On the 12th March, 1923, a small paragraph appeared discreetly on page 12 of The Times under headlines, "IRISH ARRESTS IN ENGLAND" "100 Men and Women Expelled" "Free State Charges".
On the same day, the Manchester Guardian reported prominently on the arrests and published the following official statement by the Liverpool police: "In accordance with a concerted plan and acting on the instructions of the Home Office, numerous arrests of Irish men and women resident in foreign towns were carried out during the course of Saturday night. ......"
Not surprisingly, it was the Daily Herald that really gave the news its full impact and importance in the centre of the front page, under a banner headline, "SENSATIONAL ROUND-UP OF IRISHMEN"
The report continued: Over 100 arrests in night raids. Prisoners taken from many parts of Britain and deported to Ireland in H.M.S.Castor.
London houses ransacked: Member of Dail taken. The arrests had been carried out in London, Liverpool, Manchester. Birmingham and Bootle as well as Glasgow and other Scottish towns.
The arrests were carried out on an order signed by Mr Bridgeman, the Home Secretary. This document quoted the Defence of the Realm Act and the Restoration of Order Act, Ireland, as the authorities for the action taken. Some of the men arrested in London were told by the police and detectives who made the arrests that if they would assure the Free State Authorities that they were not performing Republican work, they would be speedily released. The arrests were on charges formulated by the Irish Free State.
All the persons were brought to Liverpool and transferred to the British cruiser, Castor, which sailed yesterday afternoon, (Sunday, 11th March) it is believed, for Ireland. The majority of the arrested persons were men. All the women taken are described as of good address, one being, it is stated, a doctor. ......... each were ordered to take with them a pillow, a rug and a spare suit......"
The next day, the headlines ran: " COMMONS DENOUNCE IRISH DEPORTATIONS. HOME SECRETARY INDICTED. ' One of the most dreadful things in the history of our times'declares famous K.C.
"110 prisoners including 19 women arrived in Dublin on board H.M.S.Castor, accompanied by destroyers Victorious and Wolfhound. They were kept below deck until 2 o'clock yesterday morning (12th March) when, with every precaution taken, they were removed on motor chars-a-bancs to Mountjoy Prison. The chars-a-bancs were escorted by armoured cars, and strong patrols of National Troops held the streets until the prisoners were safely lodged."
A three-hour-long discussion in the House received wide Press coverage. The matter was debated under "IRISH FREE STATE ARRESTS IN GREAT BRITAIN. ORAL ANSWERS. STATEMENT BY THE HOME SECRETARY.
12th March 1923 (H.of C.Hansard No.161.1923 Col 1043 onwards)
MR J.RAMSAY MACDONALD(Labour and Leader of H.M.Opposition) (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can make a statement with regard to the reported arrest and immediate deportation to Ireland of a number of people residing in this country; the reason for the action taken, and the authority under which he acted?
Mr BRIDGEMAN:(Secretary of State for Home Department): I will, if I may, answer this question, and another question of which Private Notice has also been given to me by the Hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr Jones)
Mr J.JONES (Liberal): On a point of Order. I want to know if my question is exactly the same as put by my Hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon. With due respect, I have raised a different issue altogether?
Mr SPEAKER: The Hon. Member will have his opportunity if he raises a specific question after the Hon. Gentleman has answered the general one.
MR BRIDGEMAN: I was proposing to read out the question of the Hon. Member for Silvertown, and I thought my general answer would cover the points of both questions. The question of the Hon. Member is as follows: 'To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a school teacher, born in England, named Frank Fitzgerald, of Forest Gate, was arrested about 12 a.m. on Sunday morning, 11th March and has since been deported to Ireland; if he will state the reason for this arrest and if there is any legal redress for a citizen of this country who has been arrested and deported in this way.'
Certain arrests, one of which is referred to by the Hon. Member for Silvertown in his question, were carried out during the week-end in pursuance of orders made by me and the Secretary of Scotland, respectively, directing that a number of persons shall be interned under No.14B of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations. There has lately been a progressive increase in Irish Republican activity here. We are in possession of material clearly indicating the existence of a quasi-military organisation controlled by a person calling himself 'Officer Commanding, Britain.'-
Mr LANSBURY (Labour): Galloper Smith!
Mr Bridgeman: - and of an intention on the part of that organisation primarily to do everything in their power, in co-operation with the irregulars in Ireland, to overthrow the Free State Government, and also in certain contingencies to resort to acts of violence in this country in pursuance of their unlawful aims. It was clearly the duty of His Majesty's Government being in possession of such information, to take action, and we have for some time past been in consultation with the Free State Government as to the best method of dealing with the situation. The arrests have been made at the request of that Government. The persons arrested are all of Irish origin and are either members of the Organisation referred to, or have supported it directly or indirectly. They will be held in custody by the Free State Government in their own country. This seemed, on the whole, after full consideration, the simplest and most effective method of dealing with these persons who, claiming to be Irish, and to be acting in the interests of Ireland, so grossly abused the hospitality of this country.
CAPTAIN HAY (Labour): That is begging the question.
Mr BRIDGEMAN: If hon. Members express the wish to be more fully informed as to the organisation against which this action has been directed, I shall be pleased, as soon as possible, to place in the Library illustrative specimens of documents which have lately fallen into our hands. The persons arrested have all been informed that they may, if they wish, make representations to an Advisory Committee, which will be presided over by someone who holds, or has held, high judicial office.
MR MACDONALD: Arising out of the answer, first of all on the point of legality. Does the Government hold that the Restoration of Order, Ireland, Regulations run in this country? And, secondly, with reference to the Committee, is that Committee sitting in this country, and are the deported persons to be allowed to return to this country during the enquiry into their deportation?
MR JONES: Before the Rt Hon. Gentleman answers, I should like to ask if a reply is going to be given to my question. My question relates to a British subject, born in England, and if such are going to be deported without appeal to the ordinary Courts of Law? If this man has been guilty of an offence against the State, I am not here to defend him, but I am asking are not the ordinary Courts in this country available. [interruption] I am going to go on if I am chucked out.
MR BRIDGEMAN: With regard to the last question, I was told that this person was engaged in this organisation.
MR JONES: He was not. He is a British subject. Why do you not answer my question?
Hon. MEMBERS: It has been answered.
MR SPEAKER: The Hon. Member must really listen to the answer.
(Clearly he had NOT been answered since he wanted to know why a British citizen was not being tried in a British court of law after being duly charged with whatever crime of which he might be suspected.)
MR BRIDGEMAN: I have already said that this man has the power of appearing before an Advisory Committee.
(It should be noted that the "Advisory Committee" had not been selected or set up.)
MR JONES: He is an English subject and he has a right to appear before the courts of this country. [Hon. Members: Order.] I am not going to give way. This man is an English subject, and he has not the right to be deported without trial.
MR SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has already asked that question.
MR JONES: The Leader of the Opposition does not know what he's talking about.
MR SPEAKER: The question is under what statutes were these proceedings taken.
MR JONES: Why should they be deported like this?
MR LANSBURY: Does the Home Secretary claim the right to deport a British subject, born in this country, to another country, without trial either by judge or jury?
MR BRIDGEMAN: I have already answered that question. My answer is that I have taken legal advice on this matter, and I am assured that I am acting within my rights. With regard to the question as to where the location of the Advisory Committee would be, it would be in this country.
MR JONES: In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to my question, I beg to move that the House be adjourned on a matter of definite and public importance.
MR SPEAKER: Perhaps the Hon. Gentleman will draft his Motion, and I will deal with it at the end of questions.
.............
MR SAKLATVALA: I desire to ask if in the case of Frank Fitzgerald of 3 Cave Street, the rt. hon. Gentleman has not made a mistake and mixed him up with another Irishman of the same name, and whether he has deported entirely the wrong person? Is the rt. hon. Gentleman aware that this particular Frank Fitzgerald is not the Frank Fitzgerald concerned in a machine-gun case recently, and is he aware that this particular Frank Fitzgerald has never functioned in any of the Irish organisations after the establishment of the Free State in Southern Ireland, and is he aware that he has actually resigned his membership of the Self-determination League and has he not deported the wrong man?
VISCOUNT CURZON: Is this the man who was arrested in the National Liberal Club?
MR JONES: He was arrested in his own house."
The Debate continued and was resumed the following day, 14th March, 1922.
MR SAKLATVALA asked the Prime Minister if he will place upon the Table of the House immediately a full report of written as well as verbal communications that passed between the Irish Free State Authorities and the Prime Minister or any other Members of the British Cabinet which caused the Home Secretary to issue orders for the arrest and deportation of numerous citizens to be tried by ordinary and extraordinary Courts in the Irish Free State?
MR BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. I can add nothing to the statement made by the Attorney-General and myself on Monday last. As I explained then, nothing more than internment is proposed at the present time.
MR SAKLATVALA: Is it within the constitutional power of the Government of this country to prevent the Irish Free State from taking any measures against persons who are now deported and interned there?
MR BRIDGEMAN: I should like to see the question on the Paper before I answer it.
..........
MR MAXTON: (by private notice) asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware that James Hicky, Gallowgate, Glasgow, one of the men deported to Ireland on the night of Saturday, 10th March, is a native of Glasgow, the son of a Glasgow policeman, and that a prominent local clergyman is prepared to testify to his complete innocence of any connection with Irish rebel organisations, and if in view of these facts he will take immediate steps to restore this man to his home?
CAPT. ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Sec:for Health, Scotland): Each of the persons interned was made aware, by the terms of the Internment Order, a copy of which was served on him, that it is open to him to submit representations against the Order. Any such representations will be referred to the Advisory Committee to be presided over by Lord Trevethin. Representations from any other persons who may have personal knowledge of a particular case will be considered."
( It should be remembered that no Committee had as yet been set up so that anyone wrongfully interned had to wait in prison until such time as there was a committee to hear their case!)
...
MR SAKLATVALA (by private notice) asked the Prime Minister if he will inform the House what arrangements, if any, have been made, either by His Majesty's Government or the Free State Government, to give the persons deported from this country to Ireland, there to be interned, an opportunity of communicating with their friends in order that legal advice may be provided for those of the prisoners who desire it; and further, will the British Government take steps to ensure that the legal advisers of the deportees proceeding to Ireland from England shall be allowed freedom of access to them for the purpose of advising as to an appeal to the Advisory Committee?
MR BRIDGEMAN: The Free State Government will see that every reasonable opportunity is afforded to these persons to communicate with their friends in order to procure legal advice as to any representations they may wish to make to the Advisory Committee, and their legal advisers will be allowed freedom of access to them for this purpose.
MR SAKLATVALA: Who is going to judge as to the exact significance of the word 'reasonable'?"
The Debate continued with Mr Bridgeman being bombarded with questions - many of which remained without a satisfactory answer. The House wanted to know whether the internee could HIMSELF elect to appear before the Advisory Committee (whenever it might be set up) and not just appear before it on a summons from the Committee? Mr Maxton pressed home his point concerning the Glasgow internee who was British-born and who had been handed over to a foreign Government, against whom there was no prima facie case; could he be returned home forthwith. On being told he must apply to the Advisory Committee (still not in existence), Mr Maxton said to Mr Bridgeman, "I am bringing it before YOU. Is this Advisory Committee to supercede your powers, suspending the ordinary law of the land?" Ramsay Macdonald asked for a guarantee that the Committee would be set up without delay. Mr Buchanan followed this by asking whether, if it were proved that any of these persons are completely innocent, and have suffered any monetary loss or loss of situation, the Home Secretary would grant any compensation to them. (This was, later, to become quite a threat to the Government and to save themselves from liability for heavy damages, they passed an Act of Indemnity.)
Mr Jones again asked why English-born men and women could not be indicted and tried in the usual way in a British court of law if it was thought that they were guilty of some breach of the law. Mr Sexton, (Labour) asked whether or not he, as a Member of the House, could vouch for one of the detainees who was known to him since boyhood and who had no connections with any revolutionary Party. Mr Sexton was told he could only submit his statement to the as-yet-unborn Advisory Committee
Mr Maxton caused something of a stir when he asked the Home Secretary if arrangements could be made for him to visit one of his constituents in the place of internment in Dublin at the week-end. Although pressed on the point, the Home Secretary declined to give a reply.
"MR SAKLATVALA:(by private notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he has received an assurance from the Irish Free State Government that the persons arrested and deported to Ireland are sent there for internment only, and that prior to their release and return to this country, no charge will be made against them, rendering these persons liable to trial and sentence?
MR BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir. ...nothing more than internment is proposed at present. If it should be desired later to proceed against any of the persons concerned on specific charges, the assent of H.M.Government would first be obtained, and the subsequent procedure would be that provided by the Indictable Offences Act.
...........
MR SAKLATVALA: Will the Home Secretary make clear as to where that trial is to take place which is forcast to take place subsequently?
MR BRIDGEMAN: It depends on where the offence has been committed.
MR SAKLATVALA: Does the Act provide for the place where they can be tried? Under the Act, can they be tried outside Great Britain if their offence was committed in Great Britain?
MR BRIDGEMAN: I am not quite sure to what Act the hon. Gentleman is referring.
MR SAKLATVALA: The Indictable Offences Act.
MR THORNE:(Labour) If anyone can prove that he is British and born in England, will he have a chance of being tried in England?
MR PRINGLE: Can the rt. hon. Gentleman say whether any of these men and women deported from this country are liable to be tried by court martial by the Free State Army in Ireland?
MR SAKLATVALA: May I have an answer to my question?
MR BRIDGEMAN: It depends on the place where the offence was committed.
MR THORNE: May I have an answer to my question?
MR BRIDGEMAN: Certainly. I am not certain they will be tried at all. [Hon. Members: "Oh!] But if the hon. Member means will they be heard by the Advisory Committee, I shall certainly make representation in that sense to that Committee.
MR THORNE: The rt hon. Gentleman says he does not know whether they will be tried. Then, in the name of common sense, what have they been pinched for?
MR MACLEAN: (Labour) The Home Secretary says that the individuals who have been deported will, if they are to be tried, be tried in the country where the offence took place. Will he state whether it is not the case that all these individuals have been arrested under a charge of conspiring in this country against the Irish Free State, and in that case, will he inform the House what was the sense of deporting them to another country instead of trying them in this?
MR BRIDGEMAN: I think it would be unsatisfactory if I were to try to give, off hand, an answer to a long question like that......
MR MCENTEE (Labour): In view of the inability of the rt. hon. Gentleman to give us any information in reply to the question, can he tell us, in the case of these English-born subjects, if he will be prepared to admit them to bail until he makes up his mind?
MR BUCHANAN: May I ask you a question, Mr Speaker? I want your advice in this matter. I wish to move the Adjournment,owing to
the unsatisfactory answer on the legal point by the Home Secretary. I wish to know if I am in order in doing so.
MR SPEAKER: We had the Adjournment moved on this question on Monday last.
.....
MR PRINGLE: (Liberal) Has not a new point arisen, in this respect, that today the Home Secretary is unable to give us any clear answer as to the liability to trial of persons who have been deported from this country?
Mr SPEAKER: There is perhaps this point - the question whether persons of British birth will be allowed to appear. But I understand the Home Secretary to say that he is going to make representations to the Advisory Committee. What I would suggest is that on this point a question could be put on Monday .......
MR LANSBURY: I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him Private Notice, namely, whether his attention has been called to the arrest and deportation to Ireland of Miss Barrett, lately residing at 24, Campbell Road, Bow and Miss Kathleen Brooks, lately residing at Whitehall Court, Highgate; whether he is aware that Miss Barrett and her father and mother were all born in this country, and are consequently British citizens, and since the signing of the Peace treaty between England and Ireland she has taken no part in any agitation either against the British or the Free State Government; and whether he is aware that Miss Kathleen Brooks is also an Englishborn citizen, who at the time of her arrest was in company with her sister; and that the two ladies, being informed by the police officers that their orders were to arrest Miss M.Brooks, the ladies themselves should decide which should be taken; whether Kathleen volunteered to be arrested because her sister is suffering from illness; whether also he is aware that the warrants served on these ladies are dated 7th March and were served on 11th March; that consequently 4 days of the time allowed for appeal had elapsed; and whether, under all the circumstances, and in order to restore public confidence, the Home Secretary will ask the Free State Government to release these ladies forthwith and return them without delay to this country?
MR BRIDGEMAN: I only made the order for the arrest and internment of these ladies after being satisfied that there were good reasons for so doing. [An hon. Member: Which one?] The lady who has been arrested. If they desire to appeal against the provisions of the Orders, it is open to them to make representations to me to be laid before the Advisory Committee. ...I may add that I am satisfied that the Miss Brooks who was arrested is the lady in respect of whom the Order was made.
MR LANSBURY: Does the rt. hon. Gentleman contradict the statement that the police officers admitted to these ladies that they didn't know which of them they wished to arrest, and that the ladies had to choose which one should be arrested? Is that the method by which the Criminal Investigation Department carries out its duties?
MR BRIDGEMAN: My information is that the lady they have arrested is the one they intended to arrest.
MR SAKLATVALA: Is it the Home Secretary's conviction that the lady arrested is the right person based on the fact that, on Monday afternoon, two policemen were inside the house when a letter was delivered by a postman simply addressed to 'Miss M.Brooks' and was taken away by the policemen as a proof of there being a Miss M.Brooks.
MR BRIDGEMAN: This is the first time I have heard of that.
MR LANSBURY: Does the rt. hon. Gentleman deny the statement that the police did not know which of these ladies they were sent to arrest?
...........? ?
It might be of interest here to quote a letter sent to my brother Beram after Father's death by a Miss Delia MacDermott of 23A., Old Gloucester Street, Bloomsbury, London, W.C.1.:
"Dear Sir,
I noticed your letter recently in the Daily Herald re your late Father. I wish to say he took the first step to offer help in the case of the Irish deportees who were wrongfully arrested and sent to Ireland in the year 1923. My sister, Miss S.MacDermott, was amongst them, and in attending to her affairs when she was imprisoned, I received your Father's circular letter sent to her address. To me, it was the first ray of hope in a very difficult situation.
Yours faithfully,
Delia MacDermott."
It is tantalising that Miss MacDermott gave no indication of the help that was offered. But she refers to it as a circular letter and I feel safe in assuming that Father sent the letter, whatever it contained, to all the deportees; it apparently brought some hope and comfort to at least one of the recipients and, perhaps, to many more of them.
On the 19th March, 1923, the question of the legal position of the deportees was debated again under "IRISH FREE STATE. (ORAL ANSWERS) Deportations from Great Britain" In reply to question put to the Home Secretary by Private Notice by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Ramsay MacDonald, the Attorney-General, Sir Douglas Hogg, gave the following reply:
"I have been asked to reply. The arrangement with the Irish Free State Government is that no proceedings shall be instituted against any of these persons anywhere without the consent of my rt. hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My rt. hon. Friend will, of course, have to be satisfied that there is a prima facie case before giving his consent, and he has arranged to consult with me in any matter of legal difficulty or doubt(One would have thought a prima facie case should have been established before people were carried away by ship in the middle of the night to be transported to a foreign gaol!)
"When the consent is given, the person to be tried will be placed in exactly the same position, and dealt with in exactly the same way, as if he had not been deported. If the crime is one committed in England and triable there, application will be made to an English magistrate for a summons or warrant, and the case will be tried before an English magistrate and sent for trial by him, if a prima facie case is made out. If the crime is one committed in Ireland and triable there, a warrant will be applied for before an Irish magistrate. It will be backed by an English magistrate under the provisions of Section 12 of the Indictable Offences Act of 1848, and the accused person will then be tried before the Irish magistrate, and by him committed for trial,if a prima facie case is made out. Whether the trial takes place before an English or an Irish magistrate, the accused person will be present.
MR W. THORN: As far as these people are concerned, has the Habeas Corpus Act been suspended? (No reply was forthcoming to this last question!)
..............
CAPTAIN BENN: Will the rt. hon. Gentleman say whether these deportees will have the right, if they desire, of personal access to the Advisory Committee?
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, and I ought to say that the third member of the Advisory Committee is Sir Matthew Wallace, J.P., ex-President of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, Member of the Royal Commission, Defence of the Realm (Losses) 1915-20, and member of the War Compensation Court. There will be access to the Committee for any of the deportees who wish to see them.
MR RHYS DAVIES: What means were there for a solicitor on behalf of these deportees to get into touch with his client during the last few days, and particularly, what is the position in respect of George Clancy, of Manchester, whose solicitor sent a letter on behalf of this man which has not yet reached him?
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL:I was not aware of the the matter referred to in the last part of the hon. Member's question, but if he will send me a statement of the facts, I will be glad to enquire into them.
MR BUCHANAN: Is the rt. hon. Gentleman aware that certain Scottish Members made an effort to get across to meet certain of their constituents, and were not provided with those full facilities to which they thought they were entitled for conversation with these men and inquiry into the subject?
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In answer to a question like this, I gave last week a statement made by the Irish Free State Government that the internees would be allowed to see their legal advisers on points of law and to receive communications from their friends; but I must leave it to the Free State Governments to make regulations with regard to other people.
MR BUCHANAN: Seeing that the British Government take the responsibility for arresting and deporting these men, why cannot they take the responsibility of allowing, without the sanction of the Free State, Scottish Members to be with these men? Is the reason that they are afraid we might get to know the real position and the real reason why these men were arrested?"
Further questions and answers were exchanged between several Members and the Attorney-General on the subject of access to the deportees of their friends, legal advisers and Members of Parliament.
MR CLYNES: Have any steps been taken to inform fully the persons arrested of the conditions and facilities covering the replies which he has given this afternnon?
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid that I would like to have notice of that question.
Lt. Col. ARCHER-SHEE (Unionist): Is it not a fact that these men have been deported under a Statute made by this House which expressly suspended the Habeas Corpus Act with reference to rebellion in Ireland, and that these men are simply shut up and that there is no necessity whatever for all these questions?
MR BUCHANAN: In view of the unsatisfactory answers, may I be allowed to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Government to provide access to the interned persons by their Parliamentary representatives.
MR SPEAKER: The hon. Member must ask leave to make that Motion when we have disposed of the other questions.
MR PRINGLE: May I repeat the question of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr Maxton) which the Home Secretary did not answer, namely, whether the Home Office or the Scottish Office actually know the regulations regarding access made by the Irish Free State Government?
MR BRIDGEMAN: I should like to have notice of that question. Obviously, I do not want to misquote.
MR SHAKESPEARE May I ask whether, on the Internment Orders which the rt. hon. Gentleman signed, the place of internment was in Ireland?
MR BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir.
MR SHAKESPEARE: How is it that such a place of internment can be mentioned, considering that Ireland is now outside the jurisdiction of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act?
MR BRIDGEMAN: The warrant said a place within the Free State portion of Ireland.
Mr Shakespeare: Is it not a fact that the Free State is now outside the jurisdiction of the Restoration of Order Act?
MR BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir.
........
Two days after this exchange in the House, the Daily Herald proclaimed in a front-page head-line:
DUBLIN THUNDERBOLT FOR MR BRIDGEMAN
ACT FOR DEPORTATION SAID TO BE DEAD - MR COSGROVE'S DENIALS
"A thunderbolt from Dublin was launched yesterday at Mr Bridgeman, Home Secretary in Mr Bonar Law's Government.'Under whatever authority these men were deported and detained,' said President Cosgrove in the Dail, 'it was not under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act'. This statement is in direct contradiction to Mr Bridgeman's reply on March 12th to Mr Ramsay MacDonald.
On that day the following question was asked and answered:
MR MACDONALD: Has my rt. hon. Friend acted under the Restoration of Order Ireland Act Regulation.
MR BRIDGEMAN: Yes, I have. .........
Mr Cosgrove declared yesterday that the Act, so far as Ireland was concerned, had expired. 'It might be the legal opinion in Great Britain,' he added, 'that the Act was still in force in Britain, but he thought it had not been suggested that that was so with regard to Ireland.' Mr Cosgrove repudiated the suggestion that British Ministers had authority in the Free State's Affairs."
Questions regarding the legal niceties of British citizens being deported to a foreign country for trial continued. Saklatvala asked: "May we take it for granted from the answers given that there is no possibility of any of the interned persons being tried by Court Martial in Ireland? To which the Attorney-General replied:
"Certainly,there is no such possibility."
In the Session that followed on the same day, under "Written Answers" Saklatvala asked the Home Secretary whether, in sanctioning the deportation of 110 persons from here to Ireland, he had taken into consideration a precedent of any case of sending prisoners from areas where martial law does not exist to areas where martial law is in operation; and, if so, were such decisions in favour of such action being considered constitutional? Mr Bridgeman replied.
MR BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir. This consideration was before me.... The point, however, is not material, for, as I have already explained, it had been arranged with the Free State before these persons were sent to Ireland that no action other than internment would be taken without the agreement of His Majesty's Government.
Mr Saklatvala asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that Miss Barrett and other deportees were asked in Mountjoy Prison to sign pledges not to work in future for the Republican Party in Great Britain; and, in view of his statement that the prisoners were sent over merely for internment, was he consulted by the Free State authorities before they attempted to exact such pledges from the internees; is he aware that in a letter sent by Eileen Cullinan to her mother, all portions were cut out excepting 3 lines at the commencement and 3 lines at the end; was this censorship exercised by the Home Office with knowledge of the offending paragraphs or was it done by the Irish Free State; and will he see that the rights of the interned persons to communicate with their families and friends are protected?
MR BRIDGEMAN: I am informed by the Free State Government that no deportees have been asked to sign pledges, as stated in the question, not to work in future for the Republican Party in Great Britain; and that the terms of the undertaking which a number of prisoners in Ireland have given, and which it would be open to any internees to give, are as follows: 'I promise that I will not use arms against the Parliament elected by the Irish people or Government for the time being responsible to that Parliament, and that I will not support in any way any such action, not will I interfere with the property or the persons of others.' The letter referred to was censored by the Free State authorities as mentioned. Internees are allowed to communicate with their relatives and friends subject to censorship, and I have no reason to think that they are being unduly restricted in this respect.
On 22nd March 1923, the Daily Herald reported on the front page: "ALL'S NOT WELL WITH IRISH DEPORTEES. DISQUIETING STATEMENTS REACH THIS COUNTRY. BROTHER'S FUTILE VISIT
Disquieting statements as to the conditions under which the deportees from England and Scotland are interned in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, have reached the Reverend Herbert Dunnico, M.P., who is Treasurer of the fund for their legal defence and for the assistance of their relatives.
Notwithstanding the ministerial assurances that the internees would be allowed to communicate with their friends, it appears that all letters and parcels have been stopped since last Saturday.
Mr Francis Brooks, brother to Miss Kathleen Brooks, one of the internees, has returned from Dublin where he made applications to the Acting-Governor of Mountjoy Prison to be allowed to see his sister.
He states that he was informed in reply that neither he nor a legal adviser could be allowed to see her.
Mr Brooks also wanted to supply his sister, who was in delicate health, with a change of clothing, but was told that if she made application to the doctor she would be provided with prison clothing.
The same newspaper, two days later, reported that the legality of the Irish deportations was challenged in the High Court yesterday when Mr Patrick Hastings, K.C. applied on behalf of Mr Art O'Brien, one of the internees, for a writ of Habeas Corpus.
Counsel explained that the affidevit on which he moved was that of Mr O'Brien's sister. The rule required that the affidevit should be made by the person in custody, but there were peculiar circumstances in the case in the fact that Mr O'Brien was interned in Ireland and it would be impossible to get an affidevit from him in time for the application to be made this term.
Mr Hastings quoted authority to show that the affidevit might be made - and in fact had been made on occasions by other persons, upon evidence that the person concerned was prevented from making such an affidevit. Counsel added that a telegram had been received from Mr O'Brien, stating that he desired application to be made for his release.
Mr Justice Avory asked what grounds there were for saying Mr O'Brien was coerced, or for any other reason was unable to make application.
Mr Hastings said there was none. The Crown, it appeared, had made arrangements whereby an attorney might see a man interned in Ireland, and if time and means permitted a solicitor could go to Ireland to get the affidevit..............
[Mr W.H.Thompson, solicitor, London, may try to see Mr O'Brien during a week-end visit to Dublin.]
Rev. H.Dunnico quoted another instance of a solicitor being refused permission to see one of the internees, Mr Macmahon. Mr Bridgeman promised that if given particulars, he would communicate with Dublin and facilitate the visit.
On the 26th March, 1923, the Daily Herald carried the following item, under headlines proclaiming:
DEPORTEES CHALLENGE HOME SECRETARY.
IMPRISONED MEN SAY 'STATEMENTS ARE DELIBERATE AND CONTEMPTIBLE FALSEHOODS'
"A striking indictment of the Home Secretary's high-handed and illegal methods of rounding up men and women, against whom no charge is made, is contained in a letter written to him by some of the Irish deportees now incarcerated in Mountjoy Prison.
"Passages from this document have been sent to the Daily Herald by Mr S.Saklatvala (Labour M.P. for Battersea) who states that he will today publish the letter in full.
"The letter, dated 18th March, 1923, was written from "C" Wing of Mountjoy Prison addressed to Mr Bridgeman. It ends by speaking of the Advisory Committee as a body created by the accusers before which the accused are to go to prove their innocence. They refuse to have anything to do with it. The letter was signed by 28 internees."
(The letter was, in fact, signed by 32 internees)
House of Commons Hansard for 26th March 1923 reports under 'WRITTEN ANSWERS IRELAND - DEPORTATIONS FROM GREAT BRITAIN' the following Debate.
"MR SHINWELL asked the Home Secretary i) On what grounds Ambrose Kenny, of Bathgate, was deported and in which part of Ireland was he interned; who is to be responsible for the maintenance of his wife and family;
2) on what grounds Patrick Hyland, of Winchburgh, was deported and in which part of Ireland was he interned, and who is to be reponsible for the maintenance of his wife and family?
CAPT. ELLIOT: I have been asked to reply to these questions. Ambrose Kenny and Patrick Hyland have been interned in Ireland on the ground that they are persons suspected of acting, having acted or being about to act in a manner prejudicial to the restoration and maintenance of order in Ireland. They are at present interned in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin. The point raised in the third part of these 2 questions is now under consideration."(The men had been in prison for two weeks - presumably the families wre expected to go hungry and their rent remain unpaid while the ponderous 'consideration' was taking place.)
"MR TREVELYAN asked the Home Secretary whether he will publish the correspondence which took place between himself and the Free State Government in relation to the action taken under the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Act?
MR BRIDGEMAN: I regret that I cannot add to the very full statements on this question made by the Attorney-General and myself in recent Debates.
...........
MR MORRIS asked the Home Secretary whether the Advisory Committee recently appointed under Regulation 14B is going to sit in Great Britain or in the Irish Free State?
MR BRIDGEMAN: The Committee proposes to sit in this country.
MR SAKLATVALA asked the Home Secretary if he has received direct statements of their case and claims from the deportees in Ireland; and, if so, will he place them upon the Table of the House, and also copies of any replies that he may make to the same??
MR BRIDGEMAN: I have received representations from one of these persons and his case is being referred to the Advisory Committee. I have also received a lengthy protest in general terms, signed by 32 of the deportees, in which they challenge the legality of the action takem by H.M. Government and decline to recognise the Advisory Committee. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative."
Mercifully, the deportees and Opposition M.P.s were not the only people to challenge the legality of the Home Secretary's autocratic and dictatorial orders to arrest and intern in a foreign country, without trial, these British men and women. As has already been mentioned, Patrick Campbell applied for a writ of habeus corpus on behalf of two of the internees and the case of Mr O'Brien was to prove once and for all, in the most public way possible, the illegality of Mr Bridgeman's instructions to the arresting police. Patrick Hastings lost his application for a writ of habeus corpus in respect of Mr O'Brien but appealed against the decision given by Mr Justice Avory on the 23rd March. On 10th May, 1923, the Manchester Guardian reported the case under the headlines, "DEPORTATIONS NOT LEGAL." "O'BRIEN CASE GOES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT"
"The Court of Appeal yesterday unanimously reversed the decision of the Lord Chief Justice's Court and decided that the deportation of Art O'Brien to the Irish Free State was illegal. The Court therefore granted O'Brien's application for a writ of Habeus Corpus, and ordered the Home Secretary to produce him in court next Wednesday. O'Brien is at present in a Dublin prison.
"It was also held that recent Orders in Council made by the Government in support of the order for internment were ultra vires.
"The Attorney General announced that he would appeal to the House of Lords and ask for the case to be heard on Monday.
"The decision in the O'Brien case affects all the deportees, numbering over a hundred."
The arrogant optimism which induced the Government of the day to appeal to the House of Lords is a frailty suffered by all too many Governments. Their pride, most aptly, came before their fall.
On the 15th of March, the Guardian reported the case once again in the following humiliating terms: (humiliating for the Government, that is, and much to the jubilation of all the internees and their supporters)
"It must be a long time since a British Government has been placed in so mortifying a position by legal blunders of its own as the present Government occupies after yesterday's decision of the House of Lords. Last week the Court of Appeal decided that the deportation of Mr O'Brien - and presumably of his 100 fellow-deportees from England to Ireland - was illegal and that Mr O'Brien must be brought up for release. That branded blunder number one. The Government thereupon appealed to the House of Lords, and now it appears that this appeal itself was another legal blunder - the House of Lords has no juridiction in the matter. To laymen, the law as laid down yesterday by a majority of the Law Lords, seems highly reasonable. ... The Home Office, which we taxpayers supply at some expense with legal advisers, ought never to have butted its head against a wall with such a high degree of stopping power as the law of Habeus Corpus. ....... And now, to save the Home Secretary from the very natural claims which the persons improperly arrested are likely to make for pecuniary or other satisfaction, there will probably be an Act of Indemnity; that is to say, a special law that the Home Secretary is to be none the worse off for having acted unlawfully. Such special laws are not desirable things; the usual custom of allowing illegal acts to make their authors uncomfortable is much to be preferred.
"Still, the Home Secretary acted as agent for us all and "did it for the best" though he did it badly; so, according to precedent, he has to be indemnified. And as the persons illegally treated must not be damnified, no doubt they will have to be compensated out of public money. Thus, at every turn of the whole business, the poor taxpayer pays...."
In fact, the particular Act of Indemnity that was passed, made no provision for the wronged deportees to be given any compensation except for actual expenses and losses incurred, and there is no doubt that many of them suffered financial hardship to the point of ruin, and were, in the words of the Manchester Guardian, "damnified." Many lost their jobs and no doubt suffered great hardship on their release by a grudging, reluctant and one might almost claim, a vindictive Government. As to Mr Bridgeman, he did have the grace to resign but his resignation was not accepted by the Prime Minister. (The Prime Minister, Mr Bonar Law, had been absent from duty for some months when this crisis arose and Mr Stanley Baldwin was acting for him in the House of Commons. Indeed, Mr Bonar Law, suffering from cancer of the throat, was to resign from office only a few days after these events. It is possible that in other circumstances Mr Bridgeman's resignation might have been accepted. His departure might have restored a little dignity to the Government after the humiliating debacle it had suffered). It is to be hoped that the Home Secretary also had the grace to feel somewhat abashed when facing all those Opposition M.P.s who had questioned the legality of his actions all along.
There is a usually unspoken but deep-rooted myth among the voters in Great Britain, thankfully dispelled occasionally, that right-wing Governments are more efficient than left-wing ones. Well, this was only one of many instances when the Labour and Liberal Members were proved right and the Conservatives were proved to be in the wrong. O, yes, it DOES sometimes happen, I'm afraid! It is NOT that they are RIGHT in the sense of right versus wrong, it is just that they seem to be more persuasively plausible.
Ramsay MacDonald, opposing the introduction of the Bill of Indemnity proposed by Stanley Baldwin, (acting for the Prime Minister) said: "...the 3rd case, I suggest, also shows that a decision was made without that discretion which should have been exercised and without due consideration for the constitutional rights of the people arrested. Hon. Members on this side of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr Lansbury) the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr Saklatvala), and various other Members in the early days of the arrests and deportations brought here case after case where the warrants were irregularly served. The illegality of his actions had been voiced loudly and he did not listen. He, therefore, has no right to claim indemnity.
"...the deportees have no means of proving that they were deported illegally (when looking for jobs or facing their employers). The Government are in honour bound to do justice to these men.
"...I do say that never in the whole history of this country, since legal processes were established firmly and fixedly, was an Indemnity Bill less worthy of support than the one which is before us now."
Mr Saklatvala made the following contribution to the Debate:
"I beg to submit to the Committee considerations rather from a prectical than merely from a political point of view. In the first place I submit that the Amendment put forward from this side really restores to the Indemnity Act its correct as well as its impartial character. If it is to be an Act of Indemnity, surely we are not supposed to legislate for the partial benefit of a few citizens to the detriment of other citizens. Why not indemnify everyone who has suffered from these erroneous measures? It is not merely the Home Secretary, it is not merely the police constable, it is not merely the Government officers who have been put in the wrong or have suffered from these errors and are seeking relief. There are 112 victims. Why not indemnify them, and make this a real Act of Indemnity, giving an indemnity to everyone from the effects of this most unfortunate and precipitate action that the Home Secretary was misled into taking under faulty advice? From this point of view I suggest that, in order to make the Indemnity Act complete, the Government ought to allow this kind of civil action to be taken." (The Act as proposed shielded the Home Secretary from both civil and criminal action - an Amendment suggested by the Opposition indemnified the Home Sec. only from criminal and not from civil proceedings).
"I will urge another point, as to the difference between allowing the sufferers to take action under an existing and well-established law and their taking action under some new and speculative law. Of these 112 sufferers the majority, almost all, are people of very limited means - people without means, we may say. It is impossible for many of them to spend money speculatively on legal advice and on counsel, to go speculatively before a new tribunal and take their chance whether they will get their reward or whether they will be penalised by having to pay a higher cost then the reward they get." (Lloyd Geoege had suggested setting up a tribunal to assess damages for the internees). "Under the established law they know their position. It would be more or less a formal action, an inexpensive action, both to the State and to the individual sufferers: it would be a nominal action. People know exactly, under the well-defined law, what their rights are. There is very little legal argument to be proceeded with, and in that way we not only simplify the position of the sufferers but render them far happier and give them a greater amount of justice than by throwing them on the mercy of an unknown tribunal, to take their chance of fighting out a lawsuit the result of which they would not know.
"There is another consideration. I suppose the Committee now realise we are all chastened, that the opinions of the lawyers are, after all, not infallible, or, at least, have been several times in conflict with the opinions of other lawyers. A few weeks ago the position was considered to be unshakeable at law, in spite of all the warnings given even by some competent lawyers from the Labour Benches, who had developed a sense, not only of seeing the law but even of seeing the people's point of view, after belonging to the people's party. We had it pointed out then that there was some chance of the law being faulty. I submit again to the same lawyers that even this Indemnity Act may in itself still be a legal delusion. I still doubt the legality of this Act of Indemnity itself. I still would submit -"
THE CHAIRMAN: "The hon Member seems to me to be raising a broader question than that dealt with in the Amendment."
MR SAKLATVALA: "I am coming to the Amendment. I submit that the real indemnity to the Home Secretary will come not by this Act forced upon the people but that it can only come by the mutual consent of the sufferers.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is really quite outside the Amendment. I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the question of criminal and civil proceedings."
MR SAKLATVALA: "I am submitting that, if the sufferers are given the protection which is sought in this Amendment, then they would be an agreeable party to accepting the position which is offered to them. If the Government will not accept this Amendment, and will force an issue upon the sufferers, then they will be inviting trouble again by inducing the sufferers to challenge the validity of this very Act, which seems to be in defiance of certain sections of the original Habeas Corpus Act, which does not permit the King, or his heirs, executors, or officers to set aside the punishment or indemnity levied under the Habeas Corpus Act."
THE CHAIRMAN: "That would be a relevant argument on the 2nd or 3rd Reading, but not on this Amendment."
MR SAKLATVALA: "I submit to your ruling. To cut the argument short, I submit that, if the Labour Party's Amendment, as it is now suggested in the most friendly spirit to the Government, be accepted, it is only then that the Government Officers will get the indemnity that they are seeking. If they are seeking a one-sided indemnity by depriving the sufferers of their rights, they will provoke a fight once again on the part of the sufferers and they will themselves suffer."
When the Indemnity Bill came up for the 3rd Reading on the 1st June, Mr Buchanan, (Labour Member for Gorbals) "felt in duty bound to protest against its passing." He said: I look upon it as one of the worst features of the political life of this country, that a Government should arrest persons illegally and deport them to another country, and then, having done that, pass a Bill to condone its action. ... Then, to get the Opposition to agree, they say, 'We will compensate the victims of our action.' ...They can pile up the compensation as high as they care, but it does not matter to me; the thing that matters to me, much more than either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party, or anything else, is the freedom of the individual. If you are going to interfere with the right of a person to have opinions, to be free to express them within his country, without being deported to another country, then you are going to violate all that is great and good in this country. ...I feel it my duty to enter my protest against this obnoxious Bill."
He was followed by Mr F,Gray (Liberal Member for Oxford) who protested equally strongly against the Bill. In the course of a long and strong speech, he said:
"What penalty has this Government paid for the mistake it has made by a responsible Minister? In the days of Disraeli or of Gladstone, or of the late Lord Salisbury, it would have been impossible for a mistake of this magnitude, infringing the liberty of the subject, to be made without bringing about the resignation of the Government of the day....I do not know whether any useful purpose will be served by my going heroically into the Lobby with the hom Member for Gorbals,(Mr Buchanan) I do not know, indeed, whether we two together would be allowed to go alone into the Lobby,, but certainly, at every stage I shall protest against, object to, and obstruct a Bill which I believe to be contrary to the Constitution of this country.
MR SAKLATVALA: The sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr Buchanan) are really the sentiments of many of us, although perhaps differently expressed, and though we may not have a chance of voting in the Lobby directly against this Bill, because that, perhaps, would be a needless process, we must not be taken on that account to be supporters of the principles embodied in the Bill - principles against which protests have been practically expressed more than once. The hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr F.Gray) suggested that, if a Liberal or Conservative Parliament in the past had adopted such a measure, the Government would have resigned as a whole.. I may perhaps remind the House that a Liberal Government has taken similar acts in deporting persons without trial, and interning them. That happened under the regime of Lord Morley in my poor country, India, but it being the act of a Liberal Minister of a Liberal Government, neither had the self-respect to resign. It is another illustration of the saying that what is sauce for the gander is not always sauce for the goose. Liberalism has its different faces to be presented to different people according to their particular convenience. I now appeal to the Government on two points. I want to know whether they are going to say - with this indemnity granted to them with a certain amount of hopefulness on the part of the Labour Members - that they will carry out in spirit the little concessions they are making to the deportees in a larger measure than has been indicated in some quarters. I appeal to the Noble Lord to reflect on his remarks with regard to particular persons among the deportees and tell us how he intends to apply his logic in the case of those against whom further action is to be taken. This Bill of Indemnity, as far as the deportees are concerned, is not a bonus for good character, neither is it a penalty for bad chacter. It has nothing to do with character. The damage to the deportees arises and becomes due, not from any bad action on their part, but from the wrong action of the Government. In the case of those deportees against whom the Government can take no action, probably we may accept the plea and give the benefit of it to the Home Secretary. But there is another set of deportees whom the Home Secretary interned, and against whom he is now taking definite action on the basis of evidence captured at the time of their arrest. In those cases he had a clear alternative in front of him. He could have taken action against them but he preferred not to do so; he preferred to deport them without charge or trial, and so in their case his crime was greater than it was in the case of the other deportees. I submit that in their case the damage arising out of the unwarrantable action of the Home Secretary- technical though he may term it - gives them a more emphatic claim than exists in the case of those against whom no proceedings are instituted. I hope the words of the Noble Lord will not prejudice the tribunal and make the members of it think that these persons are entitled to less damages on account of their bad character. Character has nothing to do with it. These persons, in whose cases a legal course was open to the Rt Hon .Gentleman, are undoubtedly entitled to higher damages than are the other deportees. The Home Secretary gave us an apologia which, to my mind, was a little worse than his crime. When he was appealed to not to prejudice the case of persons still to be tried, he suggested that the fact that only 8 of the deportees registered their protest with the Advisory Committee, was a tacit admission that he had acted correctly in interning them. These were ungenerous and clearly unjust observations for a representative of the Government to make.
"The Home Secretary did know that in a written document sent to him from Mountjoy Prison, it was clearly stated that internees challenged the right of the Home Secretary to intern them. They challenged his right under that particular Act, on the ground that it was void. The Committee was established in pursuance of that Act which the internees were challenging, and, on the particular occasion when they repudiated the right of the Home Secretary any longer to act under that Act, they naturally repudiated the authority of the Advisory Committee established under that Act; and they not only clearly refused to go before it, but 47 of the internees who, at first, hastily agreed to do so, on this definite principle, withdrew their applications. The mere fact, therefore, that only 8 persons agreed finally to go to the Advisory Committee was not any proof of their tacit admission of the right of the Home Secretary to intern them, but was a higher protest on their part against the entire action of the Home Secretary, and against everything connected with the Act on which the Home Secretary was, under a misapprehension, acting at the time. These are the only two submissions that I desire to make to the Government. The best way of expressing their regret and their sense of justice towards those who have been victimised for nothing is now to put into application the relief that they are offering in the right spirit, instead of applying wrong logic and raising technical objections against the interest of poor men and women."
Mr Saklatvala took no further part in the Debate.