Vol. 49 No. 9
The motion under Standing Order No. 27 has been accepted by the Chair, and the Leader of the Opposition has given the Ceann Comhairle a written statement of the subject to be discussed:
"To draw attention to the uneasiness caused in the public mind by the action of the Government in withdrawing firearms certificates from law-abiding citizens, to whom such certificates had been granted for the protection of life or property."
By Private Notice I submitted the following question to-day:
"To ask the President if he has any statement to make as to the withdrawal of certificates for firearms; if he will state the number of firearms collected, the number proposed to be collected, and the number proposed to be left uncollected."
The Government was asked for a simple statement. It made no statement. What has happened has been happily described by Deputy Dillon, as the collection by the Government of arms from persons legally authorised to hold them under a statute of the State. No explanation was given as to what the policy of the Government was with regard to the matter, if they had any policy at all. The Act which was passed some years ago placed the onus on the superintendents of the Guards who, in each case, had to receive applications for and to grant permits to individuals to have firearms. It was not done very lightly, but after mature consideration of the circumstances of the case. It was not done without reason. The necessity had arisen for arming certain persons. The events of the previous few years had occasioned some disorder in the State. Considerable sums of money belonging to private individuals and public corporations, even some State moneys, had been seized. It was for the protection of property, as well as for the security of life, that certificates or permits, or whatever one likes to call them, were given to certain individuals to hold arms. There was no abuse as far as the public is aware on the part of those who got these certificates. We would all hope that the necessity for keeping firearms would speedily pass away. We have got no information on that point. As the law stands, the certificate can be withdrawn by the superintendents. It is a strange circumstance in these days that all the superintendents came to the same opinion, on the same day, on the same thing, in such widely different places as Donegal and Cork, Kerry and Louth. Apparently the Government had a policy in that matter. However precipitate and hasty it may be, apparently they had taken the responsibility from the superintendents of the Guards. If they did that, on the advice of the superintendents, they might have told us to-day, or they might have so stated in the Press.
This Government has been remarkable for the number of sensations that it has provided for the public since it first took over office in this State. After the first series of moderate political sensations we came to the major one. There is one sensation which the Government is anxious that public attention should be diverted from, and that is the economic position in this State. They have provided some political sensations which have, occasionally, diverted public attention from these matters. There is, for instance, the victimisation of the ex-Governor-General, the victimisation of the head of the Gárda Síochána and minor victimisations which do not count very much in their eyes—all, I suppose, of set purpose to divert public attention from the grave economic issues which they have themselves brought about and about which they have admitted that they have never attempted, since the last general election, to endeavour to settle.
It is quite time that the Government should act impartially in this country, should forget their partiality, should not abuse the power and the authority that they have seized, should realise there is a responsibility on them for the good order of this State and for the economic condition of the people. They are asked in Parliament for an explanation as to their conduct in a case such as this. Although they may endeavour to stage this as a political sensation of the first magnitude, we are not forgetting the major infirmities, the major sins of the Ministry. A policy of victimisation and partiality will bring its own judgment upon whoever perpetrates it.
In this evening's paper there is evidence of an endeavour by masked men, I presume, armed, to interview a citizen of this State. Has there been any abuse on the part of those law-abiding citizens, who have got certificates, of the trust reposed in them by the responsible Gárda officer? If there were, there may be some excuse for dealing with a particular case, but there is no excuse for, at a moment's notice, disturbing the public mind with this policy of cancelling all certificates for no reason that is given, for no explanation that is offered. It bears on its face its own condemnation of Government policy.
There was so little said by Deputy Cosgrave that I anticipated somebody else on the Front Bench opposite would follow him with something more definite. He seems to treat this matter, about which we were told so much alarm was created—or, at least, we gathered from some newspapers that such alarm was said to be created through the country—as merely an attempt by the Government to stage a sensation. Well, if it is not a sensation, and I assume that is the Deputy's line of argument, then there is nothing in it and there is nothing here worth discussing. He states it is merely an attempt by the Government to stage a sensation. I gather from that that he regards it as no sensation; he regards it as nothing abnormal, nothing that would create any trouble or difficulty in the country.
The position is a very simple one. The position is that in 1925 a Firearms Act was passed in this country under certain circumstances. It was passed to deal with a certain position. Under that Firearms Act certain certificates or permits were issued to certain people in this country. These certificates could be withdrawn at any time on various grounds. One of the grounds was that a person had no good reason for requiring a firearm. The other grounds the Deputy is, I take it, conversant with, and I do not want to go through them. At this stage I would like to deal with the point made by Deputy Cosgrave that he assumes that we have got in touch or that the police force, the head of the police, got in touch with superintendents through the country. The police force, including superintendents, as has been the practice established here for the last ten years, works through its headquarters.
If Deputy Cosgrave wants to make any point as to the head of the police having had to get an expression of opinion, or that the superintendents of the police had a discretion and were entitled to act entirely on their own discretion, he is trying to stipulate or set out something not acted upon by the former Commissioner of Police. This Act sets out that the superintendent of the Civic Guards may issue a permit. Was that what was done? Not at all. Under that Act there were routine orders issued and I can take you over any of the routine orders issued during those times. I will take practically the first one issued under the Act. It is Routine Order No. C.80:
"The following instructions relative to the granting of firearms certificates are issued for the information and guidance of the Gárda. In all cases where application for a firearms licence is made in respect of a revolver or other lethal weapon for which no previous licence has been issued the Commissioner's authority to grant such licence must be obtained and accordingly all such applications shall be forwarded to headquarters for the necessary authority."
That is not revocation.
Does the Deputy for a moment suggest that the person who takes on himself the authority to grant a licence in any other matter as well as a firearms certificate has not the right to revoke it? Is that the law that we are going to get now? Is that the suggestion? In practice all through that was what was not acted upon. Those were the routine orders issued and to state that a superintendent is to be the sole judge as to whether a licence is to issue or be revoked— that position has not been acted upon since the Act was passed in 1925.
Eight years have elapsed since this Act was passed. A number of certificates have been issued. The 31st July in each year is the date upon which these licences normally expire. The police authorities, perhaps like other people, may consider, and the Government may consider, that it is advisable to have a stocktaking in this particular matter. The stocktaking has taken place and is taking place at the present time with regard to revolvers and pistols at present held on permit throughout the country.
We have seen various incidents happening through the country where the people who held firearms certificates were involved. We have seen people fined. We have seen as late as the other day where a member on the Front Bench opposite had to intervene with one of those people apparently to take charge of his gun himself. I think it was in Cootehill or in Clones.
That is not so.
There is an account of it in this paper, the Irish Times.
I was present and I know it is not so.
I will read the report from the Irish Times. I will just quote what the paper stated at the time and it is a paper that I presume is not very antagonistic to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.
I have already told the Minister that what is in the paper is not true. I was present.
I am just quoting what is in the paper.
Does the Minister accept my statement that it is not so?
I accept what the Deputy states, but I am stating what the paper states:—
"Towards the close of the meeting General Mulcahy and Commandant Cronin were seen to be in heated controversy, Commandant Cronin demanding from General Mulcahy that the latter should restore to him the gun for which he stated he held a permit. General Mulcahy was heard to say that he would restore the gun if Commandant Cronin was in danger."
There have been a number of instances like that. The police are satisfied that a great number of those people who have permits are in no need of having these firearms. They are also satisfied that to some of those people those firearms are a greater danger than protection. A point was sought to be made by Deputy Cosgrave or Deputy Fitzgerald to-day in asking a question about the banks and so on. With regard to the banks and with regard to individuals, the right to protect them is vested in the forces of this State. It is their duty to see that these people are protected, that property is protected—that every step that is necessary is taken to see that their persons and property will be protected. Arms have not been taken up in any indiscriminate way from any individuals, nor is any individual told that he is not going to get any protection. I saw a reference in a newspaper and a lot of point was made about it in the case of the late Commissioner of the Gárda, that at the same time as a request was made for a revocation of his arms certificate, the guard was taken from him. The person concerned a month ago asked that the guard be withdrawn from him. That person was offered the guard back again to protect him, and although he was a guard that was taken into the force in his own time he said he was only a tout and would not have him. The police forces of this country, if they are to maintain order, have a right to say who the guard is who is to protect any individual and no individual has a right to discriminate as to the personnel of the guards who are to protect him. That cannot be admitted even from the late Commissioner of the Gárda. That position will not be admitted.
Trying to suggest to the House and country that there are individuals in this country whose guns have been taken from them at present and that no attempt is being made to protect them is untrue and without foundation. It is not so. To say that banks, warehouses and so on are in danger is an attempt to create a greater sensation than anything else that could be visualised. On this matter of protection, the police are taking and will take every application for individual permits into consideration. These applications will be considered and every precaution will be taken. Every protection will be given to those people. What is happening under this order? In the ordinary way people would have to apply for a renewal of the licence on the 31st July. These people pay 5/- every year for the renewal of their licence. These licences were revoked. They were informed beforehand that permits were being revoked. Everyone of these who wants a gun for his protection and every individual who wants a gun for the protection of his property will have his application for a permit considered and permits will be issued where the police think that a gun is necessary for protection. The police forces will be the judges of that particular matter.
This talk about sensation and creating a sensation is all so much—well I do not know exactly how to describe it. But in the ordinary, normal way, if the people opposite were not trying to make political capital out of these things, such a position as this would not have arisen. It would be treated as a perfectly normal, ordinary procedure.
I was not in the slightest bit surprised at the long hesitation that the Minister made before he rose to address the House. It must have been a very painful thing for the Minister to get up and make the speech which he made a few moments ago. What does that speech come to? We have this stocktaking talked of. Analyse that speech, look through it and see what the pith of it does amount to. Is it not this: "We have blundered very badly but we will chuck the blame on to the Commissioner of the Gárda"?
I never said that.
That is what it amounts to—"the headquarters staff."
There are going to be new permits granted. Why so?
I did not say so.
If it was not going to be considered whether those people who had guns would get a licence, why were we told that the people from whom guns were taken and permits revoked are to apply for a licence? That is what we are told now. Why was not that stated before? Why were the public told that every single licence held by a private individual in the State was to be revoked? That is what we were told. There was nothing about reconsideration. If the Minister's statement is that that was the original view held—that there was going to be reconsideration—then between the Department of Justice and the Chief Commissioner of the Civic Guards they have blundered in the most appalling fashion. If it were a mere question of stocktaking and considering whether two or three or ten or 15 licences were going to be revoked and that every single one of the others would be granted, then the whole thing is simply the act of an imbecile. Whether the imbecility of this particular procedure is imbecility proceeding from the Minister for Justice or imbecility proceeding from the Commissioner of the Gárda I do not greatly care.
I did not seek to put any blame on the Commissioner.
That was the whole pith of the Minister's speech.
"The headquarters staff."
And what is the position now? There are persons admittedly on the Minister's statement who require firearms for their protection. That is admitted.
It is not admitted.
It is admitted. The Minister said just now, in the hearing of every Deputy, that persons who require firearms would get them back. Therefore, there must be persons who require firearms for their protection. Otherwise the Minister's statement was absolute nonsense. To say that there are no people who require firearms for their protection and that these firearms are not required for protective purposes is clearly absurd. Of course there are people in this State who require firearms for their protection. Everybody knows it, including the Minister. In fact it was admitted by the Minister in his speech. Yet these people who require firearms for their protection are to have these firearms taken up for a day, or a week or a month or six months. These arms are taken up wantonly, and we are told that is to be an example of efficiency and is merely stocktaking.
There are persons who require firearms for their protection. This is well known, but every single one of these individuals is to be left unprotected and every bank is to be left unprotected. Every person who is carrying a sum of money, and who requires firearms upon him, is to be left unprotected, while stock is being taken, as the Minister says. That is the story according to the Minister, and goodness knows how long they are to be left unprotected. Freedom is to be given to the Minister's allies, or rather, I should say, to the Minister's masters to go against these people. The lame, weak, halting defence which the Minister put up here certainly deceived nobody. Everybody in this State knows what is behind this. Everybody knows that the Minister has his orders and he has obeyed his orders. He has got his orders from the I.R.A. and kindred associations. He has obeyed them as he always has obeyed them and as the rest of the Administration have always obeyed them when they got them. Of course these persons who have no licences and can carry guns without the slightest bit of interference, these gentlemen who can have revolvers and Thompson guns and fire at a superintendent of the Guards, or anybody else, will not be touched by the Minister. As the President tells us, they are to have their revolvers and their Thompson guns and everything else, provided they do not show them in public. They do not come to get a licence. They do not apply for permits. They simply tell the Minister that they do not care a button about him; that they will carry them without his permission, and down on his knees goes the Minister for Justice. That is the situation here now. They give their orders and the Minister obeys, as he always has obeyed them.
Persons in this State are told that the Guards now are going to give them protection. What is the meaning of that attack on the Guards, because that is an attack on the Guards? When did the Guards ever cease to give all the protection they could? The Guards gave all the protection they could when they were just as efficient, if not a more efficient force than they are at present. At that time they considered that it was necessary that certain individuals should have firearms. They gave all the protection they could. They knew they could not be in every place and could not afford to all individuals at all times complete and adequate protection. They know it and every sane person knows it. They considered it then necessary, in order that persons should be safe, that individuals should have firearms in addition to the police protection. They gave every possible protection. Yet they considered then, and they consider now I believe, that persons require firearms for their protection. This is a matter for the discretion of each chief superintendent. It is not left to such superintendents. Every superintendent who knows his district is the only person who can judge. To say that all these superintendents one day came suddenly to a certain conclusion about the persons whom they all thought within the last few months required arms for their protection and suddenly changed their minds is absolute nonsense. It is absurd for the Minister to make any such suggestion. We know perfectly well what is behind the matter. We know perfectly well that the ordinary individual is not to get the right to protect himself if the Minister's masters think he should not have the right to protect himself. We see here a Minister absolutely and obviously— because there can be no other explanation—obeying the orders which he gets from outside; a Minister degrading his high office as this Minister is by this cowardly attitude on his part. I should like to remind the Minister of a famous line from one of the great Elizabethan dramatists, and it is this: "Let me remain an honest man which I am sure a coward can never be."
I am only going to venture a very few words on this subject. My diagnosis of the Government's malady is slightly different from that of Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney. I do not believe that they have taken the action they have taken because they were ordered to do so by the I.R.A. But I do believe that they are making a kind of demonstration because they felt impelled to do so by the coming into existence of the National Guard. I think they felt that something was expected of them by their followers to show their disapproval and dislike of that body. I do not believe that these inquisitions would ever have occurred if it were not for the recent development in connection with that organisation. There is no man in this House who is less sympathetic towards militaristic developments than I am, but I must say that I am not impressed by the action that the Government have just taken. In fact the story which has appeared in the newspapers in the last few days seemed almost too fantastic to be true. I have been waiting patiently for some indication from the Government as to what it all means. They are, it appears to me, unnecessarily secretive as to the number of arms involved, and without knowing something about the number it is rather difficult to form a judgment about the whole business. It may be that there are a certain number of arms now out under licence that would be better recalled. We do not know what portion of the cases at present being investigated that applies to. It certainly seems absolutely senseless that calls should be paid on General O'Duffy, Mr. Blythe, Deputy Mulcahy and people of that description and that they should be called upon to deliver up their revolvers. Is there a single person in the House who believes that a revolver in the possession of any one of these is any sort of danger to the public peace, or any danger to the State? Is the revolver of General O'Duffy going to make all the difference as to whether the National Guard is a body formidable to this State or not formidable to this State? I suggest that the Government have covered themselves with ridicule by what they have done. They have not given any intelligible explanation of the matter to-night. This talk about stocktaking would not deceive a baby. They are not interested at all, apparently, in taking stock of the arms illegitimately held, and we all know that there are far more arms illegitimately held than legitimately held amongst citizens of the country. I do not think that there will be many impartial persons found to differ from the opinion that the Government have made themselves supremely ridiculous by what they have done in the matter of these guns.
Like Deputy MacDermot, I take a different view of this situation from what Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has taken. But I also take a different view of the situation from what Deputy MacDermot has taken, because I am not in the least interested in whether the Government are acting at the behests of the I.R.A. or whether they are acting through fear of the development and growth of the National Guard. What I am interested in is the uneasiness and alarm, and I may say the resentment, created in the public mind during the last few days by this precipitate action of the Government. I have on many occasions in this House called attention to the fact that the underlying principle of Government policy is one that creates insecurity and unrest, and this is a further manifestation of that policy, because nothing could be more calculated to create in the public mind a feeling of alarm and uneasiness than the method adopted by the Government in withdrawing the certificates and purporting to call in the arms issued pursuant to the certificates granted in the last few days. I agree with Deputy MacDermot that the so-called explanation of the Minister for Justice would not deceive a baby. It was quite clear to me that he had no explanation to offer to the House of the action which has taken place. At the beginning of his speech he endeavoured to invoke the Firearms Act of 1925 and he quoted the sub-section which enabled a superintendent of the Guards to withdraw a certificate where there was no good reason for the person to whom the certificate had been given to require firearms. Then he proceeded to this absurd and ridiculous performance about stocktaking. If the explanation of this action of the Government is stocktaking, why was it that on Friday last a firearms certificate was given to a member of this House on which he paid his fee of 5/- to the superintendent of police and that same certificate was withdrawn the following day? What is the necessity for that action if this is simply stocktaking? Are we to assume that between Friday evening and Saturday morning a sudden decision was taken by the Government or by the Gárda or other authorities that stocktaking was required? If stocktaking was required why was not the normal and proper procedure carried out?
The Minister for Justice says there was a suggestion that we were bringing forward this question for the purpose of making political capital and that if we had not that purpose we would have treated it as normal procedure. Why was not the normal procedure of the last nine years, since the Firearms Act was passed, carried out in this instance? If there was to be stocktaking the time when everyone having a certificate was bound to apply— before 31st July—for its renewal might have been availed of. It lay in the hands of the competent authorities, when an application was made, to decide whether the applicant was a proper person to whom a fresh certificate could be given, without creating in the public mind any feeling of alarm, or even making it known to the public. All these incidents could have been dealt with by the Gárda and with the necessary withholding of certificates in proper cases. But no, we had these occurrences, which were tantamount to raids on private houses. In the country we had instances where, when the occupants of private houses were absent, or abroad on business, they were pursued by the police officers simply because they wanted to take up the guns. The Government have made a mistake in taking this precipitate action. Why did they not, after the matter appeared in the public Press, take steps to allay this feeling of alarm by publishing a statement that this was a mere innocent, ordinary, routine movement of the Guards or of headquarters? The Minister for Justice on Saturday knew nothing about it.
The Minister responsible for good order and for the police of the country knew nothing about this on Saturday, or so he told the Press. We had raids, alarms and excursions which could be obviated in a perfectly routine manner. The alarm could have been allayed on Saturday by a statement from the Minister for Justice, not that he knew nothing about it, but that it was a matter of police routine. That would have allayed public uneasiness and suspicion, but that course was not taken and nothing that the Minister has said to-night will allay that alarm. No smiling or sniggering from the President as he has been smiling and sniggering during this debate will allay public uneasiness. Rather will it increase that uneasiness. It is well known that the more the President smiles and sniggers the more the point goes home and no smiling or sniggering from the Fianna Fáil Benches will allay anxiety. The great want of the country at the present time is peace. You may have the best economic policy, but if you have not peace and a sense of security your economic policy is sure to fail, and every action of this Government, during the last 18 months, has done nothing except to create public uneasiness and suspicion and unrest.
I have noticed, in the course of this debate, the Fianna Fáil Party have been taking up a rather amused attitude. I do not know how far the President will smile if one of the gentlemen from whom he took these revolvers is murdered in the streets. Murder has been done in the streets of Dublin before, and it is something that I do not care to contemplate that any man should be shot down in the streets of Dublin without a chance of defending himself and without a weapon to defend himself. I am quite satisfied that such an event would be deplored by the President. But it seems to me to be scarcely an adequate excuse for taking a risk of that kind that the Chief Commissioner wanted to take stock of the pistols and other firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens who had applied to the State for permits and who held them at the disposal of the State at all times. It is well to remember that most of the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench at the present time are under police protection.
Never, and never had a gun either.
I am surprised to hear that the police never concern themselves with the safety of the President. I am not prepared to contradict the Minister for Finance, but I am surprised at what he says. The Minister for Justice will no doubt correct me.
Is Deputy Dillon protected?
So far I do not require protection, and if I do I hope I shall get it. But there are men in this State at the present moment who, in the opinion of the competent police officers, do require firearms to be carried upon their person to give them security and safety. For these men, walking the streets or living in their homes, it was thought necessary that they should have firearms, and the excuse now given for taking them up is that the police wanted to take stock. That is the excuse given. I just want to clear my own mind as to what the exact situation in the country is. The President of the Executive Council said in this House some time ago that, while he knew there were arms in the possession of many people in the country without authority, he was not going to go and look for them because he did not believe he would get them. What do such people want arms for? Does the Minister for Justice seriously suggest that the presence of these arms in the hands of unauthorised persons does not constitute anxiety to the police of this country? Is he of opinion that it is just that a man who is in danger of being assailed by armed assassins should not be allowed to carry a weapon with which to defend his life?
We have in this country unhappy memories of men who were assailed by armed assassins and who had no weapons to defend their lives. I think if a similar occurrence again took place in this country President de Valera, and the members of the Executive Council, would genuinely and sincerely deplore it, but they are running the risk of such occurrences in the country. As I see it, there are two classes of people in this country now in the possession of arms or who were before this revocation. One class of these persons were law-abiding citizens who asked the police for licences and satisfied the police that there were grounds on which they should get them. The other class of persons who have arms deny the policy of the State and refuse even to ask for a licence to carry them. Those persons have a guarantee from the President that thoses arms will not be looked for; that so long as they are not carried in public he will not allow them to be prosecuted. The law-abiding citizens who applied for permits, who informed the Chief of Police that they had the weapons and proposed to hold them only for the purposes of defending themselves, have had the weapons taken from them in order that the Chief of Police might take stock. I am reluctant to believe that the President desires to do what he consciously believes to be unjust or unreasonable, but it surpasses my comprehension of justice and reason to take arms from law-abiding citizens who were given them to protect themselves, while leaving arms in the hands of men who deny the authority of the State, and who deliberately declare that anyone in politics in this country who does not agree with them is a traitor and deserves a traitor's fate.
We have heard the most fantastic piece of nonsense put up by the Minister for Justice to-night in defence of the most outrageous series of acts. He says the Chief Commissioner of Police wanted to take stock. The country is going to take stock within the next couple of days of the people who put up that excuse. The Chief Commissioner of Police, through the medium of the Minister for Justice, has made a laughing-stock of the Ministry. It is funny to notice the double-back there is to-night. There is no doubt that sensation was the object, and sensation in order to get attention diverted from the breakdown of the negotiations which recently were going on through unofficial persons, despite all the President's laughter, and the absence of the man who carried on the negotiations and was rebuffed. Before I end I will refer to the other negotiations which were carried on prior to Christmas, and to the documents which proceeded from the other side. There is not the slightest doubt about it but that the Ministry had to get some way out of the difficulty. Sensation was the object. It is not such a sensation now, but it was a good "three-to-one on" chance beforehand. The Minister for Justice will understand the phrase. The Minister for Justice has already had experience of "three-to-one on" chances not coming off. This one has not come off. It was to be a great sensation—"Arms Collected. Series of Raids for Arms. Necessity for Raids for Arms to Prevent Great Outbreak of Force Against the State."
To-night we are told that under the authority of the Act the Chief Commissioner of Police decided to revoke the certificates. Let us see the field he had before him in the way of excuses on which to revoke the certificates. Section 5 of the Act, which is the section under which my particular weapon—if it could be called a weapon —was removed from me, says that the superintendent of the Gárda Síochána of the district in which the holder of a firearms certificate resides may, at any time, revoke such certificate, "if he is satisfied"—not if he is ordered—"that the holder of such certificate..." and then there are four reasons given. The first is that the holder has no good reason for requiring the firearm to which the certificate relates. That is the sub-section and the lettered paragraph under which all those revolvers were lifted. The Chief Commissioner did not ask his superintendent to declare that the person holding the firearm was a person who could not, without danger to the public safety or to the peace, be permitted to have a firearm in his possession. That is not certified. That excuse is gone. He might also have certified, but he did not, that the person was a person declared by the Act to be disentitled to hold a firearms certificate. He might have declared, but he did not, that where the firearms certificate limits the purpose for which the firearm to which the certificate relates may be used the person is using such firearm for a purpose not authorised by the certificate.
The Minister tells us that all those certificates were revoked on the grounds that the superintendent is satisfied that the holders of the certificates had no good reason to require the firearms to which the certificates relate. That is his excuse. On the face of that declaration by the superintendent, acting on the instructions of the Chief Commissioner, the Minister now tells us: "Oh anybody who likes may apply again." The same superintendent who has certified that he is satisfied that one man has no good reason for having a gun may to-morrow decide that he has good reason. That is the fatuitous position the Minister for Justice is put in by this piece of nonsense. As a preliminary to becoming satisfied that X Y and Z have good reason for holding a firearms certificate they declare that they have no good reason. The smile is off the President's face now. What is the excuse for it? A casual reference to the use of arms by certain people, not defined for fear there might be a contradiction, and one prize phrase quoted from a paper, and promptly denied by a person who was on the spot. That is the excuse. There have been many dud cases put up in this House and outside it. Notwithstanding the presence of the Attorney-General and his famous exploit in Green Street, I say that this is much worse than the famous Official Secrets case. The judge delicately adopted the word of counsel in that case, and said that the case was "tripe." What would we apply to this? I suppose this is cowheel!
Why not blame your own paper—the Irish Times?
First, it is not my own paper; secondly, I have not pilfered the public purse to give it money to make it my own; thirdly, the quotation is incorrect, and has been declared to be such. It is the only foundation for the Minister's dud case. If one thought that the Minister attended so seriously to the reports of the Irish Times there would be a much more speedy contradiction of false rumours when they appear. One had not known, up to this date, that the Minister carefully scrutinised the columns of the Irish Times, even to get a foundation for an absurd case.
Deputy Dillon has drawn attention to the contrast. He did not give the President's words correctly in referring to the contrast. On the 5th August last year in this House the President was put a question by General Mulcahy: "Do we understand that in the meantime the I.R.A. may organise, drill and arm?" That is the question. Here is the answer: "The position is this," said the President, "provided that there is no attempt to get arms in, we are not going, as far as we can prevent it, to allow arms to come in. As long as there is no attempt to get arms, or as long as there is no attempt to publicly parade with arms, we are not going to get out after the arms that are in the hands of individuals at the present time." Mr. Dillon asked "Why." The answer was: "For this reason, that it is not in the public interest that it should be done." On the 5th August of last year it was not in the public interest to get in arms illegally held—when the President admitted that he knew they were illegally held. On the 30th July of this year it is in the public interest to get in arms for which certificates are held, arms that are known to the Government. When they are got in we are told it is for a stocktaking.
It so happens that when I was first called on in relation to this particular incident I did not know what was the purpose of the visit, and I was not given very much information on the initiative of the person who called. I did ask one or two questions, and one was whether the particular weapon was being removed for the purpose of oiling it, cleaning it, and getting it into better condition. At that point I was told, "Oh no, the gun is being collected." At that time I said that I had a certificate, and that there was no revocation order. The next morning I got a revocation order. The superintendent did not inform that particular officer of his who called on me that there was a stocktaking on, because the two or three questions I put went precisely to that point. I was told that the weapon was being collected. Certainly if anybody had told me that morning or the next morning that the superintendent had declared he was satisfied I had no good reason for keeping a firearm, in order to get an opportunity two or three days later to say that he was satisfied I had good reason for keeping a firearm, I would have been amazed. I should have thought that no responsible person would allow himself to be put in such a fantastic position in this House.
I want to get again to the other side of the picture. We had details in this House in November last of a scandalous case or rather the scandalous behaviour of the Attorney-General in relation to a case where a man, who luckily was armed, was raided by armed men. I refer to the Gavin-McWalter case. Captain Gavin was raided at night. A knock came to his door and he was told he had arms that were wanted. He knew from the sounds around the House that there was a party about the house. They proceeded to break open his door and he warned them that he would shoot. There was a hand flashing an electric torch. When the door was partially broken in he fired in the direction of the torch. Then the people who were raiding the house fled and, according to the local report, there were seven of them. Some time later he heard moaning outside. He went out and he found one of the men lying wounded through the chest. He got a priest and a doctor and eventually got the man taken to hospital. That man was eventually put on trial by the Attorney-General, who stands for the magnificence of the law in this country. What was the charge? Was it one of an attempt to commit a felony? The jury were not allowed to determine that question. Was there a question of conspiracy to commit murder? The jury were not allowed to determine that either. The man caught and shot when he was trying to break into this house with arms was put on trial by the Attorney-General for having a gun illegally in his possession, the same charge that might one of these days be preferred against the ex-Minister for Finance. There are the circumstances in which the two are going to be equalised. The Attorney-General defended his action in this House and the statement he made on that day is worth repeating. Here is his defence on the 2nd November.
This is the third time we have had it.
Possibly three times too often for the Attorney-General.
Read it again.
Certainly, it is worth repeating because this is the majesty of the law personified. "Now," said the Attorney-General, "as regards McWalter himself he was so seriously wounded in the attack"—remember this is the would-be assassin—"that he nearly died in hospital." Certainly the law is coming in for its due. I think the phrase opens the mind of the Attorney-General in relation to the case. "He was under arrest in hospital. The moment he was well enough to be arraigned before a court, that the Guards reported that he was well enough, I had him brought before a court." Now, we are standing up in all our might! "Having regard to the evidence before me and to the whole situation, weighing it up as carefully as I could, and without the slightest sympathy for McWalter"—understood —"I decided that the best and wisest course was to bring him up on a charge for the possession of firearms." A charge for the possession of firearms! "He was speedily dealt with on that charge. He was sent to prison for six months and, as far as I understand, his six months in prison have been spent between life and death in hospital." The reference is Volume 44, No. 3, Column 900.
The Deputy does not know that there was no ammunition found or that no shots were fired.
These are all matters for a jury to determine and not for the Attorney-General.
These are the facts.
These are not the facts as sworn in court.
These are the facts. The man had an empty revolver.
What brought him there without proper authority? Why were not the jury allowed to draw the inferences that might legitimately be drawn from the evidence? Later the late Deputy Finlay intervened in the debate and his words were: "Let me say that the excuse given for the Attorney-General stopping the prosecution of McWalter in Mayo was upset by the evidence."
Will the Deputy take my word now that on the facts before me——
I will not take the facts before him. The Attorney-General refused to allow a jury of this man's countrymen to decide on the facts that could be brought before them on sworn evidence.
The facts were that he had an empty revolver, that he had no ammunition, and that no shots were fired.
That is what we hear from the Attorney-General to-night, but it was not said on the last occasion.
Is it denied now because if so, I will bring the Report?
I am not prepared to accept anything except the testimony of witnesses on oath. That was not allowed to go to the jury.
Deputy McGilligan does not seem to be aware that the revolvers were for stirring tea. It was to help the man to stir tea that the revolvers were brought there.
Why did not the Attorney-General make this answer on November 2nd?
Do you accept my statement?
I do not accept any statement except what is produced on the sworn evidence of witnesses. They should have been allowed to come to court. I make the case that on that very foul circumstance, the Attorney-General decided he would suppress the evidence, that he would not allow the evidence to go before the court. He would not allow the jury to decide and draw the proper inference from the circumstances. That is the gravamen of the whole case. If a man throws away ammunition hereafter when there is an armed attack on a house, is the charge against him immediately to be reduced to one of having in possession unlawfully a firearm?
He had not any ammunition.
Then it was not a firearm. It was for stirring tea.
Let me quote another case. This is a quotation from the daily Press of March 28th, 1933:
"‘When I capture a man again I will try him myself and have none of this hullabaloo about it.' These were the words of James McDonald, a young farmer, of Newport at Longford, when Mr. Kenny, D.J., sent for trial in custody to the Circuit Court, Charles Hussey, Michael Dowler and William Ganly, on charges of conspiracy and unlawfully assembly."
Here is his story:
"On March 20th he was awakened by noise at his gate and knocking at his door and a voice calling for assistance for a motor car stuck on the road. Hearing whispering outside, his suspicions were aroused and he loaded a shot-gun and sent his brother out first. He heard a shout, ‘hands up,' and he then rushed out with his gun. He heard men running away and followed them in his bare feet and fired three shots after them. He fired at the height of a man and loaded as he ran. Returning to the house he put on his boots and gave chase on a cycle, carrying his loaded gun. He came up behind a man carrying a rifle. The man was travelling at the rate of between a jog and a walk and did not hear witness until he had said ‘drop it.'‘He dropped the rifle,' added the witness. ‘I kept him covered with my gun while I slung his rifle on my shoulder, got on my bicycle and ordered him to run on, which he did.' He recognised one of the prisoners (pointing out William Ganly), and ran him on before him and gave him to Sergeant Clogher at Abbeyshrule Barracks."
Here is his comment on it:
"‘The poor little devil was frightened,' added the witness, ‘and told me he was Ganly, and that he was one of the men who came to my house to raid me for two revolvers.'"
Another witness was called to give evidence and then the sergeant deposed that Ganly detailed his movements and those of the other three prisoners. Here is a fellow described to be "a poor little devil who ran to the barracks in front of the man who captured him."
"Ganly told him that when they went to McDonald's a shot was fired and he returned the fire. ‘They fired again,' he added, ‘and he (Ganly) ran through the hedge and the others ran along the road.'"
And listen to this:
"Ganly added that the rifle he had belonged to the I.R.A., of which he was a member, and that he had it for three months and used it on parade once a week."
This is the type of man who goes up in a cowardly fashion to a man's door in the night and runs away when a shot is fired and then runs to the police barrack and gives himself up. Guns were not originally given to anybody in the belief that the man who had a gun could always preserve his life. That was never accepted. But this was accepted: that you could make the circumstance of having a gun very hot for that type of fellow—"the poor little devil" who ran away when a shot was fired. These types of fellows know now that, while there is stocktaking on, they are safe, and that if they are caught the Attorney-General will be kind enough to bring them up only on the charge of being in possession of a gun without a licence. Certainly, the majesty of the law has advanced somewhat since the Attorney-General took over office.
There have been innumerable raids in the country in the last year. One particular raid was on what was described as a camping-ground for a certain number of the I.R.A. On that occasion they took over a castle— week-ending on other people's property. The President is not going to look for the guns in the possession of these people because, forsooth, it is not in the public interest that he should do so. But it is in the public interest that people, who applied for arms and only got them on a certificate from a superintendent of police that he was satisfied that they had good reason for having them and, by implication, that they were not going to be a danger to the public and would not be used for unauthorised purposes, are to have their arms taken from them. It is in the public interest to take the arms from these people, but it is not in the public interest to take the arms from the others! Is it any wonder that the phrase is used that the Government is not here but outside the House? Is it any wonder that it is said that the orders are only accepted here and executed here, but that the orders themselves are formulated outside? There are innumerable examples to show that, if they are not actually following the orders of the people outside, their minds, at any rate, work very closely together and seem to work a week after a certain journal indicates that a particular action is desirable.
We have had a recent case of an outrage on a member of the Guards —the riddling of Superintendent Casserley's car in County Louth. That was preceded by a rather interesting little incident. Certain men were arrested by the same superintendent, or, at least, on his orders, and brought into court. They refused to recognise the court, were sentenced, and came to Mountjoy. Some time later they made their appearance again in various towns in County Louth, and the district justice in that county declared that the Government had not released these men contrary to the usual practice, but that their fines had been paid. That drew from these men the retort that, if the fines had been paid, they had not been paid by them. Furthermore, it drew the following interesting letter, signed by Laurence Grogan, of Drogheda, on the 8th July of this year. Here are the full facts of the case, according to him:—
"On May 2nd last we were summoned to attend Drogheda District Court on May 19 on the charge of posting up the Army Council's appeal for recruits for the Irish Republican Army. We did not attend the court and, in our absence, we were fined 5/- each, or in default seven days in Mountjoy. Thomas Grogan, who was described as the ‘ringleader' by Supt. Casserley, was fined an additional 5/- in the ‘malicious damage' charge, and 1/- for ‘assaulting' the superintendent, or 14 days in default. The justice, Mr. Goff, ordered the fines to be paid within one week.
"We were arrested on June 26 and conveyed to Mountjoy prison, where I demanded political treatment. We refused to give any particulars to the prison staff save that we were Catholics. We were removed to the basement. Next morning we were ordered from our cells for medical inspection. As this inspection necessitated the removal of all our clothing we refused to submit to such a procedure. We were next asked to work in the garden but we refused and were removed to ‘C' Wing.
"While in ‘C' Wing I was visited by Mr. Oscar Traynor, T.D., one of the visiting justices, who adversely commented on our attitude in refusing particulars asked for by the reception clerk. He also stated that our imprisonment was embarrassing the Government, and that the people who created the scenes in Drogheda Court would not have done it two years ago."
That was a stinger!
"I told him that the Government were embarrassing themselves."
This is rather humorous and the President should laugh at it.
"At about 5 p.m. on Tuesday we were told to pack up, and after being handed our property, we were released. We paid no fines; we did not authorise any person to do so on our behalf, nor have we any knowledge of how or by whom they were paid."
Of course, they were a wee bit depressed in their pride and prestige by all this, and so Superintendent Casserley's car had to be riddled the next evening or a few evenings after. One has not heard of any arrests in connection with that, nor of any raids or visits made upon these men, who had just come out and who were in defiance of all the authority of the President and his Guards. No action was taken. One has not heard of any action being taken. Deputy Traynor had visited them in Mountjoy and told them they were embarrassing the Government and would not have done two years previously what they did in Drogheda.
I do not want to interrupt the Deputy—who will please be seated—but I hope he appreciates the fact that he has stated that Superintendent Casserley's car had to be riddled. I cannot prevent the Deputy saying it, but I understand the case is under investigation and the Deputy has made a specific charge.
That statement might have been made by the Government.
I respectfully suggest that the Deputy's speech is irrelevant and specially drawn out for the purpose of preventing a reply.
On a point of order——
A reply is being still further prevented.
It is important that we should hear the President's reply.
On a point of order, is the Deputy entitled to comment on the terms of a ruling from the Chair?
No comment was made beyond the statement that that information might have been given by the Government.
That is not a reflection on the Chair, but on the Government, and was intended as such. I cannot understand why members of the Government cannot communicate to members of this House items of information about a matter of such importance instead of allowing the Ceann Comhairle to get information of it while other members do not get it. That is the atmosphere we are living in. Deputies from that side can visit the prisoners and tell them they are embarrassing the Government—the poor little fellows who can run away and use any coercion they like on people who could command at least a little respect because they had weapons —and in the background there is the suavity of the Attorney-General to prevent any harm coming to them on any serious charge. I say that this whole thing was a sensation deliberately designed to hide the breakdown of negotiations.
As I may not have an opportunity to reply, may I say that there were no such negotiations.
I will not quibble over the word "negotiations." The President on another occasion described his trips to London as only conversations. I do not know whether these are merely whisperings.
There was nothing of the kind.
Does the President deny that before Christmas he got a document, say, from across the Channel? Does he deny that he asked for such?
I fail to see how the settlement of the economic war has anything to do with this particular matter.
It was said in the opening speech that this whole thing was a sensation to prevent people thinking of the realities of the situation. I believe that the realities of the situation are impressing themselves on the Government to the point that they have tried negotiations, conversations, approaches, whisperings or anything you like to call it: that there was touch.
All imagination.
It is not all imagination. At any rate we can leave the negotiations there.
If Deputy McGilligan would allow me I would like to submit to him and to other members of the House that it is a matter of public importance that we should get a statement from the President to-night in the few minutes that remain before the adjournment on the arms question.
He got answered in the negotiations.
I notice that Deputies have very carefully managed to deprive us of any opportunity of replying to the absurd nonsense that we have been hearing up to now. The Deputy who introduced the motion suggested that we were trying, as the Minister for Justice pointed out, to create a sensation, but this whole performance, if it were possible to create a sensation, is intended exactly for that purpose. If we were desirous of doing anything such as has been suggested by those who have spoken in support of the motion we would welcome this sort of thing because undoubtedly it tends to create public uneasiness. Now what is the action to which objection is being taken? The Minister for Justice pointed out clearly that permits were given to a large number of persons from 1925, and even before 1925. We, as a Government, and the present head of the Civic Guard, are not satisfied that many people having these permits are entitled in the circumstances of to-day to have them, or that it is in the public interest that they should have them. The period in which application had to be made for a renewal of these licences happened to come round on the 31st July, and it is suggested that something extraordinary was done in asking people who had got permits to give up their arms. The giving up of their arms served several useful purposes. The first purpose was to show that those who had got these permits had the arms under their own effective control—a very important thing. The second purpose of the giving up was to get from them a recognition of the fact that if they had a permit they were not entitled to think, as some who refused to give them up would seem to suggest, that they had these things of right and that they themselves were going to be the judges to determine that. We are taking action to make certain that if in future anybody is found in public with a gun and using it improperly, it will be certain at any rate that that person will not be able to say that he has it with the permission of the Government. We are going to see that in the circumstances of the present day people are not going to carry firearms round with them in public.
Even in defence of their lives?
There is a body that is going to defend the people who have to be defended, and that body is represented by the public forces of the State. We are not going to allow Deputy Belton, or anybody else, to determine that he is such an important person that he must personally have a gun for his protection.
Deputy Belton never suggested that, but President de Valera did.
There is a situation in this country at the present time which everybody who is not blind recognises in which we have two forces, one going to arm against the other: two forces each of which would be used as an excuse for the growth and increase of the other. This Government would not be worthy of the confidence placed in it by the people if it permitted any such thing as that to go ahead. We are going to see, as far as we can, that people who have arms that we can get will not retain them in these circumstances.
And disarm the others with them?
Any arms that the Civic Guards could get, in places where they had knowledge such arms were, they have never been prevented from getting them.
Have they been ordered to take them?
They were ordered for ten long years by the people on the opposite benches, and the strange thing is that at the end of ten years the arms are out still. We have had, since we came into office, such peace and freedom for the people as they had not known for ten years and those on the opposite benches are jealous of it.
What about the Captain Gavan case?
There are other countries in the world where such things as that took place. No Government is capable of completely wiping out things of that sort. Incidents of that sort are happening all over the world, and there is not a country in the world probably that can show such a clean record against crime as our country can in the last year or so. The gentlemen on the opposite benches created crime. We wanted to bring about a change in the situation and we have been doing that consistently. The latest attack was from a gentleman who had been the head of the Civic Guard and who states now that repression only helps to make organisations grow, but when that gentleman was in office and held power he did not act on those principles. We have by our attitude, and by our understanding of the situation that existed, brought the country to a state of peace and quiet such as it had not known for ten years, but those on the opposite benches are going to see to it that that peace and quiet cannot continue. They have started an organisation the very purpose of which is quite clear. Whom did they put in charge of it? The man who in the past was in charge of the Civic Guards, the man who in the past had it as his first duty to see that the law was obeyed and that the Constitution was obeyed, but now the Constitution is not good enough for him. The Constitution that he wanted—the Constitution for which men were put to death if they did not obey it—is not good enough for him: he must have a dictatorship now. Very well. We are going to see to it that, if there is any change of democratic rule in this country, it will be by the will of the people.
The President is a great convert to that.
For ten long years we knew that the people who were crying about the will of the people did not mean it any more than General O'Duffy has shown that he meant it. We have people here who have been talking about the will of the people, who put people to death in the name of the will of the people, and the moment they are out of office— evidently it was all right as long as the will of the people favoured themselves —they start to organise and to create forces which, when they think the time is ripe, are going to set the will of the people aside. Some of them did it before the last Government was out of office. There was a statement, in an appeal made in the paper which was run by the organisation of the Government of the day, to the effect that the Army were going to be the judges as to whether the people's Government was acting correctly or not. The same people created distrust then by giving an excuse for the holding of arms by people who said "very well; we had them here for ten years, saying they were governing in the name of the people, and when the people are going to put them aside, according to the statement of one of their responsible Ministers—it was attributed to the Minister for Finance—we may expect that armed forces will be used to prevent the democratically elected Government from taking office."
What about the stocktaking?
That did not happen. Precisely because it did not happen, and because there was no attempt, I said there was one thing that became Cumann na nGaedheal, that was, that there was no person, at any rate, amongst them going to lead a campaign of that sort. In this Government we are pledging ourselves to the people that the trust they have reposed in us will be given back to them, to give to any other people they may think it right to give it to. That right of the people to choose any Government is going to be defended against everybody, whether it is from the opposite ranks or from anywhere else. Speaking on the situation not very long ago, I said that we were anxious to give the greatest amount of liberty possible to everybody, but I said also that there was a certain danger point beyond which we could not allow liberty to go, liberty which became a licence. We are satisfied that we have approached, in certain respects, that point now, and we intend to take action, and intend to see that the authority of the elected Government of the people is going to be maintained against everybody. We are certain that every true citizen of this country is going to stand behind the Government in seeing that that is maintained, and that no new dictators from any side are going to be allowed to arise and to act against the people's Government.
The first step was to take stock, at any rate, of the arms held, or supposed to be held by permission of the Government, and during any interval that may elapse while applications for new permits are being considered—and any interval that will elapse will be a short one—adequate protection, so far as the State can give protection, will be given both to property and to the individuals concerned. We offer no apology whatever for making that stocktaking. We know the circumstances in which arms were given out in the past. We know that quite a large number of people, pretending to have permits, did not, in fact, have them. There are large numbers of arms at the moment in the hands of the supporters of the gentlemen opposite, for which no permits are held by those who have them. We are determined, as far as we are concerned, that no people will bear arms on this side or on the other side——
Private or public.
——in so far as we can get them. I referred to public places because it is relatively easy to get possession of arms if they are in public places. If they are hidden away it is not so easy. For instance, if we had given notice, as was suggested by the people opposite, I think some of the revolvers we got would be missing.
Why not?
That is the mentality we have got to deal with on the opposite benches, the mentality that attributes to us everything they have in their own minds. They are trying to attribute to us the very characteristics that they possess themselves; the partiality that they showed for ten years, they impute to us. Seeing the situation as we see it we are determined henceforth, as far as we are concerned, that we are not going to allow people to have private armies in this country.
On either side?
On either side. No private armies. We are going, as far as we can, to see that any people who have arms in this country will have to have them with the express permission of the Government and, if they have not permission, in so far as we can get them, they will not be allowed to have the arms. I am not sorry this debate was called. This was not intended from our side, at any rate, to create any sensation. We are not in co-operation, as the gentlemen on the opposite benches are, with General O'Duffy. If any sensations have been sought to be created I would say it is that gentleman has sought to create the sensation. If you have forces that follow army nomenclature on thé one hand, and an army organisation on the other hand, the Government are determined to see to it that armies of that sort, side by side, each fearing the other, each using whatever the other does, are not going to be permitted to continue. We are confident that in ending that situation as quickly as we can, we will have the support of all right-minded citizens. As a Government we are asking them to-night to stand behind the present Government. I say to the young men on either side, who are sought to be attracted to movements of that sort, that what is going to be done with them, and what is being done with them, is to try to induce them to go into two forces which will ultimately mean civil war in this country. Instead of trying to foment a situation of that sort and to make it more difficult, we want to concentrate the attention of the people on other matters. We have serious economic questions to deal with. There is no doubt whatever about that. Other countries have to deal with them. We have seen that a World Conference in London failed recently. The one thing to be learned from that conference is that nations will have to solve, internally for the most part, their own economic problems. People who create uneasiness and uncertainty at the present time are going to make it more difficult to do that. I would say that that is the object of certain of them, to make the question of dealing with the present situation more difficult in our external relations, and more difficult internally for us. When this A.C.A. was first established over a year ago, one of the things said by those who were at Ottawa at that time was: "See that; we will not have much trouble in dealing with you once that develops." That was quite sufficient to show the mentality.
Why did not the Minister for Justice tell us this and not let the debate proceed on other lines—the usual trick?
The Minister for Justice had to deal with a simple question of detail. That was the question that was put to him. I indicated this morning, when the question was first put, that it was one of detail, which could not be dealt with on broad lines, and I suggested broader lines, if the Opposition wished to have a debate on these lines.
Why did you not give the real answer, that you did not want the real point answered?
Deputies opposite were not interrupted while they were speaking.
This morning when I was informed that the Opposition was putting down this question, which was first directed to me, I said that I was not going to answer it, that it was one for the Minister for Justice. I said that there was a broader question behind this, and suggested that the movers of the motion should make it clear that there was a broader question, when I would answer it and make any statement that was required.
May I ask a question? We all know what the President thinks of the A.C.A. I think it would be of great public importance if the President would tell the House and the young people of this country what he thinks of the I.R.A.
I have more than once indicated that the Irish Volunteers were formed 20 years ago and their present existence was a continuing one. Our attitude was that as time went on and as it was quite clear that many of the objects for which they were formed were being attained by action such as is being taken by this House, the reason for the I.R.A. would disappear.
What is your present attitude towards them?
My present attitude is that the moment that the Oath was removed, and it was possible for all sections of the people to be freely represented in this House, there was no excuse for anybody trying to use force or arming for the purpose of securing national freedom. I have said more than once, I indicated quite clearly in public, that it was my view that arms in this present situation, with the Oath removed and constitutional action possible, could only in the long run lead to the possibility of those arms being used in a civil conflict. I have said it publicly that if it is the idea to serve the nation as a whole by using them against outside aggression, then these arms would not be necessary so long as you have a Government prepared to do that and it could have all the arms it wanted for that purpose. They have either to use them behind the Government, in which case arms would not be necessary, or against the Government, in which case arms could not be permitted.
Therefore, it was simply a question of time until that truth had penetrated to the minds of all the people in the country, to the minds of the young people and the old people. It was penetrating very rapidly, so rapidly that we were getting quickly to the position in which we were going to have general acceptance here in Ireland of the position that, as our people were free to elect representatives without any barrier, free to elect any Government they want with any policy they want, Republican or any other—even the immediate declaration of a Republic—there was no excuse whatever for the possession of arms. That is our attitude.
What is the advice of the President to——
The moment a new body springs up, not a body which has any roots in the past, not a body which can be said to have a national objective such as the I.R.A. can be said to have——
That is the point; that is the stuff.
They did have these objectives in the past. Because we have a new body starting up, you give life, a new form of life, a new reason. They will naturally say to themselves: "Here is a body; they are going to pretend to keep inside the law; they are manoeuvring well inside the law, or trying to do it, and they will be allowed to build themselves up, and the Irish people in a short time may find themselves in a position in which they will have a dictator established here with forces and help even outside this country." That is the fear that will give rise to a new position in the minds of a number of young people. We want at the very start to make it clear that we are not going, so long as we are a Government, to permit that situation to arise. I already indicated two definite things. One is that we are not going to allow parades in uniform in public. I have said that and we mean to see that is obeyed.
I do not want to interrupt the President, but——
There will not be parades allowed in public in uniform, because that indicates in the present circumstances a military organisation with a definite objective which we know is hateful to a large section of our people and it would drive a large section of our people to arm themselves in a counter movement. We are not going to have arms. We are not going, so far as we can do it, to allow public parades in which uniform is worn, and we are not going to allow any guns in public. When I say in public what I mean is this, that under no circumstances are we going to permit people to have guns in public. What I mean is a public place.
I said it was not our policy to go raiding. We wanted to give peace, if we could—a feeling of peace and security to the people. That policy has been justified, at any rate in the last one and a half years, during which we have had a greater peace and security in this country than the people have known for ten years. The people understand it and know our policy was effective. We think perhaps we will be compelled to depart from it, but if we are it is not because we do not think that in all the circumstances it would have been the best. We cannot allow two organisations to grow up, each one to be a stimulus and an incentive to the other.
You will suppress one and let the other go.
In so far as we can, we are going to stop any organisation of any kind of a military character that is going to threaten authority in this country.
I must protest against the way the house was treated in this debate and the trick that has been played on the House is a trick that the President has played often here. I can call it nothing but a trick. He was asked by the ex-President, the Leader of the Opposition, to explain why the permits, the certificates, which certain citizens in this country held for small arms were withdrawn. He put up the Minister for Justice to answer it and give five or six reasons which everybody knew to be unnecessary. Then at the very end he gets up, after allowing the debate to proceed on a certain line, and he gives the real reason. The more I see of the President the more I despise him, and I think he has made a most despicable speech to-night. Here is quite obviously the attempt which he has been at for years, and which I think is the mainspring of all his political activities, to put the Cumann na nGaedheal Party or any other organisation in the position that he was in himself for ten years. His whole attempt has been to try to justify his own past. He realises the only way he can do it is to pretend that there are other organisations and people in the country who will do as badly as he did and act as undemocratically as he did, if they get the chance.
He went back to articles in the Irishman of five years ago. There was some article in Irish as to the functions of the Army and he quoted it as evidence that the previous Government, if they got the chance, would act undemocratically; in other words, would act as he did. He actually stated that now; at least he said that in the formation of the National Guard there was complete evidence that we who talk so much about law and order and majority rule were ready to do just what the I.R.A. did when they were under his control. Much has been revealed here to-night. The real trouble in this country is that every act done by the President is not done with any eye for the good of the country, but is purely an attempt to justify to himself—I will say it—his own criminal past. That is the real trouble. I will tell him this: “You will never put us in the same position as you and your Government were in.”
When the people declared against us —who can gainsay me?—we handed you over a disciplined Army. When the people declared against us we handed you over a disciplined Gárda and a disciplined Army. When the people declared against us we walked out of our offices. We were always democrats. We acted in the same way as a Government with 100 years' tradition behind it would act. Everybody remembers that at that time there were suggestions in the Irish Press— the kept Press that is now financed out of the pockets of the taxpayers—about mutiny. I remember immediately after the general election in 1932 there were reports that there was going to be mutiny in the Army. In that paper from day to day there were all sorts of scares. What was the idea? The idea was that we, if we got the chance—the President is still insisting on it—we would commit the monstrous national crimes that he and his Party committed.
This matter should have been debated quietly and dispassionately, but the President will not allow that. Now he has his latest scare, the National Guard. They are the same body, we are told, as the I.R.A. Who are the I.R.A.? They are the body who admittedly committed murder after murder in this country for ten years. Is not that the truth? They have admitted it. Is there a man on the Fianna Fáil side who can contradict that? Time and time again after these murders, the I.R.A. were justified by the man who is now talking of democratic rule. I remember after these murders that Deputy de Valera as he then was, the man who is now President of the Executive Council, got up here in the Dáil, and said that after all, the murderers had the same authority or much the same authority as we claimed to have. When we were debating a particularly foul murder committed by the I.R.A., the man who is now talking of democratic rule and of law and order, the man who is now preparing to take away the guns from all law abiding persons, used the phrase that we were in the same position as the murderers. What was that but an invitation to those men to shoot again? This is the man who has the impudence now to get up and talk about democratic rule, and about democracy and about his sham and insincere patriotism and nationality. This is the man who is taking the guns out of the hands of men who are loyal to the State. And that is done in order to soil the National Guard. Watch his statement—"they are acting within the law at the moment." But he is afraid of what they might do with foreign help. Mind you, that will encourage the people who are opposed to this State to use their guns and to use them on the people they now know have no guns with which to protect themselves. I wonder will the President advert to that in the event of another murder by the I.R.A.?
The National Guard, he tells us, are acting within the law at the moment but this meticulous lover of democracy and the Constitution says they may go outside it. They may want a dictatorship. I think the President, a short time ago, was going for a dictatorship. He was going for a dictatorship until he got his first knock at the Dublin and Cork elections. I remember his speeches before the elections. The Dáil was no use. It should be shut up for five years. It only led to waste of time and money. After the Dublin and Cork elections he was back with a jump. Now he is against dictatorships but he is afraid that somebody else may steal a march on him, and thus do what he had intended.
What is behind this envenomed attack on General O'Duffy, and this charge against us that we are in league with the National Guard in any way? Is the National Guard an illegal organisation or an illegal assembly? If it is, in what way has it broken the law? Are any of its objects illegal? What right has the President to charge any assembly with being an illegal organisation or illegal assembly when it has not broken the law? Are the objects of the National Guard illegal? Is the National Guard an illegal organisation or assembly? It is no answer to say that individuals in the National Guard are breaking the law. Individuals in the St. Vincent de Paul Society may break the law or have arms illegally. Does that make the society illegal? Is the National Guard armed? And this is the organisation that is being compared with the I.R.A. It is now announced by the President that this organisation is a rival to the I.R.A. and that in fact this organisation will have the effect of making the I.R.A. grow and vice versa——
Hear, hear.
Deputy Davin says "Hear, hear." They all fell for that. The fact of the matter is this——
We are not going on to that Shelbourne Hotel document now?
The Deputy ought to remember the Shelbourne Hotel and the President ought to remember getting his Party to sign their names to a document at the Rotunda.
The fact of the matter is that the President is afraid that he is losing the country politically. The President has rather an exaggerated idea of the political importance to which the National Guard has developed. When the President is out for some political and Party object no one can dress it up in such a veneer of patriotism as he can. He got up here and thumped the desk. But he is never more insincere and never more a pettifogger than when he thumps the desk. I have known him for the last ten years and I have seen him under all circumstances. I do not give the snap of a finger for his democracy or his nationality. I think there is more real nationality and democracy in General O'Duffy's little finger than in his whole body. The National Guard will go on as a constitutional organisation in spite of him. Any attempt that the President makes to mix them up and to try and place the National Guard and the I.R.A. in the same position will fail in the hearts of the people.
The attempt to do that very thing has been revealed as the real object behind these raids. In trying to do this he is wasting his time. The organisation is a democratic organisation. This petty trick, this puny little trick of the Minister for Justice and the President and the Commissioner of the Gárda to try to create a scare and to create some feeling against the National Guard will not work. This raid for arms in the case of all the law-abiding people will not work to create a scare against the National Guard. Make no mistake about that. It will not work——
It is working.
The law makers who are now law breakers.
Shut up. We should have been told this at the beginning. It was treating this House most unfairly to put up the Minister for Justice to make excuses which were afterwards admitted by the President himself to be untrue.
We do not like the Treasonable Offences Act of 1925 when applied to ourselves.
I am glad that this debate occurred. Until the President stood up I was wondering what the effect of it would be. The country was genuinely perturbed as to the reason for these raids. They were genuinely wondering why they occurred. If it were left to the speech of the Minister for Justice they would be wondering still, because nobody believed it for a moment. But we know it now. According to the President's speech, stripped of its fustian and humbug and all that insincere patriotism with which he dresses his arguments, these raids for arms all over the country, regardless of consequences, were for the purpose of persuading the people that the National Guard was an organisation similar to the I.R.A. It will not work. You will not bring off that thing now. You are beginning to be found out.
The House adjourned at 11 p.m. until 7 p.m. on Wednesday, the 2nd August.
