. I refused to answer any questions. So-and-So then said: "You will have to answer." I did not answer the questions, saying: "I would not." So-and-So further insisted that I would have to answer his questions, but I again refused. So-and-So then said: "Come on up here to the field." I was taken to the centre of the field at the rear of the house. So-and-So again insisted that I should answer his questions, but again I refused. His queries were accompanied by suggestive clickings of his revolver. After a few minutes and without any provocation on my part I was seized by the hair of the head by So-and-So and struck backwards to the ground. After getting up I was taken towards MacDermott's house by So-and-So and another policeman. When I arrived at MacDermott's house So-and-So ordered me saying: "Go and put your back to that wall." I stood up by the wall and the police went towards the door.

Some minutes afterwards I saw John Hassett being taken out by the police. I saw them bringing him to the field at the rear of the house. I was then approached by a C.I.D. man, who said: "Come on this way," pointing to the haggard at the front of the house. I walked towards the haggard accompanied by So-and-So, who was followed by two others of the police party. While going through the haggard, and without any words of warning, I was set upon by So-and-So and savagely kicked on the back and legs. I was practically kicked out of the haggard into the adjoining field. Here I received numberless kicks and blows, which showered down upon me like rain. I was felled to the ground several times with blows and kicks. After some time I was asked by So-and-So: "What rank do you hold in the Army?" I made no reply, whereupon I received another rain of savage blows and kicks. After this I saw others of the police party approaching. They gathered around me, and So-and-So now asked me: "Are you going to put this in the paper?" He asked me this question several times. I was again assaulted by So-and-So and others. I was knocked up against the fence, where I received a further series of merciless blows and kicks all over the body. At the time I heard one of the police say: "We will give him the full charge." I was pulled from the fence and, while standing, one of the police delivered a calculated and deliberate blow on my stomach."

The continuation of the affidavit is similar to what I have read. It concludes:—

I was then allowed to return towards home. It was now about 12 o'clock midnight. I returned home covered with blood, bruises, cuts, marks and swellings, sore, and suffered in every part of my body. Subsequently John Hassett and myself were medically treated by Dr. McAuliffe.

The alleged assault took place on the 15th February and this affidavit was sworn on the 25th February. Notwithstanding that, the Minister says "I am weary of these groundless charges." Deputy de Valera, who is a representative of Clare, raised the question on the 18th April, and the Minister said that these men could go into the ordinary courts. He proceeded to say: "If these gentlemen wish a public inquiry they have the public courts. They have waited for two months." Ten or eleven days after the assault that affidavit was sworn. The matter was also raised on the Adjournment, and it evidently attracted a good deal of attention locally, because the county council and the urban district council called on the Government to institute an inquiry, but the Minister for Justice turned it down, and Mr. Hogan, Labour Deputy for Clare, who raised the question, said:

Speaking as a local representative in Co. Clare—I mean as a representative on the County Council—I repudiate emphatically the statement that Clare County Council would be either frightened or obliged by action of any kind, or by coercion of any kind, to pass a resolution, as it did unanimously, to create an atmosphere for any party or for any criminally-minded people in any county. I repudiate that very emphatically. As Vice-Chairman of the county council I repudiate it, and I tell the Minister that Clare County Council has never been badgered and never been forced to pass a resolution of that kind by criminally-minded people.

Unfortunately, we know what happened. I deplore it and condemn it as sincerely and thoroughly as I possibly can, but I believe that that diabolical outrage was the outcome of revenge and that the Minister cannot divorce himself from responsibility in connection with it. I wish to say that of the Civic Guard I have the very highest opinion. I meet them everywhere, and I have always seen them conduct themselves well and have never seen anything reprehensible in their conduct. I hope that no party will try to make the Civic Guard a political force or political agents. For a certain section, generally known as the Criminal Investigation Department, I have, however, no such feeling. I do not like this seavenging of the political dustbin, but when the Minister quoted a lot of anonymous stuff which might have been written by anybody. I think that somebody should rebut it. I shall rebut it, not by anonymous statements, but by authenticated statements. I refer to the evidence given before the special tribunal set up to investigate the Coughlan shooting affair. It was not disputed that a member of the C.I.D., named Harling, shot Coughlan. I am not disagreeing with the findings of that tribunal. I presume that the members of the tribunal had before them the facts and the evidence, as well as the demeanour of the witnesses, and that they were in a position to form conclusions which outsiders could not form. In the cross-examination of Harling, Mr. O'Connor, one of the counsel, said:—

Do you suggest that you got a typewriter from the Fianna Fáil offices?—No, sir.

In the Fianna Fáil offices in Drury Street?—I did not suggest it. It was suggested at a meeting.

Mr. O'Connor: Did you go there, break open the premises and steal a typewriter?—Yes.

Was that in 1927?—Yes.

Were you then in the Detective Department?

Mr. Bewley: I object.

Mr. O'Friel, Secretary to the Ministry of Justice, came to this Tribunal and said that it was not in the public interest that that question should be answered and it was disallowed.

Mr. O'Connor: You told me already that in 1927 you took part in burgling the Fianna Fáil premises and in stealing a typewriter?—Yes.

This was to establish a new national organisation as neither of the national organisations in existence was sufficiently good for this super-patriot who stole a typewriter from the rival organisation and who was employed then, or soon afterwards, by the Ministry of Justice. What is all this leading up to? It is leading up to the fact that there are, unfortunately, employed in the C.I.D. men whose actions up and down the country provoke and incite, as Mr. Harling apparently attempted to incite, foolish young fellows into illegal and criminal pursuits. This Bill is to deal with those people whose numbers the Minister for Justice told us yesterday are relatively very small but very pugnacious. If there are many more Mr. Harlings in his employment the numbers of those people are likely to increase. Take the election, if I must refer to it again, where the Government made a feature, I will not say a stunt, of the shooting of the unfortunate Mr. Armstrong and the wounding of the foreman of the jury. Who tried to get political capital out of it? Was it Fianna Fáil? No. Though Fianna Fáil were not on their trial the Government tried to make them suspect, and outrages of that sort are very damning to a political party if the other party think that they can in any way saddle suspicion or responsibility on them. The Minister laughs. Of course he was always on the side of law and order. I have no doubt that he was on the side of law and order during the Black-and-Tan régime. I would tell him that he is the cuckoo in the nest because a great many of his colleagues on the Executive Council were not on the side of law and order in the Black and Tan time.

What is denounced high and low now was then regarded as patriotism. Let the Minister consult some of his colleagues and see what their actions were during the Black and Tan régime. I am not condemning this new order of affairs. I accept the Free State as a step to liberty, but I do not regard it as the ultimate end of Irish freedom. This country is divided and is not free. I make no pretence that there has been a great step forward politically. That is due to the actions, often illegal, of the colleagues of the Minister, even though he does laugh now. What Senator Moore said yesterday was perfectly true. Repression and coercion will not successfully cope with political acts of violence in this country. I very much regret that there should be political acts of violence, but repression will not stop them. The Minister for Justice came into some political prominence by a speech which I heard him make on the Bill which was introduced after the murder of Mr. Kevin O'Higgins —the Public Safety Bill. The Minister for Justice, in this House, had to admit to me that no successful prosecution was ever taken under that Act. No sucessful charge was made before a civil tribunal in this country under that Act. The one prosecution which I remember was brought was scouted out of court, and the Civic Guards who brought it were severely commented on by the presiding District Justice. This Bill will certainly not secure convictions or increase the number of convictions by trial by jury. The Minister for Justice undoubtedly addressed a large number of jurors in his time, but I think that I know the atmosphere of the jury room as well as the Minister or any member of the Executive Council. Men who are almost blindfolded, with masks upon them, and who are addressed by numbers do not constitute an atmosphere in which convictions will be secured.

No precaution taken under this Act will conceal the identity of jurors in cases in which public condemnation arises out of a verdict against the accused for the sufficiently good reason that the majority verdict will secure that at least one, two or three of the jurors who are known to be there will say that they did not agree to the verdict. The Minister for Justice knows that as well as any Senator here. He referred to the case of Healy who was convicted as a criminal. I never met Healy in my life. I never saw him to my knowledge, but I was approached fully two years ago by a person who said that this man was harried from post to pillar and was anxious to go back, do his work, and live the life of an ordinary citizen. Whether that is true or not I do not know, but I was certainly told so eighteen months or two years ago. This man Healy was known as the "one-eyed gunner." I believe he was a pretty good shot. One phrase used in the evidence against that man was that he fired point-blank at a detective and he replied: "If I fired point-blank at you, you would not be here now." I know nothing of the circumstances of the case. I take the verdict of the jury, and I am not attempting to justify anything of which Healy may have been found guilty, but I am convinced that Healy is not ordinarily a man of criminal instincts, from what I have heard of him.

Another case tried a week or two ago was that of McBride. McBride questioned the C.I.D. man who was giving evidence against him and he said to him, having elicited certain things which were not to the credit of the witness: "Is it not you who should be standing in the dock instead of us?" The verdict supported McBride. McBride had been kept in jail for a considerable number of months, and when he was brought to trial he was released.

The President said one true thing yesterday. There is a problem and a difficult problem to be dealt with. That is, that you have those misguided persons, a small number of persons I think, usually young fellows who pursue criminal methods to try to achieve certain ideals.

I think myself they are wrong in their methods, but whether they are right or wrong I am sufficient of a democrat to say that while any Government is elected in this country by a majority of the votes of the people, it is for that Government to carry out the policy which has received the approval of the people, but the fact is that in the heart of hearts of the people there is an insatiable desire for peace at the present time. In their heart of hearts the people of this country want a free country. They want a united country, not a partitioned country such as we have. I believe myself that that unity will come in Ireland by a process of evolution. Unfortunately repression, like this Bill, is tainted with injustice, and convictions, if secured under any section of this Bill, will not receive the moral assent of the people. That is not the way to deal effectively with these people. If the Government once let it be known that their ultimate object is an absolutely free and united country, I believe myself that these criminal manifestations would die a very sudden death.

I have never listened to a worse statement in this House from Senator Dowdall than that we have just heard. That astounding statement confined itself more than anything else to personalities. He concentrated upon the President, and the President's temper. He referred personally to the Minister, and personally by name to Healy and Harling, but he had very little to say about the Bill. It is, I respectfully submit, the Bill which we are considering in this House at the moment, and whether the President happens to be in a good temper or a bad temper—I am not aware his temper is regulated by the seasons of the year—is perfectly irrelevant to the issues before us. He went on to refer to other matters, but we are not very vitally concerned about them. There are different opinions about these matters, and it would be foolish on my part to attempt to argue on a basis of that sort. The Senator made a very startling statement in respect of the President in respect to a communication which he addressed to certain persons on the other side in connection with an invitation which I presume he received to attend a certain memorial service in Westminster Abbey. Senator Dowdall is perfectly entitled to his opinion on what was contained in the President's reply, but Senator Dowdall himself will also remember that there are many people in this country, the majority of the people, who consider that the President's reply was a manly reply, and one which could be expected from the Executive head of the country.

The point is that there was a memorial service in Westminster Abbey in memory of the men who fell in the Great War fighting for Britain. The President, in his reply, if I remember aright, and I speak subject to correction, said: "At the time those men were fighting for their country, Britain, I was fighting against Britain. Accordingly, I absent myself." What else could anybody expect from the head of a self-respecting State? It is a perfectly justifiable reply, and it is not a reply which merits the term of servility which the Senator applied to it. With regard to the North Dublin election and the question whether the platform there was the proper place for the President to make his statement in respect to the protection of jurors and the offences which had been committed, that is something on which I am not able to pass comment. I do not know whether it was or was not the proper place. Arguments can be put forward on both sides, but I do submit that the matter is altogether irrelevant to this Bill. Yesterday I was rather amazed at the line pursued by Senator Moore, and I find Senator Dowdall pursuing the very same line of argument to-day. The line of argument proceeds thusly: the Civic Guards in this country are not behaving themselves.

I will not be misrepresented—I said the C.I.D.

There is no such body as the C.I.D. in this country. There is only one branch of the Civic Guards.

What you call the detective branch of the Civic Guards. I have in this document here, if I could look through it, the Minister's own deliberate statement that they are a distinctly separate branch.

I am quite prepared to accept what is called an explanation, but it does not cut across my case in the least. Even taking that explanation as correct, what Senators Dowdall and Moore attempted to establish was that because the Civic Guards, or a branch of the Civic Guards, in this country have, as alleged, got a bit out of hand and committed certain wrongs upon a certain section of the people, therefore a spirit of revenge has been inculcated in the minds of another section of the people, and that other section of the people have committed grievous wrongs, which practically everyone condemns, even those who oppose the Bill. And because the Government sees that problem and the wrong committed by that section of the people, and because the Government do their duty and endeavour to meet that problem and put this Bill before us, therefore we are justified in throwing out the Bill. Where is the consistency? Senator Dowdall himself said that, whether right or wrong, it is for the Government to carry out the policy of the people. He admits that as a hypothesis, as axiomatic—that the Government have thrust upon them the duty of carrying out their policy, and when they attempt to carry out their policy to meet what he said was a problem the Government are wrong. He is arguing both ways. He cannot have it both ways, and he stands condemned by his own words.

Then I come to the problem itself. I shall leave out persons, as I do not want to deal with persons, but I will perhaps deal with the statements of a few persons, an entirely different thing. The position in this country is that peculiar things have been happening during the last two or three years. The things which gave rise to what is now called a problem started some three years ago when the under-sheriff's office in this City was raided. Nothing was taken from the office except a list of jurors. It was not an ordinary robbery. Only one thing was taken, and the people who took that knew what they were after, and they wanted it for a purpose. That was in June, 1926. Later on that year intimidatory notices were sent to jurors, and then further intimidatory notices were sent to other jurors, by what purported to be organisations. These specified the charges which were made against certain prisoners and indicated to the jurors the decisions which they should take. That continued for the last three years.

Various organisations brought themselves into prominence by sending out these notices to jurors. An attempt was made to intimidate the jurors. It finally resulted in a deliberate attempt to shoot one man, because he had served on a jury, and the cold-blooded shooting of another man because he happened to give evidence in a case. Was that a problem? If that was a problem, has the Government a right to attempt to deal with that problem? Apart from having a right, is it not an obligation on the Government to deal with that problem? What would the citizens of the country think of the Government which they had elected to power if the Government did not face up to that problem, as they did face up to many others in the past? Only one fate should befall such a Government— they should get out of office; and if they did not, they should be kicked out of office. They have faced up to the problem as best they could. They are attempting to find a solution through the medium of this Bill. The Bill may be right or it may be wrong, but it is the Government's method of facing up to this problem and finding a solution for this terrific difficulty. Whether it is right or wrong, I think it is incumbent upon us to give the Government support as citizens of this State. If we do not give the Government support in this matter, the responsibility is ours.

In viewing this matter, we must not alone turn our eyes to the things which actually happened, but we must see the attitude of mind which is behind the things which have taken place. And the attitude of mind, as admitted in speeches by persons opposed to this measure, is this: that there are people in this country who are out to render futile the administration of justice, who are out to break down law and order and its maintenance. What is the duty of the Government? Are we going to take upon ourselves the responsibility of refusing the Government the powers which they seek? If we do refuse the Government the powers which they seek, the Government will be well justified in giving back to the people the mandate which they have from the people and let the people find a solution, or let somebody else find it.

Coming to another phase of the question, I ask: Are the powers which the Government seek reasonable? What is the Government asking for? The Government asks this: that they be permitted in this way to make the identity of those who appear in the criminal courts as jurors or witnesses more difficult than it is under the system which has been in operation up to the present. They have put forward proposals. They may not be perfect. Senator Connolly yesterday criticised them, not because they were so very wrong in themselves, but because they would not effect the purpose which was intended to be effected. That is not a criticism of the Bill itself. It is not a condemnation of it, good, bad or indifferent. The powers sought simply amount to this: they are endeavouring by means which appear best to them at present to cloak the identity of those who do their duty as citizens and come into court and act as jurors. Their proposals are in the Bill. They have practically not been criticised in any way, much less effectively. What is the other essential feature in the Bill? What the Government are attempting to do through this Bill is to bring into being a system whereby it shall be sufficient for an accused to be convicted by a majority vote of the jury. That is nothing new, as was said yesterday. That has been the practice in other countries.

Germany and France.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator will get an opportunity of speaking, if he desires to do so.

They have introduced that system. Apart from the fact that it is or is not the practice in other countries, is there anything particularly wrong in that system? If a man stands accused of a wrong and is tried by twelve of his fellows, and if nine of these show by their votes that they conscientiously believe that that man has done the thing with which he is charged, and that man is convicted on the vote of nine of the jury, then I say that there is every likelihood that the justice which that man deserves has been meted out to him. I will admit that there have been miscarriages of justice in every country and in every age, and there will be such miscarriages in every country and every age. But those who have spoken have their eye upon one form only of miscarriage of justice, and that is where an innocent man is convicted. There is another form of miscarriage of justice, and that is where a guilty man goes free. That form of miscarriage of justice is just as common as the other, but those who spoke in such an absolute way seem to have their eye on the other form of miscarriage of justice, which is the only one of which they spoke. If a man is charged and gets a fair trial, and if he is convicted by the vote of nine of his fellows, according to their consciences, then in all likelihood that man gets his deserts.

I should like to say a word in regard to the attempted murder and the murder. An attempt was made to shoot Mr. White, and Mr. Armstrong was brutally shot. They are both citizens of this country, and I take it that they both accepted the Constitution of the Free State. I take it that they both thought, one in appearing as a witness, and the other in serving as a juryman, that they were doing their duty. They both did their duty. They were perfectly honest men under any analysis which anyone could put forward. They did what they considered their duty according to their lights. What happened? They were shot. It is a frightful thing in any country, that any man who does his duty according to his lights, and who obeys the law of the land, who, perhaps unwillingly, serves as the instrument by which the Government elected by the majority of the people carries on, should be done to death. It is a frightful thing—it is a problem. It is no wonder that everybody admitted that there is a problem, and everyone should admit that that problem should be faced. It is not the shootings alone. The shootings and all these things which are taking place all these years are indicative of an attitude of mind which is essentially dangerous.

I cannot see what case there could be made against the Bill. Those who spoke in opposition to it put forward no case why it should not be brought into operation. They admit there is a problem. Senator Dowdall has admitted it. Spokesmen in the other House have admitted that there is even a conspiracy against the State. Mr. G. Boland, Chief Whip of the Opposition Party in the other House, speaking of the Minister for Agriculture, said: "He (the Minister) asked the people on this side are they afraid to deny or will they deny that there is a conspiracy to break up the jury system. I am prepared to admit that there is evidence of a conspiracy to do that." On the words of those who oppose this measure, there is a conspiracy to break up the jury system and the whole administration of justice in this country. What is the purpose of this conspiracy? The purpose is to break down the jury system, and then to proceed a bit further and perhaps drive the Government out of office, or at least see that the laws of the country are altered in a certain respect. If criminal acts of this nature are to be responsible for altering the Government of the country, if the Government gave way to what is called a conspiracy even by those opposed to the Bill, then I wonder what will be the ultimate end of it.

Does anyone wonder why the Government acted in this case as they did? Was the duty thrust upon the Government or not? That is a question we should put to ourselves, and it is a question to which we should give an answer. I do not like to follow too closely the speeches made in this House, but I must have a little to say to them and, perhaps, I might be pardoned if I referred to one or two of the statements made in the other House by a man who stands higher in his particular Party than any of those who spoke in opposition to the Bill—the Leader of the Opposition in the other House. I shall take extracts from just one page of the twenty pages of matter spoken by him on the occasion to which I am referring. Speaking in reference to this matter he said:

I know that in any country there are people who will say that they will not become the instruments through forms of legality for a corrupt power—an instrument of tyranny.

He says he knows that, and speaking in special relation to this country he admits he knows there are people in this country who although the form is perfectly legal will not submit to be instruments of tyranny. Where is the tyranny? I would like that proved. What is the tyranny and where does it exist? If the Government of this country is carrying out the laws of this country and obeying the mandate which it has from the majority of the people, is that tyranny?

The majority of the recorded votes.

That is what counts. There is nothing to prevent every person who enjoys the franchise recording his vote. "The proper attitude," he went on to say, "for such jurors would be to refuse and then face the penalties for refusal to go on these juries." In the words of the Leader of the Opposition, the proper thing for those persons seems to be to refuse to sit on juries and pay the penalty, whatever the penalty inflicted by the law of that country would be.

In any case it was the resistance of the juries to an unjust law that brought about the change of law in England, and the people were wise enough to see that juries did not bring in verdicts in accordance with what appeared to be the facts, because they knew it meant a punishment altogether out of proportion to the nature of the crime. It was because men saw the import of that that the law was changed.

That is an extraordinary statement coming from a man holding the position in this country that Mr. de Valera holds.

It is absolutely true.

The Senator says it is absolutely true. There are people wise enough to see that if juries do not bring in verdicts in accordance with the facts, that the punishment which would be meted out to them would be greater than if they paid the penalty inflicted by the law of this country. If that is true, it is an admission that may do no harm, perhaps, to get hold of.

Coercion and coercive acts of this kind have always failed in the past. They will fail in the future.

Is this coercion? If it is coercion, and it fails, I take it that those who are opposed to this Bill and who seek office in this country will have attained their object. There will be no harm done.

I say that a man has in conscience a fundamental duty not to be an instrument of a corrupt and tyrannical power.

That is going on the assumption, and endeavouring to establish it, that the Government of this country is a corrupt and tyrannical power. Then he lays it down that because the Government of this country is corrupt and tyrannical, the ordinary citizen should not obey the laws of the country and should not do his duty. I will leave that. Senator Colonel Moore, speaking yesterday—I made a few notes of his speech—said that we have not much inherent wickedness in this country.

I did not say anything of the sort.

The Senator said we had not much inherent wickedness in this country except what was caused by misgovernment. Of course we will soon have the official record of the speech, and then we will see whether I am right or whether Senator Colonel Moore is right.

I said that those people who were accused of doing things did them, not on account of inherent wickedness on the part of the people themselves, but because they were angered by the shocking behaviour of the C.I.D.

Cathaoirleach

That was what you meant to say.

I said it.

I hold to what I have quoted Senator Colonel Moore as saying. I would like to put this proposition to anybody who opposes this measure: if Fianna Fáil came into power, if there was a conspiracy in this country to break down the administration of justice and to break down the jury system, if men who were the instruments of the Fianna Fáil Party in power, instruments in carrying out their policy, were shot down, what would the Fianna Fáil Party do? Would it do nothing? Would it allow those who stood for its government and its policy, who accepted its policy and who were the instruments by which it operated, to be shot down? If innocent men were shot down what would the Fianna Fáil Party do? They ought to ask themselves that.

Easily answered.

The Senator will answer it, perhaps. Senator Colonel Moore made comparisons. He referred to the régime of Buckshot Forster and the Austrian tyranny in Italy. What is the relation between those things and the Government here? Where is the parallel between the régime of Buckshot Forster and a Government established by the Irish people, controlling the affairs of the Irish people? There is no parallel. What is the point in dragging out the names of Buckshot Forster, Sir Hamar Greenwood, and other men of that sort? What has the Government of this country to do with such men?

Lineal descendants.

If I chose to do it, I could analyse the position much to the detriment of some of the people who have spoken here, but it is scarcely worth while doing so. Here is the extraordinary thing about Senator Colonel Moore's statement. Senator Moore indicted not a particular branch of the Civic Guards, but the Civic Guards as a whole. He said that the members of the Civic Guard——

This has been denied several times. Most distinctly I deny it. I referred to part of the Civic Guard and not the ordinary Civic Guard. I actually praised the ordinary Civic Guard.

I am perfectly entitled, I hold, to give my interpretation of the Senator's speech. Supposing Senator Moore did not say exactly what I maintain he did say, I have the right, at least, to give my interpretation of what he said. He said the members of the Civic Guard should be incorruptible, that they should be of high character and should possess tact.

Does the Minister disagree with Senator Moore when he says that?

Is there any police force in the world the members of which are possessed of those very high qualities pointed out by Senator Colonel Moore? I doubt very much if there is. While human nature is human nature there will be black sheep in every organisation. But the organisation must not be condemned because it contains some black sheep, and because there may be black sheep in an organisation that is no reason why people who do their duty by the State should be made suffer. That is the very thing that the other Party are trying to establish. Another extraordinary thing that Senator Moore mentioned was that members of the Civic Guard should be condemned because they were out of hand. It is even said that one of the reasons why they were out of hand was because the Ministers in the Executive Council had no particular training in the control of men. A comparison was made as between General Byng of the London Police Force and any of our Ministers. I happened to mention General Mulcahy, and I state now that as between General Byng and General Mulcahy there is this comparison: General Mulcahy had under him at one time as disciplined a body of men and as loyal a body of men as ever General Byng had, and he had not the instruments for bringing about that discipline that General Byng had at his command.

In the course of this debate we had the members of the Civic Guard blamed and we had the Executive Council blamed. It has been stated that the Civic Guard are out of hand. The reason given for that is that they are not under the control of the Executive Council, because the members of the Executive Council do not happen to be great generals or colonels. If the Civic Guard are out of hand, why should the Executive Council be blamed? If the Executive Council be blamed; is that any reason why members of the public who do their duty according to their lights should be murdered? If they are murdered, why should anyone condemn a Government that is attempting to face the situation? Where is the consistency and the logic of the whole thing? I do not think I need say very much about Senator Moore's speech. He cited one instance where a verdict was returned and, according to the Senator, in this particular case the witnesses were wrong, the Civic Guard were wrong, the jury were wrong and the judge was wrong. Then Senator Colonel Moore and the accused were right. Did anyone ever hear the like of that?

That is utter imagination. I said the opposite.

It will be very interesting to read the Senator's speech. When Senator Colonel Moore was speaking I was anxious to make comments, but I refrained from doing so, and I hope he will show me the same courtesy.

I did not misrepresent the Senator.

Colonel Moore did not misrepresent me, but he misrepresented facts—a much worse thing.

This is the particular statement I made. I said I regarded the administration of justice in this country as thoroughly bad, as it is in the hands of the Detective Department. I did not say a word about the Civic Guards.

I am not referring to that part of the speech at all, but I say this, that when the record will be examined it will be found that the official reports will confirm what I have just said. The official reports will decide who is correct. I repeat that what I have said as to Senator Colonel Moore's speech is quite correct. According to him, everyone was wrong and only Colonel Moore and the accused were right.

It sometimes happens.

Senator Connolly said that no decent citizen, if this Bill were brought into operation, would be willing to act as a juror. "No decent citizen, if this Bill were brought into operation, would be willing to act as a juryman." No. If this Bill is brought into operation, according to Senator Connolly, and if the Government gives protection to the ordinary man who would act on a jury, that man will not be willing to act as a juror. He will be quite prepared to act as a juror without this Bill and he will run the risk of being shot as others have been shot. That is one alternative. The other alternative to continuing as we are is to bring in this Bill and give the jurymen some form of protection. That was a strange statement from Senator Connolly. Senator Connolly said this measure would not work effectively. He condemns it because it would not work effectively. I wonder did the Senator add anything constructive to make that measure work smoothly, something that would make it work if it comes into law? Did he add anything constructive to this Bill? He did not. He attacked the whole thing. He referred to sections of Civic Guards; he referred to jurymen as supers walking the stage. He used peculiar terms of that nature in regard to men who in the future as in the past will do their duty. "Supers walking the stage! No decent citizen will act as a juryman! No decent citizen will come forward and give evidence in the courts!" He referred to this Bill as a stirring up of bad blood and the creation of bad feeling. I will take up the words of Senator Colonel Moore who spoke of cause and effect. I wonder did the things which happened and which caused this Bill to be brought into operation, tend in any way to soften ruffled feelings and to bring about a kinder attitude of mind amongst the various sections of the Irish people? When they tell the Government to go back to the cause, why do not they themselves do something to remove these things which bring about the state of affairs which necessitates the bringing in of this Bill? They want the continuance of trial by jury and still they will not come out boldly and check those who are trying to break down trial by jury. You have there a problem. Why do not they face up to the problem? Why do not they who aspire to office in this country help us to get over difficulties instead of attacking and criticising everything that the Government does?

The Government asks for these powers because there is there a problem to be faced. It asks for these powers because certain things have taken place in this country which every reasonable and fair-minded citizen in this country is objecting to. If this Government is to carry out its duty, to maintain law and order, and to give protection to every citizen in this country, then that Government must be given the powers it seeks, and if that Government is not able to afford protection to jurymen, and to maintain law and order, there is but one thing left for it to do, and that is to get out of office. But while that duty is the charge of the Minister at the moment it should get the support of every right-minded citizen in this State, but above all it should get the support of the members elected to the Dáil and Seanad by the Irish people. When the Government asks us to give the powers which, to the majority of us, appear perfectly reasonable, then we are going to take upon ourselves the responsibility of giving and continuing those powers to the Government in order to enable them to carry on the Government of this country.

A great deal of the speech which you have just heard might have been delivered in support of any measure of government. The burden of the song of my friend is this: "Give the Government what they ask." In my opinion, that is not the function of the Seanad. We have a much more important function to discharge in the Constitution of this country. That function is to prevent any Party, through political bitterness, through party antagonism, through the anger that is engendered in a popular assembly or from any other cause, running riot with the liberties of the people. I am sorry the Minister is not here. Perhaps he will be here before my speech is concluded. In my judgment he will probably learn something. Penance is good for men and women. I think that the Minister, with all his experience, has not a clear idea of the nature of the terrible weapon he is devising in the Juries (Protection) Bill. I will endeavour to show as clearly as I can how revolutionary this measure is, how far it goes to destroy the principles of personal liberty. The Constitution has often been referred to here. I would remind Ministers, and I would remind this House of one little sentence in that Constitution. In Article 70 we find the words "No one shall be tried save by due course of law, and extraordinary courts shall not be established." In the same page you have this: "No person shall be tried on any criminal charge without a jury."

Senator O'Hanlon will tell me that this measure does not deprive the citizen of his right to trial by jury. I say that it does deprive the citizen of his right of trial by jury because the jury contemplated in that Constitution was a jury established and sanctified by custom, a jury which was empanelled by known laws, laws that were made and fought for by free men. It was trial by jury sitting to adjudicate at an open trial. It was a jury who were not ashamed or afraid to disclose their names and to give their identity and a verdict upon which the man was to be sentenced; that was the verdict of men with open faces whose names were known; whose characters were known; whose reputations were known. That verdict had the authority of men who were known. That was its only sanction. The jurors had there the protection which comes from an open verdict in an open trial openly delivered. They had that same protection which was always the shield for the jurors as it is the shield for the judges. The knowledge which every man has, even the criminal, is that the trial he gets is a trial before an impartial judge and a trial by impartial jurymen. That is the shield which is the protection of the jurymen and the judge through the ages. Difficulties have arisen many times in the administration of justice. We have in the very earliest records of trial by jury a statement that there was a likelihood that men might be intimidated by criminals although in sympathy with criminals. That is one of the very earliest records we have. I will read just one sentence from it: "And if the persons who are inculpated are such that nobody is willing or desirous to accuse them, the sheriff upon being so required by the bishop shall cause twelve lawful men from the neighbourhood ... to swear in the presence of the bishop that they will reveal the truth of the matter according to their consciences." That is one of the very earliest records relating to trial by jury. I am glad to say that the second record comes from this old city. It is in the year 1200. The record, translated, comes to this: that trial by battle shall be discontinued and that every citizen shall have the right to have his case determined on the oath of forty citizens.

Now it is stated that this system of trial by jury is a foreign institution. I deny that it is a foreign institution. I assert here, without fear of contradiction, that the principle of trial by jury arose amongst the free men of the North of Europe—the Gaels, the Danes and the Saxons. Of that, there is no doubt. In the development of freedom and in the perfection of this wonderful system of trial by jury, the greatest part was played by the Gael. What is this system which has been assailed through the ages? We have evidence in the earliest record that it was assailed. It has survived, and it has survived in all its perfection. But what is the system? The system is this: recognising that the first and greatest right of the citizen is the right to personal freedom, it provides that in any serious criminal cases he shall be tried upon the oath of his peers and that the trial shall be open. The next thing that is provided is that he shall have the right to challenge a personal enemy. In order that he might not be compelled, in the first five, six, or ten cases, to prove that the person going on his jury was a personal enemy. he had a peremptory challenge. There is a ring of freedom about that word "challenge." He was entitled to call upon the prosecution and say, "Put back that man; I challenge him." It was a trial of a free man by free men—an open trial. with unmasked faces, by men whose names were known.

What does the Minister propose to do? When he was away, I stated that I did not think he fully understood the nature of the machine that he was devising. What does he propose to do? First, he proposes to take away the element of open trial. The jurymen are to be summoned by ordinary post. When they come to the court, the approaches are to be cleared, so that their journey to the court or their appearance at the court may not be known. Before the court sits for legal proceedings or for the trial—half an hour before the judge comes on the Bench—a juryman can go into the clerk, giving his name and instead get a number. It is number 1, 2 or 10 that comes to the judgment seat instead of Maurice Moore or Michael Comyn, or my friend, Senator O'Hanlon. That is not all. When the man gets the number he goes into the body of the court. No member of the public is allowed to be present. Counsel for the accused and the solicitor for the accused are excluded, I suppose as disreputable persons. I shall not pin my friend to the statement that dropped from his lips yesterday, but perhaps I may be excused if I tell him that I appeared in many of these trials. For some time, when it was impossible to prevent the attacks on members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, I withdrew and took no part. But when the soldiers of the I.R.A. were fighting against soldiers and when they were hard pressed, I went to them and I stayed with them till the end. I entered every British prison in this country and every British camp, including their detention barracks, and I was never questioned. My integrity was never questioned. Of course, I never betrayed the confidence that was reposed in me and no member of the Irish Bar would do so. Coming on, then, to the troubles in this country after the Treaty, I went into every camp and every barrack in Ireland. There are men in the other House who were in command of the Free State Army and I challenge them to say whether any barrister made a wrong use of any information or knowledge that was derived through going into these places in defence of prisoners. I am sure they would not say so. Therefore, I think it is quite wrong for the Minister to introduce into this terrible measure a proviso that members of the Bar and solicitors are to be excluded from any proceedings whatsoever in court. He must know that the rules of our own profession and the sentiment of our own profession are a stronger deterrent against any sort of misbehaviour than any law which he could devise.

The Minister for Justice says that in fact there are some improvements on the ordinary law in this Bill. He quotes this provision for a majority verdict as one of these possible improvements. I say, without fear of contradiction from any person who understands the principles of our law, that a majority verdict is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the laws of this country. It does not obtain in any land where Irishmen live and it should not obtain here. I will tell you why. We are supposed to be free men. If one of us is charged with a crime, there is no presumption whatever of guilt or innocence. But being a free man, the case must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. If there is doubt in the mind of any one of the twelve, that doubt may be reasonable, and it is for that reason the twelve must agree. Going back farther, it means that any one of the twelve was entitled to raise his sword and parry the blow that was directed against the accused. I had, some time ago, a case in which the father of ten children was accused of an atrocious crime. He was tried in the City of Limerick. The jury disagreed. I was told that eleven were for a conviction and one for an acquittal. At the next sessions, he was put forward for trial again. He was a police pensioner who had got married and settled down in the County of Limerick. He was accused of an atrocious crime against a girl. His second trial came on in the City of Limerick. The judge asked the jury, for the honour of their country, to convict the prisoner. The jury refused. There was a considerable number in his favour on the second trial. Then he was sent for trial to Dublin before an impartial jury at Green Street. He was sent up there on account of the supposed partiality of the local jury. He was acquitted by the twelve men in the City of Dublin. Therefore, I tell you that it is a dangerous thing to introduce this new principle of the majority verdict into criminal cases.

The Minister has stated that all guilty men must be punished. Why did he not state the other limb of that aphorism that if possible innocent men must not be punished. We, in the law, consider that it is of much greater consequence that an innocent man should be saved from disgrace and punishment than that one or two or ten guilty men should escape for the time. There was an old prosecutor in Cork at one time. He was a judge in the North of Ireland and he was prosecutor in Cork. Sometimes, when men who, he thought, should be convicted escaped, he said: "Very well, we will get them next time." But if an innocent man is convicted, he is punished, he is disgraced, and in a capital case there is no chance whatever of withdrawing the verdict that has been executed or undoing what has been done.

The Minister has gone very far indeed in this Bill. I think that, as a lawyer, when times become more calm, he will not be very proud of his association with this measure. It is terrible in every line and sentence. There is oppression in every word of this Bill. There is a sense of oppression in the mind of every man who reads that Bill, and there is also a disposition to resistance. This Bill is a challenge not merely to criminals; it is a challenge to every free man in this country. It will be resisted—I do not include any man who is blinded by partisanship. I regret to say that I saw some of that in the other House. I admire one man in the other House about many matters. In his general outlook, his views were the same as those of the Government, but he absolutely, point-blank refused to support the Government in this measure because he had some notion of the principles of liberty, of the fight that has been made through the ages to uphold those principles, and of the terribly sinister nature of the attack on those liberties that is contained in this Bill.

The Minister will, I am sure, admit that this Bill is a serious inroad upon the jury system. It is a measure which should not be introduced without urgent and compelling cause. I listened yesterday to the speech which the Minister made. That speech was the mildest that could be imagined, but the import of the words was the most sinister and terrible that could be imagined. It was like a lullaby. In fact, it was so soothing that we, on this side, were saying amongst ourselves how beautiful in repose were the countenances of some of the Senators on the other side. But the people cannot be lulled.

I listened to the speech of the President. It is an unusual thing, I think, for a second Minister to come forward in this House to advocate a measure, but I was glad to hear his speech, because I was anxious to ascertain what reason there could be for a measure of this description. The President, in the course of the debate, indulged in many little sallies, but in one sentence he purported to give the reasons for this Bill, and, I presume, he gave them fully. Here are his words: "What did the Juries Bill arise out of?" He answered his own question: "Several attempted at embracery— to sap the integrity of jurors." That is number one; an attempt on the life of a juryman is number two; and number three is that lists of jurors have been printed in the Press. I hope that Senators will believe me absolutely when I say this— that embracery is as old as the jury system itself. It is an old word which means corrupting jurors. It does not mean any embracing; it has not any alluring signification at all; there is nothing of the caress about it, except perhaps sometimes when attempts are made to influence jurors at places which are not very far from the precincts of the courts of justice.

In my career I came across only one case of embracery, and it did not happen, strange to say, amongst Republicans or amongst Nationalists or amongst the half-breeds; it happened between two members of the aristocracy. My friend, Senator Moore, remembers the case. A gentleman named Sir Timothy O'Brien was the defendant in an action brought by the son of an earl. The case was known as the case of Roche and O'Brien. Sir Timothy sent a message over the telephone to a gentleman in Cork who happened to be on the jury, and the burden of the message was: "It would be better for me if a small verdict were given and that the trial should finish than that a disagreement should take place." The juror who received that message over the telephone became alarmed. He went to a rather inexperienced barrister——

On a point of order. Is this relevant to the Bill?

Yes, it is relevant, on the question of embracery.

I suggest that it would expedite the Senator very much if he did not act on the assumption that we know nothing about these matters, and try to explain them.

My friend, Senator Milroy, seems to know all about it, then.

Cathaoirleach

I think it would be well for the Senator to show what embracery may be or may not be.

Then the assumption is that we do not understand what it is. I think it may be assumed that we do know it, so that we can get on.

I am sure Senator Milroy does, because the President informed him last night. The juryman whose integrity was attempted to be sapped took legal advice which might have been sound legal advice and might not. The result was that the matter came before the Chief Baron. Sir Timothy O'Brien was brought up, the jury were discharged, the defendant was obliged to pay the costs of the action, and everybody got into trouble, including the juryman, the counsel and the witnesses. That was the last case of embracery that occurred in the courts, and I do not believe that such a thing will be repeated for a long time. That was the first ground that was given by the President for the introduction of this Bill. The second was that an attempt was made on the life of a juryman.

Unfortunately, in the history of this country, and in the history of every other country, that is not without parallel. It happened in this City of Dublin within the recollection of many men who are now living. It happened many times before, but it was not thought necessary that because an event of that kind happened the jury system should be scrapped in favour of a Ministerial tyranny. The third point was that lists of jurors had been printed. I suppose the President meant that lists of jurors had been printed in some of the newspapers to which he referred. That was done before, in the case of Francy Hynes, which perhaps Senator Milroy remembers, a man from Clare who was tried in Dublin for the murder of Douloughty in 1880 or 1881. The names of the twelve jurors were published in the "Freeman's Journal" and published broadcast throughout the country. An accused person was entitled until now, on payment of a shilling, to the full panel of jurors, and perhaps Senator Milroy may not know this, because it may not have come exactly in his way, but in cases of treason the accused person is entitled to the panel ten days before his trial, and that panel must be delivered to him in the presence of two creditable witnesses. I know that, because I have exercised that right in favour of an accused man. Those were the three grounds on which the President came here, very unusually, as I think, to support this Bill and to add some element of heat and acerbity which he thought might be necessary.

I do not wish to allude to a matter which the President thought right to refer to three times. He said that one of the trials was connected with an attempt, successful or unsuccessful, to remove a flag, the Union Jack. Now, three times he referred to that Union Jack. I wonder what was the object of those references. Was there any fear that a lingering sentiment of personal liberty might revive in some breasts in this Assembly? Three times he referred to it as the Union Jack, and he referred to it as property. Might I be excused from referring to it, in this case at least, as theatrical property? I will not go further.

I think it was a pity when Ministers waited so long after the events of January and February that they did not wait longer. This Bill might have been thought of when the events that have been so frequently referred to took place. Ministers say that it was thought of. The Bill itself was not produced for several months. If it was a Bill conceived in panic the panic should have passed. I do not believe that this Bill has been conceived or pushed by men in panic. I believe the mind behind this Bill is not a mind to be swayed by panic. Senator Moore has referred to the Minister in charge of the Bill coming into office in a difficult time. I need not say that I do not regard his as the mind behind this Bill. It has been pushed on after the occasion for it had passed. Why is it persisted in now? The President said in this House that it was not brought forward by him as a party measure, or as a political manoeuvre. Why then is it pressed? Has the panic been succeeded by hatred, by bitterness, by anger? Has that anger been accentuated in the popular Assembly? Putting the best construction I can upon the attitude of Ministers here, and indeed giving my own opinion upon the question, I think it is a case where the alarm of some men is being used by the sinister minds of other men, where this Bill —unnecessary in the circumstances of the time—is being pushed on, and urged on, by men who are angered against others. Its passage through the Dáil has not helped to a solution of the problem which is before the country. Our proposal is that the Bill be adjourned for six months. I think that is a reasonable proposal.

Would you accept it?

The Senator asks if I would accept it. Certainly I would accept the proposal.

Would you accept the Bill then?

Let it be adjourned for six months. The Bill would then be absolutely unnecesary.

Would you accept it?

Let it be adjourned for six months.

Would you accept it then if the same conditions prevailed?

Wait a moment. Our proposal is to adjourn the Bill for six months. We recognise our responsibilities here. This is our country as well as the country of Ministers who are in power, and of their supporters. We ask now, and this venerable man who sits beside me has made this proposal, that the Bill be adjourned for six months. I think the Seanad ought to do that. I will tell you why. If we have any function at all it is to prevent Parties running riot. It is to prevent the effect of Party bitterness, to prevent the effect of Party animosity and to preserve, at all costs, as far as we possibly can, the liberties of the people. In my judgment that is our great function. That is the reason why we are here. It is the constitutional defence for our existence here —the liberties of the people.

I was greatly interested in this Bill when it went through the other House. As a constitutional lawyer, and as one who had been through the trouble in this country, it pained me to see the lighthearted way in which members of the other House, in obedience to Party Whips, voted away what the Minister well knows is the personal liberty of the citizens. In old days when a man was accused he had the right to challenge and arraign. He could challenge the whole jury panel, and as the Lord Mayor of Dublin, Alderman O'Neill, whom I am glad to see in the Seanad, well knows, the whole panel was challenged in the case of Farrell at the Longford election. It was challenged because the sheriff was found to be a partisan. Do you think there will not be partisanship in the future as there has been in the past? I do not say that a Minister will go and say to his officials: "Make that jury all right." King John did not tell the Barons to kill Thomas of Canterbury. He said: "I hate that prelate," and four of them went and killed him. A Minister may not say "I want a good jury," but there will be a smile for the subordinate who gets the conviction, and there will be a frown for the subordinate who does not, and between that smile and that frown I can tell you there are many fears. That is how it is done. No Minister will do it, and, of course, we make no reference to Ministers who are present. I am now talking generally. I can assure you that the greatest possible temptation to know that their administration goes smoothly. Perhaps "temptation" is not the right word to use, but they are very highly pleased when their administration runs smoothly. Their subordinates know they are pleased, and their subordinates will, as they have done in the past, take very effective measures to see that they are pleased.

That is the reason why our forefathers were so cautious about the integrity of juries. That is the reason why they fought for a free panel and why they fought for open trial. That is the reason why they insisted upon the peremptory challenge, which is the sign of a free man. Members of the Seanad, I urge you with all the vigour at my disposal to accept the motion proposed by Senator Colonel Moore. If you do that, I am confident that you will save this country from many ills. You will save the people from that sense of wrong and oppression which leads to resistance. You will save a lot of trouble, and you will do a great service to your country. I will not mention the service which you will do to yourselves, because I am sure that would not influence you, but I tell you this: that for many years an occasion has not arisen which affords to a second chamber, to a revising chamber, to a moderating chamber, a chamber of calm-minded men, a greater opportunity for justifying their existence than the measure which is now before us. I ask you to put this Bill back during the summer and let it wait for six months. If it waits for six months, in all human probability the Minister will not propose it again.

I propose to vote for the amendment that the Bill come up for consideration in six months' time, because, as I read it, the intention of the mover is not to postpone, but to defeat the Bill. While saying that, I want to disassociate myself utterly from the case made by the mover in support of his motion. It seemed to me to be quite wrongly conceived. First, it assumed that the campaign, which had been admitted, was one of resentment, revenge or retaliation. I think that if I read the signs aright, the people who would claim credit for initiating and carrying through this campaign would be the first to disown utterly that as the motive. It is not retaliation, it is not resentment at the activities of the detective force, it is not because of personal oppression that this campaign against juries has been carried through. I am quite certain of that.

But to explain, and perhaps by inference in the minds of some to give a shadow of justification for the attack, first upon the jury system, and following up that, the attack upon jurors—to use that as a parallel with tyrannicide and regicide in other countries in the past, and in this country in the past, seems to carry with it the presumption that tyranny and oppression prevail to-day. It presupposes an admission, for the parallel to be satisfactory, that there is oppression and tyranny operating. Before one could even give a suggestion of justification for the use of force to resist oppression one, I think, would have to believe that other and lesser means were not available; that other and lesser means had been tried and had not succeeded. I think that is the case that justifies and excuses resistance to oppression and political assassination in other countries and in this country in the past. If they are justifiable at all, they can only be justified if every other innocent— I leave out the word innocent because that may be begging the question—but every other less violent means have been tried and have failed. In this case it is clearly a political movement, obviously and avowedly a political movement. But more obvious still to us the machinery is available for changing the political system that is objected to. There is no difficulty about that. I am sure that no one in this House could calmly assert that it is necessary to use violence or to overthrow the jury system or the criminal law system by other means than peaceable and constitutional effort. Therefore, I think that the attempt to draw a parallel between the action of the conspirators—the word has been used in the case in question—is, as I say, wrongly conceived, because it presupposes the assumption on the part of the Senator and his supporters, that other means are not available, that other means have been tried and have failed. I think that the House should disagree and disassociate itself entirely from the argument that has been used in support of this motion for rejection of the Bill on the ground that the attacks upon jurors is resistance to oppression, is retaliation or revenge or the natural reaction against repressive measures, tyrannous or violent measures on the part of the police. That is a wrong view to take, and the wrong way to approach opposition to this Bill.

The Bill, to my mind, is bad and ought to be opposed for other reasons entirely. Before a Bill of this kind could be acceptable, or any Bill which seeks to make the drastic changes in the legal methods and in the constitutional system which this Bill proposes to make, there should at least be some proof and some reasonable expectation, first, that it is going to be effective, and, secondly, which is equally important, that it is not going to do greater damage than the evil that it is trying to cure. There has not been much examination of the Bill so far, apart from the statement made by the Minister when introducing it, and the greater part of the discussion has presupposed political activities of a certain kind, of criminal acts arising out of political activities, and an attempt to prevent such criminal acts recurring. The impression has been created that this Bill only deals with juries who are engaged, or likely to be engaged, in the trial of that class of case.

I am going to ask the House to examine the Bill without regard to this class of case and to imagine ordinary trials in the criminal courts, burglary, arson, or conspiracy to defraud, riot or any ordinary crime, and to consider the effect upon the prisoners, upon the prosecution, and upon the public, of the working out of this Bill in respect of those offences and trials. Ostensibly the purpose of the Bill is to make further and better provision for the protection of juries and witnesses and to authorise majority verdicts in criminal cases. The Bill goes beyond that. It does make a new offence in relation to prisoners. That is to say, if a prisoner refuses to recognise the court that becomes a new offence. He is subject to no trial but to immediate and obligatory imprisonment. The Bill also alters the law in regard to persons who stand mute, and, of course, in regard to disrespect to the court, which is not quite the same as refusing to recognise the court. The Bill as it comes to the Seanad is a temporary measure, and, professedly, deals with a temporary phase of criminal activities. It may be said that the Bill deals with three different and distinct classes of cases, or rather it may be divided into three parts—that part dealing with the secrecy of the jury panel and the methods of keeping that panel secret; the part dealing with a verdict by a majority; and the part dealing with a refusal to recognise the court and disrespect of the court. There is very little, if any, connection between the majority verdict and refusal to recognise the court and the protection of jurors. Why these parts that are entirely outside the professed intentions of the Bill are introduced I cannot understand, except on the ground that the Minister desired to make a permanent change in the system of administering justice in criminal cases.

I think the House should bear in mind that not more than two years ago it passed a very comprehensive Bill dealing with the jury system, and the only justification that is brought forward by the Minister for making a very drastic change in that system, which was established only two years ago in a very comprehensive Bill, is the case that there has been a conspiracy. I think the Minister said it has prevailed for two years, but that it came to the point of acuteness in January or February of this year. I join with others in absolute condemnation, not of the crime of murder or attempted murder alone, but of the attempt to suborn or intimidate jurymen or women, but I wonder whether the Minister has produced any evidence, or whether he has any evidence, in regard to these attacks upon the jury system which could not be the work of 20, 30 or 40 people? There is no suggestion that there is a widespread conspiracy, no suggestion that any large numbers of people in the country are engaged in this conspiracy. There is nothing that has been adduced in support of the Bill that could not have been carried through by six men or women. I think it is requisite, before we are asked to make such a change in the method of administering the criminal law, that there should be proofs of widespread conspiracy, that considerable numbers of people are engaged in the conspiracy, and that the other ordinary police measures are incapable of rooting out the conspiracy. Certain statements have been made, and evidence given, which I accept as conclusive of the existence of this conspiracy, and I am prepared to connect the conspiracy with the murder and attempted murder. But all that could have been the work of a very small number of people. I say that we ought to be perfectly satisfied before agreeing to any wide change in the criminal law that the numbers engaged in the conspiracy are considerable, and that they cannot be dealt with by active police measures. To say that any six or eight resolute people who are clever and ingenious are going to compel such changes in the criminal law is to say that the administration of justice is in the hands of people who are incompetent for their functions.

I think that there is both inconsistency and injustice contained in this Bill, having regard to the comparative gravity of the offences referred to. Let me explain what I mean: In the case of a refusal to recognise the court it is obligatory on the judge to sentence the offender to imprisonment for any period from one minute to six months, but there must be a sentence of imprisonment for the refusal to recognise the court, there is no option of a fine. Consider the situation of a man or woman charged who refuses to recognise the court for some reason or another, foolish or sincere, or both, and the judge decides on a sentence of imprisonment, say, for a week; in the meantime the session closes and the accused remains in prison until the next session of the court. Again the accused is charged and again he or she refuses to recognise the court, and again is imprisoned, let us say, for a fortnight this time. Again the session closes without a trial of the original charge having been carried through. That may go on perpetually. There is nothing whatever in the Bill to prevent that going on for one, three, five or seven years. A repetition of imprisonment is obligatory and there may be postponement of the trial in succession, time and time again. That is in the Bill for the offence of refusing to recognise the court. It is an offence which is not without precedent. Quite apart from Irish politics, we have known of people who refused to recognise legal authority, who refused to recognise laws and individuals placed in authority. Such people suffered imprisonment in every walk of life in every country in the bad old days. For refusal to recognise the court there is no option left to the judge but to inflict imprisonment.

For the publication of the names of jurors there is a possible fine of £50 or six months' imprisonment, or both. The publication of the names of jurors may be followed by a fine. Is that a grave offence? Presumably there are not going to be prosecutions except because of some guiltiness in connection with the publication of names. Is that a greater or lesser offence than refusal to recognise the court? In one case it is obligatory on the judge to imprison, but in the other case he may allow the offender off with a fine. Similarly in regard to loitering in the vicinity of courts. Presumably if there is an offence proved, the loitering is with intent to interfere with the administration of justice. The fine there is up to £25 or three months' imprisonment. Again, the fine is optional with the judge, whereas in the case of refusal to recognise the court, a much less heinous offence, there is obligatory imprisonment. As regards the question of the verdict by majority, this Bill deals with all criminal cases. It deals with capital offences as well as minor offences tried by a jury. I ask the House to agree with the view that that is a question which ought to be discussed on its merits quite apart from a Bill of this kind, quite apart from the atmosphere created by the attacks on jurors. It may be justified, it may be arguable, but I think the advisability of it cannot be sustained. In any case, it should not be discussed and argued in relation to such crimes as have been adduced in justification of this Bill. The question whether a juster system can be secured by a majority verdict in criminal cases surely should not stand or fall by the atmosphere created around the discussion on this Bill. Whatever may be said in regard to the merits of the case in minor crimes, I would plead with the House not to allow this Bill to be carried through containing this majority verdict in respect of capital offences.

Senator Comyn gave instances of cases where a minority of one secured a re-trial of a certain prisoner on a capital charge which was followed by a second and third trial and which finally resulted in acquittal. I have a recent case in mind where a similar course took place. There was a disagreement of the jury at the first trial and a disagreement at the second trial, and the third trial resulted either in acquittal or in further disagreement. One of the jurors in the first trial was a well-known and respected public man in this city, and he told me that he was one of the minority. He was not satisfied concerning the guilt of the prisoner. The evidence tended in that direction, but it was not sufficient, and he was one of a minority of two who disagreed. If this Bill had been in operation the prisoner would have been found guilty and, presumably, his execution would have followed. Successive trials took place in that case and there was not sufficient evidence to justify a verdict of guilty. What will be the position of this House if it is prepared to legislate in such a way as to run a grave risk of such miscarriages which cannot be recalled? As regards Part I. of the Bill, the main purpose of which is supposed to be for the protection of jurors, I think the House should first satisfy itself that the machinery proposed will, in fact, protect jurors and, if it is satisfied that it may have that effect, is it satisfied that greater harm will not be done to the general public, to the accused person who is not yet found guilty, and to the general administration of the law?

First we have the scheme to keep the panel secret and to treat it as a confidential official document. I do not see any serious objection up to that point. There may be reasons which I do not appreciate at the moment for requiring the full panel to be publicly accessible. But I do not at present see any satisfactory reason why the full panel should be available for everybody. It has been proved that the possibility of publication and the misuse of such panel is very great and has been taken advantage of. But the evidence given in support of that by the Minister was that there was a theft of a printed copy of the panel and that that was used as the basis for the attempted intimidation of jurors. This Bill will not prevent theft. You are not going to prevent such resourceful conspirators, as are presumed by the Minister, to have access to printing offices and even to the offices of Ministers. The ingenuity of a conspiracy of this kind is enormous, as everyone in this House knows, and I doubt very much whether you are doing a great deal to protect jurors against the particular kind of conspiracy you have in mind by keeping secret the jury panel. If you are thinking of the ordinary, casual agitator and casual propagandist you are doing much by keeping the panel secret, but if you are dealing with a conspiracy of the kind presumed, these proposals are only going to make it a little more difficult.

If, at the same time as trying to make the panel secret, you are going to deprive the accused and his solicitor of the right to see the panel, the right to know the names of the persons who are placed on the jury to try him, and at the same time you are going to allow the prosecution to have access to that panel, to know the names, the character, the personality, the history and the prejudices of the jurymen, surely you are not doing justice. Surely you are not protecting the accused person. Surely you are not protecting the public. I think we at least must bear in mind that in the case of a criminal trial, the State versus a citizen, it is a trial between two persons, between two powers if you like, and the jury is intended to be impartial as between the two, who should have equal access to documents. The proposal in the Bill is that one side shall have access to know the names of the jury, and the other side shall be deprived of the right to know the names of the jury. There is no change in the law as regards challenging jurors. The jury is called, the prosecution challenges; it knows who is who. It knows whether there is reason to believe that certain jurymen may have been associates of the prisoner, and it challenges if it thinks that there may be some kind of sympathy with the prisoner, or the cause for which he stands trial. It challenges, but the prisoner is deprived of all those rights and privileges.

Again, I ask the House to bear in mind cases which are ordinary criminal cases. Let us say it is an insurance fraud. The prosecution challenges certain of the jurymen. It knows who they are. It knows their antecedents, their business connections, their friendships, their social life, and the clubs to which they belong. It challenges one, two, three, four and so on. The prisoner knows nothing at all about the jurymen. One gentleman comes along who may be very closely interested in insurance companies. He may be a director of an insurance company; he may be concerned with the people who have been defrauded. He may be an associate with them in many ways, but the prisoner knows nothing at all about these things, and he has not the right to know. He does not know who is who unless by chance he happens to be familiar with their features. In the case of the trial of a prisoner, let us say from Galway, Kerry or Donegal, if the trial is in Dublin the prisoner, his solicitor or his counsel is not presumed to know, and cannot be expected to know, the appearance of the jurors. You are loading the dice against the prisoner by passing this Bill.

I think we must not forget that it is in the very nature of things that the prosecution, the police who are prosecuting, desire to win. I have had conversations on many occasions with police and prosecuting solicitors and the like, and I have gathered the impression that the desire to win enters very largely into the psychology of the people engaged on a prosecution. Sometimes we know that personal antipathies enter in, too, and if the prosecution are going to be advantaged by all these factors, surely it is doing an injustice to the public and to the ordinary citizen. I can conceive of many cases where I and those who work with me, those with whom I have worked would be liable to be prosecuted, cases of strikes and lock-outs, trouble arising out of strikes and lock-outs. We are prosecuted and stand in the dock, and have a jury of employers and we may or may not know them. We have the right of challenge, but if we do not know them, it is not much good. The prosecution, of course, may know whether a particular juryman has shown at any time any sort of sympathy with the trades union official or agitator, and it will object. I say on behalf of the average man, who may at any time find himself in the dock, this Bill should not be passed with this clause in it. The use of numbers instead of names again seems to me to be an attempt to strengthen the secrecy part of this scheme. I doubt very much whether it is going to have effect commensurate with the risks it creates of doing an injustice. If there is a conspiracy such as is presumed, there will be means of finding out the names of some of the jurors in the case, but the prisoner who is not a political prisoner, who has no contact with political offences, who is tried on a charge which is a thousand miles away from politics, is going to be placed in the same position as the prisoner charged with a political crime. The juror is not Mr. John Smith or Mr. Patrick Murphy, but is No. 1, 2, 3, and so on. The juror may enjoy it. I suppose that does not matter. If it is going to be effective we must risk little indignities, but is it going to deal out justice or injustice? I say it tends to do injustice and only gives a possible added protection to jurymen.

I think it is almost the logical and inevitable consequence, if this Bill is seriously thought of being a protection, that the next step will be to remove from the jury list the names of all persons who may be thought by the police to be doubtful. That would be possibly a more effective step to take, but surely it is not the kind if step that the Minister would support, because he might reduce the numbers of jurymen very considerably indeed. Then the court is to be cleared during certain criminal trials. Whenever a superintendent of the Guards states on oath that in his opinion it is necessary for the protection of witnesses and jurors that the public should be excluded from the court, the judge shall order that the court is to be cleared. The oath of the officer is the sole fact to be considered. The judge has no option; he must clear the court. Again, take into account this fact, that the superintendent of the Guards is engaged in a contest with the prisoner. His object is to secure a conviction. It may not be formally and theoretically his function, in a strict interpretation of that function, but, in practice, he is there to secure a conviction. He may have a genuiue belief that for the protection of witnesses and jurors a trial should be secret; at least, he is prepared to take an oath that it is necessary for the protection of witnesses and jurors that the court shall be cleared. This is not confined to cases that are political or that have any political significance or connection. In any case, if a superintendent of the Guards decides that he wants the court cleared, all he has to do is to satisfy himself that there is a danger to witnesses. There may be thugs about, or associates of thieves, in connection with a robbery, and he has a sort of feeling that the friends of Bill Sykes are likely to attack a witness; at least, he satisfies himself sufficiently to make this oath, and the judge, without any evidence whatever, or right to ask for evidence is bound to clear the court. As somebody pointed out yesterday, that puts the judge in a subordinate position to the police. It is not a position in which the judge should be placed.

I would point out this to lady Senators who are familiar with the fact, that it has been for a long time a subject of demand and agitation that women prisoners should always have in the court, at least always have the right that there should be in the court, a woman who will be a kind of moral protection and support for a woman witness or prisoner. The superintendent requires the court to be cleared. The prisoner is a woman, and the witness is a woman. You have the court entirely composed of men, with no support of that moral kind, which all the agitation of feminists and women's societies has been aiming at for years. It has been rather generally granted. But now we are seeking to annual that right. Then, of course, we have a further provision regarding the Press. Again the judge has no option. The superintendent of the Guards merely has to satisfy himself and take an oath that a certain person who is seeking admission to the court as a representative of the Press is, in his opinion, doubtful. He associates with people who are doubtful, who are not satisfactory to the police. Again, the judge has no option but to refuse admission of that representative of the Press to the court.

Coming back to the question of the majority verdict, I am presuming a political case, the class of case upon which this Bill is built. Again, I am assuming the existence of a conspiracy. Under the threat of a possible fine of £50, or six months' imprisonment, one of the minority of the jury that has been intimidated is going to say: "It is cheap to run the risk of a £50 fine rather than run the risk of my life, and I am going to assert that I at least am one of the jurymen who refused to find the prisoner guilty." It is claimed in support of this case for the majority verdict that it will add to the protection of jurymen, that there is less likelihood that intimidation will be effective if the majority verdict system were adopted. I say that the risks are greater for intimidation being effective under this majority system, presuming the existence of a conspiracy, because conspirators will find a way of identifying jurymen and they will find a way of intimidating. The method to attack this conspiracy and this evil is not by destroying the jury system, and notwithstanding the contention that the Bill is intended in its effect to maintain and sustain and perpetuate the jury system, it seems to me in effect to destroy its validity, to destroy the valuable parts and characteristics of the jury system by depriving the accused of the rights and privileges which the prosecution also have.

The Minister has inserted in the Bill certain provisions which depend upon the oath of the superintendent of the Guards. I hope, if the Bill goes to Committee, that at least the judge will have to be satisfied that the case made by the superintendent is a justifiable one. Inasmuch as we have introduced this idea of representations being made by the police to the court, I will say that if the police can satisfy a judge that a particular offence is of a character which requires a special class of trial, then special provision should be made for such a trial. But this Bill does not segregate trials of a particular class. It is not confined to those cases upon which the case for the Bill has been built. It deals with general cases. It applies to any offence which is tried by a jury and consequently I think the Bill ought not to pass, because the evil it will do is greater than the chance it contains of doing any good in protecting jurymen. I, therefore, will support the proposal to defer the consideration of the Bill because I believe it means, notwithstanding Senator Comyn's suggestion, the defeat of the Bill, and it is the defeat of the Bill that I shall vote for.

I rise to support this Bill for the reason that I think it is important that there should be a very emphatic declaration of a non-ministerial character uttered in this connection. If this motion, which we are at present discussing, was transferred from here to a public vote. I am quite certain there would be solid support for it from those responsible for the wounding of the jurymen and the slaying of a witness. I am quite sure that that section would welcome the carrying of this motion and the defeat of the Bill. If there is to-day peril to the jury system, if there is danger that that which has been regarded as a sacred shield for the citizen is to be destroyed, that menace is not contained in this Bill, and that menace is not directed by the Executive Council or the Oireachtas. That danger to trial by jury springs from this menace which has been assailing jurymen and witnesses in the City of Dublin, and it is no argument to say that there were only two of those incidents, or, to quote Senator Moore, "crimes, if crimes they can be called." It is no argument to say that the fact that there were only two of these crimes demonstrates that there is inadequate ground for the step contemplated at present. These were not isolated incidents. The very nature of the whole circumstance goes to prove that there was, it may be a small, as Deputy Johnson suggested, but evidently a resourceful and effective conspiracy. And it does not follow that though the conspiracy may be small in the numbers engaged that therefore it only involves small and very limited steps to thwart the success of the conspiracy. If only half-a-dozen lions escaped from the Zoo it might require very large and extensive operations to get them caged again.

Attempts have been made, especially by the two Senators who spoke yesterday, to raise a wholly false analogy in this connection. Senator Moore spoke, and I think these are the words used: "Assassinations always are the result of bad administration." He went on to quote the Phoenix Park murders, trying to imply that similar conditions exist to-day and that the Executive Council operating in the City of Dublin are endeavouring to carry on a campaign of repression and destruction of the rights of the people such as occurred in the time when British Ministers held sway here. We know that that is utterly false, and we know that the Executive in this State is engaged, not as acting as the agents of a foreign Government, not in operating the machinery of a foreign Government, not in suppressing the rights of the people, but they are engaged in operating the administration set up by the people and in safeguarding the rights and liberties of the citizens. When we hear these analogies drawn of Coercion Acts initiated by the British Government, and the attempts made to show that this Bill is on all fours with these Acts, there is either incapacity to understand the altered circumstances of national life in this country or a deliberate attempt to falsify the position and so give the public a wrong impression of what has happened in this country.

National liberty does not presuppose a State when authority ceases to exist. It presupposes a State when the authority wielded is the authority wielded by the Government of the people and that that authority is obeyed and respected and that the citizens are loyal to it. If we are to accept the view that has been put forward here, it would seem to indicate that in no circumstances must anything be done to cause inconvenience to those who are deliberately, persistently and avowedly out to wreck the State. Whoever else may be inconvenienced, no matter whose lives may be jeopardised, those out to smash the State and throw this country back into chaos must not be touched! I think it is important that while we assert, as we do, the right of this State to act independently of other authority, we must assert also that the authority of this State must be respected by its citizens and that those who stand up to challenge that authority or wreck that authority must be prepared for the consequences.

This Bill has been denounced.

One listening to Senator Comyn would imagine that he saw this country groaning under some diabolical tyranny and that the last lingering remnant of hope of restoring freedom was being snatched from the people. The ponderous and tragic manner in which the Senator endeavoured to paint that picture and present it to the view was almost ludicrous were it not for the fact that Senatorial utterances are regarded as having a certain amount of responsibility. We know, however, that there is no such thing. Every member of this House knows in his or her heart if they are honest that there is not in this country a tyrannical Executive trying to suppress the sovereign will of the people. They know in their hearts that the Executive is clothed with the responsibility to maintain the State and that all its operations work towards that end.

I am aware, however, that there are people within this State, even within the Oireachtas, who have claimed that their object was to destroy the State. Whether this is their present aim or not I do not know, but we have had no recantation from them. We have had speeches delivered in the other Chamber on this Bill which were little short of a definite and direct attempt to justify these tragic incidents that led to this Bill being brought in. What other construction can one put upon the suggestion of Senator Moore who used the words, "assassinations are almost the result of maladministration?" What object had he in making that statement if it were not to imply that the shootings were the direct result of maladministration? What had he in his mind if he did not mean to justify these assassinations?

I say to the Senator that those words read outside by these people who are responsible for these deeds can have no other message for them than a message of encouragement and justification. Whether that was the definite purpose of the Senator or not I do not know. But, sir, this is a class of language that people in the responsibility of members of the Oireachtas should be very careful about and should weigh very well before they give utterance to it. For we cannot lightly play with words which may have the effect of stimulating regrettable deeds such as this State has witnessed and which have brought about the brutal murder to which I have referred. Senator Comyn was astounded at the idea that in court a juryman should have a number instead of a name. Well, I suggest to him that after all, though there may be a certain aspect of regret in it, that a number is better than a bullet, and the possibility is that if the juryman who went to his death at the hands of an assassin had been known by a number instead of a name he might still be alive to-day. I am not so much defending the details of this Bill, and the one thing that I have got up to say is this, that when the State is challenged, those who are elected representatives of the State have the duty thrown on them to say without equivocation or qualification that the State will brook no challenge and make no terms with assassins.

Sometimes in different countries there are men who resort, by courageous means, to break alien tyranny, but we are living to-day in a State as free as any State; we are living under one of the most democratic Governments in the world. The only way in which to challenge the existing Government is a challenge through the ballot-boxes. That is the only challenge that can be justified. Let those who opposed the existing institution, let those, if they are citizens of this State—and no one else has any right to interfere— let these convince the majority of the electors that they have some better system of government, and when they are the majority they can alter the system of government any way they like.

So long as we have this democratic institution, in a State where every citizen has the right of equality and the right to be protected from assault, the Governmental authority must be maintained no matter who suffers. It is for that reason that I say without going into details about this Bill that we will support it. There can always be academic discussions about details; there can always be points raised that something else might be better. That is the position that we have to face. Senator Johnson, in what I say was a calm and serious criticism of the Bill particularly devoid of the objectionable tone of the speeches of those who preceded him, drew attention to the fact that there is embodied in this Bill a change of procedure in criminal law which may become permanent. Well, the fact remains that this has arisen out of a certain situation. It is the duty of the State if it is going to maintain the jury system at all to protect those jurors.

We have been told that this Bill would not protect jurors, but the people who have said that give you no indication of how the jurors are to be protected. The implication of this criticism was "leave the thing as it stands." How long will we leave it as it stands? Are jurors to be shot down in cold blood one after another? Is there any step to be taken to protect them? Senator Comyn in that wild fulmination against the Bill occupied, I think, the better part of an hour. The Senator is a man who is reputedly conversant with legal matters. If he had instead of giving us these little homilies about matters which were neither relevant nor interesting, if he in criticising the provisions of this Bill told us how far it falls short of the object the Minister has in mind, if instead of what he did he had given us some concrete way in which jurors can be protected and still the existing traditions preserved, he might have made a useful contribution to this debate.

The Executive Council are abused for introducing this Bill, but the Executive Council are faced with the responsibility to meet this challenge, to defend the rights of the citizens and to preserve the lives of those who act as loyal citizens in the administration of the institutions of this State. They have decided that this Bill will help in that purpose. For that reason I am supporting it. I think there will be no danger to any citizen of this State from the idea of or possibility of a campaign of wanton or ruthless repression by the Executive such as was conjured by Senators this evening.

Listening to the comments of some of the speakers about a majority verdict, one comes to a very peculiar conclusion. The Minister, when introducing the Bill in the Dáil, said: "The principle of a unanimous finding of a jury is a principle which is only to be found in the English law. It exists in no law in the world except in British law, and in those codes of law which are founded on English law. When I said British law, I should have said, of course, English law, because in Scotland, for example, a majority verdict is quite sufficient. In France, Germany and all other countries in which a jury system has been adopted for the trial of prisoners, a majority verdict is sufficient." It surprised me, listening to those stalwart patriots whose life-long struggle has been one against alien aggression—I refer to men such as Senators Comyn and Moore—that they should tell us in effect that outside of the places where English law runs there is no possibility of securing a just verdict. In France, Germany or any of the other countries where the majority verdict exists, there is nothing, according to those Senators, in the nature of a just trial or a just verdict.

That is wholly different to what I actually stated.

It may be wholly different, but it in no way alters the point of the argument that I have made. Of course, I am not greatly surprised at Senator Comyn being such a devoted adherent of British law. If I am not greatly mistaken, there was an occasion after the most tragic episode in this country's history when he ardently sought to be an agent of the British Government in a very high position under British law. I would not be surprised if he still retains that devoted admiration for British law.

The only method of argument is personal attack.

As Senator Comyn has been referred to, I would like personally to challenge my friend to say that Senator Comyn through his professional career at any time did a dishonourable thing. What Senator Comyn did immediately after the fight in Dublin or during the Civil War my friend knows very little about, and he is going to get no explanation from me.

I am not looking for an explanation from the Senator about anything. As a matter of fact, many of Senator Comyn's actions and many of his speeches are quite inexplicable.

They may be inexplicable to you who know very little about them.

Cathaoirleach

I cannot allow personal argument from one side to the other.

I do not think I should have been charged with introducing personalities. I simply expressed my appreciation of the consistent devotion of Senator Comyn to the English law.

Cathaoirleach

I think that is perfectly in order.

I am sure it is perfectly in order. I did not impugn the Senator's character in any way. I think he is quite entitled to be congratulated upon his devoted adherence to that law, and I am not going to attempt to persuade him to change his attitude.

If my friend knows anything at all he will know that he is now defending Irish law.

I am glad that Senator Comyn has reminded me of that. I had almost forgotten that so far as many Senators who have been criticising this Bill are concerned, they would seem to have forgotten that it is Irish law. One Senator yesterday made the peculiar suggestion that the Government should put on their coats and go out nakedly for martial law. That came from Senator Connolly. How they are going to perform that trick I do not know. What the Senator actually said was that the Government should take off their coats and go out nakedly with their courts-martial. Suggestions like that sometimes make me think that Senator Comyn's colleagues, if not himself, forget that we are discussing Irish law. The law we are discussing is not the law that produced Maxwell's courts-martial. It is the law which has produced this Oireachtas and which has established the rule of the people in this country. This Bill is an effort to preserve the authority of the law, to carry out the administration of justice and to see that there is security of life for those engaged in that work. No special plea and no attempt to draw false analogies will alter that fact. It is the duty of this Oireachtas to see that every possible effort is utilised against those who challenge the authority of this State and against those who attempt to wreck the State. Those people must be prepared to take the consequences. The State is going to be preserved no matter who has to be faced in that task. For those reasons I support the Bill, and I ask the House to disregard the criticisms, destructive and certainly not helpful criticisms, that have been directed against the Bill by some of its critics.

I think it will be admitted that this is one of the longest and gloomiest debates to which this House has been subjected, and the net result of it has been to produce a certain amount of heat but very little light. I think an impartial observer would come to the conclusion that two absolutely indefensible arguments have been put up. On one side the argument as put forward by the Minister is, in effect, that certain terrible things have happened; bloody deeds have been committed, and because of that we have got to do something—any old thing. On the other hand, certain of the arguments against the Bill have been to the effect that because of alleged misconduct on the part of certain members of the Civic Guard or a section of the Civic Guard, attacks on jurymen and on the jury system generally are justified.

That is the deduction that one would draw from the argument. Now alleged misconduct on the part of the C.I.D. is no justification whatever for any attack on any single juryman for doing his duty according to his lights and according to his oath, or for an attack on the jury system in general. When the jury system has been abolished by attacks on jurymen and intimidation of jurors generally, the C.I.D. and their alleged misconduct may remain, and all that will have been accomplished is the abolition of Magna Charta and of the benefits, as far as individual liberty and justice are concerned, that flow from that great measure. I can see no connection between the charges against the police force and attacks on jurymen. These are two absolutely separate and distinct problems and propositions and should be treated separately. If there is misconduct in the police force, that is a matter which requires serious consideration and investigation. It should be dealt with separately and should, in my opinion, not at all be brought by those either for or against this Bill, into this discussion. It is a pity that the subject has been introduced at all. I have no sympathy whatever with those people who resort to violent methods for political purposes when other methods are available, and who squeal because they are treated with a yard of their own measure. Those who resort to the methods of the jungle must be prepared, if they are sportsmen or even decent poachers, to receive the treatment of the jungle and the treatment that the poacher and the fox generally receive. The arguments of Senator Colonel Moore were, in my opinion, absolutely amazing, and really arguments that should not be advanced by anyone who has accepted the constitution, because the whole argument he developed was an argument in justification for the attacks on jurors because of certain incidents which happened. I know he did not intend it that way, but that is the only conclusion one could draw. He cited a whole series of incidents that occurred between members of the Civic Guard and members of political parties. I do not see what deduction could be drawn other than that those attacks eventually led to attacks on witnesses and jurymen.

They were not all people belonging to political parties. There were people, quite independent of any political party, attacked, ordinary common working men.

Cathaoirleach

I do not think we should have a personal explanation on every item.

The Senator referred to statements I have made.

Cathaoirleach

If you wish to make a point of explanation on a personal matter you should ask me, but I think that interruptions on every matter is not wise.

Reference was made to my statement.

Cathaoirleach

You might ask the Chair on a point of explanation if you wish to make a remark.

The question of political parties is of no consequence. If he said it was because of attacks by members of the police force that innocent jurymen have been attacked, I do not see why the alleged sins of the Civic Guards should be visited on the heads of the jurymen or witnesses.

On a point of explanation——

Cathaoirleach

Has the Senator referred to you in any way?

Not personally.

Cathaoirleach

It is only on a point of personal explanation that I can allow you to intervene.

I only want to refer to those things because I want to disassociate my opposition from the type of opposition one has heard this afternoon. I want to explain my position and I do not want to give a silent vote. I do not want to take up the time of the House at this late hour any more than a few minutes, but I want to say that I disassociate myself altogether from that type of opposition to the Bill because there is no justification for it. If there is an exceedingly small minority who want to impose their will on the nation by force, then naturally the Government has a perfect right to protect itself from attacks of that kind or else democracy is lost. It is that lack of patience for results from constitutional effort that is responsible for a lot of the deeds which are being committed. We may take an example from a neighbouring country where all sorts of efforts were made —by a forged letter, by penal legislation, and by a millionaire Press— to wipe out a party. Yet hardly a single act of violence marked that great struggle. They waited patiently until their time came and effected by constitutional means a revolution through the ballot boxes. By the most constitutional means possible they installed themselves in power and authority. In this country we have an opportunity at any time of effecting a revolution by the ballot box, a revolution that does not necessitate the shedding of one single drop of blood. While those means are available I do not think there should be any sympathy, good, bad or indifferent, for people who try other methods.

Having said that, I want to say a word or two in regard to the Bill. Quite obviously it is the duty of the Government to take what they consider the necessary steps to deal with a problem of that kind. It is a very serious position when the jury system of the country is being attacked, but they are not discharging their responsibilities by adopting absurd methods to counter that. No method is justified, in my opinion, unless it is effective. I want the House to ask themselves honestly and sincerely do they believe the method suggested in this Bill is anything like a solution of the problem. The Bill is seeking to achieve an impossible task. It seeks to preserve the principles of the jury system in the letter while flagrantly violating them in the spirit. To say a man has a right to trial by jury, as it is understood in this country, whilst there may be on that jury an inveterate enemy of his whom he is unable to identify because he is not provided with the names, is really playing with words, and is equivalent to criminally trifling with a very precious institution, which has been the guarantee of personal liberty and justice for hundreds of years. The jury system is too sacred an institution to trifle with even temporarily. Even a temporary inroad upon the institution may have deplorable effects of a permanent character. The example set by one Government may be improved on by their successors for reasons that are, perhaps, not so desirable as those underlying this Bill. The tragedy of the whole Bill is its absolute futility to do that which it sets out to do. It is absolutely too much to expect that any juror will delude himself into the belief that he can be a member of a jury, no matter what secrecy is observed, without somebody whom he does not desire finding out he has been there. Once that natural human feeling of fear and terror gets into his mind you cannot possibly expect a verdict according to the evidence. If that verdict means conviction, unless the man is a hero, and heroes are very few and far between, I do not believe you will be able to get the jury system to function at all. I would be prepared to support very strong methods along these lines if I thought they were in any way effective, provided you restricted these to a particular type of criminal issue.

If you restricted them to the type of criminal that the Bill is designed for, I would say that there would be justification even for adopting an altogether different mode of trial, leaving the juryman out of it altogether. That would be in the case of people who resort to acts of violence for political purposes when there are other methods to hand. I do think it is a deplorable thing and mixes the humorous with the tragic to introduce a Bill of this kind which makes an inroad upon the whole jury system, brings the most petty malefactor under the same conditions—deprives him of the right of access to the jury panel, the right of challenge, and so on. It is just as if he were a man charged with murder of a political character or savouring of a political character or high treason. The criminal stupidity of those who attack jurymen as a step towards freedom is almost unbelievable, and I would like to let them put up with the consequences of their attack. But I certainly would not place the jurors of the country in what may be very serious peril. It is impossible to protect men day and night whilst scattered in their homes or at their business. You cannot protect everybody, even if there are only three or four potential murderers abroad. The man with the assassin's mentality is exceedingly ingenious in finding means whereby to get at his victim. It is well known to everybody that the result will be that the atmosphere of the jury box will not be one which will be calculated to make for verdicts in accordance with the evidence. I see the object of making the majority verdict prevail. Nobody would know who voted for or against, and each man could say if challenged that he was on their side. That is a little artifice that is hardly worthy of a legislature. It should certainly not be resorted to if it can possibly be avoided on a great question like the jury system. Those who complain about the inroads upon the jury system—at least those outside the House who complain about them— should have no consideration at all, seeing they are the people who are trying to end the jury system, the system of open trial, of open court and of open verdict.

I would seriously suggest to Senator Colonel Moore, Senator Connolly and others, that in using arguments such as they used they are taking a very big responsibility. The people on whose behalf those arguments are used absolutely contemn the men who use them. They treat them with as much contempt as the members of the Government. At the same time, they derive a certain amount of consolation and moral support from a recital of their wrongs and grievances. There is nothing patriotic, chivalrous or courageous in the policy adopted of hunting down jurymen—trying to terrorise them, first by threatening letters and afterwards resorting to open violence and murder. Men who resort to those methods are a menace to any State, and should receive no sympathy, good, bad or indifferent from any section of the community, if we are going to live as a free people. But the Government, in order to deal with that, come forward with a Bill which, it must be admitted, is unworkable, which will render the jury system only a farce, and which will not make any juryman, except he is a hero, do his duty. In nice, fine weather like this, life is very sweet, and a man does not want to die miserably in his own home by an assassin's bullet, because he did his duty. He may die unwept, unhonoured and unsung. He has his family to think of and those he leaves after him. In dealing with jurors, we are dealing with the ordinary common people of the country, and I do not think we should call on them in that particular way to act the part of heroes. That is really what we are asking them to do. I suggest to the Minister that it would be better if he would not proceed with this Bill and if he would consider some other method of dealing with what is undoubtedly a menace to the jury system. I admit that, in present circumstances, it may not be possible to have that system function in such cases as have been mentioned. But cut those cases out, put them in a separate category, and devise a method by which they can be dealt with, instead of polluting the whole jury system.

I wonder if Senator O'Farrell and Senator O'Hanlon are typical of the majority of this House? They seem to have strangely misunderstood the arguments used here. Senator Colonel Moore did not try to justify attacks on jurymen by quoting outrages on the part of Government agents. He simply quoted these cases to show what a dangerous instrument this could be in the hands of those irresponsible agents. He was not justifying the attacks on the jurors. The matter did not arise. It seems an extraordinary thing that his remarks should be taken up that way. My friend, Senator O'Hanlon, seems to have a penchant for misquoting. I met the Senator a few times. I think that he is a decent sort and that he would not do these things deliberately. If he had done this deliberately, he would have done it more astutely. I believe that he was quite unintentional in his misquotations. The Senator, in one of the cases, quoted by Senator O'Farrell, referred to Colonel Moore as saying that the judge and jury and witnesses and everybody else were on one side, and that the Colonel and the accused were on the other. But the case that Colonel Moore spoke of was one in which the jury, Colonel Moore and the prosecutor—the man taking the action—were on one side, and the accused and the agents of the Government on the other. He was quite misunderstood there.

If I wronged Colonel Moore in my remarks, I am quite willing and ready to apologise. I should be sorry to believe that I misrepresented the Senator.

I am ready to believe that. The case was the very opposite. Senator O'Hanlon said everybody agreed that this Bill touches a very serious problem that must be solved. We are all agreed on that. It is sometimes a bit dangerous for us to make statements here because they are so often misquoted or misunderstood. But I believe this problem is a very serious one. In fact, it amounts to a cancer. A cancer, as far as I can make out, arises where the ordinary healthy cells in the body refuse or are not allowed to work in with the general system. That causes the terrible disease of cancer. That is exactly what is the disease in this case. There was a body of young people and old people who are quite anxious to work in with the system of this country but they cannot do it. Perhaps you would think their objections are rather flimsy, but to them they are very serious. It has been asked: Why do we not suggest a remedy? The remedy is not even in throwing out this Bill. The remedy is a different thing altogether. The remedy is simply and plainly this— to allow everybody who so desires and who can be elected to come into this Oireachtas and legislate and work for their ideal as best they can. That will do away with the argument that violence is any longer necessary. Some of those young people believe that it is impossible for them to attain their objective without using violence. They cannot come in here. The test oath is there to prevent them.

It is getting rather late, and I suggest that the Seanad adjourn until next week.

Cathaoirleach

I think we could work a little longer.

I think we should hear the Senator to the conclusion of his speech.

Cathaoirleach

We will go on a little longer.

There are many people, and I am one of them, who believe that the policy of keeping this cancer in existence is a deliberate one on the part of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. I will not say that they deliberately formulated it in their own minds——

Cathaoirleach

Senator, you are going a little outside the motion. I would like to give you as much licence as possible, but I think you would have to connect this with the motion before I could allow you to proceed with it.

I cannot connect it until I make the link.

Cathaoirleach

Well, make the link, then, and I will be quite satisfied.

What I am pointing out is that what appears to be confusing everybody is the effect and the cause. The cause of the whole trouble is the existence of this test oath, which prevents everybody from coming into the Oireachtas. While that test oath is there it is impossible for these people to do anything but to use a certain amount of violence. Of course I maintain that they are quite wrong, that it is not effective, and that there is no justification for it. Members of the Republican Army and the Volunteers have given their word that they will not try violent means until all other means have been tried and have failed. What is really the trouble is that these young people have absolutely no other outlet. I believe that the present Government feel that unless this thing continues to exist they will lose a good deal of sympathy. It is a peculiar thing that every time an election looms into our ken something extraordinary seems to happen, some sort of outrage occurs, and it seems to work in very handily for electioneering stunts. We hear the old shibboleth of law and order shouted, and our good friends, the ex-Unionist element, hearing their master's voice crying "Law and order," immediately come into line and vote for them. That is the sort of thing that is really keeping this Government in power. I believe that they are inclined to keep this sort of thing going so that they can have this excuse. Yesterday the President talked about the majority in North Dublin City. If one takes away the 600 soldier votes one would see what the result would have been. I do not say for a moment that the soldiers have not a right to vote, but I do say that their votes are not free in the ordinary way, nor are the votes of officials and their dependents.

Cathaoirleach

Is this pertinent, Senator?

I am just showing that the cause is a different thing altogether from the question of for or against this Bill. Perhaps I had better not develop that too much. We have been constantly told that the shooting of Mr. Armstrong and another man was the justification for the introduction of this Bill. I met Mr. Armstrong and I had coffee with him. He seemed to me to be quite a harmless individual. He spoke to a friend of mine and asked him if he thought there was any foundation for the rumours of an attack upon him. My friend saw everybody that he could see and came to the conclusion that there was not, and he explained that to Mr. Armstrong. I cannot convince myself that it was anybody connected with the Republican side who shot him. That may seem extraordinary, but one realises that there has been a deliberate intention on the part of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and of the Executive to keep this cancer going.

The oath is a case in point, because they put the oath in the Constitution, though according to the Articles of Agreement there was no necessity for it, because they simply stated that the oath to be taken should be so-and-so but did not say that the oath shall be taken. They found that a danger and deliberately and with malice aforethought they put an Article into the Constitution making the oath obligatory. They did that of their own volition. If they wanted peace they could have left out the oath; legally the Articles of Agreement could have allowed us to have this Assembly without an oath, everybody would come in, and that would have prevented a good many things from happening. I say if any body of men, whether it is the Executive or anybody else, are desperately anxious to hold power, it is just possible that when things slacken off a little some of their agents who have done atrocious things would do other things in order to keep the Government in. I admit that to people who have not thought of this before that might seem to be a bit far fetched. I do not suggest in every case that that is so, but I do suggest that it is highly possible, and my opinion is that it is probable. In any case, if they really do wish to have peace let them do the right thing—do away with the test oath.

I have a pile of notes here, but I do not wish to go into them further, because often when a speech continues through a maze of facts, and sometimes of figures, people hardly listen to it. I would like merely to stress one point about a solution, because three or four people deliberately asked us to make suggestions to get out of this difficulty. A Senator who belongs to neither of the big Parties met Senator Connolly and myself outside. He congratulated Senator Connolly on his speech and on the nice way he had made his case, which he said would have been quite complete if he had made a suggestion as to how the problem could be solved. The suggestion I would make, and it is not a new one, is the suggestion that was made to remove the test oath. Deputy de Valera made that suggestion, and I am wondering how many know that, simply because we have no means of having these things properly reported.

I hope the independent members of this House will realise that this Bill is a very grave danger to the general public. That has been clearly proved by Senator Johnson, Senator O'Farrell and others. They made a very clear case against this Bill, and there does not seem to be any great necessity for rushing it through. It has been pointed out clearly by people who do not belong to either of the two big Parties that it is not going to protect jurors. If there is this terrible conspiracy that is talked of these people will get at jurors. Really, if the conspiracy is so big as everyone says it is, how is it that such a small and insignificant number are engaged in it? I admit that the number is far too big, but if there is such a conspiracy how is it that this sort of thing has not occurred more frequently? In a similar way there was the shooting of the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins. How many people believed it was the Republicans did that?

Cathaoirleach

That has nothing to say to the Juries Bill. You cannot traverse everything.

There is only one other point I will touch upon. It has been said that many of our people claim that there is tyranny, and Deputy de Valera has been quoted as saying that the Government is tyrannical. The tyranny in the whole case is simply this: that the Government will not, although they have the power, remove the cause of all the trouble, and that is the test oath. There was no necessity for putting difficulties in the way.

I think the question has been sufficiently debated, and I move that the question be put.

I have already proposed that the Seanad should adjourn this question until the next meeting. That proposal was only deferred pending the conclusion of Senator Robinson's speech.

I second Senator Moore's proposition, on the ground that the Senator is entitled to reply in this debate.

Cathaoirleach

The House is also entitled to decide if the question be now put.

Certainly, but Senator Moore is entitled, according to the rules and practice of the House, to reply on this debate, and, at the present moment, it would be unfair to ask him to do so.

I second Senator O'Rourke's proposal.

Cathaoirleach

The other proposal was seconded first.

It has been proposed and seconded that the House should now divide on the question. It has been sufficiently debated, and no useful purpose would be served by wasting another day on it.

Cathaoirleach

I will put the motion: That the House do now adjourn consideration of the Bill to an agreed date. If that motion is defeated then the other proposal of Senator O'Rourke's can be put.

Can I speak on that?

Cathaoirleach

No.

Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 21.

  • Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
  • Michael Comyn, K.C.
  • J.C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • Sir John P. Griffith.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • John T. O'Farrell.
  • Séumas Robinson.

Níl

  • William Barrington.
  • Sir E. Coey Bigger.
  • Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
  • Miss Kathleen Browne.
  • Alfred Byrne.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • John C. Counihan.
  • Michael Fanning.
  • Henry S. Guinness.
  • P.J. Hooper.
  • Right Hon. A. Jameson.
  • Cornelius Kennedy.
  • Patrick W. Kenny.
  • Seán Milroy.
  • James Moran.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • M.F. O'Hanlon.
  • Laurence O'Neill.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • Dr. W. O'Sullivan.
  • Thomas Toal.
Motion declared lost.

May I now move that we adjourn for half an hour for tea?

Cathaoirleach

I cannot take that.

I have already moved that the question be now put.

Cathaoirleach

The motion that I am putting is: That the question be now put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 11.

  • William Barrington.
  • Sir E. Coey Bigger.
  • Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
  • Miss Kathleen Browne.
  • Alfred Byrne.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • John C. Counihan.
  • Michael Fanning.
  • Sir John P. Griffith.
  • Henry S. Guinness.
  • Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
  • Cornelius Kennedy.
  • Patrick W. Kenny.
  • Seán Milroy.
  • James Moran.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • M.F. O'Hanlon.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • Dr. W. O'Sullivan.
  • Thomas Toal.

Níl

  • Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
  • Michael Comyn, K.C.
  • J.C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • P.J. Hooper.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • John T. O'Farrell.
  • Laurence O'Neill.
  • Séumas Robinson.
Motion declared carried.

Cathaoirleach

I will now put Senator Colonel Moore's motion: "That the Bill do come up for consideration in six months' time."

Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 22.

  • Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
  • Michael Comyn, K.C.
  • J.C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • Sir John P. Griffith.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • John T. O'Farrell.
  • Séumas Robinson.

Níl

  • William Barrington.
  • Sir E. Coey Bigger.
  • Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
  • Miss Kathleen Browne.
  • Alfred Byrne.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • John C. Counihan.
  • Michael Fanning.
  • Dr. O. St. J. Gogarty.
  • Henry S. Guinness.
  • P.J. Hooper.
  • Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
  • Cornelius Kennedy.
  • Patrick W. Kenny.
  • Seán Milroy.
  • James Moran.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • M.F. O'Hanlon.
  • Laurence O'Neill.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • Dr. W. O'Sullivan.
  • Thomas Toal.
Motion declared lost.

Cathaoirleach

I now put the motion: "That the Juries (Protection) Bill be read a Second Time."

Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 9.

  • William Barrington.
  • Sir E. Coey Bigger.
  • Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
  • John C. Counihan.
  • Michael Fanning.
  • Dr. O. St. J. Gogarty.
  • Sir John P. Griffith.
  • Henry S. Guinness.
  • P.J. Hooper.
  • Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
  • Cornelius Kennedy.
  • Patrick W. Kenny.
  • Miss Kathleen Browne.
  • Alfred Byrne.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • Seán Milroy.
  • James Moran.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • M.F. O'Hanlon.
  • Laurence O'Neill.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • Dr. W. O'Sullivan.
  • Thomas Toal.

Níl

  • Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
  • Michael Comyn, K.C.
  • J.C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • John T. O'Farrell.
  • Séumas Robinson.
Motion declared carried.

I move: "That the House adjourn until Thursday next."

I suggest that we meet next Wednesday week.

Can any justification be given why the House should not meet in the ordinary way according to Standing Orders on Wednesday?

Cathaoirleach

There will be very little business ready. That is the justification.

The same business will be ready for Thursday.

I would point out that the Juries Bill will require a good deal of attention in Committee and I suggest that we meet next Wednesday week, so that we would have ample time to put down amendments.

Why should the House assemble next Wednesday, when there is an important national event to take place that day?

Can we not have a frank statement of the case? There is a race meeting on next Wednesday and that is the reason why the gentlemen who are anxious to look after the nation's business do not want to be here then. I accordingly move as an amendment, "That the House adjourn until next Wednesday."

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 16.

  • William Barrington.
  • Miss Kathleen Browne.
  • Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
  • Michael Comyn, K.C.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • Sir John P. Griffith.
  • P.J. Hooper.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Patrick W. Kenny.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • John T. O'Farrell.
  • M.F. O'Hanlon.
  • Laurence O'Neill.
  • Séumas Robinson.

Níl

  • Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
  • Alfred Byrne.
  • John C. Counihan.
  • J.C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Michael Fanning.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • Henry S. Guinness.
  • Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
  • Cornelius Kennedy.
  • Seán Milroy.
  • James Moran.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • Dr. W. O'Sullivan.
  • Thomas Toal.
Amendment declared lost.

Cathaoirleach

The House stands adjourned until Thursday next.

Has the motion to adjourn until Thursday been carried?

Cathaoirleach

No. I adjourned the House until Thursday.

The Seanad adjourned at 7.40 p.m. until 3 p.m., Thursday, 27th June.

Barr
Roinn