I move:—
That Seanad Éireann requests the Minister for Justice to institute a judicial inquiry into the reported conduct by District Justice Gordon Hurley of the case heard before him on September 15th, 1958, arising out of the assault, on June 26th, 1958, upon three street preachers in Killaloe.
I have listened with attention to the ruling of the Chair in this matter. The House will remember that I tried first to raise this question as a matter on the Adjournment some weeks ago, and it was indicated to me, in your own words, Sir, that "the better way would be to put down a motion". I felt at the time, and I said so, that a motion would be more satisfactory, and would give more people a chance to put their point of view, and, generally, would allow for a wider debate. My only fear had been on the question of delay. I should like to say now that I am grateful to the Chair and to the House for there having been no delay whatsoever between the time I put down the motion and the time when it is being debated here.
My contention, and the contention I shall try to support by evidence, is that prima facie there is cause for grave ministerial concern arising out of the conduct of this case, as reported. It has been so profoundly disturbing that it has stirred the public conscience to an extent fully sufficient to demand that the Minister shall have the facts judicially examined and established, and decide then, but not until then, whether or not action is required.
In saying that the public mind has been profoundly disturbed by this matter, I should like to state at the outset that my own conviction is that this is true of a very big section of the public. Decent people of all religious beliefs have been shocked by what appeared from the press reports, to have taken place, and by the manner in which it was reported to have been dealt with.
I should like to read two of the press reports of the matter at issue. My motion refers to the case as reported. The first of these reports is from the Irish Times of 16th September, this year, under a heading “Religion is above the Courts”. It reads as follows:—
"District Justice Gordon Hurley said in Killaloe yesterday: ‘Religion is above the courts, the main business of which is to preserve peace. When men come into an Irish village and provoke the people by foisting their views on them, they are abusing whatever rights they have under the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religious worship. Such action is bound to draw down the rod of the people whose hospitality they have received.'
He applied the Probation Act in a case in which Michael Boland and John (Christy) McKenna, of Ballyloughnane, Killaloe, and Patrick Daly, Killestry, Killaloe, were charged with unlawfully assaulting Robert Glen Lindsay, Samuel Glen Lindsay and Christopher Rowe on June 26th at Killaloe, thereby causing them actual bodily harm.
The defendants, who pleaded guilty, were represented by Mr. I. M. Houlihan, solicitor, and Inspector E. McDonnell prosecuted.
Mr. Houlihan said his clients were under great provocation. They were respectable farmers and had been attending a fair in Killaloe when they were confronted by three young men ‘vending Christianity'. His clients took offence, as it was the wrong time and place for these men —two of whom, he understood, came from Limerick, and a friend of theirs from England—to go foisting their special brand of Christianity on a people steeped in Christainity.
Furthermore, the position was aggravated by the fact that some time before, leaflets had been left in the confessional of the Catholic church in the parish from which his clients came, and the parish priest had protested from the altar, and asked for more vigilance from his parishioners.
Mr. Houlihan said that he did not want to associate the complainants with circulating these leaflets for the simple reason that it had not been proved, but it was not the first time that ‘pseudo-evangelists' had visited this area.
‘The judiciary in England have described those people as a sect of canting humbugs' went on Mr. Houlihan, who added that it was fantastic for these young men from Limerick to come into Clare vending Bible and Christianity on a people who were steeped in it. To say they were preaching Christianity to a people ignorant of it was only adding to the blaze. The Irish had Christianity since the time of Saint Patrick, and had spread all over the world.
Another of his clients, Mr. Boland, he said, was highly commended for coming to the rescue of a member of the Civic Guard when there was trouble before between members of some sect or other and the people.
Inspector E. McDonnell said the men came to Killaloe to hold a religious meeting on the steps of the church. Mr. Rowe held the Bible in his hand and this was taken from him by Mr. Boland, who gave it a couple of kicks down the street. The guards then had a conversation with the men and they went to their car, but the defendant got around by another street, intercepted him and hit them with their fists and sticks.
One of the Lindsays fell from a blow on the forehead and lost two teeth. He was unconscious for about 20 minutes. He was treated by his family doctor and taken to hospital next day. There were no serious injuries, but Lindsay had concussion for some time.
District Justice Hurley said the recalled a similar case in Limerick some time ago. He had gone into the matter very deeply then, and he still held the same views. As he saw it, that case was a precedent for future findings of the court. No costs were allowed."
A fortnight later in the Manchester Guardian, on October 1st, 1958, the following report appeared:—
"A fortnight ago at Killaloe, near Limerick, three men described as ‘respectable farmers' appeared in the district court charged with unlawful assault on three evangelists who had come to hold a religious meeting on the steps of the church. They were approached by the three defendants, one of whom seized the Bible from one of the evangelists and kicked it down the street. The evangelists drove off, but in another street were intercepted and attacked by the defendants. One of the preachers was knocked out and lost two teeth.
The defendants pleaded guilty, but their solicitor said they had acted under great provocation. They were attending the fair at Killaloe when they came upon the three young men ‘vending Christianity; they took offence because it was the wrong time and place for these men... to go foisting their special brand of Christianity on a people steeped in Christianity.
District Justice Gordon Hurley applied the Probation Act—a conviction was recorded, but there was no penalty. He justified his action by reference to a previous case and delivered this dictum:—
‘Religion is above courts the main business of which is to preserve peace. When men come into an Irish village and provoke the people by foisting their views on them they are abusing whatever rights they have under the Constitution which guarantees freedom of religious worship. Such action is bound to draw down the rod of the people whose hospitality they have received.'
The precedent to which the District Justice referred was a judgment of his own, delivered four years ago, when a party of men in a village near Limerick set upon two Jehovah's Witnesses. District Justice Hurley bound over the victims of the assault to keep the peace. The case aroused some comment at the time."
I believe that in the light of that kind of report, the Minister ought to be gravely concerned. There is no doubt there has been grave public concern in the matter.
In the same article, the Manchester Guardian quotes, and several other papers similarly quoted, the Most Reverend Dr. E. Hodges, Bishop of Limerick, as writing in the following terms about his own community:—
"Many members of the community will agree that that street preaching is undesirable. Many will question the adequacy and accuracy of the preaching proposed. These are side issues. The main question is: can the citizen of Ireland depend upon the protection of the law to preserve him from bodily harm if he expresses what are thought to be views unacceptable to the religious loyalties of persons who happen to be present in the public street when the words are used? Apparently not. He can be mobbed and battered with impunity by anyone who is ‘provoked' by the words used. Such at least is the ruling of the district justice involved.
The Bishop criticises in detail the terms of the judgment, in particular the justice's statement that the Constitution ‘guarantees freedom of religious worship', and claims that the Constitution guarantees something much more—‘recognition of the various branches of the Christian Faith.' Dr. Hodges speaks of the incident as an important one with serious and sinister implications.
Small wonder that this incident in a remote village will in many larger and more influential circles suggest the creaking of the ecclesiastical Iron Curtain closing down on thought and speech and action...
Dr. Hodges says the reaction of the Church of Ireland Clergy ‘and of those we represent' must be threefold:—
A sense of thankfulness and pride in the freedom to think and speak and act, at least within our communion;
A realisation that in matters even remotely connected with difference in religious belief a member of the non-Roman Church cannot be certain of justice;
A determination that the goodwill and friendliness which exist between us and out neighbours not of our form of Faith shall be maintained by our Church to the uttermost; and that no miscarriage of justice, no outbreak of religious zeal will break out faith in the innate kindness of the Irish people."
I quote that as a statement of a responsible citizen, with a long record in this country, indeed in this city, before he went to Limerick, as indicating grave public concern on the part of himself and of the many for whom he spoke.
I want to quote the words of a former judge of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Black, expressing concern in similar terms:—
"The legal way to deal with street preachers—the civilised way—was to tell them to move away. This was what the Guards did. After they had walked away, they were attacked.
The district justice, said Mr. Black, applied the Probation of Offenders Act. He let the offenders off without a word of reprimand or without binding them over to the peace, and, for good measure, proceeded to pour the vials of his wrath not upon the miscreants, but upon their battered victims. The critics— and they were many, consisting of both religions—had condemned this, carried away he thought, by their indignation with the conduct of the district justice. They had been so carried away that they had overlooked, he thought, the most damning feature of the whole scandalous transaction. That was not what the district justice did, but the last eleven words of his allocution in which he said that this case was to be a precedent for future findings——"
