Within the last couple of weeks or so I happened to refer, when speaking here, to the fact that the Government had given illegal orders to the police ordering them to deprive citizens of their rights. After I had spoken, the Minister for Education got up and, either directly or indirectly, suggested that what I had said was untrue. It is a fact that for a long period, to my knowledge, the police were ordered to prevent people dressed in blue shirts from addressing public meetings. I, myself, have seen that order. That was an order either from a superior officer of the police, or from the Government to the police force, not to enforce the law but to break it, and that has been going on quite consistently. The Government inherited, as Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has said, a very fine body of police. Then, a year or so ago, Fianna Fáil were having a sort of a party in this building and there was a fire here, a thing which might happen anywhere. Immediately, through the President's private propagandist organ, the suggestion was put out that that was an incendiary fire. It was even hinted that the origin of it was the Blue Shirt Organisation. Nothing very definite was said but, under cover of these stories, the Government proceeded to recruit a new force, popularly known as the "Broy Harriers." I know nothing about that new force except what I read in the newspapers. It is a remarkable thing, however, that in so far as information has come out about members of that force, largely in the law courts, in every case that I have seen it transpired that any member of that force who was being examined on oath had to admit that he himself was a law-breaker and had been a law-breaker at the time he was taken into the force. There was one occasion when the Minister, I think, said with regard to a member of that force that he had a recommendation from the parish priest and immediately the parish priest wrote to say that he had given no recommendation whatever to the man.
I admit that one cannot generalise from the particular, but in so far as it has come out in court, every bit of evidence was that the Government recruited men who were law-breakers into that force and recruited them under cover of the suggestion that there had been an incendiary attempt to set fire to this place. At some time or other there was a hint that there was going to be an inquiry as to the origin of the fire, but we have heard no more of it. The public knows perfectly well that, whatever was the origin of that fire, it was accidental, possibly due to carelessness. But the Government was looking for an occasion to get a certain type of people into the police and they did it in that dishonest way. That sort of thing is not very original—has been done all through history—either using an accident or else promoting something oneself and using that as an occasion for doing something that one wants to do.
I should like to know whether it was the Government or the Commissioner of Police who gave the illegal orders to the police to deny citizens' rights to people and to use illegal methods to deny those rights. That is a thing that we have every right to ask. For the Minister for Education to say that these statements are untrue is no answer whatever. He is either misinformed or he is not telling the truth. As I have said, I have seen the instructions given to the police. The Government has an extra charge for police now and they can put up a very good case that the condition of order in this country is very disastrous and very ominous at present. One can understand that it would very easily be necessary to increase the police force. But what is the fact? Everywhere one goes one finds that the police are not using the appropriate force to put down law-breaking. In any country the maintenance of social order is not a thing that just happens; it is a thing which can only be maintained by definite effort. There is always a possibility of social order breaking down in any country. The apparent ease with which it is maintained in most countries is due to a long tradition of social order, wherein the people by reflex action just assume it. We have not that historical formation in this country and the Government, as any Government over this period would be, is bound to be more watchful to see that every attempt at overthrowing social order is immediately crushed.
But what happens now? Anybody who reads newspapers knows that it is a daily occurrence to open a newspaper and read about outrages which have been committed. Very frequently when our Party is holding a meeting there is a riot. For instance, on St. Patrick's Day there was a meeting in Bagenalstown in County Carlow. Everybody read about the occurrence. The blackguards of the neighbouring localities came into the town and created a riot. I have a letter here which tells me that one of the ringleaders came in and kicked one of our supporters who was dressed in a blue shirt and twice broke through the cordon of the Guards. He was struck by a detective-sergeant who was on duty. That detective-sergeant, I am informed, has now been reduced. I admit that you cannot draw up rules for a police force with what you might call a certain amount of mathematical precision. There is no doubt that a great deal of discretion is required. There would be occasions when you might say that a policeman used too much force. But, to my mind, in the present condition of the country it must be recognised that when there is a riot on a policeman has to judge exactly what degree of force should be used. On such an occasion as that, and in such a condition as we are in at present, the police should tend to use rather more than less force. The Government should recognise that they would be doing more harm by coming down rigidly on a man because he may have been too zealous than they would by condemning a man for not using sufficient force. Time and again I have been told by police that they dare not use the appropriate force and do what they really are employed to do in putting down disorder, because it is more than their job is worth.
The Minister will talk piously and ask for definite information about an individual. It is notorious in the police force at present that if any prominent supporter of Fianna Fáil or the I.R.A. breaks the law, attempts to assault people, or create a riot, it is more than the policemen's job is worth for them to take the appropriate methods that should be used on that occasion. That is a condition which can only lead the whole country to disaster. The police know that they were ordered by the Government to break the law; at least, if you like, there is a general impression amongst the police that, when an enemy of Fine Gael is breaking the law by assaulting people or creating a riot, a policeman has a better chance of keeping his job and getting promotion if he stands by and allows that to be done, rather than if he makes the law effective against that man.
We have the case referred to by General Mulcahy of Murray, in Cork. Independent of the fact that the affidavit stated that one of these police —no doubt, one of those who got in as a result of the bogus scare about a fire here—entered to shoot this unfortunate man, Murray, it was known in Cork that Murray was in grave danger of his life. I myself had people writing to me from Cork saying that Murray was in imminent danger of his life and that his not being shot was not due to the action of the police put on by the Government, but to the courage of his own family and the female members of that family.
There was no need for extra police so far as one can judge; there was no need certainly to take on extra police at greater cost to the public when the police are being restrained from taking appropriate action to put down disorder in this country. The fact that one or other man might get a knock on the head, or that there might be an odd riot, is itself a very serious matter. It means that the people no longer have confidence in the power of the law to protect them. It was necessary in this country that there should have grown up amongst the people a consciousness that the law would always protect them, and that the law breakers would be put down. Because of our history of achieving, political results by extra legal means, this is a thing very difficult to get, but, during the last two years, the Government have wantonly let it be known in this country and demonstrated to the people of the country that the law breaker is a man to whom their hearts go out and whom they are determined to protect.
We have seen on another occasion a man whose mind had not even assented to a breach of the law being imprisoned for merely vindictive reasons when the Attorney-General and every member of the Government knows that on no plea of justice whatever could that be justified. On the other hand, we read in the papers orders from a body calling itself "Oglaigh na hEireann," which is itself an illegal name, and we read, as Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has stated, the announcement that certain men were going to be court-martialled. The court-martial was duly held and, presumably, sentence duly passed. I did hear that one of them, although he makes powerful speeches, went on the run after the court-martial had been held. Then there was this other matter about which we have heard nothing since—the meeting in Parnell Square. Deputy Cosgrave got up here and stated that the police knew that that meeting was going to take place; that the police came and watched the building while the meeting was on; that his information was that the purpose of the meeting was the demonstration of a land mine; and that the next day a land mine was exploded in Dundalk, murdering one woman, blowing up a house and damaging adjacent houses and injuring other people. The Minister waved that aside on two grounds, firstly, that he was satisfied that the meeting at Parnell Square had nothing whatever to do with the crime in Dundalk, and, secondly, that enquiries were being pursued into it.
It was interesting to see, some time after that, that a man was arrested in Dundalk neighbourhood and interrogated by the police. The Minister had said here that he was quite satisfied that there was no relation between the Parnell Square business and the Dundalk business, but it was interesting to see the announcement in the court that, in the examination of this man by the police, he was asked had he been present at the meeting in Parnell Square, was he a member of the engineering section of an illegal body calling itself "Oglaigh na hEireann," and had he been in Dundalk on the day the crime was committed. Apparently, the police examining that man had not the same conviction which the Minister announced he had here, that there was no connection between the one happening and the other. When the Minister gets up here and states that he is convinced or satisfied of a thing, he implies, not that he sits in his office and decides from his own wisdom, but that he gets reports from the police which satisfy him in making the statement he makes. It seems fairly clear that, though the Minister may be satisfied, the members of the police were not all satisfied in the same way.
The police force, under the Ministry of Justice, must know that there are organisations in this country aiming at the overthrow of the State, organisations whose method is murder and organisations which have no moral code whatever, but which think that, by merely mouthing certain phrases, any crime is justified and any crime becomes a virtue and, in those circumstances, the Government controlling the police allowed the meeting in Parnell Square to be held for the making or demonstration of a land mine and withheld the police from getting after the people who were doing it. What had happened was so well known that on the Sunday there were military all around the place. Military were going around County Dublin—I myself saw them—and they were going around because it was known that the land mine business was on. The only thing which the Government did not know, so far as I can make out, was exactly where it was going to be exploded, but they knew the men who were behind the thing. They know the men responsible for running the I.R.A. at the moment and they know that those men, running that organisation, are running it solely for the purpose of overthrowing this State and destroying social order in this State. We are paying an enormous sum for the maintenance of the police force. The only excuse for paying that money is that it is recognised that social order must be maintained and that, in this or any other country, it can only be maintained by the State having the appropriate force to put down any attempt to overthrow it.
While we are paying this money for the maintenance of this force, the Government itself is conniving at the continuance and propagation of this illegal organisation which exists solely for the purpose of overthrowing social order. Under these circumstances, it is really scandalous that the Minister should come here and ask us to vote money to put down the thing which he himself is definitely promoting. We had the case of the murder of O'Reilly in Cork and the murder of Daly, and, when one asks any questions about these things, one is told, and possibly quite rightly, that it is inadvisable and not in the public interest that they should be referred to too much, as the police are making inquiries and the matter is being got after. I think it is more than a year ago since there was a strike on the Great Northern railway. During that strike, a train was derailed, causing the murders of two men. Such an action as that is not the isolated action of a criminal; it is quite clearly an organised work. If one inquired about it immediately after, one would be told that it was against the public interest for the Minister to say too much as the matter was being got after. Two men were murdered during that strike and that was an organised murder. The Government have made no statement whatever about it since and have told us nothing as to what steps they are taking to get after those responsible for those murders. I do not want to make any assertions as to responsibility but it is known that the Government has power, under the 17th Amendment of the Constitution, to arrest people and to put questions to them and, under that amendment of the Constitution, the people are bound to answer questions and if they fail to answer, they are liable to imprisonment. The Government knows every member of the Communist Party here; it knows every office member and certainly every member of what is called the General Headquarters of the I.R.A. The Government undoubtedly —there is no good in trying to get away from it—knows perfectly well that the members of General Headquarters of the I.R.A. and those other bodies are themselves in possession of information which would enable the Government to bring to justice the criminals who are guilty of those crimes. Under the 17th Amendment to the Constitution the Government has power to arrest every member of the General Headquarters of the I.R.A., and anybody else they like, and call upon them to answer certain questions. If they fail to answer those questions the Government has power to punish them. They can put them in prison. That is what is happening. The Government arrests members of the Blue Shirt organisation and puts them in prison. The Attorney-General some time ago got up and said that only three men had been imprisoned for membership of the Blue Shirt organisation.
The Blue Shirt organisation is not, and never was, an unlawful association. There have been occasions when the Government, by this crime against justice which it committed, has been in a position to punish men according to law, but in defiance of justice, and to put them in prison for membership of it. At the same time, there is the I.R.A. association, which is an unlawful association; which is an association that exists for the promotion of crime—the great crime of the complete overthrow of the State, and the destruction of social order here. No man has been arrested and imprisoned for membership of that association, yet the Attorney-General appeared to expect a certain amount of appreciation for the restraint the Government has shown in imprisoning only three men for membership of an association which is not an unlawful association, but a desirable and worthy association. The Government, by a crime against justice, has been able to imprison those men. The Government, if it used its power, could undoubtedly have brought to justice the men who were responsible, either constructively or directly, for the murder of the men in the railway wrecking. There is no doubt that the Government is aware with a moral certainty that knowledge as to those guilty of the murder of O'Reilly is possessed by certain people. The Government has power to arrest those people and demand that they will answer questions under penalty of imprisonment if they refuse. The Government has those powers. Does it use them? Not at all. On the contrary, the police were ordered to break the law in order to prevent our organisation from making use of its legitimate rights. At the same time, the police know, or at least they are convinced, that if they use their police power to put down crime in the way of riot, in the way of assault, in the way of injury to property, window breaking, destruction of motor cars and so on; if they use what is recognised in every country, and is necessarily recognised in every country as perfectly legitimate force against law breakers, the result will be that they will be injured in their career as members of the Civic Guards.
There have been times when the police have known that, because they took action in protecting the public from the blackguards who support the Government, they were doomed to penalisation in their profession. That is a fact known all over the place. If the Minister got up and asked me to stand for one particular case I admit that I could not, because sometimes one does not want to bring harm on a man. Take the case where Detective-Sergeant Leslie Fergus protected the public when blackguards came along to break windows and attack people at a legitimate meeting. Because he protected them, and in doing so had to strike a prominent leader of those blackguards, a man named Sullivan— I will leave out the word "because" and say "following that"—he is demoted. It is a remarkable thing. The Government may say it is only policemen who are guilty of some offence, technically or otherwise, that actually do definitely take action when those riots are taking place, but it is an extraordinary thing that any policemen I have heard of—and there are many—who have taken their jobs seriously, and who, when those crimes were committed, did really try to put them down, have been either transferred or demoted. It is an extraordinary thing that the police who try to do their duty are either transferred or demoted, while those who do not do their duty get promotion. The Government may not be completely guilty in all those cases.
The President gets up and says that the position in the country is very serious. He talks about plots against paying rates and all the rest of it. In the Seanad, when the Blue Shirt Bill was under discussion, he got very excited. Periodically he can get excited, and say that the Government requires those extraordinary powers because the state of the country with regard to social order is very critical. He is right in saying that the position is very critical, but he is dishonest in saying that the critical condition arises through the Blue Shirts. Time and again we have had Ministers get up and say in effect that the Blue Shirts must be put down, because the existence of the Blue Shirts makes other people break the law. What is the Government's duty? The Government's duty is to see that the citizen enjoys the rights he possesses by law, and that anybody who attempts to take those rights from him will be punished by law. What is the argument that has been consistently put up by the Government? It is this, "Yes, you have the right to meet; you have the right to wear shirts of any colour you like; but those people who support us, and who automatically resort to criminal methods tend more towards criminal methods if you exercise your rights as citizens. Our method of meeting that situation is to prevent your possessing the ordinary rights of citizens, and to give those criminals a particularly favoured position in this State." I know that unfortunately— owing to our bad traditions, and owing to the fact that the record of the Government over there is such that people feel it almost natural for them to side with evil doers—the full seriousness of this situation is not realised. What is in store for this country if the Government remains in power any length of time; if the Government continues to do as it is doing at the moment, protecting the criminal, trying to put down law-abiders; punishing the police who do their duty, and promoting the police who do not; indicating to the police that their business is to show favour to those in a certain political force who are themselves criminals—the attitude being "go on favouring them and anything you do against the law-abiding people who happen to support Fine Gael will be recognised as merit in you?" At the present moment you have the Government—the President a few Sundays ago went around a little more frankly on the sort of work which he usually leaves to other Ministers and back benchers—trying to incite class feeling in this country. You have the I.R.A. and the Communist Party. You have Fianna Fáil Deputies and the President going around saying: "Support us; they are ranchers." A ranch is a farm bigger than the farm you hold yourself. That is the definition of a ranch here. If you own no land any farm is a ranch. If you own 30 acres the man with 40 is a rancher; if you own 40 nothing smaller than 50 is a ranch.
The President and the Ministers appeal to the cupidity of the people. The President thinks that the venality and servility of the Labour Party is explained by the fact that his policy is one which should appeal to the workers and to the small farmers. What does he mean? He means that his policy is one that will appeal to those who wish to become possessed of other people's property. Even if the President and the Ministers do not do that, that is the general attitude of mind in the world. It is an attitude of mind that can only be corrected over a long period of years by certain means of rectification. Here you have the President and his Ministers going around and advocating that form of class war. You have organisations possessing arms whose declared policy is that property shall be taken from those who own it and distributed amongst those to whom it does not belong. You have the police brought into such a state that they feel that they must support the law-breaker against the law-abiding man. You have the police knowing that if they do their duty they are likely to be punished for it. When the Government, by its action and its inaction, has created a condition in which social order is tottering, it comes along and says, "You see the bad condition of the country; we require dictatorial powers to deal with our opponents; we require to increase the police force and to recruit men who are law-breakers into that force." They have got votes of extra money to bring new men into the police and, as I have said, every indication we have had in the courts goes to show that, so far as the particular individuals were concerned, they had been law-breakers until they joined the force.
The Minister has the courage, shall I say, to come here and to ask for a larger Estimate for the police when the police are obviously, as shown by declarations of the Ministers, not as effective now as they previously were in maintaining peaceable conditions and when the police are actually being restrained from doing the work they are paid to do—namely, maintaining social order. We are asked to pay police who have been ordered by the Government, or their chiefs, to break the law. The arrest of General O'Duffy by the police was a completely illegal act. Why was it done? It was necessarily done in fulfilment of an order. The order was given: "No man in a blue shirt is to be allowed to address a meeting." Legally, a man in a blue shirt has a perfect right to address a meeting. The policeman knew that, legally, the General had an absolute right to do that. At the same time, from his superiors he had an order that General O'Duffy should not be allowed to do so. The only way to prevent him was by using force. There you have a conflict in the police between the law and the orders they receive.
It is almost inevitable that, in a great many cases, the police will take the orders from their superior and be guided by them rather than by the law. If that order was not given by the Government, then the Government should immediately call for the resignation of the Commissioner of Police, who would be the man responsible for giving orders to the police to break the law and deprive citizens of their rights. If the Minister himself, or the Government, gave instructions to the Commissioner to give these orders to the police, the Commissioner should have refused to obey the Government. I know that that is a thing that always tends to horrify the Government. They think that, merely because of their being a Government, every order they give must be obeyed and every wish they have must be immediately fulfilled. It was the duty of the police to refuse to accept that order from the Government. The police were really bound in law to do that. But you cannot blame the police. They have a conflict between the law and the orders they receive from their superiors, whether these orders emanate from the Commissioner of Police or whether they come directly from the Government.
The police exist, as I said, to maintain the law and ordered social conditions here. There is not any law in the police themselves. They have a conflict between the orders they are receiving from their legitimate superiors and the actual orders they know of, which exist in the form of law. Under these circumstances the police force at the moment is effectively serving no really good purpose. Of course, time and again, I have seen them participate in an endeavour to put down disorder at meetings. But at practically every meeting where that occurred, the people who were trying to make disorder would have been severely dealt with if the police had not been there. The members of the Government have stood up and told us how splendid they were because they gave protection to our meetings. They never gave protection to our meetings until we, ourselves, had protected them. They never gave protection to our meetings until, by giving protection they saved the law-breakers from what they would have got. They minimised the punishment the law-breakers would have got. Time and again meetings to which police protection had been given continued to be interrupted by cries, stones, and one thing and another when, if the police had not been there, the stone-throwers, the cat-callers and the disorderly mob would have been driven far from the scene.
The Government tell us how splendid they are and how they gave us protection. They never gave protection to our meetings until it was necessary for them to do that in order to prevent their blackguard supporters from getting the punishment due to them. We are asked to pay this enormous sum for police who are restrained from doing their duty by the Government or by their superiors. If the Government did not give orders to the police to break the law, the Commissioner should be dismissed immediately. Even if the Government gave these orders, the Commissioner should still be dismissed from his position for having taken illegal orders from the Government. The Commissioner's duty, in that case, was to obey the law and not the illegal orders of the Government.
One could make many criticisms of every Department of State, but it may well be that if a future historian looks back on the disasters that may yet happen in this country, the really guilty person he will see will be the Minister for Justice. There is an opportunity now to put down crime in this country. There is an opportunity to create a sense of security within the law and of insecurity without the law. The people to whom the Government are pandering are the biggest cowards in the country. The moment we brought in the 17th Amendment to the Constitution there was not a murmur from them. Before that, they could go around shooting police superintendents—so long as it was absolutely safe. They could shoot a poor boy named Ryan, but they only did it on a written guarantee that no harm would happen to themselves. The moment we brought in the 17th Amendment to the Constitution they were like lambs—most law-abiding people. They went back to their funk holes immediately. It was only when the Fianna Fáil Party came into office that the little bullies came out to throw their weight about the villages. While we had the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in operation, the decent, law-abiding people felt that they could breathe again. The would-be murderers were leading a very quite life and taking no risks whatever. The whole condition of disorder, which exists at present, has been directly produced by the Government, either by positive action or by inaction, either by acting wrongly or by refusing to act rightly. They are leading the country into such a condition that practically every class is beginning to think in extra-legal terms.
Time and again, I have spoken to members of families who have suffered from the blackguardism of certain people. They know that they cannot get proper protection from the Government and they feel that there is nothing for it but to protect themselves. Under these circumstances, it must be recognised that they are quite right in protecting themselves. I remember a casual case last year— for instance, the case of Tralee—and in which the blackguards and would-be murderers attacking had their grenades and their bombs, which they tried to explode. They burned General O'Duffy's car and attacked him with a hammer. Having done all that while the police were there, these men, who refused to recognise the Free State, who refuse to recognise the legality of our laws, who refuse to recognise any of our institutions, called upon the police to go in amongst the people they attacked because they thought somebody in the building was armed. They wanted, when they went with their grenades and bombs, to see that they would be absolutely safe, and they looked to the Fianna Fail Government to protect them from people that they were trying to blow to pieces. What happened? The police, in order to please their masters, the Government, instead of using whatever power they possessed to the very limit against the would-be murderers, searched the potential victims to see that they were not in a position to defend themselves against people who wanted to murder them. That is a condition that can only lead to anarchy in this country. You can talk about the Blue Shirts and say things about them, but the Government is responsible for anarchy in this State. Instead of using the police to put down anarchy, they have, in the instances I have given, used the police for the protection of criminals. There has been a number of crimes, and other things committed, and when questions are asked as to what steps were taken one is told that no information could be given in the public interest.
One could go over an enormous list. I mentioned the murder of two men in the breaking up of a railway. Clearly, that was organised action. Under the 17th Amendment to the Constitution the Government has power to examine people and to make them give information. Has the Government done that? What steps have they taken to bring to justice those guilty directly or indirectly of these murders? I would like to know if the Government has asked the police if they have any information, or if they have asked people who may have information, as to who was responsible for the murder of O'Reilly. I do not think the Government need go as far as the police to find persons who know who was responsible. The Government has power to arrest people suspected of having that information and of having them questioned, and these people are bound to answer the questions under the penalty of going to prison. Has the Government used that power? Not at all. It has not done that with regard to Daly or O'Reilly or the men murdered on the railway.