Before Deputy Gorey speaks, on a point of explanation I just wish to say that in a statement of mine last night I said it was being alleged that Deputy Professor MacNeill, at some time or another, made the promise that the prisoners would be released about Easter-time. I have gone into that matter to-day, and I find that I have been misinformed. I desire to withdraw all reference to the Minister for Education.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - RELEASE OF PRISONERS.
Motion by Deputy Baxter:
That this Dáil, cognisant of a return to peaceful and more stable conditions in the country, and aware of the approach of the Tailteann Games, with their historic associations of peace and good will amongst Irishmen of all sections, is of opinion that the time has arrived when all untried or sentenced political prisoners should be released, and "men who are on the run" for political offences be free to return to their homes. (Resumed.)
Mr. GOREY rose.
I do not intend to go back on anything I said last night. I will begin as far as I can remember where I left off. Some of these people, the responsible men, if you can describe them as responsible men, have given their word that the Constitutional line would be adopted. I suggest to the Executive Council and to the Government that the time has come to put that word to the test, and to see if these people's word means anything. I suggest that it be put to the test now. The President referred to some people responsible or irresponsible. He referred to the mentality of Miss MacSweeney and people of that description. It is time that the people inside got a chance of showing publicly whether they approve of the tactics of Miss MacSweeney and the other ladies. During the last week or ten days I have been sent a document from the usual seat of propaganda here in Dublin in connection with the treatment of prisoners. I knew that this motion was coming on, and in order to keep my mind unprejudiced, I refused to read the document. I wish to say that the issuing of these documents has done more harm than good to these people. It has not influenced any member of the Party I belong to; it certainly has not influenced me. In order that I would not be influenced. I did not read this particular document, but I am convinced that scarcely a word of truth is to be found in any one of those documents. The President, last night, asked was it likely that these people would act constitutionally. If the people inside do not act constitutionally, surely there are enough outside not to act constitutionally, and the addition of the few inside to the many that are outside, could scarcely alter the position in one way or the other. As a matter of fact, I think it would help the situation if those people who have some responsibility were allowed out to accept full responsibility for whatever is happening. The present position is that these people say "we are in gaol, we cannot have our voices heard, and things are happening for which we take no responsibility." I suggest they ought to be let out and accept responsibility for whatever is happening.
I will not again refer to the Tailteann Games. I think I referred to them last night fairly fully. I think that keeping these few hundred in gaol is merely furnishing a fruitful ground for these people to grow propaganda on. If they had not that ground to sow their seed on I think they would be bankrupt for propaganda, and those people who at the present moment wear the crown of martyrs would become what they are, very ordinary citizens. I do not think that the detention of these few is any cure for interruptions at meetings or for the things the President referred to last night; I believe the reverse. I think, and my Party here think, that the nominal leaders ought to be let out and be made accept responsibility for interruptions or misconduct or anything else. I should say that the sooner they are made to accept that responsibility, the better. The sooner they are let out, to my mind, the sooner the general public will realise that they are very ordinary individuals, composed of very ordinary clay. I suggest that these people are scarcely worth retaining in prison. As I said, the retention of them only means a halo for them. Some of the Deputies have alleged that it is because of the Tailteann Games that we bring this forward. It is not because of their hostility to the Games that we bring it forward, it is because their hostility has failed to be effective. That is the reason it is being brought forward, because those handling the Tailteann Games, I believe, are big enough and strong enough to be generous in the position that exists at the moment. It is not because of any threat or because of any hostility on the part of those people to the Games that we brought it forward. It is because of the associations; it is because of the traditions in connection with those Games. I think the Executive Council would be well advised to let out those people, because the longer they are there the longer they are looked upon as something apart from the people. The sooner they are let out the sooner people will realise that they have feet of very ordinary clay.
MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)
It has seemed to me throughout this debate that there was rather too little advertence to what has actually been done in this matter of release. The President gave figures. Over a period of ten or eleven months 10,000 or 11,000 prisoners have been released. There remains a balance of roughly, 600, of which only 314 are unsentenced. Twenty-six of those are recommended for release. Orders have been signed for their release. And of the remaining 288, a list of 103 has been arrived at, whose release will be recommended, and will become effective inside the next couple of weeks, which leaves 185 unsentenced prisoners in custody. We are prepared to take it that it is the view of the average citizen represented here in the mind of the average Deputy, that releases should continue as rapidly as seems to the Government consistent with public safety. We are prepared to accept that view and to act on that view. We are prepared to take it that the people in their generosity and in their magnanimity would wish us even to take certain risks in the matter of releases—but not undue risks, to take as much risk as we consider consistent with a decent discharge of our stewardship to the people and a decent regard for their interests. That, I believe, is the view and is the wish of the ordinary people up and down through the country, and I believe that that view is represented in the average mentality of their representatives. It is unreasonable to expect more.
Deputy Baxter's motion, in the last analysis, means a demand for amnesty. Sentenced men, unsentenced men, men at present evading justice through the country are all to walk free. Now, in the setting that is not a reasonable request, in view of the fact that there has been a dogged refusal to surrender weapons and ammunition to the legitimate authority of the country. Implicit in that refusal—and the Deputy must face it—you have a threat, a menace, an indication that in some undefined and unknown set of circumstances, they would deem it right or proper to have recourse again to those weapons and to that ammunition. In other words, implicit in their refusal to surrender weapons, you have a refusal to recognise that the people of the country should decide, and decide freely, their political issues. You have that not merely implicit. You have it explicit from the statements of certain people who would, no doubt, be insulted if they were not called leaders. You have a member of the late Dublin Corporation announcing in rather truculent fashion, that he is not yet demobilised, though for many a year long back he has not been seen to carry anything more formidable than his umbrella. But you have these statements, these menaces from people who lay claim to be responsible and lay claim to some little degree of leadership. And you have the mentality of the Cobh crime to reckon with—a crime deliberately planned and deliberately carried out with one object, and one object only, to embroil this State and this Government with the British Government and their forces. That is not a kind of situation which justifies an amnesty demand. As I say, we are prepared to take it that the ordinary, generous people of the country are desirous that the utmost leniency should be exercised with regard to those men who kept them under the harrow for two years, who defied them, flouted them, made war upon them and upon their very economic existence. We recognise that the people are anxious that the utmost leniency should be observed, and should be practised with regard to these men. We are willing to take that instruction and to act upon it. But you have not an amnesty setting, and we would not be entitled to take undue risks. We must simply go ahead with the sources of information at our disposal, and if we wished to harrow the feelings of Deputies or to raise their hairs, we could trot out here in the Dáil certain very serious information.
But simply moving on from day to day and from week to week, and watching the situation, we must reduce that figure. We mean to reduce that figure, and reduce it with all the rapidity which we think the public safety and the public interest permit. If the Deputy presses his motion to a division, what does he effect? He puts Deputies here in the position of voting or appearing to vote, at any rate, against releases, when every Deputy desires that releases should continue with even increasing rapidity, certainly with the rapidity which in our judgment the public interest would permit. He will simply have a line up one side asking an utterly unreasonable thing, and that is a complete amnesty where you have not the condition to justify a complete amnesty, and others appearing to be opposed to a release, when, in reality, everyone would be glad that we could get back as quickly as possible to normal relations in the country, when political parties would accept a proper perspective of the community as a whole, and set themselves to the task of convincing the minds rather than coercing the bodies of their fellow-citizens. Now, there is talk of peace and goodwill. Very sound, no doubt, and all very excellent no doubt. These people, had they wished it, could at any time within the last two years, could to-day or to-morrow, bring about such a situation. They have not taken that road. You have the sinister menace of the arms there, and you have the truculent tyrannical statements from time to time from important pivotal people in their political and military organisation.
They cannot complain if a certain amount of caution has to be exercised by the Government with regard to them and with regard to the more important of the prisoners. Then Deputy Baxter's resolution fails from its vagueness, from the vagueness of its terms. He refers to political prisoners and says he does not want criminals out. Now, that is a failure to recognise the big fundamental fact that the big crime was the attack upon the people and the attack upon the people's fundamental rights to decide their political issues, and if we were to fight over words, everyone who participated in that attack was a criminal. You cannot distinguish then between the man who actually put the torch to the house, and the man who put the torch to the whole situation, which made crimes like that routine. Yet, Deputy Baxter says he does not want criminals released. In other words, he would distinguish between the man who put the torch to the house, the man who robbed the banks, the man who wrecked the railways, and the men who performed individual acts of that kind, and the people who stood over and accepted full responsibility for all the crimes. He says then that people on the run should be allowed to return to their homes. Here again you have the same vagueness.
Does he mean that we are to repeal the ordinary common law code running in the country by which decency of life is preserved or sought to be preserved? If people who are evading justice or who think they are evading justice, have any curiosity to find out how they stand with the law, there is no great difficulty about that; let them communicate or let their friends communicate with the police or with the military authorities, and they will find no hesitation about informing them whether or not a specific charge is proposed to be brought against them, and whether they must regard themselves as being within the reach of prosecution. But there are, and there have been for many months back, people playing that foolish "Ned of the Hill" kind of role, through the country, who have no need to live away from their homes, and who can return to their homes, but who prefer to live that kind of vagabond life, living parasitically on their neighbours, a bed here and a meal there. It would be better if they were at home at tillage, very much better. The country's wealth, after all, is the sum total of its production, and the more of the youth of the country that you have living a nonproductive existence, the less is the total wealth. We would be glad if these men would take steps to ascertain how they stand with the law, and that they would return to their homes and try to live decent lives that will in time blot out the records of the last two years. The Deputy must take his choice. He can press this motion to a division, and he can have a line up, which will be an unreal line up, and which I have endeavoured to explain, or he can take the assurance which is given that we are prepared to accept it that the average mind of the people is that they would be glad to see releases proceeding as rapidly as we consider consistent with their interests and consistent with their safety, and that we can even take it that they would wish some risk to be taken in the matter of releases.
I do not propose to indulge in any captious criticism on this matter, but I will endeavour to treat it in the same line as it has been dealt with by most of the other Deputies. It has been dealt with from the purely human standpoint, and the motives and intentions of the Government have also been subjected to very close analysis. But it strikes me that the Government have proceeded along three definite lines of argument. First of all, they have pleaded that charges of a criminal nature can be adduced against certain men who are at present interned.
Now, as far back as November, I endeavoured to bring the Government to meet this problem in a fair fashion, and from that period on 12,000 prisoners have been released. What I would like to know is, what is the gauge of the mesh through which those 12,000 have passed, and what is the gauge of the mesh through which it is proposed to pass the 600 who are now inside? If it were possible for the Government, in the space of nine or ten months, to release 12,000, passing them at the rate of 1,000 a month through this mesh, why was it not possible to pass the 600 who are in through the mesh since last Christmas? What is to prevent them?
The Deputy's figures are wrong. There were 1,500 unsentenced in December.
Perhaps the President will give the figures at this stage.
We had 1,500 unsentenced prisoners on the 1st of January, and 300, approximately, were sentenced. Of the 1,500, we shall have within a week 182, or possibly less. Taking into consideration the number of releases which have been signed, and the numbers of prisoners in respect of whom forms are being made out for release, the total number will be reduced to 182—that is, irrespective of what releases may take place in the meantime. As I explained yesterday, I signed twenty-six forms on yesterday, and I signed three this morning.
Mr. HOGAN
Any way, it amounts to this: that, out of the 12,000 under detention at one period, the most that could be found against whom any positive proof could be brought of their criminal intentions, numbered 300?
If I may intervene for a moment, I would like to put the Deputy right. There were 300 cases tried by courtmartial, and, under the Indemnity Act, they are either convicts or prisoners in the ordinary sense. The Indemnity Act provides that they should make application for a review of their sentences. As I have already explained, there were less than 100 applications, and in respect of these a certain number of releases have been ordered. With regard to the rest I explained that it was not within the competence of the authority, set up under statute here, to review the cases. But I propose that two judges should review the cases and make recommendations, and I said that we would give generous consideration to those recommendations.
Mr. HOGAN
I do not understand that there is any difference between what I said and what the President has now said. Out of the shaking and the juggling of the 12,000, the number in respect of whom evidence could be found to show that they were criminals was 300.
The Deputy is getting deeper into the water.
I am just as deep in the water as the Deputy. Will the President make it clear? There were 300 brought before courtsmartial and sentenced. Does the President mean to say that there might have been many more who were not brought before courtsmartial?
Yes.
Why were the 300 chosen and so many others released?
Why the 300 were chosen for courtsmartial, I am not in a position to say. I should say, however, that perhaps one reason was that proofs, identification, and so on, were much easier than in other cases. Another reason was that the measure or amount of guilt must have been larger in those cases than in other cases. The Deputy can quite understand it would be rather difficult to have, in the space of nine months, 12,000 courtmartialled.
Mr. HOGAN
It amounts to this, that 300 are suffering for what the President tells us is the guilt of a good many.
No, but their own guilt.
Mr. HOGAN
It is merely an accident that those 300 were picked out, and because they were tried by courtsmartial, they cannot be released until they make application to have the sentence reviewed. It is merely an accident that those few hundred men were picked out. I am sorry that I am not in the position to understand the peculiar meaning that attaches to the Government's explanation. The total number that the Government could find any positive evidence against was 300.
No, I explained yesterday that these were court martialled. There were other cases—I think the number was somewhere about 80 or 100—who were handed over for civil prosecution in the ordinary courts.
Mr. HOGAN
That at most adds 80 to the number. I do not see that we are getting much further, and anyhow a military court on the face of it, is not an impartial tribunal; from its very nature it can never be accepted as an impartial tribunal, and even at most they could only convict 300 out of 12,000. These 300 were chosen, and it is simply explained that they were chosen and kept while the others were let out. What is in the power of these 600 that are kept in to achieve, if they were set free, that the 12,000 who were liberated cannot achieve? Are there so many great leaders inside, that if they are let out they will rally all the discordant elements and rekindle a blaze from one end of the country to the other. Are there no rallying centres now? If not, can the President tell us why the men "on the run" are not allowed home. If there are no rallying centres, why does he not let them home?
"On the run" for what?
Mr. HOGAN
They are "on the run."
For what?
Mr. HOGAN
I do not know. That should be more the province of the Minister for Justice than mine. We were told that it was to prevent the policy of destruction that these people were interned and kept out of the way of the average citizen. We were told that there was an attempt to destroy the Treaty and to destroy the Constitution by creating economic paralysis in the nation. For the last six months there has been, on the Government's own declaration, 12,000 releases, and what economic paralysis has been brought about by these people; what attempt has been made to destroy the Treaty and what attempt has been made to upset the Constitution? What terrible things have been brought about by these 12,000 who have been released, and how much would the 600 that are inside add to it that would make the country incapable of being called a civilised country and a place fit to live in?
Some of the speeches from the Government benches might have been very well made on the Second Reading of the Public Safety Bill when introduced some two years ago, but to-day the situation has changed considerably. We have declarations from the responsible leaders that they are going to adopt a constitutional policy, and the President was not perfectly clear in his mind, he told us, as to what they meant by a constitutional policy. He thought that there were varying degrees and varying definitions of the word "constitutionalism" within the ranks of the Republican Party. There are. There are various definitions, I daresay, of constitutionalism within the ranks of the President's own party. But would the President consider this, that it is impossible for that party to come to a definite policy, or a definite understanding, as to what constitutionalism means, while a good many of the responsible leaders are under lock and key and are kept in by the present Government and cannot consult with their colleagues or with the people whom they represent? Deputy MacNeill asked us to get rid of sentimentalism in this matter, and he is perfectly right. We do not want sentimentalism in this matter; this is not a sentimental question; it is purely a humane question, and when we are told about the mentality of some of these people, the mental and moral calibre of some of those in jail, has the Government thought that their continual detention is not likely to be beneficial to their mental or moral character? Some members of the Government have been in several jails themselves.
But never as comfortable as they are.
Mr. HOGAN
I will not argue that. I will not argue as to the comfort of being in jail, but one thing that makes life in jail uncomfortable, is the absolute helplessness of the person in jail, running up against things that he cannot conquer or destroy. These people are up against confinement; they are up against the position that they do not know how long they may be kept in jail, and it is the indefiniteness of that that makes them so callous and so cruel. We are told that they are indulging in unconstitutional action by obstructing meetings, and some such things. We were told that the old Sinn Fein Party, when it was less of a power, in 1912, 1913 and 1914, had not indulged in such tactics. It is surprising to hear that. Anybody who knows Dublin knows that it was the boast of some of the old Sinn Fein Party that certain political parties could not hold meetings in Dublin, that they would not be listened to; that there was such a following for a certain political party of a revolutionary kind, that another political party could not find an opportunity to express its opinions in public.
I must dissent. That is not the case. I am a Dublin citizen, and I have known Dublin for many years, and I must say that the old Sinn Fein Party did not interfere with or interrupt meetings. I have been at meetings, and I was at the meeting when the late Mr. Redmond unveiled the Parnell statue, and there was not a sound of interruption against him.
Mr. HOGAN
I remember being at meetings that were interrupted, and very much interrupted, but that can pass. Another aspect of the case I would like to refer to is, that we should endeavour to put our own house in order before we can ask others to liberate men who are imprisoned or interned elsewhere. We know there are prisoners outside the Free State locked up who, according to all notions of decency and good government, ought to be free, and if we intend or expect to have any force in our arguments in making an appeal or demand for their release, then we ought to release those whom we have incarcerated ourselves.
I can hardly go back to where the President began last night. I think there were times when the President felt he had something to do to reply to Deputy Johnson, and I will leave him to reply to Deputy Johnson when he gets the opportunity. I am more concerned with the statement of the Minister for Justice. I would like to try to get to the back of the mind of the Minister, when he says that the Government, or the administration, is prepared to recognise that the people are anxious, or at least agreeable, that the Executive Council would take certain risks. That from the Minister is a welcome statement, and I think I must admit that this whole debate has been carried through in a spirit that ought to be welcome to every one who is interested in the release of the prisoners. Our intention in putting down this motion was that we would be able to accomplish the release of all the political prisoners, that we would at least know what the Government's intention was, and that it would be fairly plainly stated. The Minister for Justice makes an allusion to the indefiniteness of my motion, but particularly with reference to the tried and sentenced prisoners. I have not the time, and I have no intention of trying to determine here what type of man of those sentenced could be termed an ordinary criminal——
An extraordinary criminal.
And the type of men who are given the treatment of criminals, but who ought to be treated as political prisoners. I do not know that; I do not know the individuals, and I am not in a position to attempt to do that. The President's statement, however, is very welcome, that they had decided within the last forty-eight hours to appoint two temporary justices to review these cases, and the sentences imposed.
That is a misconception. Sanction has been given, but the thing requires examination, and the matter has been under consideration for two or three weeks, or a month, I might say.
I wonder was it after the motion was introduced.
Long before that.
I think it is to be regretted that the decision was not taken six months ago, for if that decision had been taken then, and the sentences reviewed, many prisoners would be free, and there would be no occasion for this motion. I would be glad to know if these Justices will review the sentences of those prisoners, irrespective of whether the prisoners appeal or not.
Certainly. I explained that. We are as anxious as you are to get rid of them, as they are costing £1 per week each.
Well, I hope these Justices will succeed in getting rid of every one of them. I recognise that according to law there is a difficulty as regards the sentenced prisoners, but as regards the other prisoners who you state will be down to 185, when the numbers you have under consideration will be released, we feel that everyone of these 185 ought to be released. It was our intention in bringing forward the motion that not one, two, three or half a dozen would be released, but that every one of the 185 who you say would be left after the 130 would be released, would be also liberated.
I did not give that undertaking. I gave an undertaking that it would not interrupt the consideration of the other 185, who are down to 182, for all practical purposes.
Yes, and I understand that the position of the 185 will be reviewed, just as the position of the 130 you are about to release, has been reviewed.
Certainly.
I wonder if it is in connection with this 185 the Minister for Justice thinks it might be necessary to take certain risks, and that the people will not make an unreasonable request, and also that they must recognise that the utmost leniency should be shown.
Now, if it is in connection with those prisoners that those statements have been made, I would be perfectly satisfied to leave matters as they stand at present, and to await the action of the Ministry in dealing with the remainder of those prisoners. I must say this. I do not want to make the position difficult for a single Deputy in this House. Our party had one end in view, and that was to secure the release of the political prisoners. I want to say on behalf of a good many Deputies on the Government Benches that I have, at times, had their assistance in obtaining the release of prisoners in different districts, and I must say I found them to give great assistance where it was possible. I do not want to put any Deputy in the position of appearing to be against the releases when I know they are not.
Deputy Baxter need not be afraid. We will vote with the Government. I am prepared to face the consequences.
I had not to trouble Deputy Nolan, but I must say that I recognise there is an opportunity for the different political parties to come to the top by different constitutional means, as the Minister for Justice says, by showing and proving that one body has better statesmen than the others. We want to see all political parties having all their political leaders at liberty to accomplish that end. I think our party will be perfectly agreeable to await the action of the Executive Council in dealing with the remainder of the prisoners, feeling that the Minister for Justice is speaking the mind of the Executive Council when he says he understands that the people believe they should take certain risks.
I wish to pass one remark.
Is the Deputy asking leave to withdraw his motion?
Just before he asks that, I wish to say that I am sure he did not wish to leave the public to infer that it was necessary to get the assistance of members of the Government Party to effect the release of political prisoners. There has never been an attempt in this House since it started to have a political score over another party, and so far as I am concerned, since I took up office, and even before it, as Minister for Defence, I had four times more applications for release of prisoners from other parties in the House than from the Government party.
I should say this. Where the prisoners were from constituencies represented by members of the Government party they came to some of us and we dealt with the matter through the Government benches.
Is the Deputy asking leave to withdraw his motion?
Yes.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 until Friday, 23rd May, at 12 noon.