Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 23 Jan 1924

Vol. 6 No. 7

QUESTION ON ADJOURNMENT. - RIGHT OF PUBLIC MEETING.

Mr. JOHNSON

I gave notice that I desired to call attention to the notice which appeared in this morning's papers over the signature of the Minister for Home Affairs respecting an announcement that a public meeting was to be held to-day at the railings, Kildare Street, and prohibiting the holding of that meeting under certain terms. The sequel, perhaps, explains the advertisement. It is known, I suppose, to Deputies generally that the public services of the police, military, naval or fire brigade forces are available for surprise demonstrations to show what can be done with such forces. It now appears that the purpose of this notice was to show on short notice that the new Dublin Metropolitan Police can be gathered together to prove the quality of the men recruited in the last few months, and the ability of the new Commissioner of Police. That may have been very satisfactory to the Minister. It was very amusing to the Deputies who were coming here. I had not the pleasure of participating in the exhibition, but I was told that there was a remarkable show of physical capacity and valiant bearing in the streets adjacent to this building. If that were the reason of the insertion of this notice I have no doubt that the Minister is well pleased with his experience. To me it appeared earlier in the day that it was a remarkable thing that the Minister for Home Affairs should issue a notice of this kind over his name to deal with what to an ordinary person, with eyes or ears, was a mere exhibition of an eccentric. An announcement was made that a meeting was to be held in Kildare St. at 3 o'clock, an announcement at which everybody smiled, and which everybody knew was the mere exhibition of one who desired to show himself as an enthusiast in a particular cause. The Minister took it seriously and apparently he thought it was necessary to have a demonstration in force to prevent any gathering of people in the neighbourhood of this house on the pretence or assumption that there was a danger to the public peace. It was no doubt very desirable to prevent a public meeting at the entrance to the legislative chambers. I quite agree, but a remedy was in the hands of the Commissioner of Police without the Minister for Home Affairs coming to his rescue, and if he was not capable of dealing with a matter of that kind, he is not fit for his job. It should have been a small matter to disperse a few people, and move them on and let them hold their meeting out of the line of traffic, but what did the Minister do? This is the most serious part of what I have to say, and is my real reason for raising the matter.

Citizens are guaranteed under the Constitution the right of public meeting and lawful assembly. That presupposes some reasonable regard for public convenience, but that right of public meeting could have been granted and reasonable regard to public convenience still safeguarded, by mere police action without any display of force or the assumption that there was going to be a riot or an attack on Parliament House by an armed body of Protectionists, with Deputy Milroy at their head. The notice which the Minister for Home Affairs signed, not only ordered that the public meeting shall not be held in Kildare Street opposite Leinster House, but shall not be held anywhere within 500 yards radius of Kildare Street. It prohibits any assembly for the purpose of holding any meeting, procession, or demonstration—not even in a house or building, nowhere for fear of a breach of the public peace. If there was any fear of a breach of the public peace, surely the same fear would be occasioned by a meeting 501 yards away. It was apparently the intention to safeguard the convenience of members of the Dáil, and to do that, to crack that little nut, the Minister deemed it necessary to introduce the steam hammer. It is really preposterous that such an exhibition should be made for such a trifling threat. My desire is to utter a warning that the rights of public meeting within decency, within reasonable convenience of the other members of the public must be safeguarded, and should not be interfered with by an order from the Minister for Home Affairs. A slight police operation of this kind should be left to the discretion of the police in the locality, and the Minister ought not feel it necessary to give ponderous directions to police officers to bring all the forces into operation to prevent any possible gathering. I thought it was necessary to raise this matter in this way. I do not want to pretend that the safety of the nation is at stake or even that the Minister has designs on the right of public meeting; but I want to say that this is another straw which shows the necessity for very strict vigilance upon the rights of citizens under the Constitution.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I desire briefly to add my word to what Deputy Johnson has said. I came down Molesworth Street towards 2 o'clock to-day, and saw a most wonderful display. Policemen were drawn up across the whole street, shoulder to shoulder, while certain citizens, consisting mostly of small boys, were gazing in wonder and awe at this extraordinary display. I did not realise, until I recalled to my memory, the striking notice which the Minister for Home Affairs put in the papers this morning, the cause of this display, and then I wondered whether I should feel more sorry for Deputies and Senators coming to their work in this place, or for the poor constables. I think that the result of the Minister's action is to make both the National Assembly and the D.M.P. utterly ridiculous in the eyes of citizens. That is the first result which he has achieved, and I hardly think it was the result which he desired to achieve. I met two Senators who had just come down Kildare Street, and we exchanged notes as to what had occurred at the Stephen's Green end, and they told me that they had seen an equal display there. Apparently the whole place was in prison, and the police were prepared to hold the streets valiantly against all comers. There is, however, a more important matter, to which Deputy Johnson has referred, namely, the constitutional right.

I will read Article 9, which embodies that right because it is quite clear and explicit. It says:—"The right of free expression of opinion as well as the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, and to form associations or unions is guaranteed for purposes not opposed to public morality. Laws regulating the manner in which the right of forming association and the right of free assembly may be exercised shall contain no political, religious or class distinction." The Attorney-General will remember certain discussions with regard to that particular Article. It says quite clearly that if there be any law regulating this matter, the right to hold public assembly shall be freely exercisable by citizens of the Irish Free State. I think it desirable that some laws of the nature foreseen, in this Article should be introduced, but until there are such laws citizens have the right which should be exercised freely. If it be undesirable that there should be public meetings held in Kildare Street, I, as one of those who reside in that street, will be very glad, but it should be embodied in the law, and I suggest there are other streets that might be brought within the cognizance of the Minister. There is a place called College Green where I remember a large meeting was held during an afternoon, and evening, by a political party that entirely held up the traffic of the city of Dublin in those parts, because a political party was anxious to secure votes in an election.

Now, if it was right to hold a meeting in College Green, and to hold up all traffic in College Green for the convenience of one Party, then it is equally right for another Party to hold a public meeting in another street for its own convenience.

Mr. McCARTHY

Why did not you hold one?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I did not hold one. Let the matter be regulated; let there be law; let there be places laid down where public meetings may be held, and apart from which places public meetings may not be held. When we have that, then let the regulations be exercised within them, but until such laws are made the fact remains that the Constitution has bestowed certain rights which are freely exercisable by citizens. There is this constitutional matter, and there is also the other matter. The constitutional matter is the more important, but the other has its importance, too, because I do not believe that, in spite of the brave display that they made, and the magnificent physique that each of them had, that the members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police to-day were altogether very proud of the show in which they were compelled to take a part.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

As to whether the proposal to hold this meeting at the Kildare Street railings was or was not the exhibition of an eccentric, I leave Deputy Johnson to argue with citizen Oliver J. O'Connor. The notice summoning the meeting called for attendance from North, South, East and West, and promised special facilities. Now, clearly had the meeting been held it would have established a precedent. I consider it highly undesirable that such a precedent should be created. Deputy Johnson suggests that there was no need for a notice, there was no need to tell the citizens that there was any objection to the holding of this meeting; that the police should deal with them when and if they assembled. I want to put a case. Had no notice been issued, had people really assembled in large numbers, had the police then come along and suggested a move, had that suggestion not been unanimously accepted by the crowd, had the police to use any degree of force whatsoever, I would have no more eloquent or emphatic critic in the Dáil than Deputy Johnson.

I owe, perhaps, an apology to Deputy Figgis for having subjected him to the wondering gaze of small boys, and having so far encroached on his well-known shrinking modesty, but Deputy Figgis's patriotism will, I am sure, stand the strain; it was in the interests of the State. He speaks of the guarantees in the Constitution. Does Deputy Figgis or Deputy Johnson, or any other Deputy, suggest that the Constitution guarantees the absolute right of meeting anywhere at any time? Does he suggest, for instance, that under that Article of the Constitution meetings could be held daily or hourly in Grafton Street, or any other place? There is no absolute right of public meeting. Perhaps the matter is best summed up in this statement by a judge in the hearing of a case:—

"There is, no doubt, that the people of this country have a perfect right to meet for the purpose of stating what are, or even what they consider to be, their grievances. That right they have always had, and I trust always will have, but in order to transmit that right unimpaired to posterity it is necessary that it should be regulated by law and restrained by reason."

A Bill is in course of preparation dealing with this whole matter of public meetings. In the meantime, I can only hope that the exercise of whatever right exists will be restrained by reason, pending its being regulated by law.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. to 3 o'clock on Thursday, 24th January.