I beg to move that the Bill be received for final consideration.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - INDEMNITY BILL, 1923—FOURTH STAGE.
I beg to move an amendment to sub-section (3) (c) of Section 1, to insert after the word "negligence" on line 14, the words "or authorised assault." Paragraph (c) will then read "any civil proceedings founded on negligence or authorised assault in respect of damage to person or property or." The acceptance of this amendment would, I am sure, meet the desires of the Ministry, if we are to judge by their statements in the earlier proceedings on this Bill. They disavow any act of a malicious kind on the part of any servant of the State, and not only agreed but expressed their desire to bring to justice any person guilty of any such act. While it is the function of the State to bring to the criminal court any person responsible for criminal acts, there is also the question of the right of the aggrieved person to sue for damages, not only in the case of negligence but for damage due to unauthorised assault, and I am sure the Ministry do not want to validate any act of that kind, or to indemnify any person guilty of any act of that kind. It is not the desire of the Minister, I am sure or of the Dáil, to relieve of liability any person who claimed to be acting in the interests of the public safety, or for the State, or any person who is guilty of cruelty, the ill-treatment of a prisoner or of violent assault, and who acted entirely on his own responsibility and without authority. "While we must accept the words of the Minister, when he said the State would be not only willing but eager to bring to justice any offender, there is the further responsibility upon the Dáil, and that is to leave it open for everyone who has suffered from mal-treatment to bring an action in the civil courts against the persons responsible for that mal-treatment, if these persons were acting without authority. I think that the amendment is one that ought to commend itself to the Dáil, and I accordingly move it.
I second the amendment.
Unauthorised assault, I take it, must have some interpretation. An assault must be authorised, and it is open to every officer and to every man and to every citizen to prove that he has been authorised to assault some person in order to escape. I really cannot see the sense of introducing the amendment.
Does the Minister assure us that if this Bill becomes law a person who has been assaulted by another will still have the right to go to the courts against the offender, and that there is no indemnity under Section 1 against the person who committed the act of cruelty upon the prisoner without authority?
The question is too vague either for myself or anybody else to answer. I think if the Deputy gets a transcript of the shorthand report of the question put by him, he will admit that no one could answer it.
That answer of the President shows the necessity for introducing some words of this kind. I agree that the Bill is liable to the interpretation that if a person suffers damage from a soldier or a policeman, or some other person claiming to act in the interests of the State, that person may not have any redress whatever, but I want to ensure that he shall have some redress provided that the assault is not authorised.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 37.
Tá
- Riobard O Deaghaidh.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Seoirse Ghabhain Uí Dhubhtaigh.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Séamus Éabhróid.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Cathal O Seanáin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Domhnall O Ceallachain.
- Tomas de Nógla.
- Liam O Briain.
Níl
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Gearóid O Súileabháin.
- Uáitéar Mac Cumhaill.
- Seán O Maolruaidh.
- Micheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O hAodha.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Pádraig Mag Uaghairg.
- Peadar Mac a' Bháird.
- Deasmhumhain Mac Gearailt.
- Micheál de Duram.
- Seán Mac Garaidh.
- Pilib Mac Cosgair.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Earnán Altún.
- Liam Thrift.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Piaras Béaslaí.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Caoimhghin O hUigín.
- Proinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Liam O hAodha.
- Proinsias Mag Aonghusa.
- Eamon O Dúg in.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Tomás O Domhnaill.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Micheál O Dubhghaill.
- Uinseann de Faoite.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Pádraic O Máille.
Amendment declared lost.
I have an amendment to Section 3. It is to delete lines 44 to 53 inclusive, and to substitute the following: "Every Military Court or Committee (in this section called a military tribunal) which was established before the passing of this Act by the Military Authorities of the Provisional Government or of the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann, and the establishment of which was ratified and approved by Resolution of Dáil Eireann on the 28th day of September, 1922, shall be deemed to be and always to have been a validly established tribunal, and every sentence passed, judgment given or order made before the passing of this Act by any such Military Tribunal, which was ratified by or which was duly passed, given or made in accordance with the said Resolution or any general order or regulation made by the Army Council, and laid on the table of Dáil Eireann, as required by said Resolution."
The object of the amendment is to incorporate in the Bill what the Minister in charge of the Bill assured us was the intention, and to safeguard against validating acts which may have been committed by Military Courts, Committees or Tribunals which were not authorised by the Dáil, and by the jurisdiction of the Army Council acting under the Dáil. The clause as it stands would have the effect of validating the actions of any Committee of a Military Court which may have been set up without authorisation. If the Bill passes in the form in which it is presented it would have the effect of relieving from liability of a civil or criminal character any person acting without authorisation, or even in defiance of the instructions or the authorisation of the Dáil. as it stands the section is too loose and too wide in its sweep. It speaks of every Military Court and Committee or tribunal established by the Act as the Military Authorities.
Deputy Figgis argued yesterday that the Military Authorities could only be taken to mean those authorities which were established by the direct authority of the Government or of the Dáil. There is a danger, I think, that that may not be the case, that "Military Authorities" may include people who would be acting outside the jurisdiction and authority imposed upon them. As the section stands, I submit it is open to the possible interpretation that minor officers who are not acting as Military Authorities within a given jurisdiction may be deemed to be "authorities" referred to in this section I want to ensure that any acts which are covered by this section shall be the acts of authorities established and approved by resolution of the Dáil—acts committed with that authorisation. I submit that the amendment will embody the intentions as expressed by the Minister better than the section as it stands. I am asking that the courts whose judgments are to be validated shall be the Courts or Committees or Tribunals which were ratified and approved by the Resolution of the Dáil; that only those Courts or Committees or Tribunals shall be validated, and that no other Courts shall, even by a possibility, be indemnified under the Act against illegal acts. I think that the amendment I am putting forward, if it is read and considered in the spirit in which it is put forward, will be accepted. It does, in fact, embody the assurance that was given by the Minister yesterday that it was only those Courts which were authorised by the Dáil that were intended to be covered by this Act. Now, the Minister will say, or did say, that he knew nothing about any other Courts. There may not have been any other Courts, but there may have been Committees set up by military men who were regarded as being Military Authorities, and if the Bill passes in the form in which it at present stands, those Committees will be validated and the acts of those Committees will be validated. I want to ensure that only those Courts, Committees or Tribunals which were authorised by the Resolution passed by the Dáil in September come under this section.
This question was argued very exhaustively yesterday. I think the Minister for Defence made it quite clear that when he used the word "authority" he meant military authority. This is a legislative document, and when it becomes the law "military authority" will be subject to a legal interpretation. I think that no tribunal which acted otherwise than under due and proper military authority would be held by any stretch of the imagination to be a court entitled to indemnification and validation.
In the Sub-section as it stands there is no definition of what is meant by the "Military Authority." In every case, particularly in the Army Act, legal definitions are given, but I do not know that a definition of "Military Authority" in that particular Act can be taken to apply to the words in this Act, because the military body mentioned in the other Act is not, in the sense in which this Act is, retrospective. Deputy Johnson's amendment does go a long way to define the expression "military authority," or rather it puts down in black and white in the letter of the law and the Act what is meant and referred to by "authority." The sub-Section as it stands in the Bill does not do it, and I think that it is up to the Minister to accept the amendment, particularly if the amendment is really the expression of the opinion which was expressed here yesterday evening.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 38.
Tá
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Riobárd O Deaghaidh.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Cathal O Seanáin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Domhnall O Ceallacháin.
Níl
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Gearóid O Súileabháin.
- Seán O Maolruaidh.
- Micheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O hAodha.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Peadar Mac a' Bháird.
- Deasmhumhain Mac Gearailt.
- Micheál de Duram.
- Seán Mac Garaidh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Pilib Mac Cosgair.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Earnán Altún.
- Gearóid Mac Giobúin.
- Liam Thrift.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Caoimhghin O hUigín.
- Proinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Liam O hAodha.
- Proinsias Mag Aonghusa.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Tomás O Domhnaill.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Uinseann de Faoite.
- Séamus de Burca.
- Uáitéar Mac Cumhaill.
- Seoirse Ghabháin Uí Dhubhthaigh.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move: "In Sub-section (2) to delete the words "an Executive Minister," in line 57, and to substitute the words "High Court of Justice, Saorstát Eireann."
The sub-section as it stands says that whatever Board of Commissioners or by whatever name that reviewing body may be called, shall be established by the Executive Minister. The intention of the amendment is that it should be established by the High Court of Justice.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I have another amendment to that section. It is: In line 58 to substitute for the word "two" the word "three." The sub-section as it stands provides that the reviewing body shall consist of not less than two, and the object of the amendment is that these bodies shall consist of not less than three. It is possible, I do not know whether it is probable or not, that under the sub-section as it stands the revising or reviewing Board of Commissioners shall consist of only two. My object in moving the amendment is to give a rather bigger minimum. It may be the Board shall consist of four or five. The maximum number is not specified but the minimum number is. I would have that minimum number three, because if a Board of two is set up, and a disagreement arises between the two as to say, the length or duration of a particular sentence, I do not know then what would happen. There is no provision in the Bill for the solution of a difficulty of that kind, and there is nothing provided in the Bill for sending such a case to another Board of Commissioners. I think the amendment is quite reasonable, and would allow, in the case of a Board consisting of the minimum number, that at least there should be a majority, so that an actual decision could be arrived at.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 37.
Tá
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Riobárd O Deaghaidh.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Seoirse Ghabháin Uí Dhubhthaigh.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Cathal O Seanáin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Domhnall O Ceallacháin.
- Liam O Briain.
Níl
- Uáitéar Mac Cumhaill.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Gearóid O Suileabháin.
- Seán O Maolruaidh.
- Micheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O hAodha.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Peadar Mac a' Bháird.
- Deasmhumhain Mac Gearailt.
- Micheal de Duram.
- Seán Mac Garaidh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Pilib Mac Cosgair.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Gearóid Mac Giobúin.
- Liam Thrift.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Caoimhghin O hUigín.
- Proinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Liam O hAodha.
- Proinsias Mag Aonghusa.
- Eamon O Dugáin.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Tomás O Domhnaill.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Uinseann de Faoite.
- Séamus de Burca.
- Micheál O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Pádraic O Máille.
Amendment declared lost.
I voted against the amendment of Deputy O'Shannon to insert the word "high" because High Judicial Office has been defined, and there are only 8 or 10 persons who would be qualified to act in such a capacity at present, if Deputy O'Shannon's amendment were carried, and it is doubtful if many of these would be inclined to act under this Bill. I propose to add to the Section the following words, "The Board of Commissioners shall be persons who on or before the date of their appointment held, or have held, judicial office in Saorstát as Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, Recorders or County court Judges, Judges of the Supreme Court, High Court or Circuit Court of Saorstát Eireann or of the late Supreme Court of Dáil Eireann."
That will confine the choice of Commissioners to people who have been at some time County Court Judges or High Court Judges. There are some existing County Court Judges who would be well qualified to fill the office. You would also include all those who are included in Deputy O'Shannon's amendment, and you would include in addition to those, people who may be appointed to High Judicial Office in our own Courts set up under the new Bill which was read a first time yesterday. I appeal to the President to accept this amendment, because "Judicial Office," as Deputy O'Shannon pointed out, is a very vague term and may include any person down to the very worthy person, no doubt, who holds the office of President of the Court of Conscience. There are many small judicial offices that would be quite covered by the term used here, and I would not care to see such people on the Board of Commissioners.
I beg to second.
Amendment agreed to.
The motion now is: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration.
The curious process by which the Executive is seeking to commend the Free State to the public continues with such measures as this, and the Public Safety Bill as shining examples. I have been struck by the similarity of the spirit which presided over the last Irish Parliament of 120 years ago with the spirit which presides over this, and I would recommend to the President a course of Lecky on the subject in order that he might be duly impressed with the parallel.
"The short session of Parliament," says Mr. Swift MacNeill, "which began on January 21st, and ended on April 15th, 1796, was mainly occupied by an Act of Indemnity for such persons as had in the preceding half-year exceeded their legal powers, and by an Insurrection Act." I will give to the Dáil two or three of the mildest extracts concerning that period. "A clause very strenuously opposed by Grattan and Sir Lawrence Parsons actually legalised one of the worst excesses of legal powers in the preservation of the public peace whose previous perpetrations had been condoned under the Indemnity Act. By this clause magistrates in the proclaimed districts were enabled to send men whom they considered disorderly characters, untried to the fleet.' `Under this comprehensive category,' writes Mr. Lecky, `were comprised all who were out of doors in the prohibited hours, and who could not give a satisfactory account of their purpose, all who had taken unlawful oaths, all who could not prove that they had lawful means of livelihood' " That was in 1976. In 1797 similar outrages were indulged in, and we read: "The efforts of the Opposition in the Irish House of Commons to impose some restraint on the military violence reprobated by Sir Ralph Abercrombie were, of course, futile. A new Indemnity Act was carried which sheltered all magistrates and other persons employed to preserve the peace from the consequences of every illegal Act they had committed since the beginning of the year 1797 with the object of suppressing insurrection, preserving peace and securing the safety of the State." The language is very familiar, indeed: "A clause of which Plunket was the proposer for granting compensation to the innocent victims of military violence was opposed and rejected." The next Parliament was occupied with similar business.
"The Irish Parliament was prorogued on June 1st, 1799. The proceedings of that assembly were marked by its wonted subserviency to the Government." A Bill was introduced empowering "the Lord Lieutenant as long as the rebellion continued, and notwithstanding the opening of the ordinary Courts of Justice to authorise the punishment by death or otherwise according to martial law," and so forth, "and the detention of all persons suspected of such crimes and their summary trial by courtmartial. No act done in pursuance of such an order could be questioned, impeded or punished by the courts of common law, and no person duly detained under the powers created by this Act could be released by a writ of Habeas Corpus."
I could quote nearly every chapter of this volume, which would be very much apropos. One other item only to which I desire to draw special attention, and that is the question of presuming good faith as prescribed in this Bill. In March, 1799, another Indemnity Act was carried; it provided that "in all cases in which sheriffs or other officers or persons were brought to trial for acts done in suppressing the rebellion, that a verdict for the plaintiff should be null and void unless the jury distinctly found that it had been done maliciously and not with an intent of suppressing rebellion, preserving public peace, or promoting the safety of the State," and that even where juries did find that the act was malicious, the judge or judges who tried the case should have the power of setting such verdict aside. This Bill does not go quite so far as that, but in practice it does not fall far short of it. I refer to Section 2, Sub-section (2), and I desire to make it clear that I have no objection to an Indemnity Bill as such after such a conflict as we have had. If the Executive did confine this to an Indemnity Bill properly so called, and drawn within reasonable and moderate lines, I should not have opposed it, but I should in any case have opposed the other part of the Bill which should have been presented to us in a separate Act. So far as indemnity is concerned, I do very strongly object to the clause "which provides that any act, matter or thing such as aforesaid done by or under the authority of a person holding office in or employed in the service of the Provisional Government or the Government of Saorstát Eireann shall be deemed to have been done in good faith unless the contrary is proved."
The judge, I take it, will be entitled in any case to say, "There is no adequate proof to allow me to put to the jury whether or not to give a verdict for the plaintiff. There is no adequate proof of want of good faith." How can there be adequate proof. You are asking your plaintiff to prove a negative. You are asking him to prove a negative in respect of what was in the other man's mind. Nobody could seriously suppose that a plaintiff could prove any such thing. If the Executive stopped short of inserting that provision they would be removing the worst blot on the indemnity part of the Bill. It cannot be necessary to make a plaintiff prove that the defendant was not acting in good faith. If the Executive are anxious that if he did not act in good faith he should be punished, and if it is not necessary why is it inserted?
I turn to another point. As in one of those Statutes of 120 years ago, innocent persons who have suffered are precluded from getting compensation for damage to property, destruction of property or theft of property. I cannot but think the spirit which produces such an Act as this is a spirit utterly foreign to the century we are living in, and far more congenial to that 18th century upon which it is modelled. I do not desire here more than to make a protest against it, because I realise that in the present Dáil it is hopeless for us to do more than that. But I do most emphatically protest against that particular section which I should have protested against before had I been able to be present when the matter was rushed into this Dáil. I ask if any reason can be given?
The allusion is to sub-section (2) of Section 2?
Precisely. What I am saying for the President's benefit, is, so far as one object is concerned, at all events—the indemnity part of the Bill—it seems to me to be very seriously prejudiced by having that particular blot on Section 2, which I submit is unnecessary. I do ask why this Bill should be introduced and rushed through now? I submit that it would have been fairer and more far seeing for an outgoing Executive to leave the work, however necessary, of whitewashing what has been done to a new Executive, elected by the people, instead of taking upon themselves the duty of giving themselves a certificate of good character. I think that such a certificate given by the next Dáil would have been, shall I say, a little more convincing, would have, at least, more moral value than anything that could be done by the present Dáil, which has been a party to the things which the Executive asks us to indemnify. I regret that this matter has been rushed upon us. I do not desire to add anything further upon the second part of the Bill which, to my mind, is much more objectionable, because the particularly evil matters with which it deals have already been discussed at some length.
The Deputy who has just spoken has puzzled me not a little with regard to the subjects he dealt with and the manner in which he dealt with them. Looking over the Dáil debate of the 27th September I find that the Deputy supported certain Resolutions that were submitted, and which this Bill in a certain sense validates.
May I, on that matter, make a personal explanation. The President, if he reads back, will find that I said I would support the resolutions whole-heartedly on two conditions— one was that men concerned should be treated as prisoners of war, and the second was that the Hague Rules should be applied. These two conditions were embodied in two amendments which I thought would be accepted. When I found that they would not be entertained, I voted against the resolutions, as the President will see by referring to the Division.
I have the volume here. At page 884, Mr. Gavan Duffy:—
"When I came into the Dáil I intended to support the motion. In spite of the eloquence of Labour Deputies, I still hope to be able to support it substantially, because of the fundamental fact that the other side of this dispute have chosen the arbitrament of war. If it is war, we must recognise that fact; also, I want to support the Government, because this measure aims at a military dictatorship. I have been in favour of a military dictatorship from the beginning of the war, because I trust military guidance in a matter of this kind, and I entirely mistrust any kind of political control, because political control is not only a sham, but is often mischievous."
It is not necessary to read the whole of the speech. It goes the whole length of a page, and there is nothing about the Hague or about prisoners of war in it. That is the support that made those officers we are indemnifying do their duty. This Indemnity Act gives them that indemnity. The Deputy said there were some parallels between this Act and Acts that were introduced by what has been called the Irish Parliament of 1796, 1797 and 1798. Where is the parallel? I cannot see it. I do not recognise any similarity whatever. If there be a similarity, the Deputy cannot be with what he calls the patriots of that time, having regard to the attitude he took up in the Dáil with regard to these Resolutions. If the Deputy put it that we are in the position of the British Government Ministers in the Irish House of Commons of that time, I deny it point blank. We are not in that position. We are not doing what they were doing for themselves in that Indemnity Bill. We are not doing the same thing as in the Indemnity Bill of that time. The circumstances are wholly dissimilar, and only a mind bordering upon lunacy could possibly suggest anything of the sort. Just think what it means. Here we are, magistrates functioning to all intents and purposes under an Executive responsible to the British House of Commons! A Minister in what is called the Old Irish Parliament was not, as Deputies know, responsible to the House. The Executive was not responsible to the House. It was responsible to the Minister who, in turn was responsible to the British Executive. That is not the case here. The action we took was to vindicate the Deputy in putting his name to an instrument which we have honoured. In the extraordinary steps we have had to take in vindication of that, we find it necessary to bring in this Indemnity Bill. I must express my amazement at the Deputy drawing such parallels at all, and I do not think that, in his more lucid moments the Deputy himself will see any parallels.
I will allow Deputy Gavan Duffy to make a personal explanation with regard to the matter quoted from his speech.
There are two matters on which I desire to offer an explanation. The first is in regard to the comparison I made. The comparison I made was between the spirit that animated the promoters of those Indemnity Bills and the spirit that animates the promoters of this Bill. What I said when these military resolutions were introduced is in print, and I stand by every word of it. I said I would support the Government, having introduced, myself, two amendments which I believed would be accepted. The President will find them referred to at the end of that speech. One of these amendments—I ask leave to repeat myself, as the President evidently did not understand me— stipulated that the men tried should be treated as prisoners of war. That amendment I duly proposed when the matter came up. The other amendment proposed that the military should be bound to apply the international rules of war in trying these prisoners. That seemed to me be wholly natural, and I should not have had the least objection to these tribunals being set up if those two essential conditions had been accepted. The President will find, if he looks at the end of that debate, that, as a result of his stating in the course of the debate— I think it was by way of interjection— that these men would not be treated as prisoners of war, I voted in the minority against the Resolutions. I say again I would have supported the Executive if they had accepted the two amendment, which I thought they would have accepted, and when I found, in the course of the debate, that they would not accept them, I voted against the Resolutions.
If you had two votes now you would vote for and against the Bill?
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 36; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Gearóid O Suileabháin.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Uáitáar Mac Cumhaill.
- Micheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O hAodha.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Peadar Mac a' Bháird.
- Darghal Figes.
- Deasmhumhain Mac Gearailt.
- Seán O Ruanaidh.
- Micheal de Duram.
- Seán Mac Garaidh.
- Pilib Mac Cosgair.
- Domhnall Mac Cáthaigh.
- Gearóid Mac Giobúin.
- Liam Thrift.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Padraic O Máille.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Caoimhghin O hUigín.
- Proinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Proinsias Mag Aonghusa.
- Eamon O Dugáin.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Tomás O Domhnaill.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Uinseann de Faoite.
- Séamus de Burca.
- Micheál O Dubhghaill.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
Níl
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Riobárd O Deaghaidh.
- Seoirse Ghabháin Uí Dhubhthaigh.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Liam O Briain.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Cathal O Seanáin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Domhnall O Ceallacháin.
Amendment declared carried.
I move that the Bill do now pass.
On this motion I want to say that my objection to the passing of this Bill lies in this, and this alone, that it indemnifies too many things. It is not that it indemnifies those people who acted under authorisation of the Dáil, but it indemnifies people against acts which are really criminal, ferocious acts, acts that would bring the culprit into ignominy as well as punishment. It indemnifies these acts, and that is why I oppose the Bill.
If the statement made by Deputy Johnson means that this Bill whitewashes people who should be brought to justice, I say that is untrue. It does not. But there is no use in talking to us about cruelties and other things like that. What we want is evidence. Give us the evidence, and we will deal with them.
You refuse to give is an opportunity.
People who wish to live under constitutional conditions no matter what king reigns or what law prevails in this country, do not realise what conditions prevailed when trouble was at its zenith. I know we had no mandate, no authority, nor anything else of that nature for our action in going to Castlebar last summer. We went there, and if we did not Deputies in this Dáil would not be here now. We did not know whether our action was constitutional, or whether it was illegal at the time, but we had to act on what we thought what the majority rule was in this country, and we thought was constitutional then, although the people who were there did not know that what they did then was legal or not.
Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."
Carried.