Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 3 May 1935

Vol. 56 No. 3

Public Business. - Vote 32—Office of the Minister for Justice (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."—(Risteárd Ua Maolchatha.)

Mr. McGilligan

I was referring last night to the amazing blunder made when the detective establishment of this State set out to arrest a man who was apparently notable for rather revolutionary activities and who was subsequently charged for them. They found themselves, having apparently taken up a telephone directory and looked up a house and a particular name, at the house of an ordinary law-abiding citizen of this State. Their attitude that night, of course, caused that gentleman annoyance. I might even say it put upon him a certain amount of fear which, I think, no ordinary law-abiding citizen ought to have thrust upon him unless there is good reason. I want the Minister to consider if, in circumstances in which a man's house had to be raided at 2 o'clock in the morning and if a man represents himself to be an ordinary law-abiding citizen, these forces of his should not think it a reasonable request to be put by him that they should state their authority even from outside the halldoor, because the Minister must know that there have been outrages committed in the country, in which people have disguised themselves as members of the force, and there have been other outrages in which people have announced themselves, without disguising themselves, as members of the force. Surely it is a reasonable matter that a citizen should be entitled to ask, from behind the security of his own halldoor, what is the authority for raiding his house; what he is supposed to have done; what is going to be looked for; who has signed the search warrant; and who has sworn the necessary information and belief before the required District Justice.

I alluded last night to the fact that these men, on a police whistle being blown from an upper window, broke and ran. I do not want to be contemptuous in using the word "ran." If they thought the house was that of a man who belonged to an avowedly military body and if they had a reasonable apprehension that the blowing of the police whistle was the signal for others to come upon them, they were not merely correct in their attitude, but they were sane in taking cover, but the Minister must realise the apprehension that would be caused in the mind of a peaceful citizen surveying that particular performance from his upper window. Men come along and announce themselves as police; they refuse to state their authority; and at the first blast on an ordinary police whistle, which is rather easily recognised, these men break up and hide themselves along the street and then, of course, come along some time later to renew their attempt to get into this man's house.

I suggest that that incident reveals a situation which the Minister ought to deal with. I think it is incomprehensible that, at this stage, a member of the detective division, and a rather well-known member of the detective division, should find it possible to swear or to state—I do not know what the phrase in the Firearms Act or the Treasonable Offences Act is—or to indicate his belief that there are arms or treasonable documents to be found in a particular house. How can a reputable man of the Headquarters Branch of the police force find it possible to swear that, in a particular house, he has reason to believe certain things are to be got, when, in fact, it turns out to be the house of a man who is not wanted at all? The Minister knows that a gross blunder was made on that occasion. The Minister has apologised, but I suggest that that is not enough. Citizens are entitled to feel secure against a repetition of such a blunder and the Minister ought to give some public reassurance by indicating how that blunder took place; whether it was a sudden order rushed upon this unfortunate detective; whether, in fact, he had a document put into his hands and was simply told to pedal off to the District Justice's house and get it sworn as quickly as possible; or, at any rate, give some explanation of the circumstances in which this particular matter took the shape it did take.

I suggest further that the Minister might consider whether it should not be left as a matter of discretion to the detective officers, when requested so to do, to state from outside the door who sent them there; what they are supposed to be getting in the house; what is their authority; what District Justice has signed, and so on. That will induce, at any rate, a better-belief and better security and confidence in people's minds. I am not going to suggest at all that that should, and could, be done in every case. If there are dangerous men, or people who are thought to be dangerous, about to be apprehended, and if it is thought that the best way to get these people is by going to the house at an early hour of the morning, in order to bring about the element of surprise, I quite agree that it would be impossible to have that element of surprise, and even that element of security for the raiding force, if there was to be an insistence on every occasion upon following such a procedure as I have suggested, but in certain cases it is quite possible. At any rate, we are again in the dilemma that the peaceful citizen should not be put in such a position.

Mr. Donnelly

They were often put in that position during the régime of the late Government.

Mr. McGilligan

I should like to have examples. I am giving an absolutely specific case. The Deputy would not always have liked to be described as a peaceful, law-abiding citizen. I notice that he rather pats himself on the chest for it at the moment but there was a time when it was not so.

Mr. Donnelly

And there were others in Dublin.

Mr. McGilligan

Certainly.

Mr. Donnelly

Deputy Mulcahy could give all the information.

General Mulcahy

I could tell you a lot about yourself and your colleagues.

Mr. McGilligan

I hope that Deputy Mulcahy will not anticipate me because I have a lot to say about the Deputy and his colleagues to-day. At any rate, peaceful citizens should not be put in that position. I have given the Minister an example. The Minister knows about it because he has written to the person involved and I know that he has so written. It is agreed as between us that it did happen. The gentleman for whom this man was mistaken was eventually apprehended. I do not know whether he was also raided at two o'clock, three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning, but unless they had two persons of the same name in the Bridewell, his raid could only have started about four o'clock when the mistake was found out.

Whether this second person was raided in the early hours of the morning and whether this performance was gone through again, I cannot say—I have no touch with him—but he was eventually paraded before the Tribunal with a group of others. I am not making any particular note of his case. The situation we find ourselves in, apparently, in the last three weeks is that the Government have decided that the I.R.A. have got to be met in some way. If the Government were going to meet them as what the President described them—an avowedly military organisation—and if they were going to be put down as such, they would get 100 per cent. support for anything they do in regard to them from this side, but they are not treating them as such. They are treating them as rather obnoxious political opponents at the moment.

General Mulcahy

Awkward opponents.

Mr. McGilligan

As awkward opponents. The Minister for Justice, when speaking in Ballina over a year ago, said that complaints had been made that they had not pursued the I.R.A., and he asked "Why should we? We know the I.R.A.; we know the type of organisation they are; and we know their ideals," and he tailed off into nothingness and certainly tailed off into inactivity so far as the I.R.A. were concerned. He did tell us on another occasion at Bonniconlon that there was not a thing that happened at an I.R.A. meeting of which he had not information within 24 hours, and he went on to say that he did not act on such information. At least, he has not been in the habit of acting on it. We get, at any rate, the change in words. The President has recently described the I.R.A. as an avowedly military organisation, with the use of arms as one of its methods, and the President decided that action must be taken. What that action was and what it has led to is another chapter in the discussion, but, at some point, the decision was taken that the I.R.A. are to be regarded as an avowedly military body, with the use of arms as one of its methods.

Round about that time, some of the detective officers of the force were sent to the newspapers in the city, and, I think, elsewhere, to warn them that they are not to publish any information emanating from any unlawful associations. The President or the Minister for Justice was asked here if he could tie up these two things together and say that a body which was an avowedly military organisation, with the use of arms as one of its methods, was one of the unlawful associations referred to in the communication made by the detective officers to the Press and there was a definite refusal to link these two things together—the avowedly military body with the bodies vaguely described to the newspapers as unlawful associations. There was, in fact, a very peculiar series of events to which Deputy Mulcahy referred briefly yesterday. We get, coming up to the Easter celebrations, an editorial in the Irish Press on April 3rd, with the rather cynical heading: “For honest thought.” A Mr. Russell had written to the editor of the Irish Press bitterly commenting on certain proposals of the President, and at a certain point in the editorial it says:

"Mr. Russell's second point is— we think the word is not too strong —a grotesque misrepresentation of the national commemoration organised by the largest Republican movement in Ireland——"

That means yourselves, if you do not know it.

"He pretends that O'Connell Street is to be held against his Party's commemoration ceremony by ‘the Free State Army and police'."

However, Mr. Russell was mild there. What was it you people used to call them? You used to call them Imperial troops. Do you remember that? He merely said by "the Free State Army and police"; that is his manner of describing the tribute that was paid by the Government to the memory of the 1916 leaders.

"Finally Mr. Russell condemns the decision of Fianna Fáil to have its own method and emblem of honour for the Republican dead."

This is the part I want to stress:

"We understand, and Mr. Russell must know, that the proceeds of the sale of Easter lilies go, at least in part, to the I.R.A., some of whose leaders have declared that they will use arms against the majority's Republican representatives."

It does not say against the Government. They are not sanctified in this article as the Government; they are the alleged majority representatives of an alleged Republican movement in the country. As a matter of fact they are the Government, and I read the Government into this. This paper, with its editorial authority, says that the proceeds of the sale of Easter lilies go, at least in part, to the Irish Republican Army, some of whose leaders have declared that they will use arms against the Government. I hope the advertisement was paid for.

On the next day, Thursday, April 4th, the same paper printed an advertisement for the sale of Easter lilies. In other words, it helped to advertise the sale of an emblem, and portion of the proceeds was to go to the I.R.A. for the purpose of purchasing arms to be used against the Government of the country.

Mr. Donnelly

Did any other paper publish that advertisement?

Mr. McGilligan

If the Deputy tells me that any other paper did so, I will accept his statement.

Mr. Donnelly

Other papers did.

Mr. McGilligan

Very good. But why was it allowed? That is what I am at. There is in this country a military organisation, and an advertisement is issued for the sale of a certain emblem, and part of the proceeds of that sale is to be devoted to the purpose of getting arms that will be used against the Government of the country. And that is allowed! I do not care what paper published it, that should not be allowed.

Mr. Donnelly

Why single out that particular paper?

Mr. McGilligan

Give me the names of the others, and I will read them too.

Mr. Donnelly

It is singled out because it is, according to the Deputy, the Ministerial paper.

Mr. McGilligan

All this matter to which I am referring is commented on editorially in that paper. Will Deputy Donnelly tell me if any other paper commented editorially that they knew part of the proceeds of the sale would be devoted to that purpose?

Mr. Donnelly

No.

Mr. McGilligan

And yet the paper that knew that part of the proceeds of the sale would be used to get arms for use against the Government published that advertisement!

Mr. Donnelly

My point is that it took some hunting and a bit of ingenuity to get this advertisement in the Irish Press and relate it to the leading article. Why not take the advertisements in all the other papers?

Mr. McGilligan

Somebody did give me that editorial and that advertisement.

Mr. Donnelly

I am sure Deputy Mulcahy read it.

General Mulcahy

Will Deputy Donnelly say why any paper should be allowed to publish an advertisement for the purpose of collecting funds to buy arms to fight the Government?

Mr. Donnelly

Other papers published the advertisement.

General Mulcahy

I did not see it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will hear Deputy McGilligan without further interruption.

Mr. McGilligan

I asked if any other paper had editorially announced that it knew that part of the proceeds of the sale of these emblems was to get arms to fight and overthrow the Government, and I wanted to know why that advertisement was allowed. On the 11th April a question was asked in the House. It was addressed to the Minister for Justice. He was asked if he had any information that moneys or any part of same derived from the sale of Easter lilies were to be used in the purchase of arms for unlawful purposes. He said that he had no such information. The Minister, who knows everything that happens at an I.R.A. meeting within 24 hours, has not the information that the editor of the Irish Press was able to put in his editorial on the 3rd April. The editor is very precise in his information.

I do not think anybody is going to deny that the I.R.A. were collecting for the purpose of getting arms to defeat the Government. That was not the first occasion on which that was said. Senator David Robinson, when some point was raised about the sale of poppies, said that the people at any rate knew what the proceeds of the sale of poppies would be devoted to, but nobody knew what the proceeds of the sale of Easter lilies were going to be devoted to, and there was a most aggrieved reply from Cumann na mBan stating that the purpose of the sale of Easter lilies was to buy arms. They did not put a tooth in it. I asked the Minister on the 11th April if any permit for the sale of such emblems had been sought or granted, and I was told no permit had been sought or granted. I asked what action it was intended to take against the publication of advertisements for the sale of the emblems, and I was told that it was not proposed to take any action. We know that an avowedly military organisation, which has the use of arms as one of its methods, published an advertisement about the sale of certain emblems, and the editorial column indicated that it was known that portion of the proceeds would be used to purchase arms, and the Minister for Justice is not concerned to see that that advertisement will not be repeated, and he does not care whether they get arms or not. I assume that there was not a permit granted. Is the law with regard to the flag-day type of collection repealed? Is it going to be allowed to lapse? May every organisation, whether with a peaceful or warlike aim, collect and will there be any police activity against the people who collect?

Now we come on to Easter week itself. Deputy Mulcahy said yesterday, and Deputy Kelly seemed to contradict him, that the President of this country found it necessary in his procession to the ceremonial that morning to go by an unannounced route and mainly by back streets, although he was preceded by an impressive military, detective and police force. All of which was quite proper; the only thing improper about that whole morning was that the President of this country, no matter who he would be, should find it necessary to proceed by a circuitous route unannounced and with a heavy squad of military and police protecting him. It is a shocking state of things that in 1935 this country has come to the point when the President—I do not care what his personality is—should have to be protected and should have to change the route announced going to a particular ceremonial.

Mr. Donnelly

Nonsense.

Mr. McGilligan

Is the Deputy suggesting that it is nonsense to say that that state of things could be described as monstrous or that what I have stated is not a fact?

Mr. Donnelly

He had not to be protected.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister for Justice will answer that. Is the President being protected at the moment; if so, against whom?

Mr. Dillon

That is the point—is he or is he not?

Mr. McGilligan

Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce being protected at the moment, and if so, against whom? Is the Minister for Finance under protective guard and against whom is he being protected? Is it the I.R.A., the avowedly military body with the use of arms as one of its methods, or is it not?

There should be no evasion of that. The President either has these Guards around him as a matter of ceremonial and honour or else as a safeguard against attempts upon his personal security or against his life. Let us know what it is. I used to be guarded. It was because the police officers said that I should that I was guarded. I never knew what it was for. I never was conscious of any reason why anybody should attack me but, at any rate, it was clear that I was guarded, and so were my colleagues guarded by the police against parties and organisations who used arms. Is that the situation at the moment? I will have to probe a little bit deeper into this matter of the Easter ceremonials. In this Hourse there was a motion put down to discuss a meeting of engineers or persons purporting to act in that capacity as members of the organisation styling itself the Irish Republican Army, and as to whether such a meeting was held on Saturday, 10th February, 1934, at or near Parnell Square or anywhere else in the City of Dublin.

I want to say with regard to that episode that I regard it, and the releasing of one Gerald Dempsey under peculiar circumstances as the two points upon which will pivot the breaking down of law and order and the morale of the police force in this country. And I hold, no matter what position may be held here by these people, when the inquiry into the action of the men who set free Gerald Dempsey or into the action of the people in connection with the episode of the 10th February, 1934, in Parnell Square is held, that irrespective of the dignity of any people in the business we will have this inquiry and have the facts out. We know that the meeting took place. We know it took place near Parnell Square and it was observed. No further action was taken. The Minister says it was necessary to observe it. We know that people entered No. 5 Parnell Square and with field-glasses looked down upon the meeting that was held in the other premises across the Square. The Minister did not deny that it was known by the police that that meeting was to take place, and it was known that the object of that meeting was instruction in mine-laying and the preparation of landmines.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That took place over 12 months ago.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, but when we first raised it the Minister said he was making inquiries. The period during which these inquiries were being made was within the last 12 months.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, but I think there was a decision in this House about the motion, and the decision was that no inquiry was to be held.

Mr. McGilligan

I am not pleading that the inquiry should be held. What I am stating is that there was a meeting in Parnell Square to give instruction in mine-laying and the preparation of landmines.

Mr. Ruttledge

I do not admit that at all.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister admitted it, but he said that he was certain there was no connection between that meeting and what took place the following day in Dundalk. He never denied the meeting was held.

Mr. Ruttledge

I never admitted the meeting was held.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister has never denied that people were observed by the police at that meeting being given instruction in landmines and mine-laying.

Mr. Ruttledge

I deny it now.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister does not agree that they were kept under observation?

Mr. Ruttledge

No, they were not.

Mr. McGilligan

Will the Minister say that people entered premises in Parnell Square, and that they were given instruction in landmines and mine-laying.

Mr. Ruttledge

That is not the statement. I will deal with the matter in replying.

Mr. McGilligan

Very well. The Minister, when first questioned on the matter, told us that the meeting was held. First of all (a) there was a meeting; (b) that the police knew of it; and (c) that they had almost an agenda for the meeting. We know that at that meeting instruction was given in landmines and mine-laying. The Minister further told us that there are certain occasions when the only thing called for on the part of the police is observation and that it was not incumbent on the police to raid or arrest. That is a dictum that is perfectly sound. In the circumstances, the Minister decided that observation was all that was necessary.

I will now take up this matter of the Easter activities this year. I heard rumours before Easter that an avowedly militaristic organisation had become very active. We know that the organisation has been attacked in a certain mild way, that the premises of certain men known to be in that organisation were raided and that certain information had been secured by the Government. One heard this information was under three heads: (1) That there was an order that arms and ammunition should be brought to the City for Easter; (2) that documents had been discovered in which the movements of Ministers outside working hours had been very carefully scrutinised and noted down. These matters have come out in the course of the trials of the prisoners before the Military Tribunal. It has been stated there in evidence that memoranda had been discovered showing the movements of Ministers and also ex-Ministers; showing that these had been carefully scrutinised, marked and recorded: that plans of at least two military barracks had been discovered. The first of these things has not come out yet as part of the evidence at the State prosecutions but the other points have always been indicated in any report we got. I suggest that the three are true. What is the result of all that? Is it as a result of all that that the President and the Ministers of the State have to go to the Easter ceremonial by an unannounced route and mainly by back streets strongly guarded by an impressive military guard? O'Connell Street was held that day by a strong military guard and quite properly if these be the circumstances. I suggest that was not so much for the purpose of memorial to the people who had died but for the purpose of a display of a sufficiently strong force of military to overawe any avowedly militaristic body.

Mr. Donnelly

That is far-fetched. Read the President's speech.

Mr. McGilligan

It is not far-fetched. This is a deliberative Assembly. We do know that certain documents, indicating that a certain organisation were taking a not very sympathetic interest in the Minister's movements, have been discovered and put in evidence in charges against prisoners before the Military Tribunal. We also know that plans and maps of barracks were got and we are assured that it is a fact that the President went to the Easter ceremonial by an unannounced route. There was a route announced previously and that was changed. We do know that the President went to this ceremonial mainly through the back streets and that he was very heavily guarded and so were the Ministers. I suggest, too, as the President is guarded at the moment and as some of his Ministers are guarded and quite properly so, that the country should know why they are guarded and against whom. Is it thought proper to have these guards surrounding the representatives of the Government in this country? I think it a monstrous thing that in the year 1935 any member of the Government should be guarded. The fact that the Ministers of this country in the year 1935 can be so guarded must be only regarded as unusual, abnormal and monstrous. The Minister should tell us why they are guarded and against whom these guards are provided. The Minister tells us he knows all about the I.R.A. We have it from his own statement that within 24 hours he knows all that happens at their secret meetings. He told us in that statement that he was not going to inquire after them. The President has burst and upset that statement as put forward by the Minister for Justice. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has exactly the same view. In the course of his speech reported in the Press on the 12th March last he saw fit to attempt to soothe the minds of some of his supporters. On that occasion the Minister said:

"Members of Fianna Fáil were sometimes disturbed by the fact that the Government had to take action against individuals and organisations who had not accepted the national policy and who took forcible measures to defeat the Government plans. Everybody had, of course, the right of freedom of opinion and freedom of speech and association within the law, but no minority had the right to try to defeat national policy or to try to defeat Government plans by force or the threat of arms."

That is a perfectly sound statement.

"If the Government did not take measures against those who attempted such things, not merely would it fail in its duties as a Government, but it would be failing in its duty as the chosen leaders of the Republican movement operating a policy approved of by the majority of Republicans, who wanted to see that policy fairly tried."

His mind is not running so much on the sanctity of government as on the majority of the Republican movement and the Party. His anxiety is not about the people who are against the Government, the people of anarchical views, as the people who are rather awkward political opponents at the moment.

When some of these prisoners came to be tried we have again a rather amusing situation revealed. The counsel briefed for the State, as reported in the Evening Herald of April 26th, said, in regard to one of them:—

"This man must have a sense of humour. He must, in his private moments, his kindly moments, be tickled to consider that he can come here and describe an Act as a Coercion Act, and can, the same man, call upon his men to arm and organise themselves for the purpose, presumably, of making the civilian population accept his views on matters political."

If that man had a sense of humour he must also have a sense of grievance that a man briefed by the present Government could come to court and tell him that it was illogical for him to describe as a Coercion Act the Act which established the Military Tribunal.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Minister for Justice responsible for briefing counsel?

Mr. McGilligan

I am going to assert that he is responsible for the events which this prisoner was protesting against.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He is not responsible for briefing counsel.

Mr. McGilligan

He is responsible, I understand, for the members of the force who appeared to give evidence in this case.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He is not responsible for the opinion of counsel or for briefing counsel in a particular case.

Mr. McGilligan

I shall leave the opinion of counsel. I want to show that this man, who did in fact protest in this court against what he described as a Coercion Act, had been training and arming people. That was an allegation which apparently the Military Tribunal believed. I say it is an aggravation for a prisoner to be faced with that particular set of arguments when he knows that the man who is operating the Act against him has also described that very Act as a Coercion Act while he himself about three years earlier had been trying to instruct these people to arm in order to overthrow a Government. When these prisoners, who were found with these movements of Ministers detailed and with plans of barracks, were being charged, sergeant after sergeant and superintendent after superintendent was produced, to swear about certain activities of theirs and certain documents found in their possession. What did the whole evidence boil down to? A statement was made in one case that if these men had only had sense to recognise a particular court they undoubtedly would have put up an argument. What was it? That they would have claimed to be the inheritors and the lawful successors of the volunteers of 1916 to 1920.

I do not think it was proper that that should have been suggested as their argument, as I do not think that that would have been their argument —at least it would not be at one remove. They would not claim directly to be the successors of the volunteers of 1916 to 1920. They claimed that they were the successors of the men who claimed to be the successors of the volunteers of 1916 to 1920. They claimed to be the successors of the men who, when they came into this House here, stated that whatever authority they had previously and whatever continuity they had, the men they left outside could claim the same. Deputy Donnelly must admit that under these circumstances these men can certainly still, on the expression of opinion of President de Valera and his Ministers, claim that they have the continuity which the President had and that they have the same rights as the President claimed to have against a lawfully appointed Government. I referred to this matter before. There was a White Paper—No. P.202—published which, in the year 1926——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is going very far back.

Mr. McGilligan

The whole atmosphere of this is that certain people are being arrested by the Minister for Justice and they are putting up a certain defence. I do not want to defend them, but I want to say with regard to them that until this Government makes its position clear—I do not care what its past has been—even starting from to-day, that they have no moral authority against these men.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss that on the administration of the Minister for Justice.

Mr. McGilligan

It is the administration of the Minister for Justice I am speaking about.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss a document issued in 1926 on the administration of the Minister for Justice for the financial year which has ended.

Mr. McGilligan

I put this to you. Speaking on 14th March, 1929, the President, then Deputy de Valera, said:—

"Those who continued on the organisation we have left can claim the same continuity that we claimed up to 1925."

He gave them there his seal and authority when speaking in 1929, and they claim to have it still.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not discussing the President's statements.

Mr. McGilligan

I shall give you some statements made by the Minister for Justice. Surely the administration of justice does not depend on what an individual Minister states, but on the Government policy in relation to the administration of justice?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are discussing the administration of the Minister for Justice for the financial year which has closed and the Deputy proposes to discuss a document issued in 1926.

Mr. McGilligan

I am discussing certain Military Tribunal trials which took place three or four weeks ago, and the evidence then referred to and the relevant matters to that evidence. These men are being charged at present for certain military activities. There was a certain military activity which was ordered by the man who is now Minister for Industry and Commerce, and he asked with amazement did anyone suggest that that action of his was invalid? Surely prisoners can say the same thing. They can quote the President, who stated that they could claim the continuity that he claimed to have up to 1925. That is not the only point. There has been produced against these prisoners and made a serious item in the charge that one of them was found with a thing called "Governmental Policy and Constitution of Oglaigh na h-Eireann adopted by General Army Convention in March, 1933." I think there is what is called a fourth impression of this out. It is really an impressionistic study in a certain type of abnormality of mind that should be noted. It is an abnormality of mind which was the Minister for Justice's not long ago. These prisoners when that is produced say: "That is Deputy Frank Aiken's Constitution of Oglaigh na h-Eireann," and so it is.

That is the constitution as amended in 1924-25. I have compared it—I cannot say literally—and it is almost word for word with the one dated 1933, brought in evidence against certain persons, that the present Minister for Defence passed. The Minister for Defence does not believe that. Let me remind him of an incident. Remember that you are charging men at present with breaking the laws of the State; with being an avowedly military body; with the use of arms as one of their methods. Will the Minister for Defence let his mind run back to the time, long after the "cease fire," when we were supposed to be getting into constitutional activities, when the courtmartial of the O.C. of the Dublin Brigade was ordered? For what? For endeavouring, if you please, contrary to general orders, to start a war without the sanction of the Army authorities, or without even notifying them. It is shocking play-acting. That happened. I do not think the man paraded. He was probably dismissed in ignominy in his absence. It was alleged in 1925 that he had broken a certain general order by endeavouring to start a war without the sanction of the Army authorities and without notifying them. Is it not ludicrous to have that said here in daylight of the man who was up to recently Deputy Frank Aiken, and who is now Minister for Defence, by people with their records who, in 1925, got a man court-martialed for endeavouring to start a war without the authority of the military authorities and without notifying them? There was a second charge which was more serious, that by mishandling the arrangements for this particular little war, that he wanted to start on his own, he had spoiled the chance of success of a similar venture later.

Mr. Donnelly

There were some queer happenings.

Mr. McGilligan

That was one that did not come off, when a man was courtmartialed.

Mr. Cooney

That will never happen to the Deputy. He will never be responsible for starting a war.

Mr. McGilligan

I will never do so against a Government.

Mr. Cooney

Or against anything.

Mr. McGilligan

I will compare my record day by day with that of the Deputy in Belfast, Dublin and Derry. I am no hero, I am no rebel against authority and do not pretend to be. I will speak against rebels to authority. There was the situation of this man, and unfortunate sergeants and members of the Civic Guard find themselves paraded against prisoners who, when faced with the charges, can reply that that is what Deputy Frank Aiken did. In addition, when one man was charged he said that he would not recognise the court. Surely, the Minister for Defence realises that he also issued another general order, in which he forbade recognition of any judicial tribunal, ordinary or military, by anyone except under three conditions (1) that they had carried out an authorised military act; (2) that the penalty was death; and (3) that General Headquarters had allowed it. There was that saving clause.

The President is aggrieved because the use of arms is one of the methods of this avowedly military organisation, but the Irish Press published an advertisement about the Easter Lily, although they wrote editorially that the proceeds were to go ultimately towards the purchase of arms. Surely, Ministers must know, as the prisoners have hinted, that they could be faced with their own records; that the Vice-President of this country, when writing home on a particular occasion said that it was better to keep the name, Election Fund, over the moneys collected because it added to the belief that the moneys were to be used for constitutional activities, but that privately he propagated the idea that they were to be used “for purposes which I need not specify in this letter.”

It is difficult to know if Ministers have at this moment definitely turned their backs upon their past, and are to get after people who are following in their footsteps, people whom they have described to-day as being misguided. There is the situation I find developing and that I have tried to focus attention on for the last two months, with the historic past evidence in the background. I want to know what is—I do not say feared, because I hope they are not feared—the organisation that is being guarded against. What information has the Minister from his police, secret police or ordinary police, or other agents, as to the strength of certain people and their potentialities for danger? Are these people going to be definitely countered at last as an avowedly military organisation? Is the Minister in the future, if there is any sort of I.R.A. meeting, as the man administering justice in this country going to take action? He should. If there occurs again an incident such as I investigated in a Parliamentary Question previously, where a certain man was tried by general courtmartial, found guilty and sentenced, will the Minister take action against the people who held this pretence at courtmartial or will he leave them alone? Has the Government definitely decided now, irrespective of what they said at any time, or of whatever their excuses may have been, that there is a changed attitude?

Are they now in favour of having one Government only in the country and one military organisation? Will they keep to that for the future? Or, are the police forces just to be used against people because they are awkward political opponents? Are they really to be encouraged and to be kept in reserve against those who want a change of Government? Have Ministers definitely cast off their old skins? Are they constitutional now? Can we have any security that courts that have been misused will, even now, be directed against military organisations, and that people will not be paraded on futile charges for refusing to answer questions, when there is apparently available in the files in Government Buildings information that these bodies are out to overthrow the Government by force of arms, and out to collect money for the purchase of arms? Then we will know where we are. The Government will want to do that. Whatever may have been their hopelessness in the past and however much that past may be regarded as weakening their moral authority to take action against old-time colleagues, they will get our full support if we can only get it clear that their past is wiped out, and that they are going to work along different lines in the future. I have my doubts. about that. I still think it is only going to be a question of hammering at organisations that are a political danger, that there are not going to be any root and branch methods, or any attack on the principle of getting after these people, because they are, as the President described them, an avowedly military body.

If it is clear that they are going to act they have immense opportunities and they can get the arms. The Government could have prosecuted people long ago if, from documents and tabulated returns they have, they thought there was a conspiracy against Ministers. If they thought there was anything in that, they could have put forward serious charges against them instead of this nonsensical business—saving their own face and trying to palaver the prisoners at the same time by charges involving not more than three months' imprisonment. It is time that the Government should take serious notice of the more serious activities of this avowedly militaristic body.

Mr. Dillon

There was one question which Deputy McGilligan put to the Minister for Justice to-day, and on which I wish to throw emphasis. President de Valera is at present going round this city and country heavily guarded. There are 10 or 15 men constantly vigilant to protect him from something. The Minister for Justice is heavily guarded. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is heavily guarded. Against whom? It is very necessary that this country should know who it is that constitutes a threat to the lives or safety of the President of the Executive Council and the Ministers of State. It is pertinent for the public to make that inquiry, because if the Government know that the lives and safety of those men are threatened they must know or suspect from what source they are threatened. Do they intend to tolerate the continued existence in this country of a body of men who they believe would murder the President of the Executive Council if he was not adequately protected by the forces of the State? If they do intend to tolerate the continuation of such a situation, then we have reverted to barbarism; society has completely broken down. If the Government has allowed itself to be manipulated into a position in which it tolerates the continued existence of a body which it has reasonable ground to apprehend intends to murder or make a violent assault upon the President or Ministers of State, then the Government has, in fact, abrogated its functions. In my submission it is a deplorable confession of futility that the Government should submit the President and Ministers of State to the manifest inconvenience of going about surrounded by armed guards, unless at the same time they take active measures to put an end to the threat which makes such armed guards necessary.

I think the time has very definitely come for the Government to make it clear to all parties in this country that, no matter what their own past may have been, they are not going to tolerate any armed minority in this country attempting to overthrow the elected Government of the majority of the people, nor are they going to tolerate for a single moment any armed minority conspiring to assault or to murder members of the Executive Council, or other persons in the public life of the country; and that while in the interregnum they are prepared to give the necessary protection to prevent murder being done, they look forward to maintaining that protection only so long as it may take them to make a definite end of the organisation which issues the threat that makes that protection necessary. Deputy McGilligan has covered the ground pretty thoroughly, but I think this much must be said, that it is out of evil sometimes cometh good. I can well remember a great many of the Deputies on those benches protesting at one time that any disorder, violence, or intimidation that was practised against the members of our organisation was really nothing more than the natural indignation of outraged citizens.

Mr. Donnelly

Perfectly true.

Mr. Dillon

They have since seen the Minister for Defence pelted with rotten eggs off the streets of Tralee when he was going down about his legitimate business—conducting a military review on St. Patrick's Day. They have seen the President of the Executive Council hooted and jeered in the streets of Dublin, grossly affronted as he was driving perfectly legitimately through the streets of Dublin, when his passage should have been attended with all the ordinary marks of respect. They have seen turned against themselves the very self-same methods of insolence, aggression and intimidation that they rejoiced to see turned against us in the past. They have come to realise that the toleration of such outrage on the persons of citizens is something that is not consistent with the maintenance of Government in this country. What I regret is that the same indignation was not evinced by the Government when insult and intimidation were offered to a humble citizen as is now being evinced when they are offered to the President of the Executive Council and to the Minister for Defence.

The humblest citizen in this State has as much right to go about his legitimate business as has the President of the Executive Council, and he ought to get the same protection. But he did not. On the contrary, the blackguard and the intimidator were clearly shown that they had the sympathy of the Government so long as they confined their activities to attacking ordinary citizens who were members of our organisation. It was not until the Minister for Defence was pelted with rotten eggs in Tralee, and until the President of the Executive Council was insulted on the streets of Dublin, that the Fianna Fáil Government began to sit up and take notice. If they had been guided by us when this kind of blackguardism began, those insults need never have been undergone by Ministers of State, because it would have been made clear right from the very beginning that the Government would not tolerate anybody being subjected to insults of that kind when they were offering no provocation to their neighbours. My mind goes back to an occasion in the town of Ballina, the Minister for Justice's own native town, when his own neighbours came out and conducted themselves like wild animals on the streets. They sought to prevent the holding of a perfectly peaceable meeting, precipitated a riot, threatened me and a large number of other citizens with violence and attacked us physically. For some reason best known to the Minister for Justice, the Civic Guards appeared to be absolutely paralysed in the discharge of their duty. On that occasion we were well able to defend ourselves. We did so, and took such steps as were necessary to secure our free passage through the streets, and to disperse the persons who had attacked us.

As I explained to this House, we forebore to do that until it became perfectly clear that unless we took our defence into our own hands we would be driven off the streets, because the Civic Guards were determined not to extend to us the protection which we were entitled to expect from them. My friends and myself had good grounds for personal complaint on that occasion, but our personal grievance was trivial compared to the general impression that was created upon the minds of the young people and upon the minds of the Minister's own friends in Ballina that day, because they got the idea into their heads that you can attack and insult persons who are politically opposed to you, and if they happen at the same time to be political opponents of the Minister for Justice you can do it with impunity—nothing will happen. No Civic Guard will be allowed to touch you and if there is any subsequent prosecution strings will be pulled and the harm will be taken out of the matter. Now you are reaping the whirlwind you yourselves sowed in the last couple of years. Now you have the President of the Executive Council going round with a heavy guard; you have the Minister for Industry and Commerce going round with a heavy guard. You are suffering from all that because you did not make it clear from the very start that you would not allow anyone, great or humble, in the State to be intimidated. The present situation is one profoundly to be deplored. It is a relief and a satisfaction to know that whatever steps are necessary to protect the person of the President from insult or injury are being taken. I think the Minister for Justice is perfectly right in taking every precaution to secure that no assault or insult is offered to his person or to anyone else.

Mr. Donnelly

Nobody in the country wants to do it.

Mr. Dillon

At the same time the Minister is not doing his duty unless, in addition to providing all the protection necessary, he is taking active steps to make an end of the threat, and to secure that no body of persons shall indulge in such conduct now or hereafter.

There are some Departmental questions, in addition to the general question of policy, that I want to address to the Minister. The Minister recently recruited a very considerable number of Guards. It did seem to me that after all the talk we heard about the supreme importance of the Gaeltacht, and so forth, that greater consideration might have been given to the Gaeltacht in this matter. I know certain preference was shown, but I have no doubt that the Minister could have drawn more recruits from the Gaeltacht and could have secured that Gaelic-speaking Guards would be sent to the Gaeltacht instead of having English-speaking Guards in Irish-speaking districts. I think he might have recruited them for the Fíor-Ghaeltacht and insisted on having Irish speakers. I believe, indeed, he could, without difficulty, have secured a couple of hundred more Irish-speaking Guards, and thereby made sure of having more Irish-speaking Guards in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht and the Breac-Ghaeltacht. In doing that I believe the Minister would have materially assisted in the development of the language throughout the country as a whole.

I want now to ask the Minister another question. I have always been jealous of the reputation and good standing of the Gárda Síochána as a whole in the country. I think the Minister will agree with me that since he formed a special branch, and took in a number of recruits for that branch some very regrettable things took place. I am not now calling for very severe discipline upon his part, but I think he has found that some of the new members have not measured up to the standard of discipline expected from the Guards. I think the Minister has been precipitate in allowing them to undertake public duty without being sufficiently trained in the discipline required for members of the branch. I have always tried to be scrupulous in talking about the Guards, and not to reflect upon them except where I was able to substantiate the charge, and to make it possible for the Minister to remove the cause of complaint, and not leave it there to be a reflection upon the whole body.

I referred recently to an incident which occurred at Keadue in County Roscommon. I mentioned that an outrage was committed there by way of an explosion and that there was a uniformed Guard present when the explosion took place, and that he either took part, or allowed it to pass with his full knowledge. The Minister said that was the first he heard of it. But he must have heard since of this explosion which broke a number of windows and damaged the gable of a house. He must also have heard of the rumour that was circulated in regard to it, and I should be glad that the Minister took advantage of this Estimate and gave us full particulars of what happened.

I trust when he does so he will confirm what I have said. There was a rumour circulated very widely throughout the whole district on the lines that I brought to the attention of the House. I think it is highly desirable that when a case of this character gets the publicity that this got locally, that a full statement should be made to clear the matter up and to satisfy the public mind that whatever disciplinary action is necessary to rectify the matter has been taken and that no continuing scandal exists. Now, as I conceive it, the Minister for Justice is bound to defend in this. House every branch of the Department for which he is responsible.

Recently in the Irish Press newspaper there has been started a hypocritical and fraudulent sort of agitation about indecent films. Somebody was persuaded to get a county council to start a resolution congratulating the Irish Press upon the manly stand it took upon this matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must know that the Minister for Justice is not responsible for the policy of the Irish Press.

Mr. Dillon

I know, but I think the Minister is bound to see that the film censor for whom he is responsible is doing his work. If not, the Minister would want to know the reason why and would resent the suggestion of the hypocritical slush which appeared in the Irish Press that the film censor is deliberately allowing indecent films to appear. Every film that appears must first be submitted to the film censor. If the film censor condemns a film there is a right of appeal to the Board to review his decision. I believe the common experience of every responsible person in this country is that the general standard of the films shown in regard to indecency or impropriety of any sort is above reproach. Few of us will agree with the philosophy underlying many cinema dramas or comedies as philosophy but the same would apply to books or novels; but no one suggests because of disagreement with their philosophy that they are in conflict with the ordinary standards of decency or propriety, and that is not for the Government to say either.

Mr. Coburn

Nor for the Chairman of the General Council of the County Councils.

Mr. Dillon

I am coming to that. It is the duty of any body charged with governmental responsibility to see that no public indecency or impropriety shall occur through their administration. As Deputy Coburn interjects, it is a gross insult on the part of the Chairman of the General Council of County Councils or of the Irish Press to start a mare's nest of the kind for which they made themselves responsible, unless they are prepared to go further and say to the Minister for Justice “We indict the film censor. He is allowing films to be shown to our young people which are a public scandal.” They would have a perfect right to do that. But what they have not a right to do is, simply for the purpose of getting a little popular kudos and ranging themselves on the side of the angels as super-purists, to start a reckless and uninformed agitation of a hypocritical and morbid character which prejudices that highly respected public servant who has shown scrupulous zeal in the very delicate task entrusted to his care and implies that he is an incompetent or negligent person.

Mr. Donnelly

It implied nothing of the kind.

Mr. Dillon

What else does it imply?

Mr. Donnelly

It simply expressed its own opinion on what is a world-wide problem to-day. In other countries there are pickets out before the picture houses and if a paper deals with that world-wide problem and gives its opinion, it is straining language for the Deputy to suggest that it is looking for kudos.

Mr. Dillon

That exactly explains the confused and silly mentality that is behind all this business. In the United States you have cinematograph films being thrown on the screens which would bring a blush of shame to the most sophisticated individual in this country, because there is no restriction of any kind there. The result is that in respect of a certain type of cinematograph film there has been a competition in indecency. The consequence was that certain public-spirited individuals rose up and said: "If the State will do nothing to control this business we shall have to go out and do it ourselves." They started a League of Decency to bring pressure to bear on the cinematograph proprietors to put an end to this competition in indecency which meant that every actress appearing in musical comedy parts on the screen was stripping naked and that there was no chance of films being taken by a certain circuit of cinema theatres unless half the women in them were skipping round with nothing on them. That was what was happening and the League of Decency came out and said that must stop. No provision had been made by the State to check it at all. Here the Minister for Justice is responsible for the film censorship and every precaution is being taken. Either the film censor is not doing his job or the Irish Press is talking through its hat. It is talking through its hat simply for the purpose of masquerading as the pious, good, zealous paper that ought to be in the hands of every “dacent” Catholic man. The same tripe was started about a Christian Government——

An Ceann Comhairle

The policy of the Irish Press is not under discussion on this Estimate. The Deputy has related one matter to the Vote before the House, but he cannot pass on to a general review of the policy of any newspaper.

Mr. Dillon

Surely I am entitled to criticise a critic of the Minister for Justice, and say that far from that criticism being justified, it is the critics themselves who are wrong. I am pointing out that this same hypocritical business underlies the policy of Fianna Fáil—the idea of setting themselves up as the only patriots, as the only angels, as the only persons of virtue in the country, everybody who does not subscribe to their view being outside the pale. I am trying to point out where that kind of policy can bring them. It can lead them into a morass of gross and dishonest misrepresentation and, further into irresponsible attacks, by implication, on public servants who are doing their job and doing it well. These people allow themselves, by their passion for hypocritical fraud, to be carried beyond self-aggrandisement into libellous and slanderous attacks by imputation upon a public official who is doing his work to the satisfaction of the whole community.

I want the Minister to take up the cudgels on behalf of that public official and to join with me in telling the Irish Press that their campaign is a fraudulent one, done for the purpose of promoting circulation amongst the more ignorant elements of the community, and that we are not impressed by the machined, snowball resolutions sent around with a view to creating this dilemma on the councils: “Are you on the side of indecent films or are you not? If you vote against this resolution praising the Irish Press, you must be in favour of dirty films, and it is a shame for you.” That is what I am agitating for, because that kind of nauseating, hypocritical, slushy fraud is eating the very soul out of this country and we are all afraid to oppose it lest somebody get up and say: “He voted against the resolution; therefore he must be for dirty films.” There is not a Deputy on the opposite benches who would not say that but for the fact that I forestalled them and warned them that, if they did, they would be exposed wherever they said it. I have opened up that ulcer, and I hope the Minister will complete the cleansing operation and make it clear that that kind of fraud impresses nobody. There is another matter to which I should like to refer—the arrears in the Circuit Courts.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not like to interrupt the Deputy but, on a motion to refer back, it is customary to discuss only general policy. If the Deputy desires to discuss details now, I take it that the other Votes will not be discussed separately. It would not be desirable to have duplication of discussion.

Mr. Ruttledge

Last year, all the Votes were discussed on this Vote and I understood that the same practice was being followed this year.

Professor O'Sullivan

I do not know what was done last year but I know that, when I was on the opposite benches, the general policy underlying all the Minister's activities, so to speak, was discussed on the Vote for the Minister's Office and there was merely a short discussion on the other Estimates.

An Ceann Comhairle

The usual procedure is to have the main discussion on the Vote for the Office of the Minister, questions of detail being dealt with briefly on the other Votes.

Mr. Dillon

Then I shall waive the details and obtain the information I want by way of question to the Minister when we are dealing with the subheads. The general policy has been adequately discussed, and any other matters I desire to raise I shall raise by way of question and answer.

Professor O'Sullivan

I move to report progress.

Progress reported. The Committee to sit again on Tuesday, 7th May.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until Tuesday, 7th May, at 5 p.m.