Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 9 Nov 1928

Vol. 26 No. 15

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE NO. 14—PROPERTY LOSSES COMPENSATION.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim na raghaidh thar £182,000 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun íocaíochtanna i dtaobh mille no díobháil do mhaoin a dineadh i rith na trémhse 21 Eanair, 1919, go 12 Bealtaine, 1923, go huile, fé sna hAchtanna um bhíobháil do Mhaoin (Cúiteamh), 1923 go 1926, agus ar shlite eile; agus mar gheall ar dhamáiste do mhaoin, no cailliúint maoine, agus íocaíochtanna tré shlánú no tré aisíoc fén Acht Slánaíochta, 1924, agus chun deontaisí d'íoc a socruíodh a íoc de bhárr mola an Property Losses (Ireland) Committee, 1916, mar chúiteamh i bhfoirgintí a milleadh i mBaile Atha Cliath i rith Seachtain na Cásca, 1916.

That a sum not exceeding £182,000 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for payments in respect of destruction of, or injuries to, property within the period 21st January, 1919, to 12th May, 1923, inclusive, under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Acts, 1923 to 1926, and otherwise; and in respect of damage to, or loss of property, and payments by way of indemnification or recoupment under the Indemnity Act, 1924, and for payment of grants awarded on the recommendation of the Property Losses (Ireland) Committee, 1916, as compensation for buildings destroyed in Dublin during Easter week, 1916.

As Deputies will observe, the amount that is asked for in respect to Property Losses is substantially less this year than last year. If the total amount asked for this year can be expended, there will only remain some £500,000 to be paid out in the following year I think, however, it is perhaps optimistic to expect that the entire amount asked for this year can actually be paid out. The delay is due really to the difficulty in inducing those who have obtained awards and decrees to proceed with reinstatement. So far as pre-Truce awards are concerned, up to November, 1926, interest was paid on the amount of the awards. Since that date no interest has been paid, and as it has been decided by the Supreme Court that the awards are discretionary, we are considering whether it would not be proper to intimate to those who have obtained them that unless reconstruction is begun by, say, the 31st March next, some proportionate deduction will be made from the amount of the award.

So far as the decrease appearing under Sub-head B, for post-Truce damage is concerned it is not possible to apply that pressure, but I think we will ultimately have to intimate that if those who hold the awards will not begin the work of reconstruction at some reasonable date it may be necessary to ask the Dáil to authorise some penalty. If people would really make their plans and start building with reasonable expedition it would be possible to finish with this whole matter at the end of the next financial year, and we hope, even if that cannot quite be done, that there will be a very small remnant after the end of March, 1930.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. MacENTEE

In connection with this Vote, I think we should first of all express agreement with the view which the Minister has now told us is the official Government attitude in regard to these grants for compensation. We certainly think that, where people neglect to fulfil the building covenant in respect of their grant after receiving due warning, the whole position in respect to them should be reconsidered. If they do not do something to help us to solve the unemployment problem in that limited way, then I think the State will be quite entitled to hold the money which has been granted to them and consider whether it could not be more profitably employed elsewhere.

In connection with the Vote itself there are one or two matters to which we should like to draw the attention of the Government and about which we should like to have some further information. One of the items in the Vote is compensation for damage to or loss of property between the 12th July, 1921, and the 12th May, 1923. In that connection I put down a question to the Minister for Finance and received an answer which I think is hardly satisfactory. I asked him if he could inform the House as to the number of cases in which his Department had opposed applications for grants under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, on the ground that applicants were disabled from applying for compensation by Section 9 of the Act. The Minister said that they had not the figures in his Department which would enable him to give the information required. I think if he would reconsider that he will find that his explanation cannot be accepted as satisfactory. The onus is put on him, in the Act, of opposing those applications; he must have given the instructions to the law officers and surely has some record in his Department of the instructions which he has given. He can tell us the number of cases in which he instructed those officers who opposed the applications put forward and will be able, I am sure, to let us know the amount of money involved.

The second point I would like to know is whether the Minister would not now consider an amending Act to delete Section 9 of the original Act and thus to remove the disabilities of Republicans or those who sympathised with the attitude we took during the civil war. After all, a considerable amount of water has flowed under the bridge since 1922. For the attitude they took up during that period, in good faith, in all sincerity and animated really by patriotic motives, a large section of our people have been completely impoverished. Men, once prosperous farmers and professional men, have been ruined. The Minister, in relation to numbers of civil servants, has shown that he desires to let bygones be bygones. Now he can repair the injuries which some men suffered for their principles. They may not be principles which the Minister could accept or which he thinks any Government could accept, but they are principles which these men held in good faith and for which they suffered. As he has already shown a conciliatory attitude with regard to civil servants, I think it would be good for this nation to help us to heal the wounds of the civil war and make us forget the bitterness, if he would reconsider the attitude which was the official Government attitude in 1923, in cases where hardship was done to individuals under Section 9 of the Act, if he would agree to reconsider those cases and if he can ask the House to grant, not so much compensation, but assistance to those people to enable them to make a fresh start in life.

In the same way we would like to draw the Minister's attention to the cases mentioned in the motion which stands on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Aiken. There are a number of individual cases mentioned there of people in the Six Counties whose property was destroyed, some before and some after the Truce. They are only typical of a considerable number of instances. Some of them I know to my own knowledge are cases in which extreme hardship has been caused to the individuals. Most of them occurred at the time when Dáil Eireann, sitting in Dublin, accepted responsibility for the whole Thirty-two Counties without any question, without any demur on the part of these people who served that Dáil loyally and well. Others of them occurred after the Truce and after the setting up of the Provisional Government, when the Provisional Government still maintained the attitude that it had at least a substantial claim to exercise jurisdiction in the counties of Down, Armagh, Tyrone and Fermanagh.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I am afraid that the Deputy is getting a long way from the Estimate.

Mr. MacENTEE

No, I am making a case and asking the Minister to consider—

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I allowed the Deputy to argue in favour of new legislation, which strictly he is not entitled to do. He is only entitled to criticise the expenditure provided in the Estimate.

Mr. MacENTEE

Of course, if I am precluded from asking the Minister to introduce a Supplementary Estimate to deal with a matter which is not provided for in this Estimate but which comes under the general title of "Property Losses Compensation," I think that a discussion on the Vote would be of little service. I do not see any other opportunity that we would have of raising this matter in a proper way and in a way which, I think, would receive a fair hearing. The question I am putting before the House——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I think that the Deputy will be able to find many ways of raising it apart from this Vote.

Mr. MacENTEE

The point I was endeavouring to bring out was that these were people who suffered losses at a time when we were united.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I do not think that the Deputy ought to pursue that matter.

Mr. MacENTEE

If I am precluded from doing that, I do not see how it is possible to discuss this Vote usefully, because, after all, it has to be discussed, not only from the point of view of what is included in it, but also from the point of view of what is excluded from it. Otherwise we cannot determine whether the money is going to be usefully spent or not. I feel at a loss in that matter, because not only the positive, but the negative aspect of the Vote has to be discussed as well. I accept your ruling, however, and will now refer to Sub-head E.

There is a case which I think the Minister has had brought before his notice on other occasions, the case of Mrs. Repetto Byrne, who had premises in 29 Henry Street, Dublin, in 1916. I have a long file of documents here which I do not propose to set in full before the House, as the Minister, I think, is fairly familiar with the circumstances of the case. To me it seems as if a great deal of hardship had been occasioned, and we have an expression on the part of the judge who heard an action brought by this claimant on the 23rd July, 1920, in which he suggested that some Order should be made on behalf of the Crown even at this eleventh hour, by way of buying out Mrs. Byrne's interest in these premises. The Crown interfered in the action to say that as the Postmaster-General had purchased the landlord's interest over the head of the applicant, no case lay against the Crown, and therefore they asked the judge to refuse to grant compensation. I would like the Minister to let the House know whether he would reconsider that matter sympathetically. I understand that the facts have been put before a number of people, who examined them, and they all agreed that a real hardship and a certain amount of injustice had been done to the applicant in this case.

Mr. S.T. O'KELLY

I have a case which I would like to bring under the notice of the Minister. I do not know whether it has been brought under his notice previously or not. It is a question on which I would like to have your ruling, but I think it would come under Property Losses Compensation. I presume that as that item is there any case coming under it can be discussed. This is the case of a man in my constituency whose name would probably be familiar to the Minister and some others in this House who were associated with the Republican movement at that time. A man named Melinn, of Summerhill, whose place was badly damaged in 1916, made application to the British at the time for compensation in accordance with the advertisements and regulations which they issued. His application was turned down because of his implication in the movement. I think that anybody who knows him knows that he was implicated in the movement to a considerable extent. He claimed to have suffered damage to the extent of £400 for injury to his premises, stock and fittings and goods removed. I do not know, as I say, whether the case was brought before the Minister or not. I had a file of the case given to me by this man in connection with the matter, and. if the case has not already received attention from the Department, perhaps the Minister would deal with it if the file were sent to him. I know that a good deal of time has elapsed since then, but as the Vote is still open and as grants are still being made under this head, I think the matter should receive consideration.

I would be glad if the Minister would let us know that before he winds up on this Vote. It occurs to me that there is a ten per cent. additional compensation given, I think, under pre-Truce property losses, but I do not see any specific reference to that in this Vote. I would like to know if this Vote does include the additional ten per cent. that was given under an arrangement made, I think, by the President or the Minister for Finance with the British Government. If the Vote does include that ten per cent., we on this side of the House would have to insist on putting the Vote to a division. We could not approve of any additional grants being made to the people concerned, especially under the terms on which they were given.

Mr. GOULDING

I would like to know if I would be in order in adverting to a rather strange interpretation of Section 9 in a particular instance.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Does the Deputy mean by the Department or by the Courts?

Mr. GOULDING

By the Department. It was in the case of damage done to premises during the siege in Waterford. The damage was caused by artillery fire. Although the case was reported on by the Commissioners in favour of the applicant, the award was not granted. I think that is unfair, and that the interpretation of that section of the Act has been unduly strained.

Mr. BLYTHE

With reference to the first point raised by Deputy MacEntee, I think the difficulty arose that in many cases local solicitors opposed claims on various grounds, sometimes in regard to Article 9 and sometimes in regard to Section 9 of the Act. They were, perhaps, opposed on other grounds as well. When cases were dismissed by the judges it was sometimes difficult to know whether it was on the grounds of Article 9 or otherwise. I could look into the matter and give a fuller statement to the Deputy than was given in the reply. I know that when we looked at it we felt, even though we did go to very considerable trouble in circularising people who would have information, that it would be impossible really to segregate the cases that were purely Article 9 cases and be sure that we were including all of them. The Ceann Comhairle has ruled that we cannot now discuss a change in the legislation. Perhaps I would be permitted to say that the one thing that has to be borne in mind in considering any proposed change in the legislation is that we would probably have to open not one door but many doors if we touched the Act at all. For instance, great numbers of people suffered great consequential loss for which they were not paid. Apart from anything else, one would have to hesitate very much about unbarring the doors again. With regard to the cases that Deputy Frank Aiken has mentioned in his motion, the President has been dealing with that matter. I have not been dealing with it myself, but I understood the President to say a couple of times in the Dáil that the details of these cases had never been submitted to us, and to say, without giving any promise as to action, that we would consider these cases if the details were submitted. Perhaps the President could answer later on about these, but I know myself that there were certain cases which were mentioned in general terms to the Government. The details were asked for and were not obtained. I feel a great deal of sympathy with the people who, during the pre-Truce period, suffered substantial losses in the Six Counties and were afterwards unable to obtain compensation from any source. I certainly do feel that their case was one of very great hardship.

With regard to Mrs. Repetto Byrne, her case has been considered very frequently. I remember spending three or four hours on it with a very influential deputation on one occasion. The conclusion that I came to was that, while the applicant had undoubtedly suffered great hardship, that the hardship was entirely due to her own fault, or to her husband's fault. When an offer was made it was refused. Then there was an ill-advised attempt to rebuild when sufficient money was not available. The applicant was very unfortunate. While admitting she suffered great hardship, the conclusion that I had to come to was that the misfortune was entirely due to miscalculations; that there was no responsibility on the part of the State for the misfortunes of the applicant, and consequently that no payment should be made by the Exchequer. Furthermore, the whole matter had been dealt with and closed before the change of Government.

With regard to the case mentioned by Deputy O'Kelly, I do not think that personally I have seen it in the office, but I think I heard of it outside. If the Deputy would pass me the files I would consider it. I do not think that it, or such cases, can be dealt with under Sub-head E. If any decision were come to it would involve the opening of a new Sub-head in a subsequent Estimate, because this particular Sub-head E only covers the grants made on the recommendation of the Committee set up by the British Government. These are practically awards that were undischarged at the time of the change of Government. With regard to Deputy Goulding's case, I really do not know about it at all. If the Deputy says that a report was given by the judge and refused by my Department, then it is a matter within the competence of the Department. If the Deputy will make representations in regard to it, I will look at the case again. Naturally, even cases that have been before me personally, I cannot have any recollection of them, and could not be in a position to discuss them here. This Vote does make provision for the full compensation that is payable to applicants under their awards as increased by the ten per cent. Consequently this Vote does include the ten per cent. increase.

Mr. MacENTEE

In connection with those cases which the Minister referred to, in replying to me, where the judges reported in favour of the applicants, and where their reports were disallowed by the Department, would the Minister reconsider those cases, particularly where there were political circumstances involved in the matter?

Mr. BLYTHE

Of course I would feel bound to carry out the intention of the Act, that is where the Act in the case of an award or a decree makes a person ineligible I would be obliged to apply the same test to a Report. Reports were given on the understanding that as there was no appeal they would be re-examined by the Department of Finance in the light of any recommendations that might be made to them by, say, the legal people engaged, that is, a case which would have been appealed if it had been decreed would be re-examined by the Minister for Finance. I think we have reviewed many cases, but the Act being as it is I will have to deal with these cases on the same principle as before. I could not decide that so far as the decrees were concerned the principles of Section 9 were to apply, and as far as Reports were concerned they were not to apply. The big majority of refusals of Reports were not Article 9 cases of all. We reduced a very great number of Reports but they were in respect of all sorts of other matters, and sometimes cases were covered by insurance. For instance, 561 cases to the extent of £110,775 were refused payment on Report, for we would be simply letting out the insurance companies otherwise. Then we refused in other cases we believed to be ordinary trading accounts, that is alleged commandeering or looting. We had evidence of shopkeepers who had been paid up to a point, and who continued to supply, and we ruled these as cases of ordinary trading. In these cases chances were taken with people who took the goods and who afterwards were not able to pay. The number of cases where what I might call direct Section 9 cases were ruled out because of support of the forces fighting against the Free State were comparatively few.

Mr. G. BOLAND

In the case of people who were not political, say in the case of women where there were no men in the family and whose houses were bombed—I know of one particular case—surely, these cases should be re-opened. There was a case in Kenmare where a house was occupied. That house would be occupied in any case, but simply because it was believed this lady's sympathies were on our side her case was ruled out. Surely cases like that ought to be re-opened.

Mr. BLYTHE

If the facts are as the Deputy states, and if he has stated the whole facts, I think that is a case that could be reconsidered. There have been cases of people who were very definitely in sympathy with the forces who were operating against the State, but they were not refused unless there had been overt action. I mean we did not refuse payment for feelings or opinions.

Mr. G. BOLAND

In the case I have mentioned that is not so. In that case this lady did not commit any overt act, though members of her family might have done so. She allowed her house to be occupied but she could not prevent its occupation.

Mr. DERRIG

I would like to call attention to a case in County Mayo. A shopkeeper named Bernard Joyce had his house in Ballinrobe broken up before the Truce, and shortly after the Truce began. Certain compensation was awarded to him, but the full amount of that compensation has been refused. That is to say, certain payment has been made on the award, but a recommendation made for payment of the remainder has not been carried out. The grounds given by the Department of Finance for refusal to pay the extra amount is that the building was not destroyed or broken into by forces opposed to the Provisional Government. I entirely fail to see, if the evidence I have here is correct, how that would be a reason for not granting this gentleman the full compensation which he was awarded in the court. That is only one case where the Department has arbitrarily interfered and cut down the amount of compensation. There is a Deputy from the same county here on our benches who was awarded compensation for premises destroyed by the Black-and-Tans, but the Department arbitrarily cut down that compensation because he was afterwards a member of the Republican forces. Surely in the case of damage done before the Truce, or even during the Truce, and where there was no doubt that it was carried out by British forces, the Minister now, whatever motive may have animated him in refusing to grant the Report, should reconsider it now.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not understand. If the damage had been done by the Black-and-Tans it is a pre-Truce matter, and therefore not a question for Report, but a question for award by the Compensation Commission.

Mr. WALSH

I interviewed the Minister about this case. One of the occurrences took place in October or November after the Truce, but the damage was done by the Black-and-Tans. The place was broken into and looted and damaged. A decree was granted by Judge Doyle on a report made. The first attack on the premises occurred in March, 1921, before the Truce. I know that the man got a communication from the Ministry, and the statement was made that the reason that the full amount was not paid was that this damage had not been done by forces whose object was to upset the Provisional Government.

Mr. BLYTHE

I cannot recall the facts of the case. The position is that if a group of robbers who had no political motives or convictions came into a shop and looted it that case was not covered by the Act. But there were cases—I think the Pettigo cases would be somewhat analogous—in which payments were made. I will look up the case again. I have a recollection of hearing the case from the Deputy, but I have forgotten the facts at the moment.

Mr. CLERY

There were a number of cases in Mayo where awards were made previous to the change of Government and payment of them was refused. These awards were made by Judge Doyle to men who were beaten by the British forces prior to the Truce. For some reason or other, because of these men's activities afterwards, they were refused any compensation.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Are these cases of personal injury?

Mr. CLERY

Yes.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

These cases come under a different Vote.

Mr. CLERY

There was also a case of a girl who was in communication with the President. I saw a letter from the President in which he stated that her case could not be re-opened. That was a case of personal injury.

Mr. BLYTHE

That comes under a difierent Vote.

Mr. LITTLE

I want to call attention to the case of a lady in Waterford —a widow with a large family. Like other traders in Waterford, she was obliged to supply goods. Her name is Johanna Condon. She was supplying milk to the Republican troops. Many other firms in Waterford were also supplying goods. The court awarded her £16, but because some of her family were associated with the Republican movement she was refused payment. In the case of the other merchants who supplied goods in Waterford the awards made by the judge were all paid. Hers was not paid. She had taken no active part, though it is true that some of her family had, and she is a widow and the mother of a large family. This seems to be making a very unfair distinction between her and the other traders in Waterford. Armed forces were in possession, and when they took goods it should not be regarded that because they were paid for, that was evidence that the merchants had in some way or other taken an active part in the war.

Mr. BLYTHE

I am sure the line that was taken by the Department of Finance in regard to that case was that it was not commandeered. Take it that the lady was obviously a sympathiser. She either gave the milk freely as a contribution, shall we say, expecting no payment, or else she expected that she would be paid. If she had been an opponent of the anti-State forces we could assume that it was commandeered, but when she was a sympathiser, when there were good relations, prima facie it was not commandeered but was either a gift or a sale. I think the Deputy will see that they would not take goods by force from somebody with whom they were on the most friendly relations, so that it is not a question of Section 9 of the Act at all. Therefore, we regard this as not a case of commandeering, but as a case either of a gift or ordinary trade.

Mr. LITTLE

I think that the distinction is extremely fine. Supposing that woman had refused to give the goods. According to you she should have refused. But simply because her feelings were with the people who were supplied with the goods she will not be compensated, whereas opponents who actually did trade with Republicans were compensated.

Mr. BLYTHE

Not as far as we could help it.

Mr. LITTLE

Bakers and merchants of different kinds supplied goods, and simply because they were sufficiently astute to conceal their feelings, or else were opposed to the Republican forces, they got paid, while other people, people who did exactly the same thing, and who simply had not sufficient "savvy" to conceal their views, were not paid.

Dr. RYAN

I think the Minister has made his attitude clear. I think it is very unfair to have these cases decided against people because they happened to be in sympathy with those who took the goods. Is it not quite conceivable that if any body of men came in to a person whom they knew, and who saw guns with them, that he might tell them to take the goods, knowing that he would not get the better of them if he refused? If he had foreseen this and foreseen the attitude of the Minister, he could have been a little bit cross with them, and he could have said in court afterwards that he did his best to refuse. But how could these men foresee this? I know one case in which a Judge decided that the man was entitled to the money, but when the case came before the Minister he decided otherwise. I think that there are many cases of that kind, and I would ask the Minister, in support of what Deputy MacEntee asked, at least to reconsider these cases. It would not be necessary to amend the Act to deal with them. I think that now, after three or four years the Minister could take perhaps a more impartial view of these cases than that which he took when he considered them before.

Mr. S. JORDAN

Would the Minister be able to state how many cases of this class there are?

Mr. BLYTHE

There are a very large number of cases where we either refused to pay in full or perhaps refused to pay at all, because we were not satisfied that the goods were taken without the consent of the applicants. The phrase in the Act is that to be entitled to compensation the goods should have been taken without the consent of the applicant. We refused very large numbers, and people of various political opinions were refused, because it might happen that a person who was entirely a supporter of the Government had supplied goods, had got some payment, had supplied more goods and had got no payment, and then had claimed for the latter portion of the goods as being commandeered. and we refused compensation to such a man as that because he had made some sales. I know that it is a difficult matter to decide whether the goods were in fact taken without the consent of the applicant or not, but that is what we must endeavour to do in each case, because that is the principle that is enshrined in the Act.

Mr. CORRY

The Minister has said that in cases where people were paid for the goods at first and afterwards did not get paid for further goods supplied, they were refused payment, whatever their political views were.

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes.

Mr. CORRY

Well, I can give the Minister definite instances of people who were paid for the goods at first, who were afterwards refused payment for further goods, and who got compensation from the Minister. I can prove that. I wish to point out to the Minister that the majority of the cases of the description which he has refused were cases of people who were in sympathy with the Republican movement from 1918 to 1921, who suffered very serious financial losses on account of their sympathies, and who got no payment whatsoever for goods that they gave to the Republic during that period. I think it is very unfair of any Government that pretends to be a National Government to make this distinction between people who were definitely opposed to the Republican movement from 1919 to 1921, who, on account of their opposition to the Republican movement, suffered no financial loss whatever during the period, and that the Government should immediately compensate, and compensate on the double, for goods that were commandeered all over the country during the civil war. If the Minister likes, I will go over and give him definite instances in support of what I say.

Mr. T. SHEEHY (Tipperary)

There is one case to which I wish to direct the attention of the Minister, that of Mr. Bergin, Connolly Street, Nenagh, who supplied goods to Free State barracks, and who has been paid for the goods supplied to Birr and Roscrea Barracks, but has been refused payment for the goods supplied to Nenagh Barracks.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I do not think that case arises on this Vote. It would arise on the Defence Estimate.

Mr. LEMASS

I think the procedure adopted by the Ministry in awarding compensation, or in deciding in what cases compensation should be awarded, is not, from any point of view, a sure method of arriving at a correct decision. I am personally aware that in the village of Bunclody, Co. Wexford, during 1922, the part of the Republican Army with which I was connected at the time, commandeered considerable quantities of supplies from various shopkeepers. We were in a hurry at the time; there were several large forces of the enemy in pursuit looming around. We just took what we wanted to keep us going and went on. Some days later the officer in command of the Republican forces went back after the enemy forces had retired and paid every shopkeeper in full for the goods that were taken. I know that every one of these traders has also received compensation for the same goods, and has, in fact, been paid.

Mr. BLYTHE

I would like to put some of them in jail. If the officer who paid for these goods would only come forward we would try.

Mr. LEMASS

I will make the suggestion to him. I do not know whether he will or not. I know that personally I did not approve of his paying, because the money which he utilised was much more urgently needed for other purposes. I would like to mention that during the period of the occupation of the Four Courts I was an officer in the garrison there, and one of the most objectionable parts of my duties was to interview the commercial travellers who called there every morning endeavouring to sell supplies. They queued up every morning at a specified hour and offered to supply us with goods of various kind and articles of equipment. Those from whom we purchased supplies were paid from time to time, but owing to the sudden interruption of our occupation of the building a certain proportion of the amounts due was left unpaid, and probably has not since been paid. I take it that such people as tried to sell us goods who were opposed to us got compensation.

Mr. BLYTHE

No, none; it was a bad debt.

Mr. LEMASS

It is not altogether bad. There is still some hope. The point I want to make is that the fact that a person who supplied goods, or from whom goods were taken, for the equipment of the Republican forces, happened to be a sympathiser with the object for which those forces were fighting, as against a person who was opposed to that body, is not a correct way to decide as to whether or not that person should be compensated for the goods. One of the principal grievances I had against the Republican Army at that time was, that they commandeered goods from our supporters. In such cases when they wanted supplies of boots or food a column came down from the hills and, in order to avoid unnecessary trouble, went to a person whom they knew would not offer a very vigorous resistance. It was a mistaken policy. I often criticised it at the time, and I criticise it still—that people who would have been compensated were not in many cases approached, whereas the people to whom compensation was refused were the people who in the majority of the cases suffered heaviest. Even though they may not have offered a very vigorous resistance to the commandeering party, nevertheless they were in a position to refuse, and if they did refuse it would make no difference. The goods would be taken in any case.

Mr. KILROY

I would like to know if the Minister would reconsider a case that I am about to mention, or if he would accept further representations on it. In my district a woman went out for a walk in 1922 and when she came back she found that her house had been taken forcible possession of by the military. It was held for a couple of years by the military, and was afterwards occupied by the police. It was a shop and dwelling house. No compensation has been paid for the period of occupation. There was a large stock of goods on the premises. An application was made for £550 compensation but only about £90 was offered. I am anxious to know if the Minister would receive further representations from me in that case, because I think it is a very glaring one of unfair dealing.

Mr. BLYTHE

With reference to the case mentioned by Deputy Kilroy, it does not come within the ambit of this Vote, but I know that the general rule has been that compensation has been paid where premises were commandeered and held. It seems strange to me that no compensation has been paid in this case. With reference to what Deputy Lemass said, it is difficult to be sure in any particular case that the actual commandeering did take place, and that in the words of the Act, the goods were taken without the consent of the owner. We have to take into account, as far as possible, all the information that is obtainable, and we have to try to consider cases as fairly as possible, while adhering to the principle put into the Act, and impose no hardship or injustice. We have always been ready to reconsider cases in which representations were made and, on a number of occasions, where other information came in the original decision may have been reversed. The thing we have got to remember is to try to carry out what is in the Act, that is, to pay where there was actual commandeering; where goods were actually taken without the consent of the owner and to refuse payment where they were taken with his consent. That means that people who held the Deputy's political views probably suffered losses. I think they have only got to offer them up.

Vote put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 54.

Tá.

• Anthony, Richard.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Cole, John James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Daly, John.
• Davis, Michael.
• De Loughrey, Peter.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Edward.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James E.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
• O'Reilly, John J.
• O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• White, John.
• White, Vincent Joseph.

Níl.

• Allen, Denis.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carney, Frank.
• Carty, Frank.
• Clery, Michael.
• Colbert, James.
• Cooney, Eamon.
• Corkery, Dan.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• Forgarty, Andrew.
• French, Seán.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Holt, Samuel.
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Kerlin, Frank.
• Killane, James Joseph.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Maguire, Ben.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Mullins, Thomas.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Leary, William.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Tubridy, John.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

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

Question declared carried.

Nil: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.