Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Oct 1929

Vol. 32 No. 1

Private Deputies' Business. - Compensation Claims in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Aiken

I move:—

"That it is the opinion of the Dáil that the Executive Council should take up with the British Government the question of providing adequate compensation for Miss Alice Doyle, Mr. Felix Mackin, Mr. James O'Hare, Mr. Patrick O'Hare, Mr. Terence McCourt, Mr. McKnight, Miss Minnie Smith, all of Camlough, Co. Armagh, whose homes and property were destroyed in December, 1920, by British forces, and who were refused compensation because British military witnesses swore that the destruction was done by them through military necessity; also for James McGuill, Dromintee, Co. Armagh; Frederick Joseph Slater, Curry, Belleek, Co. Fermanagh, and Mrs. Anne James Byrne, Tullyorior, Banbridge, Co. Down, whose homes and property were destroyed in June, 1922, by British forces, and who were refused compensation for the same reasons; and

That, if the representations referred to in the foregoing paragraph be not successful, it is further of opinion that the Executive Council should take steps to make provision for the payment of compensation to the persons named out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas."

This motion has been on the Paper for some time, and what I want to do is to get the Dáil to say that the Government should either get the British Government to compensate the people in the North of Ireland who suffered the loss of their homes and got no compensation, or that they themselves should make provision for them. I examined the whole question. I tried to get all the cases where people were burned out and were refused compensation on the plea of military necessity by the British forces. The amount of money claimed by these people in the courts amounted to £21,600. I believe that if a judicial committee went into the matter they would find it would be somewhat less than that. I believe that this assembly of Irish representatives have a duty to compensate these people; they suffered the loss of their homes because of the fight that was made by the people of Ireland for freedom. The Government, and those supporting them, have claimed that this portion of Ireland, at least, has got freedom and, certainly, whatever measure of freedom was achieved here was achieved because of the sacrifices of the whole of the people of Ireland, including the people of the Six Counties, and including the people whose names are contained in this motion.

The attitude of the Government has been stated by the President. On 17th November, 1927, on page 1613, vol. 21, of the Official Report you will find the following statement by President Cosgrave:—

"The people of Saorstát Eireann have paid in full the compensation payable for damage done within the 26 counties; it would neither be equitable nor feasible to ask them to pay for damage which was done by others in an area outside their jurisdiction."

I want to note that the President says "damage done by others in an area outside their jurisdiction." Again he said that same day: "This is a liability in respect of another Government. It is nonsense to come here and say we should out of our bounty do this." Again he says: "I state not alone what was true but what I have verified and what is in accord with my distinct recollection. Surely I am a man of sense, having had a lot of experience in administration.... I have had the records examined and there was no authority given for any attack in Northern Ireland. I repudiate and deny any such statement and I say it is an untrue statement." That is on page 1623 of the same volume. Again he said: "The matter which the Deputy has described is outside the area of our jurisdiction." That is on page 1617 of the same volume. Again: "I deny absolutely any responsibility on the part either of the second Dáil or the Provisional Government in respect of that particular act." That particular act was the burning of James McGuill's house, Dromintee. Again at page 1621 he said: "No authority was given by the Second Dáil or by the Provisional Government for any military activities in Northern Ireland after the Treaty." Again at page 1522 he said: "Northern Nationalists is rather a large term, and they have been abandoned by more than me." Note, however, he admits that they have been abandoned by him.

The Minister for Finance said on 19th November, 1928, page 1845: "I feel a great deal of sympathy"—he did not say what sort of sympathy, lip sympathy or anything else, but he said: "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 great hardship." The Minister for Finance on the same date asked for particulars: I sent him particulars of all cases I had discovered and I got a letter from him yesterday, 22nd October. His letter boils down to this: "The Minister regrets, therefore, that he cannot see his way to recommend to the Oireachtas that funds should be provided for the payment of compensation to persons resident in Northern Ireland." He gives a few excuses of course before he comes to that. One of them is that "payments of compensation made in respect to similar damage in the Irish Free State are, of course, a charge upon the taxpayer of the Saorstat, and the effect of the various measures taken to afford such compensation has been to spread over the general body of citizens a burden which would have otherwise fallen heavily upon a few. In other words, to even up the loss amongst the people of the State generally." He says, in another part of the letter, "there are cases of great hardship." But he does not say that although he claims the people of the TwentySix Counties have obtained freedom—and I say that whatever freedom they have obtained was helped by the people for whom I am now claiming compensation—he does not say that these few should be helped by the general body of the citizens throughout the State.

Another excuse in the letter. He said:—"In any event in the circumstances which now obtain and which have obtained since 1922 it would be impossible to set up machinery responsible to this Government which would be capable of examining in a judicial manner the claims of persons resident in Northern Ireland and of assessing the amount of their losses." However, by some means or other, a lot of pensions are being paid to people resident outside Saorstat Eireann, but the Minister did not come and tell us that he had no means of assessing the amount of pension which they should obtain. Another excuse. "The period of time which has elapsed since the occurrences referred to is so great that even if other difficulties were removed the task of assessing damages in a manner equitable alike to the sufferer and taxpayer would be almost impossible of accomplishment." The Minister has in his Department a branch at work trying to sift out the evidence of the claims of people who subscribed to the Dail Eireann Loan and I think he should take into Account the help that was given to the people of this country in their fight for freedom by the people in the North. That is evident by the large number of subscribers from the North whose names appear on the list of subscribers to Dail Eireann Loan. I think also that the Minister should be as careful of the interests of people who supported the Irish cause during the Black and Tan war and until the fighting ceased as the British are of the interests of their supporters in this country.

I am given to understand that no later than last year the British gave money to the so-called loyalists in the South of Ireland and also that many years after the fighting ceased, in 1926, President Cosgrave went over to London and put in Clause IV. of the Boundary Agreement agreeing to give an additional ten per cent. to people who suffered losses here and a large portion of that sum of £270,000 involved in the agreement passed into the hands of Southern loyalists. President Cosgrave even admitted that the payment of that additional ten per cent. did in a number of cases bring the total amount of compensation paid to these people to more than they claimed. The total amount obtained by some of these people was more than they actually claimed. President Cosgrave had £270,000 of the Irish people's money to throw away in that fashion but he has not got £20,000 or less to spend on compensating people who not only did not get a penny but who were at the loss incurred in legal proceedings which they instituted in the Northern Courts to obtain their rights. He can give £270,000 to his friends in the South, but for the friends of Ireland in the North whom he admits he has abandoned he cannot even get £20,000.

As I say, the people in the North of Ireland did their share in the national fight, which resulted in the setting up of this establishment. Not alone did the people who are enumerated in my resolution suffer the loss of their homes, but many others throughout the Six Counties suffered the loss of their lives, and I can state that the people in one town area, from which most of these people came, suffered more casualties than any other urban area in Ireland outside Dublin and Cork, and inflicted more casualties on the British than any other urban area outside Dublin and Cork. I believe that these people particularly should not have been abandoned. I know that the dependants of some of the people who were killed got compensation, and that some of those who were wounded got pensions. You have heard the case of a number of people in Camlough whose homes were destroyed, and who got no compensation. I know that some of the men who were wounded on the night of the attack on the barracks got pensions, and I know that the dependants of a couple of men who were killed, also got pensions. I maintain that these people have an equal right to compensation, and an equal right to the consideration of this Assembly. I am borne out in my statement by many of the men who are responsible for setting up this State. I will give you a quotation from Arthur Griffith. Speaking on February 1st, in the City Hall, to a deputation of Northern representatives, he said: "If there were any fears or rumours in the North that they were going to be let down, they could get them off their minds at once."

The President

What is the date of that?

Mr. Aiken

February 1st, 1922. That is Arthur Griffith. Michael Collins, on February 4th, 1922, said: "We have repeatedly said that the North-East had nothing, to fear from us, that we would not coerce them or place them under disabilities; equally, however, our people must not be coerced, and must not be placed under disabilities." The people who President Cosgrave said are in an area outside their jurisdiction, the people whom President Cosgrave refers to as "others in an area outside our jurisdiction," and the people whom President Cosgrave admits he has abandoned were, according to Michael Collins, not to be placed under disabilities, not to be coerced. That was his promise to them. Michael Collins, when setting up this State a few days after the Provisional Government was in operation, called together a number of representatives of local bodies in the North in the City Hall. I was present and introduced the deputation.

The President

What is the date of that?

Mr. Aiken

That deputation was a few days after the setting up of the Provisional Government, on 7th February—anyway, in the first week in February.

The President

Was I present then?

Mr. Aiken

Not at that period. As a result of that meeting the Northern local bodies continued to refuse to recognise the Northern Government.

The President

Would the Deputy pardon me? I do not want to interrupt him, but when he said that they continued to refuse to recognise the Northern Government, could he give me the date of the first refusal to acknowledge the Northern Government?

Mr. Aiken

I will get that later on. I have not got it now, but I know very well that for some months previously some of them had refused.

The President

I would like to warn the Deputy what I mean. My impression is that the refusal to recognise the Northern Government was after the Truce. That is my impression.

Mr. G. Boland

Would it not be the same time as the other public bodies in other parts of Ireland refused to recognise the British Government?

The President

No, that was as far back as September, 1920.

Mr. Boland

It was before that.

The President

Some of them might be before that, but my recollection is that the Dáil meeting of September, 1920, really decided and clinched the matter.

Mr. Cooney

Might I remind the President that the Northern Government was not in existence then?

An Ceann Comhairle

Might I remind the House that the question at issue is purely a question of compensation? I thought I made that clear before. Deputy Aiken is entitled to make a preamble and entitled to make his speech, as far as possible, in his own way. I will allow him to make it as far as I possibly can in his own way, but the question at, issue is merely a question of making representations to the British Government, with regard to compensation, and that is not sufficiently wide to cover a great many things that have been brought in.

Mr. Aiken

And failing successful representations to the British Government, that this House should take steps to make provision for the payment of compensation.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, for the payment of compensation.

Mr. Aiken

Arising out of that I am referring to statements made by the President, who disclaimed responsibility. I wonder does the President object, or could he in any way object, to my statement, that as a result of the meeting in the City Hall when Michael Collins met the local bodies, the local bodies in the North who pledged allegiance to Dáil Eireann continued to refuse to recognise the Northern Government.

The President

Does the Deputy want my answer now?

Mr. Aiken

You may answer now or at any time you like, but the fact is that they continued to refuse to recognise the Northern Government, and not only did they refuse to recognise the Northern Government, but a large proportion of the teachers in the North-East refused to recognise the Northern Government. These teachers were paid by Dáil Eireann. These people, who might easily be described by President Cosgrave—would now be described, and have been described— as others in an area outside their jurisdiction, were paid by Dáil Eireann. Shortly after that meeting Dan Hogan, who was then O.C. of the 5th Northern Division, was arrested on his way to Derry, and there were some prisoners in Derry who were under sentence of death. They were I.R.A. prisoners who had been kept after the general amnesty and, of course, throughout the whole of the country, both in the North and in the South, much feeling was aroused, and steps were taken to take hostages for Dan Hogan and his comrades, and also for the men in Derry Jail who were under sentence of death. A large number of "B" Specials and other active supporters of the British and the Northern Governments were arrested and taken to prisons throughout the Free State. One general raid took place, and it was reported in the "Independent" on February 9th. It took place on February 8th, and some of the men, who were under Seán MacEoin's command, were arrested in Enniskillen. Many of them are pretty well-known. One of them, Seán MacCurtain, at least should be known to every Minister opposite, because he was a member of their Party. He was elected by them as a T.D. and sat in their Party. Of course, he was another person for whose action President Cosgrave now disclaims responsibility, but he did not then.

I do not know whether he now disclaims responsibility for them or not, because I understand when these people who were arrested in Enniskillen, or some of them, I can give the names—Seán Flood, Seán MacCurtain, Frank Reynolds, Joe Lee, Seán Griffith, Seán Maguire, Seán McCarroll, Charlie Reynolds—were detained in British, prisons up to January 20th, 1926, some of them were actually paid out of Army funds. President Cosgrave says he can take no responsibility for their action. "No authority was given by the Second Dáil or the Provisional Government for any military activity in the North of Ireland after the Treaty." The area of the North was outside the jurisdiction of these men, but he says, "Surely, I am a man of sense." Yet he paid them allowances when they were imprisoned for carrying out war in the North, and he also pays them pensions. I do not know. I suppose it is only in public that he disclaims responsibility for their actions.

President Cosgrave says "I state not only what is true, but what I have verified and what is in accord with my distinct recollection." He goes on to say, "Surely I am a man of sense, having had a lot of experience in administration. I have had the records examined, and there was no authority given for any attack on Northern Ireland. I repudiate and deny any such statement, and I say it is an untrue statement." I do not know what influence President Cosgrave had then on the Executive of Dail Eireann, but surely anyone might think that he would have at least as much influence and as much knowledge of affairs as the ordinary man in the street, and the ordinary man in the street read the following statement on February 9 after these raids, on the North—a statement from Eoin O'Duffy, Chief of Staff of the Volunteers under the control of Dail Eireann. Eoin O'Duffy said:

In reference to these raids, that there should have been spontaneous and determined action in Ulster is not surprising. The patience of our people there has been sorely tried lately by the continued raids, arrests and tortures inflicted on them by the agents of the (Northern) Government.

"The majority of those in prison," says Eoin O'Duffy, then Chief of Staff of the forces of Dail Eireann, "in Belfast and Derry are suffering because they carried out my orders while I was the liaison officer.” He went on to say: “There is a limit to human endurance,” and further, “There can be peace in Ulster if and when the North-East wills it, but there will be no peace while a number of our people there are held in custody.” There was war then, and “there will be no peace while a number of our people are held in custody.” But President Cosgrave has examined all the records. He is a man of sense, and he repudiates any such statement that Dail Eireann, or any of the forces under its control, were responsible for any trouble in the North after the signing of the Treaty. Michael Collins, with reference to the same thing, said—you will find this quotation in the “Independent” of February 9 regarding the raid—“that it was what any sensible person, would expect.” But one sensible person, according to himself, did not expect it. He says now that he did not expect it. One record at any rate that you would expect a man of sense, even if he is a man of sense according to himself, would have read was one on his own files. That would not be asking too much from a man of sense. We have a letter signed here by Liam T. MacCosgair dated the 13th April, 1922. He addressed this particular one to the Chairman of the Guardians of the Newry (No. 2) Rural District Council, and in it he says:

A Chara,

It has been decided to hold a meeting of the Chairmen of Local Authorities of North-East Ireland who have pledged their allegiance to Dáil Eireann so that their position and future action may be discussed. This meeting will be held at the Mansion House, Dublin, on Monday, 24th April, at 3 p.m., and you are requested to attend. In the meanwhile you are also requested to forward to this office as soon as possible full particulars of the position of your Board at present, and with regard to the action of the (Northern) Government in attempting to enforce recognition, namely, have your Board been replaced by Commissioners and if so under what alleged authority? Documents which explain the legal position are important and should be sent. Discussion at the meeting would include the various aspects (a) Boundary Commission; (b) Local Government; (c) Patronage. Decisions will be taken as to action generally or in particular cases.

(Signed) Liam T. Mac Cosgair,

which some of President Cosgrave's friends may not know means William T. Cosgrave, Minister for Local Government. That was sent by the Minister for Local Government, Liam T. Mac Cosgair, to people whom he would describe now as in an area outside his jurisdiction but who were then of course his own subjects, to whom he sent ministerial or royal commands to attend at the Mansion House. He says "alleged authority." Any authority other than his own would be an alleged authority to him then, but now a lawfully constituted authority. There is another letter which is valuable when one is considering the amount of responsibility which this Assembly has for the sufferings incurred by the people set out in my Resolution. It is a letter sent out by Rory O'Connor shortly before his death. The letter says:—

"At that stage, we actually discussed co-ordinating military action against North-East Ulster and had agreed on the officer who would command both Republican and Free State troops in that area."

I was the, officer on whom they agreed.

"We were also to send from the South some hundreds of our rifles for use in that area. The reason given was that it would never do if rifles which had been handed to the Government for use against Republicans and which of course could be identified were found in use against Craig. An exchange of rifles was effected."

I have another letter here.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has not made any remark yet about either of the two cases he mentions in the Resolution.

Mr. Aiken

At the outset I stated the cases in my Resolution. Wishing as I do to secure the support of this Assembly for my Resolution, I want to reply to the case that has been made against it by President Cosgrave and others.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, but this is altogether a case for compensation, and, as I said before, that whole question will have to be debated in connection with the two examples given in the Resolution. I think that the Deputy should come to the question of compensation for these people rather than give a recital of historical facts, and continue the reading of documents. I desire to allow the Deputy, as has always been the practice, to make his case in his own way. Deputies frequently object to other Deputies making their cases in their own way. I want to allow the Deputy to make his case in his own way, but the question of recognition, the question of local authority, and the other questions raised, do not seem to have any relevancy to what action should now be taken about the particular people set out in the Resolution. I think the Deputy ought to come to the Resolution. I wonder is he really coming to it?

Mr. Aiken

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to come to it now very soon.

Mr. Aiken

I am coming to it in my own way.

An Ceann Comhairle

I want to be quite clear about this. The unfortunate position of the Deputy at the moment is that he is not coming to it in the way that the Chair deems to be the proper way. I want to give the Deputy every possible liberty, but I am not prepared to deal with the question on the basis that the Deputy will do it solely in his own way and without regard to the view of the Chair. The Deputy will have to come to the question very soon.

Mr. Aiken

The question we are discussing is whether or not this Assembly has any responsibility for the destruction which was done on these people's homes. That is the question that we are discussing.

An Ceann Comhairle

No, I do not think so. The Chair is definitely of opinion that that is not so. The Deputy has not told us anything yet about the first set of people.

Mr. de Valera

Surely we ought to know what our responsibility is, if we are going to award compensation.

An Ceann Comhairle

This Resolution cannot give rise to a wide debate on the whole question of responsibility. I agree that there is some relevancy in the matter, but the relevancy has not yet appeared. We will have to hear something about these particular people first, and then some statement about responsibility, but as to any prolonged reading of documents or prolonged investigation into a period of history, the House, as I said before, is not in a position to come to a decision on a difficult point of history. No Assembly of this nature is in that position, and I think the House itself is clear about that. It would be impossible for the House to come to a decision on a vexed point of history, and perhaps it would be more difficult for the House to come to a decision on a vexed point of recent history than on any other point of history. For that reason we will have to come to this particular question now.

Mr. S.T. O'Kelly

I submit that what Deputy Aiken is coming to is not a point of history. I entirely agree with the Chair that this House would not be the place to decide a point of history, but what I gather from Deputy Aiken is that he is endeavouring to establish a point of fact as to certain responsibilities in certain limited cases—in regard to these cases for which he claims compensation. He has made the case setting forth that there was certain authority recognised by persons responsible here for certain actions. That was denied in the letter that the Minister for Finance sent. The Deputy, I take it, is endeavouring to establish that there was certain authority given for those acts which entitled those people to compensation. Outside that I submit, with all respect, he has not gone, and if he is able to establish the fact of authority there, I think he would have established his claim for compensation.

An Ceann Comhairle

Notwithstanding what Deputy O'Kelly has said, Deputy Aiken has not yet come to any point dealing with either of these two cases. I do not know whether the Deputy intends to deal with them in chronological order and take 1920 before 1922, but he has not dealt with 1920 at all, as far as my recollection serves me. In the case of 1922 he did not give the date of the last letter he read. Up to the time that I intervened he had not got beyond February, 1922. A question of history is always established from what the facts were. I want to give Deputy Aiken every liberty, but I do want to hear something about these cases. There is, a fundamental difference of opinion on the question of responsibility for certain actions, and the House cannot be used as a tribunal to decide who was responsible.

Mr. G. Boland

Might I say——

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputy Boland bear with me and I will hear a statement from him afterwards? I made up my mind on this matter a long time ago. On the general question, I allowed this question to be put on the Order Paper, and I allowed Deputy Aiken to make a statement on it before. I allowed the matter to appear on the Order Paper, because although I think at least the second part of it might be technically ruled out I wanted to give the fullest possible liberty for debate in the House. The House is not in the position—I repeat that— to hear evidence and arrive at a decision on the question of who is responsible for a particular act done at a particular time. In fact, there is hardly any other Assembly more unfitted to decide such a matter as that. If the Deputy will come to the question of compensation I am prepared to allow him to make a statement giving from his point of view evidence of what he considers responsibility in the matter. But we cannot have an elaborate examination of all these mattters because we are not competent to decide them. If they are to be decided they will have to be decided by a wholly different tribunal to this. I have no objection to Deputy Aiken making assumptions of any kind, but as he is giving a certain amount of proof about the matter from his point of view I do not want to have to take up consideration of this question in that fashion. I do not think it can be done.

Mr. G. Boland

You, A Chinn Comhairle, stated that the Deputy had not gone beyond February, but as he had got as far as April, I just want to show that he was progressing.

An Ceann Comhairle

There has been some progress, but it has been a little slow.

Mr. Boland

But it is progress all the same.

Mr. Cooney

I submit that this Resolution arose out of a refusal of the Executive Council to pay compensation to these people named in the Resolution. I think that the questions asked in connection with it and the attitude of the President and his Cabinet are based on the statement of the President that there is no responsibility. I submit that all along Deputy Aiken throughout his statement has been concentrating on the efforts to prove that there is direct responsibility on the Executive Council and on those who were with him at the time for these particular actions.

An Ceann Comhairle

There again it is not a question of who was there at the time. Remember that the matter would have the same relevancy precisely if no single person now having the right to sit on the Front Bench had been there in 1922. There is no question of that. It is purely, in the particular sense which I now use the word, "accidental" that there are persons in the House who have personal knowledge of the matter. No matter what relevancy there may be, we cannot have an examination into disputed facts of that kind which go back so far. I am prepared to allow the Deputy to make a statement, but we cannot have a long examination drawing us into all kinds of matters which a vote of this House would not decide in any shape or form.

Mr. Aiken

What I want the House to do is to vote some money for these people who have suffered losses. I maintain that they have a better right to compensation than others who have received moneys called compensation for losses out of public funds at the disposal of this Assembly.

Now one of the cases mentioned is the case of Miss Alice Doyle. There were two houses destroyed and two others partly destroyed by British police and military forces on the night of 12th-13th December, 1920. You will notice I am going back. Her claim for compensation was turned down in the County Court because the officer in charge of the British forces—Captain Armstrong—lyingly swore that the house contained bombs and was loopholed. Miss Alice Doyle's architect estimated the cost of re-building and repairing at £741 12s. 4d. I know that case very intimately. I was in charge of the attack on the barracks, after which this house was destroyed. I know that the lady, of course, was favourable to the Republican cause, and helped the national movement, but she was not in the attack, and we did not use her house for the attack on the barracks.

The President

Will the Deputy tell me the date when that claim was turned down in the Courts?

Mr. Aiken

I have not the date, but I can get that date if you want it.

The President

Could the Deputy state off-hand about what time of the year?

Mr. Aiken

It was tried in the Armagh County Court in the Spring of 1921.

The President

And decided there?

Mr. Aiken

Yes, and decided that she could not obtain compensation because Captain Armstrong, who was in charge of the British forces, alleged that the houses contained bombs and were loopholed for the attack on the barracks.

Another case is that of James O'Hare, of the same parish, and living in one of Miss Doyle's houses destroyed on the same night. He claimed £336 15s. for furniture and personal belongings, but his case was dismissed on similar evidence being put forward by the British.

The President

At the same time?

Mr. Aiken

Yes. Michael Conlon whose belongings were also destroyed claimed £62 but was refused compensation. There were a few other tenants of Miss Doyle who also were refused compensation on the same ground. James McKnight, Lislea, Co. Armagh, was the owner of two other houses destroyed at Camlough on the same night. He claimed £2,000 compensation and was refused for the same reason as the others.

The President

Was it also in the Spring of 1921 that that decision was given?

Mr. Aiken

Yes, they were all tried at the Quarter Sessions in the Spring of 1921. Another case mentioned in my Resolution is that of James McGuill, Dromintee, Co. Armagh, who had his home destroyed by British troops on 15th June, 1922. He applied for £15,000 compensation, but was refused on the evidence of the British officer who swore that he destroyed the premises because of military necessity. Many members here might remember that case, particularly those on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches, because a lot of them were entertained from time to time in that particular house. James McGuill was well-known to be a Republican. He was Chairman of the No. 2 Rural District Council. He was an active worker in the Sinn Féin movement and housed me, at any rate, when I was on the run and housed many members of Cumann na nGaedheal when they visited that district. During the Black and Tan wars his house was fired into many times. An attempt was made on his life one night and he escaped by a very narrow margin. His wife also escaped by a very narrow margin, because she was fired on by the party of Specials or British forces of some description who entered the house with a view to shooting her husband. She was standing at the top of the stairs and was fired at. I remember going back there after the Truce and they described the incident to me. She said: "Of course it must have been a blank shot; otherwise I could not have escaped." It was a narrow stairway. She was standing at the head. I said: "I cannot imagine men going on a mission like that having blank cartridges in their guns." I examined the head of the stairway and in a spot which must have been a few inches from her head I found a revolver bullet. I remember being in this particular house with Michael Collins when he attended the Armagh meeting in August of 1921.

After the Treaty the British forces took steps to drive out those who were in favour of the Republican movement and who were a danger to their supremacy there. Naturally enough, they picked out men like James MeGuill, who were well-known Republicans and who had entertained people like Michael Collins, and they raided him time and again. One night a party of Specials with blackened faces broke into the house and attempted to rape Mrs. McGuill and other womenfolk—her mother and the maidservants. Mrs. McGuill was a short time before her confinement. I saw her the next day in the most frightful state, and I swore that if I could take it out of the skins of the men who did it I would do it. We went the following night and we laid ambush for the Specials from the Camp who were responsible for the attempted rape. We shot a few of them. I am sorry we did not get them all. Following that, Mr. McGuill's house was destroyed by the British on the plea of military necessity. Another case is that of Mrs. Anne James Byrne, Tullyorior, Banbridge, Co. Down, whose house was burned down by the Specials in June, 1922. She made a claim for compensation amounting to £2,067 5s. 0d. Her claim was turned down because of the evidence given by the Specials that the burning was a military necessity. Mrs. Byrne, of course, was the mother of two boys who were officers under my command during the Black and Tan war. They were officers in Banbridge, where a man had to be a good man to be in the Volunteers. Her home was destroyed because of the help her sons gave to the Volunteers who were fighting Ireland's fight during the Black and Tan war and following it.

Another case is that of Frederick Joseph Slater, Curry, Belleek, Co. Fermanagh, whose home was burned on the night of the 30th June, 1922, during Curfew hours by the British military and police forces. Mrs. Slater was given a decree for £1,070. This decision was appealed against by the Fermanagh County Council, and the case was dismissed. At the first trial Captain Beatty, who was in charge of the Specials at the time, swore that he was fired at from Mr. Slater's house, but at the later trial he was not called. These are the cases, all cases of people who suffered because of the actions the people of the North took to support the national fight. Undoubtedly, this Assembly is responsible and has a duty in the matter. It has an absolute responsibility for the compensation.

After the Treaty Michael Collins maintained that it was going to secure the unity of Ireland. He stated in an article which appeared in the "Irish Independent" on 1st February, 1922:

"Our claim was clear. Majorities must rule, and in any map marked on that principle we secure immense anti-partition areas. If we go by counties, anti-partition has a clear majority in two of the six. Under other headings anti-partition gains much in Down, Derry and Armagh. These are facts, and we can only come to an agreement with Craig and the British on a recognition of these facts."

Again, on February 5th, he said:

"Under the Treaty Ireland is about to become a fully constituted nation. The whole of Ireland as one nation is to compose the Irish Free State. That is the whole basis of the Treaty. It is the bedrock from which our status springs."

It was that statement and statements like it that caused the people of the North to refuse to recognise the Northern Government and take military action against it. Statements like that also were the cause of the teachers refusing to recognise the Northern Government and taking instructions from the Dáil Ministry of Education. They took their instructions from the Dáil Ministry of Education up to 25th November, 1922, and it was from the Dáil Ministry of Education they drew their salaries. Many months after all the occurrences I mentioned, the teachers in the North got this letter. It is headed Dublin, and dated 25th November, 1922:—

"A Chara,

It has been decided that salaries of teachers under the Six Counties Government paid by us are no longer to be so paid. The monthly returns and any claims for salary for the month of November, 1922, are therefore to be submitted to the Ministry of Education for Northern Ireland on the forms supplied by that Ministry. It is very desirable that uniform action on the lines indicated should be taken immediately by all teachers concerned.—Sinne le meas, O'Mahony and O'Daly, per P. O'Mahony."

This letter was addressed to one of the teachers in the North. It is an interesting document. It comes from Dublin, and tells the teachers in the North who had incurred the enmity of the Northern Government because of their national stand, that they were no longer to be paid. They were to go to the Northern Government, and the people responsible for sending it had not the courage to send it themselves. They got somebody else to send it. It is signed by P. O'Mahony, whoever he is. This document and the fact that there is no address, shows what they thought of themselves when they were sending that letter, and what they thought of themselves then, all Irish patriots will think of them in the future. President Cosgrave disclaims responsibility for the actions that were taken under the authority of the Dáil Ministry of Defence. Many months before the teachers in the North had ceased to be paid.

This letter was sent out from the Office of the Adjutant-General, General Headquarters, Portobello Barracks. It is a letter "re the men of the Northern units." It is dated 25th January, 1923, twelve months after President Cosgrave said there was nobody in the North for whom they could accept responsibility. The letter is signed Gearoid O Suilleabhain, Major-General, Adjutant-General. It says:—

"Officers and men of the Northern units at Keane Barracks will be informed that the present arrangements by which they are in receipt of pay and allowances from Army funds, must cease forthwith."

It did not cease on 7th January, 1921. It was to cease as from 25th January, 1923.

"All persons in receipt of money from Army funds must belong to the National Army and be subject to whatever regulations or instructions the Army Council may issue from time to time. The Army Vote is passed for very definite matters. At the end of the Financial Year (31st March, 1923) there can be no further payments to these units. They must, however, get precedence in recruiting the new Battalions—but if they remain at the Curragh they must be there definitely as attested soldiers of the National Army."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy explain what relevancy that has? Is the Deputy not going back on what the Ceann Comhairle ruled out?

Mr. Aiken

I am showing responsibility for the forces who carried out these things.

The President

Whom is that letter addressed to?

Mr. Aiken

To Commandant-General P. McMahon, General Officer, Reference A.D. 577.

The President

I would like the Deputy to develop that.

Mr. Aiken

This is regarding the men from the Northern Units who were at Keane Barracks on the Curragh. This is the pay sheet—a statement of the pay and allowances for December, 1922, and January, 1923.

The President

At the Curragh?

Mr. Aiken

Yes, for December, 1922, and January, 1923.

Mr. Lemass

They were not members of the National Army.

Mr. MacEntee

They were not attested soldiers. They were from the Northern units.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am concerned in knowing what the relevancy of this is to the motion.

Mr. Aiken

This is the pay sheet—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Deputy will have to show me the relevancy.

Mr. Aiken

Of course the President denies that there was any responsibility, that they had command of any unattested men from the North.

The President

At the Curragh?

Mr. Aiken

I.R.A. men who were there to fight for the unity of Ireland.

The President

That is not in the document, is it?

Mr. MacEntee

Sit still and take your medicine.

Mr. Aiken

Here you have the Second Northern Division being paid up to January, 1923, and it was only then, after the Civil War had been fought on the plea that it was for the unity and freedom of Ireland, that they turned out these men. It is interesting to see the mentality of the men in charge of the camp. "In my opinion these men should not be disbanded but should be made to serve actively for a period before being discharged. If they are to be discharged they should not be afforded facilities to travel to Donegal to create trouble." That is from Major-General Joseph Sweeney.

The President

That is a very relevant document.

Mr. Aiken

In other words, their hands were to be stained with the blood of their own countrymen before they were to be let go.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely this has nothing to do with the motion. It is a question of the Volunteers and the National Army.

Mr. Aiken

More time has been taken up in this debate by the people in the Chair than by me, but we realise the restrictions under which we entered this House and under which we have to carry on debate, and I am trying my best to get round them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is delightfully frank, but I am afraid he will not succeed in getting round them.

Mr. Aiken

There are some members of Cumann na nGaedheal in this House who got support from the people when they entered public life on the plea that they were going to support the Irish fight for independence. You have people like the Minister for Finance, who said that any man who would agree to partition for a day was a traitor and should be treated as such, and you have people like President Cosgrave, who came down to our village of Camlough and urged us to drive the British out.

The President

Will the Deputy give me the date of that and the statement? Was the Deputy present?

Mr. Aiken

Do you deny it?

The President

I want to have proof. The Deputy makes the statement. I ask him for proof.

Mr. Aiken

I heard it.

The President

What did the Deputy hear me say?

Mr. Aiken

Does the President deny he asked people to drive the British out?

The President

Excuse me. I never asked the Deputy or anybody else to do anything that I was not prepared to do myself.

Mr. Aiken

Were you prepared to do it?

The President

I was prepared to do a great deal without talking about it in the way that the Deputy does.

Mr. O'Kelly

He has withdrawn it now, anyhow.

A Deputy

What about all the political illness?

The President

I survived them all —more than the Deputy would be able to do.

Mr. Aiken

What I want Deputies to do is to declare by their votes that those people who suffered in the national fight should be helped out by those who are in a position to help them. The members of this Assembly have public funds at their disposal, and they should not allow the burdens of the war that was carried on to fall so severely as they have fallen on those people that I have mentioned. No matter what side a man was on, or what opinions he might hold, we say that when people go to war they should make provision, if they have attained any measure of success, to distribute as evenly as possible the burdens that the war has imposed. One of these people in particular has been rendered absolutely destitute, a man who owned a house, premises and a farm worth up to £12,000 or £15,000, and he is existing at present only through the charity of his neighbours. That is eight years after we were supposed to have achieved freedom. Surely to goodness if we have £270,000 to give in additional grants we should have at least £20,000 or less to give to these people. Surely if we give people more than they ask in compensation in many cases here in the South, we should give those people a little of what they ask. I hope that between now and the resumption of this debate the members of Cumann na nGaedheal who asked the support of the people for the Treaty on the plea that it was to bring unity and freedom to the country will bring pressure to bear upon the Government to meet these cases. I do not care how it is done; I only want it to be done. We only raised this question in this Assembly when all other means had failed. Remember, it is eight years since these things happened, and every month since the Government have been approached in one way or another to do something for some of these people. I do not care whether it is by an Act of this Assembly that the money is provided, or whether it is provided from some other funds that are at the disposal of the Government, but I believe that these people should be compensated, and I hope that members of Cumann na nGaedheal particularly will realise that it is their duty to see that the people who suffered so severely are not left destitute. Surely to goodness if they put their heads together in their own Party, if they thrashed this thing out with the Government, with the evidence I have given them of the responsibility that the Government has for the action that was taken, they could force their Party to do this little thing in the national interest. I move the adjournment of this debate.

Debate adjourned until Thursday, October 24th.