Private Deputies' Business. - Treatment of a Prisoner - Motion for Select Committee. – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Wednesday, 29 May 1946

Private Deputies' Business. - Treatment of a Prisoner - Motion for Select Committee.

Mr. Donnellan:

I move the motion standing in my name:—

That a Select Committee, consisting of seven members to be appointed by the Committee of Selection, be appointed to investigate and report on all the circumstances surrounding the detention of the late Seán McCaughey in Portlaoighise Convict Prison, and in particular on allegations regarding:—

1. His detention in solitary confinement for a period of three years;

2. His confinement for a period of four and a half years without clothes;

3. His confinement for four and a half years without being allowed to exercise in the open air;

4.The refusal to allow him to receive any visits during the four and a half years of his incarceration and

to ascertain the motives for the insistence that he should wear convict garb having regard to the fact that a number of other persons sentenced by the Special Criminal Court and Military Court to terms of penal servitude were permitted to wear their own clothes and to serve their sentences elsewhere than in Portlaoighise Prison;

That the Committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to hear evidence on oath;

That the relatives of the late Seán McCaughey be permitted to be represented by counsel at the sittings of the said Committee;

That the sittings of the Committee, at which evidence or submissions are tendered, be held in public and that [1088] the evidence, submissions and report of the Committee be published.

I am delighted that this opportunity has been given to me to move this motion. As the House is aware, what led up to this motion was that last week I put a question down and, not being satisfied with the reply to that question from the Minister for Justice, I asked permission to be allowed to raise the matter on the adjournment. Owing to the fact that I was ruled out of order and that I was told that this was not a proper matter to raise on the adjournment, I put down this motion. I feel that if there is anything that should be made clear to the citizens of this country it is that there should be no ill-treatment, or no complaint of ill-treatment, being meted out to prisoners in our jails. I want to make it clear from the very start that, as far as I and the other members of this Party are concerned, we very definitely stand for law and order in this country. No Deputy in this House has as much respect for law and order as I have; and that is equally true of every other member of the Party to which I have the honour to belong.

Now, there is one appeal which I would make both to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for Justice when they are replying; that is, to make no attempt to side-track the issue in this motion by reference to murders or crimes that have been committed in the past. My motion has nothing to do with either murder or crime. The reason I make that appeal is because, on reading the papers on Monday morning, I saw a reference which the Taoiseach had made at a meeting in Cork on Saturday night. At that meeting he made a slight reference to the motion now before the House. As usual, he evidently considered it was a suitable place and a suitable opportunity, on the eve of an election, to give rise to a scare. His statement at that meeting was that the authority of the Government was again being challenged by armed forces in this country. That was his first plank there. That was the first scare he raised and that is the reason why I appeal to him now and the Minister for Justice to keep within the motion.

[1089] I understand that the Taoiseach went even a little further than that at that Party meeting and said that he knew of a certain conspiracy on foot in the country between the national teachers, certain officers of the Army and certain Republicans for the purpose of overthrowing the Government by force of arms. At least, that has been stated and I repeat it here. Of course, that is merely the Taoiseach’s usual tactics and, because of that, I feel that it is desirable I should mention these matters now. I know that attempts like that will probably be used in this debate in order to side-track the issue. I know that the statements made by the Taoiseach in Cork are utterly unfounded. Those suggestions of plots and conspiracies carry no weight. I know that they carry no weight in this House.

The issues in this debate are very simple. They concern merely the treatment meted out to one man, Seán McCaughey, in Portlaoighise Prison. That and that alone is the issue and that alone is the question for the Minister for Justice. Has the Minister for Justice a right to treat any human being as this prisoner was treated? In my view he has not. I realise that it is very necessary to have prisons in this country. Prisons are very necessary in any country; and sometimes it is necessary to imprison political offenders. That was necessary in this country in the past and it may be necessary in the future. But there is no justification for the treatment meted out to political prisoners in this country and especially the treatment meted out to the prisoner to whom I have already referred. No talk of murder, no talk of plots, no personal attack across the floor of this House to-night, no speeches about law and order can excuse the Minister for Justice for the treatment meted out to Seán McCaughey in Portlaoighise Prison.

In my mind nothing is more likely to provoke disunion, more likely to provoke bitterness than the ill-treatment of political offenders. That should be well known to the Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil Government because they are the people who climbed into power [1090] in 1932 on every platform in this country by talking about the way in which Republican prisoners were ill-treated at that time. If anybody knows, they are the people who should know. Surely, every honest citizen in this country appreciates that the result of the inquest in Portlaoighise Prison and the verdict in that inquest amounted to a vote of censure on the Government. That verdict exonerated the governor of the prison and the prison officials and placed the blame entirely on the Minister for Justice. Anybody who has read that inquest throughout the Thirty-Two Counties cannot but conclude that the result of the jury’s verdict there was a vote of censure on the Government. In my opinion, such a verdict coming from a jury in any country, except a country where there is a complete dictatorship, would immediately demand a sworn inquiry. Nevertheless, when I, last week, put down a question to the Minister for Justice on the matter, his reply was that he was refusing such an inquiry.

We hear a lot about democracy in this country and I need not explain to the members of this House what democracy means. The Minister for Justice and the Taoiseach, especially, very often talk about the will of the people and democracy, just when it suits them, but if we take the verdict in this case and hear the reply of the Minister for Justice that he will not have an inquiry, one wonders where is the democracy. I will go a little further. I will take the Minister and the Government back to September 22nd, 1936. I will take them back to the 17th April, 1940, and to the 22nd April, 1940. Here is a list of inquests. In the first, the jury added to their verdict:—

"We are of opinion that the deceased was not a fit subject for solitary confinement in Arbour Hill."

That was an inquest on a man named Seán Glynn, held on the 22nd September, 1936.

An Ceann Comhairle:

I thought the Deputy was definitely confining his [1091] speech to the case of Seán McCaughey — according to his motion.

Mr. Donnellan:

Well, Sir, I put it to you that as a new member of this House I look for your advice and for your protection and I always accept that. I want to point out to you that in my case for a sworn inquiry I want to go back a few years to discover what was the call made by the oldest and most respected court of the land, that is, the Coroner’s Court. I have here a list of four inquests. In the case of the inquest on Seán Glynn, the jury added:—

"We are of opinion that the deceased was not a fit subject for solitary confinement in Arbour Hill Prison."

In the case of Tony D’Arcy, a man from my own county, they added:—

"We are of opinion that immediate action should be taken in regard to the five men at present on hunger strike, in a serious condition."

In the case of Seán McNeela, a Mayo man, they added:—

"We are of opinion that criminal status should not be imposed on political prisoners."

Surely when we use that sacred word "democracy", we must realise what democracy means. Democracy means the will, the wish and the call of the people. Could any man in this House find a more honest or a truer call from the people than that from the coroner’s court, that had sat down, cool and calm, at an inquest over the remains of a dead person? Their call has been, since 1941, for a change in conditions. Every time the answer from the Minister is: "No, no, no." In one case, that of McNeela, the Minister for Justice gave evidence at the inquest, and very well able he was to do it. He was also ably represented by counsel. Nevertheless, what was the verdict of a jury of the citizens of Dublin? Regardless of how well the Minister represented himself and was represented by counsel, there was a call for a change in the prison system in this country, a call for a change of the way political prisoners are being [1092] treated. Surely that jury of the citizens of Dublin certainly expressed themselves in a very straight and honest manner. Surely it cannot be said that those courts are anything other than fair. I appeal, not to the Minister for Justice, but to the Taoiseach, that in view of those four inquests in a row, in view of the four calls from the citizens of this State, one after the other, to hear that call and to allow this inquiry to be held and to ask that it be held.

In this country, there is a rule of law or there is not. If there is not a rule of law, the country is a complete dictatorship. Are law and order are likely to command respect from the ordinary citizen of this country when that very law and order are being flouted by the Minister, when the requests for law and order are being flouted, when juries’ verdicts are flouted by the Minister? Where is the use in holding inquests on prisoners, when the verdicts count nothing? It is complete waste of time. Take the case of the ordinary citizen who meets with a motor accident, and is fatally injured. There is an inquest and when the jury find against the man who is responsible, accidentally or otherwise, that person is brought before the courts and tried, in some cases for murder, in other cases for manslaughter. But the verdicts of four juries in a row did not bring the Minister to justice, not at all. He sat in his seat, he said "no" every time; "I will not even have an inquiry." Where is the use, again, in the Minister for Justice or the Taoiseach talking about law and order when the Minister for Justice is the very man who flouts the laws of this country? He has done it in the case that I have stated. The House must realise that coroners’ and juries’ inquests are the oldest and most respected courts in the land. Their purpose, of course, is to make sure that when a person dies in some strange circumstance or other, an inquest will be held and, if anything is proved in the way of foul play or otherwise, the authorities will try to bring to book the party responsible. It has been the practice in this country, especially when a prisoner dies in prison, that an inquest is held. The [1093] purpose of these inquests is to see that the prison authorities did not do anything that caused the death of a prisoner and were not responsible for it. In other words, inquests are to curb authority as far as possible in this country and to see that authority is not used in any unfair way. Certainly it cannot be said that coroners or juries would be in any way against the Government, because, in my opinion, coroners are selected by the Government. I am subject to correction on that matter. But I think coroners are selected and nominated by the Government. Juries are selected by the police who are responsible in the area. Surely it cannot be said that coroners or juries would do anything at an inquest or say anything other than what would be honest and fair to the people in authority. Therefore, the four cases I have mentioned call out for an inquiry. It cannot be stated, very often it has been in this House: "That is the work of political touts and tricksters in this country; that is the work of people who wanted to abolish the Government" and things of that description. That cannot be stated in the case of the four inquests I have mentioned. On this motion I demand that the fullest possible investigation be held into the death of Seán McCaughey in Portlaoighise Prison. I demand that that inquiry be set up immediately.

In answer to my question last week, the Minister for Justice talked about people who committed murder. That had nothing to do with the issues at stake. In the first place, the prisoner I referred to was not convicted of murder and did not commit murder. He was tried and convicted on a charge of assault and unlawful detention. Under the ordinary law of this country, that man could be only punished by a fine or by a short term of imprisonment on that charge. But the ordinary law was brushed aside in this case by the Government and he was not charged before the ordinary courts of this country with this offence, namely, assault and unlawful detention. It was brushed aside and the Government found another place to try him. Now, strange as it may seem, of the seven [1094] people convicted of murder by the Military Court, four had been executed and three released. I understand that at the present time there is only one person who was convicted of murder in prison and that prisoner was not convicted by the Military Court. Therefore, the three people convicted of murder by the Military Court and who were not executed have already been released.

The point that I was on was being made by me in order to clear the air for the reply from the Government, and so that the House would realise that this is a motion that cannot be disposed of by talk of the discovery of plots, whether they are Russian plots, German plots, British plots, teachers’ plots or any other plots. That is the reason why I was moving in that direction. This motion asks for a sworn inquiry on just a few points. With the permission of the Chair, I shall read them: (1) the detention of McCaughey in solitary confinement for a period of three years; (2) his confinement for a period of four and a half years without clothes; (3) his confinement for four and a half years without being allowed to exercise in the open air; (4) the refusal to allow him to receive any visitors during the four and a half years of his internment and to ascertain the motives for the insistence that he should wear convict garb having regard to the fact that a number of other persons sentenced by the Special Criminal Court and Military Court to terms of penal servitude [1097] were permitted to wear their own clothes and to serve their sentences elsewhere than in Portlaoighise Prison. These are the simple terms of the motion, and anything that I have said up to this was to clear the way to show that murder and talk of murder, of law and order and of German plots and Russian plots or any plots, have absolutely nothing to do with the motion before the House. Both the Minister for Justice and the Taoiseach, I think it was in Cork again, stated that this man was not kept in solitary confinement. The evidence of the prison doctor was that he was in solitary confinement from 1941 to the middle or end of 1944. Who is telling the truth, the Minister for Justice or the medical officer of the prison, on his oath before his God? Definitely this country is entitled to know who is telling the truth. If the Taoiseach or the Minister for Justice will not accept this inquiry, I want to state in this House definitely that they are not telling the truth if they say that the statement of the doctor is an untruth. Why not have the sworn inquiry where they will get the opportunity of clearing themselves? Surely the people are entitled to know who is telling the truth.

I myself say that until the middle of 1944 he was kept in absolute solitary confinement and not allowed even out of his cell to go to the lavatory. I say that is the truth. If the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice say it is an untruth, why not have the inquiry to prove it? Are they not getting the opportunity? Remember I am not the only man in this House or in this country who is saying that it is the truth, and, surely to God, if such is the truth, are we a civilised people? Does the Taoiseach, or the Minister, not realise that if such is the truth that the curse of God will fall down on this country of ours, and is bound to fall down on us? Deputies need not mind laughing.

Mr. O’Rourke:

The missioner.

Mr. Donnellan:

I never did any false preaching such as the Deputy did. If it is not true, why is the Minister [1098] afraid to hold the inquiry? Both the Minister and the Taoiseach say there was not any ill-treatment. The medical officer of the prison, when sworn on his oath, said that he would not treat his dog as the prisoner had been treated. Who is right? Are the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice right in their statements, or is the medical officer of the prison right on his oath? Surely if those statements are untrue, I put it straight to the Government and the Minister that they have the opportunity on this motion to have an inquiry to clear themselves. I hope that they will accept the inquiry, and I hope for the good name of this country, that they will be able to clear themselves of such a horrid, shocking charge.

I say that man was kept in solitary confinement and was not allowed out in the fresh air for four and a half years. I say that man remained naked in prison for four and a half years; I say that man was not allowed to see visitors for four and a half years; I say that man was subjected to searches of his body by warders three times a week. If the Minister says such is not the case, he has the opportunity of proving such was not the case. That man suffered, according to what the medical officer stated in his evidence, from what they call a nervous condition. That was stated by the medical officer of the prison. Well, I suppose there was no need to state that, because any human being that had gone through the treatment that I have described certainly must have suffered from a nervous condition. I state here, and I defy the Minister to deny it, that a prisoner was sent from Portlaoighise Prison into a lunatic asylum. I ask the Minister to deny that if it is not so. From Portlaoighise prison was sent a prisoner into a lunatic asylum. That statement is either true or untrue. If the Minister says it is untrue, then have the inquiry for which I ask. If you say that it is not true, and that you will not have an inquiry, then I will still say: "It is true and you are afraid of the inquiry". Why, I wonder, are the Government afraid to hold this inquiry? I hope that the Taoiseach or the Minister [1099] for Justice will tell us why they are afraid to hold the inquiry. If all these terrible statements are untrue, including the statement of the medical officer of the prison, surely the Government should hold this inquiry.

Later on, I understand that little concessions were granted to the prisoners in Portlaoighise Prison. I know that the Taoiseach and other Ministers, when replying, will bring up those things. Of course, they allowed concessions. I will tell you how. They were afraid that, in the near future, every prisoner would be sent to a lunatic asylum and that the game would be up. What did they allow? They allowed one hour in the forenoon and one in the afternoon of recreation for prisoners in a larger cell. I shall tell you how that was carried out. The prisoners were brought along singly and the hour was nearly up before the last prisoner had arrived at the cell, with the result that the hour’s recreation was spent in bringing them to and fro. That was the concession which was granted. There was a little more. Ministers will make great bones of it and I may as well tell the House what it was. They were allowed one paper per week and they were allowed to write one letter per week, provided that what they put in that letter suited the prison officials. These statements are true or untrue. I believe they are true. There is at present in Portlaoighise Prison one prisoner who has been there six years without being allowed into the open air. I asked the Minister to say whether that is correct or not. Is that to be continued or are we waiting to have another death?

We heard a lot of talk about discrimination. I think that it was down in Cork on Saturday night the Taoiseach made a statement on that subject. The Taoiseach said:—

"We cannot segregate crimes of violence into two categories — one shameful and punishable and the other to be recognised by the Government as not really so blameworthy."

I claim that they have already done that. I will explain why I make that statement. At the moment, there are [1100] 20 men at the Curragh serving various terms of imprisonment. They are treated as military prisoners while six men in Portlaoighise are receiving the treatment I have described, although accused of less serious charges than the men in the Curragh. Is not that discrimination? Prisoners in the Curragh, in Mountjoy and in Arbour Hill are allowed to wear their own clothes. Is not that so? Why are prisoners, sentenced for less serious offences, not allowed to do so in Portlaoighise? Those who are wearing their own clothes were convicted of a more serious crime than McCaughey was. What is the meaning of "discrimination" if that is not discrimination?

Our prisons function under three British Acts, passed for Ireland in 1826, 1854 and 1877. The Act of 1826 provides that all prisoners must be allowed out in the fresh air for, at least, two hours per day. One hundred and twenty years have passed since the British passed that Act for Ireland. What has happened since and what is happening to-day? In 1946, the Act is openly violated by a Minister for Justice. It is being violated in Portlaoighise Prison while we are discussing this motion. I defy the Minister to deny that, in the case of a prisoner in Portlaoighise, that Act is at the moment being violated. The same Act limits the period of solitary confinement which a jailer may impose to three days. Convict prisons were set up in Ireland by the Act of 1854, which was passed immediately following the Famine in the days of John Mitchel and O’Donovan Rossa. I understand that Portlaoighise Prison is regulated under the Convict Prison Act of 1854. Yet, this Act, passed six years after the '48 Rising, limits the period of close confinement to one month. The Prisons Act of 1877 says that it shall be unlawful for the governor of any prison to order that any person be confined to a punishment cell for any period exceeding 24 hours. I ask the Minister to deny that those are the provisions of the Acts to which I have referred. The rules made later on by the General Prisons Board for Ireland provide that prisoners in separate confinement shall [1101] be permitted to take such exercise in the open air as may be deemed necessary for their health. Later on, rules made provided that the maximum period of close confinement which can be imposed is 14 days. I want to know by what law or what authority McCaughey was kept in solitary confinement for three years. Under what law or what authority was that done? I want to know by what law or authority he was kept for four years naked and not allowed into the fresh air. By whose orders or under what law was he treated as he was? Those are some of the many things — and there are more — that I want to know.

Wait a moment, I have not finished yet. I shall go further without any disrespect to the man to whom he was taken. I have great respect for that man, as much as any man in the House. It is generally stated that the authority to whom McCaughey was taken was the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Seán O’Grady. He is here in the House listening.

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Deputy has gone far from the motion. He is making charges all round.

Mr. Donnellan:

I am making charges to show that there was discrimination.

Mr. Cafferky:

Is the Deputy not permitted to make a case leading up to the reason why this particular prisoner received particular treatment apart from the others who were in the Curragh Camp — that is discrimination?

[1104] An Ceann Comhairle:

There is a possibility that in making such a case, assuming that the Deputy is endeavouring to make it, he is making very serious charges against other people.

Mr. Cafferky:

Deputy Seán O’Grady is in the House.

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Deputy cannot bring charges against everybody in the House, possibly without foundation.

Mr. Cogan:

I desire to second this motion. It is based on the fact that, after a citizen of this country died-----

An Ceann Comhairle:

Would the Deputy give way for a minute to the Parliamentary Secretary, against whom a charge was made?

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. O’Grady):

As my name has been brought into this debate by Deputy Donnellan, I would like to point out very definitely that I never met the late Seán McCaughey in my life, much less bring him to Leinster House or anywhere else. I never saw the man nor met him.

Mr. Donnellan:

On a point of explanation-----

Mr. MacEntee:

No, the Deputy has said it now.

Mr. Cogan:

The case for this motion rests on the fact that a coroner’s jury inquired into the circumstances leading up to the death of Seán McCaughey [1106] and in their verdict suggested that the conditions under which this man was held in custody were not all that could be desired. The verdict passed by that jury was a serious reflection on the Department of Justice and on the administration of the prison system here. It should have been the immediate duty of the Minister, on being aware of that verdict, to institute a sworn inquiry immediately into the conditions under which this unfortunate man died. The Minister might contend that it is inconvenient and impossible to hold a sworn inquiry sworn investigation whenever charges of that kind are made, but the circumstances under which these charges were made are not circumstances that arise every day, fortunately.

A man in his youth died under circumstances which demanded investigation, as the coroner’s jury decided that this man had not been treated in a manner which left nothing to be desired. That was a very moderate verdict, but it was a verdict carefully considered and deliberately given by a jury of citizens of this State on oath. When that verdict was presented to the Government, it was the bounden duty of the Government to respond immediately and set up the kind of tribunal which we have suggested in this motion. If the Minister is not completely satisfied with the entire form of inquiry recommended in this motion, if he is not completely satisfied with the terms of reference, we expect him to make an alternative suggestion. If he states to this House that he is prepared to set up a proper judicial inquiry, which will be independent and impartial, into all the circumstances leading up to this death, I am sure the House will accept that decision with gratitude.

Democracy is not weakened by a Government responding to an appeal for investigation into the manner in which its executive acts are carried out. Democracy is strengthened by such an inquiry. It was the failure of Governments in other countries to agree to any impartial investigation into their acts, it was the drawing of an iron curtain over all their executive [1107] acts, which led in the end to dictatorship in so many other countries. Refusal to meet a reasonable demand for an inquiry into such serious allegations as have been made throughout the country, and refusal to meet the moderate demands put forward by the jury at the inquest on Seán McCaughey, is heading the Government on the way to totalitarianism and trampling on the rights of the plain people. There are always two great dangers facing democracy, one on the right and one on the left. The first danger is that a Government, feeling that any inquiry into their acts will reflect on their prestige or lower their status in the estimation of the people, refuses to allow any inquiry into the operation of their various administrative departments. That course leads to the adoption of a dictatorial system of Government. There is, on the other hand, and I candidly admit it, the danger of a weak Government, a Government that refuses to deal resolutely with every form of crime and disorder. Those are the two dangers which face a democratically elected Government. It is the duty of such a Government to steer clear of these dangers. It is the duty of such a Government not to spurn or despise requests made to them for a full and impartial investigation into every branch of their administration.

I feel that the Minister or the Taoiseach may endeavour to make the case that if he was not to act in the ruthless and dictatorial manner indicated, he would be assisting or encouraging lawlessness or disorder. I know the Taoiseach went down to Cork last week and tried to raise a scare and to convince the plain people that there was some serious attack about to be made on the established Government of this country. We all know there is no such serious danger facing the Government. The Minister for Justice knows that. When introducing his Estimate only a few weeks ago, he made no reference to any serious challenge to established law and order. He did not suggest there was any such challenge, but it is necessary now, perhaps for electioneering purposes, to suggest that there is a [1108] danger of some lawless section in the community rising up, defying and overthrowing the Government. We all know there is a very small section of the community that is not committed to constitutional action. We know that their power and influence are very small. We know they are not powerful enough to upset established authority or to upset the administration of justice. It is foolish and futile for the Taoiseach to seek to scare the citizens of this country, the electorate, into the belief that there is some power organisation setting out to overthrow the Government.

Dr. O’Higgins:

You cannot break an old dog off his trot.

Mr. Cogan:

I suppose there is something in what Deputy O’Higgins says. At every election which has taken place here there was always some scare raised. At one time it was the American Note; at another time it was Churchill’s speech. There was always something.

Mr. Davin:

And on another occasion it was the Communists.

Mr. Cogan:

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle:

This is not an election campaign.

Mr. Boland:

Who was it moved the writ and who put them on hunger strike? Surely we did not move the writ.

Mr. Cogan:

The Minister will have his chance of speaking later.

Mr. Boland:

We did not move the writ.

Mr. Flanagan:

I moved the writ. What about it?

Dr. O’Higgins:

That is what was referred to as a revolutionary movement.

Mr. Cogan:

It is futile for the Taoiseach to proceed on these lines. He will convince nobody that there is any serious menace to the community. If he wants to convince the plain people of the country that he is the head of a strong and just Government, he will accept the proposal to set up an inquiry [1109] into the administration of the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is considered the key Department in every Government in the world. It is a Department which must be administered with absolute fairness to all parties, irrespective of political views or class or creed. Any charge of unfairness or harshness or injustice levied against that Department ought to be dealt with by the holding of a fair and just tribunal.

The Taoiseach may seek to represent our Party in putting down this motion as giving encouragement or support to a small, lawless section in this country. I want emphatically to repudiate that. I want to make clear, beyond all question, that this Party has no connection whatever with any unlawful organisation and neither does it approve of any unlawful organisation. Attempts have been made again and again to misrepresent our Party, to make it appear that our Party is in some way associated with some illegal organisation. I welcome this opportunity to nail for all time that infernal lie. Members of our Party have no association with any unlawful organisation and we are determined, whether in opposition or in power, to fight against any unlawful organisation that may be established or that may seek to establish itself in this country.

We realise, as constitutionalists, that any organisation which endeavours by violence to impose its will upon the people is an enemy of the people, an enemy of liberty, and is setting out merely to promote chaos and anarchy or, perhaps worse still, to impose a system of ruthless tyranny on the community. I want to make it clear also that if and when our Party takes its share in the government of this country, it will not be intimidated by any unlawful organisation. I want to make that clear, even to the Fianna Fáil Party. If they, disgruntled when they go out of office, attempt to dictate to the majority of the people by armed force, we will deal with them as ruthlessly as they were dealt with before.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Will the Deputy now come down to the Motion?

Mr. Davin:

That is a threat. Dictators of the future.

[1110] Mr. Cogan:

I know full well that there are people in this country who would like to exploit any tragedy — any pitiful tragedy such as the death of Seán McCaughey. We, in this Party, have no intention and no desire to exploit any unhappy incident. All we seek is to restore the Department of Justice to the position which it ought to occupy in this country, of being looked upon as the guardian of the people’s rights. There is only one way that the Department of Justice can clear itself completely from the charges that have been made against it, and there is only one way the Department can meet the demand made upon it by the coroner’s jury, and that is by agreeing to an impartial public inquiry. I hope the Government will agree to have all the circumstances leading up to the death of Seán McCaughey thoroughly investigated. I hope the tribunal that will be set up will be an impartial one and one that will command the confidence of the entire people of this country. If such a tribunal is set up I believe we would be on the road towards establishing greater confidence in our democratic institutions, and be on the road to eliminate illegal and unlawful organisations within this State. That is what we all desire. Nobody wants to have tragedies of the nature we are discussing to-day enacted again and again. Nobody wants to have young men led into organisations that are unlawful, illegal and criminal.

I think it is right when speaking on a motion such as this to let this House impress in the strongest possible manner upon the young men of Ireland, that they should not allow themselves, either on the impulse of the moment or in anger at some action on the part of the Government or otherwise, to be led or lured into any unlawful organisations. A couple of weeks ago I listened at a public meeting in O’Connell Street, and I must say that I strongly resented some of the suggestions and some of the appeals that were made there to young men. I must say that I was angered bitterly by appeals that were made to young men to embark upon courses that everybody knows to be criminal and illegal. I think it is a tragedy that the opportunity should [1111] be given to unscrupulous men to seek to lead the youth of Ireland astray, and it is our duty, as a democracy, to reduce to the minimum such opportunities. We can do it now by deciding that the prison system would be thoroughly investigated and the opportunity to do so is here, following the death of Seán McCaughey.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland):

The debate has widened a little more than the Deputy wished to have it widened. Before I deal with the terms of the motion I feel there is a duty I have to perform, both to the members of the House and to the general public, that is, to make quite clear what the conditions are that obtain in the prison of Portlaoighise, because I am sure Deputies and the general public have been reading all sorts of allegations about the terrible conditions that obtain there, even for ordinary prisoners.

Mr. Donnellan:

Are you accepting the motion?

Mr. Boland:

I am not. Deputy Donnellan will hear all about it before I am finished.

Mr. Donnellan:

Guilty.

Mr. Boland:

I did not once interrupt the Deputy.

Mr. Donnellan:

I am sorry.

Mr. Boland:

If the Deputy interrupts me he will get plenty back. I welcome it. I want to clear the public mind about the condition of ordinary prisoners in Portlaoighise or, for that matter, in any of our prisons. It is a matter, I am sure, that very seriously affects the conscience of our people. If some of the allegations that were made as to conditions there were true, or comparable with the terrible things that happened in Germany, I certainly should be condemned. I should be thrown out, and should be thrown in there myself if I stood for them. I can claim this, that from the very first day I went into the Department of Justice I set myself to see in what respect conditions for ordinary prisoners in jails could be ameliorated.

[1112] I was not long there until I saw that that was done. I happen to have been in prison myself several times, but before I was, I had read Oscar Wilde’s "De Profundis," and had taken a keen interest in the treatment of unfortunate people who fell by the wayside in this life. I have never had anything but the greatest sympathy for any person who had to be kept in custody for the protection of the public. If any of the things that were said were true, I would not have the temerity to come here and defend my Department.

I am going to show that this prison, and all our prisons, compare favourably with any prison in the world, and that some think that Portlaoighise is about the best in the world. I am not going to say that Portlaoighise jail is a hotel. It is not intended to be such. It is a place where people who have transgressed are put to expiate their crime. I am going to take plenty of time, so that people will know exactly what the conditions are. I will describe the prison itself first. The prison is situated less than half a mile outside the town of Portlaoighise. The portion which is now used for the housing of prisoners was built in the year 1901. It is a very large rectangular building with a glass roof and is very bright and airy. The cells in which the prisoners are housed are situated in four tiers on each side of this building.

The cells are large and airy, the average sizes being as follows: Length, 14 feet 6 inches and 11 feet 11 inches; width, 7 feet and 7 feet 1 inch; height, 10 feet 1 inch and 12 feet 2 inches. The entire buildings and cells are kept immaculately clean.

The main prison, in addition to the cells, contains the shoemakers’ and tailors’ shops, the bagmaking shop, laundry and cookhouse. The bagmaking shop is now used as an indoor recreation room by the special prisoners, the dimensions being length 61 feet 6 inches, with 14 feet 11 inches and height 10 feet 9 inches.

The prison is steamheated by two large Lancashire boilers; hot pipes run through all the cells and workshops. The prison grounds are laid [1113] out with gardens, exercise grounds and a ball-alley for the use of the prisoners.

I cannot, but I have asked expert dietitians to do it for me, as I say, and that is what they state. That diet can be compared with the diet which people are getting in other places. In addition to that, to make up for the loss of sunlight and so on which these men have inflicted upon themselves, in season they get tomatoes and greens from the garden to supplement their diet. I refer to those men who are denying themselves the same treatment as is given to other prisoners. I hope that these well-meaning people — and I am quite satisfied that many of them are well-meaning — who talk about prison conditions and the need for prison reform will carefully read what I have said as to the conditions obtaining in respect of ordinary prisoners there and will accept my invitation to make suggestions as to how things could be improved.

I have ideas myself with regard to the clothing. The clothing of the women prisoners in Mountjoy is all right — it is neat and clean — and I am not inclined to degrade a prisoner; but, although the clothes worn by the ordinary male prisoners are comfortable and warm, there is something depressing about them which I do not like, and for a long time I have been trying to get some brighter sort of uniform that will not have such a depressing effect on a prisoner.

With regard to this motion, Deputy Donnellan is very anxious that I should not talk about murder, acts of [1116] violence and so on, but how otherwise does he think I am to deal with it? I want to say this much, that it is with great reluctance that I do now what I feel bound to do, that is, to recount the things done by this unfortunate man who died in Portlaoighise. It is something which I would not like to do with regard to a man actually alive and in jail, because I feel that, once a man is punished, it ought to be enough, but when I am forced by Deputy Donnellan and other Deputies to defend the Government in respect of the treatment of this man, I naturally must deal with the crime he committed and more especially when, even in Deputy Donnellan’s speech to-day, it is suggested that his crime was of a minor nature and that a fine might have been sufficient to deal with it. Deputy Flanagan said some time ago that a man was fined 1/- for a similar offence. That was an attack on the court which sentenced this man.

Those two Deputies were not here when that court was set up. That court was set up with the unanimous approval of the whole House which meant the unanimous approval of the whole country. I submitted our proposals to the Defence Conference and I have no doubt whatever that the different Parties carefully examined these proposals. When the Emergency Powers (Amendment No. 2) Bill was being enacted, it was accepted with complete unanimity. Only one voice was raised — that of Deputy Dillon, who drew attention to the serious and drastic powers which were being given to the Government to deal with a very dangerous situation. Undoubtedly they were drastic powers.

This court was described outside as a terror court. I have no objection to its being so described. That is exactly what it was. It was a terror court — a court set up to meet terror in a drastic and summary manner in order to save this nation from the perils which threatened it at the time. Even though we may feel now that we have reached safe waters once more, we must still cast our minds back to the year 1940 when terrible occurrences were taking place. In fact, we must even go back before 1940 to the very beginning of the war and, even before [1117] the beginning of the war, when this organisation in the name of the Irish Government dared to declare war in Great Britain. People could, possibly, have laughed at that. In fact, we were inclined to laugh at it until we saw the drastic results that ensued. All of us in this House — or most of us, at any rate — remember the incendiary bombs and remember what was done in Coventry. We knew that this organisation was in existence. We knew that they were well supplied with money. When war broke out we interned about 70 of the leading members of this organisation from different parts of the country because we were quite convinced that, if these people were permitted a free hand, in no time we would have had this country embroiled in all the horrors of war. We had no doubt about that; neither had any other Deputy in this House. There never was a question raised in this House by any single Deputy up to the 1943 elections when it became clear that the peak point of the danger had passed. That was the position.

We interned, as I said, these 70 people. Following on that, an action was taken in the courts and it was declared by the courts that our powers of internment were defective. Some Deputies in this House may remember that; one of them is a bit too young to remember it, but I certainly remember it because it was I who had to handle the entire matter myself. We allowed these people out and we were upbraided here — and perhaps quite justifiably so — by Deputy McGilligan in taking a chance of that kind. Within three weeks of the release of those men our Magazine, where we store the ammunition so essential in the defence of our country, was raided by this gang. They carried away 1,000,000 rounds of ammunition and it took us months and months to recover it; but we got it back eventually. That happened in or around Christmas 1939. Shortly after that one of these political prisoners — one of these people who had been interned and subsequently released — shot a Guard on the streets of Cork. That was at the beginning of January, 1940.

[1118] Recently, I came across "a legal opinion" given about that case; I do not know whether other Deputies in this House have got a copy of that or not. There is an organisation in America styling itself "The Red Branch Knights", and they have sent over a circular containing resolutions. One of the resolutions appearing in that circular — copies of which have been sent to prominent men in Ireland and, I think, they also mention that they have taken prominent, eminent legal opinion — is that that man should not have been tried for murder. That is the type of propaganda with which we have to deal. I cannot possibly refrain from going into all these matters because they come within the terms of the motion and because of the circumstances surrounding these matters which are referred to in the opening part of this motion. A Guard was murdered in Cork in 1940.

Mr. Cafferky:

Did McCaughey murder the Guard?

Mr. Boland:

In April, 1940 — I particularly want to mention this for the benefit of those Deputies who were not members of this House at the time and who perhaps were not aware of the position at the time — a mine was exploded in Dublin Castle and five police officers and a civilian were injured. That was in the month of April. In the following month of May a murderous attack was made on two Guards who were escorting the mails in Holles Street. By the mercy of God, neither of them was killed and they held on to the mails. It was a desperate attack. The attackers had a machine-gun, but I understand that it jammed. If the machine-gun had worked those police officers would not be alive to-day. As it was, they were seriously injured. It was in that atmosphere then that the Taoiseach went to the broadcasting station on the following night, the night of the 8th May, and solemnly warned the Irish people of the dangerous organisation with which we had to deal and warned everybody that if this menace were to continue he would ask the Oireachtas for drastic powers to enable him to deal with the situation. That was on the night of the 8th May, 1940. The [1119] police officers had been fired at on the morning of the 7th May.

But, perhaps, the most alarming event was the discovery here that a German parachutist had landed and narrowly escaped being captured in Templeogue. He left all his paraphernalia behind him there. We got 20,000 dollars, a radio transmitting set, and papers clearly showing that it was the intention of the German Forces to invade this country should the opportunity arise. Subsequently, we discovered that that man had come here on the express invitation of emissaries sent by that organisation.

Now, I want the country and the House to realise what the atmosphere was when this man, who has now died on hunger strike, was arrested. I want to remind the Deputies that not one single Deputy of any Party ever questioned any action that was taken by the Government until 1943 when the election was in full swing. Now, as I said before, that court was set up. It had power to acquit a man, or if it found him guilty, to sentence him to death. That was a matter to which Deputy Dillon drew attention in this House during the passing of that Act, and it was also raised in the Seanad by Senator Douglas.

Mr. Flanagan:

You are quoting a very good Republican when you quote Deputy Dillon.

Mr. Boland:

I am quoting facts. That boy was only 23 when he came into the House and he has not had time in which to learn much. He ought to listen for a little while longer.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Minister must not be interrupted.

Mr. Boland:

Oh, I do not mind interruptions at all. I can deal with any interruption.

Mr. Cafferky:

On a point of order, the Minister is deliberately side-tracking the motion and he is not dealing with the motion before the House. He is absolutely irrelevant and we are not going to tolerate irrelevancies in this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Chair rules that the Minister is quite in order.

[1120] Mr. Boland:

Now I am coming to the most distasteful matter with which I, personally, have to deal, and that is the crime committed by Seán McCaughey. We were told by Deputy Flanagan that a fine of one shilling would have sufficed for that crime, and Deputy Donnellan said, in the course of his speech, a fine would have been sufficient — but he did not mention a shilling. McCaughey was arrested on the 2nd September, 1941, in the vicinity of a house in which a man named Stephen Hayes was being detained by himself and his gang. At that time he was listed by the police as adjutant-general of the organisation; he had in his possession moneys, reports, maps and plans relating to the strength and disposition of our Army here and to the strength and disposition of the British military forces in Northern Ireland; he had plans of the sites of aerodromes and points of strategic military importance, etc.; he was also found to have in his possession keys which fitted the padlocks fettering Stephen Hayes; and he had notes of an interview with the German parachutist I have already mentioned. I shall tell you the story now as it was told by Stephen Hayes during the course of McCaughey’s trial. Medical testimony of the time bore out a lot of that evidence, going on the condition that he was found to be in. On June 30th, 1941, Hayes, who was chief-of-staff of this organisation, McCaughey, who was adjutant-general, a man named Rice that Deputy Flanagan is very interested in and asked a question about him yesterday, who is one of the headquarters staff and who is now serving a sentence of 20 years for attempted murder of a police officer, and a fourth man met in a house in Coolock, County Dublin. McCaughey and Rice held up Hayes and accused him of being a Government agent, tied his hands behind the back of the chair with copper wire, pending his removal during the night to a safe place in the Cooley Mountains, County Louth. He was then brought by car to an empty house and was kept there for some days, during which he was subjected to brutal treatment in an effort to [1121] force a confession from him that he was a Government or police agent. These men tied him to chairs, blindfolded him, struck him over the head with revolvers, stamped with their boots on his bare feet, kicked him on the shins and thighs and generally subjected him to torture. After some days of this he was informed he was to be shot unless he agreed forthwith to make a statement of his dealings with the Government and the police. To gain time he said he would. That night he was moved back to a Dublin suburb again for safety, and after a couple more days he was taken to a house in Glencree owned by Mr. Roger McHugh, who is interested very much in this agitation.

This gentleman is on the staff of University College, Dublin. He was interned at that time. I could not get the people who could have proved he knew what was happening in his house to come forward. They were afraid. Otherwise he would have been tried. He was interned anyhow and let out on the undertaking of friends of his that he would keep away from these things in future.

While Hayes was being tortured in Glencree, it transpired that his brother-in-law was also a prisoner in the same house. He by some means managed to escape. This frightened the gang who were torturing Hayes and they decided to move him. They made him march from Glencree in his slippered feet across bogs and fields to a house in Rathmines. When he arrived his feet were raw and bleeding. He was tied with ropes and his hands and foot were manacled with padlocked chains, the keys of which, as I said before, were found in McCaughey’s possession when captured. Towards the end of July, he was court-martialled and condemned to death, the sentence being conveyed to him by one of his captors, who handed him a prayer-book opened at "Prayers for the Confessional."

It may seem to Deputies that this story cannot be true. Nevertheless, it was sworn to in court, corroborated by medical testimony, and not denied by the accused. Anyway, that is not the [1122] only case of that type of thing and I am going to delay the House to let them know of another similar case which happened some years before that, in 1933. This was a case of a man named Turley. A report of this appeared in the Belfast papers and in the Irish Times of the 21st September, 1945. Papers were found in the house of a man named Daniel Turley, 29 years old, of Drew Street, Belfast. Contained amongst these papers was a letter from Turley’s father addressed to "Dear Maggie" and signed "Dan" — Dan being Turley’s father — and a memorandum which gave a detailed account of the interrogation of this man named "Dan." Turley told the detective who found the papers: "Those were written by my father in 1933. You will find them interesting." The following extracts were read in the court:—

"I went in body and soul to do everything to stop the information that was breaking out somewhere. I believe I was closing on the source, that the person or persons responsible for it were getting afraid, and that the only way was to get me out of the way, by possibly dropping some hint from the C.I.D."

The letter told of Turley going to a meeting on April 15th, 1933, and contained the statement that it was his intention to finish.

"I had been quietly praying to God to guide me if I was doing right in allowing my children to continue in an organisation that in my opinion was going day by day anti-Catholic.

"When I arrived at the meeting I was placed under arrest without being told why. I was put into a car with a guard and taken to a place which took us up to 1.30 a.m. to reach. While in the car I demanded to know why and was told it was for giving information to the enemy. Being innocent I was satisfied, believing I would get a courtmartial. I was put in a place under guard and kept there without anyone coming near me for seven days. I only got an hour’s exercise in the morning and the evening in an old dark passage in the cellar.

[1123] "On Tuesday night, about 9.15, two men came in and started putting me through the third degree. They accused me of giving away the dumps. I protested my innocence, but they would not listen to me and said they would tear me limb from limb if I did not confess. After three hours I still proclaimed my innocence. They got me by the throat and threw me down on the floor, kicking me and beating me with guns, chairs and their fists.

"Then they got pincers and put them into my mouth, twisting my teeth, tongue and lips. They stood on my arms and chest. By this time I was almost unconscious and fearing I would die they pulled me up on a chair. When I recovered, this started all over again, pulling the hair out of my head in handfuls, beating my face with guns and my head against the wall. I asked them to shoot me, but they refused, saying they would not let me die so easily, but would come every hour of the night and day and cut me up bit my bit.

"A G.H.Q. officer, who was standing by watching all this, came in and appealed to me to give them something, as he could not stand there and see what I was suffering. I told him I had nothing to give them, as I was innocent. He said he could not stop them. These men then put a poker in the fire to continue the torture, and the G.H.Q. man again asked me to give them something. I again asked them to shoot me or give me a court-martial, but this was refused, and the men approached to continue the torture.

"To save me the G.H.Q. man again asked me to say: ‘I gave away the dumps,’ and in a moment of weakness I agreed to say so, thinking it would get me a court martial, when I could deny all that and prove my innocence. They came the next day and forced me to sign a document that it was all lies.

"They also told me to say: ‘I gave away two lads for a certain job’ and, when I refused to accept this, what I went through the night before [1124] was nothing in comparison. I was beaten for over one and a half hours. My face was smashed up and my body was black from top to bottom. I cannot repeat all I went through. At last I told them"

— just as Hayes did —

"to put down anything — I would sign it — and prayed for a speedy death. They denied me a priest and said they would send me to hell."

Turley also wrote that he refused to go away and forget about his wife and family. He was put across the Border at County Monaghan. This unfortunate man, in 1936, thought he could come home and live with his wife and family and he was shot in Kashmir Road, Belfast.

This is the organisation and these are the people that we are asked to treat, not as criminals, but as respectable citizens who have political differences with the Government. That is really what it amounts to. It is quite clear from the statement in regard to Turley that they forced him to say something which he said was not true. I am perfectly satisfied that the same is true in respect of Hayes. I have to make a confession to this House — I told the members of the Defence Conference at the time; they will remember — that not alone was Hayes not giving information to the Guards but, unfortunately, some Guards were giving information to him.

There were three of them in particular and until we got them out of the force no headway was made in dealing with that organisation. One of them was tried and convicted and he got five years. He is one of those people in respect of whom we had a long screed read out by Deputy Flanagan on the Estimate for my Department. In the case of the other two we could not get direct evidence, so all we could do was to put them out of the Guards. After that, things began to happen. The real position was that every time an attempt was made to capture Hayes, they were able to get word out and, I am quite satisfied, it was through the instrumentality of these agents who were in our pay — just the very reverse of what they accused Hayes of. We put Hayes [1125] on trial. He got five years on admitting that he was Chief of Staff of the I.R.A. when some of these crimes were committed. I did my best. I told the Guards to try to connect him, as we felt we could do, with one particular murder. Although his organisation was responsible for the man’s murder we could not get direct evidence to incriminate him. If we had got it, he would have been put on trial for his life. The murder was that of a man named Devereux, who was shot by a man who actually slept in the same bed with him for three nights before he was murdered. He was one of their own organisation. He was no agent. I made special inquiries from the Gárda. Some years ago a boy named Egan was shot in Dungarvan on the suspicion that he was also an agent. That boy never gave one tittle of information; Devereux never did either, and neither did Hayes. That is the sort of justice meted out by these people to their own members. I do not know what their motive was. My theory about it is that they were not satisfied that Hayes was drastic enough; that this particular crowd wanted to get control themselves and they simply framed this case against him. Anyway, I can definitely tell the House that, so far as we were concerned, if we could have got sufficient evidence to put Hayes on trial for his life we certainly would have done it.

Now coming to this agitation, I am not going to say that Deputy Donnellan or Deputy Cogan or Deputy Flanagan or any other Deputies who have taken up this case are consciously helping this I.R.A. organisation, but I want to tell the House that 12 months ago I was aware that this campaign was about to be launched. There is a well-known legal gentleman who has severed about one-quarter of his connection with the I.R.A. He was trusted by them most implicitly. This particular gentleman is an expert on juries. I think most Deputies will know who he is. He was one of the originators of this campaign. Their idea was: The war is over now and our chances of becoming Gauleiters have vanished. We cannot allow the organisation to die. We will take no action for the [1126] moment. Our best men, the men we could rely on to do the most desperate things, are in jail and we will postpone any further activity until we get them out. We will confine all our activities to an amnesty movement. We will influence good-meaning people all over the country, members of county councils, members of all parties, Fianna Fáil included, if we can to press the Government to release all the remaining prisoners. That was the plan.

Mr. Cogan:

On a point of order. We have not pressed for the release of the prisoners.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Cogan:

It is a point of explanation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Deputy should know what a point of order is and not rise to make a point of order unless it is a point of order.

Mr. Boland:

That was the idea of the campaign. There was no question about this man’s demand to the Government; there was no question of his treatment; it was a question of his release. He definitely insisted right to the very end that he would continue on hunger strike until he was released. This movement, I think, might have been a flop if it had not been for the fact that this unfortunate man died on hunger strike and that they got another man to go on hunger strike in Belfast.

Naturally, they play on the good feelings and the well-known soft-heartedness of the Irish people. I have to confess that I am a bit that way myself. We are all tainted that way. It is a failing in our Irish nature. We have not enough steel in us; I have not got it, except in a case of this kind where we must stand up against a dangerous organisation. Their plan was to rope in all sorts of people who are out for prison reform and who would never stand for any form of violence, to get them into this agitation and eventually force the Government to let out the men they want out, the men who will shoot, the men who will be available when they decide to [1127] make war on somebody in the name of the Irish people again.

I want to warn them again, if they are thinking of carrying on this hunger strike, that it will have the same result. I want to warn any man who thinks he will get himself out by hunger striking that it will not happen. It happened with tragic results before. The Taoiseach mentioned that time and again. We are all aware of what happened in that period of our Government when we were trying conciliation and leniency. We did it, I think, to an extent which was scarcely justified. We tried it out anyhow. It was bound to end in complete failure. Anyway, we have the satisfaction of having tried it and found that it did not succeed. They are not going to get out now until they have served their time or until the Government feel that they have been imprisoned long enough and review their sentences. But they are not going to get released by this means. That is final.

As to this movement, there was, first, the organisation itself and then their outside aids. There were two legal men. One of them has an old connection with the I.R.A. He is a very experienced man and he is an expert on juries. He was tried by a jury once himself and on that occasion both the judge and the jury were threatened.

That makes it unfortunate, certainly.

Mr. Boland:

I thank the Deputy for what he has done. May I explain the matter in this way, that I wanted to make it clear that I was sorry for the doctor to have to stand in front of a man of the experience of Mr. McBride with juries? I had the satisfaction of dealing with him once myself, and I was very sorry that I had not the opportunity this time, because I know Mr. McBride. Anyway he trapped this man into making a remark which was not quite correct. Deputy Donnellan referred to the verdicts of coroners’ juries, but I saw jurors being handled by Mr. McBride myself at another inquest, and I must say my feeling was one of pity for the jurors. I would not expect them to give any other verdict than the verdict they gave. Having regard to the past history of the way jurors have been treated in this country, no other verdict could be expected from them. After the other case, I took care to have an Emergency Powers Order made dispensing with juries in a case of that kind. When I bring in the new Coroners Bill I will ask the House to make provision so that, in similar cases, any Minister for Justice may be empowered to dispense with a jury when people like him are going to make the use that he made of the jury in this case. Someone asked why we did not arrest him. We arrested him in 1940 when things were very hot, and we got a very definite promise that he was going to keep out of these things. It was very definite and was given in writing. Here it is:

"I do solemnly and sincerely promise that I shall not engage in or encourage any activities prejudicial to the peace, order or security of the State."

He did not keep that promise, as was obvious from documents seized by the police when arresting wanted men. There was correspondence between two men whose names were posted on the public streets as wanted by the police for interrogation in connection with [1130] a murder. In one of the letters which was got about a week after the murder of Detective Officer O’Brien, we find this:—

The Minister is not fit to wipe Seán McBride’s boots.

Mr. Traynor:

He is wiping the Deputy’s anyhow.

Mr. Boland:

We find this in another document:

[1131] "I would have preferred, however, to have learned of your progress by despatch from you. Please forward full details and let me know whether Seán McBride intends to implement the suggestions I made in my last despatch."

Here is another:

"We are launching a campaign protest against the arrest of the internees and their immediate release. Will you organise a similar campaign immediately? Contact Seán McBride and company and all Republican bodies for this purpose."

There is another lawyer, whose name I will not mention, unless I am asked for it. He was arrested quite a long time ago, in 1936 when, unfortunately, I happened to be acting as Minister for Justice for a few months. It was a rather rough period but that was my bad luck. He wrote a cringing letter which I have, to get out. That man is complimented in some of these documents that we captured for the help that he gave this organisation in identifying witnesses in the case of the man who was about to be tried for the murder of Detective Officer O’Brien. Maybe Deputy Costello will now understand my reluctance to allow counsel and legal advisers in to some of these prisoners.

Mr. Costello:

I do not.

Mr. Boland:

I cannot help the Deputy if he does not. We had other prisoners mentioned and I am sure that Deputy Donnellan will hardly object if I deal with them seeing that he dealt with them himself. There were seven of these people in prison. Deputy Donnellan mentioned that there were three people who were sentenced for murder by the military court and who have been released. That is correct. It was done on my recommendation by the Government. One was a boy named Hunt who happened to be in Rathgar Road when the machine-gun fire was opened on the two detectives who were shot.

I thought it necessary to detain the House at some length. I had to deal with the whole position. I was never optimistic to say that we had this conspiracy beaten. I know too much about their activities to say that. I am quite satisfied that they are no great menace at the present time. The police know them well. They have the movement well under observation and they know what they are doing. Nevertheless the line they are taking now, this semi-legal movement, is one we are watching very carefully. I have no doubt whatever that their ultimate object is to reorganise, if they get these men out, and to pursue the tactics they have pursued for the last 20 years. While this Government is here I do not think they are going to get away with it. When Deputy Donnellan gets control he can make the experiment that we made.

Mr. Donnellan:

You made that promise too.

Mr. Boland:

I pleaded for that chance myself on several occasions when I was in Opposition in the full belief that, if it were tried for a while, we might succeed in getting them to contest elections and behave like other citizens, to settle down after the fight we had in this country. I was hopeful at that time that if the Government of the day could have seen its way to wipe the slate clean and then deal with anything that would happen afterwards, it would have a good result. That was not done. I do not wish to refer to that matter now further than to say that in 1932 we released every single prisoner of this type. After the Constitution was passed we cleared the jails again.

I have explained what happened to our efforts to run the courts by the ordinary method of trial by jury. We found that that system could not work, that trial by jury in these cases was a farce so long as terroristic methods were adopted by these men. Consequently in 1939 the Government [1140] brought in the Offences against the State Act. That Act was not at all as drastic as the Act which it replaced. I am personally of the opinion that there were some powers given in that former Act which we replaced to which we should have held on. I hope we shall not have to alter these powers, but if we find that terrorism is going to have such effect that witnesses will be afraid to come forward to give evidence, we shall have to consider some other way of dealing with this organisation. There is no use in talking about trial by jury in these cases. There is no use in expecting that witnesses will come forward to give evidence in such cases. Look at what happened in the case of the murder of Sergeant O’Brien. The men who had just shot him passed through a group of 30 or 40 people who were standing around the dead body and not one of these people would identify them for the simple reason that they were afraid. I would not blame them; no one could be expected to do it in the circumstances. There is not at the present time any great danger; the Guards are taking good care of that. The organisation is of small dimensions, but the members are determined, as far as I can see anyway, to carry on and to organise by the methods I have suggested. Their architect is the man I have dealt with at some length. He is a very clever man and he is having this policy carried through. So far it is not a great success. This amnesty movement is not going to succeed.

When the Government think that the time has arrived to release these men and to review these sentences they will do so. As a matter of fact before this strike took place, I had authorised the officials of my Department to examine the cases in detail with a view to making such recommendations to the Government as I thought proper to make. This agitation has stopped that but if we feel that the situation at any time warrants the release of these prisoners they will be released. If the situation does not warrant their release, we shall not release them. One thing is certain — we [1141] are going to see that that organisation will never again be the menace to this country it has been in the past.

Mr. Costello:

Since I came into the House some ten or 12 years ago, I have never been as bewildered as I find myself at the present moment by the discussion which has taken place here. We waited to hear the case that would be made by the Minister for Justice against the motion proposed by Deputy Donnellan. I listened to the case that was being made by Deputy Donnellan and my view, having listened to him, was that he had made no case whatever for the motion propounded in the House. Little as was the case he made for the motion, the case made by the Minister for Justice against it was, if possible, even less. It is, perhaps, fortunate that the Ceann Comhairle gave a very firm ruling at an early stage of this debate that matters relative to law and order and the enforcement of law and order in the past should, so far as possible, be avoided. It imposes on us on these benches a very severe strain. One wonders what the ghost of Kevin O’Higgins on the opposite benches may think of some of the matters discussed here to-night. He might have been here now, if the attitude taken up by the Minister for Justice and the Government had been adopted some years ago.

We can see nothing to be gained in the furtherance of the maintenance of the law by a motion such as that which Deputy Donnellan has raised. So far as that motion is playing politics we could have nothing to do with it; so far as it seeks to gain the support politically of a certain section of the people, we can have nothing to do with it; so far as it endeavours to undermine the impartial enforcement of the law, we can have nothing to do with it. This Party, and the Party from which we sprang, Cumann nGaedheal, gave the traditions of the enforcement of law and order to the Irish nation and it is one of the proudest achievements of an Irish Government. It is a great source of consolation to us to hear the Minister for Justice — and backing him, apparently, the Prime Minister — say that, having made his experiments, having gained his experience, in spite [1142] of his past, and their past, he is going to see that law and order will be enforced.

Donnchadh O Briain:

What is wrong with their past? If one side of this thing is to be gone into, will you allow the other side to be gone into?

An Ceann Comhairle:

If the Deputy would allow me, may I say I was about to state that Deputy Costello was going back, possibly, to the history of men before they came into this House and before they became Ministers.

Mr. Costello:

I have not the remotest intention of going back, having regard to your ruling and notwithstanding the temptation and the strain. I was about to say that, when the Minister gave his account of the various offences with which his Government has been dealing and indicated the intention of the Government to enforce the law and enforce it impartially, we welcomed that assertion. It is nothing new in this House and, except coming from the Government, perhaps, it is nothing for which they should take exclusive credit to themselves. But I listened in vain to the Minister for any reason dealing with the particular motion before the House, as to why it should or should not be accepted.

He went into the political associations or ideas of a colleague of mine at the Bar and on my asking his name he gave it to the House. What had that to do with the motion as to whether the deceased, Mr. McCaughey, was treated in accordance with the law or not, or whether he ought to have been treated in the way he was or not? I fail to see what the political associations of Mr. Seán McBride have to do with this motion, but it was one of the reasons the Minister for Justice gave to this House, apparently, why this motion should not be accepted. It is no part of my duty or function to defend the political ideas or the political actions of Mr. McBride. So far as I know him, I know nothing of his political associations. He is a loyal colleague at the Bar and a man of honour and integrity, so far as my association with him is concerned. What has that to do with the motion?

The motion calls upon the Government [1143] to set up an inquiry into the conditions under which a certain convicted prisoner was treated in Portlaoighise jail. The only relevant consideration to that, so far as I can see, is, first, was he lawfully convicted — and it is admitted that he was — and, secondly, are these regulations properly drafted and properly put into force in accordance with law for the governance of the conduct of convicted prisoners in that prison and have they, in relation to this particular man, being carried out in their proper fashion, or has there been any illegality in connection with the enforcement of them? That appears to me to be the sole relevant consideration in this connection.

What I wanted the Minister for Justice to tell the House was, not of the existence of a conspiracy by the I.R.A., not of the history of all these people whose history he gave with a view to showing how good the Government are in relation to the enforcement of law and order; but rather what I wanted to know was what the prison regulations are, under what authority they are made, have they been properly made and properly carried out. So far as I know, there is no suggestion that they have not been properly carried out.

It would be no part of our duty on this side of the House to suggest — nor would we give countenance at all to the suggestion — that the governor of this prison or any of the prison officials in any way failed in their duty. I think Deputy Donnellan himself exonerated all the officials from any blameworthiness in connection with this unfortunate affair. What the Minister did not give to the House, what he did not give the public — and what the House and the public are entitled to get — is, first of all, are the prison regulations in accordance with law, were they carried out in practice in connection with Mr. McCaughey in the same manner as they would have been in connection with every other prisoner acting in the same way. If the Minister had given the House that information, we would have been in a position to judge.

It came to my knowledge, long before I had heard anything of [1144] the conditions under which Mr. McCaughey was living in Portlaoighise Prison or any other prisoner was living in that prison, that there was grave reason to consider — looked at from a purely humanitarian point of view and leaving all considerations of politics out of the matter — the urgent need for the reform of the conditions existing in Portlaoighise Prison. That was conveyed to me, through a friend of mine, by a person whose motives had nothing to do with politics. He was actuated entirely by motives of humanitarianism, morality and religion. It may be that there is a case for consideration as to whether prison conditions in this country are in accordance with modern humanitarian and Christian standards. It may be that that is a matter for urgent consideration. I think the case of this one man — who is associated with a political party and with political activities and who is, perhaps, associated with activities, as the Minister for Justice says, of a criminal nature — should be dealt with solely as one individual case.

I think public interest requires that there should be an impartial consideration of prison conditions, the necessity for penal reform, and reform of the conditions under which prisoners are kept in custody. That matter which, I think, is a somewhat urgent one in its bearing on existing conditions, on modern thought, has not been helped by the present motion. The statement made by the Minister has not helped either his own case or the case of those who wish for more humanitarian consideration of the treatment of prisoners.

The issue in this case is not whether the Government are going to put up with the activities of an illegal organisation. I thought that all Parties were agreed that the law must be enforced and that no political party outside this Parliament has the right to dictate to this Parliament or to use force. I thought we all took our stand on that ground. What we want to know is whether the law has in any way been broken in reference to McCaughey’s treatment. If the Minister had given us an assurance, from his officials, that the treatment of McCaughey was in [1145] strict accordance with prison regulations made in accordance with the law, if he had given us an assurance that in no respect was this man treated differently from any other prisoner in the prison, then I think we would have been satisfied and the public would have been satisfied. But it is no answer to an inquiry into the circumstances in which this man died to say that he was guilty of crimes for which he was convicted and for which he was suffering punishment, and that other people were also guilty of crimes and that the Government intended to put down these crimes.

The manner in which the Minister for Justice met this case was entirely irrelevant to the motion. We feel that the movers of the motion and those behind the motion are to a very considerable extent playing for political support. We also have an uneasy suspicion, to put it at its mildest, that the Government, in meeting this motion in the way they have met it, are seeking for a different class of political support in the country, and that both Parties to this motion, the Government Party and the Party moving the motion, are really playing Party politics.

Mr. D. Morrissey:

Hear, hear.

Mr. Norton:

I want to approach this matter from the standpoint of humanising our prison treatment, and I have no intention of discussing it on a political basis. The claim set out in the motion is that there ought to be an inquiry into our method of detaining people in our prisons and, whilst the name of Seán McCaughey has been associated with the motion, I think it goes very much wider than the issue arising out of his arrest, detention and the circumstances of his death. The motion asks for an inquiry into the subject of solitary confinement, into the subject of the confinement of a prisoner without clothes, into the subject of the confinement of prisoners without exercise, into the question of the refusal of visits and into the question of insistence on the wearing of convict garb as the alternative to a prisoner going naked. These are issues upon which the public are asking questions. These are issues upon [1146] which, in an intelligently governed country, we ought to give the public the facts.

There is very considerable public disquiet — putting it no higher than that, lest in any way I exaggerate — at the fact that here was a prisoner in solitary confinement for over three years and without prison clothes, without any normal clothes, for a period of four and a half years. People are not just fools because they are well-meaning or well-intentioned. In my own experience, and I imagine other Deputies have the same experience, I find that there is a wide circle of people genuinely concerned, genuinely disturbed, that in 1946 a person could be in solitary confinement for three years and without normal clothes for a period of four and a half years. If that is happening — and it is alleged that it happened in this case — there ought to be an inquiry to ascertain why it happened, the circumstances in which it happened and, if it is found necessary, there should be a remedy applied, so that conditions of that kind will not be repeated. Our national dignity and concepts will not be in the slightest way hurt if we can devise, so far as the treatment of our prisoners is concerned, methods of prison treatment which will work here.

It is our task to make the Government work here; it is our task to make our prison system work and we ought not to be so starchy as to refuse to provide for the introduction of methods of detention and treatment which will work, having regard to the character of our people and the background which confronts everybody who has to examine the problem of the detention of prisoners, particularly prisoners who have had a political past.

It is alleged that McCaughey spent over three years in solitary confinement. The Prison Order of 1925, which included regulations for the treatment of prisoners and for the punishment of prisoners if necessary, provided that where a prisoner was guilty of a breach of discipline, where he was guilty of a serious offence, or repeated the commission of serious offences, a visiting committee was empowered to hold an [1147] inquiry and to impose punishment. But when it came to close or solitary confinement, the maximum punishment which the visiting committee was empowered to impose was close confinement for a period not exceeding 14 days.

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Taoiseach.

Mr. Flanagan:

Is the Chair deliberately passing me? I have risen to speak five times.

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Chair should not be accused of deliberately passing over anybody.

Mr. Flanagan rose.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Will the Deputy please keep quiet? Two members of Clann na Talmhan have spoken, one Government, one Fine Gael and one Labour, and an Independent Deputy wants to get in in front of the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach:

When I was listening to Deputy Norton I said to myself it is well that hope springs eternal. The same hope that the Deputy gave expression to here, I gave expression to [1151] many years ago. It was my hope that as the years passed, and as it became apparent to everybody that we were here in this part of Ireland a self-governing community governing through our representative institutions, that nobody in this country would appeal to force, and that that would be accepted. I gave expression to exactly the same sentiments when I stated that the previous Government had been harsh. I can honestly say, as I sat on the opposite benches, and heard the determination, if I might put it that way, expressed by members of that Government, that I felt it was a wrong course; that there was no need for it, and that in a little time the whole thing would settle down.

As evidence of goodwill in that matter our first act, I think, on coming into office was to let out all the prisoners. A very short time elapsed and we saw we were wrong, that the organisation began to become more intense, and it was not very long until acts of violence of the same character as those which had taken place previously began to crop up again. Time had elapsed, and we thought that it would have done its work, but we were wrong, and I am as certain as I am that I am standing here, from our experience, that if we left these benches to-morrow and Deputy Norton and his friends took our place, they would be faced with exactly the same type of problem as we have to face. Everything that sympathetic understanding, as I might call it, everything that kindly humanitarian feeling or any feelings of that sort could do to try to remedy that situation was honestly done by this Government, so much so that the previous Government, in Opposition, probably with their experience, blamed us, and I think, looking back on it, blamed us rightly for trying methods which were not going to succeed.

We heard during the recent war a good deal about methods of conciliation and where they led. I think the same sort of thing might be said about us. We faced up to a very serious situation during the world war. We had to deal with an armed body which, [1152] as the Minister has pointed out, took it upon itself to declare war on behalf of our people and in the process of that war, not merely was committing the people but was attacking here the servants of the people, the police, were intimidating witnesses and were trying, so far as they could, to bring the whole organisation of order here into disorder. That was the position.

Deputy Norton has said there is need of prison reform. I do not think there is in the wide world to-day a legislative assembly whose members have such a wide knowledge, such a wide personal knowledge of prison conditions as we have. I have been in about 14 prisons. I cannot say in how many the Minister for Justice has been, but I have been in prisons here, in the North and in England — all types of them. I was so interested in them that, when I went to the United States, I made a point of trying to find out what prison conditions were like there. So that, from the point of view of thoroughly understanding the prison system, we know it from personal experience. We know exactly where it hurts, where it is likely to demoralise and also where it is essential.

Speaking of the prison system as a whole in this country, in other circumstances, if a motion came up for an examination into them, neither I nor the Minister for Justice would object very strongly. I believe, as a matter of fact, that what the Minister has said is true, that if there was an impartial examination and a comparison with the system in other countries, it would be found that the prison system here compared very favourably with the prison system in any other civilised country.

What are the purposes of prisons? They are twofold. There is, first, the detention of the evil-doer so as to prevent him over a certain period from committing the deeds again. There is a certain element of punishment, of retribution, in the prison sentence, but it is not so much to punish the particular individual who has committed the crime that the element of punishment is there. I know that some people, viewing it from the purely philosophical point of view, hold that it should be there for that purpose, but leaving [1153] that aside, the real reason for its being there is as a deterrent to prevent other people from going along the same course. If that is to be one of the purposes of a prison system, then surely you cannot make the prison a hotel, you cannot make it a place to which people would like to go. It must be sufficiently severe that when a man has gone there and has experienced it, he is not anxious to get back again quickly. It must be such that when he comes out he will not tell other people: "You need not bother. We may get into prison but what harm — we will have a good time."

Obviously, you cannot have that. It is obvious that there must be something of a deterrent in it. It is, as a matter of fact, well known that in prisons like Dartmoor there are a number of old "lags" who go back time after time, because the conditions in some of these long-term prisons are of such a character that when they get older and have lost the zest for engaging in activities abroad, they go back to prison as an old man’s home, where they get up at a certain time, where they get sufficient food, which is brought to them in their cells, where they get easy work to do and where, if they do not feel the deprivation of their liberty, they are satisfied. Without a doubt, for the ordinary man, the principal punishment in prison is the deprivation of liberty. He is cut away from his people which, for the ordinary human being, is in itself a severe punishment.

I remember once looking at a man in one of the prisons I was in — he was a young man of about 30 years of age, who was in for life, having been convicted of murder, and he had served a number of years at the time — and asking myself how many years a man would have to spend in a prison like that before he had expiated practically any crime he could have committed. The usual thing is that, when a man is committed for life, if he obeys the prison regulations and so on, he gets out after a period of between 10 and 15 years — it probably works out at about 12 years. We were in as convicts — full convicts. We were in a separate wing in Dartmoor. I have been in [1154] solitary confinement for months, and I can say from my knowledge of the system here that it is as light as you can make it, without taking away the deterring effect it ought to have.

I know that some people will differ from me. You will get the very soft-hearted person who very easily forgets the crime which has been committed. He does not think of the victim at all. The victim is finished — he has gone. The only person he thinks of is the prisoner who committed the deed and who is living in punishment. He attracts his attention very naturally. Here is a poor human being and he is in prison, deprived of his liberty; he cannot do just as he likes; he has to conform to regulations; he is just one of a large community; he has to wear a distinctive dress. Now, why is there that distinctive dress in prisons? Is it not obvious to everybody that there are two reasons for it? First of all, there is the fact that it gives to those who are confined together a general feeling of being under regulation and under discipline. That is the ordinary idea behind the uniform. There is, then, the other important consideration in that if they escape their distinctive dress makes them easily identifiable, and makes it possible to obtain information as to their whereabouts much more simply. Naturally it takes them some time to obtain a change of clothing. If a man comes out from prison in his prison uniform and goes into some refuge, where there is no desire on the part of the individuals there to support him, because of his political opinions or for any other reason, it is more than likely that the police will be immediately informed. Therefore, as I say, there is a definite advantage in having a uniform.

To come then to this general question of prison treatment, the Minister for Justice has already given the House a picture of the prisoner’s day — the time he gets up, the time he gets his meals, and the time he goes to bed. He has told you what recreation he has given them and the amelioration in their conditions which he has brought about during his period of office. I do not believe that any ordinary body of intelligent men, sitting down calmly [1155] and considering this matter, could come to any conclusion but that if conditions were made any better than they are prison life, or the threat of confinement in a prison, would no longer act as a deterrent to crime.

We are asked to deal here with the question of a special class of prisoners — namely, those who belong to this illegal organisation, who have committed murder, who have committed bank robberies under arms, who have kidnapped and ill-treated fellow-members of their own organisation. Is anybody in this House going to suggest that if a person commits murder and is found guilty of that act of murder that we should distinguish between those who commit murder because they say they have a political reason and those who commit murder for some other motive? Is there any single Deputy in this House who can honestly say that such a distinction should be made? Such a distinction cannot be made. I say to Deputy Norton that, if he comes here and tries to make it he will very soon discover his error.

Those people had to be tried by a special court. Why had they to be tried by a special court? Because they had made it impossible for the ordinary courts to function. They had intimidated juries; they had intimidated witnesses; and they had even intimidated judges. Then they asked us: "Why do you not bring us before the ordinary courts?" It could not be done. You will, perhaps, get an occasional brave man and woman who are willing to risk their lives for the sake of the community and the community’s good by telling the truth about these people, and who are willing to come forward as witnesses and to denounce these people for their crimes. But that requires more than ordinary courage. When you have an organisation working in secret, with a headquarters staff that can give orders to people: "This fellow has been found guilty of giving evidence in a court of justice — put him out of the way," and they have people in their organisation who feel that they have either to obey such orders or suffer the penalty of disobedience, how are you going to meet that situation?

[1156] The Minister for Justice pointed out to you three cases where their own people were wrongly suspected of giving information; two of those people were put to death in the wrong and a third one escaped by the merest accident. How can the ordinary courts continue to function and how can we expect the ordinary judge and the ordinary jury to do their duty and the ordinary witnesses to come forward into court and give evidence when they know that this secret organisation can subsequently kidnap them and try them in secret, with very little evidence, and then shoot them? That is the type of organisation with which this Government has to deal. I defy Deputy Norton, or any other Deputy, to tell us that if he were here on these benches and had the same responsibilities he could do other than what we have done.

It is, and always was.

The Taoiseach:

Now, when they were tried by this special court and found guilty the judgment of that court had to be carried out. In some cases that judgment was execution, and they had to be executed. In other cases, where there were any mitigating circumstances, the Government, in the exercise of its prerogative, advised the President, or used whatever procedure was appropriate at the time — for portion of the time I think the Government had power to do it themselves — to exercise the prerogative of mercy and the sentence was commuted. In all cases where the death sentence was passed serious crime had been committed. I challenge anybody in this House to say that it is not murder to pull a gun on one policeman and deliberately shoot him and try to shoot another.

We have heard the expression "political prisoner" bandied about. Are the people who commit murder in these cases to be treated as political prisoners with special treatment? Deputy Norton talks of some place we can have for these people. I am sure if he were on these benches he would [1159] very soon come to the end of his tether in his thinking. He has not told us how it is to be done. They shoot down our policemen, shoot down witnesses, intimidate judges, take members of their own body and kidnap them and, when they kidnap them, by torture, try to get them to make confessions and when they have made a confession, shoot them. How can you treat people like that as prisoners of war? You know you cannot do it. The Minister for Justice has told you that the moment one of them was reprieved from the condemned cell he got those who were about him into turmoil, resisting the ordinary regulations. When he was sent down to Portlaoighise, as he was by the ordinary regulations due to be sent, he said he would not wear prison clothes, he wanted special treatment. We cannot distinguish — we are not even by law permitted ordinarily to distinguish — between one class and another of those who are committed to prison for crime.

Mr. Norton:

Cannot you do it under the Offences Against the State Act?

The Taoiseach:

I am pointing out why we could not do it.

Mr. Norton:

You may not wish to do it.

The Taoiseach:

The Taoiseach:

This man consequently could not go out but it is about as true to say of us that we kept this man in from exercise and air as it would be to say that we starved to death the men who died on hunger strike. We did not do either of these things. He was for 1½ years separated from others because of the fact that he would not conform to the rules and, if he did conform, he could go out.

Now, is it his fault or our fault that he did not go out? Are we to say that we have not the right, that the community has not the right to fix the conditions under which prisoners who [1162] have been guilty of crime should be detained? Is the man himself to be permitted to dictate the conditions under which he is to be detained? I know very well that if you admit that a prisoner is to dictate the conditions under which he is to be detained you will not for very long be able to work the prison system. We could not permit him to dictate the conditions. We tried to ameliorate them. All the humanitarians and all the rest of you can talk your heads off, but I say that there is not a softer heart in the community than that of the Minister for Justice. I assure you that I would very much rather fall into his hands as an enemy than into the hands of the gentleman whose case for good treatment you have been making to-night. There is not a man who knows him who would not believe the same thing.

The Minister said: "We might be able to allow these seven or eight — or whatever the number was — to come together. We will be able to watch them." He got the biggest room he could get, a room, as he told you, 60 feet by 15 feet by 10 feet, or whatever the height is. There are eight windows looking out on the best prospect that could be got, namely, the prison farm. He let them come together there when they could not get out into the open. Again I say that if they did not get into the open, it was not through his fault or our fault or the fault of the prison regulations. They pitted their will against the will of the community, or those who represent the community, and said: "We will not do it; we are going to have our own way."

The Minister, however, as I said, did the best he could. He allowed them to have papers and gave them other things. We are asked "Why are they not allowed visitors?" They were allowed to have visitors. It is not even right to say that a man when he is in solitary confinement sees nobody. That is not true. It is not true of any prison. The warders, the prison governor, the doctor, the prison justices, the chaplain and the visiting committee all have access to the prisoners. Therefore, this idea of a person being in a dungeon, chained to a wall, cut off from all human intercourse [1163] is simply a figment. There is no truth whatever in it.

These men, in any case, for three years have been associating one with the other. They are in good health. The man who recently died on hunger strike was one of them, and he was in good health until he sent an ultimatum and said: "You let me out or I will go on hunger strike." Could the Minister for Justice, could the authorities allow him out? We had a sad experience — I do not like to go into it again — where we did that, because the people who went out were the first to reorganise and to attack the police, as they had done before. Ultimately some of them had to be executed for it and the lives of the policemen as well as their own lives were lost by our doing it. We had the experience and we had to say: "Sometime a stand must be made against this thing and our experience proves that it has to be made now." That is the stand we are making. We are saying definitely that these people who are convicted will have the ordinary prison treatment, which is good compared with the treatment elsewhere. They will not be excused because they say they have a political motive.

This motion is suggestive of falsehood right through as regards the treatment. It is as much suggestive of falsehood as the reply that was obtained by the direct question of our good lawyer, exactly the same general type of question as the direct question: "Have you given up beating your wife yet?" The lawyers when they put this little trick question try to press the unfortunate man to answer "yes" or "no", when it would require half a dozen sentences to reply to it.

Mr. Cafferky:

Are you suggesting that the prison doctor was telling an untruth?

The Taoiseach:

A human being with a rational will is not a dog.

Mr. Flanagan:

There is no need to shout.

The Taoiseach:

I have good reasons for trying to drive that home to the Deputy. When you are dealing with [1164] a man, you are dealing with something very different from a dumb animal. When you have a person who is a danger to the community and has done wrong, you have to restrain him. You have not merely to restrain him, but you have to do it in such a way that other people will not be tempted to follow him in his line of conduct. We could not have sent these people elsewhere without giving up that principle. Those who were sent to the Curragh were sent there because there was no room for them in the prisons. Only a small number could be very well handled in one of the prisons. When you put them together in large numbers, you have practically to give up any hope of any discipline, except the mere retention of them in that place. You could not do it. The Minister for Defence got control of these simply and solely because there was not available any ordinary prison in which they could have been detained in accordance with the general rules.

What have we done in this case? So far as there has been any differentiation, it has been in their favour. But we have not admitted the principle and we will not admit the principle. From the experience we have had in our 14 years of trying to deal with this situation, for the country’s sake I would rather a thousand times leave these benches and walk out than give in either on the hunger strike or on this question of prisoners of war or special treatment as political prisoners for those who had committed acts of violence. The term "political prisoner" was bandied about. It had been used and generally is used not for deeds of violence, but for expressions of political opinion. Anybody can express any political opinion in our State.

Mr. Flanagan:

Can John Joe Sheehy?

The Taoiseach:

Anybody can express any political opinion he likes, provided he does not advocate the use of force against the will of the people. That is the only limit there is, that he shall not organise to destroy the institutions of State by force or to get into control without having to submit himself [1165] to the judgment of the people.

I have dealt with the general question of prison conditions. I believe that these conditions are as good as they can be made without bringing the whole prison system to such a state that people will not be deterred by the prison system from committing crimes. So far as these particular individuals are concerned, I have pointed out that any departure from the regulations which are laid down has been caused by their own will. They have not been imposed upon them. It is not the Minister for Justice who put them into solitary confinement, as they state, even for 18 months. It is not the regulations of the Minister for Justice which compel them to stay even in this large room. They can go out to-morrow if they conform to the regulations which have been laid down. It is they who will not conform, and they will not conform because they want to be given a special status in this country, and we do not intend that they should get it from us.

I am as certain as that I am here that if any of the Deputies on the other benches were in our position in the morning they would have to take up the same position, or else the community was going to get into a state of chaos. If one section can use arms for the furtherance of their ideas and they call that political, another section will use arms in furtherance of aims and ideas of a social character as they will say. They will say that "we do not give a thráneen about your representative democracy; it must be of another type before we will agree with it, and if you had the right to use force to do one thing we have the right to use force to do another." I say that you cannot, without letting the whole community get into a state of disarray, take up the attitude of permitting that to happen.

It is said that there is no danger at present because of the restrictions and the restraint which were imposed during the period of the emergency. If it were not for that you would have this country involved in the war. These people wanted to do it directly. They did everything in their power, during times of the greatest tension, to involve us. We did pass through very anxious [1166] times. There was one time we might have been invaded from one direction and another when we could have been invaded from the other direction. These people, at the very time that we were in danger, were threatening the Americans, threatening the British and threatening everybody else as well as threatening us. They could have brought us in, but they could not have got us out. They could not have saved this nation. We all know what the present situation would be if these people, during that particular crisis, had had their way. We have come out safely and we ought to thank God. The whole effort of the community now ought to be to see that the safe position which has been secured by firmness, by vigilance, by not giving way to those who were threatening force against the community, shall not be lost.

These people ought to be very glad at the moment. They have had a wonderful Press in America. They have had a wonderful press here, and they ought to be very glad that the first step in the campaign has been so successful. The Minister for Justice told the House what it was. "Let us go out and appeal to the soft hearts of the Irish people; they have forgotten the war; you can appeal to them; they will have quickly forgotten the evil deeds and the damage and the danger that we brought on them; they will release the leaders, those who have done the most terrible deeds, and they will be forced to release them, and then we can organise again, and when we are strong enough and can get backing that will be strong enough we will be able to try it again."

I believe that the vast majority of the members of this House, if they consider the matter, will give no countenance and no support of any kind to these people. There is no case being made. The facts are admitted so far as these people in prison are concerned. It is true that they are wearing these other garments. It is not true that they are in solitary confinement. McCaughey did not allege it either in his first letter to the governor or to his family. He did not allege he was on hunger strike because of [1167] ill-treatment in prison. There is no prima facie case whatever to support allegations of ill-treatment, none whatever.

There was one matter which came in which was new to me. It was raised, I think, by Deputy Donnellan. The Minister for Justice has told you what truth there is in that. Is the position to be for us that if ever there is any question of people making allegations the only way we can meet those allegations is by setting up an inquiry? I think members of the House will admit that, in the case of inquiries of a political character, this House is not the best medium for making an investigation. If you want to have investigations of that kind you will have to have some outside authority, a judicial commission or something of that sort. That is my belief. Are we to set up commissions every time an allegation is made when no prima facie case is made for doing so? I believe there has been no prima facie case made here at all. The position is clear to everyone who wants to see it, and so far as the Government is concerned, our attitude has been made plain to everybody. We stand by it and if the House wants at any particular time to test our authority they can, of course, do it. The position is that we do not believe, in view of what is involved, that in a case like this — and a very small case has been made for it — we should yield to this clamour for an inquiry, thereby suggesting that there has been even a prima facie case made for it.

Dr. O’Higgins:

I do not think that any of us sitting on the benches here are at any time or under any set of circumstances ever going to be accused or suspected of having any sympathy or leanings towards any illegal or subterranean organisation in this country. It is unnecessary to say that. There are gaps in our ranks in Parliament because of the manner in which we stood not only in the bad days but in the good days as well for authority for the law, for order and for respect for all the institutions of the State.

We have before us a motion which is couched in very specific terms. It is, [1168] unfortunately, related very directly to the death of a young Ulster Irishman. I regret very much that the Government, instead of facing up to the terms of that motion, a motion which puts certain requests to the Government, which asks certain questions, should have given this exhibition of trying to confuse and befog the whole issue. We have the position that an inquest was held on the remains of a human being in the town of Portlaoighise. The jury was composed of a number of people that had no sympathy at any time with crime, whether organised or unorganised, and we find that a body constituted such as that was so impressed that it asked for an inquiry, while a Deputy of this House has put down a motion asking that the conditions should be looked into. It is possible — nay, probable — that the Government have a perfect answer to that motion. I was born and reared not far from the jail in Portlaoighise. I spent part of my student life and part of my professional life in that town. I am, perhaps, as familiar with conditions inside that jail as is any other Deputy except, possibly, the Minister for Justice. I am perfectly satisfied, so far as one man can be satisfied, that there never was any brutality, inhumanity or ill-treatment of prisoners inside that particular jail. There is no officer, whether of high rank or low rank, in that institution who would not give to every prisoner every benefit he could give within the regulations. They would never dream of exceeding the regulations in order to punish any of their prisoners. I may ask why that case was not made by the Government. Why were not the regulations governing conditions in the prison and regulations dealing with those inside the prison who did not comply with the rules given to the Dáil?

Why was not the simple case made that, in the case of that man, unfortunate McCaughey, the regulations were not exceeded, that he was not treated in any exceptional way so as to punish him? Why was the answer which was open to the Government not given? The reason is — and I hesitate to say it — that there is an election pending and [1169] the war of nerves has got to be begun. The people have got to be terrified and made nervy, jerky and panicky, so that the appearance will be given and the picture painted of one mighty juggler standing between this country and its people, on the one hand, and complete anarchy and chaos, on the other hand. That assertion, coming from that side of the House, is political impertinence of the gravest kind. I do not want, in deference to the Chair and to a Parliament that should have its mind projected into the future, to remind the Government that there was a time when it was difficult to gain respect for the institutions of this State, to grapple with organised crime, and to secure all-round acceptance of law and order. When those on these benches were endeavouring to do that, in vain could we look to the Taoiseach and his colleagues for any assistance to the State in that direction.

Dr. O’Higgins:

Mr. Cafferky:

The Chair is not fair. I am sorry to say so.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Aiken):

I received authority from the Chair to speak in this House and I propose to do so.

Mr. Flanagan:

On a point of order, when the Ceann Comhairle was in the Chair, I understood one and a half hours ago that I was to be the next speaker. I have risen on eight occasions to-night and was deliberately prevented from speaking.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Will the Deputy keep his seat and keep silent? I am calling on the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Aiken:

Five members of the Opposition have spoken on this motion.

Mr. Cafferky:

I say that members on this side of the House are being deliberately prevented from voicing their opinions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Mr. Blowick:

It is they have it.

Mr. Aiken:

Are we going to have members inside this House deny the Government, in the same fashion as people outside deny them, the right to speak? What is all this fuss about? It is in pursuance of a campaign that was started.

[1173] Mr. Flanagan:

May I further point out that the Minister for Finance is deliberately wasting the time of the House?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I ask Deputy Flanagan to leave the House for continuous interruption and disobedience of the rules of the House.

Mr. Flanagan:

Before leaving the House, I want to say that I have been deliberately prevented from speaking here and the Taoiseach must be responsible for organising it. It was my turn, I submit, to speak, and I have as good a right as any Deputy. The Taoiseach and the Minister are responsible for preventing me.

The Taoiseach:

The Deputy has been prevented by his own disorderly conduct.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Deputy must leave the House and not carry on a discussion across the floor.

Mr. Flanagan:

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I shall send for the Ceann Comhairle. I shall see that the Chair’s ruling is carried out.

Mr. Flanagan:

If I am not to have an opportunity of speaking I shall persist in my protest. I believe that a Deputy living within four miles of Portlaoighise Prison-----

Deputies: Order, order.

An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair and, having been informed of the proceedings, named the Deputy.

The Taoiseach:

In view of the refusal of Deputy Flanagan to obey the rulings of the Chair, I move that he be suspended from the service of the House.

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Beegan, Patrick.
Blaney, Neal.
Boland, Gerald.
Bourke, Dan.
Brady, Brian.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Brennan, Thomas.
Briscoe, Robert.
Browne, Patrick.
Buckley, Seán.
Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
Butler, Bernard.
Childers, Erskine H.
Colbert, Michael.
Colley, Harry.
Corry, Martin J.
Costello, John A.
Crowley, Honor Mary.
Derrig, Thomas.
De Valera, Eamon.
De Valera, Vivion.
Flynn, Stephen.
Giles, Patrick.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Harris, Thomas.
Healy, John B.
Hilliard, Michael.
Hughes, James.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Kilroy, James.
Kissane, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick J.
Loughman, Frank.
Lydon, Michael F.
McCann, John.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Morrissey, Michael.
Moylan, Seán.
Mulcahy, Richard.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O’Connor, John S.
O’Grady, Seán.
O’Loghlen, Peter J.
O’Neill, Eamonn.
O’Reilly, Matthew.
O’Rourke, Daniel.
O’Sullivan, Ted.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Sheldon, William A. W.
Sheridan, Michael.
Skinner, Leo B.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
Walsh, Richard.
Ward, Conn.

Níl

Blowick, Joseph.
Commons, Bernard.
Corish, Brendan.
Davin, William.
Donnellan, Michael.
Everett, James.
Finucane, Patrick.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Halliden, Patrick J.
Heskin, Denis.
Norton, William.
O’Leary, John.
O’Sullivan, Martin.
Pattison, James P.

An Ceann Comhairle:

I will have to get the Deputy removed if he does not go.

Deputy Flanagan withdrew from the House.

Mr. Aiken:

There are many-----

The question is: "That Deputy Commons be suspended from the service of the Dáil."

Question put.

An Ceann Comhairle:

I think the question is carried.

Question put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 13.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Beegan, Patrick.
Boland, Gerald.
Bourke, Dan.
Brady, Brian.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Browne, Patrick.
Buckley, Seán.
Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
Butler, Bernard.
Childers, Erskine H.
Colley, Harry.
Corry, Martin J.
Costello, John A.
Crowley, Honor Mary.
Derrig, Thomas.
De Valera, Eamon.
De Valera, Vivion.
Giles, Patrick.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Harris, Thomas.
Healy, John B.
Hilliard, Michael.
Hughes, James.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Kilroy, James.
Kissane, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick J.
Loughman, Frank.
Lydon, Michael F.
McCann, John.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Morrissey, Michael.
Moylan, Seán.
Mulcahy, Richard.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O’Connor, John S.
O’Grady, Seán.
O’Loghlen, Peter J.
O’Reilly, Matthew.
O’Rourke, Daniel.
O’Sullivan, Ted.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Sheridan, Michael.
Skinner, Leo B.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
Walsh, Richard.
Ward, Conn.

Níl

Beirne, John.
Blowick, Joseph.
Commons, Bernard.
Corish, Brendan.
Davin, William.
Donnellan, Michael.
Everett, James.
Finucane, Patrick.
Halliden, Patrick J.
Norton, William.
O’Leary, John.
O’Sullivan, Martin.
Pattison, James P.

Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Commons and Finucane.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Mr. Lemass:

The Deputy should have had control over members of his own Party.

Mr. Donnellan:

Ministers should accept the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Davin:

There should be some consideration for the rights of members.

Mr. Donnellan:

This is a deliberate attempt, I suppose, to prevent me replying to the debate. Of course, there is not very much for me to reply to, because in my opinion the vast [1180] majority of the speakers, especially from the Government Benches, did not deal with the motion before the House. In my opinion the debate on this motion was really an inquest; it was more of an inquest and a re-trial of the living and the dead than anything else.

Even the name of a certain respectable professional gentleman in this city was brought into a certain statement that was made about him. He was tried. Surely the place to try him if he is guilty of any offence would be before one of these numerous courts to which the Government have power to bring any man they wish at the present time. The Taoiseach asked me one serious question:—

"Does any member of this House think that any citizen of this State has a right to pull a gun to shoot a policeman or any of the people who keep law and order in this State"?

I think there was no need to ask that question in this House. Not a man in this House and, in my opinion, very few outside this House, think that should be done. The Taoiseach also stated that the motion was a false one, just as he said that other statements that I made were false. If these accusations are false and untrue, the Government and the Taoiseach have got the opportunity to prove that they are untrue by setting up this inquiry, and giving evidence before it. In my opinion, there is the greatest proof that they are true.

The Taoiseach and, I think, the Minister for Justice also made the statement that this man, McCaughey, was on hunger strike for release. I [1181] challenged the Taoiseach and the Minister in my opening statement, and I now repeat the challenge, and I ask them to reply. Did the Department of Justice get a message from the chaplain of the prison stating that McCaughey, if transferred to the Curragh, would withdraw from the hunger strike? That was not replied to in the debate. I say that is true without a shadow of doubt, and I say that the issue in McCaughey’s case was not hunger strike for release, but hunger strike to be removed to the Curragh, and the prison chaplain will prove that.

Mr. Aiken:

On a point of order, the Minister stated that that was not what he struck for.

Mr. Donnellan:

Mr. B. Brady:

He said the statement was a lie and that the Deputy was repeating it.

[1183] An Ceann Comhairle:

That the statement was a lie, uttered by someone outside and repeated here.

Mr. Blowick:

I understand that the Chair asked the Minister to withdraw the word "lie". The Minister has quibbled and has refused to withdraw the word directly.

An Ceann Comhairle:

He has not.

Mr. Donnellan:

I would expect more from the Minister. If any statement I made here is wrong, if it is an untruth, it does not come deliberately as an untruth from me. I want to make that plain.

Mr. Aiken:

No, but from somebody else. That is my point.

Mr. Donnellan:

I have here a letter from a man from my own province — a man named Gallagher who was a prisoner in Portlaoighise Prison and who has now been released. I will read an extract from that letter by this man, who is willing to testify on oath. He says:—

"When I arrived in Portlaoighise Prison, I was asked by the prison authorities if I were tough. This question was intended to provoke me and I therefore made no reply to it, as I had heard that it was the usual procedure to taunt prisoners into making a hasty or vexed reply. A hasty or vexed reply meant the removal of the prisoner to a dungeon or underground cell known as ‘The Digger’."

Mr. Aiken:

What was that prisoner sentenced for?

Mr. Donnellan:

Conduct yourself.

Mr. Aiken:

What was the prisoner sentenced for?

Mr. Donnellan:

Mr. P. Burke (County Dublin):

May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that there is not a House?

Mr. Donnellan:

More shame for the Fianna Fáil Party.

-----reads:—

"The most important loss of all was the enforced denial of Mass and the Sacraments. I never heard Mass or got Confession while I was there. We asked to be allowed to go to Mass in the blankets and on one occasion the governor’s answer was: ‘If Gerry Boland would grant me a cordon of military with fixed bayonets from the cell doors to the altar rails, I would then grant you that concession’."

Motion put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 66.

Tá

Beirne, John.
Blowick, Joseph.
Corish, Brendan.
Davin, William.
Donnellan, Michael.
Everett, James.
Finucane, Patrick.
Halliden, Patrick J.
Larkin, James (Junior).
Norton, William.
O’Leary, John.
O’Sullivan, Martin.
Pattison, James P.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Beegan, Patrick.
Blaney, Neal.
Boland, Gerald.
Bourke, Dan.
Brady, Brian.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Brennan, Thomas.
Briscoe, Robert.
Browne, Patrick.
Buckley, Seán.
Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
Butler, Bernard.
Childers, Erskine H.
Colbert, Michael.
Colley, Harry.
Corry, Martin J.
Costello, John A.
Crowley, Honor Mary.
Derrig, Thomas.
De Valera, Eamon.
De Valera, Vivion.
Flynn, Stephen.
Giles, Patrick.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Harris, Thomas.
Healy, John B.
Hilliard, Michael.
Hughes, James.
Humphreys, Francis.
Keating, John.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Kilroy, James.
Kissane, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick J.
Loughman, Frank.
Lydon, Michael F.
McCann, John.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Morrissey, Michael.
Moylan, Seán.
Mulcahy, Richard.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O’Connor, John S.
O’Grady, Seán.
O’Higgins, Thomas F.
O’Loghlen, Peter J.
O’Neill, Eamonn.
O’Reilly, Matthew.
O’Rourke, Daniel.
O’Sullivan, Ted.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Sheldon, William A. W.
Sheridan, Michael.
Skinner, Leo B.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
Walsh, Richard.
Ward, Conn.

Tá: Deputies Blowick and Cogan; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.

Motion declared lost.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.40 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 4th June.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 29 May 1946

Private Deputies' Business. - Treatment of a Prisoner - Motion for Select Committee.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 May 1946