It seems to me that the Minister for Finance in introducing this Supplementary Estimate has not shown a feeling of very great courtesy to this House. I think that when a Minister introduces an Estimate he should be in a position to explain the necessity for the Estimate to the House. He should not come into the House, as obviously the Minister has come, in a complete state of abject ignorance. We ask him to explain what is the necessity for these extra charges and the Minister knows nothing about them. He gets up and makes the foolish statement that additional provision for fees to counsel, for conducting State prosecutions, etc., is occasioned by the State's defending actions brought against it. What is the necessity for extra prosecutions and why have they cost us so much more? Why is it there is this extra sum of £5,500 for fees to counsel? We want to know all that and we require something more convincing than the foolish explanation of the Minister. If the Minister's explanation were correct, or if the Minister would go to the trouble of ascertaining the facts, the Minister would see that the additional receipts anticipated in respect of costs and fees recovered by the Chief State Solicitor amount to the puny sum of £100.
If these actions brought against the State are all foolish, ill-considered, unfounded actions, as the Minister would have us believe, why is it that the extra costs awarded to the State have amounted to the wretched little sum of £100? Is that not a proof that in the cases that came before the courts, the law officers, the Attorney-General and his advisers, have proceeded in a most foolish fashion? They have brought prosecutions that they could not maintain. They have had motion after motion for certiorari granted in the courts and have had to pay the costs. Is that not the reason that the Minister for Finance is thoroughly ashamed of the Attorney-General and of the Attorney-General's counsel who advised him, that the Minister for Finance is afraid to give us the facts, if he knows them, which I very much doubt? I think this House is entitled to full particulars of the expenditure. What is the cause of this extra expenditure? Why is it that an extra £2,000 is required for various expenses of juries, defence of prisoners in case of murder, and miscellaneous expenses of State solicitors? The item for defence of prisoners in cases of murder would amount to a very trifling sum. I suppose 30 or 40 guineas would cover that item. Would the miscellaneous expenses of State Solicitors account for the balance?
We all know that a great number of cases have been brought before the Military Tribunal and the State Solicitors do not figure there at all. The State Solicitors do not come up to prosecute before the Military Tribunal, as they come to prosecute in the Central Criminal Court. The prosecution before the Military Tribunal is conducted by a special solicitor, not by the State Solicitor for the county. What is the reason then for that extra £2,000? Does it not come down to this, that the State has been saddled with an extra £7,000, the amount of this Supplementary Estimate, because the work of this Department is being shockingly badly done, because individuals have had to come into court again and again and have had to invoke the aid of the courts to set them right, to vindicate their liberties which the Executive Council and the Attorney-General have been endeavouring to invade? But, Sir, as far as these items of £5,500 and £2,000 are concerned they are trifling. They are of no consequence. The real sub-head which is of importance is the sum of £238 for the office of the Attorney-General. I say that as far as I am concerned, and, I believe, as far as every single member of this House who has any respect for law and order, any respect for the administration of justice is concerned, we shall give no vote, not merely for £238 but for one single farthing, which goes to support the office of the Attorney-General, when the Attorney-General is not doing the work which is his duty and when the Attorney-General—and I use these words advisedly—is shutting his eyes to crime.
There is one principle of law, Sir, which is thoroughly well established. Where one individual takes the life of another individual, he must justify the taking of that individual's life. That is the law. It is fixed. It is established right down from the very basis of our law. If you take the life of your fellow-man, you must justify that taking of life. You may partially justify it. You may reduce it to manslaughter, but, prima facie, whenever you take the life of a fellow-man, you are guilty of murder, and the burden of proof is on you to reduce that from murder to manslaughter, or to justifiable homicide, if you can justify it. Acting on that principle, Sir, a body of men, in Marsh's Yard, in the City of Cork, admittedly opened fire on a body of civilians—admittedly killed one of them and admittedly wounded six. Those men, in law, are guilty of murder until they have shown some facts—if they can show facts—reducing that shooting from murder to manslaughter, if they can so reduce it, or to justifiable homicide, if they can so prove it to be.
Now, Sir, let us take the facts of this case. There was a sheriff's sale— whether legal or illegal I shall not stop now to argue. At any rate, there was a sheriff's sale in Marsh's Yard in Cork. A small body of men—15 in number——
