I do not intend to make many remarks about this Estimate, but, at the outset, I wish to draw the Attorney-General's attention to one matter. I endeavoured to put a question about it in the House some time ago, but it was not allowed. Subsequently it was raised in a discussion as to the legality of the action of the Land Commission when dealing with certain lands in County Mayo. The Attorney-General then undertook to look into the matter, and I have reason to believe that he is in a position to answer. I will put the facts as concisely as possible. The Land Commission purchased a certain farm belonging to a man named Hession, on the Byrne estate in County Mayo, as we were told, for the relief of congestion. The Land Commission did not utilise that farm in its entirety for the purpose for which it was bought, but proceeded to give very substantial portions of it to a doctor and to two national teachers. The Parliamentary Secretary stated in the House subsequently that the land was given to the doctor and the two school teachers as building plots, but it transpired that the doctor received seven acres and the national school teachers five acres each. The land was sold to them for cash. The statement that it was given as building plots had to be retracted in this House, and then we got from the Parliamentary Secretary the statement that it was given to them as cow plots That is a description which is new to me.
The land which was purchased for the relief of congestion, was used as to 17 acres thereof—a very respectably-sized small holding in the County Mayo, a holding admirably suited for the relief of congestion—not for the purpose of relieving congestion, but was distributed amongst the three people whom I have named. I should say in passing, though I think it was practically abandoned in discussion, that the Parliamentary Secretary did at one time say that while this land was being used by the doctor and the national teachers for feeding cows, it would not be able to feed the cow, either by grass in summer or by hay in winter, of the person who had left a congested holding and that, therefore, this land was not suitable for the relief of congestion. However, as I say, it is pretty obvious that that absurd contention could not be persisted in for very long. Therefore, the position is that the Land Commission having purchased land for the relief of congestion have utilised that land for purposes other than those of the relief of congestion. It had been stated here, again and again, by the then Minister, Mr. Connolly, and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the then Minister and the present Minister, Deputy O'Grady, that the Land Commission are not under the control of the Parliamentary Secretary or of the Minister where reserved services are concerned, that this matter of the acquisition and distribution of land is a reserved service, and that the Land Commission acted completely in this matter without any control of the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary or of this House.
Therefore, it is abundantly clear that if there is any check at all on the Land Commission if they act illegally, the only person who can keep the Land Commission in check and who can take proceedings to prevent their acting illegally and to set aside any undertaking they may have entered into, is the Attorney-General. Accordingly, the question I now put to the Attorney-General is this. This land having been acquired for the relief of congestion under a statute very recently passed by this very Dáil, it can only be used, in my opinion at any rate, for the relief of congestion. It has been utilised for other purposes by the Land Commission and their action, it seems to me at any rate, is clearly and obviously ultra vires. They had no power to enter into these sales. It was a violation of their statutory duty and, accordingly, I ask the Attorney-General, now that he has had a full opportunity of considering the matter, if it is his intention to take proceedings before the proper tribunal to have this question tested, if he considers it necessary that it should be tested or if it is plainly, void ab inito as it would appear to me at any rate, I would ask him whether it is his intention to take proceedings to have the sale of this bit of land, acquired for the relief of congestion, to two national teachers and to a doctor, set aside. I await with interest the reply of the Attorney-General. I hope the Attorney-General will give a favourable reply and, at any rate, that we shall have the views of a competent tribunal on this matter. This, of course, is not a Party matter. It is a matter of very grave interest and very grave importance to the whole country because if the Land Commission are not under the control of the Minister or under the control of this House in these matters, their proceedings must be very carefully watched and, if they exceed their statutory powers, steps must be taken to set the matter right by remedying that excess.
That is the only remark I have got to make on that matter. It is almost the only remark I have got to make upon the Estimate for Law Charges, but there is just one other matter that I should like to place before the Attorney-General in connection with proceedings that are being taken before the Military Tribunal, and in connection, to some extent, also, with the speech of the Acting-Minister for Justice, who is moving about at the present moment so much like the busy bee gathering honey wherever he can. No doubt I entirely agree with the speech made by the Acting-Minister for Justice that the I.R.A. in its constitution is entirely illegal, that there has never been any doubt, or could be any doubt, about the legality of that association. It is is plainly illegal under the terms of the Constitution Amendment Act No. 17. But for a long time, although it was plain and beyond doubt to the Acting-Minister for Justice and plain beyond doubt to the Attorney-General and to the people of the country as a whole, that there was this illegal association in existence, yet the law was held in abeyance as regards that association. Persons who joined that association, though they must have known that they were acting illegally, thought at the same time that they were joining an association whose members were not going to be proceeded against by the Government. Suddenly there was a change of attitude on the part of the Government. For my part I welcome that change of attitude and I welcome the determination, no matter how late in the day, of the Government to put the law into force. I welcome the determination of the Attorney-General to put the law in force against the I.R.A. as an unlawful association but I want to draw the attention of the Attorney-General to this one matter.
The I.R.A. for a very considerable time was not proceeded against, and persons had an idea that they could join the I.R.A. without running any risk of punishment or of imprisonment for joining that body. It had not been proclaimed. This is not a matter for the Attorney-General, of course, and I can only refer in passing to the advisability of following the procedure which the last Government followed in similar circumstances, a procedure which had very successful results, namely, that of giving every person who was a member of the I.R.A. an opportunity of leaving that illegal body and of knowing that if he signed a declaration that he had left that body—as so many of them did in 1931 when the Act became law—no proceedings would be taken against him. This is a matter for the Executive Council and I have only barely alluded to it. I wished I had an opportunity of making these few remarks on the Vote for the Minister for Justice but, of course, I could not have made them then, the proclamation not having been issued at that time. I want to impress on the Attorney-General that when anybody is indicted before the Military Tribunal, membership of the I.R.A. prior to the proclamation should not be a count in the indictment. It was only when the proclamation was issued that such men knew they were acting illegally or if they knew they were acting illegally heretofore they were not aware that the law would take any cognisance of it. They did not know that until this proclamation by the Executive Council was issued or until the speech was made by the Acting-Minister for Justice the day before. It does not seem to me quite fair, therefore, that anybody should be indicted for membership of that association prior to the date of the proclamation. It is very important in dealing with a body like the I.R.A. that there should be no sense of injustice or hard dealing on their part.
That body I know, and I had to deal with them. I hope the Attorney-General will adopt the method that I always adopted. Let them know that the law can be strong where strength is necessary. Let them know that the law can be severe where severity is necessary; but at the same time let them know that the law is scrupulous, just and fair, and that the law will not be put in force against a man except in circumstances of having committed, or been charged with committing, an offence for which he knew he would be proceeded against at the time the offence was committed. I fancy the Attorney-General will very much agree with the spirit of what I have just put forward and will see that no further counts will be contained in any indictment of membership of the I.R.A. when the membership dated from before the proclamation.
