Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Mar 1928

Vol. 22 No. 17

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."

Mr. RUTTLEDGE

Might I ask an explanation from the Minister for Finance as to what exactly is the meaning of the statement he made here on the last day. This is the statement: "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."

Does the Minister mean by that, that, say from a certain date, a date that might be fixed in this House, these men who are on the run would be allowed to return peaceably to their homes without being molested or interfered with afterwards? Would he state, as an elaboration of that, what is the policy of the Government regarding political prisoners in jail?

Mr. BLYTHE

What I stated, I think, earlier in the day was that the first thing that should be done in this matter was that these men should submit to arrest. Somebody asked me whether they are expected to return, knock at the doors of Mountjoy, or, as somebody else said, at the doors of the local police barracks, and I said no, that they would not be expected to do that, but that they might all together and by arrangement return to their homes, that they would there be arrested. What I indicated was that if they did submit to arrest in this way that we would deal with them in the most generous spirit possible.

But I pointed out that when the rescue from jail took place in 1925, it was a very long time after the "Cease Fire" order. There must be an end to jail rescues, and we could not, in respect of the rescue which occurred at that time, allow men simply to go free, but we would recognise that the liberty out of the prison which they had has not been an enjoyable time to them. Perhaps it has been to some of them, or to many of them, a period of punishment, and if they close this chapter of rescue of prisoners by submitting in this form to arrest, then that we would meet them. There must be some sort of an indication that there is a change of policy. I tried to labour this all through my remarks, that if the people who have hitherto tried to work a certain policy successfully by force of arms, are prepared to make that policy successful by persuasion, by getting the majority vote, then that we want to get rid of prosecutions and pursuits and all these things that are necessary.

But events of that type occurred very long after the "Cease Fire" order, and consequently we must have some sort of clear evidence that the men are not going to be released simply to feel that they were freer and safer in carrying on activities which, I would like to put it as almost indisputable, ought to be at this stage abandoned. That was really with reference to the prisoners who were out of jail. If we get that far with the prisoners out of jail, I would certainly be prepared to say that even with those who are in jail the Executive Council could recognise that we had passed into a new period, and that we ought to consider what we will do. There was a time when we allowed the law to operate against offenders no matter in what circumstances these offences against the law were committed. Then there came a time when we said we are now in more peaceful conditions, and we passed the amnesty resolution of the Executive Council which prevented large numbers of people from being pursued and arrested.

If there is an indication that the people who are in prison, and those people who were in prison, are adopting an entirely new attitude, I do not want to take up an entirely ungenerous standard and to be too stiff on technicalities. But we cannot get away from the facts that what was done in 1923, or what was done immediately after the cessation of hostilities, when blood was very hot and all that, is rather different from acts committed a considerable time after that, because where they were done there is the presumption that these men are set and fixed in a certain policy, and that they would proceed with that policy, and any leniency shown to them is not prima facie calculated to produce the result of inducing them to take a new view. In 1923 the position was different. If we want to close that chapter I would say for the Government that they would not allow any sort of feel ings of pride or any desire to humiliate anybody to stand in the way.

I said, for instance, that I would not expect men to come and surrender themselves at the police barracks, because I believe that those men would regard that as a personal humiliation. Even some of them, who have no idea or no notion at all of going any further with any policy of violence, would stick at going up to the police barracks and offering themselves to be taken away. I said I would make it as easy as possible for them. The real thing is, there has to be an acceptance of the law, and there has to be the policy of amending the law by the ordinary democratic method. If there is this submission to the law, this indication that people are prepared to carry on a new policy, and that they do not want either to defeat or upset the law by violence, then we would meet them. We would be prepared to do our part. We could not make a bargain that men would get off, because there must be a definite reversal of the sort of prison rescue policy. On the other hand, if men feel that the time has come for a change and they do submit to arrest, then, without making a bargain, we can promise that they will be dealt with, as I have said, in a very generous spirit.

Mr. AIKEN

I am glad that the Minister has said that this thing can be ended without a bargain being arranged. In my own case, a matter which is quite similar was ended without any bargain whatsoever being made. I want to ask the Minister now if the men on the run go back openly, as I came back openly, say, if they go back on this day week, will the Minister close the chapter without a bargain? When I was speaking I told the Minister that we recognised that the Government have enough military force to enforce the Treason Act, and that they can, if they wish to, enforce it, but that it is not wise to do so. But we appeal to them now to do what we consider is the right thing for the nation, that is, to close the chapter. If these men go back this day week, in the same way as I came back, I hope that the Government will close the chapter. I would ask the Minister to close the chapter.

Mr. BLYTHE

It is not precisely the same thing. We will close the chapter of jail rescues in this way, that these men having escaped would go back to jail. If they come home we would arrest every man who had escaped, but we would take into account the fact that they had submitted to arrest, that they had allowed themselves to be taken when they could not have been captured. We would take into account that during the period out of jail they have been on the run and have suffered perhaps, some of them, greater hardships and punishment and discomforts than they would have suffered in the jail. We would take all this into account. We would take into account that this was a gesture for a new position and we would meet them. Probably there would be men who would go out at once again. Of course I am talking now all the time about men who were really political. There were other men who went out of jail at the time who were not political. I am leaving them out. Some of them who had little against them might go straight out. They might be kept for varying lengths of time but we would deal with them in such a way that it would be better for them to do whatever term they might have to do than to continue on the run. Anyway if that happened we could feel sure that there would not be a jail rescue period.

I do not want to get on to another point, but if the Deputy would look at the Treasonable Offences Act and try to detach himself from it at the moment, I think he would agree that the Treasonable Offences Act is a proper Act and an Act which ought to be on the Statute Book and which ought to be administered. Any objection to it really arises to-day because we are emerging from a peculiar situation in which men who would not ordinarily be liable to any charges under that Act might be liable. What I am driving at is, that if we are really doing anything we want to make as sure as we can that by doing that we are not going to let any man think that, for instance, a new period has arisen in which dangers of carrying on a certain line of action are less than they were before or that there is to be—I do not want to be offensive to anybody—easy glory got by pursuing a certain line. We do not, on the other hand, want to embitter anybody by being severe. We are trying to pursue a middle course and secure a complete departure from certain methods of resolving disputes and making changes that are unnecessary, because settlement can be effected through the machinery of the ballot box.

I pointed out before that it is not enough simply to ask for these men's release and say some of the things that have been said. I do not know what precise significance should be given to them, but there were some things which Deputy Lemass said and perhaps if he explained those things they were figures of speech to some extent and might not be really objectionable. On the other hand, they may indicate a defence of the policy of altering a policy here and altering laws by force. If they be that, and any man asks for the release of prisoners while professing those things, we could only say "No release of prisoners; we stand fast." If there is not any abandonment of the policy of using force and if there is not an adoption of the principle that changes must be effected by persuasion and by getting the majority vote—if there is still a reliance on force then any plea for the release of prisoners whose offences were connected with the support of that policy of force, or with preparations to use force, must be met with the reply that the prisoners must stay in. We really want to get down to fundamentals and see where we are going. Sometimes you can be generous with men, simply believing that generosity in itself will affect them without having any particular ground to go on. That is particularly the case after the conflict—immediately after it. That argument would be very powerful indeed in the later part of 1923 or in 1924; but, of course, some of the prisoners having committed certain acts in very recent times, they must be very fixed in their policy and if there is any one of these men in jail who firmly believes that he ought to use force and that it is right to prepare to use force to get changes here, then he is a danger and he ought to be kept in jail. It may be awkward for many people, but really there is nothing much to be done by letting him free to pursue his particular activities or to persuade other people.

Mr. MacENTEE

I had hoped that a resumption of the debate would not have been necessary, because on Friday the Minister, when he spoke, seemed to recognise the peculiar characteristics of this problem—to be anxious to attack it, not as a politician, but as a statesman. Several times he approached it in a statesmanlike way, but I suppose, backed by the fact that he had to maintain the conventional official attitude, he began to surround himself with reservations and conditions which made the overtures he appeared to be willing to make, useless. I submit that the enforcement of a penalty, the maintenance of an official attitude, the justification of things that have been done in the past on either side, are very secondary things in this matter. What we are out to secure, if we possibly can, is the restoration of a feeling of friendship —it need not be political friendship— corporate friendship, and good fellowship between all the people and every section of the community in the State. That is what is necessary in order that the humble individuals among us may be able to earn their daily bread in peace and security, and the only justification for any measure, punitive or merciful, is that it should bring about those conditions. I would ask the Minister for once to override the official convention.

What is the crime for which these men are suffering, if it is a crime— there may be doubts about it? We will admit, at any rate, that in the ordinary eyes of the law, in the strict sense of the word, it is an offence to escape from prison. But, after all, I think that is an offence that none of us would be certain that, if we were similarly situated, we would not commit. If any of the Ministers or Deputies who have ever been in prison were placed in a similar situation with the prison doors thrown open, would they not have walked out in exactly the same way as these men? And if they had been hunted with all the persistence of the law; if they had been hunted for three years, would they not think, at the end of that time, that they had sufficiently expiated whatever offences they had been originally imprisoned for? That is the case I want to put to the Minister. If there is a punishment, one of the purposes of it is that it should be a deterrent, and the other purpose is, I suppose, that it should be commensurate with the offence.

Some of the men who escaped on this occasion were involved in very minor charges indeed. One was an old man bordering on seventy years of age. He had been questioned by the Civic Guard in connection with the use that had been made of his motorcar. The Guards refused to believe him and he lost his temper and may have made some hasty answers to the Guards, which gave them the excuse for arresting him. That man has been harried and harassed for over three years, and I think if you begin to consider, you will find that in the case of every person involved his offence is a very simple one.

The sufferings that these men have endured in the past three years, I submit, have served the practical end of justice, and the only thing that remains to be done is that the Government, recognising that fact, should act upon it and should say, without more ado, that those men, if they have committed crime, have been punished, have purged their wrong-doing, and let them go home. Let them go home, and let them place themselves, if you like, at your disposal when they go home. They will do that. But surely it is not necessary that you should go further, all the time having at the back of your mind that when you have gone further by arresting them, you do not propose again to imprison them. Do not go further with the empty formality, if you like, of arresting these men and hauling them to prison, simply, as it were, to humiliate them and then to release them. Surely the law, if it is the law you are seeking to vindicate, will be much better served by you, who have the power of exercising the quality of mercy, if you like, and of charity and toleration which are at your disposal. I think that that is very much the better way of dealing with this matter.

Any man who has been on the run for three years, who has the responsibility of a household, who is the father of a family, or the support of a mother or father, who gets an opportunity of going back again to pursue his ordinary daily business, is not going lightly to jeopardise the feeling of security that for the first time in three years will be his. The man who can for the first time in three years sleep easily in his bed at night, who can walk freely through the streets in the daytime, is not going to abuse this toleration, if you extend it to him now. When you have that consideration before you, and the fact that, as I said before, whatever offence there has been has been expiated in suffering and in anxiety; when you have the fact that your toleration, if you extend it, will not be abused, and when you have, above all, the changed circumstances of these times, I submit that instead of trying to solve this matter by the method of legal logic-chopping, you ought to make this gesture, make it for once, and if it is abused, you at least will have the justification that you have made it. Make it for once; let these men all go back; do not ask from them any formal retraction of the things they said in the past; do not ask them to humiliate themselves in any formal way; depend rather more upon, as I said before, the changed circumstances of the time, on the fact that 1928 is not 1925; on the fact that men who thought there was no other way can see opening before them another way, can see in the gradual accession of strength to the Party which we represent the possibility that they will be able to achieve their ends and their ideals without recourse to arms—depend upon that to give and to restore to this State that peace which is so vital to its welfare.

MINISTER for DEFENCE (Mr. Fitzgerald)

I should be sorry to throw any discord into this debate, but the Deputy who has just spoken talked about assurances we have had. So far I have not noticed any assurance. I would suggest that one assurance would be this: Deputy Boland, I think it was, speaking the other day, indicated or implied that he had a fair amount of knowledge of the doings, if I may say so, of law-breakers and other people. In this country last year happened one of the most dastardly crimes that has happened in the world for a long time—the dastardly murder of the Minister for Justice. One of the assurances we might have from Deputy Boland and the others who are urging this gesture on our part is that they should give any information they may have now, or may get as time goes on, that is likely to be of assistance to the police in bringing these murderers to justice, or any information they think might conceivably be of use to the police in bringing these murderers to justice. Deputy Boland talks about assurances that we have. I think that would be a very important and useful assurance at present.

Mr. G. BOLAND

May I ask will I have the right to reply?

Mr. FITZGERALD

Another Deputy will possibly be able to speak for the Deputy. I was not seeing the papers during that period, but, so far as I know, we have had no assurance from the Fianna Fáil Party that each individual member of that Party and, as far as their influence goes, all the people they control will, or will be urged to put all the information that they may from time to time acquire, that they think may possibly, or may under any circumstances, conceivably, be of use to the police in tracking down these murderers, before the authorities. That is an assurance which I think will be very useful at present to this country as well as to the Fianna Fáil Party. There has been a lot of loose talk in this discussion, and just one point interests me personally—that about the political offenders. We brought in an amnesty here which, on the one hand, gave liberty to a very large number of men who were opposed to the Government—some of them for the crime of waging war simply, and others for individual acts which might conceivably be associated with that general term. On the other hand, there were men who had taken the side of the State on that occasion and who, in spite of that, had certain criminal tendencies, and who actually benefited by the amnesty, because the amnesty said that it should amnesty those who had waged war against the State, or acts arising or purporting to arise out of that, and acts arising or purporting to arise out of the action of the State in putting down that rebellion. Reference has been made to a man named McPeake. This person joined the National Army, took the pay of a man in the National Army. Nothing is going to make me recognise or pretend to recognise as a political offender a man taking the pay of the National Army whose gun, when he was a gunner in an armoured car when General Michael Collins was shot, mysteriously refused to fire and General Collins was murdered. This man a couple of weeks after was in charge of that same gun in that same car when a road was barricaded and rifle and machine-gun fire was played upon a military party. The General and another officer—possibly several—were out of the car, and this man's gun again mysteriously refused to fire. Later on this man stole the car, took it over to the enemies of the State, and within a short time used that car and the gun in it, which had mysteriously refused to fire when it was in the service of the Army, against members of the National Army, with the result that eighteen men serving this State were either murdered—that is to say, were shot dead—or were wounded. In no State at any time of a country's history would it be urged that—if I may use the phrase—the enemies on one side should demand that the traitors on the other—the men who had accepted the pay of the other side, and had stolen property and had been a party to the murder or wounding of eighteen men——

Mr. LEMASS

You, sir, made a ruling the other night that the word "murder" was not to be used in connection with events arising out of the civil war, and I hope you will apply that ruling now to the Minister. I object to the use of the term in this connection.

Mr. G. BOLAND

I should like to warn the Minister that, except they intend to remain in power for ever, he is contributing a very dangerous precedent if he means to say that there can be no pardon. That is a very dangerous precedent to set for any Government that may come into power in this country. I think he ought to avoid that—it is very, very dangerous.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

What is really out of order is the use of the word "murder" or "murderer" in a way which, either explicity or implicitly, involves members of the House. Generally, with regard to the events of the civil war, perhaps we will get on better if, after an amnesty has actually been proclaimed, we avoided the use of the word in connection with events that happened during the civil war, and if people proceeded to debate the matter more calmly.

Mr. G. BOLAND

As to this point the Minister has raised—we have all cause for revenge, and if he is going to insist on revenge, it is only natural that others will want to do the same. I ask him to keep away from that word —he is establishing a very dangerous precedent.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

He is entitled to say why he thinks a certain person should not be released, but generally it would be better if the word "murder" were kept out of the debate. I do not know whether we are going to get away from the atmosphere in which we resumed the debate, but perhaps if everybody did their best to endeavour not to get away from that atmosphere we might be able to maintain it for a short time longer, and even that would be of some assistance.

Mr. O'KELLY

If I may intervene on this question of the use of the word "murder," I desire to say that at any time, when the 8th December, 1922, is referred to, and if there are certain Deputies in this House, I intend to stick to the use of the word "murder," as I believe it was nothing but a callous murder.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Obviously we cannot make one rule for one party and another for another.

Mr. O'KELLY

I quite agree with that.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I understand, at any rate, the situation which arises in this House in view of the history of the country, and in view of the personalities now in the House, and I am quite prepared to agree that that history and these personalities cannot at once be brought into what might be called the niceties of parliamentary procedure. I am quite clear it cannot be done. I consider I have displayed a certain amount of intelligence in not trying to do it. At the same time, what Deputy O'Kelly proposes is, I think, manifestly an impossible proposition. Unless we have all a certain amount of patience we cannot get forward. Our very presence here implies that we are prepared to debate even difficult subjects. There are plenty of difficult subjects to be debated, but we must all be prepared to debate them upon some reasonable basis. I was going to suggest, when the debate was resumed to-day, that interchanges across the floor are not a method of eliciting information as to the real position, and that by that method we could hardly get any solution of the question here at issue; if a solution is possible. I am not saying that it is.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I rather regret I used the word murder. The moral law, which is not of to-day or to-morrow but from all time, remains, and the consciences of the people can supply whatever epithet they like to any given act. I have no doubt what the word should be. The point is, I was giving some slight history of the mysterious failure of this gun to shoot. Finally that car was taken by a man in the National Army, drawing the pay of the National Army. Deputy Boland says that my reference to this is a very dangerous precedent. It may be, God between us and harm, that the Fianna Fáil Party may come into power. Does the Deputy think it is a dangerous precedent to lay down that the Army, acting under the orders of whatever Government the Irish people put in power, shall maintain discipline and that a man who acts as this person did shall do six years in prison? I think the Deputy might say it is a dangerous precedent for the Party opposite when they come into power, and run the Army, to find that a man has only got six years for such an act. This is a question of the internal discipline of the National Army. It is a very serious and important national matter. I do not see how any man is going to turn round and say that a man of the National Army who is a traitor, if I may use that word—and I do not think there is any other word to apply— should not be obliged to undergo the very minimum, I might almost say the ridiculously lenient sentence of six years' imprisonment. I object to the application of the term political prisoner to a man like that. His name was brought in frequently in this debate. The other side during the period of civil disturbances were on one side. We recognise that there was an organisation there and we said so far as that is concerned it is wiped out. We have not dictated and said that a man of theirs who was a commandant and might have been a traitor to them—the word does not apply in that case—must remain a commandant. I do not see how they can come along at this time of the day and say that they are to decide exactly for themselves what should happen as to the people who were on our side and acted as traitors in these circumstances; although a great deal is said about good feeling and about the people outside and what they think, still I am very difficult to persuade that the Irish people will think that a man whose actions were such as I have set forth, suffered any grave injustice or that anything was done that should not have been done by that man doing a sentence of six years. A great many of us have been in jail and on the run and we are not much impressed by these pathetic references. We have been through it, and we know, of course, it is uncomfortable. What I object to is the application of the term political prisoner in cases where the application of that term is definitely subversive of good order and good morality amongst the Irish people who do need to have some standard set up in 1928.

Mr. LITTLE

The Minister for Defence has laboured the case of McPeake. Now, McPeake was charged in court with, I think, the larceny of an armoured motor car. He was not charged with being an accomplice in the death of General Michael Collins. He was not charged with purposely jamming his machine gun. If the Government at that time had any evidence whatever to show they could prove a case of that sort against McPeake, they certainly would have taken that action and made it the basis of their charge against him. That was not the charge against him. The jamming of a machine gun is not an unusual occurrence, as everyone knows, and there was not sufficient evidence to show that McPeake at that time was committing any act of foul play. He was charged and condemned purely and simply on the grounds that he came over to the Republican side, that he was, technically speaking, during the war a deserter, and that when he came over he brought with him an armoured motor car. As already pointed out, many people have been amnestied who committed almost exactly the same offence. It is highly improper to go back on that decision and to bring up suspicions which are not grounded on proper evidence and to use these in this House to prejudice the minds of the public and the people here in a case which obviously arose directly out of the war. It was an act of war, and the doer of that act should be amnestied now that we are trying to get back to an atmosphere of peace. After all, if we are going to continue to close our minds like rat-traps and regard Republicans and extremists as criminals, we are not going to get peace in this country. That is not going to solve anything. It is going to create an atmosphere where neither the Government nor the Opposition will have any control whatever over certain elements in the country. It is absurd to say to any Party that they are to act as if they were officers of the police of the Government.

We do not stand for the acts of criminals. We are here purposely and deliberately in order to get back to an atmosphere of peace, but anybody with any sense of vision and knowledge of Irish history must know that the way to get back is not by trying to impose red-tape restrictions or by trying to humiliate a certain section of the people.

No matter how severe you are on these men, no matter how you try to keep them on the run, is that going to prevent the elements who stand for the use of violence from carrying on as they have been doing in the past? Is it not rather going to foster an atmosphere in which the enemies of Ireland will take advantage of the situation and will use certain elements in this country against you, against us, and against the country as a whole? After all, you and we have, or ought to have, a common interest. We ought to take a steady view of this question, and not have imposed on you or on us any responsibility for things that have occurred, or that may occur, in the sense that we ought not to say that such a thing is your fault, and that, if such a thing happens, it is going to be our fault. That mood is not going to get us into a state of peace. We should consider the matter on common grounds. There are many members on the opposite benches who understand the separatist mind, the type of mind represented by the Invincibles. The Minister for Finance was schooled in that line of thought. Other Ministers also understand it and know how difficult it is to get men with that mood on them away from it. You are not going to do that except by the largest possible measure of leniency.

I remember on one occasion I was in a law action, and a very distinguished counsel was advising. A question of coming to a compromise arose and Mr. Timothy Healy, who was the counsel and whose advice, perhaps, may be taken by members opposite to-day, said: "If you are going to do something generous, do it well, do it in a big way." That is just where the Government at the moment is missing the bus. What they are doing they are doing in a small way, in a half-hearted kind of way. It takes as much courage to make peace as it takes to make war at times. It takes even more courage. It will, I admit, take a good deal of courage, and it is difficult. I can understand the attitude of the Government, with its difficulties and grave responsibilities, as to whether one step will lead to another, whether if they do the generous thing it is not likely to be abused. How can we answer that? We can only co-operate in trying to see peace brought to the country, and we think there should be a feeling of common citizenship and common interest based on a real act of generosity.

Mr. BOURKE

It seems to me that the Deputies who are responsible for putting down the resolution did not give very careful consideration to their proposal. It seems to me that even if the Government were inclined to give sympathetic consideration to this proposal, the machinery proposed is probably the least satisfactory that could be proposed for the purpose. I do not believe that any committee would be competent to deal with this matter. If you are going to set up a committee to deal with it, it should be a judicial committee, a committee consisting of people trained in the taking of evidence and with the sanction of judicial experience behind them. Apart from the fact that Deputies would not have that experience of taking evidence and would not have that sanction to which I refer it would be an invidious position in which to place them. It would be open to the objection that they were acting from political or personal motives. It is a question of public policy about which the Government alone has sufficient facts and knowledge of the conditions of the country to enable it to come to a proper decision. At the same time, I believe that Deputies opposite could give the Government considerable help in coming to that decision. Deputy Boland gave a lead in that direction, but it was not followed up.

If Deputies opposite gave a frank and clear statement of policy of their attitude towards insurrectionary movements in this country and towards organisations seeking to achieve their objective by other than constitutional means—if they gave that frank declaration once and for all—I believe it would be very helpful to the present Government. One of the greatest difficulties with which the Government is confronted is that there are such a large number of people in this country who do not appear to care as to where politics ends and where crime begins. In every civilised country there must be some line of demarcation between crime and politics, and if political parties refuse or neglect to draw that line the Government must draw it. In doing so, it must take care that if it errs at all, it errs on the side of the safety of the State. If the Fianna Fáil Deputies were in a position to control the policy of the Government they would be in exactly the same position, and they could not afford to take chances.

While that is the state of affairs in the country all this talk during this debate and in previous debates about partisan administration, partisan police force and vindictive administration is unnecessary, if not actually dishonest. The Government gave an earnest of its sincerity in declaring for impartial administration and democratic control of our institutions in the attitude it adopted during the Army trouble of 1924. As a result of its firm attitude on that occasion it can say to-day that we have as impartial administration, as impartial judiciary, and as impartial police force as are to be found in any country in the world. However, when you have several organisations in the country all aiming at the same objective, one seeking to achieve it by constitutional measures with reservations —and, so far as I can gather, that is the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party— when you have another organisation seeking to achieve exactly the same ends by different measures; when you have an organisation resorting to such measures as the attacks on Civic Guards' barracks eighteen months or so ago, followed by the assassination of the late Minister for Justice, can we be surprised if the protective forces of the State feel themselves in duty bound to regard all organisations with that objective in view with a certain amount of suspicion? Can we be surprised if the Government of the day hesitates to release prisoners who have been duly convicted, some of them for very serious crimes, and the less honourable of whom, we may take it for granted, will be inclined to regard that act as an indication of weakness and be encouraged by it to perhaps still more extreme measures?

I was glad to learn that Deputy Aiken was anxious to find a common basis upon which all Parties could work for the peace and prosperity of the people. Here again let us have clear ideas. Economists may differ as to how far a policy of protection or a policy of free trade should be pursued, or how far a policy with an agricultural bias or an industrial bias should be pursued in order to increase prosperity in this country. So far as I know, no economist has ever any doubt that you cannot have prosperity in a country which is a victim of intermittent revolution. You cannot have prosperity without security, and you can no more have security in a country the soil of which is sown with dumps than you can have in a country which is sown with the proverbial dragon's teeth, particularly if one of the most influential Parties in the country is an accessory before and after the fact of the concealment of those dumps. If we were in a position, as we should be in a position, to take it for granted that every Party in this Dáil, irrespective of what their ultimate aim might be, were, without any mental reservation, committed to development along constitutional lines, then we would have travelled a long road towards that unity and that peace for which all Parties are anxious, as far towards it, perhaps, as it would be healthy to travel in many democratic States.

If we had that assurance, the Government would be sufficiently strengthened to take a more sympathetic view of this question of the release of the prisoners than they can be expected to take at the present moment, but while there is a doubt left in the minds of the Government as to what is the attitude of Parties in this Dáil, can they be blamed if they consider that any step of this kind should be regarded as unduly foolhardy? As I say, we are all anxious for peace and for unity, and I hope that some Deputy on the opposite Benches will get up and follow the lines of Deputy Boland's speech, and be perhaps a little more specific. If that ideal is going to be achieved, a beginning will have to made somewhere and somehow. In my opinion, the proper place to make a beginning is here and now. Until our own house is set in order we cannot expect that people outside the Dáil are going to pay very much attention to our advice on this or similar matters.

Mr. P. HOGAN (An Clár)

I am afraid that I am going to get into the cross-fire. Candidly, I had hoped half an hour ago that I would not have an opportunity of speaking at all. I think this debate should have closed half an hour ago. I would rather remember the statements made by the President and Deputy Boland, far rather remember them, and what was in them, than the statements made by the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Defence. I do not think that I can add much to what has been said in the matter of argument about the setting up of this Committee, or for the setting up of some Committee that would consider the pros and cons of the position of the men who are at present in jail. We have, I think, on all sides of the House a perfect understanding in our minds that there is a set of men in jail who did things not for any personal advantage they might gain from the doing of those things, or from any personal advantage that might accrue to them, but simply because they believed in the circumstances that operated at the time they were doing their duty, simply because they understood at the time that they were endeavouring to secure a political advantage, and to make use of that political advantage for their Party. Each one of us knows that a certain set of these people are in prison clearly under these circumstances, because these actions should not be considered isolated.

These actions should be considered in connection with the special circumstances which surrounded the doing of these actions. We see that there is a certain set of moral laws operating throughout the whole world, which I might liken to Standing Orders of conduct for the whole population of the world, but these things are suspended occasionally, and in abnormal circumstances these actions are to be considered rather as acts of heroism than as offences against the law. I think if abnormal circumstances had not prevailed at certain times some members who are sitting on the Government Benches to-day might find themselves charged with offences that, only for the abnormal circumstances that prevailed, would not have been considered acts of heroism but offences against the law.

I would also like to say to both sides that they are perhaps pressing each other too far. I think the President and the Minister for Finance made a very generous gesture in this matter. I think that Deputy Boland and, possibly Deputy MacEntee, on the other side, also made generous statements, but trying to force from each other in this Dáil statements which clearly no Party will make, or endeavouring to force statements from each Party which neither will make, is surely not the way to get the matter settled. The men we are anxious about are the men who have been convicted and who had political motives. Clearly, there is nobody else in the minds of the people who are advocating this Committee but men who did acts for political advantage and for nothing else. I have some difficulty in speaking on this matter. I do not want to say anything that will create anything but an atmosphere that will bring about what is very desirable— that will not alone make it possible to set up this Committee, but that will render it possible for that Committee to work, and for the men who are at present on the run and in jail to fall into line with whatever we decide here.

Statements have been made regarding amnesty. I want to put this to the Government as strongly as I may. The Government, in its Amnesty Resolution, did relieve from responsibilities, or from punishment, people on their own side as well as people on the other side who were in arms against them. I put it to the Government that this is a time when they are not asked to relieve from punishment any persons on their own side. I would say to them: "Here is a time when you are asked to be generous towards your opponents; when you are asked to advance one step further and to give to your opponents something that you are not extending to your own supporters. Here is a time for generosity. Here is a time when you can show that you have a big and wide outlook and that you are not prejudiced against those who took part against you, who were anxious to unseat you and who possibly did their best to bring that about. Here is a time for your generosity, for full consideration, for clearness of vision and for generosity of outlook and of action."

There are men in jail who are suffering a great deal. Some suffering is imposed upon them which I feel is not necessary. Some time before Christmas the father of a boy who is at present in jail for what I know was a political offence approached me and stated that for some two months he had not heard from this boy. We can imagine the anxiety of a father for a boy whom he has not heard from for a couple of months, from whom there are no messages or letters, and who cannot receive visitors. I interested myself in the matter, both by interview and letter. On the 15th December I received a letter stating:

I am directed by the Minister for Justice to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 13th instant regarding the case of——. In reply, I am to state that the necessary inquiry will be made into the case and a decision come to. The decision will be communicated to you in due course.

That was on the 15th December, 1927. I have not heard the decision yet, and the father of the boy has not heard the decision. I understand that no correspondence of any kind is permitted, and that he is not allowed to have interviews or to receive papers. No intercourse is permitted between that boy and his family.

This is a matter in which the Government cannot be accused of having personal feelings towards their own followers. This is a matter in which other people are concerned. I put it to the Government that they would show real statesmanship and generosity by setting up this Committee and making it possible for the Committee to work and to arrive at a decision which, as well as being impartial, will bring benefit to the nation.

MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)

Deputy Little informed us to-night of a phrase used by a distinguished lawyer who was recently a very honoured citizen of this State. He said that if you are going to effect a compromise it is best to do the generous and the big thing. There are two sides to this matter. There is something to be expected of the two sides. We want to see the generosity and the big things that are going to be done by those who can speak, or who think they can speak, for the people under discussion at the moment. I have very little hope that Deputy Little will do anything very big or generous, considering his reaction to what was urged by the Minister for Defence here. The Minister for Defence said that one thing might, at least, ease the situation—if an assurance could be got that if any Deputy on the other side, or any of the people with whom they have influence, came into possession of information which might lead to the tracking down of the murderers of the late Kevin O'Higgins they would hand that information over. What is Deputy Little's reaction to that? To do that, he says, would be to make oneself more or less an agent of the police—a thing that is enjoined on every man in this House.

Mr. LITTLE

My answer to that was that to undertake to do that— there might be circumstances when one could undertake to do a thing like that —would put one into a position of odium altogether. It is really a matter for one's personal conscience as a citizen as to what he would do if circumstances like those arose. But it is very unfair to try to put a whole Party in a position in which they are required to give a certain undertaking. It would be unfair to impose that on the Labour Party, for instance. What the individual conscience would do on a question like that would be quite a different matter.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

What we are discussing is a simple statement made by the Minister for Defence that if Deputies—individuals—came into possession of information which would be likely to lead to the apprehension of the people who murdered the late Kevin O'Higgins, they should give over that information.

Mr. AIKEN

Would the Minister ask that of his own Party?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Certainly. It has been accepted by our own Party, and it was, I think, accepted in debates in this House on the Public Safety Act, by the Labour Party.

Mr. AIKEN

Was it carried out?

Mr. COONEY

Has the Minister any reason to assume that there is any more accurate information in our possession on this matter than there is in his own Party?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There is no implication with regard to information being in possession of any Party.

Mr. KILLILEA

Did you not pass a Treason Bill to find that out?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Minister for Defence made a simple statement that should appeal to the conscience of any man in this House. Deputy Little's reaction to that is to make objections and to say that one does not know what one would do in certain circumstances. I did not understand the Deputy's statement, but he does not admit it is his duty as a citizen to give information.

Mr. COONEY

To become an informer.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

To become an informer on the murderers of O'Higgins. That is exactly the point—to become an informer on the murderers of the late Minister for Justice. The reaction to the statement or request made by the Minister for Defence is the phrase used by Deputy Cooney just now and the mysterious words uttered by Deputy Little.

Mr. CLERY

Include all the other murders.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am dealing with one thing.

Mr. CLERY

Include them all.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This is a test case. Let that case be tested in connection with the statement made by the Minister for Defence, that if any Deputies came into possession of information which would lead to the apprehension of the murderers of——

Mr. CORRY

Search your own house.

Mr. COONEY

Ask Murray about the murder of Bergin.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Here we have a very distinguished member of this House and a very distinguished citizen of the State murdered in a way that drew down the condemnation of pretty well everybody who spoke. We ask here: Can we get an assurance that if Deputies on the other side—I use the word "if"; there is no implication— come into possession of information which would lead to the arrest of the murderers of the late Minister for Justice, they will pass that information on? In reply to that, we have the remark of Deputy Cooney about a man becoming an informer. That is a state of mind which it is impossible to deal with. One cannot be generous with that type of person. Is there anybody here who, after the remark of Deputy Cooney, would ask us to be generous in this matter of political prisoners? If the reaction is that of Deputy Cooney to the demand made by the Minister for Defence, it is nothing more than to say that people by concealment do not become accessories to the crime of the murder of the late Minister for Justice. I do not say that Deputy Little has anything like the mentality of Deputy Cooney. Deputy Little has made a statement which I cannot understand. He, apparently, thinks that there may be a set of circumstances in which a man could bind himself ahead, but he cannot say what those circumstances would be. The thing is so clear—the murder was so foul—that I cannot possibly see how anybody obtaining information could possibly refuse to give it. That is the reaction in this House towards the request made by the Minister for Defence. That is not a matter affecting compromise or concession, but it is a simple matter of people doing their duty.

Mr. KENNEDY

A red herring.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I hope there is nobody other than Deputy Cooney who thinks it is not his duty to give evidence in such a case if evidence comes into his possession. That is the response. We have heard a lot of talk about people who have escaped from Mountjoy. Quite a clever attempt has been made to create sympathy with people who are now out of jail, having escaped—having walked out when the doors were open, as we have been told. It is put to Deputies here: Would anybody refuse to do likewise if he was in a similar position? An attempt is made to get sympathy for these people on that statement of the position. Surely it is pertinent to inquire—this does not cut across any terms or agreements that may hereafter be come to with regard to people who may really and legitimately be called political prisoners— with regard to some of these men who are now walking about, having escaped from Mountjoy, why they were previously in Mountjoy? I take the case of four men who escaped from Mountjoy Prison in November, 1925—Fitzgerald, Murphy and two persons called McCabe. One of these men has since been recaptured. The two McCabes and Fitzgerald are at large. What were they in Mountjoy for? They kidnapped a particular man because he was bankrupt—kidnapped him by force of arms —and held him in their possession for a considerable period. Their treatment was such that he had to go into hospital when released from their hands. That all happened in 1924. This man, Manly, was detained in various places in the Counties of Westmeath, Longford, Meath and Cavan until November, 1924. Part of the statement of this man as to his treatment when in possession of these men who were convicted by judge and jury for being concerned in this kidnapping, was as follows:—

Two men came in. One asked, "Is this the prisoner?" and another said "Yes." One man, purporting to be a doctor, examined me and said I was sound and fit for a lot of abuse. The blindfold was then taken off me and I was left there until 4 p.m. on the following evening. About 4 p.m. the next evening, the little fellow came in and blindfolded me again. Soon after two other men came in and asked had I my beads. I said "Yes." He said "Take it in your hands," and I did. He then said, "Take this in your other hand," handing me a revolver. He then opened my shirt, took the revolver out of my hand, placed the muzzle against my breast, and said, "You are to answer all questions truthfully."

He was subjected to that type of treatment two or three times. In 1924, people with arms arrest a man because he is a bankrupt and because, by kidnapping him, they think they can bring pressure to bear upon his brother to pay his debts. They hold him and bring him backward and forward through the country for several months. He is finally found and these people are convicted by judge and jury and sentenced. Where is the political taint or the political flavour about that case?

Mr. ALLEN

I should like to ask the Minister if he is aware that this man denied that statement on cross-examination?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Which man?

Mr. ALLEN

The man we are speaking of.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The man who was kidnapped?

Mr. ALLEN

Yes.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not think he did.

Mr. ALLEN

Are you sure he did not?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am not. But in any event sufficient testimony was produced to have these four men convicted for kidnapping. Is that a political offence?

Mr. ALLEN

Are you sure that that man did not deny that statement on cross-examination?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Let me admit, for the moment, that he did.

Mr. ALLEN

Why are you making it, then?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am showing the treatment to which the man was subjected. I want to ask, even if that statement were denied, does that put any political flavour on the kidnapping episode?

Dr. RYAN

The Minister is making the point that these men were not political prisoners. If they are not political prisoners, they are not covered by the resolution.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

These are people for whom a plea was put up by Deputy Ruttledge when Deputy Ruttledge and two others were interviewing the Minister for. Justice.

Dr. RYAN

Not in connection with this motion.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The motion is vague. Deputy Ruttledge referred to a number of people as "examples," as he put it. Deputy Ruttledge spoke of these people when on the deputation. In addition to that, the reference throughout this debate has been to "the prisoners who escaped from Mountjoy"—the people who walked out. These are three of them. One of them was recaptured. Are they abandoned as political prisoners?

Dr. RYAN

I do not know.

Mr. ALLEN

No.

Dr. RYAN

If not political, they are not covered by this resolution.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy Allen says they are political, and as long as one Deputy claims that they are covered by this resolution, I am entitled to go on with my argument with reference to them.

Dr. RYAN

That is matter for the Committee to find out.

Mr. LITTLE

That is what the Committee is for.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The resolution is so absurd in its terms that nobody could accept it. It refers to all prisoners who claim to be political. I find that Stephen Murphy was quoted by Deputy Ruttledge as one of the cases covered by the resolution. He is one of the four—the only one of the four at present in jail.

Mr. LEMASS

Is it a cowardly act for the Minister for Defence to prompt the Minister for Industry and Commerce?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy will have to learn more English.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputies on the other side have spoken as if all those prisoners could be described as political. Here are four of them. They kidnapped an old man, rushed him and harried him around the country and put him, finally, in such a state that he had to be removed to hospital when discovered. This man was kidnapped in order to put pressure on his brother to pay his debts. We are told that this is to be regarded as a political matter, that this was politics. How can this be described as politics? Deputy Ryan has doubts as to whether this is a political case or not, but Deputy Ruttledge has none, and neither has Deputy Allen. They have mentioned the case.

Another of these prisoners who is still at large is a gentleman called Lee. A certain film came to this town which Mr. Lee did not like—the Ypres film. He stole it. He committed larceny to the extent of £120 and he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to imprisonment for a certain period. Does that mean that for all time we are going to have established a condition here that anybody who objects to a picture, even though it may have some title that relates to the Great War, is entitled to steal it—is entitled to run away with other people's property and destroy that property? When such a man is sentenced to imprisonment and escapes from jail, is the crime for which he was sent to jail going to be covered by a resolution of this kind because he happens to be in the category of "escaped prisoners," or because it is claimed that he is a political prisoner on the run? I do not know whether the case referred to as that of "the old man with the car" has reference to the man who helped him with a motorcar. A man with a car assisted in that particular larceny. Are these men to be covered by this resolution? They are brought in by those who talk about "escaped prisoners." There was no discrimination made as between the escaped prisoners. The November escape was apparently planned to release prisoners, regarded by those who planned the escape as political. There are two more of them.

The Minister for Finance referred to a man called Carolan. Carolan was convicted and sentenced for the organisation of an illegal force. Carolan's is a case that might be described as political. The Minister for Finance said that if one were to judge from Deputy Aiken's statement, Carolan, if released, would immediately set out upon his old career again. Have we any indication that he will not? When that indication comes, certainly a new attitude should be taken and will be taken towards Carolan. If we are asked to do the big thing and be generous, is Carolan prepared to do the big thing and be generous? Are the people who think they can speak for Carolan prepared to do the big thing?

Mr. G. BOLAND

Carolan is one of the men who came out and allowed themselves to be arrested. He is one who sent indirectly to me to know what the chances were. He came out and practically surrendered. I do not mean to say that he actually did go up to the police barracks but he left himself open to arrest.

Mr. MacENTEE

Carolan was engaged ever since the escape trying to earn his living in England and he came back here when he got the assurance of Deputy Boland.

Mr. BOLAND

He got no assurance, but the indication of a possibility.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am not concerned with what is past. Here is the situation: Carolan is in jail at the moment. If people think they can get any assurance from Carolan, I would like to have the reasons stated. They need not be stated openly but they can be stated to some person to whom, perhaps, Deputy Boland may care to go. What is the Deputy's reason for thinking that Carolan will walk along the paths of peace now?

Mr. G. BOLAND

Can I answer that now?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy will get an opportunity to do so.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Better not answer it now. I am sure that he is not going to approach me. If Carolan is prepared to adopt another type of life when he comes out, let that be stated on authority. Carolan is one of the men in Mountjoy towards whom another attitude may be taken, but one would have to get something more than a mere statement by Deputy Boland as to what he believes. There will have to be some reason shown for it. That can be done. Carolan can be treated in a different way. We come now to the case of Seán McGuinness. He was arrested for assaulting the Civic Guards. He assaulted them under arms in April, 1924. He escaped from Mountjoy, is at large, and he was one of the men whom this resolution was proposed to cover. We have seen in the last day or two how that gentleman has written to the papers to repudiate certain things stated by Deputy Lemass in this House. If we can believe that McGuinness is converted to any other type of life, if we can believe that McGuinness is going to abandon force of arms against any Government that comes into operation in this country under present conditions good and well; if not, is there any reason why every effort should not be made to keep McGuinness and put him back into Mountjoy and make him serve every day of whatever sentence was imposed upon him? If McGuinness had not written to the papers, he would have been one of the people whom this resolution certainly would have been taken as covering. He would have been taken to be one whom the remarks of Deputy Boland would cover and that one could look for a different attitude from. It is now quite evident that he is recalcitrant at this moment, and that being the case he cannot be included in any list of people who are going to be treated in a different way, the consideration on the prisoners' side being that they are going to adopt some new, some less aggressive attitude, some passive attitude, towards the State.

Other people who were in Mountjoy and took part in the escape are O'Hara and O'Byrne. They were arrested, tried and convicted for much the same offence as Carolan—the organisation of illegal forces and for possession of documents relating to them. That was much later than when Carolan was arrested. Perhaps it might be about the same time as Carolan was arrested in July, 1925. These people were convicted and these are all judge and jury convictions; the sentences are all sentences of a judge after the jury had found. These people escaped and it is not right or proper that we should have these people clouded over by the simple statement that they are men on the run because they, as naturally anyone would do, walked out of the jail gates. One must go back and see what are the offences for which they were arrested. The offences must be looked at. The same remarks would apply to O'Hara and O'Byrne as to Carolan. Any new attitude, any passive attitude towards the State, would be followed by some different type of treatment. Is there anybody in this House who wants any big or generous gesture towards people who are incapable of making a big or generous gesture themselves in return?

There are two others. There is a man called Patrick Ryan who committed an armed attack on Guards at Enniscorthy in June, 1925, and the man who rescued Ryan afterwards. Are we going to have it alleged here that it is a political matter to assault the Guards with arms at such a date as 1925? If that is going to be considered politics, when is that type of political offence to end? When are we to get away from the sporadic raids on Gardaí barracks? Is there any indication when that happens in 1925 that there is any appreciation of a State having been founded, a Government having been instituted, that Government being the authority to control the forces of law and order? The Minister for Finance put it quite clearly that if one could find that there was an appreciation of that fact—of the establishment of the State and the position of any Government in the State, of any type of Government—that then there was obviously the follow-on from that, that there was no necessity for these secret or semi-secret military organisations, and the further follow-on is that there is no necessity for people to be playing around with documents which deal with these military organisations.

Sporadic outbreaks and attacks on Guards can be closely connected with documents that were found. A man who makes an attack on the Guards has only gone a little bit further on the road following instructions contained in the documents dealing with organisation and preparations. These documents are given to him from time to time and the two types of offences are very similar. One man takes part in the open attack and the other man has the documents containing instructions for the open attack. Until we get some situation in which these people are going definitely to say—it does not matter where they say it—that they are not going to attack the State in any unconstitutional way—until that point is reached, there can be no big or generous gesture towards people of that type. I do not see how any claim for political prisoners can be made to include the three or four men who were engaged in the kidnapping of Manly, the men who stole films and the man whose motor car was associated with the larceny.

Mr. LEMASS

The man whose motor car was associated with the affair was not tried and was not convicted.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

He is not a prisoner at all.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There was a gentleman called Fenlon associated with armed robbery, who supplied the car.

Mr. LEMASS

The man was never convicted of any crime.

Mr. MacENTEE

He was charged, but never before any court.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

He was awaiting trial. I am sorry. The same thing applies to the other man. He was awaiting trial.

Mr. G. BOLAND

Still the Minister said that he stole the films. That is very serious.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I withdraw all that. The man was arrested and waiting trial for the larceny of the films. I will put it any way you like. It is quite clear what the circumstances are now—that man escaped out of jail before that trial came on. If that man is arrested again it will be for the purpose of bringing him to trial for that offence. If he is not guilty he can get out.

Mr. O'KELLY

Stop now, it is 8.30 o'clock.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move the adjournment of the debate until Friday.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The debate is adjourned until Friday at 12 o'clock.