Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 5 Jun 1931

Vol. 38 No. 21

Juries Protection Bill, 1931—Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney)

This is a Bill to extend the Jurors Protection Act of 1929 for another two years. In the ordinary course of events this Bill would have expired in September next. It is proposed to carry it on for another two years until September, 1933. I need not go into the provisions of that Bill now. I think they are pretty well known to the House. The necessity for this Bill came from the fact that jurymen had been intimidated and that one juryman had actually been fired at in an attempt to murder him. For the protection of juries this Bill was brought in and it has worked very smoothly and successfully up to this.

Unfortunately the necessity for this Bill still continues. There is still a danger that jurymen would be intimidated and possibly assassinated. The persons who are desirous of upsetting ordered government in this country by force of arms are not yet entirely quiescent. It is necessary that jurymen should do their duty as jurymen and carry out their obligations as citizens of this State and receive due protection from the law.

Mr. Little

This is the first shot in the Kildare election. This has been done on previous occasions. Legislation of this kind, speeches in harmony with this particular measure, statements from the President, messages to America and otherwise have been used in previous elections in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the Irish farmers and to frighten them with the idea that there is an atmosphere of war in the country still. In order to take away from the minds of the people the real suffering which they are undergoing, due to the economic depression, due to the glorious results of the hoariest Government in Europe, the oldest Government amongst the Governments of Europe and the one which has produced possibly the worst results in Europe, in order to distract people for the moment from the fact that the population has gone down, within their period, by 200,000, that the number of cattle has decreased by 200,000 and that tillage has decreased by something like 200,000 acres, in order to distract the people in the election we are served up with this re-heated meat from the witches' cauldron of the-Department of Justice, an Act for which there is absolutely no necessity at present. If the Minister had in mind anything like a permanent change in the jury system he could very well have waited until he introduced the Courts of Justice Bill. In introducing this on a previous occasion he said he was introducing it as a permanent measure and as was pointed out by some of the speakers, in the debate at that time the Department of Justice had been seriously considering the re-organisation of the jury system in Ireland. This Bill was the product of the feverish mind of that Department and even with all the force of his Party behind him the Minister was not able to compel the House to accept the measure as a permanent measure. So rotten was it that everybody agreed it should not be a permanent measure.

I forget whether it was in the Dáil or Seanad that the measure was made only a temporary measure. At least the people had a feeling that the abrogation of the rights of the citizen was only going to be a temporary measure. Now the Minister is going to prolong the life of this Bill by another few years.

I suppose if his Party succeeds in postponing the general election until 1933 just before he goes to the country this measure will come up before us again and will be used again for the same purpose as it is being used this time in order to distract the minds of the people on an issue that has got nothing to do with the real life of the people. As was pointed out in the debate on the original measure this Bill gets rid of the fundamentals of the jury system. The jury system is a protection to the people. All through history it has been something which sprang from the people. A man was tried by his peers. He was tried by those people who knew him, and whom he knew. It was open and above board, and those jurymen were chosen by law. The whole proceedings were public, and the jury system, as has been pointed out by men like Edmund Burke and other authorities, has carried out not merely the function of trying issues where crimes are concerned, but also has become the palladium of the liberty of the people. There are certain cases in English history and also in Irish history where a tyrannical government tried to use the criminal law of the land for the purpose of prosecuting its enemies. Juries have protected the individuals carrying out the larger duty which was implied in their very existence. Under the Juries Act these privileges and these rights are all abolished. A jury is to be appointed. First of all the jury panel is to be fixed not by an officer who is subject to the people such as a sheriff, but by one who is the direct appointee of the Government, namely the county registrar. Under the Courts of Justice Act there was to be devolution of certain functions from the under sheriff to the county registrar. That matter will be at issue when the Courts of Justice Act comes to be discussed.

There are very many reasons for regarding that particular change as a very bad change because it throws into the hands of one person functions which in themselves represent conflicting interests. That is the first point in the Bill. Then there is secrecy. Jurymen come in and are known only by a number. They come into the court and to the person who is accused they are nothing but numbers. The person who is accused has not the opportunity beforehand of getting the assistance of his legal adviser as to whether certain people on the jury may be prejudiced against him or whether they would be fair minded in giving him a fair trial. He has no opportunity of exercising what was the historic right of the accused. Thus under this secret system he may look along the row of faces that are before him and has no way of judging whether there are on that jury panel men who are there for the express purpose of convicting him or not.

On the other hand, the State had all the powers that they always had. They can, as they always have power to do, make jurymen stand down. They know the names of all the men beforehand. They can pack the jury as smoothly and quietly as they please and no one knows anything about it. If there is any journalist in the court who happens to be suspect of not taking the particular point of view that the Government want him to take he can be excluded from the court. The whole public is excluded from the court. As well as that the Superintendent of the Guards has extraordinary powers for excluding people from the court. Then again, if the judge considers the accused is acting in a derogatory manner towards the court, if the person who appears before him happens to be what one might call a conscientious objector, a person who does not wish to recognise the authority of the court, he can be subjected to a punishment of six months' imprisonment, which can be imposed on him at once and his trial put back, or else it may be added to his sentence, whichever the judge likes to do.

There are powers in the Bill also to keep a prisoner from being tried for an indeterminate period. So you have all the elements in this Bill which vitiate the sources of justice. If one were purely interested in the technique of the law, if one were purely interested not even in the welfare of the citizens, but wanted to try and have a perfect system of law, one would be opposed to such a measure as this, because it is rotten all the way through and the fact that it has not done more damage than it has done is a great tribute indeed to the Irish people. As was said at the time when this Act was introduced, the country is saved by the sense of humour of a large section of this House and of the country in general.

Speaking on this subject before, Deputy de Valera pointed out how this was a continuance of the coercive legislation under which this country has laboured continually before 1800 and after 1800. He enumerated all the Acts of coercion which were continued throughout the whole of that period. He stopped only with 1921. Other speakers took up the running at that time and pointed out the number of Acts of a coercive nature passed since then and which numbered some five, six or seven—enough to fill up the period and to maintain a continuity, which is typical of any Government in this country which has had to rely upon the British and pro-British element in this country for its powers. You have the present Government characterised by exactly the same result as every Government in this country for the last 100 years. Its characteristics——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy must keep to the present Bill.

Mr. Little

I am talking of coercion.

An Ceann Comhairle

That might have been relevant upon the Second Stage of the Principal Act. The Deputy must keep to why this Act should or should not be continued.

Mr. Lemass

Surely the reasons that would be advanced for that would be similar to the reasons advanced as to why the Principal Act should or should not be passed?

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think so. The debate on the Second Stage of the Bill which is now the Principal Act would necessarily have been wider. Deputies are aware that we allow a considerable latitude on the Second Reading of a Bill. With regard to the enumerations which Deputy Little spoke of, and which I do not remember, I do not think we could enter upon them now.

Mr. Little

I do not intend to enter into it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The position now is we find this Act in force and we will have to confine the discussion as to whether the Act should be continued. We cannot go outside of that. I do not think, for example, that the economic state of the country to which the Deputy referred comes into this debate.

Mr. de Valera

Surely a proposal to continue a Bill is to all intents and purposes the same as a new Bill. It is going to be for a new period in which the Principal Act would have lapsed. It seems to me to be extraordinary that the arguments which were relevant when the Bill was first introduced should be ruled out now as being irrelevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think all the arguments that were introduced when the Bill was being read a second time are relevant to the Second Reading of this continuing Bill. The Second Reading debate on a new Bill is particularly wide. We have always adopted the attitude from the Chair that you can say not only what objection you have to the provisions in the Bill, but the kind of Bill you would like to see if you were yourself introducing the Bill. I think in the case of a continuing Bill you are rather confined to what is in it, as to whether what is in it is desirable to be continued or not.

Mr. de Valera

Surely to prove that this is a continuance of coercive legislation is most relevant. It seems to me that if that is not relevant nothing is.

An Ceann Comhairle

I did not prevent Deputy Little from saying it was a continuance of coercive legislation. The debate was entering into a rather wider field when I stopped him. I think he was going to demonstrate the kind of government we have generally, in its historic perspective and otherwise. That is not relevant to a Bill to continue an Act.

Mr. Clery

The Ceann Comhairle stated that some of the arguments that were used on the last Bill are relevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Ceann Comhairle said some of them are not.

Mr. Clery

How is one to differentiate between the arguments that are relevant and those that are not?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Ceann Comhairle will differentiate from time to time. He has made one particular differentiation just now.

Mr. Little

What I am trying to demonstrate is the continuance of coercion. I think when one is arguing against a continuance of coercion one is entitled to argue against the coercionists.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am definitely ruling that that is not so. The Deputy must confine himself as to why these particular provisions should or should not be continued.

Mr. Little

Surely if one is allowed to attack coercion and the principles for which the Government stand one is entitled to point out that the characteristics which they have are rather the same as those the Governments which have preceded them had? In sum and substance, that the same results were coming from the same machine, and in order to prevent those results the natural thing is to go to the source.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not going to the source. The Deputy must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Little

If you find the same phenomena appearing, the same results, economic depression on the one hand—I do not propose to go into that —and on the other hand, a continuation of the chain of coercion I say that the Government which have produced that thing is dependent upon a pro-British element in this country.

An Ceann Comhairle

If this is by way of a point of order the Deputy has demonstrated to me most conclusively that the ruling I have already given is absolutely correct. He has demonstrated what an extraordinarily wide field he proposes to enter and that is what I do not propose to allow in this particular debate on a continuing Bill.

Mr. Little

It seems amazing to me.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not mind the Deputy being amazed, but I want him to be in order.

Mr. Little

If on a Bill involving all the evil principles which the original Bill contained one is not to be given an opportunity in this House of meeting all these evils with any arguments which would have been relevant upon the original Bill, I suggest it is limiting the rights and privileges of the members of this House to prevent them discussing principles which are involved in this Bill because they are involved in the original Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not what is being done.

Mr. Little

In the original debate Deputy de Valera quoted from the speeches of Forster in introducing coercion Acts.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is going into matters into which he should not go. He ought to come back to the Bill.

Mr. Little

He referred to a speech made by Balfour.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy I am afraid is deliberately contravening the ruling I have given. He told me he was not going to do that.

Mr. Little

Really I do not see how a speech can be made upon this Bill without involving all the issues which were involved in the original Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy can take the provisions of this Act and say why they ought not to be continued.

Mr. Little

I want to make my own speech and not the speech of the Ceann Comhairle.

Deputies

"Order, order" and "Chair."

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy sit down? There is no use in the Deputy getting vexed. The position is that the Deputy must not make the kind of speech which the Ceann Comhairle rules to be irrelevant. The Deputy has been given every liberty. The Deputy was allowed to make a preamble in which he discussed the Kildare election, the possibility of the postponement of the general election until 1933, our human population and our cattle population. All that was by way of preamble. The Deputy has been allowed to make his own speech, but if a ruling is given from the Chair the Deputy must obey it. The position that we are in is that the discussion must be confined to what is in this Bill and whether the Act should be continued or not. I am not telling the Deputy what kind of a speech he should make.

Mr. Little

The Ceann Comhairle wants to reduce me to discussing a few technical details which really are not serious, as to whether the Act should end in six or twelve months. That is absurd. We feel that this is a gross infringement of the rights of every citizen. It degrades the whole system of law in the country. The worst of it is that by letting it go on people get accustomed to it and become apathetic about the advantages of right law, and the result is that the persons who introduced the Act are being given a freer hand and fuller power to carry on whatever form of legal coercion they like to carry on.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not being precluded from demonstrating how the Act is what he says it is.

Mr. Little

I have mentioned the main provisions of the Act. I have referred to how it does these things. I submit I am entitled to go into the whole matter as fully as it was gone into in the original Bill. If I cannot do that, then the Ceann Comhairle will have to ask me to sit down, because I certainly do not see any way of doing it except by attacking the Government for what it is, a pro-British coercion Government in this country.

Mr. Lemass

Most Deputies, I am sure, remember the circumstances under which the original Bill was introduced. In March, 1929, the Minister told us that an attack was made upon a gentleman who served upon a jury in Dublin. For two months after that attack had been made no member of the Government Party thought fit to make a public reference to it. For two months no member of the Government sought to pretend that a situation had arisen so serious as to justify a drastic amendment of the provisions of the Acts relating to the trial of citizens charged with any offence. However, a vacancy arose in the constituency of Dublin City North, and in order to secure the return of the Cumann na nGaedheal candidate in the by-election members of the Government remembered the political advantages of that incident. The President opened the election campaign with a sensational speech in which he alleged that the Government had discovered the existence of a conspiracy to destroy trial by jury and that he was in that election asking from the people a mandate to preserve the system. The effect of that speech was serious. It caused considerable alarm in the country, and considerable concern about the stability of its political institutions, and particularly of the National Loan and similar Government obligations, outside the country. In order to allay that alarm the Minister for Justice announced that, although there was such a conspiracy, the Government had it by the throat. That was the way he put it— these were his own words. The conspiracy which the Minister for Justice had by the throat was, therefore, represented as being innocuous. As the result of the nature of the campaign which the Government Party conducted on that occasion, their candidate scraped through, and when the Dáil re-assembled after the by-election a Bill was introduced here. That Bill was called the Juries (Protection) Bill. The only thing in the Bill which related to the protection of jurymen was the title. If the Government are anxious to protect jurymen who are liable to violence in consequence of the manner in which they execute their duties, they have under existing statutes all the necessary powers to do that, if they have a competent police force, which I do not believe they have.

The Bill introduced here was not introduced to deal with any temporary situation during the period in which the Minister for Justice, who had this conspiracy by the throat, was in the process of throttling it. The Bill was introduced as a permanent improvement of the system which preceded it. The Minister told us that the Department which examined the whole question had decided that there were serious defects in the system, that useful improvements were possible, and the Bill was introduced not as a temporary measure, but as a permanent measure. The Minister, in fact, went further. He said it was introduced as the first step towards the realisation in our age of the conditions which existed in what he described as the glorious age of Roman jurisprudence, when juries were swept away altogether.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I beg your pardon. I said it was to preserve the jury system in this country that the Bill was introduced.

Mr. Lemass

There are two ways of abolishing the jury system. One is to adopt the method which the Minister states this alleged conspiracy has tried to adopt. The other is to introduce a Bill such as the Minister introduced. In order to preserve the jury system, the Minister introduced a Bill to abolish it and to get us back to what he called the glorious age of Roman jurisprudence, when there were no juries. The Minister now tells us that it is an unfortunate necessity that this Act must be continued. He told us when it was first introduced that it was introduced to effect a permanent improvement in the jury system. We are now told that it is an unfortunate necessity that the Act which was introduced for that purpose must be continued. "We are altering the system," the Minister said, "so as to make it meet present-day requirements." Is it an unfortunate necessity that a Bill introduced to alter the existing system to meet present-day requirements must be continued?

Deputies, I think, will remember why the Bill was changed from a permanent measure to a temporary measure. Those who hold the whip hand over the Government chose to issue orders and the Minister obeyed these orders.

On the day that the Bill received its Second Reading in the Dáil the "Irish Times" published a leading article ordering the Government to mend its hand and to bring in an amendment making the Bill temporary, and not permanent, and, the existence of the Government being dependent upon the support of the people for whom that paper spoke, they had perforce to obey the order. The Minister for Justice who had introduced the Bill as a permanent Bill, and described it as a measure to effect necessary improvements in the jury system, then had to come meekly to this House with a proposal that the Bill should be operative until September, 1931, and then expire. By that device the Minister succeeded in retaining, for a time, the support of that section of the people of whom the "Irish Times" is the organ. But he did so with his tongue in his cheek, knowing that he was going to get round their instruction by the introduction of a Bill such as this, when the two years, provided for in the amendment, had expired. The purpose of this Bill is to continue and make permanent an Act that was passed through the Dáil as a temporary measure. If the Bill did, in fact, make, as the Minister assured us it was going to make, a permanent change for the better in the jury system why should it have been made a temporary Act at all? If, however, it was introluced, as the Minister now tells us it was, to deal with a purely temporary situation of the existence of which he and he only had evidence, then it is necessary for him to take much greater pains than he has taken yet to convince the Dáil of its necessity.

The purpose of this Bill is, as Deputy Little has said, first, to provide that persons charged with a political offence may not know by whom they are to be tried, secondly, to effectively deprive them of their rights to object to persons prejudiced against them being empanelled on the jury to try them, thirdly, to provide that such persons can be convicted by a majority vote, and, fourthly, to provide that their trial shall take place in secret. Now if Deputies opposite think that a Bill which had such a purpose in view was either designed to effect a permanent improvement in the jury system or to deal with any situation which they know to exist in this country, then it is useless for us to argue with them.

They are not open to conviction. People who hold such extraordinary views as that will, no doubt, act in carrying out that which they want to do, as a goat does when he sticks down his head and charges his enemy without taking any precaution as to where he is going. If the Bill was introduced, as the Minister now says it was introduced to ensure the certain conviction situation in which, as he alleged, a conspiracy existed to prevent trial by jury being operative, or if it was introduced, as we have said it was introduced, to ensure the certain conviction of the political opponents of the Ministry when charged with political offences, then it has failed. Deputies know that an organisation outside this House has published regularly the names of jurymen who served on secret trials. Deputies know that juries that were empanelled to convict political opponents of the Ministry have, no matter what the evidence, refused to convict. Coercive legislation of this kind always defeats its own purpose. The Minister will find that out in due course. His predecessor found it out; the Government that preceded this Government found it out. No Government in the world that tried to legislate unjustly, and in a manner that the majority of the people believe to be unjust, ever succeeded in that policy. Coercive legislation felt by the people to be unjust and unnecessary will always be defeated in one way or another. That is why Deputies opposite are pursuing what, even from their point of view, is the wrong course. There are other methods by which the ends they seek to serve could be served. They do not choose to try these methods. They did not choose, as Deputy de Valera said on the Second Reading debate, to try the methods of common sense before trying the methods of the bully. Deputies in this House who have been induced to support this Bill on the unfounded promise of the Minister that it would be only a temporary measure, should examine their consciences now. They let the Bill go through on the assumption based on the Minister's amendment that it would expire in September of this year. Now that that assumption has proved to be unfounded, and a Bill is introduced to continue it for another two years, now that the dishonesty of the Minister's method has been demonstrated it is for them to say whether or not this Bill should pass. It would not have passed, as they know, if the Minister had struck to his original intention of making it a permanent measure. He is trying to make it a permanent measure now, but by another and a less creditable method, and for that reason, and for that alone, there is a strong case for its rejection.

I hope the Bill will be rejected. I hope Deputies in this House will not be so lost to all decency and common sense as to allow a coercive Act of this kind, which, in addition to being coercive, has failed in its purpose, to pass through this House. If there is in fact a conspiracy to endanger jurymen, and we have no evidence that such conspiracy exists, then, as I have said, there are adequate powers to defeat it. Nobody in this Dáil, I am sure, would justify, or attempt to justify, acts of violence of that kind. And if the Minister for Justice is doing his job, if the Department he controls is efficient, then coercive legislation of this kind is not necessary. You do not protect jurymen by abolishing the jury system; you protect jurymen by other methods. This Act does a very grave injustice to people who are not interested in political questions at all. In order to make it possible to secure the conviction of political opponents of the Ministry, when charged with certain offences, the Government is taking away the rights of the citizens. All sections of citizens showed, in 1929, that they objected to that being done. The Minister met that objection by making it a temporary Act. He must not go back now on the promise by which he secured the passage of the Act by a majority of the votes of Deputies in this Dáil on that occasion.

Mr. Fahy

At the outset I should like the Minister to understand that we are just as anxious as he or the Government Party that there be not murders or acts of violence in the country. We differ with him as to the methods by which such acts can be prevented. I am convinced that the Juries Protection Bill, so-called, will not achieve the purpose that he has or says he has in view. The continuance of this Act is, I think, an insult to the judges and to the bench. Under it a superintendent of the police can order a judge to clear the court and the judge has no alternative. It does not give fair play to accused persons. Neither counsel nor solicitors can be in court at the selection of the panel. They cannot challenge the jury as they do not know who is on it. I think that is unfair. It is really leading to packed juries, for the Minister knows that under this Act he can get the jury he wants and that counsel for the accused persons cannot, as they will not know who is to serve on the jury. They cannot challenge jurors they object to, as they will not know them.

In another place we had the Minister quoting cases. I do not want to go fully into them. The Minister quoted the case of Con Healy. Under the Act before the House Con Healy was arrested. I am not condoning his firing at the Guards though there may be extenuating circumstances there. A year before Con Healy was arrested a member of this House, Deputy Boland, asked the Minister to consider letting this man off the run, to let us have peace. Had the Minister done so that case would not have arisen. One has to go back to the origin of that case to know where we stand. Less than twelve months ago I had occasion to travel on a bus in the West of Ireland. One of the other passengers was a Dublin man who did not know me. We got talking on many things. Among others we talked of juries. He told me that he had served on a Dublin jury, that he was on a jury that tried a certain case and that he had voted for acquittal. I did not ask him anything about the case. I did not mention the side I was on in party politics nor did he. I do not know what side he was on and probably he does not know what side I am on. I asked him why he had voted for acquittal. He said: "We are tired of those cases and if they let the men alone there would be far fewer outrages than there are now." That is the attitude of many of those jurymen. There is a suspicion also in the public mind, a very strong suspicion, that the accused persons in such cases will not get fair play. Take the Carroll case for instance? What are the implications of that case? That there may possibly be an agent provocateur and that some of those outrages may have been inspired. That is what many of the public think and when a large section of the public, possibly half, have an uneasy feeling that prisoners are not getting fair play it is bad for justice.

The Minister is anxious that the guilty be punished. I am equally anxious, but I am still more anxious that no innocent man should be punished; that he should get fair play. It would be far better that ten guilty men should escape than that one innocent man should be sent to prison. That is a principle of law that I think the Minister for Justice will not deny. As regards not knowing the jurymen counsel will not know them, but the public outside will know them and the Minister is aware of that. There are many ways of finding out who are on a jury. The public can find out and do find out. This Act, when originally introduced, was to be of a temporary nature. Under this Bill it is to be in force for another period, and I suppose at the expiration of that the Minister will say that he wants it for a longer period still.

I think that if we adopted commonsense methods and ceased the mental torture of a certain section of our countrymen, and there is mental torture, it would be far better. The methods pursued of driving these men from one post to another and of seeing that they get no employment is not likely to lead to their being in a good frame of mind or to the cessation of the outrages which the Minister condemns and which we also condemn.

Mr. Esmonde

I would like to ask the Minister whether he has any information as to the truth of the allegation made by Deputy Lemass that because of the operation of the present Act jurors are refusing to do their duty, and that in spite of the evidence put before them they refuse to convict. Everybody throughout the country knows that Deputy Lemass is just an allegator. Nobody takes him seriously. His allegations are generally without foundation. The allegation he made was certainly a very grave one to bring against jurymen, and I would like to know from the Minister whether there is any truth in it or not.

Mr. Anthony

Lest there might be any misconception as to the attitude of members of this Party in relation to this Bill, it is just as well perhaps that I should say something on it. Nobody in this House or outside of it has condemned in a stronger manner than I have interference with jurymen in the administration of the law. At the same time I feel that now that we have a well-established police force and a well-established detective force there is no need for panicky legislation of this kind. I feel that there is in the country a growing civic spirit. It is because I feel that we ought to have sufficient confidence in the people that I say there is no necessity for legislation of this character. There is no one who looks with greater abhorrence on the shooting or intimidation of jurymen than I do, or with greater abhorrence on the assaults and assassinations that have been committed on members of our police force. No one has greater condemnation for such actions than I have, and the Party with which I am associated.

I am aware that on Bills of this nature people are wont to describe the Opposition as people who favour murder and assassination. I feel that the Party in power have made too much use of that kind of propaganda in the country. We are all aware that within the last few months a dastardly outrage was committed in this country. I feel that the commission of that crime must be the urge that is behind this kind of legislation. But I think members of the official Opposition have condemned that outrage and that murder. I have condemned it myself in the country and will continue to do so, the brutal murder of a police officer. I feel also that occurrences of that character will make legislation of this kind acceptable, but I would appeal to the common sense and the sense of proportion in members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party that they are not allaying the fears that exist in the minds of some people in this country by this kind of legislation. Rather are they encouraging them. It is not a good thing for the country that we must have recourse to this kind of legislation. I would prefer to trust the common sense and the good civic spirit of our people, a spirit which I know is growing, and I am glad of it.

I would even challenge the Minister to any public platform in this city, or in the country, to see which of us will give voice to greater condemnation of the class of crime which he wishes to prevent by the operation of this measure. I am saying that because I do not want my attitude or the attitude of this Party to be misconstrued in relation to assassination or murder of any kind. From these benches I condemn it, and I want to say here and now that if I knew who the perpetrators were I would be the first man to give information, because I believe I would be doing a service to my country. The only thing I am sorry for is this: that we have not heard greater condemnation of these outrages from the members of the official Opposition.

Mr. Lemass

Is this in order?

An Ceann Comhairle

Absolutely not. The Deputy had better come back to the Bill.

Mr. Anthony

I believe, and every honest-minded man in the country believes, that this kind of conduct must be stopped. Again I repeat that this panicky legislation is not the way to stop it, and for that reason I propose to vote against this measure.

Mr. Corry

I intend voting against this Bill because I do not see any occasion for it. I would certainly like to witness the competition in condemnation of outrages between the Minister and Deputy Anthony carried out on some public platform. I am sure it would be rather amusing. I would suggest that Deputy Anthony should go into the case of Con Healy, which has been mentioned, as he is a constituent of the Deputy. I was one of those arrested on the same charge as that which put Con Healy "on the run." Some Civic Guard barracks were raided in county Cork. The Civic Guards raided for Con Healy. They told his father definitely that they did not want to arrest him, but to shoot him, and they said they would not take him to any barracks. Con Healy was protected by the inhabitants of the district for 18 months, during which time the full force of 17 detectives were looking for him. In the end he was captured and brought to trial, not for raiding a Civic Guard station, but for, as alleged, firing at those who arrested him. He did not recognise the court and made no defence. He was tried in the Central Criminal Court in Dublin and the principal witness to give evidence against him was lying in jail on the charge of murdering a Peace Commissioner. That was the evidence on which he was convicted and sentenced to five years' penal servitude. Let Deputy Anthony inquire into that case and into the circumstances of it. I suggest when the Deputy realises the circumstances under which some of these men are living he will be more competent to judge cases here.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The last speech has been rather typical of a considerable number of speeches delivered here. What had the last speech to do with the Juries Bill? We had the case of Con Healy brought up again. I have explained already that Healy is a man who was found guilty of shooting at Guards with intent.

Mr. Corry

On what evidence?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

On the evidence of the Guards—a crime of which he was obviously guilty. Here we are told that this Bill, if you please, with which that case has nothing to do, should not be passed, and Deputies opposite think that a criminal like Con Healy is a rather gallant man.

Mr. Allen

Con Healy is no criminal.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Shooting at the Guards is not a crime according to Deputies opposite. Let us come to the Bill. There could have been criticisms of this Bill, fair criticisms. If the Deputies opposite can point from their experience to one single case in which there has been a miscarriage of justice, because of the provisions of the Bill, they have not attempted to do so. The speeches which were made from the benches opposite to-day were precisely the class of speeches which would be made about a Bill which had not been in operation. They speculated when the Bill was here before as to what might happen. Their speculations have all proved unsound. The Bill has worked admirably, and has protected jurors. I do not mean to say that there have not been bad verdicts and acquittals brought in, as Deputy Lemass boasted there have been. I dare say there have been. I will not specifically say that in any single case, in my judgment, there have been. But it is quite possible there have been. It is quite possible that Deputy Lemass's ill-concealed desire that criminals should escape have escaped.

Let us take the Bill and the attacks which were made on it as a whole. It is said that the Bill was to be a temporary measure. I introduced it first as a permanent measure, and then as a temporary measure. The Bill has got two different classes of provisions in it. There are some provisions, such as a majority verdict by a jury, which are excellent provisions, which make for the quick, expeditious and fair carrying out of the administration of justice. I sincerely hope that the majority verdict and other things of that kind will be part of the permanent system of this country. They are in other countries, and I think the countries which have majority verdicts have a better system for the administration of justice than countries which insist on an unanimous verdict. There are other provisions which could be made of a temporary nature, because they arise from a temporary emergency. These endeavour to meet the intimidation of jurors. The endeavour to intimidate jurymen, I grant, did stop as soon as this Bill became law. It was effective. Jurors were not circularised. An attempt was made recently to circularise jurymen, but it was not a success because they had no panel. They circularised people at random. Some may have been on the jury; some were not. They could only circularise at random and could not go around and intimidate jurors—as Deputies opposite seemed to wish that these people should be entitled to go around. This Bill should be discussed as to how it has worked. No one opposite attempted to show that in its working it has not been a complete and admirable success. No one has attempted to show that it has not achieved its purpose. No one has attempted to show that in one single instance has it acted unjustly towards any single citizen of the State and, therefore, on the merits it demands the support of the House.

Mr. de Valera

Might I point out that the Minister has not given a single reason why it should be continued?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I have given good reasons why it should be continued. As Deputy de Valera and everyone else know, there is a criminal conspiracy in this country which wishes to upset by force this State.

Mr. Little

Then it has not stopped the criminal conspiracy?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It has not stopped it, but it has stopped its manifestations.

Mr. Little

Then it is ineffective.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 43.

Tá

• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Daly, John.
• Davis, Michael.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Kelly, Patrick Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Reilly, John J.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Shaw, Patrick W.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• White, John.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, George.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl.

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Broderick, Henry.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Clery, Michael.
• Colbert, James.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Everett, James.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little Patrick John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Tubridy, John.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl, Deputies G.Boland and Allen.

Motion declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 10th June.