Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 20 Apr 1923

Vol. 3 No. 6

FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—REPORTED. - PRISONERS ON HUNGER STRIKE.

Dr. McCARTAN

I beg to move: "That in view of recent developments towards peace the Dáil is of opinion that it would be in the National interest to release the prisoners now in a precarious condition as a result of hunger-strike." I thought when I was introducing this resolution it would be unnecessary to go so far, but, being in doubt, I gave notice of motion, and it is unnecessary for me to say anything more than I said the other day. I appealed to the Government to be generous in this matter, and they not having responded to that appeal I now have to appeal to the Deputies. I understand that three, at least, of the women in prison on hunger-strike are seriously in danger of death. At least they are in some danger. I do not know how many days they are on hunger-strike. I never saw a person on hunger-strike, and am not sure whether a doctor can say when, after a certain period, they are likely to die. They are likely to collapse after a certain period at any time. If the Cabinet have made up their mind to let them die I think it is very regrettable at this particular time. Rightly or wrongly, many people think that the struggle or the war is over. We may have a blaze up here and there, but on the whole it is safe to say that it is over, that the Government is in a secure position, that they are the victors, and, being the victors, they can afford to be generous.

Again I would urge them to be generous in this matter, and not allow these women to die. Hunger-striking may be right or it may be wrong. It may be justifiable or it may be unjustifiable, but the death of Terence MacSwiney created a sentiment in this country that will take some time to get over. No matter whether the strikers are right or wrong, public opinion in this country would be strongly in their favour, and I think it will militate against any chances of immediate security in the country if these are allowed to die. I think the more generous the Government are at this particular time the more likely are we to have genuine security for life and property in the near future. I would not urge them to act in this matter if I were not strongly convinced that it will help the Government rather than weaken it. I am not going to argue about the charges against those on hunger-strike. I do not know why they are on hunger-strike. I do not know whether they have been tried or whether they have not been tried. If tried I would like to know their sentence; and if there are charges against them I would like to know the gravity of the charges. I got a statement of the charge against one of them. That charge is for having ten copies of Poblacht na h-Eireann in her possession. Any Deputy might have more than ten copies of that paper. I often had more than ten copies of it. I was keeping a file of them, and I had more than ten copies. Others of them I destroyed. There may be other charges. I do not dwell upon that either. If the Government have made up their minds to let them die, I think the Dáil should know the actual charges and should know the actual reasons why they are being let die.

I am sorry the Minister for Defence is not here. Perhaps it is a military reason, and, if it is, we should have a military answer. If it is a military reason, I cannot see why Miss MacSwiney, who has been very active, was let out as being of no military importance. Why should she have been let out while three women who have not been as active as she was, are allowed to die? I do not wish it to be understood that I was against Miss MacSwiney being let out. I think the Government were right in letting her out at the time, as I do not think it is right to allow any woman to die of hunger-strike. It may be justifiable or unjustifiable. At any rate, Miss MacSwiney and others were not allowed to die hunger-striking. It may or may not have happened, but it is possible that these people when going on hunger-strike may have imagined—or they may not have cared whether or not—but it is possible that they may have imagined that they would receive the same treatment as Miss MacSwiney got. Therefore they were probably under some misconception

I think, therefore, that all who are on hunger-strike should be released, and, as I suggested the other day, a declaration should be made by the Government, or the Dáil that if anyone decided in future to go on hunger-strike that they would have themselves to bear the consequences of their acts. But until such a declaration is made I think it is unfair to the prisoners.

Now I see the Minister for Defence has come in, and I will repeat what I said. If they are being kept in prison for any military reason, I think it is due to the Dáil that we should know the military reason. It is a very serious thing if we have to put three women to death. You may say they are doing it themselves. Perhaps it is partly true, that they are doing it themselves, but when they have started hunger-striking it is very hard for any individual to give in. It injures one's self-respect. You must consider it is very difficult for those on hunger strike to break the hunger strike. On the other hand, the Government are in a strong position and can afford to be generous. I would urge them to be generous. I am sorry that this resolution had to come before the Dáil. I am strongly of the belief that it is wise and that it is in the interest of the Nation to release these prisoners—at least not to allow them to die on hunger strike. Being strongly convinced of that, I have introduced the resolution. If the Dáil decides to let them die, well, I feel that I have done my duty in trying to save them, have acted as I think best. Others may feel convinced that it is in the interests of the Nation to let them die. I can understand that. I hope they will be generous, in view of the collapse of the opponents of the Government, and I do not think they will regret it. Even at this late hour I urge the Government to give us a promise that these women will be released.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY

Cuidighim leis an rún.

MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

I am not a member of the Government, and on this matter I am speaking as a private member. It is a rather thankless position to be in. This is an issue that can be easily confused. It is a very easy thing to get up and ask that three young women who are in danger of death should be released. It is not quite so easy to justify any position which does not exactly square with that. But really the issues are too serious to allow this sort of nonsense, this talk on a question of this sort to pass without some remark. Deputy McCartan has appealed to the Dáil to be generous. He has appealed to the Government to be generous. He has compared the present position with the position which the late Terence MacSwiney took up when he went on hunger strike. He has spoken about the way public opinion would be affected if any person was allowed to die on hunger strike. He tells us he does not know anything, good, bad or indifferent, about the merits of the cases, and that it is going to injure the self-respect of these people if they stop the hunger strike. It is a most extraordinary thing, on an issue of this kind, to get up and admit that he has not bothered to find out the merits, and that he does not know what the charge is; that he does not know what the issues are, but simply gets up in an inconsequential fashion and asks the Dáil to let them out.

Dr. McCARTAN

I can read the charges if you like, but I do not believe them.

Mr. HOGAN

I am quoting the Deputy. Take 20 out of the 26 counties in the Free State where there was not a shot heard until 1922, and supposing some young men in any of these counties were arrested after burning a house in the interests of the Republic and were put in jail and went on hunger-strike. Should they be let out regardless of what the issue was or what their motives were, and regardless of the other relevant circumstances of the case? It seems to me that is the most childish and most inconsequential way to try a serious issue that I have ever listened to. Those women are in the very same conspiracy. They are part of a conspiracy which from the start to the finish, from the top to the bottom, in the mouths of the leaders and in the actions of the rank and file, has been the most dishonouring episode in Irish history. Is there any doubt about that? Is there any doubt in the mind of any Deputy about it? It is the most dishonouring episode in Irish history from every point of view. These women are in that conspiracy. It may be said they do not know what they are doing. You might give that sort of excuse for people who are not exactly responsible for their actions. But if that is so, and if they are to be let out for these reasons, give these reasons. If these women are to be let out because they did not know what they were doing or were not responsible for their actions let us do it on that ground, but do not let us come to the conclusion here that they should be released because they are misguided Republicans or are adherents to some ideal which we all admire but which we cannot exactly further by the same methods as they are adopting. Deputy Johnson some days ago expressed a sentiment with which I am in hearty agreement. He said that if we had lost a lot both in destruction of material wealth and in moral destruction we had gained something, we had gained a sense of realism. I hope we have. It is the only thing we have gained. If we have gained a sense of realism we have gained something which the country is very badly in need of. Let us display a little realism about this. Let us cut out all the cant about Republicanism and all other 'isms and realise that there is something much more important than Republicanism or Free Stateism or any other 'ism and that is the ordinary common honesty and decency that have been outraged for the last 12 months. You can release these women if you like—I am just speaking now as an ordinary member of the Dáil, I am not responsible for policy in this matter—but do not release them, for goodness sake, because they are adherents to any ideal which is a worthy ideal; do not release them because they are merely mistaken idealists; release them if you like for the same reason that you release people who are not responsible for their actions. But be sure that you know what you are doing and be sure that the country knows what you are doing. We have heard a lot about public opinion and about confusing public opinion. It is exceedingly important at the present moment not to confuse public opinion. Public opinion is being confused deliberately, has been confused for the last 12 months, by public men who ought to know better, and who face every issue that arises, every issue between wrong and right, by the simple expedient of agreeing with both. That is the sort of thing that is rotting the country. I hope the Dáil is not going to do it. I do not care how they treat the question, but let them treat it with some sense of perspective. I was genuinely surprised to hear Dr. McCartan comparing this case with the case of Terence MacSwiney. Does he really believe that there is any analogy?

Dr. McCARTAN

Did I say there was any analogy?

Mr. HOGAN

Why mention them in the same breath? There is no analogy good, bad, or indifferent. None whatever. And when you are thinking of the self-respect of these people I ask you to think also of the self-respect of this country. That is an important thing to think of. The self-respect of this country was never lower. It is recovering. Be perfectly sure now that you have won, that by any sort of loose thinking and loose talk you are not going to undo the work done for the last six months.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

In supporting the motion I must say that the Deputy who has just spoken as an ordinary member of the Dáil seems to me to have made no case at all why what has been the policy of the Government in these cases up to this should be departed from now. There have been a number of hunger-strikers in some of the prisons under the control of the Ministry within the last three or four months, and invariably either the object of the hunger-strike was achieved, or for some reason or other the Ministers responsible released those who were on hunger-strike. That does not seem to be the position now. We hear to-day that a certain hunger-striker who presumably in the eyes of the Ministry, was one of those parties to a conspiracy for the overthrow of the Free State, has been released. We know of other cases where the people, as far as the citizens of the country know, took a more or less active part in the direction of the campaign against the Free State. Here we have now the cases of a number of those who presumably are also parties to these activities and to that conspiracy against the State.

What is the particular reason for making a distinction between these ladies and the others who went on hunger-strike and who at one period or another were released? The Deputy does not suggest. Is it that from the military point of view their detention, which in these cases will probably involve their death, is of much more importance, or rather that their position and their capacity for doing damage is much greater than the capacity of those whom the Government have already released? That is a question which I think Ministers might answer. Now on the merits of the case a good deal may be said on one side and a good deal on the other side. If there are, as it is presumed there are, grave charges and grave reasons why these people should be detained then surely those charges are grave enough to suggest that there should at least be trials of those people. If on the other hand the generosity of the Government has been so great and also its forbearance that they have charges against them, but thought on account of the sex of the prisoners the charges should not be proceeded with lest the extreme penalty should be paid by these people, let the Government say so and let the people of the country know what exactly the position is. On the whole, I think I support the motion, not so much as a matter of heart, but as a matter of head and of policy. There may, or there may not be in the view of the Dáil an analogy between pre-civil war hunger strikers and civil war hunger-strikers; but, putting that aside, I think that the bigger interests of the State and the greater interests of the people in the State and of the Free State itself would be served if, as a matter of policy, the Government saw that these people were not allowed to die on hunger-strike. I think that is the real argument in favour of the motion. I am not suggesting by any means that if these are dangerous persons in reality that the State or the Government or the military should lose sight of them and allow them to continue activities which have been very damaging. I think there ought to be a middle course, particularly at this stage, when it is, or ought to be, obvious even to the blindest amongst the armed opponents of the Government, that that armed resistance cannot with any hope of success go on. Personally from the beginning I always believed that the methods adopted by these people were not only wrong morally, but wrong from their own point of view as a matter of policy. The same thing applies now, that it will be a very great injury to the State and to the whole future of the Irish Free State if the Government allow these people to die on hunger-strike. It is not altogether a matter of turning round and saying these people are going to kill themselves, because the Government is in a position now when it can, unless all the appearances are deceptive, secure that the particularly damaging activities of certain people can no longer be continued. Under these circumstances, and particularly in view of the present position, I think it would be a far wiser policy from the point of view of the State itself to prevent, if it is humanly possible, these people dying from hunger-strike. Of course, if one was merely to take a Party view of the thing I would say that the best thing those of us who are ordinarily in opposition to the Government could do would be to sit silent and not to ask the Government to do anything at all, as it would be always an argument on our side to say that they did such a thing. In the greater and I think the higher interests of the State, and the tranquility of the people, as well as the proper realisation of some sense of law and order and justice, I think the Government would be well advised in dealing with these persons in such a way that they would not die on hunger-strike.

Mr. D. McCARTHY

I think it is only right that the Dáil should know that one of the ladies now on hunger-strike was in Holloway Jail, and when the ladies there were fighting the British Government this lady signed a form and came out. She refused to go on hunger-strike then, but now she is on hunger-strike against the Irish Government.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

What has that got to do with the case?

The PRESIDENT

I have nothing to add to what I already said on this subject on Wednesday. We have insisted that if these ladies want to get out they should sign a form to the effect that they have not taken part in hostilities against the State, and that they have no intention of doing so. It is not an unreasonable form to be asked to sign, and it has already been signed, and I think it gives a fair opportunity to anyone who has any sense of civic responsibility of realising what their position is.

Mr. JOHNSON

It would be well, I think, to understand the position with regard to this form. Are we to understand that such a form is tendered to the prisoners immediately on arrest, or only after they have gone on hunger strike? The formula, as outlined by the President, is that the prisoners are to sign a declaration that they have not taken part in armed activity against the State, and will not take part in armed activity against the State. Is that the form?

The PRESIDENT

That is the form which we accepted in the case of one of these prisoners, owing to the exceptional circumstances, and so on.

Mr. JOHNSON

The difficulty that one is in is that people who have been on hunger strike many days and are now presented with the offer of such a form are not capable of thinking sanely upon their duty in such a matter, and the Government is in this difficulty, that it cannot do what the Deputy, the Minister for Agriculture, urged, that they should take a realist view of the situation.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

People are arrested, they do not know what for—many of them, most of them, perhaps, know quite well that they have been guilty of offences—but many of them deny that they are guilty of any offence against the laws of the Free State. They are not charged, they are not tried, and they are not sentenced. In the absence of a charge, the absence of any recognition of the ordinary processes of law, they protest in the only way that it is possible for them to protest, and they take steps which amount to suicide. The Government is placed in this difficulty, by virtue of the fact that they do not charge the prisoner, that they have no foundation for keeping these persons in prison. Then, after the protest has gone on day after day, a proposition of the kind that the President has spoken of is submitted. The mind is even more unhinged.

The PRESIDENT

May I interrupt for a moment. I am sure the Deputy does not want to misrepresent what I said. That particular form was signed by one of those prisoners and we stated then that we would accept it signed by the others.

Dr. McCARTAN

Am I to understand then that the only charge against these people is that there is nothing proved against them? If there is no charge against them, and if they make a declaration that they have not taken part, and that they do not intend to take part, in such acts, I assume if that is true——.

The PRESIDENT

There is no person I know or I ever heard of who is at present under arrest simply at the whim of somebody. There is a reason for the arrest of all of them. Charges as far as I know could be made against the vast majority of them. I cannot speak now, for I have not seen the eight or ten thousand charges or whatever the number of charges is. With regard to these four prisoners, we were informed, I think, on one occasion that they struck because they were not tried and had no charges preferred against them. These particular charges were preferred against them and it made no difference. Then this particular circumstance occurred in which one of them signed this particular form, and in view of the fact that they had been a number of days on hunger-strike we agreed to accept the same form from the other three.

Mr. JOHNSON

I want to look at this whole problem sanely with a view to the after effects of the action either of the Government or of the prisoners. Now I am not going to subscribe to the proposition that a prisoner who goes on hunger-strike ought to be released, rather than that the prisoner should be allowed to die. But I am going to qualify that by saying that the prisoner must be a prisoner who has had a charge levelled against him or her, and had the opportunity of defending himself or herself against that charge, and has submitted to the courses provided by the law. In the absence of any such procedure the Government, or any Government, cannot defend itself against the charge of allowing an untried prisoner to suffer death while in their hands. If it is found, as it is contended by the Government here, that the circumstances of the time will not allow them to formulate charges and bring the prisoners to trial then they must be as illogical on the other side and say, "We stand for that, but we will not allow prisoners to die on hunger-strike when they are on our hands." Unless there is a charge, and unless good reason can be given before a jury of citizens, before the public, and before the Dáil, for the detention of any prisoner, they have no right or authority, and they are certainly very unwise from the point of view of future Governments to allow such a person to take steps that will lead to his death. Suicide is an offence, and it is the duty of the Government who has charge of a prisoner to prevent suicide. The old practice was, of course, forcibly to feed that prisoner, and it is for you to decide whether it is better forcibly to feed than to release, and if you ask yourself that question, I believe you will answer that the wiser course is the release of the prisoner that is in your hands or charge. In the case of an untried and uncharged prisoner you are trebly bound to look after the health of that prisoner, and I think in the circumstances the only alternatives are that a charge shall be formulated and the trial shall take place within the ordinary time provided for by the law. Otherwise you have to submit to the protest, a protest that has become habitual and may become the common procedure. That is a risk you have to take. It may become the common procedure, but it is the only way to force a Government to adopt the processes of law, and remove the justification that untried prisoners have for taking this course to secure their release. I think that in the case of some of the prisoners in question the offences are probably altogether too trivial to think of allowing them to be balanced by the death of these prisoners. They are not worth raising a big issue over, and it is still within the bounds and the powers of all the forces at the command of the Government to keep a watchful eye over such prisoners after they have been released.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

Before the Minister replies, on a point of information I would like to ask two simple questions that have a bearing on the case. Do I correctly understand the President as stating that after the hunger-strike was entered upon as a protest against no charge being made against these prisoners charges were eventually formulated, and secondly if so at what period and what date these charges were formulated?

Mr. BLYTHE

This is a matter in which a Government cannot act as a Party would, cannot be blowing one way or another for popularity. The Government must take the rough with the smooth, and do the unpleasant thing with the pleasant thing. It is not a pleasant thing to keep prisoners who may die on hunger strike, but the Government have to face the unpleasantness of doing these things when necessary. Now, the question of charges does not come into it at all, nor does the question of trial. We are faced with a great and hideous conspiracy against the people that has cost the country very dear in life and in material. We are up against the necessity of breaking that conspiracy in order to save life and in order to save the country morally and nationally. In the process of our campaign we have to take and to hold prisoners, and the military necessity is there to hold those prisoners without trial, and we have executed prisoners without legal trial because of that necessity. We cannot allow a claim to be set up that prisoners have only to go on hunger-strike and we must release them. Our point of view in regard to the matter is simply this; we look at what the prisoner has done in view of the evidence before us; we consider what the prisoner is likely to do, and we decide whether or not that prisoner may be released. The signing of the form has been made a formality to be fulfilled. In this decision the thing must stand by what the prisoner has done and what the prisoner is likely to do. A hunger strike cannot be allowed to be made a way of getting out of prison, and there is no reason for releasing a prisoner who has committed an offence greater, perhaps, than his neighbour, simply because that prisoner goes on hunger-strike, and says: "I will commit suicide, or this, or that, if I am not let out." We have to stand up to that. We have to do our duty. We have to do a thing that we regard as necessary, and it has been necessary to take and to hold women prisoners. We know that a terrible amount of destruction of life and property would not have occurred if it had not been for the active participation of large numbers of women in the struggle. It is as necessary for us, for the protection of the community, to hold women prisoners as it is to hold men prisoners. We could not break the conspiracy we are up against if we were obliged to hold prisoners until cases have been brought before some kind of tribunal and a definite charge brought against them, and that charge pronounced by the tribunal to be proved. We could not bring these ten thousand people to trial, and, on the other hand, we cannot, in the common interest, release them. It is absolutely necessary for the Government, in the circumstances that exist, to stand on its right to intern without trial.

If the right to intern without trial were taken away, the country would certainly fall back into chaos, and no member of the Dáil can doubt that. We must stand on that. We have no desire that any people should die. We have no desire to hold any people that we could let out, but we cannot allow the people, who would not even sign a form as an indication that there has been any change of spirit, or that they are not likely to attack the State in future, to chose when they will get out. We must chose. I think that the Dáil would, even on technical grounds, be very wrong in passing this resolution. I think that the Dáil should deal with general principles, and that we should not have resolutions passed about particular prisoners. No resolutions were brought up saying that certain prisoners should not be executed, or that certain prisoners should not be brought to trial. It is impossible to discuss a case in all its details here, and the thing should be dealt with purely as Deputy Johnson dealt with it, on general grounds, either that no prisoner should be allowed to die on hunger strike or that prisoners might be allowed to die on hunger strike, and the decision in any particular case should be made by the people who can go into it and look into all the details. We have gone a certain distance to help these people. I do not know whether charges would have been brought against them all or not in the normal course, but in order to save their faces and help them to get off hunger strike, if they wanted to, charges were brought. We have 10,000 or 12,000 prisoners. Only a very small number have been charged, although a very big majority of them could actually be charged if we wanted to do so. The normal course is that, except in very special cases, we do not proceed with charges, but in order to help them to get off hunger strike if they chose to, we preferred charges in all these cases, although it might be that in only one or two out of the four cases, in the normal course of events, charges would have been preferred. Then Dr. Murphy signed a form a few days ago, not the standard form, but a form promising not to engage in the warfare against the State. Now, if we had been anxious to let people die, or if we had been inclined to be stiff-necked or to stand on formulas, we would have refused anything but the standard form.

We accepted that form, and he was let out. We would be prepared to accept the same form in the case of the other strikers, although perhaps it is doubtful whether all of them would normally have been released on signing that form, but the Dáil could only properly deal with this thing by laying it down that no prisoner who had not actually been put through the formality of a trial should be held, in spite of whatever they might do themselves. I think, in the circumstances of the country, in view of what we have done and what we have had to do, in view of the fact that we cannot allow victory to be turned into defeat by any side-wind, the Dáil must, I think, agree that prisoners may be held, if it is felt that they are proper prisoners to be held, in spite of whatever they do. I think that the Dáil will, on consideration and looking at the thing, not from a sentimental point of view, but from the point of view of reality, from the point of view of stern duty to the country, having regard to the responsibility that we have, that all the members of the Dáil have, allow this resolution to be defeated.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I, too, would like to urge on the Dáil the inadvisability of coming in in a particular case and with regard to particular prisoners, and of saying what course should or should not be taken. It is not a pleasant thing to argue here about the lives of four prisoners, still less about the lives of four women prisoners, but the Dáil would be well advised to remember that there are ten or twelve thousand people interned, and that it would not have been possible to bring these ten or twelve thousand people before the Courts and charge them. It becomes, therefore, a sheer question of the Government's right, in defence of the State, to intern people, and if the Dáil says that people must be interned and must be held by the Government in defence of social order and civilisation here, then it ought not to come in and say in the case of particular prisoners, because these prisoners have challenged, via the hunger strike, your right to intern them, “We think it well we should give way in this case.” You cannot say you should give way in this case unless you are prepared to go further and say the logical thing, “You should give way in every case.” Is the Dáil prepared to say that we should give way in every case? This thing is progressive. I was interested to note that by two Deputies who spoke we have been reminded of previous releases. Doctor McCartan reminded us of Miss MacSwiney, and Deputy O'Shannon spoke of others. That is true— it is progressive. Every time you give way it becomes harder to take a stand. I have no doubt that it was a factor in the minds of the women who are prisoners that Miss MacSwiney was released on hunger-strike, and I have no doubt that if these women are released it will be a factor in the minds of future hunger-strikers and it will become more and more difficult for the Government to take a stand on any future case. We are not faced with the question of four prisoners, but with the big general question of whether we could hold any prisoner who goes on hunger-strike. It is scarcely thinkable that the Dáil would say to-day “Release these prisoners,” and would say to-morrow or the day after to-morrow “Do not release them.” We could not face the sorrowing relatives of future hunger-strikers and say, “We do not quite see our way to take the same action in the case of your daughter as we did in the case of Mrs. So-and-so's daughter.”

There has been much talk about being out of the wood. I do not know whether I am an incurable pessimist or not, but I do say quite frankly from the angle of my own department that we are not out of the wood and that we have quite a considerable tract of wood to cover yet and that the aftermath of these last ten months is going to be more serious, perhaps, than the last ten months themselves. In many areas you have conditions bordering on anarchy. From end to end of the country you have property —chattel property in some cases and land in other cases—in possession of people who have not a scrap or vestige of legal title to it. There are going to be very grave legal problems for any Executive in this country to face in the future—problems that will make it utterly out of the question for any Executive to be overworried about the popularity of this or the unpopularity of that course. If they are going to do their real honest duty by the people they will very frequently have to take courses that irresponsible people will not consider popular. It is an easy thing for the rank and file Deputy to come here and to indulge his tendency to be compassionate, to be humanitarian, to be a good fellow, and he will go home and enjoy his dinner all the better having cast a fine humanitarian vote in the afternoon. He has not to deal primarily with the consequences of that vote and he may not expect to deal with them for some time at any rate.

Reference was made to the loss of self-respect, to the loss of prestige of the hunger-striker who breaks. There is a corresponding loss of prestige and loss of strength to be considered for the Government that gives way when its clear right is challenged by the pride and stubborness of individuals. This is not a time when you can afford to lose strength and prestige in that way. There seldom, I suppose, was a country more in need of strong central Executive authority than this. You ask us to give way and do a generous thing because we are victors. We are not quite victors and we have not been victors perhaps as quickly as we might have been if we took a strong course before this, and we have yet to face the aftermath of the revolt. We have a huge future of anarchy and revolution to face, and I submit that we cannot afford to be catering for the self-respect of those who took part in that criminal conspiracy against the State. We cannot afford to be whittling away our strength and prestige by doing what some would call a magnanimous thing and what others would call a weak thing —what I would call a weak thing. If you are to stand at all you have got to dig your heels in and stand now because if you do not stand now you will not be able to stand hereafter. If we give way on this point we court a ten thousand hunger-strike and will have to say hereafter "while we did not stand before just because we were not in the humour we will stand now." It becomes more a question each time we give way. That is the case I put up for a definite clear stand in this matter, for having it well understood by the prisoners and their friends that this is a case where an individual puts himself in the way of a steamroller, which is the State's interest and the people's interest, because the people are the State, and that the individual who crosses the track of that particular roller must reconcile himself to stand by all the consequences of that crossing. That may sound very harsh, and we have been taunted here with being harsh. We are harsh because we have a stewardship, because it is not a matter of our own likes or dislikes, but the honest and conscientious performance of our stewardship. A man could not be compassionate when he was one of a group which had in its hand the destinies of a nation. We have had to grow shells of self-protection and defence because it was necessary to be hard. It may be said that some of us have grown shells over-hard and impenetrable, but I do not agree with that. I think that if a genuine compassionate case were put up, where it could be shown that the interests of all the people would not suffer by compassionate action, we would respond to such a case. Here in a matter of this kind it is not these individuals, it is the general right that goes if you give way and you would not have the right to stand hereafter if you give way lightly and compassionately in this case. I wish it were possible that every citizen in the country would understand this particular problem as it hits our minds and would understand that in a clear conscientious discharge of our stewardship we cannot see our way to give way.

Professor MAGENNIS

I regret I was precluded from being present at the beginning of this discussion. When I read the notice of motion my curiosity was excited as to what was the recent development towards peace which recommends this proposal. I do believe that the Executive has crushed the rebellion. But I do believe with the Minister for Home Affairs that the trouble, and the danger are far, far from over. It is not merely as he put it, the aftermath that has to be reaped. We have not reached the stage of having completely reaped the first growth. I understand from friends of his, that Mr: de Valera insists upon promulgating a proclamation calling upon his followers to resist to the death. I have no reason to disbelieve the truth of that. I understand he will place himself in considerable peril with regard to some of his followers if he insists in exacting that last ounce of service from them. Therefore, I think we ought not to blind ourselves to the danger of the situation simply because we are entitled to rejoice over recent happenings, which foretell perhaps the coming of early peace. I, as an independent member— I suppose I must describe myself as under that category since everyone else in the Dáil insists upon applying it—am painfully conscious that the representation which is made by the Minister for Home Affairs is one to give us serious thought, and make us pause. I have not that responsibility in administration which rests upon him and his colleagues in the Ministry. Whatever I may feel about individuals, or however I may be inclined to feel, I have not that weight, that responsibility, that need of decision at all costs in the interests of the State. I fully realise there is that great chasm between his position and mine in the matter. Yet, I did intervene a few evenings ago, and if occasion arises I shall feel it my duty to do so again, in the case of one individual who was interned, but who, in the interval, has happily been released, because of special circumstances. I do wish with the Minister for Local Government, and Deputy Johnson so far as I heard fragments of what he said, that the case was not brought before us as a case of named individuals, limited in number, and of ascertainable personality. It would be better if the Dáil were to deal with the broad principles that ought in the Dáil's conception control the operations of the Ministry in these respects. That I propose to do now. I leave out of my consideration altogether the little I may happen to know with regard to those concerned in the particular motion here.

The question is this: If a prisoner, charged or uncharged, has got the fanaticism, for it is fanaticism, sufficient to subject himself to all the agonies of hunger strike, and is determined through the instrumentality of self-inflicted suffering to make his protest against whatever it is he feels bound to protect against —his imprisonment or whatever else it may be—are we, his gaolers, entitled to take him at his foolish word; and when he insists upon carrying this thing to the length of inflicting death, are we to say, "Be it so"? That, I think, is a fair way of putting the question. If this man insists upon doing himself to death in the name of whatever he protests against, are we justified in saying, "Very well, you choose death; let it be death"? There is another alternative. Refuse to let him damage our cause by this performance, which is not, when seriously regarded, the performance of a rational being. He has lost his rationality for the time being. That this is a common view of such situations I submit is provable from the fact that the jury's verdict may be "He committed suicide while of unsound mind." Ninetynine per cent of ordinary juries, I believe, in dealing with a case of hunger striking, would bring in that verdict—that it was done while in a state of unsound mind.

‘We have not exhausted the resources of civilisation," to quote the famous phrase. I would not allow these people to score over me by making themselves martyrs, as undoubtedly they become martyrs. No cause has ever been known to prosper without its martyrs. "The blood of the martyr is the seed of the Church." If those people and their abettors want martyrs to revive a failing cause, would it not be folly on our part to provide them with what they seek when it is easy to submit them to medical treatment in hospital, and restore them to health and prevent their success in this game? Once they are restored to health, if they are still of the same mind to pursue the same course, re-imprison them, and if they are so demented as to insist upon again hunger striking, deal with them as before. The Minister for Local Government laughs at that. It may sound a foolish thing. It may even have the ring in it of weakness. What is the other alternative? Do you call it strength to take a foolish man at his own foolish word? I do not view it in that light. I am as full a believer in pursuing a resolute course at all costs as any member of the Ministry, but I do not believe in gilding folly with the appearance of wisdom. It it not wise to pursue those people to the death. And there is another alternative.

If I thought that the release of these people were a weakness and assisted their cause, or rather I prefer to put it, if I thought it would damage our cause, I would not take the present line I take. All life, practically all life at every moment, is a series of dilemmas: of difficult choices, and if it were not so, there would be no need for man to have recourse to prayer before making a decision. It is not always easy to see the right course, nor is the best and right course palpable to every one at every time; but, as between the two courses, I must decide, and my calculation of the probabilities as to each of them, will be the course for betterment. If I consider, as in this case I do, that to allow prisoners to carry their fanaticism to the last length will injure my cause, then I believe that in the interests of my cause, as a protector of my cause, I should not allow that to occur. If there were no other course open to me, then I should be in this difficulty—the case described so ably by the Minister for Home Affairs. If a man creates a situation for me, as he does, if he attacks me with lethal weapons, and I exercise my right of self defence, and, in taking reasonable measures to defend the integrity of life, I kill him, every rational man believes that I did not will to kill him, and the fault of what has occurred is his. But, we know from ordinary Christian morality, that to provide me with that defence, with that justification, the situation which he has contrived must be one in which he has left me no other alternative in the exercise of my right of self-defence, but to use the means that come to my hands at the moment that the occasion provides, so that the guilt of his own death rests on himself. Now, that justification applies here, and would apply absolutely if there were no other alternative. If the opponent of the Free State is determined that the Free State shall not function, that he will oppose the will of the people by his will, and that he will not allow us to have those institutions in which we place our belief; if he can prevent that by this course, and if there was nothing that we could do, then I would vote for the Minister for Home Affairs. But if this other course were tried, of putting the dying prisoner into hospital—again I will excite the mirth of the Minister for Local Government—to restore him to health he may not be so likely to subject himself to the same agonies a second time. In the interval of his recovery he may see the light. There are historical precedents that I could mention, if it were not pedantic. There is the famous case of a great Saint, St. Ignatius of Loyola, who became a Saint during his convalesence from a would he received in battle. Men sometimes alter their minds about these things when they have the quiet and the time to reflect; above all, when they have an experience of this kind it might alter their attitude and provide them with a new angle of vision. There is another consideration, a small one, but I think it has been overlooked. We have between ten and twelve thousand prisoners. Is it suggested if some of these who are now engaged in hunger-striking were treated as I suggest that the whole ten or twelve thousand would straight away set about hunger-striking? I refuse to believe that. I will not say there are few who have the courage to undertake a hunger-strike, but I do not regard it as a matter of courage: I regard it as a perversion of a diseased form of courage and as fanaticism. Of these ten or twelve thousand prisoners how many are prepared to go the length of the fanaticism that we have seen exhibited by the few? I believe the number is so small that we can afford to disregard it, and that there is really nothing substantial in that argument. Now, I am not speaking on behalf of any particular individual. I keep myself from that on the present occasion. I am trying to support this doctrine, that we should not permit, or connive at, the self-infliction of death by any other prisoners if by any means in our power we can prevent that unfortunate issue; that, therefore, we should make it our practice that we shall not relent, that we shall not play the sentimental weakling's part of releasing a dangerous opponent to resume his dangerous operations against the State, but that we shall not permit him to injure our cause by putting us in the unpleasant light before the civilised world of allowing our prisoners to commit suicide while in our care.

Mr. JOHNSON

May I suggest that this is a case in which the mover of the resolution would be unwise in pressing it to a division. Nothing that can happen in the case of a division is going to do any good to the prisoners in question There may be political effects, but that is not going to serve the mover of the resolution, and I would strongly urge upon him the unwisdom of pressing a resolution of this kind to a division now that the views of the Ministry have been expressed. I think it would be a wiser policy, with a view to the success of his purpose, if the Deputy left the matter at the stage in which it has arrived.

Dr. McCARTAN

I am out to get release for these women. The Irregulars have done vicious things, but they have not made war on women; and look out for the rest of them if you send these to death. This is a new phase of the war if you let it go on. I do not want to say any more now.

The PRESIDENT

I am afraid I cannot bear out what the Deputy has just said.