Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 6 Jun 1930

Vol. 35 No. 6

Orders of the Day. - Vote 16—Superannuation and Retired Allowances.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,179,795 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1931, chun Pinseana, Aois-liúntaisí, Cúiteamh, Liúntaisí Truagha agus Breise, agus Aiscí, etc.,. fé Reachtanna iolardha; Cúiteamh fé Airtiogal 10 de Chonnra an 6adh mí na Nodlag, 1921; Liúntaisí Truagha, Aiscí agus Pinseana Breise a deonadh ag an Aire Airgid; Tuarastal an Dochtúra Réitigh; agus Aisíocanna iolardha i dtaobh Pinsean a íocann an Rialtas Briotáineach fé láthair, etc. (4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 24; 22 Vict., c. 26; 50 & 51 Vict., c. 67; 55 & 56 Vict., c. 40; 6 Edw. 7, c. 58; 9 Edw. 7, c. 10; 4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 86; 7 & 8 Geo. 5, c. 42; 9 & 10 Geo. 5, c. 67; 9 & 10 Geo. 5, c. 68; 9 & 10 Geo. 5, c. 83; 10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 36; Uimh. 1 de 1922; Uimh. 34 de 1923; Uimh. 7 de 1925; Uimh. 27 de 1926; Uimh. 11 de 1929; Uimh. 36 de 1929; etc.).

That a sum not exceeding £1,179,795 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Pensions, Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate and Additional Allowances and Gratuities, etc., under sundry statutes; Compensation under Article 10 of the Treaty of the 6th December, 1921; Compassionate Allowances. Gratuities and Supplementary Pensions awarded by the Minister for Finance, the Salary of the Medical Referee; and sundry Repayments in respect of Pensions at present paid by the British Government, etc. (4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 24; 22 Vict., c. 26; 50 & 51 Vict., c. 67; 55 & 56 Vict., c. 40; 6 Edw. 7, c. 58; 9 Edw. 7, c. 10; 4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 86; 7 & 8 Geo. 5, c. 42; 9 & 10 Geo. 5; c. 67; 9 & 10 Geo. 5, c. 68; 9 & 10 Geo. 5, c. 83; 10 & 1 Geo. 5, c. 36; No. 1 of 1922; No. 34 of 1923; No. 7 of 1925; No. 27 of 1926; No. 11 of 1929; No. 36 of 1929; etc.).

We are opposed to this Estimate, and we are opposed to it particularly on account of the provision made under sub-head N for the repayment to the British Government in respect of the ordinary and disbandment pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary, for which in the Estimate the sum of £1,170,000 is to be provided.

I would like, first of all, to direct the attention of the House to the fact that this payment is to be made, not only in respect of the disbandment pensions of the R.I.C. —that is the pensions paid to those officers and men who were actually serving with the force at the time of the Treaty— but the obligation is to be assumed, and payment is to be made in respect of the ordinary pensions as well; that is to say, in respect of those pensions which officers and men of the R.I.C. force who had retired prior to the Treaty and prior to December, 1921, became entitled to. Whatever argument based on the Treaty may be used to justify the payment of the disbandment pensions. I would like the Minister for Finance to tell the House how the obligation to pay ordinary pensions arises. There is not a word about these pensions in the Treaty. There is not a word about them in the Agreement of 3rd December, 1925, which amended the Treaty. There is nothing in any document or any contract entered into between the Government of the Free State, on the one hand, and the Government of Great Britain, on the other, concerning these ordinary pensions, until the Ultimate Financial Settlement of March, 1926. That settlement and that agreement, as we know, was signed in secret, and for over six months was kept secret. Either from a sense of shame or a consciousness of utter inability to do so, it has never been fully and satisfactorily justified in this House. Under Head 11 of the Ultimate Financial Settlement the Minister for Finance, of his own volition and in his own discretion, agreed to saddle the country with an obligation in respect of those ordinary and disbandment pensions in the following terms:

"The Irish Free State Government agree to repay to the British Government 75 per cent. of the pensions and compensation allowances payable to ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary under the Constabulary Acts, subject to the exception mentioned in Article X of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland."

The first thing to be noted about this agreement is that its terms differ substantially from Article X of the Treaty. The exact words of that Article are: "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."

Article X of the Treaty which I have just recited referred to and can be applied only to such members of the police forces as might be actually serving at the moment when those forces were taken over by the Government of the Irish Free State.

The 11th Head of the Ultimate Financial Settlement dealt entirely, so far as I can see, with the cases of those men who had retired prior to the signing of the Articles of Agreement and applied to them irrespective of the date of their retiral or discharge. In my judgment, interpreting the Article as I have read it, it would seem to me to confine itself entirely to those who retired, as I have said, prior to the signing of the Articles of Agreement. It is quite possible that the Minister may, by virtue of that 11th Head of the Ultimate Financial Settlement, also attempt to justify his payment of the disbandment pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary. But they are two distinct classes of pensions, in my opinion, and at the moment I am dealing not with the disbandment pensions but with the ordinary pensions. What justification can the Minister advance to this House for accepting liability in the name of the people of the Twenty-Six Counties for the ordinary pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary? Whatever burdens Article X of the Treaty which I have just read might be thought to impose upon us quite clearly it did not impose any responsibility, obligation or liability in respect of ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who retired prior to the date of the Treaty. Is there any member on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches who has any doubt about that, is there any member who is aware of the terms of Article X of the Treaty, has any doubt in his mind whatever that that Article did not impose any obligation upon this State for payment of the pensions to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who retired prior to the date of the Treaty, some of whom may have retired so far back as 1914, 1915 or 1916?

Will the Deputy include civil servants also?

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.

Well, I will not make personal references, but it was stated by some members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party that one of the reasons why we paid these pensions, or why a sum of £1,170,000 has to be voted, is that if Great Britain were to pay these pensions she would have in this country, under her influence and subject to her control, a certain section of the population, and that, therefore, we have to take responsibility for these pensions and have to pay them. What are the facts? We provide the money, but it is Great Britain which disburses it. The pensions do not come from the Irish Minister for Finance but are paid by the Chancellor of the British Exchequer. It is a British pension warrant which the R.I.C. pensioner receives, and not a warrant from the Minister for Finance. It is to those who send the warrant that the R.I.C. pensioner looks for his pension, and will continue to look for it, and it is from them that he would receive it, even if this Vote never appeared on the Estimate. We in the kindness of our hearts, allow Great Britain to get it both ways. We provide the pensions and they disburse the money.

It is time that those who try to defend the payment of these pensions on Cumann na nGaedheal platforms ought, at least, make themselves aware of the basic and fundamental fact that although we pay the piper it is Great Britain who calls the tune. Furthermore, another extraordinary fact emerges from the Vote. Although we have been paying £1,100,000 a year—it was one and a quarter millions in some years—the Minister for Finance never even had the records or the accounts of these pensions audited to see that we are not paying to Great Britain more than she disburses in pensions, to see that she is not making a profit out of the ex-R.I.C. As I say, Great Britain, for her own reasons, kept that force under her control, and so we find that the Statutory Order which transferred most other services reserved this service to Great Britain, and it was never afterwards transferred.

What became of the R.I.C.? It was disbanded in 1922 by an Act of the British Parliament. Section 1 of that Act provides: "The Royal Irish Constabulary shall be disbanded on such day, not being later than 31st August, 1922, as may be fixed by the Lord Lieutenant, and on or before that date every officer and constable shall retire from the force, as and when required by the Lord Lieutenant, and shall on his retirement be entitled to receive such compensation as may be awarded by the Treasury"—the British Treasury will award the compensation, but we have to pay it—"in accordance with the rules contained in Part I, of the Schedule to this Act." It is to be noted, and the point is most important, that that Act was passed by the Imperial Parliament. not even by the Parliament of Southern Ireland, and it is an Act of the British Government, and not of the Provisional Government. Secondly, it is an Act of the British Government which compulsorily retires every officer and constable from the force. They are left no discretion in the matter, no option or election. The section definitely decrees: "Every officer and every constable shall retire from the force as and when required by the Lord Lieutenant." That is all there is to it.

They had to go when they were told to go, and when they were told to go in such circumstances and under such conditions, they were discharged, and discharged not by the Government of the Irish Free State, but by the British Government.

To return once more to Article X of the Treaty, it is quite clear that when the words "who were discharged by it or who retire" were inserted in that Article that only two positions were contemplated. The first position was that of the public servant who was discharged from its service by the new Government, and the second provision that of a public servant who of his own act and volition retired from that service. In the first case the individual had no option in the matter: he had to go; and the essence of the position lay in the coercion and compulsion which was used to make him go. In the second case, however, the complete right resided in the individual to continue in the service of the new Government or to leave it, as he chose to elect, and the essence of his whole position was that the choice lay unreservedly with him. But no such choice lay with the officers and constables of the R.I.C. when that force was disbanded. They had no will, no option, no election in the matter, and therefore, whether you admit it or not, they were, in fact, discharged by the Government of Great Britain, but you must admit that they did not retire within the meaning of Article X of the Treaty.

I think after what I have said that there is no member in this House who will get up and endeavour to make the position that they retired from the service of the Government of the Irish Free State within the meaning of Article X of the Treaty. They were compelled to retire as required by the Lord Lieutenant. The words of the Act are quite clear and can admit of only one construction, that these officers and men were retired from the force as and when required by the Lord Lieutenant. They were discharged by the Lord Lieutenant; they were never discharged by the Provisional Government. They never entered the service of the Provisional Government, and therefore they could not retire from its service, and if they did not retire from the service of the Provisional Government how can the House be responsible for the payment to them of the compensation provided for under Article 10 of the Treaty? How can we tax our people to provide a sum of £1,170,000 to recoup the Government of Great Britain for the pensions which she pays and has awarded to the ex-members of the R.I.C.?

We heard in this House, when the Bill was introduced from these benches—a Bill which would have made easier the lot of the old age pensioners—the Minister for Finance reject that Bill and refuse to accept it on the grounds that it would involve finding an additional sum amounting to between £250,000 and £300,000. The House having heard arguments on both sides rejected the views put forward by the Minister, and, notwithstanding the fact that the Government Party was led by the President of the Executive Council into the division lobby against the Bill, there were sufficient fair-minded men in the House to ally themselves with this Party who had introduced the Bill, and with the Labour Party who had supported it, to carry this Bill against the Whips and the will of the present Government.

Notwithstanding the fact that the issues on that Bill had been fairly tried out and argued in this House and a verdict in favour of that Bill had been given by this House, the President and the Executive Council preferred to resign rather than to find that sum of £300,000 to meet the Bill. But I have shown now how this Government, who would not find a sum of £300,000 for the aged men and women who are, in fact, destitute, have found and are still prepared to find a sum of £1,170,000 to provide pensions for people who never gave an hour's service to this country or to the people of this country. I have there submitted a case that is unanswerable. I have shown that there is nothing in the Treaty which imposes any obligation upon us to defray any part of the pensions of the R.I.C. I have likewise shown that the course of action which the British Government follows in regard to the R.I.C. definitely excluded its members from the benefit of Article X of the Treaty. There is no obligation in honour or equity, no obligation of contract which binds us to pay to Great Britain this sum of £1,170,000, and I ask the House, which has connived and condoned the refusal of the Government to find £300,000 for the aged poor of Ireland, to refuse any longer to condone this crime of paying away the money of the Irish people, amounting to £1,170,000, to a Government to whom it is not rightfully due.

The Deputy made it clear that he would not pay pensions to civil servants who retired previous to the Treaty. I would like if he would possibly explain to me what is the meaning of sub-head M in the Vote, and if he is also opposed to that sub-head? Likewise, if we are not to pay the pensions of those who have retired previous to the Treaty, is the Deputy opposed to the payment of those civil servants who appear in the Post Office Vote on page 258 under sub-head N (4)? Likewise, I presume, he would be opposed to the payment of pensions to those teachers who were in the employment of the Government previous to the Treaty.

Did we not take over the Teachers' Pension Fund? Does the Deputy know what he is talking about?

Is the Deputy anxious that we should not continue to pay the pensions of Post Office pensioners and other civil servants, because I do not exactly see the differences between these two items and the R.I.C. pensions?

I am considerably surprised at the attitude taken up by Deputy Esmonde, because I was personally under the impression that the members of the two big parties in this House were agreed that there was no binding obligation upon the Government of the Free State to pay those R.I.C. pensions. The statements which have been made from time to time by prominent members of the Government Party seem to indicate that the reason why the money is being paid was, not that we were bound to pay it, but that they thought it advisable to pay it. It should be quite obvious to those of us who have studied the question, to persons like Deputy MacEoin and the Minister for Finance, that Deputy Esmonde does not know, as Deputy MacEntee said, what he is talking about. We took over the Post Office, the Irish teachers, the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund, and a number of civil servants. But we did not take over the R.I.C. I want to get this position clarified, because the remarks of the Minister for Finance and the few remarks of Deputy Esmonde seemed to have clouded what was, to me at any rate, a perfectly clear issue. The Deputy may remember that the Treaty was signed in December, 1921. Those who signed the Treaty agreed to pay compensation to officials of the former Government who were transferred to the Government established by the Treaty, and who were either discharged by that Government or elected to retire from its service.

That was the position at the time the Treaty was signed. There can be no doubt about it, if the R.I.C. had been transferred to the Provisional Government then established that the Provisional Government would have been responsible for paying the pensions or for paying some other form of compensation to any member of the R.I.C. who was discharged or retired from the police force sooner than serve the new Government. As Deputy MacEntee has pointed out, the R.I.C. was not transferred. It is definitely provided for that nothing in the Treaty or in any of the minor agreements that were effected subsequent to the Treaty transferred to the Provisional Government the control of the R.I.C. The Provisional Government was established in 1922. It proceeded to function. The control of the R.I.C. continued to be exercised by the British Government until August, 1922, when the matter of the disbandment of the R.I.C. came under the consideration of the British Government. At that time they introduced an Act into the British Parliament disbanding the R.I.C. and putting the responsibility for the payment of their pensions upon the British Treasury. Let me continue the story in the words of Deputy MacEoin. Deputy MacEoin, as reported in the "Independent." said, in the course of an address at Ballymahon on 19th May, that at the time of the disbandment of the R.I.C. in August, 1922, the question of the liability for pensions was an important one. We are all agreed about that. Deputy MacEoin stated in Ballymahon that this question of the liability for pensions——

On a point of correction, I want to say that I did not make that statement.

The first part of the statement is not questioned. The Deputy is agreed on that.

The statement I made referred to the provisions of the Treaty, and I said that the same provisions were laid down in Document No. 2. What happened in Ballymahon was that I read paragraph 14 of Document No. 2, which was: "That the Government of Ireland agrees to pay compensation on terms not less favourable than those proposed by the British Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to the judges, officials, members of the police force, and other public servants." What I said in Ballymahon was that Article X of the Treaty had given them these pensions and that that Article was the same as the provision made to meet the matter by Deputy de Valera in Document No. 2, but Deputy Lemass put in the Provisional Government instead of the Dáil.

That is quite clear. I was not one of those who favoured the acceptance of the Treaty, but what I am trying to point out to the Deputy and those associated with him in his Party, is that when the Treaty was signed a liability for those pensions was not imposed upon the people of the Free State, in consequence of the fact that the Royal Irish Constabulary were never transferred to the Free State Government. This is not a Treaty question at all. There is no question of the merits of Document No. 2 as against the Treaty involved in it. We need not enter into that here. If the Deputy is quite clear on that now I shall continue to quote his intelligent remarks. "At the time of the disbandment of the R.I.C. the question of R.I.C. pensions was an important one." I am sure the Deputy will agree now also that the question of the R.I.C. pensions is an important one and that he will not tell us he did not say that. That is all I commit him to so far. It is a question which involves an annual payment of £1,170,000 or about five times the sum necessary to finance the Old Age Pensions Bill introduced by Fianna Fáil. The Deputy might not contradict me until I have committed him to something to which he does not agree. He goes on to say "England offered freely to pay all the R.I.C. pensions but the Provisional Government decided to refuse the offer."

That is the part which I question. It is a misstatement. I did not use these words.

The "Independent," being a very unscrupulous supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party, deliberately misrepresented the Deputy in order to hold him up to scorn and ridicule, but the Deputy did not think fit to contradict this statement.

An Leas Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy said he did not use these words Deputy Lemass must accept that.

I am glad that we have even this belated contradiction. England then did not offer to pay all the R.I.C. pensions. The Deputy now denies that he said that England at the time of the disbandment of the R.I.C. offered to pay the R.I.C. pensions or that the Provisional Government refused to accept the offer.

I said that I did not use the words but the Deputy is insisting that I did use them.

I am pointing out that he could have used these words. If the Deputy had committed himself to that statement he would be stating a fact. England offered to pay the pensions and the British Government passed an Act putting the liability for paying the pensions on the British Treasury. It was not merely an offer; it was a statutory obligation placed on the British Treasury to pay the pensions, and what the Provisional Government did was to arrive at a decision some time later to recoup the British Government to the extent of 75 per cent. of the amount that is expended in respect of R.I.C. pensions. I do not know what authority is claimed for this payment. The only place that it is mentioned in any document, that is, any document signed by representatives of both countries, is in the Ultimate Financial Settlement, which the Minister for Finance has assured us has no legal significance whatsoever. Not merely has the Minister for Finance assured us of that, but the Minister for Justice, who, of course, is a lawyer, which the Minister for Finance is not, has stated that the Ultimate Financial Settlement has no legal significance and no legal demand can be made in consequence of it. Yet the only document in which reference is made to this amount is that so-called Ultimate Financial Settlement, which time proves to be nothing of the kind, as the Minister has since had to admit. Other financial arrangements were made between the Free State Government and the British Government since, so that the so-called Ultimate Financial Settlement is not a financial settlement nor was it an ultimate financial settlement.

The fact is, however, that nobody has yet produced any justification for the payment of this money. Deputy MacEoin was reported at Ballymahon as having given a reason for paying it. I am not going to discuss the reason, but what I do maintain, and what I ask the Dáil to realise, is that we need not pay. We are not bound to pay. Those who accepted the Treaty did not contract to pay. The money is being paid over for some reason other than the reason that we are obliged to pay by the Treaty. I know that when Deputy MacEoin, and some other Deputies opposite, decided to support the Treaty they did so in the determination that they were going to get every concession for the Irish people that they could get. They told us they were going to see that that document was given an Irish interpretation. Here is one section in which they can put their determination into operation. Here is a section which quite clearly does not put upon the people any liability to recoup the British Government to the extent of 70 per cent. of the amount which is expended on the Royal Irish Constabulary. There is no reference to it in the Treaty, or in Treaty No. 2, which was signed in 1925, and of which Deputy MacEoin does not speak. There is a reference to it only in the Ultimate Financial Settlement, and that has no legal significance.

If we decide to reject this payment we are not breaking any contract or repudiating any debt. We are not embezzling any money. We are not going to break any of the Ten Commandments about which the Minister for Agriculture talks so much at election times. We are keeping our money at home. It will be urged, as Deputy MacEoin has urged, that there is a reason for paying it. He said that if England continued to pay the members of the R.I.C. England would have in the Free State a large force of intelligent, trained men which it could call on at any moment in the event of anything happening unexpectedly. If Deputy MacEoin's facts were right there would be an argument there, but as Deputy MacEntee has pointed out, his facts are all wrong. We are not paying the R.I.C., but we are recouping the British Government to the extent of 70 per cent. of the amount which the British Government pay to the R.I.C. If England wanted to continue to pay these men in order that she would have this large force of intelligent, trained men here which she could call on at any time then there might be something to be said, but that argument disappears from the fact that she is paying them. She is, in fact, paying the R.I.C. these pensions. We are not. We recoup her to the extent of £1,170,000 a year in order, as President Cosgrave said on one historic occasion, that we might cement the bonds of sympathy that bind us to the British Commonwealth of Nations.

I suggest it is not good sense that the people of a poor country like this should be squandering their money in this fashion. We could do quite a number of things with this £1,170,000. We could give 15/- a week to every old age pensioner. That is much more than Fianna Fáil proposed to do under the Bill passed by the Dáil. Yet we could do that without putting an additional halfpenny on the shoulders of the taxpayer merely by insisting on giving the Treaty an Irish interpretation and getting for our people the concessions which England was prepared to make at the time the document was signed.

If we did not think it advisable to give what Deputy O'Higgins calls pocket money to the old age pensioners to the extent of 15s. a week, we could spend it in some other way. We could provide two-thirds of the amount required to de-rate agricultural land. There is a case to be made for de-rating agricultural land. The Minister for Finance, in the course of his Budget statement in 1929, enumerated all the heavy additional taxes which would have to be imposed in order to get enough money to de-rate agricultural land. Here is two-thirds of the money already in our possession, which we can to-day ear-mark for that purpose if we so decide. Instead of doing that, Deputies are actually going to vote it out to the richest treasury in the world, so that it may be enabled to pay generously the compensation which the British Government awarded to its former servants in Ireland. Remember in this connection, that we did not even decide the amount of compensation that was going to be given to the R.I.C. We were not consulted about that. The British Government, acting on its own initiative and in the exercise of its own powers, decided the amount of compensation that was to be paid to each member of the R.I.C. It passed an Act which entitled the R.I.C. to get these pensions out of the British Treasury. That Act is on the Statute Book of the British Parliament. If we pay the R.I.C., then they are being paid twice. But as Deputy MacEoin will understand, we are not paying the R.I.C. We are re-paying the British Government £1,170,000, and by doing that we are throwing away the possibility of conferring on our people such big advantages as would accrue to them either from the giving of 15s. a week to old age pensions, or in the direction of de-rating agricultural land. Even if we do not want to do either of these two things, we could with that money give permanent employment for fifty-two weeks in the year to over 12,000 men.

I am merely giving these instances in order that Deputies may realise the seriousness of what they are being asked to do to-day. It is a serious thing to spend almost 12½ per cent. of our total revenue in this way. That sum of money is being expended in a manner that confers no benefit whatever on the Irish people. A very large number of persons in receipt of these pensions do not even live in this country. As far as we are concerned, the money is being wasted. It need not be wasted. We are not bound to pay. There is no contract and there is no debt, and we could hold that money here without dishonouring ourselves or dishonouring the country in any way whatever.

Let me remind Deputies of something that happened in this House yesterday. A Bill was introduced to amend the Electricity Supply Act of 1927. The intention of the Government was that the Electricity Supply Board should be liable for income tax and for local rates. The Government intended that the Board should be liable for these charges. There is no doubt that on moral grounds the Board should be asked to pay these charges. But the Electricity Supply Board was advised that the wording of the Act was faulty and that, in fact, they were not legally bound to pay unless the Act was amended, and so they did not pay. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce stood up yesterday and said that the Board was right not to pay until their liability had been clearly proved under the existing Act, or until an amending Act was introduced. The Minister for Industry and Commerce was most cloquent in his defence of the attitude of the Electricity Supply Board, but he will not take a leaf out of their book and do the same thing in relation to the amounts which are now being expended under the Ultimate Financial Settlement.

We do not ask Deputies to take our word for the various statements which have been advanced in relation to this matter. We do ask them, however, to admit that there is a doubt. If there is nothing else wrong, there is at least faulty drafting somewhere, and what we submit is that until that doubt has been removed the benefit of it should be given to the Irish people. The benefit of this £1,170,000 would not be inconsiderable. If there is a doubt, then why should we pre-judge the question in favour of the British? I want an answer to that question if there is an answer to it. This is our money, and we need not pay it. Any layman, much less a lawyer, reading the Treaty or the documents that followed the Treaty, can see for himself that it is not clear that we must pay. In fact, a common sense interpretation of the Treaty is that we need not pay. Competent lawyers have advised that we need not pay. There is a doubt. Give the Irish people the benefit of that doubt. Do so by refusing to pass this Estimate.

I know that certain people resent questions of this kind being made Party questions. We do not want them to be made Party questions. But national interests are involved, and it should be the concern of every elected representative of the Irish people to see that everything that they can honourably secure for the Irish people will be secured. We maintain that this money can be honourably retained here. We urge that it should be retained here, and we ask all Parties in the House to drop considerations of Party interest, to determine to come together on this issue and see that the benefit of the doubt is given to the Irish people: that, if any claim for that money is capable of being sustained, that it will at least be advanced. That has not been done heretofore, and we ask the Dáil to take the first step in that direction to-day by voting against this Estimate.

Deputy de Valera stated at the time that the Treaty was being discussed and passed that the financial liabilities of the country would be something approximating £20,000,000.

Would the Deputy please quote where and when I said that?

The Deputy was reported in the daily Press as saying that something between £10,000,000 and £20,000,000 would be the financial liability under the Treaty.

I said nothing of the kind.

I am positive of it, and I will be able to convince you later on that you were reported in the Press as having said that.

That is a different matter.

Well, the Deputy should have contradicted it.

I did contradict it.

I did not see the contradiction.

I contradict it now.

However, I would like to know what that big sum was to cover. If it were not to cover police pensions, I would like to know what other items it was to cover. Again, we hear a great deal of talk to the effect that the police forces were never transferred to the Irish Government. It seemed to be part and parcel of the negotiations all through that the police forces, the R.I.C., would not be transferred to the Irish Government: that the option to retire was to remain. They were to go, but the compensation for their going was quite another thing. So far as I remember and so far as I could learn at the time from the negotiations it was to be an Irish liability.

I did not make any statement of the kind attributed to me with regard to this matter of the £20,000,000 at the time of the Treaty. At the time of the Boundary Settlement, when I saw how the promises made to those who had accepted the Treaty had turned out, I warned the people of Ireland that they should look out for the financial settlement, which was still pending. That was a long time after the Treaty. I said I had special reasons for warning the people, because there were documents which had passed between the British Government and ourselves, at the time of the Treaty, which indicated that the British Government were going to put up a bill against us for a very considerable sum of money. When speaking, as I did at the moment from recollection, I said my recollection was that it ran up to something like 18 millions or 19 millions for the whole of Ireland. I was justified in making that statement on the documents in existence. That estimate of the British Government was based upon their estimate in connection with the 1920 Act. I did not say that Ireland was liable. I did not hold that Ireland was liable for any sum, but I did say that the Irish people had good reason to be on the look-out for any financial settlements that were then pending. The British Government had, in these negotiations and papers, put up a claim to a sum of that particular kind.

As regards how that sum was made up, I have not the documents here at the moment. But it was made on the basis of certain imperial contributions made during the time just preceding the war. I did not intend to intervene in this debate further than to say that I never at any time said that Ireland was liable, or that the Irish people were liable for that sum.

That is hair-splitting.

It is not hair-splitting to say that when a settlement is about to be made the Irish people ought to look out, and find out what sum is being claimed by one party to the settlement.

The Government got out of it very well, then.

In respect of this matter I think it would be very difficult to put the case of the retention of that money more clearly than it has been put by Deputy Lemass. There is no obligation, even under the Treaty, to pay this sum of money which is paid over in pensions. None whatever. Why is it paid then? There is only the very same reason for doing it as for paying over the land annuities: that the present Executive think it good policy, I suppose, on their part in dealing with England, or thought at some time that it was good policy to give this money away. They have never shown to anybody else why it is that they thought it good policy, or why they stand by it.

The total burden of the sums paid out of this country at present to England represents 24 per cent. of the revenue raised here by the State for State purposes. Side by side with the revenue raised by the State for State purposes the Irish people, one way or another, have to find twenty-four hundredths, or 24 per cent. The sum that is paid by the German people for war reparations only represents 21 per cent. of the State revenue. That is, side by side with the sum that is being raised for State purposes in Germany, the German people have to find something that corresponds to only 21 per cent. That burden in the case of Germany was the final sum they thought Germany could bear. But here we are paying a sum which is heavier, relatively. than the sum Germany is expected to bear. Why are we doing that, particularly when as regards items like the land annuities and the particular sum in this Estimate, not merely does common sense but the best legal opinion show we are not bound to pay. I am very glad, for one, to have an opportunity of voting against this Estimate.

I am not going to give a silent vote on this Estimate. When we examine the past history of the R.I.C. pensioners what do we find? We find them bludgeoners of our people in every fair and market town in Ireland. We find them going round with the crowbar brigade evicting our people from their homesteads and burning down their homes. I fail to see how any Deputy in this House with any spirit of Irish nationality could vote for this Estimate, and that is the reason why I protest against it.

This matter is quite simple. As I pointed out before, the Article of the Treaty which has been referred to, Article X, really deals only with the protection of transferred officers. If there is anything else in it it is an indication that the responsibility of the British Government in respect of pensions was limited to the liability which it undertook in respect of those who had been in the Auxiliary Police, and those who had been recruited into the R.I.C., in Great Britain, during the two years prior to the date of the Treaty. The functions of the police were transferred; the personnel of the R.I.C. was not transferred because the Provisional Government and the British Government agreed on January 24th, 1922, that they should not be transferred. The British, perhaps, had very good reason for not wanting them transferred, and we did not want them transferred either. It may have been thought at the time that the Treaty was being drafted it would be possible to take over the R.I.C., except those recruited shortly before the Treaty, and to use them as a police force. At the time the Treaty had been passed and arrangements were being made for implementing the Treaty, it had become clear that the R.I.C. could not be used as the police force here, and that if they were to be transferred there would be nothing possible for the Provisional Government except to disband them. We arranged, on the 24th January, 1922, that instead of formally transferring the personnel there should be a disbandment of the R.I.C. There was no suggestion that because, instead of taking them over ourselves, and disbanding them, and getting the British Government to disband them, our liability, as set out in the Treaty, would be altered. As a matter of fact, Deputy MacEntee referred to the Ultimate Financial Settlement. The only thing that arises in connection with the Ultimate Financial Settlement was whether or not the 75 per cent. which had been paid up to the time should be confirmed or whether a slightly different percentage—one or two per cent. more or less—should be adopted and, consequently, whether instead of paying the pensions we should pay a compounded annual sum. These things were set aside, and in the Ultimate Financial Settlement we confirmed the prior agreement, which had been acted on, that 95 per cent. of the pensions should be paid. There was a vote of the Dáil in December, 1922, and that was the first time the matter about the R.I.C. pensions was before the Dáil——

That was merely a vote of public money upon an estimate. It was not a ratification of any agreement.

With regard to the non-transferred men, non-serving men—the men not serving at the date of the Treaty—their position was simply the position of the ordinary civil servant, of the postman to whom Deputy Esmonde referred, or an ex-official of the department of the R.I.C. The cost of the ordinary R.I.C. for pensions was part of the ordinary cost of the pensions for police. It was carrying out the principle set out, in the first instance, in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the heads of working arrangements which were settled in January, 1922, when it was arranged that all departmental funds, offices and property should be transferred, and where it was agreed that, subject to any claims that might be made on a general financial adjustment, the liabilities at the time should be assumed.

These articles of agreement have not the force of law. Will the Minister admit that?

I did not interrupt the Deputy when he was speaking, and if he would allow me to speak now I think it would be better.

The position of these R.I.C. pensioners who were retired before the Treaty was signed is precisely the same position as that of civil servants, postmen and others. Their cost is part of the cost of the functions of government. In every country in the world the cost of police consists of three factors—the maintenance of stations and barracks and such things, the pay of serving members, and the pensions of retired members. The Treaty is not a detailed document. It only states three or four general principles, and one or two matters of detail. The transfer of the powers of government, and everything connected with government, had to be arranged after the Treaty had been accepted, and what was the only possible arrangement was made, that where the functions of government were transferred, along with the functions went the departmental assets and the departmental liabilities relating to these functions. If we were not to-day paying a penny in respect of R.I.C. pensions, the position would be that in fact we were getting from the British Government every year a contribution towards the cost of police because it would mean that, instead of having all the normal costs of police which every country has with regard to barrack maintenance, the pay of the serving personnel, and the pensions of the retired personnel, we would only have barrack maintenance and the pay of the serving personnel.

We did not win such a victory over the British Government that we were in a position to force them over a considerable period to give an annual contribution towards our cost of police or towards our Post Office, because there is not a bit more reason why a retired postman should be paid a pension by us than the retired R.I.C. constable. I am talking about R.I.C. constables who had gone out of the service before the Treaty was signed. The position is the same. No one who would look at the facts of the case or who had any realisation of what the making of such international agreements meant—it was the separation of what was one territory into two territories—would for a moment suggest that the British should give an annual contribution to our Post Office by paying the pensions of the retired postal officials. That would be absolutely ludicrous. If we did not pay the pensions of the retired officials it would mean that the British were giving an annual contribution towards the cost of our Post Office. There is nothing in the Treaty to say that the British should give an annual contribution towards the running of the Post Office, towards the running of the Department of Agriculture or any of these things. It was a necessary corollary towards the separation of the two States that these departmental liabilities or functional liabilities should be taken over by the Irish Free State along with the other functions. The whole things is definitely clear and all the pedagogy and pedantry and all these things we hear from Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Lemass do not alter it. There is just one other point. When the agreement of 1925, which relieved us of liability for the British public debt, was before this House the President stated to the House that the basis of that liability was that we should continue payments which we had been making in respect of these pensions and in respect of the land annuities. I cannot quote the exact words from memory but his statement was something like this: "I said to the British we have a heavy liability in respect of land annuities and pensions. It is as much as we can bear. I was fairly met and the liability for public debt was wiped out." That was at the absolute basis of the agreement.

The point of view Deputy Lemass and Deputy MacEntee put up is essentially absurd and essentially irresponsible. You cannot get out of these ordinary liabilities, which are not only common sense liabilities but are the liabilities that would fall to be paid in any such case. By some sort of slick trick you cannot say that when the British agreed themselves that they would disband the R.I.C. rather than hand them over to us to disband that they did not get some sort of formal I.O.U. or document of that sort. We cannot carry on a sort of trickery in connection with the pensions. That sort of smartness or bad faith not only had all the ordinary objection to it, but it has the material and base objection that there is no possibility of getting away with such things.

The Minister referred to the articles of agreement for implementing a treaty. Have those articles the force of law? Were they submitted to Dáil Eireann? Were they submitted to the Parliament of the British Government?

They have nothing to do with it.

The Minister has based his whole case on the articles of agreement for implementing a Treaty.

I am basing my whole argument on the facts of the case that we cannot expect the British to make an annual contribution towards the cost of the police, the Post Office, or any such thing.

If I can institute an analogy——

The Deputy must not make another speech.

I am not making another speech, but it has been the custom of this House to permit Deputies to put a question to elucidate some point.

The Deputy will be allowed to put a question.

I am putting a question. The Minister has endeavoured to make an analogous case between the Post Office and the Royal Irish Constabulary. Did we take over the Post Office from the British as a going concern?

I am not under cross-examination so far. I am not going to sit down and allow the Deputy to act as if he were a lawyer and I were in the witness box. That is not the case and I have already dealt absolutely fully with the point the Deputy is raising.

The Minister is accused in this matter and refuses to plead.

Will the Minister state when the arrangement as to 75 per cent. of the R.I.C. pensions was made.

It was made at the time of the disbandment. I cannot give the actual date but it was certainly before the time the Vote was taken in the Dáil in December 1922.

Who made it?

It was made by the Government.

Was it ever submitted to the Dáil?

The Vote was before the House and the facts were before them.

The money is ours.

The Deputy seems to think that Parliament could undertake no such obligation unless in a sort of document like the Treaty.

Was not such a document an alteration of the Treaty?

It was not.

Of course it was.

Question put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 37.

  • Aird, William P.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cole, John James.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • De Loughrey, Peter.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Kelly, Patrick Michael.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • MacEóin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • Vaughan, Daniel.
  • White, John.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Colohan, Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Kerlin, Frank.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Mullins, Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Allen and Killilea.
Motion declared carried.
Top
Share