Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 May 1929

Vol. 30 No. 1

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 31.—Office of the Minister for Justice.—(Resumed.)

Motion made:—"That a sum not exceeding £25,869 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st day of March, 1930, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice."—(The President.)

Debate resumed on motion: "That the Estimates be referred back for reconsideration."—(Mr. Ruttledge.)

Mr. Little

In speaking on this motion, I quoted Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution. I pointed out that there had been a breach of Article 6 by the Minister for Justice, that he had illegally arrested people, and that that had been proved by trials in court. The judge, in giving judgment, said that no proof had been adduced to show that these people had been lawfully arrested. We may take it that if these officers had proof they would certainly have produced it, and if those arrests were capable of being proved lawful, proof would have been forthcoming. It was not forthcoming, and the findings of the jury in two cases prove that that also was the layman's and the citizen's point of view—that those people were unlawfully arrested. Further than that, the Ministry saw itself that it was not able to sustain its attitude, because in a third case it entered a nolle prosequi. If the Ministry of Justice had proof that these people were legally arrested, they were wrong in entering a nolle prosequi. They cannot have it both ways. They entered a nolle prosequi because they saw they had done something unlawful, had been found out and could not continue that line of conduct. The Minister for Justice constantly asks us to take legal action in these matters to get a decision in the courts. Here you have just exactly what the Minister was asking for, in more senses than one. He has got a decision of the courts, and it is now for the House to decide whether they are going to allow this breach of the Constitution to pass with impunity. It has an opportunity on this Vote of registering its total disapproval of the unconstitutional action of the Government. They are the unconstitutional people. They are the people, because they desert their Constitution, who are the causes mainly of the disturbances in the country. Their own officials have said as much, as has already been pointed out by Deputy Lemass in quoting the words of some C.I.D. men, that they were going to drive some of these people they arrested into taking violent action.

With regard to Article 7, which purports to protect the homes and the premises of citizens, when I asked the Minister whether raids had been made on premises without warrants his answer was in the negative. I have personal evidence to the contrary. I happened to go into 27 Dawson Street myself on business, and a number of C.I.D. men came into the premises. They went upstairs into a particular room, and I got curious and followed them. I asked them what they were doing there, and they said they were conducting a raid. I asked them to show their warrant, and they had no warrant to show. I asked who was in charge and I was given the name. I took down the name and the status from the card.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Who lives in No. 27?

Mr. Little

There are several offices.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Whose is the one which was being raided?

Mr. Little

The one that was being raided was the Sinn Fein offices.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

And the Deputy was there?

Mr. Little

I was there. I often go into those premises on business. I happened to see them going in and I asked, as I was entitled to ask, the name of the officer in command. The name of the officer was Michael David and his number was 12548. He said he was in command. When they were not able to produce warrants, they said they were acting under instructions and they would go back and seek further instructions, which they did, on the 'phone. They then came back and said that as they were not able to find the person they were looking for, they were to withdraw. That was on the 23rd March. There had been raids on these premises on the previous Thursday and Friday when everybody was arrested. There were raids on Monday, 25th March, when, I am informed, there was no warrant produced. There was a raid on the 3rd April and no warrant was produced. There was a raid on the 4th April, and there was a warrant produced. On Saturday, 6th April, one stray C.I.D. man wandered into the office and was greatly disconcerted to find that there was no raid on. Something went wrong. On Monday, 8th April, there was a raid which lasted from 11.30 to 2 o'clock. On the 12th there was another raid. On that occasion the officers were Messrs. Kirwan and Pluck——

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the Deputy should not give the names; it does not make any difference to his argument.

Mr. Little

No, they were merely carrying out official instructions.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible.

Mr. Little

I am not attacking them personally.

An Ceann Comhairle

The names are better not mentioned in any case.

Mr. Little

Perhaps I should not have mentioned them in this case. But they refused to produce cards on application. They had no warrant, and said there was no one in charge. On the 18th there was a raid with a warrant, and I believe there have been raids since. Now the answer which the Minister gave to the House shows the total unreliability of his own information. I need not stress the aspect of it that this action was totally unconstitutional—just as much as the other action was. These raids were sometimes carried out under circumstances of brutality, as for instance, when Miss Albinia Brodrick, who is not a young woman, was treated very brutally in the open street. A shop girl who happened to be looking on had to go into a shop as she got sick. I suppose that these people rely upon the conscientious objection of certain individuals to take action in the courts. They think they can wreak their vengeance and their brutality on certain individuals because these individuals have an objection, even in their own defence, to make use of the courts. That has been the action of the Department of Justice during those two months. Fortunately, it seems to have slackened down its pace more recently, but during that period we have had arrests, without charge, of persons up to the number of 150. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am under-stating it. Then there was detention without food. No food was supplied to those prisoners in the Bridewell, although, according to the regulations, every prisoner is entitled to two meals per day. There was detention without exercise, and, of course, there were illegal detentions. Some persons were arrested eight or nine times. Patrick Kirk was arrested nine times. Geoffrey Coulter was arrested seven times. Proinnsias O Riain was arrested thirteen or fourteen times. Peter McAndrew was arrested six times. John J. Tallon was arrested four times. J. Sugrue was arrested five times. Thomas Carey was arrested six times. Charles Carey was arrested seven or eight times. Charles O'Neill was arrested four times, and many others were arrested several times. It is unnecessary for me. I think, to go further. If the Minister wished he could give us full details of the conduct of his Department. At least he says he could, but so thoroughly unconstitutional is he and his Department that he will not even report here to the House which is supposed to control him and his Department.

These raids, without warrants, occurred, amongst others, in the houses of Mrs. O'Neill, 31 Merchants' Quay; Mrs. P. O'Donnell, 39 Marlboro' Road, Donnybrook; Mrs. Despard, Roebuck House, Clonskeagh; Mrs. O'Carroll, Rathfarnham; Mrs. Coyle, 58 Aughrim Street; Mrs. Sweeney, Cullenswood House, Ranelagh, and also in the public offices of Comhairle na Phoblachta. In some of those cases methods of what is known as third degree interrogation were indulged in, although none of those persons have been charged with any crime. Some of them were treated in a manner which can only be described as third degree, such as Sean Purcell and Christopher Murphy, Fianna Eireann, Cork; James Markey, Dublin, and Maurice Walsh. Purcell and Murphy briefly state the facts as follows:— Together with Sean O'Leary, Kevin Bullen and Sean Breathnach, Scouts Purcell and Murphy were arrested in Prince's Street, Cork, about seven p.m. on the 3rd of April. They were brought to Union Quay barracks. In the barracks no charge was preferred against them. Bullen refused to sit down. He was pushed into a seat by a C.I.D. man who was urged by another C.I.D. man, whose name I can also give to the Minister, to knock him down. Breathnach also refused to sit down, whereupon he was struck twice on the head by another C.I.D. man, whose name I can also give to the Minister. The prisoners were then put into separate cells, from which they were subsequently brought singly, to be interrogated and searched. Amongst the C.I.D. present at the search were —here I have a list of names which I can supply to the Minister any time he wishes to hold a proper inquiry into the matter. Murphy, who is a mere youth, was asked how long he had been in the Fianna. On refusing to answer he was struck by a C.I.D. man and told "he would be drowned that night." A badge of the Confraternity of Angels, a religious confraternity, was taken from his coat and kicked around the floor. Another C.I.D. man took the boy into a room, away from the other C.I.D. men, and told him that he would force him to divulge information about the Fianna and threatened to put him into a dark dungeon. They then tried to entice Murphy by promising him a comfortable position if he gave information. Purcell was told by the C.I.D. man that he would have him branded so that he would be known again. Another C.I.D. man, whose name I have, threatened to shoot him, and assured him that those who would do the murder would not be known. After five hours' detention the boys were released. The following statement was made by James Markey, 25 Upper Wellington Street, Dublin:—

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely the Deputy could discuss the policy of the Minister without going into details of particular cases?

Mr. Little

It is necessary, I think, to give concrete details and evidence of the general indictment, because it might be said against us that these were vague charges that were not substantiated by my statements.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have allowed the Deputy to give details of one particular case. The Deputy will realise that on this particular Estimate and on this particular type of amendment that we are now discussing, we are rather concerned with the Minister's policy than with an examination of particular incidents. While I agree that certain incidents must necessarily be mentioned in order to prove what the Deputy calls the general indictment, still I think his speech should not consist mainly of a recital of particular incidents.

Mr. Little

I am in a difficulty. I do not want to delay the House longer than is necessary in these matters, but I think it is fair to mention specific cases, and in doing so I will be as brief as I can.

An Ceann Comhairle

It would be better if the Deputy would summarise.

Mr. Little

This James Markey, of Upper Wellington Street, was interrogated by detective officers. He refused to give information, and then he was asked to give a written undertaking that he would not take part in a conspiracy. He did not believe he was taking part in a conspiracy, and he refused to sign. Maurice Walsh was another who was treated in a like manner. He was also asked to give an undertaking, and he refused to do so. The method adopted in these cases was to keep the persons for a long period in solitary confinement, and then suddenly confront them with the statement that they were taking part in a conspiracy, and attempts were made to get from them information which they refused to give. Then there were cases of assaults by the C.I.D. Some of these were mentioned already. I have the names of seven: John Hassett and Michael Cahill, whose affidavits have been read already: T.J. Ryan, Cranny; Patrick Burke, Carhue, Cooraclare; Patrick Cahill, Carhue, Cooraclare; Martin Whyte, Cahermane, Lisdoonvarna; "Sonny" Breen, Deryshane, Coolmeen. Mr. Ryan, who is a veteran of the Tan War, was subjected to persistent persecution. I do not wish to detain the House any longer than I can help, but he made an affidavit, a portion of which I will read.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. Little

About 10 p.m. on the 2nd March, C.I.D. man—— (I can give the Minister the name), followed by four others, entered the house of Patrick Burke, Carhue, Cooraclare. Burke was in bed. Mrs. Burke and Pat Cahill were sitting by the fire. The C.I.D. man questioned and searched Cahill, striking him a violent blow in the stomach with his clenched fist. Two C.I.D. men then rushed into the room, where Burke was in the act of rising from his bed. (Burke is nearly 70 years of age). He asked them: "What do you want?" One of the C.I.D. men threw him back on the bed and held him while another C.I.D. man struck him repeatedly with his clenched fist. Both the C.I.D. men beat him about the head and shoulders, his head and lips being cut and bleeding. His daughter tried to intervene, and one of the C.I.D. men struck her several times on the head. Burke, clad only in his shirt, was dragged, kicked and beaten downstairs and out through the yard to the public road.

One of the C.I.D. men said on that occasion: "I admit we are worse than the Black and Tans, but we must do something to earn our pound a day." Another C.I.D. man said: "Send this to ‘An Phoblacht' now." The victim of this particular raid, Patrick Burke, is nearly 70 years of age, and is the father of Commandant Burke who fell in the war against the Tans. Similar brutal treatment was meted out to Martin Whyte. In the presence of a witness (Mr. Mack) a certain C.I.D. man struck him several times on the head. kicked him, and dragged him down the road into a field. The C.I.D. men kept him for half an hour in a quarry, where they questioned him and beat and kicked him. He was a week in bed under the care of Dr. Pearson. I can supply the names of the C.I.D. men concerned in this. A man named "Sonny" Breen was treated in a similar manner by C.I.D. men. They seized a poster announcing a commemoration to be held at the grave of Padraig Hassett who was killed in the Tan war, and they asked Breen where he got it. Refusing to answer, they dragged him out of the house, asking him: "Are you one of the men that is ready to die for Ireland?" A scarf was twisted tightly round his neck, half hanging him, and he was dragged about by the hair and by one ear. Blood streamed from his ear. He was then kicked into the house.

Then there were cases of kidnapping and torturing. Patrick Fox, of Summerhill, Dublin, was kidnapped near the Bridewell gate by masked men on the night of March 21st. He was taken out of the city, and in a lonely field was beaten and threatened with death because he would not divulge information about the Republican organisation. Charles Carey, of Northbrook Avenue, Dublin, was similarly kidnapped and tortured on the night of March 22nd. These details were sent to the public Press, but the public Press would not publish them, and would not even publish the resolution passed by the Dublin Trades Council protesting against action of this sort. I do not know whether the Minister would take notice of democratic bodies like that, but he might at least take the view of such protests that they do not come from any party interested directly or politically in the matter. Of course, the Minister has already stated his attitude towards juries in Ireland. On a famous occasion he said: "I personally pay no attention to the verdict of a jury."

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I did not. I said I paid no attention to the verdict of a jury when a jury had been canvassed or intimidated. Will the Deputy not stop in the middle of a sentence?

Mr. Little

The interpretation we are entitled to put upon that——

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Is to stop in the middle of a sentence.

Mr. Little

Is to say the Minister takes no notice of the verdict of a jury when it does not give the kind of verdict he likes.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

No. Circulars were sent around to jurors intimidating them.

Mr. Little

I do not take Irish jurors to be made of stuff such as that, and when circulars are sent round to them, they are prepared to act on what they believe to be fair conduct in matters of that sort. I am not going to accept the Minister's interpretation of the conduct of an Irish jury. It is very like the interpretation put on juries by Peter the Packer and his successors.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that does not arise on this Vote?

Mr. Little

Which does not arise?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The conduct of juries.

Mr. Little

I am sorry. It was in reference to the attitude of the Minister in expressing the Department's view of Irish jurymen that I raised the matter as something which deserves the attention of the Government.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

By misquoting.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I hope the Deputy is not going to comment on this Vote on every statement made by the Minister for Justice.

Mr. Little

I agree that it would be a very severe line to take. The fact of the matter is that so far as the sufferings of these victims are concerned, they remind one of a French saying, that the suffering of other people is only a dream. So far as the Minister is concerned, the suffering that these people go through is a mere dream to him. In fact, a considerable amount of what goes on in that Department appears to be a dream.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Pure imagining.

Mr. Little

For instance, when a prominent official of his Department resigned, the story is widely known and well authenticated that several months after he had resigned he went to see the Minister, and discovered that the Minister did not know he had resigned. Apparently, he had never even seen the letter or forgot all about it. The person I refer to is the State Prosecutor.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

What State prosecutor?

Mr. Little

Mr. Carrigan.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Mr. Carrigan was not appointed by me at all. He is responsible to the Attorney-General, and appointed by the Attorney-General, as the Deputy very well knows.

Mr. Little

Although he had sent notice to the Minister's Department several months earlier the Minister knew nothing about it.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

No, he sent no notice to my Department. It is the Attorney-General appoints him. My Department is not concerned at all in the matter, and the Deputy knows it.

Mr. T. Sheehy (Cork):

This is only small skirmishing.

Mr. Little

It is only an interlude, I admit, as compared with the more serious matters we have been discussing. Those who defend the policy of the Department of Justice do so in the name of law, order, and majority rule. By what majority of the Irish people was it decided that the Union Jack was to be flaunted to such an extent that it exasperated certain sections? By what dictate of prudence or of law and order was this emblem, which is fresh in the minds of the people as having been steeped in the blood of men like Pearse, Connolly and Casement, allowed to wave in the country? Would the police in Berlin allow the French flag to be flaunted in Berlin, or would the police in Paris allow the German flag to be flaunted in Paris?

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

made a remark.

Mr. Little

There was a time when the Deputy who has interrupted took a different view of things, but a great many things have happened since then.

Mr. O'Sullivan

You did too. Do not forget the leading seven attorneys.

Mr. Little

I do not really know what coherent or intelligent relation that has to the debate. I do not propose to follow the Deputy in his line of conduct.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan)

He is referring to the paper "New Ireland."

Mr. Little

What on earth are you talking about? If the Minister for Agriculture wishes me to bring into this House the article which he wrote in "New Ireland," I shall do it, but I certainly am not going to be down-faced by that particular kind of impudence, even if it comes from a Minister.

Mr. Hogan

I was merely explaining what the Deputy was saying.

Mr. Little

It is impossible to carry on the debate in the ordinary language of civilised human beings with this kind of interruption.

Mr. Flinn

I propose that we throw bricks.

Mr. Little

It would be much the simplest way of doing it.

Mr. Hogan

I beg the Deputy's pardon.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

"Order, order."

Mr. Little

The point I was making is that for a considerable time after any war there is a very exasperated feeling induced, and if the flag of a hostile country is allowed by the police forces to be flaunted in any country, then it is the police who are responsible for the consequences that follow. When the Union Jack is allowed to be flaunted in this country and when Baden-Powell's scouts —Empire Scouts—are allowed to go about, as they are, vaunting the "come back" of British influence in this country, I say that the things that follow, follow inevitably, and it is the Minister for Justice and his Department who are to blame for being lacking in the prudence which would put a stop to the thing at its source and not allow it to get to such a stage that the evil becomes really a great evil.

The Minister for Defence combines us all together—all who profess Republican views are classed together as a set of criminals and murderers. There is no admitting that at all as being the valid attitude of mind of those people who hold that the sovereign nationality, the sovereign right of Ireland is indefeasible and imprescriptable. When, in the peace proposals put forward by Deputy de Valera, he stated as one of his proposals that the sovereign rights of this nation are indefeasible and inalienable——

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

Which war was he alluding to?

Mr. Little

——the President did not deny that proposition.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that has nothing whatever to do with the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Justice. The Deputy is wandering altogether from the Vote.

Mr. Little

I admit that it is getting rather away, but perhaps you will admit that when the Minister for Defence was speaking he also wandered back into the regions of the civil war and took up an attitude which, unless we can follow it, we cannot answer.

Mr. T. Sheehy (Cork)

It is a bit mixed certainly.

Mr. Little

Dogs tied and stones loose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy explain what he means by that?

Mr. Little

What I mean is that I do not wish to attribute to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that he has acted unfairly, but I think that in the course of the debate certain arguments have slipped out on one side, and that owing to the rules of the House it becomes extremely difficult to answer them from the other side.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy explain what he means by saying that he does not allege that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has acted unfairly? Does the Deputy mean that the Chair, irrespective of who occupied it, acted unfairly in this debate?

Mr. Little

I do not suggest that there was any intention of unfairness and I have not any desire to indict the Chair. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle must admit that it very often happens that a Minister, or somebody else, is able to get out a number of arguments which it becomes very difficult for people on the other side to answer, owing to the fact that the ruling is strictly adhered to. I am not suggesting unfairness. I am pleading for certain liberty of action on this side when Ministers have taken advantage of the debate to get out certain arguments that they certainly should not have got out.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it that the Deputy is now suggesting that there is greater freedom given to a Minister by the Chair than to other members of the House. Is that the Deputy's suggestion?

Mr. Little

No. My suggestion is that I want to get as much freedom as the Minister has got.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have come to the conclusion that the Deputy is getting a great deal more.

Mr. Little

Apparently, I cannot follow the Minister for Defence upon this debate. Just another word about the Union Jack episode. There are people in this House who frankly represent that attitude of mind, and I regret that they are not here at present.

Mr. Hogan (Minister)

We are.

Mr. Little

Deputy Thrift, for instance. He holds a very high position in the Freemasons. He is in the 31st or 32nd Degree. I had hoped he would be here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I hope the Deputy will not take that line. It is very undesirable, and the Deputy ought to know that.

Mr. Little

I do not make it as a charge. I mean that it is a well-known fact. I would make an appeal to him, which would be put on record, that as a representative person, representing a substantial body with big influence in this country, he should have——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must realise that Deputy Thrift while in this House represents a constituency.

Mr. Little

Quite so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Irrespective of that, Deputy Thrift is not responsible in any way for this Vote. It is the Minister for Justice.

Mr. Little

The episode of the Union Jack, which has had a great deal to do with certain things that happened in this country, was not discussed. All I wish to say is that while persons who stand for that attitude of mind to the Union Jack should be given as much protection in this country as German nationals would be given by French statesmen, at the same time, for the sake of those foreign nationals in this country, a line of conduct exasperating to the natives is a very unwise line to take. The very people who represent those foreign nationals should be the first to prevent further acts of exasperation resulting from the conduct of people like the C.I.D. We have a motion to refer this Vote back for reconsideration. When that motion has been dealt with, I take it that the Estimate does not become automatically passed, but that we will be able to deal with statements made by the Minister on the main Vote.

Mr. Goulding

There are one or two matters that I would like to clear up on this Vote. Personally, I have found that the members of the Civic Guard act fairly and in an impartial manner. For instance, at the last election they gave me, personally, all fair play. In only one case in the county did they show partiality. I put a question to the Minister at one time with reference to certain members of the force who, I held, should not be in authority in this country, and the reply was not satisfactory.

I wish now to make a statement with reference to certain other members of the force who, I understand, are still members of the Detective Division, and whose presence there, I hold, is a danger to the public peace of this country. I have a statement here. I know the Minister disapproves of my reading statements. He holds that I use these statements for making unfair attacks on the Civic Guards. I do not want to make unfair attacks upon anybody, but I think it only right that the people of this country should get protection against certain people who are supposed to be paid for protecting them, and who, instead of protecting them, treat them violently and unfairly, to put the matter mildly. This statement is rather interesting, and the person who made the statement I am about to read is prepared to substantiate it. Perhaps it will make the matter clear if I read some extracts from the statement. A certain barracks was attacked in Co. Waterford, and the evening afterwards this conversation was overheard in a neighbouring barrack. I am not going to give the names. I can give them to the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy say when this happened?

Mr. Goulding

It happened in November, 1926.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely the Deputy cannot raise it after that interval. He can only raise matters which come within the Vote for the year.

Mr. Goulding

The reason I raise it is that these men are still in the public service and no effort has been made to get rid of them. What happened on that occasion may happen in the near future. I think it is only right that public exposure should be given to this now, and that every effort should be made to get rid of persons of the type to which I refer I shall read the extracts.

"I remember the night the Civic Guard Barrack in Knockanore was raided. I heard Guards ‘A' and ‘B' discussing it the following morning. I asked them was Knockanore raided last night and Guard ‘A' said it was, but it was raided by the detectives themselves. I asked him was he joking and he said ‘No,' that Detectives A, B and C went out and raided it last night and they are gone out now to investigate it and arrest more. They only arrested two men and released them immediately afterwards but gave one of them an awful beating because he would not promise them he would lift his hat to the Guards when he would meet them in future."

A shot was fired through the window of this barrack and in the room at the time was the sergeant's wife. Men were arrested and severely beaten for this supposed barrack-attack by the very men who attacked the barracks, and these men are, I understand, in the detective division still. The letter goes on to say:—"The sergeant at Knockanore reported the raid the following morning. He said he would know the men by their accent, a distinct West Cork one. When he left, the detectives were joking about the matter and said the sergeant would make a very bad detective." The letter goes on:—

"I also remember seeing Superintendent ‘A' at the barracks a few days previous to the inquiry, 22nd November. I heard himself and Guard ‘A' discussing about the inquiry and they seemed to be very upset over it."

This may be interesting to the Minister for Justice:

"They seemed to be very upset over it, and I heard Superintendent ‘A' swear that the Minister for Justice would never have an inquiry into his doings again."

The person said to the guard did he mean that. The man himself answered and said: "Yes, I mean it all right." Now, men who can do this sort of thing should not be in the position to inflict serious damage on their fellow citizens. At the time this thing happened, a number of men were very savagely beaten. One case in Waterford County was brought into the civil courts and damages were awarded against the C.I.D. men concerned, but this case never came into the courts, and the men in this case were just as savagely beaten as in the other case. At one time it was thought that the matter could have been brought into the courts, but the men who were beaten had no money to bring it forward, and when they saw the result of the other case that the damages imposed on the C.I.D. men could not be recovered they asked: "What is the use of our going to law?" The position is, in one case, very painful. A child was born shortly afterwards, and as a result of the savage beating of the man that child is a cripple for life. The very men who talked in this way in the barracks are the very men who act so savagely. Surely if the people are to have confidence in the administration of justice in this country men of that type should not be in the police force, and it is only fair that every effort should be made to have men of steadiness, ordinary decency and common sense in such positions. There are men in the detective division at present who would be a disgrace to any organisation, men who are potential criminals. Until such men are driven out of the force it is very hard to expect people to have any great confidence in them.

I said at the beginning that I wish to bear testimony to a considerable number of the Guards, and I know very many of them acted considerately and are thoroughly ashamed of this sort of work. It is not fair to such men that blackguards of that type should be allowed to remain. Are we to take it that the Minister for Justice condones this sort of thing and that men of this sort are to be allowed to travel over the country terrifying citizens? At present many of those men are stationed in towns in Ireland. They apparently have nothing to do all day but drink. They stand at street corners and if they see a man, whom they know to have Republican views, come along they immediately blackguard him. They realise that they have guns in their pockets and that they can attack him with safety. It is a common practice for them to tap the guns in their pockets when they abuse him, and they say that he must not talk back. Of course, it is unfair to the other men in the force and it is certainly unfair to the citizens of the country. The men who hold Republican views in this country are entitled to hold them, and if, because they hold Republican views, they cannot come in to their towns and transact their business without being insulted as they are, we are a long way from getting justice.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

I would like to say a few words mainly arising out of matters touched on during the course of the debate. At the outset I would like to say that it does not necessarily follow, as was indicated by one speaker on the Government Benches, that anyone who criticises the Vote of the Department of Justice or its policy for the time being is in sympathy with either crime or criminals. It is our duty in this House to make criticisms, as we think necessary from time to time, in regard to this or any other Department. One criticism that I think might be offered and which has not been touched on yet is regarding the failure on the part of the police authorities to trace the people who are responsible for certain grave crimes that were committed in this country within the last two years. I would like to have from the Minister. When he is replying, some explanation regarding that failure, or I would like to know whether he has still any hope that those responsible for the murder of the late Minister for Justice and the commission of the two great crimes in Dublin during the last year are likely to be apprehended and brought to trial.

I think it is due to the House, too, that the Minister should give a full and adequate explanation of the policy which he was following in in regard to these arrests about which we have heard so much during the last two or three months. What was the object to be attained? The Minister must admit that his policy was a very grave departure from the usual practice. We know that the best police force in the world are liable to err and very often err grievously, and the practice of arresting people, detaining them for a certain time and not bringing them to trial undoubtedly leaves itself open to very grave abuse. The Minister, I think, should tell us quite clearly and candidly what object he had in mind and what object he hoped to achieve by adopting the policy of frequent arrests of several people without bringing any charge against them and what steps his Department took to see that there was no abuse. Does he propose to continue that policy, and if it is not proposed to continue it or if it has been dropped what object has it achieved? I think it is due to this House that the Minister should give us some more satisfactory explanation than has yet been offered with regard to these arrests and raids during the past two or three months. In the course of the debate it has transpired very clearly that any criticism that was offered of the police force was confined to one particular section of the police forces. That is the view on all sides of the House. I think it would be well if the Minister would give us some information as to the organisation of the C.I.D. I must confess that I know very little about this force. I understand, quite clearly, the basis on which the ordinary Gárda Síochána are organised and the lines on which they operate.

I must confess that I know precious little about the organisation of the C.I.D. To whom are they responsible, for instance? If members of this force are operating in rural areas, to what particular officer are they responsible? Are they responsible to the sergeant of the district, or to the superintendent of the district, or to their own particular officers? There is a feeling, rightly or wrongly, that they are a body in themselves, with responsibility only to their own officers, that there is in charge of them one officer who is not responsible to anyone except the Department of Justice. I think it is the duty of the Minister to say whether or not that is the case, and, if it is not the case, to tell us exactly what the position is, or how the C.I.D. are organised.

There is another belief pretty common that I would like to mention here. It has been put to me on various occasions that there is one particular section of the detective force for dealing with what is known as ordinary crime and that there is a separate section whose duty it is to deal only with what is called political crime. If there is any such distinction I think it is wrong. If there is not, then the Minister will tell us.

Another point that arose during the debate that I should like some information on is the question of expenses for the defence of officers of the police force when legal actions are taken against them. Is it a fact that if a civilian takes an action against a member of the police force that the legal expenses for the defence of the police officer are borne by the State? If that is so, does it apply to other servants of the State? If an action is taken against a postal official, is he defended by the State or are the resources of the State's legal department placed at his disposal? Does it apply to any other officer of the State, and if it does not, what exactly is the principle behind it in the case of the members of the police force? Perhaps the Minister would explain that to us too.

Much mention has been made here of the action of members of the detective force in regard to men who are their political opponents. I think there is a great deal to be said for the suggestion which has been made by Deputy Lemass, to the effect that there should not be found now in the C.I.D., men who were active participants in certain troubles during the civil war. I think it would be well that men should be in that position, for one reason only, that they are good and efficient officers. I think it should be recognised that we had troubles here during the civil war and that placing men who were active participants on one side in positions in which they are bound to come up against men who were their opponents on the other side, is not a policy which will lead to peace or to that confidence in our police force that people of all shades of politics ought to have. I would very seriously suggest to the Minister the advisability of looking into this question, to see if something could not be done whereby men who were active in the civil war period would not be in positions where they would have to deal with men who were their political or active opponents at that time. We had to recognise that after the Free State was established here, when we had to remove from office—and many held it was wise— officers who were active on the British side. That was done as a matter of policy. It was quite possible that they would have made good officials if they continued in their various departments, but it was considered politic that they should not be allowed to continue. I suggest to the Minister that this is a matter which ought to be investigated, to see if it would not be better, in the public interests, that the men who are occupying these particular posts would be men who, in fact, had nothing to do with the incidents which occurred during the troublous period of seven or eight years ago, but men who were selected for those positions because of their police records.

Passing on from the question of the police to another and less contentious matter in this particular Vote, there are one or two things I want to say on the question of the film censor's department. As far as I remember, this particular office was intended to be self-supporting. I find, as far as I can gather from the Estimates, that the receipts from the office are something like £2,450, while the expenditure is only £1,400 or £1,700. The film censor occupies a very important and onerous position. While the salary may appear to be a substantial one it does not seem to me to be in keeping with the position which the film censor holds. There is no bonus attaching to it, and there is no provision made for superannuation. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on the matter. There is only one shorthand typist in the censor's office, the only other people, as far as I can gather, being the operator and the wind boy, whatever his duties are. The shorthand typist, who has to act as secretary to the Appeal Board, has, to my mind, a very poor salary, something just over £2 10s. a week. I suggest, in view of the fact that the income from the censorship department exceeds considerably the amount that is expended on it, that the position of the staff ought to be looked into. I think we should recognise that the film censor has a position which, if it were not filled by a man of the type that holds it at the present time might be open to grave abuses. That should be taken into consideration when the salary and emoluments and the general position of the office are considered. I would like the Minister to say a word on this when replying on the general question of the Vote.

Professor Tierney

It is with a great deal of reluctance that I made up my mind to take any part in this debate at all. Discussions of this kind have become almost a recurrent vice with the Dáil. At regular intervals we have debated matters of politics and matters of police and mixed them together in the most inextricable fashion in which all sorts of ancient charges are furbished up again and thrown across the House. As far as I can see, there is only one slight sign of improvement in all this, and that is that whereas such debates used take place a few years ago on the Army Estimates, debates of the very same type and semi-political discussion have been transferred now to the Police Estimates. I suppose that may be taken as a sign of the fact that the situation is, at any rate, easing somewhat, and that if we are not by any means in an ideal position we are at least better off than we were a few years ago.

My reason for intervening in the debate at all and allowing myself to be subjected for a few minutes to this vice is, that certain things were said in the course of the debate which I do not think should be allowed to pass unnoticed by those of us who sit on this side of the House. I said that this type of debate was a kind of disease. The discussion that has taken place shows pretty clearly that it is not so much in itself a disease, as a symptom of a disease, and a very serious disease. Everybody is as anxious as possible that we should have the most perfect police force, and that while every rigour should be shown to criminals, there should be no interference whatsoever with the ordinary citizens by the police or anybody else.

Charges have been made in great number during the last week to the effect that such interference is taking place, that the ordinary citizens are being interfered with by the police, and that where such interferences are alleged to have taken place, the fault lies altogether on the side of the police. Deputy Lemass told us last week that his Party was the only Party which stood for peace in this country. Every other Party apparently, including not only ourselves but the Labour Party, were opponents of peace and the most subtle and dangerous opponents. The arguments which Deputy Lemass uses, not so much to prove as perhaps to insinuate that statement, is a rather curious sort of argument. He indulges in a kind of metaphysics which may be all very well for the public platform but surely should hardly pass in this House without some slightly deeper discussion. He suggests that because the Fianna Fáil Party at a certain stage changed its name from whatever name it called itself before that stage arrived and took certain rather superficial action, therefore it has become, all of a sudden, a Party of perfect peace.

I suggest to Deputy Lemass that, granting that a change has taken place, everything depends on whether the change was a change in essence or a change merely in accidentals; and I suggest that a change of name is of no importance whatsoever unless it involves a change in policy and a change in the inner workings of the Party's mind, so to speak. The Fianna Fáil Party have now externally and as far as accidentals are concerned, abandoned their previous warlike attitude. They have taken to themselves a new name, or rather an old name, and they have strung together a series of election devices and put these before the people as a policy. They are always prepared to talk at great length about their policy, what their policy is, and so on. There is one fundamental element in a policy which should be the first thing to be considered in the policy of any Party. On that I suggest that out of Deputy Lemass's own mouth the Fianna Fáil Party have not suffered any change whatsoever.

Deputy O'Higgins last week recalled to Deputy Lemass a statement that he had made in a speech previously. Deputy Lemass at that time got up and corrected Deputy O'Higgins. When he made that correction, or purported to make that correction, the Official Report of the debates was not available. The Official Report has since been circulated, and I find that Deputy Lemass not only made the statement on which he was challenged by Deputy O'Higgins, but he actually made a statement which is more serious, if anything, than that with which Deputy O'Higgins charged him.

Deputy Lemass laid down certain conditions. He said: "If we could get some definite assurance from the Ministery," and he then laid down a series of conditions upon which he said he thought he "could promise on behalf of the people whom we represent the fullest possible co-operation except in connection with these laws which were passed here for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing." He first of all made conditions. Having made these conditions he proceeded to make exceptions for the carrying out of these conditions. He went on to explain that "in relation to the ordinary criminal law which we all want to see obeyed you can get that co-operation if you ask for it." When he said "if you ask for it" he obviously meant "if you agree to the conditions that we lay down." He said you can get our co-operation in seeing that the ordinary criminal law is obeyed on certain conditions, but we make an exception and that "exception is in connection with these laws that were passed here for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing." Deputy Lemass denied or tried to evade these words when challenged by Deputy O'Higgins.

These words are now in print and Deputy Lemass must answer for them. What do these words mean? These words mean, if they mean anything, that the Fianna Fáil Party first wish to make conditions before they will give any co-operation to the State in seeing that the ordinary criminal law is obeyed. That means that the Fianna Fáil Party before they give any co-operation in seeing that ordinary criminals such as burglars or people guilty of criminal assaults, and other crimes, apart altogether from any political consideration, are punished, must get conditions. That is the first element in the Deputy's speech. That means that the Fianna Fáil Party do not agree, in their capacity as legislators, to assist in the carrying out of any law whatsoever which this Dáil makes at the present momenf.

I suggest that is a very serious statement, and when a Deputy makes a statement like that on behalf of a Party which he claims speaks for half a million voters, he is giving out of his own mouth the best possible indication of the real source of the disease from which this country is suffering. If there is anything wrong, if the police are exceeding their duties, if attacks do take place on individuals, as the Fianna Fáil Party allege, then I suggest that the one great contributing cause to that evil —I suggest the greatest contributing cause to that evil—is the fact that, in Deputy Lemass's own words, they must see certain conditions carried out before they will agree to co-operate in the enforcement of the ordinary criminal law.

He goes further than that and he says that even if these conditions are granted there is an exception that he must make, and that is the exception in connection with these laws that were passed for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing. It is not clear what exactly Deputy Lemass means by that exception, but I think it is not unfair to say that he wished to except and exclude altogether from the operation of any laws those who choose to object to laws which were passed for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing. It is not unfair to attribute such a meaning to Deputy Lemass, because that is the meaning that Deputy Lemass's leader has several times given expression to. Over and over again in this House we have been brought back to the fundamental position that there are numbers of people who wish to use arms against these laws that were passed here for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing, and who wish to overturn that political status by force of arms. We have pointed out that if there are people here who want to change the political status of the country, there is an obvious and easy method for them to adopt in bringing about that change.

There is one method, and that is that they can vote for the Party which has as its policy the changing of that status. If the votes are sufficiently numerous they can put that Party into power as a Government and so change the status that they desire to change without the loss of a single drop of Irish blood. But the position, apparently, is that whether or not they are willing to use their votes in that fashion, and whether or not they are willing to support the Party for which Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera speak, they insist on having the right at any moment they choose to take the lives of other Irishmen in order to upset the political status now existing. It is a serious matter to have a political party proclaiming that it will not co-operate in putting down ordinary crimes such as burglary until certain political conditions are granted. It is the great evil from which the country suffers, and no kind of quibbling and no amount of producing anonymous documents and statements, such as Fianna Fáil Deputies have been producing here—no amount of wild complaints—will get over the fact that the real reason for whatever unsettlement and whatever difficulties exist in the country is that there are certain people for whom the Fianna Fáil Party speak here who insist on having for themselves, and by their own authority, the right to take the lives of Irishmen and Irishwomen in order to upset the political status now existing in the country.

Deputy O'Connell said he was inclined to agree with Deputy Lemass on one point. Deputy Lemass suggested that it would be advisable that the detective force should not include within its numbers men who had taken part in the civil war. He said it would be advisable, just as happened in 1922, when this State was set up, that people who had to do with the civil war should be removed from any position where they might come into conflict with people whom they had to fight. I wish to point out to Deputy O'Connell that before any such state of affairs can come into existence he must get Deputy Lemass and his Party to change their minds on this fundamental point. He must get them to remove their objections to these laws which have been passed for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing. He must, at least, get them to admit that these laws can be changed by the exercise of the vote, and shall not be changed by any other means, and that all Irishmen of every party will stand together to see that only one method of changing the laws is allowed to be in force in this country. Until Deputy O'Connell does that, I suggest to him that he is blinding himself in purporting to agree with what Deputy Lemass said.

He draws a parallel between the state of affairs after the civil war and the state of affairs after the Treaty was passed. I would like to point out to him that there is absolutely no parallel. In 1921 a Treaty was made between conflicting States. That Treaty was passed by a majority of this House, ratified by two Parliaments, and it became the law of the land. In 1923 nothing of the kind happened; there was no Treaty; there was no conclusive, formal ending of whatever state of war existed; there was no reason, therefore, why the State should cease to be on the defensive after 1923 any more than there was before 1923. The only change that took place was that the Party which afterwards chose to change its name and to call itself Fianna Fáil decided to put away the guns and the bombs which it had previously been using against the majority of the people in this country.

When this discussion is going on it is apposite to ask: "Are these bombs and guns still in the keeping of the Fianna Fáil Party, and if they are not, where are they?" I suggest to Deputy O'Connell that until he knows where these bombs and guns are, and until the people of this country or the authorities in this country, whoever they may be, know where they are and who is in control of them, no sensible citizen, much less a responsible member of this House, should suggest that the men who so ably defended this country in 1923 and previous to 1923 should be removed from the task of defending this country now against the same enemies who attacked it in 1923. No sensible man can deny that that is the position of affairs. We know that there are enemies in this country. We know that not a month passes without some so-called political crime being committed in an attempt to do away with these laws that were passed here for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing.

If Deputy O'Connell or if Deputy Lemass desires that the men who defended the country in 1923 and previous to that should be removed from the task now, I would like to know if they would agree to having the same conditions apply to the other side. Would they ask that the men who were attacking this State in 1923 should cease from the task of attacking it now, and would they ask that the whereabouts of the weapons which were used to attack it in 1923 should be made known to the people who are liable to be attacked now, just as much as they were liable to be attacked in 1923? I suppose we will go on with this kind of debate year after year, and have the same series of confused charges collected, or purporting to be collected, from all over the country. We will have the same series of electioneering propaganda tossed out in the Dáil, as if it were gospel truth, and at the back of it all we will have people now and again, like Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera, admitting quite openly and quite candidly that not only do they not stand for cooperating in putting down ordinary crime, such as burglary, but that they do not even stand for the protection of any citizen whatever against anybody, whoever he may be, who likes to come along and say that he will take the life of that citizen, in order to upset laws passed here for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing. We will have that state of affairs going on, I suppose, for years.

I suggest to Deputy Lemass, to Deputy de Valera, and to their Party, that there is no use at all in coming here and masquerading as a Party of peace, no use at all in using all that fine language, painting themselves white and everybody else black, telling the people that they, and they alone, are the bringers of peace and goodwill, so long as they continue either to make speeches containing statements such as these, or in their heart of hearts to uphold and to approve of policies such as are contained in these statements. These statements, I say, betray the root of the evil from which this country is suffering, and I say that every citizen, no matter who he is, should realise that the country will continue to suffer from these evils, that men will continue to be killed, that outrages will continue to take place, and that these debates and charges will go on as long as Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera continue in the same frame of mind fundamentally as in 1922 and 1923.

Mr. Corry

I do not intend to speak at length on the motion, which is entirely too mild for the Department concerned. This is a motion to refer this Vote back for reconsideration, and it gives the opportunity to the Minister to state definitely whether he intends to change the policy of his Department. I will be anxious to know whether he intends to make a definite change in the policy, and to get rid of those gentlemen who are bringing that Department into the contempt of every decent-minded man. I would like to know whether he intends to state definitely that he will accept the motion and reconsider the policy of the Department, which I consider has been very fairly criticised. If he does not, I intend to speak my mind clearly on the motion to reject the Vote.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

To commence with, I will deal with a few points which Deputy O'Connell raised, because they stand apart from anything else which has been discussed upon this Vote. Deputy O'Connell asked about the payment of the film censor who, he stated, was underpaid, and he said that the receipts were more than sufficient to balance the outgoings of the censorship. The Deputy is not accurate in that. For all practical purposes, the receipts and the expenditure balance. I think the Deputy has been misled, because certain outgoings, as I said in my opening statement, amounting to £530 in one place, and £10 and £20 in other places, appear elsewhere in the Estimates. Deputy O'Connell also wished to have an explanation as to the organisation of the Gárda force, and especially of the organisation that he called the C.I.D., and what other Deputies also called the C.I.D. There is no body in Ireland known as the C.I.D. There is no institution of that name. There is one force of Guards, and one force only, and these are under the same head. There are Guards who do detective duty. There are Guards who wear uniform constantly, and are not so much concerned about detective duty. But they are all exactly the same force. The Deputy asked to whom the detective officers make their reports, and to whom they are responsible. They are responsible to their officers; they are responsible to the superintendents of the Civic Guards, and, finally, they are responsible to the head of the Civic Guards, the extremely able, energetic and capable Commissioner.

I pass now to the various attacks which have been made in the course of this debate by certain Deputies. Deputy Ruttledge opened the discussion, but as there was extremely little in anything he said that was not said afterwards at far greater length by Deputy Lemass, who has the art of expansion, I will, for the moment, pass on from Deputy Ruttledge. I will pass on also from dealing with that little comic—semi-comic, at any rate—interlude we had where Deputy Flinn poured out mock heroics to the House. Poor Deputy Flinn! Somebody seems to have told that unfortunate Deputy—so it is said at any rate—that he was the greatest Irish orator since O'Connell.

Mr. Lemass

It was the President who said that.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I believe it was stated on a Fianna Fáil placard in Galway: "Come and hear the greatest orator since O'Connell talk upon the land annuities," and from that time this unfortunate Deputy seemingly has been trying to live up to that reputation, has been trying to prove himself the greatest Irish orator since O'Connell. What is the result? You heard all the mouthings and rantings, and you saw the gesticulations of the third-rate tragedian when this debate opened. In fact the poor Deputy reminded me very much of the frog in Esop's fable. The frog tried to blow himself out so that he would appear to be the size of a bull and poor Deputy Flinn was blowing and blowing and blowing himself out to try to appear as a great orator. The frog burst. I do not know what will be the fate of Deputy Flinn, if he carries on this class of oratory. It was amusing, but rather melancholy, to see the poor Deputy trying so hard, and with such very poor results.

Deputy Lemass spoke a little later and was very jubilant, very happy. Deputy Lemass crowed with all the vigour one would expect from an energetic young bantam cock in the glory of the morning. He had got me, he declared, on the horns of a great dilemma. Fancy anybody being pinned on the horns of a dilemma by a logician like Deputy Lemass! This was the great dilemma: He said that certain persons like Ryan and Hassett were making statements and putting them upon affidavits, that they were bringing charges against the Guards and making the Fianna Fáil Party their mouthpieces in the Dáil for this purpose. He asked: "Will you hold public inquiries? If you do not you you are on the horns of a dilemma. Hold your public inquiries or prosecute for perjury." That is his dilemma—"hold your public inquiries or prosecute for perjury." Let us consider his dilemma for a moment. We know what the object of these charges that have been brought here daily is. Everybody knows that this organisation, which is out by every means in its power, by any method that it can adopt, to overthrow this State, to overthrow and destroy the peace and harmony which now exists in the State, exists and can only exist by publicity. Publicity is the very breath of its nostrils. Without publicity it cannot carry on, and in order that it may get publicity; when any single member of that association wishes to bring any charge that may come into its head against any member of the Civic Guard, all he has to do is to get some of the puppets—Deputy de Valera, Deputy Lemass, or some of the back benchers—to give voice and utterance to this charge.

These people know that if the morale of the Civic Guard can be broken down they have some possible chance of success. They know equally that unless they succeed in breaking down the morale of the Civic Guard, unless they succed in demoralising the Civic Guard, all their efforts will be to no purpose. They cannot succeed and their whole organisation must go down unless they manage to bring demoralisation into the Civic Guard, and in order that they may attempt to demoralise the Guards they get Deputies opposite to bring this type of charge against the Guards. Oh, yes, have public inquiries so that if a member of the Guard does his duty he can be subjected to every kind of insult and attack in this House and outside! They seem to hope by this means to demoralise the Guards. That is their one object, and it is for that purpose that they put up Fianna Fáil Deputies as their mouthpieces.

Mr. Lemass

We represent constituencies also.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

They have also, I take it, kicked Fianna Fáil Deputies into the attempt that they have been making to drive a wedge between the uniformed and the ununiformed branches of the force. They are endeavouring to say to the uniformed members of the force: "Oh, you are excellent persons; you are splendid persons, and we have nothing against you. It is these detectives whom we are against. These are the men whom we want to attack." That is an attitude which suits these people outside—to endeavour to divide the Guards and in that way to endeavour to have dissatisfaction in the Guards, to endeavour to break down the morale of the Guards. That is what would suit the people outside and that is the game which the Fianna Fáil Party is playing for them. But I am perfectly confident that no attempt made, here or elsewhere, to break down the morale of the Civic Guard will succeed. That force is as finely disciplined a force, as strictly controlled a force, as well organised a force as exists anywhere. It is a force led by a sense of duty, it is a force which is properly carrying out its work to-day, and no matter what calumnies may be invented against that force from outside, and no matter what invective the Fianna Fáil Party may direct against it in this House, that morale will stand unshaken.

So much for the question of public inquiries—that whenever any ragtag and bobtail in this I.R.A., as it calls itself, wants an inquiry it is to be held. But let me now come to the horns of the dilemma—prosecution for perjury. The answer to that is very simple indeed. In the first place, if a prosecution for perjury would lie I would not bring that prosecution because, as I have said, the one earthly hope that these men have of keeping their association going is advertisement, and I am not going to help them by giving them an advertisement. They may get Deputy Little to read a long string of names of great heroes, of great martyrs and sufferers, in order that they may get the advertisement that they want, but I certainly will not help them to get a cheap advertisement. I say that if a prosecution for perjury lay—but, of course, a prosecution for perjury does not lie, a prosecution for perjury in these affidavits could not be brought, and if Deputy Lemass does not know that Deputy Ruttledge certainly ought to know it——

Deputy Ruttledge

If there were inquiries, if these people deposed to what they put into the affidavits, and if that were found to be untrue, does the Minister still suggest that, on the papers being sent to the Attorney-General, he would not have power to prosecute?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I say that on these affidavits which have been sent up here no prosecutions for perjury would lie.

Mr. Ruttledge

He is trying to wriggle out of it.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I say distinctly that no prosecution for perjury lies on any affidavit unless that affidavit is made in connection with judicial proceedings, or else is an affidavit which is required or authorised by law. You can put a great number of false statements on oath and be perfectly safe that no prosecution will lie against you. I may inform Deputy Lemass, for instance, that he may put a terrible lot of things in an affidavit and be perfectly certain that no prosecution for perjury will lie against him. He may say, for instance, that Deputy Flinn is the greatest orator since O'Connell, and he may put that on affidavit, but he could not be prosecuted.

Again, he might say that Deputy Derrig is the most brilliant and flashing orator since O'Connell's contemporary, Lawlor Shiel, and he could not be prosecuted. He might say, moreover, that Deputy Hogan is a typical Labour Deputy who would feel like a fish out of water in the ranks of Fianna Fáil, and Deputy Lemass could not be prosecuted. Deputy Little told us the other day that the one bulwark between this country and disaster was the sense of humour in the Fianna Fáil Party, but the only humorist I find in that Party is Deputy Carney, with, perhaps, an occasional flash from Deputy Jordan.

Mr. Clery

You are a huge joke yourself.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Deputy Lemass might put it on affidavit that Deputy Carney was the only person that stood between this country and complete destruction. He could say that Deputy de Valera was always consistent in all his speeches and that the end of his speech never contradicted the beginning. He might say that he himself was always very careful and always verified his facts. He might put all these things in affidavits and, if he liked, he might send them to the Clare County Council, have them read and voted on, and, at the same time, a prosecution for perjury would not lie against him because the affidavits would not be in connection with legal proceedings and would not be required or authorised by law.

Mr. Ruttledge

Why not start legal proceedings?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Of course the Oath which Deputies opposite took when they entered the House to preserve the institutions of the Free State was authorised and required by law, and its violation— that is, if they broke it, and I do not say they have—would be the subject-matter of a prosecution for perjury.

I said a few moments ago that the association referred to lives and can only live on publicity, and that if it is not allowed to meet together, conspire together and carry out work it must die. Deputy Lemass and his friends tell us that this is a deliberate endeavour on our part to manufacture crime, that we are making for crime, and that we are encouraging this association to carry out crime. What are their own words and their own views? I have them here in a paper which was captured upon that young man Green whom Deputy Little so affectionately styled Sonny Green. The writer is talking about what they call "our" enemies. Their enemies, of course, are the present Government. He says:

"It has always been one of their aims, as a means of defeating and driving under ground, to keep Oglaigh na h-Eireann from all contact with the people, to prevent the open propagation of our policy and by gradual isolation to force us into a state of semi-stagnation where growth would be impossible, where we should be inarticulate and incapable of achieving anything, and where they hope that the disintegration that would naturally follow on these conditions would do the rest."

That is their view—make them inarticulate, make them incapable of achieving anything, and the disintegration that will naturally follow on these conditions will do the rest. That is what our policy has been doing and that is the policy which we will continue to pursue. We will prevent them, so far as we can, being articulate. We cannot make them entirely inarticulate, I grant you. They may get Fianna Fáil Deputies to do their speaking for them. When Deputy Little makes his visits, as he constantly seems to, to Suffolk Street he may get his instructions and be told what type-written documents he is to read in this House. To that extent, we cannot make them inarticulate, but, except for the assistance they get from Fianna Fáil, they have no other method of getting that publicity and advertisement which they themselves say are the essence of their existence.

Mr. Clery

The Minister has now proved——

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

What is more, I may inform you that not only are those gentlemen discovering that their organisation is going down, that the particular methods taken to crush it are entirely successful, but it may please Deputy Lemass to know that there is another organisation which also finds itself going down very fast. Deputy Lemass referred to a certain poster that was issued by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party during the last election in North Dublin. He wanted to know if that was handed by the Guards to the Cumann na nGaedheal Publicity Department, and if the Cumann na nGaedheal organisers had a right to go in and search the archives of the Guards. They have not, and it was not handed, as I already told the Deputy, by the Guards. That document was sent to me, as the Guards always send captured documents to me, and by me it was circulated to the Executive Council. That document was published as an advertisement, and it was correctly published as such.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Minister state what member of the Executive Council handed an official document to the Cumann na nGaedheal Election Committee?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I say that I am perfectly entitled to hand over any document which comes into my possession and to publish it, if I think it is in the public interest that it should be published.

Mr. Lemass

Did the Minister publish it?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I personally did not.

Mr. Lemass

Did the Minister not publish it by handing it to the Cumann na nGaedheal Committee?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I thoroughly approved. It came from my Department and I take the entire credit—I call it credit—of its publication. I say that it was right and proper that it should be published, and I say that it is right and proper that the existence of documents of that nature should be made known to the people of this country, and it is right and proper that they should be known to persons who are going to exercise the franchise in this country.

Mr. Lemass

On a point of order. Are we to understand that it is right and proper for a Minister to convey an official document to a political party which will publish extracts from that document? I want to draw attention to the fact that the Minister not only said that he did that, but he also says that he intends to do that with every document that comes into his possession. If a statement of that kind is allowed to be made by a responsible Minister attention should be drawn to it, as it is a considerable departure from what should be the correct procedure.

Mr. Hogan (Minister):

On a point of order, is that a point of order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Deputy Lemass stated that the persons who prepared that ought to be in a madhouse. Possibly they ought. They are getting very near it, I admit. They are Deputy Lemass's friends, I think. I understand that it is from Cumann na mBan that the document emanated and possibly they ought to be in a madhouse. I agree with Deputy Lemass that it is rather a pity that the majority of Cumann na mBan are not in an asylum, but possibly they have not gone completely over the border-line yet. I will quote from another document found in connection with that very same person. Here is their view:—

"Since it is generally accepted that, if we continue as we are doing, we shall have no organisation in twelve months, so far as I can see, there are three courses open to us. May I propose that we accept one of the following courses? The first is to disband the organisation on the ground that we have failed and leave it to other women and other times to finish our work."

Then the other courses are set out.

Mr. Lemass

May I ask the Minister is that all the evidence he has relating to the conspiracy that lives on publicity?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I have any amount of evidence.

Mr. Lemass

Let us have it.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Does the Deputy say that there is no conspiracy? Does the Deputy say that there is no body calling itself the I.R.A.?

Mr. Lemass

No, but I am anxious to get particulars about this conspiracy that lives on publicity and I would be glad if the Minister——

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The so-called I.R.A. is the organisation that lives on publicity. If it does not get publicity, it finds itself going down.

Mr. Corry

Were you ever a member?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

That is the very same organisation which is getting the full support of the Party opposite. That is the organisation which is responsible for crime, which was responsible for the murder and the attempted murder that took place recently.

Mr. Lemass

The evidence.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

You have that proved by pamphlet after pamphlet and by paper after paper in approbation of it. You have it in the paper, the "Nation." Of course, it is not your paper. You have nothing to do with it. You disown it whenever you like. Of course, you do not call it your official paper, but, as has been pointed out in the House, it has already shown its approbation of these attacks on jurors. The only assistance that this association gets is from the Party opposite. It gets complete encouragement from the Party opposite to carry on the plan of campaign which it is carrying on at present. Every speech which is made by Deputy de Valera is a direct encouragement to it.

I was glad to hear Deputy de Valera, although belatedly, denounce the murder of Mr. Armstrong and the attempted murder of Mr. White, as murder and attempted murder. I was glad to know that in Deputy de Valera's view the persons who murdered Mr. Armstrong were guilty of murder, because it follows that Deputy de Valera would wish to see them expiate their crime on the scaffold, if properly tried and found guilty. I am pleased to know that. It is distinct progress, but Deputy de Valera immediately, afterwards takes up a different line of conduct and informs these persons outside the House, that they are the true Government, they are the true successors. We have no moral support, no right to make laws in this country, no real, moral support. They are the really true Government. They are the de jure Government. We are, at best, only a de facto Government. They are the de jure Government, the successors to 1925. Therefore, Deputy de Valera is taking part in an illegal assembly here and Deputy de Valera here is usurping the powers which these men outside should have. What follows from that? Deputy de Valera is a member of this illegal assembly. Deputy de Valera is part of this illegal assembly. The Party opposite are always fond of telling us that at some time or other they will be the heads of the State and they will be in power. What will they do when they are in power? What can they do? They are only de facto. They are not de jure. They have no right. What can Deputy de Valera do except abdicate in favour of these persons. He would have no moral right to govern; they have the moral right. According to him, they are the de jure Government. How could he prosecute them or how could he prevent their doing what they like to bring war and disturbance to the country? He said they are the de jure Government. That is the attitude which Deputy de Valera takes up at one moment in his speech and at another moment——

Mr. Lemass

I am anxious to know when Deputy de Valera said what is attributed to him by the Minister.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

He said it here.

Mr. Lemass

Have you the official record?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Yes. The Minister for defence read it to him on the last day. He said that they are the successors of the men of 1920, the successors of the Government which existed up to 1925. Did the Deputy say that?

Mr. de Valera

It will be very interesting to see what I did say.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Yes, we will get it.

Mr. de Valera

I do not want any of your interpretations of it.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

If I am wrong, I would be very glad to know in what respect.

Mr. de Valera

I think if the Minister for Justice wants to refer to my statements, and that they have all these consequences-they may have all these consequences—he should give them to me verbatim.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Does Deputy de Valera say that we are not the de jure Government of this country, that Dáil Eireann, the Oireachtas——

Mr. de Valera

Again I say if the Minister for Justice wants to quote me, he should, in justice, quote me correctly.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I have put an interpretation upon the Deputy's speech, and I ask the Deputy if that is the correct interpretation. Is this, or is it not, the de jure Government?

Mr. de Valera

I am not going to give any interpretations to the Minister for Justice. What I said I have said, and I said it deliberately. It is there.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

And the Deputy is now afraid——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have this cross-examination.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Here is what the Deputy said: "Those who continued in that organisation, which we have left, can claim exactly the same continuity that we claimed up to 1925."

Mr. de Valera

Exactly.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

What does that mean? Were you the legitimate and correct Government up to 1925?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should address the Chair.

Mr. Little

Strictly on a point of order, I want to say that I have a serious grievance in this matter. I tried to follow up this matter and I was pulled up. The Minister is now allowed to pursue it.

Mr. Hogan (Minister):

On a point of order, which is almost as sound as Deputy Little's, Deputy de Valera invited the Minister for Justice to quote to him his statement that we were not the de jure Government of the country and that some people outside were. I understand the Minister for Justice wishes to give him his quotation on the Deputy's own invitation. Is he to be allowed?

Mr. de Valera

The Minister has given it, but he has not proved anything of what the Minister for Agriculture has said.

Mr. Hogan

On a point of order, may I make my position clear?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

With regard to Deputy Little's point, surely the Deputy is not alleging that the line that he was taking during the course of his speech, when the Chair intervened, was similar to the line now being taken by the Minister for Justice?

Mr. Little

I did not do like the Minister for Justice when he questioned Deputy de Valera in another debate and got on to the line of history as to what is de jure and what is not, and what is succession. This is a very important matter which I was about to deal with—the imprescriptible right of the Irish nation. I think he is now going on to deal with that——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I can assure the Deputy that the Minister for Justice will not be allowed to deal with that.

Mr. Hogan

Is this to be the position, that Deputy de Valera is to ask the Minister for Justice a certain question, and that then, in order to save his Leader—Deputy de Valera —Deputy Little is to get up and object to the answer.

Mr. Lemass

Not at all.

Mr. Hogan

Because that appears to be the exact position.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. The Minister for Justice.

Mr. Aiken

It is only President Cosgrave who bluffs like that.

Mr. Hogan

Let the Deputy get up and speak if he wants to, and I will answer him.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

"Those who continued on in that organisation which we have left can claim exactly the same continuity that we claimed up to 1925." They can do it.

The President

Claim infallibility.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Of course, if the Deputy says that he was absolutely right up to 1925—it is very hard to follow the Deputy—then those persons are right now. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn. If those persons are right now, then the Deputy, if he were elected by a majority of the people, would have, unless he wanted to change his colours again, to abdicate in their favour. What is his policy towards them now? At one moment, of course, he condemns murder. But he tells you, for the rest, to have patience. "Have patience" is his policy. We are to have patience while murder is being committed. We are to have patience while outrages are being committed. We are to have patience while these persons arm, drill and organise, and then in their own time start blowing up bridges and cutting the roads again.

Mr. Lemass

Do not forget the petrol tins.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

We are to have patience for all that, and the great advocate of peace, Deputy Lemass, is, no doubt, of the same opinion. All the revolvers and the other weapons that they have will all be beaten into ploughshares if only you have patience. That is their idea. But if Deputy Lemass is a genuine advocate of peace there is an easy course which the Deputy can take. Deputy Lemass knows who are the only enemies of peace in this country. They are the men who are organised to upset this State by force. Those are the only enemies, and if Deputy Lemass disowns them and wishes to hinder them, there is an easy course for him to adopt, and not merely by clear denunciation, which he has never done in this House, but another method which he can adopt. It is not, after all, such a terribly long time since Deputy Lemass was Minister for Defence. That was just the same time as Deputy Aiken was Chief of Staff. That was not such a terribly long time after the cease fire and dumping of arms order had been issued.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is now travelling some distance away from the Estimate before the House.

Mr. Clery

That was at the same time that the Minister was our very good friend, but he had not been placed in power then. He was our best friend in the county.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I was not aware of that.

Mr. Clery

Indeed you were.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I thought the very opposite. If Deputy Lemass is now genuine and bona fide in his views, and Deputy Aiken, too, and if they want to see no outrages committed in the country, and if they want to see no arms except in the possession of persons who are entitled to carry arms—that is, the forces of this State—will they now give such information as they possess as to where the dumps of arms are to be found? I do not say that they may know exactly where they are now. I do not say that, but will they now give to the Guards all the information which they had in their possession as to the amount of arms that there was in this country and as to where they were located in 1925? If Deputy Lemass took a step like that, then I would begin to believe that Deputy Lemass was the real, sincere and true advocate of peace that he wishes himself to be believed to be.

Deputy Ruttledge has charged me with treating the Party opposite with contumely. Do they deserve any other treatment when they act as they only too often act in this House, when they endeavour to give every sort of advertisement, and, by advertisement, to give every help to the persons who are trying to upset this State, when they bring charge after charge, whether it is refuted or not does not matter, against the Civic Guards? Deputy Lemass made a charge here, out of the Waterford case, that letters were written, and that no information would be given by the Guards as to the location of persons against whom decrees had been got. Deputy Lemass must have known that that was wrong, because I find here in the Debates for March, 1928, that I gave the whole of the facts to Deputy Lemass. What I am going to quote will be found in the Official Debates for the 21st March, 1928, column 1524:—

Deputy Lemass informed us yesterday that he got complaints at his information bureau, of which I understood him to say he was in charge.

Then I go on:

The other day not one, but a whole series of Deputies on the Fianna Fáil Benches, all shouting together (that often happens) informed the House that information as to the whereabouts of the defendants in a certain case that came from Waterford had been asked for at the Depôt and was refused. I knew nothing about the facts on that occasion. It was the first time I heard the charge made, and I asked that a question should be put down. Of course no question was put down. What were the facts? On February 15th the solicitor for the plaintiffs wrote to the Civic Guard Depôt asking for information, and on the 17th of the same month they got the information they asked for.

And yet, though Deputy Lemass gets that specific information as far back as March, 1928, he comes here in this debate and reiterates the same charge. That is not all. We had a very clear and specific statement here the other night, made by Deputy Sean T. O'Kelly. Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly's statement was this—I am reading from Vol. 29, No. 5, of the Official Debates, column 1832—

"Some of the men responsible for the murder of Kevin O'Higgins are in the employment and the pay of those men"

Those men, I take it, are us.

"and not one of them has been tried or arrested for it. These are deliberate statements. I am speaking with a sense of responsibility. I know what I am talking about. I know these men."

Now, there is a clear, definite statement that Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly has knowledge that Civic Guards were concerned in the murder of the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins. He has got definite information on the subject. There is no doubt about it. Naturally that matter had to be followed up. If a Deputy has information, we must discover exactly what the information is, and this shows the accuracy of the charges which were brought against the Civic Guards, and shows one of the very strong reasons why charges coming from the mouths of the Fianna Fáil Deputies must be more than carefully investigated. That statement by Deputy O'Kelly had, as I say, necessarily to be followed up. A Chief Superintendent of the Civic Guards was sent to interview and to get information from Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly. I purpose reading to the House a report of that interview to show the evidence upon which Deputy O'Kelly made that very clear, definite, specific statement which I have read. The report of the Chief Superintendent is as follows:

"As directed in your minute of 11th instant, I beg to report that, accompanied by Superintendent Kelleher of Dunleary District, I met Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly at Leinster House yesterday by appointment. I informed him that I was investigating the murder of the late Minister for Justice, Mr. O'Higgins, and that a statement in reference to the murder, made by him in the course of a speech in An Dáil on 9th May, 1929, had come under my notice, and that the statement attributed to him led me to believe that he was in a position to disclose some information which would be of use to the Gárda in their investigation of the crime. Mr. O'Kelly informed me that he had no first hand information on the subject, but that his statement was based on information which he received from another member of the Dáil, whose name he could not disclose without the latter's consent."

Now, you have had it here that Deputy O'Kelly knows that "some of the men responsible for the murder of Kevin O'Higgins are in the employment and the pay of those men, and not one of them has been tried or arrested for it. These are deliberate statements. I am speaking with a sense of responsibility. I know what I am talking about. I know these men." He is interviewed, and it turns out that Deputy O'Kelly knows nothing on earth about the matter. All he knows is something he has heard from another Deputy. The Superintendent goes on:

"I asked him if his informant was Mr. Lemass, T.D., and he replied that it was another person. He left the room for a short time and returned accompanied by Mr. Gerald Boland, T.D., whom he introduced to us as his informant on the subject. Mr. O'Kelly remained in the room during our interview with Mr. Boland. Mr. Boland stated that he had no first hand information on the subject, but that his information was contained in a statement in the Dáil in a speech during the discussion of the Estimates in March, 1929. He could not remember the date of his statement, but said that it was all contained in the Hansard Reports. I told him that I had not seen the Hansard Reports and requested him to give me the substance of his information now. He appeared to have no hesitation in doing so. Mr. Boland said that it had leaked out that on the Friday before the murder the late Minister had threatened to take drastic disciplinary action against certain members of the ‘C.I.D.', and that this action was resented by the higher authorities of the police, and that a climax had been reached."

I say that whoever gave that information to Deputy Boland was entirely wrong. Nothing of the kind happened, and nothing of the kind was in existence.

Mr. Gerald Boland

Is it not nearly time the Minister contradicted it?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The statement had not been made. I certainly heard no such statement.

Mr. Boland

If the Minister had remained in the House when I made my speech, he would have heard it, but he ran away.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I do not run away, and I did not run away that time.

Mr. MacEntee

How does the Minister know what occurred on the Friday before?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Because I know there was no question of dismissal or punishment of any member of the detective branch of the Guards at the time the late Minister was murdered.

Mr. MacEntee

Has the Minister personal knowledge of that?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I have it from the files in my office, which is better than personal knowledge.

An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. Cooney

Will the Minister deny that two inquiries were ordered in the Waterford case by the late Minister for Justice? The Minister has stated here that he is anxious to publish documents necessary in the interests of peace and order. Will he publish a report of these investigations of the late Minister with his comments thereon, and the disciplinary action which was taken?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The Water ford business finished the January before. As far as that was concerned, a disciplinary inquiry was held and certain punishments were meted out to certain individuals. None of those punishments was severe. They were inflicted with the entire concurrence of the late Minister.

Mr. Cooney

Would the Minister the Minister.

Mr. Cooney

The Minister has asserted that he is anxious to publish any documents which come into his possession the publication of which he believes to be in the interests of peace and good order. I ask him is he prepared to publish these documents, and will he deny that there was a second investigation?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

There was no second investigation. There was only one.

An Ceann Comhairle

When did the Waterford incidents occur?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

In December, 1926.

An Ceann Comhairle

We ought not to be discussing them on this Estimate.

Mr. Goulding

I wish to ask a question, which is a repetition of what I said a few moments ago. The Minister pointed out that disciplinary action was taken against these men. Are they still in the Force and in their old positions?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Here are the punishments which were inflicted on these men, with the entire concurrence of the later Minister: Superintendent Keenan to be transferred from the Division; Superintendent O'Driscoll cautioned; Superintendent O'Riordan cautioned and transferred from the Division; Sergeant Shaw severely reprimanded with record, warned for reduction, reverted to uniformed force and transferred from the Division; Sergeant O'Brien transferred from the Division; Detective Officer Hartigan severely reprimanded with record, warned for dismissal and transferred from the Division; Detective Officer Spain severely reprimanded with record, warned for dismissal and transferred from the Division. These were the punishments and these were all done entirely with the approbation of the late Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

It was arranged to take Private Deputies' Business at 7 o'clock and to resume this debate when Private Business would have concluded.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported.