Evidence on Conditions in Ireland: Comprising the Complete Testimony, Affidavits and Exhibits Presented Before the American Commission on Conditions in Ireland

The publication of the complete evidence submitted to the Amer- ican Commission on Conditions in Ireland has been prompted by the same motives that brought about the creation of the Commission and led it to undertake a thorough inquiry into conditions existent in Ireland. The American people have a right to know the truth about what is happening in Ireland. That concern is not a matter of idle curiosity. We are bound by ties of kinship and race, by a common culture and language, to the participants in this struggle. Even though we wish, we can not sit unmoved at civil war between peoples whose blood tinctures more than half of our population. The fact that the relatives and loved ones of our fellow citizens are being terrorized, imprisoned without trial, even murdered, and their property violently destroyed, brings this conflict home to our very door. Even though we would ignore the Irish question, the Irish question will not ignore us. Apart from these particular considerations, the dictates of hu- manity and civilization compel the moral conscience of America to take notice of conditions in Ireland. We were moved to enter the late war largely as a moral protest against the killing of non- combatants, of women and babies, and the needless ravaging of homes and destruction of towns. Our boys died in France to pre- vent forever the repetition of such atrocities, and to guarantee to small nations everywhere the right to a free and democratic govern- ment of their own choosing. Persistent reports which continue to come to this country indicate that the worst atrocities alleged against the German army of occupation in Belgium are being perpe- trated on even a more ruthless scale in Ireland today. For these reasons the situation in Ireland, no less than that which existed in Belgium, cannot be regarded by any civilized nation as merely a domestic affair. It is a matter of grave international concern. And because of our intermingling blood and common traditions, it is only of less concern to us than it is to the British Empire. The evidence secured by the American Commission on Conditions in Ireland from first-hand witnesses, from competent English, Irish, and American observers, and from the sworn affidavits of the victims themselves, is here presented to the public without color or com- ment, so that it may judge the issue itself. This evidence is not published as propaganda for one side or the other, except in the sense that the multiplication table is propaganda, — for the truth is always propaganda against ignorance and indifference. Above all, it is sent out in a spirit of profound friendship for both the English and the Irish people, and the hope, already expressed by some of
the best elements in British public life, that the publication of the acts secured by this impartial inquiry will promote a just and early peace in Ireland by enabling the moral conscience of America to assert itself in support of that large and growing section of English opinion which protests against the horror and futility of military subjugation as a means of silencing the demands of a people deter- mined to be free. This volume contains the complete testimony of all witnesses who appeared befoe the Commission, as well as all sworn affidavits and other important documents submitted in evidence. It does not con- tain the findings of the Commission based on this evidence, which are embodied in a separate volume, the Interim Report. For the sake of clarity and ease of reading, headings have been inserted to indicate the logical division of the testimony into unified sections. Otherwise the testimony remains just as it came from the lips of the witnesses. Any errors in the spelling of proper names which may have occurred are due not to the witnesses, but to the obvious diffi- ulties incident to the rapid phonetic transcription of unfamiliar names and places. Those readers unacquainted with legal testimony will find no difficulty in following the questions and answers (repre- ented by Q. and A.) by bearing in mind that where no name follows the Q., the interrogator is the person who asked the pre- ceding question, and that the party answering is always the witness unless otherwise noted. Since this inquiry was not an official undertaking of the United States Government, the witnesses were not sworn, although many of them expressed the desire to take a formal oath. Nevertheless, the auditors as well as the members of the Commission were impressed by the great care and anxiety of the witnesses to be scrupulously exact and truthful to the smallest detail. The affidavits and deposi- tions submitted in evidence were all duly sworn to before govern- ment officials authorized to administer oaths, and, with one excep- tion, the original copies of all these documents are in the possession of the Commission.
Washington, D. C, May 1, 1921.
District of Columbia, ss.: I, Albert Coyle, do hereby certify that I am Official Reporter to the American Commission on Conditions in Ireland ; that in said capacity I personally attended each and all of the hearings held by said Com- mission in the City of Washington, District of Columbia, from November 18, 1920, to January 21, 1921, inclusive, save and except Session Two of the Fifth Hearings, held January 14, 1921 ; that I personally took down in shorthand the complete testimony and other proceedings before said Com- mission at each and all of the aforesaid hearings; and that the follow- ing is a full, true, and correct transcript of the shorthand notes taken by me at said hearings, excepting only irrelevant and immaterial remarks extraneous to the inquiry. I further certify that all affidavits, depositions, signed statements, and other documents submitted in evidence to the said Commission by wit- nesses and counsel at the aforesaid hearings were given over into my cus- tody and keeping ; that same were appropriately marked and designated by me for purposes of identification ; that I have kept same continuously in my care and custody; and that the copies of same reproduced in the fol- lowing transcript are true and correct copies of the original documents submitted in evidence as aforesaid. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and seal this eighth day of May, A. D. 1921. (Seal) Albert Coyle. District of Columbia, ss.: We, Alexander H. Galt and Harry G. Wilbur, do hereby certify that we were engaged by the American Commission to Investigate Conditions in Ireland, on January 14, 1921, to make a stenographic report of its pro- ceedings of that day at the Hotel LaFayette in Washington, D. C.; that we made such report and that the transcript is a true and accurate record to the best of our knowledge and belief, and was duly verified by the wit- nesses after having been reduced to typewriting. Alexander H. Galt. Harry G. Wilbur. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 8th day of May, 1921. (Seal) Joseph M. Tighe, Notary Public for District of Columbia. My Commission expires April, 1923.
PAGE The Committee of One Hundred Fifty on Conditions in Ireland...... III Personnel of the Commission on Conditions in Ireland............. VI Preface ......................................................... IX Attest of Transcript............................................. XI Index of Witnesses: Irish citizens indicated by (I) British citizens indicated by (B) American citizens indicated by (A)
Session One—November 18, 1920 Denis Morgan (I)....................................................... 6 Chairman of the Urban Council of Thurles Rev. Michael M. English (A)........................................ 53 Whitehall, Montana John F. Martin (A).................................................... 69 Attorney, Green Bay, Wisconsin Rev. James H. Cotter (A)............................................ 75 Clergyman and Editor, Ironton, Ohio Session Two—November 19, 1920 John Derham (I)....................................................... 92 Town Councillor of Balbriggan Mrs. Agnes B. King (A)............................................... 120 Ironton, Ohio Francis Hackett (A) ................................................. 137 Associate Editor, “The New Republic,” New York City; inves- tigated conditions in Ireland for the New York “World” Signe Toksvig (Mrs. Hackett) (A).................................... 174 Associate Editor, “The New Republic,” New York City
Session One—December 8, 1920 Miss Mary MacSwiney (I).............................................. 183 Sister of the late Lord Mayor of Cork Session Two—December 9, 1920 Mrs. Muriel MacSwiney (I)....................................... 265 Widow of the late Lord Mayor of Cork Miss Mary MacSwiney.................................................. 303 Session Three—December 10, 1920 Miss Mary MacSwiney.................................................. 343 P. J. Guilfoil (A)................................................... 366 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Daniel Francis Crowley (I)........................................... 376 Member of Royal Irish Constabulary from November 1914 to June, 1920 John Tangney (T) .................................................... 390 Member of R. I. C., October, 1915, to July, 1920 Mrs. Anna Murphey (I).............................................. 402 New York City. (Husband an Irish citizen) John Joseph Caddan (I)............................................... 407 Member of R. I. C., February to November. 1920 Daniel Galvin (I).................................................... 421 Member of R. I. C„ October, 1907, to July, 1920 XII
Session One—December 15, 1920 Miss Ruth Russell (A)............................................... 428 Chicago. Investigated conditions in Ireland for the Chicago “Daily News” Hon. Laurence 'Ginnell (I)......................................... 462 Former Member of British Parliament; Member of Dail Eireann and of the Irish Republican Cabinet Session Two—December 16, 1920 Miss Nellie Craven (A)........................................... 506 Washington, D. C. Cousin of Michael Walsh, murdered Coun- cillor of Galway, Ireland Paul J. Furnas (A).................................................. 517 New York City. Member of the Society of Friends
Session One—December 21, 1920 Mrs. Annot Erskine Robinson (B).................................. 530 Manchester, England. Representative of British Branch, Women's International League Miss Ellen C. Wilkinson (B)......................................... 578 Manchester, England. Representative of British Branch, Women's International League Session Two—December 22, 1920 Miss Susanna Walsh (I)............................................. 627 Sister-in-law of Aid. Thomas MacCurtain, late Lord Mayor of Cork Miss Anna Walsh (I)................................................. 653 Sister-in-law of Aid. Thomas MacCurtain, late Lord Mayor of Cork Daniel J. Broderick (A)............................................. 664 Chicago, Illinois Session Three—December 23, 1920 Mrs. Michael Mohan (A).............................................. 684 Corona, New York John Charles Clarke (A)............................................. 699 Corona, New York
Session One—January 13, 1921 Hon. Donal O’Callaghan (I).......................................... 718 Lord Mayor of Cork Session Two—January 14, 1921 Lord Mayor Donal O’Callaghan........................................ 798 Thomas Nolan (I) ................................................... 852 Merchant, Galway Emil Pezolt (A) .................................................... 869 Oakland, California. Junior Engineer on U. S. S. “West Cannon’’ Henry Turk (A) ..................................................... 879 San Francisco. Messman on U. S. “West Cannon” Harold Johnson (A)................................................ 882 Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Sailor on U. S. S. “West Cannon” Ralph Taylor (A) .......................................... 886 Scott Township, Pennsylvania, Messman on U. S. S. “West Cannon” Peter J. MacSwiney (A)........................................ 889 New York City. Brother of the late Lord Mayor of Cork
Session One—January 19, 1921 Frank Dempsey (I)..................................................... 893 Chairman of the Urban Council of Mallow J. L. Fawsitt (I).................................................... 935 Consul-General of the Irish Republic, New York City Session Two—January 21, 1921 Miss Louie Bennett (I)................................................ 979 Dublin. Secretary of Irish Branch, Women’s International League Miss Caroline Townshend (I).......................... 1015 Bandon, County Cork. Officer of the Gaelic League Exhibit I. Memorandum on English Armed Aggression against the Irish People, Resulting in the Killing of Policemen........... 1053 Exhibit II. Memorandum on British Atrocities in Ireland, 1916 through 1920................................................. 1059 Exhibit III. Terrorism in Tuam....................................... 1060 Exhibit IV. Official Falsehood to Conceal Murder: Case of Connor Clune ........................................................ 1064 Subject Index........................................................ 1069 
<div class='ocr-h2'>EVIDENCE
[blank page]
Presented to the American Commission of Inquiry on Conditions in Ireland Jane Addams James H. Maurer David I. Walsh L. Hollingsworth Wood COMMISSIONERS Frederic C. Howe Acting Chairman1
Session One Before the Commission, sitting at the Hotel Lafayette, Washing- ton, D. C, November 18, 1920. Session called to order by Chairman Howe at 10:22 a. m.
Chairman Howe: This is the first session of the hearings of the American Commission on Ireland. The American Commission on Ireland was conceived of and started by the New York Nation in September last as a result of the growing body of public opinion in this country that was seriously concerned over conditions in Ireland. Something like one hundred fifty, people, representing all phases of thought, selected from various professions, mostly persons who had been identified with public-spirited enterprises in this country, were associated into this Committee of One Hundred Fifty, which was the body from which this Commission has sprung, —elected by this larger Committee. A complete list of the one

1 The Commission at its first sitting elected Hon. Joseph W. Folk, former Governor of Missouri, as Chairman, and Dr. Frederic C. Howe as Vice-Chairman. Because Mr. Folk felt that his legal relations with the Egyptian Nationalists might embarrass the Commission, he resigned, and Dr. Howe served as Acting Chairman until the addition to the Com- mission of Major Newman, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Wood, the latter being then elected Chairman of the Commission.
hundred fifty was sent to all those so selected, and they in turn were asked to vote from out of that larger list for a smaller Com- mission to hear testimony. It was in the nature of a referendum vote. The votes as they came in were tabulated, and this Commis- sion came into existence in that way. It was picked by one hundred fifty people. The Commission immediately got into communication with the British Embassy in Washington; with Mr. de Valera; it cabled to England and cabled to Ireland to-secure witnesses who might appear before the Commission and give testimony. A number of those witnesses are here today.
The motives which called this Commission into existence, and its purposes as formulated by the Commission, are as follows: The American Commission on Ireland, which now opens its first hearings, was elected by referendum vote from a larger committee of one hundred fifty eminent Americans organized through the efforts of the New York Nation. Conditions in Ireland have pro- foundly stirred millions of American citizens of Irish descent. They have created and are creating a widening rift in the friendly rela- tions of English-speaking peoples, not only in America but all over the world. No person who shares our common blood and language can view unmoved the existence of civil war, the killing of human beings, and the substitution of martial rule for the civil state in any part of the English-speaking world. As a people we have been trained by centuries to a belief in orderly civic processes. Only in direst necessity can there be justification of a resort to arms for the adjustment of disputes which it has been our custom and our pride to adjust by reasoned and amicable means. What the world most needs is peace. It needs an ending of hate. Discussion should resume its ascendancy and reason should displace the employment of force. The orgy of destruction which is now ravaging Ireland is sending its repercussions to every corner of the civilized world. It cannot fail to postpone indefinitely the return of ordered tranquillity to civilization. In addition to all this, the political life of America, as well as its orderly social processes, is profoundly disturbed by the injection of an internecine war between peoples of our own flesh and blood.
Feelings such as these gave birth to this Commission for investi- gating into conditions existent in Ireland. The Commission has set itself to the task of ascertaining the facts. It plans to learn as nearly as possible just what the conditions in Ireland are and what has brought them about. It plans to conduct a series of public hearings in Washington. It will hear witnesses who present them- selves representing English and Irish opinion. The Commission plans to send a mission to England and Ireland to make an inquiry into conditions in the latter country.1 It will investigate the kill- ings and disorders. Quite as important to the permanent adjustment of the dispute, it will investigate into the economic conditions in Ireland, the extent to which the Irish have developed a self-con- tained economic and cultural life, and the extent to which the Irish people have evolved their own agencies of self-government during the last few years. In making these investigations, the Commission has received as- surances of cordial cooperation from liberal-minded groups in Eng- land, who are also deeply concerned over the state of civil war that exists in Ireland. It has received similar assurances from British labor groups and from British statesmen, as well as from organizations in Ireland. Judging by the expressions that have reached the Commission, the creation of this unofficial agency and the delegation of this unofficial mission to Ireland have awakened a genuine hope that through an impartial inquiry into the facts and a disinterested study of conditions, some constructive measures may be formulated for ending the chaotic situation that now prevails.
In carrying out the purposes of the inquiry, the Commission has sent, as I stated, a number of communications to the British Am- bassador and to Mr. de Valera.2 Persons representing any phase of this subject have been invited to be present this morning. Wit- nesses who have been called have been given the privilege of

1 The Commission selected Major Newman, Mr. Maurer, Rev. Norman Thomas, Mr. Arthur Gleason, Dean Robert Morss Lovett, and Dr. Wil- liam MacDonald as members of this mission. Passports were duly granted to them by the U. S. Department of State, but the British Embassy at Washington refused to vise their passports, and effectively blocked this effort to make a first-hand investigation of conditions in Ireland. For correspondence, see Appendix A of Commission’s report. 2 See Appendix A of Commission’s interim report.
selecting counsel, and the Commission is solicitous that all interests that may be involved should be permitted to make such inquiries of the witnesses as' are germane to this inquiry. The witnesses that have been asked to appear for this day’s pro- ceedings are as follows: Mr. Denis Morgan, Chairman of the Urban Council of Thurles, Ireland; Reverend Father English, of White- hall, Montana; Mr. Francis Hackett, of New York City; Miss Signe Toksvig, of New York; and Mr. John F. Martin, of Green Bay, Wisconsin. I presume that many of these witnesses are here, and they will be called in the order named. I might say, in order that they may know the nature of these proceedings, that we are not a legal body. We have no power to subpoena witnesses. We desire only statements of facts. If any of the witnesses will indicate that they desire to be examined by counsel, we shall be very glad to grant that privilege. We want them to feel perfectly free to tell their stories in their own way: about the facts, about the background of conditions, about their own experiences; so that this Commission, none of whose members has been in Ireland for a long time, will get as clear an idea as possible of present conditions. Is it clear that all of these witnesses have been invited by the Commission? Senator Walsh asks me to emphasize that all of these witnesses are witnesses of the Commission. They have been invited by it. Their expenses from Ireland have been paid by it. These hearings are hearings of the Commission. Mr. Frank P. Walsh (of counsel) : May I ask if the petition which I presented the other day to your Commission, that permis- sion be given to the Commission on Irish Independence to be present here and be heard, has been acted upon by the Commission of Inquiry? Chairman Howe: The petition has been received and granted by the Commission. All witnesses coming here can have counsel in telling their story. The first witness, Mr. Denis Morgan, of Thurles, Ireland.
Q. What is your official position, if any? A. I hold the position of Chairman of the Thurles Urban Coun- cil, the governing body of Thurles. Q. That is the same as our town councils? A. Mr. F. P. Walsh: The same as our town councils. Q. Will the witness give his full name? A. Mr. Denis Morgan, of Thurles, Ireland.
Chairman Howe: If you desire, your counsel can conduct your testimony. That will be satisfactory. Q. Senator Walsh: What kind of a town is Thurles? A. The town that I was in in Ireland is a town of about five thousand people. Mr. F. P. Walsh: I might say that Mr. Morgan and the other witnesses from Ireland have advised with the American Commission on Irish Independence. You may make your statement to that effect. The Witness: As regards to that, I have spoken to Mr. Walsh and Mr. Malone for any assistance that I need in hearing my evidence. Q. Would you like to have them lead you in stating your case? A. I would like to have them assist me in points. Mr. F. P. Walsh: I think a good background for it would be to give your own length of residence in Thurles. I could ask you some questions that I think would start this. Q. You are chairman of the town council of Thurles? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the population of Thurles? A. About five thousand. Q. Has it any industries? Is it a manufacturing place? What sort of town would you say it is? A. It is a large agricultural center. It isn't an industrial town. Q. You say that you are chairman of the town council. Briefly, what does that town council consist of and what are its duties? A. It is the governing body of the town. There are twelve members of them, which are selected by the voters on the principle of proportional representation. Q. When were you elected chairman of the town council? A. On the thirtieth of January of this year. Q. Were the members of the town council elected by a vote of the people of Thurles? A. They were. Q. Briefly, who were candidates and what party did you represent? A. There were three different parties trying to get representa- tion on the council. There were the Republican candidates; then there was the Labor Party and the Independent Party. Q. Is the Independent Party the party that is presumably op- posed to Sinn Fein? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that three parties had candidates in the field. What party did you represent? A. I was on the Labor Party. Q. Are you affiliated with any labor organization in Thurles? A. I am. I am a member of the Teachers' Association on the Trades Council. Q. It might be apropos at this time to state what your business was in Thurles and what you have done there. A. I have bfien there for the past twelve years and have carried on the occupation of teaching at the Christian Brothers' School and the Diocesan College. Q. "What branches do you teach? A. English, Irish, and mathematics. Q. How many students in the-Diocesan College? A. One hundred and twenty students. Q. In the secondary school ? A. In the secondary school up to one hundred students. Q. That has been your vocation while you have been in Thurles? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you single or married? A. I am married. Q. If you would, state the situation of the election of .last January. A. The election took place on January fifteenth. I was one of those elected. There were five Labor men, four Sinn Fein, and three Independents. The results of the poll were declared on January sixteenth.
Q. I am going to ask you a little more about Thurles before you get to the actual occurrences. Are there churches in Thurles? A. Yes, sir. There are very fine churches there — a cathedral and an archbishopric. Q. Is there a Protestant church as well? A. Yes, sir. It is known as Saint Mary's Church. Canon Wilson is there. Q. Is there a Protestant population in Thurles? A. Yes, sir; quite small. Q. How about the surrounding country? A. In the surrounding country there are a few more Protestants. Q. Do the members of the surrounding country worship in Thurles?
A. They do. Q. And the cemetery—? A. The cemetery of all of Thurles is here in the grounds of the Protestant Church, Saint Mary’s Church. The Catholics are in- terred there. Q. Chairman Howe: How about the business population? Do non-Catholics carry on trading with Catholics? A. Yes, sir. I know of a woman, a non-Catholic, who carries on the largest trade in town. Q. Senator Walsh: Just a word. Has there been a conflict be- tween the people'of Thurles at any time since you have been there based on religious prejudices or religious differences between the population? A. Quite the contrary. There have always been the most friendly relations between the peoples of all religions in Thurles. In fact, the chairman of the Urban Council, who had been the whole time president for the past twenty-five years, was a Protestant.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: As to the character of the people of Thurles: is it a lawabiding place? A. Very. Q. You say it is a city of five thousand inhabitants? A. Yes, sir. Q. During the twelve years of your residence, has there ever been a murder trial there? A. None. Q. Has there ever been a case of assault to commit murder? A. No. Q. Has there ever been a burglary? A. If you mean a petty larceny— Q. No, a serious breaking in— A. No, I think not. Q. Has there been, in the entire time that you were there, a case of forgery, rape, embezzlement, or any of the major felonies? A. No, not to my knowledge. Q. Have there been courts in Thurles? A. Yes. Q. Please describe, up to the time that I understand what had been the regular government courts were abandoned, what sort of courts you had and how they were operated? A. We have what are known as petty sessions courts, sitting about once a week, presided over by one of the R. M.'s — the resident magistrates. Q. What is the character of these magistrates? A. The R. M.'s are appointed by the Government. Q. Did the resident magistrate who presided over the Thurles court live in Thurles? A. He did. We have certain gentlemen who get the position of justice of the peace. They are allowed to sit on the bench also. If the resident magistrate is not present, then the senior member of the justices of the peace can take his place. Q. Please state to the Commission the general character of the litigation that takes place in these courts. A. At these weekly petty sessions the general matter is of such nature as stray animals on the road, or a man going home at night without a light on his car, or a certain man going home that had been imbibing during the day too freely. Q. What was the nature of the punishments in these courts? A. There would be a fine of, say, five shillings imposed. Or, if a man had trouble with a neighbor, he might be bound to keep the peace. Q. Chairman Howe: Who appoints these justices of the peace? A. Dublin Castle, the representative of the English Government in Ireland. Q. Then they are Government officials? A. They are.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Are there military barracks in Thurles? A. There had not been up to the last two years. The hospital we had there was commandeered by the military and has been fitted up by them as the military barracks. Q. Prior to that time what was the method of policing Thurles? A. There were fifteen or twenty police imder the district inspector. Q. Senator Walsh: Who appointed them? A. They are Government appointees. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: I wish that in your own way you would state to the Commission the constitution of the Royal Irish Con- stabulary; whether or not they are residents of the district in which they operate; the character of the arms used by them; and a resume of the entire organization of the Royal Irish Constabulary. A. The system as regards appointing the men to a place is that the native of the county where the police are is never appointed to that county. If a Tipperary man joins the police force, he will be sent to any county outside of Tipperary. So that you have no such thing in Ireland, even prior to 1910, as a local police ap- pointed by any power in that community. They all came from some other place. Q. Did the Town Council have any authority over the police? A. None whatever. Q. So that the administration of justice and the preservation of peace and order was entirely under the control of the British Government? A. Yes, sir. If a constable of the county married a girl in that county, he was immediately removed from that county. Q. He was removed? A. Yes, sir. Q. How do these constables patrol now? A. They go in lots of eight, each man carrying a carbine, the man on the right with a rifle and the man on the left with a shot- gun. They carry revolvers in their belts. Q. Where are they located at the present time? A. In the barracks, which is at one end of the town. Q. Describe what implements of warfare they have. A. They are served out hand grenades and rifles and shotguns and also revolvers. Q. Do they have machine guns? A. Yes, sir. They always have machine guns in the barracks. All the barracks are sandbagged. Q. Do they have materials for barricades? A. Yes, sir. They have barbed wire and the like.
Q. Unless there is some other background in regard to the situation you desire to state, I wish you would describe the election. Was it an orderly election? A. Perfectly orderly. Q. Prior to that time, had you had any trouble at your elections, or were they always orderly? A. Yes, sir, always orderly. Q. They were carried on in good temper by the people? A. Yes, sir; always. Q. Relate what incidents in regard to the situation you think would be interesting to the Commission, in regard to the political organization. Suggest the method, or begin with your own election and the constitution of your council and the conduct of your business. A. As I stated before, the election took place on the fifteenth of January and the polls were declared on the sixteenth. There were five Labor members,1 four Republicans, and three independents elected. Q. How were they elected? A. All elected on the proportional representation system. Q. Senator Walsh: That does not mean that these Labor people got the largest vote necessarily. It means that under the system of proportional representation each party had to have a certain number of members on the council? A. Yes, sir. Q. Does that system prevail all over Ireland? A. Yes, sir. Q. All town councils and urban councils and county councils use the proportional representation system? A. Yes, sir. The poor-law guardians are also elected in the same way. Q. You stated that a non-Catholic citizen had been chairman of the council for the last twenty-five years? A. Yes, sir. Q. What proportion of the electorate was Catholic and what non-Catholic during those years? A. The non-Catholic amounted to about twelve. Q. Twelve per cent? A. No, twelve persons. Q. During the twenty-five years that a non-Catholic was presi- dent of the town council? A. Yes, sir. The same gentleman carried on one of the largest businesses in the town. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Now, go ahead with the organization of the council. A. The first meeting of the council was fixed for the thirtieth of January in order to appoint a chairman. Q. Were you acting under the English statutes or under the statutes of the Irish Republic? A. We were acting under the rules for elections laid down by the Local Government Board.

1 The Irish Labor party is officially committed to Irish independence, and on national issues is allied with the Republicans.
Q. What is the Local Government Board? A. The Local- Government Board is a system brought in by the English Government for extending to the Irish people more freedom in their own affairs. It has been in force for many years. Q. So that the Local Government Board could arrange the elec- tion under the proportional representation principle? A. Yes, sir. Q. And it was under that Board that you elected these officers? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the Local Government Board were officials appointed by the British Government? A. Yes, sir. In fact, that proportional representation law was passed in the House of Commons. Q. And this election was held under laws and machinery that had been existing in Ireland for many years? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, about the election of a chairman? A. The election of a chairman was fixed for the thirtieth of January, fifteen days after the polls were declared. At that meet- ing a chairman was to be elected by majority vote of the council. On the night it was to take place, just as I was going to the meeting, I was arrested. Q. Where were you arrested? ' A. In my own home. Q. By whom? A. By the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary.^ Q. How many? A. Eight armed men. Q. Describe just what took place, what hour it was, and how they approached you and your family. A. It was just about the hour of six-thirty in the evening. The meeting was fixed for seven. I remember it well. I heard a knock at the door, and as I opened it a hand was placed on my shoulder. A member of the Royal Irish Constabulary said, "I arrest you." I said, "On what charge?" He said, "On the orders of His Majesty's Government." Q. Did he read a paper, any paper? ' The Royal Irish Constabulary is the Imperial British police force in Ireland. See index. A. No, sir. Q. Describe your own home and the members of your family who live there. You live there with a wife and two children? A. Yes, sir. Q. The ages of the boys? A. One five years and the other was two.
Q. Were your wife and children in good health at that time? A. Yes, sir. The child of five years was very healthy. My wife was approaching her confinement. On the twentieth of January, before the arrest took place, about eleven ten, my wife was in bed and my boy of five years was in the cot. I had put out the light and had got ready to go to bed when I heard shooting going on in the town. My house is about five hundred yards from the Royal Irish Constabulary barracks. It is on one of the corners of the street facing up toward the town. The town contains a large square — Liberty Square, they call it. Q. What had been the name of it prior to this? A. It was known as the Main Street, but it was changed by the new council, which changed most of the names of the streets. Mr. Walsh: Proceed. The Witness: On the side of the house facing toward this Liberty Square there are seven windows. All the rooms are exposed toward it. On the front there are six windows looking out into the street. When I heard the shooting first I thought it was only isolated shots, and then I heard heavy volleys. So I said to my wife, "We must get out of this room immediately. If there are any stray shots, we shall be in danger." We hastily got out of bed and got down to a lower basement where it was fairly good protection from the side and also from the front, because we were in the back. I went back and got the youngster out of his cot. I had to go on all fours lest a bullet should come in. I dragged him down and had to go back for some clothes to cover us. AH that time the firing was going on heavily. And it got nearer and nearer. Q. Had any of the bullets struck your place? A. Not up to that time. Just as I got inside the basement with the clothes I heard bullets hitting the house. There was a door there facing the street. The bullets came in through the hall and swished by the door where we were standing. We heard the glass going and the plaster falling off the ceiling. Q. The glass of your own house? A. Yes, sir. I placed my wife and the little boy flat on the floor. We tried to protect ourselves as well as we could. It was a miserably cold night. My wife, in her condition, being within two weeks of her confinement, was in a terror-stricken state. We lay there. The firing continued. The heavy volley we heard out- side seemed to pierce every window in the house. Then the firing moved back to town again. It lasted altogether for about an hour, and it stopped. We remained in the same position, anxious to know if it would break out any more. In half an hour’s time it started again, but on the second occasion it did not last so long. Only about ten minutes. We could not stir from the position we were in because we did not know at what moment it would break out again. So that we had to lie on the stone floor all night.
Q. Did you go out in the morning to make an examination of the city? A. Yes, sir. There was a crowd outside my house looking up at the front of it and wanting to know if we were all alive. I examined the front there, and every window in the house had been pierced by bullets. Some struck the doors. I counted twenty-one of them. Inside the rooms the ceilings were all torn and the wood- work was all shattered. There was debris lying on the floor and all around. I proceeded up town to see who had been killed, and the whole street was littered with plate glass shattered by shots along the side‘of the large square—both by breaking and by rifle shots. The newspaper office, to which I proceeded, had been shat- tered by hand grenades. Just inside the window you could see the large holes in the floor where they bursted. In several shops the glass was completely broken. Q. Could you see who carried on this firing? A. I did not attempt to put out my head. Q. All you know about it was what you ascertained the next morning? A. Yes. The statements made by the inhabitants were that the Royal Irish Constabulary had come out of the barracks and had gone down the street, and were acting under orders. Several people told me they had orders given to them. Q. Were there any soldiers employed in addition to the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. There were. Q. Who was the District Inspector? A. District Inspector Golden. Q. He was in charge of the military proper? A. No, sir; I could not tell you that. Q. That was on the fifteenth? A. On the twentieth—the night of the twentieth and the morning of the twenty-first. Q. And your election came on the thirtieth? A. Yes. Mr. F. P. Walsh: It would be well to carry this on chronologi- cally. Q. Senator Walsh: The election was on the fifteenth? A. Yes. Q. But the election of the chairman was on the thirtieth? A. Yes, sir. Q. The chairman is elected at the first statutory meeting of the council, is he? A. Yes, sir; at the first statutory meeting.
Q. Chairman Howe: Prior to January twentieth and those dis- turbances that you have described, were there any actions on the part of the people of that town of a lawless character, or any dis- turbances of the peace, or anything that would appear to be a justification for an attack on that town? A. In the morning I ascertained that a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary had been shot the evening previous. Q. Where was he shot? A. Back of the main square, this Liberty Square. Q. Do you know by whom he was shot? A. Oh, no. Q. But the night before there had been a member of the Con- stabulary shot? A. Yes, sir. That was what I heard the next morning. Q. And the attack was made following the shooting of one of the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there a row, an open fight, over the killing of this member of the Constabulary? A. Oh, no. Q. Was there any disturbance of any kind? A. No, sir. In the country towns people are not out late like in the large cities. By half after ten the houses are all closed and the people in bed. You would not meet anyone in the streets. By half after eleven the town was perfectly quiet—no one on the streets. Q. Were there any other disturbances of any kind or any assem- blies or gatherings of a lawless character previous to these two events? A. Oh, no. Q. So that after the shooting of a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, the next night following this shooting up of the town was done? A. The same night. It all occurred on the same night. Q. You learned the next morning that it all occurred on the same night? A. Yes, sir. Q. What area of the town was covered by this shooting? A. The area was directly along the main thoroughfare. Q. About a mile? A. A mile and a half. Q. Was every house attacked along that thoroughfare? A. No, only certain houses were attacked. Q. Senator Walsh: About how many in number? A. To the number of ten, I would say.
Q. Were there any business houses attacked? A. Yes, sir. Most of them were business houses. A man with a large trading establishment had the front windows shot out and bullets through the upper rooms. Two licensed premises on the opposite side of the street had the same—plate-glass windows shat- tered. Two private residences—mine and another member of the Urban Council—shot up. I may mention that of the members of the Urban Council, there were four members whose houses were attacked on that night—four newly elected members. Q. Was it appparent that these houses were picked out because of the political opinions of the owners? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was known to be the political opinion of the members of the Council whose houses were attacked? A. They were all known to be associated with the movement for national independence. Q. And they were all among the local leaders of the movement? A. Yes. Q. So it was apparent that they picked out those who were associated with this movement? A. Yes, sir. Q. Commissioner Maurer: You spoke that a member of the Irish Constabulary was shot. Is that merely hearsay, or do you know definitely that a member was shot? A. Yes, sir; we knew afterwards that there was. Q. You knew afterwards? A. Yes, sir. He was shot about an hour previous to that time. Q. You are satisfied that one was shot? A. Oh, yes. There was a funeral afterwards. Q. Senator Walsh: Were these Labor members who were elected to the Council in favor of a republican form of government for Ireland? A. Yes, all of them. Q. How many were in favor of a republican form of gov- ernment? A. Nine. Q. They were unanimous? A. No; nine out of twelve. But one of the independent men, who was in opposition to a republic, is now in favor of it. Q. Where is the town of Thurles? A. In the heart of Ireland, in Tipperary. Q. Is it a seaport town? A. No; well inland. Q. In what province? A. Province of Munster. Chairman Howe: That takes us to the approaching election of the chairman of the Town Council and his arrest.
The Witness: Previous to that let me state that the morning after the shooting we had a visit from the members of the English Labor Party, who were sent over to Ireland to look into affairs. It hap- pened that they came along at twelve o’clock of that day and passed through the town on their way to the hotel from the station. They saw the damage and issued a statement that evening. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Who were the members of this mission? A. Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Adamson, and several others. Q. Have you their statement? A. I did not bring it with me. I did not know whether it would be permitted to bring papers with me. Q. What was the nature of that statement? A. They said that they had been in Flanders, and the scene they saw in Thurles that day was worse than anything they had seen in Flanders. Q. What was the effect of this on the people in your own home? A. My wife suffered a nervous breakdown. Q. And the child? A. The little boy was very frightened. He was in a very nervous state as a result.
Q. And your arrest? A. On January twenty-third I happened to be investigating one of the houses that had been shot up. I was talking to the man at the door when eight members of the Irish Constabulary came along and asked me what I was doing on the streets after six in the evening. I told them that I was talking to this man. They said I had no business to be on the streets. Q. Were you then a member of the town council? A. Yes, sir. Q. You were elected on the fifteenth. Had you yet taken the oath of office? When did you officially become a member? A. On the date of the election, the fifteenth. Q. So at the time these eight officers intercepted you, you were performing a duty of an officer of the town? A. Yes, sir. I was ordered to proceed home. I met my wife and child coming up the street. She asked me to come back to one of the shops. They came along after me. We crossed the square and they followed us and remained outside. I said to my wife that we had better go home. And they followed us until I got inside my own house, and then they departed. Q. Were there any disturbances at that time? A. Oh, no. All the disturbance was over. That was two days after the shooting. Q. Were you not allowed on the streets at night? Was that a continuous order of the authorities? * A. It was no order at all. Everybody was doing their business on the streets. I was accosted because I was talking to this man at the door. Q. Were you ever on the town council before? A. No, sir. Q. But you were a school teacher in the town for twelve years? A. Yes. On the morning of the twenty-fourth I received a letter in a disguised handwriting saying: “You will depart this life if you do not leave this town within twenty-four hours,” signed “Vengeance.” I received that on Saturday morning, the twenty - fourth, I think it was. I did not pay any attention to the letter. Things kept on quietly for the next week. Q. You have no knowlege of the authenticity of that letter? A. No, sir; no direct knowledge. But I have a very good idea of where it came from. On the thirtieth this meeting of the council was to take place, the statutory meeting at which the chairman was to be elected. I was arrested, as I said. I asked the charge. They said there was no charge; only Government orders. I was marched up to the town surrounded on both sides by the Royal Irish Con- stabulary. I was marched away up to the other end of the town to the police barracks. I was brought inside and all the contents of my pockets turned inside out. This threatening letter I got on the Saturday previous was among the letters I had in my pockets. All these documents were taken away after being gone through by the police. I afterwards received them all back with the exception of the threatening letter. I never received that threatening letter back. I was left about an hour in the cell in the police barracks, and then I was taken to Templemore, about seven miles from our place, to the large military barracks there. We were surrounded by armed soldiers in motor lorries.
Q. How many prisoners? A. There was Mr.Tulane, another member of the Urban Council. Q. What is his business? A. He carries on a large business as a seller of hides. Q. What party was he elected on? A. He was elected on the Republican Party. And then there was a Labor member. He was organizer for the Thurles Irish Transport Workers’ Union. Q. What was his name? A. Eamon Hayes. And then another chap named Eustice. Q. What parties did these two others belong to? A. The organizer was a Labor man and the other chap was a Republican. Q. The whole four were in favor of a Republic? A. Yes. We were handcuffed in pairs, placed in motor lorries, and taken to Templemore and thrown into cells there. At midnight we were taken out by armed soldiers, handcuffed all the time in pairs, and proceeded to Limerick, which we reached about three o’clock in the morning. Q. How far is Limerick? A. About forty miles. We were handcuffed there until about eight in the morning. We were then put in motor lorries, again handcuffed, and carried to Cork jail, which we reached about eight in the evening. We were put into cells there. The second of February we reached Cork. On the fourth of February I got a telegram announcing the birth of the son. Q. You got a telegram on the fourth of February? A. On the fourth of February. Q. And you were arrested when? A. On the thirtieth of January. Q. That was the first word you had received from home? A. Yes, sir. Q. How did they know where you were? A. There were people who had seen us on the way and it was announced in all the papers.
Q. Up to this time was there any information given you or any other man with you as to the reason why you were arrested, or the charge against you? A. No. They refused to give us that. In fact, we did not know our destination. We were simply taken away. Q. Your family or the townspeople were not advised? A. Oh, no. Nobody knew. Q. Was there any indictment against you? Were you ever tried? A. Oh, no, sir. We were taken from Cork on the eighth of February at about four-thirty in the morning. We were told to pick up. I asked the warden where we were going, and he said he did not know. We were lined up in a procession of fourteen motor lorries preceded by an armed car. Four prisoners handcuffed in pairs were put in each motor lorry, and the car was then filled up with armed soldiers wearing helmets and fixed bayonets. Q. How many prisoners? A. Fifty-five in our batch. We were brought down to Cove, that was formerly Queenstown, and we were put on two lighters, two tenders, and shipped out into the bay, where there were two war sloops waiting for us. We went aboard the first sloop and had to cross from the deck of this sloop onto the next sloop. The hand- cuffs were not removed. The captain of the second sloop said he would not permit any prisoner to pass the gangway of his sloop until the handcuffs were removed, because it was too dangerous. We were brought across to Milford Haven, where a special train was waiting for us, and carried us on to London. As we went aboard the war sloop an officer came along and read out a document which said that whereas I was an individual who had acted or was acting or was about to act in a manner prejudicial to the peace of the realm, I was a fit person for deportation. That was the purport of the document, but it did not state any charge. Q. How long were you handcuffed continuously? A. Practically twenty-four hours. Q. Handcuffed to the other men? A. Yes. Q. Where did they put you in the ship? A. Down in the hold. Away down in a little square hole just large enough for a man’s body to go down. Q. How many in the hold? A. Thirty-five prisoners. Q. And ventilation? A. No sort at all. Q. None otherwise than the hatch? A. No, sir. Some of the men were practically lifeless when they got across. One of the members of the Royal Irish Constabu- lary force came down with us before we started, and he had to be carried out in about five minutes. Q. The air was foul? A. Very foul. i
I was interned up at Wormwood Scrubbs prison about the second of April. There was sickness in my family. If a man interned there had one of his relations who were sick, it was the common custom that a man would apply for leave to go home, giving his parole that he would come back by a certain date. There had been about six paroles before this date. Every one had been kept. One chap got a telegram that his mother was — Q. Senator Walsh: Where did you say you were? A. In Wormwood Scrubbs prison. Q. Where is this prison located? A. In London, in Shepherds' Close district. Q. How large is it? A. Very large. I think it would hold about two thousand prisoners. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Have they workshops in it — make brushes and the like? A. Oh, yes. Q. It is a combined jail and penitentiary then? A. Yes, sir. Q. About paroles? A. Oh, yes. This chap got word that his mother was dead in Cork. He just had time to ask for leave and to catch the Saturday boat, and had to take a motor about forty miles into the country. He just got there and met the funeral of his mother. He came back in three days, and had previously applied for extension of parole and had not got word of it. He reached the prison gate and was just talking and shaking hands when he learned that his parole was extended, and then he went off again. That was the system. Every man got a parole who had reason for it. On the second of April I got word that my son was dying. Q. Which son was that? A. The oldest. I immediately applied for a parole to go home because my little boy was dying. No reply came to that applica- tion; it wasn't granted. Another telegram came. Q. Meantime, had you heard of the condition of your son? A. Yes, I got word from my wife that he was still dying. On the ninth I got a telegram that the child was dead. I sent in another application for parole. He had died on Friday night, and was to be buried on Sunday, so that I just had time to get there. I got no answer until five-thirty in the evening. Then the warden came along and said, "I'm very sorry, I've got this document to read to you." The document was that the Irish Government could not see its way clear to grant the parole to Mr. Morgan. Q. The Irish Government? A. Yes, the Irish Government, the government set up at Dublin Castle by the English — what we call the Castle. Q. The child was buried in your absence? A. Yes. I tried to get word through to my wife. I sent her word, but she did not get it. The first word she got was from the stop press news in the papers. The child was buried the next evening in the cemetery of the Protestant church of which I spoke.
Q. Did the election of the chairman of the council proceed? A. Yes, sir. The night I was arrested, while I was still in the lockup in the Irish Constabulary barracks, the news reached me that the election.had taken place and I was elected chairman. There were two candidates, myself and Mr. Tulane, who was along with me in the cell. Q. Was it known that there were two candidates? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was it known before you were arrested that you were can- didates? A. Yes, sir. Everyone knew it. Q. So that the two men arrested were known to be the candi- dates? A. Yes, sir. Q. Had it been published in the local press? A. In the Star, yes. Q. How many votes did you receive from the eleven members present? A. There were not eleven members present. There were two of us in the lockup cell and there were two men on the run. Q. You mean by that there were two other members who were eluding the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. Yes, sir. They were being looked for. The police went down and looked into the meeting and did not find the men they wanted and left. Q. What was the vote? A. Four to three was the vote.
CELL” One thing more about while we were in prison. On the twenty- fifth of April we put in a demand to the Government that we be tried on some charge or other. We demanded to be brought to trial or else released. They refused. We got no answer to the demand, and we went on hunger strike. We refused to take any food in the prison until we were released or tried. Two hundred of us went on hunger strike at this time. When some of the men began to get exhausted and were collapsing, we asked the governor of the jail if he would leave the cell doors open in the night-time so that those of us who were not in as bad state as the rest, we could look after them. That request was refused, and we broke down the doors that night. So we were taken out of the cells where we were and thrown into what are called punishment cells. We were three days on hunger strike at this time, and were getting pretty weak. These punishment cells are in the basement, low down. They had not been opened for twenty years, I think. They were very small and close and the dust was thick in them. Q. What was the size of those cells? A. Twelve feet by eight, I suppose. We were left there for four days. The conditions were bad there. We were never given any water to wash ourselves or anything else. We were left in a filthy condition. Q. How many days were you in those cells? A. Four. I was taken out of the cells in the low basement and placed in the very top of the house, up four flights of stairs. We could take a little exercise at certain times of the day, walking out of the cells and down into the yard and walking back again. I used to do this until my legs gave way due to hunger. I was then locked up. None of the doors were ever opened after that. The doctor came along and asked me to take some medicine, and I said, “No, not so long as I am in the prison. As soon as I am out of the prison gate, I will take medicine.” He tried to force it down my lips, but I threw the glass out of his hand. The next day at twelve o’clock a man arrived and said to me that an ambulance was waiting outside for us. He did not tell us where we were going or anything else. They brought us to the ambulance and took us to St. James Hospital. Q. What hospital was that? A. St. James Hospital, in London, near Wormwood Scrubbs jail. We were in the hospital then for about three weeks. We never got a thing when we left. I may tell you that upon leaving the jail, we were simply taken out of the bed and put into the ambulance. We had no clothes. The money we had on us when we were arrested was taken at the prison gate. Our watches were also taken. When we came out, we got back none of our property or our money. We were three weeks in the hospital. Q. Did you ever get your money back? A. Oh, yes, eventually. Another thing was that if a man was released from a prison in England, he had to be sent back to Ireland. You got a voucher to bring you back to the place where you were arrested. When we came out of the hospital we asked for a voucher and for our watches and our money. They were all refused. Q. How, then, did you get back home? A. Fortunately some of us had friends in London, so that we got some money and got home. We kept applying and applying, and finally after six weeks I got my money back. But we were never paid for our railway fare.
The result was that I took up my position on the Urban Council in June. There was a great assembly called of all the public bodies in the county to appoint judges for the Republican system of arbi- tration courts. The government courts of Thurles had fallen into disuse for about twelve months past. These courts were all practi- cally falling into disuse altogether. Q. By reason of the fact that the military authorities were assum- ing control of all disorders? A. No, by reason of the fact that the people were refusing to go into these courts. Q. Senator Walsh: That means in civil cases. But were not the police arresting citizens and bringing them into these other courts? A. Oh, yes. Q. These petty offenses of which you spoke, where were they tried? A. In these petty sessions courts. Q. But all the civil cases were not tried there? A. No. The weekly sessions fell through. They were not held any more because of the fact that there was nothing for them to do. The people wouldn’t use them. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Are there any lawyers in Thurles? A. Oh, yes. We have four lawyers. Q. They formerly practiced in these petty courts? A. Yes, they did. Q. What do they do now? A. They go into the Republican courts. Q. How about this meeting, this assembly? A. We called a meeting of the whole constituency. That is, a village area takes up the whole council. We called a meeting of all the governing bodies. Q. What governing bodies? A. The urban council, the district council, the labor bodies, and other public bodies. We got them all to send representatives to the assembly at Thurles. At that meeting they appointed five judges. Q. Who were these judges? A. Five citizens—-Mr. O’Byrne, Mr. Dwyer, Mr. Leady, Father O’Brien, and Mr. Hassett. Q. Could you give the businesses of these men? A. Yes. Mr. O’Byrne is a barrister, Mr. Dwyer a farmer, Mr. Hassett is also a farmer, and Father O’Brien is a local priest.
Q. Chairman Howe: May I ask the witness? You said there were two hundred people in the jail at the time you were. Were two hundred men arrested as you were? Where were they from and what was the cause of their arrest? A. Yes, sir; there were fifty-five deported on the first occasion. Every day there were batches coming in from Ireland, just as we were, on deportation orders. Q. They were under indictment? A. No, they were all deported. There was just a deportation order. Q. Senator Walsh: Who were they signed by? A. Mine was signed by Ian MacPherson. Others were signed by Viscount French, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Q. Were they all on hunger strike? A. Yes. Q. Did any of them die? A. No, sir. Q. How long were they on hunger strike? A. Some of them were on hunger strike for twenty-four days. Q. Were they all released as you were? A. Yes.
Q. Chairman Howe: I should like to ask about the killing of the policeman in Thurles. That happened the night of your arrest? A. It was a few days before that. Q. What reason had they to connect that with the leading Re- publicans of the town? A. You mean why we were shot up on account of the shooting of the constable? Q. Yes. A. I could not say. This is only a theory of mine: they thought they would make prominent members of the town suffer for it. Q. Did they make any inquiries into the cause of his death? A. Oh, there was an inquest. But he did not die on that night of the shooting-tip. He died two days after. There was a coroner s inquest — a coroner and a jury of twelve men. They found he was shot by some persons unknown. Q. This took place in the town itself? A. In the town itself. Q. Do you know of any reason, any enmity or animosity, that would lead to his being murdered? A. No. Q. Was h% conspicuous in any work there among the British officers that might make his particular actions offensive to the people of the village? A. Well, you see, I could not really tell you what his duties were. In these cases we have no control whatever over the Royal Irish Constabulary. We have no control, we know nothing about the duties they were performing. Q. Did you personally know this particular officer? A. I did. Q. What was his name? A. Constable Finnegan. Q. Had he been obnoxious in any way? Had he been over- zealous in his duties? A. I really could not say. Q. At that time had they abandoned the coroner's inquest? A. No, not at that time. Q. The finding was merely that he was shot down by persons unknown. No other finding? A. No other finding. Q. It was not attributed by the court to anyone? A. No. Q. What were the circumstances of his shooting? Was he on his beat? A. I think so. I think he was going home. Q. Was he a citizen of that town? A. No, he could not be. No constable is ever sent to his home town. Q. Did he have any quarrel with the neighbors? A. I do not know. It could happen, but I do not know about it. Q. What was the best information you obtained as to the time when the officer was shot? A. The time that he was shot was about half aften ten. Q. Where was he when he was shot? A. He was going toward his own home, Q. That was about half past ten? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long after this policeman was shot did the shooting up of the town take place? A. About an hour. Q. And everybody in town was practically in bed or in his home at that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. You said that there were two hundred men in that particular jail under arrest with you. Were there men in other jails? A. Oh, there were. In Brixton prison, the scene of the late tragedy, there were five more. Q. How many all told? A. About three hundred all told. Q. From different parts of Ireland? A. Yes, different parts of Ireland.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: The elections to which you referred under the Local Government Act which resulted in the return of Labor men and Republican men: do you know what the results generally were of the elections throughout Ireland at that time? A. Oh, yes. There had been a great sweeping at the polls in favor of the Republic. Q. About what per cent, of the urban councils went Republican? A. I would say about ninety per cent. Q. All over Ireland? A. All over Ireland. Q. North as well as south? A. Not so much in the north; but if you take the whole of Ireland— Q. Ninety per cent? A. Ninety per cent. Q. What per cent of the councilmen were Labor men and what per cent. Republicans and what per cent. Unionists? A. Our own council is a good case: about five Republicans to four Labor men, and three who are for union. Q. On the whole, do the men who run as Labor candidates adhere to the principle of Republican organization for Ireland? A. All of them. Q. But they maintain their own party organization? A. Yes, sir. Q. It is a political party, just like the Labor Party or the Liberal Party in England? A. Yes, sir. Q. But do the individual members all adhere to the principle of a Republican government in Ireland? A. All of them. Q. When you say that ninety per cent, are Republicans, you mean that ninety per cent, of those voting indicated their preference for those candidates? But in every council there must be a minority of non-Republicans because of the proportional representation system. A. Yes, sir. Under the old system there would have been no minority representation at all. Q. Did other arbitration councils organize as yours and proceed as you did? A. Yes, sir. In the larger cities they have a different method. But in the towns and smaller cities they are organized along these lines. Q. About ninety per cent, of the local agencies are Republican? A. Yes, today. Q. On the night that they shot up the town, was anyone killed? A. No. Q. Anyone wounded? A. There were some very remarkable escapes, though. Q. Just property destroyed? A. Property destroyed. For instance, the bed in which I was sleeping was struck. Had I not the good sense to get out of the bed, I would have been struck. Q. Had you any personal knowledge of the facts surrounding the killing of this constable, or do you know of any resident of Thurles that had such knowledge? A. No. Q. You do not know whether it was a private feud, or whether he was executed? A. No, I do not know. Q. Direct or indirect, by hearsay or personal knowledge? A. No, I could not give you any idea. Q. What was the popular sentiment in that town? How did the people feel about it? A. The people were so terror-stricken and absorbed in their own safety that they did not have time to think about anything else. Q. Since then it must have been discussed among the neighbors. A. Yes, but the people do not know who committed it. Q. I do not mean who committed it, but the fact that it occurred. How did they feel about such an occurrence in your town? A. I could not say. Q. Chairman Howe: Do you, Mr. Walsh, wish to continue? Is there anything more? A. Mr. F. P. Walsh: If you please, yes.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Has there been any further shooting up of the town since you came back? A. Oh, yes. While I was in prison it was shot up twice, similar to the first time. Q. I wish you would detail anything you had knowledge of in the immediate vicinity—for instance, in Templemore, the killing of the men. Would you detail? A. First of all, while I was in jail in March, there was another member of the Urban Council named McCarthy who was very prominent in demanding an inquiry into the shooting up of the town. At the Urban Council he put forward a resolution that some inquiry be held as to the importance of the damage done and everything else in the shooting up of the town. This chap got a letter informing him that if he came up Pryor Street in the direc- tion of the barracks they would give him all the information he wanted. Naturally he did not move. But there was a sad sequel to it. A few nights afterward, after the family was in bed—they live off the Liberty Square—the family was in bed about two o’clock in the morning. A knocking came at the door, and they asked who was there, and they said they were looking for one McCarthy. The member of the Urban Council is Michael McCarthy. The brother, a lad named James, who never takes part in public life in any way, simply a chap who is fond of going around with dogs and sporting, he said he would go down and answer the door. As he answered the door the men asked him what his name was. Immediately two shots were fired, and he fell back dead in the hall. His sister and brother came down. The sister said she would go to the priest’s, and she ran down the street in her bare feet. As she proceeded, two shots were fired after her. Q. Did they hit her? A. No, she luckily escaped. There was a coroner’s inquest held over him. The verdict of the jury was that he was murdered by men dressed in the uniform of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The next night, at a place named Ragg, three miles from Thurles, there was a chap there named Dwyer. A knock came at the door, and his sister, a married lady, opened the door, and they demanded her brother. Q. What was his position? A. He was a licensed trader. She said he was upstairs. He came down with a candle in his hand. Two shots were fired and he fell. A man at the door said, "I think I will finish him." And he fired another shot into him. The verdict in that case was, "Wilful murder against the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary." Q. Wilful murder against or by? A. Against them. The verdict was against them. Q. In other words, the verdict was that this young man's death was caused by wilful murder by the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. Yes. In the case of this chap Dwyer, the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary came through in motor lorries about three days afterward shouting: "Dwyer is dead and a very good job." They came back to the house where this sister, this married girl lived, and smashed all the bottles in the house and fired shots through the ceiling. The result was that she had fo leave the shop altogether. The shop was shut up for several weeks. She came back after a time and a similar occurrence happened. The shop was shot up again. There was a case at Holy Cross, about three miles from the old abbey of Holy Cross, where a wake was beihg held. A girl had died, and a wake was being held at the house. At a wake in Ireland the neighbors assemble and they say the mass for the dead and sit up all night with the corpse. At the wake there was a poor old simpleton. Q. What was his name? A. Mr. Rooney. He happened to go out of the corpse house about three o'clock in the morning. He was riddled with bullets. Shots were also fired through the doors and windows of the corpse house. There was another man, the village postman, who was brought out and told to look at the body of the dead comrade. He expected to be shot too, and he said, "But you know me; you know who I am. I am the village postman." They said, "No, we don't know who you are." Q. Who were "they"? A. They were the men who came in lorries. They were not from Holy Cross. Finally one of the men spoke up from the lorry and said, "Yes, I know him. He's the postman." The verdict again was wilful murder. Q. Who returned that verdict? A. The coroner’s jury of twelve men. Q. Who selects those twelve men? A. The police; that is, the Royal Irish Constabulary. Q. Was that verdict rendered by a jury established by the Re- publican government of Ireland, or by the Royal Irish Constabu- lary? A. By the Royal Irish Constabulary. Q. So that the verdict of a jury called and convened by the Royal Irish Constabulary pronounced that crime as wilful murder? A. Yes, wilful murder committed by the armed forces of the Crown. Q. What could.be the motive and reason for shooting up a house where there was a dead body? A. I was just coming to that. The next morning there was an official notice appearing in the papers coming from Dublin Castle. Q. Dublin Castle is the representative- of the British Government in Ireland? A. Yes. This report stated that there had been an attack on the police barracks in Holy Cross and one of the members had been shot dead. Q. Had there been an attack on the barracks? A. No. None at all. Q. And this chap was a poor simpleton? A. Yes, just a poor simpleton. Q. How old was he? A. About sixty years of age. Q. Were there any other shots fired or persons killed? A. No other persons were killed, but other shots were fired, lots of them, through the house. Q. What was it that prevented them from killing others in the house? Was there any person who intervened? A. There was a man who was a cousin of the person who was dead. He was an ex-army officer. He came out, and they asked him what business he had there. He said he was an ex-army officer— he explained who he was. I think his presence saved the other men from being shot also. Q. Was there other shooting at Holy Cross besides at the place where the dead body lay? A. No, but at a place about seven miles away there was an attack on a police barracks, but not there.
Q. If it will not interrupt your narrative, when was the Lord Mayor of Cork killed, Mr. MacCurtain, with reference to your con- finement in jail? A. He was killed in March. Q. And you were then in Wormwood Scrubbs prison? A. I was. Q. Did you have any advices prior to the death of Mayor Mac- Curtain that he was to be killed? ' Please tell that incident. A. On the sixteenth of March there was a prisoner from Ireland arrived in Wormwood Scrubbs. I happened to know this man. He was Mr. Dwyer, a member of the arbitration court. When he came in, I shook hands with him. He was telling me about home affairs. He said, “By the way, I heard something coming over on the boat, that yourself and Lord Mayor MacCurtain were sentenced to be shot by the Royal Irish Constabulary.” Q. He said that Mayor MacCurtain was to be shot to death by the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. Yes, by the Royal Irish Constabulary. Q. When was that date? A. The sixteenth of March. Q. When was his life taken? A. He was shot on the twentieth. Q. Did you receive any information from any member of the English Labor Commission who was present in Thurles the day following the first shooting as to what information he had from the Royal Irish Constabulary as to their future movements in your town? A. Yes, I did. I had an interview with the members of that Commission, and was talking with Mr. Arthur Henderson. Just as he was leaving the town he called me aside and said to me: “Mr. Morgan, I want to speak to you a minute. When I arrived at the station this morning I was speaking to a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I said the shooting up of the town was terrible. He said, ‘Well, they deserved it for shooting one of our men, and it is nothing to what we will give them tonight if he dies.’ ” That was Mr. Arthur Henderson of the British Labor Party.
Q. Do you know of any further disturbances in this locality? A. Of what nature? Q. Violence, disturbances, and shootings. A. Oh, yes. Templemore, seven miles from us, was shot up and the town hall completely gutted. Q. By fire? A. By fire, incendiary bombs. Q. Did )^u examine the premises? A. I did. Only the four walls remained. Q. What was the occasion for attacking that building? Was it an attack? A. The same day there had been a district inspector shot in the town of Templemore. Q. So that as soon as a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary is shot they proceed to fire up the town? A. Yes. That night they shot up the town. Q. Are there other instances of that sort? A. Yes, they are quite common. Q. Is that what is meant by reprisals? A. Yes. These are what are meant by reprisals. Something happens. Any town in that vicinity will be attacked in a similar manner: shooting and everything of that kind; big motor lorries of troops arrive.
Q. Does the Royal Irish Constabulary do this, or the military? A. They are so mixed now it is difficult to tell. The original Royal Irish Constabulary forces are now supplemented by what are known as the Black-and-Tans. They are police who have been recruited in England in large quantities and sent across to fill up the forces in Ireland. They did not have uniforms enough of the original kind to give them, so they dressed them in khaki and put R. I. C. caps on them, which are black, and a black belt; so the black and khaki together made what is called Black-and-Tan. Q. Have they had difficulty in recruiting members for the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. Yes. They could not get them to enlist in Ireland. As a result this Black-and-Tan has been introduced.
Q. Has any person in your vicinity been arrested or tried or even accused by the public authorities for the commission of any of these murders or assaults upon officers? A. No. Q. So that the method which has been invoked to attempt to stop or lo bring to justice the perpetrators of these murders has been to fire upon the town? A. Exactly. There has been no trial in our vicinity of anybody on any of these charges. Q. Discussing the wake where the simpleton was sTiot, you said that that same night, about seven miles distant from the wake, the barracks of the police had been attacked? A. Yes. Q. What was the nature of that? Was anyone shot or any damage done? A. No one was killed. The barracks were just shot up. Q. You described the report made by Dublin Castle on the kill- ing of this simpleton. Was it at Templemore where some buildings were set fire to and people burned to death? A. Yes. Q. Just describe that. A. About two days after Templemore had been shot up, an officer who had taken part in it, named Captain Beattie, died. A report appeared in the papers that Captain Beattie had lost his life in a gallant attempt to save an inmate's life in a burning building in Templemore. Q. Is that all? Did they say what burning building? A. Oh, no; they did not say what building. Q. What was the result? A. The urban council of Templemore met and issued a repudia- tion of that statement. They said that Captain Beattie did not lose his life in rescuing an inmate of a burning building, but had lost his life in attempting to burn the town hall. Q. What were the facts? A. The best of my information is that Captain Beattie and a private soldier entered the building to burn it, and before they could get out, it was set afire from the outside. There was just a window from which they could escape. The window was a good height. A person could jump out from it into the street. What I imagine happened is that the soldier lifted the officer up to the window to jump out, and then he could not get out himself because he had no one to help him, and his body was found inside. Q. Do you know where the soldiers got the petrol to burn this building? A. Yes, sir. The soldiers went to a petrol shop in Templemore and demanded petrol. The owner said he would not give it to them, and they took it anyway from him and threw some of it back lighted and burned the shop down. Q. Commissioner Maurer: Demanded what? A. Petrol, petrol. Chairman Howe: Gasoline. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Who was the owner of the shop? A. He was a Protestant gentleman. Q. Were there any inmates of the town hall at the time the attack was made upon it? A. No; fortunately it was night time and no one there.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: I would like to go back for a moment to the constitution of this arbitration court. After this court was formed, did the people of Thurles submit their cases to the arbi- tration court? A. Oh, yes; hundreds of cases were tried. Q. Hundreds of cases. Do the lawyers of Thurles practice in the arbitration courts? A. They do. Q. Are they allowed to carry on their business without restraint on the part of the military? Do they do it in public or do they have to do it in private? A. Oh, they have to do it in private. Q. Are the decrees of this court respected by the people of Thurles? A. Absolutely. I may say that at first the court did sit openly, and then a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary came along and closed the court, and since then they meet surreptitiously. Q. Do the people submit their controversies to them and respect their decisions and abide by them? A. Oh, yes, absolutely. Q. There are now no other courts in Thurles? A. No, nor have there been for several months. Q. They are abandoned? A. Yes. The petty court has quit sitting and the court house is falling into dilapidation.
Q. Are there any creameries in your neighborhood? A. Oh, yes. Q. You might sketch how they are gotten up. A. Yes, these creameries are started by the farmers cooperative societies. They take all their milk there. These have been very successful for the last several years in Ireland. Q. About how long? A. Thirty years, I suppose. I am not quite sure on that point, but I think about thirty years. Q. The farmers started them themselves? A. Yes. Thèse creameries Ï the petrol that was taken from this shop this night at Templemore, the motor lorries took this petrol the same night and went around the country burning the five creameries systematically. Q. Were these large creameries? A. Yes, very large. Q. Was butter stored in these creameries? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What has been the effect of this terrorism upon the life of the people in the market towns? What effect has it had upon the price of necessities? A. In the first place, many people are afraid of their lives and are leaving business and giving up their places for sale. The roads of the district are patrolled. Armed motor lorries are rushing along day and night. The people are afraid to go on the roads at all. Only in case of necessity are people using the roads at all. People do not go on the roads except in day time when they have to, and they go straight home. Q. What effect has this had upon the price of products? A. It has sent up the price. Often necessary food cannot be brought in from the country because the people will not venture on the roads. Q. What effect upon the people? A. The people, naturally, are living in a state of terror. Take the case of my wife. She finds it very hard to sleep at night. At the least noise she is startled and rushes out of the house thinking an attack is to be made. Q. At the time of the shooting up of Thurles your little boy was in good health? A. He was a very strong boy. Q. Did this seem to have a profound effect upon his nerves? A. Yes, it shocked him profoundly. Q. How about the people of the town, the rest of them? A. I have not been able to stop at my own home since January last. Q. Where do you stop? A. I stop at friends’ houses. Q. And your wife? A. She usually sleeps in the house, but any noise sends her flying from the premises. Q. Is that common in Thurles? How about the prominent citizens? A. Yes, no man who is prominent will stop in his own home over night. Q. For fear of attacks? A. Yes. Q. I was asking about the little boy. Subsequent to this, when was the first notice you had of any condition of the boy’s heart? A. We never had any trouble with him. We never had a doctor for him. Q. After this shooting, what was the course of his life? A. He was a great favorite of my own. He was a little chap whom I was bringing up in his own language. Q. Irish? A. Yes, Irish. I kept him with me so that I could talk to him in his own language. When I was taken away the poor little fellow was constantly calling for me. The week that he was dying, he used to look at the mother and say, “When is Daddy coming home?” and “Daddy, oh Daddy!” Q. What is he said to have died of? A. Heart trouble. Mr. F. P. Walsh: I think that is all. The Witness: As regards the town hall. We have a very fine town hall in Thurles that is used as a place of recreation for the young men of the town. That hall a year ago was commandeered by the military. Q. Is there any social life left in Thurles at all, any intercourse between the inhabitants, educational meetings? A. Oh, no. We used to hold classes in Irish, and they have all had to be discontinued. Q. Prior to that time was there social intercourse? A. Yes. We used to have classes, Irish and other classes. Q. And that has all been wiped out? A. Yes, that has all been wiped out. It is scarcely safe for traders to keep open. I have seen the armed forces of the Crown come along and enter a meat shop and take down all the quarters of meat, put them down on the block, cut them up, and take them away. Q. Did they give any payment for it? A. They offered payment, which was not accepted. In the case I spoke of it was not accepted.
Q. Senator Walsh: I would like to ask you some questions about the government of Ireland and the changes, which have taken place there. I understand that some years back the government of your town consisted of a town council elected by the people, and an Irish Constabulary appointed by the British authorities, and magistrates and justices of the peace appointed by police authorities; that there came a time when there was brought to Ireland a British army, and this hospital you spoke of was taken over for barracks, and the town hall also. When was the date of the coming into Ireland of the British army? A. The British army? Q. Yes, the British army. A. You know we have always had British garrisons in Ireland. Q. When did they take over the hospital? A. The hospital Vvas taken over two years ago. Q. The town hall? A. A year ago. They do not have it now, but they had it that winter. Q. In speaking of garrisoned towns, you mean recruiting stations where officers and soldiers are drilled and trained for the British army? A. Yes. Q. But there was no actual operating on the part of the British army until the past two years? A. No, sir. Q. They did not assume any authority or police the streets? A. Oh, no. There would be none of the armed lorries going by. Q. When did the Black-and-Tans appear in Ireland? A. The Black-and-Tans appeared in Ireland some six months ago. Q. How far had the people of Ireland proceeded in their attempts to establish an Irish Republic when the British army began to take an active part in attempting to preserve law and order? A. The establishment of the Irish Republic would date back to the time of the election in December, 1918. Q. Two years ago this next month? Yes, sir. About that time the British army became active in Ireland? Yes, sir. It has been active ever since? Ever since.
Q. So it was the advent of the Republican form of government that brought the British army to Ireland? A. Yes. Q. They have established barracks in every large town and city all over Ireland? A. Oh, yes. Q. So that they had in your town this large building you speak of? A. Yes. Q. What was that building used for before they took it? A. A fever hospital. Q. And you say they took over by summary process the whole building and turned out the inmates? A. Yes, and turned out the inmates. Q. And also the town hall? A. Yes, the town hall. Q. What appear to be the duties of these British soldiers? What are they doing by day and night? A. It seems to me that they are a garrison. Q. Are they acting in the capacity of police officers? A. They are going around on all these raids. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Eight of them go together? A. Yes, sir. Q. You say soldiers. It is'no longer the Irish Constabulary? A. It is all soldiers now. Q. Senator Walsh: What do the Black-and-Tans do? A. I really could not tell you. They do not do anything. Q. Where are they lodged? A. In the police barracks. You must discriminate between the police barracks and the military barracks. Q. The Black-and-Tans are taking the place of the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. Yes. Irishmen refused to join them. Resignations have been taking place constantly and continuously. Q. How are they dressed? A. They are dressed in khaki the same as soldiers, with a black cap and black police belt. Q. Do they carry any weapons? A. Rifles in their hands. Q. How many Black-and-Tans are there is your town? A. I could not tell you. It would be dangerous for anybody to ask. You might be sent to two years in prison for asking such a question. Q. Has not the Town Council any authority to ask about how many British soldiers there are in the town? A. Oh, no. Q. What is your best judgment as to the number of Black-and- Tan officers in the town? A. I suppose there would be forty there. Q. And how many British soldiers? A. I really could not tell you. It is constantly changing. The units are changed. I really could not say what number. Q. Are these officials practically all British or Englishmen now? A. Oh, yes. All Black-and-Tans. Of course there is a corps now known as the Auxiliary Corps. Q. What is that? A. This is a corps that has been recruited from what has been described in the House of Commons as ex-army officers in England. I think they are principally for raiding purposes. They dress in civilian clothes and in soldiers’ clothes. They dress in every way. You can never tell them. They go around in motor lorries every day raiding houses and raiding streets and holding them up.
Q. Back of all this disorder and the conditions you have de- scribed is an attempt of the British authorities to wipe out and stamp out and eliminate from Ireland the efforts of the Irish people to organize the Irish Republic? A. Yes. Q. And as soon as the people of Ireland would give up any effort to establish a republic and agree to accept British authority all this would end? A. That is apparently the case. Q. Chairman Howe: These local bodies to which you were elected a member, are they not British statutory bodies? Were they not elected in accordance with an Act of Parliament? A. Oh, yes. Q. And the people were authorized to use them? A. Yes. Q. They were legalized political agencies that had been used by the people for a long time? A. Oh, yes. Q. And when they used them to elect Republican members, this attack intervened? A. Yes, sir. Q. And I understand you to say, Mr. Morgan, that you had not slept in your own home since this happened? A. I have not slept in my own home since January twentieth, the night of the shooting. Q. How many people in Thurles do that — of how many is it true? A. I know of my own personal knowledge that it is true of over a dozen, I am sure. Q. Do you show yourself on the streets of Thurles? A. Yes, in the day time, but not after dark. Q. You have been back in Thurles? A. Yes. Q. You do not sleep at night where you may be found? A. Yes. Q. All these massacres take place at night? A. Yes, sir, always at night. The day I was coming away I was in Dublin, before I came here. The night before I came the whole block where I was staying was hemmed in by Black-and-Tans. I was afraid I would be detained, and so I left early in the morning. I came down in a taxi cab to see my sister. The motor car was held up by two armed soldiers by the road and I was ordered out by the side of the road to be searched. The officer came along and looked me over and said, "I guess we will have to go back." And so I made the boat just in time. Q. You had a passport? A. Yes, I had a passport. Q. Senator Walsh: Did you come here in response to the invitation of this Commission? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Has the Republican organization in any way of your knowl- edge aided or abetted or encouraged the commission of murders of officers? A. Never. Q. Has there been any action taken, secretly or in any way, to wreak vengeance upon English soldiers who are implicated in re- prisals? A. No. Q. As conditions are such as you have described, it is but natural that there have been excitable Irish citizens who engage in assaults. A. But they control themselves. In the town of Littletown there was a pojice barracks. About three weeks ago that barracks was attacked on Sunday afternoon and taken without a shot being fired. The members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, men who were there, were taken out and never molested, and told to wait for a time until the men took away the stuff in the barracks, and they were never injured. That was a case where they captured the whole barracks and had all the men in their hands, and none of them were ever molested. Q. Has the movement in Ireland for an Irish Republic been based upon orders that murders or the loss of life shall never be tolerated or committed? That is, has the campaign of the Irish Republican authorities been one of passive resistance? A. Yes, certainly. The organization is there for the establish- ment on a permanent basis of the Irish Republic if possible. Q. To what extent have they proceeded to organize by passive resistance? What is their plan? A. They set up their own executive bodies. The arbitration court is an instance of it. In our council, for instance, we have repudiated the authority of England to hold any: dictatorial power over us or forbid us to do this or to do that. We have our own government now, established with what is known as all the public representatives of the people assembled. We have a regular executive organized. Q. In a word, your organization has appealed to the people of Ireland to make known through their votes their wishes to abandon any association with the British Government and to establish a government of their own? A. Yes. Q. And you were elected to form a town council to notify the British authorities that you would not recognize the British Govern- ment but would establish an Irish Government? A. Exactly. We repudiated any connection with Britain.
Q. To what extent have you gone in warning and preventing your supporters and aids from doing violent acts, and what steps have you taken to prevent lawlessness in Ireland? A. We have established in Ireland our own police, who have been very effective in bringing to account those who have been guilty of burglary and assaults and larceny and everything of that sort. They have captured the criminals in several cases of hold-ups of banks in Ireland. The streefs of Dublin at night time are policed by our men. Q. Is there any other authority appointed and named and elected by the people of your town and the towns of the vicinity, other than what has been elected by thfe people with a desire to have a republic in Ireland? A. Is there any other authority in operation? Q. In operation elected by the people? A. No. Q. The only other authority is the British army and the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. Yes. Q. No civil authority? A. No, there is no civil authority now with the exception of the Republican executive bodies. Q. There is no other group of civilians, either elected or named by the British Government, seeking to administer to the people politically? A. No. Q. How many British soldiers or members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the last two years have been assaulted, killed, or murdered by unknown parties in your vicinity? A. In the vicinity? In the town there have been two cases of shooting in or near the town. Q. Commissioner Addams: In the last two years did the Repub- lican police try in any way to investigate or protect the constables? A. Do you mean on this particular occasion? Q. On any occasion? A. On the first occasion our police were not operating. That was a good while ago, two years ago. But they have been very active since. I have known of cases of soldiers rescued from the hands of mobs; that is to say, drunken soldiers who are taken and apt to be maltreated. I have known them to be taken and rescued by the Irish police officers. Q. Are they known as such? A. Oh, no. They act secretly. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: What would happen to a man who was known to be acting as an Irish police officer? A. He would %e arrested on the spot. Q. Commissioner Addams: I mean about policing the town generally? A. There is more terror struck into criminals now than ever before. They know they cannot escape from the Irish Republican police. Q. What happens to a man who is taken by your police? A. He is taken to what is known as an unknown destination. If the destination was known the army would swoop down on them. Q. Has he a regular trial? A. Yes, a regular trial. Q. What happens to him? You have no jails. A. Sometimes there are jails. A secret house will do. And there are fines. And we order them to leave the district. They may be deported out of that, and sent away. Very often they are taken down to the boat and sent away to the other side, for very often they are from the other side.
Q. Commissioner Maurer: To what extent is the town you live in organized? A. I beg your pardon. Q. To what extent is the town you live in organized as far as labor is concerned? A. All the labor possible in our town is organized, and then we have a trades council, which consists of elected members from the trades unions. Q. Is this council molested in any way? A. Oh, yes. There has been a meeting of the Irish Transport Workers broken up by the police. Q. Are the organized labor groups in sympathy with the Re- public? A. Oh, every one of them. One hundred per cent. Every one of them. Q. Senator Walsh: Can you give us a financial statement of the amount of damage that has been done to property in your vicinity by attacks on your town? A. By attacks on the town? Q. What that represents in dollars and cents? A. No, I would not attempt to do that. That would be a financial matter that I could not answer. Chairman Howe: It is now one o'clock. We will adjourn until two-fifteen. 2:25 P. M. Chairman Howe: Will the hearing please come to order? Are there further questions that members of the Commission want to ask the witness?
Q. Senator Walsh: There is one question I want to ask the last witness. To what extent, if at all, have restrictions been put upon the printing in the press of Ireland of news items relating to the activities of the Republican movement and the officials of your council ? ' A. All the papers have been warned from the English Govern- ment that if they publish any news like that they will be suppressed. Q. Have you any specific instances where there has been a re- fusal to print propaganda in favor of the Republican movement? A. On the occasion of the floating of the Republic Loan, any paper that published the advertisement, the prospectus, was im- mediately suppressed. Q. Were they suppressed? A. Yes, there and then they were suppressed. Q. Do you know how many papers were suppressed? A. One of the leading papers in Dublin, the Freeman, published it and was suppressed immediately. Q. Was that one of the papers of largest circulation? A. Yes. Q. To what extent has freedom of speech been restricted? A. No such thing as a public meeting is now allowed. Q. For how long a time has that been in force? A. For eighteen months or two years. Q. Has there been any interference with the religious rights of the people? A. Oh, yes. On my own experience, a fortnight before I left for here. I was leaving a church. The whole street was suddenly blocked up by motor lorries and soldiers, and every man coming out of the church was held up and searched. Q. How many were thus held? A. There must have been thousands. Q. When was that? A. About a Sunday before the seventh of November. Q. Just this year? A. Just this year, just before I left. Q. What were they searching for, arms or documents or some- thing else? A. It must have been arms. I presume arms. Q. Has there been any interference of your personal knowledge of the holding of religious services by any religious denomination? A. Not of my own experience. Q. Do they have religious services at night? A. Yes. Q. Are they still held at night? A. They are. Q. What if any effect upon the attendance is due to this con- dition you have described? A. We have missions in Ireland, perhaps once a year, for a particular parish or a particular church. It has happened that as the people came out of the churches, it might be a bit late, they have been stopped and searched. Q. Apparently to find out if they are carrying arms? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Chairman Howe: Much of your testimony related to the early part of this year? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are the conditions improving or getting worse? A. Getting worse. As to that there can be no question. There is now no end of suppression of freedom of speech. Q. How about the military authorities? Are there more clashes with their men than two months ago or not? A. It is constantly reported in the papers daily that more troops are coming over, coining by thousands. Q. You mean that troops are being massed by the thousands? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do they come organized as a military expedition or more as a police force? A. It is very hard to place this Auxiliary Corps I spoke of under any head. It is not a police force. It is more for raiding purposes. It seems to be particularly the duty of the Auxiliary Corps to carry out raids on houses. Q. You have described conditions around about Thurles. How is it elsewhere? A, I have had experience at Dublin for the past few weeks before I left. You might be going down the main streets any time of the day, and suddenly you hear a shout, "Whoop," and suddenly both ends of the street are stopped up. Shots are fired over the heads of the bystanders and then everyone is searched. Now they are always accompanied by armored cars carrying machine guns. The armored cars drive right up on the foot path where the people stand so that they have to clear out in all directions in order to escape. On almost any street of Dublin you can see these armored cars going along with bayonets sticking out, and very often they fire shots, apparently to see the women and people scream and fly in all directions. Q. Very often they fire in the air? / A. Yes. Q. The reason for searching persons is to see if they have any firearms? A. Yes, sir. Q. How do they do it? A. They take a particular street or a particular section and search that. There was D'Olier Street a short time ago. Both ends of the street were cut off by a cordon. No one was allowed to go inside it. They were raiding some house inside that area. A shot went off. Immediately an officer gave orders to his men and they immediately lay flat on the ground with their guns pointed on the ready. Suddenly a man rushed out of his office and said to the officer: "Hold, that shot was fired by one of your own men." The officer had the presence of mind to say "Hold" to the men. And it was found that a soldier had accidentally dropped his rifle and it had gone off. It was only the presence of mind of the man who rushed out of the office that saved the situation.
Q. Commissioner Addams: I would like to know whether, in your official position as executive of the town, if there should be another of these killings of constables, you would feel it a part of your official duty to go into it and try to apprehend the man responsible? A. You must remember that that does not come within the scope of my duties. We do not have that power now and we did not have it under the old regime. We cannot do anything of that kind. We have no control over this Irish Constabulary force. We cannot direct them to do this or to do that or anything else. Q. But if he is injured on the streets of the town of which you are acting mayor, you can do nothing about it then? A. No. We have nothing to do at all about that. We have no power to do anything. Q. Under the old system could you call upon the Royal Irish Constabulary to preserve order? A. Anybody can do that. Q. But you had no authority under the old system? A. No. Q. Under the present system you are looked upon as outlaws and as enemies of the British Goverrtment? A. Yes.
There is a point about the coroner’s inquest that I spoke of this morning. Now there are no coroners’ inquests allowed. Q. Chairman Howe: When did they stop? A. Within the last couple of months, when this latest emergency legislation came out. The coroners are warned not to hold any inquests in case of a shooting. Instead, a military inquest is held and an official account is later issued. In fact, English newspaper reporters writing up the situation have been threatened openly by the police. Q. Can you give a specific instance of that? A. Mr. Hugh Martin, who represents some big English paper, was across in Ireland for his paper, and he wrote up an account of a shooting by the Constabulary, and he reports that his life was threatened on the streets of Tralee. Q. What kind of a threat? A. That if he did not clear out he would be taken.
Q. To what extent have the Irish citizens refused to serve in the British courts? A. They have absolutely refused to obey the summons of these courts. Q. Is that practically unanimous all over Ireland? A. Yes. Q. The same thing is true about the Irish Constabulary? A. Yes. Q. So it is practically impossible for the British Government to get a citizen of Ireland to serve on a jury or in the Irish Con- stabulary? A. Yes, sir; quite difficult. Q. Are there any other civic bodies where Irishmen formerly rendered service under British authority where they have protested against it now, other than police and jury service? A. Of course the magistrates have all handed up their magis- tracies. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Are there any magistrates now except the R. M.’s—that is, the resident magistrates, who are paid officials? A. No. Q. So the protest, has practically gone to the extent of every Irish man and woman refusing to hold a position of authority in Ireland under British rule? A. Yes, they refuse to recognize the functions of the other party in Ireland.
Q. Are there any other points you want to bring out? A. There is just one other case in regard to shootings, which happened in Thurles. There was a man named Cleary. I happened to be in Dublin at the time. This night his brother by some means got word not to sleep in his own house. His name was John— John Cleary. So he did not go home and sent word to his mother not to allow his brother to sleep in his house either. Michael stopped out until one in the morning, and then thought that every- thing was quiet and safe and proceeded home. At one-thirty there was a knock at the door, and he went down in his trousers and opened it. He was immediately confronted by four armed men wearing trench helmets, and was asked something about whether he knew anything of the killing of a policeman, and immediately he was fired upon. The bullet entered his chin and penetrated the shoulder and came out of his back. He had a very narrow escape with his life. Fortunately, he has not died. He was not the man they wanted. They wanted his brother. The same night the as- sistant town clerk of Thurles was looked up, about a half hour subsequent to that. He was not at home at the time. Q. Who was*Cleary? What was his position? A. He was a coach builder in the town. Q. A reputable citizen? A. Yes. He was only a young chap, an ex-pupil of mine. Q. How old? A. About twenty-three. Q. Was he a Republican in politics? A. Yes, he was known as a Republican. He did not have a very prominent part, however. Q. What was the date of this shooting? A. I cannot give you the exact date. However, it would be about five weeks ago. Q. Had any British officer been injured or shot previous to that? A. No. Q. Was it, to your knowledge, due to any act of assault or murder committed by the citizens of your town? A. We could not find anything at all happened. Q. So far as you know, what was the motive for these British officers to call at this house, either for Cleary or his brother? A. They probably considered that his brother was a member of the I. R. A., the Irish Republican Army. They probably intended to take him out and shoot him. He was not there, and so they shot the brother instead. Q. What was the question they asked him? A. Did he know anything about the shooting of a policeman. Q. Had there been any policeman shot? A. No, not since the preceding January. Q. Senator Walsh: Is there any other testimony? Mr. F. P. Walsh: We have one question we would like to ask him. You detailed a number of coroners’ inquests wherein the verdict was that it was a wilful murder. Was there any action taken after the coroner’s jury verdict by the British Government? A. No.
Chairman Howe: I might say that the cablegrams asking witnesses to come here were sent to officials of towns and cities which were quoted as towns in which outrages of some kind were carried on. The Commission cabled to Belfast and thirty-four other towns, to the mayors of those towns. It was an impersonal cable rather than a personal cable. Q. Senator Walsh: You personally received a cable from this Commission? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did you receive it? A. On the Sunday before I left. Q. So no Irish society brought you here? A. No, I came only at the request of the Commission. I re- ceived a cablegram and immediately proceeded the following Sun- day morning. Senator Walsh: I am asking you because I want it a matter of record that you are brought here and your expenses are paid by this Commission, and you came as a witness for the Commission. (The witness was thereupon excused.) ******** Chairman Howe: There are three Americans who have recently been in Ireland who are here and want to testify and get away this afternoon. They are Father English and Mr. Furnas and Reverend Cotter. The testimony of these American witnesses will be con- ducted by the Commission. Father English.
Q. Chairman Howe: Father English, will you please state your name and residence and your professional position and any other preliminary facts? A. My name is Michael M. English. I live in the town of Whitehall, Montana. I am the pastor of the Catholic Church there, the only Catholic Church in the town. Q. Where were you born? A. In Ireland. Q. How long have you been in America? A. I have been in America for thirteen years. I came to this country in 1907. Q. Where did you get your education? A. In Saint Paul, Minnesota. Q. Are you an American citizen? A. I am. Q. When did you become an American citizen? A. Just one year ago. The reason the citizenship was postponed was that because, when I arrived in this country, I was just sixteen years of age, and waited until I was twenty-one before getting my first papers. Then I made a visit back to Ireland, and I found upon my return that I .could not get my citizenship papers because of my absence from the country on my trip to Ireland. I had to take out my first papers again, and became a citizen just as soon as possible. Q. Chairman Howe: Are there any other preliminary facts? A. No. Q. You have been recently in Ireland. Now proceed and tell what you saw. Senator Walsh: WTiat was your reason for going to Europe? A. First of all, to visit my parents in Ireland and to visit in England some friends of mine, and to visit France, Italy, and espe- cially Rome. I arrived in Ireland about the third of May of this year. I sailed from Cove in Ireland about the first of September. I was in Ireland all of this time with the exception of about five weeks, which I spent in France and England upon two occasions. Q. Proceed with the story of your experiences in Ireland.
A. The part of the story I wish to relate first is the most intimate- experience I had in Ireland. It occurred on the evening of Mon- day, the twenty-ninth of August. I left my father's home on Tues- day, the thirtieth of August, to go to Cove and take the boat for America the next day. Q. Cove was formerly Queenstown? A. Yes. That is the name it legally has now, even under British law. Q. Did you not state where your father's home was? A. In the County of Limerick. Q. The parish? A. The parish is Templebredan. The nearest town is Hospital, four miles away. On this evening, while my baggage was being made up, consisting of two grips and a trunk, I was in my father's house, which is about a hundred yards from the road. About half past five a military lorry came down the road from the direction of the town of Hospital and stopped at the gate. The soldiers ran into the avenue and surrounded the house. There are two doors in the house, a kitchen door and a hall door facing the road on the other side. I came to the hall door just in time to see the troops form a circle around that end of the house. These troops, I might explain, were dressed in khaki and wore trench helmets and carried rifles with bayonets on them. Two men who seemed to be officers, whom we afterwards discovered to be officers, were armed only with revolvers in their belts. One of these officers came to the door and demanded that all of the men in the house. must come out on the lawn in front of the house and be searched. They told my mother that the ladies and myself did not need to come out, because I was a priest. My brothers were all searched except my small brother, about seventeen, who said, "I refuse to come out." And the officer pulled his revolver and said: "You come out or I will give you the contents of this." Then the search went on. As my father's watch was taken out of his pocket he said, "I want you to return the watch." The officer said: "Escort this man to the lorry." The search of the other men proceeded. The body search was finished in about fifteen minutes. Then the officers attempted to enter the house.
I was standing in the hall door. I said: "I want to know who the commanding officer is." He said, "I am." I said, "I have property in this house, my personal belongings. As an American citizen I require that these be immune from search." He said, "Your American citizenship does not count here. You are on Brit- ish soil." I said, "Still I am an American, and subject only to the ordinary civil courts." He said, "That does not count. Your citizenship does not entitle you to any privileges here." He re- peated, "It does not count here, and your property will be searched." Then I said, "I am anxious on my return to America to enter a protest to my government against this. In order that my protest may be intelligent, I want to know your name, your rank, and the name of your regiment." He said, "I absolutely refuse to give you any information." I said, "Do you mean that I am not going to know who is searching me?" He said, "I will give you no infor- mation whatever. I have been forbidden to do so. I cannot do it." I said, "Then I require you to produce your authority for searching me." He tapped his revolver and said, "This is my authority." I said, "That is not enough." He sa,id, "Do you want to see a little more of it?" The search of the house proceeded. They started on the lower floor. There is a parlor, a large room, and a little breakfast room on the lower floor. One of the officers, whom I afterwards dis- covered to be Captain V. H. Wells (the other one, with whom I held the conversation, was afterward discovered to be Major Gray), —the captain went into the little breakfast room accompanied by my mother. The major asked me to accompany him on his search. In the parlor he took the rug off the floor. I also wish to state that during the search no property was damaged in any way. He removed the rug off the floor, lifted up the tablecloth, examined all papers in the room, took the pictures off the wall and removed the cardboard off the back of them. Evidently he was looking for documents. On the mantel piece were also some letters of mine addressed to me, containing nothing but social and personal cor- respondence. These the major took in his hand. I said, “All these letters are mine.” He said, “I am going to read them.” He put them in his pocket, although I requested him to hand them over to me. Those letters were never returned. The captain, who searched the other room, reported that he was through. Then all four of us went upstairs. On one side of the stairway upstairs are two rooms, one the room that I had been using, and the other room used by a couple of my brothers. I stood again in the door leading into the room which I had been occupying, and I said, “This is my room. There is nothing in here that is not my property, and I insist as an American citizen that it be not searched, at least without a proper warrant.” The major stated again that that made no differ- ence, and the protest was unavailing. My mother accompanied the captain during the search of my room. I went into my brothers’ room with the major. In that room is a wardrobe with coats and vests and trousers hanging in it, and one bed. He searched the wardrobe. In a pocket of the wardrobe he discovered a card of membership in the Irish Volunteers, made out in the name of Patrick English, a brother of mine. He showed me this card at the time he found it. He said, “Who is Patrick English?” I re- fused to give him any information whatever. He said, “We will take every man here until we discover who he is. We will remove them all.” He proceeded with the search. He took the bedclothes off the bed, including the mattress, removed the rug again off the floor, looked on top of the wardrobe and under it (it was a loose wardrobe, not attached to the wall), and then he sounded the ceiling with the butt of his revolver, and he sounded portions of the floor and the wall. In the meantime, the captain, as I have stated, was conducting the search of my room. I went in there with the major. This captain who was conducting the search in my room never at any time appeared in the room where we were. I discovered that things were considerably upset, but nothing damaged, indicating that a very thorough search had been made. I found that other letters which were only of a personal nature were taken, that a photo which had been taken of myself in Butte, Montana, many years ago had also been taken, and that notes of mine from my trip around England, Ireland, and France had also been taken. I asked the major again for the return of these notes, but he again refused. They also searched the rooms on the other side of the stairway. As far as I know, nothing was taken. Then we all went downstairs. The major said, “Who is Patrick English?” My brother stepped out. He said, “You are under arrest.” They removed my brother down to the gate. My mother, my brother, and myself went down to the gate to see him off. He said, “What charge have you against me?” The major refused to reply. As we were going down to the gate, I warned the others to go back. I said, “They might fire on us. They are liable to turn the machine gun in the lorry on us. We had better go back.”
As a continuation of this, the next morning, as I was leaving for Cove to take the boat, the next morning about half past ten a young man who lives in a house about three miles from there named Kirby came up there and said to me privately, “Our house was raided last night at midnight. They asked where you lived and one of them said, ‘We are going to shoot English on the morrow.’ ” That was the last I heard until I got to Montana, and I got a letter which said that my brother had been sentenced to six months. I also got a letter from my father, who said that on the next evening the Black-and-Tans came and surrounded the house and fired on my brothers, who were out in the fields around the house, but they did not get hurt. The District Inspector was in charge, and he asked for the Reverend English. He was told that I was on my way to America. The District Inspector swore that if ever he got his hands on me it would be a long time until I saw New York. On the mantelpiece was a picture of George Washington. Q. Who was this District Inspector? A. He was the district inspector of police from a place called Pallas. He took the picture of George Washington, threw it on ihe floor, and put his heel on it and said, “This is what ought to happen to all these bloody Americans.” That is all of my personal experiences.
Q. Senator Walsh: Did you at any time during your presence in that town participate in any way in political matters? A. No, I made up my mind that I would not take any part in politics. I was asked to speak on one occasion in Limerick, but refused on that ground. Q. Did your .father or brothers participate in any way in any attacks upon British officers or authorities? A. No, not at any time. Q. Can you give us any information why they singled out the house where you were for this raid? A. The explanation which I think is feasible is that, like other people in that part of the country, my father is known to be de- sirous of a Republican government in Ireland. He has made no secret of it, and has advocated it on all occasions. He happens to be one of the most prominent farmers in that part of the country. I suppose that was one reason. Another reason is, and I forgot to state it, in the course of the search a telegram was found in one of the rooms—an old telegram. It was sent by me to my brother. It was sent from Lisdoonvarna, in the County of Clare. I sent it about the first of August to my brother Patrick, who was arrested that night. There were races taking place in Galway. I had been away from home about two weeks, and had wired to my brother to join me at the race meeting. Everybody goes to the race meetings in Ireland. I wired him: “Will you be able to come to the meeting in Galway? Bring New York papers.” The major discovered this and called the captain’s attention to it (he carefully refrained from calling him captain), and said, “Here is something.” That was pocketed. This bore out a suspicion they might have had that I was a medium for communication between New York and Ireland. Q. This meeting was a race meeting and they interpreted it as a political meeting? A. Yes, evidently. Q. Commissioner Maurer: You mentioned that when your father’s watch was taken, he asked that the watch be returned, and then the officer in command ordered that he be taken away. What happened to your father? A. He was sent back when the lorry left. He was only taken to the gate. He was not injured in any way. Q. How old is your father? A. About fifty-one years of age. Q. A farmer? A. Yes, a farmer. Q. How large a home have you there? A. It is about sixty acres, which is a fair-sized farm in that part of the country. Q. Did your brothers work upon the farm? A. Yes, with the exception of the one who is going to college. Q. This young brother of seventeen was going to college? A. Yes, he was going to Rothwell. Q. There was nothing in the conduct of the members of your family that would justify such a raid? A. Absolutely nothing, except that our sympathies were well known. Q. Did you find out that the sympathies of the other people in that village were of the same kind? A. Yes, the sympathies of all the people in that part of the country are Republican. Chairman Howe: Now you may proceed.
The Witness: I will try to give a chronological account of my experiences. I remained in Ireland all the time, except for a brief visit in France and England, up to my departure for this country. In traveling around to visit my friends it was an ordinary experience to be held up by the military on the country roads. A motor lorry would be alongside the road surrounded by soldiers, and everybody in the car was searched and the car itself was searched, all except myself. I never was searched, although I was held up many times with others who were searched. These lorries drive along the prin- cipal roads almost every day, going to and fro at a high rate of speed. Q. Will you describe these lorries? A. The lorry is a large truck with an automobile engine. It is very large. It seats between twenty and thirty. In the large ones they have machine guns, and soldiers or Black-and-Tans (it depends upon who is going in the lorries), silting along the side and in the back with rifles at the ready. These soldiers and Black-and-Tans frequently fire on cattle or horses and destroy them on their trips around the country. I will give one example of which I have per- sonal knowledge. About a half mile from my place lives a neigh- bor in a cottage by the road. He has about a half acre of ground. His hogs are generally along the road by the house. The road itself is about twenty-five feet wide, and on either side there is a hard surface. Along the side by the hard surface is a grassy surface about eight to ten feet wide on either side. One afternoon a lorry was passing along, and two pigs were on the hard surface between the road and the fence. It was a big heavy lorry filled with sol- diers. The lorry turned in off the road and ran over the pigs, breaking the baifck of one and the legs of the other, so that they had to be butchered. I came along about a half hour after this, and the young man showed me that the lorry had turned off the road and ran almost into the fence in order to run over the pigs. I give this as an instance of the mischief they do.
On the night of the fourteenth of August there was a shooting in the town of Hospital. On the morning of Sunday, the fifteenth of August, I went from my own place to the town of Hospital, and there I found the people in a state of terror. I discovered upon investigating that upon the previous night a number of soldiers had entered the house of a man named Lynch, Patrick Lynch, a harness maker, a single man forty years of age living with his two sisters and a blind father. These soldiers had entered his house at eleven- thirty on Saturday night, the fourteenth of August, while they were on their knees saying the rosary. They dragged him — or rather they first asked him to come along. He said, "Just a minute until I get my cap." They said, "You will not need your cap in the place to which you are going." They took him out about a hundred yards to a place called the Fair Green, the village square. And then they shot him. The local doctor lives in a place about fifty yards from where he was shot, and they dragged him out and told him a man was shot. He had lived in this town about thirty years, almost as long as Lynch himself. The doctor saw that Lynch was dead. There were about four wounds in his head. His body was badly battered. The powder marks were on his face in such a way that the doctor did not recognize him. He asked the military who the man was. He said, "Does he live in this town?" The doctor knew Lynch, but he did not recognize the body, and he could not understand why he should be shot. So he went down with the military to Lynch's house, and knocked on the door and asked the sisters and said. "Is your brother home?” They said, “No, the military took him out about half an hour ago.” He then knew it was Lynch. Q. Had they notified the sisters? A. Yes. The next day a report was made public by the police that Lynch was shot by the forces of the Crown in attempting to escape from arrest. An inquest was arranged for. This was before the abolition of coroners’ inquests in the county of Limerick. I believe it was called for the following Saturday, which would be about the first of August, I think. At the request of the county coroner, who corresponds roughly to what we call the county at- torney, the inquest was postponed for two weeks. Q. At whose request? A. The county coroner, the representative of the British Gov- ernment, requested that the inquest be postponed. At the end of two weeks it was held. I was present at the inquest in Hospital on Monday, about the twenty-second of August, if Monday was the twenty-second of August. It was called for one o’clock in the afternoon. The coroner was there. A jury was there, which had been summoned by the Head Constable of the Constabulary at the next police barracks, which was about five miles away. The wit- nesses were there, and the audience. Q. The jury was not from that town? A. No, the jury was not from that town, but summoned by the police from five miles away. They waited for the appearance of the Crown Solicitor until three o’clock, and for the appearance of the witnesses of the military. Then a telephone call came from Limerick from the Limerick County Solicitor, Gaffney, stating that his side would put in no witnesses. The inquest was held. The doctor, his sisters, and all the other witnesses who saw how the man had died and the nature of his wounds, testified. The verdict was “wilful murder” against the military stationed in Hospital at that time. As far as I could discover, before I left Ireland and since, I have heard of no action whatsoever that was taken against any of those men who shot him, although a verdict of wilful murder, brought in under all the rules of English law in Ireland, was rendered. Q. Did the soldiers give any reason to the doctor, when they called him to view the body of Lynch, for murdering him? A. No, they gave no reason whatever. Q. Do you know from your personal inquiries and investigation as to whether Lynch had been active in doing anything that would anger or create any hostility against him? A. I know that Lynch, in the first place, was a man who was not in full possession of his faculties; he was not insane, but he was slightly what they call over there simple. I knew him when I went to school there at the age of sixteen. I knew him as a very harmless individual who never took part in politics of any nature, not even in the old days. Q. What explanation do you give for the murder of Lynch? A. The explanation that I heard around there from the people, and which has since been verified to a certain extent, was that they were looking for some Lynch or for another Lynch. They found that he was the only man of that name in Hospital, and they shot him. Q. Some Lynch that they thought was prominent in the Repub- lican movement? A. Yes, some Lynch that was prominent in the Republican movement.
Also in the town they seized the house of the man to whom they came first, of a man named Sullivan. His house overlooks the three short streets of the town. They seized this house about the middle of July—from the first to the middle of July. On the street in front they built a barricade of sand bags and stones, and in this barricade they placed a machine gun. This blockade and the hollow square inside it were always manned by some soldiers. One afternoon about a week after they had occupied this house, they turned the machine gun on one of the streets of the town and raked the streets of the town for fifteen minutes. Fortunately, the people got word in some way of what was going to be done, and there was no one injured, except glass broken and walls injured where they were hit. Q. Had any attacks upon soldiers been made in that town? A. No, absolutely none. The condition in Hospital was that that was a police barracks in Hospital until about the fifth of May. The police evacuated the barracks about the fifth of May and left for some other town. On the night that they evacuated the police barracks, it was burned. That was all that had happened in that part of the country at any time since 1916. Q. Had these men who had occupied these barracks and evacu- ated resigned? A. No, they had not resigned. They were moved from this barracks and taken to larger quarters.
I live fourteen miles from the city of Limerick. Frequently during the summer I visited the city, staying over night or for three or four days, for I had some friends there. In the city of Limerick there is a large military barracks containing on an average perhaps six hundred soldiers. And then there are two police barracks, large ones, containing possibly four hundred, three- fourths of whom are Black-and-Tans, and the other members were the old members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. During the months in which I visited Limerick, it was a frequent occurrence for the Black-and-Tans to go out through the streets at night, and especially in one section of the town, Pennywell is the name of it, and there about eleven or twelve o'clock let loose their guns, firing in the air or at some house. Anyway, nobody was personally in- jured. I was present myself in Limerick one night. I was staying with a clergyman on the outskirts of the city. We had to walk through this district of Pennywell. As we were proceeding home some Black-and-Tans passed by us. Just as they turned into another street we heard firing, and concluded it was the Black-and-Tans firing there. And so it was. They were not attacked. They did not state that they were attacked. They were firing to terrorize the people. To such an extent was that true that this disrict of Penny- well was called the Pennywell sector of the city of Limerick because it was so often under fire. Then again, on Sunday, the fifteenth of August, on the day on which I had discovered about the shooting of Lynch, I went home to my father's house, about four miles away. I heard that a part of Limerick was on fire. On Monday I went to the city of Limerick to investigate the matter. I remained in Limerick on that occasion for three days. I went out to the Pennywell district and there I saw that, according to my estimation, about two hundred houses had been injured, some slightly and others more seriously. I found there the marks of bullets, and in a number of instances the marks of bombs, where bombs had been hurled through the win- dows and exploded on the floors ; and other places where the fire was still smoldering. Whether the fires were set by matches or by direct application of bombs, I do not know. I discovered that all that had been done on the day before by the Black-and-Tans. They also returned to the city proper and set fire or hurled bombs into two business houses, one of which was known as the Railway Bar, near the railroad station. Some time previous to that, on Queen Street in Limerick, a house belonging to a man named Hartney was destroyed at about mid- night. The members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, or men in their uniform, were seen running away from the house about mid- night. Immediately a tremendous explosion took place and blew the whole front of the house down, to such an extent that the second floor leaned down on the first floor. Fortunately, this was a tea shop, where tea and light lunches were served. There was no one in the house on this night, and there were no lives lost.
Then again, in regard to the burning of creameries. On Tuesday, the twenty-second of August, I was passing through the town of Knocklong, in the County of Limerick, and there I discovered that the creamery was partially destroyed. It was a creamery belonging to a man named Cleeves, Sir Thomas Cleeves, a Unionist in politics. He lives in the city of Limerick, and had been knighted by the late King Edward. This creamery was one of the largest in the south of Ireland, probably hiring about fifty or sixty men, and was worth about three hundred thousand dollars. I stopped off there when I saw the crowd around. It was partially destroyed. I inquired from those around what had happened. They told me that at about two o’clock on that morning a lorry containing men in the uniform of the Royal Irish Constabulary appeared in town, entered the cream- ery, and threw bombs in the engine room, which was the center of the creamery, and attempted to set fire to other rooms in that creamery, and then left. The people, on the departure of the police, all turned out, and they extinguished the fire in a very short time in the other part of the building, but the bombs had already de- stroyed the machinery in the engine room. The central engine plant of the creamery was a total wreck, and the creamery was out of business and is as yet. The result is that the farmers in that part of the country—it is a dairying country—the farmers have been compelled to feed the milk which they sent to the creamery to the pigs and calves or throw it away. They can no longer supply it to the creamery, have it made into butter and cheese, and get a return for it. I must also state that no compensation has at any time been made by the British Government for any of the work of destruction that has been proved against its own forces in Ireland, especially in the line of the destruction of creameries and the blowing up and burn- ing of houses. Q. Did you hear of any explanation for the destruction of this creamery? A. Yes, I did. About the date that I arrived in Ireland, a fresh correspondent there, one of the representatives of the Paris Matin, had an interview with Lord French, the Lieutenant Governor of Ireland. This was published in the papers over there, the English and Irish papers. He asked French' what the trouble was in Ireland. French said the difficulty in Ireland was two hundred thousand young men who should have emigrated. I believe that the only possible reason and the explanation that I heard around there was that the reason for the destruction of these creameries and other business houses was to throw out of employment the young men and compel them to leave the country — in addition, of course, to the auxiliary reason, the attempt to terrorize out of the minds of 'the people their hope for independence. Q. Did the owner of this creamery, whom you state was a Unionist, do anything there in that part that would create a hostile feeling toward him? A. Nothing except that he has been known as a Unionist in politics. He has taken no part in politics, however. He owns large creameries all over the south of Ireland, and large business estab- lishments in Limerick. Q. Has he made any statement of this matter? A. I am sure he has made a statement to the British Government, but no statement of his has been published.
Q. Commissioner Maurer: May I ask the question: You have been close to some of these soldiers, these Black-and-Tans. Ireland is not dry. Have you noticed any drunkenness among them? A. I have. I have noticed in the city of Limerick a number of soldiers and Black-and-Tans that were very ostensibly under the influence of liquor. I have heard it stated in their barracks that they were given in their barracks free drink, in addition to their ration, especially just before going out on a raid. But I have seen them myself very much under the influence of liquor. Q. Chairman Howe: On duty or off duty? A. It is very difficult to tell. I know that they are almost always on duty. Commissioner Maurer: Oh, yes; a soldier is almost always on duty except when on leave of absence.
The Witness: Then again events occurred over there while I was in Ireland. There was a charge made by Divisional Commissioner Smyth, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, to members of the police force in Listowel, in the County of Kerry. This charge was made about the fifth of July. It was a statement he made, a speech he made to them in their barracks. There were sixteen police in the barracks at the time. They published an account of the statement that Mr. Smyth made to them. They signed it and it was published in some of the Irish papers and English papers on Saturday, the tenth of July.1 Q. Senator Walsh: After these police officers had resigned? A. After they had resigned. The statement was made while they were official members of the police force. Afterwards they made it public. I have the statement here. It is brief. I am going to read it for you, with your permission. The statement says: Mr. Smyth, the Divisional Commissioner, addressed us as fol- lows: “Well, men, I have something of interest to tell you, some- thing that I am sure you would not wish your wives to hear. I am going to lay all my cards on the table. I may reserve one card for myself. Now, men, Sinn Fein has had all the sport up to the present, and we are going to have the sport now! The police have done splendid work, considering the odds against them. The police are not sufficiently strong to do anything but hold their bar- racks. This is not enough, for as long as we remain on the defen- sive, so long will Sinn Fein have the whip hand. We must take the offensive and beat Sinn Fein with its own tactics. Martial law applying to all Ireland is coming into operation shortly. I am promised as many troops from England as I require: thousands are coming daily. I am getting seven thousand police from Eng- land. Now, men, what I wish to explain to you is that you are to strengthen your comrades in the outstations. If a police barrack is burned or if the barrack already occupied is not suitable, then the best house in the locality is to be commandeered, the occupants thrown out in the gutter. Let them die there—the more the merrier. Police and military will patrol the country roads at least five nights a week. They are not to confine themselves to the main roads, but take across the country, lie in ambush, and when civilians are seen approaching, shout ‘Hands up!’ Should the order be not obeyed, _ 1 The charge in question was made on the nineteenth of June, but was not published until several weeks later. See Report, Appendix' “E ” shoot and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching carry their hands in their pockets or are in any way suspicious-looking, shoot them down. You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties sometimes. The more you shoot, the better I will like you; and I assure you that no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man. Hunger strikers will be allowed to die in jail—the more the merrier. Some of them have died already, and a damn bad job they were not all allowed to die. As a matter of fact, some of them have already been dealt with in a manner their friends will never hear about. An emigrant ship left an Irish port lately with lots of Sinn Feiners on board. I assure you, men, it will never land. That is nearly all I have to say to you. We want your assistance in carrying out this scheme and wiping out Sinn Fein. Any man who is not prepared to do so is a hindrance rather than a help to us, and he had much better leave the job at once.” * This statement was made by Commissioner Smyth about the first of July in Listowel, before the members of the R. I. C. Their spokesman stood out and said: “We are Irishmen. It is evident that you must be an Englishman. We will not obey these orders.” Smyth turned to the others and said, “Arrest this man! ” The others refused and said, “If this man is arrested, this room will run red with blood.” This matter caused considerable comment even in England. The subject of conducting an investigation was broached in the House of Commons. The speaker of the House refused to allow the motion for an investigation to be put, on the grounds that it was outside of their sphere and not a matter of very great impor- tance. Smyth himself did not deny the statement that had been made. He simply said that his words had been misinterpreted.1
Another experience that I wish to give you is one that I had in England. It pertains to the affairs in Ireland. On my way on the train from London to Holyhead— Q. Senator Walsh: Do you think it pertains to this inquiry? A. Yes, it does. About the fifteenth of July I met a young man on the train who told me he was an army officer, a first lieutenant, 1 In consequence of this speech, Divisional Commissioner Smyth was later shot and killed “by parties unknown” at the Cork County Club July 18, 1920. about to be sent to take command of his company in Ireland in the County of Roscommon. He told me he had been over there before and was home on a furlough for two weeks. He said, “I wish to God I never had to go over there again.” I said, “Why?” He said, “Because it is the most distasteful work I have ever done.” He looked young. I asked him, “How old are you?” He said, “I am not quite twenty-two yet, and only out of the military school a short time.” I said, “What is the nature of your duties in Ire- land?” He said, “I command a body of about one hundred fifty men in the County of Roscommon. I am to look after that part of the country.” I said, “Are you given full jurisdiction there?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “How, for instance, would you act in the case of a riot or in case your men were going through the country and stones were thrown at them, or you saw people who looked sus- picious?” He said, “I have the right to order my soldiers to fire.” The reason I introduce this is to show that a young man not yet twenty-two years of age has the power of life and death in that part of the country.
In regard also to the law under which the people of Ireland, the British law under which they are living today, I wish to quote a couple of clauses from the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act. This order was promulgated and put in force in Ireland on the twenty-first or twenty-second of August last. “Regulations 2 and 3: Ordained that any Irish subject may be arrested and tried by court martial for an act done at any time in the past, which act was not at the time it was done but which is now an illegal act.” “Regulation 3, Paragraph 6: Ordained that any Irish subject arrested may, on an order made by the competent naval or military authority, be detained in any of His Majesty’s prisons until thence delivered by order of the competent naval or military authority.” “Regulation 14, Paragraph 2: If any person has in his possession any.document relating or purporting to relate to the affairs of any such association (these are proscribed associations) he shall be guilty of an offense against the regulation. Where a person is charged with having in his possession any such document and the document is found on the premises under his occupancy or under his control or on which he has resided, the document shall be pre- sumed to have been in his possession unless the contrary is true.” 1 Commonly known as the Coercion Act. Regulation 16 abolishes the coroners’ inquests. Regulation 4, the fifth paragraph, ordains that any Irish subject can be sentenced to death for political oifenses by these courts martial.
Q. Senator Walsh: For the sake of having it appear in the record, we would like to ask you to say who invited you to testify. A. Mr. William MacDonald, the secretary of this Commission. Q. Have you come here solely at the request of this Com- mission? A. Yes, sir. Q. So that no Irish association has invited you? A. No, sir. Q. The reason for inviting you is that you have recently been to Ireland and know what is happening there? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have spoken to none of the members of this Commission until today? A. No, I have not. Q. So that you have not even communicated with Mr. Mac- Donald? A. No, sir; I have not. The witness was thereupon excused. ********
Chairman Howe: Mr. John F. Martin, of Green Bay, Wisconsin. Q. Now, Mr. Martin, will you please qualify yourself profes- sionally? A. My name is John F. Martin. My residence is Green Bay, Wisconsin, and my profession is an attorney-at-law. Q. Are you an American citizen? A. Born in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Q. Born and always lived in Wisconsin? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have recently been in Ireland? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did you return? A. I sailed from Cove on the twenty-third of September. Q. When did you land in Ireland? A. I was in Ireland seven days. I might say that I went to Europe not specifically to visit Ireland, but as a member of the Commission of the Knights of Columbus to present the statue of La Fayette and incidentally to visit France and to present to King Albert and Cardinal Mercier a medal from the Knights of Colum- bus, and to the latter a check. I went from the duties of that Commission to Malignes and Brussels, and from there over to London. Q. How long have you practiced law? A. About twenty-five years. Q. What offices have you held in Wisconsin? A. I have never held any office in Wisconsin. Q. You have always been a plain practitioner of the law? A. Yes, very plain. Q. What office have you in the Knights of Columbus? A. I am a member of the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus. Q. How long were you in Ireland? A. Seven days. I went into Dublin on the sixteenth of Septem- ber. My observations in Dublin would probably be not worth while. They were similar to those of Mr. Morgan. I wanted to visit Limerick, which was the birthplace of my mother; but I was advised that there was railway trouble. I wished also to visit Tipperary, but was informed that I could do that better by auto than by train. So I arranged to go by auto, accompanied by a British subject, Mr. J. J. Leary, of Saskatoon. Q. You say he was a British subject? Of what nationality? A. He was a Canadian of Irish parentage.
We left our bags in Dublin and went by auto over to Tipperary, and then sought a conveyance to Limerick. We had considerable difficulty in procuring a conveyance to Limerick, but finally, after very diligent search, we got a man who promised to take us over. When he came to the hotel he had a very dilapidated Ford car, with half the hood gone and with one headlight that would not work. Without knowing anything of the experiences to encounter, we went along to Limerick Junction and Oola. We suddenly came across a great stone wall built across the road at Pallas. This stone wall was about six feet high and three or four feet thick, with an opening in the center just wide enough to permit a car to pass through. To the right-hand end of it, it circled around a house built up close to the road. I might say that many houses in that country are built up close to the road. It was about a two-story house with a flat roof. We got within perhaps a hundred feet of this stone wall when we saw six or eight men in uniform back of the wall. Three of them stepped to their rifles, which were resting on the wall, and one to a machine gun. One man was parading on the rather flat roof with a rifle, and all four were trained directly on us. The men behind the wall were aiming at us, and the man with the machine gun as well. They yelled at us, accompanied by the command to halt. I might suggest that less would have stopped us. After they had us thus covered, three men in uniform came out to search us. They did a very thorough job, searched the car, asked some questions, particularly of the driver. They wanted especially to learn where we were going, and if we expected to come back through there that night. They finally let us go with the statement that we must get -back by nine o’clock if we expected to get through there. We decided we would be back before nine o’clock. We went over to Limerick and passed about an hour driving about Limerick. Owing to the nine o’clock restriction at Pallas, we abandoned my intention- of visiting a little town not far from Limerick. On the streets we observed not hundreds but thousands of men in uniform, it seemed to me. As we were driving along, suddenly there sped out in the street in front of our car six, seven, or eight large fellows dressed in black uniforms. One whipped a revolver out of his back pocket and commanded the driver to halt. He did not stop the engine, because it was almost impossible to start the old engine after it was once stopped. They insisted, and the officer in charge of them commanded him to stop the engine. The officer became very abusive, and asked the driver some questions about his permit to drive about in that part of the country. The young man was not the owner of the car, but only the driver. It seemed that his permit was in the name of the owner. The official spokesman said, “Young man, you will go along with us.” This was a little disconcerting to us, in view of the fact that our baggage was at Limerick Junction, twenty-five miles away. I ventured to say something to the officer: “Perhaps you overlooked the fact that I am an American citizen. I am here under a passport”—which I produced and showed to them—“and this young man is under my employ. We hired him this afternoon to take us over here and bring us back to Limerick Junction. This man with me is a Cana- dian citizen. I presume that he has a right to travel here. I am going to object to your right to interfere with my progress. I am due back at Limerick Junction tonight.” He examined my passport and rather insolently tossed it back to me. I said, "I have further proof"— a ticket that I bought at Dublin for Mallow. He looked that over and finally he turned to the driver of the car and said: "On account of these men with you, you may go on this time, but don't let us find you here again or you will not get through." We hastened back to get through Pallas before the curfew hour. Incidentally, the lights did not work, and we had some tire trouble. We got to Pallas a little late, but explained that tire trouble had detained us, and we were allowed to go thraugh without headlights. A little later we observed a lorry coming down the road with great large headlights. Our driver pulled alongside the road. The lorry stopped and searched us, but found nothing objectionable. We were allowed to go on, and got back to our hotel.
The next day we went down to Killarney. We found the largest hotel there — I think it is the Southwestern, the largest hotel there — commandeered by the military and surrounded by a barbed-wire entanglement, around which were soldiers and officers parading. The next morning at ten o'clock we saw in front of that place eighty or ninety soldiers, and saw them march down and make a raid on the Presentation Convent, a place where they manufacture a very special brand of Irish lace, the excuse being that they sus- pected that firearms were there. We went from there to Cork, where we saw a greater number of motor lorries than at any other place. They were driving through the streets at a rapid rate of speed, sending the people helter-skelter, and promiscuously bent on frightening them. They were loaded as has been described to you before. The rear part of the lorry has a body, say, three feet high. In this the men were standing or looking over the top of the body, all with their rifles ready. We were told that night that two men were shot because they had failed to comply with the curfew law, which hour is ten o'clock there. We went to Cove, from which we were going to sail on the twenty-third. We learned down there that the town had been sacked and a reprisal made because of the killing of a soldier at a little town, I think Midleton, about fifteen miles outside of Cove. Hav- ing the conditions described to us by the young lady in the hotel, we walked down the street to make some observations. I personally counted, beginning at the Queen's Hotel and going up the street, within five blocks eighty plate-glass windows broken on both sides of the street. The little round holes in the broken windows looked like bullet holes, but we were informed that they were not; that they were made by what they call trench hammers. The lady who lived up at the end of where this district began said that late at night a band of soldiers came charging up the street. The officer in charge said, "Not a window left from here down to the station," and the work began. Q. Chairman Howe: They were broken by mallets? A. Yes; most of them were small, round holes, apparently like the hole of a stone. They said it was a small, round hammer that struck it. That is all that I think would be of any interest to you. I left there on the afternoon of the twenty-third.
Q. Commissioner Maurer: What did you find among the people, a spirit of terror? A. Yes, I found that. But if I may give the results of my conversations, there was an absolute unanimity of opinion among the people that they were going to stick it out until they got the right to govern themselves. I talked, going out of Dublin on the train, with a man who appeared to be a very distinguished gentle- man, who told about the raid that took place at his home about a week before, while he was away at the races. A dozen or more men, all masked, came about midnight, searched his house for munitions and firearms, and finally found one sporting gun. His daughters were very much aroused and excited. The next day the military came along for the same purpose. I said, "I assumed that when you told about this first raid, you were speaking about the military?" He said, "Oh, no, I was speaking about the Sinn Feiners, and I was damn glad they got there first, for I would rather have them get it than the military. They probably heard the military intended to raid my house for arms, and so they beat them to it." He said, "My name is Kirk. I am not a Catholic. You Americans think that we are not in agreement over here because in some places there have been religious differences. But when it comes to politics we are all Irish, and we believe in the right of Irishmen to govern themselves." At Killarney we stopped at the Glede Hotel. Mr. Graham, a Scotchman, was the proprietor. He said, "We are all of one thought politically, and religion does not enter into it at all."
Q. Senator Walsh: How did you happen to become a witness here? A. I don’t know. I got a telegram from here signed William MacDonald.1 Q. That was all? A. Yes. I am a little curious to know how you knew that I was in Ireland. Q. It was through newspaper reports. You came solely at the Commission’s request? A. I came at Mr. MacDonald’s request; at his request only. Q. Chairman Howe: How much territory did you cover in Ireland? A. I went to Dublin for two days, and then down to Limerick, about one hundred miles, and then down by train to Killarney, and over to Cork, and then down to Cove. : Q. Two or three hundred miles altogether? A. I should think so, about that. Q. These conditions you have described are fairly typical in those towns? A. I think they are much worse in the north of Ireland. By reading the newspapers after I got back I find that we are not getting very much information over here. They are much worse in the north of Ireland.
Q. Do you think the people are forming their own civil processes there? A. Yes. A young man of our party was fortunate enough to get into a Republican court, and he found that the people of Ireland are submitting their questions to their own courts and are perfectly glad to do so. Q. There is a de facto political life there? A. Yes, sir. Q. Commissioner Maurer: Do you know anything about the industrial conditions of Ireland? A. Yes, a little. 1 Dr. William MacDonald, Secretary of the Commission. Senator Walsh: Don't you think that a witness like Mr. Hackett could give us more about that? The Witness: The industrial life was very prosperous until the attacks on the creameries got in vogue, and that, of course, is putting them out of business. The witness was thereupon excused.
Chairman Howe: Reverend James H. Cotter, of Ironton, Ohio. Q. What is your full name? A. Reverend Doctor James H. Cotter. Q. Where are you stationed? A. Saint Laurence Church, Ironton, Ohio. Q. You are the pastor there? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you lived in that town? A. Thirty-one years, over thirty-one years. In addition to being pastor, I would say that I am on the staff of The Columbiad, the Knights of Columbus organ. Q. That is to say that you are a member of the editorial staff of the Knights of Columbus official organ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you been a Catholic priest? A. Thirty-eight years. Q. All of that time your work has been confined to the State of Ohio? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where were you born? A. County Tipperary, Ireland. Q. How old were you when you came to America? A. Fifteen years. Q. Have you recently visited Ireland? A. Yes, sir. I have been there for eight weeks exactly. Q. What months? A. From the twenty-third of July to the twenty-third of Sep- tember. Q. How long since you last visited Ireland? A. Twenty-three years. Q. What was the occasion of your visit to Ireland at this time? A. I went to visit Ireland because I was anxious to see for my- self the conditions there. Q. Not for the purpose of printing in any newspaper? A. Only as a result. I was for six years the editor of the Union and Times, of Buffalo, and I was then for three years editor of the Columbia, of Columbus, Ohio, and then for a while I was on the staff of the Columbiad. Q. So that you were desirous, for personal reasons and also for newspaper purposes, of studying the conditions in Ireland? A. Yes, so that I would know the questions intelligently and could discuss them editorially. Q. Will you relate to us your personal investigations of lawless- ness and military conditions in Ireland? A. When I went to Ireland first I landed in Dublin on the twenty-third of July. I was not long in Ireland before I learned that England’s sole purpose was to tempt the Volunteers1 into the open in order to mercilessly shoot them down. Ireland’s sole pur- pose—it was a surprise to me, knowing that they were an enthusi- astic and political race—was to curb their passions, their indigna- tion, and anger.
The first question that I desired to study was the religious ques- tion, naturally, as a sequence of my own profession. As my mother was a Protestant, I went to see my niece, who was married to an Episcopal rector, Reverend William Stewart, of Keenish Rectory, Enniskillen. That was as far north as I dared to go. Q. How far north is that? A. It is in Fermanagh, one of the nine counties of Ulster. I went to see my niece, who is married to this gentleman, and I was very curious to fathom his mind, since he lived in the north and differed from me in religious principle. I found him very much in sympathy with the Republican movement, and disowning the fact that there was anything like a religious difference in the movement. I in his presence drew the distinction between the Protestants of Ireland and the Orangemen. I held that the Protes- tants of Ireland were good and very sincere men, who served their God through their fellow men; while the Orangemen had only a creed of hatred begotten by the devil. I also went to see some relatives in Ballyeagan. I found the same conditions there. They did not ask what their neighbor’s

1 The Irish Volunteers, the nucleus from which the Irish Republican Army has been formed.
faith was when it was a question of devotion to country and a desire for liberty. And at Ballingarry, where I have some more Protes- tant relatives, I found the same thing is true there. I also met some editors, or rather authors, since I was an author myself. I met Darrell Figgis, a Protestant author in Ireland. He hods a position in the Republican Government of Ireland. I also met Erskine Childers, whose book, "Military Rule in Ireland," I have here and with your permission will place in evidence. Q. Is that recently published? A. It is a revised edition of "Military Rule in Ireland," pub- ihed not long ago. Q. What is the date of publication? A. Mr. MacDonald: Here is the date, 1920. Q. Senator Walsh: Is the author of that a member of the Re- iblican Party? A. He holds a state office in the Republican Government of eland. Q. Do you happen to know his religion? A. Protestant. These are all Protestants. Q. You are now dealing with your experiences with Protestant people in Ireland? A. Yes. As far as I have gone they are all Protestant people in different parts of Ireland, in the north and in the south. Mr. Figgis lives in Dublin. Mrs. Bryce entertained me for an afternoon in her home in Bantry Bay. Mrs. Bryce is the sister-in-law of Ambassador Bryce, who was in this country. She was such a radical Sinn Feiner that I have learned she was once put in jail. She was going to Wales to lecture on the labor question, and while going she was arrested and put in jail for five hours. Then I met Mrs. Waddell, of Achill, in western Ireland. She is one who is heart and head with the Republican movement. Q. She is a Protestant also? A. Yes, Senator, I saw Protestants especially because I wanted to get the other side of the question, to see if there was any truth at all in the assertion that it was a religious question. Q. Chairman Howe: This Mrs. Waddell? A. Mrs. Waddell is a very wealthy lady whose estates are in Russia. She lives in the west of Ireland. Her estates there are in Galway. Then there is Mr. Biggs, a Protestant gentleman of Bantry, who, because he put a notice in the paper sympathizing with the move- ment and deprecating English propagsmda, particularly the brand Americans got, his store, valued at thirty thousand pounds, was burned immediately afterwards—I think it was the next day or the next night, immediately after his declaration in the local paper. Then his magnificent home was commandeered by the military some short time after the burning of his store. Q. Senator Walsh: Was any judicial action taken to determine who burned and destroyed his store and place of business? A. It was generally understood, and although no court was ever held on it, it was understood that it was the work of the military police. Q. What was the date of that destruction, approximately? A. It was previous, Senator, to my going to Ireland. Q. Do you know how long before? A. Something like a week before. Q. Did you see that man himself? A. No, I did not interview him. Q. Just talked with him? A. No, I did not see him, but it was very well known there. It was taken as a maxim that it was the work of the military as a matter of revenge. Q. For his public utterances of sympathy with the Republic? A. For his public utterances of sympathy.
FICIAL” To Ulster I did not go, but I learned that the condition there was laboriously artificial—I mean as an argument against the Re- publican form of government for Ireland. It is a mixture of fanati- cism and the cry, “To hell with the Pope,” in order to keep the laborers in the linen factories of Belfast away from the realization of the hell from which they themselves were suffering. Some of the girls there are working for a miserable pittance in water up to their ankles all day. It is well known that these linen factories are the subjects of great profit. Among the proprietors are Sir Edward Carson and Bonar Law. Regarding what I saw myself— Q. Senator Walsh: Before you take up that, Doctor, did you learn from these people with whom you had interviews as to the sentiment among their neighbors and parishioners, among people of Protestant faith? The Witness: Will you kindly repeat the question? Q. You have told us of the sentiment that these individuals have produced to you. Did they communicate to you the sentiment among their Protestant neighbors and parishioners? A. Yes, they remarked that their neighbors did not know what the faith of their other neighbors was; that they were all for the Republic. They were not interested in the other things. It was an issue which they met on common ground, and did not bother their heads about inquiring as to the religious convictions of the other parties interested. Q. Did you meet any Protestant men or women, or did you hear of any, that are out of sympathy with the Republican movement? A. Not one. As I stated, it is a laboriously artificial condition that they have a great difficulty to preserve in its present artificial state in the north. Q. You indicated that that is due to the efforts on the part of the manufacturing interests to divert their employees' attention from organizing so as to better their conditions? A. Yes. And that was confirmed by a passenger coming over, a Protestant gentleman who was leaving Belfast because of the fanaticism that was guilty of such wild work there. He was leaving Belfast forever and coming to this country. He confirmed the thought that I had got elsewhere. Q. Senator Walsh: Now will you continue?
A. Yes. I want you to know. Senator, very particularly about the murder of Mayor MacCurtain, of Cork, for the reason that a thousand pounds reward — oh, yes, here it is; this affair, the burn- ing of Mr. Biggs's place of business was on July twenty-sixth — a thousand pounds reward was offered in the American papers for the arrest and conviction of the Sinn Feiners that murdered Mayor MacCurtain, of Cork. I was very anxious to know how that ques- tion stood, because of the hypocrisy that cloaked the crime. So I went to Cork and interviewed one of the jurors. I will not mention his name, for the reason that I would be fearful that something might happen to him as a result of the interview. He said: "Dr. Cotter, that street was guarded by the military. The converging street was guarded by the police. And in from the band of police went eight policemen and murdered the mayor of Cork" — Mayor MacCurtain, who preceded immediately Mayor MacSwiney; as afterwards his sister-in-law told me in Brixton Prison in London, murdered him with his babe in his arms. A policeman's button was found on the floor, but never was the circumstance considered at all. The verdict of the jury was that Mayor MacCurtain was murdered by Lloyd George, by Field Marshal French, Lord Lieu- tenant of Ireland; by Ian MacPherson, by Swanzy, the district in- spector of police, and some unknown members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Q. Was that the verdict of the coroner's jury? A. That was the verdict of the coroner's jury. Q. Formed under English law? A. Yes, before they were abolished. They are abolished now. Q. I suppose that the verdicts were so often against the English Government that they thought it wise to abolish them? A. I do not know why, but the fact is that they were abolished. Again I say that I have a hesitancy in mentioning names of per- sons, because I believe it would be productive of disaster to them. Just as you know of men whom you have summoned and who will not get their passport, and who are in jail; like the guard of honor of eight who were sent over to accompany the remains of Mayor MacSwiney and are now in jail; they never came back from Eng- land.
In Cork I was shown by Miss Mary MacSwiney, the sister of the late Lord Mayor, I was shown by her a bullet that flattens as it strikes. It was fired and intended for her, but went wide of the mark. This was a dum-dum bullet. It was not made in Ireland. There, instead of having a munitions factory, if you carry a gun you get two years or anywhere around that.
The curfew is the cloak for night work. In Cork first came down from the barracks armed lorries, armed motor, cars. Q. Senator Walsh: Did you see these yourself? A. Yes. At ten o'clock or a little before ten — ten o'clock was the hour for the curfew, but they used to come a little before — these motor cars filled with soldiers with their guns at the ready and fixed bayonets. They would be accompanied often with tanks and searchlights. Q. And this happened every night? A. Every night. And then the night made hideous with shots and shouts, making you tremble because of the indifference of the parties themselves and the lack of responsibility, as the sequel proves. Q. Where did this procession go? A. Down Patrick Street, the principal street in Cork.
Now, to give you an instance of the way they found a pretense for what they called reprisals. A reprisal is a word that has an English and not a general meaning. It is an elastic term not found in our dictionary, but used by England at the present hour to justify any barbarity that has no connection whatsoever outside of manu- factured reason. Right opposite the Victoria Hotel, on the side- walk, there was a hand grenade thrown—on the sidewalk! The soldiery made this a reason for raiding the Cork Examiner’s office, directly opposite the Victoria Hotel, and a shop called the Black Thorn Shop, where one hundred pounds’ worth of stuff was taken. That night the raid was made, and they made the hand grenade the reason for that action. The hand grenade, however, came on the sidewalk. You have to suppose either one of two things: either that the man who owned the house had thrown a hand grenade from his own house at his own window, or that a man on the sidewalk threw it at his toe. It evidently came from the center of the street because of its marked destination. And yet that was made a reason for raiding the newspaper office and the Black Thorn Shop. I give this as an instance of a manufactured reason for wanton conduct. Q. Do I understand that the claim was made that this hand grenade was thrown from the window of this establishment at a soldier or at an officer? A. It could not have happened. Q. But was that the claim made? A. Yes, that was the claim made. Q. But you are saying why the claim was invented? A. Yes; the claim was that they were justified in the reprisals because the hand grenade was thrown at them. How, nobody could figure out. Q. But this happened while you were there? A. Just the day before I came to Cork they were raiding the Cork Examiner’s office. When Mr. Ryan, who owned the Black Thorn Shop, reported the theft of one hundred pounds’ worth of his property to the general in charge of the troops, he was told that his application was not mannerly. The letter was pasted up in the shop window, and that was the gist of it all.
From Cork I went to Queenstown. It was about the end of July or the first of August. I went to the boat regatta that they have there. In the evening the little boys, as part of the play of the day, had a donkey race. They raced down the street on donkeys. They had to go through a line of soldiers with loaded guns and fixed bayonets. I saw that from the window of the Rob Roy Hotel. Q. Senator Walsh: Did you learn that that was a nightly occur- rence for these soldiers with fixed bayonets to be on the main thoroughfare? A. They are always on the main thoroughfares whenever they can accommodate them. For instance, in Limerick they were having a mass in one of the churches at— Q. Did you see that? A. Yes, I saw it. Senator Walsh: We only want what you saw personally. The Witness: I was on the outside. The crowd came out of the church onto the street. While they were saying mass the soldiers came and stacked arms and fixed bayonets and made sounds to indicate to people that they were there. And then they picked up their arms and passed on. It was really an interruption of a re- ligious service. Q. Senator Walsh: Is there anything else in Queenstown besides the instance you refer to? A. Nothing, except that when they were having their little dance —some little girls had a step dance on the platform after the boat race—the soldiers were massed on the platform right near with their loaded guns and fixed bayonets.
In Limerick five times in succession they raided at two o’clock in the morning the house of a lady and her three daughters. The last time the Black-and-Tans came in there perfectly drunk. They did not know what they were doing. One of them took a bayonet and was ripping up an oak floor. Q. From whom did you get this information? A. From the parties themselves. Q. You visited the house? A. Yes, I visited the house. Q. How soon after these raids had been made? A. About a week following. Q. What was the pretended purpose of these raids? A. The pretended purpose was to search for arms or for persons carrying arms or for those who were on the run—that is, those who, if they were caught, would be put in jail, and so they sleep away from their homes. The curfew was put on in Limerick after two drunken soldiers had been relieved of their revolvers. A whole street called Kerry Row, a street where everybody was exceedingly poor, was raided in reprisal. I went into their houses and saw the results and sympa- thized with them. The windows were all broken and everything smashed. The butts of guns and bullets did not have far to go in order to destroy everything those poor people had. Q. What was the occasion of this destruction? A. The taking of two revolvers from drunken soldiers. Q. This followed that act? A. This followed that act. I mention it to show that there is no comparison between the occurrence of the act and its punishment. This whole street had nothing to do with the couple of boys who took away their revolvers. Besides the houses which were fired there, a beautiful window set in a tower opposite the Dominican Church was destroyed. Q. By what was it struck? A. By the military. Q. By what weapon? A. I would suppose by hand grenades. In Galway I saw what was to be seen. I was in the railroad station after returning from the Islands of Aran. The boat was very late. It was nearly twelve o’clock. Suddenly we heard a sharp report. I was with Father Kelley, of Spiddle, a place near Galway. I said to him, “These are shots.” Three to five shots were then heard. Then a pause and six or eight more shots. Then very quickly a Black-and-Tan went out on the platform that leads to the back door of the railway hotel, and when the people were coming to get the papers off the train at midnight, he used his revolver in any way, shooting in any direction. He shot a young fellow named Mulvoy. I saw him the next day. He was shot directly through the temple. Q. Where was this young boy? A. On the platform getting the papers with the rest. They had brought up the papers giving the news of Mayor MacSwiney’s con- dition. Q. The train comes in at midnight and they were trying to buy the newspapers? A. Yes. Q. Did you see him the next day: A. Yes. Q. Did you talk with him? A. No, he was dead. Senator Walsh: I beg your pardon. I thought he was only wounded. The Witness: A civilian jumped on the back of the Black-and- Tan and tried to^get the revolver out of his hand. He tried to twist his hand so as to shoot the man on his back. While he was trying to do that he wounded a couple of bystanders. Q. That is, after the soldier had shot Mulvoy? A. Yes, someone jumped on the back of the Black-and-Tan, and while he was trying to twist the revolver from him, he wounded two others. Q. So far as you know, Mulvoy was an innocent bystander. He was not connected with politics? He had not been too patriotic in * any way? A. I do not know. So far as I know, no. There virtue is re- garded as a vice. I would say. Senator, in reply to your question, that all young men are patriotic. Q. So that no matter in what direction they shoot, they are apt to shoot a patriot? A. Yes, sir. After he had wounded a couple of men, a civilian shot him. An English officer on the platform said it was the only thing to do with the scoundrel. In every civilized land under the sun, an action like that would be considered the right thing to do. But it begot reprisals. These reprisals had no connection with the deed and were entirely out of proportion to it, even as punishment, and utterly unmerited, because it was a virtuous act to kill the murderer. Q. Now, what were the reprisals? A. The reprisals were about two hours afterward — about two o'clock — Q. I understand that you were present and saw this shooting? A. Yes, sir. Two hours afterwards. Lights were put out at once, because they thought they would come, and so half-way pre- pared for their coming. With the lights out in my room, I peeped out under the blinds and saw what appeared to be about two hun- dred fifty soldiers or police halted at the front door of the hotel. Immediately after the order "Halt!" came the word "Fire!" So they shot there for several hours through the street, terrifying everyone. I left my bed and lay under the window—it was a stone building—to escape a possible bullet. Q. How long did you stay in that position? A. About an hour and a half. Q. I suppose you thought that was the safest place from a stray bullet through the window? A. That is the place that is generally advised in Ireland—under the window. Next day I learned that after shooting up the street, they went to a Mr. Broderick’s house, locked an old woman of sixty-five or seventy years of age—no, not locked, but shut her into a little room in her own house, poured petrol into the parlor and everything near, and set fire to her house. I went to see the ruin the next day. Q. What happened to that fire? Did they burn the house down? A. They did not burn the house down, because some neighbors dared to come out of their houses and extinguish the flames. But the piano was burned, and a trunk that belonged to a woman who had just come from America, who has been fifty years here, and it burned her trunk. From Broderick’s they went to a house where a man named Quirk was lodging. They took him out of bed, did not give him any time to dress, tied him to a lamp post, and shot him nine times below the belt, literally disemboweling him. An inquest was forbidden to be held. I have forgotten to say that they de- stroyed the Galway Express office, smashed all the type, and de- stroyed the linotype. Q. That was a newspaper office? A. Yes, a newspaper office. Q. Did that newspaper have Republican sympathies? A. Republican sympathies? Yes, sir. Q. This all happened in one night after that railroad station affair in the town of Galway? A. Yes, sir. I went the next morning to the Galway Express office. The owner of the paper was picking up pieces of broken type off the floor. They gathered together enough to print a paper on a sheet about the size of that (indicating a sheet of business letter size), and in big block letters on the top of the sheet was “Keep Cool,” which is really the philosophy of the passiveness that Ireland is practicing right now. Mr. O’Day, a solicitor of Galway, for the sake of the good name of the community, inaugurated an informal inquiry into the happenings, and his house was bombed— or, rather, his office was bombed—the following night. And so it goes, and the story is kept from the rest of the world.
Q. Do you know the political sympathies of this last party? A. Yes. Q. What were they? A. Like the sympathies of everyone I met in Ireland, Protestant and Catholic—Republican. Q. Republican? A. Republican. It is the only government. Q. The only civil government? A. Yes, civil government. Q. That is, you found no vestige of British civil authority in Ireland at all? A. Absolutely none, except this meaningless madness that is the work of government. Q. Chairman Howe: You say you met no one in Ireland that is not in sympathy with the Republican form of government? A. None at all. Q. That is literally true? A. Literally true. Q. You mean to say that you never met anyone at all who is not sympathetic with the Republican form of government? A. No, absolutely none at all. Q. You mean to say that you could not find them? A. Yes, I could not find them.
I asked them about their courts. They said that one court gave a regular Solomon’s judgment. Two sons were disputing about a legacy. The judgment of the court was that the eldest should divide the property and the younger take his choice. It was very simple, but it was right.
I was in Dublin when Mr. Jack Lynch was killed in the Exchange Hotel. Q. Do you know the circumstances of that? A. Yes, sir. I was not there to see it, but I know from every mouth. Q. You investigated it? A. Yes. Six to eight police—I do not know the exact number, but it is immaterial—or rather six soldiers came to the. door of the hotel at two o’clock in the morning, asked to see the register, looked for a name, and went to room number six. They left. Nobody heard any sound. And some half hour or so afterwards two policemen came and knocked at the hotel and said to the night clerk: “We are going to guard room number six, where a man lies dying. The military told us to come there.” All the next day they stood guard at that room, and did not even admit the proprietor of the hotel into that room. They supposed the man was dying. He was shot in the throat. Nobody heard the shot, because they blanketed the revolver. The military held the inquest. The coroner was first notified not to perform the functions of his office. Q. Senator Walsh: Do you know what was the pretended reason for attacking Lynch? A. He was an officer in the movement. Q. He was an officer of the Irish Republican movement? A. Yes, he was an officer. Q. Had he committed any outlaw act that you know?
A. None whatever. The purpose of the Volunteer is to incul- cate three virtues in a very practical way: the first, truth; the second, sobriety; and the third, patriotism. There is no officer in the Volunteer army that touches drink. Q. And I suppose that they appreciate that the whole success of their movement, if it can be called successful, is to proceed orderly and without the commission of murder? A. Yes, sir. Q. In other words, there is the highest form of passive resistance that has been ever attempted in the world? A. Yes, sir. To that same barracks from which the police came to take charge of that room where the man was dying, as it was supposed, I went to report to the police, as I was ordered to do on leaving the ship at Liverpool. The man who was at the desk had evidently been imbibing. The lines of the face indicated it. He said to me, “I will give you ten days to get to Darlington. If you do not get there in ten days, report to the police, for they will be looking for you.” I was going there to see a relative. Q. He knew you were going there? A. Yes, I told him I was going to that place.
In Tuam there was a magnificent draper's place, the finest shop in Tuam, a splendid cut-stone building valued at forty thousand pounds; the contents, with the building itself, was destroyed by the police. The wife of the proprietor — Q. Senator Walsh: Did you see it? A. This is what I did not see, but got from others who did see it. Q. How soon after the occurrence happened? A. About two or three weeks. Q. This establishment was destroyed? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who was the owner of it? A. Icannot remember the name — something like Carey. It was the principal building in town. Q. Did you see it? A. Yes, I saw it. Q. And when you arrived there a few weeks later you investi- gated? A. Yes, sir. I heard about it, and then when I got there, went and saw it and investigated. At Tuam the wife of the proprietor escaped from the burning building with her child in her arms, when she was covered by a loaded gun in the hands of a policeman and told to get back there. She escaped over a high wall in the rear to a neighboring premises. As a result of her awful experience, she is insane. Q. Where is she stationed — in what institution? A. I do not know. Q. You did not see her? This is what the neighbors told you? A. This is what the neighbors told. But 1 generally ask people who are intelligent to get the straight of it. Q. Did you learn what had been done to incur such a thing? A. Absolutely nothing. There were two policemen shot a day or two before. Q. Chairfnan Howe: Up to the date of the burning of this man's home, nothing had happened to call forth a reprisal that was known to the general public? A. Nothing at all. Q. Was this man obviously connected with the Republican government or movement in Ireland? A. I do not know. Q. Senator Walsh: Will your testimony take much longer? A. Very short, sir. In that same town a Mr. Casey, who identified himself very prominently in the Republican movement, told me that in a raid on his house his wife was made to walk barefoot over the back yard that was full of glass. They extracted fourteen pieces of glass from her feet. She was confined the week afterwards and bore her first son. Mrs. Annan Bryce, the lady whose name I have already given, held a country dance in her garage, and the next night her garage was burned down. Q. Is this the sister-in-law of Ambassador James Bryce? A. A sister-in-law. Q. Did she tell you this herself? A. Yes, she told me this herself, and wrote a letter giving the details to the papers of Glengariff. Q. Have you a copy of that letter? A. I am not sure. But I can send it to you, whether I have it or not. I saw it upon arriving in Glengariff. Arthur Griffith, the vice-president of the Republic, told me that England was planning a massacre. Before I left Ireland I found that his words were true. I found that G. K. Chesterton, the lead- ing scholar in London, in his magazine, The New Witness, exposes the plot entered into by the House of Commons after their last adjournment prior to the present session. Ireland has been gen- erally devastated. Her railroads have been stopped by Sir Eric Geddes, the brother to the Ambassador here. The way they stop them is to send soldiers with loaded guns to the train; and then the train does not start. The engineers will not start them when they are used for military purposes. The creameries, you have heard about them being destroyed. It is a plot to destroy the economic life of the people. There is no use going over about the boy being shot going to bring his mother to church, and about the Midletown boys who were taken to the Cork jail and were strapped back to back. The officer in charge took it into his head to see if one bullet would kill the two men, and shot them, the bullet going through the back of one and through the shoulder of the other.1 Q. Senator Walsh: Did you investigate this yourself? A. No; I heard of it from responsible people. Senator Walsh: I think we should rather have things that, as a newspaper man, you have investigated for personal reasons rather

1 The Buckley case. See affidavit of Bartholomew Buckley and index.
than general comment about what had happened here and there. The Witness : In England I found that the English were as much deceived about conditions as the Americans. I found that the government dare not tell the people, noble and humane, dare not tell them the truth about Ireland. I would like to ask the Commission to read a little extract from the inscription by the author of a work written forty years ago, by the sister of Admiral Fitzgerald, of the English navy. Senator Walsh: I am afraid we would be getting into a great deal of matter that would be interesting and historic, and yet would not pertain to the immediate inquiry here. I think we had better confine ourselves to just what is going on in Ireland today, what acts of lawlessness are taking place and how much destruc- tion of life and property and loss of blood there is, and how much and to what extent humane treatment has been abolished or done away with.
The Witness: I will state just one more thing. I wanted to know something about the hundred cowardly murders of police. They have no such word as police is with us. They use a dififerent dictionary. I wanted to know about the cowardly murders. I had heard about these cowardly murders through the speeches of Lloyd George. The cowardly murder takes place in this way: The people in certain parts of the country become infuriated. They have no weapons of their own. They attack a police bar- racks, almost with their bare knuckles. That barracks is fortified and well protected to keep anything like violent hands off. In that attack on the barracks the policemen are killed. So too &re the civilians killed. And they attack armed lorries that have their guns at the ready, and there they are killed. But instead of being a cowardly act, the civilians that attack these barracks and these lorries have no arms at all with which to meet their purpose. Then, too, the police are spies. When a camp of military comes to town, they point out to this military marked men, and these men's houses are raided or they are shot. And they are treated as spi6s. The people conceive of a state of war as existing, which leads them to regard the policemen as spies and give them the fate of spies. That is about all.
Q. Senator Walsh: Doctor, you were summoned by this Com- mission and invited to come here and testify? A. I was summoned by Mr. MacDonald. Senator Walsh: I want to have it in the record that you are here on the invitation of this Commission and nobody else. Chairman Howe: Are there any other questions? Q. Commissioner Maurer: The inhabitants of Ireland are not allowed to have in their possessions any firearms? A. They will get two years for having in their possession firearms.1 Q. How about finding firearms in their homes? A. It is the same. The Witness: Thank you, gentlemen, for your courtesy. Chairman Howe: The hearings of the Commission will adjourn until ten o’clock tomorrow morning. Adjourned 5:20 p. m. 1 Under the recent proclamation of martial law in Ireland, the death penalty may be inflicted for possession of arms or ammunition.
Session Two Before the Commission, sitting in the Hotel La Fayette, Wash- ington, D. C, Friday, November 19, 1920. 10:15 a. m.
Chairman Howe: The Commission will please come to order. The hearings will begin by the testimony of Mr. John Derham, of Balbriggan, Ireland. Mr. Derham. Mr. F. P. Walsh : Mr. Derham has asked me to act as his counsel in bringing out his testimony. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: What is your name, please? A. John Derham. Q. Where do you reside? A. Balbriggan, County. Dublin, Province Leinster. Q. How far is Balbriggan situated from the city of Dublin? A. Twenty miles north. Q. What communication is there between Balbriggan and the city of Dublin? A. The Northern Railroad and a main road between Belfast and Dublin.
Q. I wish you would describe to the Commission the sort of town Balbriggan is, industrial or agricultural? A. Industrial. Q. What are the industries? A. Hosiery, Balbriggan hosiery. Q. There are two main factories there? A. Two, yes. Q. What is the size of them? A. The largest factory employs about three hundred or two hundred and fifty in the factory. Q. The smaller one? A. The smaller one, one hundred twenty. Q. One was burned, I believe? A, That was the smaller one. Q. That had one hundred twenty employees? A. In the factory. Q. Were there others in the town that worked for the factory, and in what way was that done? Q. Chairman Howe: What is his official position? A. Town commissioner. Q. Senator Walsh: When were you elected? A. The fifteenth of January. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: I believe you also have a son? A. Yes, he is the chairman of it. Q. He is here? A. No, he is in jail. Q. He was in jail at the time you came? A. Yes, he is in jail at Mountjoy prison. Q. Senator Walsh: For what offence? A. For riding a bicycle at night. Nothing found on him. No charge. He had to go on hunger strike for three weeks to get the charge.
Q. Tell us a little more about the election on the fifteenth. What parties were candidates? Mr. F. P. Walsh: Just describe that. The election was of what date? A. The fifteenth of January. Q. How many parties had candidates? A. Republican, Nationalists or Redmondites, and two Unionists and one representing the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Federation. Q. Any Labor Parly running? A. Two Labor. Q. What was the result of the election? A. The result of the election was that Labor and the Republi- cans, who are the same, five; two Unionists, two Nationalists, and the Soldiers and Sailors, none. Q. Your town commission consists of how many members? A. Nine. Q. Did you perfect your election before your son was arrested? A. Oh, yes, he was not arrested until June. Q. What was your son’s name? A. James. Q. Was it a full and free election, participated in by the men and women of Balbriggan? Yes, all the people of the town. Q. Was there any disturbance? A. Not the slightest. There was a very full vote. Q. How many votes were cast? A. I do not know. Q. How many members of the council were elected? A. Nine. Q. How many of the members elected were sympathizers with the Republican movement? A. Five Republicans. Q. Were any other of the men sympathizers? A. The other four were not. Q. Which party received the highest vote? A. The Nationalists. Q. Which party came in as members of the council through minority representation? That is, there was some one party which got the highest vote, and the others — the minority representation was given to the others. A. The highest vote was got by the Nationalists. The next was got by a Labor and one of the Unionists. Q. And the Republicans last? A. No, my son came next, the Republican. Then one, a Labor man, and another Republican after him. Q. As the council was finally made up, the sympathizers with the Republican movement were five out of nine; but, as a matter of fact, the highest vote was given to other than Republican candidates? A. Yes, you can explain that by the Unionist and Nationalist members. The Nationalist member was a very old member there, for nine or ten years. Q. Then there was not so much of an issue as to sympathies with the Irish Republic as with local conditions? A. The Unionists had a great deal to do with that, because the Unionist candidates were members of the large factory. Q. Was it a victory for the Republicans, then? A. Yes. Q. Your town was a Nationalist stronghold? A. A Nationalist stronghold. But it had not been tested for three years. ' Q. You say that factory that was burned gave employment to one hundred and twenty, and gave out work to "others to do at home. How many? A. Between three and four hundred. Q. How many did the largest factory have that did their work at home? A. Between five and six hundred. Q. The backbone of the town was the hosiery industry? A. Yes, it extended to Skerries and Rush. Q. It went to villages around in the neighborhood? A. Certainly. There were not people enough in our town to do it. Q. Was there any work done in Dublin? A. Yes, the big factory had some work done in Dublin. Q. Was there any other industry? A. Yes, linen. Q. What was the size of that? A. Forty or fifty working on linen ticking, tablecloths, sheets, and the like. Q. Has Balbriggan any other resources? Is it anything of a mountain town? A. No. There is the sea on one side. We are not far from Drogheda. Then there is the national fishing fleet motor boats in Balbriggan. Q. You are the proprietor of a licensed public house? A. Yes, for about thirty years. Q. How long have you lived in Balbriggan? A. For about thirty years. Q. You are a married man? A. Yes. Q. How many in the family? A. Eight. Q. Can you give their names? A. Yes. Mary, James, Elizabeth, Michael, Kathleen, John, Morris, and Louis. Q. Did these children all live at home with you? A. Yes.
Q. What sort of a barracks, if any, is there in Balbriggan? A. A large house, an old house. Q. Was there a police barracks in Balbriggan prior to this time ? A. Always in Balbriggan. Q. How large a one was it? A. The house was fairly large. Q. How many members of the Royal Irish Constabulary ordi- narily were there? A. Ten to thirteen. Q. After the war was there any military establishment close to Balbriggan? A. During the latter end of the war there was an aerodrome built for flying at Gormanstown, three miles further north, a very large one. Q. Subsequently what has that been used for? A. Turned into a training quarters for Black-and-Tans. There is supposed to be fifteen to twenty hundred of them. We cannot tell. They come by rail and motor lorries. Q. When did they begin to use the aerodrome for that purpose? A. I should say about July when they came first. Q. The population of Balbriggan is? A. Twenty-five hundred.
Q. How did you find the population was as to Catholics and non-Catholics? A. Oh, the population is Catholic. We have, I suppose, sixty or seventy Protestants. Q. Are there two churches there? A. There are, the Protestant and the Catholic Church. Q. Who is the pastor of the Protestant Church? A. The Reverend William Jamison. Q. How long has he been there? A. I should say about a year. Q. Has there been harmony or not between the Catholics and Protestants in Balbriggan? A. Harmony. Q. Has there been any differences there between them, caused by any differences in belief on the part of the inhabitants? A. Not the slightest. Q. Do they cooperate and help each other? A. Yes, they always cooperate. If there is anything for the Chapel, they all help. Q. How is that? A. The Catholics are in the best economic position to do so, and they extend help cheerfully.
Q. Upon what night was there violence in Balbriggan? A. The twentieth of September. Q. Was there a Black-and-Tan killed in Balbriggan? A. One killed and another wounded. Q. Were you present at the time? A. I was not present at the time of the shooting. Q. I wish you would proceed and give the details of what oc- curred at your own home and at the Smith public house. There is a public house there kept by a woman named Mrs. Smith? A. Yes, Mrs. Smith has a house known as the New Bar. Q. Please state to the Commission what you learned the follow- ing morning about what occurred in that place. A. No, that night. On the night of the twentieth of September I was in my own bar. My son, John, came in about half nine and told me there was a row in the New Bar with the Black-and-Tans, and that two of them were shot. Q. Did you get any other details at that time? A. Nothing further at that time. Q. Please tell what you finally learned about this occurrence? A. About how it did take place? Q. Yes, how it took place. A. District Inspector Burke of the Royal Irish Constabulary came down to see his brother, a sergeant in the R. I. C. in Bal- briggan. Q. Where did Burke live? A. In the barracks at Balbriggan. Q. That is, the sergeant? A. Yes, the sergeant did. The brother came from Dublin. Q. What had he been before? A. An inspector. Q. He had been promoted? A. Yes, on that day or the day previous. He came down to cele- brate it with a few friends. There were two motor cars or taxis came down from Dublin. Q. Who were in the taxis? A. Black-and-Tans. They stopped at Smith's and were taking some drink there. The bar maid refused to give them more, and they went behind the bar to take it. She then sent for the R. I. C. They came up, looked in at the door, and left when they saw who was inside. Q. Who was inside? A. The Black-and-Tans. Q. At that time, according to your information received there the next morning, was there anyone in there except the Black-and-Tans? A. Not that I heard. Q. There had been civilians in there, but they had left? A. They left when this excitement began about taking the drink. The police looked in and left. It was not a hundred yards from there where the shooting took place. Q. The Black-and-Tans came out? A. Yes, through the Smith door of the street. Q. What became of the taxicabs? A. One taxicab immediately left for Dublin. Q. Did you hear of any other details? A. That was practically all. Q. Was there ever any military investigation? A. No, no other than the military inquest made further about it. Q. I wish you would begin now, Mr. Derham, with your own experiences, what you heard and saw. Q. Senator Walsh: Did you know who shot these Black-and- Tans? A. No, there was just a bit of a row there. They had been drinking and were a bit excited. Q. Was there a row between themselves, or with citizens of Bal- briggan?. Or did citizens waylay them and shoot them outside? A. No, the shooting took place from the inside at some of the Black-and-Tans already gone out. Q. Who shot them? A. Nobody knows. Q. The bar maid was inside? A. She was inside. Q. Has not somebody made an inquiry of her? A. She says she knows nothing about it. She was very excited about these people coming behind the bar. Q. Did any civilians get inside and threaten them with revolvers? A. Not that is known. Q. It could have happened by a skirmish among themselves? A. It could. Q. Or it could have happened by some citizens of the town shooting thfese Black-and-Tans? A. It could. Q. Or it could have happened from inside as these men were going out? A. It could. Q. Who were killed? A. These two brothers. Q. Was there any inquiry? A. There was. Q. Who conducted it? A. The military. Q. What was tbs verdict? A. Shot by persons unknown. Q. Was there any investigation by civil authorities? A. Oh, no. That has been done away with. Q. How long has that been done away with? A. Four or five months. Q. In what condition were these Black-and-Tans? A. They were supposed to have had too much liquor. Q. Does the bar maid claim they were drunk? A. She claims they had too much. Q. How many of them were in there? A. Eight or nine of them. Q. That is the whole story about that episode? A. That is all as far as that is concerned. Q. The bar maid did not know them? A. No. She was not long there in the employ of that place. Q. Do any of those Black-and-Tans claim that civilians shot them? A. They do. Q. They all claim that, I suppose? A. They do. Q. Do they say where these civilians came from? A. There is a back door. Q. Who runs this place? A. Mrs. Smith. Q. Has she any sons? A. No, only daughters. The men folks are dead. Q. Then there are no men working or living on the premises? A. No. Only women. Q. Has she any assistants? A. A couple of bar maids. Q. After the police officers looked into the front door, did thev go away? A. Yes, they wept away. There was no disturbance. Q. Does the bar maid claim that these men took liquor from behind the counter? A. Yes, they did take it. Q. What were they drinking? A. Bass, I suppose—the usual drink over there. Q. But about the Black-and-Tans’ claim that some civilians shot at them from behind the door? A. Yes, that is the excuse. Q. You do not care to state from your inquiries as to what ex- tent these Black-and-Tans were under the influence of liquor? A. They had too much taken. I could not find out just how much. Q. There was a celebration going on there on account of the elevation of this inspector? A. Yes, certainly. Q. Were any of these Black-and-Tans from Dublin? A. Yes, they were all from Dublin except the brother. Q. They got the brother who was a sergeant? A. They got the brother of the inspector, who was a sergeant, from the barracks, and went up to the house for refreshments. Q. How long were they in there? A. About an hour. Q. Had they taken drink before they came in there? A. I do not think so. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: What was the circumstance of the other taxicab? A. Immediately after the shooting one of them disappeared. Q. Did any Black-and-Tans get into the taxicab? A. I could not find out about that. It is supposed they did. Q. What became of the wounded men? A. He that died was taken out, and the wounded man was brought to the police barracks. Q. You may proceed and recount the instances that occurred after that. A. My own? Q. Yes, your own. A. I need not tell about what my son said. Q. Mr. Walsh: No, you told about that. Did anything else take place in your own bar? A. No, I immediately ordered the porter to put up the shutters. I asked the men on the premises to leave, that I was going to shut the shop. So they drank up and left. I had the shop shut at quar- ter to ten or twenty minutes of. I then went inside to the sitting room with my family. We remained there until half after ten. Then my son, Mike, came in. Q. How old is Mike? A. Just twenty. At half past ten he came in and went to bed. Q. I think it might be well to describe the location of the rooms in your house. How many rooms and where is the bar there located with reference to the living part of the house? A. The bar, of course, is on the ground floor. The bar is on Clanard Street on the Square. Q. How large a room is the bar room? A. About thirty-six feet in length and about fifteen across. Q. Describe your house there. A. At the back of the bar is the two sitting rooms, and the kitchen at the back. Q. Senator Walsh: Are those for private use? A. One of them is for the family, for private use, and the other is for the bar. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: That is all that is on the first floor? A. Yes. Q. Now describe the upstairs. A. There are seven rooms upstairs, six bedrooms and another one. Q. Of what material is your house built? A. Of stone. Q. Two stories? A. Yes, two stories.
Q. You were saying that Mike came in and went to bed? A. Yes. And the rest of the family and my wife went to bed at eleven. I retired about quarter past eleven. When I got into my bedroom I saw and heard the motor lorries, four of them, come in full of Black-and-Tans. I remained then to see what they were going to do. Q. You could look out on the street from your bedroom window? A. Yes, the barracks is about fifty yards from my place, and I knew that they were going to stop there. After they stopped I saw from ten to twelve Black-and-Tans proceed down Drogheda Street. I waited then to see what was going to happen with these Black-and- Tans for some ten minutes or so. It might have been half past eleven. The first I heard was glass breaking up the street. I told my wife, "There is going to be a raid on," because I heard the glass. Then I heard some shouting and more glass. I went inside and called the daughters and told them to go into the back room, not to light any lights, and bring their clothes with them. I then went back into the boys' room and called my three sons and told them to get up and dress and use no light. My wife did the same. They remained in the back room in the dark, for I thought there would be shooting. You could hear them screeching and roaring, and their voices got worse, and I heard some shots. Q. Senator Walsh: The voices of the people in the village? A. No, the Black-and-Tans. Q. What were they saying? -
A. We could not tell you that. They were yelling down the street. What, I could not tell. I remained in the room for three minutes or so. We heard the yells coming closer to our place. They started in breaking in the shutters and windows. Q. What, your house? A. Yes. The yelling was something fearful. It took them three or four minutes to break into the front. Then they started breaking up the shop and the two rooms below stairs. Then the excitement was so bad in the room that I got a candle. Q. The excitement among your own family? A. Yes, my wife and one of the daughters. I heard them com- ing upstairs then and break open the parlor door. Immediately I heard, "Hands up or I will shoot." So I put my head out through the door and said, "Come this way, for" I have nothing." Q. Senator Walsh: As a matter of fact, were there any fire- arms or weapons in your house? A. Not a thing. Not a thing. He then said, "Gome out or I will shoot," so I looked out, and he put the rifle up to his shoulder. I ducked back and told him to come this way, for I have nothing. Q. In whiat position did he put the rifle? A. Like this (indicating raised position ready to fire). Q. Mri F, P. Walsh: To your body? A. Like this (again' indicating position ready to fire). ^I said, "Come this way for I have nothing." Then ten or twelve of them advanced up to the front room. I said, "Spare the children/' And he said, "This is the man. Take him." And my wife said, "Where he goes, I go," and she caught me. Then I was taken around to look at the family, and I got a blow in the jaw from a man's fist — I did not see the man — and pushed down the passageway. They stopped there for about a minute, perhaps, until more Black-and- Tans came up the stairs. I was then taken downstairs. There was none of our family fully dressed. The wife had no stockings on; the children had no hats or boots — shoes; I had no hat myself or shoes. I was taken downstairs and was going through the hall door when the policeman turned to me and said: "No, you are going out the way we came in," and he brought me out through the shop. When going that way I saw that the two rooms were packed with Black-and-Tans breaking in there.
Q. About how many would you say there were down there? A. There were at least seventy on the premises before I got through. Seventy at least. Q. Commissioner Maurer: Were they drinking any of your liquor? A. I do not think so. But they took a bird I had there, a finch, took it out of the cage and on. Q. Senator Walsh: What was the condition of your bar room when you got downstairs? A. Everything was completely smashed. The glass was about a foot high back of the bar. Q. Commissioner Maurer: Did they destroy any of your liquors? A. They did. Q. Senator Walsh: Did they destroy all of your stock? A. There was much left. Q. Did they destroy the shop? A. Yes, counter and shades and so forth were smashed. Q. Did they take anything? A. They did not take what they could have. Some dozen or so of Three Star brandy they left, and some other liquors.
Q. Senator Walsh: I suppose you did not have time to investi- gate? A. No, sir. I was taken to the shop door. Immediately I got to the shop door I was caught by the neck and pulled into the path. I then got the blow of a rifle in the side of the head. I was taken across the street and struck four times and asked, “Where is your bloody son?” A voice said, “Take him to the Green.” Q. What is the Green? A. The Fair Green. I thought he meant to take me there for shooting purposes. That is what I thought at that time. Going across the street I was stopped then and searched by a Black-and- Tan. He did not take anything from me. He made me put my hands over my head, high up, for about a minute. He then said, “Sit down.” I was going over to a door step to sit down. He said, “Come back here and sit down on the curb, you dog.” I sat down on the curb stone and there were seven rifles pointed at me. I re- mained there for about five minutes more. A man then asked me my name, and I told him. I then shifted my position a minute, and he said, “Sit down there, you dog.” Q. Senator Walsh: All of this time there were seven rifles pointed at you? A. Yes, all that time there was seven rifles pointed at me. I was being led to the barracks when a big man pointed a re- volver at my ear and said, “I will blow your bloody brains out.” Q. Did he put it to your ear? A. Yes, right at the side of my ear. Q. All this time did you make any protest? A. No; I never spoke. Q. Never spoke? A. Never spoke. He told me to get in on the path. I was on the road. And immediately I was struck on the shoulder and tum- bled down with the butt of a rifle. I got to the barracks then. It was about thirty yards away where all this was happening. He said, “Put this man in the day room.” The man guarding the door said, “He cannot go in there. There is a man dying in there.” I was told to stop on the porch of the barracks and remained there for about five minutes or eight or something like that. The man then said, “Take this man to the hotel.” So I was brought to the hotel. Lawless—the second son of Mr. Lawless—was there with a child three years old with bronchitis; and another little child about four.
Q. Were these Lawless children driven out of their home? A. Yes, they were driven out with their father. He was in his bare feet, and the children were in their night clothes. Q. What sort of weather was it? A. The weather was very cold. It was frosty, too. The grass was wet. There was no rain, though. I got into the hotel. When I got there, I got the remainder of my family with me, with the exception of Mike. I stopped there until half past six in the morning.
Q. Senator Walsh: During the night what could you see from the hotel as to what was going on? A. I could see the glare of the fires. I could see that two houses were gone altogether. Q. Could you see your own house from there? A. I could. Then there was yelling and burning and shooting all the night. Q. At any time during the night did you ascertain that anyone had been killed? A. Not until half past six in the morning. The Black-and-Tans were stopping and yelling outside the hotel all the time. There was nearly a collapse in my family whenever they stopped.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: You might detail at this time what you saw and heard about Mr. Lawless and Mr. Gibbons. A. About half past six I came out of the hotel. Q. Senator Walsh: WaS the hotel turned into police barracks? A. I thought so all night, but I came out at half past six. Q. How did you happen to come out at half past six? A. There was no police with me. I saw civilians walking around outside. I got down to the barracks and was told that Lawless and Gibbons were shot, and were down in the lane about six yards off the road. I saw the black objects of their bodies, but did not feel able to go down and look at it myself. Q. Were there people around the bodies? A. Yes, they were around there looking at them. Q. What was your information about where they were killed and how the bodies got there? A. They were killed around the corner in Quay Street. Q. Where were the bodies lying? A. On the roadside, by two pools of blood. Q. What was your information about how the bodies got there? A. The neighbors carried them down to the gate in the lane, about five or six yards down. The neighbors found their bodies on the roadway and removed them from the sight of the public. Q. Who was Mr. Lawless? A. He was the local barber. Q. What was his name? A. James. Q. Who was*Mr. Gibbons? A. He was a dairy proprietor, living with his mother. His name was John. Q. How old was Mr. Gibbons? A. About thirty-five. Q. Was he a married man? A. No, he lived with his mother and three sisters. Q. Was he a law-abiding man? A. Yes, indeed. Q. How old was Mr. Lawless? A. About forty. Q. Had he any family? A. Yes, seven children. Q. Had he a wife living? A. Yes, she is living. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Now, I wish you would detail the circum- stances as they were given to you the next morning about the death of these men. A. Lawless was first taken. His was the first house attacked. He was brought into the barracks at the time I was brought down. Q. Did you see him there? A. I did not. But his sons said they heard their father’s voice inside. The local doctor was then in the day room. He was badly bruised and beaten about the head. Q. Where was Mr. Lawless’s son? A. He was on the porch of the barracks, where I was. Q. Did he have anyone with him? A. He had his little sister about four years old. Q. The sick child? A. Yes. Q. Had he been brought there with his father? A. No, he came there after his father was taken. Q. He was in the hotel with you? A. Yes, he brought the child to the hotel. Q. You were telling about the death of Mr. Lawless. A. About half past one two Black-and-Tans came into the bar- racks and asked Lawless to tell them who shot Inspector Burke. He said he did not know, and the Black-and-Tans said, “Tell the truth or you will be shot at half two,” looking at their wrist watches. Q. He looked at his wrist watch? A. Yes, and said right out, “You will be shot at half two.” He was then taken outside the barracks, and there was some shots fired. It was presumed to be at Lawless, but not to hit him—to frighten him. And he was brought in again. Gibbons, John Gibbons, was brought into the barracks just as Lawless went back to the barracks, and after half an hour or so there, they came in, the same two Black-and-Tans, and asked Gibbons to tell who shot Burke. He said he did not know. They said, “You will have to tell the truth.” He said, “I am telling the truth.” They asked him to tell what he had to do with the Sinn Fein Volunteers. He said he was secretary for the local Volunteers. The two of them were then brought out, one after the other, again, and were asked the same questions, and the same procedure went on. That is, there were shots fired, and they were brought in again to the barracks. They remained there until about quarter to five in the morning, when they were taken out and brought around to Quay Street, about ten yards from the barracks, and were bayoneted to death. Q. Senator Walsh: They were stabbed to death with bayonets? A. Yes, with bayonets. Q. No shots were fired into them at any time? A. No, not according to the doctor’s report. Q. How many times were the bodies pierced? A. There were three in Gibbons’s neck and several across the body. The other man had bayonet wounds nine inches long in each of his thighs.
Q. Did you find all of your family in the hotel, Mr. Derham? A. No. After passing where Lawless and Gibbons was, I went further. I saw nothing was standing there. Q. Commissioner Maurer: Your own home? A. Yes, sir. The walls were all tumbled down. Not the mak- ings of a match was left. Q. Senator Walsh: Burned all your property? A. The whole lot. Q. Clothing? A. Yes; we were not dressed. Q. Everything you had in the house was burned? A. Yes, everything we had. I was told then by the people that Mike was all right, that he was up in a neighbor’s cottage, Murphy’s, about a mile out of town; that he was badly beat about the head. I was afraid, because so many were telling me he was up there, that the police would hear about it and beat me up there, and so I went up immediately. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: What was his condition? A. He was badly cut about the forehead; his lip was stitched here (indicating front of lip), and his jaw was bruised badly, and several bad wounds about his head. His arms were so stiff he could hardly shake hands with me. Q. He was lying on the bed? A. Yes. Q. Dressed? A. Partially dressed—trousers and coat and stockings. I asked him to tell me how he got out of the house. He told me he didn’t know; he remembered calling for his mother two or three times, and didn’t know anything more. Finally he was found lying in the field and brought to this house. Q. What is your information about what happened to him? The Witness: After he left the house and went into the next garden? Senator Walsh: No, before he left the house? The Witness: What he told me himself? Senator Walsh: Yes. The Witness: When we left the room one of the Black-and-Tans said: “There is the young lad; take him.” And they went to choke his brother, John. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: How old is John? A. Just fifteen. And Mike said, “It is not him, it is me who is wanted.” And they immediately left John go and went for him. Q. How old is Mike? A. Just twenty. So they immediately went for him and were beating him about the face and body. They had him on the bed. He asked them to shoot him and end it, and they said shooting was too good for him. He then turned his face on the bed to save his face, and he was then struck on the back of the head, and they left him unconscious. They left him there on account of the fire. Q. ^llTiere was he — in the burning house? A. That was where he was. Q. Did he know how he got out of the house? A. No, he said. He got out and called for his mother three times. He got to the top of the garden and got "Halt," but instead of halting he ran and jumped into the neighbor's — Burke's garden. There is a river at the back of our place that supplies the denim mill with water — about knee deep or so. Mike made it over there. They went up the river and Mike went down the river. Q. Who went up the rivet? A. Burke. Burke and his two sisters went up the river, and Mike went down the river. Q. Where was Mike after that? A. He was seen down on Quay Street- and Mill Street. Q. What was his apparent condition? A. They did not know. He gave a knock at a door as he was passing through the town. Q. Apparently seeking shelter? A. Knocking at the street door at any rate. Q. Where was he found? A. Lying in a field of oats by a man named Costello. Q. Where was he then taken? A. He was taken to Murphy's cottage with no clothes on him. I then came back from there and got a motor car and sent him to Drogheda, both to be attended to and to be out of the way; and I have not seen him since. Q. Senator Walsh: Is he all right now? Have you got word from him since? A. No, but he is all right. He cannot communicate.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: I wish you would describe the condition of your own house. A. It was burned to the ground, and not a vestige left. Not a vestige left. Everything burned down. My neighbor's house, Con- nolly's, on the opposite corner, was the same way. Nothing but bricks and stones. Clanard Street, seventeen houses burned in that street, nine in one row. Q. Were those dwelling houses? A. Dwelling houses. Three of them were two-story houses — shops^and another was a Mrs. Cochran's dairy. When the Black- and-Tans came in there Mrs. Cochran ran out into the yard and left two of her little boys behind. One of them was about twelve and the other ten. They made them get up and dress themselves and brought them through the house upstairs where they were break- ing up the furniture. Whenever they would see a religious picture, they would make the children look at it, and put their bayonet through it. Q. Senator Walsh: They would have the children put the bayonet throu^ it? A. Oh, no; they would do it; but they would make the children look at it to see what they were doing. Q. Mr. Wood^: That means the Black-and-Tans? A. Yes, the Black-and-Tans. They brought them down the street toward our place to see Derham's fire. ' Q. Senator Walsh: Did they say that to them? A. Yes, they took the children by the hand, and told them they were bringing them down to see Derham's fire. Q. That is to say, your house afire? A. Yes, to see my house afire. They brought them back, then, into their own yard, and told them to sit down at a hay rick to warm themselves. They threw a tin of petrol over the rick and set it afire. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Where did they get the petrol? A. When they came into the town, they went that night at quar- ter past eleven to a man named Martin Connolly, asking him for the keys of his garage; got them; went down and took out thirty tins of petrol; locked up the garage; and returned the keys to him, and told him his house would be all right. Q. How many residences were there burned? A. Twenty-five of them altogether. Q. Senator Walsh: Just a moment. He did not finish about the hay rick. A. They then set fire to the hay rick, and then set fire to the Cochran house. Q. Was that house completely destroyed? A. Completely, except the back of the kitchen. Q. Were there other houses completely destroyed? A. Totally destroyed. Twenty-five houses in the town were totally destroyed. Q. They were all dwelling houses and all occupied? 1 Mr. L. Hollingsworth Wood was present at the First Hearings by invi- tation of the Commission, and was elected to and accepted membership on the Commission prior to the Second Hearings. A. Yes, all occupied. In Clanard Street there were nine single houses and all destroyed — not a vestige left. Q. Were these houses largely owned by people who worked in the mills? A. Yes, they were occupied by the mill people and fishing people and laborers. Q. Were there any business places destroyed other than the fac- tory you have mentioned? A. Yes. Costello and myself and two others; four publicans and two groceries; six business houses altogether.
Q. Senator Walsh : About the mill. Where was the mill located with reference to these houses? The Witness: The factory? Senator Walsh: Yes, the factory. A.' The factory would be about five hundred yards from the nearest burned dwelling. Q. Was it detached from the rest of the town? A. Yes, detached. There is a railroad embankment passing through our town about ten to fifteen feet high, and it is on the sea side of the embankment that this factory is situated. You cannot see it from the town. Q. That factory was burned this night? A. It was burned the next morning. Q. Was it totally destroyed? A. Totally destroyed; one hundred thousand pounds loss. It is owned in London. The manager is an Englishman. There is nothing in a political line there. Only to leave destitution in the place. Q. It threw them out of work? A. Yes, one hundred twenty people in the factory and three hun- dred more working in their homes. Q. Senator Walsh: You say these people worked in their homes? A. In taking, the stockings in their homes and doing embroidery on them. Q. So on your estimate it threw four hundred twenty people out of employment? A. Yes, out of employment. Q. That was their sole means of livelihood? A. Yes, their sole means. Q. Were there any other houses in Balbriggan for these people whose homes were burned? A. No, there were no other places for them. I myself have two of my girls in lodgings. Q. Hired a lodging for them? A.. Yes. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Describe how your own family is dis- tributed? A. Two of them are in lodgings with a friend in Balbriggan, and one of the boys is with a friend because he is going to school there. Mike is in Drogheda, and the rest of them are in Rush, nine miles away. Q. Where did you stop? A. I stopped in Rush with my wife. We could not get a place in the town for them. Q. How are these laborers maintained? A. There was a public subscription for them in the town.^ Q. As a rule, none of them had savings? A. Oh, there were no savings, no.
Q. What became of the people of the town? A. That was a night of terror. Over two-thirds of the people were in the country all that night. - " Q. Where did they sleep? A. In the fields. They slept anywhere, some of them in ditches filled with barbed wire all night. Q. They left things behind them? A. Yes, everything. Some of them went out only with their night dresses and bare feet. Q. Men, women, and children? A. Yes, everybody. They had to. Q. Many children in the town, I suppose? A. Many of them. Q. Was there any other damage done? A. In that Clanard Street I spoke of, they broke the windows of fifty houses in that street, along with burning seventeen houses. Q. Did that state of terror continue for some time after that? A. I think it was Sunday before they settled down. Q. And this occurred on Monday night? A. On Monday night. Q. For the balance of the week, where did the people go? A. They spent the night in the country. They did not wait until night to go. When four o’clock or evening came, you would see them going away to the country, stopping in the farmers’ stables or barns or hay lofts or anything they could get, or in the ditches. Two-thirds of the people left the town during the week. Q. Afraid to stay over night? A. Yes, because they had it all day. They had these Crossley engines running through the town full of Black-and-Tans sitting with their rifles at the ready all the time. If they saw a crowd at the corner, they would bring up their rifles and fire shots. Q. Were they firing shots all the time? A. They were. On the Wednesday after that they fired in through the grocer’s window and took half his collar away, just like that (indicating coat lapel). At the same time they threw a Mills bomb in the butcher shop on the side street, and a piece went through an apple in a young lad’s pocket. The next grocery shop they fired and destroyed the scales. And another place they fired into a crowd of young ladies. Q. Going along the road, what is the situation? A. They go along the road with these big lorries of three to five tons at a dangerous speed. Q. Do they fire along the road? A. Oh, constantly, at the animals. Take Mr. McCullough; the old gentleman was there with his sons, and they fired on them. Another place they cut the tails off of four pullets, and one of them after died.
Q. Did they do any other damage? A. Yes, they raped and looted. Q. What did they do? A. In the house next to me there was a public house, and they took the bottles away. Q. Did they do any drinking? A. No, not at this place. The place opposite me, at Connolly’s, was where they drank. Q. What was the situation at Connolly’s? A. Connolly had two large glass windows, and they broke these with the butts of their rifles. The place was well lighted up by the fire from my house opposite, and they drank to their fill before the place was destroyed. Two grocery stores they looted and raped; threw the tea and sugar and soap and candles and everything on the floor about three feet high; tramped over it; and pulled things out in the passage to destroy what they did not set fire to. Q. Did you see the stuff there the next day? A. I did. Q. Took it. out and tramped it in the dirt? A. They did? I saw it myself. Q. Were there any other business houses destroyed? A. Of course, there were four public houses completely de- stroyed. All the things in them were completely destroyed. Q. Commissioner Addams: Was there any way to get repaia- tion from the British Government? A. They are working for that. They are trying to do it. Q. Chairman Howe: Is it a civil process? A. They are going to the civil courts first, and they do not know what they will do afterward. Q. These business men are trying to do this? A. Yes, they are trying to do that. Q. Does the British Government acknowledge that as a claim? A. No, they do not acknowledge that. We are trying to test them first. Q. Has there been any inquiry held in Balbriggan by the au- thorities? A. No, not that I know of. I never had an invitation to any inquiry. Q. Did the British Labor Party send a mission to Balbriggan as it did to Thurles? A. No, but the International Women’s League did.1 That came from Manchester. Q. Commissioner Addams: Can you tell us about that? A. Yes. I met them when they came. I was on the same train. As a matter of fact, the leader handed me a letter with my name on it, asking me where Mr. Derham was. Q. Did they seem to be making a fair-minded investigation? A. They did. They seemed to be all right. Q. Mr. Wood: Did they question the people any? 1 The witness refers to the British Branch of the Women’s Interna- tional League, which sent an investigating mission to Ireland, two mem- bers of which, Mrs. Annot Erskine Robinson and Miss Ellen C. Wilkin- son, testified before the Commission. See index and list of witnesses. A. They did. They questioned the people who had gone through the fife and slept out in the fields. Q. Did they question the police? A. I do not know. Q. How long a time did they spend there? A. From half twelve to five. They went on the same train back to Dublin that I was going back. Q. Half twelve means half -past eleven or half -past twelve? A. Half-past twelve. Q. Chairman Howe: Were there any dairies in the neighbor- hood destroyed? A. No; we do not have any dairies. The only thing we had was factories. That was all they could destroy. Q. Commissioner Maurer: These textile workers, do they be- long to a union? A. They do. They are all union. Q. Do you have any other unions in the city? A. The only other union we have is the Irish Transport Workers. Q. These fishermen, do they dispose of their own catch or work for some fishing concern? A. They dispose of their own catch. That is a thing that the Republican government is trying to bring in^cooperation — so that we can all do our own business. Q. These unions, as unions, are they in any way harassed by the Black-and-Tans and the military? A. No, not as unions. That would be too large a job.
Q. Chairman Howe: Is the press in Balbriggan free to say what it pleases? A. There is no local press. There is the Freeman, but the editor is to be up before the Government this week or next week for condemning the actions of the Black-and-Tans in the country. Q. He is under arrest? Yes, he is to be called up for trial. Where? Dublin. Before the regular criminal courts? I could not say as to that. There is an indictment against him? Yes, for condemning the Black-and-Tans. Q. Do they permit public meetings in Balbriggan? A. No public meetings are allowed. Q. No gatherings in the streets? A. None in the streets. Q. Or in the halls? A. You can go to the hall if they know what the meeting is about, but you cannot hold any political meeting. Q. Where do the Republicans hold their political meetings? A. Oh, different places. Q. But they do hold them? A. Yes, they do hold them. Q. Commissioner Maurer: They are not generally advertised? A. Oh, no. Oh, no.
Q. Chairman Howe: What has been the eflFect of this on the business of Balbriggan, especially from the country districts? A. The country districts are bad. It is hard on them. You do not have any country people in the afternoon. They will come in only when they have to. They cannot travel on the roads to Dublin or Drogheda, for they are afraid of the shooting. Q. Where do the people get their food from? A. It has to come in on the trains or from around the town. Q. The people do not come into the town like they did? A. No. We are in a sense isolated. It is not safe to be com- ing in. You do not know what you are going to meet. Q. Does the local town council meet regularly in Balbriggan? A. It did not for awhile. It took five to form a quorum. When my son was away, we could not get a quorum, because the Union- ists did not attend. Q. You had no local government, then? A. Not until he came out. Since then we have had two or three meetings. He would go to Balbriggan to attend them and then leave. Q. So your local government is not functioning now? A. Oh, well, its duties are not much. You see the state of terrorism there, and people are so frightened. My son was not out until the fifteenth of October. That was more than a month afterwards. He went down to Balbriggan on Saturday, to attend a council meeting. On Saturday evening, when he was seen about, they got a report that there would be a raid on to get Derham by night. Half the town slept in the fields that night in fear of what might happen. Q. Chairman Howe: Is your son on the run? A. The two of them are on the run. He goes in the daytime. They are not afraid in the daytime. It is the night time they are afraid of. It is terrorism. You do not want to be with friends, for you are liable to get the whole place broken up for them. And if you stay in your own home, it is sure to be broken up.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Have there been any deaths since? A. Five of them, soon after that: three elderly persons and two children. The fright and exposure was largely to blame for it. And it isn’t over yet. There were handbills saying, “Send in- formation to D. W. Ross, London.” That is the way they get all their information. They came around three weeks after the burn- ing and pasted one on every door in town, and at some doors they knocked. There was an old woman sixty-five or sixty-eight years of age, and she died from the fright. Q. Commissioner Maurer: What were these bills? A. Handbills telling us to send any information we knew about Sinn Fein to D. W. Ross, London, and you would get the money afterwards. Q. Who is D. W. Ross? Does anybody know? A. That is unknown. It is somebody in London. You send in the information, and you would get a reward afterwards. Q. Commissioner Addams: In these raids, did they just take particular parties, or did they take the whole street, or select those who are Republicans and Sinn Fein? A. They did not take everybody. They picked them out like they did me. Q. Any big business property molested besides the big mill? A. No, that was all, the big mill.
Now, you might want to know about burials. When the funerals of Lawless and Gibbons were about to be held, we were going to have the tricolor on the coffins. Q. Chairman Howe: What is the tricolor? A. The colors of the Irish Republic. When the funerals were to be held, we wanted to have the Volunteers there and march. But about twelve o’clock that day, or eleven, the word came through some of the clergy that if this thing was to go on, if there was any tricolor out or any military formation, the Black-and- Tans would come on that night and wipe the town out. There was a long discussion. Some of them wanted to do it anyway. But it was finally decided that for the sake of the town we would have to cut it out. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Is there any limitation of the number of persons who are allowed to attend people’s funerals? A. At the present time there is a limitation, as in the case of the late Lord Mayor of Cork, Terrence MacSwiney. It was limited to a quarter of a mile long. There would have been four or five miles of it. And then you are accompanied by these motor lorries.
Q. I believe you had some information about the murder of a man at Sherries? A. At Skerries. Q. Wliat is the situation of this town? A. Four miles from us. Q. What are the circumstances of the death of Mr. Sherlock? A. Penstraw is that man’s name. He was supposed to be around with the Black-and-Tans at the night of the sacking of Balbriggan, showing them where the Sinns were. So he left the town the day after, and he was in Skerries. The report was that the Skerries Volunteers put him out of Skerries. That was the report. That was about three or four days afterwards. About a month after that, there was a body got about eight miles away in a ditch. It turned out to be Penstraw. He was not buried right. There was heavy rains on. There was some young lads in the ditch getting blackberries, and they found the body. Q. Was there a man named Sherlock in that place? A. Well, then, he was identified. The police were very active, and he was identified as Penstraw. Q. Was there a man named Sherlock killed there? A. Yes. Well, that night they went up to Skerries in motor lorries. Q. How many? A. I do not know how many lorries went up, but there was a hundred or so Black-and-Tans. They stopped out on the Balbriggan side of the town and walked so that they would make no noise. They went to a namesake of mine, Derham, and knocked on his door, and he lei iheni in, and stood in another door as they passed by and went upstairs in the house. And then they went out again. Derham immediately went out, when they broke in the door to look for him. So he escaped. They then went to a young man named Terrol and kept him on his knees for two hours, and then went for Sherlock. The father answered the door. They asked for his son John — John Sherlock. The father said, "He is not in." He said, "It is all right, father. They will not do me any harm." They brought him away about three hundred yards in a field, and when his father and sister found him that morning, about seven o'clock, there were three bullet wounds in his breast and four in his head. But Terrol was all right. They did not shoot him. The next night they came again and set fire to Derham's house and burned it all up. Q. Commissioner Addams: This first man, he was an informer? A. Yes, he was said to be an informer, going around with the Black-and-Tans. Q. Was there any reason for the Black-and-Tans believing that these men were implicated in this crime? A. The only reason was that the body was found about eight miles away from Skerries. Q. There was no other reason? A. No. Q. It was only an excuse? A. Yes, all they wanted was an excuse. That was all they wanted. Q. Mr. Wood: But was this body identified as that of the man? A. Yes, I believe an uncle and an aunt identified it. Q. But the body had been dead a long time? A. Yes, it was. He was missing for about a month. I don't know how long the body was there. But they could identify it by some of the things on the body. Q. Chairman Howe: Have you any further statement you want to make? Senator Walsh : I think that covers it, Mr. Derham. Q. Mr. Wood: The Smith public house was also destroyed? A. Oh, no; nothing done there. Not a pane of glass broken. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Was that Smith place a place to which the Black-and-Tans resorted a great deal? A. They did. Q. None of them ever came to your place? A. They did not. None of them came there. Perhaps two or three times altogether. Q. Commissioner Maurer: How do you explain that? They left the Smith house and destroyed the others. A. That is the mystery. If that had happened in my house, 1 would not be here. There was not a pane of glass broken in the Smith house. Chairman Howe: That is all. Thank you very much. The witness was thereupon excused. * * * * * * * *
Chairman Howe: Is Mrs. King here? (The witness takes the stand.) Mrs. King, of Ironton. Q. Please state, Mrs. King, your full name and residence. A. Agnes B. King, of Ironton, Ohio. Q. How long have you lived in Ironton? A. Six years. Q. And in the United States? A. All my life. Q. You were born here? A. Yes. Q. Are you married? A. I am a widow with three children. Q. Are you a professional woman? A. I cannot be said to be that, no. I have taught school formerly in the Cleveland public schools. That is all. Q. You have been recently in Ireland? A. Yes, for about eight weeks, and one week in London. Q. When did you enter Ireland? A. I entered Ireland on the twenty-second of July. Q. When did you leave? A. The twenty-third of September, 1920. Q. What led you to Ireland? A. I went over at first for my health. I did not intend to visit Ireland except for two or three weeks. My real intention was to take my grown-up niece, who was a French student, to France. But I changed my mind after being in Ireland two or three weeks, be- cause the situation was so engrossing. And so, although I had a passport to France, I did not go. Q. Why did you go to Ireland? A. I went to Ireland because my mother and father were born in Ireland. My father was all through his life a very strict Protes- tant, and would not on any account enter a Catholic church. He was opposed to the Catholic faith save as he saw it exemplified in my mother's life, and this he admired. Q. Your mother was a Catholic? A. Yes, she was a Catholic. Q. Were they born in Ireland? A. Yes, they were both born in Cork city. He was baptized in the famous Shandon church. I got his baptismal record while I was over there. Q. What was your father's business? A. He was a manufacturer of barrels all his life. Q. You went back to visit their old home? A. Yes. My mother died last January, and I became very ill after her death, and my people suggested that a sea voyage would do me much good, and I said that perhaps the sight of my mother's and my father's birthplace would reawaken interest in me. And I also wanted to take this niece, who had been raised by mother from a baby. I thought that if she had a stay in France, it would be the best thing for her. I also took my daughter with me. My daughter is twelve years of age. Q. Where did you land in Ireland? A. Kingstown, I think. We went straight across from Liver- pool. We took a taxi up to the hotel in Dublin. Q. How long did you remain in Dublin? A. About a week, I think. Q. What did you do there? Q. We went sight-seeing, and I called on my people there. We visited all the famous churches there, and the cemeteries. I think that is about all that I did in Dublin. Q. You know in a general way the purposes of this inquiry. Now, go on in your own way.
A. The first time that I was terrified in Ireland was at Temple- more. I remember going with my daughter and my niece to visit a church on Saturday evening, and the lorries were coming into town at full speed. This was my first close view of lorries. They were bent on terrorizing the people. They came down the road at a very high rate of speed. The drivers were completely white with dust. It seemed to me almost like flour dust, they were going so fast. The lorries were all filled with soldiers. The guns were all at atten- tion. I clung to my daughter and my niece, and I think we said a few prayers, for it had been said in Templemore that day that they were bent on mischief. The driver wanted to have a little fun, for he swung the first lorry near to the curb, and the muffler blew off just as they passed us. I called out, "We are Americans," but of course it was only my woman's fright and terror. During that night we drew the dresser up in front of the window, and during that night there were shots fired in the Square. Q. Where is Templemore? A. It is in the central part of Tipperary, not far from Thurles. When I arrived in Templemore I heard of the outrages in Thurles, and the air seemed rife with coming danger. So I was anxious to be out of the place as soon as possible. I might say that in every place and in every town where we stopped in Ireland, the dressers were put up before the windows to ward off the shots if there were firing during the night. In Cork, really the only place that I was interested in seeing in Ireland, because it was the city of my parents' nativity, I was thinking of anything but of the military program in that city, and was bent on thoughts of my recently deceased mother when we entered the city. There we were in the midst of scenes of great military activity, and I was almost regretful that I had come. There was a raid on, and there were Lewis guns and tanks and many of the military surrounding the place w^here they were raiding. The citizenry of Cork was standing about in a very quiet way, and I believe that I was the most turbulent person there and the most agitated. I rushed to the hotel and said, "Please give me a back room, so that we will be as far as possible away from this shooting." The lady said to me, "You are not brave like the women of Ireland. You do not have to suffer like this in America." My daughter and myself were given a rear room on the top floor of the hotel, but there was a window in this room that let out on the side street. The porter placed the dresser and the large wardrobe before that window as a protection from stray shots that might come down that side street. My little daughter seemed to be less fearful than myself. Once or twice after the curfew had been on that night — the curfew lowers at ten o'clock in Cork; it had been put on about a week before we entered the town — my little daughter went to the window to look out, and I called her back. She said, "Mama, there is no danger if you peek out of the corner of the window." We then peeked out and it seemed to me that about a dozen soldiers — I cannot give the exact number — were halting men in the side street. I think some of those men escaped halting, because of the inter- mittent peeks that we gave. We watched those men: in some way they ran into the side street and escaped the military that night. I saw the military all through the night down that side street as if watching for someone. Needless to say, there was very little sleep that night, and I almost forgot that it was my mother’s birthplace. I may say that the next day I started to take a picture from the upper window of the hotel, where many people were watching the soldiers in the square below, and a man said to me—a man with a decided English accent— Q. Chairman Howe: What were the soldiers doing? A. Preparing for a raid. Q. Would you please describe this raid? A. There were many lorries and hundreds of soldiers with their guns at attention. Each squad of soldiers were pointing their guns in different directions, so that no angle was left uncovered by guns and bayonets. The Lewis guns were ready for firing, and what were called tanks—I would not have known it, but they told me it was a tank that was waiting there. The officers were busy com- manding the soldiers. And then suddenly they rushed into this house to raid it. What they did inside this house I do not know. Q. A private house or a business house? A. A business house, a publishing business, and also a store- house for groceries. Q. What did they do on that raid? A. I was not inside. I do not know. Q. You saw the soldiers go into that house? A. Yes, dozens of soldiers going in with bayonets at attention. Q. Did they bring anything out? A. They brought nothing out. Q. Was the house destroyed or burned? A. No, not that day. It was what one would call, after seeing others, a peaceful raid. They were searching, I believe, for a man they did not get, and for documents, according to what was said in the papers. I went to take the picture of this immense gathering of military because of the fact that it was my nearest approach to war in my lifetime. And this man said, “My God, girl, if they see you they will shoot!” I said, “Why would they shoot?” He said, “They would take that camera to be something that a Sinn Feiner was throwing, and they would shoot.” He said, “I am an Englishman, and I would not take a picture of this gathering myself.” Q. Chairman Howe: Did you see any other raids? A. I did. Shall I give you some of the other things I saw at Cork? Senator Walsh: Yes, chronologically.
The Witness: The nights, then, while I stayed in the hotel — my stays were very brief in Cork because of my extreme timidity, but I still wanted to get in touch with some of my mother's and father s relatives because they had long been in America; so I went back, I think, four times to Cork — the people would gather in the lower parlor, that is, the parlor on the second floor of the hotel, in order to watch the movements of the military as soon as the curfew hour approached. One could gather by that whether the military were bent on any dread business that night. At any rate, lights went out and at five minutes to ten there was on each night a scurrying of bullets on the road from Patrick Street down (Patrick Street is on the road straight up from the hotel) — a scurrying of bullets to clear the street, as near as one could tell. In the morning one would read from the papers that these bullets would fly because men would not halt, or something of that sort. After the first scurry of bullets there would be motor lorries. Sometimes they would come at a rapid pace through the town, making a great noise. Sometimes they would come in funeral style: first fifty soldiers advancing, with a slow-moving lorry after, and then fifty more soldiers and a slow-moving lorry, and then at the head of this procession a great searchlight, which they would throw onto the top of the buildings. They seemed to single out churches more than any other buildings, from what I could see. One woman at the windows — she was not on the run, but her husband was, and so she was stopping wherever she could get a night's rest, and this night she was stopping at the hotel — she was well-nigh sick or hysterical with fear because she could not know where her husband was. And she turned to an English gentleman who was in the parlor and said, "Is not this terrible? We can never return to our own homes." And he said, "When I return to England I shall tell my people that they are waging war on women and children rather than on men, for from what I have seen, it is doing more harm to the women and children than to the men." I turned to him and said, "You are an Englishman?" "I am," he said. "Why did you come to Ireland?" I said. "Just to see the conditions." And diat is all the conversation that occurred then. Later I said, "It is frightening me." He said, "It is frightening everyone." Then we went into the back room and barricaded the door. On each night of our stay in Cork, there were shots near or far away from our immediate room.
Then I went to Bantry, because my daughter was named after someone in Bantry, and I wished her to see her namesake. I had never known or met this woman before. On the night I entered Bantry the scenes were very terrifying, and I readily concluded that one night was all I could stand in Bantry. While in Bantry I talked with the mother of a little boy who had been shot a few nights previously. That was about the first week in August that the boy had been shot. The mother was quite repressive on account of the disaster that had occurred in her home. I cannot say her age, but she seemed to me a woman well up in the sixties. She said that she had one Volunteer son who was on the run, and a little hunch- back boy who was at home with her and his father on the night that the raid occurred. There were no lights at night on the streets of Bantry, and the Black-and-Tans or the B. I. C.—they are dis- guised so that one could not tell to which body they belonged— they knocked on the door. She answered the knock with a candle in her hand. The soldiers knocked the candle from her, using an electric light to light them up the stairs. The Volunteer boy was not at home. The little hunch-back boy ran from his own room into his brother’s room. The mother rushed up the stairs after them, and was in sight of the tragedy when it occurred. “My boy’s hands were raised in prayer,” she said. “He was only a little hunch-back and had never done any harm to anybody. He had never done any greater harm than trapping a rabbit now and then to make a few pennies to make him feel that he was in the world of the living. They shot through his uplifted hands; and his mother said that as they shot he was saying, “My Jesus, have mercy on me.” He fell back as a shot pierced his hands, and the men stepped close to the bedside and pierced the chest with three bullets. They then left the house, and they completed then the raiding in that town. Q. Senator Walsh: How old was that hunch-back boy? A. I did not ask his age, but I should say about fifteen or twenty. Q. This was all related to you by the mother? You did not see any of it yourself?
A. I did not see any of it myself. I saw the ravages in the town; and, strange to say, one of the worst ravages in that town occurred on the home of a Unionist and a man of the Protestant faith, Most of the people in the town are of the Catholic faith. This man had written a letter about the little hunch-back's death and the misconduct of the military to the newspaper, and said he also wished to state in public that there had never been any religious ill-feeling in their community, and that he had always lived in peace and harmony with his neighbors of different faith. The next night his place was completely burned, and I saw the ruins of it. ^ There was scarcely a stone left upon a stone. I believe at that time he had entered a report of damages to the British Government to the extent of fliirty thousand pounds. It was after making the second statement about the misconduct of the military in that town that his home was burned. I saw the place that was set on fire. If I remember rightly, his name was Hennissey, a man with seven or eight children in- the family. The house was burned while all the occupants were inside the house. I asked if any were burned, and they said that fortunately all escaped over the rear walls or through the windows, and were only bruised and cut a bit by glass. The entire appearance of Bantry is of a devastated town where business is at a standstill. The young men of the town are many of them on the run. They are sent out from their own homes to other places, so that the military cannot find them when they are in search of them. This cripples the industry of the town; and then the leading places of the town being burned and bombed has crippled business. Q. Chairman Howe: How large a place is Bantry — three or four thousand? A. Yes, more than that, I think. It has one long main street. While I was there, the day I was there, the workhouse was com- mandeered by the soldiers; and the sisters in charge, the Sisters of Mercy, were given twenty-four hours to have all their things taken out. The poor and the old people of the town were there. I think there were twelve sisters in charge of the institution ordinarily. And then all the inmates were forced to leave. Q. Senator Walsh: The workhouse in Ireland corresponds with the home for the aged here? A. Yes; the old and infirm and those who have no one to help them. I visited the town of Youghal, a seaside resort, expecting to have rest and quiet there. But military lorries patrolled the town through the day and through the night, and there was very little rest possible. There was a great deal of destruction, and there I witnessed a raid on several houses. They were looking for boys who were on the run and supposed to be in hiding there. I took a ride on the Blackwater up to Cappoquin, accompanied by my niece and my daughter and three of my mother's second cousins. We were engaged on a studious talk on that occasion. The girls were speaking Irish and French to me. It was an interesting gather- ing. The tide did not allow us to return easily. We had to oar it all the way.. We had two oarsmen in the boat, and they worked hard until we reached Youghal, about one-thirty in the morning. When we reached the landing, military activities on both sides of the river commenced. The little boat going down the river made them think, perhaps, that it was a Volunteer party, so that lights were played on the boat constantly. I was afraid they would fire on us, and I began to sing "The Star-Spangled Banner" as well as I could sing it. I told the girls, who had, perhaps, a strong Southern accent, though they speak a number of languages with equal fluency, not to speak, and I would speak in my Yankee tone. So I carried on a long conversation about George Washington. Then we three Americans all sang "The Star-Spangled Banner," and the two oarsmen pulled hard to reach the landing before any more signals were given or lights played on the boat. Perhaps the signals might be accounted for by the fact that they might have thought we were these boys on the run, as they raided many homes in Youghal the following morning.
I returned to Templemore mainly in the interests of my religious convictions a few weeks later, because there had been reported something like a miracle transpiring in Templemore. On that second visit I saw the ruins of the town hall, and talked to an ex- soldier who explained that — Q. Senator Walsh: Ex-British soldier, or an Irishman? A. Yes, he was an Irish soldier who had served with the British forces in the World War, and was still badly crippled. He still wore his uniform. He explained how the petrol had been gathered from the garages on the little street facing the Square, and how it had been poured over this building and set fire to the night before, the Black-and-Tans and the military going through the streets knocking at the doors and calling, "Come out, you Irish swine." Q. Commissioner Addams: Had anything happened before this in Templemore? What led them to this attack? A. No, not that I could hear of. Miss Addams. The town hall was where the people gathered for their pleasure gatherings. They poured petrol over it and set fire to it; but one soldier, in attempting to burn it, was imprisoned inside, and the officer who was with him, in trying to jump through the window, had his leg broken and died two days later.
Then this religious miracle that the people could only explain in one way over there. It created a spirit of friendliness between the people inside the barracks and the rest of the people. They refused to go on with their work of shooting and terrorizing. I was all through that barracks at Templemore. That was the only barracks I .had a chance of getting into. The windows were all barred, and there were large sacks around the windows, and barbed wire around the building. Q. But what I wanted to get at was what started the military to attack Templemore? A. I do not know. I could not find anything. I only know that this second burning with petrol was caused by the death of the officer who had jumped through the window of the burning building. They warned the people that if the officer died the town would be razed to the ground. It was at this time that the miracle occurred. The people of every kind were immensely impressed with the orderly nature of the thousands who poured into the city to see it, as were the police themselvtes. The police were not in any way able to keep the thousands or tens of thousands of people who came into the city in order, and so the Volunteers did the work. The Volunteer who led me into the Square, he led me in ahead of the rest because I was an American, and I offered him a pound note and he said, "I am a member of the Volunteer Army, and we are not allowed to take anything for acts of courtesy," so he refused this from me. At this time they were riding out to a town named Carriheen, about seven miles from Templemore. Everybody was bent on going out to this village, and some of the car drivers were exacting up to seventy shillings for the trip. The Volunteers fixed the price at something like thirty shillings less, so as to prevent a very great graft in carrying people this short distance. They also asked each vehicle that passed over the road to contribute a very small sum toward the upkeep of the roads around the town, which was gladly paid. Q. Did they know the Volunteers were doing this? A. Yes, they knew, and the police were helpless. They could not do anything with this crowd of people; there were too many of them. The police would come out and talk with the Volunteers and say, "Boys, keep the people back from the police barracks."
I asked one of the policemen inside of the barracks on this occa- sion if he was an Irishman, and he said, "I am." I said, "Are you then in sympathy with the Republican movement, or are you in sympathy with the Union as heretofore practiced in Ireland?" He said, "You must not ask me such a question. There may be some- body listening." I said, "If you would resign your position, what would happen to you?" And he said to me, "Miss, do you read the papers? Do you know that when a policeman resigns he either has to get out of the country at this stage of the game or else the Black-and-Tans will probably tell him that he has done wrong in a very effective way?" I got very little from that. I give it to you just as he told it to me. He said the Black-and-Tans would soon let a man ksdw that he had done wrong in quitting the force. Q. Commissioner Maurer: What kind of police? A. The R. I. C. They have to give a thirty-day notice to quit the force. There was one in Cork who gave this notice, and im- mediately there was a police murder in Cork, and the paper said, "Killed by parties unknown." Q. Commissioner Addams: This same policeman was killed? A. Yes, the same man. The policeman in the barracks called my attention to the fact that the same man was killed by parties unknown. Q. Senator Walsh: Did you get the impression that the Black- and-Tan organization was independent of the Royal Irish Constabu- lary, and was sort of a spy organization upon the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. Yes, I did. Q. The authorities got the impression that they could not trust the Royal Irish Constabulary to do their work, and so checked up on them by the Black-and-Tans? A. Yes, they did. The two parties do not get along very well in most cases. Inside the police barracks there are usually several Black-and-Tans. Q. You mean to say that the Black-and-Tans became friendly with the crowd? A. It means all who were in the barracks; because in this bar- racks there were only, I think, two Black-and-Tans. I remember passing them when I walked into the barracks. There was a great deal of respect shown by the military in the adjoining military barracks, which is quite distinct from the Royal Irish Constabulary barracks, in the way the Volunteers handled the crowd. Q. Up to this time there had been no destruction in the town ! A. Yes, the town hall was destroyed the night before, and they were coming back in case this officer died to destroy the town. But this little boy had manifested some miraculous evidences, and they did not destroy the rest of the town. The crowds were largely praying through the day and the night, and the officers looked around at the crowds without attempting anything. I had a front room in the hotel, the first time I was brave enough to have one, and looked out at the crowds. Q. Commissioner Maurer: These crowds came out in anticipa- tion of the town being destroyed? A. No, on account of the miracle. The crowds came from all parts of Ireland and England. I met many people from England who had been waiting to get into the town from six o’clock in the morning. Q. Senator Walsh: The story had gone out that the miracle had occurred there and the people came from all directions to see about it? A. Yes, that was it.
The main terror of my experience in Ireland was in Galway. I had come home late from the Isles of Aran, accompanied there by a friend. I went up to get a paper from the platform at the railroad station. It was the custom when the goods train came in—there were no passenger trains coming into Galway—to have the people of the town go up and get the papers from the train. They were anxious to get the news of the condition of Mayor MacSwiney. There was a man on the platform to whom I paid little attention, and could not give a description of him in a satisfactory way. He wore what I think was a loose cap. He did not appear to me to be a regular soldier, nor did he seem to me to be the customary Black-and-Tan. There was a woman on the platform at the station with three or four children. There was an English officer on the platform, and there were many civilians. I turned my head in this direction (indicating aside), and the man in this peculiar uniform whipped out a revolver. He was standing with another man in ordinary attire. And he slashed the revolver around and began shooting. One shot hit a boy in the leg, and I heard him call, “I got it in the leg.” I ran then for shelter to the door of the hotel, and looked at the woman running to the British officer with her children. He seemed to be wholly engaged in keeping this woman and children safe. I thought at the time they were his family, but I do not know that. One of the boys stepped up quickly to the man who had been shot, and then I heard another shot ring out. That boy was not killed instantly, but fell at once. He later died, and the next day I saw him in death. Then another boy jumped from the back and caught the soldier in this way (indicating across the body), so that he had only one hand free. And then a harsh shot rang out and this soldier fell to the ground. Q. Senator Walsh: Who fired the first shot? A. This man in a strange attire. He was not dressed as a Black-and-Tan that night. There was perfect peace, and we were all waiting for the papers, and he whipped out the revolver and began to fire. Q. Chairman Howe: What was the purpose of the shooting? A. That I could not tell. The reason I went to Galway was that everything was quiet there. There was no curfew there and every- thing was quiet. Q. Senator Walsh: Could you give any information why a man on the station platform, without any reason — a Black-and-Tan or anybody else — would draw a revolver and begin to fire shots? A. I cannot say. Unless there is some actual damage done in the town by civilians or others, there is no curfew law. And there was no curfew law in Galway. Q. So you think that this man was stationed there to shoot so that the curfew law would be applied to Galway? A. That is what has been suggested. Q. Commissioner Addams: The man was not insane? A. Not that I know. Q. Could you gather whether the man who did the shooting was an Englishman or an Irishman ? A. He was an Englishman as well as I could gather from the gathering of men in the hotel immediately after the shooting. It was what is known over there as a shoneen hotel, where many British officers stay. I chose this hotel for my own safety. The officers who were there during the day were downstairs with their bathrobes about them. One man in full civilian dress, with the same sort of a cap on him as the man on the outside had, stepped up to a man right at my side and asked who had been shot. He said, "I don't know who he was." And then the other man said, "Tell me how he was dressed." The man by my side described him as best he could, and then the man with the cap on said, "My God, it is my brother," and dashed up the hotel stairs. And then in about three minutes he jumped down the stairway of the hotel and hurried out, stopping to talk to no one and pushing them in iront of him very rapidly. Immediately the crowd said there would be a raid this night. I had a front room up to this time, for I was unafraid. Q. Senator Walsh: You understood that this man said that the Englishman who was speaking was a brother to the man who fired the shot and was later killed? A. Yes, ^ir. I went to my room and did not undress. I threw a loose coat about me and lay on the bed, awaiting danger. I was not asleep. Presently I heard the tramp of soldiers approaching. I had with me, I may explain, a few letters from the Countess Markievicz introducing me to a British general. General Barton, who is now in Pentonville prison, I believe. Q. Senator Walsh: Is General Barton the distinguished general who did such splendid service during the war, and returned to Ireland, and was converted to Sinn Fein? A. Yes, he is now in Pentonville prison. Q. You had a letter to him? A. Yes, I had a letter from his sister, and also two or three letters from a man in Cork whose business was ruined and who got out this letter, aifd I bought several of them for souvenirs. I also had this copy of Dail Eireann, which was given to me by the Minister of Labor, Countess Markievicz. I also had the card of Lord Mayor MacSwiney for a souvenir. I had nothing else, with the exception of one or two things as souvenirs. I had a letter to Mrs. Bryce, the sister-in-law of our former ambassador. All of these things seemed to me to be contraband of war, and I became abso- lutely terrorized, thinking that any minute they might connect me with this murder case and hurry me off to prison. I could not light a light because, as I looked outside the window, the soldiers were immediately outside the hotel door. There seemed to be about two hundred fifty of them, with helmets on them and fully accoutered in war clothing. I drew back in the room and held these papers as if they were absolutely deadly instruments instead of mere writings. I began to chew up the Lord Mayor's card. I was afraid they would enter the room, and the papers fell out of my hand to the floor and I could not see all of them. I then opened the door and called to the only man whom I saw walking in the corridor. I called to him and said: "I am ill and am alone, and want you to come in and help me gather some papers." He said, "What papers are they?" I said, "They are merely personal correspond- ence. I want to get them out of the way." He said, "Then destroy them.” I said, “Yes, destroy them, but one cannot light a light in here.” He said, “Follow me.” I followed him into the lavatory, and he said, “Throw them into the lavatory.” I said, “If they don’t go down, and they find them, what will happen to me? Then I will be shot.” He said, “Give them to me,” and tore them up in bits and got rid of them, and then he asked me, “What right have you to have them?” I said, “They are only letters.” He said, “Do not carry any letters or even what is printed. The law makes what was printed or written legally only a few weeks ago a seditious document now.” Then I went out into the hall and saw two British officers, and said, “Will some of you men come down? I am alone back here. This seems to be war on women more than on men.” The man said, “You may go into your room. There will be nothing happen to you. You are an American. They are only taking reprisals out in the street.” I said, “What do you mean by reprisals?” He said, “They are shooting some of the townspeople that deserve shooting.” The shootings continued, volley after volley. Q. Senator Walsh: During all this time was there shooting going on? A. Right outside the door. You could hear the shooting and the commands given to the soldiers. I went the next morning to a home that had been almost completely destroyed, petrol having been poured upon it. One of the ladies there had just returned to Ireland on a trip from America, after fifty years’ absence. Her trunk was burned in the fire. The house had been attacked and they had broken the windows before trying to burn it. The women got oul to safety. Q. Why was this house attacked? A. There was a young boy there named Broderick who was taken out to be shot because he was a Volunteer. He is not dead; he is in charge of the military now, or has escaped. The Black-and-Tans kept the firing up, and then they went to the lodgings of a young boy named Quirk. His corpse was found early the next morning. There were nine bullet holes in his body below the waist. He was taken to the spot where the Black-and-Tan was shot, and then he was shot nine times below the waist-line, and did not die until three hours later. He was virtually disemboweled. There were pools of blood from the station just across the way clear across the street. He died at five o’clock in the morning. His name was Quirk, and he was on the run from Cork. There were no inquests allowed in these cases. At five o’clock in the morning there was a very great sound of breaking, although the military were returning, and I was up and dressed and out in the hall to be near the British officers when the bullets were flying. It was not the return of the military. They were engaged in battering down the only newspaper in the town. It is called The Galway Express. Q. Commissioner Addams: Who was battering down this paper? A. The Black-and-Tans. They battered down everything in the office. I saw the office at eight o'clock the next morning, and there was not a vestige of the machinery left. Everything was on the floor in heaps. I saw the manager of the place stooping down and gathering up single bits of type which he saw on the floor. They gathered up enough type to get out a special edition of the paper on a little sheet like this (holding up copy). I would like to read you what it says (reads): “The Galway Express, Thursday, September Ninth. Special Issue. Price, one penny. The Murder of Innocent Men. People's Admirable Restraint Under Extreme Provocation. Galway Express Premises Demolished. An Unparalleled Outbreak of Crime Took Place in Galway This Morning.” The Witness: Perhaps I had better not read it. It is all like that. Only this line (reads) : "While definitely charging the Royal Irish Constabulary with full responsibility for the murders, we feel it incumbent upon us to counsel the people of Galway to remain calm under this terrible provocation. We regret that under the circumstances we cannot make any announcement of the exact date on which we will resume publication. Remember, Galway men and Galway women; the watchword is, KEEP COOL." I saw also the body, the corpse of the young Volunteer who was shot on the station platform. There was one bullet hole clear through his head. Q. Commissioner Addams: May I not ask you about this? Is it not the same case that Dr. Cotter told us about yesterday? A. It is the same case. I do not think Dr. Cotter was on the platform. I happened to be there at the time. I think he was in the hotel. Q. Do you not think that the man was running amuck, as we say? Was he not crazy to do that when women and children were about? A. That has happened in several different towns. So there must be several insane men about. Q. That could happen under the abnormal pressure of that situation. But you think that there was no provocation? A. No. Galway was a very quiet town, and there was no provo- cation or there would have been a curfew. Q. But it might have been done more suddenly. A. The idea, I believe, was to provoke the people into open rebellion. I imagine that from what I have said. In Limerick I had a rear room in the hotel, and I was awakened from my sleep by the cries, "Halt" and "Fire." I jumped from my bed and dressed quickly. The same cry rang out: "Halt," "Hands Up," "Fire." It terrified me. I looked into the court yard and there was nobody there. Presently I opened my door and called for some help. The lady clerk came and said, "Never mind. That is a man who was on the run, and he was caught and escaped. His mind is a little shattered now, and he is resting in the next room. He does that now all through the night.
I think you asked me, Mr. Walsh, about the amicable relations between the Black-and-Tans and R. I. C? Senator Walsh: Yes. The Witness: I had the privilege of going into a prison, and while there, one in the prison, not incarcerated, told me that they had spent the previous day in watching the conduct between the Black-and-Tans and the R. I. C, and that there was great disorder within the barracks where they were staying the day before, and that there was a great deal of whiskey being drunk, and that caused open rebellion between the R. I. C. and the Black-and-Tans, and there was as much fighting going on inside as there was outside the barrack. Q. Senator Walsh: Are you at liberty to name that place? A. I would not be privileged to name it, because the man whom I mention is now on. the run, and he was in the prison as well as in the barrack. I could give you intimate details of what was going on in the barrack. I might say that when I reported to the police on the day when Balbriggan was devastated, both the policeman who took my report and the policeman who checked it up, and the two policemen who came to look at the American who came in with the passport, all were strongly under the influence of drink. That is, their eyes were very bloodshot, their faces very red, the pronunciation of their words very guttural, and their entire attitude indicated it. The one who took my report was a man from England. He was not dressed as the other men. He did not even have on a collar, and had his shirt front tucked down in careless fashion, and did not know anything of the places I had visited in Ireland, and knew only places in England where I was going. Q. Senator Walsh: Did they smell of liquor? A. Yes, they did. Q. How many of them? A. There were five. Q. Where was this? A. In Dublin. Q. What building? A. The Strong Street Station. Q. Police station? A. Yes. Q. When you went to the police station to arrange for your itinerary in Ireland, you met these officers of the government, and it was while you were talking with them that you observed their situation? A. Yes. Q. It was about what hour of the day? A. About three o’clock in the afternoon. One had come out of a side room, as if awakened from sleep, and he looked as if he was not in any condition to talk to anyone. Q. He was drunk? A. He was not so much drunk as in the condition of emerging from drinking.
I may say that in Limerick I went down one whole street and went down both sides of the street counting one house after another, and found not one undevastated house in the whole street. It was the street w'here the poor people lived, called Kerry Row. I asked them about the conditions on the day on which their homes were destroyed, and they all had a pitiable tale to tell. In Limerick the Black-and-Tans are still patrolling the streets in groups of eight to ten, and lorries were passing down the principal thoroughfares. Many homes were burned, and during the night there was a home bombed and burned while I was there. Q. Did you find any peaceful conditions anywhere in Ireland? A. Let me see. I think the most peaceful place I found was at Lisdoonvarna. Q. How many places did you visit? A. I visited, I think, forty or fifty towns in Ireland. Q. And this was the only place where you found normal con- ditions? A. The conditions were not normal there, but the conditions were less terrorizing than in any other town I visited. It is a water- ing place, and there are many English officers there. Q. What is your nationality? A. My father is of English descent, and my mother, Irish. I have here letters from the Minister of Labor in Ireland, show- ing the nature of the laws as operated by the Republican forces. This was given to me by the Countess Markievicz, the Minister of Labor ; it was issued a few days before I visited her. It shows how the Q. Senator Walsh: Is it printed in Gaelic or in English? A. It is printed in both. Q. Can you leave it with us for a few hours? A. T can leave it.
I was going to say that I have more to tell you from Balbriggan. I was in the room while the testimony was given. But I went out to Balbriggan the following day, the day before Patrick Lynch was killed in a Dublin hotel. I went out, but I was so terrified by the appearances — it seemed to me that hundreds of Black- and-Tans were on the roads going out — wonderful military activity. As you ap- proached the town, you met the people fleeing, with sometimes pathetic amounts of baggage in their hands. Sometimes they were taking all they had with them. I met many women with children huddled about their skirts, fleeing from the town. I witnessed all the burned buildings that have been spoken about this morning. The terror of the roads is quite indescribable! (The witness was thereupon excused.) Senator Walsh (presiding) : Mr. Hackett, will you be here until half-past two? Mr. Hackett: Yes. Senator Walsh: We shall adjourn, then, until half -past two. (1:15 P.M.)
(2:35 P. M.) Chairman Howe: The session will please come to order. The first witness this afternoon is Mr. Francis Hackett of the New Republic, New York. (The witness takes the stand.) Q. Mr. Hackett, will you please state your professional relations and anything else about yourself that you desire, as a preliminary statement of fact? A. First of all, I think I had better state that I am an Irishman born. I have been in this country since 1900. I think I was about eighteen when I came here. And I have lived here continuously since, with the exception of one year. I was a year in Ireland in 1912 to 1913. I went home for personal reasons. My father was ill, and I stayed with him as long as he lived. Then I came back to this country and became an editor of the New Republic, and stayed in this country until last May. My wife. Miss Toksvig, and myself went then to England and then to Denmark for five weeks, and reached Ireland in July, — ^towards the end of July, and stayed there until the end of September. We were then eight weeks in Ireland. I went to Ireland for two reasons: one was to see my own people, and the other was to write a few articles for the New York World and to make an investigation as much all over the country as possible under the circumstances. As I said, we stayed there for eight weeks, going over the ground in the south and north and west of Ireland, and, of course, in Dublin a great deal. Q. How much country did you cover? A. I should say we covered roughly about two-thirds of the country. We went to my home town, which is a small place, Kil- kenny. We went from Kilkenny to Waterford, and from Waterford to Drogheda, and from Drogheda to Cork, and to Kerry for a few days, and then to Limerick, and then to Dublin, and then to Bel- fast, and then to Galway, and back to Dublin and Kilkenny; and then we spent several days in Londonderry before we sailed. Q. All this time you were gathering material for the work you were doing for the New York World? A. Exactly. Q. And you are also the author of a book on Ireland? A. Yes.
When I went home in 1913 I was particularly interested in the economic conditions in Ireland. I thought that the Irish question was largely a democratic economic question, — the question of the struggle of lower classes to come up. In other words, the very much same sort of struggle that was going on in England, but com- plicated by .the fact that the ruling class, the shell, was not only different economically but also different racially. I made up my mind while I was there to collect all the nlaterial I could that bore on that subject, and then to write a book on Ireland after my return to America. At first I thought of calling the book "What America Could Teach Ireland." I thought there was a great deal to be learned from this country in practical ways as far as education was concerned, as far as self-help is concerned, the organization of laborers, the organization of educational bodies, and that sort of thing. I did not get the book completed until the war came on, and a lot of preconceptions that I had about the possibilities of self-help and the unimportance of politics went. I became convinced that it did matter what political relations you had and what the sover- eignty of a country was. After we went into the war, I determined that since Ireland was a small nation in the same sort of plight with a great many other small nations, I made a great effort to get out my book. And I got out this book, which is about four hundred pages, in 1914. I got it out because I came to believe that the thing that the Irish had to do was to get a working relationship in Ireland, and in order to do so they must have a measure of self-government in Ireland. At the time I believed that, the best measure they could get was a measure of dominion home rule. I wrote the book with that as a conclusion; the helpful thing for Ireland was not to get an economically workable solution like the Home Rule Bill of 1914, but an economically workable solution like the Dominion Acts of Canada and Australia and South Africa. In 1919, after observing the situation, I came to the conclusion that the British were not in a position to give the Irish that solution. There was no prospect for a solution along this line ; that the real vitality in Ireland was a vitality that demanded a different solution — a solution along the lines laid down by President Wilson for the squaring of the troubles on the continent of Europe. Sir Horace Plunkett, who came to this country in 1919, asked me if I would be the representative for a new paper he was about to start called The New Statesman. I made up my mind that it would be against the will of the majority of the Irish people to advocate the solution he represented, and I deter- mined to publish a new edition of my book stating that the Irish problem solution was to give the Irish the same sort of autonomy that the American Republic achieved in 1776. In 1914 I wrote in the New Republic that the English were taking a course of action that any Englishman would see was leading to an armed crisis. Certainly it was apparent to any man who had studied the Irish situation that something like that was bound to occur. When I went to Ireland, I went not only to investigate the facts, but also to interpret them. I saw the situation very like the situation in Finland that we have long been familiar with; like the situation in Bohemia, the Jugo-Slav situation, the Schleswig situation, the Armenian situation, the Alsace-Lorraine situation,—the situation of a people that had long been imperialized struggling to get for themselves conditions of self-development that they could not get without a new constitution,—a new constitution that they only could hope to get by securing independence. I was very instructed in that field by the attitude that we ourselves took in this country toward similar struggles. On my paper, the New Republic, we had two members of our staff who went to work for the United States Gov- ernment after we went into the war in 1917, and their particular job was this: they went into Military Intelligence, and they were dis- patched by our government to England. And there they worked out in conjunction with certain Englishmen a policy by which they would get information over to the Czecho-Slovaks, who were fight- ing for Austria, by which they would persuade the Czecho-Slovaks not to fight for Austria but to desert the cause of Austria, and to assert their own legitimate claims to freedom by deserting Austria. I bring this point in for this purpose: everything depends in these situations of nationalism on what you mean by law and order and what you mean by lawlessness. When a man like Sir Roger Case- ment, for example, went to the Irish soldiers who were in the British army and said the same thing to them that the editors of the New Republic said to the Czecho-Slovaks by sending them similar mes- sages tied to balloons that were timed to come down at the right time and in the right places, Sir Roger Casement was tried and exe- cuted for treason for that sort of propaganda. But we of the United States saw that justice for Czecho-Slovakia and other small nations on the continent of Europe meant that they could not be free unless they broke away from an empire that was sacrificing them.
I conceived that there was some such sort of situation in Ireland, and in order to interpret the facts, one had to find out what one meant by law and order. And I went to Ireland to answer two questions for myself: I was told in London that the Irish were kill- ing police, and that the Irish were being lawless, and that the law- lessness was in the hands of a band of young men who were not responsible, and that that lawless situation in Ireland must be met with force, — by the use of military force. I was told by certain Englishmen in conversation that that was the real interpretation of the Irish situation. The manager of Cook's bank in London told me that that was the true solution of the Irish situation. I met an old man on the street whose bag I carried (although at first he was a bit sceptical and thought I might be a pickpocket, yet he finally did take a chance, for the bag was heavy) , and he told me that that was the solution of the Irish question. I found that that was the general idea in England; on the one hand, a band of extremists who were excitable and did not know what they wanted and who were killing the police who were striving to maintain law and order; and on the other hand a band of noble, heroic police seeking to suppress this lawlessness. Arid I went to Ireland to find out if that was the case. I have been here for two days and heard the testimony of various kinds covering what happened in Dublin and Thurles and Balbrig- gan, and perhaps I could help out if I stated other facts. Q. Chairman Howe: I would like to have you state whether you found those facts general in Ireland, and also tell what you think should be done. Senator Walsh: May I interrupt you to inquire about your re- ligion? A. May I tell you exactly what my religion is? I was born in the Roman Catholic Church. I have a brother in the clergy who is now stationed in Limerick, who is a hot Sinn Feiner, but who, dur- ing trouble in Limerick, saved the lives of three English officers. Q. I do not want to be personal at, all, but I want to weigh your evidence by way of your religious convictions. A. I formed a new religion when I came to this country. I am a man of religious feeling, but I am a member of no church. I have not been inside a church, except for curiosity, for twenty years. Q. Did you have Sinn Fein sympathies when you went to Ire- land? A. I have always sympathized with Sinn Fein as an aspiration. I have never believed it was practicable until 1919. In 1919, when Sir Horace Plunkett asked me to be the representative of his paper, I had to make a choice, and I decided that Sinn Fein was practical, and was the only healthy moral thing for the Irish to act upon. They really wanted independence, in my belief, and they had to be honest with themselves. There was no use saying they wanted a half -measure when they wanted independence.. Senator Walsh: Excuse the interruption. I merely wanted to get the background.
The Witness: First, when I went into Ireland I found the Royal Irish Constabulary. They were invented by Peel in 1820. There was trouble in Ireland a hundred years ago just as there is today, — trouble in Cork and Belfast and Dublin and elsewhere. The gov- ernment was authorized by Peel to put the military into Ireland. If you made a chart of the police stations in Ireland, you would find that if you had a gridiron with spaces ten miles square and covering Ireland, you would find a police station in the center of each space of the gridiron. Sometimes the police stations are in hamlets of a few homes, and sometimes in a town like Kilkenny you will find forty or fifty policemen. The number of policemen in Scotland is about three to four thousand. In Ireland there are from thirty to forty thousand police. In population the two countries are about the same size: Scotland has 4,700,000 and Ireland 4,300,000. Ire- land, then, has ten times as many police to the population as has Scotland. And this in time of peace when crimes like manslaughter and murder have always been less in Ireland than in Scotland. The police were put in Ireland for a political purpose. They were really the advance-guard of imperialism. They were there not because there was work for them to do, but because there fnight be work for them to do, largely in regard to public opinion. Three-fourths of the police are Catholics, but the men were picked for other rea- sons. Oxford and Cambridge men were preferred for the police. The police were always semi-armed, — bayonets on their belts and batons. And they always had in the barracks carbines, and were drilled by the military in the barracks yards. They were recruited from the Irish peasantry. If the farm could not support two or three men in Kerry or Tipperary or Cork, the boy would go into the police. It was never looked upon as a very desirable occupation, but if there was no work to do on the farm, the boys would go into the police.
After 1916 and the uprising in Dublin a new situation occurred with regard to the police that is very important to grasp. When the rising took place, it only took place in Dublin and in Galway. But it was firmly believed that there were plans for a rising all over Ireland. The week after the rising, troops were brought into Ire- land. They poured into the country in great numbers. There were a thousand in Kilkenny. The military immediately got into touch with the police and said: "Who are the people here who are sus- pected of being Sinn Feiners, or people of independent opinion, or dangerous people?" The head constable in my own town of Kil- kenny gave a list to the military of people who had ever given him any trouble of any kind. In that little town, over fifty young men were deported, young men who belonged to Sinn Fein and others who believed in the Republican movement philosophically. It was a philosophical belief rather than an armed program. About two thousand people were deported from Ireland to detention camps in England. Those men went with a certain feeling toward the police, and then when they came back they were down on the police books as radicals and dangerous men. And then the fight for conscription began in Ireland, and it became necessary to make a case out for conscription and also for the attitude of Ireland in regard to Ger- many. And so the discovery was made that there was in Ireland a German plot. In 1917 the Irish convention was called by Lloyd George, and there was an amnesty. And in 1918 there were a large number of men arrested and kept in England without trial for about ten months and then released. In 1917 and 1918 the police became very anxious in Ireland about the people in case they should resist conscription.
It was particularly important because there was a contrast in the treatment between the people in the south of Ireland and the people in the north of Ireland. If I may dwell on this question for about three minutes I think it will illuminate the attitude of the Irish people toward law and order. In 1913 when I was home there was a rebellion going on in Ireland of a very respectable character. It was headed by Lord Londonderry, Lord Willoughby de Broke, the Duke of .Abercorn, Sir Edward Carson, Lord Birkenhead, General Hackett Payne, who is now the military commander in Ulster, and a large number of other gentlemen from the House of Lords in England, and other persons who might be called by an unsym- pathetic person members of the Junker class. These men had or- ganized rebellion against the British Government because there was in process of being passed by Parliament a Home Rule Bill for Ire- land; the point of this rebellion by these gentlemen Junkers was that Ulster was to be brought under the Home Rule bill, and. they did not want that to be brought about. They wanted Ulster inde- pendent. A projected independence for Ulster was arranged by Sir Edward Carson, and a virtual revolution declared in 1914. Machine guns and rifles were imported from Germany, and—— Q. Senator Walsh: Before autumn of 1914? A. Late in 1913 and early in 1914. This effort to bring arms to Ireland was going on all the time, and was very successful because the military authorities did not try to stop it. Q. You began to utter the sentence that the British officers ab- sented themselves from the docks, and by their absence allowed the revolutionists in the north of Ireland to receive arms and munitions from Germany, did you not? A. Exactly. Q. Who were the leaders in this movement in the north of Ire- land? A. The leaders were Sir Edward Carson, Mr. Bonar Law, F. E. Smith, who is now Lord Birkenhead, Lord Chancellor of England, Lord Londonderry, who is now dead, and various members of the House of Lords. The chief recruiting officer of that lot in London was Lord Roberts. They raised large sums of money. They raised five thousand dollars for Red Cross work—at least they raised it on paper. They had a huge parade in Belfast that was attended by newspaper reporters from all over the world; also by reporters from Germany, who wanted to see how big the revolution was going to be. Q. What was the organization called? A. The Ulster Volunteers. By the way, I must point out that at this time there was a Liberal government in England. The Liberal government almost got to the point of arresting Sir Edward Carson; but it was recently disclosed by Colonel Reppington in his biography of the war that when the arrest of Sir Edward Carson was brought up by the Liberal government, the King absolutely prohibited the arrest. Q. What was the charge against him? A. Treason against the Crown. Sir Edward Carson said: “There is no need to inform me that what I am doing is anarchy. I know it.” And he was very well informed about it, for he knew that the British army would not move against Ulster. Orders were given to troops to move from Kildare to Ulster, and they refused to move. Certain resignations were taken from the army on that occasion. One of the resigners was Lord French, who is now Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; also General Hackett Payne, who was then recruiting for the army, and is now in command of the government troops in Munster. You might not remember that some months later Sir Edward Carson was put into the British Cabinet.
The young men in the south of Ireland said: “Now the north of Ireland is armed. We have never been allowed to have arms in the south of Ireland, except for field sports,—shotguns and so forth.” Permits were given by the local authorities, the resident magis- trates, for sporting guns and rifles,—I imagine to shoot rooks with, and things like that. The lists of people who had such guns were known to the police, and usually hung up in the post-office. They were usually rich people. The people of the south of Ireland made up their minds that if the north of Ireland were to be armed, that they were to be armed too. Perhaps it was a reprehensible thing, from my humanitarian point of view, a very bad thing; but perhaps it was human. The moment the south of Ireland began to import arms, the government moved. The last day of August, 1914, a yacht brought arms to a place called Howth outside of Dublin, and landed arms to a body called the National Volunteers. The troops—— Q. Senator Walsh: The British troops?
A. The British troops and the police were sent to intercept those arms, and they failed to get there in time to intercept them. They came back to the city of Dublin from Howth, a seven miles’ walk. The people came out from the terrible slums of Dublin, and I think they must have jeered at the soldiers. Some said they also threw stones. There was a good deal of feeling against the soldiers. The soldiers fired into the crowd and killed four and wounded about sixty. This was in the week before the declaration of war against Germany. The young Sinn Fein men who were running the three or four papers that were allowed to be published said: “This is the beginning of the end in Ireland. Blood has, been shed by the Brit- ish soldiers.” There was an inquest after this killing that was a whitewash. The regiment, was moved away. The young Sinn Feiners said: “We have no sympathy with the war to be fought by men who have just been killing civilians on the streets of Dublin with only very slight provocation.”
Then you have got the situation developing in 1916 and the use of the police for political purposes. They were used to root out all the young men of advanced ideas, and in many cases the women, and to put all those who had any idea of freedom for Ireland in the place of criminals. You got a contrast all the time there be- tween the heroes of Poland and the people of Czecho-Slovakia and the people in Schleswig and Finland and Alsace-Lorraine who had no part in this war,—who were going to be given their freedom; the contrast between them and the people of Ireland, who had simi- lar claims and who were regarded as criminals.
Q. Senator Walsh: For the sake of the record, will you state how far and to what extent the Home Rule Bill had reached at the outbreak of the war? A. There was no dominion home rule bill. There was pending a bill to give Ireland a sort of qualified home rule. Q. That bill was accepted by Redmond and that party, but not acceptable to the Ulsterites? A. Yes, not acceptable to the Ulsterites. It had passed the House of Lords, and the King was to sign it on September 14, 1914. He signed it, and it was to become law for Ireland. But a compromise was reached by which it was to be held up and not become law until an amendment was passed making some provision for Ulster. Q. How can a bill that had been passed and signed be held up? A. Senator Walsh, the British constitution is an unwritten docu- ment, depending upon the interpretation of lawyers. The idea was that they had suspended this law for one year, and that this amend- ment was to be made. Q. The bill was enacted, but the administrative forces refused, or by agreement did not provide machinery to carry it out? A. Exactly. That is the legal situation. The bill has since been repealed. As part of the Home Rule Bill now before the House of Commons, this Home Rule Bill is to be repealed. Q. Was it apparent that during all that time in 1914 that this bill was to be passed by the House of Lords? A. The bill was never passed by the House of Lords. But in 1910 Q. Yes, I know. It was passed twice by the House of Commons, which made the action of the House of Lords unnecessary. A. Yes, in 1910 a Veto Bill was passed that if the House of Lords rejected a bill passed by the House of Commons twice, it could be passed over their heads. The people say in Ireland: Do you want Dominion Home Rule in Ireland? They say: Suppose we do agree to accept Dominion Home Rule, and that bill is introduced in the. House of Commons, and it is then passed after many amendments to it. It then goes to the House of Lords, and is rejected. It is then passed by the House of Commons and given back to the House of Lords, and is then rejected. Then many amendments are made, and it then goes back to the House of Lords. And then it is, after four years, again really enacted by the Commons and goes to the King for his signature, and afterwards put on the statute books. And then there will be other details and delays until, they say, perhaps by that time our great grandchildren will be interested in it. And they say: We have no interest in a Home Rule Bill along those lines. When I went to Ireland I went to get an answer to these ques- tions: Is it true, as they say in London, that the Irish are killing policemen, and that the Irish who are killing policemen are a small band of extremists? I went all over the ground that we heard covered this morning. It seems to me that what was said is per- fectly in accord with the facts.
Now, I went to a number of places in Ireland, first of all with the preoccupation of finding, out the facts about military rule: how far does military rule exist in Ireland? I tried first of all to find out how many troops were there in Ireland. It is generally be- lieved that the number of troops in this country would be three to four hundred thousand. Senator Walsh: Before the war about one hundred fifty thou- sand. Our new bill provides for much more than that. The Witness: In Ireland, which is a country of four million three hundred thousand people, the British government said there were about fifty thousand troops. Mr. Arthur Griffith, the acting president of the Irish Republic, said he could prove there were one hundred thirty thousand troops stationed in Ireland. In addition to those, there were around thirty thousand of the Irish police, less about one thousand that had resigned, plus about a thousand re- cruited Black-and-Tans who had the status of sergeants and a large body of Black-and-Tans who came in with the ordinary status of constable,—perhaps six or seven thousand. So you got in all a body hovering around one hundred fifty thousand, as large as the ordinary peace establishment in the United States, which has a population of one hundred million; that is to say, twenty-five times as many per person as would normally be here before the war. Q. Chairman Howe: That was true when you left? A. Before I left I saw Arthur Griffith, late in September. I need not tell you that it is impossible to find out from the British Government how many troops there are in Ireland. They convert homes and public buildings of all sorts into barracks, so that it is impossible to tell how many there are. Before the war Ireland was a great training ground for British troops,—perhaps twenty-five thousand always in training there. I am just trying to give the first crude aspects of British rule. Perhaps it would be more interesting to the Commission if I an- swered questions which would be given rather than relate my own account.
Q. Commissioner Addams: I think it would be interesting to know how many policemen were killed. A. I wanted to find out why the policemen were killed and how many were killed. The numbers given in the British House of Com- mons are about one hundred twenty killed during the last few years in Ireland. The situation may be illuminated if I hand in a pam- phlet called “The Two Years of British Atrocities in Ireland.” Thai is the pamphlet compiled by the Sinn Feiners giving the numbers of civilians killed in Ireland before a single policeman was killed in Ireland. In 1916 no policeman was killed in Ireland. As I understand it, in 1917-1918 there were about a dozen murder.-; charged to the police and about twenty thousand raids, a number of which are detailed here, the suppression of newspapers, and so forth, all of which you have heard described. Q. Senator Walsh: All of this, as I understand it, was before the killing of any police officer? A. Yes, sir, previous to the killing of any police. Then the killing of police began. Sometimes they have been ambushed and killed. On one occasion, a policeman v>'as killed going into chapel to mass. On another occasion a policeman has been killed on patrol formation. On one occasion a patrol came into contact with a small group of armed Sinn Feiners. They fired, and fell back into a ditch, and the young Sinn Feiners returned the fire. These police- men were killed fighting. Some policemen have resigned from the force and then been killed. One was killed at Oranmore in Sep- tember after he had resigned. Q. Is it the intimation that the police officer who resigns and is killed is killed by the British authorities, or by the Sinn Feiners? A. That is rather interesting. I have never heard that imputa- tion until today. But I can give the case specifically where Black- and-Tans have called at the home of a man who has resigned and have brought him out of his home and flogged him mercilessly. So that that explanation seems to me to be plausible. On the other hand, I heard of this case, where the policeman was killed by mis- take. So I went to the Sinn Feiners and said: "Why are these police killed? Why was Allan Bell killed in Dublin, that old magis- trate?" Certain Sinn Feiners said: "Oh, it is all done by impetuous young people." But as I got down into contact with responsible , men, they said, — many of them said: "This killing of policemen is a necessary act of justice. As far as we know, no policeman has been killed who has not been tried. If a policeman commits mur- der or something similar to murder, he is given a trial without him- self being present, and he is punished." I asked for instances, and 1 was given the instance of Lord Mayor MacCurtain. I was told by several Sinn Feiners — it may be folklore but I give it for what it is worth — I was told by responsible men that the policemen who killed or carried out the murder of Lord Mayor MacCurtain were numbered; that one was killed on his way into a chapel in Cork, ana three more had been killed around Cork; and that another remained to be killed, and that his name was Swanzy, and that he had left Cork to go to Lisburn; and a few weeks later policeman Swanzy was killed as he was going out of church in Lisburn. And in re- taliation the Orangemen of Lisburn set fire to the Catholic section and did damage to the extent of two or three hundred thousand dollars. That I give you as an instance of a police murder. Q. The Sinn Feiners declare that they had a trial and heard testimony and were satisfied that these police had committed the murder of Mayor MacCurtain, and that they had pronounced the death sentence against them? A. Exactly. I went to see a very splendid young man whom I would not wish to identify because it would be dangerous for him, but a man in a very responsible public position, and I asked him about the killing of police. I asked him, "Why did they kill Wilson in Wexford?" And he said, "That man was a proper ruffian," and he gave me a number of instances of things that this man had done which seemed criminal and brutal in his life. And I said, "Do you know any other instances of men like that who have been killed?" And he said, "Most of the men who have been killed have been guilty of murder." And I said, "Do you know of any other instances in your district?" And he said, "A young man works for me, and he said the other day when he came in, 'I have seen the policeman in town who killed my brother, and I am going to kill him.' " And his employer said: "You are a member of the Irish Volunteers, and you mean to say that you are going to take the law into your own hands? You know the proper course to pursue. If you have any charge to make against that policeman, you know where to, send it and you know what action will be taken." He prevailed upon the young man to get out of the way of the police; and the police got wind of the fact that this particular policeman was identified, and he left town. By these instances you get a practical illustration of the fact that the men who have tried to break down the will of Sinn Fein, to break down the will of the Irish as expressed in two elec- tions, have not succeeded. And you inevitably get a clash between these men and the Sinn Feiners — ^the Irish Volunteers.
The English policy in this question is very important. The Eng- lish maintain that they are holding up law and order in Ireland. They maintain that all these instances that you have heard about in the last two days are instances to be explained by rational proc- esses, and that they stand for law and order. The results of my investigation are this: the English maintain that they are standing for law and order, and that the Sinn Feiners are a band of extrem- ists; but at the same time they are pursuing a policy of provocation and assassinations and murders, and make no effort whatever to bring to book those members of their organization who commit murders and assassinations, and are making every effort to throw the onus of disorder and lawlessness on Sinn Fein; that Sinn Fein, on the other hand, wishes to have peace in Ireland, to have their own government perfected, but are constantly running into the law- lessness and oppression of the old police, the Black-and-Tans, and the military in Ireland. And I would like, if I may, in relation to this to show the sequel to the Balbriggan affair as brought out today. I made no investiga- tion in Balbriggan myself. I made an investigation in Galway and Dublin. But the sequel in Balbriggan is this: I wish to quote Sir Hamar Greenwood, the British Chief Secretary for Ireland, on the subject of Balbriggan and the inquiry into Balbriggan. There was an effort made to get the House of Commons at the end of October, two weeks ago—no, I guess about three weeks ago,—to appoint a commission to investigate and find out what actually happened at Balbriggan. And the House of Commons voted to refuse this move. They declined to appoint a commission to investigate. But the phrases that illumine the state of mind of Sir Hamar Greenwood are important. He said: “I admit that nineteen houses were de- stroyed and others damaged; that four public houses were destroyed, and one hosiery factory that employs two hundred hands was also destroyed. I admit it is difficult to defend the destruction of that factory.” And he was asked if two men were not also killed. He said: “Two men w^re also killed.” And Sir Arthur Balfour said: “Murder!” And he said: “If the right honorable gentleman gets any satisfaction out of it, I would say, murder.” He admitted that the murder was not the act of irresponsible men, that it was organ- ized; that it was the work of men who went from a barrack seven miles away; and he said: “I have myself made an inquiry into this case, and I will tell the House what I have found: that some hun- dred to one hundred fifty men went to Balbriggan to avenge the murder of a comrade murdered in cold blood; and I find that it is impossible out of those one hundred fifty men to find out who did the deed, who did the burning; and I have had the most careful pos- sible investigation made.” In other words, the British Government is confronted with a situation not dissimilar to that which con- fronted President Roosevelt at Brownsville. But where President Roosevelt took the regiment who were there and investigated and carried out the results of this investigation, the British Government says: We know the regiment that went there, and we know that they burned down nineteen houses and killed two men, and all this; but we are not able to push it further. Therefore, nothing will be done about what was done at Balbriggan. Q. Senator Walsh: Who is Sir Hamar Greenwood? A. He is that member of the British Cabinet responsible for Ire- land. He is the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Q. And this was the speech he made in the House of Commons when a motion was made to have an investigation made of Bal- briggan ?
A. Exactly. And my object in bringing that up is this: that while nominally England stands for law and order in Ireland, they are really out to crush what they think is revolution; and when they run into something that they think does not fit into the categories of democratic government and decency, they simply say that they are powerless, and decline to carry out an investigation,—such an investigation as would be carried out in any other civilized country where there was an established government. Thirty creameries have been burned down, and Sir Hamar Greenwood was confronted with the evidence of the burning down of these creameries; that uniformed men have gone out in lorries; that they have been seen; and they have burned down the creameries. And he is unable to act because he has seen no evidence: “I have never seen a.tittle of evidence to prove that the armed forces of the Crown have destroyed creameries.” Well, Sir Horace Plunkett and Mr. George Russell have tried to put evidence in his hands that the armed forces of the Crown have de- stroyed creameries. I think it would make it clear if I might read a letter written by Sir Horace Plunkett on the twenty-sixth of October: “Both Houses of Parliament and the public have beer; completely misled as to the destruction of creameries and other property of cooperative societies in Ireland, and in all seriousness I am compelled to charge the Government with suppression of the truth. During the past six months a correspondence upon this subject has been carried on between the Irish Agricultural Organ- ization Society and myself, as its President, on the one hand, and the civil government and the military authority in Ireland on the other. On Wednesday last, in the reprisals debate in the Com- mons, Sir Hamar Greenwood selected out of this mass of letters a single extract from a letter of his own to me. In this extract he deplored and condemned ‘these outrages,’ promised to try and prevent them, and to punish those responsible. He adverted to ‘the outstanding difficulty . . . that the sufferers have been unable or unwilling to come forward with evidence,’ and invited me to provide it. He then told the House that he had ‘never seen a tittle of evidence to prove that the servants of the Crown had de- stroyed these creameries.’ This morning I was told by a distin- guished member of the House of Lords that Lord Curzon had on the same day made an identical statement—of course, from the material supplied to him. He quoted the same extract from the official correspondence, and then gave it as ‘a curious corroboration’ of the innocence of the servants of the Crown that I had failed to supply ‘evidence of any sort.’ “Space forbids the production in your columns of the evidence in the possession of the Government, partly from the records of their own courts, partly furnished by us. It will suffice here to say that the unfortunate victims of these outrages have only one means of proving their loss. They have to bring suit under the Malicious Injuries Acts before the County Court Judge at Quarter Sessions. If the judge is satisfied that the injury is malicious, even if it is proved beyond all possibility of doubt, as it was in a trial which I personally attended, that servants of the Crown destroyed the prop- erty, he has to charge the amount of compensation awarded (in this case £12,349) on the rates. In other words, the victims of the outrages, and other innocent persons, have to pay for damage in- flicted upon the community by the guardians of the law. “Everybody in Ireland knows, and the Government knows, that these acts are deliberate reprisals by servants of the Crown. Unless discipline has hopelessly broken down, the Government could easily identify the criminals. It is scandalous that for lack of this identification such a crying injustice should go unredressed. We have asked for an open and impartial inquiry in Dublin, where witnesses can be protected. To say that this would be a mere con- flict of perjury is untrue as regards the evidence we are ready to produce, and is not complimentary to the peace officers of the Gov- ernment. Redress in this case is urgently demanded far more on account of the position and influence of the agricultural cooperative movement in Ireland than for the direct and indirect restriction in food production, which is no light matter. As I write, a telegram reaches me reporting the burning of yet another creamery.” The Witness: I would like to leave this letter to show the situation they are in in Ireland. Q. Chairman Howe: Just give us that citation, please. A. Sir Horace Plunkett, writing to the London Times, printed on the twenty-sixth of October of this year. There is an editorial on the same subject in this issue of The Irish Homestead, which reprints the letter, by George W. Russell.
There is evidence that there is justice going on in Ireland from the Irish side. Sir Hamar Greenwood himself said that courts are going on in Ireland conducted by the Irish people. Not so much can be said for the. Government courts in Ireland, even where they have not been superseded by courts martial. In the north of Ire- land, a man found with a revolver is fined two-and-six-pence or three shillings. But in the south of Ireland I have found no case where a man found with arms is given less than two years' im- prisonment.'^
Worse than the assertion that the courts-martial have the full confidence of the Irish people are the constant assertions that the British Government is working in Ireland in the interests of the whole people. I would like to give you the analysis of the vote in 1918 and in 1920 to bring out the point whether the de facto government of Sinn Fein has the confidence of the people or has not. I think this material is absolutely trustworthy and very closely analyzed. It shows that the Sinn Fein party secured nearly 75 per cent, of the seats on the county councils at the last election. Q. Senator Walsh : What election is this ? A. June, 1920. The total number of county council seats in Ireland is given as 699. Of those county council seats, Sinn Fein secured 71.9 per cent.; Sinn Fein and Labor, who work together, secured between them 80 per cent. Putting in with them the Ulster Nationalists, who can be put in as believing in self-government for Ireland, the number of seats won is 84 per cent.^ Of course that 1 The death penalty may now be imposed for possession of arms or ammunition. 2 Of the 699 seats, 612 were won by candidates opposed to union with England, and 87 seats were won by Unionists. is not unanimity. I personally found no unanimity in Ireland on the subject of Sinn Fein. But what I did find was this: that all the class of Unionists in the south of Ireland that were descended from the landlord class, and who, until the question of landlordism had been settled in favor of peasant proprietorship, had been all dead against independence, I found that these men were now all in favor of home rule. In the Irish Times for September, a con- servative paper, I found at least two hundred letters from very conservative gentlemen saying that independence was the only way out. If you desire, I can get a collection of those letters, because it seems to me that they are real evidence of opinion in the south of Ireland. Those gentry constitute the magistrates and the upper class, so to speak. The great majority of these people have resigned from their offices, men like Sir Henry Grattan Bellew, Sir Algernon Coote, Sir Thomas Stafford, and other men, a list of whom I can give you. These men are all deputy lieutenants. These men all resigned while I was in Ireland. And when I was in Dublin, there was a conference of six hundred men and women of this particular class of Unionist persuasion who came together to plead for do- minion home rule. Lord Shaftesbury, a prominent Ulsterman, also pleads for dominion home rule. Q. And until recently these men were all against it? A. While these men were all landlords, their interests were all against home rule. But now, since they have settled down in Ire- land, their interests are with the people. Many of them have said to me they had just as soon have Sinn Fein government as not. Many of them go to the Sinn Fein courts. A big merchant in Cork, called J. C. Dowdall, who had just come back from a delegation that had gone to Lloyd George— Q. What nationality? A. A Cork Protestant Irishman. He told me that a relative of his had for months tried to get a land settlement from the British Government and had failed; and in a few weeks he got the whole question settled by the Sinn Fein courts. Many of them have gone to the Sinn Fein courts to get them justice, and in many cases the courts have leaned backwards to give them justice. Here is a list of county councils and urban councils and other bodies that have declared their allegiance not to Britain, but to Dail Eireann. And I will put in here the analysis of the vote in 1918, the object of which is to show that Sinn Fein is not a small body of extremists, but is 80 per cent, of the people of Ireland, who have so declared themselves in the election of 1918, and have reiterated that decision in the elections of 1920. Q. What per cent, of the county councils have renounced alle- giance to the British Government and are now doing business with the Sinn Fein government? A. I think all the county councils outside Ulster. Q. How many is that? , , , A. There are thirty-two altogether,1 and outside of Ulster 1 think that twenty-six have submitted themselves totally to the Sinn Fein government. Q. Of the total number of town councils and urban councils and county councils, and all the bodies chosen by the people to manage their affairs, how many now recognize British authority? A. I think that outside the six or four counties in the northwest of Ulster there are practically no public bodies in the south of Ireland that recognize the British Government. But there are mi- nority representatives who believe in the British Government on a great many of these bodies—men of property who still believe that the Sinn Fein policy is not desirable. I do not seem to have succeeded anywhere in giving evidence on military rule, and I would like very much to go ahead on whatever lines you would suggest.
Q. Commissioner Maurer: You have been in the north of Ireland? A. Yes. Q. Do you know anything about the industries there? In other , , , words, in the north of Ireland there are great textile industries. Have you investigated anything among the workers there—what the standard of living is, under what conditions the women work, and are there any labor unions there, and what influence is brought to bear by the large employers upon these workers to keep them di- vided on religious prejudices and to keep them from organizing into industrial organizations? Do you know anything about any of these questions? A. I think I know something. Yes, I went in Belfast to one of the factories, and had a long talk with the employer, and I have 1 While there are 32 counties in Ireland, there are 33 county councils, Tipperary being divided into North and South constituencies. Of the nine counties^ in Ulster, only four (Antrim, Armagh, Derry, and Down) elected a majority of Unionist councillors. None of the 24 county councils outside of Ulster went Unionist. In fact, of the 510 seats on these councils, only three were won by Unionists, studied to a certain extent government reports on the condition of industries in Belfast. I think it is generally admitted that the standard of wages in Belfast is especially low, because in house- holds the men usually work in the shipyards and in higher branches of the textile industry, and the women work in very low occupa- tions; and the Belfast employer looks upon the joint wage in appor- tioning wages. Up to a very few years ago, the women employed in Belfast seldom wore boots. There are very many bad factories. There are also some good factories. But the trade-union situation is very complicated, because the lower wages are usually paid to the Catholic workers, and when the Catholic worker becomes a foreman, any non-Catholic worker who wishes to raise the religious issue can raise it and make it impossible for the Catholic workman to be regarded as a union man. And that has been constantly done with British unions. A very serious situation was created in July when the Protestant workers drove out a number of Catholic work- ers up to five thousand, and not only drove them out, but burned their homes; and in a very short time fifty-six people were killed on the streets of Belfast. Q. How long ago was that? A. That was in July and August of this year. I think my wife will tell you more on th? labor aspect. There is no doubt that the religious issue has been kept alive by the employers to keep trade unionism from growing in Belfast. It has been a red herring across the trail of the labor situation, and constantly labor organizers like James Connolly, who worked in Belfast, have been up against this situation. It is kept alive continually by the newspapers and the sermons. I think there are more political sermons in Belfast than anywhere else in the world. Practically all the sermons in Belfast are political sermons. And that is a very bad situation for the workers. Q. Belfast is not very well organized? A. Belfast is not very well organized. The Transport Workers are the strongest union in Ireland. Q. Are they in Belfast? A. I do not think they are in Belfast. I am not well informed on that point. But wages in Belfast are very low in comparison to similar wages in England. Q. And what are housing- conditions among the workers? A. The housing conditions are good because ground rents are very, very low, and they have built a vast number of one-story houses. There is no congestion. It is a new city which has been built up in small houses, so that there is no slum problem as there is in Dublin, where twenty thousand families live in single rooms— one-third of the population of Dublin live in twenty thousand rooms! Sometimes families of ten or twelve people live in one room. Q. And what is the standard of living in Belfast? A. The standard of living is fairly low, considering the good housing. I think it is a squalid city. It is like some of the Cana- dian towns, I would say; it is in a state of early capitalism. Q. What is the general morale of the place? A. The Belfast Chamber of Commerce is one of the most reac- tionary bodies whose pronouncements I have ever read. The Dub- lin Chamber of Commerce is very much better. Although in regard to labor, I must say that the Dublin Chamber of Commerce showed up very badly when I was home. In relation to that may -I say this: although there is a very bad situation in regard to the social struggle in Ireland, still Irish labor outside of Belfast is all for Sinn Fein. Q. In Belfast what is the situation? A. In Belfast labor is opposed. Of course you have to take Catholic labor and Protestant labor separately. In the British House of Commons there is a member, Mr. Joseph Devlin, elected by labor as a Labor representative. He, of course, has stood for Irish independence. There is a gradual tendency on the part of Labor to get together. The whole fight of Sir Edward Carson and his group is to keep the religious question elevated. When the question came up in regard to what part of Ulster is to be excluded from the Home Rule Bill, they did not put in the three counties of Ulster that had a majority of Catholics, or the four manufacturing counties where labor might get together, but rather the two agricultural counties where there might be enough farmers who had an interest against labor, to go into the Ulster Parliament. Q. After all, the religious differences in Ireland are primarily political and economic? A. I think the religious differences in Ireland are clearly politi- cal and economic, and that the theological basis is practically nil. Commissioner Maurer: That is what I think. The Witness: I do not think that those who conduct the religious. agitation in Belfast do know very much about the theology of Rome, or care very much. But they must have a difference, and if they did not have this difference, they would have a difference on whether people were brachycephalic or dolichocephalic. Q. What is the religious situation between the Protestants and Sinn Feiners? A. There is practically no difference. The two have merged when the question was taken out of the control of special interests. Some of the most prominent men in the Sinn' Fein movement are Protestants. There is Lieutenant-Commander Erskine Childers. Robert Barton, who is also a Protestant, is a member of the Sinn Fein cabinet. I stayed in Dublin with a prominent Protestant who is also a Sinn Feiner. I met Dr. Kathleen Lynn, who is also a Protestant, who had been sentenced to death in connection with the 1916 uprising; and I think several women who were with her were also Protestants. I met many Protestants who were prominent in Sinn Fein. There is no active religious feeling in the south of Ireland. In my section of the county the Catholics are 95 per cent., and they elected a man as chairman of the county council who was a Protestant. Among the Catholic bishops, Emiong the hierarchy, there is a great difference of opinion upon politics, just the same difference of opinion you would find among any group of men anywhere. That is to say, I think Catholic traders would show as many people against any change in government and against Sinn Fein as would Protestants. That is to say, I think the attitude follows economic lines rather than religious.
* One piece of evidence in regard to labor. There was a conven- tion of the Irish Labor Party in Cork about the first of August, and the conclusion of that convention was as follows: "We are fully aware of the gravity of the issues involved in this conflict. We are challenging not only the right of an imperial power to subjugate a small nation by armed force, but we are also challenging the generally accepted conception of the relations be- tween employer and employed. Railway companies, backed by the Government, contend that the workman's duty is simply to obey orders, to carry any materials that may be handed to him, irrespec- tive of the use to which these materials may be put — in other words, that the workman is part of a system, of a piece of machinery; he is not a responsible agent. The worker's contention, on the other hand, is that when he knows that he is being used for a purpose against which his soul revolts, he would be violating his conscience if he were to agree to be so used. This contention involves a claim that the workman is a responsible human being — ^not a cog in a machine; that he is a conscious cooperator in the work in which he is engaged, and has a right to decide whether or not he will participate in the work according to whether its purpose is worthy or degrading. Such a conception of industrial relations is doubtless revolutionary, but it is the conception which shall prevail in the Irish Commonwealth of the future.” This had to do with the refusal of the Transport Workers to handle munitions, and with the refusal of the railway firemen and engineers to run trains that were carrying soldiers on military expeditions in Ireland. The Government, which now has control of the railroads, is now determining to close down railroad traffic in Ireland and to prohibit motor traffic more than twenty miles from the home of'the owner of the motor. This, of course, applies only to civilians. The situation that is being brought about in Ireland is that of a blockade. That situation labor has tried to keep off. Labor also called a two days’ general strike on account of the hunger strikers in Mountjoy prison. They were successful in that strike in showing where labor’s sympathies were. The Government would like decidedly to close down the railroads on account of the munitions situation. It is probable that Ireland will be deprived of railroads within the next two weeks. It has already been de- prived of freedom of the press.
The situation is rapidly coming to a climax between this great nation and this small people: the efforts of England to keep up the illusion that it is standing for law and order in Ireland while it is working to break down the morale of the people of Ireland by the destruction of homes, the burning of factories and creameries, the cutting off of railroads, and the killing of prisoners, before the world gets to learn the truth about these conditions and thus be delivered from the illusion that law and order is being maintained. So you have a race between the patience and endurance of the peo- ple of Ireland and the government of Lloyd George and Sir Hamar Greenwood—a government which denies responsibility for the acts of its agents, so that you have men executed in the way that Lynch was executed, and men who are brought out of their homes and shot without trial or warrant. Of course, one of the strong cards that England has is the killing of police. Sinn Fein says, on the other hand: While we have killed police, we have been compelled to do so in order to keep the struggle of Sinn Fein going. And even though many of our young volunteers are arrested and taken to barracks and killed, and then announced as killed while trying to escape; even though our people are terrorized and our homes destroyed; and even though sixty-five out of the seventy-three mem- bers of the Sinn Fein parliament have served prison sentences, yet there is no chance of the morale of the Irish people being broken down. Q. Where were these members of Parliament imprisoned? A. I will give you the list, showing the prison and the time served by these men.1
I wish to make two things clear from my own investigations. In many cases there are no reasons whatever for reprisals. In other cases, there are mistakes made, like the burning of that English factory in Balbriggan. I was in Galway a week after that young Black-and-Tan brought his revolver out and began shooting wildly at the people on the station platform, and I want to suggest to Mr. MacDonald that if Father Griffin of Galway be asked to testify here, he has all the facts in that case as has no other man. Father Griffin was kidnapped by Black-and-Tans last week, and nothing

1 The witness submitted in evidence the official Irish Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 72 (13 August, 1920) : “In the general election of December, 1918, 68 of the Parliamentary candidates of the Republican Party in Ireland were elected, several of them for two constituencies. Some of the recent experiences of these publicly elected representatives are given in the fol- lowing pages. They are probably without a parallel in Europe. Twelve of these representatives have been sentenced to death. Twenty-one of these representatives have been sentenced to penal servi- tude for life, or for terms of twenty, ten, five or three years. Thirty-seven of these representatives have been arrested without charge and imprisoned or deported without trial, the majority of them being kept in prison for ten months and then released without explanation or apology. Sixty-five of these representatives have been imprisoned in English or Irish prisons, either without charge or trial or for political offenses. Many have been imprisoned more than twice, some have been imprisoned five times. Efforts were made to arrest one of the three who were not im- prisoned. Only two of the sixty-eight representatives were not at some time either arrested or “wanted by the police.” Eighteen are now hiding from arrest in Ireland, America, France, and Italy. This persecution of Irish Members of Parliament has continued without cessation since May, 1916. A constant passing in and out of English prisons has been the common experience of representative Irishmen for the past four years. It continues to the present moment to be their experience. On August 12th—the day prior to the issue of this Bulletin—Mr. T. Mac- Swiney, Member for Mid. Cork, was arrested by British troops while presiding over a Republican Court. Since this document was published, additional punishments have been inflicted upon Irish Members of Parliament.
has been heard from him since.'^ That young Black-and-Tan who was killed on the station platform was drunk, it is said. He was a chauffeur, and he had been two weeks in Ireland, and had been fed up with the notion that the Irish were particularly violent. As a matter of fact, there is a great deal of quietness in Ireland, except where the police and military are patrolling. He was on the plat- form when the papers were brought in. There was a great rush for the papers for two reasons: they wanted to see about the con- dition of Lord Mayor MacSwiney; and, in addition, there was a race, and the people wanted to see the results of the race. For some reason, whether this young man was drunk or not, he got excited and began firing. And then the old Irish Constabulary took it into their heads that they would show the people their hand, and began their reprisals. The old man Quirk whom they killed was organizer for the Boy Scouts, and known to have the respect of the citizens. There the provocation was exceedingly indirect. It must be understood that the Black-and-Tan who was killed at the railroad station had already killed a man. Nobody knew who he was. He was carried to a house by Volunteers of Sinn Fein. Then it was found out that this man, who had a British revolver, was one of the armed forces of the Crown. It was the sort of thing that might happen anywhere, and would not be the occasion for an outbreak were it not for the political background. There are every- where in Ireland desperate evidences of the efforts of Ireland to realize its own will without violence. Q. Senator Walsh : What do you know about Father Grifim being kidnapped? A. I only know what the New York Times said last week. Q. Was he invited, Mr. MacDonald, to come here? Mr. MacDonald: No, he was not. The Witness: Father Griffin told me the facts about what hap- pened at Galway. I went to see Dr. Thomas Dillon, professor of mining at the University. I had to go to eight places to find him. He was on the run because he was afraid of assassination by a policeman who knew he was a Sinn Feiner. He had been arrested and spent ten months in an English prison for a German plot. I asked him about the German plot, and he said he knew nothing about it. He had never seen a German plot in his life, but it was a sufficiently good pretext to send him to prison. He sent me to Father Griffin, and he told me that the official report of what had 1 Father Griffin was murdered before the Commission could secure his attendance. happened at the station passed through his hands. I think Father Griffin must have been prominent in the organization of Sinn Fein. What the Government has tried to do by hook or crook is to get rid of the higher in command in Sinn Fein. The Government has a list of the prominent Sinn Feiners, and has the instrument in the Black-and-Tans to carry its plan out.
Who are the Black-and-Tans? I went to one gentleman in Ire- land, whose name I will give to the Commission, but I will not give it publicly. Q. This is an English officer? A. An English officer. He told me that they are recruited in England in many cases from ex-army men. They are often adven- turers. “An English detective,” he said, “came over here to see me this morning. ‘I am over here to find a convict, and I went to the depot of the Black-and-Tans to find him,’ the detective told me. ‘I did not find him there, much to my surprise, but I found a num- ber of other convicts whom I knew very well.’ ” I think a large number of the Black-and-Tans are desperate men who will do anything. Major Erskine Childers, who won the D. S. O. for bravery during the war, has published a pamphlet, which was given to you yesterday, showing the number of thefts that have come from Black-and-Tans. They are that class of men. The situation is working up to a crisis. All the time we are being told that Ireland cannot stand on her own feet economically, and is run by terror of a small band of extremists.
I think that when Ireland gets her freedom, she will work towards a workers’ commonwealth. In any case it is perfectly clear that Ireland can stand on her, own feet economically if she is given half a chance. She is a small nation, like Denmark in many respects. Its principal industry is agriculture. Between 1915 and 1919 Ireland contributed over and above its own revenue for its own expenditures sixty-two million pounds to the British Empire. That is to pay for these tanks and aeroplanes and the one hundred thirty thousand soldiers who are running Ireland. Q. Chairman Howe: How is that collected? A. Through excises, customs, and inheritance and income taxes. Q. The army of occupation is paid for by the Irish? A. Not directly. The Irish contribute sixty-two million pounds to the Government, and that money is spent in part to maintain the army of occupation. Senator Walsh: That is the policy of all imperialistic govern- ments, to make the people pay the cost of keeping them down. The Witness: Miss Addams made the point this morning that if any locality has a disturbance, the inhabitants have to pay for all the damage done. And if there is a strike, the people have to pay for all the damage done during the strike. . If the ordinary bourgeois gentleman sees a strike coming along, he does not want a strike because he will have to pay for part of the results. The Irish people, besides contributing to maintain this army of occupation, have to pay for all the damage this army inflicts upon them. Q. Commissioner Addams: Howr does the Sinn Fein government get its money ? A. Partly by the issue of bonds. Of course, it was illegal to advertise those bonds. Many of them were sold in America. Even when they got the money it was not always safe, for many of the banks where these Sinn Fein funds are deposited have been raided. The Sinn Feiners try to get the Irish to pay an income tax to the Irish rather than to the British authorities. The British cannot col- lect the tax by selling the property on which the tax is levied be- cause nobody will go to the auction to bid on it. And the property cannot be picked up and taken away. The English government cannot get more than ten per cent, of the amount of its taxes. The Sinn Fein government asks the property owner to pay to it fifty per cent, of the English tax, and promises to protect him in case the English seize his property and distrain it for non-payment of taxes to them. From the fifty per cent, which it does get, it is able to compensate for property which is distrained. I do not know how weir this plan will work in the long run.
Now, as to reprisals. You can see that the established military order exists to suppress by any means the efforts of these people to assert themselves and establish their own government. I have to give you an interview given out by Sir Nevil Macready, the military head in Ireland, who defends the killing at Balbriggan of two young men. He says that it is only ordinary human nature that the police should act on their own initiative when somebody has been killed unfairly. As a result of these killings, he says, it is necessary to augment the forces of law and order from England. This is an interview given to the Associated Press, which is a com- plete defense of the military policy of reprisals in Ireland. Q. Commissioner Addams: Do you suppose that if the Irish people had been able to build up their own government without the killings of police, that reprisals would have occurred? A. It is very difficult to say, because the British started out so roughly in handling the Irish situation. They arrested people merely on the suspicion that they wanted independence, and were quite brutal. They started on a policy of intimidation, and it hardly seemed possible for the Irish Volunteers to function unless the police were driven out of the country districts into the towns. In order to do this they had to use force. However, there were very few police killed in getting the evacuation of six hundred barracks,—perhaps twenty. The police did not put up a fight there. But when they got into the towns, with sixty or seventy in one house and all the instruments of modern war to support them, then they could defy the population.
Lots of liquor had been shipped in for the police. I myself have seen drunken police. I have seen unshaven police on Sunday afternoon. Those police do get into an excited frame of mind very easily. They apparently have the power to commit any outrage with impunity. How the Irish have been able to keep up passive resistance for so long as they have, I do not know. Then there had to be some policy taken in regard to assassinations, because those assassinations began, as I have said, with the police. I think that explains why some police have been killed. Q. Senator Walsh: To what extent have you seen drunken police? A. I have only seen one instance. I have seen many sodden men, dirty in uniform, in Limerick.
But I have to contribute one fact about the police to meet Miss Addams’ point. In Dublin there were five or six members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police killed. The Metropolitan Police are under Dublin Castle, but are not part of the R. I. C. There was some sort of agreement between the Sinn Feiners and the Dublin Metropolitan Police that if they would go around unarmed, no policeman would be killed. Before that five or six had been killed. Since then they have gone around unarmed and none have been killed. Of course, the English do not tell you that this arrangement was made. Q. You think the Sinn Feiners would agree to do that with all the police? A. Yes, I think the Sinn Feiners would agree to that tomorrow. Q. But that would prevent the British from stamping out the aspirations of the Irish for a republic. A. Exactly. The crime that George Washington committed and got away with, the crime of the Czecho-Slovaks and the other people who were seeking independence, is the crime of the Irish today.
Q. Mr. Wood: Can you give us some idea of the relation be- tween the Black-and-Tans and the R. I. C.? A. The Auxiliary Police start as sergeants. They are taken in at a pound a day, and twenty-five shillings a day in disturbed areas. I do not know this of my own knowledge, but that is my information. They are brought over from England as sergeants and put over the R. I. C. That has made for bad blood in many cases. The old local senior military police resent this, because these English who are brought over are getting more pay and are put over them. As sergeants they are getting much better pay than the regular Irish Constabulary. I have seen these Auxiliary Police very often in Ireland coming back from a raid very early in the morning covered with dust. I myself have seen a military motor lorry approaching at a high rate of speed along the roads, and you know that you will be killed if you do not get out of the way. And there have been several people killed by these motor lorries along the roads. Q. Senator Walsh: As a matter of fact, if the English authori- ties had not imported the Black-and-Tans and the British soldiers into Ireland, there would practically be in Ireland today no English government except the officials in Dublin Castle? That is, all the English magistrates and all the Irish Constabulary were rapidly coming over to the Sinn Fein movement and the Republican form of government, so that there would be no Irishmen in Ireland under English pay who would be out of sympathy with the movement for a Republic? A. No, I think there would be a small number who would like some English connection, but they would not be a very large num- ber, perhaps five per cent. Q. But you said the magistrates and the police were resigning in large numbers, so that a situation was rapidly approaching where there would be no authority except the English left in Dublin Castle. A. Yes, I think that is true. But the police are in this situation : there are many of them who expect to be pensioned off after twenty years of service, — ^men along about forty, forty-five, or fifty years of age. When they approach the pension age they are not very apt to quit the job. But it is undoubtedly true that if the English troops were withdrawn tomorrow, British authority in Ireland would be largely limited to Dublin Castle and the forty-six or forty- eight or fifty departments — whatever it is — that are paid there. They would stay there as long as their pay lasted; but elsewhere the new government, which has come up under the old government like a shell, would function openly. Like in County Connaught, there are a number of instances where the police have sent men to the Republican courts to get justice.
Q. Chairman Howe: Tell us something more about the de facto government, Mr. Hackett. A. The de facto government has a land bank run by Lionel Smith-Gordon in Dublin. They are trying to provide land for landless men, and at the same time increase the country's economic wealth by keeping the young men in Ireland. The population of Ireland has sunk from eight million to four million in the last eighty years. No population in Europe has sunk in this same way. The Sinn Feiners are trying to find means to carry out the program which they formulated in 1908. They have worked out justice as well as they can. In most cases it is not criminal justice, — just civil justice. They have established these civil courts. They have inaugurated a commission of inquiry into the conditions and sources of industry in Ireland. Of course it is an illegal body. It is pursued by the military authorities. They produced a document on milk production. It is an excellent document. They are endeavor- ing to get the farmers of Ireland to introduce a very revolutionary thing — milk testing, so that the farmers will not have to rely upon folk lore, but rather by scientific testing they will be able to say that that cow is a good cow or a bad cow. This report, which I will leave with you, shows what the Sinn Fein government is trying to do. They have also established a steamboat line from New York to Ireland. Q. This lands directly in Ireland? A. Yes, at Dublin, I believe. Q. But direct trading connections are possible now with the out- side world? A. Yes. But like the coroners' inquests, it may be cut off. They cannot land in Queenstown any more. If Dublin gets to be a prosperous port, I have no doubt but that it will be cut off. Q. Now, about the de facto government. Mr. Morgan said yes- terday that the people of Ireland had a certain amount of self- determination by act of Parliament; that they proceeded to use this, and that the Republicans generally succeeded in capturing the local governing agencies, like he described in Thurles. How generally has the old imperialistic government been succeeded by a stable local government? A. I think you would find it is not proceeding in any logical way. Take, for instance, this machinery of local government. The Irish Local Government Act was enacted in 1900. That machinery is still employed by Sinn Fein, although it is British machinery. Where those local bodies which Sinn Fein controls refuse to do things which the English want them to do, then the British immediately, if they can, cut off their resources. A situation has been created at Dublin, for example, where part of the money for supporting the tuberculosis hospitals was contributed by the Government to the Dublin municipality. When Dublin declared itself for Dail Eireann, the British Government cut off this money. Q. Then the local government cannot function? A. That is it. Sir Hamar Greenwood, in a speech he made last August, said: "If they will not run the railways, we may not be able to compel them to do so. But the stoppage of the railroads in Ireland, owing to the refusal of certain railwaymen to carry soldiers and munitions, would mean the cessation of the old age pensions paid to the males and the stoppage of unemployment pensions." Q. Do you think that is an effective policy? A. I do indeed. The Government is hoping by this method to make satisfactory local government impossible, and to create a public opinion that will demand the operation of the railroads, even though the railroads carry troops and munitions. Q. Senator Walsh: When you speak of the de facto government, you mean that there is a national government that has representa-, lives all over Ireland, and that eighty per cent, of the population of Ireland have by vote given recognition to that government, and that from eighty to ninety per cent of the town and city and county councils recognize President De Valera and Dail Eireann as their president and their national government? A. Exactly. Q. So that there is every single bit of legislative and executive that the people could establish to create a national government? A. Exactly. Q. But it is being constantly broken up and blocked and inter- fered with by the British authorities to break down the purpose and will of the people? A. Yes, indeed. You have heai'd, I suppose, of that thing called the Continental Congress. Well, if the British forces had got to Philadelphia, where the Continental Congress was, they, would have been compelled to meet underground. I think that the Dail Eireann government presents much the same aspect of government in some places as one sees in some of the countries of Europe, like Hungary, especially on the military side, where death is the penalty if you are found connected with the new organization. But it has got the sympathy of the Irish people. They are absolutely with it. They want it. And the actual strength of the people will support it to the end. Q. Suppose the Black-and-Tans and the military were removed from Ireland; what would happen? A. The new government . would come up from the cellar. It would come up. It would be to England's best interests to let it come up. For Ireland is the second best customer England has. Next to the United States, Ireland consumes more English goods than any other country. And it would be even a better customer if it had an opportunity to develop its own resources. Although Ireland's chief source of wealth is agricultural, there are only one hundred agricultural students in air of Ireland, as against thousands in a country like Denmark. Q. Only a hundred in all the universities and schools of Ireland? A. Yes, only a hundred students who are pursuing courses in scientific agriculture; real students in agriculture.
I will leave with you a very precious document entitled “The Constitution of Sinn Fein, Established in 1908,” with a program which is now being put into effect. Its first aims were a just eco- nomic system, the establishment of a land bank, the early estab- lishment of the Irish mercantile marine, and the development of Ireland’s natural resources. There is, for instance, a coal mine only nine miles from where I was born that has never had a railroad. Coal is still hauled by a cart. Q. Good coal? A. Anthracite coal, very hard, with a good deal of sulphur, but excellent for mercantile uses.
Q. Commissioner Addams: Do you have a sense that this tension in Ireland is due to the fact that the military are themselves being forced; that they are in a very forced position? A. They are mixed, I think. I went with a brother of mine who is a doctor in a prison to the United Service Club, and some of the members of that club feel very bitter about the Irish. They have been educated with the idea that the Irish are inferior. They are a little like the common soldier I heard about in 1916. He was asked if the fighting was over in Dublin, and he said, “Yes, all but the natives in the hills, who have not yet come in.” They have this feeling about the natives. But, of course, I found a good many soldiers who hate their jobs. They say .that it is not their job—it is a police job. In some cases the military have prevented the police from killing, and in other places the police have prevented the mili- tary from killing. And, by the way, the only picture I saw that was destroyed in the Kerry Row that we heard about was the picture of King George. It was in the home of a man who had fought for the British Crown in Flanders. The police probably destroyed it because it was the most vivid picture in the Row, with bright color- ings that could not fail to attract some attention. The man was furious because, he said, “It cost me a pound, and now see what they have done to it.” But when the police came down that street de- stroying everything, smashing in doors and throwing things out of the windows, and stabbing bedding with their bayonets, the military came and stood by; and some of the inhabitants came out and said, “Can you not stop them?” And they said, “No, we cannot prevent them from destroying property, but we are here to prevent them from destroying life." So there is this current of conflicting winds. I need not tell you that if a hundred and thirty-five thousand soldiers on a war footing got loose to destroy things in Ireland, they would finish the job in a week. But there is this tug between conflicting winds. All of England is not out to massacre Ireland. If they were, they would have massacred them long ago. On the other hand, massacres do occur. Q. I mean between the people and those who are in the military and police service. A. It all depends upon the individual military officer. Some- times he is orderly and civil and will not allow any theft. In Gal- way, for instance, I was told by the Sinn Feiners that the head of the military was a very fine man, Hildegard his name was. But this good officer was ordered away and a man called Cruise came there, and he had a very difi'erent attitude. In Galway, for instance, there was one regiment stationed that had just come there and got it into their heads that they would like to shoot up the town. The other regiment had been .there much longer, and had formed certain human associations in the town, and they by force kept the Devonshire regiment in the barracks and prevented them from destroying the town. And, of course, the Sinn Feiners are equally human. In Belfast there was a Catholic house occupied by a Catholic family in a street where a number of Protestant families lived. A number of men came in and said, "We are Ulster Volunteers. You had better get out of the house, for we are going to burn it." One of these Catholic women stayed to see what would happen, and the other rushed into the next house, where the people were also mem- bers of the Ulster Volunteers, and said, "Oh, for God's sake come over. We don't know what is going to happen. There are some men who say they are Ulster Volunteers, and they are going to bum down our house." A half dozen people rushed into the house and said to the men, "Who are you?" They said they were Ulster Volunteers, and the others said, "What credentials have you?" And they produced a paper. The man from the street said, "This will not do at all." And he asked them what happened, and these Volunteers said, "We gave them a wee beating." And my friend said, "And where are they now?" And they said, "They are in the hospital." And so you have this human situation. I talked to an English correspondent who was in a hospital in Limerick, and he said he waved to a motor lorry of soldiers when they went by, and he said, "I bet those men have not got a smile since they got into Ireland. I have seen them in Flanders, and they are all right.” This news- paper main was Mr. Hugh Martin. He was in Dublin the next week and saw a row in a bar. An officer who had been drinking too much was flourishing his revolver. The porter tried to shut the door, and the officer pushed his revolver in his face and prevented him. Martin sent a report of it to his paper. Two or three days later a batch of English journalists went to Tralee, and the police came up to them and said, “Which of you is Mr. Martin?” And Martin concealed his identity, and they said, “When we catch Mr. Martin, we are going to kill him.” And Mr. Martin forgot the smile he gave the Tommy and left Ireland the next day. And this situation is going on unless some other country, perhaps the United States, can get it into Mr. Lloyd George’s conscience that people should not be crucified just because they want the right to govern themselves.
Q. Senator Walsh: To what extent are the Sinn Feiners educated? A. Many of the leaders are highly educated men. There are men like the Protestant writer, Mr. Darrell Figgis; and Mr. George Russell, editor of the Irish Homestead, is very sympathetic with Sinn Fein—more sympathetic than any other man I have met out- side the Sinn Fein cabinet. Then there are any number of school teachers and professors. Q. So it is not an organization led by a few hot-headed en- thusiasts? A. On the contrary, I talked with the largest dealer in sheeting in Belfast, and he is a Sinn Feiner. The big merchants, a great many of them, in spite of their interests in business, are for Sinn Fein. Mr. O’Mara, head of the American Association for Recog- nition of the Irish Republic, whose father is a big merchant, is a Sinn Feiner.
Q. I would like to have you briefly tell us what the program of the Sinn Fein organization is in so far as they endeavor to pre- vent assaults and murders and violation of law and order? A. That is the question which Miss Addams asked yesterday. Q. Do they have a fixed policy? Do they send down orders to those under them to stop murders and assaults? A. I think that there isn't any doubt but that in many cafees they have intervened to prevent violent acts by' subordinates. I heard of a man who had been guilty of theft, who had been intimi- dated in a horrible way into making a confession. They knew the man was guilty, and they fired a revolver off beside his head and frightened the life out of him until he confessed and the goods were restored. I told this to a Sinn Feiner in Dublin, and he was furious, and he said, "If you will tell me who they are, I shall see that they are punished, for they are guilty of a breach of trust." But, of course, when they have no jails there is no way of punishing many people. When they had General Lucas in prison, they finally let him go because it took too many officers to stay with him all the time. A Sinn Feiner told me, "We did not have the machinery to keep that man a prisoner. It was breaking up our organization. We had to give too much brains to him. He' had to have the Times from London every day, and we got it for him somehow. But he was too much trouble." So they let him go. There is another instance of some men found guilty by the Sinn Fein organization and put on an island in the Shannon. The R. I. C. heard that they were there and went to rescue them; and when they came near the island, the prisoners took stones and fired at the R. I. C, because they were afraid of being arrested ! I could give you cases of Sinn Fein police being given two years in prison be- cause of their police work in preserving order. What Mrs. King told you this morning about Templemore and the police work of the Sinn Fein Volunteers there was absolutely . accurate. All the roads were broken by motor vehicles. All the vehicles were assessed several shillings for the repair of the roads.
I myself have gone to a Sinn Fein court, and I have been struck by the intelligence and good sense of these young tradesmen who were running the court. It was the most democratic court I have ever been in. And although there is no physical force behind the decrees, they are usually obeyed. Q. Senator Walsh: Moral force? A. Moral force. Of course, there is also some physical force. (The witness was thereupon excused.) Chairman Howe: This is the last of the hearings of the Commis- sion at this time. The next sessions will probably be heard the first week in December. One of the witnesses at that time will be Mrs. MacSwiney, who sails in a very short time from Ireland. There are a number of other witnesses who are either on the sea or planning to sail in a very short time. There may be one or two or three more sessions.
The last witness is Miss Toksvig, of New York. I can say for her that she is a Dane, and has been in this country for at least eight years. Miss Toksvig. Q. Your name and address, please. A. Signe Toksvig, of 229 East 48th Street, New York City. Q. How long have you been in America? A. I have been in America for fifteen years. Q. Are you an Irishman? A. I am a Dane, claiming some relationship and interest in Ireland through my husband. Q. Born in Denmark? A. Yes. I left there when fifteen. I went to Denmark this fall, and then went to Ireland. We spent most of the time in the south and east of Ireland. I finally insisted that we should go to Ulster, for although I am not an orthodox Protestant, I come from a family of that persuasion, and thought in fairness that we ought to visit Ulster and find out at first hand what conditions there were like. We went there on the seventh of September.
You probably know that trouble started in Ulster on the twelfth of July, which is Orange Day. Trouble usually starts on that day in Belfast. On the excuse, as I could see it, that an Ulster man, District Police Inspector Smyth, had been killed in Cork,1 and another R. I. C. man, who was also an Ulster man, had been shot, the Ulster shipworkers refused to work with their Catholic fellow laborers, and I think that about five thousand Catholic shipworkers in Ulster were compelled to leave because of the demands of the Protestant workers, who struck to compel their discharge. Many,

See note, page 67.
if not most, of these had to leave Ulster because they had no other means of livelihood. There was a great deal of street fighting, as you know. In the poorer sections of the town, the Catholics and Protestants fought each other with stones and the like.
The first man that we went to see was a Mr. Lind, the editor of the Whig, an extremely Protestant paper. Mr. Lind thought we were typical American journalists, and he gave us what we con- sidered to be the regular dope for American journalists. Much of it we knew at the time was not true. He filled us up with the usual stock stories, such as that Belfast had contributed more soldiers to the Irish army during the war than ally the rest of Ireland put to- gether (that can be easily verified, or rather not verified, from the records), and that the rest of Ireland gave only two to Ulster’s three. He also said that all the people in Belfast were orderly, law-abiding citizens; and when I remarked to him that fifty-six people had been killed in the month of August in Belfast, he said that when these Belfast people heard of their fellow townsmen killed in Cork, they could not be restrained. He said that the Sinn Feiners were all leagued with Germany and received guns from Germany. I asked him if it was not true that there had been a gun-running at Larne at the time of the Carson rebellion. He said there was not one gun got from Germany at that time, and if there was, it was for the defense of the Empire. Mr. Lind was very pleasant, but he was not truthful. He was the only man I met in Belfast, however, who was deliberately insincere. There were some others who were sincerely misinformed and misinforming. But he knew that what he said was not true.
Then I met a Mr. Good, who wrote the best history of Ulster that has been written, but it was not reviewed in the Ulster papers. He called attention to the fact that it was not so very long ago that Ulster Catholics and Protestants were fighting side by side against England. Mr. Good was the son of the head constable of the Irish Constabulary. He is not a Sinn Feiner, but he is a very fair man, and I think we could believe what he told us. He said that in Bel- fast a very peculiar situation existed. Most of the constables were Catholics, owing to the fact that no Ulster constables are placed in their home county, but are sent down to the south of Ireland, and vice versa. So that when the Ulster shipworkers attacked their Catholic fellow workers, the constables protected them. He him- self had often heard the shipworkers say that "When we get those constables alone we shall do for them." He also told us that very often the Catholics and Protestants helped each other in cases where they knew each other. He said that whenever attacks were made, they were not made by neighbors against neighbors, but by people coming from another part of the town — a Protestant gang would come over and fight someone in the Catholic quarter, or vice versa, but where they were mixed and knew each other, they were not so likely to do that. I talked with a man who was a trolley-car starter. We met him several times. He was as kind a man and as polite a man without being servile as I have met He had very liberal views. He had been with the English army that had fought in Russia at Archangel. He said that those people ought to have the right to decide what kind of a government they wanted. He thought that Englishmen surely ought to realize that the Irish nation should have a right to say what it wanted to do. And so I said' to him, "Don't you think it was rather rough to turn five or six thousand people out of their employment just on account of their religion?" And he looked at me and said, "Well, they were getting very cockey, and we had to put them in their place." Q. Senator Walsh: Were these five or six thousand who were discharged Catholics? A. Yes. Discharged is hardly the word. Q. The Protestant workers struck, and went back to work on a compromise that the Catholic workers would be kept out of em- ployment? A. Yes. Then he told us, as an example of the extreme cheek of the Catholics — he pointed to a street near where he stood and said: "A band of them came here one morning. They saw a laundry wagon full of clothes-baskets. They stormed the wagon and took the baskets and made a barricade across the street and got down behind that and began to fire. But, fortunately, we had a very brave inspector of police, and he came along and shot several of them, and they all fled." And then in Londonderry — Q. What is the Protestant population in Belfast? A. The Catholic is about 20 per cent, of the total population. Most of the others are Protestant. Q. And in Londonderry it is half and half? A. It is about half and half, I think. We talked with the man who showed us around the walls in Lon- donderry. The most that we got out of him Was that it was very- bad for Catholics and Protestants to marry, because it would never work. And home rule would never work. He had no reasons to give us. He just had that idea rooted in his head. He was out of work, and was a bit dissatisfied. Q. Had the strike extended to Londonderry? A. No. I do not know why he was out of work. I talked to another man from the south of Ireland, and he began to talk to me very freely when he found that I was sympathetic. 1 do not know whether he was a Sinn Feiner, but he was Republican. In the south of Ireland, he said, you cannot even carry a camera without being arrested; but in Belfast you can have a Lewis gun in your house if you are of the right persuasion and you will not be touched. I said, "Whose houses have been destroyed in Belfast?" He told me that in certain districts only certain houses were de- stroyed. I went to that district and found that most of the houses destroyed had Irish names on them — Murphy, O'Callaghan, and so forth — Irish Catholic names. They were mostly public houses. And I was told by a man who was there that the soldiers were there at the time of the raid, and that they held back the mob, and let a few of the mob through, and said, "Easy, easy, only a few at a time. There is enough for everybody."
The whole prospect for immediate peace there seemed very dis- couraging, especially in view of the large piles of stones in the poorer sections of Belfast, which they call Irish confetti or Irish butterflies. Q. Senator Walsh: What are those stones? A. We. were told by Mr. Good, who knows Belfast very well, that these cobblestones were a great menace to the peace of the city. At one time the city council voted to have the streets of the city repaved, so that this menace might be done away with. But they voted to begin repaving in the Nationalist quarter ; and the Na- tionalist members of the council, as few as they were in number, made such a row that the paving was never done; and of course in the Orange section of the city they refused to have the paving begin there, because it would leave them without weapons.
Also we met an Ulster man who was an Unionist, and also a rea- sonable human being. He was a large manufacturer, but of course I could not give his name except very privately to the Commission. He only talked to us because we came very highly recommended by Mr. Good, who is well known in Belfast. At first he was very reti- cent and confidential, but after awhile he said, "I know, and all the manufacturers in this city know, that the trouble is not a religious trouble except as it has been fostered by them to serve their political and their economic interests," Q. By "them" meaning whom? A. By the manufacturers in Belfast. He said, "1 warned them a long time ago that they were raising up a monster which they could not control and which some day might turn upon them, but they paid no attention. Both the press and the clergy — ^not all of them, but some of them — and the large manufacturers have worked together to keep up strife- between the workmen in Belfast, using the religious issue simply as a means." Q. As a means to prevent what? A. To prevent agitation among laborers to improve their con- dition and wages, and home rule agitation secondly. It seems to me that that was a large admission for him to make. He might be willing to come over here and testify. He is a very courageous man.
Q. Did your other evidence confirm that? A. Yes, absolutely. The brother of this man, who is a junior partner in the firm, talked with us afterwards, and he gave us the same impression. He was terribly shocked by what he called the murders of policemen in the south of Ireland. Of course, his whole point of view was that England furnished all their law and order, and he repudiated the Sinn Fein government. He said, "You can hardly blame us. We went to school in England. All our connec- tions and acquaintances are there. Nevertheless, we are not against dominion home rule." They were against the Sinn Fein Republic. I do not know whether it would be possible to change them or not. My own personal feeling was, in talking with other people in Ulster, people in the stores and on the streets, that they were enough different from the pedple in the rest of Ireland to have the right to vote as to what would become of them. The man with whom I talked said, “I know perfectly well that this country our forefathers got by robbing the Irish inhabitants several hundred years ago. But we have developed this country by our own labors, and is it right to drive us out of here without giving us a voice as to what is going to become of us?” He was a descendant of one of the fam- ilies that was planted in Ulster. Q. Senator Walsh: Do they use the word “planted” in Ulster to denote those who were planted there by England many years ago? A. Yes, he knew that. He knew more history than the majority of the people in Ulster. Q. Chairman Howe: Just when was that? A. The planting was about two hundred years ago. Then we talked with the bookkeeper in that firm, who took us around and showed us the factory. I have seen excellent factories in the United States, and this factory was as good as any of them. It was an ex- ceptional case. I saw many young girls working who looked to me to be under fourteen, but he said that they were all over fourteen, and they probably would have said so themselves. They had a nine-hour day. There are some factories in Belfast, we heard from the bookkeeper, which were not up to that standard. Yet they had municipal inspection all the time, and had to measure up to a cer- tain norm. The bookkeeper also said that there were factories in the south of Ireland, usually laundries and places like that, which were far from sanitary and ought to be inspected. I said to him, “Is that in your opinion an argument against Ulster coming into an independent Ireland or an Irish dominion? Are you afraid that the south of Ireland will hinder you in Belfast from doing what you are doing?” He said, “No, that is all the more reason why we should go into an Irish parliament and settle it between ourselves and de- cide together what we are going to do.” All the people in that fac- tory are Presbyterians—Protestants. Both the bookkeeper and the two brothers at the head of this factory I found to be as liberal and as good to their employees as any employers I have ever met.
I think this is all I have to say, except that we attended an in- quest in Belfast over two murders that occurred in August. The thing that impressed me most was a conversation I had with a police sergeant. He was an Ulsterman from County Cavan, I think. He was a reasonable man, and I said to him: “Don’t you think it would be much better if you were a civil force, and did not have to carry these arms?” pointing to his arms. He said, “Yes, I think it would be far better if we were only a civil force, and had no military duties to perform.” I was also impressed by the evidence given by the district inspector of police at that inquest, and at the way his evi- dence was disregarded by the coroner and the coroner’s jury. His evidence had to do with the case of a man shot from an armored car. There were two streets, connected by another street forming a letter H, where there was a riot. That cross-bar street, however, was perfectly quiet. It appeared to me from the evidence that it was perfectly clear that the man standing at his door in that cross street was a quiet, peaceful man. His widow was there. That man was a Protestant. He was also a Sinn Feiner as far as I know. It was evident that he had been shot. But the coroner and the jury were so anxious to gloss it over that the three young officers, who appeared to be very excited, were acquitted by the jury. Q. Commissioner Addams: In the north they still have coroners’ juries? A. Yes, because in the north the people on the jury will in- variably give the verdict that the Crown wants, while in the south of Ireland it will always bring in the verdict that the Crown does not want. Q. Then there is a different rule for different sections of the country in regard to coroners’ juries? A. Yes, exactly.
There is one more thing I want to tell you as an example of how the Ulster manufacturers have called into being a monster of re- ligious prejudice that they can no longer control. The owner of a very large machine works, called the Sirocco works, I believe, had been affected by the very same conditions that the shipyards had to face. The Protestant workmen laid down their tools and refused to go back to work with Catholic employees. The owner wanted to start up again, but he could not because there were certain drafts- men employed by him, very crucial men, men on whom the industry depended, who were Catholics. No one else could take their places, so he slipped them in and thought the other workmen would not notice it. But the workmen did notice it, and demanded that he dis- miss these men. And so he had to shut down his factory. He could not run without them. And of course it threw the Protestant work- men out of employment too. The bookkeeper to whom I have referred told me about this case. “And so,” he said, “that is the result of stirring up religious prejudices.” Q. Senator Walsh: Is not the whole religious question in Ire- land one of the privileged classes, the financial interest classes, who control some of the press and clergy and keep these religious dif- ferences stirred up for intrenching their own privileges? A. That is true. But you must remember that they have suc- ceeded in doing that. They have dangled the religious bogey be- fore the people for so long that now a very real feeling exists. It started out like that. But the present generation is not going to forget about it soon, even though it was started artificially. Chairman Howe: We are very much obliged to you. Adjournment 5:45 P.M. * * * * * * * *
Before the
Session One Jane Addams James H. Maurer Oliver P. Newman George W. Norris Norman Thomas ) Commissioners David I. Walsh L. Hollingworth Wood Frederic C. Howe Acting Chairman Before the Commission sitting in Odd Fellows' Hall, Washington, D. C, Wednesday, December 8, 1920. Session called to order by Chairman Howe at 10:23 a. m. Chairman Howe: The session will please come to order. Since the last meeting of the Commission the following persons have become members of the Commission, and will sit with us this morning: Senator George W. Norris, of Nebraska. Congressman-Elect C. L. Knight has been elected but is not here, although he has accepted membership. He is the Congressman- elect from Akron, Ohio. Major Oliver P. Newman, former District Commissioner of the District of Columbia. Major Newman is sick in bed today and cannot be with us. Mr. Norman Thomas, of New York, who is here this morning. The Commission has also asked Senator Thomas Walsh, of Mon- tana, and Ex-Senator James Martine, of New Jersey, to sit with the Commission today. They are present with us. The first witness this morning is Miss Mary MacSwiney. Miss MacSwiney is on the witness stand. Miss MacSwiney, you realize that this is not a regular legal hear- ing—not a legal procedure—and you are not subject to cross exami- nation, except that the members of the Commission want to examine you to get at the facts and find out about conditions in Ireland. We want you to tell your story in a way that is easy and natural to you, and we would like to have you tell it loud enough so that as many of the people here as possible can hear it.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh (of counsel) : Your name is Miss Mary MacSwiney? A. Yes. Q. Where do you reside, Miss MacSwiney? A. In Cork, Cork city. Q. I believe you stated that there was something you wanted to say to the Commission.
A. I felt that I wanted, before I started my evidence this morn- ing, to thank the Commission and the American people first, for the kindly reception we got, and to thank the Commission for its endeavor to help Ireland by getting at the truth. I think the best evidence that this Commission is impartial is the fact that when I left Ireland I got the impression from some Amer- icans that were there in the summer that this Commission was one especially arranged by friends of England to try to whitewash her in the papers, and to do it not only in England’s interests but in the interests of an Anglo-American alliance. I find also that our enemies took it that you are a Sinn Fein sympathizing Commission. And since we thought you were pro-British, and they thought you were pro-Irish, you must therefore be impartial. I should also like to express my appreciation of the fact that the Commission has been trying to carry out one of the purposes for which America entered the war, and which I think we all agree was not quite effected by the war, and that is to make the world safe for democracy. As far as my evidence is concerned, I should like to give whatever evidence I have to the Commission.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Now, Miss MacSwiney, I wish you would begin at the point that you suggested to me that you thought would be significant, and as far as you can, go ahead with your own story. I will ask you a few questions to begin with. You are the sister of the late Lord Mayor of Cork? A. Yes. Q. And the names of your parents? A. John Terence MacSwiney was my father's name. He was a native of County Cork, where my family have resided since the fourteenth century. And my mother was named Mary Wilkinson. She was borfl and brought up in England, but of her four grand- parents, three were Irish. Q. How many brothers and sisters have you? A. Originally a family of nine, five boys and four girls. Q. And how many are living now? A. Six since my brother Terence died. Q. Have the family always lived in Cork? A. My father went to England after the Fenian times, when things were very hard in Ireland, and took up a position there, and married my mother there, and I was born there. Q. In London?/ A. In London. We came .back to Ireland when I was five. The family have lived there ever since. Some have gone away for short periods. I was in college in England and was teaching in England for a while. Q. What place was the late Lord Mayor in the family? A. He was the fourth. Q. He was the fourth in the family? A. Yes. Q. And how many brothers and sisters have you living? A. I have now two brothers and three sisters living. Q. And the brothers are whom? A. My eldest brother is Peter. He is an American citizen. He came to this country in 1908 and was naturalized here, and lived in New York. My youngest brother, John, was in Canada when the war broke out, and he got a very bad time there because he would not join the British army to fight the small nations. He was sen- tenced to two years' imprisonment, and might even have been sen- tenced to death; and he was about to be transported forcibly to fight in the British army, but some of his friends got a writ of habeas corpus, to prove that under Canadian law they were not entitled to send him across seas; and while that matter was under the jurisdiction of the courts, the armistice was signed. Q. Where do your sisters reside? ' A, Two of my sisterg are nuns. One is in Asheville, North Carolina. She has been in America since 1910. Another sister is in Japan. My third and youngest sister is at home. Q. What has your life been? A. A teacher. Q. How long have you been a teacher? A. I have been a teacher since 1901.
Q. You suggested, Miss MacSwiney, that in order to give a proper background for other features, and what has transpired re- cently, you might briefly sketch the Republican movement, espe- cially as it has touched your family and your case, and as you had observation of it. A. Just the present Republican movement? Q. Well, the background you gave me. A. I suppose the background of most of the Irish families such as ours is the background of Ireland. I would like to emphasize that the present Republican movement is not a new thing. It is a continuous fight that has been going on for Irish freedom ever since the English conquered our country. In Henry VIII’s time they held a very small portion of the country. He was the first to take the title of King of Ireland, but he was really king of only a couple of counties. By degrees the English spread over Ireland, and finally dominated the whole of it. But from the time that they dominated the country, there never has been one generation -when a fight for independence, an open fight, has not taken place. There has always been an open current of hostility to English government in Ireland, and the Irish people have never once in all the course of their history accepted the British government in Ireland. Q. Coming down through the Home Rule movement, with which I believe you are familiar, is there a connection between this Home Rule movement and the struggles that have gone on all the time against English domination over your country? A. Distinctly, I should say. Suppose I begin with 1798. I will not take very long. In 1798 there was an outbreak. They call it the Irish Rebellion. I should like to emphasize for the American people that the definition of a rebellion is an uprising against law- fully constituted authority. Consequently there never has been a rebellion in Ireland. There was an insurrection. But you cannot have a rebellion unless you are rising against lawfully constituted authority. And England’s authority in Ireland was never lawfully constituted—it was an usurpation maintained by the sword.
Consequently, in 1798 there was an Irish insurrection, in which Wolfe Tone, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, and many other famous men, with whose names we are not familiar, tried to secure Ireland’s free- dom. It was distinctly a Republican movement. Wolfe Tone de- clared for Irish independence, and it was an insurrection all the leaders of which were without exception Protestants. I should like to emphasize that, because some of your people have the idea that the Irish difficulty is a religious difficulty. There is no religious difficulty in Ireland of serious importance. It is entirely a move- ment for political freedom. I might say that many of the leaders in the Republican movement have been Protestants, not only Wolfe Tone and Lord Edward Fitzgerald, but men like the Emmets, Mac- Cracken, Thomas Davis, John Mitchel, and Parnell—for we do reverence Parnell, because he put up a good fight in his day. And many of the leaders of the present movement are Protestants. Well, that revolt was crushed, and then there was a period from 1817 to 1847 when there were many petty wars in Ireland. Q. Senator Norris: Miss MacSwiney, may I interrupt you there? Were all the names of all those persons you named Protestants? A. Every one of them, Senator, and many more of them. Dur- ing that period, the first half of the nineteenth century, the Tithe Wars and the wars against an oppressive landlord system were constantly going on. They were what you might call little sectional wars. The Tithe War was national. It meant that the Irish Catholic population were protesting against having to support non-Catholic clergymen. As an instance, I can tell you of clergymen who got a salary of one thousand pounds a year. That would be, I suppose, about five thousand dollars; and they never entered Ireland from one year’s end to another. They lived in England and spent their money in England. Q. Senator Walsh: That was paid out of the public taxation? A. Out of the public taxes, yes. Q. That was the struggle against what was called the Irish Church? A. Yes. And it finally ended in the disestablishment of the Church in 1869. But it was only by the Fenian uprising that they later disestablished the Church. Meantime we had a Repeal Move- ment, which was a constitutional movement. m
Then we had the Republican movement of 1848, following the famine. That is what was technically known as a famine, but it was not a famine at all. It was a starvation policy enforced by England. Q. Mr. Mr. F. P. Walsh: During that time was there plenty of food in Ireland? A. Plenty. There was food—corn and meat—to the value of fifteen million pounds a week sent out of Ireland. And if Ireland really had a government of its own and there was a scarcity of food, the first thing that government would do would be to close the ports and prevent the shipping of food. But England put her armed soldiers at the ports to keep them open, and food to the value of fifteen million pounds a week went out of Ireland— that would be nearly $60,000,000 a week went out of Ireland— while over a million people died of famine. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: That was not a famine. That was a star- vation. A. Exactly, as starvation is going on in Ireland today. Q. Now to bring it down to date. A. The movement of 1848 was all a Republican movement. That was entirely a Republican movement. And surely one sees the extraordinary vitality of Ireland when a famine that destroyed one and one-quarter million people did not subjugate them. In a year after that they were in arms again.
Again in 1867 the Fenian movement sprang up, and that move- ment was suppressed after a time. Many of the Fenians fled to America and lived here for many years; and about the last of them lives now in New York. I’m sure that many of those listening to me have heard of John Devoy as the last man connecting the present generation with the other. Q. Chairman Howe: How did the Fenian movement differ from the others? A. Not at all, or it differed only in that it was a secret move- ment. They had a secret oath. Q. Senator Walsh: Did it have religious aspects? t A. Yes. On the ground that it was a secret society with a secret oath, many of the bishops condemned it, and that frightened many of the people away. Q. How about having Protestants in the ranks? A. Oh, there were many Protestants in the ranks. Q. There never was any difference or division along religious lines? . A. Never. Never. Insomuch as it was more a movement of the proletariat it was more Catholic than the ’98 movement was, because the proletariat were always more Catholic. And for that reason it was more largely Catholic, even among the leaders, than the ’98 movement, because there was hardly a single Catholic leader in the ’98 movement. Q. What various Irish national movements developed after- wards, if any, that could not be said to be strictly along constitu- tional lines, beginning with Sir Isaac Butt’s constitutional move- ment?
A. Sir Isaac Butt was a Protestant, but we would call him a very strong imperialist. He did believe in home rule for Ireland, and started a home rule movement, which was a very milk-and-water aifair indeed. Then Parnell came along. Parnell was a Protestant, as Butt was, but Parnell took up the movement for freedom and liberty from the Irish point of view, while Butt took it up from the standpoint of convenience for the British Empire. I think Amer- icans understand that point of view. Butt did not want the Empire weakened. Parnell was different. He thought the Irish question was really and truly dominant, and that Ireland had a right to have a voice in its settlement. Parnell met the Fenian leaders, many of them, and asked their permission practically to try a constitutional movement in Westminster. In 1829 Daniel O’Connell had obtained the right to have Catholics represented in Parliament. And Parnell said it would be better to use this right and see what could be done in Westminster. Q. Was it generally known that Parnell, as far as his effort for complete liberty was concerned, did work in harmony with the Irish Republican brotherhood? A. Yes. He made a definite agreement with them to stand aside for a time and see how his scheme would work. And he gave them a definite promise that if after a certain period they felt that they were obtaining no good by staying at Westminster, he would go back to Ireland and work there. That was a definite promise by Pamell to the Fenians. Before he started his movement at West- minster he made that promise. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Did the Irish people ever notice anything in the statements of Parnell publicly, or in the statements he made in the House of Commons, that would indicate that he was willing to place any positive inhibition on or suppress efforts at complete independence? A. No. The people were quite confident that Parnell meant absolute independence in the end, and that Home Rule was only a stepping stone. And Parnell himself said over and over again that no man could say that when Ireland got Home Rule, we would not want anything more. He was asked over and over again to give that promise, and he refused to give it. He said : "No man can put bounds to the onward march of a nation." These words of his are historic, and that was his answer to England asking him to give a guarantee that if Ireland got home rule, she would not want any- thing more. Q. Was there any change in the Parnell policy? A. No, Parnell never did change it. Parnell carried on that fight by means of obstruction. You can see that there was no chance to go on with obstruction forever. At that time there was no limit to the length of the speech a man could make in the House of Parliament. So Parnell said, "Very well, if you will not pass any Irish legislation, you will not pass any English legislation either." And then the whole eighty members of the Irish Party began to talk, and Parliament did not pass any English legislation. Then they brought in the Cloture Bill, by which the Speaker could stop debate on a bill at the end of the day's session. Parnell was a very much hated man. He adopted a policy that his followers could not join in English social life or join English social groups, in order to keep themselves absolutely uncontaminated by English influence — which was a very wise decision. Then they tried to put tempta- tion in Parnell's way, and Parnell fell. I only want to say one thing about that: after the judgment was given against Parnell, there was a meeting of the Irish party in Room Fifteen, and they dis- cussed in the meeting all night long as to whether they should ask Mr. Parnell to resign. They decided that they would not; that the man's private life was his own affair, and that he was doing the duty that he undertook to do for Ireland ; and therefore they elected him leader. The plan was a disappointment to the Unionists, be- cause they thought the Irish leaders would be sp terrified qf what people might say in Ireland that they would dismiss Parnell. Then Mr. Gladstone, who posed as a friend of Ireland — and I believe was good enough in his own way, but in regard to Ireland thought it was a matter of territorial dominion and sovereignty — Mr. Glad- stone put on a virtuous air and said he could not have any alliance with a man of Parnell's character. That frightened the Irish mem- bers very much, because they counted on the Liberal alliance. And Parnell said to them: "I do not care very much as far as I am con- cerned, but I warn you that if you allow yourself to take English dictation now, you ruin your work through all these years." But after an all night discussion and debate he was asked to resign. That caused what was known as the Parnell split. He said that if they had asked him to resign at the first meeting, he would have resigned at once; but he would not resign because of a charge given them by an English statesman. And, of course, he was right.
Eventually Mr. Redmond became head of the Irish party. Mr. Redmond as a young man was, according to his words and public expressions, as ardent an Irishman as my brother. But he did not keep up Parnell's policy of remaining uncontaminated by English society; and gradually he seems to have been hypnotized by the imperial idea, and he began to speak with two voices. When Mr. Redmond came over to Ireland he spoke with a fairly strong voice. When speaking in England he spoke with a very weak voice. He said, at the latter end of his life, words amounting to this: "I only ask you for Home Rule. We would not dream of asking you for anything that would injure you in any way whatever. And any- thing endangering English freedom or the British Empire we will not ask you for. And, therefore, we will not even ask you for our customs and excise." When Mr. Redmond said that he did not speak for the Irish people. He spoke for himself and for a very small number of people whom we in Ireland call West Britons — that is, those who ought to be Irish, but are very anxious to re- main English. We call them West Britons. Mr. Redmond spoke, when he said that, not for the Irish nation. The Irish nation never agreed with him. Never once in any speech he made in Ireland did he dare to say anything like that. The Irish people's attitude always was: If our independence is going to hurt the British Em- pire, so much the worse for the British Empire. They have no right to want anything that is inconsistent with the rights of an- other nation. The people began to get very angry with the Na- tionalist party, and then a movement started in Ireland which was called the Sinn Fein movement.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Miss MacSwiney, do you not think that this would be a good way to come at this Republican movement, to trace your own movements in Ireland. You were a teacher at this time, I believe? A. Yes, I have been a teacher since 1901, when I left college. Q. And you might state to the Commission briefly the general plans of the educational system in Ireland. Are you a teacher in what is known as the public school? Give, if you will, please, the different lines on which the educational system is founded. A. Our educational system differs greatly from yours. I may not have yours very correctly, but what I understand by public schools in America are those financed by the state, to which all people of all classes can go free of charge; that in addition you have in America a good many private schools; that these are mainly for rich people, who prefer to have their children educated separately; and that they are of a different kind, and will, perhaps, give a different kind of education. Is that not so? Mr. F. P. Walsh: That is quite broad. The Witness : Well, in England what you call public schools they call board schools. Their national schools are schools run by the Church of England, and all other denominations as well as the Church of England can have their private schools, which can get their grant from the state ; not as good a grant as the board schools get, but a grant, provided they confine the teaching of religion to certain hours of the day. Q. On what conditions can the schools get the government grant? Is it based on examinations, or what? A. Now it is not any longer. It is on inspection. Q. But prior to the war? A. It is on inspection, and has been for some time. In Ire- land we have what is called the National Education Act, which is the most unnational thing you can imagine. The National Edu- cation Act was passed in 1831. The object was to allow people of all classes to attend schools. It was the very first time that Catholics were allowed to be educated. There was another Act passed earlier that allowed them to have a certain amount of education. But education for the common people only began by this act of 1831. Previously they got what education they could get illegally. We had in Ireland what we called hedge schools, be- cause the master sat under a hedge. He taught his pupils in the open air because he had no school house. The National Educa- tion Act passed in 1831 was passed with the express purpose— definitely expressed—of denationalizing Ireland and anglicizing it. And in connection with that I would like to tell you a little story. You have all heard of Sir Walter Scott’s poetry, and you know that he has written a little poem that begins like this: Breathes there a man with soul so dead Who never to himself has said, “This is my own, my native land”; Whose heart hath ne’er within him burned As home his footsteps he has turned From wandering on a foreign strand. And it goes on to say that if there is such a man, he should go “down to the vile depths from which he sprung, unwept, unhon- ored, and unsung.” When Archbishop Whately, the Protestant Bishop of Dublin, got together a number of clerks and secretaries, and got them to help him compile books for the new national schools, he found among one of the books, in revising them, this extract. It was to go into one of the books for the national schools. Of course, that would never do, even if it was copied from the best English school books. The secretary who put that in prob- ably lost his job. Archbishop Whately said, “What a stupid thing it was to put that into the books, when what we want is to make these Irish children forget they have a land.” And he substi- tuted for it a rhyme which began: I thank the goodness and the grace That on my birth has smiled, And made me in these blessed days A happy English child. Of course we call this blasphemy. We do not thank God for a lie. I have told you that little story to give you the whole tone of the education in those so-called national schools. It was abso- lutely forbidden to speak a word of Irish within the walls of the school, and that, mind, to children who could speak nothing else, because in those days Ireland was all Gaelic-speaking. Even the children were whipped in school if they did not make haste and pick up English. In addition to that, no word of Irish his- tory was allowed to be taught in those schools. And in a whole series of school books appointed for those schools all over the country, Ireland was mentioned twice. On one occasion the Irish children were told that Ireland was an island lying to the west of Great Britain; and in the other place they were told that Ireland had been visited on a certain date by her gracious majesty, Queen Victoria. And that is the education the Irish children growing up in the middle of the nineteenth century got. You might ask me, Why did the Irish people accept it? The bishops of that time, with the exception of one glorious example, accepted it because they had no chance to get at their children to teach them, and they said, It is better for us to teach them their religion anyhow; and since we have the opportunity of teaching religion for the first time without hindrance, let us accept this Education Act with all its great drawbacks. The one glorious bishop who stood out against it was MacHale of Tuam. He said, “That Education Bill, as it stands, is an evil. If you accept it you are doing no good to religion and you are ruining nationality.” And as long as he lived, which he did for about fifty years after this act was passed, he refused to allow a single national school in his diocese. Unfortunately he did not live long enough. But that is the sort of education our children are getting. But our children—if you will let me use the word—of the better class people—(I hate to use it because I am a thorough democrat, but I will use it here)—-these children attend private schools. The better-off people send their children to be educated in England, and naturally they come back very English.
In 1869 the Irish Church was disestablished, and there was a great deal of money left over. And there was one and a quarter million of that— Q. One million pounds or one million dollars? A. O, pounds—about five million dollars that would be. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Not at the present rate of exchange. The Witness: Will you allow me to use pounds, because it is difficult for me to think in terms of dollars? Well, a great deal of money was devoted to education, secondary education, educa- tion for those who could afford to stay in school up to eighteen. The national schools only prepared up to fourteen. For those who could afford to go on to the university these secondary schools were endowed from part of the money left from disestablishing the Irish Church. The system of education was that the Board laid down a certain program. Any school of any denomination could teach that program, and might enroll themselves as an Intermediate school provided they had seven pupils. They got a grant, after their pupils could pass this examination, which was divided into various grades. In the beginning they did very well, because there were not ' very many children, and there was no system of crams. But as the number of children increased and the money did not increase, of course the tendency was that the prizes and the grant had to be divided up among a great number of people, and got so small it could not finance education. A little more money was given; and I would like to point out to you here where this money came from. A certain proportion of the whiskey tax was devoted to education. The result was this: If our people were sober, there was very little money for education. If they got drunk, there might be a little more. But the total sum devoted to education in Ireland was about forty-five thousand pounds a year. That education became a cram system. There were certain books prescribed. Much depended upon the teacher; but nearly all the teachers in Ireland at the present day were brought up on that system themselves. Cram for examinations; no real development.
For a long time Irish — the Gaelic language — was not allowed at all. Irish history was not allowed. I may as well tell you, incidentally, that when I was going to school in my own native city of Cork, I never learned one line of Irish history. It was only about two years before I left school and the history class that Irish history was allowed, with much fear and trembling, to be taught. And then it was not Irish history, but it was the history of England in Ireland. That was what was called Irish history. But some of us did not confine ourselves to that. We learned a little more. How much you learned depended upon what sort of a family you came from — what England would call a rebellious strain. Therefore the majority of the people, who were in the hard struggle for existence, knew nothing about Irish his- tory. And that has given England a chance to say the Irish people do not want independence. The Irish people do want independ- ence, but because of their bad education they do not know how to express their desires. Another thing I would like you to know about education in the secondary and national schools is that there is one set of people in Ireland that were not there in Archbishop MacHale's time. They refused to go under the Board of National Education. They were the Christian Brothers. The Christian Brothers refused it because you had to confine religious education in schools to one-half hour a day, and you had to use books appointed by the national board, and those books omitted all mention of Irish history, about Irish heroes, or a single word about a martyr or a saint whatever. And the Christian Brothers v^ould not have that system, and they adopted books of their own, which are very fine books. And perhaps the reason that the men of Ireland are better educated and know more about the history of their land than the women do, is that the men have been educated by the Christian Brothers and the women have been educated in the national schools or anglicizing secondary schools. Commissioner Addams : But there is one exception. The Witness: O, Miss Addams, there are many exceptions. But 1 am talking about what the government gave us and not what we gave ourselves. About the second schools: the anglicizing influence of the sec- ondary schools was much greater than the anglicizing influence of the national schools, because it was fashionable to ape England. And there was a certain class of people in Ireland who were the outcome of this system of education. I think they probably would be much worse in any other country than our own. But they were ashamed to be Irish. They all of them finished their educa- tion in England, and they were so happy if by any chance they were mistaken for Englishmen. That type of man is hopeless in a country. And you have no idea how hard we had to fight to kill this influence, but thank God it is dead. The influence of all the secondary schools in Ireland made it seem fashionable to be English. So when the Sinn Fein move- ment started in 1905, you might be quite sure of this, that the meaning of it was neither understood nor appreciated in the schools — the upper class schools, the fashionable schools of Ire- land. The system in those schools was English. It was an angliciz- ing influence entirely. I am sorry to say that it was largely car- ried on by religious denominations, by the nuns, who were afraid. They Avere very timid, and were afraid to be anything except con- ventioHal. They are different now, of course. They followed suit when the times have become Republican. And even then there were many bold exceptions. But that was the run of the secondary schools.
I will have to digress from the educational question to explain Sinn Fein. £inn Fein with us today means the party which follows the Republican policy—what Ireland is today. I have seen in American papers, for instance, “The Sinn Fein,” as if Sinn Fein were a people. Now, Sinn Fein is a policy, as you have the Democratic policy and the Republican policy. Commissioner Maurer: We do not have it now. We used to have it. The Witness: Like we used to have West Britons in Ireland? Well, I do not know enough about your policies to know if they are a good thing or a bad thing, but if you Americans want it, that is your business. Now, Sinn Fein is a policy, but the Irish Republic is a country. Suppose, for instance, I asked you what nationality you were, and you told me you were Democratic. I am quite sure that your countrymen, your fellow-citizens, would resent that very much. A Democrat is- a member of a particular organization or a particular party. Sinn Fein is a policy, but the Irish Republic Government is the authorized recognized gov- ernment of the Irish people, their chosen government. And so we do not call ourselves Sinn Feiners. We call ourselves Irish Re- publicans, just as you call yourselves Americans. We may have a Sinn Fein policy, or some other kind of policy, within our own country. I will tell you where the confusion comes. When Parnell and Redmond had failed to secure even a measure of freedom for Ireland, Arthur Griffith, who was founder of the Sinn Fein policy and vice-president of our Republic today, took a different policy. He wanted a reversion to the Grattan Parliament of 1782, with proper representative franchise and an executive which would be subject to Parliament. Grattan’s Parliament, while it did a great deal of good, had none of these. It had a strictly confined fran- chise, and the executive was under the control of England. He said, We are to reach this goal by a policy of self-reliance. He took the name Sinn Fein, which simply is the Irish word for “ourselves.” And he took it as a policy of self-reliance. Up to that time we had been working at Westminster for a very long time to see what we could get out of Westminster. We also had our eyes on America to see if there would be anything good coming from that quarter. During 1798, when we were at open war with England, we looked to the French for help. But Griffith said, There is no good casting your eyes to the ends of the earth. Only the fools’ eyes are there. We can do a good deal more at home. We can develop our industries. We can study the Irish language. The Gaelic League had started some years before that. He made the main plank in his policy abstention from Westminster. That was the policy of Sinn Fein. The reversion to Grattan’s Parliament meant a separate Parliament for Ireland. He took Parnell’s view that you cannot put bounds to the onward march of a nation. But although he wanted a different Parliament, there would be the same king over both countries. That was the original policy of Sinn Fein. The name has stuck to what has been the policy of the Irish people all along—utter and entire independence. Certain of us in Ireland have never joined Sinn Fein. My brother was never a member of any Sinn Fein club, simply because it was not expressly Republican. It was implied. But he took the atti- tude that the mere repression of the statement that we are aiming at a Republic is a compromise. And we stand where Wolfe Tone stood. So he said, We will not join Sinn Fein. But he helped it, especially the policy of the development of Irish industry. He worked for the policy of Sinn Fein without ever declaring himself a Sinn Feiner. Q. How old was your brother when he died? A. Forty.
Q. I think it might be well to develop your statement along that line, by a statement of your brother’s activities. A. I am afraid I would be too long. Mr. F. P. Walsh: I might say to the Commission that, riding over on the train with Miss MacSwiney, I found she knows much more about this than any of us. She asked me to make suggestions from time to time that might keep the narrative in order and get everything in. I just made that suggestion. Of course, if it does not fit there, Miss MacSwiney should go on. The Witness: The only reason I hesitated was that the Com- mission might sit for a whole week and ask me questions and yet not get to the end of the story. I am at your disposal as long as you like. In regard to my brother’s activities. Perhaps that would be interesting just at this point. I might say that we have always been Republican. Not only all our lives, but all our generations. We came down from the north of Ireland, where our family originally came from in the thirteenth century, and we settled in County ' Cork in the fourteenth century. And I think there are very few generations or fights since when we have not given some sort of account of ourselves. Writing in the days of Elizabeth, a certain one of her ministers, Sir Henry Bagenal, said of Ireland — he wanted at thaftime to capture the young Red Hugh O'Donnell, the chieftain of the north, and he was very exercised because the leader of the MacSwineys of that day was the guardian and foster-father of young Red Hugh. In those days in Ireland there was the prac- tice of fosterage. It meant that the sons of the chief of one family were sent to the chiefs of other tribes to be educated. And young Red Hugh O'Donnell had been sent to MacSwiney of the Battle Axes to be educated, because he was the greatest chieftain of the North. The MacSwineys were always a great military power there. So Sir Henry Bagenal, writing to Queen Elizabeth, said, "Your Majesty, if I could only manage to get rid of this MacSwiney, I would be able to capture Red Hugh. I think I have a plan." He had a plan. He succeeded in capturing him by duplicity. It is not necessary to tell you that story. Besides being great military chieftains, the MacSwineys had great characters even in those days. I hope you will not think me blowing a family trumpet, but since it is a great many generations back, it will not make any difference. They had a characteristic even in those days of being honest, and an honest person is at a disadvantage in dealing with rogues, because they give the others credit for being honest, too. So this MacSwiney, being honest, went aboard an apparently harmless merchant ship that came to port. He went on board to pay a friendly, courteous visit to the captain. While they were in the cabin on this friendly, courteous visit, the hatches were closed down on them, the anchors loosened, and they were taken prisoners to Dublin, which was about the only place Queen Elizabeth had for herself in Ireland. That was the history of the MacSwineys of those days. The family eventually came south and settled in County Cork, and there is hardly a place in the whole barony of Muskerry, as they called that country in those days, where our family had not built castles. There are still ruins all around County Cork be- longing to them. In Cromwell's time we went the way of all the Irish chieftains. Cromwell took the land and gave it to one of his troopers named Sweet. And the Sweets held that land, and some of this family hold it still. They thus became the so-called gentry. All the Irish chieftains, when they were dispossessed of their land, hated to go away. They preferred to work as laborers on the meanest little farm than to leave Ireland and their native soil. There is an extraordinary attachment to the very sod of the earth in an Irish heart. These people did not leave the county. They took service as laborers, and became small farmers when it got possible to buy a farm, and stayed there. There actually is at this present day a direct descendant of the MacSwineys living on a farm on the grounds where are the ruins of his ancestral castle. He is also Terence MacSwiney. Chairman Howe: Just a moment. I notice Senator Gore in the rear of the hall. (Applause.) As you all know, no man in the United States Senate has been interested more earnestly in human questions than Senator Gore. We would like to have him come forward. (Continued applause. Senator Gore is ushered to the Commissioners' bench.) Chairman Howe: Miss MacSwiney will proceed.
The Witness : You have been kind enough to ask me for some of our family history. I do not want to spend too long on it. I want to get my brother's particular part. Just before the famine period our family moved to Bandon. My grandfather was mar- ried twice. They were there during the period of the famine. My grandmother used to tell me very many stories when I was a child. I am using the word famine because it is so familiar to say it like that, but I want to emphasize it once more that it was not a famine, in a country where the fields were growing beautiful rich corn and where there was meat and butter in plenty. There is no famine in that country. It was organized starvation. My father was only a little boy, only a child, at the time of the famine. When he was growing up they removed to the City of Cork. Of course you can understand the want of employment there is in an unde- veloped country. Some of you have been in our country and you must have noticed how undeveloped it is — no factories; even the very fields undeveloped. The cause of that is not laziness, as you have been often told. It is a fact that we have not been allowed to develop our country. So my father went to England and worked there for a while, and there got married. He returned to Ireland somewhere about 1880 or 1881. I am not sure of the dates. He joined his brother-in-law in a partnership as a tobacco manufac- turer. The partnership did not turn out very successfully, and he started afterwards himself, but again he did not succeed very well. Matters were against him, and so the business was closed. My father died when we were children. I think the last time — he died away from home, where he had to go for his health, and my brother Terence was only about eight when he saw his father for the last time. But even so, there were a lot of old family customs which he had put into us children — the spirit of the family. One of them was that every Sunday afternoon we had to learn a little poem about Ireland for my father. We generally stood with our backs to the dining-room door, and recited for him. Terence was the last that ever did that. He was only eight when my father died. We had to learn some little poem and it had to be about Ireland. We learned T. D. Sullivan's poems; Thomas Davis' poems, all of them of an insurrectionary character. And I think that the more fiery the poem was, the bigger reward we got. I remember get- ting a bright, new sixpence when I recited “The Death of Owen Roe O'Neill.” It was a very fiery poem, indeed, and two whole verses were taken up with curses on England. I was about nine when I recited that. My mother was very shocked, and I heard her say in an undertone to my father, “Really, that child should not use such frightful language.” He said he didn't think it would do me any harm.
My brother went to school to the Christian Brothers, but he was not satisfied with it. It was not a national school, as has been stated; but it was so far ahead of the others that we gave them credit for having the only Irish schools in Ireland. He went in for the Intermediate examinations and got exhibitions — that is, a money prize in each class. He left school when he was about six- teen and went into business. In normal times and in less strenuous conditions, as far as money went, he would have remained at school and entered a college course, and would have become a writer or a poet. But he had to leave school, because the family was not well off, and entered business. He did not like business. And he educated himself and was able to take a university degree, and he became a Bachelor of Arts. Not only that, but he did a great deal of writing besides. He wrote poems. In looking through his papers after his death I came across the letter that I myself wrote him congratulating him on the first poem that was published over his name. He became very interested in national things. There is a society in Cork called the Celtic Literary Society. I think he must have been about seventeen when he was one of the founders of that. It was a body of young men animated by the Republican ideal. They used to meet together after business hours; they read and wrote essays, and brought out a little magazine that circulated among a certain crowd. And that Celtic Literary So- ciety did develop other national activities. The thing that stands most to its credit is the Irish Industrial Development Associa- tion, which is one of the things those young men started. I told you that he never joined Arthur Griffith’s Sinn Fein Society be- cause it was not primarily for Republican independence, but he worked along that line, as far as it went, and with one or two others was responsible for the founding of the Irish Industrial Development Association. Mr. F. P. Walsh: You might sketch that. The Witness: It was really a society strictly non-political and non-sectarian, and formed for the especial purpose of developing Irish industries—to make the people of Ireland,—who had been avoiding Irish goods without any thought,—to buy Irish goods wherever they could get them. They started industries. It spread from Cork to Dublin, and naturally Dublin, being the capital, became the center. But Cork has the honor of starting it. Mr. Fawsitt, who is now the Consul-General of the Irish Republic here, was secretary in Cork for many years. He was considered the best man to send over here for that reason. The fact that we have a consul here today, and have a consul in almost every European country, entirely against the wishes of Great Britain, is entirely due to my brother and his comrades who started this society in Cork in 1901, I think. It might be a year one way or another. That was one of his activities.
Another was the Gaelic League. This was a society, also non- sectarian and non-political, for the purpose of developing the Irish language and making the people Irish-speaking again. The soul of a people is expressed in its langauge. And if you speak a foreign language continuously, you will naturally develop the soul of that language within you. The great anglicizing power that England had over Ireland was in that she had almost killed the Irish language. She was very clever in her propaganda. It is a great mistake to think that England is not a clever nation. She is very clever and very insidious in her propaganda. She never said to the people outright, You shall, not speak Irish. But she took the children and educated it out of them. There is a little verse about the truth coming out in spite of oneself, like the story I told you of Archbishop Whately and the verse of Sir Waiter Scott. When Lloyd George said the other day, when Irish atrocities were mentioned in the House of Commons, that those things will happen in a state of war, he thereby admitted that there was a state of war in Ireland. And so you get the truth out like that occasionally in a moment of high pressure. About the Gaelic League. We wanted to renationalize the minds of the people, and that could best be done by the Gaelic language. And so classes all over the country started up for the teaching of Gaelic. Old men and young men who knew the Gaelic language well, wherever they could be found, were brought into the cities and set to work as teachers. You could 'see them night after night in stuffy rooms, — mainly because most of these people were poor. They had no money back of them to help their propaganda. They worked hard during the day, and at night sat around the table there in these little rooms and studied Gaelic and made them- selves Gaelic speakers. Q. Senator Walsh: Miss MacSwiney, to what extent in the last ten or fifteen years has the speaking of the Gaelic language been extended among the Irish people? A. I could not give you the exact statistics, but it has devel- oped very wonderfully. For instance, when those young men began to learn the Gaelic language, they were looked upon as curios. Their own people could not understand. They said, What is the use of that outlandish thing? But they persevered, and now today the person who cannot speak Gaelic is ashamed of himself or herself. Q. It is theri exceptional to find anyone who cannot speak Gaelic? A. It is the exception to find anyone who is not trying. It is very easy to find some who cannot hold a good conversation in Gaelic. Q. And that has all been acquired through private instruction? There has been no public instruction? A. None whatever at first. But they forced the Irish language into the schools. They started a propaganda in' the newspapers and succeeded in getting Gaelic into the schools. But it is taught as a foreign language, and in our own country! In our own schools our own language is taught as a foreign language! The development of Gaelic today was caused by a handful of enthu- siasts who had the idea and persevered. The Gaelic League was non-sectarian and non-political, and they got into it a good many people who were interested in the language, perhaps, from an historical point of view, perhaps from a literary point of view; and these people joined in because it was non-secretarian and non- political. But those who remained and made themselves speakers of the language had the right idea, the right Irish idea behind them.
In addition to that, my brother aided a great many other activi- ties. There was considerable English propaganda going on. These young men started themselves to counteract this propaganda. Part of this English propaganda consisted of visits of royal personages to Ireland. When these royal persons were coming, there was always a great effort to get loyal addresses from corporations and like bodies. That succeeded for very many years. Then this body of young men took it upon themselves to see that that did not succeed any more. In 1906 or 1907, when the late King Edward was visiting Ireland, they had a little room up over the street, and they hung out a black flag instead of the union jack. They hissed and booed a great deal. Of course, needless to say, the police were down on them, but they did not care about that. They took good care to see that the corporations did not pass a loyal address, and the corporations did not. All these things are small, but it is out of those that our success has come today. Not that the soul of Ireland Was not always Republican,—I should like to get that into your heads; but it is because it is more successfully Republican. As Mr. Griffith said in a message to some people in America, “Today is our Valley Forge; tomorrow will be our Yorktown.” But if I am not mis- taken, at your Valley Forge the soldiers had to bear the brunt of the suffering. But in our Valley Forge the women and chil- dren have to bear the brunt of the sufferings. But our turn is coming tomorrow, as surely as yours came. That represents the activities of my brother. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Might I ask if the telegram that came from the Cork Chamber of Commerce, that came to this country to protest against ships not stopping at Queenstown, was that a part of your brother’s movement? A. Yes, they started that, but it was years afterwards. Q. But after this, this Commission came to America of which Mr. Fawsitt was a member, and it is as a result of their efforts that there is a line of ships running to Ireland such as we have today? A. Yes. Q. Did you say that this work was or was not a good thing for the industries of Ireland? A. Of course, it has made our industries much more pros- perous. Il^has given employment to hundreds of thousands of people. As a matter of fact, it was out of the Industrial Devel- opment Association that the cooperative creamery movement was started by Sir Horace Plunkett. Everybody realized that the country should be developed, and they started where they could. And then Sir Horace Plunkett started his creameries all over the country, which the English are now burning to ruin the industry. Q.. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Where were we?
A. I am coming to the Volunteer movement. You remember that there was a Home Rule Bill introduced in Parliament in 1912, one of many. It was in the hope of stopping all this activity and getting the people to accept definitely Home Rule in the British Empire, — which would, of course, leave England's hands in our pockets all the time. It was absolutely no use, that Home Rule Bill of 1912, except that it would be centering Irish inter- ests in Dublin instead of London. I said that Mr. Arthur Griffith's policy in the old days was abstention from Westminster. West- minster, of course, means the English Houses of Parliament. The only good that, a Home Rule Bill would have done would be that the center of gravity would have been shifted from London to Ire- land. That would have had a very great effect The people would have said then. Why should we have so little when we might have had more? Sir Edward Carson said he did not want Home Rule. He started in 1913 the idea of forcible resistance to Home Rule. He said, "Ulster will fight and Ulster will be tight." He said a great many other things. The main thing is that he got guns and ammunition, and he got them from Germany. He also said. We will not come under a Catholic government, and if the English people throw us over, we will enroll ourselves under the greatest Protestant nation in the world, under the German nation." He said he would invite the German emperor over himself if the English forced Home Rule upon them. Q. Senator Walsh: Are these things matters of public record? A. O, yes, absolutely. They are in all the English papers and Irish papers of the time. You will find them in book form, Sir Edward Carson’s statements. They have been collected together by an Irish Republican and put into book form and called, “The Grammar of Anarchy.” When Sir Edward Carson made those statements, he got something like two million pounds from Eng- land for propaganda, and also the promise that the English Tories would fight with them. He also stirred up a revolt at the Curragh camp, and the British officers in the Curragh camp said they would not, if they were ordered, go and put down a revolution in the Covenanters’ camp. They were called Covenanters because they covenanted together that they would not have Home Rule; they would have the Castle code. We were very happy when we knew what Sir Edward Carson was doing. His statements have been collected in book form, as I said. One Sinn Feiner got some- thing like six months’ imprisonment for having in his possession seditious literature, and the only seditious literature he had in his possession, besides a few newspapers, was Sir Edward Carson’s statements.
Sir Edward Carson started the Volunteers. There was always an Act in Ireland that you must not have arms in your possession. It was not enforced, however. Sir Edward Carson succeeded in getting a large quantity of arms presently. We looked on and said nothing. We let Sir Edward Carson and his Volunteers get along splendidly. If we could have patted him on the back, we would have told him to go ahead. He went ahead a good while. And then our people in the south began to say publicly, Well, of course, if Sir Edward Carson is getting armed for a march on Cork, we will have to arm also. And then they started the Irish Volunteers. England was in a fix. She had patted Sir Edward Carson on the back when he formed the Ulster Volunteers. Eng- lish societies had been organized to subscribe money for drums for these Ulster Volunteers. The English Government had looked on with a more or less benevolent eye. And then if she had said, There must be no Irish Volunteers, the world would have said, That is not impartial. But within one week of our starting the Irish Volunteers, the Arms Act was enforced and the Govern- ment said, No arms in Ireland. Within one week! Sir Edward Carson had been getting arms for several months. Q. Senator Walsh: What date was this? A. This was somewhere in the early days of 1914, in the spring, before the War. He got a boat-------- Q. Had the Home Rule Bill passed passed Parliament? A. It had passed the House of Commons in 1912, but on ac- count of the House of Lords it had been suspended for two years. Q. It passed the House of Commons in 1912? A. Yes, and it went to the House of Lords, and the House of Lords threw it out. Q. What date was it passed? A. In 1914. Q. After the War? A. After the War, yes; after the Recruiting Act. Q. But it was known in 1914 that it would be passed,—it was known before the War? A. Yes. Q. So that these preparations that were made were in prepara- tion for the Act? A. Yes.
In the spring of 1914 a ship loaded with arms set out from Germany for Sir Edward Carson. The English government knew perfectly well what was being done, and that those arms were going to Sir Edward Carson. There was a little camouflage done. The boat started with one name from Hamburg and was stopped in midocean and repainted and renamed, and came into Larne, which is one of the Orange ports up there. The policemen are all Orangemen. They were all sympathetic with Sir Edward Car- son. It was absolutely contrary to law, of course, but that made no matter. The guns were safely landed in Larne and safely stored. And the next morning it was all over the English and Irish press. The English Parliament held up their hands in horror. It was a very illegal act, said Mr. Asquith, but he made no motion to punish that act. Well, we will take a good example from peo- ple when we get it; and as we followed the Irish Volunteers after the Ulster Volunteers, we were not too proud to follow Sir Edward Carson in gun-running. And the last week in July, 1914, the Howth gun-running took place. I was in England at the time on a little holiday. The Howth gun-running — now notice the difference. The Ulster gun-running was in support of what England wanted. She was forced to pass the Home Rule Bill because she had to take the lesser of two eyils. So she allowed those guns into Ulster. But when we started gun-running she knew that what we said, we meant, and therefore our gun-running had to be stopped. Well, it was not. Our people got in quite a number of guns that day. In spite of a regiment of soldiers and all the Royal Irish Con- stabulary that were available, the guns were not captured. But several men, women, and children were shot down on the streets of Dublin by the soldiers returning empty-handed from Howth. That was the massacre of Bachelors' Walk, which took place exactly one week before the declaration of war on the continent and two weeks before England declared it. "that shows you whether England wants to be impartial. She tries to say that she wants to treat the north and south alike. I could give you a hundred, a thousand examples if time permitted to show you that she never does, — instances of this kind. Then came the War.
Q. Senator Walsh: These Volunteers meantime had organized all over Ireland. A. All over Ireland. But there was this against them. Mr. Redmond set his face against any volunteers whatever. He wanted to keep to the Constitutional movement. At the time the Volun- teers were started, it was said that they only wanted to take meas- ures against Sir Edward Carson's rebellion. He felt that it was dangerous to let the young men take things into their own hands. Q. And this organization was called the Irish Volunteers? A. The Irish Volunteers. Q. And they included the people of all classes? Did they in- clude women? A. no, only the men were armed. But the women formed the Cumann na m'Ban, a society something like your Red Cross, a patriotic society to help carry on the work. Q. Up to this time, Miss MacSwiney, was there a Sinn Fein movement, or was this simply a movement among the people, — a movement among the Irish Volunteers to arm and protect them- selves against attacks from the north? A. Well, this was a movement among the young men to arm to defend themselves for Irish rights. Q. Exactly. But up to this time there was no movement for independence? A. No, of course, that was the idea back of every movement in Ireland. But it was not precisely stated until the first Vol- unteer convention, which was held in 1914. They definitely stated their policy as a Republic. The policy of the Irish Volunteers was the policy of the Irish Republic, a continuation of the fight for freedom that had been always going on. They armed themselves in defense *of the rights and liberties of the Irish nation. The women joined Cumann na m’Ban.
Q. You answer my question. Now, going back to Redmond’s position before the outbreak of the war? A. Before the war Redmond disapproved of the Irish Volun- teers. He sent messages and letters to all the A. 0. H.1 branches all over the country forbidding them to join the Irish Volunteers. But that is where I would like to point out to you, as I said awhile ago, that the policy of Ireland was always Republican, and when they found that a leader set himself against Irish inde- pendence, then the leader fell and not the movement. Mr. Red- mond sent orders that no member of his organization was to join the Irish Volunteers. But they joined in hundreds and thousands all over the country. So that by June, 1914, they were coming in in very large numbers, and Mr. Redmond began to see that he could not possibly forbid the movement. And, therefore, the next step was to control it. A great number of people, though they did not refrain from joining the Irish Volunteers at the bidding of Mr. Redmond, believed in his sincerity and in his desire for ulti- mate separation from England. And when he wanted to come and control the movement, they didn’t see any reason why he should not, when he was going to improve it, you see. So he demanded that he have a voice in the councils of the Irish Volunteers, and he demanded a number—twenty-five, twenty-five members nominated by him to sit on the council. A great many were against giving him that,—a great many, the majority, in their hearts. But as a matter of policy they felt this: if we refuse to allow Mr. Redmond’s nominees on the council of the Irish Volunteers, we will imme- diately have a split, which of all things should be avoided at the 1 Ancient Order of Hibernians. present moment. And so the majority of the council gave in and allowed Mr. Redmond to nominate members for the Irish Volun- teers’ council. There were nine who opposed it. Of those nine there were many who lost their lives in Easter Week, 1916. What would have happened if they had gone on? The whole policy of Mr. Redmond was to weaken the Volunteers. He got a number of guns, but they were useless. He did not want war. He didn’t want any physical force in Ireland. We knew that he didn’t want it, and that his action was weakening our movement. But at that time it would have been worse to start out against him and say, You will not get a single nominee on our council.
When the war came Mr. Redmond started as recruiter-in-chief for England. Q. Senator Walsh: In Ireland? A. In Ireland. You remember Sir Edward Grey, as he was at that time, in speaking of the black outlook in Europe on the eve of the war, spoke of Ireland as the one bright spot, because he knew that Mr. Redmond sided with England in the war, and he thought that Ireland would follow Mr. Redmond. But he made a mistake. Ireland was furiously and indignantly insulted at being called the one bright spot. But the people did not know what was going on. The next thing was that stories of German atrocities in Belgiumbegan pouring in,—how they were cutting off the hands of all the little Belgian children. How these stories were believed is a mystery to me. But they were believed largely in Ireland. Many people became violently anti-German, and because anti- German, pro-British. That is, the unthinking people. Those of us who knew something of history knew that perhaps ninety-five per cent of the stories were lies. War always brings atrocities. There is no doubt that Germany was guilty of atrocities in the recent war. There is equally no doubt that England committed worse atrocities. But there is also no doubt that the stories told in Ire- land to touch the kind hearts of our people were lies. I could give you many instances where they were lies. The only people who were not deceived by them were the poeple who knew that the stories that England was telling about German atrocities were absolutely word for word the stories she was telling the world in 1798 about Irish atrocities. One of our national journals printed one week, in the early days of the war, in one column the stories England was telling Ireland about German atrocities, and, in a parallel column, the stories England was telling the world about Irish atrocities in 1798. And we who knew what lies the stories of 1798 were, concluded logically that the other stories were lies, too. But you must remember that the Irish people did not know their own history; that when England allowed Irish history to be taught in the schools, she only allowed it to be taught in books controlled by her. Therefore, the people of Ireland would believe these stories.' Some of them may have been true, but the majority of them were prevarications, the sort of English propaganda that we had been fighting for centuries. Mr. Redmond came over and stood with Mr. Asquith, or who- ever was Premier at the time, and advised the Irish people to go to war for small nations. You can hardly blame us for being skeptical. As a preliminary measure, they passed the Home Rule Act, and then put it on the shelf until after the war, and said it was only to be passed with an amendment clause that would sat- isfy Ulster. The next point was an absolute division with Mr. Redmond's Volunteers, the National Volunteers, as they were called, and the Irish Volunteers. Now, because a great many of those who had been strongly connected with the Sinn Fein movement, which, as I told you, was a constitutional movement when it started, — a great many of those who had been constitutional Sinn Feiners had immediately joined the ranks of the Irish Volunteers, the tag got on, Sinn Fein Volunteers versus National Volunteers. Redmond called his the National Volunteers. We in Ireland called them Redmondites. But the general public, to distinguish be- tween them, called them Nationalist Volunteers and Sinn Fein Volunteers. The Nationalist followers firmly believed with Mr. Redmond that this was the way to win liberty for the country. The Irish Volunteers did not. Very soon the National Volunteers disappeared. They got no recruits. The recruits went into the Irish Volunteers.
So matters stood until 1916. There was a great deal of harassing work going on in the meantime. The papers were suppressed one after another. We had a paper called Irish Freedom, which ran for some months, and then it was suppressed. Generally each sup- pressed paper would appear the next week under another name. We did not know always what the name of it would be, but we knew its sentiments. There were many Republican papers suppressed. My brother started a paper called Fianna Fail. It means The Army of Destiny. From the word Fianna the word Fenian has come, because they were the army of the great Irish hero, Finn MacCoole. All that time the suppression of papers went on, people were pre- vented from holding meetings, and various other things. My brother was one of the very first Volunteers in Cork. In regard to the founding of the Volunteers in Cork, there is a very interesting story. The organization was founded in November, 1913, in Dublin. Eoin MacNeil and other people came down to speak at the inaugural meeting in Cork. I have told you that we Republicans were very much pleased when we saw what Sir Edward Carson was doing, because it gave us our chance. But we rather forgot that the mind of the country was not educated up to that point of view, and to them Sir Edward Carson was anathema because he was opposing Home Rule. Eoin MacNeil forgot that, and in the course of his speech he said Sir Edward Carson deserved three cheers from us for forming his Ulster Vol- unteers. That night there was a little body of men at the hall that were sent there for the purpose of making a row. That little remark of Eoin MacNeil gave them a chance, and they broke up the meeting. The Redmondite papers the next day spoke of the awful iniquity of calling for cheers for Sir Edward Carson, who was marching on Cork to put us to death. It was a foolish remark to make, because psychologically the people were not up to it at that time. They simply looked upon Sir Edward Carson as the opponent of independence and Home Rule. That retarded the work of the Volunteers in Cork for some time, and they did not advance as quickly as they did in Dublin.
In the spring of 1914 we started this women's side movement, Cumann na m'Ban, as I have said, like Red Cross work, and we trained the minds of the people to know what the Republican movement meant. But our chief work was to support the Irish Volunteers by every means possible in their fight for the inde- pendence of Ireland. We wanted to get a big inaugural meeting, and we succeeded in getting a big inaugural meeting, which really gave the Volunteers a big chance to have a meeting also. Our meeting was a real help to them. You know how meetings are sometimes delayed. We began in March, and it was April when we got going. We invited Sir Roger Casement to come, but he could not. One of my dearest possessions today is an autographed letter from him explaining that he could not come down to the meeting. That was in May; and in the beginning of June Mr. Redmond's call for control of the volunteers came. Then came the war. In November, 1914, we had a meeting at Dublin when the women had to decide whether they would remain neutral or side with the Irish Volunteers, or with Mr. Redmond's Volunteers, or split. Thank God we did not split, but remained on the side of the Irish Volunteers. Cumann na m'Ban has never deviated from that day, and they are still fighting on that position.
In 1916 we began our first open battle. I suppose you can regard the declaration of war on England as the day we reorganized the Irish Volunteers and said they are out to fight for the rights and liberties of the Irish people. But the first battle in this phase of the war that has been going on for so long was in Easter Week, 1916. That battle failed. We lost it. But Padraic Pearse said, on the night before we were forced to evacuate the general post- office, "We have lost the first battle, but we have saved the soul of Ireland, and now the people can go ahead." Easter Week saved the soul of Ireland. From that day on there was no more possi- bility of' the Irish people mistaking where their duty lay. From that day on there was no such thing as recruiting for any army except the Irish Volunteers. In consequence of the insurrection, the Irish people were arrested. About two thousand of them filled English jails. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh : About how many. Irish soldiers took part in the Easter uprising? A. Not more than one thousand. The English brought in regi- ments and armored cars and guns and shelled our capital. Q. Were they all Irish Volunteers? A. No, there was also the Citizens' Army, the Irish Citizens' Army. Q. Commissioner Thomas: It was not a Sinn Fein army? It was a national army? A. It was a national army. The reason the name Sinn Fein stuck to it was that all these people got mixed up in the Irish In- dustrial Development Association and the Gaelic League, and all got to be called Sinn Feiners because some of them were Sinn Feiners, and because they all joined the Irish Volunteers' move- ment. Sinn Fein was a tag put on by the people. Sinn Fein was originally a constitutional policy. But now the name has been adopted everywhere, and it is a Republican policy. After that there were wholesale arrests. Q. Chairman Howe: The story of what has happened in the Easter Rebellion ought to be a continuous story, ought it not? A. Would you like me to tell you? Chairman Howe: We would like to have you tell us some time, either now or after lunch. The Witness: About the Easter Week insurrection, I will try to put it as shortly as I can. Chairman Howe: I did not mean to suggest that. The Witness: I know, but it would take so long if I went into detail. The essential point for you to understand is that this insur- rection was confined mainly to Dublin. Galway rose also, but most of the fighting was in Dublin. You have often heard that Ireland was divided over this insurrection. I should like to explain about that.
We expected help in this insurrection. We expected arms. We had very few arms at that time. We were expecting Roger Case- ment to come from Germany with arms. I have no hesitation about acknowledging that, and I give no one in the world any apology for it. We were at war with England, and we were at liberty to get guns where we could to carry on that war. England said she was fighting for the rights of small nations. We had absolutely as much right to our liberty as Belgium had, about whose rights England was so solicitous. If we wanted to take Germany as an ally we had a right to take her as an ally. England had a great deal of talk about our being pro-German. She did turn France against us. Only ray brother's death has softened France. She said we weakened her ally at a critical moment. But what right had France to expect that' we should not weaken the cause of her ally when her ally was op- pressing us. Q. We were told you took German gold. A. We did not take German gold. We took the pennies and six- pences of our people. But did not we have a right to take it if we had wanted it? Did not France take English gold, and did not England take American gold when she could get it. Surely no one has a right tv speak if we had taken it. But we did not. Surely not England, who was borrowing from America. Any nation has a right to make alliances when she is fighting against an enemy. It is said that we wanted to invite the Germans into Ireland. We did not. The only man who ever tried to invite Germans into Ireland was Sir Edward Carson. If Germany tried to take Ireland we would fight her just as long and just as effectively as we are fighting England. Of course it was a lie that we took German money, but if we had taken it, what difference would it make? England says she wants people to have fair play, but she does not give us fair play. If it is right for France to borrow money from England, it would be just as right for us to borrow money from Germany, if we had got it, but we didn’t. Germany would have been glad for us to create a revolution in her favor, of course. But we were not doing it to please Germany. More than one Irishman has said: “England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity.” England’s difficulty has always been Ireland’s opportunity, and we are absolutely right in taking advantage of that opportunity. The sooner you can get that in a common sense way, the better. It was no crime for us to take help where we could get it, to make an alliance with anybody we wanted to. Q. Senator Walsh: Was it not raised as a fact that France has sometimes been at war with England, and has been glad to help along revolutions in England’s colonies? A. I was going to say that. In 1778 France happened to be at war with England, and she wanted to hurt England in any way she could, and she acknowledged you as a republic to hurt England, and it did. You also wanted, in 1774 and 1775 to appeal to the sympathies of the Irish people, and you got it. And I do not think America needs to be told of the many Irishmen she has had then and since to fight for the freedom of her country. And therefore I protest against the statement that I or my fellow citizens would choose to ally ourselves with the Central Empires. We did not because they would be no good to us. But if we had, it would have been no worse than England taking your help, and 'she was very glad to get it, because if she had not got it, she would not be victorious today.
I ask you American people, do you think you have helped de- mocracy by entering the war? President Wilson said: “The reasons for this war have been so clearly avowed that no man can make a mistake by entering it.” He said—I do not know whether I am stating it exactly: “America has gone to war for the rights and liberties of all peoples everywhere under the sun, for the right of self-determination for small nations, and for their release from an autocratic power.” Are we not a people, and are we not under the sun somewhere? If you say “all people,” you must count us. If you say, “the release of small nations from autocratic power,” you must not leave out Ireland. As America went out for the rights and liberties of all peoples everywhere, for liberty and self-determina- tion and for the “undictated development of all peoples” (I think that was another phrase of President Wilson), I ask you, have we not rights and liberties and a right to the undictated development of our own country? We have our republic, but we have got it in spite of England’s oppression. You people in America have not carried out the policies for which you went into the war. You sheathed the sword when England got what she wanted. I do not want to hurt you. You have been very good to us, and you have given us a chance by this Commission to tell the truth about Ireland. But you have not made the world safe for democracy. You have only made the world safe for a time for the British Empire. But I know this. When England begins to collar all the coal fields and all the oil fields, and when she begins to hamper your navy and your shipping by collaring the coal and oil fields of the world, she will not find it as easy to overwhelm America with force of numbers as she has found it to overrun Ire- land. Chairman Howe: The hearings will now be adjourned,—it is quarter to one—will now be adjourned until two o’clock. * * * * * * * * 2:21 P. M. Chairman Howe: We will proceed with the hearing (rapping for order). Is Miss MacSwiney here? (Miss Mary MacSwiney retakes witness stand.)
Mr. F. P. Walsh: When we let out for the noon recess, Miss MacSwiney, you had just begun to tell of the happenings of Easter Week, 1916. The Witness: It was a point made very much of by England that the Easter Week insurrection was not an insurrection of the Irish nation. That it was only a few extremists. And they pointed to the fact that the fighting took place in Dublin only. I had begun to tell you that we had expected help in the shape of arms. We had hoped to get some arms to enable us to carry on the fight, because the arms and ammunition of the country did not amount to much. And those arms failed us. They did not come. An insurrection had been ar- ranged for Easter Monday, 1916. The leaders had counted on get- ting the arms the last of the week, on a Good Friday. The ship bringing the arms was sunk by the British. They were perfectly justified from their point of view in sinking that ship, just as we were justified in bringing it in if we could. However, it was sunk. The result of that was that some of the leaders, notably Mr. Mac- Neil, thought that the time was not opportune to begin. And though the orders had gone out for the whole country for the insurrection on Easter Monday, the orders were cancelled at the last moment by Mr. MacNeil. Many of the leaders did not agree with the canceling of . those orders, and I think that some of them thought that Mr. Mac- Neil had exceeded his powers and his rights in sending these can- cellation orders. One section, the Irish Citizens’ Army, was not under the control of the Volunteers. That was a labor organization chiefly. You have heard of Jim Larkin here, and he and James Con- nolly were concerned with the organization of that Citizens’ Army. They had threatened to go out in any case. The secret history of those few days has not been fully published, and the documentary evidence in connection with it was largely burned during Easter Week. And some of us, even though we were on the inside of Re- publican affairs, are not exactly certain of all the orders and counter- orders of that week. It ended by only a portion of the Volunteers rising in Dublin. They began on Monday morning, according to the plan. Mr. MacNeil had sent the order all over Ireland on Sunday that the Volunteers were not to rise. An order followed on Monday signed by Padraic Pearse and John MacDermott that they were to rise, that the orders were to be kept to. By the time these orders reached the outlying districts it was toó late. Cork was not in the Easter rising. The fact that it was not was a lasting source of grief to my brother. Many of the people thought they should have gone out, even though they were certain to fail. There were some people, I am not sure how many, who accused them of cowardice or funk at the last moment. That charge was not justified, and I do not think it will be ever made again. But the situation in Cork made it im- possible for them to rise. Cork is built in a valley. The order to rise did not reach the commandants until Monday evening. By the time they could have got their men together every hill in Cork was mounted by a huge field gun, the largest piece of artillery they could get. Cork is built in a valley. The British military barracks are on the highest hill in the district. By Tuesday night they had a huge gun planted on every hill around the city. They could have shelled the city in an hour until there was nothing left of it. The Volun- teer commanders in Cork knew that. They did not want to order the men out to what was absolutely certain slaughter. They realized that Dublin was only a first battle in the war, and for the time they had to remain inactive. I can speak of personal knowledge of the very, very great reluctance with which they came to that decision. I can tell you what very few people in Ireland knew at that time or even now, that as late as Thursday evening at seven o’clock they had made plans to get out of the city into the country districts where they could have fought. Cork is not like Dublin, which was suitable for street fighting. Cork could not have street fighting. It would have been shelled from the hills within an hour. By Thursday evening they were trying to call the Volunteers out of the city, and as late as Thursday evening at seven o’clock I had orders to put in a fresh supply of first aid material in case they were able to manage it. They were not able to manage it, but I can testify to the great re- luctance with which they finally gave it up.
The military in Cork were so certain that they would rise that the military commander appealed to the mayor and the bishop to try to get the Volunteers to lay down their arms. If the Volunteers showed no signs of giving the military trouble, the military under- took not to give them any trouble. Our men would not have any negotiations with the British except on equal terms. But they came, by the advice of the bishop and the lord mayor, to an understanding, as they were assured that a rising in Cork was imppssible. The understanding was that they would hand over to the bishop and the lord mayor of the city the guns, the arms and ammunition that they had; that these arms and ammunitions were to remain under the charge of the bishop and the lord mayor as joint guarantors that the Irish Volunteers would not rise in insurrection, on the one hand; and that the military authorities would not capture the guns and would not arrest the leaders, on the other. This was a definite understanding, a promise made by Colonel East, who was command- ing the British forces in Cork. And that promise was given to the lord bishop and the lord mayor of the City of Cork. After a lengthy discussion the men agreed to accept that, and on Monday night, that would be the first of May, they handed their guns over to the care of the lord mayor. They were locked up in his offices, and the guarantee was given, not a written guarantee in the hands of the Volunteers, but the word of the military commander was given to the bishop and the lord mayor, as the word of our men was given to them, that they would take no further action. That was on Mon- day night, and the arms were handed to the lord mayor before mid- night. At eight o'clock on Tuesday morning,—at quarter to one, let me say first, just three-quarters of an hour after midnight, a military party headed by a captain went to the lord mayor and de- manded the arms that had been entrusted to him. He said they had been given to him as a trustee, and the military had promised not to ask for them. He was told that he would be in jail in a very short time if he did not give them up. Not being an Irish Republi- can at the time, he gave them up. At seven o'clock in the morning the arrests began. Practically every Irish Volunteer in the city was arrested, and two women were arrested. My brother had left for the country early on Tuesday before the arrests began, or before he knew of it, and he was out of the city when a party of six policemen at least, I was not in school at the time, I was in jail, but my sister thought I was in school. But they stood around her, and the whole six pointed their loaded rifles at her and demanded to know where her brother was. She said she would not tell them. They threatened and coaxed her, but she gave them no answer. They wanted to know if he was upstairs, and she said, “Go and see.” She happened to be standing with her arms behind her back, and they ordered her to put up her hands. She put them up, for she had nothing in them. They then wanted to know again if he was upstairs, and she would not tell them. And so they went upstairs, but they were all very polite, very polite to each other, each one letting the other go first. They thought that he might be at the top of the landing with a gun. The sergeant finally went first. They found nothing. They came down with very relieved faces and went away. We had a little maid at the time. They found her in the kitchen and threw her out by force, threw her out in the next room against the wall and demanded to know where the master was. She did not know. She never knew, of course. And they finally went away.
In the meantime they went to the school and arrested me. All over the city that day the tension was frightful. Great squads of soldiers and police going all over the city, as many as a hun- dred and fifty soldiers to arrest one man. Naturally the word was taken to the bishop. Men and women were going to the house of the bishop and demanding to know what it all meant. He got in touch with the military authorities. I think he spoke very plainly to them. And finally, although they did not give back the arms, Colonel East sent an order to release all the people who had been arrested in the city about seven-thirty Tuesday even- ing. So we all got out. We did not have very much jail. It was about twenty to eight when I was driving down from the jail, and about ten minutes afterwards an urgent order came from General Maxwell that no one was to be released on any condi- tion whatever. But we were gone. The birds had flown. They did not take the women back, but they began rearresting the men in twos and threes until they had about two thousand of them ar- rested and put in jail in England. My brother was arrested in the country and taken. We did not know for a long time where he was.
To show you how they can tell lies: we were very uneasy be- cause for over a week we did not have a single word from my brother. We knew he had been arrested. Someone had seen him brought into Cork at half-past four in the morning, and they were taking him up to Cork jail. A few days afterward we learned that someone had seen him about five o’clock in the morning re- moved from Cork jail. We applied to the governor, but got no information where he was. After a question asked in the House of Commons as to why these men were not allowed to see their relatives, Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister at the time, replied that all the Cork prisoners were allowed to see their friends and had fresh air and food and visitors and all other nice things. It was utterly false. That appeared on Thursday morning, about the thirteenth of May, I think. He had been missing since the third. Some of us whose relatives had been taken away and did not know their whereabouts went to the general postoffice and sent a series of telegrams to Mr. Asquith, and sent him each one his own particular story, and told him that our relatives had been taken away and we had been denied all information as to where they were. We also sent copies of these telegrams to William O’Brien, because it was he who asked for information from Mr. Asquith, and to Lawrence Ginnell, because he was the only one in the House of Commons on whom we could depend to bring out. the truth. We sent them in great hurry, because there was to be a debate in the House of Commons that day on the Irish question. Mr. Ginnell later told me that those telegrams created a great sensa- tion when read in the House. That was on Thursday. On Satur- day morning we all got letters from our friends. That is the way. And then when you catch them at it, they correct it and say, It is a lie; you are not telling the truth.
That was my brother’s second term of imprisonment. They were all in prison most of the time until Christmas. There was a general amnesty at Christmas. But the men who were concerned actually in the rising, the men who were in Dublin, were sent most of them to penal servitude, those who were not shot. And they were not released from prison by the Christmas amnesty.
Mr. Walsh asked me this morning to tell you something about education in Ireland. There is a little addition I would like to make here. I was teaching in a large secondary school, in one of the intermediate schools of which I spoke, in the city at that time. As an example of the type of mind engendered by the British education in our country, I might tell you that the nuns are personally very fond of me. I know that. They highly dis- approved of my political opinions, and they were very nervous at having them in that exceedingly respectable school. On the January preceding the Easter rising, my brother had been arrested for making a. speech. And a district inspector of police who had a child in the school went up to the Reverend Mother and told her I was not a proper person to be teaching in a school like that, and I ought to be dismissed. Now, I do not want to say an unneces- sarily harsh word about that school. It was my alma mater, and I am very attached to it. And the only crime I convict the nuns of was cowardice. It is a pretty bad one in my category of crimes. But it was absolutely unavoidable in that condition of mind en- gendered by the education of the country. It was so fearfully disrespectable to be a Sinn Feiner. We are all called Sinn Feiners. And Sinn Fein by that time had become Republican. However, some time before Easter the Reverend Mother complained of my tendencies to make Sinn Feiners of the pupils. I said, "I have never mentioned the name Sinn Fein in the class. I am not a Sinn Feiner at all. I am a Republican. But I have never told the children what I am." And she said, "But at the same time there is something there." And she finally brought it out with a great burst that I was too Irish. And I asked her if she ever heard of an Englishwoman being too English, or a Frenchwoman being too French; and it was not a crime for me to be too Irish. Then she said, "You must keep to the textbook in teaching history." I said, "If I keep to the textbook, the senior girls will fail in the examination, because there is not enough in it." That was not exactly what she meant, and I told her what she meant. "You want me to teach Irish history from the English point of view. I would no more do that than as a Catholic I would teach the history of the Reformation from the Protestant point of view." And whether you are Catholic or Protestant or nothing at all, you can perfectly understand that I would not teach the Protestant point of view against my own than you would, if you were a Protestant, teach the Catholic point of view against your own. Naturally, the teaching of all history must be colored by the point of view of the country in which it is taught. I think before this war there was an idea that history should be wholly colorless; that it should be taken from state documents. If there is anything that this past war has taught the world it is that of all the lies that it is possible to tell, that official documents are the biggest lies. I have friends who were in the war who told rrie exactly how these official documents were compiled. It is very interesting for the historian and I don't think — Chairman Howe: Please keep to the recital of the Irish situation, Miss MacSwiney. The Witness: I am sorry. Please pull me up if I say things I ought not to say. I have said that about the school to show you the type of mind that was engendered in our country. The Reverend Mother hinted to me that they would have to reduce the staff. I think I was expected to take the hint that I was to be the one dis- missed, so I said to her, "Now, Mother, I am the senior teacher here. Therefore, I take it for granted that I am not the one to be dismissed." She could not take it for granted at all. I said, "Why, then? Am I incompetent?" And she had to say I was not. I said, "Now, look here, if you dismiss me in reducing the staff, it simply means that you are dismissing me because I am an Irish Republican. You are dismissing me because of my political opinions. If you say that, well and good. But I will not permit myself to be dis- missed on any other ground." There were three teachers in that division of the school. And all three teachers got notice that in consequence of changes in the school during the coming summer, we could not consider ourselves engaged for the next year. We were at liberty to get another post, and they were at liberty to get other services. That was the quietest way to get rid of a trouble- some person. It does not sound very nice, and I do not want to be hard on that particular school, but I am doing that not to hurt them, but to*show you the type of mind that was engendered by the British education in that country. They were afraid — afraid of offending the rich people, who were mostly West Britons; afraid of offending the police authorities; afraid that anybody connected with them might be connected in any way with that very dangerous thing called Sinn Fein. When I was arrested on a Tuesday morning and released on Tuesday night, I went to school again on Wednesday morning.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: How is that school about being Republican now? A. Oh, everyone in Ireland is Republican now. Q. Does that include that school? A. Yes, of course. In the recent martyrdom of my brother, when prayers were being said for him and masses were being said for him, all the school children said prayers for him, and I am gjad to say that that school sent me word through one of the nuns that they had done their share. All the children are all right and all the nuns are all right. I think there are several old ladies there yet who are very much afraid. But they are all right at heart. I was deeply grieved at their treatment of me, and still am deeply grieved because they did not dismiss me straight out. When they found out Easter week had changed the whole of the citizens, and there was a revulsion of feeling and indignation in the city because I was dismissed, they tried to say that I was not really dismissed; that it was a mistake. I have introduced this to show you the state of mind of a large number of the Irish people in 1916. It was the shooting of the leaders of the 1916 movement and the arrest of over two thousand people that woke up the ordinary man, who up to that time had been a home-ruler, perhaps, to realize that it was the same old fight over again in their generation, although they had not realized it up to that time; and that when England began shooting Irishmen, no matter what the Irishman's political opinions were, he must be right. From 1916 on Ireland became more and more consciously Republican in the hearts of the common people. They had, of course, been instinctively so. They became consciously so after that.
The first chance they had to give expression to that was in the general election of 1918. In that election Sinn Fein or the Repub- lican moyement swept the country. There were very few con- stituencies in which there was a contest. But where there was a contest in the whole of Ireland, outside of Ulster, there was only one man got in who was a Redmondite, and that man was John Redmond's son, who, because of sympathy for his father and be- cause of his hold on the people of Waterford, was returned. Q. That is exclusive of Ulster? A. I am excluding Ulster. In the Parliamentary elections again matters were — Q. Senator Walsh: Was there a candidate representing the Na- tionalists in every county in that election? A. Oh, no; very few. There were twenty -five constituencies, I think, in which Republicans were elected without any opposition. Q. There was very little opposition? A. Very little opposition. Q. But where there was a contest? A. Where there was a contest it was a contest between the Red- mondites and the Republicans, and Redmondism was wiped out completely, except in Waterford, where it was not Redmondism that won, but a feeling for Redmond's son. In Ulster the case was rather peculiar. You have at present four men representing the Constitutionalist Home Rule Party in Ulster — five men. Four of them got in this way. There were eight seats in Ulster in which the proportion of, we will say Nationalists, using the word Nationalist in its broad sense — Ireland versus England — had a majority. But if Sinn Fein and Redmondites and Unionists went up, the three-cornered division would probably let the Union- ists in. On those seats, upon the advice of Cardinal Logue, there was a compromise suggested: that they should divide them equally. Our people wanted a much fairer thing than that. Our people wanted an election of the Nationalist population held, a kind of a plebiscite of the Nationalist population held on the preceding week, everyone to vote, and the seats to be given to either the Republican or the Redmondite, according to the votes cast. If that had been so, we would have had seven of the eight seats. Consequently the Redmondites did not agree to it. Q. Commissioner Wood: Seven or eight seats in Ulster? A. Oh, yes; this does not deal with the contests with the Union- ists, but only with the contest between the Republicans and the Redmondites. They would not agree to this plebiscite, so it was either let them have half the seats or give them to the Unionists. I mean the risk would be letting the Unionists slip in. So the people agreed to halve them, and that is why you have a few representa- tives still of Redmond's party. . With regard to the general election of 1918, it was 80 per cent. Republican. It was claimed by the British Government and by our opponents that it did not represent a Sinn Fein election or a Repub- lican election, but an anti-parliamentarian election. It was an anti- Redmond election rather than a pro-Republican election. And they said that ever so many people had got tired of a parliamentary policy and were willing to give Sinn Fein a chance. We knew it was not so, but of course they had a certain amount of plausibility behind their argument. And so it was not until 1919 and 1920 that we were able to counter that and prove that it was false by the municipal and county elections. It is true that every candidate who went up had to take the Republican pledge. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: What was that pledge? A. "I pledge my allegiance to Dail Eireann and the Parliament of Ireland." I do not know the exact words, but it was pledging allegiance to the Irish Republican parliament and renouncing every- thing English. Q. Chairman Howe: Every candidate? A. Every candidate, yes, who received Republican support. But some S6id, after the Republican victory in 1918: "Even so, the candidates were Republican, but we have people voting for the Republican candidates not because they were Republicans, but be- cause they were anti-parliamentarian. They were sick of parlia- mentarianism." And so when the municipal and county elections came and were overwhelmingly Republican, even more so than the general elections had been, that argument was killed. Q. Commissioner Addams: That was the county and municipal election of 1920?
A. Yes. In spite of the fact that in the meantime proportional representation laws had been passed by the House of Commons for Ireland for the purpose of spoiling the Republican elections and getting in candidates who would not otherwise have got in. Our people had from 1905 advocated proportional representation. And so when it was passed by the House of Commons it was opposed, not by us, because we welcomed it, but by the Carsonites. And the result showed that they had good reason to be afraid of it. For the first time we have Irish members in the Belfast corporation. We have Irish Republican members in county councils that before were wholly Unionist. We have won all over the country, and have lost nothing. Probably in the south and west there are Unionist members on the councils who might not have been there otherwise: but we have no fear whatever of Unionists getting on, providing they get on fairly and in proper proportion. We do not dread proportional representation, and you have a proof of that by what I have given you and what you get in the daily newspapers. Pro- portional representation was passed to ruin the Irish Republican elections. But the only people who opposed it were the Carsonites. I told you I would say something more about my brother’s activi- ties. I don’t think there is anything else about the present situation before I come to that.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Before that, while it is a very well-known subject in England, one of the Commission has asked you to briefly sketch the Act of Union, it being claimed by many persons that there is some parallel between the efforts of certain states in the American union to secede and the efforts of the Irish people to get their independence. Do you understand what I mean? A. Oh, quite, Mr. Walsh. Q. Give the date of the Act of Union and what attitude the Irish people take toward it. A. I would like to deal first with the suggestion that there is any parallel between the fight between your north and south against secession. If you want any parallel you will have to go back to 1776, and not to 1862. That is the parallel, and not the war for secession. And I would like to say in connection with this that you had far less reason to secede from your mother country than we had, because she was never our mother country. We are a distinct race. (Continued applause.) Chairman Howe: Please let the witness go on without interrup- tion. The Witness: I am sure you will not mind doing that, because I am sure I am taking up much of the Commission's valuable time. We are a different people. As I told you this morning, they tried to kill our language and make us forget it. But you were the same people, many of you. But you were not going to permit them to take away your liberties, and so you set up a republic of your own. That is the only liberty. And you became a colony naturally in the first place. Your liberty was never filched from you. Our liberty was filched from us.
A parallel with your war of secession is the parallel, between Ulster and the rest of Ireland today. And if you maintain that you were justified in waging a long war of five years which nearly broke President Lincoln's heart, if you were justified in fighting that war rather than let a part of your country secede, then you must admit that we are justified in fighting for a century, if need be, rather than let a part of Ireland secede. The parallel is the war between north and south as far as Ulster and the rest of Ireland are concerned. But between England and Ireland your Revolution- ary War is the parallel.
The Act of Union was signed by King George III in 1801. He was your enemy as well as ours. Ireland had always had her own parliament. But Poyning's Law of 1494, and what is known as the Sixth of George I, passed in 1719, I think— I am not certain, but it was the sixth act of George I's reign, anyway — those two laws destroyed all the powers of the Irish Parliament. Poyning's Law said that no laws could be made in Ireland or for Ireland without the consent of the king and the privy council of England. That was so that no law for the benefit of Ireland, Irish commerce, or Irish trade could be passed, unless the English king and the English council were quite convinced that it would not interfere with any- thing they wanted. The Sixth of George I went a step further, and declared that all laws passed in England were binding on Ireland. That distinction is quite clear. The first said that all laws passed in Ireland must be approved in England. The second one, passed nearly three centuries later, said that all laws passed in England would become operative in Ireland. And thus those two laws ruined all of the power of the Irish Parliament. The 1782 move- ment followed very largely from the example of your War of Inde- pendence. Ireland could not see why she could not follow your example. But just as in the beginning of your war you had no idea of seceding from your mother country, so those in the Irish movement of 1782 had no idea of breaking connection with the English crown. They wanted what they called "the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland." They wanted an Irish Parliament sepa- rate from that of England, but the .English king was to be the ruler in both countries. After a great deal of work that was passed in 1782. But the Act of Union, definitely renouncing all power of Ireland to pass laws, was passed in 1801. Arthur Griffith has often had this sneer thrown at him, that he wanted to create another Grattan's Parliament. But this is not true. That parliament was elected on a purely Protestant franchise. Its executive was appointed, not elected. And still, in spite of those defects, when the parliament turned its attention to Irish trade and Irish development, they increased the prosperity of the country to such an extent in the space of twelve years that the English govern- ment called a halt immediately, and said, "This will never do." And so Pitt began to put his clever mind to work to see what could be accomplished.
To go back a little bit. When your war was on with England, and England's plan was to raise an army in Ireland to send over to fight you, Ireland declined. She also wanted to bring in about three or four thousand Hessians to guard the Irish coast, while she was sending over an Irish army to defeat the Americans. The Irish people said "No, thank you. You can send your Hessians where you like. We are not going to fight Americans and we are going to take charge of our own coast." But there was no anti-English movement there at all. They found Ireland so strong on that that were obliged to give in. Consequently, you got the Hessians and we stayed at home. inov( I they
Now, we wanted free trade in Ireland. And when the Volunteers were formed and got their power they began to say they could not see why Ireland should not have the right to trade abroad if she wanted to. She was not allowed to. And so she demanded free trade—the right to trade where she liked. And there is a very famous march of the Volunteers in Dublin when they took up their position before the House of Parliament with a cannon trained on the House, and they put a motto on the cannon, “Free Trade or This.” I think there is a very striking parallel there between your position in 1774 and this. You wanted free trade and you wanted the right to settle your own taxation, and not to pay taxation where you had no representation. That act resulted in Grattan’s Parlia- ment. It had its disabilities, but it doubled Ireland’s trade in a short time, and made it very prosperous. Q. Senator Walsh: Miss MacSwiney, just what years are you talking about? A. That was in 1782. The Parliament lasted until 1800. But it really was effective only about ten years, because intrigues destroyed its power. Q. The prosperity you mentioned was during that period? A. Yes. Q. Did building develop as well as trade? A. Yes. But you must remember that the Irish people at that time were ignorant, and being ignorant, they were poor. The Catholics, then as now, were in the majority. But the Catholics did not have a vote. The mass of the population had no represen- tation whatever in the government. Grattan and Flood and Hely Hutchinson were all of them Protestants. No Catholic could sit in the House of Parliament. It was a crime punishable by death to follow a Catholic service. No Catholic could own land or lend money on land. No Catholic could lend money and take in turn a mortgage on land, because that would mean that the land might revert to the hands of Catholics, which was against the law. No Catholic could own a horse worth more than five pounds. If he did, any Protestant could come up to him on the streets and say, “I would like that horse. Here is five pounds. You may sell it to me.” An incident like that happened with a great-granduncle of my own. He was a priest, and had a valuable horse, because he had long distances to go to see sick people. One day he was held up by a terrible scoundrel who was well known in the neigh- borhood, and he was ordered to dismount from the horse and turn it over. Instead, he put spurs to the horse and got away. But he knew that would save him only for a few hours, so he went to the Protestant minister, who was a great friend of his, and explained to him. And he said, “That is easy. You give me the horse—sell it to me, and I will loan it back to you.” And he did, and kept the horse. And that shows another thing—the extraordinarily friendly relations between ministers of religion of different faiths when the country was in such a state that a Catholic did not dare to show his face on his own street. The franchise, then, was restricted. Only Protestants could sit in Parliament. But they were Irishmen, and they believed that the development of their country was necessary. Grattan’s Parliament had its disabilities, but it was an honest attempt to develop Ireland for the Irish. And one of the first things we shall do, I hope, when we have cleared out the army of occupation, will be to take up the bones of Grattan, who is buried in Westminster at the feet of Castlereagh, one of the most infamous villains in history, and we will take them back to Ireland.
Pitt decided that the Irish Parliament was inconsistent with the rights of England and that it was injuring English trade. I would recommend to you to read a book by Mrs. Stopford Green, “The Making of Ireland and Its Undoing,” which will tell you how England has deliberately destroyed Irish industries whenever they conflicted with her own. Q. Senator Walsh: Do you know, Miss MacSwiney, the name of the book which has been published which is a compilation of all the statutes passed by the British Parliament hostile to Irish indus- tries, and also indicates the speeches made on that subject in the English Parliament? A. No, I do not, but you can find out, I think, from Mr. Fawcitt. Q. I understand there is such a book that contains all the hostile statutes and the purpose of them and the speeches made about them. A. I am sorry I haven’t it with me. But we are now living history so fast that the events of a few years ago seem very far away indeed. But if you want to know the purposes of England in Ireland, the book of which I spoke, “The Grammar of Anarchy,’’ containing the statements of Sir Edward Carson, is quite sufficient, and if you read it you will understand why an Irish Republican got a term of imprisonment for having it in his possession as sedi- tious literature. There are many instances of English statutes destroying Irish industries. One of the statutes of William III was against the Irish woollen industry. It was better wool than the English wool and it was quite as cheap. Consequently it got a better market on the Continent. There is actually a petition in the English archives from the merchants of England to William III asking him point blank to destroy the woollen industry in Ireland. They give their reason : We cannot sell our wool because the Irish wool is better. It sounds very nice. Nowadays they do it more diplomatically. William promised them that on the opening of Parliament he would see what he could do about that. And he did. He put a tax of four shillings a pound on Irish wool. And of course you cannot expect a French merchant to pay that much tax on Irish wool when English wool is much cheaper and only a bit inferior.
And then Pitt began his little tricks. By this time the Irish Volunteers began to admit Catholics to their ranks, and Catholics and Protestants all over the country began to work harmoniously in the ranks of the Volunteers. At this time there was a dispute between Flood and Grattan as to whether they would work first for Catholic emancipation or work first for the development of the franchise and the solidification of the liberty they had won. They disagreed on that point. Grattan was for Catholic emancipation. But as a Catholic I would say that Flood was right. Q. Senator Walsh: Both Flood and Grattan were Protestants? A. Oh, yes, they were both Protestants. Catholics had no say whatever for thirty-five years afterwards. Another Protestant, the Earl of Charlemont, was commander-in-chief of the Volunteers. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Was there not a certain class of Protestants disqualified? A. Oh, yes. Everyone had to be a forty-shilling freeholder in order to vote. There were large masses of the population excluded, even though they were Protestants. Q. Did Nonconformists vote? , A. Yes. When Catholics finally got the vote, in 1829, there was a rather interesting thing in connection with that. Up to that time it hfid been forty-shilling freeholders who were allowed to vote. Immediately there was a nice little addition passed. It was not forty-shilling freeholders any longer, but ten-pound freeholders. The result was to knock out of voting a large part of the Catholic population that did not have ten pounds. Q. Commissioner Addams: It was true all over the world at that time that there was a property qualification. A. Yes, but the forty-shilling law held in England. The ten- pound law applied only to Ireland, you see. The Earl of Chariemont was commander-in-chief of the Volun- teers. He was a very good man, no doubt, but he was a very timid man in some respects. He was timid very largely in being afraid of new innovations. He was afraid of Catholic emancipation. And Pitt worked on his horror and dread of Catholic emancipation until he split the Volunteers over it. Always the same British policy— divide and conquer. The Volunteers split over the Earl of Charle- mont’s resignation. The others wanted to keep the Volunteers intact and have Catholics admitted. The Earl of Charlemont would not have the Catholics admitted, and the Volunteers split over that. The Earl of Charlemont was a timid man who was afraid, even at that time, that the pope would come over and do terrible things in Ireland. Having split the Volunteers, the next thing was to dis- band them. When Charlemont had them disbanded, those who would not disband formed themselves into United Irishmen, a defi- nite body announcing a Republican policy and declaring for the Irish Republic. Q. Senator Walsh: What year was that? A. 1795, 1796, and 1797.
They sent to America for American help and sympathy, and they sent to France, and Napoleon was thinking about helping us. But all the great powers have been willing to help us only when it is for their own interests. I hope America will be an exception to that rule. France was at war with England, and she sent over an expe- dition to Ireland, just as Germany would have gladly sent over an expedition to Ireland in the present war. Ireland would have wel- comed the Germans just as she did the French. She had a right to get any help she could in the struggle with the enemy. Not one of your people would deny that, if you would put justice before every- thing else. Many people are afraid of the truth. There are a great many good people who will tell the truth and nothing but the truth. But the whole truth sometimes frightens them. And I have been told that I am likely to alienate a great deal of American sympathy by acknowledging the plain truth that we would have taken German help if we had got it in 1916. If that is so, I ask Americans of that opinion to try and let their sense of justice get the upper hand of their prejudices. The fact that the person who might have helped us was an enemy of their — Senator Walsh: They were not an enemy of ours then. The Witness: No, not an enemy of yours then. We were not pro-German in the sense that we wanted Germany instead of Eng- land. We were not pro-German in the sense that we wanted Ger- many to dominate Europe. If Germany had treated us as Engleind has treated us, she would have got the same treatment that we are giving England. I do not want to be misunderstood, and I am not going to purchase your sympathy by the sacrifice of one iota of the truth. The truth is just that. We were pro-Irish always. If in order to help our country an alliance with any other country is necessary, we were perfectly justified in forming that alliance. We would be sorry if that alliance would alienate anybody with whom we want to be friendly. Ireland would always want to be allied with France rather than Germany, because France was near us for many years and Germany was England's first cousin, say what you will. Our natural inclination was to sympathize with France. But if we could have got Germany as our ally in our war with England, we would have taken her. I must say that because I don't want to be afraid of the truth, and I don't want to purchase any sympathy by denying the truth. Chairman Howe: We were at the Act of Union.
The Witness: The Act of Union was passed in that way. First, the Volunteers were alienated from each other. Having alienated them, they were suppressed. A fresh supply of Hessians were brought over and let loose on the country. I cannot dare to tell you of the horrors that were committed by those Hessians and the English yeomen in our own country. Q. In 1798? A. Yes, in 1798. When England dares to tell you of the atroci- ties of other countries, she is simply dishing up some of her own atrocities in Ireland, or perhaps in Egypt and India also. Now, at that time all the Irish Volunteers who were willing to be Irish first, formed themselves into the secret society of the United Irishmen. It had to be a secret society, when if it were known to be in existence every member of it would be killed on the spot. They formed their society in secret and then entered into the '98 insurrection for a republic. This was exactly what Pitt wanted. He wanted an insurrection in order to smash the growing liberty of the people and give him an excuse for the Union. History is re- peating itself today. In order to get that insurrection, which the people did not want, because they were not ready for an insurrec- tion, he instituted a system of horrors similar to those of the Black- and-Tans today. The English yeomen and Hessians were just like the Black-and-Tans today. Devastations, lootings, murders, and burnings took place all over the country to exasperate the people into insurrection before the people were ready for it. That insur- rection followed, and the result was that the Act of Union was
You have the same thing being done in Ireland today. Lloyd George wants to get the Irish people into the open again so he can shoot them down. I believe that their prime motive in letting my brother die was just that. Our secret service, you know, has not done badly. They have gotten a lot of information about the enemy's plans. We know that today they want the Volunteers in Ireland to come out into the open. And they thought that since my brother had the confidence and affection of the Volunteers of Cork, that if they let him die, the Volunteers would lose their heads and come out into the open, and then they could shoot them down.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Might we not close the question that one of the members of the Commission has asked about, the Act of Union, when it was passed, and what the circumstances were? A. Well, I want to give you the exact particulars of the passing of the Union, and I will just recapitulate what the Parliament was at that time. It was purely Protestant. It was made up of Protes- tant landlords from England — placemen. As Miss Addams has just said, the franchise was not democratic anywhere in the world at that time, and I do not think you had any in America. They had in England, as in Ireland, too, what used to be called pocket boroughs. That is, there were certain districts which returned arliamentary members where there was really no population at all. There was one district in Ireland, a pocket borough in the possession of a West Briton of that day—that is to say, a man whose interests were centered in England. In that particular district there was a public house and a little hamlet of about ten houses, two of which were inhabited by Protestants. Only two people in that hamlet had the vote, because they were the only Protestants. And they returned two members to Parliament. There were other boroughs in which there were a half dozen houses represented by two or three members. Q. Senator Walsh: This was the Irish parliament? A. Oh, yes. But the same thing held true in England. Q. You are explaining the make-up of the Parliament that passed the Union? A. Yes, and I am explaining how it was that a Parliament apparently composed of Irishmen passed the Act of Union. I have told you that this Parliament was made up of Irish landlords and English placemen—that is to say, a man who had performed some service for the King, and was given land in Ireland, and was there- fore entitled to sit in the Irish House of Parliament. But nobody would call him an Irishman! That Parliament, great as was the work it did, was largely composed of English placemen, and the Patriotic Party was small from the beginning. The Patriotic Party was the Grattan and Flood party. That Patriotic Party was in- creased, because even these placemen, when they got land in Ireland, wanted the land to be as prosperous as it could. And so, unless they got orders to vote against a measure from the people who gave them their places, they generally voted to help Irish industries. But that was the composition of the Parliament. You can see that it voiced only the minority of the people, because Catholics had no representation at all. In the second place, it voiced only a small minority of that minority. And since there was open voting, no man who had a vote dared vote against his landlord. If he did, then he lost his holding at once. If you quite grasp that, you see it was quite easy to corrupt a parliament of that kind. Pitt began by giving a good many placemen the right to hold land in Ireland. It might be only a few acres: that made no matter; they were land- owners. Then he got these placemen to buy up all the pocket boroughs. You had, we will say, a borough there which contained nobody, but returned two members to Parliament. These were sold for fifty thousand pounds, sixty thousand pounds, or ten thousand pounds only, if they were small ones. But they were openly sold. The transaction of the buying and selling of seats can be found in certain documents, even to the present day. And anybody who will take the trouble to read the life and letters of Lord Castlereagh, which is published in six volumes, I believe, can see how openly they boasted of the buying and selling of parliamentary seats. There is a poem in Ireland that begins: "How did they pass the Union? By forgery and fraud; by perjury and corruption of every kind." I do not know the rest of it. And when I emphasize that point, I want to emphasize with it that it was not the Irish people who sold their Parliament. The Irish people, the bulk of them, had no voice in their country at all. The majority of the Protes- tants in the country, who had no franchise, would not have done that. Now, suppose that tomorrow morning you had a Congress who were in English pay and under English influence. I am only taking that as a supposition. You may be dominated by men under Eng- lish influence, perhaps, because they have their roots in the May- flower; but they are not in England's pay. But these were men placed in the Irish parliament to vote for what England wanted them to vote for, and they carried out the contract. Suppose that Congress tomorrow passed a vote by a majority handing you over and deciding that you would have a union with England, and that the English king was to be your king again. Or suppose that it passed a vote handing you over to Germany. I do not think the majority of the American people could possibly be said to desire a union with England or Germany under those circumstances. Yet these are the circumstances under which England got the Act of Union passed. She bought up all the pocket boroughs and placed sufficient men in the Irish Parliament to pass the Act of Union. And that was how the Act of Union was passed. When England says, "The Irish people passed the Act of Union and wanted to be united with us," go and tell her to read history — read Lecky, who certainly is not an Irishman. Froude, the historian, will tell the truth. Gladstone himself says it is the blackest stain on England's history, the Act of Union.
And even then they did not keep their word. When they passed the Union they made a solemn promise that the English and Irish exchequers were to be kept separate. The reason was that Ireland had a national debt of two and one-half million pounds. England had a national debt of over two hundred million pounds. Those seem very small sums in today's computations. After the Act of Union in 1801, Ireland’s debt was twenty-one million pounds. Where did it get up to that sum? She bribed these men, England did, in the House of Parliament to pass the Union, and then she paid the bribes out of Irish money. And then she promised that the exchequers would be separate. In 1817 the English national debt, owing to the Napoleonic Wars, had gone up to something like four hundred fifty million pounds. The Irish national debt had gone up, I think, to something like twenty-five million. And Eng- land suggested that it would be very nice for Ireland if they amalga- mated their exchequers. The Irishmen representing Ireland in the English Parliament at that time did not think it would be nice for Ireland to saddle Ireland with that debt. But of course they were outvoted. So the two exchequers were amalgamated. One clause of the Act of Union was that they should not be amalgamated. But they were amalgamated as soon as it suited England. From that time to the present day Ireland has been in the control of England. Q. Senator Walsh: Grattan and his party then opposed the Act of Union? A. Oh, yes; absolutely. Q. Was it just before the Act of Union that Grattan was carried into the House of Parliament on his sick bed to make his protest? A. Yes, he was carried in, practically a dying man, and made an eloquent protest against it. Q. What was the vote? Was it close? A. I cannot recall it. It was close.
I would like to say another thing about financial matters of that period. Before the war, while the Home Rule bill was being dis- cussed, we were told that Ireland could not possibly govern herself. As it was, she could not pay her own way; that England had to subsidize her to the extent of half a million a year; and what would she do if she were her own mistress and England would not be able to subsidize her? This was one of the economic points brought up against Irish Home Rule. Ireland never got a subsidy of half a million a year from England. She got it one year, and I will tell you how. it happened. The old-age pension was passed, giving to each old person over seventy several shillings a week. Q. Chairman Howe: This was quite recent? A. Yes, it was quite recent, but I must go back to give you an idea. You can get from reliable statistics an idea of how many old people in the country there ought to be. Owing to England's misgovemment of the country and the way she had impoverished it, tiie proportion of old people in Ireland was perfectly abnormal. All the young men and women had gone out of the country. In- deed, their emigration was encouraged and subsidized by England. In consequence, the proportion of old people was much greater than it was in any other country. The result was that that year there was a deficit of a half million, and England used that one year to say that she was subsidizing the Irish exchequer to the extent of half a million pounds a year. Q. Chairman Howe: What year was that? A. That was 1912, I think. When the Home Rule Bill became an issue of practical politics, they wanted to adjust the financial relations between the two coun- tries, and consequently there was a commission appointed by the King to inquire into the financial condition of Ireland from 1817 — that was the date the exchequers were combined — ^to 1908. That was about one hundred years. This was known as the Childers Commission, presided over by the uncle of the present Erskine Childers. It was an English commission appointed by the King. They went into all the statistics from 1817 to 1908. They pub- lished their statistics. That can be found in all the blue books. I am giving you only the results now. They found that from that period Ireland had paid all her own expenses, every single penny — all the expenses, including the army and navy expenses in Ireland, which is not really an Irish expense. She had covered the whole of it, and had in addition paid three hundred sixty-nine million pounds into the English exchequer. So that during the period when we were supposed to be an impoverished country, we had paid three hundred sixty-nine millions into the English treasury. Q. Chairman Howe: That was from income taxes, excise duties, and so forth? A. Yes, all the income of the country, after the expenses were paid. And yet England has the impertinence to say that Ireland is a bankrupt country! Those facts are given by the Parliamentary Commission which began sitting in 1908 and reported and gave its findings in 1911. And remember what we had been through during that time — the Tithe War, the Fenian movement, the Land Wars, and all those experiences. We had been through the terrible period of the famine. And yet all that expense was paid for by Ireland, and that three hundred sixty-nine million pounds left over. I think that when we send out the army of occupation, we are entitled to get back that three hundred sixty-nine million pounds. Senator Walsh : Let us get ours first. The Witness: Yes, we will forgive her every penny of it if she will only take out her army and let us alone. I would. like to suggest that the first relief ship that came to relieve the distress of America came from Ireland.
Mr. F. P. Walsh: You might discuss, while we are on this point, some of the great benefit that has been given to the people of Ire- land by allowing them to purchase their land. Q. Chairman Howe: When you discuss that, will you not discuss that land levy, please? How much alien landlordism still exists, how the people were allowed to purchase land, and so forth? A. I will do my best, but I cannot be very accurate on per- centages. The landlord question was very vital to us. While it was a sectional war, yet the goal all the time was freedom, and therefore those of you who have gone into the study of history a bit, just take a broad view of that. It was necessary to get it done, and we do not worry very much about statistics. But I will do my best. The land acts have been very beneficial to the country. But they were not passed by England to benefit the country. They were passed by the campaign in Ireland of Parnell and the Land League, in the early eighties, I believe. That part of history has not been written yet, at least not very fully. I have never read it, at least. I cannot give you full details, but this, at all events, is the outline of it. When Parnell carried on his Constitutional Movement, he felt that it was very necessary to get the land for the people. The farmers could do nothing, because if there was an adverse vote in the district against a landowner's plans or against England, the farmers all got notice of ejectment. They had no security of tenure for their lands. It certainly was a wise move for the people to get the land tenure fixed. But England never gave those land acts as an act of justice. When the Fenians blew up Clerkenwell prison, Gladstone took it into his head in 1871 that there was something behind the movement, and he had better do something for those people. I could not give the details of that Act, but I will come to the last Act, theWyndham Act, which has been very beneficial. Q. Chairman Howe: What date? A. In 1903, I think. That Act has been very beneficial. It has enabled the farmers to buy out their land. They could pay rent for twenty or twenty-five years, and at the end of that time their land was their own. Q. Senator Walsh: They paid so much on the principal as well as die interest? A. Yes. Immediately that Act was passed, the farmers started to improve their land. They did not do it before, because they had no security of tenure. Do you know, in that period if a mother put a clean pinafore on her child, she had her rent raised from two to ten pounds a year. And any woman would say, "Is it not better for a child to have a dirty pinafore than to have the rent raised?" And that is why you hear the Irish described as a lazy, dirty people sometimes. Q. Chairman Howe: Did that apply to the whole country? A. Yes, to Ulster just as much as the rest. That Land Act gave the people the right to purchase their farms. The instant the farm- ers could purchase, they went on improving and improving and improving. Why? Because they knew they were doing that for their sons and their daughters, and they knew they would not be thrown out of it next week. If a man put a new paling up around his field, he knew that his rent would go up several pounds the next week, and consequently the paling was not put up. If too many improvements were made, the farmer could be ejected and lose them all. But the moment the farmers got their security, they improved their farms. And consequently you have a good many prosperous farms all over Ireland today. Q. How many farms have been converted in that way up to today? Two -thirds of them? A. I don't know. Perhaps. Senator Walsh: It is not as much as that. Q. Chairman Howe: And it has led to improvements? A. Yes. But the buildings! Some of them are very ugly. They do not build their houses beautiful. I wish we had a law to make them. At all events, the houses are comfortable, well built, and much better than the old unhygienic detached buildings. Q. How prosperous is the agricultural population of Ireland today? A. Of course, the agricultural population benefited by the war, as all agricultural populations did. They got high prices for their crops, as all of them did. Some of them were unpatriotic enough to sell too much of the country's food, and some of them had to be stopped. I do not know whether you know of the incident that happened in Dublin when the Volunteers stopped the exportation of food because they were sending too much of it away. A. gentle- man in this country now, Mr. Lynch, was our food controller at the time, and he ordered that no more pigs should be exported. But the people did not think that the Irish government would have to be obeyed. There was a large consignment of pigs going off to England one night, and the food controller ordered them to be stopped. The pigs were taken off and turned into an abattoir and slaughtered, and the price was paid to the owner. That had to be done in a summary fashion, but it was a necessary act of govern- ment.
Q. There have been a number of statements made about eco- nomic embargoes on Ireland by the British government. Can you tell us anything about them? A. I know they have put an embargo on everything they could. They have put an embargo on our best port, the port of Queens- town. Once Queen Victoria visited us, and the sycophantic council of that day (for then it was only that kind they could get into the council) ordered in her honor that the port should be called Queenstown. But we do not recognize it as Queenstown. I would like our friends in America to get into the habit of calling it Cove, the Irish name for it.
There was a question about one hundred million pounds loaned to farmers in Ireland. That one hundred million pounds was very beneficial, but I would like you to understand that the security given by the farmers was quite adequate, and that the people who are paying the money are Irish. It was advanced by England for the time being, but it is Ireland that is paying the debt. But do not let them hypnotize you into believing that that money was given by England, for it was not. England and France borrowed huge sums from America during the war, and they borrowed it without giving you security. But you do not say that you have given them a present of all their war debt. And this loan is very largely paid back already, and paid back out of Irish money. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: And it was paid back to absentee land- lords and those who have succeeded to their estates, was it not? A. Yes. And there is a very large number of farms where the payments have been completed, and that money has all gone back to England. I believe the great bulk of that money has been already paid back. Q. Chairman Howe: To what extent has alien landlordism pre- vailed as it did in the Hungry Forties? A. Not much. There are very few big landlords today. They may spend a part of the year in England or abroad, but generally those that are left spend a part of the year in Ireland. The alien landlord of the early nineteenth century has gone. There are very few of them left now. Q. That question does not figure at all any more? A. No, not much any more. Now, about the embargoes. I wish I had Mr. Fawcitt here. He has all that on his fingertips and could give it better than I. Senator Walsh: He is coming, I believe. The Witness: Will you ask him, then? Chairman Howe: I did not know but what you are familiar with the industrial issues. The Witness: I am, but I cannot give you exact figures as he could.
Q. Senator Walsh: Miss MacSwiney, I would like to have you give us for the record just when there was organized in Ireland the de facto Republican government, who organized it, how long the Parliament continued to meet in the open, when it began to meet secretly, and if it is meeting now, how long it will continue. A. I would like to answer the last question first, because it is meeting and will continue to do so. Q. I would like to get in the record how much of local govern- ment there is and how it is functioning, and if it will continue to function. A. The Republic was declared in 1916, but for two years there was no government to function, until the general election of 1918. Q. In other words, you made your declaration of independence in 1916, but it took you two years to get your government organized so that it could function openly? . A. Exactly. There were seven Irish Volunteer leaders in the Dublin General Postoffice on Easter Monday in 1916, who in the name of the Republican Army declared Ireland a free and inde- pendent Republic. They were Padraic Pearse, Thomas Clarke, John MacDermott, Connolly, Kent, Plunkett, and MacDonagh, and they were all executed for it afterwards. Q. Chairman Howe: They were executed for that offense for signing your declaration of independence? A. Yes, that was the chief thing for which they were executed. Q. Senator Walsh: The elections took place in 1918? A. Yes. And immediately after the general elections the Re- publican Parliament got busy. Q. Were the members of that Republican Parliament the Re- publican members who were elected to the British Parliament from the boroughs or constituencies in Ireland? A. Yes. Q. So that upward of seventy-five men who received a majority as Republican members of the British Parliament at London from Ireland, these men met to form the Irish de facto Government? A. Right, quite right. Q. How many altogether were elected from Irish constituencies to the British Parliament? A. One hundred and three. Q. How many of that number met in Dublin, or wherever they met afterwards, to organize the Republican Government of Ireland? A. I think that at the very first meeting of Dail Eireann there were only 37, for all the others were in jail. Q. How many joined in the call? I want it for the record. A. I think it was 37. Q. How many went to England? A. None of the Republicans went to England. The only Irish who went were the Redmondites and the Carsonites. Q. It was alleged in America that sixty or seventy or so did not go to the British Parliament, and joined, either de facto or in person, to the call for an independent Parliament. A. Yes. You see, there were seventy-five members elected, but some of them were elected from two or three constituencies. Presi- dent de Valera was elected from three constituencies. Q. How many constituencies were represented at the first meet- ing, either by those present in person or in jail? A. I suppose it would be about sixty-nine men, but the con- stituencies represented were seventy-five. Q. So that seventy-five constituencies out of one hundred three sent representatives to get a Republican organization? A. Yes.
Q. Where did they meet? A. In the Mansion House in Dublin. Q. But some of them were not there, because they were in jail. A. Yes. President de Valera was in jail, and my brother was in jail, and a number of others at that time. Q. What steps did they take? Was this first meeting in the open? A. Yes, oh, yes. Q. Now, give us the history of that organization. It is very important. A. As so many were in prison, the government elected was only provisional. Because you must remember that the cream of the men were in jail, and those who were left felt that they should wait until they got all their comrades together before electing a regular government. So they elected only a provisional govern- ment. That was in January, 1919. In March there was a general amnesty. It was in connection with the German plot idea of May, 1918, that they were put into prison. In March, 1919, they let them all out. And then they had the election of the Irish Government. President de Valera was elected president, and Arthur Griffith was elected vice-president; and the names of the others I would rather not give for state reasons. Some of them are known and some of them are not known. Q. But a complete organization was effected? A. A complete organization was effected, and the first resolution to be passed was that Irish would be spoken in the Irish Parliament, although English could not under the circumstances be excluded entirely, and that all the records of the Parliament should be in Irish. English could not be kept out altogether, because some of the older men could not learn to speak Irish. But all the records are in Irish, and all who can speak Irish use it. Q. How long did they continue to function openly in the eyes of the British officials? A. I think the first attempt to smother them up was on the occa- sion of the American delegation’s visit to Ireland in 1919. Senator Frank Walsh, you were on that delegation, I think. Mr. F. P. Walsh: No, I ’m not a senator. The Witness: I got mixed up, and it doesn’t matter. Coming events cast their shadows before, perhaps. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Not for those who are here, with all due defer- ence to them. The Witness: You see, the Irish Parliament only held a few ses- sions in the open; and then the word was passed around that there was going to be a meeting of Dail Eireann, and the public was admitted. But the enemy did not get word beforehand. They really held their meetings in public for twelve months, or nearly twelve months at any rate. But they have been able to do almost as much meeting in secret. They immediately compiled statistics as to the conditions of the fisheries and of agriculture, and the condition of the ports, and the improvements that could be made. They have done all the ordinary work of government, and have done it very well and very effectively.
Senator Walsh : Up to this time the municipal and county council members had not declared themselves openly and publicly as to whether they were still holding allegiance to the British Government or not? A. That is quite true. Q. Then the elections came, in 1920, when that issue was pre- sented for all candidates for office in Ireland? A. Yes. Q. Will you kindly state how many elected members to the municipal councils and county councils declared under oath their abandonment of allegiance to the British Government and swore their allegiance to the Irish Republic? A. All the county councils in the south and west of Ireland, in what are called the chief provinces, and I think three or four in Ulster. But all of the south and west. Q. What per cent, would that be? A. That would be twenty-seven out of thirty-two. There are thirty-two counties in Ireland. There are nine in Ulster. Out of that nine in Ulster, there were four, I think — I am pretty certain of four — that declared themselves for Dail Eireann. Q. Senator Walsh: I have seen the statement in some English paper that ninety-one per cent, of county and municipal councils had declared their allegiance to the Irish Republic. A. It was fully ninety-one per cent.1

1 See note, page 155.
Q. So that in 1920 you had, in addition to the Irish national Parliament, some ninety-one per cent, of the municipal and county councils recognizing the Irish Government and declaring that they no longer gave allegiance to the English Government? A. Right.
Q. Now, to what extent did the courts and judicial functions of Ireland pass from the control of the British government to the Irish government itself? A. It passed almost absolutely. Q. Give us the figures, please. A. I do not know what you mean by figures. Wherever the Irish Republicans gained the elections — Q. What I want to do is to get what you claim the facts are, so that your friends in America can get the truth. A. Wherever the councils had declared allegiance to Dail Eireann — that was in ninety-one per cent, of the counties — the courts were established immediately. At first the courts were not noticed very much by the British Government. She did not like them, but she had no law which could absolutely forbid them. Arbitration courts were legal. And these courts, under the head of arbitration courts, began their functioning. Q. So that ninety-one per cent, of the elected representatives of the people established arbitration courts? A; Yes, certainly. But you must remember that they came on only gradually. Q. Yes, I understand. But previous to this movement the judi- cial control of Ireland was never a matter of local control ; it was always a matter of British control? A. Yes, always. Q. So that the entire judiciary was appointed by the British Government? A. Yes. Q. So what became of them? A. They sat in state in empty courts, surrounded by barbed wire and soldiers. And they waited for cases, and none came. In one case — I would like to have you notice that when the judge came to the city he was always lodged at one of the friendly houses in the city, in what would correspond to your Four Hundred, I suppose. And when the arbitration courts began to function, the Irish Parlia- ment said that these judges were forbidden to hold their courts. The result was that when the judge came to Cork there w^as no lodging for him. He could not sleep in the barracks, because it was against English law in some way. And so he had to sleep in the courthouse. Q. So that in Cork there was not only no court for the judge, but not even a bed? A. Yes, not even a bed. Q. Chaifman Howe: Were there no hotels? A. There are hotels, but the judge, you see, in Ireland is always an obnoxious person. You see, he was in the pay of the enemy, and he was doing the enemy's business, and he always came sur- rounded with a great deal of police and military. And so he did not consider it safe to stay in the hotel. Q. How many of these judges have resigned their positions? A. Many of the magistrates have resigned. They sit in the petty courts. Q. Are they elected officials? A. No. The Local Government Bill gave the right for nation- alists to become J. P.'s. But they have many of them resigned now. Q. But the judiciary, the English judiciary has practically dis- appeared? A. Yes. But they sit there yet for purposes of state, I think. Q. Senator Walsh: Now let us come to the police force. To what extent does the old Irish police force, the Royal Irish Con- stabulary, exist to this day? To what extent has the old Royal Irish Constabulary disappeared by resignations or by severing alle- giance to the British crown, and gone over to the Republican move- ment? A. Several hundreds of them have resigned. I do not know how many of them have gone over to the Republican movement. They have not gone over as police. They would not be accepted as police. They have been trained very largely as spies, and they have been trained to spy on each other. When we set up a police force, it will be a police force such as the R. I. C. never was. Q. That force has largely broken down? A. Yes, although it has been largely recruited from England. Q. Commissioner Wood: I would like to ask Miss MacSwiney a question in regard to the resident magistrates. The resident magis- trate is a paid official? A. Yes, he is a paid official appointed by the British Government. Q. What has become of them? A. They have continued to sit in their courts. If a policeman catches something like a petty thief, he will bring them up before the court. But the court is empty most of the time. Q. Have not many, of them resigned? A. No, not many. They have nice, comfortable jobs, you know, and are always selected from the anti-Irish population. Not many of them have resigned.
Q. Commissioner Thomas: Does the authority of the Irish courts rest upon the consent of the people or upon some other force? A. Upon the consent of the population entirely. And I do not think anything could show the truth about the false contention put out by England that we are not a law-abiding people better than the success of these courts, with only moral force, in many cases, to enforce their decrees. We are a law-abiding people absolutely, if we are given a chance to have our own laws. I would like to stress the good the courts did in bringing together the people. Unionists brought their cases to the Irish courts. Protestants brought their cases to the Irish courts. And although they may not have ceased to be Unionists, they have come to the conclusion that if they want their claims settled, they must bring them into the Republican courts. There was one case where a Protestant landlord had a case which he felt he must have settled, and so he took it to the Irish courts. And his friends were shocked, and remonstrated. And he said, “I do not care. If I take it into the English courts I might get a just judgment, but it will not be obeyed. And if I take it into the Irish courts I will get a just judg- ment and it will be obeyed.” And he did get a just judgment and it was obeyed. There is a rather interesting incident in connection with those courts. Three men were arrested for breaking down a wall. They were convicted in a Republican court. One consented to repair the damage, and the other two refused. We have no jails. However, it happened to be on the coast of Galway. So these gentlemen were taken to one of these islands off the coast of Galway. They were given food and everything, for we believe in treating our prisoners humanely. After a couple of days the British police heard wheie they were, and went out in a boat to rescue them. But when the British police came out, these prisoners stoned the police and said to go away, that they were prisoners of the Irish republic and would not be molested.
Q. Senator Walsh: Is nearly all the civil litigation and crimi- nal litigation carried on in these Irish courts,—in the Republican courts of Ireland? A. The civil litigation altogether. The criminal litigation would be a burden if there were much of it. But it is not an excessive exaggeration to say that there is no crime in Ireland. That would be true before the trouble started rather than now, since the Black- and-Tans came. In Ireland there is a custom that when a judge goes on circuit and has no serious cases to try, he is presented with a pair of white kid gloves. And there were sessions after sessions where the judges going around their circuits got white kid gloves. They often made a joke about it, that the judges should set up a glove shop. And that is an absolute fact. There may be little petty larceny cases and breach of promises and the like, and I think that is about the most serious thing. We occasionally have a murder case, but very, very rarely.
And with a view to the English support of law and order in Ire- land, I would like to tell of the last murder case before I left Ire- land. A man named Quaid in County Clare in Ireland, a man with- out a good reputation, a blustering sort of a bully who took Eng- land’s part in the war and advocated recruiting, and did his very best to get recruits for her. He was a man with a very hot temper. And sometime about a year and a half ago,—he was a publican, a saloon keeper—and he kicked one of his bar attendants to death. She was a woman. Kicked her to death absolutely. She was found dead in the yard the next morning. That man deserved to be hanged in any civilized country. His counsel made a very long speech in his behalf, showing that he was a very loyal subject, that he had done a great deal of recruiting for the army and had gotten a great many recruits, and that he asked for a light sentence. Q. Senator Walsh: This was in thè British courts? A. Yes, in the British courts. He got a sentence of twelve months as a first-class misdemeanant, which meant that he could have his friends visit him, and his own clothes, and all the other privileges except that of walking out when he liked. So he got twelve months, when men who were found with revolvers in their pockets—which it is the right of a free man to carry if he likes— get from two to five years penal servitude. He got twelve months in the most comfortable prison they had. And the judge, in passing sentence, said they would make him as comfortable as they pos- sibly could. Six weeks afterwards the man was released. I believe he developed a headache or something like that. That is the way the English keep law and order in our country. Again, three policemen were caught red-handed in Aghada, not far from Cork, in the act of stealing. There were Americans there, and the policemen were accused and found guilty of stealing their property. About two months after that the Americans cleared .out. They got a sentence of nine months each, I believe. But three days after your boys cleared out, they were released. That is keeping law and order.
Another case of law and order I would like to mention is that of Hardy. Perhaps you have heard of that before. It was in all the papers of England and Ireland. It was the case of a spy. That man got five years penal servitude, and the judge who sentenced him said his record was the very worst that he had ever come across in all his years of experience on the bench. About five months after he was incarcerated, he was released and sent to Ireland to see how many Sinn Feiners he could spy upon. He was sent to find out who the Sinn Fein leaders were, how they made their remarkable es- capes, and if they could not get hold of them. He visited Mr. Ar- thur Griffith and said that he had been a secret service man, and that his sympathies were very much for Ireland, and that he would like to help them if he could. He said that he knew all the movements of the enemy. He could tell them where Mr. Hamar Greenwood could be found if it was thought advisable to have him visit another planet, and he knew where Mr. Lloyd George could be found if they wanted to get him. Mr. Griffith listened to him very attentively and asked a few questions. What the man wanted was to get in touch with the Sinn Fein council. So Mr. Griffith listened to him appar- ently very favorably, and said, "Come back tomorrow morning and we will see what can be done to put your information before the council." And then Mr. Griffith said when he came back, "I have ar- ranged a meeting for you, and you be here tomorrow afternoon and we will see what can be done." He did arrange a meeting, not of the Sinn Fein Council, but of some newspaper correspondents, of some American and French and Danish and other correspondents. He had the only English newspaper man in Ireland he could trust, the London Daily Herald, man. And of course he had some Irish- men. And they sat around and acted like a Sinn Fein council. But in case their accents might betray them, it was agreed that only the Irishmen should speak at all. Hardy was asked to tell his story. He said that on a certain night on Kingstown pier Sir Hamar Green- wood would be crossing to England, and it would be easy to get him. He was quite nervous when he started, but as he got along he got very fluent. When he got through Mr. Griffith got up and said, “Mr. Hardy, you think you have been speaking to a Sinn Fein Council. You have been speaking to a number of foreign press correspondents. They doubtless know already who sent you here. And now I want them to know your record.” And he gave them all his record, and gave him until nine o’clock in the evening to get out of the country. Hardy begged to have until eight o’clock the next morning, and this was granted; but he was advised not to be found in Ireland after eight o’clock the next morning. This is the way the English keep law and order in Ireland. They take criminals out of the jails and send them to spy on the Irish. And they take them out of the jails and make Black-and-Tans of them. There is a friend of mine who was temporarily the prison physician at Portland prison, and one day he met a man on the street in the Black-and-Tan uniform and stopped him and said, “Where did I meet you?” And the man said, “Oh, doctor, don’t you know? I was at Portland prison when you were the prison physi- cian.” That is the way we get English law and order in Ireland. Most of the criminals are sent in from the outside. We have no trouble except where the British forces make it. Q. Chairman Howe: Is that due to the Irish character, or is that due to the fact that they are banded together in this common cause where they must protect one another, or is it historically true? A. It is historically true. There was at one time a great deal of drunkenness in the country, but the Volunteer movement killed that. The people are intensely serious now. The work of our courts is really very light.
Q. Senator Walsh: Do these courts have to meet in secret? A. Now they do. Q. How long were they in the open? A. They were in the open until about, I think, the time of my brother’s arrest. There was a court going on that night. They are open now to those who want to go into them. The Irish public knows where they are. Q. And others than the Irish can go into them? A. Yes, but not too openly, for then the police or the military would come in and break things up. Q. But they are going on now? A. Oh, yes. But the British authorities have put them down and declared them illegal. Mr. F. P. Walsh: The British Government specifically declared them illegal. They were afraid they were getting too much power, because not only the Republicans used them, but they were used by the Unionists and by the people all over the country. The Witness: I have been asked to say something here about the burning of creameries and destruction in general; the circumstances under which the Coercion bill went into effect, as well as the exact circumstances of my brother’s case; and the shooting of police. I would like to say as quickly as possible with regard to the shoot- ing of policemen. I am most anxious to speak to the Commission on that point. I have been told ever since I have come to this coun- try that there were three things that were a great stumbling block to American sympathy in the Irish situation. The first was that it was a religious fight. The second was that the Irish were murdering policemen. And the third was the difficulty of giving Britain guar- antees that we would not molest her or let our coast be used for pur- poses of military aggression.
With regard to the religious difficulty, there isn’t any, except what England creates. The religious difficulty of today is created exactly as she created the religious difficulty with the Earl of Charlemont in 1797 and smashed the Irish Volunteers. She keeps alive the re- ligious issue in Belfast for her own purposes. But there is no trou- ble among the people otherwise. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: What is your history in Cork? Will you kindly state if there has ever been any trouble there and what per cent, of the people are Catholic? A. I suppose that the per cent, of the population that is non- Catholic would be about ten per cent. The Jews have their syna- gogue, the Nonconformists have their church. The Church of Ire- land, which has been disestablished and is the Episcopalian Church., have their churches. The Protestants of Cork all have their churches just like the Catholics, only they are not so numerous.
There never has been any persecution of the Protestants in Cork. If we wanted to persecute Protestants, we could persecute them and make it too hot for them very effectively. But the very biggest busi- ness houses in the city are owned by Protestants. For a long time they employed only Protestants. That does not hold any longer now. They have become more broad-minded and less bigoted. But the only bigotry shown in Cork has been shown by Protestants. A business house needing help would put up a sign in the window, “No Irish Catholic need apply.” Personally I would feel like doing something to such people, but the population of Cork did not. The Protestant population of Cork, if asked individually, could never prove a single case of aggression on the part of the Catholic popula- tion. If you went through the whole length and breadth of Ireland, you could not find a case where the Catholics were the aggressors. If they are attacked, they will answer back, the same as other people would. But Ireland has been remarkably free from religious perse- cutions. The Irish people seem to be unable to do otherwise. We are the only nation in the whole wide world that accepted Chris- tianity without murdering the first apostles. We are the only nation in the whole world that does not show in its history some early per- secutions for religious heresies. Q. Mr. Frank P. Walsh: Do you have a Jewish quarter in Cork, —a Ghetto? A. It is not called a Ghetto. It has the curious name of the Hibernian Buildings. Q. Commissioner Addams: You never have had an anti-Semitic movement in Ireland? A. We never have had a religious persecution movement of any kind whatever. Q. But they did that in England. A. Yes, but England has often endeavored to have persecu- tions in Ireland without any success whatever. Queen Mary in England started to persecute the Protestants in England. She issued the same writ for the Pale, the district she owned in Ireland. The writ was obeyed in England. It was not obeyed in the Irish Pale. The Catholic Irish citizens refused to persecute their own fellow citizens. And Protestant citizens by the hundreds left England and went to Ireland for safety. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: But there never has been any persecution, even of the Jews? A. No. Q. But there is a large Jewish quarter in Dublin, I think. A. Yes, the Jews have a habit of creeping in, you know. But they are quite harmless. As a matter of fact, the Jewish population and the Jewish synagogue in Cork sent us one of the nicest expres- sions of sympathy on the death of my brother that we had from anybody. We will not persecute anybody. There are very few people in Ireland, even the people who shout loudest, who believe in religious persecution. The Orange section in the north of Ireland are a very ignorant type of people. They are more like the lower class of England than they are like the Irish. But it is true that they have the idea very firmly fixed in their heads that the pope is going to come over to Ireland and persecute all the Protestants. Of course it is nonsense, but it is one of those ideas that are very difficult to get out of their heads. When the English army of occupation is withdrawn that will disappear. As for not coming under the Irish Parliament, they will have to. We are not going to have anything like Englishmen in our country. We will give them any kind of guarantees they like, but we will give it to them and not to the English. So much for the religious difficulty. The fact that there will not he any religious persecution under the Irish Government can be proved only by experience. We know there will not be. Q. Senator Walsh: To what extent have Catholic constituencies elected Protestants to represent them in the British Parliament and on the county and city councils? A. Very many of them. Q. Have you had Protestant mayors of Cork? A. Yes, the third last was a Protestant. Q. Have you other Protestant officials? A. Yes, the senior alderman is a Protestant. Q. Who is he? A. Alderman Beamish. Q. Is he a Unionist? A. Yes. Q. Is it true all over the Catholic part of Ireland that they have elected mayors repeatedly who have not been of the Catholic faith? A. It is true, true repeatedly, that a Protestant is elected if he is the best man. But they would not elect a Unionist at all, no matter what his religion was. Thomas Davis said in one of his poems: "There art two great parties in the end. You are one with us if you are Ireland's friend." If a man is for Ireland, we never ask him his religion. If he is a Catholic and we knew that he was against Ireland, out he would go. It is Ireland that matters.
Q. Commissioner Maurer: To come back to the industries. The textile industries of Ireland, where do they exist? A. In the south of Ireland and Belfast and Balbriggan. The hosiery factory at Balbriggan that was destroyed lately was owned by an Englishman and a Unionist. But of course the injury to him was unintended. The factory was burned to destroy the industry of the town. Q. Did that give employment to many people? A. Yes, to several hundreds. It is the main industry of that town. Q. Are you acquainted in the north? A. Not very well. Q. Do you know whether these textile workers are organized into labor unions? A. They are, but they ignore their unions when the time comes to have a fight against the Catholics. Q. In the north of Ireland are they organized? A. There are trade unions in the north of Ireland, but they are spoiled by' this bigotry. Q. Do you not think that perhaps these religious differences may be more economic than political; that those who profit by keeping these employees divided, by keeping them unorganized, wherever there is an effort made to improve their standard of living, they simply start a religious war among ihem and make organiza- tion impossible? A. Yes, that is largely true. But the main interest in Ireland is not a capitalistic one. It is a political one. It is England versus Ireland all the time. Q. Yes, but now the burning down of that mill was not political. That was owned by a British capitalist. A. Yes, that was Mr. Smith. Q. Yes. That was simply to harass the people who worked there? A. Yes. It was not an attack on the individual owner. It was simply the English policy of starvation. They are trying to throw the people out of work and prevent them getting food and starve them into submission. Q. I have been informed that labor organizers in the north of Ireland are endeavoring to organize the Protestants. In previous years they have endeavored to organize both Catholics and Protes- tants. This time they said, we will organize the Protestants and we can get the Catholics later. Then when the employers heard of it they told the Protestant employees that it was a Catholic trick. So the regular organizers went over to organize the Catholics, and then the employers told the Catholics that it was a Protestant trick. Do you not think that it was a game of playing the parties off against each other? A. Yes, but the fundamental difference is political. Q. Yes, but the religious differences are inspired more by the economic than by the political issues. A. Yes, that is quite possible.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Now, I handed you a list of questions. A. Yes. I have discussed the first. That one, the religious diffi- culty, does not exist. I will take the next one, the guarantee for England’s supremacy, I shall say, or England’s safety. Mr. F. P. Walsh: They call is safety. The Witness: They call it safety. Our President took lately the first paragraph of the new agreement made with Cuba by the United States. It is a guarantee that the ports of Cuba will not be given to any foreign power or used in any way that would injure the United States. I am not sure of the wording of it. But the point is this: that we are perfectly willing to give a promise that we will not let any other foreign power, or any power, use our ports as a war base. Q. Senator Walsh: Against Great Britain? A. Yes. We are perfectly willing to give that guarantee and to keep it, because when we get our Republic, we are not going to go to war with anybody. Neither will we allow our ports to be used by one big nation that wants to make war on another big nation. England says that is not enough. If it is not enough, she will have to do without. She is not going to keep us perpetually in slavery. England will have to be satisfied with what is right from us. She will have to be satisfied with justice to our interests as well as hers. We will be perfectly willing to be good friends and forget the past, provided she clears out and leaves us alone. If, as Lloyd George said some time ago, England will never agree to an Irish Republic until England is beaten to the ground, well, I am very sorry, because England will have to be beaten to the ground. And perhaps Ma- caulay's traveler, who stood on London bridge and looked on the ruins of St Paul's, is already on the horizon. At any event, we are going to get our freedom. England cannot keep us in slavery. You cannot keep in slavery a people every individual of whom is willing to die for the principle of freedom. So much for the third point.
The second thing I was asked is about what is called often the murdering of policemen. Here it is called the shooting of police- men. I will simply take the murders of policemen by denying that there ever has been a policeman murdered in Ireland. Now I will deal with the shooting of policemen. Will you please start out with the premise that Ireland and England are at war. One of the in- stances about the shooting of policemen was the ambush of seven- teen Black-and-Tans last week at a place not far from Mallow, when the whole seventeen of them were captured, sixteen of them killed, and the seventeenth very severely wounded. That was put down as a very horrible murder. Suppose that in the recent war an Ameri- can scouting party went out on a Belgian road and got information that three or four lorries of German soldiers carrying ammunition were coming along the road. If they felt strong enough, and if they were very plucky,— perhaps even if they did not feel strong enough, they would get into a nice little ambush and they would give the best account of that German party that they possibly could. I think you will agree with me that that is a statement of what would happen. Would you do anything but laugh at any man that would call that ambush party murder? Of course it is not a mur- der. It is an act of war. The Black-and-Tans were armed to the teeth. I should like to tell you how the Black-and-Tans go around the streets of our cities and country places. Four or five days ago ther* was an ambush at Bandon, and in that ambush our men got the worst of it, — four or five of our men were killed. You will not find any Irish citizen coming before this Comtnission and claiming that these men were murdered. Why? Because it was an act of war. It was the shooting of one set of soldiers by another set of soldiers. I think there is an incident in American history known as the Boston Massacre. I am not quite conversant with American his- tory. I know a fair share of it, but I feel diffident about talking American history in your presence. But I think that in that Boston Massacre two or three or perhaps more British officers were shot, and perhaps several civilians. I think that the shooting of those officers was described as murder, and the shooting of the civilians was described as the shooting of rascally rebels. Do you agree that the shooting of those officers was murder? You may do so if you wish. I do not. I do not agree that the shooting of any of the armed forces of the British Crown while they are armed is murder. It is not. I will tell you this: every single individual in the enemy’s uniform who passes through the streets and roads of our country by that act commits an act which by the laws of international warfare renders him worthy of death. Any German soldier who went out in the streets of Belgium during the late war was shot if his enemy could shoot him. I think that a little clear thinking on these points would be advisable before we are accused of wholesale murder.
I have also been told that individual policemen who were un- armed have been shot. That is also true. Now I will tell you who those individual policemen are. I was asked a little while ago about the police in Ireland. The police in any civilized country are a civil force under the control of the civil authorities, and that civil force deals with offences against the civil law only. The police in Ireland have always been under the authority of the British Govern- ment. They have not always carried arms, because there have been times when we were not in a state of war. But they carry arms at present, and therefore they are among the armed forces of the Crown. Among the Royal Irish Constabulary was a division known as the G Division. Their work was purely detective work. The people they were sent to spy upon were our fellow citizens. And that went on during every political agitation in Ireland. During the present war, since 1916—since 1914, in fact—the police in that G Division were very active. I am sorry to have to acknowledge that they were Irishmen. That only makes them greater sinners. No one is held in greater horror and contempt than Judas, and every one of those men was a Judas because he betrayed his own. In that G Division were men who were expert spies, because they were people that mixed freely with the Irish people and picked up infor- mation from girls whom they met and other people, and they gave that information to the British Government, and that information led very often to the arrest and imprisonment of their fellow coun- trymen. Therefore they were spies. In the recent times in Ireland, when the times got very hot, these spies have done very good work for the English Government in Ireland. One of our leaders who was executed in 1916 was executed through one of those spies, who has himself been shot since. During Easter Week some of the Volun- teers were anxious to shoot down every policeman, every police spy, that is — every policeman of the G Division; but the leaders, Pearse and MacDermott, said, "No, this is a clean fight, and we will deal with them .afterwards." There was one detective who was very active in tracking down our men. His life was saved by John Mac- Dermott, one of the signatories of the Irish Declaration of Inde- pendence. John MacDermott was a very young man, and he was very lame. As a soldier he would be considered as among the unfit in any army in the world. But he was one of the greatest workers we had. Because of his lameness the military officers who captured the people after Easter Week came to the conclusion that he could not be one of the leaders, and so he was thrown into the barracks along with the rank and file, and he was put in the batch to be sent to the Wakefield prison in England. They were paraded in the Richmond barrack yards before leaving Dublin, and this particular detective was sent up and down the ranks to see if .there was any man there who ought to get penal servitude rather than deportation. And in going up an<l down the. ranks he saw John MacDermott, and he pointed him out to the British authorities as one of the seven signatories of the Irish Declaration of Independence. And John MacDermott was taken out and shot a few days afterwards. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Was this the man whose life he had saved? A. This was the very man whose life he saved. And that man has subsequently been shot, and shooting was too gentle a dealth for such a wretch. No unarmed policeman has been shot in Ireland unless he has been proved a spy. And he has been proved a spy on good evidence. Our Irish Secret Service, like other divisions of the Irish Govern- ment, is rather efficient. We have captured the official and private correspondence of Lord French, and we have sent back his personal correspondence marked "Censored by the I. R. A." His official cor- respondence he did not get back. The official correspondence we have captured from time to time has been conclusive evidence that there are spies at work among us. One morning a policeman com- ing along from the general postoffice with a mail bag was stopped on the street by two Volunteers and relieved of his mail bag. It is not always done as openly as that on the streets at eight o'clock in the morning. He was sent home without his mail bag. That mail bag contained conclusive evidence against a man who had been sus- pected as a spy for a long time. And he paid the penalty that all spies pay. You may hold up your hands in horror and say we are not justi- fied in shooting spies. They are people that I have a great deal of contempt for, but I have a great deal of contempt for many people 1 would not shoot. But I ask you this : what right have you or any other nation to object to our shooting spies unless you object to the shooting of spies for yourself and your allies? It has been sug- gested that these men should have an open trial. There were a good many spies shot in England at the beginning of the war. I believe that the question was asked in the House of Commons why they were not given an open trial. And the answer was that it would be giving aid and information to the enemy. If England is allowed to shoot her spies without an open trial, why should we not too? I do not know whether America had any spies to shoot during the recent war. Chairman Howe: Not in this war. The Witness: But in any war where you found spies to be shot, you shot them. Very well. But spies in Ireland have only been shot on official evidence, and the official evidence was very largely obtained from themselves, from Dublin Castle. Q. Senator Walsh : Have any Irish Republican officers who have been spies of the government been shot by the British? A. I do not really know whether we have any spies like that. When I say that we have a secret service force, I mean those who capture the mails and get information like that. Q. But you seek the same right for the officers of the Irish Re- publican Army to shoot British spies as the British exercise in shoot- ing Irish secret service men? A. Yes, I ask only this, that when England calls the shooting of the spies she captures murder, she can begin to call the shooting of the spies that she employs murder. You must begin to use the proper word. The shooting of spies is not murder. The only mur- ders we have had in Cork in many, many years — I am not a young woman any more — but in all my life I can only remember two mur- ders in Cork, and I do not think there would be more than four or five in Ireland. And the murder that I told you of, that man who kicked his barmaid to death, was sentenced by the British Govern- ment to the lightest sentence that he could possibly get, and let out after six weeks.
Q. Commissioner Thomas: Miss MacSwiney, I want to ask a few questions to get this straight. You say that policemen are not shot indiscriminately, but that only when they are spies and have done work worthy of death?—that is, unarmed policemen? A. Yes. Q You also say that some are ambushed and shot that way? A. Yes. Q. There is also a third case that happened when you were on the water, perhaps. Something like fourteen policemen were shot at different times and places, some on duty and some off; some of them in their homes. A. Fourteen of them? Those were in Fermoy, perhaps? Commissioner Thomas: No, in Dublin. The Witness: Oh, those men were spies. They were English secret service men who had the clews of the machinery of our government. I believe they were the head men there, who were doing untold dam- age. I do not know the details. But I know this: if any of those men were shot by the Irish Republican Army, they were shot justly and after warning. Q. Chairman Howe: What do you mean by warning? A. Oh, they have been told that they would be shot. Q. You mean that they were told they would be shot if they did not leave the country? A. Yes, they had to leave the country. Q. If they left the country they would not be shot? A. Yes, if they left the country they would be safe. We would have no further objection. They would not be shot.
Q. Commissioner Thomas: You said that one object of the British Government was to drive the Irish people into open war- fare? A. Yes. It is guerilla warfare now. Q. Do I understand you to say that England would then be justified in arresting the vice-president of the Irish Republic as an act of war? A. She has done it. Q. Yes, but you say that she is justified in doing it, though, as an act of war? A. Yes, but I say that she is not justified in doing any act of aggression whatever in Ireland. Q. Yes, but it is according to the code of war, the ethics of war, if you could use that word, that Arthur Griffith is in prison at this time. A. Yes, with one proviso that covers my brother’s case at the same time. Why? Because when two countries are at war, and when the officers of one country are captured by another, they should be given the status of prisoners of war. If my brother had been given the status of a prisoner of war, he would never have gone on hunger strike. If Arthur Griffith is given the treatment of a prisoner of war, well and good. But what we object to and what we fight against and what my brother died to protest against is the assump- tion of England that she is entitled to arrest us and drag us off to prison or execute us because she owns our country. Q. I understand. But according to the code of war, military search and seizure is not the thing that it is under the code of peace. Now, military search and seizure, you would say, is not any special disability in Ireland at the present time? A. Yes, granted the treatment of prisoners of war. Q. In other words, granting your point of view that England has no right to be in a state of war with you? A. We do not complain against search and seizure, against ar- rest, against anything except vindictive reprisals against the civilian population; providing only that the people so arrested are treated as prisoners of war and not as common criminals. Q. Senator Walsh: Accepting that you are in a state of war with England? A. Accepting that we are in a state of war. Q. Commissioner Thomas: In other words, there is a distinction to be drawn against the burning of factories, as at Balbriggan, and the burning of creameries and the destruction of civilian homes, which is wrong, even under conditions of war, because it is the de- struction of civilian property. But search and seizure and impris- onment you do not object to? A. Right, exactly, if they give us the status of prisoners of war. But they are not doing that. But as long as England holds that she is arresting us as criminals or as rebels, as she once said, and gives us the treatment of criminals rather than prisoners of war, she is not justified. Q. Senator Walsh: You claim that the shooting of these men who are spies would be justified the same as England is in shooting spies? A. Certainly. Q. But it is quite a different thing for England to shoot at ran- dom at a crowd of civilians? A. Yes, certainly. Now here is the thing we have to contend with on the country roads. Q. Chairman Howe: Wait a minute. Is that taking up another subject? A. You want to stop now, Mr. Howe? Chairman Howe: It is now ten minutes to six, and perhaps we should stop now before you branch out into any new subject.
Q. Senator Walsh: Have you finished with the shooting of policemen? A. No, there is one thing more. Policemen have been shot either accidentally or on purpose by other policemen. There is one case that happened lately, about which I can give you no absolute proof. It is the case of the shooting of an old sergeant, Sergeant O’Donovan or O’Donoghue. It happened about the time of my brother’s death, between that time and the time I left home. I know that that was murder, and was not done by any of our people. He was an inoffensive old man and within a few months of his pension time. He had not committed a single act of aggression against our people. He was not acting as a spy. He was doing no harm to any- body, and not a single Irish Volunteer would have shot him. And this man was to have his pension and retire from the force in a very short time. He had not taken any part in the work of the Black- and-Tans. And he was found shot. The Black-and-Tans have shot several men like that who would not act as spies, in the hope of throwing further odium on Sinn Fein, as they call it.
Also they have taken out and flogged and shot policemen who have resigned from the force, and they have done that in uniform. Q. Senator Walsh: That is, before the expiration of their term? A. Before the expiration of their term. They have shot them in uniform, and all these shootings have been put down as to the Irish Republican Government. We do not accept the responsibility, be- cause these are murders committed by these men for the purpose of throwing odium on Sinn Fein. Q. Commissioner Maurer: Are any of these Irish state police- men or Irish Constabulary resigning? If so, why do they resign? A. They are resigning because they will not take any part in what is going on now in Ireland. Q. After they resigned, did anything happen to them? A. Not by our own people. Q. But did any of them lose their lives? Have you any per- sonal knowledge of such cases? A. The information I have of such cases I got from the news- papers. Q. But you have read in the newspapers that many of them have been shot after they have resigned? A. Yes, I have. After they had resigned. Q. But it seems to me that a Royal Irish Constabulary man who had resigned would have rather endeared himself to the people of the Irish Republic. A. Yes, they would. And furthermore, I can tell you that the Irish Government would see that they do not suffer from their resig- nations. Q. But the Black-and-Tans and the military notice it? A. Yes, that is it. While my brother was in Brixton Prison, I read in the paper that about four hundred R. I. C.'s sent in a notice to the Government warning the Government that if he were released, they would resign in a body. The very instant that I saw that, I knew for one that it was a lie. There are not four hundred of the old R. I. C. men left, nor four dozen, who would say such a thing. The four hundred, if there were four hundred, I knew were the English recruits to the R. I. C, commonly known as Black-and- Tans. It sounded very big in the English papers that four hundred R. I. C.'s threatened to resign if the Lord Mayor of Cork was re- leased, because their lives would not be safe if he lived. That, of course, was another piece of lying propaganda. I said that on the instant I saw it, because I did' not believe they would do it. The very next day the chief of the R. I. C. sent a letter to the paper denying that the R. I. C. had taken any such action, and very vigor- ously protesting that such a statement should be made. There are not four hundred or four dozen of the old R. I. C. who are left, but there are any number of Black-and-Tans who might say that they protested against his release. This fictitious protest against Lord Mayor MacSwiney's release con- tained the imputation that he was one of the chief instigators of the shooting of policemen, and hence the lives of policemen would not be safe if he were released. Q. Commissioner Wood: You say that the taking of the lives of these policemen, of the R. I. C. and the Black-and-Tans, was done in punishment for indiscriminate murders. But has the murder of resigned officers caused reprisals? The Witness: Would you mind repeating the question? Q. You said that some policemen when they resigned from the R. I. C. had been shot by the Black-and-Tans. Do you claim that any such killings have been given as an excuse for the shooting up of communities by the Black-and-Tans? A. By the Black-and-Tans? Q. Yes. A. I could not say about that. Mr. F. P. Walsh : Might I say that I told the Chairman some time ago that an effort would be made to locate a number of members of the R. I. C. that have resigned and would be available as wit- nesses. We will give their names to the secretary this evening. And they can give the whole story of the R. I. C.1 Chairman Howe: We will now adjourn. The meeting will be held here in this room at nine-thirty tomorrow morning. Adjournment 5:53 P.M.

1 See testimony of Ex-Policemen Crowley, Tangney, Caddan, and Galvin.
Session Two Jane Addams James H. Maurer Oliver P. Newman George W. Norris Norman Thomas COMMISSIONERS David I. Walsh L. Hollingsworth Wood Frederic C. Howe Acting Chairman Before the Commission, sitting in Odd Fellows’ Hall, Washington, D. C., Thursday, December 9, 1920. Session called to order by Chairman Howe at 9:50 A. M. Chairman Howe: Mrs. MacSwiney will take the stand.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh (of counsel): Will you please state your name, Mrs. MacSwiney? A. Muriel MacSwiney. Q. And where do you reside? A. In Cork. Q. You are the widow of Terence MacSwiney? A. Yes, I am. Q. And he died on what day? A. I am not sure,—I am not sure of the exact date. Q. And where? A. In Brixton prison, in London. Q. And at the time of your husband’s arrest, what was your hus- band’s business or profession? A. He was the Lord Mayor of the city of Cork. Q. And did he have any odier official connection? A. Yes, he was an officer in the Irish Republican Army. Q. Now, would you be good enough to begin, I might suggest, to tell the Commission in your own thoughts about his connection with the Republican movement in Ireland? And just state to the Commission your observations of the movement down to your mar- riage with your husband and down to iKe time of his death. I will let you sta4 with your own story. You were born where? A. I was born in Cork. Q. And what was the name of your parents? A. My father's name was Nicholas Murphy. Q. Of Cork? A. Yes, of Cork. And Mary Purcell was my mother's name. Q. And your father is dead? A. Yes, he died when I was sixteen. Q. And you have brothers and sisters? A. Yes, I have. Q. How many? A. Three sisters and two brothers. Q. What was the date of your marriage with Mr. MacSwiney? A. June 9, 1917.
Q. You can go ahead now and state your own position in this matter. When, if at any time, did you become interested in the cause of Irish independence, and what actuated you? A. Well, I think what actuated me was that all my life, even when I was quite a baby, I never could understand why there should be poor people and rich people. You know there is a great deal of poverty in Ireland, especially in Cork. You cannot help noticing the many poor children with no shoes and stockings and the like. I noticed that when a baby. I could not understand why it should be. However, I do not think it is right to give people things only in charity. There should be no need of that. There's plenty in Ire- land for everybody to have enough. As I grew older I saw that things could not be set right except by government. Q. Was this prior to your marriage? A. yes, that was when I was quite a child. And I saw that while England was there we could do nothing, because she destroyed our business and kept us poor. Q. What was the business of your father? A. He had a big distillery. Q. Briefly stated, he was a man in comfortable circumstances? A. O yes, very. Q. You say as a child you were moved by the poverty that ex- isted in your country, and the reasons for it, and why it should be so? A. Yes, I was. Q. Now, you may proceed, then. A. As I got older, as I have told you, I saw that England was responsible for all that, and if we had our own government we could do something; and until we had our own government we could do nothing. I saw that, and I picked up other things, and I learned that England was only there as a thief, and had no right to be there at all. Q. Where were you educated, Mrs. MacSwiney? A. I was educated at home until I was fifteen, and then I was sent to England for two years. Q. To what school? A. To Saint Leonard’s Convent of the Holy Child at Hastings. They have a great many convents in America, by the way; and many in England. Q. And where was your education finished? A. There, at Hastings, in the south of England. Q. Did you have any personal interest in the Irish Republican movement after your graduation? A. Yes, I did. You see, my parents are not quite like myself. I think I am rather characteristic of a certain section in Ireland. The younger people of Ireland have been thinking in a way that some of the older ones have not. There some years ago the Union- ists did not wish an Irish Republic. They wished to belong to Eng- land. They were well off and quite comfortable and thought only of themselves. That is dying out now. The younger members of such families are Republican. On account of that, I did not get the opportunity to meet Republicans when I was a child. That was why I was sent to school to England. I am only characteristic of a great many who are brought up shut up at home. And still the Irish spirit comes out of them in spite of everything. So until I was about twenty-two I did not get the opportunity to do very much- Q. What is your age now? A. I am twenty-eight. Q. When did you first meet Terence MacSwiney? A. I met him in 1915, about Christmas. Q. Were you interested in the Republican movement before then? A. O yes, I was, some time before then. Q. You might state what your activities have been prior to that time. A. My thought has long been that we should have an Irish Re- public, and that England should go from Ireland. Q. Did you belong to any organization up to that time? A. I did not, up to that time. I had spoken to people, of course. Q. But you had not been connected with any Republican organ- ization ? A. No, on account of my family. I was living at home, of course.
Q. I wish you would proceed and tell about your husband, and your marriage, and tell the whole story down to the present time. I am sure it would interest the Commission to hear your story from the very first. A. Well, I met my husband at the house of mutual friends, about Christmas, 1915. And, well, I did not really get to know him very intimately at that time. Some time after that I met him a few times. Q. You might tell what his status was at that time. A. He was a commandant of the Irish Republican Army at that time. Q. He was a commandant? A. Yes, in the south of Ireland. Of course, my husband has been in all the movements ever since he was a boy; because of course, as his sister has told you, theirs is a very old family around Cork. She can tell you about that better than I can, because she knew him before I did. I met him, as I said, about Christmas. And he was arrested about a month after Christmas. Q. Upon what charge, if any? A. The charge of making a speech. But he was kept without trial for a whole month. He was never tried at all. He had to be released in the end. Q. Where was he confined? A. In Cork prison. And he was quite ill then. Q. What was the date? A. My sister-in-law can tell you the date. Q. In 1916? A. Yes, 1916. Q. Was it after the insurrection or before? A. before. Well, when we got the news in Cork of the insur- rection in 1916, we heard there was something up in Dublin. And I went into town to try to find out what had happened. I heard that my husband was up at the Volunteer Hall, the headquarters of the Republican army in Cork. There was danger in Cork then. He had been sleeping there because they thought it was safer for him. It was not well for him to be alone. He might be shot or arrested. He was up at the hall all the week. I had a chance to see him and get the news of what was happening in Dublin and in Cork. My husband was arrested after that. Q. What date was that? A. I cannot give the date exactly. It was after Easter Week. Q. What was the date of your marriage? A. The ninth of June, 1917. Q. And I believe you have one child? A. Yes. Q. And the name of your child? A. Maura. Q. And when was Maura born? A. She was born on the twenty-third of June, 1918. Q. Had your husband been arrested before you were married? A. Yes, I told you he had. Easter Week, 1916. Q. And he was arrested after that, — after your marriage? A. Yes, like all men in Ireland, whether they had fought or not. They were all arrested, after Easter Week. Q. And when was he first arrested? A. Early in 1916, and then after Easter. Q. And how long was he confined? A. He was confined until after Christmas. Q. And where was he sent? A. First of all, he was sent to Dublin to Richmond barracks, and he was then deported to Wakefield prison in England. Q. And he got out under the general amnesty? A. Yes, with the other prisoners at Christmas. Q. During all that time there was no formal charge lodged against him? A. No, none of those were charged. Q. They just kept him in jail until Christmas time? A. They did, for nearly a year. Q. From that time what was the course of your husband?
A. I visited him in Richmond barracks, I should say. And then I was sent over by our own people to England to do something for the men who were in the prisons there. Our men were in a terrible condition at that time. In the beginning none of their folks were allowed to see them. When I went over first, I went to Wandsworth prison in London, and then I went to Wakefield, where my husband was, because I was supposed to look after the Cork men, and my husband and they were in Wakefield. Q. How many were confined? A. O hundreds, if not thousands. The whole of Ireland was in jail at that time, and people who had never handled arms also. When I went there our men were in a terrible condition. They were literally starving. I know one friend of mine,—he had never han- dled arms. He was from Bandon in County Cork. I was god- mother to one of his children. He was sent to Wakefield before my husband was. He was not allowed anything, not a book, not even a prayerbook. All of his wife’s letters were stopped, and he thought that something had happened to her, because she was not very strong at that time. His wife was one of the first to get into the jails to see their people. Well, I went over just to help those men. It was June when I went over. They were in a frightful state. They had literally no food except what we brought them. Of course there were many Dublin men there, too, but I was looking after the Cork men. Q. After they were released in 1916, tell what happened. A. I was ill after they were released in 1916. Q. Were you in Cork?
A. Yes, I was in Cork, and I was in Dublin for a month, and then I went over to England for a visit. And while I was there I got the news that my husband had been arrested again. He had been out a very short time, about a month, I think. Q. What was the date of that? A. In February, 1917. Q. On what charge? A. There was no charge whatever. He was deported to England with several others from different parts of the country. I heard just that they were arrested and deported to England. I did not know where they were, of course. At that time we were not en- gaged, but only friends; but I think I felt how things were, and that he felt the same as myself. I was in London then, and went to Cambridge to stay there with an Irish friend. She was at the univer- sity there then. At that time no communication was allowed with our men in jail whatever. I found out from Mr. Laurence Ginnell, the Irish M. P., and he told me that he had seen some of the men and he thought that my husband was in Shrewsbury. I met a police- man at the station and asked him where the men were, and he said that the military had charge of them, and told me to ask a soldier. I asked a soldier and he said they had gone, and that nobody would ever know where they had gone.
I felt very badly. I did not know what to do. And that night I heard from him. They had been sent up to Bromyard in Hereford- shire. And I went up to see him. And we really became engaged that night. Q. He was in jail then? A. Yes, he was the same as in jail. He was confined to a certain area, and could not go out of it. Q. He was interned? A. He was interned, yes. Q. What date was that? A. That would be,—0 we were engaged on the third of March. Q. And how long was he interned after that time? A. He was there until after we were married. Q. And when were you married? A. About a fortnight in June. Q. And how long did you remain in England? A. We had to remain in England for a time after that. But although we were in England, we were married by an Irish priest, Father Augustine. You have had him over here. And we were married in our own language, the Irish language. Q. And that was on what date? A. The ninth of June, 1917. Q. And you went back to Ireland when?
A. About a fortnight after that. The men were released, those who were interned, and we all went back to Ireland at that time. I went back to Ireland with him, and then we went off in the country together. And that time was about the only one that we had to- gether. Q. How long did you remain there? A. For some time. Q. Where were you? A. At Ballingeary, in County Cork, a very, very beautiful place out in the country where they still do things in the old Irish way. They do not*know English there yet, I am glad to say, and they are very much better off for it. Q. Where did you go from Ballingeary? A. We returned to Cork. Q. How long, then, did you remain at Cork? A. About three months. And then my husband had to go up to Dublin to look after his affairs, but he did not stay there. Q. He came back to Cork then? A. Yes, he came back to Cork and tried to settle down, and it was while we were there, in the house that we had just got, that he was arrested. Q. He was arrested? A. Yes, he was arrested in November at two-thirty o’clock in the morning by seven policemen. Q. Were you there then? A. Yes, I was. Q. How was he arrested? A. They came to the house for him and took him, and although it was but so very early in the morning, they were afraid to take him through the streets of the city where someone might see them. And although my husband had lived in Cork all his life and knew the city well, they went in such a round-about way that he said he did not know some of the streets through which they took him. Q. What was the charge on which they arrested him? A. Wearing a uniform of the Irish Republican Army.
Q. Your husband was taken to prison and went on a hunger strike? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long did your husband go without food? A. He went without food for three days. Q. That was at what time? A. That was just before Christmas. Q. 1917? A. Yes, 1917. He was aL home for Christmas. Q. Senator Walsh: Was that the hunger strike that the Irish prisoners all demanded that a hearing be given them and charges produced or that they be freed? A. No, sir. Q. F. P. Walsh: That was not the Mountjoy hunger strike? A. O no. This was in Cork. Q. There was a large hunger strike later in Mountjoy? A. O yes, there was. Q. About how many went on this strike? A. About twenty, I think. Q. And they all went without food for several days? A. Yes, they did. After six weeks’ imprisonment they went on hunger strike to protest against not being treated as prisoners of war. Q. And they were released by the Christmas amnesty? A. Yes. Q. And how long after this was he again arrested?
A. I want to say that this was the only Christmas I ever had my husband for. It was the only Christmas that we were together. He was arrested again in the beginning of March. Q. 1917? A.- 1918. I went up to Dublin to rest, and he went up with me to keep me company. We arrived in Dublin about two, and three of these G Division men came and arrested him about six. I never speak to these people at all, because I think it is better not to. But this time I had to. I asked them where they were taking my hus- band, and they would not tell me. They twisted and twisted, and said, “0 it’s uncertain.” I knew very well that they knew, because they were men high up. I kept after them, and two of the men said they would come back the next morning and tell me where my hus- band was taken to. Q. Where was he taken? A. He was taken to the Bridewell in Dublin. It was a terrible place. Q. Where is the Bridewell located? A. There are several Bridewells in Dublin. This Bridewell was near the Four Courts in Dublin. Q. Describe this place. A. The men were not treated like human beings there. They had no mattresses, no bedclothing, no anything. And what struck me as most terrible was that they had sort of round holes in the doors, and the prisoners could just stick their heads through. And some of them were mere boys there in that frightful place. Q. How long was your husband there? A. He was taken away the next morning to Belfast. And those men came back the next morning and would give me no information whatever. And there I was, not knowing where to look nor what to do. And then I learned he was at Belfast. He was in jail there for about three weeks, and then he was removed to Dundalk. Q. How long was he in Dundalk? A. He was there until the beginning of September. Q. From what date? A. From about the middle of March.
Q. What time was Maura bom? A. Well, he was up in Dundalk. Of course, I was in Belfast first, and then I was in Dundalk until I had to go home,—until the baby was about to be born. My husband wished that she should be born in Cork, his native city. He said that she might have to work for Ireland, and he wanted her to be born there. I went home the end of May, and she was born the twenty-first of June. Q. When did your husband first see her? A. He was in Dundalk when she was born, but he was moved to Belfast soon afterwards, and we had to take her up there to see her father, because, although his sentence would be completed soon, they had at that time taken to arresting people on the door of the jail just as they were walking out on finishing their sentence, and then deporting them to England without any charge at all. Q. What was your husband’s sentence on the original charge against him? A. That was the sentence against him just after we were married. He got six months for wearing a uniform of the Irish Republican Army. Q. Did your husband have any official position in it then? A. Yes, he was a commandant in the Irish Army at that time. Q. You say you went up to be there at the time of his release? A. Yes, I went up there, for we knew that probably he would be deported to England like the others, and that was the reason that I took the baby up ; because if he was deported to England I might not be allowed to see him at all, and he might never see his little daughter. I was staying a good distance from the prison, because I thought it would be better to be where I was when I stayed in Bel- fast before, because the lady there liked children. Q. How old was the baby? A. She was six weeks old. We left Cork at three, and we did not get to Belfast until half past ten at night. My sister-in-law went with me,—not this one, but the other sister-in-law. Of course a long trip like that was not very good for the baby, as your wife can tell you. Q. How long did you stay there? A. About a fortnight. She used to be taken into the prison every day. I don’t suppose anyone so young had ever been taken into that prison before. She was so young. Her father, of course, was delighted to see her. If he had been allowed to act according to his interests and desires, he would have stayed at home with the baby and me. He liked his home. That is, he would have liked to do that if Ireland had been free. Q. When did he return home?
A. O, you see he was arrested just as he was walking out of the jail, as we expected. Q. Were you there? A. He did not wish me to be present, because the police might pull me back and hurt me, as they often do in Ireland. Q. Where did you go? A. I went back to Cork, and I was there when he was deported. Q. What was that date? A. About the beginning of September. About the fourth of September, I think. Q. Where was he taken? A. He was taken to Lincoln. President de Valèra was there at that time. He was sent there earlier than my husband. Q. Did you visit him there? A. I was not allowed to see him. I had practically no com- munication with him at that time because the letters I sent him had to go through the prison authorities and through the English au- thorities at London also. Q. How long did that endure? A. From September to the beginning of March. Q. When did you again see your husband? A. In March. Q. He returned to Cork? A. Yes, to Cork. He was released before the others a little bit on parole, because I had the influenza. He got a week on parole, and by the time that was up he was released. He expected that they intended to release him or they would not have let him be with me then. Because, you see, when the baby was born he was in Ireland. Q. Did he attempt to be paroled at the time of the birth of the baby? A. He would have liked to, of course. Q. Was any effort made that you know of? A. Not that I know of. Of course I was ill at the time. Q. What was the date of his release from prison that you spoke of? A. In March, 1919. Q. Who was Lord Mayor of Cork at that time? Was it before the election of Mr. MacCurtain? A. Oh, yes. It was Mr. Butterfield who was Lord Mayor thep. Q. Was he arrested from that time down to the time he was elected Lord Mayor of Cork? A. No, he was not.
Q. I wish you would detail what took place from that time to the time he was elected Lord Mayor of Cork. The elections inter- vened? A. Yes, they did, while my husband was still in Lincoln Prison. Q. Was he elected? A. Yes, he was. Q. He was a candidate from where? A. He was a candidate from Mid Cork. Q. Is that a part of the county of Cork? A. Oh, yes. That was the place where my husband's family was from. That was the place where we spent our honeymoon — because what time we spent in England when we were married we did not count as a honeymoon. It was when we got back to Ballin- geary, when he came back that time when he was released. The little girl was about nine months old. We were afraid she would begin to speak then, and her father wanted her to learn Irish. I did not know very much Irish at that time. My husband knew it very, very well, but I did not know much. I had not made much headway with it. So I went down to that place I spoke of, which is the Irish-speaking district. Q. For how long? A. For seven months, I think it was. Of course, in the country almost everybody knows Irish. Every- body knew Irish before the English came into the country, but in the towns the Irish language had died out a bit, and only the old folks knew it. We had this ring (indicating small gold circle on dress). You can get this ring when you sign a paper and say that you will not speak any English to anybody else who has this ring. And after I was back in Ballingeary awhile I got this ring. And after I got it, I never spoke a word of English to my husband or to the baby. Q. The baby is how old? A. About two and one-half years, sir. Q. And she speaks Irish? A. Yes, Irish. In this district where I was, there are a lot of tourists, and they speak English, of course. But for the last three months I was there I never spoke a word of English to anybody. Of course, my husband was there then, and he never spoke a word of English either. We gave one of these rings to the baby when she was born, so that she would always speak her own language. We had to take it away from her because she put it in her mouth, but I think it is time to give it to her again. Q. When did you return to Cork? A. November, 1919. I should like to say that while we were in Ballingeary the English soldiers and police twice raided the house we were living in at 4 o’clock in the morning. Luckily my husband was not there either time. He used to go back and forth from Cork. Q. Did you vote at the election? A. No, I did not. Q. They held a general election, however, at which all the men and women of Cork were entitled to vote? A. Yes. Q. And they did vote? A. Oh, yes. Q. Where were you at the time? A. I was in Cork, but I was ill. Q. What is the age of the franchise for women? A. I do not know. My sister-in-law can tell you that better than I can. Q. It is thirty, I understand. A. Yes, I think so. Q. You are still an infant, so far as the franchise is concerned? A. Yes. Q. In this general election there was a full and free vote for members of the Council? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall the number of candidates voted on at that time? A. About thirty, I think. Miss Mary MacSwiney: There were more than that, about sixty-six. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Miss MacSwiney says sixty-six. The Witness: Yes, I don’t know much about it. Q. Following that election who was elected mayor of Cork? A. Mayor MacCurtain. Q. And he was a friend of your husband? A. Yes, indeed; a lifelong friend. Mrs. MacCurtain used to tell me that if my husband was a girl she would be jealous of him, because they were together for so long a time, and planned and worked for Ireland together. Q. Were you in Cork at the time of the death of Lord Mayor MacCurtain ? A. Yes. Q. Were you there at the inquest? A. I was in Cork, but I was very ill at the time. Q. So you had better leave that to your sister-in-law? A. Yes. Q. Just describe the events leading up to the death of your husband. After the death of Lord Mayor MacCurtain, your hus- band was elected Lord Mayor of Cork? A. Yes, he was. Q. And you were not present when he was invested with office? A. No. Q. How long was he Lord Mayor of Cork before his arrest? A. About six months.
Q. And were you in Cork all that time? A. We came back to Cork before the election, and we got another house. We gave up the other house. But my husband could not stay there nights. Q. Why? A. Because he would be arrested. The English police and sol- diers would arrest him. For years he has had to do that. He really could not be with me at all. He could not be where they might find him nights. I stayed with friends, cousins of my husband. The house was a little bit out of the way, a side house, and he could come there occasionally, but always at. a very great risk for fear of being arrested. The baby was nearly two years old then, but she did not see much of her father. And she was awfully fond of him. He had a telephone in his office when he was made Lord Mayor, in his office at the City Hall. And I used to speak to him on the telephone. Sometimes I was speaking to other people, but whoever I was speaking to on the telephone, the baby would shout and snatch the receiver out of my hand and think it was her father, and she would whisper, just whisper to him. She loved him and he loved her, and wanted to be with her more than anything else.
Q. Your husband was a literary man, I believe? A. Yes, he was. He wrote a lot. He wrote some very excellent poems and plays. Q. You might describe him, his inclinations, age, appearance, and so forth. A. I think the chief characteristic of my husband — apart from his love of Ireland, which was above everything else — was his love of people, his charity. He never said a word against anybody. I never heard him say a word against his worst enemies. I will go into that a little later on when describing him at Brixton. I remem- ber that when he was in Wakefield, a few of them were put into solitary confinement, and they thought that surely they would be shot, because some others had been shot who were in solitary con- finement. And even then, when he expected death, he would not say anything harsh against the English. Q. How tall was he? A. Fairly tall. Q. Dark complexion? A. Yes, very dark, with black hair — a lot of it, with one big lock that was always getting over his face. We used to tease him about that lock of hair. He was very good looking, I think. Q. Of course you were familiar with what he wrote? A. Oh, yes, I was. Q. What was it, in a general way? Did he write verse? A. Oh, yes; he was more of a poet than anything else, I think. Q. And did that go back to his young manhood? A. Oh, yes. When he was about thirteen or fourteen he wrote some beautiful things, some of his most beautiful things. My hus- band wrote plays, too. Q. What was his education? A. He was educated at the North Monastery in Cork, the Chris- tian Brothers in Cork. But of course he educated himself, like most Irish people do. Of course you will hear about that from my sister-in-law. My husband’s father died when he was fifteen, and he had to be taken away from school and go into business. And so he studied at nights, although he was working hard from eight- thirty in the morning until six. Q. What was his business? A. He was an accountant in Cork. At first he used to stay up most of the night and study, but he found that was very bad for him and he got headaches and the like. And then he used to come home and have tea and go to bed, and then get up about two in the morning and study. And when I heard that, I thought that a man like that could do anything. At first he would have a fire, but he found that that would make him sleepy, so that even in cold weather, in the winter, he would be without a fire. And he studied like that until he got his degree. Q. What degree did he get? A. The degree from the Royal University of Ireland. Q. Just describe his election as Lord Mayor of Cork. A. I think my sister-in-law could tell you that better, because I was not well at the time. Q. But just a general idea—what he told you about it. He expected to be elected Lord Mayor? A. Of course he thought he would be. He knew it was a very dangerous post, after what had happened to his predecessor. Mayor MacCurtain was his greatest friend, I might say, and it was his duty to fill his place. Q. Did you have any conversation with him about it? A. Not very much, because I was ill at the time.
Q. Briefly, for the record, tell what did happen to his prede- cessor. A. He was at home one night in his own house, Q. What was his name? A. Thomas MacCurtain. He was a very quiet sort of man, and just like my husband, he would have liked to be at home with his wife and children all the time. He had five children, very sweet little children. One was only a year old. He was at home one night, sleeping with his wife and children, and his sisters-in-law were also there. And there was a knock at the door and his wife went to the door—the men do not answer the door at night in Ire- land, for they might be shot. The men broke into the house and pinioned her arms, and went upstairs and shot the Lord Mayor. Q. In the presence of his wife? A. Yes. Q. Chairman Howe: At what hour? A. In the middle of the night. At a time when there would be nobody about. Q. Who did that? Mr. F. P. Walsh: Was it developed afterwards in the coroner’s inquest who did the shooting of the Lord Mayor? A. Yes, it was. The police. Q. The British police? A. Yes, of course, the British police in Ireland, but at the orders of their government. Q. The coroner’s jury found that Mayor MacCurtain was killed by the Irish police under orders from the British government? A. Yes, the Irish police, being the English forces. I know you all understand that. Q. How long after the killing of Lord Mayor MacCurtain was your husband elected? A. Almost immediately afterwards, when the funeral and all that was over.
Q. And during the time that he was Lord Mayor of Cork did he live at home? A. He could not. Q. He was still pursued and had to live in the homes of other people? A. Yes. It was very much worse after he was Lord Mayor of Cork than it was ever before. Q. Did the corporation meet from time to time? A. Oh, yes, sir. Q. And did he preside at the meetings? A. Certainly. Q. Chairman Howe: Did they meet in the town hall? A. Yes, in the city hall. It was not secret. Anybody could go in. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: It might be interesting to know why they did not arrest the Lord Mayor when they were meeting? A. I do not know. Perhaps they were afraid of public opinion. Q. As a matter of fact, the police do not work in the daytime? They expect to surprise these men in their homes and in their beds? A. Oh, yes. I think that they are afraid of doing it in a public place. Q. Senator Norris: He thought he would be arrested or mur- dered if he stayed in his own home? A. Oh, yes. He never even went about alone. He could not. Someone went with him, not so much to guard him as to identify anyone who might attack him. A Volunteer went with him or I often went with him. Q. Chairman Howe: And that was the reason they did not do it in public. A. Yes. Of course they did not want to be identified. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: AJid furthermore it would create a hostile popular demonstration to shoot him in public. A. Oh, yes; certainly it would. They would not shoot him where they might be identified. I could identify an assailant as well as anybody else, so I was often with him.
Q. Just give us your own general description of his life after that. A. As I told you before, since the Christmas before, after I came back from the country, I lived with distant relations and friends, because, as I told you, we could not stay in a house of our own because he could never be there at all, and I could not very well be there on account of the raids and that sort of thing going on. And so I saw my husband sometimes, because I was in the house of friends, but indeed very, very seldom, and always at a very great risk. Sometimes he would come up after dark, because it was a little out-of-the-way place, a little outside of the city. That was better. And then he would come after dark and go away the first thing in the morning. The only meal I could have him for was breakfast, and that on rare occasions. I hardly ever saw my hus- band at all, to tell the truth. Q. And that continued for six months after he was elected Lord Mayor? A. Oh, yes, of course; ever since we were married. But it was very, very much worse after he was elected Lord Mayor. Q. Is there anything else that you would like to tell the Com- mission after he was elected Lord Mayor? A. I do not think so.
Q. Wl^i was your husband arrested the last time? A. He was arrested on the twelfth of August. Q. Where were you at that time? A. I was in Cork on the twelfth of August, and at two o'clock on that day I and my little girl went down to the seaside. Q. That was the twelfth of August, 1920? A. Yes. I took the baby down to the seaside. There was no one along there besides ourselves. It was to another Irish-speaking district. Q. About how far from Cork? A. It was to Youghal. You took the train to the station, and then it was a short distance — on a bicycle about five minutes — ^up to the town. It is an out-of-the-way place not very far from Cork. 1 did not know about my husband's arrest until the next morning, when a friend came over with the paper and told me that he was arrested the night before, about seven o'clock. Q. What did you do then? A. What could I do? There was nobody to mind the baby except myself. I had nobody to take her except strangers, and she would not go to them. My sister-in-law here came down to take care of the baby. She came down the next day, on Saturday. They had tried to see my husband — both of my sisters-in-law tried to see him. He had been arrested and taken to the military barracks, and they were not allowed to see him. They could not see him until Saturday morning. He was then on hunger strike. Q. When did you go to Cork? A. I did not go to Cork until Monday. I went up to my sister- in-law's house. This sister-in-law (indicating Miss Mary Mac- Swiney) was down at the seashore taking care of the baby. That was the day of the trial.
Q. Did you see him before the trial? A. My sister-in-law and myself went up to the barracks. That was where he was to be tried. A big military lorry came up, a very large one. I never saw so many soldiers in a military lorry in my life before. My husband was sitting in the center of them on a chair. That was Monday morning. He had been on a hunger strike since fhe morning of his arrest on Thursday. Q. Had you been advised of that? A. Yes. I need not tell you that he was very weak. It seemed such a cruel thing to have so many armed men guarding a weak and absolutely unarmed man. Q. Was he all alone in the lorry? A. Yes, there were no other prisoners. He was in very great pain. He looked it. I think that was ohe of the worst times for me. From the morning that I heard my husband was on a hunger strike, I believed that he would die. I felt terrible on that day when I saw him, because I knew he was in pain, and it was an awful thing that I could not give him anything to eat, for of course it was part of my duty that I should look after all his wants.
First of all, they took him up very high stairs to a place where they were going to try him; and then they changed and took him down again. I saw by his face that he was suffering, and I said to one of the soldiers, could they not give him a chair, because he had been without food for so long. That is one of the worst times in a hunger strike — the first few days — because it is so painful. I was speaking to him in Irish and they did not interfere. He told me that he felt himself that he would be sentenced, and that he would be de'ported to England, and that the others arrested with him would get out. But of course he was pleased with that. He wanted to suffer for everybody else's wrongs. Q. Had he stated his intentions at any time to you? A. Oh, yes, he did. He felt that what might happen to him was very unimportant to whatever he could do to help Ireland. Q. Anything that you think would interest the Commission, and that you would like to tell, about what happened to your husband, just tell the Commission. A. I think I would like to describe the trial. Of course I always knew what my husband's motives and intentions were. He had no other idea in his head but to die for his country if need be, Q. Describe the trial then. A. Might I read my husband's speech at this trial? It is quite short. Q. . Yes, certainly. Did he make it in the beginning of the trial ? A. No. We went upstairs then. There were several soldiers standing around him armed to the teeth. The room was full of soldiers. Q. Before what sort of a court was he tried? A. A court-martial — soldiers. Q. In uniform? A. Oh, yes. One of them was presiding. Q. How many judges? A. Three judges — three soldiers. Q. How long a time did the trial last? A. For three hours. They kept him there for such petty things. Q. Did he make a statement? A. Yes, he did. I will read you this. First of all, when they brought the charges against him, they asked him if he had anything to say. He said that if he was an ordinary individual, like he was before he was elected, he would not say anything at all. He would disregard the charges, because he never recognized England's courts, which have no right to function in Ireland. But he said that because he was Lord Mayor of the city, he represented more than himself, and that was why he spoke. He said this more or less at the end of the charges. Q. What was the charge against him? A. There were three charges, one of which was that when they arrested him when they raided the city hall, they found in his desk the text of a speech he had made when he was made Lord Mayor. Of course this was made six months before, and it had been pub- lished in all the papers, and so if there was anything objectionable in it, they could have mentioned it sooner. As a matter of fact, he had a right to make any speech in Ireland that he liked. Q. Were there any other charges? A. Yes, he was charged with having the code used by the police. Q. And yet he was the chief magistrate of the city? A. Yes. What he said was that he was the chief magistrate, and he had the right to have anything like that that he wanted. He said the English had no right to have such a code. He said it was illegal for any citizen of the Irish republic to have such a code without his permission. Q. In the city of Cork? A. In the city of Cork, yes. Q. There was a third charge? A. Yes, there was. It was a resolution that was passed hy the corporation recognizing Dail Eireann and renouncing allegiance to England. It was passed by every public body all over Ireland, and if they wanted to arrest everybody who had passed that, they simply could not do it, because the jails could not hold them. Q. There was no other charge? A. ThaJ was all. Shall I read this (indicating paper) ? The Commissioners: Yes, please.
The Witness (reading) : "We see in the manner in which the late Lord Mayor was mur- dered an attempt to terrify us all. Our first duty is to answer that threat in the only fitting manner: to show ourselves unterrified, cool, and inflexible for the fulfillment of our chief purpose — ^the establishment of the independence and the integrity of our country and the peace and the happiness of the Irish Republic. To that end I am here. This contest on our side is not one of rivalry or vengeance, but of endurance." I would like to say something about that. My husband, as I said before, was essentially charitable — a very charitable man. It was his chief characteristic. He hadn't anything like vengeance in him. And certainly he wished for nothing more than that the English would be gone out of our country and that we could be good friends with them then. "It is not those who can inflict the most, but those who can suffer the most, who will conquer, though we do not abrogate our fimction to demand that murderers and evil-doers be punished for their crimes. It is conceivable that the army of occupation could stop our functioning for a time. Then it becomes simply a question of endurance. Those whose faith is strong will endure to the end in triumph." Well, of course, my husband was one of the first in Ireland who started this movement, and a great many people were against it then ; they did not believe that we could be free from England. In Dublin the Irish people were always better oEF than in Cork, for in Cork they had a very hard time in the beginning. So only for my husband's great faith in our country and his faith that they would win out, I don't suppose that we would be very far along today. "God is over us, and in His divine intervention we must have perfect trust. "Anyone surveying the events in Ireland in the past five years must see that it is approaching a miracle how our country has been preserved during a persecution imexampled in history, culminating in the murder of the head of our great city. You among us who have no vision have been led astray by false prophets. I will give a recent example. Only last week in our city a judge, acting for English usurpation in Ireland and speaking in the presumptuous manner of such people, ventured to lecture us and uttered this pagan sentiment: 'There is no beauty in liberty that comes to us in innocent blood.' At one stroke this judge would shatter the foundations of Christianity by denying beauty to that spiritual liberty that comes to us dripping in the blood of Christ crucified. ' He, by His voluntary sacrifice on Calvary, delivered us from the domination of the devil when the pall of evil was closing down and darkening the world. The liberty for which we strive today is a sacred thing, inseparably entwined with that spiritual liberty for which the Savior of man died and which is the foundation of all just government. Because it is sacred, and death for it is akin to the sacrifice on Calvary, following far off and yet constant to that divine example, in every generation our best and bravest have died. Sometimes in our grief we cry out the foolish and unthinking words, 'The sacrifice is too great.' "It is not we who take innocent blood, but we offer it, sustained by the example of our immortal dead and that divine example which inspires us all for the redemption of our country. Facing our enemy, we must declare our attitude simply. We see in their regime a thing of evil incarnate. With it there can be no parley any more than there can be truce with the powers of Hell. We ask no mercy and we will accept no compromise. "The civilized world dare not look on indifferent while new tortures are being prepared for our country, or they will see under- mined the pillars of their own government and the world involved in unimaginable anarchy. But if the rulers of earth fail us, we still have refuge in the Ruler of Heaven, and though to some the judg- ments of God seem slow, they never fail, and when they fall they are overwhelming." Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Now that was the speech which your hus- band delivered as his inaugural speech on being made Lord Mayor of Cork? A. No. I have that here also. Q. Senator Norris: This is the speech that he delivered at his trial? Mr. F. P. Walsh: This is the speech, is it not—if it is not, correct me—that your husband made at his inaugural as Lord Mayor of Cork, and the document with which he was charged with having in his possession which they claimed to be seditious? A. That was practically the same. This was the speech that he made at his trial. Q. Have you another one there? A. Yes. This was the speech he made when he was made Lord Mayor (indicating another paper). Q. He delivered this speech at the trial? A. Yes, practically the same thing. I wish to say something else. You know this speech was one . of the charges against him. Of course, one of the soldiers, the president of the court, read the speech, and even coming from him, it made a very great impression on everybody there. And even on the soldiers—no matter who they were—it impressed everybody.
As I told you, I think I felt that day more myself than at any other time. Because now I felt that my husband was going to die. After that I was accustomed to it. The shock was more in the beginning for me. Of course I was upset, although I did not mean to be. But when he spoke himself, he made me feel all right. You have heard, I suppose, of the message that he sent to the men of Cork, that when we are doing work for Ireland, it should be not in tears but in joy. And so I think that it is Ireland that has kept me up all through. That is the only thing. There has been noth- ing else. Q. When was he removed from Cork? A. He was removed that night, or at four o’clock the next morn- ing, I believe. Q. Senator Norris: What was the result of the trial? A. He was found guilty by the court-martial. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: And sentenced to what? A. To two years. Of course he told them then that it meant nothing what his sentence was, because in a month’s time he would be free, either alive or dead. None of us dreamed that it would be a month. I certainly did not think it would be more than a fort- night at the outside, and I did not think it would be that much. Q. You say that after you heard his speech you were reconciled? A. Of course I was always reconciled, but after that I felt quite happy about his work.
Q. You say you went to London? A. Yes, but I was able to speak to him after the trial. I asked one of the officers going out where they were going to take him. Of course he knew. He did not deny that he knew, but you know they are very petty. He would not tell me anything. My husband was taken off that night in the state he was in on a submarine.' They were afraid to take him from Cork during the day. He was taken to Pembroke in the submarine, and arrived there about two o'clock in the afternoon, and he was kept waiting until about six o'clock. Of course his sufferings were terrible coming over in a submarine. In an ordinary boat it would have been very diflferent. He arrived in London about half-past two in the morning. They were afraid to take him there during the day. It was put in the London papers at first that he did arrive during the day. But that was a lie. And then he was taken to Brixton prison. My sister- in-law who is here went over first. My mother was not there, so she could not take the baby for me. Some people with whom I had been staying since Christmas, who were very kind to me, took it. I left on Saturday morning, and went straightway to see my husband. Q. Where was he then? A. In Brixton prison.
Before I saw him one of the doctors of the prison spoke to me. He was not the head doctor. This was Dr. Higson. Of course he was an Englishman. He said to me, "You will see your husband in a few minutes, and will you not try to get him to take food?" He said he hoped I would see the foolishness of what he was doing. The greatest danger was not if he lost his life, but if he was injured for life. And he said, of course, that any injury which he would receive from the hunger strike might harm our children. I told him that I understood that, and it was perfectly true, and I under- ' The witness referred to a torpedo boat destroyer. See correction by Miss Mary MacSwiney, page 310. stood the harm of going without food, and of course from a health point of view I quite agreed with him; but that I did not interfere with my husband in anything, especially in a matter of conscience; and each one was the best judge in matters of conscience of what he should do. He could not say very much to that. I saw my husband then. I saw a great change in him. He looked very badly indeed. Then we used to see him every day. And after a bit, I think it was about a fortnight, the head doctor came back. He had been away. And of course he often asked me to ask my husband to take food. We never had anything like scenes, because I do not give people opportunity to do that, to have a fight or anything like scenes. We were always very civil to each other. But he thought it was utter foolishness for a man to refuse to eat when he always had food before him. Being an Englishman, he could not under- stand why a man should die for a principle. But the subordinate doctor, I must say, was more sympathetic. He never urged me to get my husband to take food after that one time when he told me what it would mean for our children, which I think from an Eng- lish doctor’s point of view I did not mind his putting before me. He did not say much more to me after that, but the other ones did. The specialist, Sir Norman Moore, came in to see him too, and he was also quite sympathetic. Q. Did you see your husband every day? A. I saw him every day. After a bit he did not like to be there without some one of us. My brother-in-law came over, and his other sister afterwards. For of course we were afraid that he would die any moment. Nothing but his faith kept him alive. There is no doubt about that. He did not like to be left alone, so one of us would go in the morning, and another at noon, and another in the evening, and like that.
This went on for some time. My husband was perfectly peaceful and happy. I do not think I could have gone on like that if I had not seen him every day, because he absolutely radiated peace. He told me in the beginning that one reason that he was glad to be doing what he was doing was that he had not taken a part in any of the dangerous things in Ireland, except the rebellion, and of course they did not fight in Cork; and he hated their being in danger when he was not in any. But what could he do? So he told me that he felt what he was doing was as dangerous as anything, and on account -of that he was glad to do it. He always wished to die for his country. He never had any other thought. Things went on very much the same. We always saw him. After a bit they got two nurses for him, one for the day and the other for the night. My husband was very charitable, and he never said a word against anyone. The doctors and nurses told me that the only thing which he did say — ^he didn't like the head doctor — and he said once, "I am fed up with him."
Then it came to the Wednesday before he died. There isn't very much to tell up to that. Well, the Wednesday before he died, the news had already come that one of the hunger strikers in Cork was dead. Of course, the doctors had promised us that they would not feed him and would not put any food in his medicine or anything of that kind, but they said that if he became unconscious that they would feed him. Of course, if a person becomes unconscious, they are unconscious, and they have no will of their own; and they could do anything they liked with him. And so feeding him when he was unconscious was like feeding him when he was dead. Of course they did prom- ise not to feed him at all, or to make any attempt to forcibly feed him — it would have been forcible, as long as he was conscious. It was on Tuesday, the Tuesday before my husband died, the news came from Cork to London of the death of one of the hunger strikers there. Of course he had gone a bit longer than my husband. This frightened the doctors in the prison. One of them went to my husband on his usual visit, and he turned everybody out of the room, including the nurse, which was not usual, for she always re- mained there. One of my sisters-in-law was there at the time. When she went back into the room my husband was terribly upset, fright- fully upset, and he said that this doctor told him that he had to eat, he would make him eat. When I got there in the evening the other doctor, the second doctor, whom I do not think would have done a thing like that, was on duty. My sister-in-law said to him that Dr. Griffiths, the head doctor, had threatened to make my husband eat and had made him awfully uneasy that morning. When I went in my husband was quiet like usual, but looking very badly — worse than usual.
The next morning 1 was in the office of the Self-Determination League in London. The papers wished to get bulletins, and your American papers, too, wished to get bulletins on my husband’s con- dition every two hours. We were allowed to use the prison tele- phone—they did not make any difficulty at all whatever about it. All the news was sent out from the office of the Self-Determination League; and of course, if there was any news about my husband for us, we would get it there. I happened to be in there in the morning. My two brothers-in-law were in there too. I was told that a telephone message had come, and that they were afraid the news was bad. So I and my brothers-in-law went out to the prison with Mr. O’Brien, who is the president of the Self-Determina- tion League. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Mr. Arthur O’Brien? A. Mr. Arthur O’Brien, yes. Do you know him? Mr. F. P. Walsh: I know him very well. The Witness: So we went out, and when we got there we heard that my husband had become quite delirious. My sister-in-law— not this one, but the other1—was with him. There was hammering going on outside, and my husband said to her, “That is Dr. Griffiths’ new treatment.” She said, “Shall I stop it?” And he said, “No,” and then went out of his head completely. She asked the warden to telephone to the office so we would know, and he was very reluc- tant to do it. It was half-past twelve when we got there. Both of my brothers-in-law and my sisters-in-law were there then. They said my husband was normal again. But when I went in I saw that he was not. He was fairly himself, but not completely. The others all went away then but myself and the sister-in-law. We remained there. And he said to me, “I want the nurse.” The nurse was at her dinner. My husband always had a most extraordinary con- sideration for everybody, and when he asked for the nurse when she was at her dinner, I knew he was not right. Then they asked us to go outside the door. We always went outside the door when they asked us; we never made any difficulties about that. And we heard my husband shouting out, and we went in then, and he was sitting up in bed and shouting. It was the delirium, because before this he could not hardly move a finger, and he spoke only in a whisper. And he was sitting up in bed and crying quite strong and saying, “This nurse will not let me have my wife and sister.”

1 Miss Annie MacSwiney.
And we said, "Here we are," and he knew us perfectly well. That was the worst of it. And in other things he was as mad as could be. But one thing he said to me then, when I came into the room, I liked. He said, "Muriel, you have always stuck by me." And he was very bad then, and talked rubbish. He could not have been more mad than he was. I have seen mad people, and they were not worse. And then Dr. Higson came up, who had always acted like a gentleman to me. He stroked him and got him to lie down; but of course he went on throwing him arms about and talking. And then they gave him morphia, and then he got quieter, and in about an hour he was asleep. I stayed for quite a good time, but did not disturb him.
I must tell you this occurrence. I wanted to do the best I could and wanted to try to make him better, and did not know what to do. I used to speak to him a little, and then the nurse said, "I think it is better not to speak to him, because it disturbs him." And so from that time on I did not speak to him, thinking it might disturb him. In fact, I never spoke to him first because it was hard for him to respond. But if he spoke, I answered him back, because we did not want to cross him and offend him when he was ill. He would say to me, "This is awful for you because you have to stay here." And I said, "It is a better time than we have had since we were married or since you have been Lord Mayor, because I can be with you all the time." And then we laughed. Anyway, he got bad during the night. Of course I was not there. All up to that time, although my husband had got terribly emaciated, his mind was perfectly clear and anybody could recognize him, because the face is the last thing that the hunger strike affects. For instance, a friend of mine who was our bridesmaid stayed with me all the time I was in London. She did not ask to see him. She was very sensible. But he asked to see her when she was going home, and so she went to see him. She said she would have known him quite well, although of course it gave her a great shock to see him. Up to that time, although he was delirious, you would have known him. But the next morning when I went in, I would not have known him at all. He was very quiet, and only moved his hands a little bit. That was Wednesday he got bad. The next day was Thursday. On Friday I was there in the evening. Of course they started feeding him when he was unconscious. And the nurse used to do that. I know very well that as long as the nurse was there at all, she had to do what the doctor told her, and I never interfered with her in any way. I would not have spoken to her while she was doing it, because I was at one side of the bed and she was at the other, and I might have disturbed my husband. He never understood anything that was going on about him, I know, but there was a chance that it might have disturbed him, so I never said anything to her at all. Well, on Friday I was there in the evening, and my bubther-in-law, the one who was in New York, Peter, he was there with me. And then the doctor came in in the evening. This was the one, the head one, Dr. Griffiths. Of course I went out of the room. We both went out of the room. We always did when the doctor was there, naturally. When he came out he told the warder to tell me that we were not to go into the room any more, any of us; that we were not to go into the room at all. I must say that after he got very bad the nurse used to turn us out very often. So they now said also that we were not even to stay outside the door. You see, when we would go outside the room before, we used to stay outside the door always. And they also stopped up every little hole or window we could see through. The warder said we could not stay outside the door, and I said I wanted to speak to the doctor, and he went down and found him. And I asked him if he was dying, if he would not want his wife to be near him. And he said he would. And he said it was bad for us to be in the room, so many of us. And I said, "We will go out and only one stay." And then he laid it onto the nurse. He said the nurse said it was bad for so many of us to be in the room. And I said, "What harm have I done since I have been here with my husband?" And he said nothing. He could not tell me a single thing that I had done to harm my hus- band. After a bit — he was a very weak man, you see — he gave in. I suppose he got orders to do this from the Home Office, but he gave in. And he said I could go in there when the nurse permitted me to, and that I could stay outside the door. I said, "I cannot be here always, and what will we do when I cannot be here?" He said, "I cannot refuse you, because you are his wife." But he had refused me previously. But he said the others could come there, but they would have to stay downstairs, a long distance away, and could not stay outside the door. I said that the only conclusion we could come to when they kept us outside of my husband's room was that they were doing something they did not wish us to see. So he finally said that when I could not be there, I could name one of the others to stay with my husband when the nurse permitted. Then I Vent upstairs. There was another nurse there, a new one, and I asked her if it was true that she had said I was not to go into my husband’s room, and she said it was. And I put the same ques- tion to her I had put to the doctor; and she said, “No, you do not interfere with me. You have never interfered with me when I was feeding him. But I know you are against it, and it makes me nervous.” They were feeding him. They were giving him two teaspoonfuls of liquid food. Q. When did they begin that? A. Five days before his death. That was Wednesday, and he died the following Monday. I said to her, “Of course, I can quite understand that as long as you are here, you have to do what the doctor tells you; but if I were you I would not take a case like this.” She knew she was not doing right. But she said, “I have taken this case and I must see it out.” But my husband never said a word against this nurse, never a word. I must tell you this, that she let me in the room just a few mo- ments at a time. I was just outside the room, but I hardly ever saw my husband at all.
Q. Senator Walsh: Did the newspapers of Great Britain an- nounce that he was being fed? A. Yes, they did. Q. There were announcements in the American press that his relatives were feeding him. A. Yes, that was British propaganda. Q. Where did those announcements come from? A. From the British government. It was British propaganda. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: As a matter of fact, did his relatives at any time put food before him? A. Never. His relatives never did that. Q. Did the prison officials offer him food? A. Yes, always; it was always beside him. Q. Did they bring him fresh food? A. Oh, yes; it was milk and broth and things like that that he would have had if he got out. Food was always put before him.
The next day was Saturday. My brother-in-law had been there with him through the night, and my sister-in-law was there to relieve him. I found her in the waiting room just inside the gate, and then she told me that they would not let her in; they had refused to let her into the prison at all. The same sort of business that had been going on the night before. They would not let her out to telephone either, and she could not send any message to my brother-in-law either. He was accustomed to be relieved in the morning, after being there all night. I went upstairs immediately, and it was about ten-thirty, and the nurse would not let me in.
As I said, I had always telephoned about noon to Mr. O'Brien's office about the condition of my husband. They had never made the slightest objection to it. The clerk now said I could not use the telephone, and I said, "By whose orders?" And he said, "By the governor's order." And he said very politely that he would speak to the governor if I wished. And I said I would speak to him mysislf. And I went up to the governor and asked him, and he said it was his orders. And I said, "I wanted to know, because of course your government is murdering my husband. You are only an in- strument. But I want to know whether you are carrying out their orders." The governor said that we were using the telephone too much. I said we had never used the telephone much, and only with their permission. The deputy governor came up, and said we had always respected their wishes and had not used the telephone very much. He then had to admit it. I said another thing: "You must have got orders about this, so that they are stopping us from going in to see my husband." I think he was surprised at that, but he said, "You are very well treated here. You are using this place like a hotel, coming in here any moment you like." And I said, "This is hardly like a hotel. My husband does not wish to be here, and you are keeping him against his will." And he said, "Even in ordinary hospitals there are visiting hours, and you are not allowed to see your friends at any time." And I said, "In an ordinary hospital we would have put my husband there with people whom we trusted." I did not have any fight with him, but he had nothing to say. He sent a message up in the afternoon that if I had anything to telephone and wrote it on a piece of paper, they would send it. Of course you know what that would have meant.
When my sister-in-law came in later, she was refused in the same manner. When I got back to the room the nurse let me in about half-past twelve, and then I was turned out again. (Senator Thomas Walsh, of Montana, arrives and is escorted to the Commissioners’ bench.) She let me in for half an hour, and then I was asked to go out. She made some excuse like she had to take his temperature. I expect she was feeding my husband. And then I was in again a half hour later. Then the head doctor, Dr. Griffiths, came in and asked the nurse to go out, and I went out too. So I had only about a half hour with my husband that day. As a matter of fact, it was the last day I saw him; but I think he may have half known me that day, because he smiled a little bit when I kissed him. I do not know, but I think he did. There was another thing about my husband that I want to men- tion. I think the hardest thing on him was being separated from his little daughter. And I asked him if he would like to have her over, and he said, “Oh, no; it would only be cruelty to have her over,” and she would not recognize him if she saw him because he was so changed. That day Mr. O’Brien came up and took me to the Home Office, and we spoke to them there, protesting about the treatment of my sister-in-law and myself, and requesting them to let my husband’s relatives be near him. Of course they refused; and they refused about the telephone point blank. There was no humanity in them whatever. The next morning was the first time that I collapsed at all. I had kept up until then and really felt very well. But the next morning I felt ill and could not go, and went to bed again. And in the afternoon, since I was about the only person that was allowed in the room, Mr. O’Brien took me down in a taxi. I opened the door and the nurse was there, and she said, “Would you wait outside a few minutes?” I had not been there at all that day, and my brother-in-law had not been there. I must tell you that the day before I had not been allowed in to see him until half-past.twelve, although I had come about ten. This day the nurse said, “Would you wait just a little while?” They had a habit then of having a warder just inside the door. And I opened the door again in about five minutes and asked if I could go in, and he said he would ask the nurse, and she said no, she was taking his temperature. And in about five minutes more, about twenty minutes from the time I came, I sent in word again if I could see him, and she said no, I could not. And so I did not see my husband again until after his death. The next day my brother-in-law1 was there, and his chaplain, Father Dominick, and they saw him. He was dead, and he looked like a perfect martyr.
Shall I tell you about the inquest? Mr. F.P.Walsh: Yes. The Witness: That was on Wednesday. I was in bed after he died. But they thought it was important for me to be at the inquest, and I went. I was addressed by the coroner, who asked me my address. I was puzzled, because we had no address. We could not have a home. And I said, "Cork." And he said, "Cork is a big place." But that was the best I could do. He asked me my hus- band's profession, and I said, "An officer of the Irish Republican Army." And he said that was no profession. Being English, he could not understand why a man should have a profession when he was not working for money. And I said, "You have an army, and you have officers." And then I think he understood, quite. Of course I told him that my husband did not wish to die. And the specialist who had seen him, Sir Norman Moore, had said so too. I was glad that we called him in. I told them that as soon as my husband got out, he would take food and get better. He was only on hunger strike, as you know, as a protest for being arrested ille- gally; arrested by the forces of England in Ireland. It was illegal for them to arrest the Lord Mayor, the chief magistrate of the city of Cork. It was against the laws of the Irish Republic that they should do such a thing.
When the inquest was over our solicitor asked the Crown solicitor for my husband's body. And he said, "Where is the funeral to take place?" And my brother-in-law said, "In Cork, of course." Then the chief solicitor said, "You cannot do that. You must get a permit to take his body out of England." And he said we should ask the governor. And we asked the governor and he referred us to the Home Office. And so Mr. O'Brien and Mr. MacDonald and I all went to the Home Office. We saw Mr. Shortt, and he hemmed and hawed, and all that, but tried to evade telling us anything defi- nite. I never met a man who was a greater brute. He was not a gentleman, anyway not in his outside manner. He was just jesting

1 John MacSwiney.
and laughing all the time. I said, "I understand that there was a technical difficulty about my husband's body coming with us, but I suppose there would be no difficulty." He said, "I know nothing at all about it." They all say that over there. And I said, "I sup- pose I can go and take my husband's body." And he then got afraid, and he said, "Oh, you cannot do that. There may be some law against it." And I said, "Will you find out what the law is? How long will it take you to do it?" He said, "I cannot tell you how long it may take — an hour or more. I don't know." I said, "Do you refuse to give me my husband's body?" And he said, "Oh, no; I cannot say that." One of Mr. Shortt's secretaries came out with us. I must say that he was a contrast to Mr. Shortt. He gave me a chair and asked me if I wanted to sit down. He said that if we would come back in an hour, he would see about it. He said they would make arrangements and perhaps give us a special boat to go to Dublin. Of course our arrangements had been made. When Mr. MacDonald saw him a little later, Mr. Shortt said it would be all right, and he was sorry there had been any delay, and of course it had absolutely nothing to do with him, and that we could take the body. My sister-in-law will tell you what happened afterwards and how they broke their word.
Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Senator Walsh would like to ask you a few questions. Senator Walsh: I would like to ask you what the spirit of the Irish women in Ireland is about the establishment of the Irish Republic. A. Just what mine is and what my husband's was. Of course we all want our Republic and we want England gone, and there will not be peace in the world until we get it. Q. To what extent have the women organized and taken action? A. They have a society called the Cumann' na rnBan. That is a society of women like the Red Cross. But I think my sister-in-law can tell you more about that than I can. Especially after the baby came, I minded the baby myself.
Q. Do you know anything about the present sufferings of the people, especially among the women and children in Ireland? A. Yes, indeed I do. The Black-and-Tans— one of the. things they did was to prevent the people going into the shops and buying food. Also, they are destroying creameries, and that means no milk distributed in the towns for the children. And of course there has always been a great deal of poverty in Ireland, as I told you; and they are making things a hundred times worse. Q. Is it your opinion that relief is needed in Ireland? A. It is absolutely essential or all the people will die. Q. To what extent was the policy of starvation being carried out when you left Ireland? A. Well, I left Ireland three months ago, you see, and it is since then that all that has come in force. I was ill, of course, and did not go back for my husband's funeral, but my sister-in-law did, and she can tell you. Q. You did not go to your husband's funeral? A. No, I was ill. My sister-in-law was there. I was only in Ireland for a few days before I came on. The day I was there they shot into a football match and killed several people. Q. Were you there at the game? A. No. But then in Cork it was very much the same. They threw a bomb into a crowd and killed four people. One young man whom I knew, they took both his legs off, and he did not die until the next day. And of course ever so many people were in- jured. My sister-in-law can tell you ever so much more about that. But even before I left for England there were motor lorries and armored cars going through the streets so close that often one could scarcely pass between them. One day while I was on the tram they fired. Nobody in the tram was hurt, but we all saw them fire. And these lorries full of soldiers have terrorized the countryside. There was a Mrs. Quinn, a younger woman than I am. She was sitting on a lonely country road, as I often did when I was in the country with the baby. She was sitting by the road with one baby, and was going to have another soon. And the Black-and-Tans came along the road in a. lorry and shot her.1 Q. Had she committed any offense? A. Oh, no; none whatever. To prove that there was no one with her, it was some time before a priest came. It was a very out-of-the-way place. I felt that that case might have been mine. Q. Some one has related that the women of Ireland have steeled themselves to such an extent that weeping is unknown among them. A. Well, I never cry. Q. Is that the general feeling — that they must steel themselves for any emergency?

1 The case of Mrs. Ellen Quinn of Gort, County Galway.
A. Yes, it is. Weeping is almost unknown. But there is just one thing: you know I did not go back to my own country except for two or three days, but I never cried all through, not even at the end. But since I have been here I feel that there is so much sym- pathy — I am not speaking of sympathy in letters and what people say to me, but it is what I feel from everyone. But that sympathy has almost made me cry here, and it did yesterday, and I felt that I might not be able to go through this hearing today.
Q. Did your husband ever say what he felt his sacrifice would do for Ireland? A. He hoped that it would strengthen them still further in their struggle for independence. Q. That was one of his considerations? A. That was, of course, the main consideration of his life. He never thought of anything else. Q. Where is your baby now? A. In Cork. Q. Is she well? A. Very well. Would you like to see her photo? I've just got it from home. The Commission: Very, very much. Q. Commissioner Thomas: Your husband's hunger strike lasted seventy-four days? A. Yes. Q. You saw your husband the last time how many days before his death? A. I saw him on Saturday. I was not allowed in at all on Sunday. And he died on Monday. Q. On Monday? A. I was not called at all when he died. He died at six, and I did not hear about it until eight o'clock. Q. Did the doctor persist in feeding him when he was uncon- scious until the very end? A. Oh, yes, and I think that that really killed him. It was terrible to see him when he was more helpless than our baby was when she was born. Q. That feeding continued from Wednesday, then, until Monday? A. Oh, yes. And I know that he was in pain, because I could see it on his face. Another time when I saw him in great pain was on the tenth day. He said to me that it was not so that people never desired food after the tenth day. He suffered right to the end. Q. He wanted food right to the end? A. Yes, indeed.
I hope you will all help us win our Republic, because that was what my husband lived and died for. And we look on you in America very much as our own people, because you have been all so very kind to us. I looked upon this hearing as an ordeal, but it has not been at all. So I hope you will all do what you can for us. Also in the relief which I think has been started for Ire- land. But of course the chief thing is for Ireland to get her freedom. Q. Senator Walsh: Do you think the relief work is the greatest thing that can be done for the Irish people? A. Yes, I do; but I think recognizing our Republic is the most immediate. The people who have suffered and are suffering most from hunger would choose that, too. It is the most immediate. (The witness was thereupon excused.)
Session Two, Continued Before the Commission, sitting in Odd Fellows’ Hall, Washing- ton, D. C., December 9, 1920. 2:15 P. M.
Chairman Howe: The hearings will proceed now if you will quiet down and take your seats. Mr. Frank P. Walsh: Now, Miss MacSwiney, I believe you said that you had not finished your remarks on some phases last evening that you would like to begin now with. I think Miss MacSwiney has a number of details that her sister-in-law was not familiar with. The Witness: What do you want me to begin with? ’ Mr. F. P. Walsh: I think perhaps it might be well to tell the story of the taking of your brother to London, and what took place at Holyhead, and all that. The Witness: Then I am to tell my part in my brother’s arrest and imprisonment? Mr. F. P. Walsh: Yes, it would be well to tell that, and about his martyrdom.
The Witness: I think it might be well for me to emphasize some- thing in my sister-in-law’s story, something that she did not em- phasize very much. She is very young, and she was never used to fighting things out as we were, and the constant strain of her hus- band’s being on the run, as we call it in Ireland—that is, avoiding arrest, especially that terrible time when she had to take a little baby of six weeks old from the south to the north of Ireland to see her father in prison, because we knew he would be arrested upon his release; and the result was that for months before my brother’s final arrest she really was in a very precarious state of health. And that added very much to his troubles. From Christmas last until Easter she was so ill that she was unable to have her little baby with her, and the baby was with us all the time. Her husband went constantly to see her when he could. He occasionally spent a night with her. She was very ill indeed, but she did the best she could to keep up. At Easter time she was better. That was just before he was made Lord Mayor. You asked her to state what he said to her about that. I imagine he said very little, because he knew and we all knew that it would mean his death. And naturally he did not want to distress her by talking about that. At Easter time, that is, very shortly after he was made Lord Mayor, she got very much better, and the baby was taken up to see her just on the Saturday before Easter. At that time my sister and I had to go to Dublin on business, and we would have been very puzzled to know what to do about baby if her mother had not got better. She went up to her mother then, and was with her until she went to England. But all that time my brother was on the run—you know that on the run means evading arrest.
Q. Senator Walsh: May I interrupt to ask you what per cent, of young men are on the run? A. I would say about ninety-nine per cent.,—perhaps a hundred per cent, of the young men and some of the old men. Q. So that every young man of military age is, under present conditions, unable to live in his own home? A. Yes. Some of them do live there, but they take their chances. My oldest brother, who is an American citizen, is not sleeping at home with us simply because my sister will not have my brother in the house. Generally one looks upon one’s brother as a protection. But when you have a house full of women, you can sometimes es- cape from the visits of the Black-and-Tans, who say that they are not shooting down women and children. They are doing it secretly, but they have not done it openly so far. But if they come to your house at night, they would shoot down any man they found there. My brothers have been staying with friends. My oldest brother said some time ago, “What is the use of sending me to So-and-So’s house, for they are all on the run too, and it seems to me that all the men in Ireland are sleeping in one another’s houses.” But it saves them, because when the Black-and-Tans come to a house and find a man and ask him his name, and he does not happen to be the man they are looking for, they often do not take that man, and go away quite satisfied. Another point is why we are not afraid during the day. My sister explained that. My brother always had a bodyguard during the day, and they did not arrest him, and would not ordinarily arrest any other man during the day because they would not want to be recognized. That is one reason. Another is that deeds of dark- ness are always done in the dark. We never fear arrest during the day. It is always at night that they come. I can also tell you that a couple of nights when the searching seemed to slacken a little, my brother was in a very great need of rest, and he said he would sleep at home. I would like to em- phasize that “at home” always means our home, because, although they had two houses after they were married, he was never able to sleep at home. On a couple of occasions he was very tired and said, “I must absolutely have a night’s rest, and I must risk it.” One night when he decided to risk it, at half-past eleven there was a knock at the door. You can imagine our state of mind when at that hour there was a knock at the door, and we thought it was the military. That particular night it happened not to be the mili- tary. It was one of his Volunteers who came to tell him that the enemy were on his track and he would have to go. And he had to get up and go at that time of night. Another night when he and his bodyguard ventured to stay in the house, a similar mes- sage came. We were sure it was the military, and they got ready to defend themselves. They were not going to be taken alive. We went to the door, and we discovered it was another Volunteer sol- dier with the message that they were after him. But the two, my brother and his bodyguard, the two of them were there; and if they had come and trapped them, they would have sold their lives dearly. The result of it was that he got no rest. He did not try to stay at home a third time. That was the kind of a life they were living. He always went about guarded. All his meals were taken at our house. We are quite near, not more than six minutes’ walk from the city hall. He was able to come over the bridges of the north and south channels quietly and take his meals. His last meal there was for tea at half-past five on the afternoon of his arrest. And then he went to the city hall and was arrested. Senator Walsh: When I interrupted you, you were speaking about the health of your sister-in-law, and you were talking about your brother being on the run. The Witness: I don’t think I need to say any more about my sister-in-law’s health, except just that. She really did have a very hard time of it, and she broke down also just after the inquest. She broke down and was obliged to stay in London, as I said. There is a limit to human endurance, and some of us have had to go quite close to it. She could not do anything more for him, and I think she was too ill to go back to Cork and face things there.
There is another thing. It is harder to face sympathy some- times than to face brutality. One of the senators asked if it is true that the women of Ireland have steeled themselves against tears. While we were in England it was a point of honor to us that the enemy should never see us cry. It does not mean that the women of Ireland do not have to cry sometimes in secret. And what my sister-in-law told you is true. We have been nearer to tears since we came to America than any time since we have been in England. That is why I say that sympathy ist often harder to bear than cruelty. Our tormentors in England gave us the very great privilege of being with him from early morning to night, and my youngest brother stayed with him all night. That was a very great privi- lege, but we knew that it was not given to us for kindness. It was given to us because they thought that no body of women could go through that without breaking down, and if we would break down, it might cause my brother to break down. That was the reason for allowing us to see my brother. And it was very, very trying to see him dying by inches. In telling you my brother’s story, I would like to confine myself to his prison experiences from the point of view of Ireland and not the personal point of view. I want to deal with the English propaganda to discredit him and to discredit Ireland’s cause. And I will ask you to allow me to leave the personal side of it out of the question.
When my brother was arrested, he was arrested on no particular charge. Q. Senator Walsh: This was his last arrest? A. This was his last arrest. The charge was manufactured after the arrest. That was quite usual. They always manufacture the evidence. But I will come back to that later on. Perhaps there is one particular thing I had better tell you now. They have very often manufactured evidence in this way: they have sent anonymous letters to the houses of people which they were going to raid, addressed to the person they wanted to implicate. These anonymous letters were very often incitements to shoot policemen, and various things like that. If these letters were found, then they were immediately brought up as evidence. Now, this has hap- pened in several instances. On one particular morning the Countess de Markievicz got by the first post a letter with the copy of a police document which was of very great importance. She was clever enough,—we all have to keep our wits about us,—to put it straight in the fire. A half hour later the house was raided, and every letter—every bit of paper was examined. They were look- ing for that document which they themselves had sent. On Thursday my brother was arrested, on Thursday night at seven o’clock. On that afternoon, by the afternoon post, which comes between half-past four and five, a letter came addressed to The Lord Mayor of Cork, care of Miss Mary MacSwiney, Bel- grave Place, Cork. There was also an indication that I might open it. O yes, it was addressed to the Lord Mayor or to Miss Mary MacSwiney, Belgrave Place, Cork. That came about a half hour before my brother came home to tea. I opened it. It was in a disguised handwriting, and purported to be from a Volunteer in Tipperary saying that the Volunteers in Tipperary were very lax in the people they allowed to go about, giving details about a certain policeman named Quinn, whom this letter said was causing a great deal of trouble, and urging that without further delay this man should be shot. I read the letter twice over. It was an anonymous letter. I tore it up and burnt it. When my brother came in, I told him what had happened. These things are so much matters of course that there was not much more comment made about it. They arrested him at seven o’clock. At midnight that night two military officers and a large body of men came to our house to raid it. They were sent for that letter. They wanted it for evidence against my brother. That is the sort of thing that we have to put up with. That is the sort of wicked propaganda—they manufacture that propaganda. If that letter had been found in my house—because they knew his letters always went there—if that letter had been found he would have been charged, not with the charges that were preferred against him, but on being the leader of a conspiracy to murder policemen. And they searched my house very thoroughly indeed that night to get evidence of his complicity in the murder of policemen. They did their best to manufacture it beforehand. And I would like to emphasize to you how we have to keep our wits sharpened to counter such propaganda. All through my brother’s hunger strike, we have had to keep, as it were, two sides of us alive: we have had the per- sonal sorrow, on which I am not going to touch,—I don’t want to mention that; we have also had to fight day and night the Eng- lish propaganda that was carried on to discredit him with the world. And I want, if you will have patience with me, to stress that in detail.
He was arrested on the twelfth of August, and kept in Cork jail. My sister-in-law told you that I went down to see her on Saturday. I saw him in Cork jail that morning, and that was the first intimation I had that he was hunger striking. He looked very bad then, although it was only his third day. On Saturday I went down to see her and to look after the baby. She decided she would not go until Monday morning. On Sunday morning I was awakened by a great friend of ours, a gentleman who lives across the water, who came down to tell us that he had information that my brother was to be court-martialed at eleven o’clock the next morning. That information was not given to us officially, but we found it out. She decided to go up at once, and I stayed below.
Therefore I was not present at the trial, but I know that the speech he made at the trial stressed some points that were not brought out in the speech she read to you. He used practically the same terms that he used in his speech upon his inauguration as Lord Mayor. But he said that he was really the person who should be trying them, and he told those military officers, with respect to the charge that they emphasized particularly, the charge that he had a police code, that he was the only person in that city who should have a police code, and anybody else in that city who had a police code without his permission was guilty of an il- legal act, and it was his business to try them. They said they found the code in his desk. That was a lie. That was an absolute lie. The code at the time of his arrest was in the possession of somebody else. That person did not have time to destroy it, and he stuck it in a place that he thought might escape the attention of the military. It did not escape their attention. They captured it. They captured it outside the city hall in the yard. They did not capture it in the city hall at all. But they took it at once and put it in the Lord Mayor’s desk, and said they found it there. That was a lie. However, that made no difference. The attitude my brother took was, as he said, “I accept absolute responsibility for that code, and I am the only one in the city who is entitled to have it.” The other two charges, that he had a uniform of the Irish Re- publican Army and that he was the presiding officer of a body that had sworn allegiance to Dail Eireann, were due, of course, to the English attitude toward their authority in Ireland. And their right to assume that authority he denied absolutely.
I do not think there is anything more I want to say about that, but I want to read one sentence of his speech upon his inaugura- tion as Lord Mayor. He says, in speaking of his comrade who had just been murdered1 (he speaks of a meeting that was held im- mediately after the election), “I would recall some of my words at our first meeting after his election as Lord Mayor. I realize that most of us in the minority here were loyal citizens of the Irish Republic.” (By the minority he means those who are Unionists and Nationalists in the Corporation.) “I realize,” he said, “that most of us in the minority here were loyal citizens of the Irish Republic, if the English occupation did not threaten your lives. But you lacked the spirit and the hope to join with us in the fight to complete the work already so well begun.” That is our attitude toward the minority. We know they would be with us if some of them were not so much afraid of their lives. We also know that many Unionists are now coming over to us in large numbers. There is an old saying that nothing succeeds like success. And we have been so successful that those who used to be Unionists are now coming over to support the Republic. And another sentence he said: “The shining hope of our time is that the great majority of our people is now strong in that faith.” (The faith that will endure to the end is what he means.) “To you, gentlemen of the minority, I would address a word. You seem to be hypnotized by that evil—the usurpation which calls itself self-government. I ask you again to take courage and hope. It seems to me, and I do not say it to hurt you, that you have a very lively faith in the power of the devil, and very little faith in the power of God.” I quote these few sentences to show you what our spirit is toward the dwindling minority who uphold British rule in Ireland. They do not uphold it because they love it. They uphold it be- cause they fear it. But they will learn what we have long known, ‘His friend and predecessor, Lord Mayor Thomas MacCurtain. See index. that the only thing one should be afraid of in Ireland today is to be afraid of being afraid.
When my sister-in-law came up to Cork on Monday, after my brother’s arrest, I remained in Youghal. I did not know then she was coming down, but I got a telegram to catch the four o’clock train up to Cork. The gentleman who brought the tele- gram also offered to stay there and look after baby until my sister- in-law got back. She met me at the station and told me that the trial was over, and probably he would be deported that night, and that I had better go up at once, and that a special permission had been given for me to see him. I went up to Cork, arriving there about six o’clock. My sister had by that time received the letter from General Strickland, commander of the British forces, that I and my younger brother, who had not seen him during the day, might see my brother. We went up to the barracks. He was sitting in one of the large rooms,—^evidently an officer’s bedroom, and he was sitting there wrapped up in a big coat and evidently feeling very badly. I asked when he was to be sent away. The military officers said they did not know. Of course, they knew, but they had orders not to tell us. I said, “This thing is rather important to us. My brother has only the clothes he has on. If you are going to send him out of the country, we want to send him a suitcase with clothes.” They said they did not know; they could not tell us; but they thought it would be wiser to send him the suitcase. My sister went down there then and had a suitcase of clothes and some things sent him. We tried hard to find where he was to be sent, but we could not find out. But the officers there tried to be as nice to us as they could, and we stayed there until half-past eight o’clock. That meant we could not see him again. So we stayed there until half-past eight and then we went away. The next thing was, as I told you, that at midnight the military searched our house, and I think they got very tired of it before long, because our house happens to be a school, and all the docu- ments of the school for the past four years were there, and I told them they had better take up their lodgings there for a fortnight if they expected to search all these things. They searched all the correspondence, however, but they did not find the letter that I had received that evening and had burned. That letter, of course, was sent by the British secret service department.
On Friday we learned that he was at the miltary barracks, but we did not know what they were going to do with him. On Sat- urday he was sent to the Cork jail. On Tuesday he was sent over to England. I am going to tell you he did not go in a submarine, but in a British destroyer. My sister-in-law said a submarine. I am going to correct it, because if I did not mention that it was a destroyer and not a submarine, you would have all the pro- British papers in Britain and America crying out — they would take that one slip and would say that it was all a lie — that every word of the statement we have given here is a lie. That is why I want to be absolutely exact. That is why I want to make this small correction, because from one small slip that is a small inaccuracy, they would seek to discredit everything that we have said here, and would try to destroy what might be very important for Ireland. It was not a submarine. It was a British destroyer. But, as Arch- bishop Mannix has told us, they are not very comfortable things to travel on. They are not ocean liners meant for the comfort and convenience of their passengers. They are designed for the maxi- mum of use. Chairman Howe: Miss MacSwiney, if you will, just stop there. We are required to give up this hall at one o'clock, unfortunately. The meeting will be adjourned, and the hearings will be con- tinued at two-fifteen this afternoon at the Hotel LaFayette. (Adjournment 12:57 P. M.) ******** Hotel LaFayette, 2:28 P. M. Chairman Howe: The hearings will begin now. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Will you please continue. Miss MacSwiney? I think you were telling us about taking your brother over to England in a destroyer.
The Witness : That was on the night of Monday or Tuesday morn- ing. I think he left Cork about four o'clock Tuesday morning. At least he was taken away during the curfew hours. And then we wired the authorities to know where he was, and we did not get any information. Meanwhile we wired friends in England to learn where he was. Mr. Arthur O'Brien put his machinery to work to know where he was. And he wired us that he was at Brixton. That was Thursday morning. The authorities also found out that he was over at Brixton. But I was half-way over when they wired. I left Cork immediately and arrived in London Fri- day morning, the twentieth of August, and I saw my brother that day. My sister-in-law arrived Saturday, and it was arranged that as soon as the situation got so dangerous that my brother was on the point of death, that I should send word to my sister and younger brother to come at once. We sent telegrams regularly twice a day home, and also telegrams were sent to the City Hall to tell how he was. When I saw my brother then on Friday, the twentieth, I did not think he could live a Week. Dr. Higson, the doctor of the prison who was then in charge, told me he would give me word when my brother was at the point of death. He told me he would send me word in time to advise my sister. On the following Tuesday he had a very bad time, and he was so seriously ill that I did not wait any longer, but wired my brother and sister to come, too, and not wait any longer. When they did come he collapsed quite. It was a very bad time. As you were told in the beginning, about the tenth day is a very bad time. Then he seemed to remain stationary. Then when it was about half over he got very great pains, a kind of neuritis. And then at the end time, there was nothing but very great weakness. You can understand what his sufferings were, and therefore I do not want to linger on that point.
I want to speak of the English anti-Irish propaganda on the whole situation. We were allowed, as I said this morning, un- limited access to my brother, even to the extent of allowing my youngest brother to remain in the prison all night long. That seemed very kind, but I believe it was done not so much to be kind to us as to break my brother down. England, from the point of view of getting a victim, got a very bad one in the case of my brother. The doctors were obliged to report that forcible feeding would not do in his case. They sometimes try forcible feeding so the prisoner will not starve himself to death. Forcible feeding in my brother’s case would only have accelerated his death. On ac- count of an attack of pleurisy in his infancy he had a weak spot in his lungs, and therefore forcible feeding would only have hastened his death. The second mistake England made was the bringing of him from Cork to London. They dare not forcibly feed a man in Cork now, but they thought they could do it in London. If they had kept him in Cork I am quite sure they would have kept the knowl- edge of what was going on from the world; and probably you would never have heard of it, and we would not have received your invitation to come and testify about the wrongs of Ireland. By taking him to London, he was in the spot where newspaper re- porters from all quarters of the world are. And the result was that the reasons of that hunger strike were heralded all over the world, and did more good for Ireland than anything that has happened for a hundred and fifty years. It did far more good for Ireland than Easter Week did, for this reason: many people said it was not an opportune time for us to strike at England. We were stabbing England in the back, we were told. France was very angry with us, and France has always been a friend of ours. And France to this day has not forgiven us. We are very sorry, for France has always been a friend of ours, but we cannot help it. France would take care of herself in the same way. That is one reason why Easter week did not help us so much with the outside world. It was not so good a propaganda for us as my brother’s death was. And then again, it would not have done so much good for Ire- land if they had not taken him to London and his family had not moved over there and settled there with him. England was very much surprised at the great wave of sympathy beginning to go throughout the whole world, and then she began to try to counter that propaganda in every way she could. The papers be- gan to say that the doctors were feeding him; that they were giv- ing him proteids in his medicine. I called the doctors’ attention to it, and they pooh-poohed it and said, “Who cares what the news- papers say? Who pays any attention to it?” Those are the words of the English doctors, gentlemen of the press, and not mine.
When we arrived there the only doctor in charge was Dr. Hig- son, the second doctor. A little later Dr. Griffiths, the senior doc- tor, came on. A little later on the junior doctor came on, and our little contact with him showed him the worst of the three. Dr. Griffiths was a very capable man, and the willing tool—I say it deliberately—the willing tool of the Home Office in everything they did. Dr. Higson was a very humane man, whose attitude showed that he sympathized with my brother, but he was helpless. One day in talking with him and he was pointing out his helplessness, I told him one position he might take, although I knew he would not. He could have come out and condemned his government and resigned his position for its inhumanity. Of course he would not do it. That was asking an Englishman to be heroic. Of Dr. Higson I have nothing to say but good. He made our time at Brixton as comfortable as he could, and I do not blame him for anything that happened. His only fault was that his courage was not equal to his heart. The third doctor I have nothing to say about. I had very little conversation with him. The only real question I think I ever put to him was on the day when my sister and I were locked out of the prison, and the Home Office said it was by the doctor’s orders. I spoke to' each doctor individually. I said, “Doctor, the Home Office says that the doctors are responsible for our being denied permission to see my brother,” and I asked him, “Are you the responsible one?” And he answered, “Am I? Perhaps.” That was all, but it was given with a sneer and a toss of the head that showed him to be the most contemptible creature on the face of the earth.
I want to deal now with propaganda. I asked the doctors to make a statement that they were not putting food in my brother’s medicine, and they refused. That was getting such world-wide publicity—the newspaper reporters from all over the world were coming to us to know if that was possible, and the belief was getting so general that it was being done that we had to counter- act it somehow. I am going to give you now a piece of information that is given for the first time to anybody. We stole some of the medicine. We abstracted a dose of the medicine from under the very eyes of the jailer, and we had it analyzed. The analysis proved that there was absolutely nothing in the medicine but just what the doctors had told us it was,—a purgative medicine to keep the body func- tioning in an orderly way and to act simply as any ordinary medicine. There was absolutely no trace of food. The analysis was given. There was only one thing in the analysis that seemed to puzzle the analyst. That was that he detected the traces of alcohol, as if there had been perfume in the bottle. That was exactly what it was. It was a small eau-de-cologne bottle in which we took the sample of medicine from the prison. This is the first time that this is given to anybody, even to our own intimate friends. Only my brother knew of it, and my sister and myself. For a long time even my sister-in-law did not know about it, because we wanted to keep it very secret. Now, you will ask, if it was so secret as all that, what use was it to us? As it was, we could not let it be known that we had analyzed the medicine, or we would have been all turned out of the prison. So having satisfied our- selves that they were not playing any tricks, we set about satis- fying the public. We got the most eminent doctor that we could. We asked permission from the Home Office to have a physician of our own go in and see my brother. And we got that specialist to go in and see him. We did not tell him anything about that analysis, needless to say. We told him to examine the medicine, that we wanted to be satisfied that the doctors were not putting proteids in the medicine they were giving my brother. We asked that doctor to go there for another reason. There was a rumor that my brother, being on the point of death, was to be moved to a nursing home; that the authorities were afraid to have him die in the prison, and wanted him to be moved outside. We wanted independent medical testimony that he was not able to be moved. They gave us that permission. I think their idea was that they wanted to represent to the outside world that they wished to be as nice as they possibly could to us and they did not want to refuse us anything that they could possibly grant. Our purpose in hav- ing the doctor was to make a public statement that my brother was not getting any food in his medicine. We knew from the analysis, but we wanted a specialist to make the statement. The doctor making the examination was very nervous indeed when he went in, but on coming out the first thing that he said to all of us was, “The Lord Mayor does not want to die. He has no intention of committing suicide.” Of course we knew he did not want to die. What he wanted was freedom. The doctor came away from his interview with my brother evidently with a very high opinion of his character and principles. And I told him straight out that we wanted the assurance that the doctors were not feeding him secretly, and he gave us that assurance and said we might trust the doctors because they were all honorable men. And, of course, we had attained our object as far as the newspapers were concerned; and from that day on there was not a hint in any of the English papers that the doctors were feeding him secretly.
That disposed of that, but they next said that his relatives were feeding him secretly. Of course, they could not say openly that we were doing so. They said—of course, even the doctors said, “The food is always there, and he can eat at any time.” And the curious thing was that they changed the food to meet his condi- tion. At first there was chicken and eggs and the like. And as he got weaker afterwards they brought him chicken broth, meat essence, milk with brandy, and the things he would naturally get if he would take food. And we were invited to give them to him. Then began the insinuations in the papers that we were giving him food secretly. We never gave him food, but we were giving him water whenever he asked for it. Sometimes he would say, “Give me some water,” and we would go and get him some water, even when the nurse was in the room. But from the day that this propaganda began that we were feeding him. secretly, we would not give him the water; we would let the nurse get him the water. We had to watch like lynxes from beginning to end. Every step held a trap for us. And all that was to counteract the deed that was creating so much sympathy for Ireland all over the world.
And then there were the constant appeals not to let such a good man die, that his life would be so much better for Ireland than his death. Some of these appeals pretended to be from friends of Ireland who told us what a great mistake we were making in letting him starve to death; others were from people who abused us shamefully for letting him die. Such was their propa- ganda,—which I know you will not ask me to elaborate. My brother was told that it was hard for his wife and sisters to see him suffer, and for their sake would he not take a little food. And we were told that it was terrible to have such a noble man die, and would not we coax him to have a little food. One day, in answer to the pleas like that that the doctors made to him, he said, “Doctors, my wife and sisters are with me in this. They would not ask me to stop. They would think me a coward if I did.” That was verily the one great consolation that he had,—that we were whole-heartedly with him in his fight. But the doctor came in the afternoon and suggested to us in another way: that my brother was anxious to discontinue, only he was afraid to do it, thinking that we would think him a coward and give him a hard time after- wards. I am telling that only to show you the insidious way that they went about trying to discredit us, and to give you another instance why I corrected that small slip this morning where a sub- marine was mentioned instead of a torpedo destroyer. Of course, my brother did not say that. He told us afterwards what he had said. And he told us over and over again how much we strength- ened and supported him because we were with him. And he often said to us individually that he knew that our part in the suffering was ever so much harder than his, because it is always harder to see one you love suffer than to suffer yourself. None of you have ever had to endure that sort of thing, — that incessant torture of appeal day after day. I suppose the doctors thought they were doing their duty. Most of these appeals were made to me and my sister, — chieflly to me. They had the grace to leave his wife alone. 1 think her youth and her grace appealed to them. Perhaps they thought we were not feeling it so much. But we got the brunt of it to bear, and it was not easy.
Then there came with all that shoals and shoals of anonymous letters. I suppose we have had thousands of anonymous letters from all parts of the country abusing us. A great many of them came from America, but then they did not come from Americans, but from the English propagandists in America. But we, of course, cast all these aside. We did not read them. One day an anonymous correspondent sent us a phial of poison to give to him and "finish him off quickly, and not make so much fuss about it, if we wanted him dead." I'm telling you that particular inci- dent for this reason : religious friends had been sending him religious emblems from all parts of the world, and we had been getting roses and flowers and things like that in little parcels. And up to that time we had been taking them upstairs and open- ing them at his bedside. The day this came we had taken this little parcel up and opened it and glanced at it before we showed it to him, and my sister, who had it in her hand, tried to hide it away. But he noticed it and wanted to know what it was. It was impossible to hide it, so we showed it to him. And he laughed and said, "You surely do not think I would mind a thing like that." All that sort of thing went on. We did not read anony- mous letters, yet still they had their share in the things we had to endure while we were over there.
Another thing I would like you to know about the English at- titude toward us is that we found out that they were counting very strongly on the effect my brother’s death might have on the Irish Volunteers. They had tried in every way to provoke the Volun- teers until they would come out in the open so that they might crush them, but they had not succeeded in doing it. They had come to the conclusion that they could not defeat the Volun- teer organization in that way, but they still thought that if they could get hold of the leaders and get them killed in large num- bers, they would be able to conquer the rest of the country. They counted, I think, that my brother’s death would create such an uproar in Cork that the Republican soldiers there would lose their heads, and their leaders would, too. You see, my brother was a very cool and very calm man. He was not one of the hot-headed, rash young people that the English Government talks about such a lot. And they thought that because he was so much loved and so calm, that his death would enrage the Volunteers and they would come out in the open, and the Volunteers could then he shot down lawfully, as it were. The rumors were brought to me from Ireland that the Volunteers were in a very great state of tension. And some people whose advice could not be set aside, some people who were not scaremongers, were very much concerned lest his death would cause just such an uprising in Cork as would give the Eng- lish their chance. And so, when the opportunity came, I said to my brother, “Do you think the Volunteers will be out of hand? Would you not like to send them a message?” His answer to me was, “Certainly not. The Volunteers are soldiers who are ef- fectively officered, and it would be an insult to both officers and men if I sent them such a message. They are a disciplined body, and they know their duty and they will do it.” When the end was very close and the tension was very high, I sent a message to Cork myself, and this message was that I had heard these reports and had mentioned them to my brother and asked him if he would like to send a message; and I gave them his message just as I got it. I think it was the most effective message that could have been sent.
While we were all perfectly satisfied that my brother should carry his sacrifice to the end, and while we did not begrudge him to Ireland, we felt it our duty to do every single thing we could to save him, everything we could consistently do with his principles and with ours. We would not be guilty of any com- promise any more than he would. But short of a compromise, we felt bound to try to save his life and make the English release him. I went the day after, my arrival in London to the Home Office. That was on Friday—the first day I arrived in London. I went to the Home Office. I saw some of the under secretaries. They told me that the Government’s decision was unalterable; that my brother’s death would be oh his own head; and that they would not release him on account of the hunger strike. I asked to see Mr. Shortt, and I was told that Mr. Shortt was busy. I wrote to Mr. Shortt and told him that this was a very serious matter, and asked for an interview. He wrote back that no good purpose was to be served by an interview, since the government’s decision was unalterable. Lloyd George was then in Lucerne or Geneva, Lucerne I think, and I asked him who was responsible in this matter. He sent back a message, which probably appeared in the American papers at the time, which was a deliberate insult to a woman to whom he was already causing as much suffering as was at all necessary. He said that he had received my appeal on behalf of my brother’s life. (I made none.) He said that he regretted that my brother was causing such suffering to his family by his deliberate suicide. I call that a scoundrel’s answer, a scoundrel’s insult. I wired back and told him that his answer was an insult; that I made no appeal to him, but I wanted to know on whom to place the responsibility for my brother’s death. He accepted that responsibility, and he is responsible before God and the world for that murder. For no law, English or any other law, justifies him in doing what he did. He was as responsible for my brother’s death as he was when he was declared guilty by a coroner’s jury of the City of Cork for the death of my brother’s predecessor, Lord Mayor MacCurtain. The Irish people know where to put the re- sponsibility of my brother’s death, and it is no use for Lloyd George to try to put it on the shoulders of any individual Black- and-Tan.
I found, then, that the Home Office was quite determined to let him die, and I was quite convinced of that after my interview there. The English press was quite sympathetic. Even the anti- Irish press said it was a mistake to let my brother die. And the labor people were passing resolutions about the matter. I told my brother one nday that the labor people were very sympathetic, and his answer was, "If English labor really wanted to get me out, they could do it in twenty-four hours if th#p liked." Then I went to interview the Council of Action. The Council of Action — I do not know whether you know of it or not — was a council of the labor people formed by the working classes to prevent Poland being supplied with arms to fight the Russians. They were very interested in the crisis between Russia and Poland, but the injustice that was being done at their own door did not affect them. I went to see them so that if they did not take ac- tion, they could not plead ignorance as an excuse. So I told them what was going on. They were very sympathetic, very, and there were some very honest men among them. But no man was suf- ficiently courageous to take action. They were very courageous about Russia, but the particular thing they were doing about Russia was not against the wishes of their own Government.
There was a big labor congress held this summer at Ports- mouth. Some of our friends had come from different parts of England, and they said that the feeling was intense about letting my brother die. And they said that if the Labor Council called a strike, that strike would be effective. The whole Merthyr di- vision and the whole Newcastle division would go on strike and get my brother released. And they said that as the labor congress was meeting in Portsmouth, that I should go down there and try to get them to act. The labor congress represented six and one- half million people; and if the labor congress could be got to act, that even the government would be forced to release my brother. I went down to Portsmouth and sent in my card to the chairman, Mr. Thomas, who is general secretary of the Railroad Union, I believe. Mr. Thomas is rather like Mr. Lloyd George, I am told. in character and action, and he has acted and talked very much like Mr. George. He sent out word that the congress already had passed a resolution about my brother’s case, and nothing more could be done. I sent back word that I was sorry, but I wanted my request to be put to the members of the congress, and I would take their answer. He sent out word that he could not do it. Meanwhile I got word that the standing orders committee of the Council of Action was meeting upstairs, and that the standing orders could only be interfered with if the standing orders com- mittee approved of it. So I went upstairs for an interview with the standing orders committee. They were all intensely sympa- thetic. Every man and woman I talked with was intensely sym- pathetic. But it was not their business. They were not respon- sible. That was their attitude. I asked the standing orders com- mittee to be allowed to speak to the congress for five minutes. They said it could not be done. I said that I understood that in any congress in a matter of sufficient importance the standing orders could be set aside for a particular case. I asked them if that was not so, and they said yes, but in this case it could not be done. I asked them if they would not let me make an appeal to the representatives of six and a half million people, and find out if they would let my brother die without doing anything to stop it. They were very reluctant to do it. They were equally reluctant to say no. And so they sent one of the lady members to talk to me and convince me that it would be unwise. I said, “Unwise for whom?” And she said unwise for me. And I said, “I am at the very end, and no action they could take would be un- wise for me.” She said it would be a mistake. I wanted to get the mistake proved, and she could not prove it. What she really meant was that it would be a mistake for English labor people to press this matter. But I wanted deeds, not words. Arid then finally she said it could only be done by the parliamentary com- mittee. And I said, “Does the parliamentary committee meet to- day?” And she said yes, at five o’clock. And I said, “I can get a train back to London later than that.” And I saw a great expression of relief on her face. And I asked her if the congress would meet after that time, and she said no. And I said, “I can- not wait that long.” And I said, “Are the parliamentary commit- tee in the house now?” And she said yes. And I said, “I would like to see them now.” She did not have the courage to say no. And so they sent down a deputation of the standing orders com- mittee to confer with the members of the parliamentary committee on the platform, including Mr. Thomas. They did not tell me beforehand that they were going to do that. If they had I would have known perfectly well the result. But they sent down the deputation before I was informed of it. And they came back after a time and said that they had gone down and they had pre- sented my request to the parliamentary committee that was on the platform, and the parliamentary committee had said that it was impossible to grant my request. Q. Senator Walsh: Is it necessary to go into all these details? A. Not entirely, but perhaps I am tiring you? Senator Walsh: I think it is very important to know the steps you took to get your brother released, but the details of the move- ment I am afraid will tire you out to give in detail. The Witness: The only reason I was giving those details was this: because they were a very good example of the kind of hypo- critical sympathy that we met with, and the fact that, doing the meanest things they could do, that our enemies tried to do them as if they wanted to do everything they possibly could to please us. And I only ask your permission to say this: I found out by dint of questioning that my request was conveyed to the congress in this manner: Mr. Thomas got up and said that Miss Mac- Swiney, the Lord Mayor’s sister, had asked to speak to them, and that he need not tell the congress what a harrowing time that lady had been through for the past month, and that although the lady would be quite willing to talk to them, that he was quite sure that they would not ask that poor harrowed lady to speak to them that day. And so out of sheer sympathy they were fooled into denying my request. And so I turned around and said, “I simply want a straight answer to a straight question. If I came here to speak, was it not because I wanted to come?” I only give you that so that you will understand. They will not openly deny what is fair and just, but they will try to escape giving a definite no. I gave that as an example of the evil propaganda that we had to fight for the whole two and a half months while we were there.
And now I come to our own particular treatment. On the Mon- day before my brother’s death, exactly a week before he died, there was a consultation of doctors, and when they came out they called me aside and they said that my brother had developed symptoms of scurvy, and that it was necessary for him to take lime juice, but he had refused, and when they had asked him he said that he only wanted to be left alone and to die in, peace. And the doctor said (this was the special doctor who came to see him once a week), “I assure you, Miss MacSwiney, that your brother will not die in peace if he gets scurvy. He will die with the most terrible tortures. And you had better urge him to take lime juice now.” And I told him that I was afraid I could not. And then he continued and tried to tell me what a terrible death dying by scurvy was. And I turned to him and said, “It would be a terrible thing to. die with tortures. The matter is in God’s hands, and we can only ask that He does not let him suffer too much.” And he turned to me and said, “God has nothing to do with it. The case is in our hands—your hands and my hands. And we shall see that he will have to take lime juice.” I said that I would not urge my brother to take lime juice, and that was all there was about it. There were a couple of friends from Cork who came to see him, and he teased them a little because he was always very fond of tea, and the first thing he always said was to ask people to have a cup of tea with him. And he said to them in Irish, “I am sorry I cannot offer you a cup of tea.” And they said, “Well, never mind, we will have a cup of tea together yet.” The next morning the doctor of the prison, Dr. Griffiths, said he was going to force him to take lime juice. My brother sent for the governor and said he objected to being forced to take anything in his weak state. All that day, Tuesday, my brother was very excited, because he did not have the energy to resist—not the energy of mind, but the energy of body. He was so weak he could not resist physically in case they tried to feed him forcibly. I think that he felt very sad that after seventy-four days, they could get the better of him and make him take something. That excited him, and on Wednesday morning he was very excited. Early in the morning, when the chaplain visited him, he was very excited.
But for two or three days his power of concentration was going from him. If he wanted to say something, he would say, “You will have to wait a minute until I get my thoughts clear.” On that morning when my sister visited him, he said that that hammering was the doctor coming with a new treatment. I will not go over the details of the next few days. I want to come to Friday morn- ing. During the period of delirium he recognized me three times. He recognized my other sister once. After Thursday morning he did not recognize either his wife or my brothers. I want you to think of that when his people were not allowed in the prison. On that Wednesday, the day of his first delirium, he turned to her and said, “Muriel, you have always stuck by me.” And a little after- wards he turned to me and said, “Min (that was my pet name at home), you are always loyal to Ireland. Stay by me and see what they do to me.” That showed how hard his mind was working and how he was trying to cling to his consciousness. He was wildly delirious all that day, and at night time he was very uneasy. I am not given to asking favors of the doctors, but I did beg them very hard that night to let me stay in the prison with my brother. I think it was through Dr. Higson—he was always very humane—that Father Dominick was also allowed to stay in the prison.
Although I was not allowed on the landing, I took occasional peeps to see what was going on, and they fed him all through Wednesday night. They did not begin to feed him until Wednesday night, when he was quite unconscious. When he got quiet again he was conscious for a few minutes, and he saw me in the room and he beckoned me and said, “I am afraid they have tricked me. Have they?” And I said, “I am afraid they have.” And he said, “What did they give me?” And I said, “Meat juice.” And he said, “Wait a minute. We will have to keep cool now.” And the nurse came over and said I was not to talk to him. And then he got very angry. In that delirium he got very angry a couple of times before he entirely lost consciousness. And he said, “Go away, nurse; I must speak to my sister.” And the nurse said, “You must not speak to her.” And he said, “Go away. Go away. Go away. Go away.” Again and again he said it. And then he lapsed back into unconsciousness. And I said, “Nurse, please go away for a minute.” And I said to him, “It is all right now.” And he said, “Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait. Wait.” He repeated “wait” about a half dozen times. He was clinging on to his con- sciousness as long as he could, and then he went off into delirium again. That was the result of the nurse’s interference.
I got permission to stay there all that night. The next thing 1 want to call your attention to is that in Friday morning’s papers appeared a remark by the Home Secretary. He had been questioned in the House of Commons by an honest man, Lieutenant-Commander Kenworthy, about forcibly feeding my brother in his weak state. And he answered that the Lord Mayor was not being forcibly fed, but that a cup was held to his lips and he was swallowing it volun- tarily. Now, you will see how thoughtless people could look at that, and I knew it was more propaganda. And that morning I tried to get hold of Dr. Higson — and if I got him before Dr. Griffiths was there, I usually succeeded in getting the truth out of him before he was coached. And I said to him, "You know very well that that action of swallowing is a reflex action; that it is not a voluntary action." And he said that my brother was quite un- conscious that he was swallowing, and that it was a reflex action. And I said, "Have I your permission to quote that in public?" And he said, "Yes." And I went away and immediately made it public. I sent it to the House of Commons and to Mr. Shortt, and asked Mr. Shortt to retract the lie he had stated the night before. I sent it over home, and I also gave it to the newspaper correspondents of the whole world, that statement of the doctor's with his name attached to it. The result was my expulsion from the prison. I am quite sure that that was why I was forbidden to enter the prison after Friday. On Saturday morning, as it unfortunately happened, I was the first person on that day. We used to change about, taking turns. It was my turn to visit first that day. I arrived at the prison at half -past eight. My brother had been on duty all night, and I was to relieve him. I got to the prison gate — there are two gates; there is a large wooden gate, and then about ten feet inside of that there is a big iron gate. Q. Senator Norris : Now, Miss MacSwiney, so that there will not be any misapprehension about your testimony, you said that that was your first day there? A. No, it was my turn to pay the early morning visit that day. One of us would come on at eight-thirty, another at noon, and another at night, and so on. This morning it happened to be my turn to go on first, and I stepped up to the gate and started to go in. And the warder said, "What is your name, please?" It was quite extraordinary to be asked your name after you have been going there every day for over two months. And I said, "Mac- Swiney." And he said, "Youj- Christian name, please?" And I said, "Miss Mary MacSwiney." And he said, "I cannot admit you." And I said, "On whose orders?" And he said, "On the governor's." And I said, "May I see the governor?" And he said, "The governor is not here." And he ordered me to step outside the prison gate. I would not go, and stepped into the waiting room there and stayed there. As the officials came in I questioned each one of them and asked them on whose orders I was kept from seeing my brother. And they said, “Home Office orders.” And I asked them if it would apply to anybody but myself, and they said no, I was the only one. In that day’s papers there was a statement that on the day before there was a moment when my brother had recognized my sister, and he had asked her what we were all here for and what we were doing in London. And she did not want to upset that moment of consciousness, and she simply said, “Nothing. You are all right.” That appeared in the morning’s papers, and the order to exclude her came at one o’clock that day. The order to exclude me came from my publishing Dr. Higson’s statement that my brother was not voluntarily swallowing. And she was expelled because my brother recognized her. They all tried to get me out of the prison, but they did not suc- ceed. They did not use force. My sister-in-law came along then, and she could get through the gate, but was only allowed to see her husband for a few minutes, and then he was not conscious.
We stayed there until half-past ten that night. I do not want to stress it, but I had had breakfast at half-past seven, and did not have any food until twelve that night. I would have gone on a hunger strike of my own and stayed in that waiting room if they had not used force to get us out. At ten o’clock the deputy governor came along and said, “Miss MacSwiney, it is time to lock up.” And I said, “Very well, lock up.” And he said, “I am afraid you must go out.” And I said, “I will not go out until I see my brother.” And he said, “You must, for it is time to lock up the prison.” And I said, “It is strange to be locking up a place that is always locked up.” And I said, “If you will let me see my brother for five minutes, I will go away, but not before.” Then he said, “The local police have orders to put you out by force.” I said, “Very well; if the local police—enough of them—come in and use force to put two women out, they can do so. But I will not go voluntarily.” I can only tell you this: they started in at ten o’clock, and it was five minutes to eleven before they got us out. The police inspector came and tried to get us out by “moral suasion,” and I said there was no morality about anything they were doing. He argued with my sister and did no better. They finally technically arrested us. That is, in England if a policeman puts his hand on your shoulder and says you are under arrest, you are arrested. Then they led us out of the prison, and a taxi was waiting for us, and took us home. And then when I got home, about twelve o’clock, I got the first thing I had had to eat since early that morning.
Sunday was just a repetition of Saturday for my sister and my- self, except that we were both compelled to stay outside the outer gate of the prison. On Saturday we were allowed to wait down in the little waiting room, and on Sunday we had to stand in the street. And if I have given you that in a lot of detail, it was not to draw your attention to our personal suffering. But if that had happened in Germany, if two women had been kept from their brother’s death bed and made to stand on the street during the long, cold day, you would have heard a great deal about it as a German atrocity. I mention it simply because it was a British atrocity. I do not want to draw attention to our personality in any way. Sunday was simply a repetition of Saturday. And on Monday my brother died.
I simply want to say something about the inquest that my sister- in-law did not mention this morning, and that is this: that they did everything—every single thing they could—to bring in a verdict of suicide. I do not know anything about the law about it, but I heard it quite late on Tuesday evening that if my brother was found to be a suicide, they could hold his body. I have mentioned earlier that we had summoned this specialist, Sir Norman Moore, whom we called to see my brother and to examine his medicine. We did not summon him to the inquest, because we did not think it neces- sary, and you must give twenty-four hours’ notice to summon wit- nesses. On Tuesday evening, when we heard that they were trying to bring in a verdict of suicide, we immediately called up Dr. Norman Moore and told him the circumstances and asked him to come and tell the jury that the one thing my brother did not want to do was to die. I talked with him myself over the telephone, and he did not want to come. The jury was asked to bring in a verdict of suicide, and they did not do it. They brought in an open verdict.
Our solicitor asked them for the body, and the crown solicitor jumped up and said, "Where is he to be buried?" And our solicitor said, "In Cork, of course." And they said, "You cannot have the body to be buried any place outside of England without a permit." My sister-in-law has told you how we finally got permission from the Home Office to take the body. Q. Senatof Walsh : I would like to ask if there is anything else between that and the Holyhead incident? A. No, there is nothing. At Crewe we were told that when we got to Holyhead we were to go on a boat and go straight to Cork. My brother was sent for by the police inspector. I do not know that you are aware that a large body of police traveled on the train from Euston to Holyhead. They tried to play a trick on us, and tried to send the train off without the friends knowing it. And then my sister and myself went into the van where my brother's remains were, and said we would not go away. Then they started the train and sent us away to get us outside of London. We were then informed by the police that the remains were to be put on the steamship Rathmore and taken to Dublin; and that not more than twenty of my brother's friends were to be allowed to travel with my brother's remains. A consultation was held with my sister, and we decided unanimously that we would not one of us go on that ship. If they took my brother's remains away from us by force, and then we went on the ship, it would be a tacit consent to their action. Some people have seemed to think that we were very hard-hearted to let my brother's remains travel like that without any of his friends. We did what we knew he would have liked us to do — what would be for Ireland's good first. When Holyhead was reached we went and stood by the van where my brother's remains were. My younger brother went and inter- viewed the station master, and we were told finally that the body was to be taken by force, and they came into the van to take it. I asked the station master if he was not going to fulfil the contract for which he was paid— the contract to deliver my brother's re- mains in Dublin. He said no; that he had government orders, and they must be obeyed. And I said that no man had a right to obey an order like that. Then we were asked to go outside, and we refused. And we decided that this time technical arrest, like the laying of an officer's hand on your shoulder, was not sufficient, and that this time we ought to resent by bodily resistance the second arrest of the body of a dead man. I might add that when we got on the platform at Holyhead there were about one hundred fifty Black-and-Tans there, and their faces as they sneered and jeered through the window at my brother's body was the most evil thing 1 believe I have ever seen. Finally all the friends gathered around the coffin, and they refused to move. I would rather be spared the details of what followed. There were some men first: I can only say that I was the first woman to be picked up like a bale of goods and thrown out — thrown out literally — onto the platform. My brother jumped lo try to save me, and he was nearly choked by four policemen. And a military officer jumped over a wagon — a small cart — and took him by the back of the neck and tried to choke him. He had his arms around me, and I threw my arms around him to try to save him from being choked to death. The incident was a very painful one. And I thought every instant that my younger brother would drop dead before my eyes, because the treatment he received by the Canadian authorities in a Canadian prison during the war has injured his heart; and a doctor in America has told him that any excitement is apt to cause him to drop dead. And I was afraid he was going to drop dead that night. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: What time of day was that? A. Eleven o'clock at night; between eleven and twelve. Q. What was done then after that? A. They took the body, and increased the number that could travel with it from twenty to seventy-five; and when we refused to go, the police inspector asked Mr. O'Brien to point out to the rela- tives the sacredness of the remains and what respect was due them. As if we needed to be pointed out the sacredness of his body! The body was taken by the Rathmore to Dublin. We proceeded to Dublin, where the funeral was carried out, and then we went on to Cork by special train. In the evening I got a letter that my brother's body was at the customs house and we might have it. It was quarter past nine when I got that word. They tried to get every- body in the city to take that body before they communicated with us. I am glad to say that the citizens of Cork did exactly what we would have had them do, and refused to touch his remains because they had no authority.
Q. Mr. Frank P. Walsh: And his remains were interred where? A. In what is called the Martyrs' Plot. Q. And that plot is where? A. It is devoted to those who have been the victims of the recent outrages in Cork. Lord' Mayor MacCurtain was tbe first to bo buried there. The fallen members of the Irish Republican Army are also there, and the other deceased hunger strikers have been buried there since. It is fast filling up; and at the rate that Eng- land is killing people there, it seems that they would like it to take in the whole country. Mr. F. P. Walsh: There are a couple of matters the Commission would like to ask you about.
Q. Chairman Howe: Could you tell us something more, Miss MacSwiney, about the extent to which the present Republican courts in Ireland are functioning? A. Yes. I would like to refer first to what I said yesterday — that the courts, the English courts, were sitting in state behind barbed wire and sand bags. That was true until a couple of months ago, when they brought in the Coercion Act, so that these judges do not sit any longer, because they have military courts now.
Another point that I would like to emphasize is that the English say that we Irish will never be fit for self-government. But there is one instance I would like to tell that I am sure a good many here have never heard of. It happened while we were at Brixton. It was related in all of the papers, and in some it was called a judg- ment of Solomon. There were two brothers who for many years had been fighting about the division of the large farm where they lived. One brother was married, and he wanted a settlement. They had been into English courts three or four times, and they wanted a decision. The fight between the brothers was getting to be very bitter. The case was finally taken into a Sinn Fein court, and the decision was very interesting. It was this: the elder brother was to make the division of the farm as he considered it fair, and the younger brother was to take his choice of the halves. I do not think that since the time of Solomon you have had a more fair judgment than that. Q. Commissioner Thomas : May I ask if you would attribute that to the Irish character or to the absence of lawyers from the courts? A. Perhaps to both, Mr. Thomas.
Another matter to which I would like to refer was the shooting of the fourteen military officers in Dublin. Of course I was not there and do not know all of the details of the case. And yet I would know from my own confidence in the Irish Government that that was just. And I can tell you that those fourteen officers who were shot were fourteen absolutely expert men who were sent over to. get the whole threads of our organization into their hands; that they had captured vital documents of ours which they were about to use; and death was absolutely necessary by the laws of the Republic. They had been infringing on our rights. They were military officers doing secret service work for their government. That I know. And I know perfectly well that they were not shot without good reason, and that they were a very great danger to our men, whose lives we value. Also, a very good point is made of the fact that one man was shot in the presence of his wife. But many of our men have been shot in the presence of their wives; and in the case of the British government it is not necessary, because they could get our men at any time. I know that it is not a nice thing to happen, but in this case it was unavoidable. Q. Senator Walsh: What is the nature of the notice that is given by the Irish Republic to British officers who are going to be killed? A. I do not know that definitely, but it has been publicly stated that certain things are forbidden by the Irish Government; that they are crimes, and that any man who does those things will be shot. In addition, I think there is a notice sent to every man who is going to be shot, and he is warned. Some of them are captured and tried before a court in person before they are condemned to be shot. Q. But if the British officer is known to commit an act of treason to the Irish Government, is there some communication sent to him warning him that if he does not leave the country he will be shot? A. I understand that there is. I have no personal knowledge of that. Q. But you understand that a warning is given to cease some kind of activity that is considered harmful by the Irish Government, and that if they do not do so they will be killed? A. Yes, I understand that. Q. Commissioner Thomas: There are two points that I under- stand you to make: first, that your general confidence in the Irish Republic is such that the shooting, you think, is justified according to the code of war. Do I also understand you to say that these fourteen men were military spies? A. I do not know personally that these fourteen men were mili- tary intelligence men, but I am quite sure if they were not they would not have been shot. Q. I understood these fourteen men were connected with courts- martial; but you claim now they were connected with the military intelligence service? A. Yes, but you must understand that I was in the midst of the affairs of my brother’s death, and since then I have been so occupied with his papers that I have not given great attention to the matter. But I heard that this was the case; that they were secret service men. Q. Do you think that you and Mr. Frank Walsh could gather further evidence on that point? A. Yes, I think I could gather it. Mr. Frank P. Walsh: I will undertake to get it. Q. Commissioner Maurer: You think these men were spies? A. Yes, that was my understanding. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: As I understand it, there is a distinction between men living in barracks who have a definite military duty to perform, and those who come into the country as spies to trace down men, and who often go about in civilian clothes to conceal their identity. A. Yes, that is it. Q. But you understood that these fourteen men were not con- nected with open military leaders, but had come to Ireland to spy there and seek the lives of your men? A. Yes, that is it.
Q. I believe you told me, Miss MacSwiney, that as you had told something of the educational system that had existed heretofore, that you would like briefly to state what is being done now by your nation for the education of your children. A. Yes. Q. Senator Walsh: And I would like in that connection for you to state what you have observed since this movement began in the way of giving stamina and strength and character to the future of your country—what effect this movement has had upon the character of the people. A. Yes, I would like to speak of that, but I shall not dwell at great length upon it. Yesterday I explained to you the method of education of what I reluctantly called the "better class" of the country — that it anglicized them ; it made them think that everything English was good and that everything Irish was something to be ashamed of. Thus people sometimes claimed to be Irish, but they were proud to be known as West Britons. Once when I spoke of the Irish element, one of these persons said to me, "Yes, that is the rowdy element." Q. Chairman Howe: Have you any connection with the new school system in Ireland? I A. Well, I was the founder of a school for girls. I founded it in connection with' my dismissal in 1916. When I found the secondary schools of the country were so anglicized that one could not teach in them and be Irish, I took things into my own hands and opened up a school in our home, and it has grown very rapidly. Q. How many pupils have you now? A. About one hundred. Q. Mr. F. P. Walsh: Is there another school of that same kind in Dublin? A. Yes, founded afterwards by Miss Gavan Duffy in Dublin. It has been very successful, too. Q. Senator Walsh: Does your Republic make provision for schools? A. Not financially yet, but there is a minister of education that will take charge later on. But these two schools had this advantage : that we who started them had the confidence of our fellow citizens; that we were able to teach, in the first place, and that we were also able to give, from the standpoint of general culture and refinement, anything that the pro-British schools could give. That is the spirit of the school : we give the best that any school around us could give of the culture and refinement of the world generally. We do not confine ourselves to our own country, but our own country is the center from which everything starts — the same as in American Schools America is the center from which things start. You learn your own history first. France learns her own history first. And I know that England does. We were the first girls' school, in Ireland — of course, Padraic Pearse did it at his school — but we were the first in Ireland to start in with Irish culture. We taught them, when they said they were proud of being Irish, we taught them what that meant. We taught Irish history from the Irish point of view; and when the books did not agree with that — because I have told you that the books were written in England for Ireland — then the books had to go to the wall, and the truth was told. But the people who sent their children to our schools were not all Irish Republicans. One man was reproved for sending his children to us, and he said, “I will take my political orders from my party, but I will not take orders from it as to where to send my children to school.” We have done what we could in Cork to destroy anglicization, and so has St. Brigid’s school in Dublin. This year we had no government grant to speak of, and we were afraid we would have to close down for lack of funds; and a com- mittee of ¡Irish friends in both Cork and Dublin decided that it would be a national calamity to close our schools, so they got together a committee and asked people to take shares to finance both schools until An Dail1 was prepared to take over control. And the result was that the committee took over the financing of the school and left the management of the school to us.
Q. Commissioner Addams: As an educator who has to teach history to children, you would regret very much, would you not, that these British officers had a secret trial and were condemned to death in their absence? A. Yes, I certainly would say that it is regrettable that such things have to be done. I dare say that in your Revolutionary War you had to do a great many things that you regret having had to do. And I dare say in teaching your children their history, you touch as lightly as possible on the things you had to do. Q. The children are very much educated by current events, by what is happening at the moment. Do you do anything to counter- act what is being done all around them? A. With regard to those things, the children we have at school come from all sorts of parents; and we have decided for the present that we will not teach them directly the Irish Republican point of. view any more than any other point of view. But they get it in- sensibly. The atmosphere of the school is Irish. It is the first girls’ school of the better class where the atmosphere is Irish.
I would like to stress another point. Up to the time the Volun- teer movement started, there was an atmosphere of—I do not like 1 An Dail—the national parliament. to call it slavery—but a very unpleasant atmosphere in Ireland. People were ashamed to hold up their heads. There was a time when people went about with what you would call a hang-dog expression. But now the young men and women go about holding up their heads, knowing perfectly well that they are acting in a way that future generations will be proud of them. There is not a man or woman today who is not interested in the Irish Republic—who is not proud to be Irish. And you must remember that we have in Ireland today a Repub- lican army that is both large and victorious. And if England succeeds in shooting down the men, the women will take their places. And if she shoots down the women, the children will take their places. And if they shoot down the children, the blades of grass will spring up into armed men and take their places. Q. Commissioner Addams: That is all very easy to understand. But how do you teach the children about affairs where men are shot down in their hotel rooms and in their homes, and things like that? A. Yes, we have been asked questions like that in school. We were asked one day in school in a religious lesson what the ethics of shooting policemen were. And the answer I gave the child was this: We are at war at present. During the period that we are passing through, many things have to be done that we may think are regrettable; that those things have to be done by the Council that is directing our affairs; and until we can get a knowledge of the facts on which our Supreme Council’s actions are based, that we-cannot judge; and that therefore we must suspend judgment for the time. But that if we find our government guilty of cruelty, we must blame our government as well as any other government. But until we have all the facts, we should not pass judgment. This was the answer I gave to a class of senior girls. But I may say to you that I think we are born politicians in Ireland; and we do not have to explain things to the children. As soon as they are out of the cradle they know about as much about these things as we do. Now, Mr. Walsh, I think that is about all.
Q. Commissioner Maurer: I would like to ask you about the arrangements for financing your government. Have you a plan of finance at work? A. The government floated a loan in Ireland some time ago, and they asked for a quarter of a million, and that quarter of a million was oversubscribed. The people are incredibly generous. When money is needed, it will come.
There are one or two things I would like to say while we are closing up at the end of these two days, and they are this (I would ask the Chairman's permission to stand in telling them): I want, in leaving you, to ask you to keep in mind one or two points. The long story I have been telling you is to show you how all the time English propaganda is being used to discredit us before all the world and among the nations. And I want you, whenever you are told anything about Ireland from any English source, to remember what I have told you today, and to say, "We will not judge until we have heard the other side." You have been told lies and lies and lies about us. And one of the manufactured lies I want to scotch is that you are told day after day that this so-called Sepa- ratist Movement in Ireland is only the work of the extremist section, which the English people call the "murder gang"; and that the majority of the Irish people, who are not Sinn Feiners, are moderate people who are sighing for peace. There is no such division in Ireland at all. And please stress that. And I ask the newspaper men to state that fairly before the American public. I want to speak to the American people. I know the Irish in America are with us, and to talk to them is like taking coals to Newcastle, I don't want— 7I was most uncomplimentary to some of my Irish- American sympathizers this morning, and I told them I didn't want to talk to them. I want to talk to the people who call themselves "one hundred per cent. Americans" — although I should think I would have to go to the Cherokee Indians to do that! But I want to talk to the Americans who are anti-Irish. And I want to ask them, in the name of humanity, in the name of civilization and of the freedom they said they fought for, to be fair to us. We are not a divided people. We are one. There is a little corner in Ireland of English settlers, but they are Irish now, although they have kept some of the English characteristics up in the north of Ireland. That is one of our domestic problems. But we Irish are not a problem of England: we are an international problem, and the world will have to recognize it. And there will be no peace for England and there will be no peace for the world until it is settled. And I know that you American people have recognized that, and that this American Commission has done its best to try and settle that problem in the interests of world peace.
I would ask you, when you are told lies about the extremist section that will accept no reconciliation, and the moderate Sinn Fein ele- ment, to remember that I have told you that there is no such thing; that the whole movement in Ireland today is one and indivisible; that we are out for an Irish republic; that we are out for complete separation from our oppressor; that there is no government in Ireland today supported by the people except the government with the ideals President de Valera stands for and the ideals Arthur Griffith stands for, and the rest of those men, and the weakest woman and child among us. We want our Republic, and we will have it with or without the help of the world. For when men and women and children are willing to die for a cause, that cause must triumph in the end. And all we ask from the American people is this, that they should give us justice and fair play; that Americans should not listen to England when she says that a small body of extremists is the cause of all this trouble. That is not true. I would like to have you remember what I have said today: that the cause of Ireland is an Irish Republic, and that men, women, and children are united on that point.
The second point I wish to leave with you is, as I stated yesterday, that Mr. Arthur Griffith said that today is the Valley Forge of Ire- land, and tomorrow will be our Yorktown—our day of victory. I do not need to tell you what a bad time you had at Valley Forge. But there is this difference: then it was your men who were suffer- ing; but now it is our women and children. It is bad enough for the women, but in any case it is very hard to see the children suffer. You must also remember that by constant and unremitting hard- ship, hunger, and cold you can break the spirit of any people, if you keep it up long enough. And that is what England is trying to do today—what she tried to do four hundred years ago under Mountjoy and Carewe she is trying to do today under the Black- and-Tans—to break down the people by destroying the sources from which the people get their food, and thus starve them into submission.
I do not like to ask favors for anything they need. But I would like to remind you that the first ship that reached America bearing food in your dire extremity came from Ireland. And I should like to ask Americans to take care that during the coming winter, which is apt to be very hard in Ireland—to see to it that the women and children do not suffer. The men can suffer. And the women can suffer. But it is hard to see the children suffer. And we do not want our people to be so oppressed by hunger and cold that their spirit can be broken and they can be forced to surrender. And remember that there is no religious difference in Ireland dividing the people, and never will be. There is no division in our ranks. I ask you, when you hear England’s lies about us, not to believe her until you have heard our side of it. Let us tell you the truth. I have told you the truth and nothing but the truth, and all that I have said can be verified from papers and state documents. I have not told the whole of the truth, because it would take many weeks to tell you all that we have had to suffer. But I ask you to send us relief now, and I ask the Americans, the anti-Irish American citi- zens, not to believe all the lies England tells about us until they hear our side of the question.
Q. Senator Walsh: Miss MacSwiney, may I ask you a question or two? A. Certainly. Q. Miss MacSwiney, do you know of any specific case of suffer- ing in Ireland, and of denial of food or destruction of crops, by English authorities? A. Oh, well, in every town they have devastated they have de- stroyed food, and the crops on the farms all around the county of Cork. And they have, as I think you have heard this morning, they have destroyed the town of Tralee. Q. We want to be accurate. Just what do you know about that? A. At Tralee there was someone shot, and the police were boy- cotted—the police were not spoken to. Decent people no longer speak to them any more, anyway. And the Black-and-Tans closed all the shops. Q. All the shops? A. Yes, the bakeries and the milk shops, so that milk could not be got for the little babies. The shops were not allowed to be opened, and the Black-and-Tans stood there and refused point blank to allow the women and children to get the food that was waiting for them. They eventually found they were carrying it too far, and on the fourth day they allowed certain women to buy milk and bread — and nothing else. And I know this: that the excuse they gave was a shortage of food in the town, and that what was there was necessary for them, and they came and got the food, and the women and children had to do without it. That was their excuse — that they needed the food and the rebels had to do without. Q. Senator Norris: How do they destroy the crops? A. They burn them. They burn the hay and the corn, and they set fire to everything that is growing. They set fire to the cream- eries, and of course the creameries ar'3 a tremendous loss through- out the country. Hundreds and thousands of men have been thrown out of employment by the burning of the creameries. And now those men have no employment. Q. Can you give us any idea of the total number of creameries that were burned? A. I do not know the total number, but in the week before I left Ireland there were nine creameries and one hundred one farms burned. Q. How many all told all over Ireland? Chairman Howe : It was reported last week that thirty creameries had been burned. The Witness: Thirty creameries. That would be most of the large creameries in the country. You can get the exact number. The Irish authorities issue the figures every week, and you can get them there, I am sure. Mr. F. P. Walsh: We have them. We can give them to you. Q. Senator Walsh: So the destruction of homes and the burning of farms and creameries and mills has caused a condition of unem- ployment and a shortage of food that has reached a critical state?
A. Yes, absolutely. Another thing that I would like to stress is this: that when the railroads began to be stopped, we made pro- visions for the transportation of food into the cities so that there would be no shortage, for with the exception of flour, we have plenty of food in the country. We had arranged for the transpor- tation of food by motor car. And they made a new law that no motor car could travel more than twenty miles from the home of its owner, and no. motor car could be out other than between the hours of eight o'clock and six in the evening, and no motor car over a certain weight could be owned by anybody except the British Government. Of course the British Government would not say, "We will make laws to prevent your rationing food, so that you will starve in the cities." But they prevented it by this law. Of course, anybody can see that you cannot bring food from within twenty miles of a great city. All these things are done to keep up starva- tion. And we do need America's help to keep off starvation from our people. And I think, on the mere ground of humanity, that surely in the interests of humanity you should take care that no people like ours should be allowed to starve during the . coming winter. And certainly our people will be starved, absolutely starved during the coming winter, without your help.
I want to say again, that when I said yesterday that you should not have sheathed your sword until all of the small nations, includ- ing Ireland, had their independence, do not think that from any- thing I said I mean that you should go to war on account of Ireland. . England is your ally. She would be your natural ally if she would behave with justice. But what I ask of you is this: you have your Red Cross work; you have your charitable hearts; you have money enough, even among the anti-Irish population in this country; and I ask you to keep our women and children from starving to death. We know perfectly well that you will not go to war over Ireland, unless there is some other issue between you and England. I thank you for the patience with which you have listened to me for the past two days — for a day and a half — as you have done; and I thank the American Commission for what you have done for Ireland in the interests of humanity and in the interests of truth. I thank you very much. (The witness was thereupon excused.) Mr. F. P. Walsh: There are four or five witnesses who have come in now on this late train. And I was going to suggest that if you would want to adjourn now, that we could finish up their testimony tomorrow. (The Commissioners confer.) Chairman Howe: The hearings will reconvene at this place to- morrow morning at nine-thirty. Senator Walsh: Are you able to produce any evidence as to who the murderers of Lord Mayor MacCurtain were, the circumstances of his murder, and in what way, if at all, the British authorities were connected with that murder? Mr. F. P. Walsh: I think I see what you want. I think it is im- portant enough to do it in a direct way. And we will undertake to do it.
At this hearing I want to say this: We are in communication with your secretary and chairman, and they said they wanted to hear Mrs. MacSwiney and Miss MacSwiney first; and we notified your secretary that we thought that some of these ex-R. I. C. men are here in this country and could be produced before you. From what your chairman said, I take it that you do not want anything long and detailed; so we have sought to find only witnesses who have actual personal experiences to tell. And we will have these wit- nesses from time to time, and after consultation with you we can present them. Commissioner Thomas: While Mr. Frank Walsh is here, I would like to raise a point for his advice on the matter. We have got some very remarkable testimony from Mrs. and Miss MacSwiney. Would it be in any degree unfair to further witnesses to ask that they confine themselves to those matters of which they have fairly first- hand knowledge of the facts? I say fairly first-hand, because I know the impossibility of making that absolute. You see, we have got a very vivid picture now of the situation as a whole, but what we need are specific instances of actual deeds. Mr. F. P. Walsh: I understand that from this Committee’s first hearings, that they would not carry on these hearings according to strict rules of evidence, as that would be followed in court; that they wished, first, to have first-hand testimony; and, secondly, testi- mony from persons who were so close to events that they would have similar to first-hand testimony, and put the Commission on the track of what actually occurred. Of course, the idea was to avoid hearsay testimony; and the witnesses we are going to put on will, I think, reach that result very easily. Senator Norris: Will your witnesses tomorrow know about the murder of Lord Mayor MacCurtain? Mr. F. P. Walsh: I think that I can find such witnesses. Senator Walsh: Perhaps Miss MacSwiney could do that, or Mrs. MacSwiney, because her husband followed him. Mr. F. P. Walsh: This afternoon I was asked to limit her testi- mony to certain things. Senator Norris: But if she was present at the coroner’s inquest, she can testify with first-hand knowledge. Adjournment 4:45 p. m.
Session Three Before the Commission, sitting at the Hotel La Fayette, Friday, December 10, 1920, 9:50 a. m. Chairman Howe: At the suggestion of Senator Norris, we have asked Miss MacSwiney to come back this morning to make a state- ment relative to the Mayor MacCurtain matter. Miss MacSwiney was at the inquest, we understand. Mr. Malone, some of the Commission have to leave this afternoon at three o’clock, and if you will, arrange your witnesses so that we can get through today. Mr. D. F. Malone (of counsel) : Will the Commission sit to- morrow, Mr. Howe? Chairman Howe: We very much want to get through today if possible.
Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: How long have you known Mayor Mac- Curtain ? A. I have known him intimately from the beginning of the Volunteer Movement. Q. Did you know him in a personal as well as a political way? A. Yes. Very much more politically at first, but I was after- wards very closely associated with his family. Q. How old was he when he died? A. I think he was thirty-six. Q. And he was a friend of your brother’s? A. Yes, very. They were very intimate friends and very devoted to each other. My brother had a very great admiration for him, and I know that he had a great admiration for my brother.
Q. What was the position of Mayor MacCurtain in the Repub- lican forces? A. He was brigade commandant; that is what would correspond to a brigadier general. Q. And your brother was next in command? A. Right. My brother became chief commandant when Mayor MacCurtain was murdered, as he also succeeded him as Lord Mayor of the city.
Q. I think it will facilitate matters before the Commission very much if you will describe the conditions leading up to this murder, and the situation of his family, and state briefly the testimony you heard given at the inquest. A. As I said. Lord Mayor MacCurtain was a man of about thirty-six at the time of his death. He had a wife and five children at the time. The eldest was ten years of age when he was murdered. I may say that five months after his death, his wife gave birth to two other children, twins, who were dead when they were born.
He was a man of very sweet disposition, always a pleasant laugh and kind word, even to those with whom he diff'ered most politi- cally. He was also a very good, shrewd business man. He did his b'est to smooth over matters in Cork when Mr. Redmond, as I explained the other day, caused a sort of split in the Volunteer movement. He, of course, remained on the right side, and he did a great deal to avoid any bitterness. He was a particular friend of my brother for years. They had been associated in the Gaelic League movement and in the industrial movement. But whereas my brother never joined the Sinn Fein group, as I explained the first day of my evidence, Mr. MacCurtain did. He joined the Arthur Griffith movement. But of course there is no such thing now as the constitutional Sinn Fein. But when in 1905 the move- ment was first started, it was a constitutional movement, and Mr. MacCurtain did belong to it. I did not know him then. But my brother never belonged to it. In the troubled times in Ireland, from 1916 onward, they were very closely associated. All through that week of the rising they were together at what we called the Volunteer Hall, the headquar- ters of the Irish Volunteer Army in the city. They were through all of the troubles up to that time together, and they both received a certain amount of condemnation from a certain section of the people who thought that they should have had a rising in the city, even though every individual man was shot down. Of course their attitude was that the thing that was best for Ireland was the thing to be thought of, and not the individual glory of losing your life, which is a comparatively easy thing to do. Then Mayor MacCurtain, like my brother, had spent most of his time in prison. He was not in prison so much or so long; but in 1916 he was in prison with him until Christmas; and in 1917 he was deported, and they returned home to Cork at the same time. I do not think he was arrested in October, 1917, the time of my brother’s first hunger strike. I am not quite certain, but I do not think so. But he was arrested in 1917, in February, and they were in and out of prison like that. It is a sort of natural thing to be spending half of your time in prison. And he was continually on the run. Mr. MacCurtain had a flour and mill business. He dealt on the wholesale scale. And that business was injured by his fre- quent imprisonments. But when he came out of prison in 1918 he started his factory. Of course they were always interested in the development everywhere of Irish industries. And he started an industry and got some machines together, and employed a number of people for the manufacture of underclothing. That was going ahead splendidly when he was made Lord Mayor. And of course he was only inaugurated a very short time when he was murdered.
Now, Mr. MacCurtain was made Lord Mayor in January, after the municipal elections, which resulted in large Sinn Fein majorities all over the country. Q. Senator Norris: January of what year? A. January, 1920. The councillors were elected to the corpora- tion, and then the new corporation elected the Lord Mayor. He was unanimously chosen. The first thing that the new corporation did was to declare allegiance to Dail Eireann. The keeping of that resolution declaring allegiance to Dail Eireann, which is the Irish Parliament, was one of the charges brought against my brother when he was tried in the August following.
I alluded to the genial disposition of Mr. MacCurtain. And at the same time he was a very competent and capable business man. When he was elected Lord Mayor, he won golden opinions from his opponents immediately for the masterly way he grasped the affairs of the corporation, and the businesslike attitude he took toward it. And the attitude not only of the Lord Mayor, but of the whole cor- poration, that the business of the city should be carried on in an efficient way without any corruption whatever. They were deter- mined that economy should be practiced in the city. Wherever you have a society like ours, a social system where you have an alien people imposing its will on the people, you have a great deal of inefficiency,—worthless people pressing you for jobs. I am quite sure that the American people know the meaning of the word job. And these inefficient people are put into positions, and a great deal of money is squandered. The new Republican organization made up its mind that this inefficiency should be destroyed forever. The salary of the Lord Mayor was six hundred pounds a year. That is not a very large amount, and it is not as big as it looks, because I think about one-half of it had to go to certain charities. Indeed, so much had to be spent in this way that, although the salary was origi- nally only five hundred pounds a year, one hundred pounds was added on to it, because there were two additional charities to which the Lord Mayor was expected to contribute fifty pounds a year each. But the new council decided that that should go, as the first step in the direction of economy. The Lord Mayor also did a great deal in the way of entertainment, and always began the year with what was known as the Lord Mayor’s banquet. It was decided that that should go, and there should be no extravagance whatever. Everything nec- essary for the life of the citizens should be done. But it was not thought necessary for the Lord Mayor and his friends to sit around a table eating their fill and drinking. That was not considered nec- essary for the good of Ireland. They also gave pleasing proof that they meant what they said, and that they were not out to make things easy for themselves financially. Another rule that they made was that the members of the corporation were expected to attend to their duties, and above all the Lord Mayor was expected to attend to his duties. Some Lord Mayors had gone to the city hall to perform their duties perhaps three or four hours out of the week. The new Lord Mayor undertook to do differently. It was rather destructive of the Lord Mayor’s business, but they determined that was what had to be done. Q. Senator Norris: So that they cut down his salary and in- creased his work? A. Yes, exactly, that is what they did.
I should like to stress the wonderfully good influence that Lord Mayor MacCurtain had on the Unionist members of the corpora- tion. They expected to have a very bad time of it. They found that they got just as good treatment as his colleagues. There were two representatives of the Federation of Discharged Soldiers and Sailors. Owing to the very large number of men that Cork had in the Eng- lish army before and during the war, these men were able under the proportional representation system to send two members to the cor- poration. It did not follow as a matter of fact that they were anti- Irish,-^as a fact they were not; but they wanted to get what they wanted for the former soldiers and sailors from the Republican Government. They expected to have a very bad time from the Gov- ernment that was opposed to the English army. As a matter of fact they did not. They found out that they were accepted as good citi- zens, and expected to cooperate for the good of the whole popula- tion. All these classes of the population were greatly touched by the attitude of the Lord Mayor and the other members of the cor- poration towards them. And they showed it, and I don't believe there could have been a better example of that than the way that the whole of Cork rallied around the Lord Mayor at the time of his death. Everyone in Cork was of the same mind. There was a spe- cial meeting of the corporation called on the day of his death, and every Unionist member spoke; and I may as well tell you that at that meeting, at which I was present, one of the bitterest anti-Irish and pro-Unionist people in the corporation actually cried when he was seconding the vote of sympathy to Mrs. MacCurtain and the condemnation of the cruel action. At that time, of course, there was no question as to who had committed the murder. There was a gen- eral outburst of feeling on the part of the whole city. And I could read you many examples of the nice things that were said about him by the Unionists. Some of us had the idea that it was because of the rapidity with which he was winning over the hearts of the Union- ists and impressing upon them the fact that they were all Irishmen together and should work for Ireland's good, and the fact that he was such a thoroughly practical business man, — you see, I am stress- ing that because we are called and have been called for years im- practical idealists; we have 4ovely theories, but we have no practical conception of business matters at all; that we have no idea of how to run a state or run a city, and that we are always up in the moon. But Lord Mayor MacCurtain showed that he had such a practical grasp of business matters that he opened the eyes of a great many people who had never come into personal contact with Irish Re- publican people before. And he had practically within a month converted the whole corporation into Republicans. Even the resolu- tion of the corporation pledging allegiance to Dail Eireann got prac- tically no opposition. One of the things the corporation had to do was to send up the name of someone for sheriff to the High Commissioner. The cor- poration was considering whether they should send up the name of a man who had been in prison for one and a half years on a false charge. They had never succeeded in getting a jury to convict him. The most they could do was to get a jury that would disagree,— they got enough Unionists on the jury for that. Of course he did not defend himself. You understand that we Republicans do not defend ourselves in the English courts. We do not recognize their courts. This matter of the appointment of McMurray, who was in prison on a false charge, was a question of sending his name up to the Lord Lieutenant as high sheriff. That would, of course, have been a kind of act of contempt towards them. We would send up as the man who would control the prisons the man whom they were keeping in prison falsely. But we decided that that would be an act below us. The Republican members of the corporation decided that they would not even in contempt of England and English law send up the name of a man who, if he was elected, would have to take the oath of allegiance to the English Government, and so they did not send up any name. One of the members of the corporation suggested that they should not let go by default the privilege that they had not long ago gained, the privilege of nominating the man for high sheriff. But they ignored that member and refused to make any appointment. Sir John Scott, who was the Unionist who pro- posed that they should send up three names, did not even get among the Unionists of the group a second to his motion. Q. Miss MacSwiney, you started to say something about the be- lief that Mayor MacCurtain’s efficiency and his popularity and his ability to win over the Unionists of the opposition was a significant reason for his death? Chairman Howe: Can you begin right there, so that we can get through the principal facts right down to the inquest, please?
A. That, of course, couldn’t be proved, but it is very reasonable to suppose. But he, of course, had been on the run, although he had been sleeping at home,—a great deal more than some of the others like my brother. He was there, I think, because he had a great deal of business to attend to, and he had a small family, and his wife was not well. He happened to be home on the night of the nineteenth of March, 1920. A knock came at the door. It was between one and a quarter-past, or one and half-past, anyway, in the morning. As usual, they came to the conclusion that it was the military or the police, and he wanted to go down, but his wife would not let him. She put her head out of the window and asked, “Who is there?” and the answer came back, “Come down quick.” The plan is, of course, not to let the men go down and open the door, for they would be shot on the spot; so usually the women go down and open the door to let the man escape if possible. Before she got down- stairs, the door was smashed in. About six men smashed their way in, and two of them gripped her and pushed her up against the wall, and one of them said, “Hold that woman!” And the others rushed upstairs. I want you to know this thing: they went immediately to Mr. Mac- Curtain’s room. There was no hesitation at all. And that is re- markable in a house like MacCurtain’s, where the steps are very peculiarly placed. You would have to know the house very well to know where you were going. You had to enter through the porch. The stairs were on a side passage to the left. There was a very funny twist in them towards the top, and you could not possibly find your way about the house unless you knew it well. They made no hesitation. They went straight to his room and called, “Come out, Curtain.” Mrs. MacCurtain, who was downstairs, heard the baby cry and she begged to go upstairs and bring the baby down. They would not let her. She pleaded with them. She said they had mothers and babies themselves; and they would not let her go. Then the shots rang out, as soon as they had yelled out, “Come out, Curtain.” He came to the door and they shot him. He was killed by three revolver shots. The baby then ceased to cry,—perhaps it was taken by its aunt; and the poor mother thought that the baby was shot too. She was in a fainting condition. Meanwhile the six men came downstairs and went out. The sister upstairs had run to the rescue of the Lord Mayor, only to find out that he was bleeding and in a dying condition. Mrs. MacCurtain ran out of the house crying, "For God's sake, a priest and a doctor!" Q. Chairman Howe: One minute: you are testifying as to facts that you heard brought out at the inquest? A. No, these are the facts that I heard at the house when I visited them. Q. Were these facts brought out at the inquest? A. Yes, all these facts were brought out at the inquest. If I am going too much into detail, tell me. The main thing brought out at the inquest is that Lord Mayor MacCurtain was murdered at quarter past one; that there were shots fired from outside the house when the brother put his head out and called for help; that there is a police barracks within fifty yards from the house; that nobody in those barracks could possibly help from hearing those shots, but not a policeman appeared from those barracks until eight o'clock in the morning.
Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: Was it brought out at the inquest that there had been a zone around the house? A. Yes, there were four roads leading to that particular street. Those roads were held by parties of armed men. One of those roads was held by men who were in police uniform. Two men testified that they wanted to get to their homes through those streets, but that they were not allowed by policemen in uniform to proceed. All the other men were not in uniform. All the men who entered Mr. Mac- Curtain's house that night had their faces blackened. They were not in uniform. Q. When was this zone established? A. This zone was established about a quarter past one. Q. Was that established at the inquest? A. Yes, by railroad men who were going home and watchmen who were leaving their homes. It was established that this zone was established, that a half-dozen men were stopped and put with their backs to the wall until the murder was completed, and then they were told to stay where they were for half an hour or they would be shot.
Q. Is it not also true that it was brought out at the inquest that the records of the goings and comings of police had not been kept for a week or two before and after the shooting? A. Yes, on the night of the tenth of March there had been shots fired at a policeman. We had a night of terror in the city. The police shot people, shot people of the city. They went looking for men on the run, who would have been shot like Mr. MacCurtain if they had been found. They ran amuck, as we say. And then they went back to their barracks. Of course, the rules of the barracks are that every time that ammunition is taken or a gun is taken off the racks in the barracks, it must be put down in the books. No account whatever was put down for the taking of guns and ammu- nition on the tenth of March. It was acknowledged that the police did go out that night and did shootings, and it is acknowledged that no record whatever was kept. Q. This was the week before the shooting of the Lord Mayor? A. Yes, it was the tenth, a week before. The night of the tenth of March the police went amuck through the streets looking for Volunteers to shoot, and breaking windows and shooting several civilians. Q. Commissioner Addams: That was after an attempt to shoot a policeman. Was any of them killed? A. No, one was wounded, but no one killed. Q. Was the shooting of the Lord Mayor a reprisal for the shoot- ing of that policeman? A. I think the police were anxious to make it appear so, but of course they never acknowledged that it was done by them; they tried to pretend that it was not done by the police, but the evidence was irrefutable. Q. Commissioner Maurer: Miss MacSwiney, you were at the inquest? A. Yes.
Q. Senator Norris: This idea has come to me, not only in the case of the murder of Lord Mayor MacCurtain, but in other cases where Black-and-Tans had broken into houses in the night. Why is it that these people whom they come to kill do not defend them- selves? They certainly would have a good opportunity to shoot people coming into their homes. For instance, why did not the Lord Mayor, coming out of his room as he did, shoot them? A. Because they do not have any arms in the house. Q. Why do not they have? The Lord Mayor could have, could he not? A. I suppose that he could. But a married man like that who ventures to sleep at home with his family would not have arms. If he slept at home with his family he would take the risk of escaping arrest that night. If they found a revolver in the house, of course he would be imprisoned for two years. You are simply placing yourself in their hands if you are found with a revolver, because that' is a charge that they punish with two years’ imprisonment at least.1 Q. No, but the Lord Mayor knew he was going to be killed, and the idea occurs to me that he might have had a revolver there and sold his life as dearly as possible. He might have killed three or four of those people before they got him. A. No, but at that time they had not begun to shoot down un- armed men. It was the first time. To be exact, the shooting of two unarmed men the week before on the tenth of March was the first event of that kind. From that time on no man ventured to sleep in his house without arms, as I have told you that when my brother did sleep at home with his guard, both were armed, and on the two occa- sions when we had an alarm at the door, they were prepared to sell their lives dearly. But that was after the murder of Lord Mayor MacCurtain.
Q. Senator Walsh: Excuse me a moment. You said at the time of Lord Mayor MacCurtain’s death you had reached the stage of armed warfare. Do you mean that up to that time the campaign was one of passive resistance and not of open warfare? A. No, we do not make the claim of passive resistance after 1916. Up to 1916 it was passive resistance. After that time it was not. What I mean is that while the Volunteers carried arms and were compelled to defend themselves against open force, we had not reached the stage where the British Government was ordering shoot- ings and raids and the killing of unarmed men at sight. Therefore, the men staying at home did not carry arms. Q. My impression of the Irish situation is that you had an open revolution in 1916, and then you later proceeded to hold elections and get an evidence of the unmistakable desire of the people of Ire- land to have applied to them the principle of self-determination; and 1 Under martial law regulations recently imposed upon the principal counties of southern Ireland, the death penalty is inflicted on those found with firearms or ammunition in their possession. the evidence of the election proved that you wanted that principle applied to you as well as to any other country. And that you then proceeded to do all of the things necessary to set up a republican form of government without bloodshed, without any war, without murders, and without any policy of destruction of human life; and that that policy was rigidly carried out until such time as the Eng- lish Government began to send soldiers and Black-and-Tans into Ireland and began to interfere with the functioning of that govern- ment which you had previously established. Is my idea right or wrong ? A. It is absolutely right, Senator, with our true policy; if you take it that we have never said that we would have nothing but pas- sive resistance. Up to the time that the campaign of the enemy be- gan, and became so hot against us, there never was any offensive, never any shooting, on our part. You are quite right that we wanted to get our government going. If our courts had been allowed to meet in peace, and we had been allowed to carry on the municipal government of the country, we would have been quite willing to do that and build our country up, and then have turned our attention to clearing the enemy out, peaceably if possible. We would always have done it pacifically if possible. Q. Up to that time you had what we in this country call a blood- less revolution. You had by the ballot box and by talk and discus- sion brought about the revolution about as effectively as if there had been bloodshed. You had established a form of government, and had done everything you could to drive off the old government with- out the shedding of blood. So that so far there was no force and no armed activity. Is that true? A. Now, I want to be exact. As I told you yesterday about the little incident of the submarine and the torpedo boat destroyer— Q. But did any Irish Volunteers or anybody else murder any policemen or anybody else up to the time of the murder of Mayor MacCurtain? A. Oh, we destroyed police barracks and things like that. Q. When? A. In 1916. Q. I am asking you if there came a time when you had without bloodshed and without force and arms established a functioning government, and whether that was by peaceful methods. A. From the beginning of 1916 to 1919 the Irish Republican Army was in existence and strengthening itself wherever it could. Q. What was it doing? A. Drilling itself, largely in secret. Gathering arms whenever it could. Q. Anticipating what? A. Anticipating exactly what happened: that as soon as we showed that we could govern our country without them, the English would take very good care that we did riot. But we never have been guilty of an act of aggression and never would have been if Eng- land had cleared out and let us alone. We do not want war if we can possibly get out of it. Q. What your American friends want to know, my opinion is, at least those who have extreme pacifist views, is how long you were patient, how long you were resisting the temptation to meet murder with murder and go into open warfare. Mr. D. F. Malone: Wait just a moment. Senator Walsh: Just a moment, please. Some of the best articles that have been written in America on the Irish question, and some of the things that interested the American people most, were about the new order that had been brought about as to the things accom- plished by a bloodless revolution and passive resistance. Now, if it was not passive resistance, if there was warfare and bloodshed, it is a different thing. Do you get my idea? A. Yes. There was no warfare at all until after 1916, when they began to interfere with our government. Q. Commissioner Addams: When did the open warfare begin, after the Easter revolution of 1916? A. Well, you see for a long time our men were in prison. There was a period of inactivity. Q. What provoked it again? What started it up? A. The absolute determination of England to prevent us doing anything. There was no more open warfare until after 1918. After that we started our government functioning. For twelve months I do not think she realized that we were building up an extraordi- narily stable government in the country, in spite of the fact that she had an army of occupation there. Q. That was the same election that elected Lloyd George in England? And for awhile after that there was comparative peace and quiet? A. Yes, as long as we were let alone to build up our own gov- ernment there was peace and quiet. Q. What overt act started things up? A. The extraordinary activity of the English secret service, when they started to get information about our people and running them down and gathering information about our courts. I cannot say the exact date. I want to be scrupulously exact, and do not want to make a mistake. With us the whole question was what was best for the movement. We had no scruples, and I would not in- fluence my pacifist friends for a moment. We had no scruples against open warfare if it was necessary to get independence for Ireland. But we did not want war. We put it off as long as, pos- sible. It may have been 1919 before the warfare began. I am in- clined to think it was before the burning of police barracks. But if you understood how fast we are living in Ireland, you would realize that during the last four years we have lived through a generation. Before a Commission like this I want to be very exact on details, and I cannot tell you the exact date on which we began to burn police barracks. Commissioner Addams: I did not mean the exact date. I think you have answered what I want. The Witness: I would like to stress that we have been living through a whole generation recently,—what would have been a whole remarkable epoch in an ordinary nation’s life; that we have forgotten one thing when the other comes on. Q. Commissioner Thomas: May I ask you one statement, some- thing that has been made to me many times by friends. I have friends who have said (of course we are not pacifists in the extreme sense, but the history of the recent war shows that going to war is the last thing that you want to do),—some of them say, “The Irish were making good progress. They had a government and courts functioning. They had put the British in an extremely difficult posi- tion in the eyes of the world.” They say, “We are not philosophical pacifists, but we think they made a blunder for their own cause when they gave Lloyd George a chance to say to the world that these hor- rible things were being done, not only when police barracks were burned, because that was only the loss of property, but police were shot and law and order broken.” In other words—we are talking in a family way here—I think you will find not only the philosophi- cal argument but the practical argument that you had made such enormous strides,—you had not won everything but you had made enormous strides; that it was a mistake to give Lloyd George a chance to say there was open aggression which he had to suppress, and which the Irish brought about. What I want is to get actual instances where there was actual aggression by the British before Irish violence began. A. Yes, that is what I am trying to bring out. Before any trouble started—
Commissioner Thomas: Yes, I know that argument, but I am trying to get you to state specific instances. The Witness: Well, first of all there was the arrest of the Sinn Fein members. Q. Senator Walsh: Of Parliament? A. Yes, of Parliament. They put all the Sinn Fein members in jail, but that did not matter, because the remainder were Republi- cans, and they were able to carry on. But in one case — take the Galway County Council — they arrested all the Sinn Feiners, and with the rest they could do what they liked, and called it the Galway County Council. And again, they hampered the courts. They know the courts gave a greater impression in England than anything else. You know the daily papers gave case after case where before you had the police courts, you now have the Sinn Fein courts giving judgments that the people eagerly accept. Q. Commissioner Thomas: Did they begin to obliterate these courts before the violence began ? A. They did it not openly at first, but secretly. Q. Senator Norris: It is important to inquire about the time. Did the British Government begin its methods of obstruction by ar- rest or otherwise of the Sinn Fein leaders before there was anything done by the Irish against British officials? A. Oh, yes. I think I can say that it was, but I cannot give you exact dates. I think I must have said something about 1918, when it was in 1919. I honestly tell you, I would have to go to the papers and look it up. We are living at a great rale, and I would have to ask your consideration on that point of view. Q. Commissioner Thomas: Miss MacSwiney, I think perhaps, — if the Chairman and the others think this is a correct procedure, — it seems to me that this isi so important that we should know the facts accurately. I am wondering if you would collaborate with Mr. Malone and other counsel so that there could be given to the Commission an exact statement of the course of events, of acts of violence by the British government before there was trouble. A. Yes, I would like to do that. But you see, if I make one mis- statement I would be put down in English papers as telling lies. Commissioner Thomas: Yes, I quite appreciate that. Q. Senator Walsh : You were enumerating the things, when you were interrupted, the things that you said provoked the Irish people to give up in part or surrender in part their policy of passive re- sistance. And you named the arrest of the leaders and the breaking up of the courts. Now, what other things? A. The system of espionage which made it impossible for our civic leaders to carry out any work for the good of the country with- out being spied on by the English police, and being arrested or shot in consequence. The system of spying that was carried on, and the fact that it was impossible for our people to carry on the govern- ment for the good of the country, brought the first trouble about. All that I would like to look up, — dates and facts, and give them in writing to the Commission. Commissioner Addams: That would be very kind of you, Miss MacSwiney. Commissioner Thomas: Thank you very much. The Witness: I would be glad to do that."1 Q. Senator Norris: I hope in doing that you will not think that the American people consider that the Irish people have to wait until they are obliterated and put in prison before they are justified in putting up a resistance and fighting. Personally I am called a great pacifist, and I have suffered a great deal of abuse on the sub- ject. I asked you the question about Lord Mayor MacCurtain. It seems to me that if I had been him, I would have shot those men. 1 would have tried to see how many of the other fellows I could have laid out first, before they got me. A. Perhaps that is the best answer I can give to your question: up to the time that Lord Mayor MacCurtain was shot, there had been none of our unarmed leaders shot in their homes. Q. But there was a policeman shot nine days before? A. Yes, but he was not unarmed. You understand, please, Miss Addams, that all the policemen are fully armed. Mr. D. F. Malone: They were not all shot by Republican sym- pathizers, either. The Witness : No, indeed they were not. Senator Norris: It happens occasionally in America that a police- man is shot here. The Witness: Well, you see, you have criminals in America. But there are no criminals in Ireland who would be shooting police- men. I dare say we would have our share of them if we had not been so heart and soul devoted to the salvation of our country that we had no time. And I may as well tell you that the petty criminals

1 The facts in question are contained in a memorandum, The Develop- ment of the English Military Campaign Against the Irish People, sub- mitted to the Commission pursuant to this request, and incorporated in the evidence as Exhibit I. See Index.
we had, — the drunks and disorderlies and petty larcenies, they had all gone into the army, — all the rascals went into the English army to fight the war. May I just take that suggestion you made, Senator Norris, and say this about it. There is no question whatever that our people had never expected to be shot in their beds like that before the murder of Lord Mayor MacCurtain, and therefore they did not carry their arms to bed with them. From the time of the murder of Lord Mayor MacCurtain, no Volunteer went to bed unarmed, but was well pre- pared for what might happen. Q. Senator Walsh: But what we want to know is this: how long and to what extent the Irish people resisted the attempts of the British Government to provoke them into answering back by force of arms. A. Yes, but you will let me get exact facts and dates. Senator Walsh : We all appreciate the provocation, and the pa- tience of the Irish people in meeting that provocation. But we want to know how long the Irish people held back.
Commissioner Thomas: It has been repeatedly charged, — to give you one specific instance, the editorial in the New York Times this morning, — it has been often charged that within the leaders of the Republican Army there have been two minds on thq right and ex- pediency of certain of these shootings. Have you any first-hand evi- dence, or can you put us in the way of any evidence, on this point? A. I cannot. May I ask you a question in return, Mr. Thomas? Have you ever had a cabinet that did not have divisions on ques- tions of policy? Commissioner Thomas: I would reply that it is often a pity that there is so little division in opinion among members of cabinets in America. The Witness: Then you agree that a certain division of opinion is wise? Commissioner Thomas: Yes. The Witness: I think that a division of opinion in the Republi- can cabinet is sometimes quite possible. The men in our cabinet are all men of strong charactei<. You never find men of strong charac- ter who are always of the same mind. Commissioner Thonias : I think that is a hopeful symptoni. The Witness: It is so in our case. Mr. D. F. Malone: But you see, Miss MacSwiney, the New York Times is only of one mind, and thinks that we will all be stupid enough to be of the same mind. The Witness: That sounds like Lloyd George. Every cabinet in which there are strong men of character will d ft cuss things openly and frankly, and then come to a decision which holds. Lloyd George has tried to impress your people with the fact that we are all at sixes and sevens. I begged you yesterday not to believe Lloyd George when he says that the members of the Irish Republic are continuously fighting among themselves. Q. Commissioner Addams: What we want to know is how unani- mous the opinion of the cabinet is in matters like the killing of these fourteen policemen. A. I am not in the cabinet, and the cabinet keeps its mind to itself. But they had discussed that question and had come to a de- cision. Q. But we meant, there was no great disagreement in the cabinet? A. There may have been one or two timid minds,—I do not know. But the majority certainly favored that policy.
Chairman Howe: Now, we will go back to the inquest. Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: Will you discuss what the chief witnesses said at the inquest? Chairman Howe: We would like to get through in eight or ten minutes if we could. The Witness: I think the knowledge that the police were re- sponsible for the murder of Lord Mayor MacCurtain was pretty generally known among Republicans on the morning of his death, but it had not got to be, generally accepted as the opinion of the whole city until the inqtiest began. The inquest took a very long time. The principal witnesses were those who testified to the hold- ing up of civilians from, entering the zone that was formed by the police around the Lord Mayor’s house. A lamplighter testified to the fact that he was held up on a road which leads from King Street to the Hill road,—that is the road on which we live. That particular band was supposed to be waiting for my brother. They did not know that he was home that night, and they were not searching the house. But it was thought that as soon as Mrs. MacCurtain knew that her husband was murdered, she would send instantly for my brother, and perhaps one or two others, and they would have the opportunity of shooting them too. However this lamplighter was stopped on York Hill and they sent him back another road. An- other man named Desmond, a lamplighter also had parted from the first lamplighter named Thompson. He had a brother who was also a lamplighter, and their general plan was to wait for each other on the corner of King Street (since then, I can tell you, called Mac- Curtain Street), so that they could go home together to the south side of the city. He got there first that night, and stood on the porch of the Coliseum Theater, exactly opposite the police barracks. He had been standing there for a quarter of an hour when he saw this band of armed men coming down York Hill,—the foot of York Hill, to be precise, eight or ten yards from the door of the King Street police barracks. They came down York Hill in single file. They walked very quietly. They must have had rubber soles on their shoes. Each man was dressed as the murderers were dressed, with rain coats mostly, some dark and some drab. He could not say what they had on their heads. But they came down the hill in single file. They went up the steps of the police barracks. The carried re- volvers down by their sides. They walked with the steps of sol- diers, for policemen in Ireland are always drilled like soldiers. They tapped lightly on the door of the police barracks, and the door was opened instantly, and they went inside immediately. No light was shown. He thought that something was up, and he went home without waiting for his brother, as fast as he could. He came forward very bravely and gave evidence at the inquest And an attempt was made on his life during the inquest, but did not succeed. That was about twenty minutes to two. Another man, a postman, saw that same body of men file down from the police barracks about one o’clock. Q. Mr. Malone: What time was Mayor MacCurtain killed? A. About quarter-past or half-past one; I cannot say exactly. Q. So that a file of men were seen to leave the police barracks about a quarter of an hour previously? A. Yes. But they did not come back, all together at the same time. With the number who held up the roads and so forth, there must have been a large number of men engaged. Q. Was there evidence that roads were held up? A. Yes. Q. How many roads? A. On one road six men were held up and stood with their backs to the wall. And on another road another man was stood up by these same men with long coats and soft, dark hats. And the third road was held up by policemen in uniform. They prevented men from passing Lord Mayor MacCurtain’s house. Q. Senator Walsh: What reason did they give for holding up these men? A. They asked them what business they had on the streets then. Q. Was this before or after the mayor was murdered? A. While he was being murdered. One man who was held up by the policemen in uniform was prevented from passing Lord Mayor MacCurtain’s house, and was sent down a road which led out by a church beyond Lord Mayor MacCurtain’s house. He looked back, and the police shouted, “Go on and keep your eyes before you.” The first time he looked back he saw four policemen stand- ing at Lord Mayor MacCurtain’s house. His house was only a few doors beyond, and just as he got there he heard three shots ring out. Q. Commissioner Wood: Was all this evidence at the inquest? A. Yes, every bit of it was sworn evidence at the inquest. I don’t know whether you think it relevant, but at half-past two that morning officers and soldiers came to raid the Lord Mayor’s house. There were policemen outside. But this night the policemen refused to enter the house. The rule was that the policemen searched the house while the military remained on guard. This night the officers searched the house and saw the dead man lying there and the women weeping. A question was asked in the House of Commons the day after the murder. Mr. Ian MacPherson, who was Chief Secretary at that time, was asked why they so cruelly sent a military party to search a house where a man was lying dead. And the answer Mr. MacPherson gave was that the military party had been sent to Mayor MacCurtain’s house to find out clews to the murder. General Strick- land, the military commander who had sent that military party, said the next day that when the officters had come to the house, they had no idea of the murder, and he did not know of it until the officers got back and reported. Q. Senator Walsh: So that the claim of the Irish Republic sym- pathizers is that the police sent this military party to show that they had no knowledge of the murder? A. Well, my theory is—— Q. Is that the general opinion? A. My personal opinion is that the military did not know it. Q. But the police? j 1 A. The police and the military at that time were separate bodies. They are together now, but they were not then. Q. Senator Norris: Your theory is that both the police and the military were after him the same night? A. Yes, and acted independently. Q. And that the going of the military in there afterwards was not for the purpose of deceiving the population as to who committed the murder? A. No, I do not believe it was. The police, who got the order from the military at five o’clock that afternoon to have three police- men ready to conduct the party on the raid, hoped to use it as a cover. But I do not really think that the military knew what was going on that night. Q. Who ordered his killing that night? A. O, I suppose the orders came from Dublin Castle. Q. Why did they not use the military rather than the police? A. O, the military were really decent up to that time. They were rather decent, and were not consciously out for murder up to that time. Now they are quite different. The military believed that they were there quite largely because Ireland was their country. Some of them think it still. Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: Did that practically conclude the testi- mony offered at the inquest about the connection of the police with the murder? A. No, there was another significant thing. A doctor who lives on the Hill saw a body of armed men stop at the corner, and three or four of them go further up the hill. A nurse who lives farther up that way saw them enter District Inspector Swanzy’s house. Q. Saw who going in? A. The men. Chairman Howe: Mr. Malone, this detailed evidence is interest- ing, but it is something that we will never pass upon. Can we not get at the other facts? Mr. D. F. Malone: Senator Norris wanted to hear about this data.
Q. What was the verdict, Miss MacSwiney? Senator Walsh: Oif course we want details as to just why he was murdered. Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: I want to ask you first if the coroner who presided at the inquest was an officer of lie British Government? A. Yes. Q. Is he appointed by the British Government? A. Yes. Q. Was there a jury? A. Yes, the jury was impaneled by the police. Q. And this is the verdict of the jury? A. Yes, of course. The police gave evidence at the inquest, and tried to prove by their books that they were all in their beds. But the evidence proved that the books were unreliable. The books at the time were not properly kept. They were obliged to admit that under oath. Q. What was the verdict? A. The verdict is this: “We find that the late Alderman Thomas MacCurtain, Lord Mayor of Cork, died from shock and hemorrhage caused by bullet wounds; that he was wilfully murdered under circumstances of the most cal- lous brutality; that the murder was organized and carried out by the Royal Irish Constabulary, officially directed by the British Gov- ernment; and we return a verdict of wilful murder against David Lloyd George, prime minister of England; Lord French, lord lieu- tenant of Ireland; Ian MacPherson, late chief secretary for Ireland; Acting Inspector General Smith of the Royal Irish Constabulary; Divisional Inspector Clayton of the Royal Irish Constabulary; Dis- trict Inspector Swanzy, and some unknown members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. We strongly condemn the system now in vogue of carrying out raids at unseasonable hours. We tender to Mrs. MacCurtain and her family our sympathy in their bereavement. This sympathy we extend to the city of Cork in the loss they have sustained of one so capable of carrying out their city administra- tion.” Q. Senator Norris: How many were on the jury? A. Fourteen. Q. The coroner is a crown officer? A. Yes.
Q. Who selected the men who sat on the jury? A. The police always impanel the jury. There are certain names, the names of the list of burgesses, you see, and they take these names at haphazard. Coroners’ juries are not like criminal juries. People do not object to going and serving. Q. Who puts these names on the jury? A. The coroner directs the police officer to summon the jury. The police, I believe, summon sixteen or eighteen. The coroner’s jury is not like an ordinary jury. You may have twelve men, or you may have more. Q. The police were charged with the crime. Then why did they select the jury? A. There was no one else to select the jury at this time. When the first men were summoned, only seven of them showed up. Then the coroner called upon several citizens who offered themselves as willing to act. One or two were members of the corporation, and one of them suggested that as a member of the corporation he might not be considered eligible. The coroner at first said, "I don't see what difference that would make." And finally he thought better not to ask them to serve. The solicitor for the King asked what each man's occupation was, because, he said, that on account of the evidence he was about to submit, no policeman could sit on that jury. So on that ground several of them withdrew. Q. Senator Walsh: I would like to know if the British Crown was represented at that inquest? A. yes. Q. And that all the formalities had been complied with that had been complied with in the days of peace? A. Yes. Q. And that they, by the presence of their authorities, recognized it as an official procedure? A. O, yes it was an absolutely official court in that case.
I would like to say, in addition, that at first they had only the Crown solicitor to represent them; they later brought in the most eminent K. C.—King's Counsel—in the country to represent them. I would like to say of that man, Mr. Wiley, a very eminent man: it was easy for us to see that all through the inquest he was acting honorably and that he got a complete shock when the evidence showed so conclusively that the police had committed this murder. Before the evidence was half-way through, he withdrew on the plea of business elsewhere. He had to go somewhere else. Before he went away he said that, perhaps, from his position he might not be believed, but that he spoke from his heart in sympathizing with Mrs. MacCurtain and Ihe family. And it was quite easy to see that he spoke from his heart. A short time after that Mr. Wiley, who was a very young man, and who could have risen very high in his pro- fession, resigned from his position and cut off all connection with his party, the Unionist Party, which could have helped him to reach as high a positioi as Sir Edward Carson,
Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: Was there any evidence that the bullets found in the body of Lord Mayor MacCurtain were police bullets? A. Yes, there was. But I would not like to make a point of it, because their counsel said that many police revolvers and bullets had been captured by Sinn Feiners. And that was true. So al- though there were police bullets found there, that would not be abso- lute identification because the Sinn Feiners have about as many police revolvers as the police themselves. But there was a police button found. Q. Where? A. At the door, where Mrs. MacSwiney was. Q. Senator Walsh: Had there been a struggle there? A. I don’t think so. He did not stress that as a matter of very great importance. But the button was found. I am perfectly honest in telling you that I would not myself consider the fact that the bullets found were police bullets was conclusive evidence, because we have captured a good many of their rifles and revolvers, and we are capturing more.
Q. But there was no reason why Lord Mayor MacCurtain would be killed by Republicans? A. I would like to say that Lord French gave an interview to a newspaper man, I think it was the Dublin Express; and in that in- terview he said that there was conclusive evidence that Lord Mayor MacCurtain had been murdered by extremists in the Sinn Fein ranks, who were not satisfied with Lord Mayor MacCurtain because he was a moderate man. The jury heard of that and sent a summons to Sir John Taylor, under secretary of Dublin Castle, requesting Lord French to bring in this evidence. They sent that summons to Dublin Castle, and it was never answered—for, of course, Lord French did not have such evidence, and he knew he could not manufacture enough evidence to bolster up his statement in that way. Chairman Howe: Are there any other questions? Mr. D. F. Malone: No other questions. (The witness was thereupon excused.) ********
Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: What is your full name, Mr. Guilfoil? A. P. J. Guilfoil. Q. Are you an American citizen? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where do you reside? A. In Pittsburgh. Q. What is the date of your last visit to Ireland? A. I landed on the twenty-fifth of May last. Q. Whom did you visit there? A. Just relatives. Q. Where did you live there? A. With my sister-in-law in Feakle in County Clare. She is a dressmaker and has a little cottage there. I was there for five months. Q. Was your family there? A. Yes, sir; my wife and two children. Q. How old are the children? A. One nine, the other seven. Q. And you were living in the house of your sister? A. Yes. Q. How long? A. From the twenty-fifth of May to the fifteenth of October. I wasn’t there all of the time, for I was in Cork for a few days before I sailed.
Q. I understand that the home in which you were living was burned. A. Right. Q. Were you there at the time? A. Yes. Q. Just relate briefly for the commission the circumstances of that burning. What date was that? A. On the morning of October seventh. The postoffice is about a quarter of a mile out from this little town, and there were six of the Royal Irish Constabulary went out to this post office, and two of them got shot just as they reached the postoffice at ten- thirty in the morning. Q. The Commission: Did you see this or just hear about it? A. I saw the whole thing. I went out there about eleven or eleven-thirty to send a wire to Thomas Cook & Sons of Dublin about my return to the States. I knew about the happening be- fore I left the town to go out there, and being an American citi- zen and having my passport there, and being of good courage, I went out there after this happened. Q. The Commission: After what happened? A. After the two policemen were shot. Q. But you saw them shot? A. No, I saw them lying there. I was in the town then. When I got there there was a young priest, Father O’Reilly, the only priest in the parish, with the dead men. I viewed the remains by the roadside. Word had been sent to the military at Ennis, a town about eighteen miles from there. I questioned the priest about the matter, and he said that all he knew about it was that he was called there about a half hour before by a young girl who told him there were two men at the postoffice in a dying con- dition. The town physician had been there also, Dr. O’Halloran, but he had left before I arrived. I asked the priest if he did not run great danger of reprisals for remaining there. But he said, what could he do? He could not leave two dead bodies by the road, because there were pigs and dogs around there, and what could he do? I told him that if he felt that way about it, I would remain with him, which I did. About two o’clock the military arrived. There were about fifty of them arrived on horseback. They got the priest to provide a horse and cart to carry the remains into the town. Q. They asked the priest to do that? A. Yes, they did. They carried the bodies into the town, and some of the military remained there with the horses, and the others went on with the bodies.
I remained there where the police were shot for about half an hour, and then I walked into the town. As I got into the town there was a man named Considine,—he has got a public house, which is what they call a saloon here,—and he is a carpenter by trade. He has three young sons who, it seems, are connected with the Sinn Fein movement. The military had taken possession of his house when I arrived. They were standing out in front with their bayonets fixed, standing on guard. They were plainly partaking of the liquids in the house. I saw that as I passed by. I walked on up the street. About fifty or sixty yards up is where my sister-in-law lives, on the other side of the street. I had no more than entered when an officer comes in and asks, "Where is the civilian who just entered?" I was the only man living in the' cottage. He wanted to know where I belonged. I explained who I was, showed him my passport, and told him I was an American tourist. He examined the passport very closely, and asked me if I had a pencil, and I told him no, I had a fountain pen. And he said he was going to put me on the black list, and he took the number of my passport and also my name. I said that was very nice. He left there, but soon returned and had six sol- diers come back with him. They stood on guard outside the house and remained there until five that evening. Some of the men were visibly under the influence of liquor coming on towards evening.
At six-thirty that evening there was a military officer and a dis- trict inspector come down from Tulla, about eight miles away. They came down with six soldiers directly across from where I was living to where this priest was living, this Father O'Reilly. There is a stone coping about three feet high around the house, where there is a garden and flowers inside. The six soldiers re- mained outside and the officer went in and knocked at the door. And I stood directly across the street taking it all in. The of- ficer said to the priest when he answered the door, "Are you O'Reilly?" The priest answered, "Yes." Then he grabbed him by the collar and said, "Come here, you. You saw this horrible murder committed this morning. I will give you just five min- utes to confess. Who committed this horrible murder?" The priest said, "I am innocent. I had nothing to do with it." The officer said, "Attention, men." The six soldiers were standing outside the wall on the road. The six soldiers then went in and grabbed hold of the priest. Three of them had him by the head and three by the feet. They carried him out, the three in the lead carrying him out of the gate, and the three on the inside laid him down on the wall, face down. The two officers remained inside in the gar- den, and one of them said he would give him just one minute to confess to the horrible murder. The priest said he was inno- cent. One of the officers said, "Let him have it." And the sight of it was too horrible for me to witness, and I pulled my cap down so I would not see the flash. Instead of that, one of the soldiers stepped forward and with the butt of his rifle hit him three horrible blows across the hips. The officer said, “Now will you confess to this horrible crime?” He said, “I am innocent.” The one officer spoke and said, “We will show you we are more humane than you are. And now get up and get into the house.” The priest got up and started to go into the house, and as he did so, the officer gave him a kick and called him some terrible names as he went into the house. The six soldiers went on up to the barracks. Mr. D. F. Malone: If the Commission wants to know what sort of terrible language these soldiers used, I suppose we can ask for it. The Commission: No, it is not necessary. The Witness: The officer and soldiers went up to the barracks and got into a big motor lorry and went away. I went across the street and knocked at the door of the priest’s house, and he let me into the house, and I said, “My God, are you able to stand up?” And he said, “I got some awful wallops and am suffering some great pain, but what am I going to do?” And I said, “I don’t suppose your feet can carry you very far, but as far as they can carry you, I would advise you to get out of the town. There will be reprisals tonight.” He said, “Well, if there are reprisals there will be people dying, and they will need a priest.” I said, “You would not abandon that place out there this morning, and I will not urge you to leave. Use your own judgment, Father O’Reilly.”
As I went across the street—it was getting dark—and as I crossed the street Dr. O’Halloran, the town physician, came down, and I said, “Where have you been?” And he said, “Up to the barracks. The conditions up there are terrible. They are all wild drunk.” He said Finnery, a sergeant up there, got a ter- rible cut in his wrist. He stuck his first through a plate glass window down at Considine’s. He said, “P. J., I would advise you to get in and stay in off the streets tonight, for there is going to be trouble.” I told my wife and sister-in-law about the con- versation.
I had not been in three minutes when the shooting began. The police and the military came on down the street banging and shooting and throwing hand grenades in all directions. We had just been drinking some tfea that was standing there, and I said, "We had better get out of the way. Here they come." I got the two little children, and we went upstairs. And I said to the children, "You had better lie next to the walls." I do not need to tell you how nervous those children were. They were shaking so that I got to shaking myself. After they got on down the street I went downstairs and got some souvenirs. (Takes object from pocket.) Q. Senator Walsh: What is it, for the sake of the record? A. A steel bullet. (Exhibits bullet to Commission.) After they passed down the street — this Considine place, as 1 have stated, is about fifty or sixty yards from us on the left-hand side of the street, a thatchqd house, — they took a big long candle and they lit it. I got up and looked out of the window as they passed. They just took this candle and held it under the roof of the house until it was all afire. They went on down the street, firing and shooting and shouting, until about twelve-thirty or one. Q. Senator Walsh: From when? A. From seven o'clock until about one.
At one o'clock — in the other half of the cottage, there is a family named O'Briens. They vacated at some part of the even- ing, the time I do not know. The military went in and searched the house. I understand that one of the young O'Briens was in sympathy with the Sinn Fein movement. The cottages are only divided by partitions. I was in the part of the upstairs near the O'Briens' cottage. My Missus told me that the soldiers were on the roof. I said, "They are on the roof taking observations, the same as ourselves." She said she smelled rags burning. I said it was the Considine house, because the wind was westerly and we were getting the smell of their burning. The Missus said it was not. At one or one-twenty the Missus got up and pulled. the blinds back, and the flames were coming up to the window. She said, "My God, I told you the house was on fire"!" J got out of bed and told her to get the children out, and ran down wrth an armful of clothes for the children, and threw them over the wall that divides the field from the house, and told her to bring the children down there. I looked up at the cottage, and there was a hole just about as big as that skylight (indicating skylight in room) burning in the roof. I ran back and said, “We have no time to fool around here. Take what you have and get out of here. I prefer to be shot than to be burned to death.” They were still shooting down the street. So they got out of there and went back in the field. The Missus got dressed and dressed thè children. After that a bit they ceased shooting for a time. Some kind neighbors came to our assistance, and we said that if we had a ladder and some buckets we could save part of the cottage. Mr. Maloney, who lives across the street, got a ladder, and some of the men got some buckets, and we succeeded in saving the biggest part of the cottage. At six o’clock that morning I got hold of a car to convey my baggage and the children out of town, and about ten o’clock I left myself. Then I went to a place where my wife’s people live. Q. Senator Walsh: In another town? A. It is in the country. Q. How many houses were burned? A. Two that night, Senator. Q. Anybody shot? A. Nobody shot, Senator. The only thing was the beating that that priest got that evening.
Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: Did they injure his property? A. Well, that happened next day. They came down the next day and asked Mrs. MacDonald, the woman who owns the property, if any of the furniture belonged to her. She said no. They took the entire furniture, with the exception of a wardrobe that was too heavy to pack downstairs, and packed it out to the middle of the street and set fire to it. And they said they were only sorry that they did not have that bloody bastard, as they called the priest, to put him on top of it. The following night—that would be October eighth—they went out to the postoffice, and the postoffice and the house next to it, they set fire to both of those, and burned a lot of hay that was in the field back of it. And about two hundred yards in the field there was a man named MacCullough ( ? ), and they burned his house and all the outhouses and two big stacks of oats. They burned everything he had but a little house covered with galvan- ized iron, which I dare say they could not burn. Q. How large a town is this, Mr. Guilfoil? A. Two or three hundred. Q. When did you leave Ireland? A. I left Ireland the twenty-first of October on the steamer Celtic. Q. What is your home town, Mr. Guilfoil ? A. Pittsburgh.
Q. Commissioner Addams: I would like to ask you about the killing of the policemen at the postoJSce.' There were two killed? A. Yes. Q. Did you get any information about why they had been killed? A. The only information I received as to that was that it must have been done by the Irish Republican Army. There were six of those policemen. The two that they killed they took all their arms and ammunition from them. The papers there brought it out about the unscrupulous way in which they robbed the bodies. I was there when they put the bodies into carts, and the officer took the men's watches and pocketbooks, and gave Stanley's to his wife, who was there. The other one was a sergeant, Sergeant Dougherty. They did not rob them of these. Q. Chairman Howe: What statement did they give as to why they were killed? A. The statement was made that they were shot and robbed. Q. Senator Walsh: But he asked you what made these men marked men, — why were they killed? A. There was one of them, Stanley, he came up to Mrs. Mc- Donough's public house and pulled out a forty-four revolver, and he said, "If I only had a few more like these I would damn soon finish the Republican Army." His wife said after he was dead that life was miserable anyway with him, for all he talked about was murder for the last four or five months. Q. Senator Walsh: I would like to have you develop any facts or evidence that you have as to what these men had done to interfere with the happiness and peace and good order of these people before they were shot. The Witness: These policemen? Senator Walsh: Yes. A. Nothing that I know of further. Q. Did you hear anything as to why the members of the Re- publican Army were going to shoot them, or did shoot them? A. The only thing I heard around there was that the Sinn Fein,, the Republican Army, was trying to take those barracks just a week before I arrived in that town. That wras one of their moves, as Miss MacSwiney said. They had tried to take those barracks a week before I came, but did not succeed in doing so. There is a little town about six miles from there, Scariff; they started on that barracks on Saturday, the eighteenth of September, I think. There was about three hundred of the Irish Republican Army came there that night, but they did not succeed in taking that barracks. The second or third day after that the military or police evacuated and went to a town named Killaloe, about eight miles away. And the day after that the Irish Republican Army came there and tore the barracks down.
“TRYING TO ESCAPE” There were some young fellows, Rogers, a cousin of mine, Mac- Mahan, Eagan, and Gildan (?), these four young fellows were on the run. They were down at a town named Whitegate about eight miles from Scariff. The town of Killaloe is about eight or nine miles below Scariff. The River Shannon comes in be- tween and divides those towns. They make an angle like this (indicating an acute angle). The miltary went across the river in a boat and arrested all four of these young fellows, and two others who owned the house in which they were living. They took them across the river, and not through their own town, and the four of them were shot on the Killaloe Bridge. There is quite a depth of water there, and right in the middle of the bridge is where they were shot. Q. Senator Walsh: What date? A. I have the papers here. Q. Did this happen before you left Ireland? A. No, these men were shot since. Q. Were these men shot before or after the shooting of the police? A. After. This happened about the fifteenth or sixteenth. The paper is dated the nineteenth. The military tried to make it out that these men were shot trying to escape, but the paper brings it out that these men could not have tried to escape in the middle of the bridge, because the channel is too deep there, and they were handcuffed. Q. Were the bodies found? A. Yes. Q. Handcuffed when they were found? A. No, the military took their bodies to their barracks and would not let the people of the village see them after they had them in there. Q. How long had they been pursuing them? A. These young fellows who were arrested had been on the run since September, 1918. Q. Mr. Malone: Mr. Guilfoil, with a Republican Army of three hundred around there, there must be a state of war. A. O, yes. Q. Were these young men armed? A. Yes.
Q. Were the civilians in the village armed? A. O, no. Q. Commissioner Addams: But no one was killed in the town? A. Five were later injured, I understand since leaving there. I got some literature from there since I left, and practically the entire section of the country has been wiped out, their homes and corn stacks and hay burned. Any persons who proclaim any sympathy with the Irish Republic have their homes and property burned. Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: Where did this bullet (indicating ex- hibit) enter your home? A. Right by the window down the hallway. Q. So that if you had been down there, you might have been hit? A. Yes, if I happened to be sitting at the table, it would have been the perfect range, the perfect range for hitting me.
There’s one thing more. I was in Cork on the seventeenth, the eighteenth, and nineteenth of October. I went from there to Queenstown to sail on the Celtic on the twenty-first. There was one of the hunger strikers there named Fitzgerald, and he died there in prison. And at his funeral my little boys were walking up the streets, and they wanted two little American flags to pin on their coats. And I went into a store there and got them some. At the funeral there was the coffin coming up the street, and the military on both sides of the coffin, which was covered with wreaths of green, white, and gold, the Sinn Fein colors, and the Sinn Fein flag. And as they passed the Windsor Hotel, where I was staying at — (It is on what street, Miss MacSwiney?) Miss MacSwiney: On MacCurtain Street. The Witness: As they passed the hotel the military took their bayonets and threw these wreaths off the hearse. Anything more horrible I never want to see than an armed military body fol- lowing a coffin. The friends wanted to have a hundred march after the coffin, but the authorities said that any formation would not be tolerated by the British officials. They followed that cof- fin with rifles and machine guns all the way out to the cemetery. Q. Senator Walsh: Did they interfere with the boys with the American flags? A. No. There was a piece in one of the Cork papers about American flags being displayed at the funeral. The distance that the boys walked along there was about fifty or sixty yards. As soon as I saw the military coming along, I took the boys and got away from there, for I thought there might be trouble. Q. But they did not interfere with the funeral? A. No. They followed the coffin out to the cemetery and stood around there until it was over.
Q. Commissioner Addams: I would like to go back to this village. There were barracks there attacked by three hundred of the Republican Army? A. Yes, that was on September eighteenth. Q. A week later — a few weeks later, these reprisals were made and these young men were taken out and shot? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. What was the attitude of the countryside? Were they hos- tile to the Irish Army coming in and stirring up the British to make trouble, or did they sympathize with them? A. The attitude of the people was that since the British had placed the military there — they are bringing them in by the thou- sands — ^the people had a right to rise against him. Q. But the people of the countryside, did they feel that the Irish Army was right in taking the barracks when it brought re- prisals on civilians? A. O yes, indeed. The whole countryside was with them. Q. Senator Walsh: That is, that they are with the Republican form of government, and they are standing behind what they do in the way of warfare? A. Yes, O, yes. The Commission: That is all. Thank you very much. (The witness was thereupon excused.) * * *
Chairman Howe: Proceed, Mr. Malone, please. Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: What is your full name please? A. Daniel Francis Crowley. Q. Where were you born? A. I was born at Bohocoglin, County Kerry, Ireland. Q. How old are you? A. Twenty-three years. Q. When did you enlist in the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. I enlisted in March, 1916. I presented my name for ap- pointment in March, 1916, and I was called out on the third of July, 1917.
Q. And after you were called out, where did you go for train- ing? A. To the Phoenix Park Barracks in Dublin. Q. How long did you remain there? A. I remained there until the eighteenth of January, 1918. Q. Senator Walsh: Why not bring out how long he has been connected with the Royal Irish Constabulary? When did he resign? Mr. D. F. Malone: O yes. How long were you connected with the R. I.C.? A. I tendered my resignation on the first day of June last. Senator Walsh: Very good. Now go back to the training. Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: While at this Phoenix Park Training Camp, what training did you receive? A. Training in infantry drill, gymnastics, and ordinary police duties. Q. Did you have bayonet practice? A. Just a little. Q. How much? A. Something about five or six days’ practice altogether. Q. Were you trained in the use of hand grenades and bombs? A. That was in March, 1919. It was in March of this year that I was trained in the use of bombs. Q. So that training you got at a later period? A. Yes. Q. The trading you got at the Phoenix Park Camp was train- ing for a policeman? Is that correct? A. Yes, training for a policeman. Q. What were the instructions given you, very generally and very briefly, with regard to the use of firearms? A. The instructions I was given when I was trained in Dublin was that a policeman should never resort to the use of firearms at all, except in case he was attacked. Q. Except in self-defense? A. Yes. Q. What firearms were you equipped with? A. A carbine, like what is called a revolver. Q. A carbine or revolver, and what else? A. A sword. Q. A sword? A. Yes.
Q. Was that equipment added to later on? A. I beg your pardon. Q. Were you given any additional equipment later, during those three years? A. Well, later on we were supplied with bombs and hand grenades and rockets. Q. And you said you were trained in the use of these bombs and hand grenades in March, 1919? A. Yes. Q. And you had been in the service then for three years? A. Two years. Q. What was your home? A. County Clare. Q. When you were assigned to police duty, you were assigned to police duties there? A. No, I was sent to County Tipperary. Q. Is there a rule in the Royal Irish Constabulary with re- gard to the assignment of men for service in their own counties? A. No, you cannot serve in your native county. Q. Can you serve in counties neighboring your own county? A. Well, on some occasions you can. Q. It depends upon the circumstances? A. Yes. Q. What was your first post? A. My first post was Clogheen, County Tipperary. Q. Did you serve there throughout your three years? A. Yes, I served in this district while I was there. Q. When you say that district, what do you mean? A. I mean that I was stationed about three miles from there in a place called Ballylooby. Q. And you were stationed in this town? A. Yes, and in Clogheen. Q. So that you were always within a short radius? A. Yes, a short radius. Q. Was Clogheen a peaceful city? A. Yes, sir, very.
Q. Throughout your service as a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, did you ever have to make an arrest or serve a warrant there? A. No, I never arrested a person there during my time, and I never issued a summons against any person. Q. Chairman Howe: Develop that a little, will you, Mr. Crowley? Mr. D. F. Malone: Did you ever know of any serious crimes committed by any member of the population while you were there? A. No, there was no serious crime committed by any member of the population. Q. Do you remember that incident of petty theft which you told me? A. O yes. Mr. Talbot, the Protestant minister in Clogheen— his fishing rod was stolen, and he reported the matter to the police sergeant, and the police sergeant could not find his fishing rod for him. And then he reported it to the Irish Volunteers, and the Irish Volunteers got his fishing rod back for him. And the con- sequence was that he said that the police service in Ireland was useless, and that the Volunteers were far better.
Q. What was the religious feeling between the people there? A. The religious peace was very great. Q. So that you never knew of any disputes between the people on matters of religion? A. O, no. Q. Chairman Howe: Did they trade with one another freely? A. 0. yes. Q. Did they go to each other's houses freely? A. O, yes, sir. Q. Mr. D. F. Mai one: How many Protestants there? A. About thirty Protestants. Q. Senator Walsh: Did they hold any public offices? A. Clogheen being a small place, sir, there was no public office there for them. Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: How many constables were there in the barracks? A. Five. Four constables and a sergeant. Q. About how many square miles? A. About fourteen thousand, covering the district around Clogheen. Q. Not fourteen thousand square miles? A. Oh, no. Fourteen thousand acres, I mean. Q. During the period of three years there were no serious crimes committed? A. No, sir; no serious crimes. Q. Nothing more serious than the theft of a fishing rod? A. Nothing more serious. That is all, sir. Q. Mr. Crowley, you said there were about thirty Protestants, and there was a Protestant clergyman. And was there a Catholic priest for the entire diocese there? A. Yes, Father O'Donnelly and two curates. Q. What was the relation between the Protestant minister and the Catholic priest? A. They lived on very friendly terms. Q. The population of Clogheen is about six hundred? A. Yes, the population is about six hundred. Q. And the general area, inclusive of Clogheen? A. Including the district of Clogheen, which Clogheen took in, 1 think about two thousand — that is, the surrounding lands which went with the village in the police district.
Q. Do you remember the period of time when Lord Mayor MacCurtain of Cork was shot? A. Yes, I do. Q. Do you know what the orders issued to police immediately before and continuing for a time after that murder were? A. Yes. The orders issued where I was stationed in Clogheen by General Lucas, who commanded the military forces of Cork and Tipperary, were that if two police could be spared to go with the military, they were to go on an armored car with a machine gun, and they were to patrol the country night and day, and every man who took a prominent part in the Sinn Fein movement they were to stand up in front of his house and turn the machine gun on it. In this armored car there were put one hundred twenty cans of petrol and also one hundred twenty Mills bombs, and the reason for this was that they were for burning houses. That was the orders which General Lucas, who was afterwards kidnapped at Fermoy, gave in the barracks. If they found a Sinn Feiner, they were to turn the machine gun on him. Q. Chairman Howe: On him or on his house? A. On anything that belonged to him. Q. Did you hear these instructions issued yourself? A. Yes, I was in the barracks when he issued them. Q. Were those general orders carried out? A. The military carried them out. I did not, as did also two other men who protested against it. I remember that on the night of May 21st myself and Constables Kirwan and Galvin — Mr. Galvin will also speak here — we were sent out on a night patrol, and two Black-and-Tans named Richards and Gillett were with us. And about nine o'clock Richards said he wanted us to show him where Maurice Walsh and William Joseph Condon lived; that he was going to shoot them. Condon was chairman of the Clogheen Dis- trict Council. The only reason for shooting them was that the Sunday before these men had said at a meeting of the Council that Clogheen was such a peaceful district that they could well get on without the military stationed there. There were one hundred of the military stationed there then. It was a peaceful district, and so Walsh and Condon protested against such a lot of military stationed there. The acts of the military were something dis- graceful.
Q. Describe what you mean by “the acts of the military were something disgraceful.” A. Well, I have seen them stop two girls of the town coming to the Rosary at half-past six in the evening, and they said to the girls, “Hands up,” and knocked them down. And I came to their rescue and said, “Stop; they are innocent girls.” And I surely believe that if I had not been there, they would have been brutally assaulted. Q. What other acts did you witness that make you believe that the acts of the military were something disgraceful? A. They were so disgraceful that Mr. Talbot, the Protestant minister at Clogheen, wrote to Dublin Castle saying that their acts and deeds in Clogheen were something shameful, this Devonshire regiment, and he got them sent out of the district. Q. You said that these Black-and-Tans went out to kill this man Walsh and the other man. What did you have to do with it? A. They did not know where these two men lived. They only wanted me and this man Galvin to show them where these two men lived. They would go and shoot them, they said, and bring back their ears as evidence to the barracks. We would not show them, and turned back to the barracks, and begged Richards to come back to the barracks. Richards got behind a blackthorn fence. We begged him to come on back with us. He said that if we came one step nearer, he would blow our brains out. We went on down the road, and when we were only about two hundred yards away, he fired several shots at us—when we were only two hundred yards away. Q. Commissioner Addams: Were those men killed afterwards? A. No. The next day I went into the village and told Walsh and Condon what Richards had done; that he wanted me and Galvin to show them where these men lived so that they could shoot them. It went out publicly then, what these Black-and-Tans, who were the only ones in the barracks, wanted to do. And they heard of it, and Gillett pointed his loaded revolver at me three times and wanted to shoot me. And I guess they would have shot me, but there was an Irish sergeant there, and they were afraid to do it. Q. How many Black-and-Tans were there in your barracks? A. Just three of them. Q. Chairman Howe: And how many of the Royal Irish Con- stabulary? A. There were five, sir. Q. Senator Walsh: And one hundred military? A. Yes, one hundred military. Q. Who controls the Black-and-Tans there? A. Sinoe March last the Black-and-Tans are under military orders. Q. So since March last the Black-and-Tans and the military are the same thing? A. Yes. Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: You said that Mr. Walsh and Mr. Condon were not killed? A. No, they are still there. Q. Did they not go on the run? A. No, they are still in Clogheen. Q. Commissioner Addams: I would like to ask about the two girls whom the Black-and-Tans commanded to throw up their hands. What happened to them? A. Well, on this evening, an English soldier and six Black-and- Tans shouted at the girls, “Hands up!” and they began to search them. And I came on them and said, “Stop, stop. They are inno- cent girls!” Q. But you had no proof that they had evil motives. One man like yourself could not stop them if they had. The Witness: But what right did they have to assault the girls? Q. Senator Walsh: But there was no attempt to rape? Their clothes were not disheveled? A. No, there was no rape. But they were searching them, and their clothes were disheveled. Commissioner Addams: We have had no testimony of that kind, and we want to be positive. Mr. D. F. Malone: But the girls were knocked down. Commissioner Addams: He did not say they were knocked down, but that they were told to throw up their hands. The Witness: No; one of them, a Miss Barrett, had fallen down in the road. Q. Chairman Howe: You were in uniform? A. Yes. Q. And you knew these men? A. Yes, I knew all of them. Q. They were stationed in the barracks with you? A. Yes, in the same barracks. Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: What was the reason for stationing so many of the military in a peaceful district like Clogheen? A. Well, they were trying to stir the people up, it seems to me. Q. So that as far as your business goes, the military there in this peaceful district only stirred the people up? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you know of any police murders after police had re- signed? A. Yes, I know of a Constable Fahey stationed at Adare, in County Limerick. The rule of the Government is that a man must give from three to six weeks' notice before he can resign. This man Fahey was out on duty one day after he had sent in his resig- nation. Three Black-and-Tans were with him, and when they came back they said that they were attacked by Sinn Feiners and Fahey was killed. None of them had been injured, and they had not arrested anybody. Q. Senator Walsh: By whom was he killed? A. They said he was attacked by Sinn Feiners. Q. They were safe themselves? A. Yes, they were all right. Q. Did you see this? A. No, sir.
Q. Commissioner Thomas: You said that this general gave orders for the homes and property of Republican sympathizers to be destroyed. How many houses and hay ricks were destroyed where you were? A. Well, none were destroyed around Clogheen. Q. None in Clogheen? A. No, sir. But there were in other parts of Ireland. Q. Why were none destroyed in Clogheen? A. Because the people were so quiet there. The people there were in favor of the military and police going out of Ireland. They were not wanted there. Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: This General Lucas, who was kidnapped, was treated very well when he was kidnapped, was he not? A. I do not know. The Commission : That is beyond his knowledge. Mr. D. F. Malone: Mr. Chairman, may we get this cleared up to answer Mr. Thomas' question? Chairman Howe: Yes. Mr. D. F. Malone (to Commissioner Thomas) : Did you under- stand that the people were not attacked because they were so quiet? Commissioner Thomas: Yes; that is, because the people were so quiet. Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: Do you remember the incident of the raid on Mrs. Walsh’s home? A. Yes, I do. Q. Who was Mrs. Walsh? A. Mrs. Walsh lived about two and a half miles from Clogheen. Her husband died in May last. Q. Wait a minute, Mr. Crowley. Had Mrs. Walsh any family? A. Yes, she had three little children, the eldest being about ten years. Q. Where did she live? A. At Castlegrace. Q. What happened? A. On different occasions the military would raid her house, sometimes at twelve o’clock and sometimes at two. It got so bad that she complained to County Inspector Langhorne, the county police inspector for the South of Ireland, and he said it was too bad, but he could do nothing for her, because the military were not under the control of the police inspector. Q. The Commissioner: Who carried this on? A. The military and the Black-and-Tans. Q. Commissioner Addams: Why did they raid this house? A. Because they suspected that the Volunteers were training around there. But they never found anything in the house on any of the raids—not anything. Q. Commissioner Wood: Were you there? A. I was there on one occasion, and refused to go into the Walsh house. Q. Did you hear reports about it? A. Yes, I heard reports in the barracks when they got back, and also heard of it from the Walshs themselves.
Q. Mr. Malone: Do the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Black- and-Tans get along very well together? A. No, they do not. Inspector General Smith, Deputy Inspector Geddis, Mr. Pierce, and several others, and five hundred men of the ranks, tendered their resignations from the force during April and May because of the present conditions that are disgracing the service. Q. Out of how many? A. Out of nine thousand men. Q. The Royal Irish Constabulary are not used any more alone now? A. The R. I. C. are not used to carry out these military orders. The Black-and-Tans do that. Q. Mr. Crowley, after you resigned, were any attempts made against your life? A. Yes, after I tendered my resignation, the Black-and-Tans put loaded revolvers up and backed me up there against the walls and threatened to shoot me. Q. Commissioner Wood: For what reason? A. Because I had told Mr. Walsh and Condon that they were going to shoot them. Q. Chairman Howe: Where were these Black-and-Tans from, from England? A. Yes, from England; most all ex-army men. Q. Were they officers from the ranks, or of the office class? A. Most of them were from the ranks, or petty officers. Q. Mr. Malone: Why did you tender your resignation from the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. I tendered my resignation from the Constabulary because of the misgovernment of the English in Ireland.
Q. Do you remember the incident at Listowel Barracks, in County Kerry, when Colonel Smyth made an address to the mem- bers of the R. I. C? A. Yes, a friend of mine was one of the Constabulary there. Colonel Smyth was there. He had just come over from Germany, from the Army of Occupation. There were eighteen or twenty of the Constabulary there, and Colonel Smyth told them that they were going to get plenty of soldiers from England to crush out Sinn Fein, and that three of them were to remain in the Listowel barracks as guides for the soldiers, and the rest were to go to the outlying barracks and point out Sinn Feiners to the military, and every man who took part in the Sinn Fein movement was to be shot at sight. Q. Senator Walsh: When was that? A. That was in April, I think.1 Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: In April, 1920? A. April, 1920. Q. Just repeat what he said. A. Colonel Smyth told the police that they were all going to get every assistance from the Government—soldiers and machine guns and armored cars and everything they needed—and they were to patrol the roads five nights a week; and they were not to confine themselves to the roads, but to go across country, and search homes wherever they thought arms and munitions were hid. Q. You stated what Colonel Smyth said to do to any man who was suspected of being of Republican sympathies. A. Yes, any man who was suspected of having Sinn Fein sym- pathies was to be shot at sight; Colonel Smyth said the more the merrier, and that no man would get into any trouble for shooting them. He said any man who would not carry out these orders had better get off the force. Sergeant Sullivan spoke immediately and said that they could tell Colonel Smyth must be an Englishman by his talk, and that they would not obey such orders; and he took off his coat and cap and belt and laid them on the table. Colonel Smyth and the Inspector, O’Shea, ordered him to be arrested for causing disaffection in the force, but nineteen of them stood up and said if a man touched him, the room would run red with blood. The soldiers whom Colonel Smyth had with him came in, but the constables got their loaded rifles off the racks, and Colonel Smyth and the soldiers went back to Cork. The very next day they all put on civilian clothes and left the barracks. Q. They all resigned? A. Yes, they left the very next day. Q. Senator Walsh: Were you in the barracks? A. No, but my friend who was there told me about this. That Colonel Smyth went to Cork and was shot five days afterwards. Q. This Smyth was an officer in the British army? A. Yes, sir, he was a colonel. Q. Chairman Howe: Was he in the old army, or was he pro- moted during the war? A. He was promoted during the war. 1 The actual date of the speech was June 19, 1920. See index, and Report of Commission, Appendix “E.”
Q. I would like to ask you what pay the constables received. A. The wages were advanced in March, 1919. When I resigned we were offered two shillings a day more if we would remain. The pay then was twenty pounds a month—in American money, at pres- ent rates of exchange, about eighty dollars. Q. And keep? A. No, no keep. You supply that. Q. What was the pay of the Black-and-Tans? A. The Black-and-Tans were getting one and seven a day, I think. Q. One pound seven shillings a day? A. Yes; that is twenty-seven shillings a day. Q. Commissioner Wood: Why do you say you think that? A. The pay was not made known to the R. I. C. in the barracks. Q. Chairman Howe: So that the Black-and-Tans are getting about twice what you got? A. Well, they were getting seven shillings more a day than we would get after the raise.
Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: Mr. Crowley, what can you tell us about the destruction of creameries? A. Well, I remember passing by Kilcommon and Waycross, in Tipperary, the day after the creamery there had been destroyed. There were thirty-six soldiers and officers who had taken crowbars and knocked down the creamery, saying they were looking for arms and ammunition. They didn’t find any, but they wrecked the creamery. Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: When was that? A. It was in the end of March or the first of April.1
right of Assembly Q. Were fairs and markets prohibited at this time? A. Fairs and markets in Tipperary were prohibited for about a year, from February, 1919, to the end of March, 1920—for over a year, that is. ‘The Kilcommon Central Creamery (cooperative) was destroyed April 10, 1920. Direct personal evidence was given before the County Court that the damage was inflicted by military and police. Q. What was carried on at these fairs? A. The chief purpose of these fairs was that the Irish farmers could sell their cattle and butter and their foodstuffs in these mar- kets. The government issued a proclamation that fairs and markets were not to be held in County Tipperary. Q. Senator Walsh: Are they held there now? A. They are held there now, but they were not until March, 1920. Q. Is that general throughout Ireland? A. Well, in some counties. The proclamation is on in Cork and Dublin and Clare. Q. Senator Walsh: How long have the people been denied the right to assemble and to meet for public meetings and public dis- cussions? A. Especially since March, 1919, no meetings have been allowed to be held. Q. Is that still true? A. Yes. If a man wanted to sell his house or farm, he could not sell it without a permit—an auction would not be allowed to take place. And if he were a Sinn Fein sympathizer, he couldn’t get the permit. If a hunting match or a football match took place without a permit, a party of soldiers would come and drive them off the field at the point of the bayonet. Q. Since what time? A. Since March, 1919.
Q. Now, in the County of Clare were there any murders of police officers or any interference with police officers previous to March, 1919? A. In the County of Clare? Q. Yes. A. No, there was not, sir. Q. Commissioner Addams: You say, Mr. Crowley, that there had been orders to shoot on sight a Sinn Feiner or Republican. But that was never done in daylight? A. Most of the cases were at night, yes. Q. So that they did not carry out that order of shooting with machine guns on sight? A. Well, they did. The military carried out the order in differ- ent places of setting fire to houses. Q. Yes, but shooting people on sight was not done. A. Not in Clogheen, but it was done in other parts of Ireland. Commissioner Addams: We have never had any evidence or hear- say of that being done. Mr. Malone: We have not produced any testimony about that, but we can produce testimony of many instances of that kind.
Q. Senator Walsh: Did you belong to any Sinn Fein organiza- tion while you were a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. While I was in the R. I. C. I was in favor and sympathy with the Irish movement. Q. But while you were in the R. I. C. did you belong to any such organization? A. No, I didn’t. But I belonged to one after I left. Q. Senator Walsh: Miss Addams’ other remark prompts this question: Why did you or any Irishmen remain in the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. Well, I guess they remain just for their living. That is all. Q. Does the fact that they are nearing the time for getting a pension, in the case of the older men long in the service—is that a factor? A. Yes, there are men of long service who are waiting now to get a pension. If they do not wait they will be losing from the English Government about a hundred forty to a hundred fifty pounds a year.
Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: Mr. Crowley, have you a family? A. No, sir. Q. Why did you leave Ireland? A. I was afraid of the Black-and-Tans, that they would follow me. Q. You left on account of your health, then? A. Yes, sir. Mr. D. F. Malone: That is all. (The witness was thereupon excused.) ******* Chairman Howe: Have you other witnesses from the Royal Irish Constabulary? Mr. Malone: Yes, sir; three others.
Chairman Howe: Proceed, Mr. Malone. Q. Mr. Malone: What is your full name, Mr. Tangney? A. John Tangney. Q. And where were you born? A. I was born in Castleisland, County Kerry. Q. How old are you? A. I am about twenty-five. Q. What education have you had? A. I was educated in the national schools and at the Christian Brothers. Q. Where are you living now? A. New York. Q. How long have you been out of Ireland? A. Since August.
Q. When did you join the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. I was appointed in October, 1915. Q. How long did you remain in the service? A. From that date until most of July last. Q. Commissioner Addams: I did not get that date. A. From the first of October, 1915, to July, 1920. Q. Mr. Malone: During that time, where were you stationed? A. I was in the southern part of Tipperary. I was temporarily stationed at Clonmel, but my permanent station was at Ballylooby. Q. Chairman Howe: Is Ballylooby a Tipperary name? A. Yes, it is in Tipperary, the southern part of Tipperary. Q. Mr. Malone: So that your entire service with the Royal Irish Constabulary was in one part of one particular county? A. Well, I was in various places for a time, for two or three months. I was in Limerick City and Cork City for a time. Q. That is just what I wanted to know. Where did you serve in different places? A. I was in Midstone, County Cork, for a short time, and in Cork City for a short while, and in Limerick City; and on two or three occasions I was sent to the north of Ireland for duty; but that lasted only for about a week at a time. After the Ballylooby station was quit, I was at Clogheen. Q. Did you hear Mr. Crowley's testimony just now? A. Yes, sir, I heard it. Q. Where were you trained? A. In Phoenix Park Depot, Dublin. Q. Chairman Howe: Is that the general training place? A. Yes, it was at that time. Q. Mr. Mai one: How long were you there? A. I was six months at that training school. That was the plan. If you did not qualify for police duties and the other things you were supposed to qualify in at the end of six months — in police duties and physical drill, gymnastics — you would be disqualified. You might have to spend a short term longer, or they could dis- qualify and suspend you and dismiss you at that time. I qualified with several hundred others at the end of the six months, and I was sent down to Clonmel, in County Tipperary, at that time.
Q. What were your instructions regarding the use of firearms? A. Except there was a personal attack made upon you — that is, in self-defense — you were never under any considerations to use firearms. Q. And what was the first time thereafter — after you had passed your training and were an accepted member of the R. I. C. — what was the first time or stage at which these orders were changed? A. There was no definite order for a change to be made. They were changed gradually. Like the members of the force, they were changed gradually in the same way. Of course, the police code that you had to learn in the training school said that you were never under any circumstances to use your firearms except in case of personal attack in self-defense. Q. What use did the R. I. C. have for firearms in other cases than personal attack and self-defense? A. For show purposes mainly, until the new orders came. Q. Were orders to use these arms for purposes of aggression ever issued? A. Yes, latterly. They were issued latterly. Q. When were the first orders of that kind issued? A. The first orders of that kind that came to us from Dublin Castle was in October of last year, October, 1919. Q. What were those orders? A. First, this circular came down from the Castle that political prisoners—a batch of political prisoners had escaped from Lincoln jail. Their names and descriptions were given in this official docu- ment, as it is termed, The Hue and Cry. Their descriptions and ages were given. The first order was that they were to be arrested if they came within view—within our notice anywhere. That was the wording of the first article. They were to be treated in the first article just the same as a criminal. Following that article there was the receipt of an order they called a confidential article by the sergeant ,of the station on November fourth, stating that if these political prisoners were seen and in case they came within the police notice and they offered the slightest resistance, they were to be shot dead. Q. Chairman Howe: These were political prisoners? A. Yes. They named one in particular. I did not know what position he held. His name was Mr. Stack. Q. His name was specifically mentioned? A. Yes. Since I left the force, I found that he was an Irish M. P. (Member of Parliament) in the Sinn Fein movement. Of course I did not know from The Hue and Cry what position he held. Q. Senator Walsh: Now, let me see. Stack was one of the men elected in the elections of 1918 to the British Parliament? A. Yes, that is right, sir. Q. And instead of going to the British Parliament, he went to the Irish Parliament? A. Yes, sir. Q. And he was in prison and escaped? A. Yes, he was an escaped prisoner.
Q. Chairman Howe: Why is it that so many men known to be on the run in Ireland—with apparently thousands of men on the run —why are they not easily apprehended? A. Well, I could not answer that question as regards political prisoners. Q. Senator Walsh: Is not the reason that the British soldiers do not know them by name, and they would be shooting the first man they met, because they are all on the run? A. Yes, sir; that is so. Q. Mr. Malone: Is it nol true that the population is largely on the run with them? A. Yes, certainly. Q. Chairman Howe: Then it would be right to say that the population of Ireland protects these men on the run? A. Oh, yes, absolutely. Since the inception of the Sinn Fein movement—as the Irish Government officially puts it, since 1918— never have I heard anyone, even unconnected with the Sinn Fein movement, uttering a word about them in the Sinn Fein movement who are wanted. Q. Then the people do not give information about them, or give them up? A. No, no. There was thousands of pounds offered for informa- tion for their arrest, but it was all fruitless. None were ever given up, or information forwarded. Q. It was fruitless? A. It was fruitless. There was one case in the King’s Bench court in Dublin City where a man gave information about the kill- ing of a policeman; and the judge from the bench called the in- former a liar in the same breath. Q. That is the only case you ever heard of? , A. It is the only case I ever heard of. In our own barracks I had to post up notices offering a reward of five to six hundred pounds for anyone who would go into the barracks and give secret information about the location of certain prisoners. But that was fruitless. Q. Chairman Howe: Is it not true that there are people still in Ireland who will come forward and give information leading to the arrest of these men who are wanted? A. Well, that is the information I have to offer. Even with these large sums, the people will not give the information. Q. And that explains the comparative immunity of these men who are on the run—why they can go from house to house with safety? A. Yes, sir. Q. How about the R. I. C.? Do they help the British Govern- ment in apprehending these men? A. Certainly, they did. They did. Q. Are their sympathies with their jobs or with Ireland? A. They haven’t very much of their old jobs left to them. The only thing that you had to do as a policeman since 1918 wras to lead the military around and point out the men they wanted to get, or to follow up the Sinn Fein prisoners. Q. But the constables did perform their duties? A. That is the only duty left for them to do. I said since 1918, because that was when the orders changing the police code were given me. Q. But thé R. I. C. still do their work? A. Yes, that is all they can do. Q. Senator Walsh: The reason that these men avoid arrest is that they can go from one village to another and no one will betray them? A. There is not one single case where the Irish people have betrayed men on the run. Q. Chairman Howe: May I ask Miss MacSwiney if that is her experience too? A. Miss MacSwiney: Oh, yes, certainly; the Irish people will not inform. Q. No informers? A. No informers. Q. Mr. Malone: Do you remember the orders issued by General Deasey? A. Yes, sir. Q. For instance, when did the military first come to police this section in Tipperary when you were a member of the force? When did they begin to come? A. Not actively until the beginning of this year. Q. When did they come in large numbers, before or after the murder of the Lord Mayor of Cork? A. It might coincide that they came exactly then, but they came some time before and about the same date. Of course they were spread throughout the whole southern part of Ireland at that time. Q. Who was General Deasey? A. He was a divisional commissioner appointed for the southern province of Munster. He had control of the military and police. Q. He was a British general? A. Yes, he was a brigadier general. He held one of the highest ranks in the army, that of a brigadier general. Q. When did he come to Ireland? A. In March of last year he was appointed. Q. In March, 1919? A. Yes, March, 1919. His business was making occasional tours of the barracks and the instruction and inspection of the men, par- ticularly those of this new force known as the Black-and-Tans. He was on a special conference with them.
Q. Mr. Malone: Before we get to the orders, when did this new force, the Black-and-Tans, come to Ireland? A. The first that I saw was in March, and the first that came to the barracks where I was stationed was in April. Q. Chairman Howe: 1920? A. 1920, yes. Of course I saw them going through the county, but the first that came to our barracks was in April. Q. How did they differ from the police? Were they trained? A. Yes, as regards military work, they were; but as regards police duties, they had nothing like that. They trained them in a special training school in County Kildare, while our training was in Phoenix Park in Dublin. It took us six months, and most of them got through their training in six days. Q. Were they efficient in their duties? A. They absolutely knew nothing about police duties. On one occasion there was a county inspector whose duty it was to visit the barracks. He was trying to instruct these fellows, and we were all in the barracks, for we had to go to school to him. And he asked this fellow what was his power of arrest, and he said he didn’t know. He tried to make it simpler to him. He said, “If you see a man on the street, and you ask him to give you his name and address, and he refuses, what would you do?” And this Black-and- Tan said, “If I met a man on the street and asked him his name and address, and he refused, I would lift him right under the jaw, and the next thing I would use my bayonet. That is what I would do to the man.”
Q. Now tell us about General Deasey. What were his orders? A. The original orders were issued in May. Q. 1920? A. 1920. Q. Just tell us what these orders were. A. These orders were that all policemen should go to mass—it mentioned Roman Catholics particularly—that they were to go to mass in formation. The two in front were to take revolvers and the last two were to take rifles. The revolvers were to be worn with lanyards. The two with rifles were to keep their rifles at the ready with bullets in the breech until mass was over. And when mass was over they were to march through the crowds the same way. And if there was any hostility shown, they were to shoot. That was the general tenor of the orders. It might not be the exact words. Q. Senator Walsh: Do I understand that these military officers were up in front of the church standing with drawn rifles? A. Yes, sir, ready to fire. Q. Was it for self-protection during the service, or was it to preserve order in the church during divine services? A. It did not state that it was for self-preservation. Q. What did it state it was for? A. Anybody who read the order could see that it was to try and goad the people on. And more than that, it related particularly to the R. C.'s — that is, the Roman Catholics. Q. Was that for every religious service? A. Just for the Roman Catholic services. Q. I know, but was this order for these men to go to every service that way, or was it for them to go only when they went themselves to a service? A. I do not understand you, sir. Q. We are trying to find out if this order was framed so that when Catholic members of the Royal Irish Constabulary went to divine services they should go in a certain way as a protection to themselves, or whether it was an order for them to go to divine services whenever they were held, so that the people should see them and know that they were there. A. That was the order, and anybody reading it would think that that would be what they meant by attending services with drawn rifles. It was to terrify people, it seemed to me. Q. But if there were two services in the same day, were they to go to both services? A. Four of them were to go to one service and four to the other. They were, if possible, to attend every service. Senator Walsh: That is what I was trying to get at. Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: Did they attend Protestant services also? A. Oh, no, sir. Q. Did they stand in front of the church with drawn guns for self-protection? A. Oh, no, sir. They would have been safer behind. If any- body had wanted to shoot them, they only made targets out of themselves by standing in the front of the church. Q. Chairman Howe: Whose orders were these? A. General Deasey's orders.
Q; Mr. D. F. Malone: Was there another order? A. Yes, that was in the barracks. There were six Black-and- Tans present when General Deasey came to the barracks, and he was questioning them about what they knew about Sinn Feiners and the movement that was going on in the southern part of the country. And he said that in case they were able to identify a person with Sinn Fein sympathies passing the barracks or going near the barracks, to bayonet him and not to waste good powder on him, but to just bayonet him. Q. Senator Walsh: Was that before the raids were made on the barracks? A. That was in May or June of this year. Q. But there were many raids made on barracks. A. They were not raided there then. Q. In that locality? A. No, there were no raids in that locality. It was uncalled for in that locality. Q. Commissioner Wood: There were no raids on the barrack in which you were stationed? A. No, there were none whatever. It was a most peaceful district. Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: Now tell us about the feis incident. Q. Commissioner Addams: I would like to ask you whether, at ihe time when this order was given about the squads of police going to church under arms, there had been any disturbances in any of the parish churches? A. No, there had never been. There had never been in any of the churches with which I am acquainted. Q. There had been no disturbances? A. None whatever. Q. Senator Walsh: It was to terrify the people? A. Yes, anybody who read the order would see that. It was to terrify the people. Redman and Foley were the first Black-and- Tans that came to the Ballyporeen barracks, and they had special instructions given to them in the office apart from the rest of us. None of those fellows used to go to any service, although they were supposed to be Protestants. In fact, on one occasion the sergeant told them that it was in the code—in the police regulations—that they should attend whatever service they belonged to, and one of them said that if he mentioned service again he would send him to a place where he could not go to any service. When the inspec- tor came, he used to take them upstairs to the sergeant’s office, apart from us, and have a special conference with them. After this order was issued by General Deasey, I noticed from my own observations that during service, while the four men were at service in the Cath- olic church, none of them left the barracks or stirred from the inside of it. That was the first Sunday that the order came into effect, and the Roman Catholics had to go to service or else resign. Then the inspector had the conference with them, and on the next Sunday one of them would go by the Catholic church occasionally to see if there was any trouble. And then they had these bombs—a couple of hundred bombs in the barracks. Q. So that they held these men at the barracks in reserve? A. Yes, they held these six men in reserve in the barracks during the service. My idea was that if anything turned up at service, they could pounce upon them with the bombs and rifles loaded. Q. Tell me this: this order that was issued about attending mass was a secret order? Was it not the order that the sergeant showed you? A. Yes, yes; this was the one that the sergeant showed me. It was a confidential order, always kept locked up. But the sergeant, who was a Catholic, showed it to me. Q. Senator Walsh: Were there any orders about interfering with the preacher? A. No, none at all.
Q. Mr. Malone: Mr. Tangney, will you go on and tell about this feis incident? A. That happened in June, 1918. I was stationed at Ballylooby at the time. On Saturday night an order came that two men would proceed fully armed and equipped to Tipperary town. We pro- ceeded there, and when we collected there, there were about fifty police. We were put in the military barracks and billeted there for the night. The morning after, we proceeded to the regular police barracks in the town. We were marched. We got no definite orders of what our duties would be after we left the barracks until Sunday morning. Then we were lined up in the barrack square, and there was an inspector there named Lowndes. He was what was known as a special county inspector, sent to Tipperary County to investi- gate what they call crimes. Q. A plain-clothes man? A. Yes, in civilian clothes. This morning he addressed us in the back yard of the barrack square, and said that we had come for duty. We thought it was a declaration of war of some kind. He said there was going to be a feis—that is, a country gathering where there is Irish dancing and Irish music and the like—there was going to be a feis in Lisvarrinane, some three miles from there. He said, “The military authorities have forbidden this feis to take place, and it is not going to be held; but from information that we have received, the people are going to hold it anywaf. But we are going to put it down. And any man who is not willing to do his duty this day had better drop out of the ranks.” No man said anything, so we lined up in military ranks and proceeded out on the streets, and there were five military lorries out there, and we got into the lorries. There were two armored cars—not tanks, but armored cars, with machine guns, that went along too. We proceeded to Lisvarrinane, this village where the feis was to be held; and the people coming along from mass, at the sight of these lorries and the military and the police and all the other war material, fled in terror like bees. Horses went away from their owners’ hands and jumped into side ditches, taking carts, passen- gers, and all. When finally we arrived in the village there were certain police tolled off to assist the military. Their orders were if they saw anybody going toward the village, they were to turn them back, and fire on them if it was necessary to turn them back. Q. Mr. Tangney, I think it will hasten matters if you will just tell what you saw happen after you got there—what you had to do.
A. That was one thing. The military were divided up. Well, then, this County Inspector Lowndes had the orders, and he ad- journed to an adjoining saloon and had a drink, and two young military officers, who were in charge of the military party, adjourned to the place with him and got stupidly drunk. Q. So that the three officers in charge of this party were drunk? A. Yes, sir; all three were drunk. There were some Irish ter- riers outside the saloon door, and the officers took these dogs and threw them at each other, and tried to get them to fight. “Yes,” they said, “we will have to put the dogs to fight, for the Irish dogs will not come out and fight us.” Q. What’s that? Will you repeat that whole statement? A. They said, “We will have to put the dogs to fight, for the Irish dogs will not come out and fight us.” Well, we went home, and the military were flashing revolvers and yelling all the way back. Q. Senator Walsh: What is that, flashing? A. Firing, firing their revolvers. I myself had to come to a soldier who was stupidly drunk and take a revolver out of his hand. He was stupidly drunk. Q. Mr. Malone: Was that all there was to that particular inci- dent? A. Yes, that is all. Q. Senator Walsh: Now, wait a moment, Mr. Malone. What had taken place in that village previous to that night which could be in any way advanced as a reason or excuse for this military expedition? Q. Mr. Malone: What was the reason given for this raid? A. Nothing, except that this feis was advertised to be held. Q. Was it held? A. Oh, no, it was not. Q. Senator Walsh: And this military expedition broke it up? A. Oh, yes; they would have broken it up if it had been held. But the people did not hold it after the military said they couldn’t. Q. Chairman Howe: Do you know of any other feis or celebra- tions broken up? A. Yes, they were broken up. Previous to that it was the com- mon practice all over the country to hold them, and they have been broken up. Q. This was in 1918? A. Yes, in 1918. Q. Was it more or less a general custom to break them up? A. Yes, in 1918 it was quite general. Q. Are they being held now? A. Well, I don’t know whether they are being held this summer or not.
Q. Mr. Malone: Mr. Witness, did you ever see any fights be- tween the Black-and-Tans? A. Yes, sir, I did on several occasions. In the barracks where I was stationed there were six of them. On two occasions the whole six of them turned out of the barracks and went up town and—of course they always had plenty of money—and they came back stupidly drunk. They were the lowest type of humanity. The first order they gave when they got back was to “clear the room.” That was the day room. They told the sergeant to get out, and he did get out. I was supposed to be in charge of the barracks that time, and I could not go out. I and another man, Mr. Galvin— Q. Who is that? A. Mr. Galvin, who is here. After that they got the shotguns that were in the racks and loaded them. They did not actually fire any shots because I took one of the shotguns away from them and Galvin took the other. And they then got the butts of rifles—they did not have time to load them. And when they got through I had to mop up the blood from the floor of the room. They were fighting one another like idiots. Q. Chairman Howe: Like what? A. Like idiots. They were fighting like wild men, they were that drunk. Q. Mr. D. F. Malone: Do you know of any fights between Black- and-Tans, or between the Black-and-Tans and the Royal Irish Con- stabulary, which have resulted in the deaths either of Black-and- Tans or of R. I. C? A. Well, I was not a witness to any of them, but I do know of one that was actually true — an occurrence in the city of Dublin, where one of them, on the pretext of cleaning his rifle, shot the sergeant in charge of the station. Q. The point I wish to make is that there were fights between the R. L C. and the Black-and-Tans, and fights between the Black- and-Tans themselves. A. Oh, certainly. The time when the Black-and-Tans came to the barracks, the R. L C. hardly spoke to them. Of course they wanted to get information from some of the men. They wanted them to point out people and houses and the like.
Q. Will you state when you resigned, and your reasons for resigning? A. I resigned the first of July. Q. When? A. 1920, the present year. I sent in my resignation on that date, and I was to be discharged on the first of August. I was discharged a few days before, on the twenty-fourth of July. Q. Why did you resign? A. I resigned for many reasons. The main reason was that there was nothing left for me to do except to leave the military to butcher. Q. When you resigned, how long had you been in the service? A. About five years, from October, 1915, to July, 1920. Q. When you resigned, that meant that you had to sacrifice your pension? A. Yes, I had to sacrifice that. Q. Is there a pension? A. Yes, certainly; you get three-fourths of the annual pay as a pension. Mr. D. F. Malone: That is all. Q. Senator Walsh: Was. there a rule or an order in Ireland in June, 1918, against people assembling together for fairs or public gatherings? A. In 1918? Q. Yes. A. In certain parts there was. Q. Was there in this place where you and the military authori- ties went out to break up the meeting? A. Oh, no; there was no order at that time. Q. So that there was no apparent violation of law by the people advertising that they were to have this meeting? A. None whatever.
Q. Chairman Howe: The R. I. C. were almost wholly Irishmen? A. Yes, they were, almost all of them. Q. Wholly recruited from Ireland? A. Yes. Q. The Black-and-Tans were wholly recruited from England? A. Yes, every one of them. Q. Did the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Black-and-Tans fraternize together? Did they associate together in a friendly sort of way? A. Oh, no; they were roughnecks. Q. That was generally true—the R. I. C. had nothing to do with the Black-and-Tans? A. Oh, I would not say that they had nothing to do with them, but that they had no friendship for them, and they had nothing more to do with them than necessary. Mr. D; F. Malone: That is all. (The witness was thereupon excused.) ********
Mr. D. F. Malone: Mrs. Murphy, please. Q. Mrs. Murphy, where were you born? A. In New Ross, County Wexford, Ireland. Q. What was your education? A. In the national schools, sir. Q. Did you attend any other than the national schools? A. Yes, sir; I went to a boarding school in County Sligo for two years. Q. Is your husband alive? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is he an American citizen? A. No, sir, he is not, sir. Q. When did he first come to this country? A. Seven years ago. Q. Did you come at that same time? A. Four years next February, sir. Q. How many children have you? A. Just the one, sir. Q. Michael? A. Yes, Michael. Q. Did you visit Ireland during the past year? A. Yes, sir, I was a year and three months in Ireland. Q. Why did you go to Ireland? A. To benefit my health, sir. Q. And when you were in Ireland, where did you stay? A. At my home in New Ross. Q. Are your parents alive? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did you stay with them? A. Yes, sir. Q. What kind of a town is New Ross? A. A small town. Q. An industrial town? A. No, sir, a market town. Q. A very peaceful and quiet town? A. Yes, sir. Q. How large is the population? A. I don’t know. Q. When were the troops, the Black-and-Tans, sent to New Ross? A. Last Easter, sir. Q. That would be 1920? A. 1920.
Q. And when was the curfew law put into effect? A. Last August in New Ross, sir. Q. And you were there at the time? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know whether or not any persons were shot for violations of the curfew order? A. No, sir; not that I know of. Q. Do you remember about the killing of the little girl? A. She was not killed; she was shot, sir. Q. Now, tell the Commission about that. A. Yes, sir. Q. Senator Walsh: When did this happen? A. That happened about the eighth of September. Q. Did you witness it? A. I did, sir. The little girl was sent out by her mother on — Q. Wliat was her name? A. Lillie Furlong. Q. How old was she? A. About eight. The little girl did not know about the curfew law, and the mother sent her out on an errand, and the Black-and-' Tans called to her to stop. She was so scared that she began to run, and they fired, and she was shot in the back. She has been in the infirmary since. Q. Senator Walsh: She has been where? A. In the infirmary. Q. Did yew know the mother of the child? A. I did, sir. Q. How did it happen that the mother did not know that there was a curfew law? A. They were after some boys on the run, but she did not know about that. Q. But why did she not know about the curfew law? Could she not read? A. She could, sir. But the curfew law was usually ten o'clock, but on this particular night it was nine o'clock, and the mother did not know it. They had put it on an hour early because they were after these boys on the run.
Q. Mr. Malone: What other experiences have you had with the Black-and-Tans ? A. About three nights before I left Ireland, I was saying good- bye to some friends, and it was about half ten ; and I met an officer and some Back-and-Tans as I was going home, and they told me to put up my hands, and I said I could not, because I could not lay the baby down, and they said I must; and I told them I could not on account of the baby, but that they could search me, and they did. They tore open my clothes and searched me while I held the baby in my arms. And they got through and did not find anything. It was about an hour afterwards when I got home. I really don't know how I got home. And I was all wet. Q. It was raining? A. Yes, it was raining very much. Q. I suppose that they searched the baby for firearms? A. Oh, yes, they did. They opened his clothes and searched him. Q. Were they gentle and considerate about it? A. No, sir, they were not. They were very rough, sir, and when they got through they pushed me into the door. Q. Senator Walsh: Were you on the street? A. Yes, sir. Q. And they pushed you into what door? A. They pushed me into the door of the hardware st9re. Q. Chairman Howe: On the street of the village? A. Yes, sir. Q. Senator Walsh: About that little girl who was shot, that child of eight years: how badly was she injured? A. The mother said that she was shot in the spine. Q. It was very serious, then? A. Yes, sir. The mother said she might be injured for life. Q. Chairman Howe: Will you please state your full name, Mrs. Murphy? A. Mrs. Anna Murphy. Q. And your address? A, 348 West 18th Street, New York.
Q. Mr. Malone: Mrs. Murphy, can you describe what the condi- tions are in Ireland today, as you observed them and know them to be, due to the work of the Black-and-Tans and other conditions? A. Very hard, sir. The people pay very high prices for food, and when they get it they can hardly use it. They can hardly eat the bread because it is so hard and black. Q. Could you get milk? A. No, I could not get milk for the baby. Q. Senator Walsh: Could you when you first went there? A. No, sir, I could not. ' At best I could get less than a half a pint of milk at night for the baby, sir. Q. Is this condition general? A. Yes, sir; many of the babies cannot get milk, sir. Q. Are any of them sick on account of it? A. Yes, many of them are, sir. Q. Are there not plenty of cattle in Ireland? A. Yes, lots of them, but the people cannot get milk in the towns.
Q. Do you know anything about the burning- of creameries in Ireland? A. Yes, sir, I do, sir. There were two burned near us, sir. Q. Where? Near your town? A. Yes, sir. There was one burned about two and a half miles from our town. It was a very fine creamery, built in 1914. Q. Senator Walsh: When was it burned? A. In Easter of this year. Q. Do you know why that creamery was burned? A. No, sir; except that they said there was barracks burned down near there, and they burned the creamery down. Q. As a reprisal? A. Yes, sir, as a reprisal. Q. Commissioner Addams: Of course, even if the creamery is gone, the milk would still be there. A. But the milk cannot be got. Q. Of course, I can understand why there should be no butter and cheese, but there should be milk. Mr. Malone: How was the milk delivered there? A. It was delivered from the creamery into the town. Q. The creamery would be the distributing point? A. Yes, sir. Commissioner Addams: But the creamery takes the milk and makes it into butter and cheese. Mr. D. F. Malone: But the creamery does more than that in Ire- land. It is a milk distributing center as well. Q. There is no doubt that you and the people in the town could not get the milk? A. No, sir, we could not get any, sir. (The witness was thereupon excused.) ********
Q. Mr. Malone: Mr. Caddan, what is your full name? A. John Joseph Caddan. Q. What is your age? A. Nineteen. Q. Nineteen now? A. I was nineteen on the seventeenth of June. Q. Where were you born? A. Adare, County Limerick. Q. Where are you living now? A. I am living in New York at present. Q. Where? A. At 63 West Seventh Avenue. Q. Mr. Malone: Are you working in New York now? A. No.
Q. What was the date of your enlistment in the R. I. C.? A. On the third of February, 1920. Q. And where did you go to take your training? A. In Phoenix Park Depot, Dublin. Q. And what did your training consist of? A. Bomb practice, rifle practice, revolver firing—all the latest patents in revolvers, automatic and regular. Q. Bomb practice? A. Bomb practice. Q. Rifle practice? A. Yes, sir, rifle practice. Q. Were you given any police training? A. Yes, but the police training was not much. You were not compelled to study very much. I was only three months in the depot. Q. Where were you assigned first? A. To Galway. Q. What part of Galway? A. Galway City. Q. When were you assigned to Galway City? A, On the twentieth of May, 1920.
Q. What were the conditions in Galway? A. Galway City was very quiet until the end of August. The first affair that started things was the sacking of Tuam. Galway City being the headquarters., of the County of Galway, troops had to be sent from Galway to the country outside. And then this Tuam affair — Q. What affair? A. The Tuam affair, sir. The men had to go out in motor lorries for sacking the town. Two policemen had been shot out there. 1 was not with them. Q. Why were you not with them? A. I was on light duty at the time. I had a severe cold, and stayed in the barracks. But when they came back, they told all about what they had burned. They said they burned public houses, and burned the town hall, and made a general wreck of the place. Q. Senator Walsh: How large is the town of Tuam? A. It is a fairly large size town. There is a cathedral there, and the Archbishop of Galway — about three thousand population, I think. Q. Senator Walsh: Did you see it afterwards — the day after- wards? A. Not the next day, but a few days afterwards. Q. Describe what you first saw when you visited it afterwards. A. When I entered Tuam 1 saw three frame buildings — ^big buildings — public houses, I think they were — nothing standing but the walls. The town hall, — the clock was broken out of its place, and the town hall was wrecked in general. Q. Senator Walsh: Was there glass broken in the shops? A. Oh, yes, indeed. Q. About how many houses were destroyed? A. About a dozen on the whole street. Q. Chairman Howe: The main street? A. The main street, yes. That is what I saw there. Q. Were any people killed at this sacking of Tuam? A. No, but there was a man dragged out of bed and threatened to be shot, and only for the intervention of the head constable in Tuam he would have been shot. Q. Mr. Malone: The head constable is a member of the R. I. C? A. Yes, he is a member of the R. I. C. Q. Senator Walsh: Why did he stop them? A. Well, he didn’t want to see the man murdered. Q. He was still a policeman to preserve law and order? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he announce that the man had done no wrong? A. He did. Q. Mr. Mai one: Do you remember the case of the man Krumm? A. Yes, Krumm was in Galway.
Q. Senator Walsh: Wait a moment. You say that this was due to two policemen being shot? A. Yes, ambushed. Q. Now, how long before this night were these policemen am- bushed? A. They were ambushed about eleven o'clock at night. Q. Eleven o'clock the same night? A. Yes. And at about three o'clock the next morning the sack- ing began. Q. Now, where were these men ambushed? A. About ten miles outside of Tuam. I could not say definitely. Q. Were these men members of the Royal Irish Constabulary or Black-and-Tans? A. Members of the R. I. C. Q. Did you know them? A. No. Q. Were they connected with your station? A. No, sir. Q. Were they in Tuam? A. Yes, in Tuam? Q. Why were these men murdered, and by whom? A. I could not say. ~ Q. Did you learn since? A. No. Q. Had they been offensive to the inhabitants of the town? A. I was not stationed in that town and could not say. Q. You do not know? A. Yes, sir. Q. Except the fact that there were two killed? A. Yes, sir; only that there were two killed. Q. Chairman Howe: Was there a coroner's inquest? A. No. Q. Senator Walsh: They had been done away with at that time? A. Yes, they had.
Q. Mr. Malone: Tell us about this man Krumm, the Black- and-Tan. A. Krumm was a Black-and-Tan. The Black-and-Tans are some- thing like soldiers. They wear a soldier’s uniform with a black cap and belt, and that is why they are called Black-and-Tans. This man Krumm was one of the Black-and-Tans. He was a motor driver stationed in Dunmore, about ten miles outside of Galway. He was in town about two weeks getting his motor repaired. Q. About two weeks getting a motor repaired? A. Yes, sir, about two weeks. He took his time to it. He was a generally reckless fellow and drank a lot. I know of one case that he shot a sheep and brought him in to the barracks to be cooked. Q. You mean that when he got drunk he ran amuck? A. Yes, sir; he was very reckless then. This night I saw him with a bottle of poteen— Q. Mr. Witness, tell us to the best of your ability what that is. A. It is what you call mountain dew. Q. Chairman Howe: Irish whiskey? A. It is made in the mountains out of barley, I think. It is pretty strong stuff. Well, I saw him with this bottle of poteen, and he was passing it around, and he said that when that bottle was gone he would get another. About twelve o’clock he went up to the station. Q. Was he in police clothes? A. No, he was in civilian clothes. He went up to the station for one of the papers, the Dublin papers. They usually came in on the midnight train. I could not say exactly what happened at the station, because I was in bed.1 Q. Senator Walsh: Do you know the date of this? A. It was about September seventh. Q. He was stationed at your barracks? A. Yes, sir; he was staying there while he was in town getting his motor repaired. The next thing I knew one of the constables came up and gave the alarm, and said one of the constables' was shot. And we all had to get up and dress and get our carbines. There were about fifty men in the barracks, and they ran amuck then. 1 Krumm went to the station, and without provocation whipped out his revolver and began firing madly, shooting several persons before he was himself shot by a bystander. See evidence of three witnesses, pp 83-84, 130-131, 161-162. Q. Tell us what they did. A. The whole fifty came out in the streets. Q. Under their officers? A. No officers; they all came out together. There was a D. I. there, and he came out with them. Q. Who is a D. I.? A. The district inspector, District Inspector Crewe. Q. Mr. Malone: Was he in uniform? A. No, he was in plain clothes. Q. Senator Walsh: Were there any Black-and-Tans there? A. No, all R. I. C. Q. Mr. Malone: You say he was in civilian clothes? A. Yes, he was. Q. Senator Walsh: Did they have motor lorries? A. No, they were walking. Q. What time of night was this? A. That was about one o’clock.
They went from the barracks up to the house of a man named Broderick and knocked at the door, and he opened the door, and they demanded his son. A couple of them rushed in and grabbed the candle he had in his hand, and went upstairs to get his son. The son asked time to dress, and they brought him down. While they were upstairs, some other men sprinkled some petrol in the parlor and the hall. They marched the son down in front of them, and Broderick was told to stand where he was. The mother was told to stay in the back room where she was, and Broderick, the father, was ordered to stand in the hall. Then they touched a match to the house and it flashed up. The women began to scream, and they marched the son down to the railroad station to shoot him where Krumm had been shot. Q. Mr. Malone: Did they leave Broderick and his wife in the burning house? A. Well, they could not get out through the flames very easily. Q. They had put petrol about the house? A. Yes, they had. Q. Senator Walsh: Did they get out? A. I was just coming to that. They took the son up toward the station, but he got away, and they fired after him, and I think wounded him in the leg, but I am not sure of that. He got away. And then they turned around and saw a crowd of neighbors trying to put out the flames, and they fired into the crowd. After that, what they did I did not witness, for I went back to the barracks, but I heard the next day — the men were telling about it themselves. After that they came to a place where there were two young men in a house, and went up and demanded them. I do not know their names. Q. Twp young men in the Broderick house? A. No,- in another house. They brought these young men down to the same place where Krumm was shot and stood them up against the wall there. One of the men was named Conway, I think. The order was given to fire, and just as the order was given, Conway fell forward on his face, and he saved his life miraculously. Q. The man fell on his face just as they fired and escaped death? A. Yes. Some of them said, "Let them have another volley," and the leader said, "No, we have wasted enough ammunition on them." Q. To come back to this Broderick case. Was the son a member of the Irish Republican Army, or was Broderick or his son impli- cated in the killing of that man Krumm? A. No, I do not think so. They probably knew nothing about him, for he was a new man in the town — he was just in there temporarily.
Q. Did your police force make any investigation of the killing of this man Krumm? A. They did, afterwards. Q. But not before the killing of this man and the firing of Broderick's house? A. No, none whatever. Q. What happened after this man Krumm left the barracks? You said he had been drinking before he left. A. Yes. I heard afterwards that he left the barracks and stopped for another drink before he went up to the station. He got up to the station platform and while waiting for a paper fired on the crowd, killing a man and wounding another. Senator Walsh: Yes, we have heard of that incident from other witnesses.
Q. Mr. Malone: Was District Inspector Crewe promoted after this? A. Yes, he was promoted about a week after this. Q. Senator Walsh: You were an eye witness to this? A. Yes, I was an eye witness to the setting fire of Broderick’s house and the firing into the crowd. Q. Did you participate in any of it? A. No, I did not. Q. Was there any officer to lead the military in all this? A. No, there was not. Q. It was just mob action? A. It was just mob action.
Afterwards they came down to this man’s house—Quirk I believe was his name—and they went in and told him to come out of bed, and did not give him time to dress, and dragged him out and brought him down to the quays. Q. What are the quays? A. The quays, the Galway quays. Galway is a seaside place, and the quays run down to the water. They took this man down and they stood him up against a lamp post and put twenty-seven shots into him. Q. Who was this man Quirk? A. I believe he was a Sinn Feiner. Q. He had nothing to do with the shooting of that Black-and- Tan at the station? A. Oh, no, of course not. He was home in bed.
Q. Mr. Malone: Now, I believe there was a general, a British general, who came down there. A. Yes, the next day there was a British general came down and spoke to us in the day room. Q. Chairman Howe: Why do you think he was a general? A. Because he was so well guarded. He had two motor lorries of soldiers there to guard him. He had two other officers with him. The county inspector was there and two district inspectors, and all the men in the barracks were there. And he started to talk about this business. He said, "This country is ruled by gunmen, and they must be put down." He talked about giving home rule to Ireland^ and he said home rule could not be given until all of these gunmen were put down, and he called on the R. I. C. to put them down. He asked them what they required in the barracks, and that what- ever they wanted he would give them, and that they were also going to get a raise in pay. And they said they needed machine guns, and he said that they would get them, and also tanks and more men — men who had been in the army during the war and who knew how to shoot to kill; and he said they would be the right men in the right place. Q. Who spoke for the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. There was a sergeant, I think, who did most of the talking. But the men all spoke up and said they needed this and that. Q. They needed additional protection? A. Yes. Q. Did they get it? A. Yes, there was about two hundred Black-and-Tans sent down to that barracks. They got more money than we did, but he prom- ised us that we would get a rise in pay. Q. Senator Walsh: How much? A. Seven shillings a day. Q. In addition? A. Yes, in addition. Q. Chairman Howe: In addition to what they were getting? A. Yes, sir; that would be forty-nine shillings a week more — about two pound ten.
Q. Mr. Malone: What was the general character of the Black- and-Tans? A. Well, they were generally very careless fellows, and did not give a hang about what they did. They were mostly over there to enjoy themselves. Q. The Commissioner: Were they mostly young men? A. They were most all young men. Q. What was their general character? A. Some of them were got up for robbery at the depot — at Phoenix Park. And some of them were sent to the lunatic asylum. I believe some of them were ex-convicts. Q. Senator Walsh: How do you know that,—from what they said about each other? A. Yes, what they said between themselves. They had sev- eral conflicts in the Depot between the Black-and-Tans and the Irish troops that were there, but it did not come out. Q. Chairman Howe: The Constabulary did not have very much respect for the Black-and-Tans? A. No, O no. Q. Did they fraternize with them? A. They had a couple of fights there. Q. But did they go out together and associate together? A. O no, they did not associate together. They were not friendly by any means. Only, of course, they had to go together on duty.
Q. Commissioner Addams: How old must you be before you can become a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. At least eighteen. Q. Eighteen ? A. Yes. Q. Were many of your men as young as that? A. No, I don’t believe they were. If your father had served on the force you could join at eighteen. If he did not, nineteen is the limit. Q. How old were most of the men on the force? A. They varied greatly. Twenty-five is about the average, I think. Q. Senator Walsh: How old are the Black-and-Tans? A. Oh, various ages. Some of the Black-and-Tans were up to forty. Q. How many Black-and-Tans were in the barracks before you resigned? A. There was only one, Krumm, and he was only there for two weeks. Q. Senator Walsh: But you say they were promised? A. Yes, but they came afterwards. Q. So that you have no knowledge of them while you were in that barracks? A. No, sir. But while I was there they stocked up the can- teen in the barracks for their coming.
Q. Was there a canteen in your barracks? A. Yes. Q. When you were on the force? A. Yes, when I was on the force. Q. Did they always have that in the Irish Constabulary bar- racks? A. Oh, no. Q. Senator Walsh: Was that one of the new munitions of war? A. Yes, it was that. Q. When did they open up canteens in the Royal Irish Con- stabulary barracks? A. About a year ago. Q. So for about a year they have served liquor in the bar- racks of the R. I. C? A. Yes. Q. What kind of liquor? A. Lots of liquors. Bass' ale, Guinness' stout, and lots more. Q. Were there any restrictions on the amount of it an officer could get? A. No, no restrictions. They were up there, some of them, most of the night drinking. Q. Did they drink before going on duty? A. Yes. Q. To what extent does that exist throughout Ireland? A. I couldn't say, sir, Jjut it was common where I was. Q. Who runs this canteen? A. It is run by the R. I. C. Q. By the permission of the Government? A. Yes, by the permission of the Government. Q. And I suppose there is some clerk in charge? A. There is a constable in charge. He is sitting there at all times. Q. And there is no limit to what you can buy in quantity or quality? A. No limit, — no limit at all. Now, the next night after Krumm was shot, curfew was enforced in Galway. Q. Senator Walsh: Very good, but this is very important. You were there in that barracks how long? A. About three months. Q. You say there were fifty men there? A. Yes, fifty men. Q. How many of them were drinking men? A. O, the whole lot of them except myself. Q. It was a fine atmosphere for a nineteen-year-old boy to go into. A. Yes, charming. Q. And all these men were constantly in touch with a saloon in the barracks? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Malone: Senator, would you ask the witness if they sold what is known as hard liquor in the barracks? A. The Witness: Hard liquor? They sold all kinds of liquor that are sold in Ireland. Q. Senator Walsh: Is there anything else besides liquor served? A. yes, there is bread and crackers and things like that also. Q. Now, to just what extent and how continuously were these men under the influence of liquor? A. Well, during their idle time. Some of them had only four hours' duty during the day. The rest of the time they usually had liquor in them. Q. So that their life consisted of doing their duty on the streets of the city and spending their spare time in the liquor store in the barracks and in bed? A. Yes, and in bed.
Q. Mr. Malone: After the Tuam affair, do you remember the affair of the constable who resigned? A. Well, yes, that was out in Tuam. I was not a witness to it. This man, his name was Ruddy, had resigned in Tuam after the town was wrecked, and took a position with the city council. A short time after the Black-and-Tans went to his home and got him and brought him out to the lime pits near the town, and they flogged him. And then some time after they did that, they flogged him again, and told him to clear out of the town with his wife and family, which he had to do. Q. You say he got a job on the city council? A. Yes, after he resigned, he got a job on the city council, — that is, the Sinn Fein county council.
Q. What were the reasons for his resigning from the R. I. C. A. Probably about the same as mine. Q. What were your reasons for resigning? A. Well, I couldn't stop in such surroundings. Q. Senator Walsh : What was that? A. I didn't fancy the way they were treating the people. Q. The work was too dirty for you? A. O, yes. The things they used to be doing, I could take no part in them.
Q. Senator Walsh: You said something about this raid on Gal way. The curfew was applied? A. Yes, the night after the raid the curfew was applied from nine o'clock to three in the morning. Q. Now, just what does that mean? A. Nobody but the military and police could be out from 9 P. M. to 3 A. M. This night they went out. There was an armored car and a military officer and two police from the bar- racks; and they went out firing shots, and what they call "clear- ing the streets." Q. Senator Walsh: That was the first night of the curfew law? A. The first night of the >curfew law. And when they came in they were all treated to a drink by the district inspector. And the next night there was the same thing, — they went out firing into the streets again. Q. This was the Black-and-Tans? A. No, the R. I. C. Q. Senator Walsh: For the record, how large is the city of Gal way? A. It's a fairly large city, with a population of about ten thousand, I think. Q. Chairman Howe: What are the Black-and-Tans, — what na- tionality? A. They are English. Q. How about the officers? A. They are mostly ex-officers of the English army. They come over and get the position of sergeant as Black-and-Tans. They get more money than the R. I. C. get. They get something like one pound seven a day now. Q. Did they get extra money when they went on a raid? A. They get extra money when they are called out of the barracks. Q. In addition to their per diem, they get extra money when they go out of the barracks on raids? A. Yes, when they go out on raids. Q. Mr. Malone: That is overtime? A. Yes, overtime. Q. Chairman Howe: How did it happen that there was only that one Black-and-Tan in the barracks? A. Well, he was only in for two weeks to get his motor re- paired in Galway. Q. What town were you born in? A. At Adare, County Limerick. Q. How large a town? A. I could not tell you. Q. Did you spend your childhood there? A. Oh, no. I was only about three months there. Q. Where did you spend your time up to the time of joining the Constabulary? A. I lived in Cork City, and went to school in Waterford City. Q. Did you travel around Ireland much? A. Yes, my father used to be transferred around. Q. And what was his position? A. He was sergeant. Q. In the R. I. C.? A. In the R. I. C.
Q. What was the general condition of Ireland as you went around from town to town? A. The general condition in Cork was curfew at ten o’clock, when you had to be in. Q. Senator Walsh: But he means prior to this trouble. A. Well, I don’t know much about it. Q. Mr. Malone: Mr. Witness, will you tell us where you were when you joined the R. I. C.? A. I joined in London. Q. What were you doing then? A. I had gone to Liverpool and Manchester and London. Q. What were you doing? A. Looking for work there. Q. So you thought you would join your father’s profession? A. Yes, but I never intended to stay in it. Just joined to get over to Ireland again. Q. Senator Walsh: When did you leave Ireland? A. I left Ireland on November fifth. Q. And when did you resign from the R. I. C? A. In September. Q. So you were during the month of October and to November fifth free? A. Yes, free. Q. Did you spend that month in Ireland? A. Yes. Q. Did you observe conditions in Ireland in other places than Gal way? A. Yes, I was down in Cork for the funeral of the Lord Mayor, Lord Mayor MacSwiney. Q. Did you remain there up to November fifth? A. Yes, I remained there up to November fifth. Q. Just what were the conditions in Cork down to November fifth? A. Curfew was enforced, and you must be in by ten o'clock. Then the military would come around in motor lorries about five minutes to ten, and anybody who is caught out has not a safe chance for his life, because he might be shot on sight. Q. Senator Walsh: Do they shoot when they come out? A. Yes, they generally shoot. Q. I suppose that is notice that the curfew law is on? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Mai one: What about the Black Thorn house? A. Oh, the Black Thorn house was not destroyed in my time there. The city hall was destroyed, and the Black Thorn house, after my coming away. (The witness was thereupon excused.)
Q. Mr. Malone: Your name is Daniel Galvin? A. Yes, Daniel Galvin. Q. And your address? A. 114 West 102d Street, New York City. Q. Where were you born? A. In Gerryman, County Kerry, Ireland, in December, 1887. That would be thirty-three years ago this month.
Q. How long ago did you join the R. I. C.? A. I joined the twenty-first of October, 1907. Q. When did you resign? A. The twenty-first of July last, this year. Q. You were then in the service about thirteen years? A. Yes, thirteen years, lacking a month or so. Q. Where did you get your training? A. In Dublin, in the Phoenix Park training school there. Q. When ? A. In 1907. Q. What did your training consist of there? A. Three hours of drill, gymnastics, school, and police duties. Q. Where have you served in Ireland in these nearly thirteen years? A. I left the Phoenix Training School barracks five months after I entered, and was transferred to Gort in County Galway. I was there about two months. Q. Where did you go from there? A. To a station called Tubber in County Galway. Q. Where did you go from there? A. I remained in Galway until I came on to Tipperary. 1 spent five years in Galway. I applied to get nearer home. I applied for Cork East or Cork West, but I was refused, because it was adjoining my native county. And they said that if I wanted to go to Tipperary, it would be at my own expense. I applied for Tipperary, South Riding, and was transferred in May, 1912. Q. Where have you been since then? A. I have been in a district called Weyl in County Tipperary. Q. Where else were you stationed? A. I was stationed at a place in Tipperary called Killaloan that is about three miles outside of Clonmel. Q. Were you stationed at Clogheen? A. Yes, I was at Clogheen about six months before I resigned. Q. And at Ballyporeen also? A. Yes, Clogheen was my permanent station, but I was sent to Ballyporeen, Tipperary. Q. Were you in Clogheen while Mr. Crowley was there? A. Yes. Q. Did you hear his testimony? A. Yes. Q. Do you know that all of the testimony he gave is true? A. Yes, it is true. I can give you my own version of it.
Q. I want to ask you this: in all the years that you have served in the R. I. C. in Ireland, what do you know of the rela tions between Catholics and Protestants? A. As a general rule in the south of Ireland the Protestants are the most prosperous people there. In many cases I would rather deal with the Protestants than with the Catholics. Q. In other words, you have never heard of any differences whatever between them? A. I have traveled a good deal all over Ireland, south and west and east, and in my own native county, County Kerry, and I have never heard of any trouble between the people on account of any religious differences whatever in those sections.
Q. What would you say about Ireland as a peaceful country? A. It is a very peaceful country, sir. Q. Did you have any difficult experiences with the people in pursuing your duties as a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary? A. No, sir. Nobody ever made any insulting remark to me in all the thirteen years of my service. Q. Were there any serious crimes? A. No, sir. Q. Any minor offenses? A. Nothing serious. Just petty larceny or something like that. Q. Chairman Howe: How many murders did you come in con- tact with? A. There was just one case in County Galway in the land trouble there. That was in 1907. . Q. Just one case of murder in all your experience? A. Yes, that is right, sir. Q. How about felonies and serious offenses? A. No. Nothing like that. Just petty cases. Q. What do you mean by petty offenses? A. Petty cases like drunkenness. Q. How about stealing? A. Very, very limited in the country. Q. How about burglary? A. No, very little. I have never known of any case of burglary where I was called upon to act. Q. Were there any cases reported to your precinct? A. there may be a case of petty larceny, — ^that is, a case of petty larceny like the stealing of tools or picks. Q. But of the major crimes, there has been only one case come to your attention in thirteen years? A. Yes, one case in thirteen years. Q. And drunken brawls, — are they frequent? A. Not in these days. They used to be in 1910, 1911, or 1913, but not nowadays. Q. What was there for nine thousand of the Royal Irish Con- stabulary in Ireland to do if there was no crime? A. Well, they are distributed all over the country. There were not nearly so many as that there until the last few years. I remember only three years ago when there was only three men in the station where I was in County Tipperary. Q. The town of Tipperary? A. No, the County. I was in a small place.
' Q. Chairman Howe : How about the relations of Protestants and Catholics? Did they meet in a friendly way? Did they visit one another's houses? A. I know of a case where the Catholic priest and the Protestant minister went out fishing together, and also shooting together. Q. When you say shooting together, you mean hunting? A. I mean fowling. Q. Do they intermarry? A. Not very much. Q. But they were friendly with each other? They were neigh- borly? A. Yes, certainly. One man’s gun would be out of order, and another man would lend his gun to him. Q. They traded at one another’s stores, did they? A. Yes, indeed. Q. In other words, prior to 1918, there was very little dis- order? A. Yes, and after, and up to the present time there is very little need, as far as the people are concerned, of a police force.
Q. Mr. Malone: Now, Mr. Galvin, tell me in what way did your duties as a policeman change by orders after the elections of 1918? A. They were changed until I was simply only a soldier when I left the police force. I had to carry arms and bombs and the like. I had to have my rifle beside me at nights in bed. We were all behind barbed wire, and with thirty or forty bombs used some- times at nights from the police station.
Q. Where do you date the first disorders in your district? A. I remember that in July, 1919—that was last year—the County of Tipperary was proclaimed a prohibited district by the Lord Lieutenant. That required an additional force of police. That was according to English law then. They transferred policé or R. I. C. from different portions of Ireland, even from the west of Ireland, and from the next counties, to South Riding. Fairs and markets and public meetings and assemblies and so forth were to be prohibited, although Clogheen and portions of the South Riding were very quiet. Q. Did the prohibition of fairs and markets interfere with the normal life of the people? A. O yes, very much, because they had no way of selling their produce.
Q. Was it after the normal life of the people had been dis- turbed that the disorders began? A. Yes, it was not until some time in April, 1919, that a hundred of the military arrived from Manchester. Q. Did you ever know of any attacks by the people on the police up to the time you are stating now? A. No, not at any place. Q. What is your business now? A. I am a watchman in New York City.
Q. Why did you resign from the R. I. C? A. Well, simply because I did not like the system that they have at the present time. When I first joined, it was different then. I did not have any arms then. Of course, they had arms then, but at the same time I never took them out with me on duty, the same as I had to do the last seven or eight months. We had the arms, but they were simply for show purposes. Q. Mr. Malone: In other words, when the R. I. C. was changed from a police force into a military force, that was your reason for leaving? A. That was sufficient. Q. Were you not entitled to a pension? A. yes, I certainly would have been entitled to a pension in two years' more, in fifteen years, if I got out on a medical certificate. Or at twenty-five years I would have been entitled to one-half of my pay, and two-thirds on thirty years' service.
Q. Senator Walsh: You were in the station with the young man who was here who testified about the order to go to church on Sundays ? A. Yes, I remember that order. Q. Did you ever go to church in a squad before? A. Yes, I went once. Q. Now, was that order compelling men to go armed to church for the purpose of showing military authority in the church, or was it simply a regulation in regard to each individual’s con- duct when he went to church? A. My belief was that the order was simply to incite the people. Q. Where did you stand when you went to church? A. You were supposed to go up to the altar aisle. Q. And two men went up with rifles? A. Two men went up with rifles, and two with carbines. Q. Where did the other two men stand? A. The other two men stood near the door. Q. Did you stand during the entire service? A. Yes. Q. Did you march behind the people in coming out of the church? A. I marched behind about fifteen yards. Q. After the people went out, did you walk down the center aisle of the church? A. Yes, the people went out first. Q. Was that a general order? A. It was a general order for all Ireland, because it came from Dublin Castle. Q. So that there was at that time and is now as far as you know military control over the church during church service? A. Yes, sir, that was the general impression of the people there. Q. Commissioner Addams: Now, if a man was not going to church that morning, did they confine some in the barracks? A. Yes, half of the party were confined. Q. So that every time there was a church service some would be there? A. Yes, some would remain in the barracks. Q. Mr. Malone: About Richards, the Black-and-Tan. Senator Walsh: Who was that? A. Richards, the Black-and-Tan. Q. Senator Walsh: I would also like to ask him about the can- teen. Did you have any canteen in the barracks? A. There was in the larger cities like Cork and Limerick and Galway. Ours was a small barrack. Q. You had only a few men in your barracks, so it would not pay, I suppose? A. Yes, sir. It was an old custom in the large cities.
Q. Mr. Malone: About the Richards incident. A. Well, Crowley and a man named Grady and myself, we were sent out on patrol duty with these two Black-and-Tans. We had revolvers and Gillette and Richards had carbines. About a mile outside of Clogheen there was a man named Walsh, who was sup- posed to be in sympathy with the Republican movement, and Richards demanded that we show him where Walsh lived. We wanted to know what he wanted with Walsh, and he said he was going to shoot him. And we. refused to show him where Walsh lived. And he turned around to us and demanded that we do our duty and show him the place. And we reminded him that he was not in the army now; he was on the police force. And he said that when he left the training depot he was told that he would not be subjected to any discipline whatever if he shot any Sinn Feiners. He went about ten yards down the road and turned and said he would shoot me if I didn't show him where; Walsh lived. Then we turned back to the barracks. We had not gone far when Richards fired at us. When I got back to the barracks with the men, I re- ported him to the sergeant, and he said he had committed a felony for threatening the lives of three men. He was confined to barracks for a few days, and then sent back to England, and then he came back to the R. I. C.'s again under an assumed name.
Q. What is your opinion of the character of the Black-and-Tans in Ireland today? A. We did not mix with them. We had as little to do with them as we could. To a great extent the people know what kind of people they are. (The witness was thereupon excused.) Chairman Howe: The next hearings are set for next Wednesday, in case the witnesses can be secured by that time. If not, the next hearings will be held here on Thursday. There are some witnesses who are coming from England and are now on the Baltic, and will be here by then. We will meet here, unless there is some contrary notice in the press, next Wednesday morning at ten o'clock. (Thereupon, at 4:10 p. m., the Commission adjourned.) * * * * * * * *
Before the
Session One Jane Addams James H. Maurer Oliver P. Newman George W. Norris Norman Thomas ) COMMISSIONERS David I. Walsh L. Hollingsworth Wood Frederic C. Howe Acting Chairman Before the Commission, sitting in the Hotel La Fayette, Wash- ington, D. C, Wednesday, December 15, 1920. Session called to order by Chairman Howe at 10:05 a. m. Chairman Howe: The hearings will please come to order.
Q. Miss Russell, will you give the Commission your full name and address? A. Ruth Russell, Chicago, Illinois. Q. And you are employed by the Chicago Daily News? A. I was employed by the Chicago Daily News when I went to Ireland the last time. Q. When were you in Ireland? A. I was in Ireland from March 16, 1919, to the end of June, 1919.
Q. And what was your purpose in going to Ireland? A. I was sent to Ireland as foreign correspondent studying special economic, social, and political conditions. Q. In Ireland or in other countries? A. I was sent especially for Ireland. Q. Especially for Ireland? A. Yes. Q. And what was the general nature of your assignment? A. General reporter. Q. You were to make a thorough and unbiased study of the social and economic conditions of Ireland? A. Yes. Q. And report these in special articles for the Chicago Daily News? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Basil M. Manly (of counsel) : Will you tell the Commis- sion what parts of Ireland, particularly what important sections, you visited? A. I visited Dublin, Cork — Q. Suppose you give them in order. A. I went first to Dublin, and then to Cork, and then to Lim- erick, Belfast, and to Dungloe in Donegal. Q. So that you were in all four of the provinces of Ireland and in all the important industrial centers? A. Yes. Q. Did you also see typical parts of the country districts? A. Yes, I was especially familiar with the country districts in Donegal, in the northwest of Ireland.
Q. What was the method that you used in your investigations in Ireland? A. I used both interviews and personal experiences. In order to get the social conditions in Dublin, I lived in the Dublin slums for a week as a working girl, and tried to find work there. Q. Were you able to secure work in Dublin? A. There was no factory work tp be had in Dublin at all, or indeed in any part of Ireland, even in Belfast. But there was domestic work to be had. Q. What were the prevailing wages in factories at that time for the people who were employed? A. The best woman's wage in Dublin at that time was paid at a large basket factory in Dublin. That ran from $4.50 to $10 a week. These were especially good wages. There was a toy factory in Dublin which paid as low as one dollar a week to girls. This was astonishingly low, in view of the fact that it cbsts a girl at least five dollars a week to live by herself in Dublin, Q. So that only girls who could afford to work for those wages, or who were living at home and were supported by their parents and were virtually undercutting the women workers who had to support themselves, could live on that wage? A. Yes, yes.
Q. Were you present in Dublin at the time of the raid on Dublin Castle? A. I was present there at the time of the raid on the Mansion House. Q. On the Mansion House, of course. Will you tell what you saw at that time? A. At the time I was at Madam Gomme MacBride’s house, on Stephens Green. Her young son, who has since been arrested, I believe, came rushing over to the house and told us that the Man- sion House was being raided; that the police were searching for Michael Collins and Robert Barton. Miss Barton, Robert Barton’s sister, was in the house at the time. We dashed across Stephens Green, and we found a double line of police and constables drawn up across Dawson Street, the entrance to the Mansion House Road. The soldiers were there with their fixed bayonets. Just beyond the line there was a whippet tank, and beyond that there were motor lorries for the soldiers that were taking part in it. The American delegates were to have a reception at the Mansion House that evening. The car with Frank Walsh and President de Valera approached the line of the military. The military lowered their bayonets. Frank Walsh got out of the car and approached the bayonet line, and went up to Lieutenant-Colonel Johnson, of the Dublin military police, and he inquired, “What’s the row?” The casualness of the question must have disarmed the Lieutenant-Colonel, because he started to laugh, and after a long conference finally permitted the American car to go through. After the order was given, the lorries containing the soldiers were taken out through the crowd, amid the booing of the people, and the car flying the American and Sinn Fein flags entered through the passage, and the reception was held at the Mansion House. Q. Before this the Mansion House had been raided by the troops? A. Yes. Q. What was the purpose of that raid, as you were told? A. The purpose was to find Michael Collins, minister of finance of the Irish Republic, and Robert Barton, member of the Irish Parliament. Q. You were acquainted with Robert Barton’s sister, were you not? You had met her? A. Yes. Q. Did you meet Robert Barton also? A. Yes, I met him. Q. Is he a Protestant? A. Yes, he is a Protestant. Q. Was he a British officer? A. He was a British officer. Q. And reputed to be a very wealthy man? A. Yes, he has a beautiful home at Glengariff. Q. And he was one of the members of the Sinn Fein Parliament elected in the 1918 elections? A. Yes. Q. Did you learn anything of the circumstances of the raid? Was there a raid made on the private apartments of the Lord Mayor? A. I heard that the raid was rather thoroughly conducted in the Lord Mayor’s house. Soldiers even penetrated to the bedroom of the wife of the Lord Mayor and searched there. But they were not successful in finding either Michael Collins or Robert Barton. How- ever, both of these turned up at the reception later. Q. Had there been any acts on the part of the Irish Republic as the moving cause of this raid? Had any policeman been shot or any soldier been shot? A. No. Q. They were simply out to arrest these two leaders of the Republican government? A. Yes. Q. Were they also leaders of the Republican army? A. Yes. Q. But Michael Collins at that time was not a leader of the army. He was minister of finance, was he not? A. He was minister of finance and captain in the Volunteer army. Q. Do you know whether Robert Barton has since been arrested? A. Yes, I believe that he has, and was sentenced to two or three years’ imprisonment. I do not know as to that.
Q. You met a number of the leaders of the Republican move- ment in Ireland? A. Yes, I think I met almost all of them. Q. What type of men were they? A. They were extremely cool-headed and intelligent. The crowd of Sinn Fein leaders that I met at George Russell's — ^^.'s — house in Dublin wpre, I think, the most brilliant crowd of people that I have met in my life, and as a newspaper person I have mixed in at a good many gatherings.
Q. Were they all Catholics? A. No. M — George Russell — is an Ulster man, and Arthur Griffith is a Protestant, and a good many others were Protestants. Q. Did you form any conclusions through your talking and living among the people as to the religious phase of conditions in Ireland? Is there a religious basis for the present trouble? A. No, I think that the religious feeling has been artificially worked up in Ulster. But I think that on account of the unifying influence of the labor people in Ulster that this religious feeling is rapidly dying down. Q. What did you find as to the attitude of the whole people? Chairman Howe: I wonder if I could develop this religious ques- tion a little further. Did I understand you to say that in your opinion the religious feeling had been artificially created? A. Yes. Q. And does not exist among the common people generally? A. I do not say that it doesn't exist in Ulster, but that it is rapidly dying down. Q. Even in Ulster? A. Yes. Q. How about the rest of the country? A. Well, I think with George Russell that there is not a feeling of religious intolerance in the south of Ireland at all. Q. Against Protestants? A. No. Q. As far as you saw, they live peacefully with one another? A. Yes. Q. There are no rows among them? A. No. Q. Do they visit with one another and trade with one another? A. Yes, certainly. Q. Now, compare it with this country. Is there any more re- ligious intolerance than there is in this country? A. I think not. I think that in some of the southern towns of my own state there is more religious intolerance than there is in Ireland. Q. Does it enter into the elections? A. No, not as far as I know. Q. Does it enter into the school question? A. Yes, it does in Ulster. In Belfast there is a question con- cerning the support of the schools; and it is rather difficult to go into the whole school topic to explain it, although I can if you want me to. But it is a matter of support. The Protestants feel that there is not a sufficient amount of money to be had for their schools. There are fifteen thousand children in Belfast without school accommodations. The arrangement for the money for the schools is that some person so disposed in Ireland will build a school and the Parliament grant will support it. In Belfast they want a different system. But the Catholics feel that their children have been fairly well cared for under the present system, and they do not want a change. Q. There have been a number of people over in this country who have been speaking across the country on the Irish question, and have been insisting that there can be no home rule in Ireland or self-determination in Ireland because underlying everything else is the danger of Catholic domination. You know what their argu- ment probably is. It has a good deal of currency. What about that statement? You would say that it is artificially created? A. Yes. I spoke to Francis Joseph Bigger, who is a prominent lawyer in Belfast, on that matter. Mr. Bigger is a Protestant. He was speaking particularly of the organization of trade. I spoke of how much we heard of the religious feeling in Belfast, and he said it was mostly talk—that, for instance, you do not find Catholic people trading at a Catholic store or Protestant people trading at a Protestant store. They go where they find things the cheapest.
Q. We have not been able to get any witnesses from Ulster, and since that seems to be one of the Irish issues, if you can throw any more light on that, I would be very glad of it. Just how is this issue raised? Who keeps it alive, if it is not a real issue? A. I spoke to labor people in Belfast. I spoke particularly to Dawson Gordon, who is one of the officials of the Textile Workers’ Federation there. Q. Mr. Basil Manly: Is he a Protestant? A. Yes, he is a Protestant. And he told me that the religious issue, like the political issue, is kept alive by the big millionaires in Belfast; that while the workers were kept separated, they were not able to organize. He said, for instance, that before the war a labor organizer would go into a meeting that was held for the pur- poses of organization, and he would begin his speech. He would no sooner begin than the crowd would say, “Are you a Unionist?” or “Are you a Sinn Feiner?” And he would have to answer. And according to his answer, one-half of the people would leave the hall. The result was that before the war they had a textile organi- zation of only about four hundred members. But during the war the high cost of living drove them to organize, and at the end of the war there was something like forty thousand members of this organization. And since Protestant and Catholic workmen have come together and organized themselves, they have doubled their wages. For spinners, for instance, the wages were three dollars a week; and by organization they have raised them to seven or seven and a half dollars a week. He said that labor meetings have taken place, some of them in Hibernian halls and some of them in Orange halls, without regard to religious differences. He even told of a labor parade in a small town outside of Belfast where one-half the band was Hibernian and the other half was Orange, and yet there was perfect harmony! Q. Senator Norris: That means that one-half of them were Cath- olic and one-half of them Protestant? A. Yes. Q. In these meetings where they would ask the labor organizers if they were Unionists, that did not imply any religious difference, did it? A. As a rule that Unionists are Protestants. Q. You said that when someone spoke at these meetings called for organization purposes, they always asked the question whether they were Unionists, and, depending on their answer, about one- half of their audience would leave. Now, what I wanted to get at is whether there is any religious question involved in that. A. Yes. I said that these people would ask from the floor, “Are you a Sinn Feiner?” or “Are you a Unionist?” And they would also ask, “What is your religion?” Q. But I want to find if, when they would ask, “Are you a Unionist?” and “Are you a Sinn Feiner?” there is any religious line involved in that question. A. I think that the Unionist leaders before the war were pretty thoroughly Protestant. Q. Well, how are they now? A. In 1919, I think it was, that the International Labor Confer- ence was held in Berne, in Switzerland, and at that conference Ulster labor representatives, very mainly Protestants, backed the rest of Irish labor in a demand for self-determination.
Q. Now, as I understand you in regard to Ulster, the people seem to be divided somewhat on the religious issue, and that is entering into this controversy that is going on there now. Is that right? A. It has been an issue. I think it is growing less of an issue all the time. Q. Now, in what ways is it growing less? Do you mean by that that the question as to whether certain persons are Unionists or Sinn Feiners is decided upon the religious beliefs of the people, or is it in less degree that way now than it was before the war or during the war? A. Yes, I think people are forgetting their religious prejudices through these labor organizations. When they get together they find they are not such terrible people after all. Q. Is there any other place in Ireland besides Belfast where this religious issue is involved? A. No, not that I know of. Q. How are the people divided numerically? A. They are almost half and half. In Ulster the Catholics are only a little less than the Protestants. Q. Senator Walsh: You mean the whole province as distin- guished from the city of Belfast? Excuse me, Senator. A. Yes. Q. Senator Norris: Now, what kind are Protestants? A. The rich mill owners are almost all Protestant Unionists. Then there were a great many Protestant laborers. And then the mass of the Catholic people were laborers.
Q. Now, is there any difference in policy on the part of Great Britain towards Ulster than towards the balance of Ireland? Why is it that the rich factory owners are Unionists? A. Their industries have been protected by England. Q. That is what I am trying to get at. How have they been protected? A. I think they have been protected by permitting men like Carson to work on the religious prejudices of the people, so that the rich mill owners profit by the division of the people, especially the laboring people. Q. Now, how do they profit? How does that result in a profit to the rich mill owners? A. So long as the laborers are kept apart, the labor cost of the mill owners is very much less, because the laborers are not able to ask for higher wages. They have not the strength of organization. Q. Then the organization of the laborers decreases the profits of the mill owners by getting higher wages? A. Yes, yes. Q. And as that organization proceeds, the religious issue dis- appears? A. Yes, it is disappearing.
Q. Senator Walsh: May I ask a few questions along that line? You have never known a unanimity of opinion upon any great ques- tion anywhere in the world? A. No. Q. And there is not in Ireland today on this question of a Republic? A. No, but I think there is possibly the greatest unanimity there that has ever existed on a great issue in any country of the world. Q. Looking towards independence? A. Yes. Q. Now, I want to get this foundation for a correct division of the forces in Ireland. Do I gather from your testimony, to sum it up, that the movement for a free, independent Ireland is led by the liberal-thinking, intellectual forces of Ireland, and that the opposition is led by the capitalistic class, supported by such people as they can influence along religious lines? Is that a summary of the whole situation? Tell us in your own words. A. I think that that might be considered a summary of it. Q. That is, that the mental, thinking forces, the intellectual class that you have spoken of as meeting, have rallied to their support the great mass of the people, approaching an overwhelming percentage, for independence and self-determination; and opposed to them is, first of all, the capitalistic class, plus such forces in the north of Ireland as they have been able to rally to their support by appeals along religious lines? A. Yes, but I would like to add to that that in my opinion it would have been impossible for these brilliant young leaders to rally the forces in Ireland behind them unless the people were driven to revolt by the economic conditions that are pressing into them. Q. Exactly. But that is one reason why they have been able to get the people behind them. A. Yes. Q. But the leaders are what we call in America the liberals and the intellectual class? A. Yes; I don’t know what you mean by “liberal,” but they are an extremely intelligent class. Q. I mean by liberals intelligent, forward-looking people who have no prejudices, who are trying to find sound and fundamental notions of life and government. Is that not true? A. Yes, that is it. Q. Did you find religious differences involved among the Re- publican leaders? A. No, oh, no. Q. Is there any thought of religious differences at all among those men and women? A. No. Q. Commissioner Maurer: I was not here at the beginning of your testimony. How long ago have you been in Ireland? A. I was there from March 16, 1919, to the end of June, 1919. Q. This year? A. 1919.
Q. In the south of Ireland, where the Catholics are in the great majority, perhaps ninety per cent., how did you find the workers organized where Catholics were in the majority? Did you find them generally organized, or were they about as poorly organized as they were in the north of Ireland? A. I think that labor organization is proceeding very rapidly in Ireland. The Irish Transport and the General Workers' Unions have jumped tremendously, by the tens of thousands, in the last year or so. Q. Yes. The point I want to get at is this: before you came from Ireland, did you find that in the south of Ireland there had been a labor movement there prior to your coming to Ireland; and, if so, what kind of labor movement was it? Did it have any strength?' Did it amount to anything? A. Before I came to Ireland? Q. I mean the history of it. What did it amount to before the war began in Europe? A. Nothing. I think that before the strike of 1913 in Dublin, labor was practically unorganized. Q. Yes.. They were practically unorganized? A. Yes. Q. At what part of Ireland was that? A. The big strike was at Dublin. Q. The religious issue did not seem to be raised in the south of Ireland? A. No. Q. And the Catholics and Protestants seemed to be able to agree and get into the same labor unions? A. Yes. Q. But in the north of Ireland, where the Protestants are in the overwhelming majority (perhaps not so overwhelming as the Cath- olics are in the south), there was religious difficulty? A. Yes. Q. Now, I am assuming that the Catholics in the south were organized prior to and before the northern workers. Is that true? A. I think the shipyard workers in Belfast were pretty thor- oughly organized first. Q. Yes, I understand. But I mean the textile trades. A. No, I don't think so.
Q. In your investigation, did you find any difference between the wages in the south of Ireland and those in the north? A. In the old established organizations like the shipbuilders they were getting pretty good wages. I forget just what they earned. The wages had increased in Dublin through the Dock Workers; and through the Transport Workers they had during the war almost doubled. Q. That is not the point I am trying to get at. In the north of Ireland, where the religious differences are the greatest, were the wages in that part of Ireland anywhere near as good or better than they were in the south of Ireland, where there was no apparent religious difference? A. It is very hard to compare the wages in the north and south of Ireland, because there is so much factory work in the north. In the south the men are employed in farm labor and casual work; but in Belfast there is more factory work. Q. Yes, yes. So that the textile industry seemed to be located mostly in the north of Ireland? A. Yes. Q. What was the standard of living there in the north of Ireland when you were there? A. I think, in a way, it was worse than that in the south of Ireland, for this reason, that the people were so driven by factory work that on the streets as you would meet them they would appear very thin and underfed. Even the young girls in Belfast do not seem to have money enough to dress up, and would wear those black shawls over their heads. Q. Did you find any particular prejudice against the word "labor union" among the people? A. No, I did not. Q. There did not seem to be any particular prejudice against that? A. No.
Q. And those that you did find organized in either the north or south of Ireland — y6u have interviewed a number of those people, 1 suppose? A. Yes. Q. And what position did those men and women that you did meet take on this question of the freedom of Ireland? A. They were for self-determination. Q. They were for independence, that means? A. Yes. ' That has been shown by their action at the Berne Labor Conference. Q. Yes, but resolutions adopted at conventions would not mean as much to me as the sentiments you would gather by living among the people themselves. A. Yes. Q. You met the rank and file, I suppose. A. Yes. Q. Protestant men and women? A. Yes. Q. And you spoke to them about self-determination for Ireland? A. Yes. Q. And what did they say? A. Dawson Gordon told me that the political question would absolutely have to be settled before the rise of the unions in Ulster could go on and, in his opinion, develop as they ought to. Labor therefore stands for the