As no Deputy has any wish to take part in the discussion——
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SALARY AND ESTABLISHMENT BILL. 1923. - PRISONERS ON HUNGER STRIKE—DEBATE RESUMED.
Motion by Deputy McCartan: "That in view of recent developments towards peace the Dáil is of opinion it would be in the national interest to release the prisoners now in a precarious condition as a result of hunger strike."
Deputy McCartan will be closing the debate if he speaks now.
Very good.
I was wondering whether, seeing that Deputy Johnson had moved the adjournment, any Deputy would care to join in the debate?
Deputy Johnson had already spoken before he moved the adjournment of the debate, and had exhausted his right to speak.
In that event I wish to say that I felt a certain regret, I am bound to say, when this motion was moved the other day. I felt that regret because, in my opinion, for what it is worth, the intention that the mover had in mind might perhaps not best be achieved by such a motion as this. One realises, I think every Deputy in this Dáil must realise, the embarrassing difficulty with which the Government in this case was faced. As the debate proceeded I felt, speaking for myself, that that difficulty and embarrassment had not been met in the least by the speeches from the Government side that such a motion as this brought forth. I think, as a general principle, it must be agreed that if prisoners be taken by any Government, and those prisoners be rightfully and lawfully held by that Government, if such prisoners should undertake to hunger-strike to evade what is the natural and rightful function of Government, they should be prepared to endure to the finish whatever their actions might involve I have never believed—I say it now, and I said it before—in the policy of hunger-striking. I say now, as I said it before, when a certain hunger-strike rivetted the attention and drew the admiration of the whole world—and that was in the case of our friend and comrade Terence MacSwiney, the Lord Mayor of Cork—I did not agree with it then. I do not agree with that course of action now. But we have to face the fact that it was then undertaken, and it is now being undertaken, and the charge and task before any Government that is worth the name of a Government, if it rightfully and lawfully holds prisoners in its care, and those prisoners seek to evade the consequences of their unlawful and wrongful acts, might be very painful, but they must be prosecuted. It will be perceived, as I have said, that such acts on behalf of Government must be lawful acts, and there must be rightful detention. The Minister for Home Affairs, in speaking in this Chamber last Friday, desired that a general case should be stated, and that particular cases should not be given unfortunate and undue importance. It is unfortunate, but I fear it is necessary, to examine the particular cases. On the general position I agree with the point of view that he then stated. I have agreed with it, and I have stated my agreement with it here to-day. But when one descends from a general case to a particular case I think one moves on a ground that is altogether different. We are not here, in the matter that is before our attention at the moment, faced by prisoners who have been held and charged and found guilty of certain offences, and have had sentence passed upon them in respect of proved offences, seeking to evade the natural consequences and the rightful and lawful consequences of their acts, seeking to escape from goal, where they should rightly be. That may be proved to be the case in respect of the particular people who are actually at the present moment in fear of death. But we do not know that it is so. We do know that there are four or five women at the present moment who have undertaken this responsibility of abstaining from all food, and who, we believe, will keep their resolution to the very finish, to the tragic and terrible finish, because they hold that they are not rightfully in gaol. Since these women went on hunger-strike—after they had undertaken the decision that to me cannot be regarded otherwise than with abhorrence—certain of them have had charges brought against them. I have a copy of the charge sheet in respect of one of them in my hand at the moment, and that is Miss Costello. The charge against her is this:—
"Without proper authority having in her control documents calculated to be prejudicial to the safety of the State, in that she at No. 15 St. Joseph's Road, aforesaid, on the 27th March, 1923, had in her control Nos. 87, 108, 84, 80, 121, 157, 129, 77, 79, and 148 of a publication called ‘Poblacht na hEireann,' which issues of said publication contained articles calculated to be prejudicial to the safety of the State."
With regard to the matter in this particular case it is true that a certain file has been found. I have made examination into this instance, and I learned that in the house in which she lived a certain file of "Poblacht na hEireann" was discovered. That file was a complete file. Being a complete file it contained these numbers. Now, she is not charged with having the file, but she is charged with the fact that in the file there were certain numbers and she is further charged with the fact that in those numbers a certain person who examined the file discovered articles that were prejudicial to the safety of the State. In the first place it is known that this publication, "Poblacht na hEireann," has been on sale in Dublin for a good many months. Within the past few weeks I have had copies offered me for sale in O'Connell Street. It was being sold publicly in the open day. Any citizen was at liberty to purchase those copies as they were offered. There was no statement made that it was an illegal publication. There was no proclamation that it was a forbidden publication or that if anybody possessed it, he or she would be open to be charged. Not at all. These numbers were sold amongst them, and they contained articles that are alleged to be prejudicial to the safety of the State.
I think is is perfectly fair and only right to the public at large that if a publication is offensive or seditious, that publication should be prohibited if it is calculated to be of a sort that does not contain fair and constitutional argument such as would be permitted in any State. If that can be proved against the paper, that paper should be, and under the Constitution could be, refused publication. That has not been done. I raised the case at an earlier stage of a newsboy who was arrested for selling "Poblacht na hEireann." The newsboy had not the faintest glimmering of the politics of the country; he was merely selling the paper because it was provided for him to sell, and he undertook not to sell it again. The case of Miss Costello might be the case of any other citizen. The house was raided, a file was found there complete, and those numbers referred to were discovered in the file. That is the charge against her. It is against the insufficiency of that charge, and against the wrong reasons for her arrest as seen in the charge, that she is hunger striking. I will clearly and frankly say that she is undertaking what I consider to be a wrongful method of protest, the wrongfulness of which did not occur yesterday but long before, when it was advocated by a political party and stood up for by a political party of which I was then a member, and I undertook responsibility at that time and kept silent. Nevertheless, it is a wrong method. She has adopted that method as a protest against what she considers to be a wrongful arrest. This paper was sold in the public streets within the sight of military patrols, and those copies that were found in her house—not in her possession—contained numbers in which were articles prejudicial to the safety of the State. That is no reason why any person should be imprisoned. The general principle is the principle asserted by the Minister for Home Affairs, with which I have said I am in entire agreement. The general case is not one that fits in with this particular case. The house was raided and the file was found in the house in which she happened to live. It was not said that the file was her file.
It is far from me even to appear to attribute any unworthy motives to anybody, but it must now be apparent to the Minister that the file was not her file. We know whose file it is. We, who have taken part in political affairs in respect of a certain political party, and who have known its personages and personalities, know very well whose file that was. It was the file of her brother, Father Costello, who is at the present moment, and has been for some time, prominently connected with the Irregulars. It is his file. It is not quite so easy to proceed against people of that kind, and I do not touch upon that because it is not easy for me to touch upon such a matter. What I do know is this: Miss Costello has stated, and to people in a position of responsibility, that that file was not her file. In any case, if she were to be publicly charged, it would be exceedingly difficult to prove under the circumstances that the file was her file. Yet, at the present moment, she is in the fourth week of her hunger strike because she was found in the house in which this file happened to be. That is not a sufficient reason, I urge, why Miss Costello should be held in conditions that might lead to her death. There are other cases. I believe that one of the other ladies who is at the present moment on hunger strike, has been charged with being resident in a certain house that she never saw in her life. I believe the facts in that case have been laid before the Minister. I merely put it to the Dáil at the moment that it would be possible for her to argue with extreme cogency and effect that there was a case of mistaken identity. Apart from the general principle that I have asserted and agreed with the Minister for Home Affairs upon, I will go further and say that I agreed with the principle when those who at that time were the enemies of our country enunciated it, and I said so. That principle, however, does not hold good in cases of this kind, where certain persons have been arrested for reasons that are not sufficient in law. In any case, although I am not primarily concerned with the resolution that is before the Dáil, I know there are people who would regard any withdrawal of a motion of this kind as pusillanimous. It would be pusillanimous to desire that this motion should be withdrawn, but I am perfectly content to be charged with being pusillanimous under the circumstances.
My concern in this matter is that we are faced with a very grave issue. The gravity of the issue is as clearly apparent to members of the Ministry as to any member of this Dáil, and the consequences are as clearly apparent to them as to any member. It is unnecessary to urge them. We are all at one in that matter. It would be a terrible thing if seeds of vengeance were to be left behind as the consequence of any unfortunate death of this kind. I began by saying that I felt when this motion was urged that, perhaps with the best intention in the world, the best methods were not taken to achieve what is in my mind as equally in the mind of the mover of the motion. That is not a question of parties. That is not a question in the least of scoring any advantage on one side or the other. There is only one thought present in the mind of every person present in this Dáil, and, I venture to say, it is as present in the mind of every one of the Ministers as it is present in the mind of any person who is not a member of the Ministry, and that is that no lives should be lost. Whatever is done, whether by withdrawal of the motion or by prosecution of the motion, this is not a matter of politics. It is a question of saving life that is valuable, and not only of saving life that is valuable, but by way of and as a result of that salvation of life, to save this country from any further bitterness and revenge that might follow, and unfortunately that will certainly follow if lives are lost in this way. I do not see how any person could vote against a motion of this kind. If the motion be pressed I shall vote for it. I shall vote for it for this reason, that as the result of such inquiries as my poor scope of opportunity has given me the chance of making, I believe the particular prisoners who are now being held are prisoners who should not be held in jail. I may be wrong in that, but that is my opinion. I have had it stated to me that the women who have taken part in the hostilities of the past seven months have not participated in hunger strikes of this kind. I agree entirely with the Minister for Home Affairs that if a woman undertakes any part in hostilities that in other countries fall to the part of men, I do not wish to say anything harsh, but I will say this, that she should take the penalties that would be borne by the man and not ask for any preferential treatment. If any man were found having participated in the hostilities, the criminal hostilities, of the past seven months. and such participation could or would have been proved against such a man, and if that man were to hunger strike, I think I am saying what a large number of people in this country would agree with, that we would face the death from such a hunger strike of that man with peacefulness of mind—at least I would, whether the person be either a man or a woman.
The particular women who are on hunger strike at the present moment are claiming that their action has either been constitutional action or that they were arrested when they should not have been arrested, and that offences have been charged against them subsequent to their having gone upon hunger strike, such offences being of the nature I have read out from this charge sheet of Miss Costello. In their particular cases I believe, and urge upon the Government, that it would not betoken any weakness with regard to cases where an essential principle is involved if the Government were to decide to liberate rather than to allow any deaths from starvation to occur in jail. There would be no weakness. I believe it would be strength. I believe it would be ultimately necessary, and, if ultimately necessary, the sooner it is done the better. In these cases, where no proven offences of a serious nature can be brought against the women in question, I urge, on the one hand, that a division be not pressed, that might be challenged on party lines, compelling an unhappy and tragic conclusion, and in response to that, without any implied bargain or contract such as might be quite unfair to ask, that on the other hand it should be taken into consideration that these particular four or five women —I am not aware what the number is exactly—be not allowed to incur the consequences of their wrongful act in going on hunger strike, and that they should be liberated.
There is one matter that has escaped the notice of Deputies who have spoken on this motion already, and, I fear, may have escaped the notice of the Government. I draw attention to it in the hope that it may possibly have some bearing upon the present cases, and may prevent this arising again in the future. There are three classes of people who are rightfully under restraint. No question arises as to convicted criminals. They are there, and nothing they do, as Deputy Figgis pointed out at the beginning of his remarks, can prevent their continued detention. There is another class which has always been interned— which cannot properly be described as prisoners, because they are not interned for punishment by countries that are either at public or at civil war—persons under suspicion, but who, because they are not charged with any offence, and are not going to be tried for any offence, cannot be treated as prisoners who are either about to be tried, or who have been tried and convicted. Power to arrest and detain persons under suspicion was given in this Dáil to the Government because the Government said it was necessary, and we believed it. I believe it still, and I have never doubted it. The third class are those people who have been charged with a definite offence, and who are going or who ought to be tried for it. It is to that class that I understand these people, who are now very foolishly and wrongfully, I believe, on hunger strike, belong. You suspend habeas corpus, which is the right of anybody who is under detention in normal times, because it is necessary to intern suspects. But habeas corpus was originally granted to prevent a person being arrested upon a charge and detained indefinitely upon that charge without trial. When you have charged a person with an offence, the fact that you have suspended habeas corpus to enable you to deal with suspects, clearly ought not to delay the trial of a person against whom a specific charge has been formulated, and who ought either to be acquitted and discharged, or convicted and punished. Now I think that at the time this hunger strike commenced, if these prisoners had not been charged, these internees, as in a sense they were not prisoners, who were under suspicion, I think the Government had full power to detain, not for any punitive purposes, but for preventive purposes, or for the protection of the State. Once they have been termed prospective criminals by a charge being formulated against them, then, in my view, it is the duty of the Government not to detain them longer than is necessary for the purpose of having the charges investigated, and the prisoners either acquitted, or convicted, and a proper term of punishment imposed. I think, as I said, the time these people commenced their hunger strike they were probably justly detained as suspects, but if there had been charges formulated against them, then I think these charges ought to have been indicated to them at an early date, and they ought to have been tried accordingly.
I disagree with the view expressed by Deputy Figgis, that any person has a right to go on hunger strike, and protest in any other way against the sufficiency of the charge. It does seem to me that the charge of being in possession of seditious documents is an amply sufficient charge to justify trial and conviction, if it be proved within the regulations, but I think the Government, when they charge a person with crime, ought to try that person, and either get that person acquitted or convicted. That does not affect the quesion of the present motion because I do not feel at liberty to decide the guilt or innocence of these people on the charge formulated against them upon any statements made here. I agree that the form of protest they have taken is foolish and wicked, and no one can have anything but the most profound sympathy—whatever one may think of the people themselves—with those who belong to them, and on whom they threaten to bring the sorrow of domestic loss by their own act. One cannot help that, but one must give one's vote on a question like this without regarding one's personal feelings or the feelings of others. It seems to me that the case made by the Government is conclusive against letting anybody out, otherwise than as an act of grace, who chose to protest against their imprisonment. I trust that whatever may be done in the present case, that from this time on, anybody who has been imprisoned on a definite charge, and is, therefore, a prospective criminal awaiting trial, will be brought to trial at the earliest possible moment, consistent with the proper administration of justice and the due investigation of the charges, and that they may not be compelled or incited to protest against their continued indefinite imprisonment without trial, though charged, in the way these unfortunate women have been protesting.
I disagree very much with Deputy Figgis when he says that this motion if pressed to a division will be on Party lines. This is a question of justice and Party should not enter into it at all. These ladies are on hunger strike as they say they want a trial. We can understand that in some cases persons do not want a trial. I have the charge sheet that Deputy Figgis has read out for you. As he pointed out, "Poblacht na hEireann" was sold through the streets of Dublin, and on passing Nelson's Pillar if they did not exactly strike you in the face with it, if you had any hearing they hit you in the ears with shouts of "Stop Press Republic." Since it was first published I have got it regularly by post, free gratis and for nothing, through the Postmaster-General's Post Office. Am I going to be put into jail and tried if a copy of it is found in my house? I say it is a ridiculous charge to bring against anybody. It would be all right if the sale was stopped, or if the circulation through the post was stopped, if the Government were able to do it. They did not do it, but they allowed this thing to go on and then put a girl into jail and let her go to death's door before furnishing the charge. Up to the present the Government has been responsible for the detention of these ladies, and when I say the Government I want to explain that there seems to be altogether different ideas in this country as to what Government means, even Government Departments. I can produce a document issued from a Government Department which describes all members of Parliament as members of the Government. They do not include the members of the Seanad. My idea of the Government is that it consists of the Ministers. Up to this the Government has been responsible. This motion casts the responsibility on the Dáil, and I say the vote should not be taken on Party lines, as it is up to every man's conscience to vote as he thinks fit. It is a question of justice. Are members prepared to let Kitty Costello die because a charge of this kind is brought against her? There may be something more, but the charge is not made. I say this motion should be pressed to a division, and I certainly shall vote that these ladies be released.
Ba mhaith liom cupla fochal a radh ar an gceist seo. Ní doigh liom go bhfhuil na mna seo co neamh-urchóideach agus a dubhairt na teachtaí do labhair an trathnóna seo. Bhí na mna seo meascaithe suas ins an droch-obair seo ó cuireadh tús air. Bhiodar a' súil le gach rud o'n Rialtas agus ní rabh siad féin sásta rud ar bith a thabhairt. An t-aon rud a bhí uatha—a dream féin a bheith ar bharr. Cúis náire do mhnaibh na tíre seo, eachtra na m-ban ata 'sa bPriosúin anois. Acht ní theastuigheann bás na n'daoini seo ón Rialtas. B'fearr leo da mhairfeadh siad agus taim cinnte go mbeidh lucht an Rialtas fial doibh ma fágtar an cheist idir lamhaibh acu. Mar gheall ar sin, iarraim ar an Dochtuir Mac Cartain gan dul nios fuide leis an tairsgint anois.
I do not agree with Deputy Staines that these young ladies were as innocent as he tries to make out. I believe they were all people mixed in the conspiracy to smash the country, and I believe, too, that in that work they were not guided by any National aspirations, but that they were only trying to put forward their own small petty personal views. These women appealed to the Government, and they expected the Government to give all and that they will take all.
They are not able to do anything big or generous. Their small-mindedness has carried them into this fight against the country. They did things in the fight that were a disgrace to the name of all Irish womanhood, and a disgrace to the name of Ireland. They carried guns round to shoot you and me and to assist in the blowing up of the houses of their fellow countrymen and women. They are guilty of all these things. It is easy to throw stones at the Government; it is easy to find fault with them, but the country has a right to be for ever grateful to the men who stepped into the breach and saved it from destruction. Those men cannot be perfect, but I have confidence that if we leave this question in their hands they will not meet these misguided women in their own small, petty spirit, but that they will deal with them purely and solely from the point of view of what is good for Ireland. I would request Dr. McCartan to leave this question in the hands of the Government, and I feel that the object he has in view will be better served if he does so.
Mr. P. HOGAN rose.
The Minister for Agriculture spoke before on this Motion.
I wish to say that I support the Motion, and I support it on the grounds, and solely on the grounds, put forward by the Deputy in moving it on the last occasion, that is, very largely on the grounds of expediency. No doubt the Government may make a good case, using cold logic, for holding these prisoners, but I think the argument that we should get away altogether from sentiment in this matter, while a good and perhaps a logical argument, is not an argument that at this stage of our evolution appeals entirely to the people in whose name the Government are acting. We are no doubt, getting away from sentiment, but we cannot fail to remember that sentiment ruled and guided our minds very largely during the last four or five years, and that it may not be possible to get away from it in a hurry. Now, the Government, no doubt, claim to represent the views of the people in acting as they are, but they should have regard to the expressed views of representative bodies on this matter. I have seen some expressions of views from representative bodies in favour of the release of these prisoners, but I have seen none urging the Government to continue holding them.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
You have not.
I agree with Deputy Figgis that we cannot judge this matter entirely on the general principle. We must consider the individual cases, and that has been impressed still more strongly on me by the speech of Deputy Padraic O Maille. Undoubtedly we must have regard to the gravity of the offences which were committed, or supposed to have been committed, by the individuals who are being held. It is not charged against any of these that they carried guns. It is not charged against any of these that they took an active part, as we understand what is meant by an active part, in the warfare that is being carried on against the Government. They maintain that their action has been constitutional. We do not know, we have no means of knowing, whether or not that has been the case, because the particular charges against them have not been investigated, and, so far as we have been able to discover what the charges are, no charge of such gravity as that mentioned by the Deputy who has last spoken has been made against them. If any of these prisoners did happen to die, no doubt the country will look at it from the point of view of the seriousness of the charge on which they were arrested and detained. I submit that the question which the Government, if it were wise, should ask itself is whether it is better that in the interests of peace, ultimate peace, these prisoners should be released, or that they should be detained and allowed to die. That is the position that the Government are up against, and I have no hesitation in saying that the wiser course would be to use what I understand is at the Government's disposal, that is, the law which was introduced in England some years ago, popularly known as the Cat and Mouse Act. If that Act is in operation the Government are within their right in putting that law into operation and making use of it. While saying that, I think I agree largely with Deputy Figgis that it is not in the best interests of the object which the Government have at heart that Deputy McCartan would press this Motion to a division. I would make that suggestion as my firm belief. I voted for the adjournment on the last occasion when moved by Deputy Johnson, and I thought then, as I still think, that it would, in the interests of these individuals concerned, be best that the matter would not be pressed to a division, but if it is pressed to a division I shall vote in support of the motion.
Mr. KEVIN O'HIGGINS rose.
The Minister for Home Affairs spoke before, but I take it there is no objection to his speaking again?
On a point of order, if the Minister has the right to speak again, can other Deputies who spoke before speak again?
No, the Minister cannot speak again except by special leave, unless we reopen the whole debate.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I was proceeding to ask for special leave when Deputy O'Shannon interrupted.
The point is, that unless it is granted to the Minister, in his peculiar position, that he should speak a second time, Deputies might claim that Deputies who spoke on the last occasion should also be allowed to make a second speech.
I have no objection to the Minister speaking again, but I want to know if other Deputies can also speak again?
If the Minister speaks again he speaks by special leave, and the special leave is not extended to others. Is that agreed?
Agreed.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
After Deputy Figgis had spoken I attempted to catch your eye and failed. Deputy Figgis misrepresented seriously the position which I took up in speaking on this matter on the last occasion. He said that I laid down a general principle and he proceeded to state what that general principle was, and rather skilfully misinterpreted what I said. He said that the principle was that if a person was rightly and lawfully in custody he should be held regardless of any devices that he might resort to in order to secure his release. Now, that word "lawfully" was not used by me. I recognise that in conditions of war, when the existence of a State is menaced, that words such as "lawful" go to the wall and that the niceties of legal proof disappear, as a matter of necessity. I recognise that, of the 10,000 or 12,000 prisoners that we hold, it would have been impossible to try these people, that no legal system that could be devised would suffice to try these 12,000 prisoners, that as a matter of necessity we arrested and detained within the last ten months, and I recognise further that were they to be tried, no State Solicitor, no Civic Guard Superintendent, no representative of the people would be in a position to prove charges against them, one by one. I recognise that perfectly. Let us take, for instance, one specific case, the case of Mr. Austin Stack.
If Mr. Austin Stack had taken the precaution to destroy the document which was found on him what could be proved against him except one thing, that is definite knowledge, and that is his membership of a certain body? But let us for a moment not advert to that. Let us also assume that he had destroyed this document found on him; what could be proved against him but that he was found in a field in the Knockmealdown Mountains. That is not a charge upon which you could lawfully hold a prisoner. We must stand sheer on the State's right when its existence is menaced to arrest and detain any citizen or citizeness. That is a right that is challenged, and challenged by the women's weapon of the hunger strike, and it is, no matter what anyone says, not a case of definite women prisoners, but the case of any casual hunger striker that you are deciding, for you cannot release these hunger strikers and turn round to-morrow to some sorrowing mother and say, "we cannot see our way to do the same with your daughter."
You are faced with this question, whether or not you are prepared to release any woman prisoner who hunger strikes for a fortnight or 18 or 21 days, as the case may be. Already we have been taunted with a previous release. Deputy Miss Mary MacSwiney was given back her life once, and it may be felt that in a way that was due to her family, that a life was owed and she was given back her life, and she has simply proceeded to exhort young people of both sexes throughout the country to continue to fling themselves at the new born State, to drag it down, and to continue to wage a campaign of criminal methods, and now she is in jail again. On one thing let us be clear. Let us not deliberately muddle our minds. Let us realise that it is not the case of Miss O'Neill, or Miss Costello, or any person, you are to decide, but the general principle of whether you are going to release people who hunger strike. The question of a charge is absurd. When they hunger struck and demanded a trial and release, then to save their faces this particular batch of papers found in her house was used, and a charge, formulated on that, to enable them to get off the hunger strike, but it was the knowledge we had that they were participants in the conspiracy which has gone on against this State for ten months that caused their arrest. When you are dealing with the question of the equality of guilt it is an accident that one person was found in an overt act and the other was not. It is an accident that one fellow is found with a revolver, and that another jerks it over the wall. But there is equality of guilt. A conspiracy has existed against this State for ten months. Its methods are open and apparent—arson, assassination, general sabotage, war on the economic life of the country, the burning of commercial vans, the mining of picture-houses, and attempting to blow up business establishments. I submit that where it is within the knowledge of the State, within the knowledge of this Executive, or of the responsible army officers, that people are participants in that conspiracy, that there is an equality of guilt. Now, let us be clear. To release any woman hunger-striker, or release any hunger-striker—let us draw a line, let us at least see what we mean. If these women are to be released, does it mean that any woman who hunger-strikes in the future is to be released, or that any hunger-striker is to be released regardless of sex? I do contend that you have not much right to refer to sex; I do contend the women who have taken part in this conspiracy have unsexed themselves. If they are to be released, is it to be that any hunger-striker, man or woman, in the future is to be released? We release Misses A, B, C, and D. Then to-morrow we do not release Misses E, F, and G, because we are in a different humour. Every Deputy here knows that there is no woman in custody that is not well known to responsible people to be a participator in this conspiracy. Every Deputy knows it, whatever he might, prompted by humanitarian feelings, profess to believe. They all know that. I ask you to have some consideration for the responsibilities of the Executive. I do not ask you to act in any irresponsible way. It would be better you laid down here a hard and fast line, and say that every woman hunger-striker is to be released, than to come in in a casual way and say, release Miss so-and-so.
I had no intention of intervening in this discussion if it had not been for the first speech delivered in the debate to-night. I must say that I have heard many debates and listened to many discussions, but I never listened to a more dexterous attempt to face both ways at the same time than the speech of the opener of the debate. Now, it is time to finish facing both ways in Ireland. There are a few things in Ireland that mean everything. There is the sanctity of life and property and the recognition of legitimate authority. If legitimate authority is flouted with impunity, if it goes down into chaos and anarchy, everything that we hold dear goes down along with it. The Deputy who opened the discussion to-night made great play upon the case of Miss Costello, and I take it that he wished to impress upon us the idea that Miss Costello went on hunger strike as a protest against the flimsiness of the charge against her and as a protest against not being brought to trial on that charge. Now, I have been informed, and I am sure the Government will be able to correct me if I am wrong, that Miss Costello went on hunger strike immediately after she was brought to the place of imprisonment. If that was so one can only conclude that she hunger struck not against the flimsiness of the charge nor against the delay in being brought to trial on that charge, but as a denial of the right or authority of this Government to arrest any person within the territory of the State. Is that a position that is going to evoke sympathy? I will not use the word "sympathy," as it is a much-abused word, a word that is sometimes used to try to undermine the reasoning and logical faculties of members of As semblies like this—but if the hunger strike is going to be used as a weapon to deny and destroy the fundamental basis not only of political but of moral authority within the country, then it is a weapon that will have to be met and resisted. I do not want to bolt or bar the doors of the cells of these ladies. I wish every one of them could go free from their cells to-night, and I believe the Minister for Home Affairs will confirm what I say, namely, that each and every one of them could walk free from their cells to-night if they would give the necessary undertaking that they would not be participants against the security of the State.
Does the Minister say so?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Yes.
The Minister says yes. Is that too much to ask of anyone who is regarded as an agency for the destruction of the State? Hunger strike has not been imposed upon these prisoners as a penalty by the Government It is a self-inflicted penalty which can cease the moment they give that recognition to the right of the State which every self-respecting citizen should not think it too much to be asked from him. Let us know where we stand. Is there any Deputy here in this assembly who is not prepared to sign the undertaking which each of these prisoners is asked to sign, and if each and every member of this assembly is prepared to sign that document, how can this assembly come to the conclusion that in asking that much in the case of each of these prisoners the Executive Government is asking too much? I do hope that this motion will not be pressed to a division. I am doubtful if the cause which the mover of the amendment pleads—and I know that he pleads the cause which he has embodied in that motion with the deepest sincerity and the greatest honesty of conviction—is best served by a discussion like this. In the first place you have this possible result—that there is conjured up in the minds of sympathisers with those who have tried to wreck the State, the hope that there would go out from this assembly a decision that would weaken the hands of the Government in its attempt to maintain order and security in Ireland. On the other hand, there is the grave danger that a decision that would be hostile to the sentiments of that motion might possibly harden the hearts—for after all they are only human, and God knows they have enough to try the best temper of the best human being—of members of the Executive in dealing with this matter. Therefore I say that I doubt if the cause of the prisoners in their dire distress is served by such a motion. All I have to say is this, that all through this crisis there is one thing I stand for, that is the security of the State and recognition of legitimate authority.
I say that it is not too much to ask these prisoners, in exchange for their release from prison, that they would give that undertaking which will be some guarantee that they would not, if released, utilise their renewed liberty to assist those who have deliberately attempted to destroy the foundations of this infant State. I have no doubt whatever that the members of the Government have given every consideration to this case. I have no doubt that every argument that has been urged for the release of these prisoners has been weighed already by them, and I have no doubt that if they could get even a decent excuse for releasing these people it would be done. But there must be a quid pro quo. There must be something in return if those who have been known to assail the State and who have been arrested are released; those who have the responsibility of the security of society in this country must have an assurance that there will be no repetition of those assaults on the security of the State and the people of Ireland.
After consultation with the Ministry I wish to submit—I do not know whether it is in order or not—the following:—
"That, in the opinion of the Dáil, prisoners who decide after the passing of this Resolution, to go on hunger-strike to secure release, should be allowed to take the full consequences of their act."
That is my resolution, as a substitute for the other resolution. I am withdrawing my original motion and substituting this one.
Deputy McCartan might favour us with an explanation of this matter. Is he proposing to withdraw his original motion and substitute this?
Yes.
I submit that the motion ought not to be accepted as a matter of Order. We have not been discussing that question. It is asking the Dáil to decide upon a new proposition. I submit it is not a wise thing in the interests of the Dáil, of the prisoners, or of Deputy McCartan, or anyone else, to put a motion like that at the end of this discussion. I protest against submitting a motion in that form, and would urge Deputy McCartan to withdraw it.
It would be impossible for Deputy McCartan to substitute his second suggested motion for the one on the Paper, unless he got complete agreement, because it is altogether different from the original motion. The motion of which notice has been given on the Order Paper deals with particular prisoners, now in a precarious condition. This motion enunciates a principle dealing with future happenings. It is open to the interpretation of being quite different from the original motion.
What I intended to do first was to amend my original resolution.
As to an amendment to delete all words after "that," and to substitute the words after "that" in the new suggested motion, in the special circumstances I would allow that, if I got the unanimous leave of the Dáil, but without that it would be difficult.
Seeing it is not strictly an amendment at all, but an entirely new Resolution, the Dáil would be scarcely competent to consider it without due notice. I do suggest to Dr. McCartan not to press the original resolution, and not to bring forward this.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
There is a difficulty about that which no one appreciates better than Deputy Figgis. The attitude taken up on the matter by us is that the State must insist upon and defend its right to intern citizens when a situation exists in the country so grave that it is correct to say the existence of the State is challenged. Perhaps the strongest argument urged against the resolution was that it would engender hopes in the minds of prisoners and internees to have recourse to that method to secure their release, and it was pointed out that after each release, the attitude of taking a stand and not releasing becomes more and more difficult, and perhaps less and less justifiable.
And we felt that while we were being urged in the name of humanity, and a lot of other high-sounding things, to release these particular prisoners that, in fact, the question that was being discussed, and the question really involved, was whether any person who resorted to that particular method was to be released after an interval of a fortnight or three weeks. We cannot give away the right of the State to intern citizens in its own defence. We cannot and do not mean to; but in conversation with Deputy McCartan it is stated we would be prepared to re-consider this matter if the Dáil gave a very solemn and very emphatic expression of opinion that future hunger strikers, prisoners or internees, should not have the question of their release considered. Now, if such a resolution were passed everyone would know just where they stood.
It is about time they did.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
And any hope that would be otherwise engendered in the minds of persons in custody would be removed, and removed by a very explicit and specific declaration from the Dáil. Therefore, it is of value, and of great value, to the Executive that Deputy McCartan's alternative resolution be passed, and only conditional upon that would I, as one member of the Executive Council, be prepared to re-consider my attitude about the question of the release or the detention of these prisoners.
On a point of order, I wish to ask what is before the Dáil? Where do we stand?
Strictly, from the point of view of order, the last speech should, perhaps, not have been allowed, but I take it that questions of order are questions which can be waived, and ought to be waived, in certain circumstances when it is the opinion of the Chair that some good purpose can be served which would be a greater purpose than the purpose of keeping order. (Several Deputies: "Hear, hear.") At the moment there is nothing before the Dáil except the motion of Deputy McCartan, which is on the Paper.
I suggest he has withdrawn the motion.
Perhaps I may be allowed to continue. Deputy McCartan has not withdrawn the motion. The matter for discussion is whether, in the peculiar and extraordinary circumstances, Deputy McCartan should be allowed to withdraw one motion and to substitute for it another motion, which obviously would not be allowed in the ordinary way and under the ordinary rules. That was the point the Minister for Home Affairs discussed, and the Minister confined himself to that. There would need to be general agreement, and if that cannot be got I do not see where we can have any speeches upon the subject of the withdrawal of one motion and substitution of another.
If I may intervene for a moment, it would be to point out, firstly, that we did not canvass for this amended resolution; secondly, we take it that what you mean by general agreement is general agreement for the submission of that amended resolution, not general agreement as to whether it would pass or not.
General agreement that the rules of order should be waived to allow the Dáil to take up this resolution; that is the point.
The proposition asks the Dáil to relieve the Executive of responsibility, and not to take any action in certain circumstances that may in future arise. I suggest it is undesirable that that proposition should be put to the Dáil. The Executive can now state its decision, and in view of that decision the Dáil can decide to vote, or not to vote, on this resolution which is put down by Deputy McCartan, and the result of that will be to leave the Executive decision as they have stated it. I suggest that if you put such a motion as this to the Dáil, it will have to be discussed and will have to be voted on.
If Deputy McCartan now gave notice of this motion, would that serve the purpose?
I am afraid it does not suit his purpose.
Might I point out that we learned earlier in to-day's Session that something like an interval of a week was to elapse between now and the next sitting of the Dáil, and this, which, if I am not out of order in saying it, is a proposition in the nature of a horse deal, will postpone a settlement of the matter to a date at which, perhaps, some of these people concerned will—I hate to use the ill-omened word—be beyond the reach of any commutation or any clemency.
That is the postponement of the second motion?
Yes, but I may have misinterpreted the proposal altogether. I understood it was a kind of deal by which Deputy McCartan proposed——
I explained that it was not. I thought I made that point perfectly clear.
The President now says that I misunderstood him, but I agree with what the President said. I know it is not a deal, but I am describing it as a proposal in the nature of a deal. If I am wrong, Deputy McCartan will, no doubt, correct me. His proposal is that in return for the release of certain women hunger strikers at the moment, that the Dáil will pass a resolution declaring that all future hunger strikers will be allowed to die if they insist upon dying.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
On a point of explanation, that is not so.
Are they not within their right in doing so?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
He has been assured that if the Dáil were to pass such a resolution, the main consideration in favour of holding these prisoners would have been removed, and that certain members of the Executive Council would hold themselves free to reconsider their attitude.
What is ignored is the case made by Deputy O'Connell and by me on a previous occasion. We spoke in favour of this resolution, not as a demand for the release of any hunger-striker—not for their release—but to save us from the unpleasantness, I will not say odium, of permitting them to die. I subscribe to every principle that has been enunciated this evening by Deputy Milroy. The doctrine is undoubtedly sound that we cannot carry on the Government of the Free State if everyone who chooses to challenge its authority can do so, and not merely to challenge it, but to defy it.
On a point of order we had better get back to the point. The Deputy has already spoken four times on the motion.
That is not so.
The Deputy must give way on the point of Order.
The Deputy has already spoken four times, and the motion ought to be withdrawn. There is too much hugger-mugger about the whole thing.
Deputy McCarthy raises a question about what is now before the Dáil. Deputy Magennis is now making a speech upon the original motion before the Dáil. He already made a speech when the motion was last before the Dáil, and he is not entitled to speak again.
I would ask you to notify Deputy McCarthy that I have not spoken four times on the matter.
Deputy Magennis has not spoken four times.
I am now attempting to do what the Minister for Home Affairs was permitted to do, and what Deputy Johnson was permitted to do, to wit, to express an opinion on the advisability or otherwise of allowing this motion to be substituted for the other. I submit with all respect that, notwithstanding the unwillingness of Deputy McCarthy to hear me on any subject, I am perfectly in order. The question before us is: are we to permit the substitution of this motion? I say it is derogatory to the dignity of the Dáil, apart altogether from the question of order. Before this we solemnly debated a rule of procedure in regard to the Government of this country in dealing with prisoners; now we are asked to enter into a sort of bargain which amounts to saying that for the sake of certain prisoners we are willing to lay down a doctrine which will sacrifice all who would in the same spirit attempt to do likewise. To propose, without notice of any kind, a thing of this sort is not really to consider this as a legislative Assembly to which an Executive Ministry is responsible, but to act as if we were a business chamber arranging some deal.
I seriously suggest to Deputy McCartan that as a result of a conversation which he had with the Executive Council on the front bench, a conversation of which we are not aware, but during which some kind of understanding was arrived at, that he would be more considerate in the prisoners' interests, which he seems to have at heart, if he would withdraw the motion standing in his name. If he does so that would not prevent the Executive Council, which has the authority and responsibility, from reconsidering the whole matter in the meantime, and he could take the ordinary course of re-submitting the amended motion to the Dáil when the matter will be discussed in all its aspects.
Are we afraid to take responsibility for our action? A number of Deputies wanted me to withdraw the original resolution and to leave the matter to the Government. Now it is urged that there will be further hunger-strikes. I submit it is only just to the prisoners to tell them that they need have no hope. The people on hunger-strike have some hope in the Dáil. It would perhaps be better if my original motion had gone on and if we had decided against them rather than have them still hoping. If we decide against them they know where they are. If we pass the resolution future prisoners will know that they need have no hope in the Dáil and that they must take the consequences of their acts. I think the proposal is just and honourable and we are not dictating to, but supporting the Government in the action they are taking.
In supporting the point of view put forward by Deputy Magennis, I wish to say as to the suggestion made by Deputy McCartan, that those who advised that the original motion should be withdrawn are not at all afraid to face the consequences. Quite the contrary. I dare say that both those who intended to vote against Deputy McCartan's resolution, and those who, like myself, intended to vote for it were quite prepared to take the consequences. I agree with the Deputy who said that this is no time, and this is not the occasion, for any hugger-mugger of any kind; that in considering the whole question it is not a matter at all of certain persons, certain particular individuals, who are on hunger-strike. It is a matter of far greater concern than the life of any particular hunger-striker. I would ask Deputy McCartan to withdraw his second motion, because I believe that it commits the Dáil to a course of action, which I think the Dáil would regret. It agrees to the release of certain individuals at the expense of the whole independence and the whole dignity of the Dáil from this particular date, the 25th April.
For that reason I would ask him to withdraw. If he puts his amended motion or is allowed to put his amended motion to a vote, I shall certainly, and with no regard at all for the consequences, vote against it. But I do not wish to do so. I do not wish that anything that should happen in the Dáil this evening should make it appear to anybody inside or outside that I did not desire the release of those hunger-strikers. I do desire their release, but when I was approached by certain people on behalf of certain individuals amongst the hunger-strikers, I said that it was a matter of dealing with them all together. I thought that the merits of one particular case and the merits of another particular case, could not be taken into consideration at all. It seems to me that in persisting in the course he apparently desires to persist in now, Deputy McCartan wishes to sacrifice the independence of the Dáil in order to effect the release of particular individuals. So far as I myself am concerned I am not afraid of the consequences, and I speak also for others with whom I am generally associated. If he puts his original motion we will vote with him freely and heartily. If he puts the other I certainly shall vote against it.
It is quite clear that there is no general agreement to allow Deputy McCartan to substitute for the motion on the Paper the new motion. The original motion is, therefore, before us.
I did not intend to intervene in this debate at all, but——
I withdraw my motion on the Agenda, and I will give notice in the usual way of the other.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.