Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 23 Mar 1928

Vol. 22 No. 16

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

Debate resumed on the following 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" (Patrick J. Ruttledge).

Mr. LEMASS

In the discussion on this motion on Wednesday last, the speech by the Minister for Justice made it clear that there are three classes of prisoners under consideration. In the first class, there are prisoners who have not been released under what is called the amnesty of 1924. I have knowledge of only one such case—there may be others—and that is the case of the man McPeake. No argument has been put forward for the continued detention of McPeake. The statement was made by the Minister for Justice that he was detained because he was a deserter. We could prove that hundreds of others who had been in prison as deserters from the Army were released. It is, I think, more than obvious that the amnesty was introduced not so much to enable the Government to release the prisoners which it held from the Republican side in the civil war, as to to enable it to avoid having to put into prison a very considerable number of the National Army. But the amnesty was introduced, and as the Government takes credit for it on every conceivable occasion, we think it should apply its terms consistently when a case is brought to its notice of one who is undoubtedly covered by it and who is still in jail. That case should be given special consideration and an immediate release ordered.

There is in the second category the class of prisoners who escaped from Mountjoy Prison in 1925, and we submit that there can be no question in anyone's mind that these men are not criminals in the ordinary sense. Their imprisonment is an indication of a certain political situation in this country, and we suggest that the welfare of the country, its stability, its order and progress depend very largely on our being able to remove such causes of bitterness as exist, and one of the gravest causes of bitterness and strife that exists is the continued detention of these men and the savage and vindictive sentences which have been imposed upon such of them as have recently been re-arrested. The Minister read us a long list of prisoners and the crimes, as he described them, for which they were sentenced. He asked us if we maintained that these men were political prisoners and should be released as such. As I pointed out to the Minister, we have not asked that these prisoners should be released. We asked that "A Select Committee, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, be set up forthwith 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."

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

Read the end of the motion.

Mr. LEMASS

"and to recommend to the Executive Council the release of such prisoners."

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

That was carefully left out.

Mr. LEMASS

With power to recommend to the Executive Council. If you like we will amend the motion. What we want to have considered by this House is the advisability of setting up a committee to review all these cases and to recommend to the Dáil and the Executive Council the release of such of them as can be clearly proved to be political prisoners. We do not want the release of any others. If the Minister thinks he can convince that committee that the prisoners whose names he read out are not political prisoners, very well. On that committee there would be a majority holding the same views as he holds, and he would have no difficulty whatever in convincing them. If the Government are anxious that the causes of friction should be removed, the setting up of this committee would be one step in that direction. We are not coming here with a demand for the release of any prisoners whom we care to name, or anything of that kind, but to set up a committee to examine the situation, and we ask you to release definitely the men whose imprisonment arose directly out of the civil war and who for some reason were not released under the amnesty. We ask you to consider the advisability of forgetting the events that arose in the year 1925, and to release the men now being punished for having escaped from prison on that occasion. As we pointed out, there is a different situation now existing, and if you persist in ignoring that fact you will succeed undoubtedly in bringing the country back to the situation that then existed. If that is what you want, well and good. There is also the case of the third class of prisoners, about whom there is considerable doubt. Many of the names the Minister read out did not at first sight appear to me to be political prisoners. Deputy Ruttledge pointed out that he did not mention half of them, and the Minister drew on a general list and pretended that we were claiming their release. We were not.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

Deputy Ruttledge mentioned all the names to me. All the names that I read Deputy Ruttledge and the other Deputies who were associated with him, mentioned.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE

I do not know what the Minister is talking about. He may be talking about some interview, but not about what occurred in this House.

Mr. LEMASS

What we suggest is that a Committee should be set up, and that those who maintain that these prisoners are political prisoners should be allowed to make their case before that Committee, and that the Minister should be allowed to make any rebutting case he can. Whatever view the majority of the Committee take we will be quite satisfied to abide by in this particular instance. We consider that a debate of this nature is not one that should be made an opportunity for raising or venting party passions or anything of that kind. We are all anxious, I hope, to ensure that some general basis for co-operation, some line along which there can be unity of effort on the part of all the people of Ireland can be found, so that however we may disagree as to the ultimate goal at which we should arrive, or however we may disagree as to the names we shall call ourselves or matters of that kind, we can at least work together in the things we have in common. If we want to get that co-operation and that sense of unity of effort we have got, even at the sacrifice of a little pride, to cut out everything that is likely to militate against it. Undoubtedly, the one thing that is militating against it is the continued detention of these prisoners, particularly those who have been held since the civil war, and those now in prison for having escaped in 1925.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I desire to support the motion. My main reason for doing so is that I believe it is in the interests of this country that this House should do all it can to wipe out the bitter memories of the last three years. I am satisfied from what I have been told, in my own constituency at any rate, that the majority of the people who were opposed very strongly to the men who are now in prison believe that they should be released if their only crime was a political crime. I am not asking and would not ask for the release of any ordinary criminal simply because he was pleased to say he belonged to a certain political organisation. I doubt if the Fianna Fáil Party would even ask that, but I say there is not going to be a spirit of peace in this country or in this House unless we are prepared to wipe out so far as we can everything that happened during the last five or six years. We have had to sit here and listen to terrible accusations hurled across the House by members of the two large Parties. That is, perhaps, not to be wondered at. There are members on the Fianna Fáil and Cumann na nGaedheal Benches who have reason to feel sore over certain things that happened during the last five or six years. There are many members on both sides of the House who have had to endure great personal losses and endure great personal sorrows, and it is perhaps too much to ask even now that they should forget these things. But I think it is not too much to ask that they should forgive what has happened. That is what we ask. I must say that a better headline should be set from the front Benches on both sides. I would appeal to members of the Government Party to follow the line taken by President Cosgrave rather than the line taken by the Minister for Defence last evening. On the other hand, I would ask the members of the Fianna Fáil Party to follow the line set by Deputy Boland and Deputy Lemass in the concluding part of his speech to-day, rather than follow the line of those who shout "murder" across the House, and so on. That will not get us anywhere, and whether we are aiming to keep the Free State or whether we are aiming for full and complete independence, neither will be achieved by calling each other murderers. If anything at all will happen arising out of that it will be that the country will suffer, and that the poor people will suffer. When we get up to make our contributions to a debate we ought not to speak as if no person other than ourselves was concerned or would be affected by what we say. We ought to have in mind that these accusations, true or false, will not help to secure greater production, more peace and more prosperity. I hope for the sake of the country and for the sake of those on both sides who laid down their lives for the country that a different attitude will be adopted. Great Irishmen on both sides were shot down. You had Michael Collins and Cathal Brugha, great Irishmen unquestionably, each of them in his heart, I am satisfied, believing that he was doing his best for Ireland in the best possible way, and we ought to admit that. I am quite satisfied that there are as good Irishmen on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches as on the Fianna Fáil Benches, and that there are as good Irishmen on the Fianna Fáil Benches as on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches.

A DEPUTY

And on the Labour Benches.

Mr. MORRISSEY

And on the Labour Benches, and on the Independent Benches. We are all Irishmen and we are all, I hope, proud of our country. I hope we will all do what we can to make it as free and as prosperous as we possibly can. I suggest to the Government that it would be a good thing for the peace of the country and for the good government of the country if they were magnanimous in this matter. The Government can afford to be magnanimous, and the Government ought to consider before anything else the peace of the country, because unless we are to have peace, unless, as Deputy Lemass said, we can agree to come here and agree to differ and to fight, each from his own point of view, for the welfare and the destinies of this nation, the sooner this House is scrapped the better.

For that reason, and for no other reason, for the sake of the country, because we desire above anything else to see peace in this country, because turmoil in this country will lean more heavily on the poor and the workers than on any other section, we support this motion. We hope that the Government will agree to set up the tribunal asked for, or some similar tribunal, so that these cases may be investigated. If it is found that the statements made on behalf of those prisoners are true they should be released; if it is proved, on the other hand, to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the statements made on their behalf are not true, then certainly they should be kept in prison. I would appeal very strongly to Deputies to see that they are prepared to do what they can to make the passage to complete unity and complete peace as smooth as they possibly can, and that they will vote for the motion.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

I think Deputy Morrissey is taking the situation too seriously entirely.

Mr. MORRISSEY

It cannot be taken too seriously.

Mr. HOGAN

I think the Deputy is. Let me put this consideration to him: You can have peace, unity, forgiveness and all the rest of it which you are calling for on the basis of telling the truth and facing up to the facts. Anything else would be a false peace and a false unity.

Interruption.

Mr. HOGAN

Do not start interrupting me so soon.

Mr. BOLAND

We are only encouraging you.

Mr. AIKEN

We are only agreeing with the basis on which the Minister starts off.

Mr. HOGAN

As we are on this question of unity, a lot of nonsense is talked about unity—utter meaningless drivel. Unity is not an ideal in any civilised country. The ideal of unity seems to be completely misunderstood. The healthiest things in the world are honest differences. There is, though, a fundamental unity in all countries. I am afraid that there is not a fundamental unity here. And the reason why there is not a fundamental unity here is because all democratic forms are denied. I will tell you how you can have unity, on one basis and on one basis only. There is no use in talking about forgive and forget. If you were serious you would not talk about that. Men who have quarrelled do not kiss, and fall on each other's necks and make it up; they respect each other and they say nothing; they carry on. But if you want unity I will tell you how you can get it, and you will get it on no other lines from this Government. You will get it on the basis of obeying the laws made by the people. You can have unity on no other basis. No cajolery, no appeals, no trickery, no fine phrases will get over that fact. As long as we have the authority of the people of this country, that is to say, as long as we remain a majority, you can have unity on no other basis than one, that the people's law is to be obeyed.

Mr. G. BOLAND

Is the Minister prepared to obey the law of this country?

Mr. HOGAN

Absolutely.

Mr. G. BOLAND

Might I ask him if that is so, why he was guilty of gross contempt of court in Ballaghadereen during the June election when he accused a person who was awaiting trial of being guilty of the crime with which he was charged? He has asked us to obey the law. Is he prepared to obey the law?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The difficulty is that the Minister for Lands and Agriculture is entitled to make a speech. If he was not entitled to make a speech everything would be all right from Deputy Boland's point of view, but he is entitled to make a speech, and I think the mistake that Deputies on the Opposition Benches make is that they feel, when a statement is made with which they do not agree, that it is necessary for them to get up and contradict it.

Interruption.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I must again make the statement for Deputy Boland, that the Minister for Lands and Agriculture is entitled to make his speech. In this particular case the only way we can come to any conclusion is to allow the Minister to proceed.

Mr. HOGAN

I can answer that question. Of course if I committed an offence there is a judge and a jury to deal with it that will not be intimidated by me. I will not send them any threatening notices if I appear before them. There is a judge and jury there, and if I am convicted I will grin and bear it and I will not cry. If I have broken the law they are there to bring me to book, and if they do I will take my medicine without whining.

Mr. G. BOLAND

I suppose another question would not be in order?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

As a matter of fact, what I feel is that the connection between the prisoners and unity is somewhat remote, but I do think there is a connection at the same time.

Mr. HOGAN

I am merely answering the speeches that have been made.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I see that.

Mr. HOGAN

The Labour Party point of view is an extremely serious point of view on this, but I do ask them to think of the circumstances, and I do ask them if we are going to have any unity that is worth anything to the country on the basis that is suggested from the opposite benches. You will not. You will betray the ideal which you say you wish to serve, the ideal of unity, of peace, of decent and orderly development. We may for the moment, for the next week, agree to give away everything, to give away all the authority that the people gave us, to give away all the people's rights, and have peace for a week, but would we have any real peace? You will never have peace in this country, you will never have unity, you will never have civilised conditions, you will never have development of any kind, until the people's law is respected.

Mr. BOLAND

By Ministers too.

Mr. HOGAN

By Ministers too. I doubt if the Deputy is really puzzled about the distinction. Mind you, I am not a saint. I do not mind a man breaking the law provided that he is willing to abide by the result. When I say that I do not mind that, do not misunderstand me. People will break the civil law and the criminal law, but public representatives should not encourage them to do it.

A DEPUTY

We are not doing so.

Mr. HOGAN

I do not say the Deputy did. There should be, at least, in the Parliament, where the laws are made, the idea that the law must be obeyed and that the law is sacred. There can be no freedom without law. Freedom is a right to operate within the law; freedom is a state of affairs where men are strong and free, but where the law is greater and stronger than any man. That is the only definition of freedom—the only definition of freedom that is respected in any civilised white country.

Mr. LITTLE

And what happens when there is an unjust law?

Mr. HOGAN

That is a quibble of the worst kind. No law that the majority of this Dáil makes can be regarded by any minority as unjust.

Mr. LITTLE

Rubbish.

Mr. LEMASS

Nonsense.

Mr. HOGAN

And if any minority takes up the position that a law made by the majority, after a free discussion, is unjust and that they have a right, as Deputy Lemass claimed, to upset that law by force and violence, give up talking of a republic, because you are prostituting the word. Republic means the rule of the people. "The public thing," is the literal translation of it—the rule of the people, not of the minority, whether malevolent or benevolent despotism. It is preposterous for me to sit, look at those benches and see these gentlemen put up the position that they have some special tradition or special gift from Providence to dictate to the country.

Mr. BRADY

On a point of order, the Minister says a republic is a rule of the people.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

A point of order is something which the Chair can decide, and the Chair will not decide what a republic is.

Mr. HOGAN

The Deputy does not understand it, I am perfectly sure.

Mr. BRADY

There seems to be a great difference between the Minister who is speaking and the Minister for Finance, from the statement the latter made last night.

Mr. HOGAN

It is an example of what I mentioned before. Deputies on the opposite side do not mind hitting out but they object to being hit back. That is not masculine, putting it at its best. Deputies have been going around the country calling themselves all sorts of pleasant names and calling us unpleasant names and by a process of auto-suggestion you had Deputy Lemass, Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly and that great soldier, Deputy Aiken, coming really to believe in themselves and thinking that they should not be answered back. You have got to get out of that. We claim and insist on the right of answering everything you say and hitting you back a bit harder every time you hit us.

Mr. CLERY

You are becoming a fighter at last.

Mr. HOGAN

Unity! Release the prisoners! The old English analogy; that is what is behind it. Churchill and ourselves started the war. I was over in England last week selling the country.

Mr. LEMASS

What price did you get for it?

Mr. HOGAN

I will not tell you. Release the prisoners! The English used to do it but they had no right in this country. The only people who are trying to give a right to the English are the Deputies sitting opposite because they deny the right of the people to rule in this country. Release the prisoners! There was an amnesty in 1923 and practically all the prisoners, except one or two, were released. They were guilty of, will I call them, political crimes? Deputies across the way are running away from that definition now. There were about £150,000 taken out of the banks. They were guilty of all those crimes and were released in 1923. There was an act of grace. The Minister responsible had a perfect right to use his discretion. He used it in one case, that of McPeake. McPeake was a gunner in the Army. He was in the armoured car when Michael Collins was shot. His gun went wrong a few times. He is a traitor. He is lucky that he did not suffer the extreme penalty. The Minister is justified in refusing to exercise his discretion and let him out.

Deputy LITTLE rose.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Could not Deputy Little allow the Minister to proceed as Deputy Aiken was allowed to proceed this very day here without interruption?

Mr. HOGAN

The Deputy cannot take his medicine. I put this to the Labour Party. In 1923 the prisoners were all released notwithstanding everything that occurred. What has happened since? First of all, you had that incident, the release of these prisoners who were guilty of offences committed after the Amnesty, which the Minister for Defence, Deputy Lemass, and the Commander-in-Chief, Deputy Field-Marshal Aiken are so proud of. You had them released by force. Incidentally the Deputy wanted to know why he was not arrested. He pointed out that as he was the Minister for Defence and Deputy Aiken was Commander-in-Chief——

Mr. LEMASS

Oh, no.

Mr. HOGAN

That he should be put in jail. If we had the slightest evidence in you would go.

Mr. LEMASS

Why did you say that if you had not the evidence?

Mr. HOGAN

We had not, unfortunately. Deputy Aiken would go in, too. He would be doing his eight hours in there like a common citizen like myself, a man who is not a soldier at all, but a common politician. Deputy Aiken, too, is not a soldier, but a politician, and merely a minor politician at that. What happened? The late Minister for Justice was murdered. There was an attempted murder on a servant of the Government, a man called Grace. There were indications that there was an assassination gang doing work.

A DEPUTY

What about Coughlan's murder?

Mr. HOGAN

Do not talk about that. How can Deputies be so dishonest as to mention that? I do not want to mention it until we have the verdict. Leave it out, please. Take all those indications. Is it not perfectly clear there that there is a gang of assassins or would-be assassins? Do you think you are going to kill them by kindness? If you have men doing these things do you think they are going to be placated by letting out these prisoners—prisoners guilty of crimes, of murder and bank robberies?

Mr. MORRISSEY

I suppose it is hardly necessary to say that it was not with a view to placating any assassins or would-be assassins that we asked for the release of prisoners.

Mr. HOGAN

I want to suggest to Deputy Morrissey that that is what it comes down to. It is in the interests of peace and order. I want to put this to him. Remember the attitude Deputy Lemass took up when asking this question. He was asked by Deputy Davin what was his policy. Of course, he could not resist starting it by a great flourish of trumpets, telling us that he was a Republican first and last and a Constitutionalist afterwards. That is the purest drivel, if you analyse it. In any event, the Deputies for the present are going to adopt constitutional methods and afterwards, when the time is ripe, they are to go on to other methods. I would ask Deputy Aiken and Deputy Lemass not to frighten us—people like myself, timid people, and, like Deputy Gorey, a married man with a family; they ought not to frighten us but to give us a chance. We cannot be all soldiers and patriots. Give up this nonsense, once and for all. Deputy Aiken is going to adopt other methods when the time is ripe. What other methods? The methods, I suppose, that would be employed by the prisoners. Is murder to be one of them? Is bank robbery to be one of them? What are these methods, and against whom are they to be employed —the representatives of the people, the Government elected by the representatives of the people, the order established by the people? It is in that atmosphere, it is in that state of affairs, we are to be asked to come along and to add to the moral confusion that is in the country, and that is mainly because of the sort of nonsense that is heard from the opposite benches, by letting out these men. We would be unworthy of the trust reposed in us by the people if we did it. These men have had lenient sentences, and these men will have to obey the law. There is no man in this country so big but that we will see that he obeys the law, and we are not going to be deterred from doing that by any nonsense, any threat, or false pretences of any kind.

Mr. AIKEN

The Minister for Agriculture started off in this debate by saying that we could be united only on the basis that the law made by the people would be obeyed. There was one law made by the representatives of the people in this country. It was made and approved by the representatives of the people in Parliament assembled; it was approved by the great national and political organisation of the people. It was approved by both sections of the armed young men of the country who fought for the rights of the people. This was the law proposed by President Arthur Griffith and passed unanimously by Dáil Eireann in May, 1922. Lest any member of the Oireachtas might forget, I want to repeat it.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is that not the history of the country again? Is not the question at issue rather what the position now is, not what it was in 1922? I realise the relevance of the debate about the release of prisoners to the question of what the position is now and what the attitude of the people is now. The Deputy was about to refer to the Pact I take it.

Mr. AIKEN

Yes.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The issue on the question of the Pact reopens the events of 1922 and that could not be debated on this motion. What can be debated is people's attitude now. If the Deputy begins at the Pact of 1922, it will be clear, that he naturally will have to go through the whole business again. I do not see how, then, we could get on to a motion about prisoners in 1928.

Mr. AIKEN

I have not the slightest wish to contravene Standing Orders but I take it that the principal duty of this assembly of representatives of the Irish people is to get a basis upon which the Irish people can work to achieve peace in this country and prosperity for the ordinary people of Ireland. It was entirely with that aim in view and not to reply to the little spiteful things the Minister for Agriculture has said that I started off by saying, or intended to start off by saying, that the Minister for Lands and Agriculture comes here and asks us to accept as a basis for unity in this country, a basis which he himself does not accept. That is that the law made by the people in this country must be obeyed by the people of this country. We want to find a basis. We are perfectly willing to obey the law made by the people of this country. If that law is challenged by any man in this country or outside it we are prepared to give our lives in defence of that law if we think that is the best way to defend it. The civil war started, as I say, in spite of us. I do not think there is a man on those Benches who would not give the last drop of his blood by any form of torture that could be devised to prevent that civil war. We appealed, actually cried in appealing, to members of the opposite Benches to obey the law made by the people in this country and not by the law imposed by Churchill and the orders given us by Churchill. The civil war did not start on the 28th June, 1922. The civil war had actually commenced——

Mr. HOGAN

The day after the Treaty was ratified by the people's representatives, the very next day. That was when it commenced.

Professor TIERNEY

Are we discussing the release of the prisoners or are we discussing the civil war?

Mr. AIKEN

We are not discussing when Deputy Tierney took his foot out of the armed camp.

Professor TIERNEY

I have a suggestion to make which has been on my mind for a considerable time.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

If it is not a point of order, I cannot listen to it.

Professor TIERNEY

It is a suggestion.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I cannot hear it.

Deputy AIKEN rose.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Perhaps Deputy Aiken would give way to me The statement the Deputy is making now is a statement already made to-day on another motion. On that other motion it was decided that although that motion was wider than this one, we could not go into the whole question.

Mr. HOGAN

They do not want it themselves.

DEPUTIES

Order.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

There was a suggestion made that if we did want to go into the whole question we should do it in a particular way. I do not think we should go now into the whole question. It is because I know that the civil war did not start on the 28th June, 1922, that I did not want the Deputy to begin in May, 1922. Any talk of what this Parliament is for is all very well, but the difficulty is we must proceed in some kind of way. I can see no conclusion to this debate if —a remark has been made sotto voce that I was making a speech. I would like to hear that remark repeated.

Mr. CARNEY

I would like to make a point.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I will not allow the Deputy to make a point. This motion is to set up a committee to go into the case of the prisoners. We can get no decision on this motion within any measurable distance of time if we are going to discuss the origin of the civil war. The motion would not be put from the Chair for weeks.

Mr. AIKEN

I have not the slightest intention of discussing the start of the civil war. I simply intended to point out that the Minister for Lands and Agriculture and his colleagues have appealed to the people publicly to support them for things and on principles which they are not prepared to carry and never have carried into practice. As a matter of fact when they ask us to obey the law made by the people they are simply trying to humbug the people, because they themselves are not and never have been willing to obey the law made by the people of this country. Perhaps I overstated that. They were once willing to obey the law made by the people, a large number of them. I give them that credit. The thing I am sorry for is that unfortunately these men at one time slipped away from the position in which they were willing to obey the law made by the people of this country into the position that not only were they willing to obey the law made by the foreigner, but they were going to enforce it here at an economy of British lives. They accuse us of not being willing to obey the law of the people of this country. Fortunately we have documentary evidence to support the fact, which I now state, that we have been at all times not only willing to obey the law made by the people of the country, but to defend that law against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

There was a proclamation issued by Deputy de Valera stating upon what terms we were willing to compose the differences and to settle the civil war started in this country on the orders of Mr. Churchill. In his proclamation Mr. de Valera said:

The Government of the Republic anxious to contribute its share to the movement for peace, and to found it on principles that will give governmental stability and otherwise prove of value to the nation, hereby proclaims its readiness to negotiate an immediate cessation of hostilities on the basis of the following:—

(1) That the sovereign rights of this nation are indefeasible and inalienable.

(2) That all legitimate governmental authority in Ireland, legislative, executive and judicial, is derived exclusively from the people of Ireland.

(3) That the ultimate court of appeal for deciding disputed questions of national expediency and policy is the people of Ireland—the judgment being by majority vote of the adult citizenry, and the decision to be submitted to, and resistance by violence excluded, not because the decision is necessarily right and just or permanent, but because acceptance of this rule makes for peace, order and unity in national action, and is the democratic alternative to arbitrament by force. Adequate opportunities and facilities must, of course, be afforded for a full and proper presentation to the court of all the facts and issues involved, and it must be understood that (1) and (2) are fundamental and non-judicable.

(4) That no individual, or class of individuals, who subscribe to these principles of national right, order and good citizenship can be justly excluded by any political oath, test, or other device, from their proper share and influence in determining national policy or from the councils and Parliament of the nation.

(5) That freedom to express political or economic opinions or to advocate political or economic programmes, freedom to assemble in public meeting, and freedom of the Press, are rights of citizenship and of the community which must not be abrogated.

(6) That the military forces of the nation are the servants of the nation, and, subject to the foregoing, amenable to the National Assembly when freely elected by the people.

We are informed that many in the ranks of our opponents will accept these principles, as we accept them. If that be so, peace can be arranged forthwith.

We hope that this advance will be met in the spirit in which we make it, and that it will be supported by all who love our country and who desire a speedy and just ending to the present national troubles.

As evidence of our good-will, the Army Command is issuing herewith an order to all units to suspend aggressive action—the order to take effect as soon as may be, but not later than noon, Monday, April 30th.

Eamon de Valera, President,

Dublin, April 27th, 1923.

We would like to know if the Government and the Cumann na nGaedheal Party were willing to accept those principles as a basis for unity and for national action whereby the representatives of the people can come together and arrange an economic and national policy that would bring us out of the terrible economic distress we are in and cure the wounds that have been caused principally by the civil war started under the command——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Will it not do to say "by the civil war" and end at that, because otherwise we will have a debate on it.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

He has the other thing stuck in his head.

Mr. AIKEN

Those principles enunciated by Deputy de Valera as a basis for peace were approved of by Mr. Johnson on behalf of the Labour Party when he said at Kilkenny, on April 29th, 1923:—

"I consider that as a point in the programme of a political party they are all acceptable to me. They stand in a certain degree for what we of the Labour Party have stood for inside and outside the Dáil...."

Did somebody object to that? Somebody objected to these principles being made the basis for unity amongst the people of Ireland. The "Irish Times" for one gave voice to that objection on May 10, 1923, when it stated:—

The only real obstacle which remains is Mr. de Valera's attitude to the Oath of Allegiance. On this point the Government will not and cannot make any compromise. The Oath is an inseparable part of the Treaty and Constitution. Repudiation of it would be a repudiation of the Treaty and of the national verdict which ratified the Treaty. In all the other matters of negotiation Mr. de Valera was knocking at an open door. This door, however, has been locked by the people themselves and he must beat upon it in vain until they choose to turn the key.

We want the people and their representatives to turn the key and open the door that is blocking the road of our nation to freedom and prosperity, that is blocking a peaceful settlement of the divisions created here by the foreigner. Ministers may sneer at us and say, "You have taken the oath." I say it is far from being a proud boast by Irishmen that they have insisted that the representatives of the Irish people should even pretend for an instant to have taken an oath of allegiance to a foreign king.

Continuing the appeal that I made here this morning. I ask Deputies to bring all the pressure they can to bear upon the Government to do something to do away with the bitterness created by the civil war, and to bring all the representatives of the people together in a national assembly to consider the economic and national position of the nation in all its aspects, and arrive at a decision as to how best to cure the economic, political and social ills from which the country is suffering. This assembly, as this debate on the prisoners brings very forcibly before us, is not a representative assembly even of the Twenty-Six Counties. Men are debarred from it who will not even pretend for an instant, for any reason whatsoever, to bow the knee to a foreign king. We here have done so. There are others who will not. There are men such as Seán Russell, Mick Price, Mickie Carolan and others, for instance, in Mountjoy Jail at this moment and they are representatives of a class of men in this country for whom I had the highest admiration, and for whom I have the highest admiration, who will not, in any circumstances, admit the right of the British King, or the British King's representatives, to rule here. We say these are representatives of the best class of the young men who are willing to give voluntarily whole-time service to this country whenever it requires it. They will not ask any price or any pension, and I say it must be our duty, as representatives of the people, to consider how we can bring representatives of men of this type into the national assembly, and how we can direct all the energies of the nation on to the political and economic problems which we should be discussing. While these men are outside the national assembly the people's energies will be wasted, and we say that the way to do it is to examine the problem as it stands and to agree to those principles which were enunciated by Deputy de Valera, and which have been the fundamental principles upon which Irish Nationalists and Irish Republicans have always based their action.

We ask the Ministers, if they want to do something useful for the nation, and useful to the Irish people, to release all political prisoners—Seán Russell, Mick Price, Mickie Carolan, and George Gilmore, and all the men arrested under treason charges. Ministers can enforce the Treason Act. They have enough military forces at their disposal, at the present time, to enforce it, but I say it is not wise, in the national interest, to enforce that Act. We say that in the national interest the thing to do is to release these men who have been imprisoned under the Treason Act; to do away with any impediment that will prevent all the representatives of the people in this country coming into this Assembly without, first of all, having to take an oath of allegiance or pretend to take it, to a foreign King. That is the basis for unity, and that is the way to solve our problems.

The Minister said that if he had any proof against any Deputy upon these benches, such as he had against the men in jail, they would also be in jail. I know that the Department of the Minister for Justice has as much information about me—documents and other evidence that would convict me under the Treason Act—as they have against Carolan or any of the others who are now in jail under the Treason Act.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

You are a really dangerous fellow!

Mr. AIKEN

I am not dangerous.

Mr. HOGAN

Oh, you are.

Mr. G. BOLAND

The Minister is the most dangerous man in the country.

Mr. AIKEN

I am not dangerous to any friend of my country.

Mr. G. BOLAND

The Minister is the greatest disturber of the peace of this country. He is the very man——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy must not interrupt Deputy Aiken.

Mr. G. BOLAND

We are only having a conversation across the floor. I am very sorry I spoke before the Minister. I could tell the House how he disturbed the peace.

Mr. HOGAN

I knew you had spoken before me.

Mr. G. BOLAND

I did not know you were going to talk at all.

Mr. AIKEN

What I want to say to Ministers is why on earth do they not try the same experiment on the men now in jail, under the Treason Act, as they tried on me? Why do they not forget the past in regard to Mick Carolan, George Gilmore and others, now in jail, because they escaped from Mountjoy? Why not allow them to go free as they allowed me to go free, although they have as much evidence against me as they have against many of those men. I hope to goodness that better counsels will prevail on the Government benches than was offered by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture. Small points can be made against releasing these men, but looking at the matter in a broad national way, the interests of the nation demand that these men be released, and that they be released immediately, and that, if possible, the Government be not forced to release them, but that they release them of their own free will, having seen the justice of the case. I hope I may appeal to the Government, even now, in the interests of the nation, to make this gesture, to make this appeal for national unity. Wipe the slate clean regarding these men. I do not appeal in any way for mercy for them. I know that Seán Russell or George Gilmore will not retract one iota or go back one step. They do not ask for mercy or look for mercy, from anybody they consider the enemy of their country.

Mr. HOGAN

What else are they doing through you?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

This use of the second person singular is very objectionable.

Mr. AIKEN

We ask the Government and Cumann na nGaedheal supporters, not to heed the bitter counsels of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, and the bitter counsels of the Minister for Defence, but to take this step in the national interest. Release the prisoners and I am perfectly sure that the country as a whole, Cumann na nGaedheal supporters as well as Republican supporters, will be delighted.

Mr. ANTHONY

I rise to support the motion. In doing so, I want to say, at the outset, that I deprecate very much the provocative speeches which have emanated both from the Fianna Fáil Benches and from the Government Benches. In that connection I regret very much the speech of the Minister for Agriculture. I do not think that he has approached the matter in the proper spirit. I suggest that if Fianna Fáil are sincere in their protestations and if the Government spokesmen are sincere in their protestations of a desire for peace that they should refrain from making those provocative speeches. Some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies appear to forget, when harping back on some of the tragic events of the civil war period, that we have advanced a little since then; that history has been made very quickly in this country within the last dozen years, and, by their presence in the Dáil, the Fianna Fáil Deputies have acquiesced in that particular change. I want to know, are we ever to get away from that tragic period of the civil war and from the Four Courts and all the rest of it? I was about seriously to suggest to this House, during the present week, that we should set apart one day, two days, or any number of days that the House would decide upon, for the discussion of this question of the civil war and the Four Courts, and let us be done with it and then let us forget and forgive and set our faces to the future. The setting up of a Committee such as was suggested in the motion would allay suspicions in many minds in this country. And let me say that those suspicions are largely shared by members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party in the country that there may be, and I have no doubt there are, people behind prison bars to-day in this country because of their affiliations at one period with the Republican Party. That appears to be a bold thing to say. I am a supporter of this Constitution and of the Treaty, and I believe in my heart and soul because of things that have occurred, because of the fact that there are many in the Government and in the Fianna Fáil Benches to-day who cannot detach themselves from those tragedies of the past, because of that and because as I know all history has taught us that vengeful things will be done and that people in the heat of conflict cannot forget the episodes and incidents in that conflict. For that reason I would like to stress the passage in the speech of Deputy Gerald Boland whom I believe to be a very sincere and honourable man.

The Deputy struck me from the moment of his entry in to the Dáil to be a very sincere and good Irishman. He suggested in the course of his speech a day or two ago, an alternative to this motion. He suggested that if the House could not see its way to set up this Select Committee, that the Government should initiate an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the cases of those men who are now in prison. Deputy Aiken has mentioned a number of names of men who, I understand, are imprisoned for political offences. I want to say here very definitely and specifically that I do not want to see a bank robber or a murderer or an assassin let out of prison, but I do want to see a fair trial in the calmer atmosphere that we have here at present. We—and when I say "we"—I mean the elected representatives of the people, and I couple myself and the members of the Labour Party with the upholders of the Constitution at the moment—at this stage have nothing to fear from a broad, generous and spacious gesture if you like, which would be indicated by the setting up of an inquiry. I urge that that inquiry should partake of the nature suggested in this motion, or that it should partake of the nature suggested by Deputy Gerald Boland. I believe it would be one of the most magnificent gestures that this Government has ever made or ever contemplated, if they initiated an inquiry on their own which, I suggest, is the way of least resistance in this case.

If the Government are not prepared at the moment, because of the quarter from which the suggestion comes—the Fianna Fáil Benches—to entertain it— and I do not suggest they are so small-minded as that, but at the same time that feeling might be there and it might be well to do something which would remove that feeling—if they are not prepared to accept the motion they should be generous enough to move on their own. They can afford to be generous enough, because, as I have already stated, the constitutional movement is too strong in this country, having behind it the best men in the country, and the Government are strong enough, and they can afford to make a generous gesture of this kind. I would not be found here advocating an inquiry or anything of that kind if I had the least suspicion that it would let loose in this country once again the bank robber or the murderer or the assassin. I am hopeful that the Government or the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, or rather all parties in the House, should combine in this movement towards an inquiry. Again, I ask both sides to let the dead past bury its dead. I would appeal very strongly to Deputy Aiken and such others of the Fianna Fáil Party who have made rather bellicose speeches in the Dáil to remember that we have changed, and are changing. Whilst appealing that old sores should be allowed to heal up, let us not on the other hand be like Lazarus, constantly exposing our sores. Deputy Morrissey has made an appeal to-day from the Labour benches. I join with him in that appeal, and I sincerely ask the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance and others, who stand high in the Executive Council, to give an appreciative and attentive ear to the appeals made to them from these benches, and particularly from Deputy Gerald Boland. As I have already said, this gesture would not indicate any semblance of a climb down, and it would not be a climb down, and it would not show any weakness or vacillation on the part of the Government to make this gesture. I say, in the name of God, let us get done once and for all with the civil war and the tragedy of the whole thing.

Mr. BLYTHE

It would be easier to listen sympathetically to appeals such as those put forward by Deputy Anthony and Deputy Morrissey if we did not hear speeches, or some speeches, from the Fianna Fáil Benches on this particular motion. It seems to me that there was a good deal of veiled threat behind some of those speeches. We were told all the time, "Do this or the alternative is a renewal of civil war." If that is the spirit that is behind the motion, of course there is certainly no alternative for any people who are charged with the responsibility for the maintenance of order and public peace but to refuse to agree to the motion. There is no suggestion of vindictiveness. I do not regard this thing as being anything in which one must hold strong views, or in which we must take any sort of personal stand. When Deputy Anthony said we need not be afraid of loss of prestige or anything like that or of being accused of vacillation, I can only assure him that these remarks were unnecessary. All that we are concerned with when considering matters such as this is to secure public peace and to take the line that we think will prevent any return to violence. As has been already stated by the Minister for Agriculture, there was an amnesty and a very generous and sweeping amnesty——

Mr. GERALD BOLAND

A partial amnesty.

Mr. BLYTHE

No. It really affected all sides, and it allowed great numbers of people who did commit crimes of violence to escape the results of these crimes. But we cannot be having amnesty after amnesty. That amnesty did not end crimes of violence, and what is more dangerous still to the people and to the public peace than individual crimes of violence, it did not end the maintenance and building up of an illegal military organisation. I want to say this, without saying anything at all against the motives of people who are maintaining, trying to organise, trying to keep active, a military organisation in this country, that they and their work constitute the greatest possible menace to the public peace. If such an organisation were to be allowed to go on, if it were allowed to collect its arms and continue drilling, then perhaps what seemed to me to be veiled threats would become open threats, and we would hear it said that if the Parliament did not do so-and-so then war was going to follow, and if the people did not do so-and-so, then war was going to follow. We conceive our duty to be to let the people of the country decide what they want done through the ballot boxes, to return the representatives who will pursue the policy they want pursued, and let these representatives elect a Government. When the people want a particular thing done and they return a majority of representatives to do it, then they will have all the resources of the State with which to do it; they will have all the armed forces of the State with which to do that, and I say there can be no excuse or justification for the maintenance or building up of any illegal secret or semi-secret military organisation here.

Mr. ANTHONY

Hear, hear!

Mr. WALSH

What about the British Fascisti?

Mr. BLYTHE

It is a great possible danger to allow what I have mentioned to continue. For any Government to fail to take all the steps it can take to prevent that sort of organisation growing and flourishing, would be a betrayal of the ordinary people and would lead to the negation of democracy here.

Mr. BOLAND

Does that apply to all secret societies, including, as Deputy Walsh says, the British Fascisti, and other movements?

Mr. BLYTHE

It applies to all.

Mr. O'KELLY

Might I specify another one which Deputy Mulcahy started in the Free State Army? Does it apply to that also?

Mr. BLYTHE

Certainly, most emphatically. I am not to be taken as agreeing to the form in which the Deputy put the question. It was rather like asking a man if he had stopped beating his wife. I know the organisation the Deputy was referring to was the I.R.B. We took the most definite steps that could be taken to see that there would be no continuance of the I.R.B. in the Army.

Mr. O'KELLY

Have you dropped membership of it yourself?

Mr. BLYTHE

Oh, for a very long time.

Mr. AIKEN

Will the Minister say if he was successful in the steps he took against the I.R.B.?

Mr. HOGAN

What do you know about it?

Mr. G. BOLAND

We know a lot.

Mr. BLYTHE

All this is only beside the question. A Government is bound to take steps to prevent the existence and to stop the activities of any military organisation. There is, as we know, an illegal military organisation in existence, and if we could be assured that by releasing prisoners who, most of them, had been concerned in carrying on that organisation, that it would stop, a very strong case would be made out for the generous gesture; but there has been nothing said to indicate that; in fact, I think the whole thing indicates the opposite, that if the men were released that organisation would flourish and be more active.

I do not want to discuss the cases of individual prisoners, but one of them mentioned was certainly extremely active in carrying on that organisation, and we have been given to understand by Deputy Aiken that if he were let abroad he would proceed to carry on the same activity. I am referring to Mr. Carolan. Mr. Carolan had been very active in carrying on the I.R.A shall we call it, and very large masses of documents and all that were found in his possession, which showed clearly that he had been active. If we were to judge by what Deputy Aiken said, the thing Mr. Carolan would do if he were out is to continue his activity. He would not change his course in the slightest. That is clearly an argument against letting him out. There is no sort of vindictiveness involved, but we feel that the law should be allowed to run its course. Men were arrested in the ordinary way when there was a crime committed. The acts for which they were convicted were crimes, crimes very dangerous to the public peace. Those men were put on trial and sentences were given and they serve them in the ordinary way. If we had reason to believe that some of those who are serving sentences would conduct themselves peaceably, we would take a very lenient view of the matter of reducing or remitting sentences. We do not want to keep them in unnecessarily, and where the offence was not done for any personal motive or personal gain, where it was purely for possessing arms or organising military organisations, if there was any indication that the person who had been convicted would change his ways, would really accept the democratic principle of majority rule, and would be content when he came out to persuade other people to his point of view by ordinary methods of persuasion and propaganda we would be very glad to review that case and let the individual out.

With regard to the men who escaped from prison, undoubtedly those men have, perhaps, suffered more during the period they have been on the run than if they had served their term. But that rescue from prison took place long after the cease fire order, long after the end of the civil war, and it seems to me it is not a thing that could be condoned or overlooked, and the people who were responsible for carrying out that rescue so long after the cessation of open hostilities and the amnesty should bear the punishment that comes to them unless there is some indication that they have altered their point of view and that they are no longer going to rely on violence against their fellow-countrymen here to promote their views. They should bear that punishment. That applies, for instance, to Gilmore.

Professor THRIFT

took the Chair.

Mr. BLYTHE

With regard to the people who escaped, I think the Minister for Justice said that if these men returned and gave themselves up that, while no bargain is being made, a generous view would be taken of the whole situation. I think that is what they ought to do, because, as the Minister for Justice said, the thing that is necessary here for the peace and advancement of the country—it does not matter from what political point of view one looks at it—in the future is, that we have the rule of law, an acceptance of the ordinary democratic principle of majority rule, and that we have an abandonment of attempts to bring about political changes by any resort to arms or violence. These men, because they escaped, cannot expect that the law will not take its course. If they come back, then a generous view could be taken. I think Deputies on the Fianna Fáil benches should have discussed this whole thing in a spirit different to that in which they did, and I think if they had any desire to bring about peace and the release of the prisoners they would have done that. If the question were put up in the right way, it would, as I have said before, be a different matter altogether. What we are concerned with is the maintenance of the law and the protection of the ordinary private citizen. We do not take any more interest, as it were, in the cases of those prisoners who are to be arrested or who are before the courts than we do in cases of ordinary crime. It is simply that the law takes its course and the person is arrested.

I do not think that Deputies should ask for the setting aside of the law unless there are going to be some assurances of a change of heart and attitude, and a definite condemnation of the idea of violence. It is all very well to talk about this Imperial British Government, about his Majesty's Ministers, and to resort to all the words and phrases that have been used so frequently by Deputies on the Fianna Fáil benches. This Parliament, representing the Free State, is freely elected on a democratic franchise. A Government must, if it is to remain in office, have the confidence of the majority of the Dáil. There is no use in talking as if the position of this Government was the same as that of the British Government in the old days. As the Minister for Agriculture said, the British authorities had no right here because they had no authority from the people of the country, but this Government has been elected by the people on a democratic franchise. Attacks on this Government are attacks on the ordinary people of the country. Attacks on the laws passed by this Parliament, that is, violent attacks, are attacks on the ordinary people of the country.

If we are to get ahead here there must be some definite recognition of the principle of majority rule. If we can agree to accept that we can get somewhere, but if not we can get nowhere. If Deputies on the other side do accept that, then I do not know on what grounds they are pleading for the release of men who do not accept it, and who are engaged in the organisation of a machine which would apparently over-rule, by force, majority rule here. If any of the prisoners have actually changed their mind—we do not know that they have—we ought to hear of it. It is a simple matter, one that can be discussed quite calmly and usefully, but I think we must get down to fundamentals. As some Deputies have said, rather in criticism of the speeches from the Labour Benches, there is not much use in talking about forgive and forget, stop persecution, and so on. What we want to know is what we are aiming at, what we hope to get, and how a particular proposal that is made or put forward is going to be received. To put the matter in a balder form, we would like to know how the release of the prisoners is going to add to peace. Is it put up to us that the release of the prisoners is going to cause them and others to abandon any preparations that they have been making for resorting to arms against the forces of the State as organised here?

Mr. G. BOLAND

Very possibly. Our point is that it could be tried.

Mr. BLYTHE

The thing is not quite so simple as that. A statement like that might have been very satisfactory at one time, if we had been discussing a similar matter immediately after the civil war.

Mr. BOLAND

Immediately after we came in here.

Mr. BLYTHE

It would have been very satisfactory, but you see, that was not done. It was not suggested in the generality of the speeches from the Fianna Fáil Benches.

Mr. CLERY

Neither was it done in your speech.

Mr. BLYTHE

After all, we were not making a plea. If anything were going to be done, to have the thing discussed on a different basis, there is no doubt whatever but that a committee such as that proposed would be perhaps the worst possible machinery that could be devised for a discussion of the matter The committee would be bound to wrangle over the matter, as we have been wrangling in the Dáil. So far as individuals are concerned, I think there were quite a number of people mentioned whose cases could not be considered. There may be other cases that could be considered. If the thing were put up to the Government in the spirit and from the point of view that I have indicated, there would be a great deal to be said for the Government looking again into the whole matter, just as it looked into matters some time after the ending of the civil war. The tendency of the speeches and of the arguments to which we have listened to-day would rather be to harden us and to indicate to us that the intention was simply to get men out. I think Deputy Lemass perhaps made the worst speech to-day. His speech could really have had no effect on us, having regard to what we feel to be our duty, but to harden us, to make us feel that he was a man who might even encourage these men not to abandon their methods.

If we heard some definite discouragement of these methods from the Fianna Fáil Benches and a statement as to their position for the future, with a full acceptance from them of the principle that there is no need and no excuse to resort to arms against this State; that they would discourage the continuance of a military organisation of any sort and accept the legal Army set up under the laws of this State as controlled by this Dáil, we would have a different atmosphere here. I think that we ought hear these things from them before they plead for the release of the prisoners. If there is going to be any release or review of the cases of these prisoners, it ought to come because there is a definite change in attitude.

Mr. LEMASS

Might I say to the President that one of the difficulties we would have in that matter would be to ascertain the views of the prisoners. These men are in prison. Would arrangements be made to enable myself and some members of our party to interview and discuss the new situation with these men in order that we might ascertain what their views are?

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not think so. What I am talking of at the present moment are the views that have been expressed here and elsewhere on this point by Fianna Fáil Deputies. I recognise that in many matters the coming of the Fianna Fáil Party into the Dáil made a change, and we have shown that in our attitude towards certain things.

Mr. BOLAND

No.

Mr. BLYTHE

We have in the case of dismissed civil servants, and certain teachers who had been refused recognition. In these cases, we have definitely shown a recognition of the change.

Mr. BOLAND

You have not. You are too small to do it, and never did it.

Mr. BLYTHE

Oh, no.

Mr. BOLAND

You are too small. You never made a decent gesture. You never gave us half a chance. You have kept on the civil war up to this moment. We stopped fighting and our men who were without arms were killed. We stopped it but you never did. You are keeping it up still. It is disgusting. Mean, small and low, that is what you all are—no, not all—but those on the Front Bench, especially three.

Mr. BLYTHE

I think the Deputy is wrong in that.

Mr. FOGARTY

What would be the fate of James Nugent if he was caught again? Is there any assurance that what was done to him the last time will not happen again?

Mr. BLYTHE

I understand that he was attempting to escape arrest.

Mr. FOGARTL

No, he was shot coming out from a house in Clonmel.

Mr. BLYTHE

I understand that he tried to escape arrest and that he was fired on. If he gave himself up he would not suffer any violence. Deputy Boland said that on the "cease fire" order the people on his side stopped.

Mr. BOLAND

So they did.

Mr. BLYTHE

Undoubtedly a great deal of activity was stopped, but the military machine was kept going. There was no abandonment of the idea of fighting. I think Deputy Boland will agree with me that keeping the military machine going involves the gravest dangers. Men connected with it, and who had to be kept to the point of maintaining that military machine in existence, could not be kept from indulging in activities especially in view of the history——

Mr. BOLAND

Even if it is admitted that the military machine was kept going, what kept it going? Was it not the pressure, the hunting after these people, and the refusal to allow them home and let the fighting stop? If that had been done at any time, even at present, the thing would have dropped long ago. I am convinced that it is the continual hunting of these men that has kept the organisation going, and is still giving reason for carrying on. There was never at any period, although it is alleged there was, at which there was a ceasing of the hunt after these men. If that had been ever stopped there would have been peace long ago, and, mind, the hunt is still on.

Mr. BLYTHE

I think perhaps we are getting somewhat nearer. There is no hunt on against anybody except people who are maintaining the military organisation. Apparently what Deputy Boland is saying is that if we say "You may continue your military organisation; we won't bother," then they would not bother continuing it.

Mr. BOLAND

I am not saying that.

Mr. BLYTHE

I am afraid it amounts to that. If we could bring about a cessation of the military organisation, if a dispersal of that organisation could be brought about, none of these things would arise at all. There would be no prosecutions of people for being in possession of arms, and no prosecution of people for the incidental things connected with the maintenance of that organisation. I do not want to doubt the good faith of Deputy Boland, or of any Deputy, on that matter, but there are various points of view. There are people with the point of view that they would not come into this House, people with the point of view that they would, and there are people like Deputy Boland who, I assume, is willing to accept the principle of majority rule.

Mr. BOLAND

Yes, we all do that.

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes, but there are other people who do not. Documents and things have been found which show that there are people of an irreconcilable type. There are undoubtedly people outside who have more than once made attempts to keep an active campaign of some sort going. Again, there are the people who assassinated the late Minister for Justice. There are the people who did the shooting that has been referred to just recently.

Mr. O'KELLY

I do not know whether the Minister accepts it or not, but I distinctly read a communication in the press from those in authority, from the heads of the Republican Army, disclaiming any responsibility for the shooting of the late Minister for Justice, and being honourable men, as I know them, and you ought to know them, to be, they should be taken at their word.

Mr. BLYTHE

On information the Government has been able to get we do not, could not, take their word for it. It may be they were not directly responsible or did not directly order it. It may be that some of them knew about it and some did not, but on such information as we have been able to get we could not accept that denial as closing the matter, or leaving us in any doubt that it was the people of the organisation of which they were head were responsible for that. I am only indicating that there are people in the country who are prepared to resort to violence against the State. The existence of these people, of this organisation, does mean that we have to go very carefully in these matters. There are people who, perhaps, would be inclined because Fianna Fáil has come into the Dáil to abandon their policy of arms. There are perhaps people who, if they saw the coming in of Fianna Fáil followed by a relaxation would think now their time was come and that there would be no obstacles in their way in the future. There are all sorts of people to be dealt with, and we have to proceed very carefully.

If any sort of appeal is made for an individual case that appeal will be most carefully considered. If any facts can be brought before us in regard to individual cases, these facts will be investigated, and everything that can be done will be done to see that no man who has changed his attitude of mind, or whose release would be any help to public order, will be kept in prison, but my fear, having regard to the future, is that the passage of this motion or anything of that sort would have quite another effect. I do not want simply just to slam the door. Deputies have talked about men who escaped from Mountjoy. They are available and can be consulted. If they are willing to come back and surrender themselves, we then have a very clear indication that a change has taken place, and that we would not be simply releasing men to continue a type of activity that was most highly dangerous to the State. These men could be consulted. A plea has been made on their behalf. Let these men, instead of evading arrest, submit to arrest.

Mr. G. BOLAND

We have tried that already.

Mr. BLYTHE

As I understand, no one voluntarily surrendered.

Mr. BOLAND

They did, but not formally; they did what amounted to the same thing. A mutual friend spoke to me and practically on my advice they came back. They were arrested and got nine months.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

They did not surrender.

Mr. BOLAND

It amounted to the same thing. They laid themselves open to arrest.

Mr. BLYTHE

Of course, as far as I can see——

Mr. G. BOLAND

They did not humiliate themselves. That is all.

Mr. BLYTHE

——they were simply trying it on to see whether they would be arrested or not.

Mr. BRISCOE

Might I ask the Minister if he has not got a concrete instance of what he wants in the case of Jim Nugent? The Clonmel Council wrote to the Government and asked that the hunt of this man should stop. A week after they sent up this petition he turned up for a council meeting which he attended, and later on in the same evening he was shot and arrested on the assumption that he was trying to escape. Is not that an instance of what the Minister has referred to?

Mr. KENT

No, there was no arrest. He was fired on openly without being called on to halt.

Mr. BLYTHE

That is a matter about which there is a dispute, and it would be hard to get on if we were to discuss all these cases. As I say, there was apparently no departure from the old attitude. Here were men who had escaped and who simply, when a lapse of time had taken place, came out, apparently in the belief that they would not be arrested.

Mr. BOLAND

Or would be dealt with easily.

Mr. BLYTHE

Perhaps there may have been a misunderstanding in the matter, but if there was and it could be made clear, that could be rectified. But I certainly think I can claim we are pursuing a policy of fair readiness to release people whom we feel could be safely released. I believe that at any rate there should be some gesture showing that there is a change and that we would not have the old position of letting out a prisoner to be more active than he was before he went in. It really is time to have an end to the sort of activity that is going on. There may be excuses for individuals, but here we have, I suppose five years after the end of the civil war, men collecting and buying guns, drilling and carrying on with all the paraphernalia of a military organisation which is a threat to the ordinary people of the country. We want to get an end to that, and while we will not refuse to take any risks to bring that about, still the lapse of such a long time is a very grave factor in the situation.

Mr. G. BOLAND

I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister. We interviewed the Minister for Justice, but with all the respect I have for him, I think he does not understand the circumstances as well as the Minister for Finance would. I think that on the occasion when we happened to interview him, if we had interviewed the Minister for Finance we might have made a better case. He would appreciate what the Minister for Justice would not. I asked the Minister for Finance if he would be prepared to receive a deputation from this Party on the subject now—the three of us whom his colleague met?

Mr. BLYTHE

I really could hardly undertake to do that.

Mr. G. BOLAND

That is not very much to ask, surely.

Mr. BLYTHE

The matter is within the control of the Department of the Minister for Justice.

Mr. O'KELLY

Have the two together.

Mr. BLYTHE

The Minister for Justice can report the cases brought before him to the other members of the Cabinet, and as far as I can understand —I have not dealt much with the cases of individual prisoners—we have had these facts before us. But what we really have not had, except in so far as it has been very slightly indicated in the Dáil, and indicated, I think, almost solely by Deputy Boland, is the very definite change in outlook and the very definite suggestion of the entire abandonment of the whole policy of building up a military force other than the military force legally authorised by the Dáil. That is a suggestion that, as far as I know, has not been made up to this. If we could hear anything more in that respect, as I have said, there would be a case for looking into the whole matter. I really would like to make progress in this matter, and I would suggest that Deputies should consider and consult with those escaped prisoners, and if those escaped prisoners will submit to arrest we will then have a real earnest of a change of policy for the future. We have not got it, and I would venture to say that scarcely anybody in the Fianna Fáil Party, and scarcely the whole Party together, could speak for an organisation that has been carried on. But if some overt thing is done that would give us grounds for looking into it, it might be different. Of course there were escaped prisoners who, I believe, were convicted of absolutely ordinary crimes. Their crimes had no connection with any political matter.

Mr. G. BOLAND

There was a number who were not even tried.

Mr. BLYTHE

Then, of course, it would be a question as to whether they were small offences or untried individuals. But is it not really a question of pleading? The Government has a responsibility for public order, and it is no concern of ours, and it is for no satisfaction of our own that we are keeping the prisoners. On the other hand—whether the Fianna Fáil Deputies will accept my word for it or not— we are really concerned only with the public interest. There is no question of punishment or feeling of any kind. Of course there were murders. But where the thing was in the nature of connection with an organisation there is no question of punishment. It is really a question of safety and security.

Mr. LEMASS

Will the Minister define the term "submit to arrest"? In a couple of cases men submitted to arrest in so far as they went openly to their homes, and they were promptly arrested. Does he want them to go to the doors of Mountjoy Prison, knock and say "Please let us in"?

Mr. MAGUIRE

Will the Minister give a proof of what he says about good feeling by appointing this Committee, and hearing their decision on the matter?

Mr. BLYTHE

I think this Committee would be the worst possible way. As I said, I do not want to humiliate men. For instance, if it could be made known that the men would be openly at their homes henceforth, instead of simply staying out and trying it on, it might lead to some understanding. I do not want men necessarily to go and knock at the door of the local police barracks, but if it was known that from Monday next, from a particular date, the men would be openly about their homes so that they would be available it would be different.

Mr. MacENTEE

I move the adjournment of the debate.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until Wednesday, 28th March.