Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 27 Apr 1934

Vol. 51 No. 19

Vote 32—Office of the Minister for Justice (Resumed).

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £23,058 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na blíana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1935, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Dlí agus Cirt.
That a sum not exceeding £23,058 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice.—(Minister for Justice.)
Debate resumed on the following amendment:—
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.—(Risteárd Ua Maolchatha.)

When the discussion on this Estimate was adjourned I was drawing the attention of the House to the fact that there has been a very large increase in the number of Guards, an increase of 400 within the last few years. I pointed out that this increase had taken place while an Executive is in office which pledged itself to reduce very considerably the number of men who are in the Guards and announced publicly that its policy was to fill up no vacancies which might occur, and in that manner reduce the number of the Guards. They have gone back completely upon that policy. I am glad in one way to see that they have acknowledged the tremendous amount of nonsense that they talked when they were in opposition. They acknowledge now by their actions that all the criticism which they used to pour upon the Guards was absolute and entire nonsense. They have not justified, or sought to justify, the increase that they have made in the number of men in the Guards and the very substantial increase of £70,000 which there is in the Estimate. At no time has the Minister for Justice given the House any reason for the increase in the number of Guards, or the increased cost. At the time the present Executive took over control of affairs, the country had passed from a very undesirable and a very disturbed state into a state of complete calm and rest.

There was not the semblance of disorder in the State at the time the present Executive took over office. The country had been brought back into a state of complete peace, and our contention is that the number of Guards who were then in the force should be sufficient, if they were properly directed and allowed to do their work in a proper and efficient manner. At the time the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill was passed an increase took place in the number of Guards and that increase, in the opinion of the then Executive Council—and it is our opinion still—was sufficient to have a force numerically strong enough to maintain peace and order. We have heard no explanation from the Minister why the Guards had been brought to a figure very considerably over the figure that they had then reached. We still are of the opinion that the then numerical strength of the Guards is sufficient for the present needs of the country. The Minister has shown us nothing to the contrary. No matter how strong the Guards, or how many Guards you have got, it is no use unless the force is properly controlled, properly directed and allowed to exercise its energies in a proper fashion.

When I was addressing the House on this Estimate a few days ago, I dwelt at some length upon the failure of the Guards to prevent the construction of a land mine. I said that there must have been some particular reason, some particular order, given to the Guards not to raid the premises in which they knew that a land mine was being constructed. In a question which I put yesterday to the Minister for justice, on behalf of Deputy McGilligan, I found strong confirmation of the view I had formed, clear confirmation of the view that the Guards must have had instructions not to interfere in any way with the activities of the I.R.A. A court-martial, or what purported to be and what called itself a court-martial, which of course was quite illegal, was being held by certain members of the I.R.A. upon certain other members of the I.R.A. It was quite public. It was known to everybody that this illegal court-martial was going to take place. I asked the Minister yesterday if any steps were taken to prevent it, if any steps had been taken to deal with the persons who constituted that illegal court. The Minister's answer was simply that he had no evidence. Why has he not evidence? I asked him if the Guards had been making any searches or any efforts to acquire evidence and the Minister could give me no answer. I conclude from that, and I am sure every sensible person concludes, that the Guards have instructions that the headquarters of the I.R.A. are not to be interfered with and they may publicly proclaim that they are acting illegally. They may even send notices to the papers proclaiming that they are acting against the law. They may send notices to the Press and it may be published in the Press that those people, calling themselves the only legitimate army in the State, can hold courts-martial and deal with any persons they like in any fashion they like.

Obviously it never occurred to anybody that they should be stopped or interfered with. Those are illegalities which were allowed to be carried on. Let us visualise some individual going to a member of that so-called court-martial and saying to him, "Are you not running a certain amount of risk in publishing this matter about the court-martial before it is held? Do you not think the Guards may enforce the law?" If someone went to a member of that court-martial and addressed him in that fashion, I am pretty certain the member of the court-martial would turn round and say, "Who would allow the Guards—do you think Ruttledge"—I am quite sure he would not call him the Minister for Justice, because these gentlemen would not admit the existence of a legitimate Executive Council in this country, and possibly he might call him Mr. Ruttledge—"do you think Mr. Ruttledge would have the courage, do you think he would dare, to allow the Guards to come along and interfere with us?" He would be merely giving utterance to a very clear statement of fact, that the Guards would not be allowed to interfere in any way with the activities of the I.R.A. That is very bad. The law should be impartially administered and anybody who breaks it should be made amenable. There should be no privileged classes in this country. There is a privileged class, the gentlemen who call themselves members of the Irish Republican Army. They can break the law with impunity and they are allowed by the Executive—and the Executive admits that they allow them—to break the law with impunity. There is no use increasing the number of Guards and then keeping those Guards from doing their duty. The number was already completely adequate. No matter how many Guards you have in this country they will be no use to the State unless they are permitted to enforce the law against every section of the community who break the law. I am sure that the Guards are only being held back from doing so by definite instructions from somebody.

I see no sign in this Estimate of any attempt at economy. I will not go through the Estimate at length; I will not go into how the £70,000 increase is made up. I will, however, point out one very curious little item. While there is rather a decrease in the country districts in the allowance for locomotion expenses, there is a considerable increase in locomotion expenses at Headquarters. I have discovered that though the number of cars is seemingly the same—there is an item for the replacement of some cars—yet the number of drivers and mechanics has increased by 30. What is the explanation of that? There is no greater number of cars. Cars may be, no doubt, a little bit older and there are some replacements, new cars coming in. There was something in the nature of £1,000 for replacements. What is the need of these 30 new drivers or 30 new mechanics? Why are these particular individuals getting this allowance—the number increased from 56 to 86? It seems to me, taking that item alone, that there is no attempt, in any way, at even ordinary economy in the Guards at the present moment, and certainly that is an item which I should like very much to hear explained. I do not know whether you are sending out two men now to drive each car where you sent one before; whether one particular driver is to go for ornament, while another is driving the car, or what the explanation of that figure is, or why it is that the same number of cars, which could be run last year by 56 men, requires 86 men to run and look after them this year. I wonder if these are some of the new gentlmen who have been brought in and who are found capable of nothing else and are being put into the mechanics' department in order that they may ornament it with their presence and fill their pockets with the pay they are not earning. The whole force, most undoubtedly, is deteriorating and must deteriorate with the way it is being administered at the present moment. As I said before, I do not believe you can destroy the esprit de corps completely, but you are doing your very best to lower and diminish it. The Guards are being directed to act, on certain occasions, in a completely illegal manner.

Let me take the example of a meeting in Westport. There, the Guards— and I am sure they must have been acting under definite instructions, I am certain they must have received instructions from somewhere—proceeded to arrest the leader of a great political Party in this State, who was doing nothing irregular and nothing wrong. They proceeded to pull him off the platform and to arrest him— illegally arrest him, as the courts have held—while he was addressing a meeting of many thousands of his supporters. Why was that done? What was the reason for that? More foolish action could not have taken place. If the crowd, if the enormous number that had been collected there, of young men supporters of General O'Duffy, had not shown the most extraordinary restraint, there would have been, in the town of Westport, on that particular occasion, a most terrific and terrible riot, and since they were 10 or 15 to 1, and possibly more, in numbers, compared with the Guards, the Guards would have been powerless to check that riot. There was deliberate provocation given, a deliberate attempt, I say, by instructions coming from somewhere, to stir up a riot—thank goodness the attempt failed—a deliberate attempt by the Executive, or by some higher officer of the Guards, and I think it much more likely to come from the Executive, to stir up a riot and create disorder. I am glad to say that the people showed tremendous restraint and they were not stirred up by that illegal action, that provocative action, taken in their presence. The people showed restraint. The people showed a desire and a determination to obey the law and not to break the law, in spite of the provocation they received. If there was not a riot on that particular occasion, and a riot of tremendous dimensions, that was due entirely to the fact that the people showed restraint and self-discipline in the teeth of the greatest provocation. If, however, you are using the Guards, compelling the Guards publicly and openly to do what they and everybody else must have known was a breach of the law, you are doing a very grave injury not merely to the community as a whole, but to the body of the Guards themselves.

As I said before, you inherited, when you came into office, the very best police force that then existed, or certainly—I will not use superlatives—I will say, as fine a police force as was then in existence. You have been doing your very best—the Executive Council has been doing its very best—to demoralise that police force and to use it in an illegal manner, compelling— obviously by your direction—the men, whose duty it is to see the law observed, openly and in public to commit breaches of the law. Strong as may be the sense of discipline, it should not be tested too highly, and I do sincerely hope that this method, which is now being adopted, this method of using the Guards and directing the Guards to take proceedings against men who are obeying the law completely, and at the same time telling the Guards that they are not to take proceedings against people who are openly flouting the law—that course of conduct, I sincerely hope, will speedily be brought to a cessation.

I wish that the Minister for Justice and I wish that the whole Executive Council would realise that they have got a very great responsibility in this matter. I wish that the Minister for Justice and I wish that the whole Executive Council would realise that the whole foundation of every civilised State rests upon the clear and impartial administration of the law. The law must be fairly and impartially administered, and it must be recognised by the whole community that it is being administered fairly and impartially. If you find, upon the one side, that persons can break the law openly and that they are immune from prosecution, and, upon the other side, that people, who keep within the law, are being harassed, you are shaking the confidence of the people entirely in the administration of the law. In shaking the confidence of the people, you are shaking the very foundations upon which a civilised State must rest, and I do sincerely hope that when the Minister for Justice comes to reply in this case he will give a pledge to this House that the course which he has been pursuing is a course which he intends to pursue no longer; that he intends for the future to see that the Guards are not checked or hampered in any way by any instructions in carrying out the provisions of the law against all evil-doers; that all this thing will come to an end, such as that certain persons may have arms, provided they do not show them in public —that they may use them but they are not to show them in public—this kind of thing that their premises are not to be raided, no matter what illegal acts they may be doing upon those premises. Let us have an end of all that —a complete end—and let us have from the Minister a definite pledge—a pledge that he intends to honour—that no person in this State will be allowed to break the law for the future.

Within the last couple of weeks or so I happened to refer, when speaking here, to the fact that the Government had given illegal orders to the police ordering them to deprive citizens of their rights. After I had spoken, the Minister for Education got up and, either directly or indirectly, suggested that what I had said was untrue. It is a fact that for a long period, to my knowledge, the police were ordered to prevent people dressed in blue shirts from addressing public meetings. I, myself, have seen that order. That was an order either from a superior officer of the police, or from the Government to the police force, not to enforce the law but to break it, and that has been going on quite consistently. The Government inherited, as Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has said, a very fine body of police. Then, a year or so ago, Fianna Fáil were having a sort of a party in this building and there was a fire here, a thing which might happen anywhere. Immediately, through the President's private propagandist organ, the suggestion was put out that that was an incendiary fire. It was even hinted that the origin of it was the Blue Shirt Organisation. Nothing very definite was said but, under cover of these stories, the Government proceeded to recruit a new force, popularly known as the "Broy Harriers." I know nothing about that new force except what I read in the newspapers. It is a remarkable thing, however, that in so far as information has come out about members of that force, largely in the law courts, in every case that I have seen it transpired that any member of that force who was being examined on oath had to admit that he himself was a law-breaker and had been a law-breaker at the time he was taken into the force. There was one occasion when the Minister, I think, said with regard to a member of that force that he had a recommendation from the parish priest and immediately the parish priest wrote to say that he had given no recommendation whatever to the man.

I admit that one cannot generalise from the particular, but in so far as it has come out in court, every bit of evidence was that the Government recruited men who were law-breakers into that force and recruited them under cover of the suggestion that there had been an incendiary attempt to set fire to this place. At some time or other there was a hint that there was going to be an inquiry as to the origin of the fire, but we have heard no more of it. The public knows perfectly well that, whatever was the origin of that fire, it was accidental, possibly due to carelessness. But the Government was looking for an occasion to get a certain type of people into the police and they did it in that dishonest way. That sort of thing is not very original—has been done all through history—either using an accident or else promoting something oneself and using that as an occasion for doing something that one wants to do.

I should like to know whether it was the Government or the Commissioner of Police who gave the illegal orders to the police to deny citizens' rights to people and to use illegal methods to deny those rights. That is a thing that we have every right to ask. For the Minister for Education to say that these statements are untrue is no answer whatever. He is either misinformed or he is not telling the truth. As I have said, I have seen the instructions given to the police. The Government has an extra charge for police now and they can put up a very good case that the condition of order in this country is very disastrous and very ominous at present. One can understand that it would very easily be necessary to increase the police force. But what is the fact? Everywhere one goes one finds that the police are not using the appropriate force to put down law-breaking. In any country the maintenance of social order is not a thing that just happens; it is a thing which can only be maintained by definite effort. There is always a possibility of social order breaking down in any country. The apparent ease with which it is maintained in most countries is due to a long tradition of social order, wherein the people by reflex action just assume it. We have not that historical formation in this country and the Government, as any Government over this period would be, is bound to be more watchful to see that every attempt at overthrowing social order is immediately crushed.

But what happens now? Anybody who reads newspapers knows that it is a daily occurrence to open a newspaper and read about outrages which have been committed. Very frequently when our Party is holding a meeting there is a riot. For instance, on St. Patrick's Day there was a meeting in Bagenalstown in County Carlow. Everybody read about the occurrence. The blackguards of the neighbouring localities came into the town and created a riot. I have a letter here which tells me that one of the ringleaders came in and kicked one of our supporters who was dressed in a blue shirt and twice broke through the cordon of the Guards. He was struck by a detective-sergeant who was on duty. That detective-sergeant, I am informed, has now been reduced. I admit that you cannot draw up rules for a police force with what you might call a certain amount of mathematical precision. There is no doubt that a great deal of discretion is required. There would be occasions when you might say that a policeman used too much force. But, to my mind, in the present condition of the country it must be recognised that when there is a riot on a policeman has to judge exactly what degree of force should be used. On such an occasion as that, and in such a condition as we are in at present, the police should tend to use rather more than less force. The Government should recognise that they would be doing more harm by coming down rigidly on a man because he may have been too zealous than they would by condemning a man for not using sufficient force. Time and again I have been told by police that they dare not use the appropriate force and do what they really are employed to do in putting down disorder, because it is more than their job is worth.

The Minister will talk piously and ask for definite information about an individual. It is notorious in the police force at present that if any prominent supporter of Fianna Fáil or the I.R.A. breaks the law, attempts to assault people, or create a riot, it is more than the policemen's job is worth for them to take the appropriate methods that should be used on that occasion. That is a condition which can only lead the whole country to disaster. The police know that they were ordered by the Government to break the law; at least, if you like, there is a general impression amongst the police that, when an enemy of Fine Gael is breaking the law by assaulting people or creating a riot, a policeman has a better chance of keeping his job and getting promotion if he stands by and allows that to be done, rather than if he makes the law effective against that man.

We have the case referred to by General Mulcahy of Murray, in Cork. Independent of the fact that the affidavit stated that one of these police —no doubt, one of those who got in as a result of the bogus scare about a fire here—entered to shoot this unfortunate man, Murray, it was known in Cork that Murray was in grave danger of his life. I myself had people writing to me from Cork saying that Murray was in imminent danger of his life and that his not being shot was not due to the action of the police put on by the Government, but to the courage of his own family and the female members of that family.

There was no need for extra police so far as one can judge; there was no need certainly to take on extra police at greater cost to the public when the police are being restrained from taking appropriate action to put down disorder in this country. The fact that one or other man might get a knock on the head, or that there might be an odd riot, is itself a very serious matter. It means that the people no longer have confidence in the power of the law to protect them. It was necessary in this country that there should have grown up amongst the people a consciousness that the law would always protect them, and that the law breakers would be put down. Because of our history of achieving, political results by extra legal means, this is a thing very difficult to get, but, during the last two years, the Government have wantonly let it be known in this country and demonstrated to the people of the country that the law breaker is a man to whom their hearts go out and whom they are determined to protect.

We have seen on another occasion a man whose mind had not even assented to a breach of the law being imprisoned for merely vindictive reasons when the Attorney-General and every member of the Government knows that on no plea of justice whatever could that be justified. On the other hand, we read in the papers orders from a body calling itself "Oglaigh na hEireann," which is itself an illegal name, and we read, as Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has stated, the announcement that certain men were going to be court-martialled. The court-martial was duly held and, presumably, sentence duly passed. I did hear that one of them, although he makes powerful speeches, went on the run after the court-martial had been held. Then there was this other matter about which we have heard nothing since—the meeting in Parnell Square. Deputy Cosgrave got up here and stated that the police knew that that meeting was going to take place; that the police came and watched the building while the meeting was on; that his information was that the purpose of the meeting was the demonstration of a land mine; and that the next day a land mine was exploded in Dundalk, murdering one woman, blowing up a house and damaging adjacent houses and injuring other people. The Minister waved that aside on two grounds, firstly, that he was satisfied that the meeting at Parnell Square had nothing whatever to do with the crime in Dundalk, and, secondly, that enquiries were being pursued into it.

It was interesting to see, some time after that, that a man was arrested in Dundalk neighbourhood and interrogated by the police. The Minister had said here that he was quite satisfied that there was no relation between the Parnell Square business and the Dundalk business, but it was interesting to see the announcement in the court that, in the examination of this man by the police, he was asked had he been present at the meeting in Parnell Square, was he a member of the engineering section of an illegal body calling itself "Oglaigh na hEireann," and had he been in Dundalk on the day the crime was committed. Apparently, the police examining that man had not the same conviction which the Minister announced he had here, that there was no connection between the one happening and the other. When the Minister gets up here and states that he is convinced or satisfied of a thing, he implies, not that he sits in his office and decides from his own wisdom, but that he gets reports from the police which satisfy him in making the statement he makes. It seems fairly clear that, though the Minister may be satisfied, the members of the police were not all satisfied in the same way.

The police force, under the Ministry of Justice, must know that there are organisations in this country aiming at the overthrow of the State, organisations whose method is murder and organisations which have no moral code whatever, but which think that, by merely mouthing certain phrases, any crime is justified and any crime becomes a virtue and, in those circumstances, the Government controlling the police allowed the meeting in Parnell Square to be held for the making or demonstration of a land mine and withheld the police from getting after the people who were doing it. What had happened was so well known that on the Sunday there were military all around the place. Military were going around County Dublin—I myself saw them—and they were going around because it was known that the land mine business was on. The only thing which the Government did not know, so far as I can make out, was exactly where it was going to be exploded, but they knew the men who were behind the thing. They know the men responsible for running the I.R.A. at the moment and they know that those men, running that organisation, are running it solely for the purpose of overthrowing this State and destroying social order in this State. We are paying an enormous sum for the maintenance of the police force. The only excuse for paying that money is that it is recognised that social order must be maintained and that, in this or any other country, it can only be maintained by the State having the appropriate force to put down any attempt to overthrow it.

While we are paying this money for the maintenance of this force, the Government itself is conniving at the continuance and propagation of this illegal organisation which exists solely for the purpose of overthrowing social order. Under these circumstances, it is really scandalous that the Minister should come here and ask us to vote money to put down the thing which he himself is definitely promoting. We had the case of the murder of O'Reilly in Cork and the murder of Daly, and, when one asks any questions about these things, one is told, and possibly quite rightly, that it is inadvisable and not in the public interest that they should be referred to too much, as the police are making inquiries and the matter is being got after. I think it is more than a year ago since there was a strike on the Great Northern railway. During that strike, a train was derailed, causing the murders of two men. Such an action as that is not the isolated action of a criminal; it is quite clearly an organised work. If one inquired about it immediately after, one would be told that it was against the public interest for the Minister to say too much as the matter was being got after. Two men were murdered during that strike and that was an organised murder. The Government have made no statement whatever about it since and have told us nothing as to what steps they are taking to get after those responsible for those murders. I do not want to make any assertions as to responsibility but it is known that the Government has power, under the 17th Amendment of the Constitution, to arrest people and to put questions to them and, under that amendment of the Constitution, the people are bound to answer questions and if they fail to answer, they are liable to imprisonment. The Government knows every member of the Communist Party here; it knows every office member and certainly every member of what is called the General Headquarters of the I.R.A. The Government undoubtedly —there is no good in trying to get away from it—knows perfectly well that the members of General Headquarters of the I.R.A. and those other bodies are themselves in possession of information which would enable the Government to bring to justice the criminals who are guilty of those crimes. Under the 17th Amendment to the Constitution the Government has power to arrest every member of the General Headquarters of the I.R.A., and anybody else they like, and call upon them to answer certain questions. If they fail to answer those questions the Government has power to punish them. They can put them in prison. That is what is happening. The Government arrests members of the Blue Shirt organisation and puts them in prison. The Attorney-General some time ago got up and said that only three men had been imprisoned for membership of the Blue Shirt organisation.

The Blue Shirt organisation is not, and never was, an unlawful association. There have been occasions when the Government, by this crime against justice which it committed, has been in a position to punish men according to law, but in defiance of justice, and to put them in prison for membership of it. At the same time, there is the I.R.A. association, which is an unlawful association; which is an association that exists for the promotion of crime—the great crime of the complete overthrow of the State, and the destruction of social order here. No man has been arrested and imprisoned for membership of that association, yet the Attorney-General appeared to expect a certain amount of appreciation for the restraint the Government has shown in imprisoning only three men for membership of an association which is not an unlawful association, but a desirable and worthy association. The Government, by a crime against justice, has been able to imprison those men. The Government, if it used its power, could undoubtedly have brought to justice the men who were responsible, either constructively or directly, for the murder of the men in the railway wrecking. There is no doubt that the Government is aware with a moral certainty that knowledge as to those guilty of the murder of O'Reilly is possessed by certain people. The Government has power to arrest those people and demand that they will answer questions under penalty of imprisonment if they refuse. The Government has those powers. Does it use them? Not at all. On the contrary, the police were ordered to break the law in order to prevent our organisation from making use of its legitimate rights. At the same time, the police know, or at least they are convinced, that if they use their police power to put down crime in the way of riot, in the way of assault, in the way of injury to property, window breaking, destruction of motor cars and so on; if they use what is recognised in every country, and is necessarily recognised in every country as perfectly legitimate force against law breakers, the result will be that they will be injured in their career as members of the Civic Guards.

There have been times when the police have known that, because they took action in protecting the public from the blackguards who support the Government, they were doomed to penalisation in their profession. That is a fact known all over the place. If the Minister got up and asked me to stand for one particular case I admit that I could not, because sometimes one does not want to bring harm on a man. Take the case where Detective-Sergeant Leslie Fergus protected the public when blackguards came along to break windows and attack people at a legitimate meeting. Because he protected them, and in doing so had to strike a prominent leader of those blackguards, a man named Sullivan— I will leave out the word "because" and say "following that"—he is demoted. It is a remarkable thing. The Government may say it is only policemen who are guilty of some offence, technically or otherwise, that actually do definitely take action when those riots are taking place, but it is an extraordinary thing that any policemen I have heard of—and there are many—who have taken their jobs seriously, and who, when those crimes were committed, did really try to put them down, have been either transferred or demoted. It is an extraordinary thing that the police who try to do their duty are either transferred or demoted, while those who do not do their duty get promotion. The Government may not be completely guilty in all those cases.

The President gets up and says that the position in the country is very serious. He talks about plots against paying rates and all the rest of it. In the Seanad, when the Blue Shirt Bill was under discussion, he got very excited. Periodically he can get excited, and say that the Government requires those extraordinary powers because the state of the country with regard to social order is very critical. He is right in saying that the position is very critical, but he is dishonest in saying that the critical condition arises through the Blue Shirts. Time and again we have had Ministers get up and say in effect that the Blue Shirts must be put down, because the existence of the Blue Shirts makes other people break the law. What is the Government's duty? The Government's duty is to see that the citizen enjoys the rights he possesses by law, and that anybody who attempts to take those rights from him will be punished by law. What is the argument that has been consistently put up by the Government? It is this, "Yes, you have the right to meet; you have the right to wear shirts of any colour you like; but those people who support us, and who automatically resort to criminal methods tend more towards criminal methods if you exercise your rights as citizens. Our method of meeting that situation is to prevent your possessing the ordinary rights of citizens, and to give those criminals a particularly favoured position in this State." I know that unfortunately— owing to our bad traditions, and owing to the fact that the record of the Government over there is such that people feel it almost natural for them to side with evil doers—the full seriousness of this situation is not realised. What is in store for this country if the Government remains in power any length of time; if the Government continues to do as it is doing at the moment, protecting the criminal, trying to put down law-abiders; punishing the police who do their duty, and promoting the police who do not; indicating to the police that their business is to show favour to those in a certain political force who are themselves criminals—the attitude being "go on favouring them and anything you do against the law-abiding people who happen to support Fine Gael will be recognised as merit in you?" At the present moment you have the Government—the President a few Sundays ago went around a little more frankly on the sort of work which he usually leaves to other Ministers and back benchers—trying to incite class feeling in this country. You have the I.R.A. and the Communist Party. You have Fianna Fáil Deputies and the President going around saying: "Support us; they are ranchers." A ranch is a farm bigger than the farm you hold yourself. That is the definition of a ranch here. If you own no land any farm is a ranch. If you own 30 acres the man with 40 is a rancher; if you own 40 nothing smaller than 50 is a ranch.

The President and the Ministers appeal to the cupidity of the people. The President thinks that the venality and servility of the Labour Party is explained by the fact that his policy is one which should appeal to the workers and to the small farmers. What does he mean? He means that his policy is one that will appeal to those who wish to become possessed of other people's property. Even if the President and the Ministers do not do that, that is the general attitude of mind in the world. It is an attitude of mind that can only be corrected over a long period of years by certain means of rectification. Here you have the President and his Ministers going around and advocating that form of class war. You have organisations possessing arms whose declared policy is that property shall be taken from those who own it and distributed amongst those to whom it does not belong. You have the police brought into such a state that they feel that they must support the law-breaker against the law-abiding man. You have the police knowing that if they do their duty they are likely to be punished for it. When the Government, by its action and its inaction, has created a condition in which social order is tottering, it comes along and says, "You see the bad condition of the country; we require dictatorial powers to deal with our opponents; we require to increase the police force and to recruit men who are law-breakers into that force." They have got votes of extra money to bring new men into the police and, as I have said, every indication we have had in the courts goes to show that, so far as the particular individuals were concerned, they had been law-breakers until they joined the force.

The Minister has the courage, shall I say, to come here and to ask for a larger Estimate for the police when the police are obviously, as shown by declarations of the Ministers, not as effective now as they previously were in maintaining peaceable conditions and when the police are actually being restrained from doing the work they are paid to do—namely, maintaining social order. We are asked to pay police who have been ordered by the Government, or their chiefs, to break the law. The arrest of General O'Duffy by the police was a completely illegal act. Why was it done? It was necessarily done in fulfilment of an order. The order was given: "No man in a blue shirt is to be allowed to address a meeting." Legally, a man in a blue shirt has a perfect right to address a meeting. The policeman knew that, legally, the General had an absolute right to do that. At the same time, from his superiors he had an order that General O'Duffy should not be allowed to do so. The only way to prevent him was by using force. There you have a conflict in the police between the law and the orders they receive.

It is almost inevitable that, in a great many cases, the police will take the orders from their superior and be guided by them rather than by the law. If that order was not given by the Government, then the Government should immediately call for the resignation of the Commissioner of Police, who would be the man responsible for giving orders to the police to break the law and deprive citizens of their rights. If the Minister himself, or the Government, gave instructions to the Commissioner to give these orders to the police, the Commissioner should have refused to obey the Government. I know that that is a thing that always tends to horrify the Government. They think that, merely because of their being a Government, every order they give must be obeyed and every wish they have must be immediately fulfilled. It was the duty of the police to refuse to accept that order from the Government. The police were really bound in law to do that. But you cannot blame the police. They have a conflict between the law and the orders they receive from their superiors, whether these orders emanate from the Commissioner of Police or whether they come directly from the Government.

The police exist, as I said, to maintain the law and ordered social conditions here. There is not any law in the police themselves. They have a conflict between the orders they are receiving from their legitimate superiors and the actual orders they know of, which exist in the form of law. Under these circumstances the police force at the moment is effectively serving no really good purpose. Of course, time and again, I have seen them participate in an endeavour to put down disorder at meetings. But at practically every meeting where that occurred, the people who were trying to make disorder would have been severely dealt with if the police had not been there. The members of the Government have stood up and told us how splendid they were because they gave protection to our meetings. They never gave protection to our meetings until we, ourselves, had protected them. They never gave protection to our meetings until, by giving protection they saved the law-breakers from what they would have got. They minimised the punishment the law-breakers would have got. Time and again meetings to which police protection had been given continued to be interrupted by cries, stones, and one thing and another when, if the police had not been there, the stone-throwers, the cat-callers and the disorderly mob would have been driven far from the scene.

The Government tell us how splendid they are and how they gave us protection. They never gave protection to our meetings until it was necessary for them to do that in order to prevent their blackguard supporters from getting the punishment due to them. We are asked to pay this enormous sum for police who are restrained from doing their duty by the Government or by their superiors. If the Government did not give orders to the police to break the law, the Commissioner should be dismissed immediately. Even if the Government gave these orders, the Commissioner should still be dismissed from his position for having taken illegal orders from the Government. The Commissioner's duty, in that case, was to obey the law and not the illegal orders of the Government.

One could make many criticisms of every Department of State, but it may well be that if a future historian looks back on the disasters that may yet happen in this country, the really guilty person he will see will be the Minister for Justice. There is an opportunity now to put down crime in this country. There is an opportunity to create a sense of security within the law and of insecurity without the law. The people to whom the Government are pandering are the biggest cowards in the country. The moment we brought in the 17th Amendment to the Constitution there was not a murmur from them. Before that, they could go around shooting police superintendents—so long as it was absolutely safe. They could shoot a poor boy named Ryan, but they only did it on a written guarantee that no harm would happen to themselves. The moment we brought in the 17th Amendment to the Constitution they were like lambs—most law-abiding people. They went back to their funk holes immediately. It was only when the Fianna Fáil Party came into office that the little bullies came out to throw their weight about the villages. While we had the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in operation, the decent, law-abiding people felt that they could breathe again. The would-be murderers were leading a very quite life and taking no risks whatever. The whole condition of disorder, which exists at present, has been directly produced by the Government, either by positive action or by inaction, either by acting wrongly or by refusing to act rightly. They are leading the country into such a condition that practically every class is beginning to think in extra-legal terms.

Time and again, I have spoken to members of families who have suffered from the blackguardism of certain people. They know that they cannot get proper protection from the Government and they feel that there is nothing for it but to protect themselves. Under these circumstances, it must be recognised that they are quite right in protecting themselves. I remember a casual case last year— for instance, the case of Tralee—and in which the blackguards and would-be murderers attacking had their grenades and their bombs, which they tried to explode. They burned General O'Duffy's car and attacked him with a hammer. Having done all that while the police were there, these men, who refused to recognise the Free State, who refuse to recognise the legality of our laws, who refuse to recognise any of our institutions, called upon the police to go in amongst the people they attacked because they thought somebody in the building was armed. They wanted, when they went with their grenades and bombs, to see that they would be absolutely safe, and they looked to the Fianna Fail Government to protect them from people that they were trying to blow to pieces. What happened? The police, in order to please their masters, the Government, instead of using whatever power they possessed to the very limit against the would-be murderers, searched the potential victims to see that they were not in a position to defend themselves against people who wanted to murder them. That is a condition that can only lead to anarchy in this country. You can talk about the Blue Shirts and say things about them, but the Government is responsible for anarchy in this State. Instead of using the police to put down anarchy, they have, in the instances I have given, used the police for the protection of criminals. There has been a number of crimes, and other things committed, and when questions are asked as to what steps were taken one is told that no information could be given in the public interest.

One could go over an enormous list. I mentioned the murder of two men in the breaking up of a railway. Clearly, that was organised action. Under the 17th Amendment to the Constitution the Government has power to examine people and to make them give information. Has the Government done that? What steps have they taken to bring to justice those guilty directly or indirectly of these murders? I would like to know if the Government has asked the police if they have any information, or if they have asked people who may have information, as to who was responsible for the murder of O'Reilly. I do not think the Government need go as far as the police to find persons who know who was responsible. The Government has power to arrest people suspected of having that information and of having them questioned, and these people are bound to answer the questions under the penalty of going to prison. Has the Government used that power? Not at all. It has not done that with regard to Daly or O'Reilly or the men murdered on the railway.

The Attorney-General

I do not know if the Deputy is aware that the Daly case has been already thoroughly investigated in court, and that the judge refused informations.

I am asking the Attorney-General if every policeman has been asked for the names of any persons that they think may have information, or who may be morally certain that they know who were responsible. If the police say that the Government has power to arrest these people, and to call upon them to answer questions, if they fail to do so they can be put in prison. The same applies in the O'Reilly case and in the case of the men murdered on the railway. The Government does not use the power it has but it used the 17th Amendment to put three men in jail for being in the Blue Shirts. The Government used its power absolutely to outrage justice and to attack a man whose mind, it was clear, had not even assented to breaking the law. By a trick the Government got him into a position of being technically liable to imprisonment and used that opportunity to put him into prison. I invite the Attorney-General or the Minister for Justice to say if it was compatible with justice that Commandant Cronin should be sentenced to three months' imprisonment. For what crime? Merely for this. That he, being a law-abiding citizen, belonged to a perfectly lawful association. But the Government suddenly met in the Council Chamber and made an order, and called upon the Military Tribunal to recognise as full and conclusive evidence the order they had made, that he belonged to an unlawful association. Before he had time to get out of that position the Government arrested him and had him sentenced to three months' imprisonment, because they had made an order before he had been able to make certain changes that were required in virtue of that order. They caught him in that way and gave him three months' imprisonment. I invite the Minister and the Attorney-General to say if in their consciences they consider that in such a case a man should be sentenced to three months' imprisonment, as if he were a criminal. Neither can do so. With regard to crimes against decent citizens they have power to get information which would enable them to bring to justice the people who are responsible, and those responsible for diabolical murders, but they will not use it. They come to this House now and, on behalf of the people, ask it to vote money to carry on what they call police policy for another year.

As I am rather annoyed at the thought that the morale of the Gárda Síochána has been considerably shaken all over the country as a result of things that it is difficult to explain, I should be very glad if the Minister could give some assurance on the points I am going to raise. In every district where United Ireland Party meetings have been held, and where the Guards found it necessary to take some action to prevent disorderly conduct, a report or a deputation is immediately sent from the district to the Minister for Justice. Before the deputation proceeds on its journey it causes an announcement of a semi-public character to be made as to the treatment that is going to be meted out to certain members of the Guards. The deputations of the Fianna Fáil clubs make reports, and they publish resolutions that have been passed. After some time they announce—I do not know whether it is done publicly or not—that the Minister has undertaken to punish certain Guards. As they say in the country, the Fianna Fáil club members go around making "a blowing horn" of the manner in which the Minister is going to deal with these Guards. Whether it is a coincidence or not, it invariably happens that within a week, ten days, or a month the Guards referred to by these clubs are transferred. It may be that the transfer was due, and would come in the normal way, if no report was sent in, but the impression left upon the community and on the Guards is that as a result of that action they are being punished by being transferred.

Certain members of the Fianna Fáil Executive and clubs in Longford came to Dublin on a deputation, and a report published in the Irish Press stated that the Minister had promised to take stern action because of the conduct of some Guards. The Irish Press withdrew that statement a day or two afterwards and said there had been no such deputation to the Minister and no such enquiries. The strange part of it, however, is that the individual member of the Gárda whose name was mentioned by the deputation was immediately transferred. What I would like to know from the Minister is whether the transfer was made because of this deputation to the Minister, or whether the transfer was made in the normal course of events? Was the transfer as the result of the views expressed to the Minister by that deputation?

Again, there are areas where the Fianna Fáil clubs look on all members of the Gárda as enemies of nationalism and as enemies of all patriotic endeavour. They charge that they are traitors and so on. I know that the Minister does not at all share that view, but these plutocrats in patriotism have that view. If a Gárda summon one of those heroes even for not having a light on his bicycle they will say, "We will soon shift this fellow." As a result of these things, I am satisfied that members of the Gárda are left with an uneasy feeling. I have not any evidence that the Minister is at all a party to any such thing. But it is a peculiar thing that the transfer of the Gárda to whom I referred happened shortly after the incident complained of. That uneasy feeling is being created.

At the present time the Gárda are engaged in a scrutiny of the register of voters for the purpose of verifying ages, deaths, and so on. Where a Gárda has asked a question in the homes of supporters of the Government as to the age of certain members of the family, where the Gárda has gone to the parish register for the purpose of ascertaining these ages of the people who made application to be put on the register, or where the Gárda has gone to the country register to ascertain these particulars, that is taken in the case of members of Fianna Fáil clubs as a hostile act notwithstanding the fact that the Gárda has made similar inquiries in the case of the other members of the community. I know that the Fianna Fáil Clubs take such performance of his duty by a Gárda as evidence of that Gárda's hostility towards them and a resolution is passed or attempted to be passed. There are unfavourable comments made and again the threat is used, "We will tell the Minister about that." That is a very dangerous state of affairs.

I would like to know what is the present position with regard to the I.R.A. in Longford? It is alleged, and I have fairly definite information of it, that quite recently a musketry course has been carried out in the northern part of the country. Rifle fire has been heard over a certain area. I would like to know if the Minister has received any reports in the matter and whether it is proposed to take any action. The brigade commander is well known there and boasts of the efficient and competent body of youth he has under his command. It is also alleged that a consignment of rifles was delivered there recently. I was recently told on good authority that a unit of the I.R.A. was met marching along the road and that they had a number of rifles. Have the Gárda any information on that and will the Minister say if it is true? It is disconcerting to find a thing like that occurring.

There are other matters of minor importance which I would wish to raise on this Vote, but I prefer to leave them over for the present. Some of the points I would like to raise are in the form of questions to the Minister. I would be glad now to have a statement from the Minister that these transfers are not the result of political action by the Fianna Fáil clubs; that they are transfers in the ordinary course of events; transfers arising out of the ordinary administration of the police code.

Mr. Victory rose.

I would like to intervene for a moment because of a certain publication. There are Press placards published this morning: "Charges against the Police." I presume that is a result of statements made to the House by me yesterday. I am not making charges against the police. I do not know the police guards who have been appointed to observe my movements. I would not be able to identify any more than three of them who were transferred from the military. Therefore, it would be impossible for me to make a charge against them. If Deputy Victory wishes to speak now, I will give way to him, but I am reserving my right to speak on this Vote again.

I would not intervene in this debate were it not for the definite charge made against the organisation to which I belong. I go so far as to agree with General MacEoin that superintendents or higher officers in the Gárda should not be removed until the charge made against them is properly investigated. He referred to a certain case in Longford town and the Press report in connection with it. What I asked the Minister to do in that case was to have a public sworn enquiry held and if the charge that was made against that superintendent was not proved he should not be removed, but if the charge was proved the least we could expect from the Minister was that that officer should be dismissed. What is the charge? A copy of it is in my bag at my hotel at the moment. It is that the superintendent came out of a hotel at 9.30 that night when a meeting was being held by General O'Duffy. He said in the presence of three witnesses "Clear this crowd of people," and he walks down to four people who were talking, raised his stick and gave one of them a blow of the stick and a punch. Two of the four men proceeded along the Main Street. This is the substance of the statement made in presence of witnesses, a copy of which statement is in my bag at the present moment.

Just one question. Might I ask the Deputy if it is not true, as I am informed, that at 1.30 p.m. in the street of Longford the chairman of the Fianna Fáil executive told the superintendent that he was demanding an enquiry into his conduct at 12.45 that day. Is not that true?

I was not in Longford, and I cannot accept any responsibility for what happened at 1.30 o'clock. But I am asking, as a public representative, that there should be fair play all around. I asked for a sworn inquiry. What I am charging is that two men were going down the Main Street and they were overtaken after 15 or 20 yards and one of them got a stroke of a stick from the superintendent. Another man got an unmerciful stroke and was rendered unconscious. That is his signed statement in the presence of witnesses. I asked for a sworn inquiry and the only thing we got was the superintendent's removal. I hold that that is not justice. Citizens are entitled to fair play and if any ordinary citizen committed such an assault action would be taken against him. I am sorry to intervene in the debate, but we should have justice all around.

The point I put to the Deputy is this: At a quarter to one a number of people were mobilised in this street. The chief superintendent was passing and gave an order that they be removed. After that the chairman of the Fianna Fáil club came down the street and challenged the superintendent, who had nothing whatever to do with the order given. The order had been given by the chief superintendent, the superintendent had nothing whatever to do with it, but as he was standing in the street the chairman of the Fianna Fáil club came up and told him he was going to report him and that he would see that he would be shifted.

Does that justify what happened at night?

No. But I am pointing out to the Deputy that the chairman of the Fianna Fáil club was demanding an inquiry hours before this alleged incident occurred. I want to show to Deputy Victory that hours before what he alleges happened and for which he is demanding an inquiry, the chairman of the Fianna Fáil club in Longford was demanding an inquiry and threatening that he would have the officer shifted.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again on Tuesday.
Barr
Roinn