Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Jul 1924

Vol. 8 No. 18

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. VOTE 55—ARMY. (Resumed).

Mr. JOHNSON

I want to move a reduction of this Vote by £1,000. My purpose in doing this is to give an opportunity to the Dáil either to receive a satisfactory explanation or to enter its protest against a course of conduct of the Army administration and the Executive Council in respect of what has become known as the Kenmare case. It is about the most unpleasant duty that one could take up, but I believe that it is a duty and that the Dáil would be guilty of condoning wrong-doing if we did not either get a satisfactory explanation or make known our protest and opposition to the course of conduct which I want to deal with.

There has been published during the last few days in a newspaper which is widely circulated—"Eire"—a statement regarding the Kenmare case. So far as I know it is the first time any particulars have been made public, any allegations have been published regarding this matter. In the Report of the Army Inquiry Committee there are references to the Kenmare case, as there are references to the Mayo case. The references to the Kenmare case are as follows:—

It was suggested that the late Adjutant-General condoned or connived at insubordination by failing to punish it in the case of highly placed officers. The principal instance was the Kenmare case. In dealing with that the Adjutant-General strictly followed the advice of his legal adviser, the Judge Advocate-General. He put the case in train for a Courtmartial, and he was no party to dropping the proceedings.

General Mulcahy accepted full responsibility for the decision to drop the Kenmare case.

In our opinion this was a grave error of judgment on his part. It did not contribute to the mutiny, but it did militate against discipline generally by encouraging suspicion in the minds of officers and others that the Army Authorities were disposed to hush up charges against persons high in authority.

Apparently information was given to the Committee of Inquiry in regard to this case. The evidence which was adduced to the Committee was not published, and the only information regarding it appears in the speech of Deputy General Mulcahy made during the discussion of the Army Inquiry Report on the 17th June, in which he explained that the Kenmare case was sent to the late Attorney-General for decision, and that he gave his decision in a long statement as the result of his examination—

That there was no shred of evidence against Major-General O'Daly, who, it was alleged, was mixed up in this case, and that there was no shred of evidence against the second officer, and that there was only a shadow of evidence against the third. He went on to say:—

And it will not appear that the parties who had a grievance in this particular case were advised that there were not sufficient grounds for the State to take up a prosecution, and that, if they considered well of it, they had the law courts to go to in this particular case.

Arising out of that discussion, the newspaper has made certain charges purporting to give the facts about this case. It says:—

What actually took place in Kenmare was that two daughters of a well-known and highly-respected medical practitioner at an evening entertainment frankly gave their opinion of some of the performances of Free State troops.

... That night four Free State officers forced their way into the doctor's house, dragged these two girls from their beds in their night attire, hauled them out into the garden, there flogged them with their belts, and, not even satisfied with that, afterwards smeared their hair with cart-grease. Next morning investigation took place into the circumstances of this disgusting outrage, and Lieut. N. Harrington, a son of the late Mr. T. Harrington, M.P., found in the grounds where the scourging took place a revolver which he identified as belonging to Brigadier-General O'Daly. One of the young ladies in defending herself had also left ample identification marks on the face of one of her assailants.

... a deputation which, we believe, included the Free State solicitor, journeyed to Dublin to place the facts before the responsible Government Department, and it happened that in the train with them was the officer whose scratched cheeks bore convincing testimony of his chivalry when dealing with defenceless girls. The complaint was made in the first instance to the Minister for Home Affairs, and General Mulcahy was sent for, informed of the allegations made, and requested to place under arrest the subaltern who had come to Dublin on leave. General Mulcahy undertook to do so, but when inquiry was made after a lapse of a week it was found that he had done nothing... The matter came before the Executive Council, and they decided that a courtmartial of the officers implicated should take place. That tribunal was fixed to meet locally on a certain date, and all the arrangements for the hearing were made... On the eve of the day appointed for the opening of the proceedings all the persons connected with the Army who were to give evidence were seized and whisked away to distant parts of the country. When the courtmartial met there was no one to give evidence, and the whole thing collapsed.

These are the allegations without any of the comments. I have no particular reason for putting faith in the story printed in this paper but it is quite clear from the report of the Army Inquiry Committee and the comments of Deputy Mulcahy that very serious matters were under consideration. It seems to be undoubted that two ladies were maltreated and that the persons who maltreated them were either soldiers of the army, or persons posing as soldiers, and in the uniform of soldiers. It also appears that charges in regard to this, and certain information was placed at the disposal of the Executive Council and the Army authorities, and that some kind of examination took place..

It is said in defence of that inaction that the legal advisers decided that there was not sufficient evidence to bring the matter to the courts. But this allegation that the witnesses who were to have given evidence were dispersed and made not available, is, to my mind one that will have to be answered. I want to know, and I think the Dáil should require to know, what has been done to these ladies who were maltreated. Have they been left to their own discretion as to whether they should bring a charge against some person or persons unknown into court? It is admitted by the Executive Council that soldiers did maltreat them, and has any regret or apology or other action been taken to disown and denounce on behalf of the Executive Council the action of any person who was a soldier? Is the Ministry of Defence satisfied that there was no evidence against the persons who were charged or are alleged to have been implicated in this offence? Is the Executive Council satisfied that there was no case made, and can we have information as to what was done in the matter —and why action was not taken— whether it was the mere absence of sufficient evidence to ensure a conviction that deterred the Executive Council from taking action? Were the officers concerned allowed to remain within the Army for long after this incident, and if so, was it because the Executive Council were satisfied that there were no grounds for the allegations? If there were grounds for the allegations but not sufficiently satisfactory from the point of view of legal evidence, will those officers be now in the position of every other officer who is demobilised in regard to pensions, for instance? I do not know whether we have a right to consider that the charges have been sustained, but presumably not, inasmuch as there have been no prosecutions. It appears from the facts brought out in the Army report, or at least from the references to certain matters which are made in the Army report, that this was a serious case in the eyes of the Ministry, and considerable notice was taken of it inasmuch as not only did the Judge-Advocate-General advise in the matter but the Attorney-General also. It is quite evident that very serious notice was taken of the charge.

I think it is necessary that we should have a full and complete statement from the Minister responsible as to the facts, and as to the position of the Executive Council and the position of the Ministry for Defence in this matter. We should be told what is the truth relating to this charge, that the witnesses who were to be called to give evidence in the matter were not available and were dispersed prior to the hearing. The refusal of the Ministry to publish first the report of the Chairman, and secondly the evidence, makes it imperative upon us in view of the publicity that has been given to this story, the first statement that I have seen in any detail, either to get a satisfactory explanation or to make as emphatic a protest as we can at the inaction of the Executive Council or of the Ministry of Defence in the matter. I hope it will be possible for the Minister for Defence to clear my mind at any rate of the thought that there has been a hushing-up and a refusal to do in this case what would have been done if the persons concerned had been ordinary civilians in an ordinary criminal case.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The question is that this Vote be reduced by £1,000.

The PRESIDENT

In this case which has been referred to by Deputy Johnson and by other Deputies as the Kenmare case, the Executive Council had it under consideration, or rather, they had under consideration some allegations concerning this case and all relevant files and documents were sent to the Attorney-General for his advice. The Executive Council acted on that advice, and there the responsibility of the Executive Council began and ended. If the Executive Council do not take the advice of their Law Adviser they have got to get rid of him. In this case they took his advice and they do not intend and will not publish the advice that was given to them on that occasion. The Army Inquiry Committee had this case before them, and they did not get the Attorney-General's advice and were informed by that matters such as that would not be disclosed and that I would take myself personal responsibility for refusing to disclose confidential matters coming before the Executive Council. The allegations that are made in a journal such as this, in "Eire," bring to my mind an incident that happened in the life of the greatest man who ever lived, where certain allegations were made against a certain person. When the virtues of those who made the charges were written in the sand, there was no accuser for that person, and I think the very same thing might apply to the authors or the editor or the owners of the business engaged in the production of this particular journal.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister allege or state that the Army Authorities at the time gave every assistance in gathering all the evidence that was required in this matter?

The PRESIDENT

All the evidence that was available and all the files in connection with the case, every particular that came in either from the Army or from the civil authorities, was placed in the possession of the Law Adviser of the State.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister will excuse me, but that is really not the point. No doubt the Law Adviser gave his opinion on the evidence which was placed before him, but was the assistance, in the gathering of that evidence that should have been available, utilised?

The PRESIDENT

I believe it was. I do not remember any statement or allegation being made that any evidence was withheld, and, speaking from recollection, I should say that nothing was withheld.

General MULCAHY

I would like to assist the President in this matter to this extent: to state definitely that the most exhaustive inquiries were made in the matter by very responsible officers. It seems that Deputy Johnson is stressing the point in connection with the collection of information in the matter. That is quite in keeping with the whole trend of the article in "Eire"—to say that the witnesses were made to disappear and were not available when the court of inquiry sat on the matter. That is utterly untrue. A most exhaustive inquiry was made and a complete verbatim report of every scrap of evidence that could be given in the case was made. The whole of that evidence, as well as the opinion of the Judge-Advocate-General and of the Military Authorities generally was before the Attorney-General when he made his summing-up of the case and gave his advice.

Mr. DAVIN

Can the President say whether the Executive Council had before them, or whether they invited from the parties who were alleged to have been treated in this way, any statement or evidence in support of the charge, and would they not consider that reasonable ground upon which to proceed? I want to know if the Executive Council invited any statement from the parties concerned in this scandalous case. I would also like to know how does the Minister regard as confidential a matter of this kind when it is generally known, and I have been told it is generally known all over the County Kerry—that is the details in connection with this particular incident.

The PRESIDENT

I do not know what the Deputy means. Every document and every statement in connection with this case that came before any member of the Executive Council, or before the Executive Council itself, was furnished to the Law Adviser.

Mr. DAVIN

What I want to know is this: included in these documents was there any statement submitted to the Executive Council from the parties upon whom the outrage is supposed to have been committed?

The PRESIDENT

Every single document we received, and every statement we received, from any person concerned in the case, was sent to the Law Adviser.

Mr. DAVIN

That is not exactly an answer to my question, and I think it is an important point that should be answered.

General MULCAHY

I would like to answer that question. The parties who had complained in the matter, and all the witnesses they desired to bring forward, came forward and gave formal evidence before two very definite sittings of courts. One was held by the police authorities in an irregular way, but it was a very definite sitting and a very definite taking of what was alleged to be evidence, and another was a court set up by the military authorities, and a verbatim and signed statement of the evidence of any witness who was examined there was forwarded and laid before the Attorney-General.

The PRESIDENT

I might be allowed to make a short personal explanation. I have responsibility for establishing precedents in connection with matters that come before the Executive Council, matters which should be confidential matters, and which should not be disclosed to any person in that connection. I have this responsibility: that once a precedent in that connection be made my successors will be in the same position. As far as that is concerned, it is more a concern of my successors, but I do not want, in this matter or in any other, to make any precedent, or to give rise to any precedent, which would be a serious drawback to the persons succeeding me in my position. To that extent I am very jealous to keep in the strictest possible confidence matters coming before the Executive Council as such. If a Minister, in his capacity as Minister, in a matter dealing with his department, is asked for information in this House that is one matter. But in a matter coming before the Executive Council, and concerning it and the confidence relating to it, I must say that while Deputies may, at times, think that there is something being kept back, I must exercise the most jealous supervision over matters coming before the Executive Council and to that extent my answer must necessarily be reticent on matters of this sort coming before the House.

General MULCAHY

What the President has said drives me to make a small personal explanation. I did make a statement here, portion of which was read by Deputy Johnson, in which I referred in certain terms to the decision of the Attorney-General given in this particular case, and to a certain extent, from his point of view, that was a breach of a certain amount of confidence. I gave evidence to that effect before the Army Inquiry Committee, but in my statement before the Army Inquiry Committee I very explicitly said if there was anything in the evidence I was giving before that Committee that could be in any way regarded as a breach of confidence with the Executive Council, I was quite prepared to have that evidence removed from my statement. If here subsequently when dealing with the matter of the Army Inquiry Report I did repeat remarks of mine indicating something at any rate with regard to the Attorney-General's report, and if there was a tinge of breach of confidence in that, I submit to the House it was wrung from me by insinuations and allegations made in a most unwarranted way and by, in my opinion, very lying and insidious tongues, against the honour of men who, as army officers, have rendered very valuable and distinguished service to the State.

Mr. BAXTER

This is a very peculiar matter to have to discuss at all in the manner in which it is brought up here. I only know of this case from the very brief reference to it made in the report of the Army Committee of Inquiry. I have not read and never heard before the statement which Deputy Johnson has read to us on this matter from the paper here to-day. It is the first time I had the remotest idea what the Kenmare case was. But for these facts all I would know about the case still would be from what was published in the report of the Committee of Inquiry. I suppose I am precluded from going into that question of the publication of the evidence, but I want to say that the President's reply is not, to my mind, satisfactory. The very little I know of this shows me that the President and the Executive Council decided not to take any action in this matter, because of the point of view put before them by the Attorney-General. I do not know what point of view was put before the Attorney-General or whether the evidence that went before the Attorney-General was also put before the Executive Council, or whether the bald decision of the Attorney-General himself only came before the Executive Council. But we do find in the report of the Committee that they say that Deputy Mulcahy accepted full responsibility for the decision to drop the Kenmare case.

They go on to say that, in their opinion, this was a grave error of judgment on his part, and that it did militate against discipline generally, by encouraging suspicion in the minds of officers and others, that the Army Authorities were disposed to hush up charges against persons high in authority. Now, apparently, the Army Committee of Inquiry had before them sufficient evidence to conclude that, from their point of view, Deputy Mulcahy committed a grave error of judgment in deciding to drop the Kenmare case, and, in doing that, that the Army Authorities were disposed to hush up charges against persons high in authority.

General MULCAHY

And that, therefore—is that what the Deputy means?

Mr. BAXTER

I am reading what is in the Report. Perhaps I am not exactly putting the interpretation upon it which the members of the Committee wanted to be put on it. I am putting on it the interpretation that appears to me. The Committee of Inquiry had before them, apparently, sufficient evidence to arrive at this decision—that charges were hushed up.

General MULCAHY

No; perhaps the Deputy would read the matter again.

Mr. BAXTER

That it did militate against discipline generally by encouraging suspicion in the minds of officers and others, that the Army Authorities were disposed to hush up charges against persons high in authority.

General MULCAHY

There was a great deal more than the Kenmare case operating to do that.

Mr. BAXTER

What I want to get at is, had the Executive Council, or only the Attorney-General, all the evidence before them, when the Executive Council or Deputy Mulcahy accepted responsibility to drop this case? Was all the evidence that was put before the Committee of Inquiry put before the Executive Council in this matter, or was that evidence only put before the Attorney-General?

The PRESIDENT

That is the second or third time that that question has been asked. The Executive Council furnished all the files they had got, but whether they furnished all the evidence is a question I cannot answer. What is meant by all the evidence? Does it mean every document they had, every piece of information of which they were in possession? The answer to that would be, Yes. If, however, the Deputy means to come back to me and ask: Did you put in so-and-so? I cannot say; but I do say that every title of information that was available to us was put before them.

Mr. BAXTER

Does that mean that all the evidence went before the Executive Council and was considered by them?

The PRESIDENT

I could not say. I could not exhaust all the evidence. All I can say is that I know that any evidence, any particulars, or any information that came into the possession of any Minister of State was put before them, so far as I know. I am saying without any reservation, that to my knowledge, belief, or suspicion nothing was kept back by us. So far as I know, nothing was kept back.

Mr. BAXTER

What I have been try ing to get at is: did the evidence go before the Attorney-General himself, and did he come to a decision on it, or did it come before the Executive Council, or did the Attorney-General merely advise the Executive Council?

The PRESIDENT

I do not understand the last question. If the Deputy means to get from me confidential information, I must claim privilege with regard to that. I could not give that.

I have given all the information I have at my disposal, that the Attorney-General gave an opinion which was acted on, and which was formed on all the evidence that I could acquire in this case, or that any member of the Executive, so far as I know, could acquire.

Mr. ESMONDE

There is one point which I think has come out in this debate, and that is the remarkable statement on behalf of the members of the Army Inquiry Committee, who definitely accused Deputy Mulcahy of a grave error of judgment, because of the decision which was taken by the whole Executive Council on the advice of the Attorney-General. It tends to lessen the authority of that report, if it ever had any.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am not sure as to whether Deputy Esmonde thinks the Army Inquiry Committee had any authority or not, but if the Deputy would examine and try to envisage the circumstances of that case, and see at what stage it could be dropped or taken a stage further, he would realise that the final dropping was done on the authority of the Attorney-General.

Mr. ESMONDE

Then why accuse Deputy Mulcahy of dropping it?

General MULCAHY

And why say "drop?"

Mr. DAVIN

I am not going to plead the same amount of ignorance in regard to the case referred to by Deputy Johnson as Deputy Baxter professes to have so far as he is concerned. There is no doubt that both inside and outside this House rumours have been circulated giving this, that, and the other version in regard to the Kenmare case. I have been speaking to officers and soldiers who served in Kerry, and they have heard rumours of what is supposed to have taken place in regard to this incident. There is only one matter that I would like to draw attention to, and the President apparently has not made it clear in this debate. We all regret that certain officers took upon themselves responsibility for doing things which neither this House nor the Government could stand over. It should be made clear by the President that where charges, or allegations, have been made, and steps have not been taken to prove them, so far as these actions are concerned,, the Government does not stand over these things.

The PRESIDENT

I think from what has transpired during the last twelve or eighteen months, it will be admitted that the Government prosecutes, without any discrimination whatever, officers who have rendered good service, either in the pre-Truce or post-Truce period. But if the case be made that every officer is not being prosecuted, I can only say that the same thing applies to people other than officers and soldiers. On many occasions we have been criticised for placing men in the dock who rendered great and brilliant services at other periods of their lives.

Mr. DAVIN

I mention this because on previous occasions I felt that there was reluctance on the part of members of the Ministry to say anything that would be likely to displease army officers, whether of high or low rank.

The PRESIDENT

I think there is no doubt whatever in the mind of officers and soldiers that the same law is for them as for all of us. During the last election I said that there was the same law for every member of the Executive, and for every member of this assembly, as there was for the ordinary man in the street.

Mr. DAVIN

That is so, to a certain extent, when a robbery is committed. When proof was forthcoming that officers have committed a robbery, they have been dealt with in the way other people have been dealt with. If this State is to allow it to go abroad that servants of the State are not to be dealt with in the same way as people who come under the title of Irregulars, then it will be very difficult for this State to insist on a proper civic responsibility as far as the general body of the community is concerned. I do not wish to go back on things that have happened. I raised the point really because I wished to hear what the President would say, and to see whether he would not say, what has not been said in this House before, that is, that those people would be dealt with more severely than Irregulars.

The PRESIDENT

It is a fact that we can get information regarding officers and soldiers that we cannot get regarding the Irregulars. The amount of damage done by the Irregulars is known, and compared with the damage done the number of prosecutions against them is negligible.

Mr. JOHNSON

We have it from the Minister and Deputy Mulcahy that all the evidence available to the Ministry was placed before the legal adviser, and that his judgment, which they felt they must follow, was that it was not such evidence as would justify them in going to the courts.

The PRESIDENT

That is not my statement. My statement is that the Executive Council accepted, and acted on the opinion of the Attorney General which I have claimed privilege from disclosing, and must claim privilege from disclosing.

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not know whether that is intended to be a refutation of my interpretation of the Minister's earlier statements. I have assumed from what was said that all the evidence in the hands of the Executive Council, and the Minister for Defence, was placed before the Attorney-General, and that on going through it he advised the Ministry that it was not of a character that would justify a prosecution. I take it that is correct.

The PRESIDENT

That is not my statement. I am not denying that, but I am not affirming it.

Mr. JOHNSON

Then the Minister is taking upon himself the responsibility for not having instituted the prosecution. He refuses to put that responsibility upon the Attorney General. He refuses to say it was the judgment of the Attorney General that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant a prosecution. Therefore, no prosecution having taken place, it was the direct responsibility of the Executive Council without regard to what the Attorney-General said.

The PRESIDENT

I have not said that.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is what the contention of the Minister amounts to.

The PRESIDENT

No.

Mr. JOHNSON

Well, the House can judge. The Army Report that was presented to us was minus what I conceive to be the most important and authoritative part, that is that part to which the Chairman, appointed because of his legal learning, had appended his signature. The Chairman made a report which has not been disclosed. I have just as much right to assume that the Chairman's report had reference to this case as to assume anything else. We had also from Deputy Mulcahy, who was the Minister responsible at the time, that there is no warrant for the assertion that the witnesses who were capable of giving evidence in this case, were dispersed and removed to different parts of the country, and therefore not available. I am glad to have that denial from the ex-Minister, and I hope it will be taken note of by all those who are asserting the contrary.

I take it, from what has been published and stated here, that the Ministry was at least satisfied that there was a prima facie case that those ladies had been assaulted by soldiers. Apart from the identity, there was insufficient evidence to warrant any charge against a particular person, but I take it, in view of the serious steps that were taken to inquire into the matter, that it is not denied that the maltreatment did occur, and that soldiers did enter the house of those ladies, take them from their beds, and beat them with belts. I want to know what action has the Ministry taken with regard to those ladies. Granted that the evidence was insufficient to punish the culprits, has anything been done to give those citizens, (disloyal or otherwise,—I do not know) some feeling that the Ministry reprobated any such action and that they would, if they could, punish the offenders? Has the course of conduct been that you do not believe that the girls had been maltreated by soldiers, or that you accept the general statement of facts, but could not identify the culprits, and that you have expressed your reprobation and, shall I say, apologised on behalf of the Army to those persons so maltreated?

General MULCAHY

I suggest the Deputy is inventing a story. Where is it suggested that any girls were taken out of their beds in the story, good, bad or indifferent? From my knowledge of the case, I deny that there was evidence that soldiers were mixed up in the matter at all. I cannot help feeling, by the general recital of this case here from this Irregular paper "Eire," that the Deputy is endeavouring to get information which, the President has stated, is privileged information.

The PRESIDENT

If the Deputy invites me to reprobate an assault, if there was an assault, whether it be by soldiers, civilians or anyone else, I may say that I reprobate most strongly any assault on any lady or ladies.

Mr. HEWAT

This is all very puzzling.

Mr. BAXTER

Very puzzling. We should have the evidence.

Mr. HEWAT

Deputy Johnson raises this question on the Army Vote, and any information I may have gleaned at all was from his statement made here to-day. As I understand it, this, whatever it was, happened considerably more than a year ago in disturbed times. Since then the whole Army Inquiry has been before the Dáil. A Commission has been appointed, and personally I was hopeful that it would not be necessary to bring this rather serious matter before the Dáil again.

Of course, Deputy Johnson, in raising this, is quite within his rights as regards the investigation of the administration of the Army. But unless he has some information founded on facts which supplement the information which was before the Committee, I wonder whether it is quite wise to open another discussion on this matter at this stage. Of course, I understand, or I presume, that Deputy Johnson, in raising this matter, is likely to follow the usual procedure that he follows where he is convinced that there is a matter of principle involved; in other words, that he is going to call for a division. Consequently I, as a member of the Dáil, will be called upon to vote. The President has said that in connection with the advice given by the Attorney-General to the Executive Council, that advice is privileged. I think it must be so. Even in very much less important spheres in connection with commercial bodies, we always look on advice asked for and received from legal personages as privileged, privileged for the information of these to whom it is given. It would be very unsatisfactory that advice given in that way should ever become public property. That it has not been given is, I think, the gravamen of the charge that Deputy Johnson has put forward in this case. We have the assurance from the President that in asking for the advice of the Attorney-General all the information that was available in this particular case was submitted to him, and that the advice that was given by the Attorney-General to the Executive Council was based upon that full statement of the case as it was known to the Executive Council. Having regard to that assurance, I personally am prepared to say that the attitude taken up by the President is the correct one as regards procedure. There are, and there must be, confidential communications, and I do not think that in reading out a statement in a paper Deputy Johnson has made a case that requires the re-opening of matters that must have been, and, I think, were before the Committee appointed by the Dáil.

Mr. JOHNSON

It was not appointed by the Dáil.

Mr. HEWAT

Appointed by the Executive Council at the request of the Dáil. That would be more like it. As far as the case has proceeded, I only rise to say that I am prepared to support the Government, not from any desire particularly to support the Government, but on the merits of the case and from the public point of view. Unless there is further need for re-opening this Army question, I do not think it is wise that the people should dwell on this matter, nor do I think it is wise to use it politically as an explosive force which it is very dangerous to handle in this way.

I do not think that the Army should be brought into the region of politics more than is absolutely necessary. I quite see that Deputy Johnson has the right to raise this matter on the Army Vote, but I do deprecate the continuance of a state of affairs which has been dangerous in the past unless there is very strong justification for raising it again in the Dáil. Seeing that there is no apparent demand from anybody, seeing that there is no statement that any injury has been done to anybody, I think it would be better not to raise it. Under all the circumstances I certainly am prepared to vote with the Government in this matter.

Mr. JOHNSON

I want to make my position clear. I do not demand and I have not suggested that the advice given by the Attorney General to the Ministry in this or in any other case should be divulged. I realise quite well that it would be very undesirable that a demand of that kind should be used as a precedent or become a practice. I have not suggested any such thing. We have the report of the Army Inquiry Committee which was presented to the Dáil by the Executive Council. In that report a certain case was referred to and it was stated that a grave error of judgment had been committed by the Minister responsible at that time in the decision "to drop the Kenmare case," and that the dropping of that case did militate against discipline generally by encouraging suspicion in the minds of officers and others that the Army Authorities were disposed to hush up charges against persons high in authority. That is all we know in this Dáil about the matter. That is all I know about the matter until there is put into my hands by a responsible citizen, not of the camp which may be suggested, a detailed statement of the case in question—certain circumstantial statements in regard to it. Under the circumstances I have the right and every Deputy who knows the facts and has the matter brought to his notice in relation to this paragraph 27 of the report of the Army Inquiry Committee, has the right to raise the matter; and I say it is a duty imposed upon us, or at least, it is a duty imposed upon me to protest against the inaction of the Executive Council in the matter even as disclosed by the President here to-day.

Mr. DAVIN

As Deputy Hewat has made a certain insinuation, I think it is only right that he should quite thoroughly understand that so far as this party is concerned, and so far as I am concerned, the Army question has never been raised in this Dáil as a political issue.

General MULCAHY

I want to say that I am perfectly prepared to support the motion by Deputy Johnson to reduce the Army Estimate, if he does not get the Chairman's report and the evidence that was before the Army Inquiry Committee, but I cannot support a motion based on this Kenmare case. I cannot help recalling in connection with this arising here this evening the Irish phrase that says: “Is leithide an bualtach satailt air.” I do suggest that people have been putting their feet into the bualtach that is very carefully prepared by other people, and it is not the Army bualtach.

The PRESIDENT

I can only say, I do not know whether I said it before or not, that the evidence which was before the Committee of Inquiry will be reserved by the Executive Council. The Executive Council, while I am in my present position as President, will allow the evidence to be examined by Deputy Johnson, or any responsible member of his Party, who will treat it in confidence, and I should say the same also with regard to a member of Deputy McGrath's Party.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the President realise that if we take a note of that evidence in confidence we cannot use it?

The PRESIDENT

Precisely.

Mr. JOHNSON

Then what is the use of it?

The PRESIDENT

I would also place it at the disposal of members of the other parties who took part in that Inquiry. In my opinion it is not in the public interest that it should be disclosed. I do think, in a matter of this sort, if there is a vote, that I should be prepared to give every latitude or facility for a vote of want of confidence. Deputy Mulcahy will vote for the amendment under certain circumstances. It is not in view of Deputy Mulcahy's statement I made this offer to Deputy Johnson. I was prepared to do it before that, but only in confidence.

Mr. JOHNSON

I decline any such offer, as it would simply mean closing my mouth if I got the information from any other source. If I went and viewed matters in confidence, the necessary effect would be that under no circumstances could I bring the matter before the Dáil.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I wish to say one word in answer to Deputy Johnson's statement. He has referred to a paper put into his hand by a certain responsible citizen. That paper contains what he calls certain circumstantial evidence, and people reading that are bound, according to the Deputy, to take it as referring to the particular paragraph of the Army Inquiry Report which deals with this Kenmare case. I suggest to him that there is only one item in what he has read which relates at all to the Army Inquiry Report, and that is a statement that witnesses were dispersed in order to avoid evidence being taken from them. That statement was made before the Army Inquiry Committee and was examined. I personally am convinced, and I have consulted some of my colleagues in the Committee, and they, too, are convinced that there was no truth in that statement. Deputy Mulcahy has denied it here this evening, and I join with him in the denial. I suggest that is the only substantial point in that paper with regard to the report of the Army Inquiry that Deputy Johnson has referred to.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 32.

Tá.

• Pádraig F. Baxter.
• Seán Buitléir.
• David Hall.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Aodh O Cúlácháin.
• Liam O Daimhín.
• Eamon O Dubhghaill.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Tadhg O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl.

• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• Bryan R. Cooper.
• Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
• John Hennigan.
• William Hewat.
• Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
• Séamus Mac Cosgair.
• Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
• Patrick McGilligan.
• Risteárd Mac Liam.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mag Aonghusa.
• James Sproule Myles.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodhá.
• Ailfrid O Broin.
• Criostóir O Broin.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Richard O'Connell.
• Partholán O Conchubhair.
• Séamus O Dóláin.
• Donchadh O Guaire.
• Seán O Laidhin.
• Séamus O Leadáin.
• Pádraic O Máille.
• Risteárd O Maolchatha.
• Séamus O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
• Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
• Seán O Súilleabháin.
• Seán Príomhdhail.
• Nicholas Wall.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. DAVIN

Some time ago I asked a question of the Minister for Defence as to whether or not the scheme of Army re-organisation had been drafted, whether that scheme had been submitted to the Executive Council, and whether the Executive Council had sanctioned it. I was led to believe by the answer that the scheme was then under the consideration of the Executive Council, but the President as Minister for Defence did not say whether the Executive Council had sanctioned or were likely to sanction it. A very important statement was made yesterday by the ex-Minister for Defence when he gave it as his opinion from his long experience in matters of this kind that the scheme that is now being put into operation, and that was not sanctioned at the time I asked my question, is a scheme that does not meet the requirements of the situation. I think that statement requires a very definite answer from the Minister for Defence. While on that matter I will express the opinion that I expressed before, that it is very unfortunate, for reasons best known to the Executive Council, that they should have decided to place upon the President, who was already over-loaded with work, the additional duties and responsibilities of Minister for Defence. I cannot find a good reason as to why that should have been done. Perhaps it was due to the fact that the Army Inquiry Committee had to be set up. Now that that Inquiry has concluded its work, and as many Deputies have expressed their view that they do not want to hear any more about Army questions, I think that the Executive Council and the President should realise that the time has come for them to find another Minister for Defence. I say that without any disrespect to the President, because I realise, and I am sure the Dáil realises, that the President of the Executive Council cannot, in fairness to himself and to his own work, be asked to bear the very heavy and additional responsibility of Minister for Defence. Therefore in the interests of country, and in the interests of Deputies who have from time to time to bring matters before the Dáil, and who expect that these matters should be dealt with properly, I say that it is impossible to have them dealt fairly and squarely by the President acting also as Minister for Defence.

I quite realise the circumstances under which the National Army was set up, and I think it was the duty of the Executive Council when considering a scheme of reorganisation, or the first scheme of organisation of the Army on proper lines, as far as they could to lay down lines that would put that organisation on a secure and permanent foundation. It has been already admitted that the scheme which has been sanctioned and passed is only a temporary scheme. I am not quite sure if the Government realise that in playing with Army schemes in the way of organisation and reorganisation they are playing with fire. They are setting up a scheme to-day which, as far as we can understand, is only to remain in existence for three months. What is the position from the point of view of the men in the Army?

The PRESIDENT

That statement is not quite correct. This scheme is now set up. Any imperfections that are in it will be observed within the next six or nine months. But it does not necessarily follow that you will have a new scheme in six or nine months, or even in twelve months' time. This scheme is thought to be the best at the moment. It is not intended to scrap it, but simply to change it in view of what experience we may derive.

Mr. DAVIN

I accept the admission made by the President as bearing out what I say, that this is only a temporary scheme. I want to know whether it is temporary or permanent. Who was responsible for drawing up the scheme? Is it the G.O.Cs. or the Commander of the Forces, who was only brought out of his position as Commissioner of the Civic Guard and placed in temporary control of the armed forces? If it was the G.O.C. was he acting on the instructions of the Executive Council, or in consultation with the General Officers Commanding different areas? I want to know what expert advice they had, other than their own experience, and I hope I will not be taken as meaning anything disrespectful when I describe it as experience in Army circles on amateur lines. If an Army in a new State is to be established on a permanent, secure foundation, I say that the body that is appointed to deal with such a big proposal should have at its disposal expert advisers, and I think Army officers on active service could not see imperfections in the same way as outsiders, and could not to that extent be held responsible for drafting a scheme that would not admit of any imperfections.

The President rather takes the view that he would later, after six, nine, or twelve months had dragged along, allow the imperfections to come out in the ordinary course of the operation of the scheme. I put it in this way, and I put it to the President simply because I have been talking in a casual way with Army officers from time to time: A great number of Army officers at present, believing that this is only a temporary scheme, that some other scheme will take its place at the expiration of six, nine or twelve months, feel that there is no security for them, and when there is no security there is really no incentive to them to do real work. There is a danger from that point of view, and I hope that the President will realise if there is anything in the scheme that is wrong and if it is looked upon more as a temporary than a permanent scheme, that the sense of insecurity that it places on the shoulders of officers is bad for an Army that should be properly disciplined and under proper control. I do not know how it is proposed to discuss the Estimate, but I wish to draw attention to one matter which is more or less a matter of policy. I want to draw the attention of the President to the increase in the figure for Warlike Stores, from £115,000 last year to £136,000 this year.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That will come under a sub-head.

Mr. DAVIN

It will, but it is really a question of policy. It is not a matter of detailed information.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

But can it not be discussed under Sub-head Q, Warlike Stores?

Mr. DAVIN

Of course I do not know if the Executive Council have made up their minds to have another war in six or nine months' time.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Could the Deputy not ask under Sub-head Q whether they have or not?

Mr. DAVIN

I submit to your ruling, but I say that it is not a matter of detailed information, but more a question of policy that there should be such an unwarrantable increase.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy might as well say that it is a question of policy that there should be a decrease in the pay of clergymen under Sub-head D. It would be discussed as a question of policy, and then we would have it all over again in detail. The Deputy had better keep to the scheme of re-organisation.

Mr. DAVIN

I bow to your ruling. I would ask the President to answer my question with regard to the scheme of Army reorganisation, and to say definitely who is responsible for the scheme. Was it submitted to the Executive Council, and was it thoroughly and carefully examined by them with the idea of seeing that the scheme of Army reorganisation was to be made now and not hereafter, as permanent and secure as it possibly could be?

The PRESIDENT

With regard to the question raised by Deputy Davin, I have to say that this scheme of organisation is a permanent scheme, permanent as far as the Civil Service is permanent, permanent as far as the Police Force is permanent, and that any reorganisation that takes place will not affect, and cannot affect, any officer holding a position in the Army; it is his efficiency, his adaptability and qualifications for his Commission which will ensure his retention in the Army. Should it be necessary during the next six months, nine months, twelve months, two years, three or five years, to furnish a better scheme than this one, that will not affect the Commission held by any officer. It is no excuse for dissatisfied officers to say that organisations and re-organisations follow one another in such quick succession, and that they feel insecure. It is not their business. He should be satisfied that it is in the power of the Civil Government of the country to organise or re-organise the Army in accordance with whatever appears in their judgment to be best at that particular time, and of the Dáil or the Oireachtas to which they are responsible. This scheme was put up by the General Officer Commanding, having had the opportunity of consulting the officers of the Army, and seeing the situation as it was.

Mr. DAVIN

What does the President exactly mean by saying the General Officer Commanding had an opportunity of consulting the officers of the Army; can he say did he consult all the General Officers Commanding?

The PRESIDENT

I expect he consulted quite a number of officers, not confining himself to the G.O.C.'s, but officers in various capacities and various ranks over the country, and his information to me is that this scheme will give satisfaction and will give the major satisfaction. He got that instruction from the Executive Council. I believe that the Executive Council had this matter under consideration only for a very short period. Deputies know the strength of the Executive Council and that the Executive Council is not at full strength, that a good deal of work, legislative and other work, has had to be done, that there have not been so many meetings of the Executive Council as I would like, and that in consequence this particular scheme did not get from the Executive Council that discussion which it should, perhaps. But this is the second scheme that we have had this year. Army re-organisation schemes, if I am not giving too much information away, are very voluminous in character. Quite endless pages succeed one another in continuity, and the mere reading of a scheme of reorganisation is enough to set one thinking for a week. In this particular case I have read about 200 pages dealing with the essence of the scheme, its general characteristics, its details, the various commissions, the various ranks that are to be held in the re-organisation scheme, and so on, and I do not know that it would have been possible, having regard to the amount of legislation each Ministry had to deal with, to give it more than partial consideration. Ordinarily I should say the Minister for Defence would have made himself thoroughly acquainted with the whole matter, as General Mulcahy did, and nobody is in a better position to appraise the value of the work and the amount of work that was done by General Mulcahy than I am.

Mr. JOHNSON

And he denounces the scheme as impossible.

The PRESIDENT

That may be, but doctors, in those cases, very often differ as well as in legal and other cases. Strategists and generals are just as liable to differ, and differ on fairly good grounds, with one another, as perhaps Deputy Johnson and myself on legislative or administrative matters; yet there are few people who would say that we are not both fairly well qualified to pronounce on any subject.

General MULCAHY

You have not much of a squabble among carpenters as to the type of tools they should use.

The PRESIDENT

No; but I think there is not general agreement amongst generals as to the type of machines they should use conducting various activities. It is my intention before the Recess to put before you the name of a Deputy for this office of Minister for Defence. I must say that there has been a good deal of patience on the part of the Dáil with me in this office. It has occupied a very considerable amount of time, and I may say that my own patience has been drawn upon occasionally.

Mr. ESMONDE

The President has adverted to the difficulty of getting proper consideration for the reorganisation scheme by the Executive Council. I suggest to the President that all that is necessary is that he should get one extra Portfolio, and then he would have a permanent majority in the Executive Council himself.

The PRESIDENT

I will bear that in mind.

Mr. ESMONDE

The President, yesterday, in answer to a question by Deputy Johnson, as to what this Vote was for and the reason why he should be expected to devote nearly four million pounds to the Army made a statement of policy or intention on the part of the Government with regard to the Army. He stated, amongst other things, that the Defence Forces could only exist for one purpose—to meet any national emergency that may arise; that the State must be defended both from external and internal aggression, and that the Government policy was to have an efficient military machine, capable of being used on the shortest possible notice, a body trained to discipline and efficiency and a credit to the nation. That was a statement of the policy or intention of the Executive Council. Their intention was not only that the Defence Forces should be capable of defending the State from external aggression, but from internal aggression. I am afraid, on the facts and figures we have got before us that the Army does not bear any relation to that policy or that intention. The President knows perfectly well that the Defence Forces, as at present constituted, cannot defend the State from external aggression. He made a statement not long ago in regard to the inadequacy and the extreme weakness of the Defence Forces of this State as compared with the Constabulary of the North-East. He mentioned just that one instance. That is a very serious matter of policy because it seems that we are not taking adequate steps for the defence of the country and that we are not taking responsibility for the defence of the country. We are placing the country in a position of definite inferiority, more in the position of a protectorate than a sovereign State, which we claim it to be.

Mr. GOREY

What size does the Deputy suggest the Army ought to be?

Mr. ESMONDE

Within the limits of this estimate, of less than £4,000,000, there is adequate money to create a really efficient Army. In fact, that sum would not really be necessary if it were properly administered. One has only got to compare the figures which we are paying for this particularly large and cumbersome police force with the figures of small armies in other parts of the world to see that that would be possible. At the present time in Belgium an army of, practically, 100,000 only costs £5,000,000, of which the pay, wages and allowances come to less than £2,000,000. In Switzerland this year the army costs only £3,250,000, although that involves a complete reorganisation of the artillery of the Swiss Army. In Roumania, with an army of over 125,000, they are paying this year less than £3,500,000. That includes the complete reconstruction of a large Air Force. In all these countries you will find that they are paying less—or most of them are paying less—than we are, and they are paying for a real army, whereas we are paying for something which is not in a position to defend the country from both external and internal aggression. When one considers this Estimate, we find that the wages and allowances which are written down under eight sub-heads come to over £2,500,000 out of a sum total for the whole Army of £3,800,000. We find very large sums being paid under five sub-heads, amounting to £318,000 for transport of various kinds, whereas the sum total which is being paid and which Deputy Davin drew attention to for warlike equipment is only £136,000.

Mr. DAVIN

Only!

Mr. ESMONDE

Only. If you compare the amount we are paying in wages and allowances with the corresponding figures in an ordinary up-to-date army, you will notice that a sum of £136,000 is not very adequate. In other Votes we are paying for preserving order in this country a sum of £1,700,000—for keeping up the Gárda and the D.M.P. If you add that to this Estimate, you will find that we are paying over £5,500,000 solely for the purpose of keeping order in the country. It is not very creditable for any country to pay about one-fifth of its total revenue for the purpose of keeping order inside its own borders. There are various items in this Estimate which can be discussed. I presume we can discuss them one by one. At any rate, I must say, as the Estimate stands at present it does not bear out the statement of policy made by the President yesterday that this Army was intended to defend the State, not only against external, but internal agression.

General MULCAHY

There are one or two minor points that I would like to raise and I feel that I cannot raise them except on this particular sub-head. I wish to say that I simply leave what I said with regard to the general policy of the Army as I have said it, because I fully realise that force of circumstances and time will, very soon after the Recess, make the Dáil take the question of the Army and Army organisation seriously and go into it in a more thorough fashion than we were able to do on those Estimates.

Only under sub-head A can I raise two questions to which I desire to refer. One is the question of an Irish Battalion. Would the President let us know how the position is as regards the formation of the Irish Battalion? It was intended that one of the twentyseven battalions arranged for would be an Irish-speaking battalion. The question is most important from the point of view of the status of our national language and from the point of view of the position in which our national language is and the fact that we have to nurture it and get it back into a more prominent, a more vigorous and a living position in the country. The Army gives us, without any trouble at all, the place in which to give a small reservation to the language.

The next question I desire to refer to is the question of the music school. I refer to it in order to draw attention to what I consider is a serious matter— the appearance of the hand of the Philistine in the music school. When we brought a distinguished musician to found our music school, we brought him, bearing in mind that we do not want in this country to be in the position with regard to music that we have to import our distinguished musicians. We brought a man of experience and capacity and culture, such as would help to develop musicians to his own standard and provide a headline here and that not only would we have in the army, bands that would be a credit to the country but that in our scheme of Army bands we would have machinery from the working of which we would get big and experienced and distinguished musicians. It was proposed that each band should have a commissioned officer in charge of it. We started modestly and only gave him the rank of First Lieutenant or Second Lieutenant. But in taking in a young musician and putting him in touch with the work of the music school and putting him under the tutorship of the present Director of Music, we were placing opportunities before him that, where we found the right type of man, he would be glad to have. It is true we only had succeeded in getting one musician to take on as an aspirant band master. But he is a man who will undoubtedly fill the bill and we could have got others if we were satisfied to take minor material. The school did make provision for four vacancies for musicians of that particular type. While the Estimate as it stands makes provision, apparently, for those officers, the scheme of organisation or establishment, which has been put up to us in the small White Paper, cuts them out. When you consider that in a company you give an officer to something like thirty-four men, it is not too much to ask that to a band, which numbers thirty-seven men, you should give an officer, too. I would ask the Minister to consider that aspect of the matter very carefully.

There is another aspect of this question that I would like to refer to. When the school was founded I went to the Professor of Music in the National University, and I asked him to be my adviser in the matter. He very willingly consented to do so, and has been to a large extent instrumental in seeing the school developed along the particular lines it has developed. I paid him, at one time, a small fee for his services, and, on the mandate of the Ministry of Finance, I told him I could not recompense him for his services any more. But I asked him to continue still as adviser in the matter. It was very necessary that we should not start or establish a very important Irish School of Music and hand it over entirely to a foreigner, without connecting him up with the very great field of music and the particular musical feeling we have in this country. We do not want a foreign School of Music started in our midst. We want proper training, so that we will have a School of Music that will preserve and develop our national tradition with regard to music. I have to complain, with regard to the school, that since I left the Ministry, the Professor of Music of the National University, who was my adviser in this matter, has been very discourteously pushed aside and told in an indirect way that he was not wanted any further. The school is now in the hands of the Director from a musical point of view. I consider that very wrong, and I consider it is introducing a danger with regard to the school. It is leaving to a very big extent in the hands of—however distinguished and however cultured—a foreigner, who no doubt fully appreciates our Irish music and has said with regard to it that his only regret in connection with the field of native music he has struck here is that he will not live long enough to enjoy or develop it properly. I do consider that you do want some type of musical control or assistance in connection with the school.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I would like to ask the Minister if he could say what number of N.C.O.'s and men are employed on clerical work in the Army and what amount of proficiency pay they receive while so employed. The reason I ask the question is that I have been informed that highly-trained clerks who joined the Army and who are employed on Army work in the different Army offices are, in some cases, only receiving something like 9d. a day extra, as proficiency pay. I would like to know if that is a fact.

The PRESIDENT

I have not heard recently about the Irish Battalion, but I will make inquiries about it. As regards the School of Music, I observe from the establishment, that there are a Colonel, two Captains and two Lieutenants and the ordinary number of men in each of the bands. There was, I think, only one band in March last, and it is proposed now to have four or five bands. It is considered advisable to have one band in each of the Commands, and, even though it does not come up to the excellence of the No. 1 Army Band, the general impression is that each Command ought to have a brass band. Some twelve or eighteen months ago, I think, there was a band in almost every command. There were certainly three or four bands, and even though they were not of the same excellence as the No. 1 Band, they were a certain satisfaction to the men.

With regard to the other matter mentioned about the services of the Professor in the National University, I think that the Army ought to be able to look after itself with regard to a matter of music or anything else. I must say from my experience that there is hardly much unanimity amongst professors of music or bachelors of music. As far as I have been able to learn, there is more disagreement amongst them than there is agreement, and while it is true that there might be certain advantages in getting advice from one person, one might antagonise another section. If in matters of this sort one were to look for advice from a person interested in Irish music, there might be a chorus of disapproval from the remainder of the profession that the correct person had not been consulted in the matter. That is the only objection I would have to getting in a particular person.

The proficiency pay given to clerks is at present 9d. and 1s. 6d., according to qualification. In certain cases I think there are complaints that persons doing clerical work have not got this pay at all. These cases, I think, are under examination at present. In the last case brought before me I know I was satisfied that within a very short time that particular matter will be cleared up.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Will the President say what is the reason for the very great difference between the proficiency pay which is allowed to highly-trained clerks and the amount of proficiency pay which, say, is allowed to a tradesman working at his particular trade in the Army?

The PRESIDENT

I cannot say. I got the machine in this order, and I have not altered it. It is a matter which the new Minister for Defence should take up. I cannot say at the moment what the difference is. As to proficiency there can be little doubt about it in the case of tradesmen, but it is open to doubt whether persons are really doing the class of clerical work which it is claimed they should get three shillings per head for.

Mr. DAVIN

Surely the President does not look upon highly-qualified clerks as unskilled labourers?

The PRESIDENT

No. But there are people who claim to be highly-qualified clerks, and whom the Deputy would scarcely employ as such if he had a big establishment.

Mr. DAVIN

What is the form of test which the Ministry applies?

The PRESIDENT

I could not say.

General MULCAHY

With regard to what the President said as to differences of opinion amongst musicians, no doubt that is possible. But, as a matter of fact, when in October, 1922, I got in touch with the Professor of Music in the National University, and spoke to him about what I wanted done, he at once suggested a committee of musicians to deal with the matter. I said: "I would not have time to handle a committee of musicians, but if you are satisfied to be a committee of one we will get on with the work." He did act as a committee of one, and the work was brought to the pretty successful preliminary stage which it has reached. I think it is absurd to suggest that because certain Irish musicians would criticise certain other Irish musicians you must leave the development of your Army School of Music untouched by any Irish influences of any kind except haphazard influences.

Sitting suspended at 6.30 p.m. until 7.15 p.m.

Sitting resumed at 7.15 p.m.,

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

in the Chair.

Mr. BAXTER

It is my experience, and I think the experience of other Deputies, that dependents' allowances, when claimed, are only awarded from the date on which the claim is made and are not granted for the full period of service. If there is justification for an allowance being paid, there is the same justification for paying it for the full period of service as for part of the period. That attitude on the part of the Army Authorities ought to be reconsidered, because it does not seem just.

The PRESIDENT

That is a regulation which has been in force, and it would entail endless confusion, complications, delays, etc., if it were to be altered now. Whatever may be said about the time it was introduced, I take it, it must have been introduced for particular reasons. I do not know whether the Deputy has had much experience of this sort of thing, but I have had some experience of it in connection with another army, and it was open to a considerable amount of abuse. I admit that there may have been cases of hardship, but it is a regulation which was known and which has been in force. Now that there is a different state of affairs, I do not think it would be wise to revise that. A great number of those in respect of whom claims might be made in that connection have now left the Army. The regulations are now different. There is no dependents' allowance now. It is purely a marriage allowance.

Mr. LYONS

On the formation of the National Army a large number of men joined up with the respective companies that they belonged to prior to the formation of the Army. Some of these men at that time got the rank of captain or lieutenant, and served for eighteen months in the Army, receiving pay only at the rate of £1 4s. 6d. per week. The matter has been raised in the Dáil on several occasions. In fact, the number of questions I have asked the Minister for Defence in regard to this are beyond counting, but I have never yet received a satisfactory answer as to why those men were not paid the salary of their rank. Some time ago, when I raised a question concerning ex-service men of the National Army, I mentioned one specific case in Athlone. I stated that I sent a full statement of the case to the Minister for Defence, and did not even get an acknowledgment of my letter. The particular man concerned was a captain, and something like £70 was due to him for pay. When he was demobilised from the Army his life was threatened, and the Government would not even pay him the £70 that they owed him, which would have enabled him to leave the country. These officers whom I refer to were recognised by G.H.Q. at the time. They were authorised to supervise men and to carry out raids. Practically every one of them had at one time or another acted under orders in raiding some particular house. I was told last week by the Minister for Defence that the positions which these men held were irregular. If the positions they held were irregular, were the raids which they carried out under orders irregular, and were the men acting illegally? If they were, I will not go any further in asking the Government to pay these men. But, to my mind they were acting under orders, and were recognised as officers by their superior officers. Consequently they should be entitled to the pay of officers.

I do not wish to ridicule any high officers of the National Army. I am sure they tried to do their best, but, prior to the demobilisation, hundreds of officers were sent to the Curragh for training, and received the regular rate of pay for twelve months. At the end of that time they were demobilised and thrown on the scrap-heap. It mattered not what service they had given to the State. It would have been much better if these men had got the twelve months' pay in advance, as it would have enabled them to do something for themselves. Now you have some of them going about without their supper or the price of their beds.

The Government have given a grant for the relief of distress and have specified that ex-service men shall get preference. But the wages the men are to get are also specified under that grant. At the present time men who were clerks, carpenters, painters, decorators, printers, solicitors' clerks or shop assistants prior to joining the army, have to take a hammer in their hands and go and break stones. There is no other work offering for such men, and the result is that if they take that work they deprive others, who probably rendered equally good service to the State, of employment at which they made their living. In the majority of cases the grants are now exhausted, and numbers of men have been suspended or dismissed. I want to know from the Minister if it is his intention to give any further grant for the relief of distress in the different counties amongst ex-members of the National Army. I also want to know from the Minister what his intentions are concerning those officers, now demobilised, who were only paid 24/6 a week. Will these men get the back pay that is due to them?

The PRESIDENT

As far as I know, the case made by the Deputy is in respect of persons who took rank that was not properly authorised. In cases where the rank was properly authorised payment was made. The Army Council settled a proportion of those so entitled to be paid in commissioned rank. In the case of the rest, they appointed them non-commissioned officers or paid them as men. It must be established that the rank was properly authorised before the officer would be entitled to pay as such.

Mr. LYONS

The Minister is aware that these particular officers, who were paid as men, wore officers' uniform, and, on instructions received from their superiors, carried out raids. I want to know will these men be paid?

The PRESIDENT

Not unless the rank was properly authorised. If the rank was properly authorised, yes, but we could not possibly entertain a proposal to pay because a man put on officers' uniform and had no other authorisation for doing so than his own will.

Sub-head D agreed to.

Major COOPER

On sub-head E, Deputy Sir James Craig wished to raise a point, and as I am in possession of his views I would trouble the Committee for a few moments. This is a vote for medical services, and I think the amount voted under this head is somewhat excessive. It is one of the items that in the revision of the Army have not been reduced but have been slightly increased. It is a fact that we are equipping our Army with a medical service in a more costly way than that of any other army. A medical service, of course, must always be costly, and if you want men of professional qualifications obviously you must pay them well. In many other respects this vote is also very costly. We have a hundred officers in the medical service, for an army establishment of 18,000 men, that is, one officer to every 180 men. Now, in the British army, there is one officer to every 300 men. In time of war, taking base hospitals, lines of communication, field hospitals, and so on, there is but one officer to every 300 men, whereas we have one officer for every 180 men here in times of peace. I think that that would bear a little further investigation. I know it will very probably be said that our units are scattered about and split up, and that we must have a large number of medical officers because the forces are so subdivided. I think it would be more economical to engage the services of some local medical men, dispensary medical officers or otherwise, for a post in which there are but few men stationed. You could pay him by fees at so much per day without incurring any responsibility to him afterwards for the work he has done. Such a number of whole-time medical officers for such a small number of troops is rather wasteful.

I see there is an item for consultants and emergency fees at St. Bricin's, Curragh, and Cork, amounting to £3,000. That means that one-sixth of a pound, 3/4, is spent for every man in the Army, and we hope that every man in the Army is not going to go sick or to want special skill in the coming year. The average specialist does not charge a very large sum for consultations without any accompanying operations. About £3 3s. is the average. The figure here for specialists shows that one thousand men, or one-eighteenth of our whole strength, is going to have the need of specialists in the coming year. I really think there is room for economising here. No one would suggest that the soldier must not get the best of treatment, but this provision for consultants wants watching, because it might be possible to call in consultants on the smallest ground whatever. The senior medical officers are paid £1,500 and £1,200 a year, more than a Parliamentary Secretary receives. They should be able to deal with cases without calling in a consultant except in very unusual cases indeed.

The PRESIDENT

It is not intended to continue the pay at that rate. I do admit, from my own point of view, that this is certainly an expensive service in the Army.

Major COOPER

Is that admission made from the point of view of the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Finance?

The PRESIDENT

Both as to one and the other, and also from the point of view of the President. There is unanimity among the various officers in regard to this, but it would be well to recollect that we have passed through a period, and that particular period has saddled us with a considerable number of persons. In addition to them, we are now using St. Bricin's, or intend to use it, exclusively for those who are no longer in the Army, or for men who have had pre-truce service. I think if it was possible to segregate the charges those in respect of casualties both for the two years through which we have passed and the previous period that this item could be considerably reduced, but even at the present exorbitant and extravagant price it does compare, on the whole, rather favourably with the cost per head of the medical service of the British army, which is something like £8 per head as compared with our £5 here.

Major COOPER

That includes, I think, the overseas and the unhealthy places in India, and so on in connection with the British Army.

The PRESIDENT

I suppose it does. In my opinion there is no justification for such a charge as this, and as soon as we have disposed of our obligations to those who suffered in the last few years, we hope that, though on the face of it this service looks very costly, it will be possible to reduce it in next year's estimates. In addition to what I have said about persons in St. Bricin's Hospital, there are cases also to be considered for wounds pensions. The medical officers have a responsibility on them, and we have increased the number of Boards. I think there are now three Boards to deal with these cases.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister mean to correct the statement he made a while ago, that in any change in the Army organisation it will not be found necessary to demobilise or remove the commissions of those at present holding office? Does that apply, apart from the rate of pay to the number of medical officers? Or does he now suggest that the possibility is that a number of those on the list of medical officers may be removed from the Army?

The PRESIDENT

I should hope so, and that it would not be necessary to maintain that very big staff there at present. They are in a somewhat different pocket to ordinary demobilised. Ordinary demobilisation involves a great number of men with pre-truce service. I think, with few exceptions, these men have been brought in since the National Army was formed. In that respect we have not got the same liability towards them or their careers because they have been paid professional fees or have got professional salaries and are not in the same position as ordinary soldiers and their profession is still available for them outside.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is what we contended for in the Army Pensions Bill, but I desired to give the Minister an opportunity to make that explanation, because inevitably if there is to be any demobilisation of officers in the future, attention would be drawn to that promise made about an hour ago that there will be no such demobilisation.

The PRESIDENT

It certainly should admit of that qualification.

Sub-head E agreed to.

Mr. LYONS

On sub-head G I would like to ask the Minister how does he account for the increase. The army has been reduced, and I should like to ask what is the increase for here?

The PRESIDENT

I think that last year's estimate was less accurate when issued than the estimate of this year. In addition to that, I think some of the persons concerned have taken upon themselves responsibilities which, perhaps, they did not bear last year.

Mr. LYONS

I want to know is there no accommodation in the Barracks, or are officers entitled to 4/3 per day, as stated in the estimate, when they have no quarters in the Barracks? Are they entitled to 4/3 per day when living out? Is there not ample accommodation in the Barracks at present?

The PRESIDENT

Not enough.

Major COOPER

On sub-head G, will the Minister consider in future that it is undesirable to have married junior officers from a military point of view? The young officer who is married is much more distracted in his work than the officer who lives in the regimental mess and devotes his life entirely to the service. That cannot be done now, but when the Army Authorities are admitting officers in the future would it be possible to make some regulation by which lodging and marriage allowance would not be issued until after a minimum service, say that an officer should have at least three years' service, or that he should have attained the age of twenty-one years? If he marries at an earlier age than that the service gets no chance of putting a mark on him. He lives in his own home and he never gets the true military tone that he would get if he lived in the regimental mess and associated in his off-duty hours with his brother officers.

The PRESIDENT

I will undertake to bring that matter to the notice of the next Minister for Defence. I think it is a very good point.

Mr. LYONS

On this question of providing accommodation in barracks for married officers, I know a married officer at present who has obtained a decree in the courts to get possession of a house occupied by a tenant in a town in a part of Offaly. This officer is a married man with six children, and he is evicting a tenant out of a house that he recently purchased. The case put up by the officer is that he cannot get married quarters in barracks, but I suggest that there must be ample accommodation for married officers in most of the barracks. This particular officer is at present in Kildare, and he maintains that he cannot get married quarters there. He is evicting a woman with five or six children. They are to be put out on the street and to be left homeless.

Sub-head G agreed to.

Mr. LYONS

On Sub-head K I desire to ask what has been done as regards settling claims for motor cars that were commandeered. Payments have been made in some cases, but the amount allowed was not an adequate settlement. Time after time I have asked questions with regard to cars that were commandeered. In some cases the business of people who owned these cars that were commandeered two years ago has been destroyed. They received some portion of the payment claimed, but the amount was not anything like enough to compensate them for the losses they sustained by the commandeering of their cars. Where it can be proved that a person's business was destroyed by the commandeering of that person's motor car, I think that adequate compensation should be paid. There is a very large number of these cases still to be dealt with.

The PRESIDENT

The number is 1,500.

Mr. LYONS

That speaks well for constant employment for the people who are dealing with these claims. I admit that a very large number of these cases have been settled in a satisfactory way, but others are not satisfactory. The Minister, I suppose, will say that a lot of claims sent in are bogus ones, or that they have been very much exaggerated. Take the case of a car costing £140, which was taken away from the owner and kept for six or eight months, and then returned to him. When the car was returned he had to pay, perhaps, £30 for the repairs to it. That person, perhaps, was granted a payment of £25 or £30, but he was given nothing at all for the time the car was out of his possession, and as a result that individual suffered a loss by reason of the car being commandeered. As regards allowances for mileage, a man puts in a claim for ninepence or tenpence a mile, but the amount is reduced by ten per cent. I think it is only right that people who lost money by reason of their cars being commandeered should be paid adequate compensation. I want to ask the Minister when he expects these 1,500 claims that he has referred to will be gone through.

The PRESIDENT

I hope before next March. This number that I mentioned comprises the whole list of cases, but fresh cases are coming in daily. The charges that are made in some cases are really very elaborate. I am sure the Deputy would be quite satisfied if provision were made not alone for consequential loss, but for all losses that have been sustained—the other losses that are anticipated during the lifetime of the person making the charge.

Mr. LYONS

In some cases I agree, but not in all.

Sub-head K agreed to.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare)

On sub-head L, I desire to ask the Minister why it is we have not a schedule of items under this sub-head, the same as we have under the other sub-heads.

The PRESIDENT

This embodies such a large number of items—tea, sugar, bacon, eggs and so forth—that it would not be possible to do more than to estimate so much per head of the standing Army, or the full strength of the Army for the time being, and it would scarcely be a correct estimate. It could only be an estimate, and at that it might be out very considerably in certain cases.

Mr. HOGAN

The reason I asked the Minister that question was to ascertain whether it was under this sub-head I should raise the matter of soldiers who did not use the Army rations for any period, and who did not get an allowance instead. I have had several of these cases brought to my notice and have sent them on to the Ministry. They could not, for certain reasons, use the rations they were entitled to get from the Army, and what I want to know is if they will be paid any allowance instead.

The PRESIDENT

Where soldiers are entitled to rations in barracks, and do not take them, they are not entitled to an allowance in respect of them. This particular estimate is made up on the total number of men in the Army at so much per day, and that is totted up for the year. That is how the figure is arrived at, and it follows that in the event of a small number of men not drawing these particular allowances, it is unlikely there would be a saving corresponding to the saving on the estimate. While in some cases an allowance is made for the non-drawing of rations, it would be a bad principle to allow it generally. It would be a bad principle, I say, to allow a man or an officer who did not wish to draw his rations, to demand whatever sum he would be ordinarily assessed for in the case of provisions.

Mr. HOGAN

During the recent troubles, some men did not get any rations in barracks for perhaps eighteen months or close on two years. Do I understand the Minister to say that they will get no allowance in lieu of that?

The PRESIDENT

I did not mean to say that.

Mr. HOGAN

Do you say the opposite now?

The PRESIDENT

No, but I will undertake to look into the case. There are a large number of billeting cases of which the same thing might be said as I mentioned to Deputy Lyons a few minutes ago in the case of cars. I could have told him, in respect of some of these cars, that I have got bills for three times the price of a car new. In the billeting cases, I have one case before me in which the accommodation available in the house was occupied by the family of the man who owned it. It consisted of four rooms, and there is a bill in for billeting and accommodating seventeen soldiers in that particular house. The Deputy will understand that I have to exercise a very nice discretion with regard to those cases.

Mr. LYONS

I want to know in connection with sub-head M when it is likely that the Minister will be in a position to deal with claims for petrol and oil supplied by shops in 1920 and 1921.

The PRESIDENT

Am I in order in telling the Deputy that an Act has left this House dealing with that particular period and my hands are tied, as that is now the law?

Mr. LYONS

Your hands were not tied when you authorised people to go and get the stuff. I see that there is a decrease in Vote N. About a fortnight ago I was going through Phoenix Park and saw outside Collins Barracks what looked like a reek of uniforms stacked together. They were apparently clothes handed in by men who were demobilised and to my mind there were there about 30,000 uniforms. They were packed like hay in a haggard. Are they to remain there to rot or will the Minister arrange to have them disposed of by jumble sale? Will as little attention be given in the future as was given in the past by the ex-Minister for Defence to the question of giving large orders outside the Saorstát for the manufacture of military uniform?

The PRESIDENT

I do not think that it is fair for the Deputy to put the question in that way. The late Minister for Defence was as anxious as I am to give employment here for the purchase of anything for the Army. The late Minister is, and was for years, concerned in the manufacture of Irish goods. In cases where orders were given I do not know that he had any option. The same principle is being adopted. Some time ago when articles were wanted we did not send away for them but we waited until we got them made at home. I hope that the Deputy does not drag that out of me for the benefit of any lazy manufacturers.

Mr. LYONS

No.

The PRESIDENT

I am glad that there are certain clothes which did not get there of their own accord as the Deputy seemed to suggest.

Mr. LYONS

I wish to mention that it is a well-known fact that huge orders were placed in the hands of Jewish or English manufacturers last year. We have in Ireland manufacturers capable of manufacturing the material worn in the National Army. I agree that there is a percentage allowed to the Irish manufacturer. It was contended that thousands of pounds were saved by placing orders outside, but I do not think that it is real economy, even if you save £200,000, when you have thousands of people unemployed at home. I think it would be better economy to pay even more for the material made at home as it would help to give much needed employment. Owing to the amount of clothes which I have seen near Collins Barracks, I think it will be necessary to place orders for the extra men you are taking on in the Army. You will have an Army of 18,968. At present I think you are 5,000 short of that. I ask the President to see, when placing such orders in the future, that they will be given to manufacturers in Ireland even though the price may be a little dearer.

General MULCAHY

I think if the Deputy refers to the debates on the Army estimates of last year he will find he has also dealt there with this question of large orders. In fact, I think it is a kind of habit of his.

Mr. LYONS

It is not a habit, but I want the new Minister for Defence, whoever he may be, to give employment at home.

Mr. CONLAN

In reference to sub-head (P), there is a case to which, I think, I should refer. About two years ago a very valuable horse was seized from Mr. Fawsitt, in the County Kildare, for military purposes; at least, I understand it was taken by officers of the National Army. He applied for a return of the horse, or for compensation. I put a question on the subject three months ago, and I was assured that the matter would be looked into and would be settled. Nothing has, however, been done, and I got a letter yesterday saying that he got neither compensation nor the horse. I should say that he was written to and told that if he went to the Curragh his horse would be returned, but when he went there he found that the animal which he was shown was of different sex from the animal that was taken.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Perhaps the President would give us some explanation for the increase of this vote, especially in view of the fact that cavalry battalions have been disbanded.

The PRESIDENT

I think this particular service was not entirely disbanded, as it was found to be an economic method of dealing with the transport of food and other materials. It has been found necessary to increase the stud, and I think provision is made for the purchase of fifty horses. That is one of the reasons for this increase, together with the extra cost of maintaining the horses that will be purchased.

Mr. BAXTER

Under sub-head (P) I want to draw the notice of the Minister to one or two matters. I would like first of all to have from him an explanation whether his statement of last night, with regard to old outstanding accounts, is to be taken as having reference to all the old Army outstanding accounts, or whether it refers to accounts of general stores or to motor and other accounts. I think he stated that the amount of old accounts was £16,000.

The PRESIDENT

£1,600.

Mr. BAXTER

And of these £1,200 were in suspense.

The PRESIDENT

Yes, because of non-certification.

Mr. BAXTER

I take it, then, that it applies to general stores as well as to all other army accounts.

The PRESIDENT

Yes.

Mr. BAXTER

Under this head one or two very peculiar cases have been brought to my notice. I understand that the Army accounts incurred before February, 1922, have not been paid.

The PRESIDENT

They are under the Indemnity Act, and they are not our responsibility. A committee is to deal with them under that Act.

Mr. BAXTER

I am aware of that, but what I want to bring under the notice of the President is, that in February, 1922, stores were procured by the Army which then existed. When the Army was organised under the Provisional Government, these stores, bedding, and other materials passed from the then existing Army into the custody of the Free State Army. Such accounts are still unpaid, although the facts are that this property is in the possession of the Free State Army, was in the barracks at the time that they passed into the possession of the Free State Army, and these stores and materials are probably being used today. Up to the present the Free State Government have denied any liability for such stores. I think it is very unjust that such accounts should be outstanding, taking into account the fact that the National Army is using these stores. I think such a matter desires the attention of the Minister, and that such accounts should be cleared off.

The PRESIDENT

I think it would be better if the Deputy gives me privately that information with regard to the particular places in question, and the accounts. They are probably mixed up with all the other accounts. Sixteen hundred is the total number, of which something like 400 can be certified. In the case of twelve hundred we are making arrangements whereby on receipt of information, sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths, prompt consideration would be given to those cases. Cases are coming in daily, and to a very large extent the fault lies with persons who allowed two years to elapse before making applications. Of course, the disturbed times may have something to do with that, but the Department is grappling very well with the work, having regard to the enormous number of claims.

Mr. BAXTER

The fault does not lie with those people. My experience is that, time and again, applications have been made. Sometimes acknowledgments are received, and sometimes they are not. What I would like to get from the Minister on this point is a definite statement as to whether or not the Ministry undertake liabilities for payment of any property that passed over from the Republican Army to the National Army, and is still being used by the National Army. I would like a definite statement to the effect that the Ministry think they have a liability to be discharged in that matter.

The PRESIDENT

I am not so sure I could give an answer to that. I was informed when the Damage to Property Act was passed that receipts were freely and liberally furnished by men who had been in arms against the State to people in business to enable them to make claims which would come before the courts and which would be given against the State. Offhand I could not undertake to give an answer which would satisfy the Deputy. The bona fides of the persons enters into it. Suppose we do pay for them, to whom do the payments go? Does it go to the contractor, the business man or somebody else, who hold it in trust for those persons who were in arms against the State? I am reliably informed that certain Irregulars who have been engaged against the State for a couple of years past have plenty of money and are able to bid high for farms that are up for sale although they have not been at work for the last two years. There is something more than a suspicion as to where the money came from. I do not intend, and I do not suppose the Deputy intends, to let people like that have another fling for twelve or eighteen months. The sooner they settle down to work honestly the better. In cases of genuine debt, and the Deputy will admit it is rather difficult to establish genuine debts in such instances, we are prepared to consider favourably any claims put in, in respect of property into the possession of which we have entered, but we are not going to enrich those people.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare)

Whilst I am willing to accept the Minister's statement that he is endeavouring to work off the debt, I will give him an example which will explain to him how they are being paid off. When I was about a month in the Dáil, I put down a question, relative to a debt in my constitutency. The person who supplied the goods had already sent in a Bill half a dozen times. When the matter was raised, the reply I got was that the case should have been re-presented. I presented the bill three times myself and the trader got a further letter to re-present a bill again, which he did. This morning I got a letter to say that the debt was unpaid. That is a state of affairs which should not exist, and the sooner there is a tightening up of the settlement of those debts, the better it will be for the Ministry, and for everybody.

Mr. BAXTER

I would like to make the Minister clear on a point. In a couple of barracks in my county—these barracks were never occupied by anybody but the troops presently in them —bedding was secured from local merchants and put in there. When the National Army came into possession of those barracks, the bedding was used by them. This means that some of the merchants are owed up to £100. The debt is still outstanding, because the bedding was procured some time previous to February, 1922. It is still being used by the National Army.

The PRESIDENT

Is that January, 1922, or is it in 1921?

Mr. BAXTER

It was previous to the time you undertook responsibility and liability to discharge the debts— when the Provisional Government took over.

The PRESIDENT

I am afraid those cases come under the Indemnity Act.

Mr. BAXTER

Does the fact that it is in possession of the National Army to-day, not make a difference?

The PRESIDENT

I suppose it would.

Mr. BAXTER

I hold it does. You are using it, and you are responsible for payment.

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not know whether this comes under this sub-head. It is the case of an account for the use of a boat and personal services about which I received a letter this morning. "Since the landing of troops in Valentia on 24th August, 1922, and up to the present, my boat and services have been at the disposal of the military authorities." Notwithstanding that he has travelled to Dublin for the purpose of furthering his application for payment, there is no sign of it yet. "On a visit to Dublin last October, I was informed that all my accounts were certified and passed for payment, but I am still waiting for an acknowledgment." The account is £230, and only that he got credit for oil and petrol he would not have been able to carry on. This is more or less confirmatory. This is going back to October, 1922. I will let the Minster have the facts more fully.

The PRESIDENT

Very well. I will look into it.

Sub-head P agreed to.