We have no responsibility, I think, for ex-members of the Civil Service who retired prior to the Treaty. We ought not to have. I will deal with that later. At any rate, there is one thing quite clear, and that is that so far as the Treaty is concerned we had no responsibility whatsoever for the ordinary pensions of the ex-R.I.C. men. What justification has the Minister to advance in this House for accepting responsibility for these pensions? The Minister relies, I think, on Article 12 of the Transfer of Functions Order, No. 315 of 1922. In the debate on this Vote last year the Minister first of all admitted that Article X of the Treaty really provided for the protection of transferred officers. I think that is an answer to the point which Deputy Esmonde has put to me as to what about the civil servants. If civil servants were transferred officers then they were entitled to the benefit of Article X. If the police were transferred officers then they were entitled to the benefit of Article X. But if the police retired from the service of Great Britain and did not retire from the service of the Irish Free State then they were not entitled to the benefit of Article X because they were not transferred officers. I do not think there can be any doubt about it, and the Minister's own words are there to bear me out. But because these men were not governed and would not have had the advantage of Article X of the Treaty the Minister puts forward as a justification for paying these pensions Article 12 of the Transfer of Functions Order. What is the Article?
Any property, assets, rights and liabilities connected with the functions transferred under this Order shall, if connected solely with those functions, be transferred to the Provisional Government, and if connected partly with those functions and partly with other functions shall be apportioned in such manner as may be agreed between the Governments concerned.
What validity has this Transfer of Functions Order? The Treaty was accepted by Dáil Eireann. It was not accepted by the Provisional Government, and what Dáil Eireann and what the people of this State are bound by under the Treaty is what was written into the Treaty and not by some subsequent irregular and illegal agreement concluded between a body calling itself the Provisional Government in subversion of the lawful Government of the country at the time and in concealment from the people of what was being done in their name. The document which the people—I hardly like to say accepted because the circumstances were not such as to make the acceptance a free one and it would be a misapplication of the word to say "accepted." But the Treaty so far as the people of this country submitted to it is the only document and the only agreement upon which any obligation which has since been assumed in the name of the Government of the Irish Free State can be justified to the people of this country.
It is a contract with which they are familiar, in contrast to this Transfer of Functions Order which, as I say, was made behind backs, like the Ultimate Financial Settlement which was concluded afterwards. Therefore, so far as we are concerned we do not regard the Transfer of Functions Order as being effective to saddle or impose any burden on the people of this country.
We will take the Minister's case, however. The Minister justifies his attitude by the Transfer of Functions Order and cites Article 12. But what does Article 10 of that Order say? It says: "Nothing in this Order shall transfer to the Provisional Government the Royal Irish Constabulary or the administration or control of that force." The functions of the Royal Irish Constabulary were not transferred to the Provisional Government. The administration and control of that force, and the secondary functions of the Royal Irish Constabulary were not transferred to this country. Therefore, because of the fact that they were not transferred we hold that Article 12, so far as the Royal Irish Constabulary is concerned, does not apply. If the force had been transferred, if it had been taken over by the Government of the Irish Free State, then the Minister might be able to base a case on Article 12, but, since it was not transferred, since Great Britain for its own reasons kept that force under its control, surely since we had no right, no property or no assets in the force we should have no liability for the ordinary pensions with which the Minister has saddled this country? The Minister has been kind to the Royal Irish Constabulary, but surely it is not because he wants to relieve Great Britain of any undue burden that he is paying these pensions. Surely it is because he feels for the Royal Irish Constabulary, that he is kind to the Royal Irish Constabulary. But in all the long years since its establishment what service did the Royal Irish Constabulary force render to this country, that its members should receive such signal recognition from the Minister? Faithful always to their salt, the great body of its officers and men allowed no call of country, no tie of kindred, no bond of pity or of mercy to deter them from carrying out the orders of their paymasters. To them homes were not inviolate, altars not sacred, the Confessional and Communionrail not sanctified in their regard, when a rape upon the one or the desecration of the others would advance them one step in the Judas-like service which they had undertaken.
It is for the pensions of men like these that the Minister for Finance has taken responsibility in the very years when he was pinching and paring and scraping away the miserable pittance which the State allows to the poorest and neediest of its aged citizens. I say this action of the Minister in those circumstances cannot be justified, and, there, upon that ground, upon the fundamental ground of common humanity, that to the neediest should be given first, the House should refuse the amount asked for under this sub-head, and should refuse the whole amount, because there is no allocation of the moneys as between ordinary pensions and disbandment pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
So far I have confined myself to the question as to whether or not we should make repayment in respect of ordinary pensions which this sub-head covers. I would like the House now to consider its responsibility for the disbandment pensions in respect of which also a repayment is to be made. How do we become responsible for these disbandment pensions? Any responsibility we may have, that is, if we have any at all, or if the Minister can show we have any at all, arises from Article X of the Treaty. To the words of that Article I would again direct the careful attention of the House. It reads:—
"The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of the police forces and other public servants who are discharged by it, or who retire in consequence of the change of Government effected in pursuance hereof."
Omitting all the qualifying words the Article, so far as it applies particularly to the police forces, may be read thus: "The Government agrees to pay fair compensation to members of police forces who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of Government." Mark the words: "Who are discharged by it or who retire." These are very important words. It is plain that they relate to the one set of persons, and in that case they also contemplate or envisage those persons under the one and the same conditions of service, and that is in the service, and in the service only of the Government of the Irish Free State. It is obvious that the Treaty contemplated that what was then called the Government of the United Kingdom, as one of the parties to the instrument, should hand over as a going concern to the other party, that is, to the Government of the Irish Free State, the whole machinery of government in the country, lock, stock and barrel.
That is the first and fundamental condition in the Agreement, and it is a condition precedent to the operations of every other provision in the contract, for such others are secondary and consequential provisions upon that, that everything should be handed over, lock, stock and barrel. If that primary and fundamental condition be not fulfilled in respect of any department or service of Government administration in this country, then such department or service cannot come within the scope of the secondary and consequential provisions, and accordingly the provisions of Article X cannot in any circumstances apply. This is quite clear from the words "by it" which are used in the phrase to which I call the particular attention of the House: "discharged by it or who retire." I hope it will be clear even to the intelligence of the Minister for Finance not to speak of the Minister for Agriculture that, quite obviously the Government of the Irish Free State could not discharge any public servant unless the service in which he was engaged had come under its control, by transfer or otherwise. You cannot, unless you have taken a man into your service, discharge him. Is there any doubt in the mind of any Deputy about that fact? Unless he has come into your service he cannot retire. For instance, Deputy MacEoin could never have retired from the army of the Irish Free State unless he had first taken service under the Irish Free State. Deputy Conlon could never have retired from the service of the Dublin Corporation unless he had first taken service under the Dublin Corporation. I think the case I am making will be clear and plain to any Deputy that the Royal Irish Constabulary could never have retired from the service of the Government of the Irish Free State, and could never have been discharged by it unless it had been first transferred to its service and placed under its control. That is quite clear and definite even in the Treaty. If it had ever been contemplated that the provision of Article 10 would apply, irrespective of whether the service had been transferred to the Government of the Irish Free State or not, the phrase used in that Article would have been "who are discharged or who retire."
I say that the words "who are discharged by it or who retire" really mean and imply "who are discharged by it from its service" or "who voluntarily retire from its service." They certainly involve the prior entry of that person who is to have advantage of Article X, for, just as the Free State should not accept responsibility for a public servant discharged from the service of another State, neither can it accept responsibility for a public servant who retires from the service of another State. More patent and incontestable still, it cannot accept responsibility for a public servant who is forced by that other State to retire from its service. Bearing these facts in mind, let us investigate the position of the R.I.C. in 1922, and see whether it fulfilled the conditions which would bring its members within the scope of Article X of the Treaty. In this connection we have to cite, first of all, the Provisional Government (Transfer of Functions) Order, which is dated the 1st day of April, 1922. Clause 10 of this Order reads: "Nothing in this Order shall transfer to the Provisional Government the Royal Irish Constabulary or the administration of that Force."
That Order, the Transfer of Functions Order, appropriately enough, considering the case which the Minister has based on it, was dated 1st April, 1922. There is no subsequent order nullifying that reservation and transferring the Royal Irish Constabulary to the control of the Provisional, or any subsequent, Irish Government. Until it was disbanded in 1922 the force remained completely and unreservedly under the control of the Government of Great Britain. There may have been very good reasons for not transferring the R.I.C. to the Provisional Government, reasons of weight and substance overriding all other considerations, even the financial consequences of such non-transfer, but, if there were they were reasons which affected Great Britain only. In view of the somewhat uncertain position of this country at the time, and in view of the statements made here in this country by those who were in favour of the Treaty that the Treaty was but a mere stepping stone to something greater, something that would more nearly fulfil the aspirations and desires of the Irish people, those who had the force under their control might have thought that since it was a disciplined, drilled, and well-equipped force it would not be desirable to part with the administration and control of it lest the documents and records connected with it might pass into unfriendly Irish hands, or lest its members, to curry favour with their new masters, might divulge the secret history and operations of the force during the few years which preceded the signing of the Treaty.
As I have said, the members of the R.I.C. had proven themselves in the past to be faithful to their salt. They had been good, faithful mercenaries who served an alien Government. Possibly their British paymasters reasoned that, if the control of the salt box was to pass, this fidelity and allegiance, of which they proclaimed themselves so often proud, might pass also, and in the hands of unscrupulous men who signed the Treaty in order that shortly afterwards an Irish Republic might be established, the force might become a menace to the maintenance of English control and English administration in this country. Therefore for these reasons, and I can think of no others, the Government of Great Britain decided not to transfer the force, and decided that so long as it existed its members should remain under the old control to receive their pay and, after disbandment, their pensions from their British paymasters. That is one of the most remarkable things about the Vote, namely, that though we provide the money it is the British who disburse the pensions. I read a report of a speech made by Deputy Seán MacEóin.