I do not intend to detain the House very long in the discussion of this Estimate. But there is one point I would like to raise upon which I would like to have some information from the Minister. In reply to a question which I put down regarding the raid upon Roebuck House recently, the Minister admitted that Roebuck House had been searched by a party of police under a warrant at 10.30 a.m. on the 25th October. He then went on to say that the officer in charge, having notified Madame Gonne McBride that they were about to raid the house, and having been informed by her that Mrs. Despard had met with a very serious accident on the preceding night, the party carried out the raid without interfering in any way with Mrs. Despard and that, as a matter of fact, the ambulance did arrive and Mrs. Despard was removed while the party of police were in the house.
Madame Gonne McBride has made a statement to me regarding this occurrence and part of it at least is in direct conflict with the statement which has been made by the Minister. The Minister stated that the raiding party had already arrived and were engaged in carrying out the search when the ambulance which was to bring Madame Despard to the hospital reached Roebuck House. Madame Gonne McBride, on the other hand, states: "When the ambulance drew up at my door, I went out to give the doctor's instructions to the attendants. I then saw twenty men emerge from the trees near the gate and run over the grass to the ambulance." Now there is a very important conflict of statements there. It is important, if we are to ascertain what was the real motive and the real reason that inspired this raid, to know if the raiding party were in the house before the ambulance arrived, or, if the ambulance reached the house first, whether the raiding party directed their first attention to the ambulance? That is a point upon which I think we are entitled to require some proof from the Minister that his reply was founded upon fact. In view of the fact also that the Minister said that the search was carried out upon a warrant, I should like to know under what Act that warrant was issued, to whom was it issued, by whom was it issued, upon what ground, and the date and the hour upon which it was issued. It certainly seems more than a coincidence that that raiding party should have arrived after the ambulance had reached Mrs. Despard's house. We have the Minister's statement, on the one hand, that the raiding party reached the house first. On the other hand, we have Madame McBride's statement that the ambulance reached the house first. It is very pertinent to the ascertainment of the motive for this raid to determine which of those statements is correct. If the ambulance reached the house first, if the raiding party arrived afterwards and directed their first attention to the ambulance, what was the conclusion that was to be drawn from that? What was the suspicion that actuated that raiding party and what were the grounds of their suspicion? Were they acting upon information that the St. John's Ambulance, the official ambulance, had been ordered to attend at Roebuck House at 10.30 on the morning of the 25th October? And if so how did they receive that information?
We were told in this House recently that the Post Office did not interfere with private correspondence. We were very sceptical as to that fact, and I think some information was afterwards placed before the House which, at any rate, made the statement that correspondence was not interfered with open to doubt. I should like to know whether the same supervision which is exercised over the mails is also exercised over the telephones, and whether the fact that a telephone communication had been sent asking that the St. John's Ambulance should be sent to Roebuck House at 10.30 o'clock on the morning of the 25th October was the information upon which that party of police acted? And, if so, why did they act in that manner? What were the grounds for that raid? Was it a deliberate act of State persecution? This lady is an elderly lady who has secured worldwide regard for her work and sacrifices in the cause of humanity. She came to Ireland in the days of the trouble here, and notwithstanding the fact that all her family affiliations were on the other side, espoused the cause of the people in Ireland and nobly served it. She met with an accident, and surely the least that lady is entitled to expect from the people whom she has served to the best of her judgment and to the utmost of her ability is that she should be treated with common humanity.
One of the things which we want the Minister particularly to direct his reply to is to explain to us, or to prove to this House, first of all that that raid was not intended to harass and persecute her in the hour of her suffering; and, secondly, that it was not inspired by an unjust suspicion that the ambulance was intended to remove some other person. If the Minister had suspicions that that ambulance was to be used for any other than its ostensible purpose, to remove the injured lady to hospital upon medical instructions, then I think he is entitled also to show to the House upon what grounds he suspects the St. John Ambulance Corps of being a party to such a proceeding. The ambulance was either there to remove Mrs. Despard or some other person, or some other thing. I think that the Minister is entitled to disclose to the House the grounds upon which this raiding party, when it reached Roebuck House, directed its attention, not to the house, but to the ambulance.
I think we are further entitled to demand of him that he will prove to the House that the statement which he made in his reply is correct—that the ambulance arrived while the search party were already engaged in raiding the house. In order to do that, I submit that the Minister must disclose to the House the Act under which the warrant with which that search party was armed was issued, the grounds for that warrant and the date and hour upon which it was issued. I think we are entitled to know that, in order that we may be able to satisfy ourselves that this warrant was not issued in virtue of something which was communicated to the Minister by some person who had access to the records of the Telephone Department.
There is just one other point I wish to deal with, and that is the statement which was made by the Minister for Agriculture. I regret the Minister is not in his place, because we on these benches are beginning to acquire a certain affection for the Minister. We regard him as one of our most effective speakers. He is a delight to listen to and a delight to follow. But he made a statement in the course of this debate upon which I would like to have the opinion of the Minister for Justice. In the course of the debate on the Army Estimate, the Minister committed himself to the statement that this Government was raising the sum of £1,600,000 odd in order to ensure that certain people would have the right to do wrong. He was so pleased with the bon mot——