I bow to your ruling, sir. That was the type of witness whom the Attorney-General produced in court and that was the position. I am not sure, I do not know, I cannot know, I have no means of knowing, when into this very discreditable transaction the Attorney-General entered. But I do know this much, that a prosecution cannot be brought in this State without the authority of the Attorney-General. A prosecution cannot be brought without the fiat of the Attorney-General and I know that before these men could be arrested the fiat of the Attorney-General had to be got. Here was a case in which one would have thought the Attorney-General, instead of issuing his fiat, would have said "Let us get an explanation, let us see what has happened, let us go and ask first and see if there is any explanation." That course was not followed. The Attorney-General's fiat was given, the prosecution was started and these officers were arrested, one of them, though known to be in delicate health, at midnight.
Then the Attorney-General comes upon the scene in person. This was going to be a very great State case. Never before, I believe, in the history of the Irish Bar has an Attorney-General gone down to a police court to prosecute in person. This case is a case of such tremendous importance that, so anxious is the Attorney-General about it, he sets a new precedent. For the first time, I believe, in the history of the Irish Bar the Attorney-General went down in person to a police court to prosecute. Here is where the vindictiveness comes in, here is where the bullying process begins. These men are men who held high positions in the State and they discharged their duties to the State well and worthily. They apply for bail. There is no conceivable reason why these men should not be granted bail. No one, for a moment, ever thought that either of them would break his bail bonds if he were granted bail, and leave the country.
But the Attorney-General must have his whack at them and the Attorney-General opposes the granting of bail in order that these men, against whom this charge is brought, these untried men, these innocent men, will have the indignity of spending a few days in prison. It is for that—and it could have been for no other reason, because no sane man could have thought either of them had the slightest intention of breaking his bonds—the Attorney-General again comes to court to prosecute. We hear a lot about these documents and about the Official Secrets Act and what an important thing it is. What these documents were I do not know, but I do know that in the course of the hearing it was remarked by the judge that one of the documents in regard to which this prosecution was being launched was a printed document that could have been bought and was on sale for sixpence or something thereabouts. That was one of the documents which was the subject-matter of this great prosecution. What the other documents were I do not know, but I do know that it transpired in court that those documents were documents that were somewhat old.
They were not documents that come into the possession of the Government within a few months of the previous year or the previous year and a half. They were documents that had been in the possession of the Guards for a very considerable period of time. I knew every single document relating to Saor Eire, or the I.R.A., in the possession of the Guards, or the Department of Justice. Therefore these particular documents must, at some time, have been subject to my scrutiny. I say and I believe that there is hardly one of these documents, if there was even one, that I had not alluded to, and quoted, in this House, at some time or other. If there was one of these documents that I had not quoted to this House, then I say that document was not quoted because it was entirely too insignificant to merit attention. It was in face of documents of that class that this prosecution was allowed.
We saw all this great flair, the Attorney-General in the police courts, coming along with all his forces. We had the Attorney-General, head of the Irish Bar, in the police courts and, afterwards, appearing before a jury in Green Street. And after having listened to all his evidence, and to his witnesses and after he had brought forward every document, that jury intervened, and stopped the case as soon as they heard the evidence of the defendants. Here you have this case brought forward with all this great flourish of trumpets, and because the jury thought it so shockingly weak, they stopped it in the middle of it. The Attorney-General was there in person to prosecute, yet because that case was so desperately weak the jury stopped it before it could be put to them by the judge. That is a very rare thing to happen. It is very rare that a case is ever presented that is in itself so desperately weak that the jury takes it upon itself to stop it before the finish. It is still more rare that a case, so weak in itself as that the jury has to stop it even with the Attorney-General present, is allowed to be prosecuted. There is a little more. This case was heard not merely by a jury, but there was a judge there also. What was the reaction on the judge? He suggested next day to the Attorney-General that considering the nature of the case—I am not quoting his exact words, but only giving the substance of his remarks—that considering the nature of the case and the record of the officers who were prosecuting, the State ought to pay the expenses of the trial. No doubt, therefore, we have the view of the jury that the case was so desperately weak and unfair to the men charged, that it ought never to have been brought and they stopped it in the middle of it, and following on that you get the view of the judge, that the very exceptional step of paying the cost of the defence of the accused persons should be taken in this case.
Now I have contrasted the ways in which the Attorney-General administers the law. If a man defies the law the Attorney-General does not come down to prosecute him. Oh, no, the Attorney-General runs away from such a prosecution. But in the case of men who have served the State honourably and well for many years, even if one or two only have committed an indiscretion, the Attorney-General, riding forth in full panoply of war, must march out to battle. Is that the way the law should be administered in this State? Is that the way the Attorney-General thinks the people of this State will come to have respect for the administration of the law? After all, in this country, as in every other country, perhaps more in this country than any other country in the world, it is advisable that every single thing should be done that would cause the administration of the law, the procedure of the courts and the procedure and practice of the Attorney-General in the courts to be kept above the shadow of a shade of suspicion. How are we to have a law-abiding State if we find that men by their actions, and actions speak more potently than words, can defy the law and become law-breakers with impunity? How are we, in these circumstances, to have law-abiding citizens? If there is one thing calculated to break down a law-abiding spirit it is that method of showing by your example that if you are law-abiding every single resource of the State will be brought against you; but if you face an investigation, and it is shown that you are not law-abiding, the State will put its tail between its legs and let you walk out of court a free man. Is that the way the people of this country are to be brought to admire and to believe in the administration of the law?
I know the Attorney-General may get up and say it is part of a policy. He will say, of course, there are no I.R.A. in this country at all; that since the Oath was taken out of the Constitution the I.R.A. have completely vanished. We were told that that would be so, and we will be told now that it is so. Everybody knows they have not vanished. They are here and they can, with impunity, carry arms. They have come in and defied the courts. They can laugh at the law and still nothing is done. All that is done is that a nolle prosequi is put in by the Attorney-General. If the accused is by any means convicted and sent to prison the prerogative of mercy will be exercised by the Minister for Justice. I venture to inform the Attorney-General that he is taking the wrong course. By these acts of cowardice the Attorney-General is not going to kill any illegal association or any association that wishes to destroy the welfare of this State by force of arms. It is all very well for the Executive Council to take this or that particular man and say: “Here is a job for you in the Irish Press. Keep quiet now!” Or to say to another man: “We will make you an income-tax collector, and hope you will keep quiet.” It is all very well to take up that attitude but it is going to fail. If you buy off these men, you may be sure that there are plenty of others who will come along to be bought off also. Exactly in the same way by entering a nolle prosequi against particular men you are not going to prevent persons being members of illegal associations; and you are not going to prevent people willing to defy the court and defy its jurisdiction from doing so. You will not turn them away from courts and make them peaceful, law-abiding citizens by refusing to prosecute them when you bring them to court. The whole thing is wrong. It is wrong from start to finish. Everybody in this State should be made to obey the law and everybody in this State should be made to respect the law, and the Attorney-General, who ought to be the great upholder of the law, is leading the law fast into the disrespect of law-abiding persons.
