Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Nov 1934

Vol. 54 No. 1

Adjournment Debate. - Incidents in Cork Sale Yard.

I asked the Minister for Justice to-day if it is the intention of the Government, that is to say of the Attorney-General, to institute proceedings against six members of the Gárda Síochána who fired on a small body, some 20 men, in Marsh's yard in the City of Cork, killing one of the men upon whom they fired and wounding six. The answer I received from the Minister was that it is not the intention of the Government to prosecute these men. In reply to a supplementary question the Minister went on to say that there was a verdict of a coroner's jury which acquitted these men. The Minister has been very strangely misinformed indeed. There has been no verdict of a coroner's jury exculpating these men in the least degree. The law is perfectly clear. When one individual takes the life of another individual and it is proved that he has taken that life, the onus or burden of proof is on the person who has taken the life to produce evidence of some circumstance which will reduce it from murder to any lesser offence, or to show that it is not an offence at all. The burden is upon the person who has taken the life. That is well established law. It has been laid down in the Court of Criminal Appeal in this country.

Therefore, the verdict of the jury which did not exculpate these men, a verdict of a jury who simply satisfied themselves, acting indeed on a suggestion of the coroner, in bringing in a verdict that Michael Patrick Lynch died of gunshot wounds, was equivalent to a verdict of wilful murder against these men. The law presumes it is murder. There is no question as to who fired these shots. They admitted it themselves on oath. There is no question as to the individuals who fired the volley, or series of volleys. They admitted it themselves on their oaths. In consequence the verdict of the jury in Cork was not a verdict acquitting these men; it was a verdict equivalent to a verdict of murder against them. These men could not have been acquitted. No jury could have found a verdict exculpating these men, and, in the short time at my disposal, when I place the facts before the House, it will be clear to every member of the House, who brings to a consideration of this case anything approaching an impartial mind, that the Attorney-General is condoning wilful murder in this case and that the Attorney-General is, by his refusal to prosecute, making himself, as it were, an accessory after the fact to a calculated and cold-blooded murder.

What are the facts? On this 13th of August there were 330 uniformed Guards in the City of Cork. That body of uniformed Guards was quite sufficient and ample to deal, without the use of firearms, with any activities of the crowd. There was a crowd, which they estimated at something between 2,000 and 3,000 men, present on that 13th of August. On the previous 27th July, in the very same place, there had been, on the police evidence, an equally large crowd and there had been only 50 police on that occasion, and yet they were able to preserve the peace and to control the crowd without the use of firearms. What happened on this occasion? There were several cordons of Guards drawn up outside the gates of Marsh's yard where certain cattle were being sold. A lorry load of men, roughly about 15 men in a lorry, darted at the gate and carried the gate of the yard off the under rail on which it rested. The lorry then went into the yard, a distance of some seven yards—22 feet to be completely accurate—and struck against a cattle pen and came to a complete stop. The gate itself, as I have said, was taken off the bottom rail but was still held up by the top rail hanging over the back of the lorry. There was an attempt made by some members of the crowd to get in after the lorry. Five members of the crowd did get in after the lorry and amongst these five was the unfortunate boy, Lynch.

What was the position inside the yard? There were 15 men on the lorry inside the yard and there were five others, not even in the lorry, who followed them—20 men in all. There were inside Marsh's yard at that time 46 members of the Gárda. The proposition which the Minister for Justice endeavoured to establish at question time to-day was that 46 members of the Gárda could not deal with 20 civilians, bearing no lethal weapons, without opening revolver and rifle fire on them. That is a monstrous proposition.

A Deputy

They could not stop the lorry.

The lorry had come to a stop. The lorry had stopped at a cattle pen against which it struck immediately inside the gate, with the gate actually resting on it.

What about the superintendent who was struck by the lorry?

The superintendent fell and hurt his knee getting away from the lorry, but that was before the firing began.

Maybe he was struck by a cow.

That was before the firing began. We know that the Minister for Finance took the very extraordinary course in this case of endeavouring to interfere with the course of justice by making a speech on this matter, a speech full of false statements, long before the jury had even been collected to consider its verdict. I think the least the Minister for Finance talks about this matter the better. Inside there were 46 members of the Guards and there were these unfortunate men who had come in there.

Unfortunate.

Very unfortunate. Outside there was a very large number of Guards. There were very nearly 300 Guards. Within half a minute on the police evidence, within 20 seconds on the evidence of Superintendent MacNeill, the Gárda cordon had been reformed outside. Within 30 seconds, according to Superintendent O'Driscoll—another superintendent outside—the crowd had been completely beaten off. That was the position outside—no danger, no possibility of any persons within the crowd getting into the yard. What was the position inside? These unfortunate boys came in. They were in the lorry. Before they could get out of the lorry a murderous fire was opened upon them without the slightest cause or justification—not, I am glad to say, by order of any superintendent of the Civic Guard, not by order of any responsible individual in the Civic Guard, not even by order of a sergeant in the Civic Guard, but opened without any order from anybody, on the initiative of six practically untrained members of the Civic Guard. A fusillade of revolver and rifle fire was opened on them. In all, 38 shots are fired at these unfortunate young men. Fortunately, only six of them are wounded, one desperately badly. Another, a boy of 18 or 19 years, young Lynch, is shot and dies that night of his injuries. What justification can there be for that? What danger was there? The men themselves do not say there was any danger. They were put in the witness-box and examined. They had appearing for them a very experienced member of the Irish Bar. He put them in the witness-box and they gave evidence directly and under cross-examination. And what is the excuse? That they fired as a precaution, as one of them said. Another said that they fired as a precautionary measure in case "the men that we were supposed to guard might get into danger." But there was no danger. They cannot harden their hearts and say that there was any danger. They cannot even suggest it themselves; and yet the Minister got up at question time to-day, and I suppose will get up here again to-night, and say that there was some possible conceivable danger to somebody or other because nothing except extreme danger, very real danger, very active and present danger to some individual will justify the taking away of human life. It is not suggested, and it cannot be suggested, that there was anything of that nature here.

What a scene occurred in this yard with the members of the uniformed Guards flinging themselves down on their faces to escape from the fusillade! You have other members of the uniformed branch of the Guards cowering down under shelter to keep away from this murderous fusillade. You have Superintendent Bergin of the Civic Guards, the superintendent in charge of the yard under the chief superintendent, saying that he himself was struck in the face by sand which obviously had come from a bullet that struck the wall in his neighbourhood. That was the sort of firing that took place and it would probably have been as fatal to the uniformed members of the Guards as it was to these unfortunate young Cork farmers if it had not been for this: that being trained men they had the presence of mind to fling themselves on the ground while this murderous fusillade was going on. Is that attitude of firing by the Guards a thing which the Minister will have the audacity in this House to defend, and if he has not, why are not the men prosecuted unless this Government deliberately takes up the attitude that they are going to use murder as a means of governing? These men should be prosecuted. If they can show a sympathetic jury that there is anything which would reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter let them show it, but upon their own admissions these men are guilty. I believe that any judge, if he had no evidence before him at all of any kind except the sworn statements of these men themselves, would direct any jury that their action amounted to wilful murder. But there is going to be no prosecution we are told, and this crime is to be cloaked up.

What happened outside? After this firing there was a fracas or a row between the Guards and the rest of the crowd outside. You had about 800 men engaged against 300, roughly. What happened? The Guards dispersed them. As one superintendent said under cross-examination, "We were able to deal with the crowd; in fact, we did deal with the crowd." And what was the result? There were some Guards who received very minor injuries indeed, and I think one or two civilians were hit on the head with batons. That is what happened outside in the street, where you had 800 men as against 300 Guards. The police were able to deal with these 800 men without using lethal weapons, without using revolvers or rifles, but inside in the yard you are asked to believe that 46 Guards are not able to deal with 20 civilians. If ever there was a case of unjustifiable firing upon a crowd it was this firing by these men, and firing by them not in hot blood or anything of that kind. The chief superintendent himself described the firing. He said the firing was by men who knew what they were doing. Calmly and deliberately these men discharged 38 shots, a few of them, they say, in the air, but the others against human targets. One of them went so far as to say he did not take a rifle, but that he picked up a revolver as it could be fired quickly. One of them that did not fire gave as his excuse for not firing that he picked up a rifle and then went for a revolver as being a weapon of greater precision with which he would be sure to get his man. He then ran over to the crowd in order that he might select his target, and while selecting his target the firing stopped and, as he said, he stopped. One of the men who had a rifle said he was stopped firing by Superintendent Bergin of the Guards.

You had this position. You had uniformed members of the Guards. You had armed members of the Guards — respectable, disciplined, trained members of the Special Branch of the Guards. You had them inside the yard. You had them under the control of officers. Not one single man under the control of an officer and not one officer inside the yard considered it necessary to give an order to fire, but these six young men, who were sent down specially, proceeded off their own to open this firing. They proceeded to murder one and to attempt to murder the residue of those who came into the yard. I do not care a button who fired the shot which killed young Lynch. That is of no importance. The whole six of them were firing in concert, and every single one of them is as much guilty of this crime as the man who fired the actual shot which destroyed the life of young Lynch. They were firing together. They were firing in pursuance of a joint design, and every single one of them so firing is as guilty as the hand that actually fired the deadly shot. I have put the case as concisely as I could in the time at my disposal. There are many things which I have had naturally to pass over as I am anxious to give the Minister for Justice full time to reply. I wonder why it is not the Attorney-General who is replying, because this non-bringing of a prosecution is his primary responsibility. I very much wonder if the Minister for Justice when he is replying will, as a lawyer and a man, declare to this House his belief that this cold-blooded shooting of this young man can be justified by any law, Divine or human.

The Deputy has concluded with the statement that he does not think that I can justify the shooting that took place in Cork. He need not be looking for any conclusion except the one which I expressed to-day; that is, that the shooting was justified, and that I was satisfied it was justified.

On what grounds?

On every ground; on the ground that men who are attacked in this way are entitled to resort to such force as is necessary in order to carry out their duty.

Yes, but the attack was over when they fired.

The Deputy goes down to Cork; he loses his case there, and then comes back here to this House to try and make his case over again.

He wins his case in Cork.

The Deputy goes down to Cork; he pleads there before a jury and coroner, and asks that jury to bring in a verdict of wilful murder against the Guards.

They did nothing of the kind.

They did nothing of the kind.

It is a verdict of wilful murder until the Guards are exculpated.

The Deputy had 20 minutes in which to make his statement. The Minister has ten minutes in which to reply.

The Deputy, who is rather anxious about legal quibbles, might, at least, in this House, when setting out to make a statement, tell the whole truth. He tries to patch up here a very innocent looking story as to the exploits of those "unfortunate men" to whom he refers. What are the facts? Men from a radius of 20 miles of the City of Cork, specially picked, I assume, are put into a covered lorry.

That is not so. It was not covered.

I am informed it was a covered lorry.

I was present. It was not a covered lorry.

The cab was covered.

Was the driver's position covered?

The cab was covered.

Outside the gates of this sale yard there is a picked body of men, and certain prominent people connected with this campaign against the payment of annuities have taken up positions inside. I have heard some complaints to-day as to why certain people are not admitted to those sales. Certain prominent people took up their positions inside. Two or three minutes before the lorry made its charge against the gate there was absolute silence outside, and those responsible people who were let in to attend the sale walked out. The next thing the Guards inside hear is commotion on the street, and practically immediately this lorry dashes in through the gates. Remember those people whom, I suppose Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney would even have the audacity to get up here and describe as law abiding citizens, had bludgeoned their way through three cordons of Guards on the streets. They had not much regard for life when charging with their lorry through those cordons of Guards, had they?

Is that why you murdered them?

If they killed those people on the streets would they be guilty of murder?

They did not kill anybody.

But if they did?

If they did— yes.

Did they attempt it?

They did not hurt anybody. Even if they did, you would have no right to murder them, and you know it.

The Deputy is very anxious to interrupt. He will not deny that this lorry with those people in it charged through those cordons of Guards; that several Guards jumped on to the lorry and tried to divert the driver by catching hold of the steering wheel and trying to twist it. What happened to them? They were beaten off by those law-abiding people out for this business that is afterwards praised and made the subject of such a great oration at the grave of the unfortunate man who was killed. Take the position of those men inside. They are there to protect the people who are to bid at the sale; they are there to protect the stock; they are there to see that an ordinary sale is carried out. What would soldiers in a fortress do if they saw an armoured car dashing through? I suppose they would wait until machine-gun fire was opened? Do you think they would? In what position were those men who had, I am sure, like everybody else, heard of and read such speeches as "the guns will be used against the John Browns" as was said in Limerick? In what position were those men who were there to see that the people they were protecting would be protected, and that the stock which they were there to protect was not seized by the people on this exploit? How did they know whether those men were armed or not? Should they have put their hands behind their backs, or put their hands up, and waited for those people to fire?

Surely the Minister knows that not a single one of them was armed? He knows perfectly well that not a single one was armed.

You were not interrupted.

Could a person not carry arms without somebody seeing them? I suppose the Guards should have waited until the arms were actually levelled at them in order to make quite sure? In fact, the Guards should go around and search them? Do you think they would be permitted to do that? Not at all. The Guards should wait until they were fired at! That is the position according to Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney.

That is not the position, and you know it perfectly.

How were they to judge whether those men were armed or not? They see a lorry dashing in and breaking down the gate; they see their chief officer knocked down.

Not their officer.

The officer who was in charge in the yard.

Yes, but whose orders they did not obey.

How could he give orders when he was knocked out by the people whom you are trying to defend?

He was on the ground for half-a-minute. I am not——

You are not trying to defend them?

I am, as you know perfectly. I am wanting to know the reason—which you have not yet given, and I wish you would come to it —why those men who have committed murder are not being prosecuted.

I should like to know from the Deputy very definitely whether he stands over the action of those men who made the attack that day—the lorry driver and the other people?

Attacked the yard.

They had no legal justification in doing so, but you had no right to murder a man because they broke the gate of a yard. My attitude is perfectly plain.

My attitude is perfectly plain also—that Guards who are put into a position like that are not going to wait until fired on.

Fired on by men with no weapons!

You, and the people who were associated with you through the country, said through the country that the guns would be used on the "John Browns." Are the Guards supposed to consider that those words will not, at some time or other, be acted upon?

Might I ask where were those Mr. John Browns at the time? Were they anywhere near the gate?

The Deputy seems to have either lived in the air or to have no idea of what things have gone on in this country in the past. Some years ago an order was issued by a gentleman, who was your leader up to a few weeks ago, that men who cut trees or blocked roads should be shot at sight.

Will the Minister say, before he concludes, whether the Guards were guilty of wilful murder or not?

They were not guilty of wilful murder, and will not be treated as such. On the other hand, those Guards saved many lives by the action they took.

Have some regard for the truth. You know that nobody's life was in danger.

The Deputy should have some regard for orderly procedure.

I pity the Guards who would have to deal with his type in such circumstances.

You would like to see me murdered probably, or any of the Opposition.

I suppose reprisals would not be murder if we got into the Deputy's legal mind.

Of course, they are.

Well then, tell that to Deputy Mulcahy.

Would the Minister tell us what orders he was issuing at the time the other orders were being issued?

Why does the Deputy not convey to Deputy Mulcahy that reprisals were murder?

What reprisals? There was no reprisal when we were the Government. Nobody who had not committed grave offences was executed, and you know it. We did not send out men to murder our political opponents.

The Deputy is trying to put a certain aspect of this matter before the House. There is no attempt by him to deal with the position of the men who attacked the yard that day.

Those men had no arms at all.

Had they batons?

They had sticks.

What had they the sticks for?

To ward off bullets, I suppose!

What was the purpose of it?

You said the Guards were not going to wait until fired on. Those men had no arms.

Does the Deputy try to justify their action that day?

Nothing can justify the murder.

Speaking at this unfortunate man's grave we have General O'Duffy saying: "We are going to carry on until our mission is accomplished. Every Blueshirt is prepared to go the way of Michael for his principles."

I suppose a good Blueshirt would rather be murdered by you than desert his principles.

Speaking further, he said "those 20 brave men, whose deed will live for ever, not only in Cork but in every county in Ireland, broke through in the lorry." Speaking of Lynch's parents, he said: "I say they should be proud, and I know they are proud, of their son. In days to come they will be proud of having raised a son, a martyr who willingly gave his life for his fellowmen."

And because he was going to make that speech you murdered Lynch, I suppose?

He goes on to say "all Blueshirts should try to emulate his bravery and nobleness. Every Blueshirt is prepared to go the way of Michael for his principles." Deputy Cosgrave was standing beside General O'Duffy when those statements were made. If men are going to go out and try to prevent by force what this Government considers it is its duty to carry out, and for which it has legal authority, then those men must be prepared to recognise that force will be ment by force.

And by unnecessary force; is that it?

There is no question of unnecessary force.

The smallest amount of violence will justify you in ordering the Guards to shoot?

I am sure that to Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney's mind it was very little force to plan this attack, and to drive a lorry through and knock down the Superintendent.

That was finished when the firing took place, and you know it.

Is it not a fact that the men rushed after the lorry into the yard?

Those men had only got to the gate.

Will the Minister say why a prosecution is not taking place in this case?

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 15th November.

Top
Share