Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Mar 1928

Vol. 22 No. 11

PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - REVIEW OF PRISONERS' CASES—PROPOSED SELECT COMMITTEE.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE

I move:—

"That a Select Committee to be nominated by the Committee of Selection be set up forthwith with power to review the cases of all prisoners who claim that their cases arise out of the civil war or apart from strictly legal considerations have a political aspect and to recommend to the Executive Council the release of such prisoners."

We have not put down this motion suddenly, but because of every other method having failed. This question of the prisoners was raised when the Executive Council were nominated. It was raised on several other occasions in the Dáil, and at another time a deputation from this side of the House waited on the Minister for Justice and put various cases before him. Some of these cases—and I will briefly recite them—we contend, are of a purely political character. As to others of them, we say that the sentences imposed were excessive, in so far as there was an acute political feeling in existence at the time, and that because certain people with the Republican point of view may have committed some offences which we cannot perhaps contend were purely political, that the sentences imposed on them were imposed by tribunals which felt they were carrying out the policy of the Executive, that is, a vendetta against all the people with Republican views in the country. It was quite clear in some of the cases I refer to that at the time there was a political vendetta.

I cannot get any milder phrase to describe it. I do not think any milder phrase would describe it accurately, at any rate. We had it at the time when people prominent on the Government Benches were going round the country, talking about extermination and so on, and the wiping out of people who had certain political views; it was in that atmosphere that some of those sentences were imposed, and whatever may be said about the independence of the judiciary, and so on, the independent and impartial administration of law in this country—whatever may be mouthed about that—I think that anybody who thinks impartially or looks impartially at the position in the particular cases I have referred to will have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that those sentences reflect a partisan spirit which is in keeping with what I call the vendetta that had been given voice to by prominent political leaders on the Government side during those times. We put a number of cases before the Minister for Justice in our interview with him, and I do not think that there has been any result so far. We put the facts clearly, as we were informed, and without any exaggeration, without any embellishments or anything else of that sort, and claimed, as a right, that those sentences should be reviewed. That is what we ask in this House this evening: that the House should decide, in the light of the cases we will put before them, whether or not the Committee asked for in the motion should be set up to review those sentences. It may be said that there are very few cases that would come under review. I will cite just a few of them with reference to which I hope to be able to give some facts. There are prisoners also, and I think it is relevant to mention it, in respect of whom, it might be urged at the moment, something should be done. Those are prisoners detained in British jails and in, perhaps, the Northern jails also. There are some prisoners where, we contend, the offences were partly political. Something should be done to have those cases inquired into or representations made with a view to having them dealt with.

The first case, I think, we put before the Minister for justice in the interview was that of McPeake. McPeake was arrested, I think, in November, 1923, and sentenced to six years' imprisonment. At the time of his arrest he was attached to the Republican Army. He was charged with bringing an armoured car over to the Republicans. Now, I fail to see, in respect to his case, how anybody can contend that that was not a political offence, and why his case was excluded from the amnesty was something that requires explanation. When the people on this side of the House get control of the reins of government I do not think they have any intention whatever of taking action against people who deserted from the Republican Army in the time of the trouble, and there were numerous desertions. I think the main case against McPeake was that he had, according to the Government, deserted from the Free State Army. A good portion of that sentence has been put in. At any rate I will wait to see what case the Minister for Justice can put forward for the continuing of that sentence, or why he would not consider a review necessary.

There is the case of John Hogan, of Clare, which was also mentioned to the Minister for Justice. It may be contended perhaps that his offence was not purely political, but the act which he committed was committed while he was on duty in the Republican Army. He was sentenced to death and it was afterwards communted to penal servitude for life.

There was the case of John Downey, of Galway, for raids on police barracks in 1922. He was arrested in 1923 and sentenced to ten years penal servitude. There is Mat Hughes, arrested for the same offence in 1925 and sentenced to three years. There is the case of Kavanagh, arrested in 1922 for a raid on a post office van and sentenced to seven years. Now, as was explained by the deputation which waited on the Minister for Justice, Kavanagh was the victim of an agent provocateur named Hardy. Hardy apparently arranged the raid, got this man Kavanagh to believe it was an official I.R.A. raid, and when he appeared at the post office, believing Hardy was the party in authority, the party to receive instructions or orders from, he found he was confronted with members of the Free State Army, or C.I.D., and was arrested. Another case is that of George Gilmore. He was arrested on the 11th November, 1926, and sentenced to two years, and surely if there ever was a case in which there should be review it is this one, unless perhaps we can assume that the people on the other side of the House have so entirely changed the views that we believed they once held. The principal charge against him was that he had dared to do a thing that I remember some people on the Government benches would applaud one time as a very good thing and a national thing to do: that was to dare to challenge the right of the Union Jack to float in this country.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

It was not the charge.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE

He was not charged with it. I understood he was. I believe he was. I believe he was charged with interfering with a display of imperialism in the country which we feel, and a good many Irishmen feel, I hope the vast majority of them, is a challenge to the national instincts of the Irish people. Since his sentence and imprisonment he has been, as was pointed out several times, shockingly ill-treated in jail; facts have been circulated with regard to the ill-treatment and facts have been brought to the notice of responsible authorities with regard to that ill-treatment. The Minister is cognisant of this complaint and of the fact that visits are denied him and that facilities by which all the facts in connection with his ill-treatment could be elucidated. There is the case of Seán Russell, who was arrested in November, 1927, and is still in prison under the Treason Act, and you have the case of Price, a similar offence, and the more recent case of Michael O'Carolan, who was arrested in February of the present year. He may be guilty of an offence which may seem a very serious offence in the eyes of the people opposite, that when the gates were opened for him he walked out. That may appear to the Deputies on the Government Benches a very wrong thing to do, a very unusual thing to do, and a thing that perhaps a law-abiding citizen should not do. However, that may be in keeping with the reasoning we will have in connection with all those cases. There is the case of Stephen Murphy, and a number of other cases, but I do not propose to go into these cases in any detail. I have mentioned, I think, sufficient to show that there are cases there which have a political tinge. It will be stated, as I think it was hinted the other day by the President, that the courts are there, that the courts imposed the sentences, that the courts are supreme, and so on, but as I have already pointed out in this House, in the case of people who may have worn green in the Free State Army and who may have committed the most heinous offences, the courts are not supreme. The decisions of the courts are interfered with, and the partisan administration shows its hand. I have quoted cases already in this House where the most heinous offences were committed by members of the Free State Army who were brought up before the Free State courts, charged and convicted and sentenced to death. Their sentences were commuted and they were released after a few months or a few years. I will quote them again. I quoted the case of Lieutenant Larkin of the Free State Army who was charged and convicted of the murder of an old man. He was sentenced to eight years penal servitude, and he was released after eighteen months. There was the case of Lieutenant Greene, who was convicted of the murder of a prisoner and sentenced to death. His sentence was commuted to fifteen years penal servitude, and he was released after two years.

There was the case of Private Gordan, who was convicted of murder. He was sentenced to death. His sentence was commuted to penal servitude of fifteen years, and he was let out after two years. There was a case of Lieutenant McQuaid, who was convicted of murder and who was let out after two years. There was the case of Lieutenant McNally, who was sentenced to seven years and who was let out after two years. There was the case of Sergeant-Major Kiernan, who was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. I believe that a petition was got up by some political associates of his, and that there was a reply sent to them that the matter would be most favourably considered.

We saw the other day in the courts where an individual who was held up to be a truthful witness had been sentenced to twelve years for bank robbery or something like that and had been let go. This House was not informed with regard to the mitigation of the sentences that were imposed on those people I have referred to. This House was not consulted with regard to them. As a Deputy on the Labour Benches stated when I referred to those cases before, that was the first time they heard them mentioned in the House. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say with one breath "The courts are supreme, the law is impartially administered, and we cannot interfere with decisions of the courts," and in the next breath say something different in regard to people of Republican tendencies. They cannot say in the case of people who may have worn green in the Free State Army that they can be convicted by these independent courts, by this impartial administration, and that they can afterwards, without consulting the Dáil or letting out the information to the people, be released. They cannot say that they are relying on the independence of the courts in releasing these people before their sentences are completed. What does it reflect, but what was criticised for centuries in this country, the partisan administration of the law. There is no other answer to it. It is the obvious answer. There is one law for one section of the community and another law for another section of the community. There are the facts. I have given you the facts in particular cases. I have not made any wild statements. I hope it will be explained why a man who had taken away an armoured car, which was purely a political offence, was excluded from the Amnesty Act, and why his whole sentence has to be served, while men who had been convicted of murder came under it. There is a licence for murder on the one hand and there is no mitigation or no consideration for political offences on the other hand.

The motion that we have put in is a reasonable one. If the Government want to face this question in the light that they have nothing to keep away from the Dáil, in the light that they have nothing to keep secret, then no harm will be done, as far as they are concerned, by setting up the Committee which is asked for in that motion.

A matter that has often been complained of is that the present system of visiting and inspection of prisons does not afford to this side of the House facilities for seeing the condition of things there. It is something to complain about, and if at some time or another inaccurate statements come into circulation the blame cannot be put on those people who may have accepted those statements and in that way may be unconsciously responsible for their circulation. If the Government have nothing to keep from the view of this House with regard to the ill-treatment of prisoners they should accept this motion. We say they have been ill-treated. We say that in the case of George Gilmore there has been ill-treatment unequalled even in an uncivilised country. We make that statement, and if the Ministry opposite deny it there is a simple way of getting at the facts. The way of getting at the facts is to set up this Committee or to allow a Committee of this House to visit the prison or hold an inquiry with regard to the ill-treatment that is going on there.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That is not proposed by the motion.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE

I am sorry. I do not usually digress. The same thing applies to the prisoners who have been sentenced. We charge in this motion that because certain prisoners had a certain political outlook or a certain political tendency they are undergoing sentences altogether out of proportion with the sentences that would have been proposed if they had not that outlook and that viewpoint.

I think that when that statement is made in the House, and when we give the facts about it, it should not be a question with the Ministry of making this a Party vote. They should face it in the spirit which any Ministry should face any charges that may be levied against any part of their administration. If there is any suspicion, and if there are any facts on which to ground the suspicion put forward, then the case which the Ministry should make would be: "We have nothing to keep from this House. We will allow an impartial committee to inquire into these particular cases." We are only asking that that committee be selected by the Selection Committee. We know, if Party lines are followed, that that committee will consist of a majority of members of the Government Party. The committee which we ask for under this motion is one with which, in my opinion, the Minister for Justice and the Ministry generally, could not quarrel. We are only asking that these particular cases or others in which prisoners may put forward a claim that their offences are political, or that the sentences they are undergoing were made more severe than they otherwise would be made on account of their political views, should be considered. That is all we ask. We think it is a reasonable motion, and, unless the Government want to keep along the lines of bitterness or to continue a political vendetta, they should agree to it.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Would the Deputy say how many Deputies he would like to see nominated on the committee? Technically, the motion should contain the number.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE

Eight Deputies.

PROINNSIAS O FATHAIGH

Sa bhfógra tairiscinte seo i dtaoibh na ngéimhleach, nílmíd ag iarraidh ar an nDáil aon nidh mí-réasúnta a dhéanamh—an scéal fhágaint fén gCoiste Roghnathóireachta fó-choiste a chur ar bun chun cúiseanna na bpriosúnach a bhreithniú: sé sin, na cúiseanna go bhfuil baint acu le cúrsaí polaitíochta. Do féadfaí an méid sin a dhéanamh go ciúin ciallmhar gan teasuíocht, gan gangaid, gan aghaidh bhéil a thabhairt ar a chéile.

Is minic a bhíonn tracht ar stáid na bpríosúnach san, ar a fheabhas atá an saoghal acu. Deirtear linn go bhfuil togha gach bidh agus rogha gach dighe acu. Tá Teachtaí ar an dá thaobh annseo a thug tréimhse i mbraighdeanas agus tá fhios acu go maith gurab é bun agus barr pionós an bhraighdeanais ná bheith fé glasaibh agus gan cead a chos ag duine. Is uathbhásach an rud é saoirse a bhaint de dhuine.

Déarfar linn go bhfuil an dlighe ann agus nach mór bheith umhal di. Tá san go maith, ach ba mhaith liom a chur i gcuimhne do na Teachtai a mhíshuaimhnighe agus a nimhnighe a bhí cúrsaí an tsaoghail sa tír seo nuair a ceapadh cuid de na dlighthe sin. Ní raibh le clos sa Dáil seo acht taobh amháin den scéal agus bíonn, ar a laighead, dhá innsint ar gach scéal.

Chuala sibh rud beag ar an dtaoibh eile an tseachtain seo caithe, agus ba dhoigh le duine ó chainnt an Uachtaráin go bhfuil maolú éigin ag teacht ar an nimhneacht, agus ar an searbhas. Tá súil agam go bhfuil agus má tá na Teachtaí os ár gcomhair annsin dáríribh tá caoi acu sa tairscint. Cé an fáth a bhfuil na h'ogánaigh sin i bpríosúin? Maidir le n-a bhformhór, d'fheádfainn a rádh go bhfuilid i mbraighdeanas toisc gur leanadar go dlúth soiscéal na saoirse a dheineadar a fhogluim ní hámhain uainne ach ó Airí agus ó Theachtaí ar thaobh Chumann na nGaedheal.

Dá gcuirfí ar bun an Coiste seo racadh sé chun tairbhe na tíre. Ní gá baint a bheith ag na hAodhruidhe leis an sceul. Iarraim ar na Teachtaí agus iarraim ar na hAirí glacadh leis an tairiscint seo, mar dhéunfaidh sé maitheas do'n tír gan dochar do dhéunamh d'éinne.

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney)

I welcome this motion which has been brought before the House by Deputy Ruttledge and Deputy Aiken. I welcome it because, of all the unfair political propaganda which has gone on in this country against the administration of Justice, there has been no more unfair political propaganda than the false statements which have been made on platforms, which have been posted up on the walls of the city, and which, to a certain extent, have been heard inside this House. I welcome, therefore, this opportunity to have this matter of the so-called political prisoners debated face to face so that the country itself can judge. Deputy Ruttledge has proposed that a Committee should be set up. In order to carry his motion in this House I take it, that it will be assumed that he must show there is some need of such Committee, that there are prisoners coming under the category to which he has alluded, and that those prisoners have been unjustly or unfairly sentenced, though, as a matter of fact, the question of sentence does not enter into this motion at all. He must, in addition, show that the tribunal which he proposes to set up is suitable for the trial of these questions.

I will follow Deputy Ruttledge through his speech. It is correct that he and some other delegates of his Party had an interview with me upon this question and named certain prisoners, some of whom they claimed to be political prisoners. With all of these he has not dealt to-day. He has put forward certain names, and I will deal with the facts of each particular case he has put forward, both as to sentence and the nature of the crime, and also the date of the crime for which the person in question was convicted. I will then follow him all through the charges which he makes against the Executive Council for letting out certain men who had been convicted of crime during the Amnesty period and the period subsequently covered by the Amnesty. Deputy Ruttledge has used strong and unmeasured language, and has made wild charges which, I think, he himself on cool reflection would hardly stand over—charges, for instance, that there is a licence to murder on one side, and other statements of that nature—which, I think, good feeling, good sense, and a sense of his duty to his constituents and to this House will cause him to withdraw. I will deal first of all with the prisoners in the order in which he has set them out.

The first prisoner to whom he alluded is John McPeake, who has been put in the forefront. The Deputy's whole case centred round McPeake. If you take McPeake and Gilmore out, the others were names over which the Deputy seemed in a great hurry to rush. McPeake was a soldier in the National Army and was also a machine-gunner, but he deserted and took over to the then enemies of the National Army, men who were in arms against them, an armoured car for the purpose of that car being used in action against the men who up to that time had been his comrades. Is that a light offence? Does Deputy Ruttledge suggest that is a light offence—suddenly turning and bringing over an armoured car that might be used against his own comrades? McPeake was a deserter from the National Army. I do not assent, and I never will, to the proposition that a man of that nature can be termed correctly a political prisoner. McPeake was sentenced to six years' imprisonment, and his term will not expire until next July, but I, using my judgement, can see no reason for anybody coming to the conclusion that that sentence upon McPeake was excessive.

The next case to which Deputy Ruttledge alluded was that of John Hogan, and he says John Hogan's offence was not purely political. What were the facts with regard to that case? John Hogan was armed, and he met a man with whose family Hogan's family were on extremely bad terms. They had a row about a right of way or something of that kind. Hogan was tried before a jury and was found guilty of murder, principally upon the dying declaration of the man whom he had murdered. There was nothing political about it. A man coming along a fence, a man whom he knows, a near neighbour, is told by Hogan to hold up his hands. The man says: "I will not hold up my hands for you." He is shot dead. Is that a political offence? Do the Party opposite think a case like that is political? Is it their view and doctrine that if you belong to a certain political party you can commit any crime you like? How else can they suggest that an ordinary case of a man shooting his enemy, shooting a person he dislikes, and so found by a jury, is a political case? Hogan was duly sentenced. The time at which this occurred was duly taken into consideration, and the death sentence was not carried out, as it might have been, there being a clear case of murder found by the jury. The defence was "accident." The jury negatived it by their verdict. The sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life.

Deputy Ruttledge went on, and the next men he mentioned were John Downey and Hughes. Downey was sentenced for shooting a man called Larkin. Deputy Ruttledge has been misinformed as to the facts of that case, as he has been misinformed, I will show the House, on a great number of other matters. This man Downey has been very well conducted in prison, and is showing signs that he may subsequently turn out to be a law-abiding citizen, and his case may be, I do not say will be, in the immediate future revised. Hughes was an ordinary man who in 1926 went around the country attacking and robbing. He was sentenced to three years for armed assault, robbery, and breaking and entering a farmhouse. He received that sentence of three years for a crime committed in 1926. How is he a political prisoner? What is there political in his case? How does that savour of politics? Is there any responsible member of this House who will stand up in his place here and say that armed assault, robbery, and breaking and entering a dwelling-house for the purpose of robbery, is a political offence? Yet, here is Hughes, one of the men——

Mr. ALLEN

On a point of order, may I ask if the robbery was committed in 1926?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

Some time in 1926. I cannot give the exact date at the moment.

Mr. GERALD BOLAND

Is it a fact that he was only tried in 1926 for an offence committed in 1922?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

He was tried in 1926——

Mr. ALLEN

For an offence committed in 1922.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

In 1922 he started his career, but the exact date of the offence, I understand, was 1926. He had been at this for a very considerable time.

Mr. ALLEN

The statements of the Minister are inaccurate.

Mr. MacENTEE

The Minister is at sea.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

The offence, as a matter of fact, was committed not in 1922 but in 1923.

Mr. ALLEN

That is three years of a mistake that the Minister has made. That is not much at all.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

That was after the amnesty. A person named Kavanagh was mentioned. Kavanagh was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude for robbery at Santry Post Office in 1922. It was stated by Deputy Ruttledge—I do not know what his authority was for the statement; it certainly did not appear anywhere in the trial—that a man called Hardy was particeps criminis, or that a man called Hardy acted as agent provocateur. There is no truth in that statement. This Government has never at any time, and the persons who are responsible for the administration of justice in this country have never at any time, allowed or would allow such a person as an agent provocateur to act.

A DEPUTY

What about Harling?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

And any statement that they have——

A DEPUTY

What about Harling?

Mr. CORRY

What about the £10,000 a year for Secret Service?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

That matter is sub-judice at the present moment.

Mr. CORRY

Are you not paying £10,000 a year for Secret Service?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

I do not want to discuss that. But I say now, clearly and definitely, that there is absolutely no truth or foundation for the statement that he was at any time an agent provocateur, and not the loudest explosions from the most backward of the back benchers will change that.

Mr. G. BOLAND

Does the Minister deny that Hardy was an agent provocateur during 1924?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

Yes, I do deny it.

Mr. G. BOLAND

And will he explain how he came to be released almost immediately after the Portobello robbery?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

Yes, I will explain it. It is one of the cases that Deputy Ruttledge mentioned, and one of the cases with which I wanted to deal. I can show, without any trouble, that Hardy's case was a case of mistaken identity. Deputies think they can change facts by laughter. Facts, unfortunately, are stubborn things, and I am afraid they are too stubborn to be bent by the loudest laughter, even of Deputy MacEntee himself.

Mr. MacENTEE

Will the Minister tell the House if it is a fact that a certain person stole a typewriter and has admitted that he stole a typewriter?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

As far as Kavanagh was concerned no person called Hardy was examined at the trial or mentioned at the trial. But the case of this man Kavanagh having occurred in 1922, Kavanagh was, as a matter of fact, released on licence, but he did not carry out the terms of his licence. Instead of conducting himself as a law-abiding citizen he took a completely different course, and his licence was in consequence revoked.

Mr. G. BOLAND

He put up election posters.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

It must be understood that when licences are given to men who have been sentenced, when the prerogative of mercy is exercised in favour of these men, they must conduct themselves as law-abiding citizens or else they must serve their sentences. The next case—there were not very many of them that my friend dealt with—is the case of George Gilmore. My friend, Deputy Ruttledge, of course, though it has been contradicted again and again, came forth with that old, old story that he was sentenced to two years for challenging the right of people to flaunt Union Jacks in the City of Dublin. Of course that is all wrong—the sentence is completely wrong. The Deputy has mistaken the crimes for which he was convicted. Gilmore was tried on five counts. He was tried and convicted on a count for which he was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. That was, under arms effecting the escape of prisoners from Mountjoy. And if you consider the gravity of the offence I do not see how anybody could say that that term of imprisonment was unduly heavy. He was charged also with assaulting a warder on the same occasion and was found guilty. He was charged also that on a subsequent date—Armistice Day celebrations in this city—he assaulted two Guards, and he was convicted. These were the four charges upon which he was convicted, and the only four. He was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment on the one charge; he was sentenced to six months imprisonment upon each of the other charges on which he was convicted, all sentences to run concurrently. The period of six months for the first three charges has now expired. The period of eighteen months is the sentence which he is serving, and that sentence will not expire until next June. He was also charged upon the same occasion with riot and with unlawful wounding. He was charged with riot because walking in the procession were certain ex-British soldiers wearing small Union Jacks and poppies. He tore out of the lapels of their coats the poppies and the Union Jacks, and that is the whole foundation of the Deputy's statement that he was charged for challenging the right to flaunt the Union Jack. And yet even upon that count, the count of riot, he was not convicted; the jury disagreed. Upon the other charge, the charge of stabbing one of these ex-soldiers in the shoulder, though a dagger was found in his possession, the jury also disagreed. So now let it be known; Deputies must know it, and I hope we will never in this House have that fable repeated again, which has been repeated so often, that Gilmore is serving a term of imprisonment for challenging the flaunting of the Union Jack in Dublin.

A DEPUTY

It is a fact, though.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

He is serving a term of imprisonment at the present moment under somewhat curious circumstances. He effected from Mountjoy, under arms, the escape of prisoners. That is the term of imprisonment that is now being carried out on him, and never at any time was he suffering imprisonment for this attempted riot on the question of the Union Jacks. Another statement was made by Deputy Ruttledge, and here his language became most extraordinarily strong. He declared that cruelty was being practised upon Gilmore in Mountjoy.

Mr. G. BOLAND

So there was.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

That statement is untrue.

Mr. G. BOLAND

So there was.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

That statement has no foundation.

Mr. G. BOLAND

Will the Minister allow an indepenlent investigation?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

That statement, I say, is without any foundation. Never was there a single act of cruelty on that man at any time since he has been in Mountjoy.

Mr. G. BOLAND

There was.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

The Deputy, of course, thinks he knows all. Might I ask the source of the Deputy's information?

Mr. G. BOLAND

The Minister took good care to keep any opportunity of investigating it from the public.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The question of the treatment of prisoners is not raised by this motion at all. Deputy Ruttledge just touched upon it, and the Minister touched upon it, too. The question in the motion is a different question altogether, and surely the more calmly we can discuss it the better for the prisoners.

Mr. GOREY

The prisoners do not count.

Mr. MacENTEE

That is your opinion.

Mr. GOREY

You are only using them.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

I will leave the question of Gilmore and come on to the other names that the Deputy mentioned. They are entirely irrelevant to the subject of this motion, because the motion is to review the cases of all prisoners. These men, Russell and Price, are not prisoners. Russell and Price are charged with offences. They were brought before a court the other day. The question was as to whether these gentlemen were mute of malice or mute by the act of God, and the jury failed to agree.

Mr. CORRY

Are they in jail or are they only visitors?

Further interruptions.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am not going to give Deputy Corry any further opportunity of interrupting. I am getting a little tired of Deputy MacEntee with regard to the Judges. He continues deliberately to break the rules of the House, which he knows. The Deputy knows what he is doing. He really ought not to do it.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

These two men were brought forward for trial. The trial proved abortive. They must only wait until they are tried again. They are not prisoners.

Mr. LEMASS

They are only in prison.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

They are not prisoners in the proper sense of the word. Deputies always think that arguments can be answered by laughter.

A DEPUTY

We know the proper and improper sense of that word.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

We know that is the best argument you could put forward.

Mr. SMITH

You should send them over to visit their friends in America.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

That is brilliant. I did not think Deputy Smith would be capable of such a magnificently brilliant remark. I am sure he has raised himself for all time in the opinion of the House by his magnificent humour. I have dealt with the names that Deputy Ruttledge mentioned. These were the only few cases on which the Deputy based his suggestion that a committee should be set up. I submit to this House that a weaker case could not be put forward. All he could summon up was five or six men. Not one of them can be said to have ever been sentenced. These are the men whose cases the Deputy brings up here. How they are called "political" passes my comprehension. Deputy Ruttledge did not stop there, but went a great deal further. He made charges of partial administration of the law, but gave no instances. He also reiterated charges which he made here earlier. I am glad he has done so, because I am in a position to explain to the House the cases he referred to. I would like to recall to the memory of the House that in November, 1924, an amnesty resolution was passed in the Dáil. That was an amnesty for all criminal acts committed, or alleged to have been committed, between the 6th of December, 1921, and the 12th day of May, 1923. Under that amnesty a huge number of people were liberated from internment camps. A great number of prisoners whose acts arose out of the war were amnestied. I have a list of some of them here.

A DEPUTY

Is McPeake amongst them?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

He was not, but there were many others. I will not read out the names unless the House wishes to have them. Here is a case of three years' penal servitude. Lennon is the name. He was sentenced on the 4th July, 1924, and released in November, 1924; Kyne, sentenced to ten years' penal servitude on the 9th of July, 1924, and released in November, 1924; Fitzsimons, sentenced to twelve months' hard labour in July, 1924, and released in November, 1924; Cooke, sentenced July, 1924, to 18 months' hard labour, and released November, 1924.

Mr. LEMASS

What were the offences for which they were sentenced?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

Certain robberies and raids for goods. Lennon was charged with the robbery of a bank at Bagnalstown. He was sentenced to three years' penal servitude, of which he only served from July to November. John Morrissey, charged with robbery by force from a postman, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on 27th October, 1924, and served until 26th November, 1924. Trainor was charged with the robbery of a bank at Monaghan and sentenced to five years' penal servitude. He served from July, 1924, to February, 1925. I could go through a long list, but I do not want to weary the House. I think I have quoted sufficient to show that men whose views and actions have been hostile and inimical to the State were released from prison when the amnesty was passed. I may also remind the House that a special court was set up by statute to consider the sentences which had been passed by courts-martial. I will now deal with the specific cases to which Deputy Ruttledge has alluded.

Mr. BRISCOE

Might I ask the Minister for an explanation before he reads any further. He referred to four distinct cases of men sentenced for offences and released as a result of the Amnesty Act of 1924. I understood the Minister to say that the Amnesty Act covered offences in the period up to 1923, and that the offences of these four men whose names he read were committed subsequent to the passing of that Act, or, at least, in 1924.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

They were committed after May, 1923, with the exception of McPeake.

Mr. BRISCOE

So that the acts were committed subsequent to the Act?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

Subsequent to 1923. There was no Indemnity Act. This is the Indemnity Resolution passed by the Dáil, under the terms of which the prisoners were released. In addition, there was a special statute by which a court was set up to investigate the cases of men who had been tried by military courts.

I might also say that there was a great number of men in prison at the time awaiting trial who were released. There was also a great number of men who were awaiting trial on bail, and in whose cases a nolle prosequi was entered. That means that the proceedings against them were dropped. In 1923 a wiping of the slate clear was made as far as possible.

Mr. LEMASS

In justice to the men whose names were read out, might I say that the Minister's information is not correct. The offences were committed in 1922. I know that of personal knowledge. It is a fact in the case of Séamus Lennon.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

Certainly.

Mr. LEMASS

In the case of Séamus Lennon, he could go to the manager of a bank and get a thousand pounds on his signature.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

I read out the names of those who were amnestied under the Amnesty Resolution because their offences were committed before 1923. I hope that I have made myself clear to the Deputy. As to the names which Deputy Ruttledge read out, with the exception of McPeake, they were all offences committed after that date.

Mr. G. BOLAND

You admitted to the House 1922.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

Deputy Ruttledge started off with the case of Lieutenant Larkin and said he was convicted of the murder of an old man and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. Larkin was not convicted of murder, but of manslaughter. He was sentenced to eight years' penal servitude. His was one of the cases which fell under the Amnesty Resolution. The Deputy said, as regards the case of Lieutenant Green, that he was convicted of murder, and after being sentenced to death had his sentence commuted to fifteen years' penal servitude. The Deputy said "of course he was let out after two years." As a matter of fact, Green's sentence was reviewed under the Indemnity Act of 1923 and on the order of the Judges who constituted the court he was discharged from prison in 1924. So it was on the order of that court under the Indemnity Act of 1923, and not by any action of the Executive Council, that he was released.

The next case the Deputy mentions was that of Private Gordon. He says that Private Gordon was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, that his sentence was commuted to penal servitude for fifteen years, and that he was let out after two years. As a matter of fact Gordon was convicted of murder. He was sentenced to death, but it was commuted by the Commissioners appointed under the Indemnity Act of 1923. They recommended a reduction of the sentence to three years' penal servitude which the prisoner duly served and was then discharged from prison. Gordon was a sergeant in the National Army. He had a quarrel with a fellow sergeant and shot him dead. Gordon really wanted to frighten his fellow sergeant, and in pointing a revolver was not aware that it was loaded. It was the Commissioners appointed under the Indemnity Act who, in fact, commuted his sentence to one of three years which he served. The Deputy said that Lieutenant McQuaid of the Free State Army was similarly convicted. The Deputy means, I suppose, similarly convicted of murder. He also referred to the cases of Lieutenant McNally and Sergeant-Major Kiernan. McQuaid, McNally and Kiernan were not convicted of murder, but of conspiracy to murder and for endeavouring to carry out that conspiracy. McQuaid served two years and two months. The offence was committed in 1922. He did not fire a shot. Francis McNally was convicted of the same offence. He was sentenced to seven years, and released under the prerogative of mercy on the 23rd December, 1925.

Kiernan was released after serving three years and two months. These were not cases of murder, but cases of attempted murder and of conspiracy to murder. The offences were committed during a very disturbed time in the country. All these men served substantial terms of imprisonment and to say that that was giving a licence to commit murder appears to be rather extravagant speech.

I come now to the Deputy's other case, that of Hardy, who was convicted of robbery under arms. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment on the 18th November, 1924. He was released on the 18th of June, 1926, having served a term of one year and seven months. Hardy was regarded by the State as being a ring-leader in the holdup at Portobello, but later on it appeared that the sum of money stolen was found upon another person who bore a very strong resemblance to Hardy. It appears quite possible, rather probable, that in Hardy's case there was a mistake of identity. Now if there were reasonable grounds for thinking that a mistake in identity had been made, it would have been entirely wrong of the Executive Council at that time not to act upon that probability that a mistake had been made.

I need not go into the facts of the various cases. Deputy Ruttledge at no time, in the course of his speech was kind enough to mention any of the sources of his information. I think I have already shown that in a great number of cases his information is entirely inaccurate. He is mistaken in thinking that this man Hardy was an agent provocateur. I would like very much to know the evidence on which that statement rests. After all, the name of the man has been mentioned in this House. I take it that the Deputy who mentioned the name considers that he has a public duty not to make such charges lightly. I heard a mere statement by Deputy Ruttledge, but I did not hear any suggestion by him as to the nature of the evidence on which he made the statement.

Mr. G. BOLAND

We will give the information later on.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

I now move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.