Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 May 1934

Vol. 52 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Inquiries by Detective.

General Mulcahy

I questioned the Minister for Justice this afternoon as to whether it was on his instructions that children were approached at Lissonfield House last Sunday week and questioned as to the whereabouts and movements of a Deputy. I asked him, if he were not responsible, who was responsible for such a happening, the public purpose it was intended to serve by such a happening, and whether steps would be taken to prevent a recurrence. The Minister replied that no instructions in the matter were issued by him or by anyone else. He stated that the children approached a detective and that he asked them where the other detectives had gone. I do not wish to enter into an argument with the Minister as to how the approach was made, but the fact remains, in spite of anything that the Minister may imply, that the detective did ask the children where I had gone. I also asked the Minister how long a condition of affairs like that was going to continue which made it possible to have unpleasantness of this particular kind, and the Minister stated that there was no unpleasantness. I welcome the Minister's denial, without prejudice, that children were deliberately approached for this particular purpose, because I welcome an attitude on his part that would relieve the police of responsibility for approaching anybody, particularly children under ten years of age, to query them as to the whereabouts or the movements of any Deputy of this House. My particular purpose in raising this question to-night is that at the present moment we may hear from the Minister, for the information of Deputies of this House and for the information of the police, that as far as there are Deputies under surveillance by his police the latter have from him an assurance here that in the discharge of whatever duty is put upon them they are not expected by the Minister to seek after or to interview either the children of such Deputies, or the friends or acquaintances of such Deputies, with a view to finding out where they are and what their movements have been. I hope to shame the Minister into going further in time, but I raise this question here to-night for the particular purpose I have mentioned.

Ministerial vendetta, beginning from the night the President made his Glasgow charge against me, has put ostentatious police guards outside my house. From 11.30 on the night that charge was made there has been one policeman ostentatiously on duty night and day outside my house. That was the position from some time in September last year. From the end of March, as the Minister knows, he has put at least three policemen publicly on duty night and day outside my house. Ministerial vendetta of that kind brought it about that, on the Sunday I speak of, persons going to 7 o'clock Mass could see a carload of detectives with the nose of their car just at my gate. People going to 8 o'clock Mass could see the same thing. The same thing was apparent at 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2 and 3 o'clock. I had no occasion to leave my house except to cross the road to Mass that Sunday morning. I had no occasion to leave my house until towards 4 o'clock that afternoon. Then I thought that living in a free country— with, as the Minister for Finance declared to us the other day, a Republican Ministry in office, inspired with Catholic social principles, combining the Christian ideal of Pearse, the solid realism of Clarke, the culture of MacDonagh, the simplicity of Seán MacDermot, and the democracy of Connolly—I might go with my wife that Sunday afternoon, with some friends, to visit other friends, without taking three armed detectives on our heels. I resisted the desire of a friend of mine to bring his car down for me. I said: "No. We will take the train at Harcourt Street; you can pick us up at an intermediate station, and we can have a quiet Sunday afternoon without a police tail behind us." We started and walked down to Harcourt Street. A car of detectives nosed behind us down the street. A detective comes into the station, hurries on to the platform, picks us out in a carriage and goes away. Then, as I say, a detective at the gate of my home questioned some of our children as to where we were. I do not know what the result was, but at any rate we went where we wanted to go. We passed some time in the open air, and then joined our friends at a family gathering. After a couple of hours a guest in the house, who had gone out to admire the kind of grand summer evening it was—he was probably more friendly to the Minister's Party, if there was a question of politics in it, than to any other Party in the State—came in with the story that there were two very suspicious-looking men outside. Although I had succeeded in dropping the police party at Harcourt Street Station they found me three or four hours later in a family circle in County Wicklow.

I hope to shame the Minister out of the continuance of a condition of things under which, on a Sunday afternoon, it is possible for a police party to exercise themselves in that particular way, whether by interviewing children or otherwise. As I say, I am concerned at the present moment that the Minister will explain to his police that they are not expected to go to the extremes to which they apparently went on that Sunday to find me when I did not want to have them. I am glad that the Minister attempts to take responsibility for this off the police, because I hope that the police will understand from the Minister that when I do slip the police party set around me by Ministerial vendetta the Minister does not expect that the police, challenged in that particular way, will feel it is up to them to undertake a man-hunt. The unfortunate police are in the position at the present moment that they do not know to what indecent or demeaning depths they are asked to stoop in order to carry out the Minister's intentions. The position that the police are in is that they see the Minister adopting towards his political opponents the tactics that are being adopted by the Minister. They know that a Minister who can take up that attitude to his political opponents can be a very severe master. I would ask the Minister, if he can be given any credit for not wanting this to take place, to make it clear to his police that he does not want it to take place, that there is something in the professions which the Minister makes from time to time about liberty and about democracy, and that he realises that men can and will want to go about their ordinary family life and their ordinary social life on a Sunday afternoon, without being themselves tormented by detectives marching at their heels or without having their friends or their acquaintances annoyed by detectives of this particular kind every time they happen to receive a Deputy as their guest.

Mr. Ruttledge

I suggest to the Deputy that this matter has been raised more for the purpose of procuring some very cheap political propaganda than for any other purpose. I propose to meet the Deputy's suggestions by reading for the House the other side of the story. It was left, I think, to be implied that this particular Guard was doing certain things on instructions from me or instructions from some member of the Government, or that he was some peculiar policeman who wanted to take up the attitude of harassing the Deputy and of interfering with his household or in his domestic matters. The explanation which I have, dated the 1st May, 1934, from Chief Superintendent Clark, is as follows:—

"Submitted please. I beg to state that no instructions were issued to the Gárda to interview members of Deputy Mulcahy's family in regard to the Deputy's movements or to question the children on the subject, and no such questioning took place except the remarks made by Gárda Carroll to the Deputy's little daughter, as shown in the Gárda's statement attached. From inquiries made it would appear that what actually happened was that on Sunday, the 29/4/'34, General and Mrs. Mulcahy left their residence at Lissonfield House, Rathmines, on foot and proceeded to Harcourt Street Railway Station. They were followed by the escort, two of whom were in a motor car and the third on foot. Having got on to the station platform, the General and Mrs. Mulcahy apparently concealed themselves, as when the member on foot arrived there he was unable to find them, and a search of the station premises was made by the escort party, but without result. It is thought that the General and Mrs. Mulcahy took a train as far as Ranclagh Railway Station, where they probably had an appointment with Professor and Mrs. Hayes, because on Gárda Quinn—a member of the escort—remembering that the General was in the habit of visiting a house in Bray, the escort proceeded there and arrived at this house just as Professor and Mrs. Hayes and General and Mrs. Mulcahy arrived in Professor Hayes' car.

"General Mulcahy appeared none too pleased at seeing the escort in front of him, but made no comment, and neither did the escort. The escort remained there until the party left at 10.20 p.m., when they escorted them back to their homes. In the meantime Gárda Michael Carroll, 12483, was detailed at 5 p.m. on 29/4/34 to relieve the Gárdaí on escort duty for their tea. Arriving outside Lissonfield House he, of course, found none of the escort party present, but remained there, anticipating that they might return in a short time. At about 6 p.m. General Mulcahy's children, who were running in and out of the entrance gate, came over to the Gárda and spoke to him. This Gárda has been stationed at Rathmines since 1924, and it appears that these children were in the habit of speaking to him wherever they saw him. One of the little girls said to him: ‘Why are you not gone in the motor car?' He replied that the car was gone when he came there, and he was unaware of where it had gone to. He then asked if she knew where the party had gone to, and she said she did not know, but she had seen them there some time ago. This was the only conversation that took place, and it will thus be seen that no attempt was made to inquire from the children of the movements of the Deputy. Explicit instructions were issued to the district officer when the duty of protecting General Mulcahy was taken over by the Gárda, that there was to be no encroachment on the privacy of the General or his family and no trespass on private grounds. There is no reason to think that these instructions have been disregarded."

The statement of the Gárda himself, dated April 30th, 1934, is as follows:—

"I beg to report that on Sunday, 29th April, 1934, I went to Lissonfield House at 5 p.m., to relieve the Gárdaí on escort duty there for tea. On arrival at the place, there was no sign of the Gárdaí or the escort motor car and I was anxious to find out where they were gone to, as if they were not too far away I would wait to relieve them on their return. At about 6 p.m. General Mulcahy's children, who were running in and out of the gate, came over to where I was standing and started talking to me, when one of the girls said: ‘Why are you not gone away in the motor car?' I said the car was gone when I came, and that I did not know where they had gone to. I asked her if she knew where they had gone to. She said that she did not know, but that she had seen them there some time ago. I know these children for a long time, and they always come to speak to me when I am about the place, or if I meet them anywhere else. If the children had not come near me, I would not have asked them any questions."

That is the position about which the Deputy complains here. The Gárda concerned has been well known in that district for quite a long time, and I do not see any reason why the Deputy should question his statements. If, however, the Deputy can even show me that this statement by the Gárda concerned or the statement by the Chief Superintendent concerned, is incorrect or untrue in any way, I shall be glad to have the matter further investigated, but I suggest that the statements are such as would suggest to any reasonable person that there is no necessity whatever for any further investigation. Suggestions have been made here about surveillance, espionage and all that kind of thing. Is there any evidence that such conduct was resorted to? It was suggested here on the Vote for the Department of Justice that the police have got instructions to harass the Deputy and the other Deputy who is subject to protection. Here is an example of that sort of complaint. No instructions were ever issued from my Department or from any other Department which would bear out any of the charges that the Deputy has put forward or implied —none whatever. There were definite instructions as to their duties issued by the Chief Superintendent to the Guards who were carrying out this duty.

I know perfectly well that escort and protection duties are never pleasant and never can be pleasant. Everybody wants to be as free as he possibly can from anybody looking after him in that way. Protection can never be pleasant, but let us try to realise what is the position of the Gárdaí. They are told off to do a certain job—to protect the particular persons involved. If the particular persons involved tried to meet them in a reasonable way, instead of trying to seize upon every little incident for the purposes of political propaganda, the duties of the Gárdaí would be much easier and perhaps the position of the persons who are being afforded protection would be much more pleasant. Instead of that you have this will-o'-the-wisp business of trying to show the Guards that anybody can succeed in escaping them. That only results in giving a lot of unnecessary trouble to the escort. I suggest to the Deputy that it is an absolute abuse of the privileges of this House to bring forward charges of this kind and to try to draw a cloak of martyrdom about himself for the purposes of political propaganda, without there being any foundation for such charges.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Wednesday, 9th May, at 3 p.m.