Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Apr 1935

Vol. 55 No. 13

Private Deputies' Business. - Dundalk Outrage—Motion for Judicial Tribunal.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move:—

That it is expedient that a judicial tribunal be established for the purpose of inquiring into definite matters of urgent public importance, namely:—

1. Whether a meeting of engineers or persons purporting to act in that capacity as members of the organisation styling itself the I.R.A. was held on Saturday, the 10th day of February, 1934, at or near Parnell Square or elsewhere in the City of Dublin;

2. Whether the purpose or one of the purposes of the said meeting was instruction in or demonstration of the use or construction of a land mine or other explosive;

3. Whether the police authorities or the Government were aware that such meeting was intended to be held and of the purposes thereof;

4. Whether the police authorities or the Government were aware that such meeting, while in progress, was being held; and, if so, why such meeting was allowed to proceed, and why the persons taking part in such meeting were not arrested and charged;

5. Whether such meeting or the proceedings thereof were related to or in any way connected with the explosion which took place at Dundalk on the day following the said meeting, namely, Sunday, the 11th day of February, 1934.

This motion was put down on the Order Paper some thirteen months ago, shortly after some incidents were recited to the House. In all the circumstances, and having regard to the facts, the Government ought to be glad to hold the inquiry requested. The responsibilities of the people charged with the preservation of order depend very much upon the prevention of anything which will give rise to outrages. A tragic occurrence took place in Dundalk; there was loss of life and a boy was maimed. It is requested that a judicial tribunal should be established for the purpose of inquiring into definite matters of urgent public importance, and these matters are set out in the motion. It is quite plain from the manner in which this particular matter was treated by the Government from the beginning that a judicial inquiry should take place. High police officers called upon two members of this House and admitted that they knew nothing about the circumstances. It is obvious from that either that the administration of the Gárda is imperfect, inefficient, and unequal to the task which it ought to be its duty to perform, or there was some occult reason for not dealing with the matters detailed here in the House 13 months ago. I accordingly move the motion.

Mr. Costello

I formally second the motion and reserve the right to speak later.

Mr. J.E. Murphy

I, too, would like to urge upon the Minister the necessity for setting up the judicial tribunal asked for in the motion. I think the Minister will concede that the elementary duty of government, in fact the chief reason why government exists in any country, is for the protection of the lives and property of citizens of that country. Here we have a case where life was lost, persons were maimed, private property was most deliberately destroyed, and the criminals have not been brought to justice. Side by side with that what do we find? We find, within a few days of the commission of the crime, the responsible leader of the Opposition stating publicly in this House that on the eve of the outrage the police here in Dublin watched, with the help of field glasses, the progress of a meeting in No. 44 Parnell Square, the purpose of that meeting being to instruct certain persons in the construction and use of a land mine which was to be used on the next day. The explosion did take place the next day—on Sunday evening, the 11th February—and it took place in a quiet, working-class district in Dundalk, with fatal consequences, with very tragic consequences.

The Minister in his reply on that occasion gave the House to understand that he had not completed investigations, but that he was quite satisfied that there was no connection between the meeting in Dublin on the 10th February and the explosion in Dundalk on the 11th February. It is very noteworthy that the Minister did admit that that meeting in fact took place and, of course, we have the evidence of our senses in support of the further fact that the explosion which took place in Dundalk on the following evening was the only explosion of that kind that has occurred here ever since. That admission and that fact, and the terrible consequences ensuing from that fact, have left a very nasty impression on the public mind in Louth. It has left the impression that life and property here are insecure; that life and property can be attacked here with impunity so long as the perpetrators of outrages of that kind are members, and claim to be members, of certain organisations.

The people want to know, and they have a right to know, whether the police authorities in Dublin had information that that meeting in Parnell Square was arranged or whether they came across it by accident. In either event, we want to know why the proper and the reasonable thing was not done. We want to know why those premises were not raided on that evening and the conspirators arrested and the land mine seized. Surely the plea cannot be put forward that the job was too big for the small group of detectives watching the progress of the meeting. Either they had prior knowledge of the fact or they had not. If they had prior knowledge that that meeting was about to be held, suitable arrangements to deal with it could easily have been made. If they had not prior knowledge, adequate assistance for the raiding of the premises could very easily have been secured. The fact remains, however, that that meeting was held, that that meeting was watched by the police authorities, and that the conspirators were allowed to escape with the land mine. On the following evening we had the explosion in Dundalk which, as I have aleady stated, was the only explosion of its kind which has since occurred, thank God. Personally, I have no doubt whatever but that the Minister has perfectly clean hands in this matter. To assume otherwise would be to assume that the Minister is wholly unfit for the position he occupies. After all, why should any effort be made by him or by the Executive to shield those who blundered in this matter? Somebody has blundered, and I for one would not be unduly hard on the Minister for somebody else's blunder, but we have a right to demand—whoever blundered on that occasion, whether it be a higher officer or somebody in a more subordinate position in the police— that the blame be placed on the proper shoulders, and that those people who so mismanaged that particular case and treated their responsibilities so lightly shall be transferred from the positions they occupy to posts more befitting their competence, or their incompetence, and their apparent lack of a sense of responsibility. All this motion asks the Minister to do is what would be done in another country which I will not offend the patriotic instincts of the Minister by even naming.

Mr. Ruttledge

I though I might have heard some speakers deal with this matter more fully. As Deputy Cosgrave pointed out in his opening remarks, this enquiry is called for on the basis of its being a matter of urgent public importance. Thirteen months have elapsed since this motion was tabled, and I think that aspect of it at any rate has disappeared. I can assure Deputies that so far as I am personally concerned I had nothing to do with the putting back of that motion. It is, I understand, a matter of procedure, and I would be anxious to have it disposed of as quickly as possible. A proposal to set up an enquiry such as this is I think very new to this House. I do not think there is any precedent for it—not in my recollection at any rate. It is assumed when a tribunal like this is set up that there would be certain evidence given before that tribunal. Who are the people to give that evidence? The police say there is no relation between anything that occurred in Dublin and what happened in Dundalk on the following day. I am satisfied that that information from the police is quite correct and sound and that there is no connection, good, bad or indifferent, between any meeting which took place in Dublin on the Saturday and what happened on the following day in Dundalk. I was surprised at the statement of Deputy Cosgrave as to the interview which he had with certain officers of the Guards, because I do not think that statement was made when questions were asked previously. In the reports which have been made to me by the Guards it has not been conveyed to me that they stated to Deputy Cosgrave that they knew nothing about it. I will quote the officer's report of his interview with Deputy Cosgrave. It is dated 27th February last:

"I beg to report that accompanied by Detective Inspector McGloin, Detective Branch, I saw Mr. W. T. Cosgrave, T. D., at his residence `Beechpark,' Templeogue, at 11.20 a.m. on 27/2/34. I told him that we had been directed to interview him in connection with the disclosures in An Dáil in regard to incidents in Parnell Square on the 10th-11th instant. When I said this Mr. Cosgrave became very annoyed and said in a rather aggressive tone `What is all this tom-foolery about? I want an explanation as to why the police did not raid the place, Parnell Square. You are a police officer and you know your duty. If you do not know about it, send me someone who does. It is a matter that is well known to you people.' Mr. Cosgrave then ignored us, turned away and started looking at unopened letters on the table."

I do not recollect that Deputy Cosgrave said, when this matter was raised in questions, that the police officers stated they knew nothing about it. If that had been stated at the time I would have asked for a further report on the matter as to whether their memory was at fault or otherwise. The position as I see it is this: I have the police reports before me. The only people I can see who could give any evidence before a tribunal would be Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Mulcahy. Deputy Mulcahy was interviewed also, and his attitude was: "Submit to me questions in writing and I will answer them." What is the object of that? If a person has information, and a police officer interviews him, he can give that information without having questions submitted to him in writing, and taking some time to consider the answers. Was there any desire to help the police in this matter? I do submit to the House that a Deputy is not in any different position from anybody else. If he has information to impart, and especially if he takes an interest in it as this matter was taken an interest in by the Deputies concerned, his duty is the duty of the ordinary citizen—to give that information to the only people to whom it is proper to give it, and that is to the police. That information has not been submitted to the police. No assistance has been given to the police by the Deputies concerned.

Is the object of an inquiry to try to suggest that the police force in this country is a force which cannot be relied on to do its duty, or is it suggested that that police force, while willing to do its duty, has been interfered with? If that is the suggestion, I should like to say at the outset that the police have not been interferred with in doing their duty. They have been urged at all times to do their duty fairly and effectively, and I wait evidence in support of any suggestion that they have not carried out their duty in this way. If a meeting of certain people is being held, it is not an unusual thing in this country that such places are kept under observation, and it is for the police to decide what is the best way to act in a certain situation or in a certain set of circumstances.

It happened in Deputy Cosgrave's régime that certain places were kept under observation and I assume, for very good reasons, raids were not carried out at particular times. This is probably not the only incident, but it is the only one that comes to my mind at the moment in a business of that kind, where certain places and certain persons have been kept under observation. I submit it is done by every police force in the world. Anybody who attended that meeting was kept under observation, the details of his movements taken and so on. On very clear evidence and on very clear facts, I am satisfied, and the police authorities are satisfied, that there is no relation whatever and no connection whatever between anything that transpired in Parnell Square and the regrettable affair that happened in Dundalk afterwards. For that reason I do not see any purpose whatever in having an inquiry of this kind.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister has stated that I did not mention before to this House that the police officers knew nothing about the matter.

Mr. Ruttledge

I said I was speaking from recollection.

Mr. Cosgrave

I did mention it before, and if the Minister will look at the latter portion of the report he got from this police officer he will find that I did mention it. This officer came to me and he said he knew nothing about the case, and I said to him: "If you know nothing about it send somebody to me who does." The very first question I put to the police officer was: "What do you know about this case?" and after some mumbling and stammering, his reply was that he knew nothing about it except what he saw in the newspapers and in the report of the Dáil. Now my time is just as valuable as the Minister's, and I am not going to tolerate any police officer of the State coming to my house and asking me questions about a matter of which he knows nothing.

Mr. Ruttledge

Was it not the Deputy's duty as a citizen to give whatever information he had to the police officer?

Mr. Cosgrave

Not to an officer who knows nothing about the case. This had all the appearance of a political job.

Mr. Ruttledge

It has been turned into a political job now.

Mr. Cosgrave

An inquiry by a judicial tribunal is not a political job.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Minister in the course of his speech said that this motion has been on the Paper for 13 months. It was put down as a matter of urgency and he presumes that the lapse of 13 months indicates that there cannot be any urgency, or that that aspect has disappeared. I think that the fact that thirteen months have gone by makes the matter more urgent, more particularly because in these 13 months we have seen a repetition of organised crime in the form of murder in the country. Listening to this matter when it was discussed here, what I understood was that this thing arose in this way: That on a Saturday the police entered a certain house, which had been closed by the Military Tribunal, in order to observe a house in Parnell Square. On the Sunday following, to my own knowledge and from my own observation, I know that the military were sent out around the Country Dublin. To begin with, the police had information that that meeting at Parnell Square on the Saturday was to be held.

The Minister has not purported to refute that there was a meeting of an unlawful association aiming at the overthrow of this State called by the I.R.A. Certainly there are grounds for inquiring as to why an organisation which is seeking to overthrow this State, an organisation whose methods are known to us as assaults on persons and even murders, should be allowed to meet peaceably. The Minister said that the police decide how they will act. He said that in every country the police keep people under observation. Quite true. But is there any other country in the world in which the police were known to have taken possession of one house in order to watch another house in which a meeting was taking place for the purpose of promoting the overthrow of the State by an organisation known to organise murder? In no other country would it be possible to have such a thing happen, or that on the next day, with this knowledge in the possession of the police, would you find a house blown up by criminals who organise murders. If that happened in any other country there would certainly be an inquiry as to why the police decided to stop short at observation. If there had been an inquiry one might ask what the police did and what had happened there. One might ask why it was that the Army and the police were directed on the following day to a particular activity. The thing seems perfectly clear. There was first information that there was to be a meeting. Then there was a meeting and that was a meeting of such an organisation as I have indicated. There was reason to believe that on the following day some act was going to take place which required particular activity on the part of the forces of the State. There is there a prima facie case for that assumption.

There is room for an inquiry as to why these men were not arrested, and whether it was because of police methods or through Government orders that was not done. I submit one of the things that such an inquiry should ask for would be what recommendations the police made, and is it as a result of police advice that no specific action has been taken against the I.R.A. as an organisation but only against members of it who are inevitably caught in outraging the laws of this country? Is that a result of police advice? We have the fact, at all events, that the I.R.A. proposed to meet in Parnell Square, and no action was taken against them. Have the police themselves proposed that when a meeting of an illegal organised body takes place that body is only to be observed, and thereafter the people who take part in that meeting shall be kept under observation? If that happened in this case the police certainly deserve very great censure. Anybody who knows anything about police observation knows perfectly well that as often as not they lose sight of the people they observe. Now let us suppose that the police had reason to believe that the people met at that meeting for such a purpose as I have indicated; that such meeting was of the nature that required police watching, and that whatever number met there, let us say 20 or 30, the police said: "We will not raid or arrest these men." They kept these men under observation, they say. First of all, they could have arrested them, and by the mere fact that they were members of an illegal organisation they could have brought them before the Military Tribunal. Instead of that being done they kept them under observation. Now, keeping these men under observation was a thing that was practically impossible to do whatever the number was. Let us suppose there were ten or twelve there, and that there was reason to believe that these people, or some of them, would embark upon an unlawful act. Judging from what the Minister has said as to the action of the police, their line was that they would keep them under observation and thereby catch them committing that act. Well, any police force in the world will tell you that when you have a body of men working together in a criminal organisation that the only possible and successful course is to raid their meeting when it takes place, arrest them, and that the most futile and helpless course would be to leave them to scatter—afterwards using the police force for the purpose of watching the individuals at that meeting for whatever time might be thought necessary.

If what the Minister says is to be taken as representing the police view, then there should certainly be an inquiry to consider whether or not the Commissioner of police should be kept in his position and if he is to hold that position. Personally, as far as I am concerned, and taking superficial presumptions out of what we know, I would say that if what the Minister said is a fact: that the head of the police thought that the proper course would be to keep those individuals under observation, then he is not fit for the position that he holds, if that is the type of advice he gives the Government in its action to keep down crime in this country. If that is the kind of advice that he gives to the Government, then it is perfectly understandable how a railway train could be derailed and two men murdered, how the young man O'Reilly could be beaten to death and how it is that Mr. More O'Ferrall could be murdered. All these things have happened. It is no wonder that the organisations that make use of such methods can flourish in the country if our police system is such as the Minister suggests. One can understand why the country is in the position that it is in.

The Minister says that no assistance was given to the police. I was here and listened to the debate on that occasion. Deputy Cosgrave spoke about taking up a position in that house. The Commissioner of police could make inquiries about the police who occupied that house. He need not go to a Deputy to get the information. It would be much easier for him to find out, and he could find out for certain. He could inquire, first of all, from the people who were noticed to be there; he could inquire as to why no action was taken and as to why these men were gathered there. He could inquire, if it was not done under his own orders, who was the subordinate of his who ordered particular activity on the following day. In that way the Government could get quite a lot of information. The Minister says the police are satisfied that there was no association between that meeting and what happened on the following day. I could understand that if the police had certain information that that meeting was a meeting of the I.R.A. and that the blowing up of the house and the murder of Mrs. McGrory on the following day was not the work of the I.R.A. But I do not see how they can know that it was not the work of the I.R.A. unless they have very good reasons for knowing that it was the work of some other organisation no way connected with the I.R.A. If they have that information, then an inquiry should be held to find out what that information is, and why it is that, with such information, the police are not able to bring the murderers of Mrs. McGrory to justice.

The Minister gets up and talk with an air of injured innocence. Is he anxious to get after these murders that are taking place? Is he quite satisfied that the police are doing all that is possible to get after them? The President, within the last few days, has publicly announced that his Government has borne things for three years that no other Government in the world would tolerate. Now, I think there are very good reasons for inquiring why it is that the Government of this country tolerates things that no other country in the world would tolerate. What have we seen? Certainly, the President spoke the truth when he said what he did say: that the Government has tolerated the murder of Mrs. McGrory, the murder of Mr. More O'Ferrall, the murder of the two men on the railway and the murder of O'Reilly. The President announces to the world that he tolerates these things. If so, then he is a party to the guilt of them. He has a pre-eminent duty, and that is the protection of the innate rights of the people of this country: their right to live and their right to protection from murder. The President's own words are that he tolerates what no other Government in the world would tolerate. If he had said that he refused to tolerate things that other countries tolerate he might have some justification.

Our history has directed us in a course which disregards authority because authority in the past was vitiated by being alien. We had to seek political ends by extra-political means in which violence was used. Even though that may have been justified at the time it creates a bad tradition in the country. When an attempt was made to overthrow order here, everybody should have combined to create in this country a tradition to supplement the law, an absolute willing obedience to the law, but instead the President has tolerated criminal organisations which unlawfully aim at the overthrow of the State and seek to achieve their ends through the means of murder and violence. He has publicly announced that he has tolerated that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion before the House asks for a tribunal to inquire into certain specific incidents. The Deputy, I suggest, is travelling very far from that motion.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Minister says that there is nothing for such a tribunal to inquire into. I think that the tribunal might inquire into why the Government tolerates things that no other country in the world tolerates.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion asks for a tribunal so that certain specific incidents may be investigated. The motion does not give the Deputy an opportunity of travelling over the whole of the Government's good or bad deeds.

Mr. Fitzgerald

But the Minister, in reply, said that there was nothing to inquire into.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In connection with that particular incident.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I agree. If it is a fact that such incidents can occur because of the general policy of the Government with regard to organised crime in this country, then I think there are very good grounds for such an inquiry. Are we to be limited in what we say to the specific incidents mentioned in the motion? The Minister misrepresented the position completely.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not concerned with the Deputy's philosophy as to what would happen in a certain set of circumstances. What I am concerned with is the motion on the Order Paper asking that a tribunal be set up by the Government to inquire into certain incidents alleged to have taken place. I cannot allow the Deputy to travel beyond the terms of the motion.

Mr. Fitzgerald

May I point out that one argument used by the Minister was that this motion was put down, first of all, as a matter of urgency? He argued that 13 months had elapsed since it first appeared on the Order Paper, and that the urgency behind it had since departed. But the 13 months that have since elapsed have also been marked by crime similar in origin and nature. I submit that gives this matter a different value and a different significance. It gives it additional urgency.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

But, so far as the Chair is concerned, that will not enable the Deputy to extend the terms of the motion.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I was not aware that I was seeking to extend the terms of the motion. What I am concerned with is this, that in this country there is organised crime, and that there was organised crime in February of last year when a house was blown up in Dundalk and a woman murdered. We have what I may call a form of moral certainty as to the organisation that was responsible for that murder. I think, therefore, that the toleration of the organisation which probably was guilty of that specific murder—in any case, if it was not, it was guilty of others—is more than a matter for inquiry. It is a matter of supreme urgent national importance.

When the Minister gets up and blandly waives all that aside, and says that the urgency of this motion has departed—that there is no need to bother—I say that is the very negation of government. I say that this crime, which was marked by particular brutality, was clearly an organised one. One could trace cause and effect from what went on before and after it happened. The police, I have no doubt, pursued inquiries, but they have not made use of all the powers that the law gives them. The law gives the Government and the police power to arrest anybody known to belong to certain organisations. That has not been done. So far as I know, nobody has been arrested on the specific charge of being a member of an organisation aiming at the overthrow of this State, known to be responsible for murder and probably associated with the murder that we are dealing with. That in itself is a matter that calls for very urgent inquiry. The Minister gets up and talks about the duty of Deputies as citizens to assist the police. There I entirely agree with him. Not only Deputies but everybody is bound to do that, although Deputy Little refuted it at one time in this House, and Deputy Cooney refuted it completely. Every citizen is bound to assist the police to bring murderers to justice, though Fianna Fáil Deputies did denounce such a proposal as asking them to become police informers. I entirely accept it, that if I had any information that could at all assist the police in getting after the murderers of Mrs. McGrory, I would certainly give it, and I would not expect to be thanked, because I would be doing my mere duty. Deputy Cosgrave, as far as I can judge, made a clear statement on the matter about a year ago. He said that he was publicly placing before the House the information he had. When it comes to assisting the police every citizen has a responsibility, but the pre-eminent and immediate responsibility rests upon the Government. The Government is armed by law with power to put down organisations that are by nature criminal. The Government has assiduously refused to employ the powers which the law gives it. For a few months before we went out of office we had the power that this Government has. During these few months these organisations were, I might say, notorious for their silence and their inactivity. The I.R.A. were suddenly converted into lambs. Yet the first thing this Government did was to release the men who were rightly and necessarily in gaol. It did more, it released them and gave them jobs where they would be paid out of public funds.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This has nothing to do with the motion. The Deputy is wandering very far from it.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I am certainly, if one can only speak about what happened on that day.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We can only deal with what is provided for in the terms of the motion.

Mr. Fitzgerald

As far as I remember the motion proposes that an inquiry should be set up regarding a meeting that was held in Parnell Square, the purpose of the meeting; whether the Government and the police were aware of the purpose, and why the meeting was allowed to proceed. If the Government had used the powers that the law gives them, it was their patent duty to make use of them, so that that meeting could not possibly have taken place. An attempt would not even have been made to let it take place, because it would be known that everyone participating in it would be immediately rammed into gaol or would be brought before the Military Tribunal and sentenced. I never heard anything so fantastic as the Minister's suggestion that a meeting of an organisation, which there is reason to believe is going to result in crime, should be allowed to meet and go its way, and that the police could trust to luck to deal with each individual member.

Mr. Ruttledge

I did not make any such statement.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Minister said something like this: "It is for the police to decide the best way to act." He then went on to say that there was observation of a meeting rather than raiding. The Minister said that under our régime, and before this Government came into power, people were kept under observation and that in every country in the world people were kept under observation. From that I gathered that it was perfectly natural that the police should decide to let the meeting take place, and that they proposed to keep the people who were present under observation, but should not raid. To me that is a perfectly fantastic proposal. There are times when the police, believing they have no evidence against people who are engaged in something that is unlawful, endeavour to keep them under observation. If just one or two men were concerned it is sometimes possible to keep them under close observation, but with organisations they lose track. In the case of organisations meeting one might say that it is practically impossible to keep men under observation when they disperse. If the Minister's statement meant anything it was that the police had got information, and quite rightly believed that the meeting was to take place; that they let it take place and did not raid but kept the men under observation. Comparing that with other countries I said that in other countries I thought always that if the police had reason to suspect that people were going to break the law, they acted. In this case the police knew that every man who was present at the meeting was breaking the law; that they were acting unlawfully and were members of an organisation. What did they propose to do? Not to raid, not to arrest, but merely to keep them under observation. The next day certainly the observation, as far as I can see, was attempted, because all around County Dublin one met parties of police and military apparently expecting something to happen. Meanwhile this unfortunate woman in Dundalk was murdered. The Minister's reply is that it is 13 months since that happened, that there was nothing urgent about it or nothing to inquire about.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I do not think a more disingenuous speech could be made in this House than the speech which we heard from the Minister for Justice to-night. The Minister has not denied the truth of the statement of facts contained in the motion. He has not denied that the Guards knew there was a meeting of engineers, or persons purporting to act in that capacity, going on about the 10th of February, 1934. He has quoted or said that he had some police reports in his possession. He has not stated that he got them from any responsible member of the Guards or from the Commissioner from whom I expect he would receive information. He has not denied that a considerable number of persons calling themselves engineers and belonging to different corps or branches of the I.R.A. met for the purpose of getting instruction for the making, laying and exploding of land mines. He knows that and he has not denied it. It is in the police reports to him. Did the Government know that such a meeting was going to take place? They did. Eight or ten detectives were not sent to watch the house, I suggest, unless they knew there was an important meeting there. They knew it. I challenged the Minister to deny that the meeting was for the purpose of the more efficient engineers giving instructions to the less efficient engineers in the construction of land mines. That was allowed to go on. Why? Are men to be taught without interruption to use deadly and cowardly weapons for the destruction of the lives of citizens of this State or are lessons in murder to be given, and is it a sufficient answer for the Minister to get up and say: "Oh, when people are giving and getting lessons in murder it is quite sufficient for the Guards to keep them under observation"? The Minister has boasted— and boasted very proudly—that every single thing the I.R.A. do and every single thing they plan is known to him within 24 hours. I dare say when he made that statement he had this particular case in mind. That there was to be a meeting for the giving of instruction in the making and exploding of land mines, the Guards knew. He has not denied it. It was allowed to be carried on. Why? He gives us no answer and no explanation. He suggested, rather than openly stated, that it was not because he or the Executive Council was interfering with the discretion of the Commissioner of the Guards. Why did the Commissioner of the Guards allow that lesson in murder to be given, to the knowledge of the Guards, without interference? Is not that a question which ought to be answered? Ought there not be a public, judicial inquiry to satisfy the people of this State as to why the Commissioner and the responsible officers of the Guards, who should have dealt with this matter, did not deal with it?

The Minister goes a bit further. He says he is satisfied on police reports that there was no connection between the murder in County Louth and the lesson which was given and the mines which were constructed in Parnell Square the night before. On what authority is he satisfied? The Gárda authorities are indicted here. They are charged here with negligence. They are charged with neglect of their duty. They are charged with allowing a cowardly murder to take place when, if they did not know that that murder was going to take place, they must have known that some crime was going to be perpetrated. What is the Minister's answer? He says simply "I must do precisely what the Commissioner of the Guards tells me and the Commissioner of the Guards pleads not guilty of the charge and says he is satisfied he himself was not negligent." That is a new principle. The man who is charged with a very serious offence—allowing, through his gross carelessness, a murder to be committed——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think that a man in the position of Commissioner of the Guards, who has no means of defending himself here, should be subject to such charges as the Deputy is making against him.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I am making this charge in this fashion: A mine was manufactured in Parnell Square. That cannot be denied and no police report is cited to the contrary. Next day, a mine was used in Dundalk and an unfortunate woman lost her life. I draw the conclusion——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is making specific charges against the Commissioner.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Yes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Commissioner is not in a position to answer these charges but the Minister is. The Minister is the person responsible to this House. I suggest that these charges should not be made against the Commissioner.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

With great respect, I am asking to have the charges inquired into. I want to state what the charge is. If a judicial committee is appointed and if the Commissioner shows that neither he nor the other officers who ought to have acted were guilty of negligence, I shall be thoroughly satisfied. But I am asking for an inquiry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy knows that the Commissioner of the Guards has no means of having such an inquiry instituted. The person responsible in this House is the Minister and specific charges should not be made against a person who is not in a position to defend himself.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I should be delighted if the Minister had defended the Commissioner, but he has not done so. Surely I am entitled to draw a conclusion which every member in the House can draw for himself, having the evidence before him. There is a mine constructed, and lessons are given in the construction of mines on a certain night. There is police activity next day searching for the mine. A mine is used in Dundalk the very next day, and is there anybody who has not sufficient brains to draw the conclusion that it was the same mine? Drawing the conclusion—as every sane man must do—that it was the same mine, I say that the guilt, the inefficiency or the negligence of some member of the Guards—at any rate, the person who ought to be responsible for the Guards —is a matter that ought to be inquired into by an impartial judicial tribunal. If those concerned show that they were guiltless of negligence, nobody will be more pleased than I. But the whole confidence of this State in the administration of the law will be shaken if a gross blunder has been committed— surely I can say that; I would use another description if you, a Leas Chinn Comhairle, would permit me— and there is no inquiry for the reason that, according to the Minister for Justice, the Guards are above the law.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister states that he is satisfied from the police reports that there is no connection between what occurred in Dublin and what occurred in Dundalk. He has, apparently, stated that on police evidence. What are the facts? We are entitled to know what they are. The public is entitled to know, and the public mind ought to be relieved by a recitation of the facts—if they are facts. The responsibility for law and order and the preservation of life is a very big responsibility. Nobody would be better pleased than I if a judicial tribunal found that there was no connection between what happened in Dublin and what happened in Dundalk. Assuming that that is so, was there a meeting in Dublin and was it for the purpose of giving instruction in the preparation and detonation of land mines? Was that a good purpose? Was it advisable that people should be allowed to assemble for instruction in the preparation and explosion of land mines? The police are aware that a meeting was held there. There is no connection, the Minister says, between that incident and what happened in Dundalk. It was not for amusement that people were brought from different parts of the country to a house in Dublin to receive instruction in the preparation and detonation of land mines. It was not for the purpose of blowing up ruins or roots of trees or blasting quarries that people were brought there. That there was a meeting in Dublin there is no doubt. That it was for the purpose stated in the resolution there is no doubt.

The newspapers of the 16th November, 1934, have a report of the trial of a man before the Military Tribunal. I do not propose to give any names. One of the charges against this man was that he refused to answer the following questions:

"Were you in Dublin on the 10th February, 1934, in connection with the work of your organisation?

"Did you travel to Dublin on 10th February, 1934, in company with another man?

"Did you attend a demonstration of engineering whilst in Dublin between the 10th and 13th February?"

Who is it that gives evidence that those questions were put to that man? No less a person than the superintendent. Who instructed him to put them? Just think for a moment of the whole construction of this particular case. Men assembled from various parts of the country in a house in Dublin; they are allowed to remain there; they are allowed to go on with that course of engineering; and, six months afterwards, a man is arrested and prosecuted because he does not answer those questions. Strangely enough, in the Party paper belonging to the Minister, those question are not set out. What is set out is: "He failed to give an account of his movements on February 10th." Is it so important in November that a man has to be charged with an offence and prosecuted for an offence and convicted and sentenced for an offence, when, by a single act of commonsense administration, the Guards could have gone into that house and sent those men home about their business?

One of the unfortunate results of this lack of administration on the part of the Government, in the first place, and inefficiency on the part of the police, in the second place, is that young men in this country are allowed to join organisations which have motives that are unlawful and ungodly and are bringing them into bad ways. It is not the responsibility of the young people but rather that of a week, incompetent administration and when you are asked to hold an inquiry into who is responsible for this, the answer is: "It is so long ago that nobody is interested now and it is no longer a matter of public importance." A police officer is sent to one person who recites the case here. The very first question he is asked is: "What do you know about it?" and he has to admit that he knows nothing. If that is not incompetence on the part of the authorities in this country, I should like to know what incompetence is.

Motion put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 40; Níl, 60.

Tá

• Beckett, James Walter.
• Belton, Patrick.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Davis, Michael.
• Davitt, Robert Emmet.
• Dillon, James M.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Holohan, Richard.
• Keating, John.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McGuire, James Ivan.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James Edward.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Reidy, James.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Níl

• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Carty, Frank.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Daly, Denis.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Everett, James.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Norton, William.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Doherty, Joseph.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Hales, Thomas.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Keely, Séamus P.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Victory, James.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers :—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Nally; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.

Motion declared lost.