That all depends on the Deputy's memory as to what I said. I have not found the memory of Deputies so correct in other cases. It may be a question of the Deputy being obstinate, but the proof is not here. Patrick Ryan, at any rate, is a man charged with ordering two people to leave a particular county and these two people were to be executed if they failed to obey. That takes place in 1925, and we are asked to regard these people as political prisoners. When is this idea of an armed force against unarmed men going to leave the country? In the early part of 1925 we are not supposed to have reached the stage at which this thing is not regarded as intolerable and the man brought up and convicted for that offence is going now to have his case investigated by a Committee of this House, all Committees of this House having previously been tarnished by Deputy de Valera as deciding matters on Party lines. We are to have such a question as this man's, a question of threatened violence, where a case has been tried by a judge and jury, to be reviewed now by a Committee of Deputies.
David Reck is connected with the case of Ryan. When Ryan was being conveyed to Waterford Prison two armed men entered the railway station at Palace East and rescued him from the escort. Reck was identified as one of the rescue party. That was a rescue effected under arms in March, 1925. That is therefore put up as a political question. Again, when is the line to be drawn—at what date? Are we to have it for the future that armed rescues can be attempted and possibly achieved, and, if people are convicted for that, there is going to be a Committee of Deputies of this House set up to review the offence and the sentence on people convicted by a jury and sentenced by a judge Are we again to have to admire the courage of people who carried out these armed rescues, and are we to consider the whole event as a political event and a subject for a Committee of this House, and that the person who carried out this rescue is worthy of having his sentence reviewed and a portion of it remitted?
These took place in 1925, a considerable period away from the events of 1921 and 1922. There are the other cases of Lee and Fenlon, which were mentioned the last day. These men were awaiting trial. Certain offences were charged against them, but their escape was effected. I do not propose to give any statement in regard to them further than stating that the charge was against them, as, if they are recaptured, they will have to stand their trial on particular charges. Certain charges are hanging over them. Is it proposed that a Committee of Deputies should be set up to say that people awaiting trial, no matter what offences were charged against them, should be considered as political prisoners, and, I presume, in these cases, released because no sentence was passed upon them and there was no question of a sentence to be modified? The question of Donnelly could be put up with the cases of Carolan, O'Hara and O'Byrne. Again, it was an arrest—although the date is a little more material in this case—on the 13th November, 1925. The date is material for matters on which I have to speak later. He also was awaiting trial, but it was for being a member of an illegal organisation, and in relation to that charge he was not convicted. That case ought to go with the cases of Carolan, O'Hara and O'Byrne.
Then we have the case of Russell. Is anyone going to demand that his case should be treated as that of a political prisoner when one considers his recent attitude towards the court? He was not convicted. He was awaiting trial not merely on the charge of escaping, but on the original charge. He showed a particular attitude towards the court. While that attitude is persisted in, will that case be selected as one requiring further review, and should that person be removed from all chance of trial? Norton was the last case of the sixteen. He was awaiting trial and was not sentenced. The charge was that he took part in an illegal court. The gravamen of the charge was that an illegal court was to try a former member of a particular organisation who was charged with surrendering ammunition. This other man was courtmartialed, and Norton was one of his judges. These are the Mountjoy cases about which so much has been made. It has been definitely put to the Dáil that the only thing against these men was that they escaped. That in itself is an offence, but no one wants to press it at the moment. There are other offences in connection with them. Some were convicted and some were awaiting trial. These charges are sufficiently serious as not to have this House say in a light-hearted manner—simply because people say it will promote peace and unity—we should have no further court investigation of these cases which it is suggested should be reviewed by a Committee of the Dáil.
Every one of these cases might form the subject of review, but it is suggested that we should have the scope of the review limited to those that are called political prisoners. In so far as the Mountjoy prisoners are concerned, there might be four of them who could, if one got certain assurances, be regarded as definitely political cases, or having a political tinge, and for whom it might be worth while adopting the view contained in the resolution. I find some difficulty in going into other cases opened up here, because I cannot find any evidence that the mover of the resolution, or the Party associated with him, has any clear idea concerning the particular people whose cases are wanted to be brought under the scope of review. Deputy Ruttledge was on a deputation to the Minister for Justice some time ago on this question of political prisoners. That has been referred to here. There is no reason why it should not be referred to now. The release of prisoners was spoken of, and later we had this motion and certain cases were put up as typical. Deputy Ruttledge was careful, when speaking of Stephen Murtagh, to say that that was his first case and that there were other cases he did not want to mention, leaving an unlimited field to the Committee to inquire into.
In addition, we got a much bigger list of people in the journal—I believe it is the official organ of Fianna Fáil— who are considered to be political. Where are we in regard to these prisoners? Is there to be no finality about men whose cases are to be brought for review? Is the motion deliberately framed in such a wide way as to enable anyone who wishes to claim an inquiry to say that they are political cases, or whether there can be a decision as to whether there is a political tinge about their activities. Deputy Ruttledge dragged in—I can get the quotation if necessary—the cases of prisoners in English jails, and probably also those in Northern Ireland, but at the deputation to the Minister for Justice no mention was made of prisoners other than those in jails in the Free State. I think it is clearly recognised in this House that the Government did very definitely advert to the cases of men held in jails outside this country for what were clearly political offences, and they used considerable effort and achieved success in getting those described as political prisoners released at varying periods. Although the deputation to the Minister for Justice made no mention of prisoners outside this country we get the speech of the mover of the resolution referring in a vague way to political prisoners held in English and Scottish jails and probably also in Northern Ireland. As I say, no indication was given then of that matter.
If we are to add the much wider list published elsewhere—the names are given—of people outside the country to those officially given by Fianna Fáil at the deputation, it should be pointed out that no mention was made of any cases outside the Free State at that deputation. On that point I would like to repeat that the Executive Council have long since disposed of all cases which seem to them to be political cases in which prisoners were held outside the Free State: Deputy Ruttledge has referred in this, as in previous debates, to cases in which the prerogative of mercy was exercised, and for his purpose, as was naturally right considering his purpose, he segregated out certain officers and men of the National Forces and made the statement in his first speech at the first meeting in this Dáil that so-and-so was convicted of something and was sentenced to a number of years' penal servitude, and was released on a certain date. Some of these dates have since been corrected, and in one case Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Ruttledge admitted that it was not correct and it was withdrawn. In some cases, however, incorrect statements were made about sentences and the dates of release. The Minister for Justice has gone into these cases and has shown, where mercy was exercised, that it was exercised in the ordinary way. They are the cases of prisoners which came up for review by the Executive Council from time to time, and certain circumstances had to be taken into consideration and some of these men had mercy extended to them. In the case of some of these men they were dealt with by a commission of judges appointed under the Amnesty Resolution passed by the Dáil. We have not heard of others who got the benefit of that resolution. The speeches, as delivered, have always set out to make it appear to this House that mercy was extended only to people serving on one side and that the full penalty was insisted on in regard to anybody else. There are cases which disprove that.
The case of James Lennon was already mentioned. He was sentenced in July, 1924, for the robbery of a bank at Bagnalstown. He was sentenced to five years' penal servitude, but was released in November, 1924, under the Amnesty Resolution, having served five months of his sentence. Martin Kyne was convicted of robbing, under arms, £10,000 from the Tuam Branch of the Bank of Ireland. On the 9th July, 1924, a sentence was imposed by the court of ten years' penal servitude. He was released on the 26th November, 1924, after serving five months of his sentence. A man called Fitzsimons, who raided premises in Mullingar, was convicted on the 15th July, 1924, and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. He was released in November, 1924, having served five months. Patrick Cook burned property belonging to the Civic Guards at Granard, and on the 14th July, 1924, was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. He was released in November, 1924, having served five months.
