Adjournment of the Dáil. - Debate on Gárda Síochána and Public Meetings; and Press Censorship. – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Friday, 1 Dec 1944

Adjournment of the Dáil. - Debate on Gárda Síochána and Public Meetings; and Press Censorship.

An Ceann Comhairle

It has already been decided that three hours should be devoted to the debate on the Adjournment. I have got notice of two matters to be raised in connection with this debate: one, a written notice from Deputy Cogan, concerning food production during the coming year, and another, verbal notice, from Deputy Norton referring to two matters:

"(a) The interference of the Gárda Síochána authorities with the holding of a public meeting in Dublin in connection with a petition to the President to commute the sentence of death passed on Charles Kerins.

(b) The abuse of his powers by the Chief Press Censor in prohibiting publication in the daily Press of any statement, advertisement or report relating to the proposed petition for clemency."

With regard to the written notice given to me by Deputy Cogan, is Deputy Cogan here?

Mr. Donnellan

Deputy Cogan is not here, but on his behalf, may I suggest that the matter be dealt with on the Adjournment debate?

An Ceann Comhairle

Very good. Deputy Norton.

Mr. Norton

I understand, Sir, that as a result of your ruling yesterday, we are prohibited from making any reference to the prerogative of mercy or the question of clemency by the President in the case of Charles Kerins, and I do not propose to mention any matters which are precluded by your ruling from being mentioned. Deputy Larkin yesterday gave notice that he wanted to raise certain matters connected with the public appeal for clemency being extended in the case of Charles Kerins, sentenced to death by the Military Tribunal, and the two points that we sought to raise, through Deputy Larkin, were the questions of interference by the Gárda authorities with the Constitutional rights of citizens to hold a meeting, and the gross abuse of his powers by the Press Censor in the suppression of any reference to the exercise of the ordinary Constitutional rights of the citizens of this country. It seems to me that both these matters are so interwoven that it is necessary to present them in a rather interwoven manner. In reciting the facts for the information of the House, I should like to narrate a chapter of incidents which, I think, will convince any fair-minded man or woman that there has been a gross abuse of executive power during the past ten days and that that abuse of power has taken the form of trampling upon the Constitutional rights of citizens as enshrined in our Constitution.

The first instance to which I must advert is one which took place on Tuesday, the 21st November. On that date a telegram was sent to the chairman of the Kerry County Council, the chairman of the Tralee Urban Council, the chairman of the Listowel Urban Council and the chairman of the Killarney Urban Council. The telegram was in this form:—

"From a meeting of Kerrymen resident in Dublin.

Meeting of Kerrymen and women resident in Dublin fearing grave miscarriage of justice urges you spare no effort save the life Charles Kerins condemned to die."

The telegram was signed by 15 persons. Among the 15 persons who were signatories were Deputy Cormac Breathnach and Senator Donnchadh O hEaluighthe, two members of the Government Party, who apparently saw nothing wrong in sending that telegram to the four local authorities concerned, who saw in it not only no abuse or no infraction of the law but not the slightest impairment to the political fortunes of the Party of which they were members. These telegrams were accepted by the Post Office authorities. They were duly paid for but the telegrams were not delivered. Can anybody in this House imagine that the foundations of this State were in any way threatened or that the liberties of our people were placed in jeopardy by the sending of that telegram which had the approbation of members of the Government Party? The Kerry County Council was promoting this petition campaign and in furtherance of the campaign it was decided to hold a public meeting in Dublin on the 27th November. Located far from the scene of the main activities for a reprieve the Kerry County Council requested the local reprieve committee to arrange for a meeting and to collect signatures. The local committee duly endeavoured to discharge the task assigned to them. In pursuance of the effort to arrange a meeting here in Dublin, an advertisement in the following terms was offered to all the Dublin morning papers and the Evening Herald:—

"Kerins Reprieve. Kerry County Council asks citizens of Dublin to attend a public meeting in the Mansion House on Monday, 27th November, at 7.30 p.m. to join them in an appeal for a reprieve of the death sentence on Charles Kerins."

Now, it is worthy of note here that the Attorney-General's certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court had been refused when that advertisement was tendered to the papers and the refusal to grant the certificate to appeal had actually been announced. When this advertisement was tendered, therefore, it was tendered with the full knowledge that there was no other legal process open to the Reprieve Committee, whether it was the local Reprieve Committee or the Kerry County Council, and there was no further appeal open to the legal advisers of the condemned man.

Another incident took place on the 24th November. On that date an advertisement was tendered to all the papers except the Evening Herald. It was in these simple terms:—

"Kerins Reprieve. Reprieve signature forms can be obtained at the Mansion House."

That advertisement, handed to the papers mentioned, was apparently submitted by the papers and was stopped by the Censor. Can anybody here again imagine an advertisement in such simple terms causing any great perturbation in the mind of citizens or in the minds of the Executive Council, or being in any way calculated to impair the foundations of this State?

We had another incident of censorship, perhaps the most insolent incident of all. On the 22nd November a meeting of the committee of the Kerrymen's Association in Dublin tendered an advertisement to the papers in the following terms:—

"A meeting of all Kerrymen and women resident in Dublin will be held in Clery's, O'Connell Street, on to-morrow, Thursday, at 7.30 p.m."

There was no mention of Kerins' name. There was no mention of an execution, there was not even mention of a reprieve or an appeal for clemency, and yet a simple advertisement of that kind, announcing a meeting of Kerrymen resident in Dublin in Clery's Restaurant, was something which apparently called for the exercise of the wide and despotic censorship powers which are wielded by the Minister responsible for censorship.

The committee which had been promoting the efforts to secure a reprieve for Kerins decided that as they could not secure publicity in the form of advertisement in the papers, they had perforce to rely on an exhibition of posters and the distribution of handbills as a means of calling public attention to their efforts to secure clemency for the condemned man. They then took the step of ordering posters. So convinced were they that the posters were in accordance with the exercise of their Constitutional rights that a large number of these posters were given to ordinary professional billposters and accepted by them for exhibition on the ordinary public hoardings. A number of the posters were exhibited by members of the Reprieve Committee and sympathisers with the objects of the committee. These professional billposters, members of the Reprieve Committee and sympathisers endeavoured to have these posters exhibited, but when they did so they were pounced upon by the police, who, in flagrant violation of what should be their normal duty of protecting citizens, proceeded to take the posters, the property of the committee, from these citizens who were exhibiting them. Not satisfied with doing that, between Friday, 24th November, and Monday, 27th November, 21 persons were arrested and lodged in the Bridewell. Not a single charge was preferred against any one of the 21 people. They were subjected to the indignity of being lodged and detained in the Bridewell, no charge being preferred against them, and they were compelled to submit to having their fingerprints and photographs taken, even though they were innocent citizens discharging a duty which they believed they had a right to discharge under the Constitution of this country. Posters found on those people were confiscated. The police acted as if the posters and handbills were of a kind calculated to undermine the foundations of the State. One of the handbills was in these terms:—

"Citizens of Dublin, the Kerry County Council asks you to attend a public meeting in the Mansion House on Monday, 27th November, at 7.30 p.m. to appeal for a remission of the death sentence on Charles Kerins."

There was no inflammatory language, no incitement, no derogatory reference to the Military Tribunal, to the Fianna Fáil Party or to the Government—merely a simple invitation by the Kerry County Council to citizens of Dublin to attend a meeting in the Mansion House on 27th November to appeal for the remission of the death sentence on Charles Kerins. Nobody could say that that was an inflammatory leaflet. Nobody could say that there was any danger to the State by the distribution of a document of that kind.

Further evidence of the police arrogance in this whole matter was given on 25th November, when a woman who was collecting signatures for a reprieve petition in O'Connell Street was arrested by the police and charged with obstruction. The police apparently were not satisfied and the Censor apparently was not satisfied with all this depredation on the Constitutional rights of citizens. They thought there was still room for more brusqueness and for more unwarranted interference with the citizens' rights, because, in addition to the activities to which I have just adverted, the police toured the city tearing down posters, confiscating posters and handbills, and visiting shopkeepers for the purpose of threatening them with consequences if they dared to exhibit posters on their private property.

The committee then realised that it was apparently impossible to get publicity by means of advertisement; that it was impossible to get publicity by means of posters, and that handbills were no use because they too were being confiscated by the police. They decided then that the only method of publicity left to them was to endeavour to get a loud speaker outfit. This they secured and mounted on a cab, with the object of telling the citizens that forms for signature by those who wanted a reprieve for Kerins could be got at the Mansion House and could be signed there. No sooner had the loud speaker been mounted on the cab than a uniformed police sergeant said to the cabman: "If you use that cab for the purpose of conveying this apparatus around the city, your licence will be taken from you." Of course the Minister for Justice knows that that was an impudent arrogation of power by the uniformed police sergeant. It is not the function of the police or of the Minister for Justice to take a licence from a cabman. A cabman's licence and the revocation of it is a matter for the courts. It was suggested to the police sergeant on the occasion that, if the cabman had committed any offence, he ought to be charged with the offence there and then; that he ought to be brought before a district justice, and that the district justice should be allowed to deal with the matter, since only a district justice can revoke a cabman's licence and the police officer had no power to do so. The police sergeant, apparently realising then that he had no such power, declined to prefer any charge against the cabman, but he nevertheless succeeded in coercing the cabman into declining to fulfil the arrangement which he had made with the reprieve committee to take the loud speaker apparatus through the city. However, on the following day, the committee secured another cab. They mounted the apparatus on the second cab, whereupon a police sergeant appeared and said: "I have instructions from my authorities to prevent you from taking that apparatus around the city for the purpose contemplated by the reprieve committee."

Now, we have another instance of the suppression of free speech, another instance of the use of the powers of censorship to suppress information and news which are apparently unpalatable to the political palate of the Minister in charge of censorship. A meeting was held in the Mansion House on 27th November. The speakers included the Lord Mayor of Dublin and the Lord Mayor of Cork. They included Deputy F. Crowley of the Fianna Fáil Party. They included a number of other Deputies of this House, and a number of prominent members of local authorities throughout the country. There were on the platform representatives of various local authorities, and various public citizens of standing, and at that meeting the following resolution was passed:—

"That this meeting, summoned by the Kerry County Council and representing citizens of all Irish counties, urges the Government to advise the President to commute the sentence of death passed on Charles Kerins by the Special Criminal Court."

Present at the meeting, which comprised several thousand citizens, there were representatives of the Dublin daily papers and of the Cork Examiner. A meeting of that kind is probably unique in the history of public meetings in Dublin, inasmuch as there was assembled there a set of citizens that it would be extremely difficult to get together on any single platform, and, if they met on this occasion—representative of practically all Parties in this House, representative of different shades of political opinion throughout the country, representative of the different strata of our life in this country—it was only because, in the exercise of human feelings, they desired the life of Charles Kerins spared. Not a single word relating to that meeting, neither a report of the meeting itself nor of the speeches made nor of the resolution which was passed, was permitted to appear in the Press, because, of course, the Censor was annoyed, and when the Censor is annoyed the people's liberties must give way in order to appease him.

Now, we come to another instance of suppression. Deputy Larkin, Junior, who was named in this House yesterday, and who is consequently prevented from being here to-day, tendered to the Evening Mail on the 28th November an advertisement in the following terms:—

"In accordance with the provisions of Clause 5, Article 15 of the Constitution, a petition is being made to the Executive Council requesting them to advise the President of Ireland to commute the sentence of death passed on Charles Kerins. The grounds on which the petition is based are that the procedure at his trial before the Special Criminal Court was of such a nature, especially in respect to the presentation of evidence, together with the accused's lack of legal knowledge and refusal to accept legal aid, as to give rise to a strong reasonable doubt in the minds of many citizens that the guilt of Charles Kerins was fully proven, and, therefore, that a grave miscarriage of justice might take place should the sentence of death be carried out. Petition forms are available which may be signed by any citizen who desires to support the plea for clemency and as a Dáil representative for Dublin City, South, I earnestly urge all my constituents to sign the petition, which may be done at Thomas Ashe Hall, 5a College Street, Dublin."

That advertisement was tendered to the Press but on the following day Deputy Larkin was notified by the Press that the advertisement had been stopped by the Censor and that it could not appear.

I have adverted already to the fact that over a week-end recently 21 persons, exercising their right to exhibit literature of a kind which did not transgress the laws of the country, were arrested by the police and incarcerated in the Bridewell. On last Friday and Saturday these prisoners. demanded to see a priest and to be afforded facilities to attend Mass on Sunday. Their request to see a priest on Friday and Saturday and for facilities to attend Mass on Sunday was refused by the authorities responsible for having these men there.

Now we come to last night. I am reliably informed, and I have taken trouble to check this statement which has been made to me by a number of persons who were present and who have no association whatever with the political beliefs of the late Charles Kerins or with any of his friends, that at about 9.30 last night there were people on the opposite side of the road at Mountjoy Jail kneeling down saying the Rosary in Irish. There was no disturbance or excitement of any kind. Uniformed police patrolled but they did not interfere with the people. However, at the commencement of the last decade of the Rosary, orders, apparently, were given to the uniformed Guards to clear the crowd, and then they commenced to hustle and bustle people down the North Circular Road. Some men and women were very roughly handled, without any justification whatever. Before the interference by the Guards, beyond the recitation of the prayers, there was perfect peace and quiet at the meeting. There was no obstruction of traffic, because the people were kneeling on the footpath and in the side walks. Later last night a small procession of men and women was proceeding down O'Connell Street. They knelt on the footpath and on the roadsides to recite the Rosary, when, suddenly, an order was apparently shouted to the police to clear the street, and the method of clearing the street adopted by the police was to use their batons. Their batons were used to such an extent that some people were injured in the course of the "delicate" methods adopted by the police. I understand that some people were taken to hospital as a result of the police interference last night. There was no indication given to the crowd last night that it was intended to have a baton charge by the police. There was no warning given that there would be any such baton charge. There was no indication that any proclamation had been issued by the Government forbidding an assembly at the General Post Office for the recitation of prayers. Some citizens who felt they had some rights in a matter of this kind in their own city, in their own country, approached the police for particulars. They were referred to a police officer in plain clothes, but the police officer in plain clothes ordered all the inquirers to be cleared away and refused to answer questions which were civilly put to him by responsible citizens. In fact, I am assured that citizens who were walking in O'Connell Street were molested and challenged offensively and addressed in a rough and brusque manner by members of the police force who are under the control of the Minister for Justice.

I want to underline this point and to call the attention of the Dáil to this fact: In all the official literature which has been issued by this reprieve committee, whether the Kerry County Council or the local reprieve committee, there was no reference whatever to the trial of Kerins by the Military Tribunal; there was no reference whatever of any kind to the personnel of the court; there was no reference whatever to the conduct of the trial; and there was no reference to the verdict as recorded against Kerins by the tribunal which tried him. The whole basis upon which this petition rested was the procedure adopted by the State prosecutor, and there is nothing in our legislation and nothing in our Constitution which prevents a law-abiding citizen petitioning for the reprieve of a man if, on reading the public Press which is available to all citizens, he feels convinced that the man did not get a fair trial.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is precisely an issue that may not be raised.

Mr. Norton

I am not going into it further except to say this, Sir—and if you bear with me you will see I have no intention of going into this trial at all—there is nothing, I suggest, to prevent a person appealing for clemency if he feels a citizen has not got a fair trial; and those who defended Kerins, in the last resort, were able to establish before the court that certain documents——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has referred to the trial.

Mr. Norton

Honestly, Sir, I assure you that nothing is further from my thought.

The Taoiseach

I think that if we are going to have a re-trial here, then there is an end of all justice.

Mr. Norton

I have no notion in the world of having a re-trial.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is referring to documents—evidence, which savours of a re-trial here. This Dáil has no judicial function.

Mr. Norton

If I may submit, I have only said one sentence on the trial.

An Ceann Comhairle

One sentence from Deputy Norton might lead to two or more from another Deputy. Even one sentence could be very pregnant at times.

Mr. Norton

I leave that so, for the sake of having this matter discussed in a rational manner. I do not want it discussed in any anger or heat at all.

Minister for the Co-Ordination of Defensive Measures (Mr. Aiken)

That is not a rational statement.

Mr. Davin

Cannot the Minister keep order for a few minutes?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Norton

The whole basis of this petition did not rest at all on the trial by the Military Tribunal. The literature issued in connection with this matter made no reference to the Tribunal, its personnel or its verdict. The petition appeal rested on another basis and, if I transgress order, I think I may make my point of view clear by saying that the members of the House are familiar with the basis on which it rested.

Now, we can stand and survey these incidents. Is there any fair-minded person in this House who believes that these activities by law-abiding citizens, against not one of whom a single charge has been preferred, were in any way an impairment of the right which the State has to expect these people to conform to the laws of the country? These men and women exercised their Constitutional right to plead for clemency. The right of citizens to plead for clemency in the case of a sentenced prisoner is as old as liberty itself. The men and women who were associated with this petition simply pleaded for clemency for a man who was under sentence of death and adverted to certain circumstances to show why, in their opinion, clemency should be exercised in the present case.

I have seen appeals for clemency hawked around this city and country in cases of the most revolting character. I have seen appeals for clemency hawked around in some of the filthiest sex cases. I have seen people prepared to make a plea for those engaged in practices which threaten the whole of human existence. Filthy sex cases and abortion cases can apparently get people to plead for the offenders, and they are completely free from the Guards' surveillance, but when people exercised their right to plead for clemency for a man under sentence of death, the whole weight of the Government machine was brought to bear upon them, and every effort was made to circumvent their activities. It is well to stress the fact that the plea for clemency was only made by these people when it was not possible for them to utilise any other legal protocol. When all legal machinery had been completely exhausted, they then appealed to the Government to spare the man's life. That was the only course left to them. Is there anything unconstitutional in citizens saying: "Spare that man's life," and submitting reasons, if necessary, why it should be spared? Because they were doing that their activities were impeded by the forces at the disposal of the State.

I suggest to the Government and to Ministers responsible that in matters of this kind citizens have rights, but these rights were rudely and roughly trampled upon by the forces at the command of the State within the past ten days. I want to know, if they are going to justify the action of these forces, what purpose it was sought to serve by this unwarranted interference with ordinary citizens in the exercise of their Constitutional rights. I say that nothing whatever could justify methods of that kind, because these are the methods of coercion and tyranny. It may be, of course, that these forces acted on their own initiative. It may be that these forces saw a situation in which they felt that they were entitled to do what they did. But it may not be that. It may be that these forces, and those exercising the powers of censorship, were acting under Ministerial instructions. Were those people who were responsible for suppressing the activities of this committee, and for suppressing the news and the advertisements in the newspapers, acting on their own initiative or acting on Ministerial responsibility? We ought to know from Ministers where they stand in this matter. Were those concerned acting on Ministerial instructions or was the initiative in their own hands? Were they acting solely on their own initiative and in accordance with their own desires? I suggest that their action—the arrests and suppression—goes right to the roots of citizens' rights under the Constitution, and that the action of those concerned during the past ten days has been a vicious and unwarranted interference with citizens who are Constitutionally entitled to exercise their rights under the Constitution now in operation.

I am concerned in this matter because I believe that citizens have rights. I believe that a citizen is entitled to exercise those rights conditioned by public order and public weal. Public right was not imperilled, and public weal was not imperilled by the activities that were carried on. It seems to me, from an examination of the whole position, that this was an effort of well-intentioned citizens, with some members of the Fianna Fáil Party—and other prominent financial supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party— and citizens generally to secure the exercise of clemency towards the condemned man. Because I believe the action of those responsible during the past ten days has been a gross abuse of power by the Executive Government, because I believe these are the methods of tyrannical dictators, I protest on behalf of this Party in this House at the methods that have been adopted. Our citizens have rights and these rights ought not to be the plaything of this or any other Government. If one Government can make the rights of citizens a plaything, something to be trampled upon whenever the Government so desires, then every other Government that follows will find in the precedent so created a justification for a similar or even greater invasion of citizens' rights. This is still a democratic Parliament; this is still a place where men and women can voice their opinions freely; this is still a place where, at all events, the Censor has no power of censorship, so far as the spoken word is concerned, and it is the duty of this House as a constitutional Assembly, as a democratic Assembly, to protest against invasion of citizens' rights and to ensure by its protest that citizens' rights are not invaded by those now using the power in an unscrupulous way.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Cogan has given notice of a subject for debate.

Mr. Cogan

Having regard to the atmosphere created by matters which have been raised, it is rather difficult to get down to questions affecting agriculture.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

It will make it difficult to reply if the other motion is taken now.

An Ceann Comhairle

Could it be arranged to allot a certain time for each question?

Mr. Norton

I am willing to divide the time any way the House likes.

Mr. Boland

This is a more important motion than agriculture, as charges which have been made by Deputies should be answered. We have had discussions on agriculture already. I think it will take three hours to reply, and I ask Deputy Cogan to postpone his motion for the present.

Mr. Cogan

I am satisfied to do so.

Mr. Boland

I am the first to admit that citizens have rights. It is because of that that we are insisting that no small minority, no handful—the representatives of whom could not save their deposits in any constituency in Ireland —who are seeking on an occasion like this to impose their will on the people, to intimidate citizens and to intimidate weak members of this Party as well as members of other Parties, will deprive citizens of their rights. I am not going to stand up to defend the action of some who were mentioned, who were afraid to stand up to the intimidation that was practised by the particular body that we all know. This is not the first time that we have had an agitation of this kind. About two years ago a similar agitation took place over a pending execution. What was the result? From one end of Ireland to the other there was gross intimidation of ordinary citizens; shopkeepers were not allowed to open and, in defiance of the order of these people who, mar eadh, now want to defend the constitutional rights of citizens, those who had the temerity to open their shops had their windows smashed and were assaulted.

Deputy Norton has been living in this country for the past five years and he knows what is happening. He has the innocence to say that 20 innocent people were arrested. I would like to know what he knows about the innocence of these people. I wonder is he aware that 20 had been interned or sentenced for offences against the Offences Against the State Act? In pursuance of my perhaps foolish policy I released a number of these men against the advice of the Guards, because I thought, having been interned for two years, that might have put a little sense into them, and that I could take a chance and release some of them. I have a list here. These are the innocent people that the Guards arrested when exercising their constitutional rights! Constitutional rights! They were preventing other people from exercising their constitutional rights. That is what they were engaged in, going around and intimidating ordinary citizens who were afraid—naturally and rightly afraid—to stand up to them. That is the sort of work they were doing.

They are well known, every one of them. Six of those arrested were released because the police had no record about them and they took it for granted that they had simply been roped into it; but the 20 who were held include some very well-known people indeed—very well known to Deputy Larkin and others. One man in particular who is always there when there is trouble, who is one of the most dangerous agitators in this country, is included amongst those 20. When Deputy Norton talks about innocent people, he ought to remember that he stood for these measures which were very necessary to enable this State to protect itself against this terrorist organisation which has been trying unsuccessfully for the last five years to involve this country in war. When very drastic powers were sought here, he and his Party at the time and every other Party in the House gave us these powers ungrudgingly, and I say they have never been abused. I do not know what will happen with regard to these 20 people but I certainly am going to change my attitude to some of them. They have got their chance, and, if the police recommend their continued internment, in they will go again while I have the necessary power.

What were they doing? Putting up posters. Where did they go to put the posters? They had the indecency to go to the house of the widow of the man they murdered, the murdered sergeant's wife. They went out to Rathfarnham, and, around the gate of this unfortunate woman's house, they plastered these posters. Agents of these people persecuted that lady for hours trying to intimidate her into signing this petition. These were actions which we are not going to tolerate and we are not going to tolerate any attempt by this organisation to rehabilitate itself by using an opportunity like this.

With regard to the presentation of addresses to the Government, any Deputy who wishes can see the number of petitions which were sent in. There were enormous numbers of them. They were considered, and considered at length, from every point of view. I saw one bundle—they were practically countless—and I know for a fact that large numbers of the names were simply copied from the register. Some members of this organisation which is trying to impose its will on the country were engaged for a full week copying names from the register. We have piles of them over there, and Deputies can see them, all in the same handwriting. But what are people's constitutional rights? Are they not entitled to use their own discretion as to whether they will sign these petitions or not? What right have these people to stop citizens on the street and intimidate them into signing? That is what I allege has happened. The police know that it has happened, and, so long as I have any control, I will do all I can to stop it.

This is a new Dáil, and this matter was not dealt with very fully, or, in fact, at all, since it was constituted. I should like to remind members that, apart from the efforts which this organisation has made to bring trouble on this country, which the vast majority of the citizens have tried to avoid, by involving it in this war, they have consistently set out to murder our police. Since I took office as Minister for Justice, how many have been murdered? I have a list of them here, Detective-Sergeant McKeown was murdered; Detective-Guard Hyland was murdered; Guard Roche was murdered; Guard Walsh was murdered; Sergeant O'Brien was murdered; Guard Mordaunt was murdered, Murderous attacks were made on Gárda officers in Holles Street. Two, Guards Shanahan and McSweeney, were desperately wounded, but, thanks be to God, not mortally. Guard Brady was wounded, and the gallant man to whom I gave a medal the other day escaped death by an act of Providence. The bullet struck his watch over the abdomen. That is the sort of thing we have to deal with, and we have been able to convict only one of the group which murdered Sergeant O'Brien. If I had any apologies to make to the House, it is that we have been unable so far to get the whole of the gang which murdered that unfortunate man on that morning. That may come in time.

There has been a new alliance since 1943. When the election of that year was coming round, it was quite clear that there was a change. Up to that, there was never any mention in the House of that organisation, because everyone knew the danger and menace it was to the country, but now Deputy Norton, in the innocence of his heart, wants to tell us that they are the people who have been denied the exercise of their constitutional rights. I know very well the use that organisation has always made of occasions of this kind. As I say, if these unfortunate things are to recur, if we are to have murders and executions for those murders, one thing which I will not allow, so long as I am Minister for Justice, is that organisation, which we are determined to crush if we can, to rebuild itself at the expense of the victim who has died for carrying out the orders it gave. I hope that is plain, and Deputy Norton or any of these other people who are now apparently to be used as the tools of that organisation——

Mr. Norton

Sir, the Minister is not going to get away with that.

Mr. Davin

It must be withdrawn.

Mr. Boland

I am not going to withdraw it at all.

Mr. Norton

I say you will withdraw it, or you will speak no more in this House, if you accuse me of being the tool of any organisation.

Mr. Boland

That is just what you are.

Mr. Norton

The Minister has accused me of being the tool of an organisation. That, Sir, is grossly untrue.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister will withdraw the expression.

Mr. Boland

If the Chair orders me to withdraw, I withdraw.

Mr. Davin

You are unfit for your office in saying it.

Mr. Boland

Maybe I am.

Mr. Davin

You should not have said that.

Mr. Boland

I withdraw it if the Chair orders me, and I propose to say no more on the point. So long as I am here—and if I am not fit for my job, it is easy to get rid of me—I consider that I have a duty to the people, a duty to protect them and to protect the police who are their servants and not to allow them to be intimidated, no matter how that group may intimidate other people. These are the men who have been murdered and wounded. Other operations of this organisation we know about—what they call financial operations—£10,000 taken from Amiens Street Post Office and something in the neighbourhood of £5,000 taken from Messrs. Wills on the South Circular Road. This is the way this organisation finances itself. We found on them plans for raiding banks. This is an organisation which is not alone going to attack and to murder the one body we have to protect the common citizen, but to destroy the whole commercial life of the country. When they get an opportunity like this, they are in clover, because they see in it a chance of reviving the organisation if they avail of it, and I think the Minister for the Co-Ordination of Defensive Measures was very wise and thoroughly justified in refusing to allow these people to take advantage of this occasion to propagate their organisation, as they did in similar circumstances in the past.

Mr. Donnellan

If anything in the world surprised me, it was the way the Minister for Justice carried on. He went back over a period of four or five years, talking about some organisation, but I understand the matter before the House concerns two things, one, the conduct of the police towards what is known as the Kerins Reprieve Committee and, number two, the conduct of the Censor, the way the censorship has been used as regards that committee. Therefore, I think it would be a waste of time for me, or for any man with intelligence, to talk about the £10,000 or the £5,000 taken five or six years ago, because that is not the subject that is before the House, and I am just dealing with the matter before the House and nothing else.

I may be in the same position as Deputy Norton; I may also be blackened, and it may be said of me: "Oh, there is another tool," but I never made a tool of myself all my life, and Fianna Fáil should know that well, nor will I ever allow myself to be used as a tool by any Party or any organisation or any class or section in this country. When I stand up here to speak I do so because my conscience tells me it is necessary that I should do so, and when I speak on this subject I speak on it because as a citizen, and as an erected representative of the people, I feel the rights of the citizens of this country have been interfered with in a way that they should not be interfered with.

Deputy Norton gave quite a long list of things that have happened with the object of preventing this reprieve committee from carrying out what they considered their duty. I should like to know from the Minister for Justice is it illegal that a reprieve committee should be set up in this country and why did he not decently declare that reprieve committee an illegal organisation? Would it not be more decent to do so than to work underhand, as has been done, in order to prevent those people from getting signatures, in order to prevent them assembling at a meeting, in order to prevent their getting together in a meeting at the Mansion House? Everything was done to prevent them. I do not need to go over the list. Very well and very capably Deputy Norton did so.

Here is an example of the attitude of the Censor. A letter dated 28th November was handed to the papers. It said:

"A Chara,

"I would like to ask the people of Ireland, through your columns, to join with me in a triduum of Masses and Holy Communions beginning Wednesday, 29th November, and ending on the 1st December, First Friday, for a very special intention.

"Is mise,

"MRS. AUSTIN STACK."

There is not a word about a reprieve committee there. Nevertheless, that statement never appeared in any of the papers. I would like to know the reason why. On the day that any Government, any people or any individual in Catholic Ireland will rise up to prevent a thing like that happening, all I have to say is God help Ireland. Our Constitution starts off in the Name of the Most Holy Trinity.

Surely you must realise that when citizens of this State think a man should be reprieved they are entitled, or should be entitled, to use every legitimate means at their disposal to have the voice of the people. Even though they were hampered at a most alarming rate, nevertheless, according to the Minister himself, countless petitions were received. I heard the number was only 77,000, but according to the Minister there were countless petitioners. My name was in that list, and it was not off the register it was taken. I assure the Minister it was not off the register it was taken.

I am one of those who attended the Mansion House meeting, and the Censor prevented any publicity there also. I went as a citizen of this State to a meeting presided over by the Lord Mayor of Dublin. Also present were the Lord Mayor of Cork and Fianna Fáil T.D.s. I spoke there not as a mob orator, and neither did those who spoke speak to a mob. We spoke to the honest, honourable citizens of this State irrespective of party, irrespective of politics. And do not think that I stand up here to bolster any illegal organisation such as the Minister talked about. I believe that the day of anything other than constitutional methods in this country is finished, but I also believe and remember—I will fight on this till the day I die and I will oppose it—that no persons should interfere with the rights of citizens to do anything they think is right in a constitutional way.

No later than last night I was walking down the city—and remember, nobody told me this. An individual was going along the streets, a man of about 35 years of age, singing "Easter Week". I saw him being approached by two detectives. He was told to shut up. "No," he said, "while I am alive I will sing ‘Easter Week'. "Get along," they said, shoving him along the path. The man continued to sing "Easter Week". He was immediately taken over and shoved into the Bridewell. It is a bad day for Ireland, the day the Irish people are prevented from singing "Easter Week". I do not blame the Gárdaí for what happended. I know that that work was not work they liked, but I know they were instructed and they had to carry out their instructions. I know it was not their fault; it was something they had to do.

The Minister stated that they got the names off the register. I want to tell him that if the reprieve committee got the opportunity they should have got, unhindered and unhampered as they should have been, they would have the signatures, not of 77,000 but of 2,750,000 of our people who believe that it is only a jury of our own countrymen who should convict any Irishman. We have heard the story of the terrible 20 "convicts" who were putting up posters and who are now in prison. I was told this—it might be a lie—that just at the hour of 12.30 on Saturday those people were approached in the presence of their employers, where they were working, so that it could be used against them when they tried to get back to their work again. That was a nice attempt to injure those people. They could have waited another half-hour until those people were getting away at 1 o'clock.

We hear a lot about the new alliance —that Deputy Norton has joined some new alliance. I do not know what it is, but in this matter I join with him, anyhow. The Minister for Justice talked about the election and said that "those people" did not win a seat. I never heard of the reprieve committee contesting any election. They were not contesting any election in South Kerry. A hint was thrown out about weak-minded people who allowed themselves to be intimidated. I suppose some of those weak-minded people are in this House. It is not intimidation when a citizen is asked to sign a reprieve form. It is in that citizen's own free will to do so or not, as he wishes. I think, in the case of the loud-speaker in the car, that the Guards took this into their own hands. It is my belief that the Guards were driven, and that the Minister was driven, by orders from certain sections of the Gárda. If a reprieve committee were organised for a Jew in this country—and it has been done for some people for whom, in my opinion, a reprieve committee should not have been set up—it would be allowed to carry on, but in this case it was not.

I want to make it plain that I have no sympathy whatsoever with crime—absolutely none—on either side; but it is my belief that the class of work being carried on is more encouraging crime than preventing it. There is no use in talking now, but I wish to make it plain that the batoning of people in the streets when they kneel down to pray, and the striking of a woman on the head, breaking her nose so that she is suffering from concussion and in a hospital to-night, will not help, and will not have even any political value. Things like that are no addition to the Minister or to any political Party. It is my view that the Gárdaí who did that had to do it, that they were not too willing to do it, but had to carry out their orders.

No matter what sort these 20 criminals are who have been taken up —I do not know any of them; I never saw any of them in my life and I suppose I never will—remember when you denied them the right to hear Mass last Sunday, it did not help them. I am not any judge of their conscience, nor is the Minister either.

In this debate, I have not gone over the last five years, as the Minister was allowed to do. I have stuck to the motion, and I will finally say that these bullying tactics of one crowd against the other will only lead from bad to worse. In my opinion, the people should try to come together and stand together and should not be dictated to by any officials in this country.

Mr. Anthony

We have heard the case put by Deputy Norton and by the ex-Leader of the Farmers' Party, and if any speeches were calculated to create disorder in this country, those speeches were. Now, government in this country is a very difficult job and I am very glad to know that the Fianna Fáil Party has come to realise that fact. It is very dangerous, in times such as these, to add fuel to the flame, but that is what these speeches are doing, There is no doubt that there is an illegal organisation here whose set purpose is to destroy the Government by unconstitutional methods. The Cosgrave Government had that problem to deal with, too, and dealt with it in a fairly effective manner. This Government is doing its best and I applaud it for doing so. If it is the wish of a certain section of the people to Balkanise the country, they should let us know where we stand.

I feel it is a weakness that some of the spineless representatives we have in public life are mainly responsible for this vacillating and weak policy which is running through our political life. I remember an incident which occurred in Cork City in 1943, when I was asked to sign a document and refused. I said that if it were issued or signed by the head of the State, it would have some weight with me and that possibly I would sign, but it was signed by a number of persons none of whom I knew anything about and whom I described as nonentities. The two gentlemen who waited on me and pressed me to sign told me of various public men who had signed, including the then Lord Mayor of Dublin, but I refused. On that occasion, the people of Cork as well as the people of Dublin were asked to abstain from work for one hour and they blindly followed the request. The Minister for Justice said a moment ago that some persons who did not close their shops had their windows broken. Surely, we are not going to start a condition of that kind in the country? If we are, let us say so. If we feel that kind of conduct should not be tolerated, let us open our mouths and say so. I refused to sign the document and got no threatening letters, but was amazed to find that, at that time, no instruction came from the Fianna Fáil Government which would let the people see that the document had no Government backing. I felt there was a weakness there in the Government. On that occasion, the workmen who were asked to give up work for an hour had a jolly time kicking football round the city.

We hear a lot about the craze for piety and prayers, and I am wondering at all this piety. I wonder if we are so religious-minded and so prayerful and so pious as people make out. I do not want to be impious, but I am rather shocked—and it is hard to shock me—when I hear of the Rosaries and prayers said in the streets. If there were any sincerity in some of those who called for a reprieve, they would get a Mass said for the poor soul, but there was not. None of us wants to say anything disrespectful either of prayers or of the Church, but one cannot help remarking that this paroxysm of piety could have found better expression in the way I have mentioned.

The Minister for Justice, when he took this matter in hand, had a very objectionable job, but it had to be done, if order was to be maintained. If there is any vacillation or weakness in this country, it will become another Balkan State, or portion of one, and it would be as well to hand it over to the gunmen and be done with it. It is up to the citizens to back this Government, or any other Government, which will stand four-square against any gunmen, so that we may not have another revolution. For that reason, I applaud the Minister for Justice in his action. I know it is not a very popular thing to say. Instead of the Holy Trinity mentioned we might have a quadruple Party. I feel the Minister is doing his duty in the matter and I congratulate not him personally but the Government. If there are weak members in the Party, that is their funeral, not ours. There may be weak members in other Parties, too, but I have this feeling that while we have a head of the State he should be respected, and while we have Ministers of State they should be respected. We can differ with them and do, and if we want to get them out we can put them out through the agency of the ballot-box which is the essence of freedom and the essence of democracy.

Mr. Cafferky

It was not my intention to speak, but in view of Deputy Anthony's speech, I feel it my duty to say something. He accused Deputy Norton and Deputy Donnellan of being provocateurs, men whose sole purpose in life is to create trouble or be the cause behind the creating of trouble. Now, while I fully sympathise with the position that the Government find themselves in, while I fully realise the duty which falls upon the Minister for Justice in a country newly established, in a country in which the Party, of which the Minister for Justice is one, helped to bring about the position in which we find ourselves to-day, and in which we have found ourselves for many years past—I sympathise with him as far as that goes. While I do not condone crime in any shape or form, political or otherwise, nevertheless, what I want to understand is this: if I or any other citizen of this country is sentenced to death for theft or robbery, or violence which brings about death, or for political crime, and if, in our examination of that judgment, we believe that the person sentenced to death has been sentenced wrongly, or that he did not get a fair trial, and if a reprieve committee is set up that may be able to bring to the notice of the authorities the dissatisfaction amongst the citizens of the country—after all, they are the supreme court: there is no appeal beyond the citizens of the country—it is their duty—it is the only method left after the court has given its decision— to appeal to the Executive Council and to the President of this country to extend the hand of clemency to the person condemned.

Now, what is wrong in Deputy Norton or Deputy Donnellan, or any other Deputy standing up in this House and asking the Government or the responsible Minister, through you, Sir: what was their reason for forbidding the publication of certain advertisements which no honest man, no sensible, honest, law-abiding citizen, could find fault with? They were not advertisements which would undermine the State, or criticised or belittled the court set up which tried the person whose case has brought about this debate. They were advertisements which kept within the law, and yet they were not published. It is for that reason that Deputy Norton and Deputy Donnellan got up to-night. They wanted information relating to that. We are not saying that Mr. Kerins was innocent or guilty. We are not making that suggestion at all. That is not the point of our argument.

The only people who can say whether he was innocent or guilty are the citizens of this country—the supreme court. No individual Deputy or group of Deputies can say so. What we are to understand from the Minister for Justice is that he wants to make it that we here are trying to claim that he was innocent, that we are condemning the Government for not having him reprieved and let free. We are not here condemning the Government on that ground at all. We are condemning the responsible Minister for forbidding the publication of certain advertisements relating to this reprieve committee which was set up.

It is wrong for the Minister for Justice to accuse Deputy Norton, Deputy Donnellan or any other Deputy that we here are associating ourselves with any illegal body in the country for we are not associating ourselves with any illegal body. I, for one, even at the cost of my life, would not tolerate any body of citizens forcing their ideas by any other method except that which is within the Constitution upon the people or Government of this country. No Deputy in this House, as far as I know, stands for that line of action. Yet the Minister for Justice gets up, seeing that he has not a leg to stand on, and knowing that he has not a leg to stand on, and deliberately and intentionally accuses Deputy Norton and I suppose Deputy Donnellan of trying to ally themselves with some illegal body or organisation in order to blacken them before the citizens of this country, in order to destroy the whole case made by them because he himself has no leg to stand on. I say that is not the line of action, and that is not the reply, that we expected from the Minister for Justice. As I say, we realise that on the Front Bench there are men sitting who have instilled into the minds and hearts of young Irishmen those ideals—to do the crimes which you accuse them of having committed. You know that. How often did we listen to you on public platforms instilling those ideals into our minds if we were so minded as to adopt them and bring them through? Now, when a reprieve committee was set up in order to appeal to the Executive Council and to the President you denied publication of those advertisements.

I do not pretend to be religious. Deputy Anthony should not throw out suggestions that we are only hypocrites—pretending that we are religious. I do not try to read into Deputy Anthony's conscience as to what he may be. He may be the best Christian in this State to-day. We all have our weaknesses and faults, but it is not his duty as a citizen or that of any Deputy to try to minimise the importance of certain rituals attached to our religion. They say it is wise and good that we should pray. We can pray at home, in the church or on the streets. It has been the custom ever since the days of Terence McSwiney— the Lord have mercy on his soul —that people prayed outside the prison wherein lay the condemned. They prayed outside of Brixton Prison in a foreign land. His sisters prayed for him there in spite of the British authorities, but to-day under the Republic which you claim you have set up, An Taoiseach de Valera and his C.I.D. men prevented them praying outside Mountjoy, although there was no intention of making a disturbance, of breaking the law but to abide by the law, and not even to stop the traffic. Our consciences and minds are as strong as the minds and consciences of the men on those benches, and if we were the Government to-morrow and thought that any man had deliberately assassinated a policeman carrying out his duty, and could bring home that belief for certain, we would not hesitate for one moment to send him to the gallows where he should go. On the other hand, if we were the Government to-morrow and a certain individual was tried in court for the assassination of a certain servant of this State, and if in the eyes of this Government, who might then be in opposition, it was thought that the evidence against him was flimsy, that it was not sufficient to give him the rope, then I say it would be your bounden duty and the bounden duty of every citizen in the land to try to bring home to the authorities that in your conscience in your mind and in your good faith, that man was not guilty. That is what those who were associated with this reprieve committee tried to do. I have nothing to do with it. I am only speaking as an individual. But that is what they tried to do, and then we find hysteria across there. No wonder you are hysterical when you realise that. May the Lord have mercy on Charles Kerins —He has now judged him, whether he was guilty or not.

If the court here failed, the court of Heaven cannot fail. It will be known there whether he was guilty or not. You are the men who instilled these ideas into the minds of men of his type—the deeds they are prepared to perpetrate to-day are the result of these ideas. It is you who should have mercy and clemency more than anybody else. I had no intention of speaking on this matter. I had nothing prepared but, listening to the Minister and then to Deputy Anthony, it was sufficient to raise the blood of any honest man who believes in fair play, and, who believes that an Irishman should get a fair trial. When we read up our history of bygone days and of the Cumann na nGaedheal administration, and think that such a day would dawn under a Fianna Fáil administration, then we cannot forget the reign of Caesar in Rome and the conspiracy that took place there. Brutus was an exalted citizen and, because he was exalted, the conspirators thought that they could get away with the stabbing of Caesar. Members of Fianna Fáil think that because of another exalted citizen, high in the opinion of the people—An Taoiseach— they can get away with anything they do and that he is the Brutus of to-day as was the case in Rome in bygone times. Brutus died on the battlefield because he was led astray and the day may come when those who are trying to override the law may have to pay the same penalty as Brutus paid.

Mr. Blowick

Like the last speaker, I did not intend to speak to-night and would not do so if I did not desire to refute the implication contained in Deputy Anthony's speech. I am not very much interested in this matter. I am a complete outsider to most of the matters Deputy Norton has spoken of. Deputy Norton made certain statements to-night and I hope that whatever Minister replies—whether it be the Taoiseach or the Minister for Co-Ordination of Defensive Measures —will deal with those statements and not evade them. Once a year, the Government comes to this House and asks it to grant them emergency powers. Whether his statements be true or false, Deputy Norton has charged certain members of the Government with outstepping those powers. I should like a very definite answer to that statement from whatever Minister replies. If Deputy Norton's statements are false, well and good. If they are true, the powers given to the Government have, in my opinion, been grossly outstepped. Like the Minister for Justice, Deputy Anthony did not deal with the motion before the House. He tried in a very nasty and underhand way to link us up —or to do us some damage, at any rate —how, I do not know, because I do not profess to understand the workings of Deputy Anthony's mind. Deputy Donnellan's speech dealt fairly well with the point that the Minister for Justice had not given attention to the statements—very serious statements, if they were true—made by Deputy Norton. That was the gist of Deputy Donnellan's speech. I was sitting beside him the whole time. He simply asked for a reply from the Government as to whether those statements were true or false. If Deputy Norton's statements are true, then the Government made wrong use of the emergency powers we, in this House, grant them once a year.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy understands that he will not be allowed to speak again in this debate.

Minister for Co-Ordination of Defensive Measures (Mr. Aiken)

Deputy Norton was as flush with his adjectives to-night as he usually is. He condemned the Government as tyrannical, dictatorial and coercive and said that the unfortunate man who died this morning did not get a fair trial at our hands. We know that, two years ago. a police officer who was protecting the rights of the citizens of this State, was murdered; that a man was arraigned on a charge of murder before a court set up under the authority of the Oireachtas; and that the verdict arrived at by that court, composed of honourable officers who have done their duty in a magnificent way for several years, was confirmed by the normal Court of Criminal Appeal, of three judges, set up by the Oireachtas in the following words:—

"On a careful review of all the evidence and of the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime, we are of opinion that the evidence before the Special Criminal Court was amply sufficient in law to justify the verdict. There is no indication that the court misdirected itself in point of law, nor is there any indication of anything in the nature of a miscarriage of justice. The verdict seems to us to have been arrived at after a careful and patient trial during which every consideration was shown to the appellant. In the result we are of opinion that none of the grounds——"

Mr. Norton

On a point of order, I uttered a sentence this evening which the Chair, at that time, thought to be a comment by me on the trial, I said I had no intention of commenting on the trial. I never made a reference to the trial. Now, the Minister for Co-Ordination is, apparently, being permitted to quote a judgment of a court. I was told this evening that I must not do that, although I had never intended to do it. I think that there should be equality of treatment for members of the House.