When the House adjourned last night I was pointing out that in certain cases the Attorney-General thought fit to have men brought before the District Court, and thought that was sufficient. In similar cases where those charged were members or supporters of the Opposition even in the most trivial charges, they were brought before the Military Tribunal. The Attorney-General denied that and he challenged me to produce any case of that kind. Cases of that kind have been brought to the notice of the Attorney-General in this House before now. Last night they were brought to his notice again. Such cases were brought to his notice on the last occasion on which the Vote for Law Charges was before this House. There must have been numerous cases up and down the country which must be known to the Attorney-General. We have cases where A, alleged to be a member of the I.R.A., charged with having a revolver and ammunition, is brought before the District Justice. On a similar charge B is brought before the Military Tribunal because he is a member of the League of Youth or because he is not a member of the I.R.A. That is known to every member of this House and to every reader of the Press. Then we had a case at Mohill. There was a case in Strokestown, and we had the famous case in Wexford of men charged with making an armed attack on and robbery of a very old man and charged with having firearms on that occasion. In these cases the culprits were brought before the District Justice.
Last night I asked the Attorney-General to give us some information regarding the number of counsel whom he has thought fit to employ in certain cases during the last 12 months. I asked also for some information, if he has the information, with regard to the fees which those counsel employed by the State get. I am told they get fees which are far in excess of those which ordinarily are paid or claimed in such cases.
Again I want to know from the Attorney-General what he has to say regarding the performance of a counsel employed by this State to conduct a prosecution and who availed of his position as State counsel for the time being to give to the prisoners—"misguided young men, as he called them"—a lecture as to the difference between their brand of Republicanism and the brand favoured by the President. He gave them a lecture also on the difference between the constitution of the I.R.A. in the President's day and the constitution of the I.R.A. at present — a lecture in which he pointed out that the essential difference lay in the fact of a certain amendment made in the constitution of the I.R.A. Are we to be asked here to-night to vote money to pay counsel for indulging in what was nothing but at attempt to use the courts of the country for propaganda on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party and on behalf of the President? I think it was a scandalous performance and one that the Attorney-General will find it hard to justify if he intends to justify it. I am satisfied of this: that that counsel would not be allowed to act in that way before the civil courts of the country. He took advantage of the fact that he was appearing before a court the members of which have had no legal training. It seems to me if we are to have State counsel conducting cases in that way there will be very little respect for State counsel, for the office of the Attorney-General or for the courts before which such statements have been made.