Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas

Dáil Éireann - Volume 30 - 30 May, 1929

Public Business. - Juries (Protection) Bill, 1929—Committee (Resumed).

The Dáil went into Committee.

SECTION 3.

(1) Section 50 of the Principal Act shall not apply to a panel of jurors prepared for a sittings of the Central Criminal Court nor to a panel of jurors prepared for a sittings of a Judge of the Circuit Court for the trial of criminal issues, and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that the empanelling officer and the summoning officer shall treat every such panel as a confidential official document.

[567] (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other enactment, no accused person shall be entitled as of right to a copy of the panel of jurors from which it is intended that the jury for his trial is to be drawn.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: With regard to amendment 7 in my name on the Order Paper, I do not propose to move it. Amendments 7 and 9 deal with practically the same subject. Amendment 9, in the name of Deputy Ruttledge, covers practically the same point that is dealt with in amendment 7. I would be satisfied if the discussion on the question were taken on amendment 9.

An Ceann Comhairle: The position, therefore, is that a decision as to the right of an accused person to have a copy of the panel will be taken on amendment 9.

Mr. Ruttledge: I move:

“To add at the end of sub-section (1) the words “save that every accused person, or his solicitor in the case of the trial of any such person, shall be entitled as of right to a copy of the panel of jurors from which it is intended that the jury for his trial is to be drawn.”

That, I think, is a very important amendment. If the Bill in its present form were allowed to pass it would mean that a prisoner would be kept entirely in the dark as to the sort of jury that was to try him. He would know nothing of the personnel of the jury, or of any peculiar feelings or views the jury might have. It has always been recognised in this country, and I believe in every civilised country where they have any idea of law as the embodiment of justice to the subject, that the prisoner should be entitled to reasonable facilities in order to ensure that he should obtain a fair trial. The first time there appears to have been any interference with the jury system in this country was in the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. Prior to that an accused person was tried in his own county at the assizes in the ordinary way, or in the adjoining county at the winter [568] assizes. The jury that tried him reflected the thought in the area from which the prisoner came, and it reflected the ideas of right and wrong in that area. The Minister for Justice laughs at that, but the Minister himself, I think, was one of the strongest exponents of what juries should think in particular areas. I often heard him eloquently and effectively orate to juries on their sense of justice and fair play, and that, knowing their sense of justice and their high moral character, they would allow certain prisoners the benefit of the doubt, and so on. Under the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, that power was taken away, and the Attorney-General in certain cases changed the venue to the Central Criminal Court here. Persons were brought up from the country and tried before a jury they knew very little about, by people who were far removed from the thought, feeling and conditions that may be peculiar to the area from which the accused person was brought.

That was the first reaction to be found in the present régime in this country, interfering with what should have been the elementary rights of justice in trying to give a prisoner a fair trial. There has also been an interference in the Juries Act of 1927. I think it is Section 57 which reduced the right of the prisoner to challenge from 20 to 5. It leaves the State with the power of unlimited challenge or stand-by, and it limits the unfortunate prisoner's right, which was very limited already, that is the power he had to challenge up to 20 or, if good cause were shown, with regard to any other juror that might be empanelled by the prosecutor. The prosecutor has unlimited right of challenge or stand-by, which the prisoner has not. That shows the importance of this amendment. It is merely to ensure that a prisoner should have the right to see who are the people who are trying him. Take, for example, a prisoner brought up from Kerry, or from any other part of the country. [569] A jury is empanelled. The prosecutor knows all about them, as he has information from the Civic Guards, and he is told that certain people, perhaps, have certain sympathies, and for that reason they should not be on the jury, or vice versa. If the State are going to have unlimited right in that way, is it not reasonable that the prisoner should have those rights which the amendment proposes he should have?

If a man had a house insured and he was charged with burning that house, just imagine a director of an insurance company appearing on a jury to try that prisoner. The prisoner knows nothing about that and he is not given a copy of the panel beforehand. Does anyone think that in a case of that kind a fair trial could be got from a body of insurance directors in Dublin? We know that in many cases they have a feeling or a suspicion, if the house of an insured person is burned that the burning is not accidental. I only mention that as a case in point. Up to this a prisoner was held by the law to be entitled to every reasonable benefit of the doubt, and to every chance to secure a fair and impartial trial. That is taken away by this measure. He will not be allowed to know who the people who are to try him are, and who will be allowed to go on in order that the State can secure a conviction at any cost. It is not a provision that should meet with the approval of any person with any degree of fair-mindedness or justice. I do not think there is any member of the Dáil who will vote against this amendment who, if he were in the dock on a groundless charge, would not want to know the people who were trying him. It does not, perhaps, seem extraordinary that in this Bill such a provision should appear, considering the other extra provisions it contains. I submit that a prisoner is entitled to a fair trial. Every man should be considered innocent until he is proved guilty, and any person charged in court should be provided with a copy of the panel so that he could see that [570] certain people, at any rate, would not be on the jury.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: I support the principle of this amendment. The Minister himself, or somebody in supporting the Second Reading of this measure, asserted that the right of the accused to challenge was unimpaired by this Bill. I believe that statement was made, but I have not the exact quotation. If that is not the position it would be necessary, to secure that position, that the amendment should be passed. The Minister, speaking yesterday on this particular section of the Bill, referred to the indiscriminate publication of the jury panel. This amendment does not ask for indiscriminate publication of the jury panel. It asserts the right of the accused person to get a copy of the panel from which the jury will be drawn. I do not think we would be justified in our fears, or so-called fears, regarding the protection of juries, for which this Bill is designed, in going to the length of inflicting a probable injustice on other individuals, as is likely to happen if the accused person has no knowledge whatsoever of the panel from which the jury that is going to try him will be drawn. If he has not that knowledge, I hold that the right to challenge will undoubtedly be impaired.

Deputy Ruttledge quoted cases, and many other cases could be quoted where there would be undoubted prejudice, and where the accused would know that there would be prejudice—that is, of course, if he knew the person who made the statement. For instance, if I were charged with obtaining money under false pretences because I was malingering, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce happened to be a juryman, although I might not know him personally, if I knew he was the Minister for Industry and Commerce, I would be anxious to challenge him, knowing that he had already certain opinions on the point. There would be many similar cases in which the accused person [571] would not be able to exercise there and then his right to challenge if he were confronted for the first time with individual jurymen. I suggest to the Minister that the Bill limits very considerably the power given in Section 50 of the Principal Act. The amendment only asks that the accused person should have supplied to him the panel from which the jury is drawn. That is a very reasonable amendment, and I cannot see how the Government can refuse what is, to my mind, elementary justice to a person who is going to stand his trial and deny him what he has a right to expect—a fair and impartial verdict by men who are not prejudiced one way or another against him. I hope the Minister will see the reasonableness of the amendment and accept it.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney): Deputy Ruttledge, in part of his speech, gave utterance to a most extraordinary expression of opinion—that the State was out to secure a conviction at any cost. A more false statement of the position which the State should take up, and which the State does in fact take, could not be made. It is as much the duty of the State to see that an innocent person is acquitted as it is the duty of the State to see that a guilty person is convicted. That is the proper spirit in which criminal trials should be conducted, and that is the spirit in which they are in fact conducted in this State. Deputy Ruttledge went off on what appeared to me to be rather a tangent, and stated that under the Courts of Justice Act now certain accused are sent up for trial to the Central Criminal Court. That is correct. But all cases are not sent up; only a comparatively small number are sent up. For instance, the Deputy took the example of a case of arson.

Mr. Ruttledge: I did not take that as an example of a case being sent up to Dublin.

[572] Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: It sounded to me like that. In case the Deputy may have left any people under the same impression that he left me, though, of course, I accept the statement that he did not mean to convey that impression, arson is one of the cases which could be tried and is tried in the Circuit Court and not in the Central Criminal Court. The change is that in old times there were two classes of courts—the general Assize Court, which tried heavy cases, and the County Court, which tried much lighter classes of cases. The Assizes have been done away with altogether, and the jurisdiction which was exercised by the old Assize Court has now been divided between the Central Criminal Court and the Circuit Court; and the number of cases which must come up to the Central Criminal Court are comparatively few. The class of case is very limited indeed. I may say that in old times it was always possible to obtain a change of venue, as every Deputy is aware.

To come to the subject matter of the amendment, Deputy Ruttledge and, to a certain extent, Deputy O'Connell seemed to consider that unless a prisoner had a panel before him he could not be fairly tried. Deputy O'Connell said that there was no indiscriminate circulation of the jury panel suggested by this amendment. That is so. But by Deputy O'Connell's own amendment which he has now withdrawn, there was to be an indiscriminate circulation of the panel. His amendment was only to take out the first sub-section and leave the other two—that is to say, that under his amendment the panel need not be posted up in the courthouse, but could be obtained for half-a-crown. It was to that amendment that I referred. Let us come to this particular amendment. Is it true that a person cannot be fairly tried unless he has a panel? If that is the case, until the year 1871, except in cases of high treason, nobody in this country ever received a fair trial, because it was only in 1871 that a prisoner received the right [573] for the first time in this country to get a copy of the panel. In England at present the law is exactly the same. In England at present a prisoner being tried for felony or misdemeanour, or any other offence except high treason or misprision of treason, is not entitled to a copy of the panel. So that, if Deputy O'Connell's contention is right, in England nobody is ever fairly tried.

Mr. O'Connell: I should like to correct the Minister. I do not think that I said he could not get a fair trial. I said that the right to challenge was distinctly impaired. That was my contention. I did not allege that it would not be possible to get a fair trial. I said it was possible to get an unfair trial, and that the right of challenge which the accused has now would certainly be impaired.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: The right of challenge of five persons which he has now stands completely unimpaired. He has got exactly, as far as the method of challenge is concerned, if this Bill becomes law, but not as to numbers, the same right as anybody tried in England or anybody tried in this country before 1871. That is perfectly clear English law laid down in the case of the King v. Dowling, when two judges decided that in a case of felony the prisoner was not entitled to a copy of the panel, and that is the position in which he is placed now.

Looking at the matter from another point of view, everybody knows that in general, all through the country, where the person accused was a person of some importance or had any influence or money there was really considerable canvassing of the jury, that days before, he could obtain a copy of the panel, go round and talk to the jurymen and canvass them, and no matter how guilty, he could, by exercising influence, through either fear or favour, on the jury, obtain his acquittal. It was a bad system by which an influential person should be able by canvassing to obtain his acquittal. Take the conditions at the present day, when, as [574] we know, a juryman has been murdered and others attempted to be terrorised, and that terrorism of jurors has received support and approbation from the non-official organ of the Fianna Fáil Party—in these circumstances, is it safe or right in the interests of jurymen that a panel should be given to any accused person? What would happen if the accused person who got the panel belonged to this murderous association? He would simply take copies of the panel and circularise them amongst any persons he liked. He could get the names and numbers of the jury taken down and have a complete list of every juryman who served in every case in order that these unfortunate jurymen might be marked down for assassination by his friends.

It may be said that the jury panel should be given to the solicitor for the defence. I am afraid that that would be perfectly impossible, and that, as far as canvassing jurymen is concerned, and as far as giving information to this association is concerned, we could not trust the secrecy of the offices of solicitors. It would be impossible to do so. The solicitor himself might be all right, counsel engaged in the case might be all right, but you could not say that every clerk in the office was all right, and not merely all right but that every clerk in the office, or every solicitor or counsel, for that matter, would be duly careful and discreet. Our duty here is to see that all prisoners receive a fair trial. A fair trial does not mean a trial that will eventuate in the acquittal of the guilty person. A fair trial means a trial upon which a man, if guilty upon the evidence before the court, will be found guilty; if innocent according to the evidence before the court, will be found innocent; and if there is doubt, will receive the benefit of that doubt. That is a fair trial, and that is what we wish to preserve. We wish to see that there is empanelled a jury that will do justice between the State and the accused, between the community of [575] people in this Irish Free State and those amongst them who unfortunately are addicted to crime. That is our object, and that object, I submit to the House, will be secured by this Bill. It is wrong, entirely wrong, that jurymen should be subjected to unnecessary danger and unnecessary risk. I ask the House to reject this amendment.

Mr. Flinn: The Minister for Justice has informed the House of something which I think, though probably subconsciously in the knowledge of every member of this House, is certainly not in practice impressed upon them by experience, and that is that it is the duty of the prosecutor to see that the evidence is put as fairly for the accused as it is for the accuser; that it is the duty of the prosecutor to bring out in favour of the accused all possible evidence in his favour, and to put into the possession of the accused and his counsel every possible information and facility which would enable them to make a legitimate defence. In practice, as we know, especially in political cases, you have in the court two protagonists —defence and attack.

It is part of the knowledge of this House and of every man in this country that over a very considerable period of years the prosecutor has been a prosecutor—the “hanging attorney” is a perfectly common expression. We know the meaning of it. Peter the Packer was a famous and well-known entity. If it was true that, in fact and in practice, the prosecutor was out, in cases of this kind, to see that the evidence was fairly put before the judge, if it could be accepted in practice that the whole machinery behind the courts was consciously directed towards obtaining a fair trial, if it could be understood that all the evidence of all the witnesses produced by the Crown——

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: May I inform the Deputy that the Crown does not prosecute in this country. It is the people of the Irish Free State who prosecute.

[576] Mr. Flinn: If it could be assumed that all that evidence was produced specifically for that purpose and with that intention, it really would not matter much whether you had a jury at all—if you assume that perfect state and condition. The whole question is whether there is behind the administration in relation to cases of this kind that organisation, or whether we have to judge the machinery of juries as a possible protection against the nonexistence of that attitude of mind. The Minister for Justice has set out as a standard of conduct for the prosecutor what might be taken, word for word almost, from a manual of military law in relation to the duties of a prosecutor at a court-martial. He had that duty— the specific duty of seeing that the evidence was put for the accused as fairly as for the prosecution. I have had the experience of being openly censured and threatened in court for attempting to carry out that provision; I have had the actual experience of producing evidence which I afterwards found out was faked against the accused.

Mr. Hennessy: In this country?

Mr. Flinn: No, I am speaking generally. I am speaking in relation to the carrying out of that provision.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is not speaking about amendment 9.

Mr. Flinn: Yes, I am.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is not speaking about amendment 9. He is speaking about something quite different.

Mr. Flinn: I am speaking to the point which was put by the Minister for Justice, that in practice we must assume that the prosecutor will carry out what he said was his duty —to see that everything that can be said for the accused is said, and that all the evidence that can be produced for the accused is produced. I produce myself in evidence against that.

[577] An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister stated his view of what the prosecutor does. The Deputy may state the contrary if he likes, but then he must come to the amendment.

Mr. Flinn: Because I do not believe that in practice under the present administration State prosecutors will be called upon in cases of this kind to carry out their duties in that spirit, I look infinitely more critically upon the provisions of this Bill than I would if I did believe that they would carry out their duties in that respect. The Minister says that if we pass his Bill we will get back to the splendid condition of affairs which existed in 1871. That is the argument—we would be no worse than in 1871. Fifty years of development in the criminal law, fifty years of increased respect for the rights of the subject, counts for nothing! Let us get back, says the Minister for Justice, to the palmy days of 1871. Why not get back to trial by fire and water? If age be the qualification, by all means let us do so. If things are good because they are old, let us get back to the trial of witches, and things of that kind. A fair trial on the evidence before the court, as produced under the influence and the inspiration of an administration which has been caught out by the courts of this country——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has been speaking for ten minutes without saying one word about this amendment.

Mr. Flinn: There may be upon these panels personal enemies of the accused; there may be upon these panels men who will have interests other than those of the accused, but he must not be told that. Assume for a moment that you had a case in which some member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party had made the accusation that has been made by the Minister for Agriculture, that we upon this side of the House——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy cannot go into that point. The Deputy [578] must confine himself to the amendment, without bringing us back to accusations made about Parties in the House. We will have no more of that on this Bill, on this or any other stage.

Mr. Flinn: Then shall we say we will take the case of any man who has been accused of a crime in relation to which a juror has publicly expressed his opinion before the trial. As far as I can see, there is no means whatever of dealing with that. Under this Bill it is assumed that every accused and his solicitor is prepared to associate himself with and to help those who desire to intimidate juries. That is the assumption behind the whole of it. You cannot give to any accused and you cannot give to any solicitor in Ireland a jury panel without giving it to someone who is prepared directly to associate himself with people who desire to assassinate jurors. That is a very low estimate of the profession and, I think, a very low estimate even of the criminal classes. This is to give protection to jurors. Now Deputy J.X. Murphy said deliberately in this House that he did not believe it would give protection to jurors, that it would actually increase their danger, and personally I am of the same opinion. I know of a case where the head of one secret service had as private secretary the wife of the head of the secret service on the other side.

An Ceann Comhairle: Third warning. The Deputy is not saying anything about the amendment.

Mr. Flinn: It is possible, under conditions of infinitely greater aggravation than those which would be represented by an exposed panel, to put into the hands of those people who are supposed to be anxious to assassinate jurors the actual information, and there would be a greater temptation to do so than there would be under present conditions. This Bill is a direct incitement to people to discover information which they would get from the panel, and to find some alternative means than [579] the means they now have, due to the exposure of the panel, because, in my opinion——

An Ceann Comhairle: This amendment is not concerned with the exposure of the panel.

[580] Mr. Flinn——that does increase the danger, and because it is not in itself a desirable thing I ask the House to vote for the amendment.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided. Tá: 54; Níl, 64.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.

Anthony, Richard.

Blaney, Neal.

Boland, Patrick.

Bourke, Daniel.

Brady, Seán.

Briscoe, Robert.

Broderick, Henry.

Buckley, Daniel.

Carney, Frank.

Cassidy, Archie J.

Coburn, James.

Colbert, James.

Colohan, Hugh.

Cooney, Eamon.

Corkery, Dan.

Corish, Richard.

Crowley, Fred. Hugh.

Crowley, Tadhg.

Davin, William.

Doyle, Edward.

Everett, James.

Fahy, Frank.

Flinn, Hugo.

Fogarty, Andrew.

French, Seán.

Gorry, Patrick J.

Goulding, John.

Houlihan, Patrick.

Jordan, Stephen.

Kennedy, Michael Joseph.

Kent, William R.

Kerlin, Frank.

Killilea, Mark.

Kilroy, Michael.

Lemass, Seán F.

McEllistrim, Thomas.

MacEntee, Seán.

Moore, Séamus.

Morrissey, Daniel.

Mullins, Thomas.

O'Connell, Thomas J.

O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.

O'Kelly, Seán T.

O'Leary, William.

O'Reilly, Matthew.

O'Reilly, Thomas.

Powell, Thomas P.

Ruttledge, Patrick J.

Ryan, James.

Sexton, Martin.

Tubridy, John.

Walsh, Richard.

Ward, Francis C.

Níl

Aird, William P.

Alton, Ernest Henry.

Beckett, James Walter.

Bennett, George Cecil.

Blythe, Ernest.

Bourke, Séamus A.

Brennan, Michael.

Brodrick, Seán.

Byrne, John Joseph.

Carey, Edmund.

Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.

Conlon, Martin.

Connolly, Michael P.

Cosgrave, William T.

Craig, Sir James.

Crowley, James.

Daly, John.

Davis, Michael.

De Loughrey, Peter.

Doherty, Eugene.

Dolan, James N.

Doyle, Peadar Seán.

Duggan, Edmund John.

Dwyer, James.

Egan, Barry M.

Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.

Fitzgerald, Desmond.

Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.

Good, John.

Haslett, Alexander.

Hassett, John J.

Heffernan, Michael R.

Hennessy, Michael Joseph.

Hennessy, Thomas.

Henry, Mark.

Hogan, Patrick (Galway).

Holohan, Richard.

Kelly, Patrick Michael.

Law, Hugh Alexander.

Leonard, Patrick.

Lynch, Finian.

Mathews, Arthur Patrick.

McDonogh, Martin.

McFadden, Michael Og.

McGilligan, Patrick.

Mongan, Joseph W.

Mulcahy, Richard.

Murphy, James E.

Myles, James Sproule.

Nolan, John Thomas.

O'Connell, Richard.

O'Connor, Bartholomew.

O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.

O'Hanlon, John F.

O'Higgins, Thos.

O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.

O'Reilly, John J.

O'Sullivan, John Marcus.

Shaw, Patrick W.

Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).

Thrift, William Edward.

Vaughan, Daniel.

White, Vincent Joseph.

Wolfe, George.

Amendment declared lost.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Briscoe and Flinn; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.

[581] Mr. Ruttledge: I move:—

To insert at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

“Every accused person shall be entitled as of right to apply to and may, if the Judge is satisfied, obtain from any Judge of the High Court or Supreme Court an order directed to the summoning officer to supply him or his solicitor with a copy of the panel of jurors from which it is intended that the jury for his trial is to be drawn.”

The amendment intends that where a very special case may arise an accused person may be entitled to apply to a judge for an order for a copy of the panel. I do not think the Minister for Justice can have any serious objection to that. It leaves the matter in the hands of judges appointed by the Executive Council where there are special circumstances, so that they can, in their discretion, direct certain publication, to the accused person or his solicitor, of the jury panel. I do not think the Minister can argue that a judge could err in a case of that kind. The State counsel will be there to resist the application if it is decided to resist it, and will be able to put that point of view before the judge, who can exercise his discretion. Seeing that the Minister almost voted for us on the last amendment, getting as far as the barrier, I hope we will succeed in getting him to accept this amendment or to vote with us.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I cannot accept this amendment. I think the next one, amendment 12, except for a couple of words, “unless good cause to the contrary is shown,” is the same. The Deputy is of course aware that in every case a panel is struck it will try, not one prisoner, but a very considerable number of prisoners. The one panel lasts for many days. For instance, supposing it is a Circuit Court, every person who is tried at that particular sitting of the Circuit Court is tried by a jury drawn from the same panel.

[582] In the same way in the Central Criminal Court there is one, or maybe if it is a very long sitting, there are two panels from which they are drawn. There might be a particular case in which it would be unobjectionable that the particular solicitor should have a copy of the panel for his particular case; still that panel would not be the panel for his particular case only. It would be the panel for every other case that was going to be tried, and you could not have an absolute certainty that that panel would not get published. In a solicitor's office a panel would naturally pass through the hands of a great number of persons. It does not say that the solicitor or anyone in his office should wish that that panel would be published. If it were known that the solicitor had the panel you may be certain that very great efforts would be made to get it. Possibly his office would be raided. Certainly considerable efforts would be made to get the panel, and the main object of this Bill is that the panel shall not be available in any way to persons who would either wish to canvass, intimidate or murder jurymen or in any way attempt to persuade them to violate their oaths. The object of the Bill being that I do not think that with safety the number of persons through whose hands the panel would pass could be enlarged.

If it were a matter of natural justice that a prisoner should receive the panel, or if it even were a thing which was in itself highly desirable that the person should receive the panel, that the receiving of the panel is to be taken as the normal and not as the abnormal, then there would be something in Deputy Ruttledge's contention, but I cannot accept that. I cannot see why the possession of the panel is necessary for the fair defence or the fair challenge of prisoners. I myself, as Deputy Ruttledge informed the House a short time ago, defended a great number of prisoners. In a great number of cases I saw the solicitor for the defence did not go to the trouble of getting a panel at [583] all. He simply challenged persons whose appearance he knew if he challenged anybody. That is well known. Of course, I had not Deputy Flinn's experience. I never had the opportunity of prosecuting anybody. In that I must bow to him, but I am perfectly convinced that [584] to get a fair trial, that is, with the scales not loaded on either side, a copy of the panel is not necessary for the defence.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 67.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.

Anthony, Richard.

Blaney, Neal.

Boland, Patrick.

Brady, Seán.

Briscoe, Robert.

Broderick, Henry.

Buckley, Daniel.

Carney, Frank.

Cassidy, Archie J.

Coburn, James.

Colohan, Hugh.

Cooney, Eamon.

Corkery, Dan.

Corish, Richard.

Crowley, Fred. Hugh.

Doyle, Edward.

Everett, James.

Fahy, Frank.

Flinn, Hugo.

Fogarty, Andrew.

French, Seán.

Gorry, Patrick J.

Goulding, John.

Houlihan, Patrick.

Jordan, Stephen.

Kennedy, Michael Joseph.

Kent, William R.

Kerlin, Frank.

Killilea, Mark.

Kilroy, Michael.

Lemass, Seán F.

McEllistrim, Thomas.

MacEntee, Seán.

Moore, Séamus.

Morrissey, Daniel.

Mullins, Thomas.

O'Connell, Thomas J.

O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.

O'Kelly, Seán T.

O'Leary, William.

O'Reilly, Matthew.

O'Reilly, Thomas.

Powell, Thomas P.

Ruttledge, Patrick J.

Ryan, James.

Sexton, Martin.

Tubridy, John.

Walsh, Richard.

Ward, Francis C.

Níl

Aird, William P.

Alton, Ernest Henry.

Beckett, James Walter.

Blythe, Ernest.

Bourke, Séamus A.

Brennan, Michael.

Brodrick, Seán.

Byrne, John Joseph.

Carey, Edmund.

Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.

Conlon, Martin.

Connolly, Michael P.

Cosgrave, William T.

Craig, Sir James.

Crowley, James.

Daly, John.

Davis, Michael.

De Loughrey, Peter.

Doherty, Eugene.

Dolan, James N.

Doyle, Peadar Seán.

Duggan, Edmund John.

Dwyer, James.

Egan, Barry M.

Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.

Fitzgerald, Desmond.

Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.

Good, John.

Haslett, Alexander.

Hassett, John J.

Heffernan, Michael R.

Hennessy, Michael Joseph.

Hennessy, Thomas.

Henry, Mark.

Hogan, Patrick (Galway).

Holohan, Richard.

Jordan, Michael.

Kelly, Patrick Michael.

Law, Hugh Alexander.

Leonard, Patrick.

Lynch, Finian.

Mathews, Arthur Patrick.

McDonogh, Martin.

McFadden, Michael Og.

McGilligan, Patrick.

Mongan, Joseph W.

Mulcahy, Richard.

Murphy, James E.

Murphy, Joseph Xavier.

Myles, James Sproule.

Nally, Martin Michael.

Nolan, John Thomas.

O'Connor, Bartholomew.

O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.

O'Hanlon, John F.

O'Higgins, Thomas.

O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.

O'Reilly, John J.

O'Sullivan, Gearoid.

Rice, Vincent.

Shaw, Patrick W.

Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).

Thrift, William Edward.

Tierney, Michael.

Vaughan, Daniel.

White, Vincent Joseph.

Wolfe, George.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.

Amendment declared lost.

[585] [586] Question—“That Section 3 stand part of the Bill”—put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 50.

Tá

Aird, William P.

Alton, Ernest Henry.

Beckett, James Walter.

Bourke, Séamus A.

Brennan, Michael.

Brodrick, Seán.

Byrne, John Joseph.

Carey, Edmund.

Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.

Conlon, Martin.

Connolly, Michael P.

Cosgrave, William T.

Craig, Sir James.

Crowley, James.

Daly, John.

Davis, Michael.

De Loughrey, Peter.

Doherty, Eugene.

Dolan, James N.

Doyle, Peadar Seán.

Duggan, Edmund John.

Dwyer, James.

Egan, Barry M.

Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.

Fitzgerald, Desmond.

Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.

Good, John.

Haslett, Alexander.

Hassett, John J.

Heffernan, Michael R.

Hennessy, Michael Joseph.

Hennessy, Thomas.

Henry, Mark.

Hogan, Patrick (Galway).

Holohan, Richard.

Jordan, Michael.

Kelly, Patrick Michael.

Keogh, Myles.

Law, Hugh Alexander.

Leonard, Patrick.

Lynch, Finian.

Mathews, Arthur Patrick.

McDonogh, Martin.

McFadden, Michael Og.

McGilligan, Patrick.

Mongan, Joseph W.

Mulcahy, Richard.

Murphy, James E.

Murphy, Joseph Xavier.

Myles, James Sproule.

Nally, Martin Michael.

Nolan, John Thomas.

O'Connor, Bartholomew.

O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.

O'Hanlon, John F.

O'Higgins, Thomas.

O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.

O'Reilly, John J.

O'Sullivan, Gearoid.

Rice, Vincent.

Shaw, Patrick W.

Sheehy, Timothy (West. Cork).

Thrift, William Edward.

Tierney, Michael.

Vaughan, Daniel.

White, Vincent Joseph.

Wolfe, George.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.

Anthony, Richard.

Blaney, Neal.

Boland, Patrick.

Brady, Seán.

Briscoe, Robert.

Broderick, Henry.

Buckley, Daniel.

Carney, Frank.

Cassidy, Archie J.

Coburn, James.

Colohan, Hugh.

Cooney, Eamon.

Corkery, Dan.

Corish, Richard.

Crowley, Fred. Hugh.

Doyle, Edward.

Everett, James.

Fahy, Frank.

Flinn, Hugo.

Fogarty, Andrew.

French, Seán.

Gorry, Patrick J.

Goulding, John.

Houlihan, Patrick.

Jordan, Stephen.

Kennedy, Michael Joseph.

Kent, William R.

Kerlin, Frank.

Killilea, Mark.

Kilroy, Michael.

Lemass, Seán F.

McEllistrim, Thomas.

MacEntee, Seán.

Moore, Séamus.

Morrissey, Daniel.

Mullins, Thomas.

O'Connell, Thomas J.

O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.

O'Kelly, Seán T.

O'Leary, William.

O'Reilly, Matthew.

O'Reilly, Thomas.

Powell, Thomas P.

Ruttledge, Patrick J.

Ryan, James.

Sexton, Martin.

Tubridy, John.

Walsh, Richard.

Ward, Francis C.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe.

Question declared carried.

[587] SECTION 4.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Principal Act, the following provisions shall apply to and have effect at every sittings of the Central Criminal Court and every sittings of a Judge of the Circuit Court for the trial of criminal issues, that is to say:—

(a) On every day of such sittings on which the registrar of the Court is required by the Principal Act to call over a panel (whether original or supplemental) of jurors under Section 46 or under Section 47 of the Principal Act, such registrar shall attend in the Court for one half-hour immediately before the hour appointed for the commencement of the sitting of the Court on that day and it shall be lawful for every person who is required by law to attend the Court on that day as a juror to attend before such registrar during the said half-hour and request such registrar to record his attendance and upon such request being so made to him such registrar shall record in such manner as he thinks fit such attendance of such person;

(b) When calling over in pursuance of Section 46 or sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47 of the Principal Act the names of the jurors entered on a panel (whether original or supplemental) of jurors, the registrar shall not call the name of any such juror whose attendance he has previously recorded under the foregoing paragraph of this section on that day unless he has reason to believe that such juror has since his attendance was so recorded left the Court and not returned thereto, and whenever the registrar refrains under this paragraph from calling the name of a juror he shall take such steps in relation to such juror as he would be required by the Principal Act to take if the name of such juror had been [588] called and such juror had answered thereto;

(c) No person shall be admitted to or be present in the Court while the proceedings directed by Section 46 of the Principal Act or the proceedings directed by sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47 of that Act or the proceedings directed by paragraph (a) of this section are being had (whether in relation to an original or to a supplemental panel) save only the Judge presiding at the sittings, the officers of the Court, members of the Gárda Síochána on duty in the Court, and persons who have been summoned to attend the Court as jurors at such sittings, but nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as requiring the presence of the judge while the proceedings directed by paragraph (a) of this section are being had;

(d) Save while the proceedings directed by Section 46 of the Principal Act or the proceedings directed by sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47 of that Act or the proceedings directed by paragraph (a) of this section are being had, every person attending the Court as a juror shall (whether he has or has not been sworn as a juror) be called, addressed, and referred to for all purposes in the Court solely by the number by which he is distinguished on the panel of jurors from which he is drawn and no such person shall be called, addressed, or referred to in the Court by his name nor shall the address or description of any such person be called or mentioned in the Court.

Mr. Ruttledge: I move amendment 13:

To delete all words after the word “Act,” line 4, down to the word “issues,” line 7, and substitute therefor the words: “any two Judges of the High Court may on the application of the Attorney-General, [589] and on being satisfied that sufficient cause exists for so doing, by order direct that the following provisions shall apply to and have effect at any sittings of the Central Criminal Court, and any sittings of a Judge of the Circuit Court for the trial of criminal issues.”

The provisions set out in Section 4 are very far-reaching, and it is with a view to controlling the indiscriminate application of these provisions that I move this amendment. It is only necessary to read the subsequent paragraphs in Section 4 to realise how drastic are the provisions that are provided under this section. A lot might be said with regard to this amendment, but we are taking up the attitude on this side of the House, since the guillotine has been imposed, and since we are not getting reasonable time to discuss these amendments, that, at any rate, we must get on record our attitude with regard to the different sections of this Bill. There is a good deal to be said with regard to this section and the substitution therefor of my amendment. I do not see what objection can be put forward against my amendment. The Judges have powers, and I do not know whether the Minister is of opinion that they cannot be trusted. If the Minister has any trust in his Judiciary there is no difficulty whatever in accepting this amendment. If he has not trust in his Judiciary, then that is another matter.

Mr. Connolly: I deprecate that statement about the Minister for Justice and the Judges. It is not a fair statement, and it is one the Deputy should not make. It is some time since I intervened in debate, and I do not like to intervene now; but the statement made by Deputy Ruttledge is one that should not have been made. Deputy Hugo Flinn has referred to the Deputies on this side as deaf, dumb-driven beasts.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Hugo Flinn has not said a word on [590] this section. Neither, indeed, has the Deputy.

Mr. Connolly: I will not say anything at all.

An Ceann Comhairle: That would be an admirable solution.

Mr. Connolly: What Deputy Ruttledge said is not at all reasonable or fair. That is what I want to say before I sit down.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: The suggestion here is that there should be, before the sitting of every Circuit Court and before every sitting of the Central Court, a special application made to the Judge. That application should be made before the provisions of Section 4 would come into operation. That is not an amendment that commends itself to me. Section 4 deals with a certain state of things which we know to exist. It is inserted in this Bill for the purpose of protecting jurymen and for the purpose of protecting witnesses. We know there is a conspiracy on foot to prevent witnesses giving evidence against accused persons, and we know that there is a conspiracy working to prevent jurymen, upon their oaths, making fair deliverances between the State and the accused. We know that there is this conspiracy in existence to drive jurymen, by intimidation, into committing perjury. Nobody in the House is doubtful about it, and every Party in the House knows that it exists. I do not believe a single one of the Deputies opposite would venture to say that no such conspiracy exists. If it exists, why not recognise it, and, not shutting your eyes to it, act on it? That is precisely what we are doing. We are acting upon it. Without going to court or anywhere else, we know that it is there, and we purpose putting these provisions into force for the protection of jurymen.

Mr. Flinn: The Minister stated there was a conspiracy both to intimidate witnesses and jurors, and that no one would think of denying it, and that no one would think of refusing protection. What protection has he given to witnesses?

[591][592] Question:—“That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill”—put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 54.

Tá

Aird, William P.

Alton, Ernest Henry.

Beckett, James Walter.

Bennett, George Cecil.

Blythe, Ernest.

Bourke, Séamus A.

Brennan, Michael.

Brodrick, Seán.

Byrne, John Joseph.

Carey, Edmund.

O'Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.

Conlon, Martin.

Connolly, Michael P.

Cosgrave, William T.

Craig, Sir James.

Crowley, James.

Daly, John.

Davis, Michael.

De Loughrey, Peter.

Doherty, Eugene.

Dolan, James N.

Doyle, Peadar Seán.

Duggan, Edmund John.

Dwyer, James.

Egan, Barry M.

Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.

Fitzgerald, Desmond.

Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.

Good, John.

Gorey, Denis J.

Haslett, Alexander.

Hassett, John J.

Heffernan, Michael R.

Hennessy, Thomas.

Henry, Mark.

Holohan, Richard.

Jordan, Michael.

Kelly, Patrick Michael.

Keogh, Myles.

Law, Hugh Alexander.

Leonard, Patrick.

Lynch, Finian.

Mathews, Arthur Patrick.

McFadden, Michael Og.

McGilligan, Patrick.

Mongan, Joseph W.

Mulcahy, Richard.

Murphy, James E.

Murphy, Joseph Xavier.

Myles, James Sproule.

Nally, Martin Michael.

Nolan, John Thomas.

O'Connell, Richard.

O'Connor, Bartholomew.

O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.

O'Hanlon, John F.

O'Higgins, Thomas.

O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.

O'Reilly, John J.

O'Sullivan, Gearoid.

O'Sullivan, John Marcus.

Rice, Vincent.

Shaw, Patrick W.

Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).

Thrift, William Edward.

Tierney, Michael.

Vaughan, Daniel.

White, Vincent Joseph.

Wolfe, George.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.

Anthony, Richard.

Blaney, Neal.

Boland, Patrick.

Bourke, Daniel.

Brady, Seán.

Briscoe, Robert.

Broderick, Henry.

Buckley, Daniel.

Carney, Frank.

Cassidy, Archie J.

Coburn, James.

Colbert, James.

Colohan, Hugh.

Cooney, Eamon.

Corkery, Dan.

Corish, Richard.

Crowley, Fred. Hugh.

Crowley, Tadhg.

Davin, William.

Doyle, Edward.

Everett, James.

Fahy, Frank.

Flinn, Hugo.

Fogarty, Andrew.

French, Seán.

Gorry, Patrick J.

Goulding, John.

Houlihan, Patrick.

Jordan, Stephen.

Kennedy, Michael Joseph.

Kent, William R.

Kerlin, Frank.

Killilea, Mark.

Kilroy, Michael.

Lemass, Seán F.

McEllistrim, Thomas.

MacEntee, Seán.

Moore, Séamus.

Morrissey, Daniel.

Mullins, Thomas.

O'Connell, Thomas J.

O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.

O'Kelly, Seán T.

O'Leary, William.

O'Reilly, Matthew.

O'Reilly, Thomas.

Powell, Thomas P.

Ruttledge, Patrick J.

Ryan, James.

Sexton, Martin.

Tubridy, John.

Walsh, Richard.

Ward, Francis J.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.

Níl: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe.

Question declared carried.

[593] An Ceann Comhairle: Amendment 14 is consequential upon amendment 13. Amendments 15, 18, 21 and 24 aim at deleting paragraphs containing the provisions of the section. Since the Committee has decided that there shall be provisions, I think these amendments cannot be moved. The next amendment, therefore, is amendment 16.

Mr. MacEntee: Amendment 18 relates only to the deletion of paragraph (b). Amendment 13 only proposes to delete all the words after the word “Act,” line 4, down to the word “issues,” line 7. It does not propose to delete anything in paragraph (b). Therefore, I submit that you ought to take an amendment to delete that paragraph.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Committee has decided that the following words shall stand: “the following provisions shall apply to and have effect, etc.” That is, the Committee has decided that there shall be provisions, not necessarily perhaps in the form now in the section, though that contention could be made, but that there shall be provisions. I am adopting the view that the provisions are open to amendment but not to deletion.

Mr. MacEntee: Not necessarily all the provisions contained in the section.

An Ceann Comhairle: If that were the case I think that all the amendments would have to be put. The amendments dealing with the alteration of the provisions are in order but the amendments dealing with deletion are not.

Mr. Ruttledge: This section is set out in paragraphs rather than in sub-sections. If it had been set out like the other sections we would be entitled to deal with them as sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 instead of paragraphs (a), (b), (c). While the amendments that stand in my name dealing with certain of these paragraphs try to improve them, it would be much more desirable from [594] our point of view if these paragraphs were deleted in the first instance. If we fail to delete them it is our desire to improve them so far as possible. If you agree to put these paragraphs in the same way as sub-sections would be put, we would be satisfied.

An Ceann Comhairle: Sub-sections are never put separately. I have already refused to accept an amendment in Committee to delete a sub-section which in effect would be tantamount to deleting the section. In any event, I find the section in this particular form. It seems to me that the decision now taken means that there shall be provisions, not necessarily, as I have already stated, the provisions which follow in the Bill in the terms in which they are set forth in the Bill. I will take amendments to alter the provisions, but not to delete them.

Mr. MacEntee: I respectfully submit that what the House has decided is that these provisos may come into force but they are only to come into force on the fiat of two judges of the High Court.

An Ceann Comhairle: The House has decided that the words at the beginning of the paragraph shall stand. I have ruled that I will not accept an amendment to delete the paragraph, but I will accept one to alter it. A division can be taken against the section.

Mr. Ruttledge: I move amendment No. 16 as follows:—

“To add at the end of paragraph (a), line 21, the words “and the judge shall satisfy himself that such person is in court.”

This amendment tries to tighten up the Bill out of its present loose and peculiar form. It is only an attempt to make the Bill more rigid in that particular way, so far as the protection of the individual is concerned, and not to leave it in its present vague and indefinite shape.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I do not follow the reasoning which lies behind the amendment. It is the duty [595] of the registrar to call over the jury, but as to how the judge is to satisfy himself regarding the identity of jurors the Deputy has said nothing. In the absence of such explanation, and as I cannot see what the amendment means, except to give an amount of trouble to the judge by making him sit in court as a mere formality, I cannot accept [596] it. The Deputy does not seem to understand it himself.

Mr. MacEntee: The Minister lives in 1871, and we do not expect him to follow what takes place in 1929.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: What will not take place in 1929.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 64.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.

Anthony, Richard.

Blaney, Neal.

Boland, Patrick.

Bourke, Daniel.

Brady, Seán.

Briscoe, Robert.

Broderick, Henry.

Buckley, Daniel.

Carney, Frank.

Cassidy, Archie J.

Coburn, James.

Colbert, James.

Colohan, Hugh.

Cooney, Eamon.

Corkery, Dan.

Corish, Richard.

Crowley, Fred. Hugh.

Crowley, Tadhg.

Davin, William.

Doyle, Edward.

Everett, James.

Fahy, Frank.

Flinn, Hugo.

Fogarty, Andrew.

French, Seán.

Gorry, Patrick J.

Goulding, John.

Houlihan, Patrick.

Jordan, Stephen.

Kennedy, Michael Joseph.

Kent, William R.

Kerlin, Frank.

Killilea, Mark.

Kilroy, Michael.

Lemass, Seán F.

McEllistrim, Thomas.

MacEntee, Seán.

Moore, Séamus.

Mullins, Thomas.

O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.

O'Kelly, Seán T.

O'Leary, William.

O'Reilly, Matthew.

O'Reilly, Thomas.

Powell, Thomas P.

Ruttledge, Patrick J.

Ryan, James.

Sexton, Martin.

Tubridy, John.

Walsh, Richard.

Ward, Francis C.

Níl

Aird, William P.

Alton, Ernest Henry.

Beckett, James Walter.

Bennett, George Cecil.

Blythe, Ernest.

Bourke, Séamus A.

Brodrick, Seán.

Byrne, John Joseph.

Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.

Conlon, Martin.

Connolly, Michael P.

Cosgrave, William T.

Craig, Sir James.

Crowley, James.

Daly, John.

Davis, Michael.

De Loughrey, Peter.

Doherty, Eugene.

Dolan, James N.

Doyle, Peadar Seán.

Duggan, Edmund John.

Dwyer, James.

Egan, Barry M.

Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.

Fitzgerald, Desmond.

Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.

[597]O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.

O'Reilly, John J.

O'Sullivan, John Marcus.

Rice, Vincent.

Shaw, Patrick W.

Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).

Good, John.

Gorey, Denis J.

Haslett, Alexander.

Hassett, John J.

Heffernan, Michael R.

Hennessy, Thomas.

Henry, Mark.

Holohan, Richard.

Jordan, Michael.

Kelly, Patrick Michael.

Law, Hugh Alexander.

Leonard, Patrick.

Lynch, Finian.

Mathews, Arthur Patrick.

McFadden, Michael Og.

McGilligan, Patrick.

Mongan, Joseph W.

Murphy, James E.

Murphy, Joseph Xavier.

Myles, James Sproule.

Nally, Martin Michael.

Nolan, John Thomas.

O'Connell, Richard.

O'Connor, Bartholomew.

O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.

O'Higgins, Thomas.

[598]Thrift, William Edward.

Tierney, Michael.

Vaughan, Daniel.

White, John.

White, Vincent Joseph.

Wolfe, George.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P. Doyle.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Ruttledge: I move amendment 17:—

To add at the end of paragraph (a) the words, “and it shall be lawful for the solicitors and counsel representing any accused person whose trial it is intended shall take place on the said day of such sitting to be present, and to be afforded an opportunity of verifying the identity of such juror.

Unless it is the intention of the Minister in this Bill to take away all protection from the unfortunate prisoner, I do not see how it can be said that it is not a reasonable and necessary amendment. Nobody except perhaps one in a Ministerial position would be louder in condemning the taking away of those rights from the prisoner than the Minister himself. The amendment gives the prisoner some protection against having people there who would not be entitled to be there. If the section goes through as it is without amendment, it would mean that an unscrupulous State prosecutor could successfully resort to methods that would be to the disadvantage of the prisoner.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I submit to the House that this is an absolutely ludicrous suggestion, because what lies behind this belief, if it is a belief, of Deputy Ruttledge is, that jurymen are constantly being personated. Fancy the office of Juryman so much desired after, so much sought after that persons are rushing in to personate jurymen.

Mr. Ruttledge: On a point of correction. I did not think that the Minister was sleeping. I referred to unscrupulous State prosecutors, and not to personation.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: There is nothing here about State prosecutors. State prosecutors have nothing to do with this. According to Deputy Ruttledge that is the only meaning that can be put upon his words. If he considered this amendment at all, the only thing that could have been behind the mind of Deputy Ruttledge, or the mind of whoever framed the amendment, was the idea that jurymen were being constantly personated; that there was grave danger of jurymen being personated; and that persons were most anxious, evidently, that they might be put in the position of jurymen in order to carry out the pleasant functions that jurymen have to carry out—being away from their business and all that; and assuming that persons were so anxious that the registrar would not be a sufficient check, and that the person himself who was being personated would not ever turn up. Of course, no such condition of affairs ever has existed or ever could exist. All that most persons want is to be excused from serving on juries, not to personate other persons and go serve on juries, and even if such an extraordinary state of affairs did ever come into existence of persons of a queer, eccentric strain being suddenly seized with the idea that they would like to go and serve on juries day after day, I do not see how even this provision would check it. I wonder, say, in the City of Dublin, how many jurymen the ordinary counsel or solicitor defending a prisoner would even know, and how they would know whether there was personation going on or not I cannot follow. It is perfectly obvious that that condition could never arise in which persons would start personating jurors. This is simply an amendment put in in order that something may be put in, something that will stop the passage [599] of the Bill and something that may lead to one extra division which seems to be the great desire of the Fianna Fáil Party at the moment, because I notice that so much pruned down and so much abridged is not only the eloquence of long-winded Deputies of Fianna Fáil, but even——

An Ceann Comhairle: It would be better, I think, if we kept to the Juries Bill. It is not half as bad as the two Parties.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Very well, I will wait for some other opportunity.

Mr. Ruttledge: The Minister tried to confuse the House as to the intention that underlies this amendment, by saying that what was intended to be protected was the personation of jurors. I think that never entered the mind of anyone, except the mind of the Minister for Justice himself. The Minister has indicated here already—at least, as far as I could gather, what he stated amounted to this—that we were doing nothing very revolutionary under this Bill; that we were just merely getting back to the 'seventies, and apparently the system that was in operation in the 'seventies for dealing with prisoners was the ideal system. In the 'seventies we had jury-packing in the country. We had State prosecutors, or Crown prosecutors, or whatever they were called at that time, changed from one venue to another in order to try and secure the conviction of prisoners.

Some Deputies may remember the Fenian times when prisoners were [600] taken from their own districts and tried in other parts of the country. For instance, they were taken to be tried in Sligo because there was a very definite viewpoint there amongst a big section, and there would not have been much difficulty on the part of the State or the Crown in securing conviction there. That is what I have in mind. If the Minister thought that the 'seventies system was an ideal one, and that the Peter the Packer system was an ideal one——

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: He was long after the 'seventies.

Mr. Ruttledge: If that system should again obtain in the country is it any wonder we should provide against collaboration or collusion between the State officials and others to secure a conviction, especially since the Minister is endeavouring to put this Bill through so that everything will be done behind closed doors?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. Ruttledge: If the Minister and the Executive Council are prepared to go that far and to have everything done in darkness, in an underhand way, is it any wonder we try to provide, as we do in this amendment, not against personation but against people being brought in who have no right to be brought in to serve on juries?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: The Deputy has not said two words in favour of this amendment.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 69.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.

Anthony, Richard.

Blaney, Neal.

Boland, Patrick.

Bourke, Daniel.

Brady, Seán.

Briscoe, Robert.

Broderick, Henry.

Buckley, Daniel.

Cassidy, Archie J.

[601]Fahy, Frank.

Flinn, Hugo.

Fogarty, Andrew.

French, Seán.

Gorry, Patrick J.

Goulding, John.

Houlihan, Patrick.

Jordan, Stephen.

Kennedy, Michael Joseph.

Kent, William R.

Kerlin, Frank.

Killilea, Mark.

Kilroy, Michael.

Lemass, Seán F.

McEllistrim, Thomas.

MacEntee, Seán.

Coburn, James.

Colbert, James.

Colohan, Hugh.

Cooney, Eamon.

Corkery, Dan.

Corish, Richard.

Crowley, Fred. Hugh.

Crowley, Tadhg.

Doyle, Edward.

Everett, James.

[602]Moore, Séamus.

Mullins, Thomas.

O'Connell, Thomas J.

O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.

O'Kelly, Seán T.

O'Leary, William.

O'Reilly, Matthew.

O'Reilly, Thomas.

Powell, Thomas P.

Ruttledge, Patrick J.

Ryan, James.

Sexton, Martin.

Tubridy, John.

Walsh, Richard.

Ward, Francis C.

Níl

Aird, William P.

Alton, Ernest Henry.

Beckett, James Walter.

Bennett, George Cecil.

Blythe, Ernest.

Bourke, Séamus A.

Brennan, Michael.

Brodrick, Seán.

Byrne, John Joseph.

Carey, Edmund.

Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.

Conlon, Martin.

Connolly, Michael P.

Cosgrave, William T.

Craig, Sir James.

Crowley, James.

Daly, John.

Davis, Michael.

De Loughrey, Peter.

Doherty, Eugene.

Dolan, James N.

Doyle, Peadar Seán.

Duggan, Edmund John.

Dwyer, James.

Egan, Barry M.

Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.

Fitzgerald, Desmond.

Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.

Good, John.

Gorey, Denis J.

Haslett, Alexander.

Hassett, John J.

Heffernan, Michael R.

Hennessy, Thomas.

Henry, Mark.

Holohan, Richard.

Jordan, Michael.

Kelly, Patrick Michael.

Keogh, Myles.

Law, Hugh Alexander.

Leonard, Patrick.

Lynch, Finian.

Mathews, Arthur Patrick.

McFadden, Michael Og.

McGilligan, Patrick.

Mongan, Joseph W.

Murphy, James E.

Murphy, Joseph Xavier.

Myles, James Sproule.

Nally, Martin Michael.

Nolan, John Thomas.

O'Connell, Richard.

O'Connor, Bartholomew.

O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.

O'Hanlon, John F.

O'Higgins, Thomas.

O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.

O'Reilly, John J.

O'Sullivan, Gearoid.

O'Sullivan, John Marcus.

Rice, Vincent.

Shaw, Patrick W.

Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).

Thrift, William Edward.

Tierney, Michael.

Vaughan, Daniel.

White, John.

White, Vincent Joseph.

Wolfe, George.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Flinn and Briscoe; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Ruttledge: I move amendment 19—

In paragraph (b) to delete in lines 28-29 the words “unless he has reason to believe” and substitute therefor the words “unless the jury on evidence of the registrar is of opinion”.

The word “jury” in that amendment is obviously an error. I think, when speaking on this debate yesterday, the Minister went out of his way to centre his whole case on what was an obvious misprint. He made an attack on the lack of sanity, stupidity and senselessness of this Party, and he centred on what is obviously misprint.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: There are half a dozen others too.

Mr. Ruttledge: We will deal with this. I got the original from the Clerk of this House, and if the Minister [603] thought it worth his while, and had the time, and did not act so senselessly and so stupidly as he did, he would have found that the word “judge” was in the original and not “jury.” I have the original here. He could have got some of the junior clerks in his office to find out that.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I would suggest now, since the word “judge” and not “jury” has come in that the Deputy would explain what the amendment means, if it means anything. If the Deputy has now studied the amendment, if he could explain in the slightest what the amendment means, or what the object of it is, I would be greatly obliged. I venture to think the Deputy will not attempt an explanation, or tell the House what is in the back of his mind, for there is nothing in the back of his mind. I venture to think that his mind is a pure blank. He produces an amendment and says: “There is a misprint in the amendment,” and then he sits down without explaining it, or what he wants by the amendment, being, as far as I can see, perfectly incapable of explaining its meaning.

Mr. Flinn: If ever a man has put up a case for an amendment to be offered to that Bench the case has been put up by the Minister for Justice. The suggestion is that there is no sense in it. That is the place for such an amendment. The suggestion is that it is unintelligible. They have nothing to do with anything that is intelligible. We have actually had a Minister telling us that he has no experience of prosecutions, and yet this whole Bill deals with prosecutions. His case is based on the fact that he is ignorant of prosecutions and does not care a damn about how they are carried out. That is his method, because he is blank of intelligence and blank of everything else. That [604] is why a blank amendment ought to be offered.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I would ask the Deputy in future if he does get excited to moderate his language.

Mr. Flinn: I am not the slightest bit excited.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy ought to moderate his language.

Mr. Conlon: A blank amendment!

Mr. Flinn: Offered to a blank mind.

Mr. Ruttledge: I do not know if I should answer the Minister. I think anybody could intelligibly read the amendment. If people cannot read, you cannot expect that you will be able to explain anything to them. There it is; the words are very simple, and there is nothing ambiguous about it.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Explain what you want.

Mr. Ruttledge: That it is only the Judge on the evidence of the Registrar. Is it not quite simple?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Shall do what, on the evidence of the Registrar?

Mr. Ruttledge: The amendment is:—

In paragraph (b) to delete in lines 28-29 the words “unless he has reason to believe” and substitute therefor the words “unless the Judge on evidence of the registrar is of opinion.”

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Of what opinion?

Mr. Ruttledge: I am afraid I must give it up.

Mr. Flinn: We can give the Minister argument, but we cannot give him understanding. That is not argument.

Question put: “That the words proposed to be deleted stand part”

[605][606] The Committee divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 51.

Tá

Aird, William P.

Alton, Ernest Henry.

Beckett, James Walter.

Bennett, George Cecil.

Blythe, Ernest.

Bourke, Séamus A.

Brennan, Michael.

Brodrick, Seán.

Byrne, John Joseph.

Carey, Edmund.

Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.

Conlon, Martin.

Connolly, Michael P.

Cosgrave, William T.

Craig, Sir James.

Crowley, James.

Daly, John.

Davis, Michael.

De Loughrey, Peter.

Doherty, Eugene.

Dolan, James N.

Doyle, Peadar Seán.

Duggan, Edmund John.

Dwyer, James.

Egan, Barry M.

Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.

Fitzgerald, Desmond.

Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.

Good, John.

Gorey, Denis J.

Haslett, Alexander.

Hassett, John J.

Heffernan, Michael R.

Hennessy, Thomas.

Henry, Mark.

Holohan, Richard.

Kelly, Patrick Michael.

Keogh, Myles.

Law, Hugh Alexander.

Leonard, Patrick.

Lynch, Finian.

Mathews, Arthur Patrick.

McFadden, Michael Og.

McGilligan, Patrick.

Mongan, Joseph W.

Murphy, James E.

Myles, James Sproule.

Nally, Martin Michael.

Nolan, John Thomas.

O'Connell, Richard.

O'Connor, Bartholomew.

O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.

O'Hanlon, John F.

O'Higgins, Thomas.

O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.

O'Reilly, John J.

O'Sullivan, Gearoid.

O'Sullivan, John Marcus.

Rice, Vincent.

Shaw, Patrick W.

Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).

Thrift, William Edward.

Tierney, Michael.

Vaughan, Daniel.

White, John.

White, Vincent Joseph.

Wolfe, George.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.

Anthony, Richard.

Blaney, Neal.

Boland, Patrick.

Bourke, Daniel.

Brady, Seán.

Briscoe, Robert.

Broderick, Henry.

Buckley, Daniel.

Carney, Frank.

Cassidy, Archie J.

Coburn, James.

Colbert, James.

Colohan, Hugh.

Cooney, Eamon.

Corkery, Dan.

Corish, Richard.

Crowley, Fred. Hugh.

Crowley, Tadhg.

Doyle, Edward.

Everett, James.

Fahy, Frank.

Flinn, Hugo.

Fogarty, Andrew.

French, Seán.

Gorry, Patrick J.

Goulding, John.

Houlihan, Patrick.

Jordan, Stephen.

Kennedy, Michael Joseph.

Kent, William R.

Kerlin, Frank.

Killilea, Mark.

Kilroy, Michael.

Lemass, Seán F.

McEllistrim, Thomas.

MacEntee, Seán.

Moore, Séamus.

Mullins, Thomas.

O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.

O'Kelly, Seán T.

O'Leary, William.

O'Reilly, Matthew.

O'Reilly, Thomas.

Powell, Thomas P.

Ruttledge, Patrick J.

Ryan, James.

Sexton, Martin.

Tubridy, John.

Walsh, Richard.

Ward, Francis C.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and Doyle; Níl: Deputies Briscoe and Flinn.

Question declared carried.

[607] Mr. Ruttledge: I move amendment 20:—

To add at the end of paragraph (b) the words “save that such juror shall not be called to be sworn on any trial until the list of jurors who have answered to their names in open court is exhausted.”

The object of the amendment is to provide that jurors shall be sworn in open court. I am endeavouring by this amendment to get away from the secrecy which is sought to be established by this Bill as proposed. The Bill proposes to keep the names of jurors secret, but this amendment provides that to some extent jurors shall be sworn in public.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: The [608] object of the amendment is that a juryman who considers, for the purpose of securing his own personal safety, that it would be better to give his name privately to the registrar should not be allowed to serve upon a jury. That is a view I cannot take. This is an opportunity which the law gives a man of taking reasonable precaution for his own safety; and to say that for that reason he is less qualified to act on a jury than a man who does not take the same precaution, appears to me to be an argument that does not follow. I cannot see that there is any justification for saying that a person becomes any less suitable to serve on a jury because he prefers simply to mention his name to the registrar.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided. Tá: 51; Níl: 70.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.

Anthony, Richard.

Blaney, Neal.

Boland, Patrick.

Bourke, Daniel.

Brady, Seán.

Briscoe, Robert.

Broderick, Henry.

Buckley, Daniel.

Carney, Frank.

Cassidy, Archie J.

Colbert, James.

Colohan, Hugh.

Cooney, Eamon.

Corkery, Dan.

Corish, Richard.

Crowley, Fred. Hugh.

Crowley, Tadhg.

Davin, William.

Doyle, Edward.

Everett, James.

Fahy, Frank.

Flinn, Hugo.

Fogarty, Andrew.

French, Seán.

Gorry, Patrick J.

Goulding, John.

Houlihan, Patrick.

Jordan, Stephen.

Kennedy, Michael Joseph.

Kent, William R.

Kerlin, Frank.

Killilea, Mark.

Kilroy, Michael.

Lemass, Seán F.

McEllistrim, Thomas.

MacEntee, Seán.

Moore, Séamus.

Mullins, Thomas.

O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.

O'Kelly, Seán T.

O'Leary, William.

O'Reilly, Matthew.

O'Reilly, Thomas.

Powell, Thomas P.

Ruttledge, Patrick J.

Ryan, James.

Sexton, Martin.

Tubridy, John.

Walsh, Richard.

Ward, Francis C.

Níl

Aird, William P.

Alton, Ernest Henry.

Beckett, James Walter.

Bennett, George Cecil.

Blythe, Ernest.

Bourke, Séamus A.

Brennan, Michael.

Brodrick, Seán.

Byrne, John Joseph.

Carey, Edmund.

Cole, John James.

Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.

[609]Dwyer, James.

Egan, Barry M.

Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.

Fitzgerald, Desmond.

Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.

Good, John.

Gorey, Denis J.

Haslett, Alexander.

Hassett, John J.

Heffernan, Michael R.

Hennessy, Michael Joseph.

Hennessy, Thomas.

Henry, Mark.

Holohan, Richard.

Jordan, Michael.

Kelly, Patrick Michael.

Keogh, Myles.

Law, Hugh Alexander.

Leonard, Patrick.

Lynch, Finian.

Mathews, Arthur Patrick.

McFadden, Michael Og.

McGilligan, Patrick.

Conlon, Martin.

Connolly, Michael P.

Cosgrave, William T.

Craig, Sir James.

Crowley, James.

Daly, John.

Davis, Michael.

De Loughrey, Peter.

Doherty, Eugene.

Dolan, James N.

Doyle, Peadar Seán.

Duggan, Edmund John.

[610]Mongan, Joseph W.

Murphy, James E.

Myles, James Sproule.

Nally, Martin Michael.

Nolan, John Thomas.

O'Connell, Richard.

O'Connor, Bartholomew.

O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.

O'Hanlon, John F.

O'Higgins, Thos.

O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.

O'Reilly, John J.

O'Sullivan, Gearoid.

O'Sullivan, John Marcus.

Rice, Vincent.

Shaw, Patrick W.

Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).

Thrift, William Edward.

Tierney, Michael.

Vaughan, Daniel.

White, John.

White, Vincent Joseph.

Wolfe, George.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Briscoe and Flinn; Níl: Deputies Duggan and Doyle.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Ruttledge: Before I move amendment 22: “To delete paragraph (c),” I will, if you will permit me, move the next amendment:

In paragraph (c) to delete all words after the word “sittings,” line 47, to the end of the paragraph and substitute therefor the following words “and the solicitors and counsel for accused persons intended to be tried at such sittings, members of the Oireachtas and representatives of the Press.”

If amendment 22 is agreed to, I am prepared to withdraw amendment 23. Amendment 22 rules out amendment 23.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendment 23 is consequential. I have no objection.

Mr. Ruttledge: I do not know whether the Minister has the view which the judges have, that solicitors are officers of the court. The section refers to officers of the court and allows them to be present. Does the Minister intend by that, what has been held from time to time, and what has been so stated by judges so often that I am sure everyone knows it, that solicitors are officers of the court? That has always been accepted. I want to be clear as to the meaning, seeing that in some other instances the Minister is not prepared to accept the view that the accused's solicitor or counsel should be present. Does the Minister hold that a solicitor is not an officer of the court under this section, and is to be excluded? If the Minister is to give the ordinary meaning attaching to the words, and accepted by judges, that would obviate a lot of amendments we have put down dealing with the accused's solicitor and counsel. A subsequent amendment provides that the judge shall be present. I have stated reasons, in dealing with some previous amendments, why I think that would be desirable and necessary. I will deal with that matter subsequently.

If the Minister explains whether he accepts what the judiciary has accepted, that solicitors are officers of the court, it will remove some of the difficulty I have with regard to this amendment. It is only reasonable that counsel and members of the Oireachtas—some of whom, I suppose, are supposed to be engaged in a conspiracy to overpower the State—should be present. This is only a matter of bitter [611] personal prejudice and is not a thing that, I think, any member of the House seriously believes. It is only a question of propaganda without any faith or belief behind it. I think it is only reasonable that members of the Oireachtas as well as members of the Press should be allowed to be present when these proceedings are being carried on. I would like the Minister to explain whether he gives a different interpretation to the question whether solicitors are officers of the court or not.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: As far as the question as to whether solicitors are officers of the court or not is concerned, I would certainly be of opinion that these words “officers of the court” in this sub-section are not meant to include solicitors. Solicitors are officers of certain courts. They are officers, for instance of the Court of Chancery, and officers of the King's Bench, possibly, but I do not think when a court is sitting as a criminal court, a court of Oyer and Terminer as it was called, that solicitors were ever held to be officers.

Mr. Ruttledge: Have they not been held to be officers of the Circuit Courts since they were established?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: If the Deputy has any difficulty, on the Report Stage I will promise him to substitute another word for “officer” which will make the matter perfectly clear, so that the Deputy's doubts will be resolved. Consider what this procedure is to be. The object of this provision is that persons who are jurymen, who do not wish their names to be called out in court, because if their names are called out in court they will be subject to certain risks, walk into the registrar of the court and say: “My name is so-and-so, my number is so-and-so, and here is my jury card,” and the registrar checks them off. That is meant to be a private proceeding; nobody will be [612] there except the other jurymen, and since it is meant to be a private proceeding, since it has nothing to do with the actual hearing of the case against the accused and is simply a formality gone through to see what members of the jury panel are present, I do not see that there is any reason why persons other than the registrar should be present. As the section stands, the judge may be present if he wishes. We will come to the question as to whether he must be present or not when the Deputy moves his next amendment. But the officials of the court—I will use that term— are, in my judgement, sufficient persons to be present while that formality is gone through. I ask the House to reject this amendment also.

Mr. Fahy: I wonder what authority the Minister has for stating that solicitors are officers only of certain courts, or if he wishes to exclude them from such courts as will suit the purpose for which this Bill was designed. Perhaps later on he will give us an exhaustive list of the courts of which he would consider solicitors to be officers. I think that the Minister's explanation shows a lack of confidence in the legal profession. He has expressed certain doubts, not in this particular connection, but his speeches would lead one to believe that he has doubts as to the advisability of admitting certain members of the Oireachtas during what he describes as these private proceedings. I do not believe that if it were put to him outside considerations of elections or Party politics, he would stand for the belief that members of the Oireachtas should not be admitted. In any case, I believe that solicitors and counsel could be trusted not to reveal names if that is his desire, though I do not see why they should not be revealed. I think he should have sufficient confidence in them, because it is vitally important to the accused that his solicitor and counsel be present during the whole of the proceedings.

[613] As regards the Press, if members of the Press were there they need not publish the names, and I do not know that they should be excluded. I have often hard things to say of the Press—many of us have—particularly of the metropolitan Press, but their presence would have a certain restraining influence, and would give a certain amount of confidence regarding such matters as the packing of juries that things were all right. From his experience, the Minister knows that at least in such matters the Press could be relied on. I think that the Minister really has more confidence in the members of the Press, in solicitors and counsel than he would lead us to believe. He should have the same confidence as regards members of the Oireachtas, and I think that the amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: There is a formal calling over of the jurors. I wonder how many times have defending solicitor and counsel been present when the mere formality of calling over the names of jurors has been going on. This section does not deal with the calling of jurors for the purpose of empanelling a jury; it is simply to see what members of the long panel, as it used to be called, answer their names.

[614] Mr. Briscoe: And at the same time to see that nobody else answers for them.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: That is simply, as I have already pointed out, a ludicrous suggestion—a suggestion that people are going to personate jurors.

Mr. Flinn: But assume for a moment that this suspicion in relation to juries and the packing of juries is correct, assume that people are going to murder jurymen, assume that they have all the mentality which would lead up to the carrying out of an act of that kind, is none of them so criminally-minded as to personate some absent juryman for the purpose of obtaining the knowledge which otherwise they would not get? The Minister is piling up inducements to people to penetrate this veil of secrecy, and then he says the suggestion that anyone will use this method for the purpose of penetrating them is a ludicrous one.

Question—“That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill”—put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 49.

Tá

Aird, William P.

Alton, Ernest Henry.

Beckett, James Walter.

Bennett, George Cecil.

Blythe, Ernest.

Bourke, Séamus A.

Brennan, Michael.

Brodrick, Seán.

Byrne, John Joseph.

Carey, Edmund.

Cole, John James.

Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.

Conlan, Martin.

Connolly, Michael P.

Cosgrave, William T.

Craig, Sir James.

Crowley, James.

Daly, John.

Davis, Michael.

De Loughrey, Peter.

Doherty, Eugene.