I had hoped that a resumption of the debate would not have been necessary, because on Friday the Minister, when he spoke, seemed to recognise the peculiar characteristics of this problem—to be anxious to attack it, not as a politician, but as a statesman. Several times he approached it in a statesmanlike way, but I suppose, backed by the fact that he had to maintain the conventional official attitude, he began to surround himself with reservations and conditions which made the overtures he appeared to be willing to make, useless. I submit that the enforcement of a penalty, the maintenance of an official attitude, the justification of things that have been done in the past on either side, are very secondary things in this matter. What we are out to secure, if we possibly can, is the restoration of a feeling of friendship —it need not be political friendship— corporate friendship, and good fellowship between all the people and every section of the community in the State. That is what is necessary in order that the humble individuals among us may be able to earn their daily bread in peace and security, and the only justification for any measure, punitive or merciful, is that it should bring about those conditions. I would ask the Minister for once to override the official convention.
What is the crime for which these men are suffering, if it is a crime— there may be doubts about it? We will admit, at any rate, that in the ordinary eyes of the law, in the strict sense of the word, it is an offence to escape from prison. But, after all, I think that is an offence that none of us would be certain that, if we were similarly situated, we would not commit. If any of the Ministers or Deputies who have ever been in prison were placed in a similar situation with the prison doors thrown open, would they not have walked out in exactly the same way as these men? And if they had been hunted with all the persistence of the law; if they had been hunted for three years, would they not think, at the end of that time, that they had sufficiently expiated whatever offences they had been originally imprisoned for? That is the case I want to put to the Minister. If there is a punishment, one of the purposes of it is that it should be a deterrent, and the other purpose is, I suppose, that it should be commensurate with the offence.
Some of the men who escaped on this occasion were involved in very minor charges indeed. One was an old man bordering on seventy years of age. He had been questioned by the Civic Guard in connection with the use that had been made of his motorcar. The Guards refused to believe him and he lost his temper and may have made some hasty answers to the Guards, which gave them the excuse for arresting him. That man has been harried and harassed for over three years, and I think if you begin to consider, you will find that in the case of every person involved his offence is a very simple one.
The sufferings that these men have endured in the past three years, I submit, have served the practical end of justice, and the only thing that remains to be done is that the Government, recognising that fact, should act upon it and should say, without more ado, that those men, if they have committed crime, have been punished, have purged their wrong-doing, and let them go home. Let them go home, and let them place themselves, if you like, at your disposal when they go home. They will do that. But surely it is not necessary that you should go further, all the time having at the back of your mind that when you have gone further by arresting them, you do not propose again to imprison them. Do not go further with the empty formality, if you like, of arresting these men and hauling them to prison, simply, as it were, to humiliate them and then to release them. Surely the law, if it is the law you are seeking to vindicate, will be much better served by you, who have the power of exercising the quality of mercy, if you like, and of charity and toleration which are at your disposal. I think that that is very much the better way of dealing with this matter.
Any man who has been on the run for three years, who has the responsibility of a household, who is the father of a family, or the support of a mother or father, who gets an opportunity of going back again to pursue his ordinary daily business, is not going lightly to jeopardise the feeling of security that for the first time in three years will be his. The man who can for the first time in three years sleep easily in his bed at night, who can walk freely through the streets in the daytime, is not going to abuse this toleration, if you extend it to him now. When you have that consideration before you, and the fact that, as I said before, whatever offence there has been has been expiated in suffering and in anxiety; when you have the fact that your toleration, if you extend it, will not be abused, and when you have, above all, the changed circumstances of these times, I submit that instead of trying to solve this matter by the method of legal logic-chopping, you ought to make this gesture, make it for once, and if it is abused, you at least will have the justification that you have made it. Make it for once; let these men all go back; do not ask from them any formal retraction of the things they said in the past; do not ask them to humiliate themselves in any formal way; depend rather more upon, as I said before, the changed circumstances of the time, on the fact that 1928 is not 1925; on the fact that men who thought there was no other way can see opening before them another way, can see in the gradual accession of strength to the Party which we represent the possibility that they will be able to achieve their ends and their ideals without recourse to arms—depend upon that to give and to restore to this State that peace which is so vital to its welfare.