I beg to second the Motion.
Compensation Claims in Northern Ireland (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
"That it is the opinion of the Dail 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."—(Deputy Aiken).
A question of order arose last evening and I must repeat that it is not possible for us to have a debate here with a view to establishing the exact truth with regard to vexed questions of history, particularly the history of 1922. The fact that was brought to my notice last night that there are persons in the House who have knowledge of the matter at issue, makes it all the more necessary to adhere to the ruling. Deputy Aiken having gone a certain distance, the Chair will be reluctantly obliged, if the President is the next speaker, to permit him to pursue that line. Having thus heard both sides, it will not be possible to have any further inquest or inquiry into questions of history and other speeches must be confined to the subject matter proper of the motion.
As I stated practically all that the Government have to say on this matter on a previous occasion, what I have to say to-day is more or less a repetition of that. Deputy Aiken, in his speech yesterday, practically repeated what he said here two years ago. He gave the same quotations from General Collins and President Griffith then as he gave last night, and he produced no new fact in connection with this particular motion. As I stated on a previous occasion, the method of compensation in respect to damage to property or personal injuries was provided by what was known as the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Code. No other legal remedy lay open to any person in any part of this country other than through that Code, and that Code was in operation subject to certain limitations that were imposed by the action of the Local Government Ministry in Dáil Eireann from 1919 to 1921.
There is no use in hiding this fact at this date, that the main, the principal, and the fundamental reason for the break with the British Local Government Board, as it was called, was the operation of the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Code and the refusal of the councils, the rate-levying bodies throughout the country, to strike a criminal and malicious injuries rate in respect of property damaged through military operations of whatever character. That is a matter that cannot be denied. It formed the basis of the Commission set up to consider local government in 1920. And even with that recommendation, and with the acceptance by Dáil Eireann of that principle, it was with very great and considerable difficulty that the local government machinery was kept functioning throughout the country. The local councils were first faced with the withdrawal, or the withholding, of grants by the British Government at the time. The burden was too heavy for the local bodies to bear. It was not alone too heavy, but it was too precipitous. Something like £10,000,000 had been awarded in decrees for compensation up to the time of the Truce. There is no getting away from the fact that that was the law. There were no other means of compensating any person who lost either property or sustained personal injuries during that period with the exception of the activities of such charitable or philanthropic organisations as the White Cross.
The legal remedy was in respect of the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Code. Up to the end of the pre-Truce period—the llth July, 1921— no rate-levying authority within the jurisdiction of the Northern Government attorned to Dáil Eireann. As far as I know—and I am scarcely in a position to more than express an opinion—no grants were withheld in respect to that area. With the exception of two or three small bodies, boards of guardians and district councils, the Local Government Department of Dáil Eireann did not exercise jurisdiction within the area of Northern Ireland. After the Truce other bodies attorned to Dáil Eireann. It is a nice question now, viewing in 1929 what transpired in 1921, as to whether or not any councils attorning after the Truce were or were not breaches of the Truce. I am not going to express any opinion on it. In my office as Minister for Local Government, if the Custom House authorities, as they were then known —the British Local Government Board in Ireland—had endeavoured to get councils which had attorned to Dáil Eireann to go back to them after the Truce, I certainly would have regarded it as a breach of the Truce, and I think it would have been so regarded by Dáil Eireann.
The position that we are in, then, is this, that the Local Government Department of Dáil Eireann undertook to relieve county councils from the liability which the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Code placed upon them, and it was a very serious liability. Had that Code operated scarcely any rate-levying council in the country would have been able to fulfil its obligations in connection with public services, because once the decree was lodged with the treasurer that decree had to be paid. If the money were not in the hands of the treasurer for payment, then subsequent moneys coming in were earmarked for the payment, and it would have been absolutely impossible to carry on local government.
So the situation was until the Treaty was signed. Subsequent to the signing of the Treaty negotiations were undertaken by the late Chairman or the Provisional Government, General Michael Collins, Mr. O'Higgins and, I believe, Mr. Duggan on the one hand, and representatives of the British Government on the other hand. They went into various questions affecting the transfer, and not alone affecting the transfer, but dealing with the method of payment of compensation to persons whose property had been injured or damaged, and in respect of persons who had suffered personal injuries, or their representatives in the case of persons killed. The agreement that was arrived at in January, 1922, was subsequently published, I think, about August, 1923.
The time for making a case in respect of persons who had suffered loss and who might not have been covered by this international agreement was January, 1922. The importance of that cannot be over-emphasised. Deputy Aiken mentioned last evening that the refusal of the courts to grant decrees in the cases of some of the persons mentioned here was in the spring of 1921. Whose responsibility was it to bring that to the notice of the late General Collins? Not mine. And here I might say that one must advert to the fact that this is 1929, that this is the Sixth Dáil, that the Government which is in office now can scarcely be criticised, for the acts of a Government which was in office in 1922, any more than the Government which was in office in 1922 could be criticised for acts of the Government which was in office in 1921. The responsibility, if there is any, is as much that of Deputies on the other side of the House, who failed in their duty to make representations to the responsible Ministers in charge of the Government in 1922 regarding a disability under which their friends or the supporters of the national cause were suffering from in 1921 and get it corrected at a time when it was possible to make representations on behalf of those people. I do not know whether Deputy Aiken was a representative of any district in Northern Ireland at the time, but some members of his Party were. Whose was the duty then of bringing to the notice of the responsible Ministers cases of hardship such as this?
Who was the member for Armagh?
The Deputy knows that as well as I do.
Why not say it?
And this is another rather significant feature of this whole business. This motion is brought forward resting, as far as I can judge, on two legs, one, the case for sympathy and compensation, and, the other, an opportunity of opening fire and of throwing mud. Which of the two is the predominant one? That is for Deputies over there to answer; it is for Deputy Aiken to answer. But, bearing in mind only the speech that the Deputy made last night, I am inclined to the view that it is apparently one of criticism rather than one of help. There were representatives of that Party members of the Northern Parliament. I have a dossier here of the items which General Collins had to discuss with Sir James Craig. Compensation is not mentioned at all in any one of the items, and apparently it was not brought to his notice. Many other items were, but that was not.
As I have said, there was a legal right in respect to persons who suffered damage to property, and that was in the courts. There was no other. Persons could elect to go to the courts. In certain cases they were warned down here not to go to the courts; they were warned that if they got a decree in the courts they would not be allowed to collect the money. My responsibility as Minister for Local Government—if that is what I am answering for here—was to see that no money was lost to the councils. It was not to see that no person lost money. That was a subsequent business, which would be the concern of whoever was responsible for finance after the Treaty had been signed. The Minister for Finance at that time was the person to whom representations in respect of that should have been made. The councils got their money back, the withheld grants were paid in full by the British Government by reason of that agreement that was made by the late General Collins and the late Mr. O'Higgins on the one hand and the British Ministers on the other. As far as the councils were concerned they lost nothing on the transaction. It is all very well now to appear in a pure white sheet of political morality.
What was the position of Deputy Aiken in 1922, at the time when this matter ought to have been discussed? Did he lend any help to General Collins in respect of any one of these matters? Setting up the State, taking over from the British, reorganising the business of government, and all the rest of it, were big items, but they were not too big to exclude a, matter of this sort if it had been brought to notice at the proper time. Supposing for a moment in the excitement it might have been overlooked, was there not another occasion? There was. At the time of the introduction of the Damage to Property Act in this Dáil representations might have been made in respect of persons who had what we will call moral claims and who had not been paid. No Deputy, no Party, as far as I can remember, was ever approached in connection with this matter. There are Deputies here who were Deputies in the Third Dáil, and who paid particular attention to matters of this kind, but no representation was made when the Damage to Property Act of 1923 was under consideration.
In 1929 we are seven years away from the disturbances. What was the position of affairs in 1922? I have been looking up some of the leading articles of the daily newspapers of that time, and practically one headline distinguished the whole of them—"anarchical conditions"—and during those anarchical conditions, when we had got to consider the setting up of a new State, more than likely cases such as those would have been overlooked. Whose business was it to attend to them? How is it that in 1929 they can be attended to, but nobody could think of them in 1922, being too busy on other matters? In 1922, by reason of the agreement to which I have referred, the Chairman of the Compensation Commission came to this country and went to the one place where he could function as Chairman of that Commission—his office. What did he find? It was occupied by armed men, not under the control of any Government in this country or out of it. To him might have been put a case, if it was so desired, that there were others than those included in the terms of reference who had moral rights in respect of property that had been damaged. But he had no place to function. The place where he should have sat was occupied by armed men. In 1929 we have practically forgotten that.
The Deputy read yesterday evening a letter which was issued from my office and signed by myself. One reference that he made reminded me of an amusing incident that occurred in a play recently where some forty or fifty years hence a certain gentleman said he had seen the name of the President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State, that he could not pronounce it, that no one in his office could pronounce it, but that one of his secretaries was able to spell it. The letter is dated the 13th April. Did the Deputy at all advert to the fact, or did he think that there might have been some proceedings previous to the issue of that? There was a body called into being by the late General Collins called the Northern Advisory Committee, consisting of persons he summoned to take counsel with and to advise him as regards the situation in the North. At a meeting held in the Council Chamber, Government Buildings, on 11th April, 1922, it was plainly put to them by me and by others that it was one thing to endeavour to have local government functioning under Dáil Eireann down here, but that it was another thing up there, and I advised that they should go back and attorn to the Northern Government.
As a result of that meeting a decision was arrived at that the Nationalist members of the councils should come together and decide whether they would go back and recognise the Northern Parliament. Arising out of that, the letter the Deputy refers to was issued. I cannot recollect every incident that happened during that rather crowded, difficult and anarchical period known as 1922. There was another quantity—I hesitate to use the word "nonsense"—of positively political propaganda in Deputy Aiken's speech last night, devoted to proving that Dáil Eireann represented the whole of Ireland—the whole of the 32 counties is probably the way the Deputy put it. We live now in 1929, and in the light of what I have said, and in the light of the knowledge and of the information at the disposal of Deputies in all parts of the House, is it seriously stated that Dáil Eireann was the de facto and the de jure Government in the Six Counties at any time? Did the writ of Dáil Eireann run up there? Did it run either in a military manner or in a political manner? I do not believe it did.
There were various occasions from 1922 up to 1923 or 1924 in respect of which representations might have been made about these cases. I am not satisfied from the Deputy's statement of the case that he really meant to benefit it. If we examine certain portions of his speech in the light of the events of the period, was it wise for the Deputy to commit himself so completely as he did in respect of certain incidents? Does anybody think that, after reading that speech, if representations were made either to the British Government or the Northern Government, consideration would be given to the case of Mr. McGuill? I would not say so. The Deputy in his extravagances went so far as to say that in answer to a question to me I mentioned that in a number of cases persons had got, by reason of the addition of the 10 per cent., more money than they had claimed. It was the Minister for Finance who answered that question, although it was addressed to me, and the qualification he put in with regard to the word "number" was "in a very small number of cases."
We gain nothing by endeavouring to alter or to suit to our own advantage statements that have been made. It is always better to give the exact words. If they cannot be remembered, that is another matter. The position with regard to these cases is (1) there was a time when representations in respect of them could have been made. The Deputy allowed that to pass. To use the language which they attribute to me, they abandoned those people at that time.
Do these cases exhaust the number of persons who have claims against someone in Northern Ireland? Is that the whole list? Is the sum of £20,000 mentioned by Deputy Aiken a full and complete amount of the compensation that could be claimed? What is the size of the door we are asked to open? We are asked to do this in 1929 for property destroyed as far back as 1920. Speaking for myself I would say, in respect of pre-Truce damage, that by reason of certain amendments made in connection with the International Compensation Tribunal set up here, consideration might have been legitimately pushed and pressed upon the Government here in respect of these cases. But in respect of the period after the Treaty had passed I do not see how, without admitting or condoning breaches of the Truce, it would be within the competence even of the Dáil to give compensation in those cases. Three bodies— two rural district councils and one board of guardians—declared allegiance to Dáil Eireann about July, 1920.
Names.
Is it advisable to give names at all? I will hand them to the Deputy or I will post them to him.
There is no necessity whatever to give these names. It would simply bring us further back into history.
The authorities that declared allegiance to Dail Eireann consisted of one board of guardians and two district councils. Of course this is 1929. Some of the records may have been lost, but in the recollection of the officers dealing with the matter that is the return.
I should like to see the names—the records that you have.
I do not know if I could give the records, but I could give the names, or post thorn to the Deputy, if he wishes. One authority communicated with us in April of 1922, and most of the others—about twenty local authorities—corresponded after 1922. This is, as I have said, 1929. This damage was done in 1920. I put it there would be very considerable difficulty in assessing damage in that case. It might be possible to do it, but as I have said, two questions arise, (1) the difficulty of assessing the compensation, and (2) the question of how many other claims of this sort are likely to materialise, and what is the responsibility of the people here for paying the whole of that compensation. No representations, as far as I know, were made in the Northern Parliament in respect of these people. So far as our people are concerned they have paid the damage done within the area of our jurisdiction. No representations were made in respect of these people in the British Parliament; and I myself, on more than one occasion, suggested the advisability of putting a properly briefed and organised case in respect to these people. Nothing has been done, and I regret that I can go no further than what I said in November, 1927, on this matter.
I take it that the President is definitely turning down these cases. Is that the position?
That is the position.
Very well, then. The appeal for these people must be to the body of the members of the House, and we ask the members whether it is fair that these people who have suffered grievous loss should be abandoned by us. There will probably be a difference of opinion as to what should or should not have been done in 1922, but surely there was one time when the claims of these people should have been before the minds of the Ministers on the other side, and that was at the time when the Boundary Settlement of the 3rd December, 1925, was being signed.
Previous to that I asked for the organised brief in the matter.
But surely when you were undertaking, on the part of the people of the Twenty-Six Counties here, to pay the cost of all the damage in the Twenty-Six Counties, it should occur to anyone making a settlement of that kind that there was another part of this country where damage of a similar character had occurred and that it was the duty of those who were making a settlement of that kind to see that these people's interests would be looked after. Surely the President is not going to say that he was not aware any kind of damage had been done there. I am sure he is not going to ask us to believe that he was not aware that the courts there were very unlikely, apart altogether from any actual cases that had occurred, to deal in a proper manner with claims made by people like McGuill and others who had been burned down.
The President says he rightly distinguishes between two classes of cases, the cases before 1920. I say we have a very definite and clear obligation as far as these are concerned. With regard to the others he says there is a difficulty in pressing these claims on account of the fact that it would appear to be condoning breaches of the Truce. It does not matter whether it appears to be condoning breaches of the Truce or what it appears to be condoning; the fact is there. The fact is that as a result of operations which were carried on in that particular area, houses of certain individuals who were friendly to the administration of Dáil Eireann were burned down. I am trying to take as charitable a view as I can of the difficulties of members on the other side during that particular period, but surely we are not going to forget the whole of the circumstances. What were they? That certain people in the Six Counties were trying to drive those with Nationalist sympathies out of it. They were not respecting the Truce, and if there were people in that area who made up their minds that they were going to defend themselves, were they not right? What are we to be ashamed of?
Whether you were on this side of the House or on that during that period, the action of these people in defending themselves was justifiable. We have nothing to be ashamed of, and I say that it is a shameless thing, no matter what may have been the circumstances, if we now, having these particular cases of injustice brought to our notice, stand idly by and say that those people, because they have no votes here, are going to be forgotten. To my mind it is a clear duty to the people in the Twenty-Six Counties. They supported us. The fact that they are not very numerous is all the more reason why we should be just towards them if not generous. The fact, as was pointed out, that they had taken up a position in Banbridge and other places of the kind where it did take a man to stand up in those circumstances ought to be an argument for us now not to abandon those people.
I do not want to go into the history of the period. I do not want to talk of the conditions in the Four Courts and in Beggars' Bush Barracks at that time. Let us put that aside if you like and let any differences there may be amongst us as to the happenings of that time not blind us now to our obvious duty. I think Deputy Aiken has made a definite case of responsibility, as far as we are concerned, for compensating these people, and I appeal to the House not to act so unfairly or unjustly towards those people. As I said there was an obvious time when Ministers on the other side should have looked after these cases. That was when they were taking over responsibility for damage done by the British forces in the Twenty-six Counties. They should have made provision at that time. They had the representatives of the Northern Government there. That was the time obviously to make proper provision, but if that moment is lost and there is nothing to be done at present in dealing with either those in the Northern area or in Britain, then it is our obvious duty, if we cannot get other people to undertake what we regard as their obligation in that matter, to do it ourselves.
I can assure you, A Chinn Comhairle, that I am not going to outstep your rulings in the matter of order by going into any historical disclosures, for the very simple reason that I know nothing of these matters except what I have heard from one side or the other in this debate. Perhaps because of that, I hope to look at it from the point of view of the motion as it appears to me on the Order Paper. I make a distinction too—I think it has been more or less admitted by the other side—between the people in the first batch mentioned in this motion and those in the second batch. Personally, I have no hesitation in saying that any claims there may be are much stronger in the case of the first batch than in the case of those that are mentioned later. The President said that the writ of Dáil Eireann did not run at any time in the Six Counties. I do not think the President will say that at that time, at any rate, the Boundary was drawn. In 1920 there was no Boundary.
What I meant to convey by what I said was, if we assume in connection with the activities of Dáil Eireann that Local Government is one of the services which might be regarded as the least contentious of all the services that would have been discharged, that so far as Local Government was concerned it did not run in the Six Counties.
Mr. O'Connell
I was not referring to that specially. I was thinking of the fight as a whole, that there was no limitation as to where the fight was to be carried on in 1920. The idea was wherever the foreigner could be hampered and interfered with it was to be done. That is, at least, as I understood it. Therefore, I do not think there is any force in that argument of the President. I was not impressed, I must say, with the case the President put up against this claim, because it struck me that the only case was that this matter was not raised in 1922. It may be true that it was the people on this side of the House that should have raised it.
Somebody.
Mr. O'Connell
Of course, we have the retort that it was the people who were in charge of the State in 1922; we have it from Deputy de Valera that it was they that should have raised it. In any case, it was not raised by either side. I cannot see that that is a sufficient reason why they should be forgotten now, even in 1929. I think it was the President who said that nobody raised this question or mentioned it at all at any time. I have here a quotation to show that there were people who raised it before 1929. They did not mention the names of these particular people. We did not know them.
No organised case was put up.
Mr. O'Connell
We did not raise the names of particular people because they were not brought to our notice.
If I had asked on that occasion for the name of one person I do not think it could have been given to me.
Might I remind the President that at least one name was given?
I know that one. I think he got something afterwards.
Mr. O'Connell
In 1925 when the 10 per cent. portion of the Boundary Agreement was under discussion Deputy Morrissey, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, raised the case of these people and wanted to know whether or not or why there was not some arrangement made at that time with the Northern Government or the British Government to get compensation for the people who suffered in the North. I am sorry that we did not get the names of those people on that occasion. We might have been in a stronger position then if we had them but we did know at the time that there were people who had suffered in the North and who, to our mind—and we stated it very plainly at the time—were being thrown overboard. I do not want to go into this thing at any great length but I do feel that there is a moral obligation. I am not putting it any stronger than that. I know and the President has admitted it that people whose claims were no stronger than that did get compensation. We set up a Committee, at the time we were compensating everybody, to deal with cases of personal injuries. They had, as I understand, no legal claim or no right to prosecute their claim legally. Still it was considered that there was a moral obligation to pay some compensation and a tribunal was set up to investigate their claims and make recommendations.
I think that this Dáil is not the place to decide what people should be paid, who should be paid, and how much they should be paid, but I think there is a moral obligation on the Dáil to set up some kind of impartial tribunal to fix a date in which claims should be made. Deputy Aiken, I suppose, is not in a position to say that those who are mentioned in the motion are the only people. There may be others. That was one of the President's difficulties, and I quite recognise it is a difficulty. There may be a great many cases, but it seems to me that there is a limitation in these particular ones, in so far as they were ones who were refused compensation because British military witnesses swore that the destruction was done by them through military necessity. It seems to me that that would limit the number of people very considerably. There cannot be very many of that type who would be claiming compensation. I would appeal to the President not to stand too firmly on what he says are his legal rights, and the fact that seven years have elapsed since those occurrences. Undoubtedly, those people suffered, and suffered very considerably. That is admitted. There is no question about it. I do not know how far money paid now can even compensate them, or to what extent it could compensate them for the losses they have sustained. I do say, despite the fact that there is no legal obligation, or that seven years have elapsed, that the President should give very favourable consideration to the question of setting up some kind of tribunal that would examine these cases coolly and impartially— examine all the evidence that would be available. It could not be done here, as everybody knows. They could see what recommendations could be made in the way of compensation. We would know, in any case, the size of the problem, and we would feel that there was no one who suffered during that time who did not get a chance to make a claim. If their claims were just and fair, even if there was only a moral obligation on us that obligation should be met.
In so far as the motion itself is concerned, I think the Deputy has made a mistake in tacking on the second portion to it, at this stage in any case. If this motion is passed we might as well drop the first part of it. If you are trying to get somebody to pay and you say "If you do not pay, we will pay it ourselves" you are not going to get anything from the British in that case. If you are going to raise this with the British drop the latter part of the motion until we see how we get on with them. There is no use in passing the two things together. If the Deputy will look into it he will admit the force of that argument. We could not go to the British saying "Of course, we would like you to pay this but if you do not pay it we will pay it ourselves." That is, in effect, what the motion says. I am prepared to support the claim for re-opening this matter and I suggest to the President that the way I have mentioned ought to be adopted. The question ought to be gone into by a tribunal. After all, in 1925 when that boundary settlement was made there was a document with a very interesting preamble signed by the representatives of this State and by the representatives of the Northern Government and the British Government. I do not know whether the President has forgotten the terms of it.
Not a word of it.
Mr. O'Connell
We have not heard a word of it since 1925.
Did the Deputy ever consider having these cases put up in either of these places?
Mr. O'Connell
Why were they not put up?
We have to carry everybody's baby.
Mr. O'Connell
It was these three friendly people who got together and swore everlasting friendship.
And never saw one another since.
Mr. O'Connell
And did not see one another since. Perhaps now they would renew the friendship, visit each other again and talk about cases of this kind.
And pay £5,000,000 more.
And have a good champagne supper.
As a matter of fact, I never take that diet.
Mr. O'Connell
We will not send Deputy Cooney to bargain on behalf of them. I do not think he would be a very successful negotiator.
I would not be so easily got at as you.
Mr. O'Connell
No, but you might come away with less than I would come away with. We just want to know in discussing a motion of this kind whether we really want to get something for these people or want something else. I believe from what Deputy Aiken has said that these people have suffered, and that they ought to be compensated. I believe something ought to be done to meet their claims. I believe it could be done along the lines I suggest, and I should like the President to give it favourable consideration.
I think Deputy O'Connell has spoken about this matter in a reasonable way. The President indicated that we do feel that there is a difference between the post-Truce and pre-Truce cases. I think the President indicated that we had a disposition to consider further the pre-Truce cases. We are not giving under our Damage to Property (Compensation) Act complete compensation to anyone—at least we did not set out to give complete compensation. In many cases we gave very much less than complete compensation, in order to prevent the bill for compensation growing too big. We hedged round our Act with various restrictions. We cut out, for instance, consequential damage, and there are many people in the Free State who suffered great loss and they only got compensation to a very small extent, because the material damage done to their property may have been trivial, but the consequential damage resulting from that material damage may have been very great. They only got compensated for the material damage, and were very much out of pocket as a result. We had time limits and other things, and certain people failed to get compensation because, for instance, they did not come within the time limits. So that, apart from the argument that the President has already used on the legal position, it could not be very strongly argued that anybody in the North was entitled to claim complete compensation—that the principle of complete compensation had been accepted.
I think, and the President has very clearly indicated it, that the post-Truce cases are cases that we could not consider at all. With regard to the pre-Truce cases, while not going as far as admitting that we have a moral obligation in regard to them, and while recognising the fact that the payment of compensation to residents in Northern Ireland is not exactly the same as paying compensation to residents in the Free State, because paying compensation to residents in the Free State involves the principle of spreading the liability over the whole citizens, all of whom will contribute, nevertheless there is a certain precedent, I think, for doing something in respect of pre-Truce cases in the North, and that precedent is in our repayment of the Dáil Loan. It might be argued that the Dáil Loan was raised for the purposes of the whole of Ireland, yet we are not simply repaying 26/32, or some fraction—we are repaying in full. If the people of the Free State shouldered a liability which was only, if you look at it from one point of view, partly theirs, it is a precedent, if we thought well to do it, for asking them to shoulder a certain measure of responsibility in regard to cases in the Six Counties.
When we come to look at the question of compensation for people in the Six Counties it is really full of practical difficulties. We have the difficulty of not knowing, as the President indicated, what is the extent of the door that we are opening. I have already said that we put various restrictions in the Damage to Property Act in order to keep the bill from growing too heavy. We refused people any compensation in respect of consequential loss solely in order that the burden that was going to be thrown on the general taxpayer might he kept as small as possible, and if we adhered to the principle observed in drawing up that Act, we could not open the door widely in respect of these Northern cases. Before we decide to open the door at all we ought to have some idea of what amount is going to be involved, because, while we might be quite ready to throw a certain amount on the people of the Free State in the same way as we throw on them the entire responsibility for the Dáil Loan, we might hesitate if the amount was going to be ten times that hypothetical sum. Consequently we can hardly come to a decision unless we know roughly within one hundred per cent., shall we say, of what was going to be involved. Then, even if we found what the sum involved in these particular pre-Truce cases was going to be, we would be up against the difficulty of investigation and of deciding what amounts should be given to individuals.
Before I pass away from the question of the number of cases that would be involved. I think the only sort of case that could be considered would be these military necessity cases as they have been called. Other people in the Six Counties have suffered great hardship, but I do not think we can, at this stage, or that we could at any stage have contemplated compensating them for their loss, because the amount would possibly have been very great. There were people, for instance, whose property was damaged in the pogroms and who got compensation which may have been very inadequate. We could not consider the question of giving them additional sums. There were people who suffered because they were driven out during the pogroms. We could not contemplate dealing with their cases at this stage.
Looking round it as well as I can, I think there is no sort of case that we could consider except these military necessity cases, but if we found that the number of them was not going to be so great as to prevent us going on with the consideration of them, we would have to recognise that it would be very hard indeed to assess the damage in an individual case. Normally in these cases we have a court. Probably, if it were not for the existence of the Boundary, if they were on our own territory, we would have a court sitting in each district. We would have witnesses from the districts; we would have investigators with full facilities for seeing the ruins of the premises and for getting any information that accrued in regard to them and so assisting the tribunal, whatever it might be. If we are going to deal with these cases we would have to have a very much less complete investigation and examination of them, I think, and anything that was given, I think, would be given more or less on a rough-and-ready basis as simply an attempt to alleviate distress.
I do not think there is very much use in making any proposal to the British Government for payment of compensation here. So far as the Free State was concerned right through the negotiations that took place with regard to the work of the Shaw or the Wood Renton Commission, both before that Commission was set up, and while it was at work, the British steadfastly refused to allow military necessity cases to be dealt with by that Commission. And what happened in the end was the British said: "We will allot a sum of £900,000; we will compound our liability for £900,000 and you can make any terms of reference you like, and the Commission can do what it likes, but so far as we are concerned we will have nothing to do with any payment for the military necessity cases." They took up that position with regard to the Free State and, consequently, I think, it would be waste of time to approach the British in regard to these cases in the North of Ireland. If anything is to be done for these people who suffered in the common struggle prior to the Truce it must be done by the Free State.
I have been discussing this matter with the President and I would not object to setting aside a moderate sum of money if that would suffice. If these cases which Deputy Aiken put up are all the cases he knows in his area or that exist in his area and which are pre-Truce cases I do not think, even when we take the other Border counties, that the pre-Truce cases can be very numerous, or involve such large sums of money. I would have no objection to putting aside a few thousand pounds and setting up some sort of a tribunal that would, in the best way it could, by, as I have said, necessarily some rough and ready method, allot a measure of compensation that would relieve the hardships of people whose houses and property were destroyed in the pre-Truce period. I think if we are to do this at all that it should be done without fresh legislation, and in an informal way by the allocation of ex gratia grants. We feel that on legal ground there is no claim from these people. We are not prepared to go even so far as saying that they have a moral claim, but we do say that the people who had their houses burned down in pre-Truce if they are not to get any compensation at all have had ill-luck beyond anybody else who suffered in the struggle, and, for that reason, we would be prepared to consider some help for them.
Would the President tell us what became of that £900,000?
It was distributed to persons who got awards through the Commission.
The Minister for Finance talked very sympathetically indeed and he interpreted the President as having said that he was willing to consider further the 1920 cases. I am glad they have gone that far, but I did not hear the President say that, and, certainly, the Minister for Finance in his letter to me, which I read the other night, did not say it. The President said we seem to be concerned more with throwing mud than trying to get compensation in these cases. I should like the President to produce some evidence of that statement. The people whose cases we are espousing here have made representations time and time again. The Minister for Finance asked for details. I gave him all the details in my power to get. As far as I know, the amount of money necessary to cover the cases I have mentioned, pre-Truce and post-Truce, would amount to less than £20,000. The amount of money claimed in the Courts was £21,000.
Before we go any further, I want to know where we stand. If the Government want time to make up their minds further and to get their proposals definitely into writing, we are not going to press them. As I say, our object is to get compensation for those people who we think are entitled to be compensated by this House. The cases are not limited to pre-Truce; they include pre-Truce and post-Truce cases of people who were burned out and were refused compensation on the plea of military necessity. If the Government are prepared to set up a tribunal of any description to which these people can make representations we would be delighted. If they are not prepared to make up their minds to-day the debate can be easily postponed with the consent of the House, and they can make up their minds definitely and produce their proposals here in writing. But certainly I am not prepared to withdraw my motion because it was sympathetically dealt with by any Minister. I pause for a moment to hear what the Minister has to say further.
I have nothing to add to what the Minister for Finance said. Post-Truce cases cannot be considered. As far as the other cases are concerned, we propose to set up a tribunal to report to the Minister, and the Minister will consider, having received the report, what he should do.
Do I understand that the President definitely says that the post-Truce cases mentioned in my Resolution are not to be considered?
Yes.
Let me say this much. We have got the Government in the position in which they say that the pre-Truce cases, at least, will have to be considered, and we hope they will carry that out. I hope also when the vote is taken on my motion to-day the House will decide that they will also have to deal with the post-Truce cases.
The Deputy cannot have it both ways.
Is justice to be a matter of tactics.
Justice is to be justice and not to be tempered according to certain people's will.
Neither the President nor the Minister for Finance made any reply whatsoever to the case I put up yesterday for compensation in all those cases. The President said the cases were not pressed in 1922. What was the Northern Advisory Committee doing? What did the Boundary Commission do? The President asked the leader of the Labour Party very innocently was he in a position in 1926 when he raised this question to mention even one case, leaving it to be assumed that the President did not know anything about these cases. I have on this file a thousand and one letters that were written to these Ministers, or their representatives or to people responsible to them, from 1922 to 1929. If this justice is to be a matter of dating obligations passing out after a certain limited time, surely on that it could have been pleaded that it was wrong to compensate people who came out in 1916. They were given pensions under the Pensions Act of 1923, seven years after the actions for which they had given service. Some of them, it is well known, gave no service for the pensions they obtained for 1916. It cannot be said that these people did not make sacrifices. The ruins of their homes are there to be seen.
The President did not deny any of the statements that I made yesterday, which statements go to prove the responsibility of this Assembly for the military actions which resulted in the houses of these people being burned, both in 1922 and 1923. The President did not deny, as Deputies will have noticed, that Michael Collins met the Northern representatives in the City Hall after the Provisional Government was set up. He did not deny that Michael Collins made the statements that I quoted, nor did he deny that Arthur Griffith made the statements that I quoted, nor did he deny that Eoin O'Duffy, who was then Chief of Staff of the forces under the control of Dáil Eireann, made the statements that I quoted. Neither did he deny that he himself sent the letter that I quoted to members of local government bodies. Neither did he deny that the letter which I quoted yesterday was sent to the Northern teachers in November, 1923. Neither did he deny that the officers and men of the Second Northern Division—some of them—were kept in the Curragh Camp unattested in the National Army until January, 1923, and paid. He has made absolutely no reply to the case which I put up for the compensation of those people —absolutely none. The speech of the Minister for Finance was as usual. "We will give it friendly consideration — sympathetic consideration." The Minister never allows his sympathy to get as far as his heart. It never gets much further than his lips, as far as I can see.
There is a human aspect to this problem as well as a national one, and I would like Deputies to consider this thing from the point of view of the people affected. I know most of these people personally, the people whom the Minister now definitely turns down. I know that these families, some of them, did as much as any family in Ireland to help to achieve the measure of freedom that we enjoy here in the Twenty-six Counties. Surely to goodness, if we claim here that we enjoy freedom, we should be prepared to pay for it. When there is a battle on, it would be wrong for people to fall out of the firing line to look after wounded soldiers, but what would any man say of a company that, after a successful action, left their wounded men lying on the ground unattended to? It is claimed that we have had a successful action here, that we represent successful forces, and yet we allow our wounded to lie on the ground unattended. What worse wound could a man have than to be unable to support himself and his family?
One of these cases I know very well, a man who, as I said yesterday, in a place where it was not very popular, went out and supported the Republican cause. He became a representative, was subjected to great terrorism and was taken out and beaten. The British made an attempt to murder him. He escaped in his night clothes and had to leave his wife behind. She very narrowly escaped with her life. Afterwards, in a period for which the Minister accepts no responsibility, the British forces attempted to rape this gentleman's wife, his mother-in-law and the maidservants in the house. Regarding this particular case, the mother-in-law afterwards had to leave this country because her son-in-law, whose house was burned, was unable to keep her. She went to America and joined her son there. Shortly afterwards, owing to the great hardship she suffered, it was found that she was ill and dying. I remember being in a hotel in Portland when a ring came telling me that this old lady, living out in the mountains with her son, was dying. I went out a distance of a hundred miles into the woods to see her. I saw her and talked with her about this case, as to whether anything could be done for her. I left her dying under the care of her son. When I got as far as Chicago I received a wire saying that her son had been shot dead accidentally. This old lady was then left to the care of the Irish in that district.
Another family that is affected, and one that I know very well, is the Byrne family. Their house was burned out in the period for which the Minister does not accept responsibility. Two sons of that family, fine young men, fought with me during the Black-and-Tan war in a district where not one in a thousand was in favour of the Republican movement. They are now in New York, one of them working in the subways and another working on the buses. One of them was in eighteen jobs in eighteen months, trying to earn enough money to reerect the buildings that were burned down. I believe that if the members of this Assembly do not do something it will be a disgrace to them, a disgrace to everybody who says that the Free State is free and who accepts the Free State as the be-all and the end-all of this people here in the Twenty-Six Counties.
Surely, instead of simply throwing off all responsibility we should get together and unite in forcing the Government to meet their responsibilities? Surely, if the back benchers of Cumann na nGaedheal have any sense of decency left, any sense of self-respect, they should get together and force the Government to make grants in those cases. They should be manly enough to do that. Surely, they have not so lost all sense of self-respect that they will allow the Government to get out of this without even attempting to make a case for their position. I hope they have not sold their souls to that extent, but that they will get together and force the Government to do something for these people. I will watch very carefully indeed to see whether into the Division Lobby to vote in favour of the Government will go a number of Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies who have been writing sympathetic letters to the people affected, both in the period for which the Minister now accepts responsibility and in the period for which he does not accept responsibility. I hope that these Deputies will say to themselves "After all, if membership of Cumann na nGaedheal is going to entail my losing my self-respect to the extent that I am going to do a thing that I know to be dishonourable, a disgraceful action—then to the devil. with being a member of Cumann na nGaedheal. I will be a T.D. of some other description."
I want to know where I am in this matter before giving a vote. Will the President say exactly what he meant when he said to Deputy Aiken, "You cannot have it both ways"? I would like him to clear that up. If there is a division taken and this motion is defeated, does his promise still stand?
The Minister for Finance is prepared to do what he said with regard to pre-Truce cases. Deputy Aiken, as I said, wanted it both ways.
Mr. O'Connell
If the Minister for Finance had not made the statement he has I would vote for the motion, but I do not see how, in view of that statement, I can do it. I appeal to Deputy Aiken——
For the Lord's sake—
Mr. O'Connell
I am thinking of the people concerned.
Does Deputy O'Connell agree that the Minister should look after the pre-Truce cases?
Mr. O'Connell
I have not said I do not. If that is put up as a separate question I will consider it.
Does Deputy O'Connell think that the Minister should not deal with post-Truce cases?
Mr. O'Connell
If this is a game of tactics, let it be between one and the other of them, but I will be no party to it.
Does Deputy O'Connell want to get compensation for the three cases I have mentioned here as post-Truce cases?
Mr. O'Connell
Put that up as a separate motion, and drop the second part of the resolution as it is and see how I will vote on it.
There is one motion on the paper, and Deputy O'Connell knows I cannot separate it into two.
Mr. O'Connell
You could. You could have asked to have it amended.
I am convinced of the responsibility of this Dáil in all these cases, and I hope all the members of the Dáil, outside the Ministers, will agree.
On the second case, if Deputy Aiken is under any misapprehension. I would like to repeat what I have already said, that neither this Government nor the Provisional Government have any responsibility for any military activity that occurred in the North after the Treaty was signed.
The President did not make that case earlier.
Deputy Aiken has concluded the debate.
I made the point before on a previous occasion. I made it, I believe, when the Deputy was on this side of the House rather than on that side.
We had all these statements before. Deputy Aiken has concluded the debate. I allowed Deputy O'Connell to intervene for the purpose of asking a question which is frequently asked, namely, whether a Deputy who has moved a motion is pressing it to a Division or is withdrawing it. Deputy Aiken, I think, may be taken as having answered that question.
Is the House to understand that whether this motion is defeated or not the Government will consider the seven pre-Truce cases?
Yes, in deference to the case put by Deputy O'Connell and others. As a matter of fact it was under discussion in places other than here. It is admitted that there is a difference between the two, and that the post-Truce cases are on a different footing.
I want to ask a question. I intend to vote for the motion. As the President has indicated the Government are prepared to consider pre-Truce cases, will he give any indication that the post-Truce cases mentioned in the motion will be considered, and that no further cases, if they arise, will be considered? That might be taken into favourable consideration by the Government—the cases mentioned in the motion.
The line I take, and that the Government have taken all through this, is that there is no responsibility in respect of military activity in Northern Ireland after the Treaty. That is an honourable stand. Deputies try to make it that we have responsibility for that. I have always denied, and I repeat the denial now, that the Government have any responsibility for that, and activity such as that was not much different from activity against the State here.
Motion put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 70.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clancy, Patrick.
- Clery, Michael.
- Coburn, James.
- Colbert, James.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- 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.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, William Archer.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P. Doyle.
Motion declared lost.