Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 1928

Vol. 22 No. 14

PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - REVIEW OF PRISONERS' CASES—PROPOSED SELECT COMMITTEE.

Debate resumed on motion:—
"That a Select Committee to be nominated by the Committee of Selection be set up forthwith with power to review the cases of all prisoners who claim that their cases arise out of the civil war or apart from strictly legal considerations have a political aspect, and to recommend to the Executive Council the release of such prisoners." (Mr. P. J. Ruttledge.)

On the last evening this debate was in progress I went through, one by one, the cases which Deputy Ruttledge had mentioned in his speech. I reviewed the cases which he put forward as cases which required reconsideration. I also went through the cases which he referred to on which he grounded the charge, which I think I have already demonstrated to be entirely groundless, that there was a licence to murder. I will now go further and mention a few of the cases in which members of the National Army have been sentenced by courts and are still serving sentences, and I think they in themselves should be sufficient to demonstrate to any fair-minded person how utterly groundless were the charges and how utterly reckless was the manner in which the Deputy made them. I might instance James Murray, who was condemned and is now serving a term of penal servitude for life; Joseph Butler, who was condemned for the shooting of a man in Limerick in August, 1922; he was duly tried, found guilty, was sentenced to death, and is now serving a life sentence. Take, again, John Ryan, who, whilst serving in the National Army, shot dead a man with whom he was on friendly terms, while Ryan himself was greatly under the influence of drink. This took place on the 16th May, 1923, just the period of the expiration of the Amnesty. He was duly found guilty, sentenced to death, and is now serving a life sentence. Contrast that case with the case that Deputy Ruttledge put forward—the case of John Hogan.

Hogan shot a man with whose family his family had been on bad terms, because this man, when ordered to put his hands up, refused to do so. Compare that with the case of Ryan. Ryan, under the influence of drink, shoots, not an enemy, but a friend. Surely the moral guilt of Ryan is far less than the moral guilt of Hogan. If Deputy Ruttledge's contention had any foundation in fact, then Ryan should have been released long ago. Ryan must be, in common sense and justice, released before Hogan. Yet Deputy Ruttledge comes to this House and asks for the release of Hogan. So much now for the cases which Deputy Ruttledge has put forward here. But his motion goes a little bit beyond merely what he calls political prisoners. I take it we have had an exhaustive list from him, and I think I have showed what curious things he considers to be political crimes. He mentioned in this House that he, and other Fianna Fáil Deputies, had an interview with me upon this matter some months ago. He mentioned twenty names. He has mentioned some of them in this debate. Others he has not mentioned. I do not know whether he has or has not abandoned the other claims, but they certainly are the nearest things he could think of or his Party put forward, and I shall proceed to deal with the cases with which he has not already dealt.

Is there any objection to the mentioning of the names? The smaller the number of names mentioned the better.

The Minister entirely misunderstood me. There was no question of an exhaustive list. There was a question of giving some examples.

The Deputy has given his strongest examples.

Some examples.

There were ten of these already dealt with. I should like to review them one by one. I want to show that there is no substance in the charge that there are political prisoners kept in prison for political views. A great number of them have now passed. One was Riley. He complained he had not yet been tried, but the trial has taken place. Another was the case of two men about whom there was rather a muddle. They had been admitted to bail, but they had not perfected their bail bonds; they have since perfected them, and there is no question about them now. Then there was a case which was rather interesting, that of a man named McCarthy. I have made a very exhaustive search to discover who McCarthy is, and I find there is no Mr. McCarthy. He is entirely an imaginary person. That shows the splendid information which the Deputies have and the splendid information upon which they act when they ask solemnly that a man who does not exist should be released from a prison which, if I may use a bull, he is not in.

I am not sure that the Minister has read the motion to which he is speaking. The motion does not ask that the prisoners be released; it asks that a committee be set up to review the cases of certain prisoners.

"That a Select Committee to be nominated by the Committee of Selection be set up forthwith with power to review the cases of all prisoners who claim that their cases arise out of the civil war or, apart from strictly legal considerations, have a political aspect, and to recommend to the Executive Council the release of such prisoners." The substantial thing and the only thing that is asked in this motion is that prisoners should be released, not that their sentences should be reviewed, not that their terms should be reduced but that they should be released. Those are the terms of the motion.

But we are not asking the Government to release them except on the recommendation of a Select Committee of the House, on which there would be a Government majority.

I will deal with the formation of this suggested Committee when I have dealt with the specific cases.

There would be no necessity for a committee if you deal with the specific cases first.

Russell and Price, I think, I have dealt with. McCool, another man mentioned, has served his term of imprisonment, as has also Downey. There is another man—Joseph O'Keeffe. O'Keeffe was a man who held up a Guard in November, 1923, stole the Guard's clothes and, in addition, took from him a watch and chain and a sum of money. However, as far as that man is concerned, he has served two years in prison. There was reasonable ground for thinking that if released he would abandon his evil ways. I had a definite undertaking from a Deputy in this House that the prisoner would conduct himself if released, and upon that undertaking the man has actually been released. With McPeake, with Downey, with Hughes, with Hogan, and with Kavanagh we have already dealt. Other cases which were put forward included that of John O'Brien, who was serving a sentence for breaking and entering a store of the Grand Canal Company and stealing goods therefrom. That was an ordinary case of burglary, nothing else, and that was put forward here by the Fianna Fáil Party as a case with a political aspect. Unless ordinary robbery is to go unpunished because the person who committed a crime is an adherent of the Fianna Fáil Party I cannot understand how the term "political" can be applied to an offence like that, an offence which was committed in December, 1923. Another case which was mentioned was the case of O'Rourke, who, in 1925, entered the post office at Athy with another man, and took £346 worth of stamps and £102 in cash.

Are you sure of the date in that case?

He committed the offence in December, 1924, and he was convicted in 1925— an ordinary case of a type that unfortunately was common—raids on banks, raids on post offices—just an ordinary case of looting.

A DEPUTY

Like the offences committed by Seán Harling.

This man again was an adherent of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Can you prove the statement that this man was an adherent of the Fianna Fáil Party?

The Fianna Fáil Party put forward these cases.

It does not follow.

They are men who are political prisoners according to you. According to the official deputation from your Party these men are political prisoners.

The Minister should not make statements which are not correct and which he knows are not correct. No such case was made before the Minister as that these cases were purely political. He knows that. He endeavoured, as far as he could, to ascertain as to whether we stood over these as political prisoners, and he knows that no such attitude was adopted by us, but that a number of these prisoners did receive sentences some of which are political, and that others received sentences altogether out of proportion to the sentences they would have received in the ordinary way, because they were known to have certain political tendencies.

Because they were known to have certain political tendencies, and Deputy Lemass says they have not got these tendencies.

I do not follow the Deputy's ingenuity. The Deputy wants things to be proved which he knows to be a fact.

I do not. I want you to cease making statements which you know not to be facts.

I am not going to make further statements across the House. I think the Deputy has not covered himself completely with glory.

That remains to be seen.

Take another case—James Comerford, serving a sentence for armed robbery. Or take the case of Patrick Fagan, another of the cases which was mentioned, a soldier of the Free State Army, who shot his officer dead and then deserted to Fianna Fáil.

Will the Minister tell us the date? Was the Fianna Fáil Party then in existence?

The Fianna Fáil Party were not in existence then, but whatever party represented the Deputies before it came into existence, whatever party the Deputies opposite belonged to——

On the same reasoning, then, you were a Republican at one time.

Do not accuse him of that.

Fagan was a man who shot his officer. This is one of the cases which was put forward. The evidence in the case was perfectly clear. He was seen by the sister of the officer—Miss Moran—to draw back the bolt of his rifle and shoot his officer. He went further away and met the officer's brother some time afterwards in the streets of Ballina and threatened to give him the same fate. That is a case Deputies put forward as one in which there should be reconsideration. This man Fagan was sentenced; a Committee is to be set up to investigate, and it would be within their power, at any rate, to recommend the release of a man who put up his rifle to his shoulder to shoot the brother of the man he had already shot, and only that a lieutenant of the Republican Army, as I will call it, said to him: "If you attempt to fire, Pat, I will blow your brains out," he probably would have shot the other brother as well. Those are the whole of the prisoners that the Party opposite can suggest had committed crimes of a political nature. To show that these are political crimes, it would be necessary for them to take up the attitude that a crime committed by an adherent of their Party is of necessity a political crime.

Let us go on and consider the terms of this motion, and the nature of the committee which Deputy Ruttledge suggests should be set up. He asks that a committee of eight members of this House be set up to review those sentences, and to recommend the release of these prisoners. How are they to review the sentences? Some of the cases have been reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeal already. Certainly one of them has. This committee is asked presumably to set aside verdicts found by juries. They have no power to call any witnesses before them. They do not even ask, as a motion of this nature usually asks, for power to get documents. Probably the Deputy was right in not asking for such powers. Seemingly certain Fianna Fáil Deputies are to go into this committee, if it is ever set up, with their minds entirely made up. They are to decide on the canons laid down for them by their leader. They are to find such facts as would suit their Party.

Mr. BOLAND

Just like you and the Harling case.

I think the less the Deputy says about the Harling case the better.

Mr. BOLAND

So you have already found the result beforehand.

Deputy de Valera said:

In law we would be acting ultra vires in attempting to decide it. And even if we were not acting ultra vires in law, I believe this would be an improper court to decide anything of the kind. A court ought to be in the position in which it could judge, with judicial detachment, a case put before it. We do not pretend to be such a court. We decide questions here on certain Party lines.

Who is discussing the Harling case now?

That is from the Official Report of March 1st, page 646, dealing with the Larkin motion. A definite canon is laid down by the leader for his Party to follow. They are to decide on strict Party lines matters of fact, and what this House is now asked to do is to set up a committee consisting of eight members, every one of whom who is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party is to find the facts that suit his Party. That is what their leader told them to do. That, I presume, is what the Deputies would do, and that is why, I suppose, this committee is not asked to have power to summon witnesses or call for documents. Why should they, if Deputies opposite are to go in with their minds completely and entirely made up, determined to find, not facts on evidence, but upon such lines as suit them and are helpful to their Party's interests?

I have dealt now, I think, with not only the nature of the cases, but also with the constitution of this suggested tribunal. What does it all work down to except this, that the Deputies have been making statements on platforms again and again that there are political prisoners in prison who have been wrongly sentenced. Certainly, Deputy Ruttledge, the only speaker opposite so far in this debate, has not shown that there was any foundation for that charge. What does it really come down to except this, that the Party opposite, on platforms, have repeatedly and consistently been making use of as unfair political propaganda and as untrue political propaganda as has ever been used by any Party. They come here now with this motion. What is it except a motion to save their faces? What else is this motion but that? They have made charges. They must see now that there was no foundation for the charges they have made. There is one course open to them undoubtedly, the strong, manly course, the course of saying: "Well, we did make charges; we believed them at the time; we now know them to be untrue." That is not the attitude which the Party opposite naturally adopts. One does not expect very much moral courage from the Party opposite. What one finds again and again is that when challenged on issues of this nature Deputies do not express themselves. They have been asked again and again in this House what is their attitude towards political murder, what is their attitude to the taking of human life? They have never answered.

A DEPUTY

It is not the Minister's attitude on murder.

What is their attitude now on this question?

People in glasshouses should not throw stones.

Does the Minister approve of the statement that was made here to-day by the Minister for Defence, that being a Republican is a justification, if necessary, for murdering a man?

There never was such a statement made.

The Minister for Defence, as a justification for the murder of a man in Kerry, said that he was a Republican.

That is a most foolish observation.

The Minister for Defence never said anything of the kind.

I will correct the Deputy if I may. The Minister's statement with reference to a prisoner being a Republican was by way of dealing with the question of paying compensation.

I asked the Minister for Defence if he stands behind the policy of shooting prisoners. His excuse for this man being shot was that he was in arms against the State, but he was admittedly a prisoner. The answer was not too clear.

Was not that the only justification for the execution of the men on the 8th December, 1922?

We can talk about that for a long time.

We are going to.

Mr. HOGAN

There will be talk on both sides.

Might I put a question to the Minister which I would like him to answer before he finishes?

This is by way of assistance to the Minister?

There would be no good in asking about it when he is finished. There is the case of John McPeake who, the Minister last evening said, was sentenced because he was a deserter from the Free State Army and had absconded with some of the property of that Army. Will the Minister explain how he could have been a deserter from the Free State Army when technically there was no such thing as a Free State Army in existence at that particular time? They had to sign an attestation form which pledged them to the regular forces of the Irish Republican Army, which attestation form was not changed until 1923?

That is a great question.

"The dear little cherub who sits up aloft."

DEPUTIES

Answer the question.

I think I will have no difficulty in saying that the Free State Army was an existing Army, safeguarding the rights and liberties of the people of the Free State. The Free State Army is the Army which saved this country for us to live in, and the Free State Army is the Army that made it safe for people to live in this country, and to it our liberties are due.

Answer the question.

Surely we must agree that the Minister is entitled to make a speech in the House. Deputies on the opposite benches cannot compel him to make the kind of speech they want him to make.

The point is: is he making a speech?

He is certainly doing his best.

I never expect to get up to speak without having at least half a dozen Fianna Fáil Deputies shouting together. I am well used to it, and it does not put me off my stride.

We are all enjoying it. You are the biggest joke on that bench.

I am coming back to what Deputies were anxious I should get away from. Will the Deputies opposite let us know at what period murder in this country is to stop? When are we going to have an end of the doctrine that because a man belongs to a political party he can commit any crime that he likes? Will any Deputy tell us at what particular period amnesty is to begin? Might I ask the Deputies if they believe that crimes which are to be committed in the future in this country are to be excused and are to go unpunished because of the political views of the men who commit them? Let the Deputies make it clear and specific—if they can do so, and if they have ever thought out any doctrine at all—do they approve of murder at the present time? Let us know.

If the Minister wants to get out of deep water, then I would advise him to get away from murder. When they cease to condone murder then there might be a chance of giving a lead. They have condoned murder on their own Benches. Take the case of Mulrennan as proof of that.

I think Deputy Clery need not talk about deep water, because he does not seem to be a very experienced paddler even in shallow water.

It might be better to keep to the prisoners rather than to get into deeper water.

Very well. These cases have been analysed by me one by one. The theory which underlies this motion, if there is any theory at all, seems to be this, that the adherents of the Party opposite, or any allied or kindred Party, have a right to commit crimes with impunity. That is a doctrine which hits at the root of all government, and that is a doctrine which we on those Benches shall always consistently and strenuously oppose. This country has been made, by the Guards and by the Army, a peaceful country, and it is going to be kept so.

What about Seán Harling?

I think the more the Deputy keeps off Seán Harling, the better for himself. There may be a debate upon that some time—a debate on the attitude of certain Deputies—that they may find it very hard to stand over.

I hope there will be.

We stand for the preservation of order in the country, and as long as we are in power the reign of law will remain and continue in this country. The Guards will do their duty, no matter how much they are attacked; the Army will do its duty, and peace will be preserved.

The Minister mentioned one prisoner, an ex-National Army man. What was the charge against James Murray?

One cross-examiner at a time.

I knew a good deal about this case. I knew the man he murdered very well. I honestly believe that if he was on the other side he would not be alive to-day.

The man was sentenced to imprisonment.

And you are now boasting about it.

He is in prison. He is not in his grave.

Neither is Hogan in his grave.

I must certainly congratulate the Government on its discovery of the Minister for Justice. He is certainly a gem of the first water. He requires from this Party accurate and definite information on all points. He, with a very efficient Department at his disposal, is able to give us some information which is certainly most inaccurate. I suppose I had better not say he deliberately misled the House, or tried to do so; but he certainly tried to mislead the House, and, whether deliberately or not, he misled it in one sense.

Will the Deputy tell me how he arrives at that conclusion?

There was one case in which the Minister said that a certain man named Hughes was tried for an offence which he committed in 1926. Deputy Allen and I questioned him about it. He was getting away with it all right when I asked him was this man tried in 1926 for an offence committed in 1922. The Minister was quite definite in stating that the crime was committed in 1926, but when he was pulled up he admitted the crime was committed in 1923. That was a slight inaccuracy on the part of a gentleman with such a fine Department at his disposal.

If the Deputy thinks I am completely infallible and that in a great number of cases I cannot slip occasionally, he really is putting me on a higher pedestal than I deserve.

I would not accuse the Minister of infallibility. The Minister wants to know from us the sources of our information. The Minister is a gentleman who never had experience of the sources of information which were considered good enough by his colleague, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, and by Deputy Gearoid O'Sullivan, who was one time A.G.— sources of information which would be quite good enough for any member of the old Sinn Fein movement. In spite of all the Minister's attempts to seal up these sources, they are still available. I contradicted the Minister when he stated emphatically certain things in regard to one prisoner, the important prisoner in this case, George Gilmore. I definitely said that Gilmore was treated in a most inhuman manner. We are asked to produce our sources of information in order that those sources of information may be dealt with in the same manner as the prisoner who was allowed out on ticket-of-leave —a prisoner named Kavanagh—was dealt with. Kavanagh may have been one of our sources of information. I do not want to have him put into what was called in slang terms the knocking shop by saying here and now that he was one of our sources of information, because they have got the man again.

Any Minister who took part in our fight for independence before the split would have accepted the sources of information we had, but a gentleman of the traditions of the Minister certainly could not. We are told that Kavanagh was released and that if he had behaved as a well-behaved citizen he would still be at large. What was Kavanagh's offence? Simply putting up posters describing the treatment meted out to some of his fellow prisoners. I will not go any further into the question of the sources of our information, for the reason that I do not want to have other discharged prisoners put back into jail or, perhaps, some officials shoved out of their jobs. I think the Minister for Local Government and Public Health has a pretty fair idea, and so has Deputy O'Sullivan a pretty fair idea, of the sources of information we had at the time when probably their colleague was very much against the whole movement. I think that will dispose of the question why we should not be courteous enough to disclose the sources of our information. I am going to state deliberately here that Gilmore was treated in a most inhuman fashion. I could give you some of the details and, too, if there was any chance of getting immunity for our sources of information, I could prove it to the hilt. He was dragged from the top to the bottom of the stairs in Mountjoy.

The motion does not refer to the question of the treatment of persons in prison, but simply seeks for a review of the cases of the persons in prison with a view to their release. I do not think that the question of the treatment of persons in prison is referred to in the motion as drafted.

I accept that, but I think it is most unfair if you insist on keeping me to order when I am getting after the Minister for Justice. I am going to make him very small beer before this is out, if I am allowed.

I have no objection to the Deputy making the Minister for Justice anything he pleases, but, on this motion, the Deputy must not go into the question of the treatment of prisoners. The motion is clearly directed to getting an inquiry into the cases of prisoners, with a view to their release. It does not deal with the question of their treatment.

Does it not arise out of the question as to whether the prisoner is——

The Deputy will please let me proceed. The question that does arise is the question of prisoners who were sentenced or who are in prison, and why their cases should go to a Committee with a view to their release. The whole question of the treatment of prisoners in prison is a different question, and it has not been dealt with so far. I have said it was not relevant to this motion and, plainly, it is not, and, plainly, I could not let Deputy Boland deal with it.

On a point of order, I want to point out that the question arises out of whether a particular person is a political prisoner or not. George Gilmore's treatment was meted out to him because he claimed to be a political prisoner; because he claimed to be a political prisoner, he was treated as an ordinary prisoner, and the struggle that took place and the torture that was imposed upon him was in the course of an attempt to beat him as an ordinary criminal. He claims he is a political prisoner, and the matter arises on the question of whether he is a political prisoner or not.

The question of treatment does not now arise. It may arise in a different way.

In this particular case I have read through the Minister's speech. I am not quite sure if he did refer to it, but you pulled me up when I was coming to it. I was one of a deputation who went to see the Minister on one occasion on this matter. Deputy Lemass and Deputy MacEntee were with me. We were half an hour with the Minister and we made a very definite case about the treatment of George Gilmore. I am not going to insist on the idea of putting up a separate Committee at all in that matter, but I am going to ask the Government if they are going to make any effort to meet the situation. We interviewed the Minister and we made certain very definite statements about the treatment of this particular man. He denied it and we asked him on what grounds, and he told us that his officials had assured him that that was the case; he, being of the type that will accept an official's explanation without investigation, thought that should be sufficient. Then we asked him would he first of all let one of our Deputies go to the prison and see Gilmore; or failing that, would he even allow an independent doctor, who had no connection with the Government, to go and examine the man——

That is going into the whole question again.

As he would not do that there is a case for the Committee.

I would ask to be allowed to intervene for a moment. The Deputy has stated that I came to the conclusion without any investigation. The charges which the Deputy made to me I very carefully investigated, and concluded they were not justified; and the Deputy should not now say that I came to the conclusion without investigation.

I do not want to be unjust. The Minister said he had investigated the cases fully. We said we had no confidence in the people that he had put to investigate this matter, and we asked that one of our Party be allowed to go and see the prisoner; we asked that the prisoner should be allowed to write to his mother or father. He had not written for twelve months to his mother, and we asked that he be allowed to see his father or his mother, or failing that, that the Minister would allow an independent doctor, whom he himself could nominate, and in whom we had confidence, to see the prisoner. The Minister would not agree. I submit, in these circumstances, there is a case for the setting up of an independent tribunal. I do not care what it is. I do not care whether it is a Committee or a Commission, but I ask that somebody independent of the Government should be allowed to investigate that particular case. I just want to say that I could never convince the Minister for Justice in the matter of the sources of my information, for the reason that he is of the class or type that never took part in any of these struggles, and that he had no sympathy with them and never had, and I could not expect him to understand these matters; but surely his colleagues had, and they were quite satisfied to accept those sources of information at one time. In the case of Kavanagh, I have not got the details. There is a question here of the agent-provocateur having been engaged in this case, a gentleman named Hardy, and I promised the Minister to give him some information; and I say this now, that if he will put the means at my disposal to go over the whole thing I could prove it that this man was what we alleged.

I go back to the year 1922 and I can tell the House definitely that this particular gentleman organised an attack on a military post, a Free State post in Glendalough. He was with us in Blessington. I put him in charge of an outpost there. I was in charge of the area. This particular gentleman organised an attack on a Glendalough post on the Free State troops. He informed the military and actually cooperated with them and actually got some of those he had lured into this thing arrested. That may be all right in war-time but surely the Government is not going to stand over that thing now. As a military man, I would not of course blame any officer for taking advantage of that but when it comes to taking up again a gentleman after he had been convicted of bank robbery it is a different matter. I am not going to object to clemency to any prisoner. I do not object to it if the Government show clemency to the Free State side, but now that there is a cool atmosphere in the country and if they are to be treated leniently and if people on our side are to be treated leniently, I am not going to complain. But this man was caught red-handed in Portobello and he is released immediately and the excuse given—a very thin excuse for such a gentleman—is that it was a case of mistaken identity. That is a very thin excuse for a Minister who is so fond of particularity and formality. He said:—"I can show that Hardy's case was a case of mistaken identity." The Minister has not proved that yet, and perhaps he will take the trouble to prove it if Hardy is in the land of the living.

As regards Kavanagh's crime, I state here—and if I am wrong let the Minister contradict me—that Kavanagh was sentenced for this robbery and he was released. The Minister stated here in the Dáil:

"Kavanagh was, as a matter of fact, released on licence but he did not carry out the terms of his licence. Instead of conducting himself as a law-abiding citizen he took a completely different course and his licence was in consequence revoked."

I say in answer to that matter that the conduct unbecoming a law-abiding citizen was that he gave information about the treatment of a prisoner. They have him again and I suggest that he may be punished again for that now. Anyway the charge was that he gave this information about some of his fellow-prisoners who had been badly treated. He also put up posters describing that treatment. That was what brought this unfortunate man into jail again. He is punished for a crime that there is every reason to believe, at least if we are allowed to prove it, was provoked by a person who has been certainly very leniently treated by the Government.

I come now to another class of prisoner and here is where the value of the present Minister comes in, the value of the Minister to his Party. Happy man. I was in jail for four years. He was never in jail. He tells us here about two men who are in jail for the last four months, to wit Michael Price and Sean Russell. I wonder would the Minister for Local Government and Public Health who sat on the same Council with Sean Russell during the Black and Tan time, come here and say that Sean Russell is a criminal.

The point I want to make is, that the Minister tells us that these men are not prisoners at all. What are they? They are not prisoners? No, they are only in gaol. If the Minister ever had the experience of being a prisoner himself, especially of a prisoner awaiting trial, he would know that that period is really the worst part of the imprisonment. I was in that position myself a couple of times, and I can tell the Minister that that period is really the worst, because during it a man is stuck in and gets 22 hours solitary confinement. These men are now there four months. The Minister says, I suppose in his innocence—perhaps that is the mildest way of putting it— that they are not prisoners at all. I refer him to his own speech.

I explained that they were brought to trial, that they refused to speak when a jury was empanelled, and that they are still untried prisoners.

They are prisoners now.

The Minister has now qualified it. This brings me to another case, of one who is a prisoner now. This man has been referred to as a prisoner, and, therefore, I think I am in order in speaking of him. It is the case of my friend, Ned Reilly. We had occasion previously to raise the case, amongst a number of others, of this man. I do not think the Minister opposite would call Reilly a criminal. I would not like to hear him call him a criminal, any way. The Minister said this man was not a prisoner at all, but he was in gaol for practically twelve months. During one of my usual interruptions I accused the Minister and the Government of trying utterly to break Reilly. He was a man who lost his health in the struggle against the British. He was one of the best men in Tipperary, and was suffering from neuritis. I was assured by the Minister, when I referred to this case on a previous occasion, that the man had gained in weight and improved. I met this man when he came out, and I can say they fairly well succeeded in breaking him. The man is a physical wreck, I regret to say. He was twelve months in gaol as a prisoner.

In the name of common sense, does the Minister think we are all as innocent as he is? I wonder are his colleagues as innocent as he is? There is another principle that I think seems to have been accepted, because the defence put up for a certain Vote the other day was that the thing was over and that the Minister who was involved at the time made some extraordinary sort of defence. He spoke about absorption, and said that the absorption of this year should not be the absorption of the year before. I would like to know, will the privilege that has been extended to this Minister of being in the position to pass from the absorption of one year to the absorption of another be extended to these prisoners, practically everyone of whom is suffering for offences committed at least four or five years ago?

There were prisoners mentioned by Deputy Ruttledge and the Minister, but there are some men in gaol at present who were not mentioned by either of them. I think the Minister will remember that, when I had an interview with him, I put up to him cases for sympathetic consideration by the Government, the cases of men who were on the run at the time, who were hunted men, particularly the men rescued from Mountjoy in 1925. A good number of those men were awaiting trial at the time they were rescued. Advantage was taken of the fact that the gates were open. There is scarcely any man of spirit in the House who, if he were in gaol and in their position, would not take advantage of the gates being open. In view of the fact that the gates were open, it is questionable whether some of the prisoners would have got any sentences at all.

I have in mind one particular case, that of an old man who was awaiting trial. Naturally when he saw the gates open he went out. That man is most anxious to go home, but the Minister in his innocence asks "Cannot they surrender?" There was certainly a sort of hint given by me to these people, though I certainly had no grounds to give it, that they might surrender, and that perhaps they would get some sort of humane treatment. Acting on the hint, and being forced out by economic causes which of course are going to tell in the long run, all these men who were really prisoners did come out. One of them, a man named James Donnelly, got nine months' imprisonment.

Does the Deputy suggest that he voluntarily surrendered himself?

No, I did not say that. He came out in the hope that the Government, in the altered circumstances of the country, due to the changes that have taken place in the Republican movement, somehow or other might possibly have their cases favourably considered. To use a slang phrase, one of them "got it in the neck." He got nine months' imprisonment. I do not know what the original charge was. He was not tried at the time. The others are going to keep as they are until they are beaten. On the occasion that I refer to, I also suggested to the Minister that the practice of hounding down these men on the run, as well as the incident that occurred a couple of days before in Clonmel, when one of those escaped men was fired on and wounded by the Guard, would inevitably, if the Government did not take a decent line in this matter, lead to somebody amongst those prisoners firing back on the Guards. I am forced back to the statement I made in the debate on the Supplementary Estimate when I said that every effort that had been made by this Party here either to forget the past or to get the country into a decent line of ordered government again has been simply turned down, and that one attempt after another has been made to stir up strife again. As regards the men on the run who, one may say, are to all intents and purposes prisoners, I say there is a case for investigation by someone, whether it is by this particular Committee or some other body. If the Government is going to take up an adamant attitude on the matter, as they have done in most things, I do not know what to say as regards the prospects of ultimate peace.

This has only just occurred to me: Suppose we here do not insist on our Committee, would the Minister give an undertaking to have the whole thing reviewed by the Government if we do not put this motion to a vote. What I suggest is that all these cases should be reviewed. Let the case for all the people concerned be stated. I want to put this straight to the Government: that if they really want goodwill in the country, and if they want peace here, they will only get it in one way, and that is by doing what they have never done up to this—doing something decent. They have never attempted it yet.

I think I have gone pretty far in the matter now. This is a serious matter, and I want to tell the Government that it is absolutely up to them to make some move, and not to be satisfied with sending 48 of 57 Deputies on this side into one Lobby, and marching with their own followers into the opposite Lobby. I tell them that they must make one attempt at least. I may tell the Government this, that the attempts that we have made to make the Republican movement a constitutional movement have been met with scorn by them. They have tried to side-track it again. If it does come to that, let the blame be on themselves and on those who are remaining adamant on this. There is one point that I want to insist on. It is that you are not going to make criminals out of men like Gilmore, Seán Russell and Mick Price and several others whom the Minister has conveniently glossed over, although the Minister himself accused Deputy Ruttledge of hurrying over some of the cases.

He did not hurry over them, because he did not even refer to them. One case over which we can stand best he did not refer to at all. I think I have dealt with the reason why we will not reveal our source of information. I have made that clear. I do not want the House to infer that it is not because we do not reveal it that we have not got it. In spite of all attempts to seal them up, we have still our sources of information, and they are just as reliable as they were when the gentleman opposite was the head of our forces. There is a chance, I think, if it is taken in the proper way, to stop the strife and warfare which have been so often talked about.

I am not anxious that the House should be turned into a super court of appeal, as it were, but at the same time I am voting for this motion, and I will state the reasons why I intend to do so. I believe every Deputy, regardless of Party, should do his part to remove the bitter memories of the civil war period. I think the intention of the mover of the motion was not very well served by going into the facts of certain cases and mentioning particular names. I am anxious to find out what the Fianna Fáil Party mean by constitutional political activity. I think that cannot be done any better way than by agreeing to the setting up of this committee, before which Deputy Boland and others, speaking for the men whose names have been mentioned, will be asked to come and will have to put down in black and white their view of the charges that have been preferred against particular individuals that have been mentioned in the House. We will have on the one hand the advantage of hearing the case on behalf of persons in prison for political or criminal offences, and we will have the advantage of hearing the Government side of the case in reply. I think that will be an education to members of the House who are not prepared to waste time going into each case. We will have on the public records of the country, for the benefit of all whom it may concern, and who may wish to make use of them, the real ideas behind the minds of the people who are speaking for those who are in prison to-day for alleged political offences when in reality some of them might be crimes of the worst kind. I made up my mind to vote for this motion for the reasons given by Deputy Boland in the latter part of his speech. I do not think we will be helping to remove the bitter memories of the civil war period by employing forces to chase after men who escaped from prison under circumstances cited by Deputy Boland. Some believe those men who walked out when the door was open for them are not guilty of any great offence. If the committee is set up it will have the benefit of having the cases made by both sides in regard to those persons. There is a man who had long associations with the pre-truce strife, and who was a T.D. for my area. He escaped from Mountjoy Jail when he found the door was open, and he would have been a fool if he had remained in under the circumstances. I made representations to the late Minister for Justice to allow that man to go home and get the benefit of the amnesty, and to forget the bitter memories of the past, but that was not agreed to.

I understand from Deputy Boland that a similar appeal was made to the Minister on a recent occasion when a deputation from Fianna Fáil waited on him. I am sorry the Minister cannot take the long and broad view in regard to these cases, because I believe that if a case can be made to this House and to the country there should be no further harassing of the men who escaped. I am anxious to find out what is the real meaning of constitutional political activity. I listened to many of the speeches with great interest made by Fianna Fáil Deputies since they came into the House, but I have not been able to make up my mind as to where they stand. They will, in the natural course of events—I may be wrong—come into power in this country, and they will then have to determine to what extent political activities are confined to constitutional activities or opposition to their own Government. I am not the sort of person who believes that we are all going to become saints and scholars when the Fianna Fáil Party occupy seats on the Government Benches. Deputy Aiken may get it out of his mind that when he sits in the seat of the mighty and issues orders as Minister for Defence that the people have reached that stage of civilisation or political commonsense as to stand to attention and say, "We bow to the rule and dictation of Deputy Aiken as Minister for Defence." Too much demoralisation has been created as a result of the Civil War to hope that we will come to an ideal state of affairs when Deputy Aiken and Deputy Boland take control. The day may come when they will have to sit in the seats of the mighty and dictate to the common people, and they may find that they are up against the same kind of alleged political activity as the Government is at present. I cannot decide for myself, as a result of the discussion, as to who is a criminal offender or a political offender, or a semi-political or semi-criminal offender. That is for the Committee to do. I believe it would be a good day's work for the Dáil and will save a good deal of discussion to set up this Committee, and I hope to learn, as a result of the Committee's deliberations, the real meaning of constitutional activity as interpreted by the Fianna Fáil.

Do you offer yourself as a subject for experiment?

You can state your own case.

I think it would be right to inform Deputy Davin that Fianna Fáil is a slightly constitutional party. We are perhaps open to the definition of a constitutional party, but before anything we are a Republican party. We have adopted the method of political agitation to achieve our end, because we believe, in the present circumstances, that method is best in the interests of the nation and of the Republican movement, and for no other reason.

It took you five years to make up your mind.

Five years ago the methods we adopted were not the methods we have adopted now. Five years ago we were on the defensive, and perhaps in time we may recoup our strength sufficiently to go on the offensive. Our object is to establish a Republican Government in Ireland. If that can be done by the present methods we have we will be very pleased, but if not we would not confine ourselves to them. The attitude the Minister has taken up on this is one which I regard more in sorrow than in anger. They have taken a narrow view and adopted the attitude that if they can justify their detention of the prisoners in jail and their chase of the men on the run in a manner sufficiently glib to convince the majority in this House their duty is done. Their attitude on the concrete facts of the prisoners is in direct variance with the words they used on other occasions when they asked us to forget the past and co-operate with them in building up the economic strength of the nation. Are we to take it that the speeches we have listened to from President Cosgrave and other members on the Government Benches were just cute devices to get the Government out of an awkward situation, to avoid discussion on matters that were unpleasant to the Government, that there was no meaning behind what they said, but that they were just giving a demonstration of general hypocrisy?

Are we to take it that when President Cosgrave was speaking on the Army Vote, speaking in the manner which Deputy Boland has mentioned when he asked us to let these bitter memories die out, if we could, that he did not mean it, that they were only words he was speaking, and that when he is given an opportunity of putting these sentiments into practice he immediately tears off the mask and show, himself to be unchanged and in the same position which he always occupied? The Minister for Justice has given us a number of details with reference to prisoners. He has mentioned why such-and-such a man is kept in, and why somebody else is let out. He told us, for instance, that McPeake, who deserted from the Free State Army with an armoured car, was unworthy of our consideration because he was a deserter. In the years we have passed through, there have been many deserters from the Free State Army, and quite a number of deserters from the Republican Army. The deserters from the Republican Army were, in fact, unique in number, and many of these deserters are occupying seats in this House. There were, as I say, a number of deserters from the Free State Army to the Republican Army. After the attack on the Four Courts—I was on active service then—I remember one night there came out of the town of Carlow three Crossley tenders packed with deserters from the Free State Army. They brought their tenders and arms with them, and many, after participating in the campaign, were arrested and afterwards released. The amnesty seemed to apply to them. There were many other cases. Some of those who deserted were executed, but others were not executed and were released. Why was exception made in the case of McPeake? After all, what he did was done by hundreds of others. He deserted with an armoured car. That may be particularly galling to members opposite, but it only in a degree affects the case.

The men who deserted in Carlow did not desert with an armoured car, because they could not get it. They took what they could, and if they could have thrown in an armoured car they would have done so, and we would have been very glad to receive it. These men were released, but McPeake is in jail. Is it necessary for the maintenance of the State, for the maintenance of the Treaty position, that he should still be in jail? Is it necessary in the interests of the nation—if we may refer to the nation here—that this particular case should be picked out from thousands of others and that this man should be retained in prison? There was the case of the men who escaped from Mountjoy. There was a rescue of prisoners from Mountjoy. The operation was carried out successfully, and nobody was injured. I am sure that the Minister for Local Government, who has some experience in these matters, will admit that it was a nice job, neatly carried out. The men escaped. Did the incident shake the foundations of the State so severely that it was necessary to inflict punishment at any cost on everyone connected with it?

Was the incident of such a nature that to-day, three years after it occurred, if the officers of the law put their hands on any of the men who escaped, they must be sent to jail and sentenced to months of imprisonment for having anything to do with it. When the Public Safety Bill was going through this House I remember reading in the Press—the Press may have as usual misreported the speech—a statement by President Cosgrave that at that particular time, towards the end of 1925, I was Minister for Defence in the Republican Army, and Mr. Aiken was Chief of Staff. I do not know where President Cosgrave got his information. A number of these sensational disclosures which were made here were wrong and were founded on false information, and, possibly, this information was of the same kind. But, if the information was correct, then Deputy Aiken and myself must have had knowledge of the Mountjoy incident and have sanctioned it, and, if the incident was of such a nature that three years after the event everyone connected with it must be punished to save the prestige of the State, it is strange that Deputy Aiken and I are here if we had anything to do with it, while those who were actually engaged in it are prisoners in Mountjoy.

The Minister for Defence says, "hear, hear." Either it is not correct to inflict this severe punishment or else President Cosgrave's statement is not correct. I do not want to go to prison. I am not inviting the Government to arrest me and put me on trial. Surely in this year, 1928, it is possible to draw a veil over events that happened in 1925. A lot of water has flown under the Liffey bridges since then. Many developments occurred in the political life of this country since then, and the situation which now exists bears no resemblance to the situation in 1925. I think, if those on the Government Benches, who spoke of the need of co-operation and the need for unity of effort amongst all parties meant one iota of what they said they would see the advisability of that incident, at any rate, being forgotten and of those connected with it, either members of the rescue party or prisoners rescued, being allowed to return to their homes. If it is punishment you want I think that those who took part in it have been punished enough. A man cannot be three years on the run, away from his home and family, living from hand to mouth on the countryside, without meeting with considerable hardship. If it is merely a desire to punish which is animating the Government, they can rest assured that that desire has been gratified. If they want to make unity of effort possible they must remember that the men on the run are a constant source of danger to that achievement. They are desperate. They are being hunted down like madmen, like lunatics at large, preaching the gospel of desperation. They are carrying the creed of violence into the homes they visit and amongst the people they meet and finally, sooner or later, if the Government persist in their present policy that creed of violence, that spark of violence which they are fanning to flame, will burst into flame, and this country will be driven back to the position it was in a few years ago. I move the adjournment of the debate until Friday next.

Top
Share