I ask Deputies to read the motion which I am now about to put to the House:—
"That a Select Committee consisting of five Deputies, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, be appointed to investigate and report as to the claim for compensation by way of pension or gratuity of certain members of the Connaught Rangers who mutinied in India in 1920;
That the quorum of the Select Committee be three;
That the Select Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records."
This motion has been on the Order Paper since early last summer, and its terms ought to be well known to every Deputy. After long and patient waiting, we have now an opportunity to thrash out the matter fully and try to come to some definite decision.
Attention has been drawn to the matter on several occasions during the past two years by way of Parliamentary question and by raising it in debate but such representations have been of no avail, and in the absence of a motion it was not possible to get a definite decision from the House. This question concerns every Deputy. It demands serious attention in my opinion. Members of all parties in this House have interested themselves in the claims of these ex-Connaught Rangers, in Parliamentary questions seeking information. Appeals for favourable consideration of their claims have come from all sides of this House from time to time. What is now wanted is definite action by these Deputies who have expressed sympathy with these ex-Connaught Rangers. It is not a party question. I have here letters written by the Secretary of these ex-Connaught Rangers to Deputies of all parties. We who have put the motion before the Dáil are solely actuated by the desire to get justice, however belated, for those men, to get for them the consideration they deserve.
I want those who have on previous occasions supported the claims of the Connaught Rangers to support them here this evening, to speak in their favour and to let Ministers know that it is not a party question. The object of the motion is the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate and report on the claims of these men. The Dáil is not asked to vote pensions, gratuities, or anything else, but to appoint a Committee to enquire into the claims and to express the opinion that there is a case for enquiry and that a Committee should be appointed to go into it, as the full details cannot be gone into here. That Committee will be at liberty to reject the claim if it finds that the men had not a good case. When it has obtained all the relevant information it will be in a position to give a proper decision in the matter and so guide the House. That is a much better course than to ask the Dáil to decide here and now that these men should get gratuities or pensions.
Most of the Deputies here have read an account of what took place during the mutiny in India by the Connaught Rangers. It might be advisable, in order to refresh our memory, to recall a few of the principal facts and the consequences. The Anglo-lrish War was at its height during the early part of 1920, when the atrocities of the Black-and-Tan campaign had shocked the world. One result was to cause considerable disaffection among the Irish regiments in the British Army. The disaffected units attempted to have communication with one another with a view to united action. However, they were transferred abroad, and separated as much as possible so as to minimise the chances of trouble. Organisation amongst these units, however, was extremely difficult, if not impossible. Another difficulty was that they did not seem, if I might say so, with all due respect to the men concerned, to have had capable leaders. A good number of them were illiterate; some of them were semi-illiterate. All were men of a humble class trained as rank and file to obey and not to lead. Otherwise the mutiny might have assumed much more serious proportions and have had a much more serious result from the point of view of Great Britain.
The mutiny took place almost simultaneously at two places, Solon and Jullundur, about the end of June, 1920. The men involved in each case belonged to the 1st Battalion of the Connaught Rangers. At Jullundur about 200 men, in the first instance, refused to parade, stating that their action was a protest against the state of affairs then existing in Ireland. I have made it my business to get in touch with ex-officers of the Connaught Rangers, and it was their opinion that had there been no trouble in Ireland there would have been no mutiny in India. The following notice was served on their C/O. by the men:
"I bring to your notice the recent trouble committed by British troops in Ireland. The Connaught Rangers are determined to stand by Sinn Féin. Our indignation will be shown by action and not by words. We cannot, as Irishmen, stand by and see our relations murdered. We demand the withdrawal of the military in Ireland until our orders are complied with."
At Solon also a large number of men refused to parade, stating their action was a protest against the employment of British troops in Ireland. Private Daly was in charge here. He acted as spokesman, and declared that similar action would be taken simultaneously by every Irish regiment in the British Army, and that the news would be published in every paper in England and Ireland. Apparently Daly had been in communication with men in other units, and was looking forward to united action. A number of the men at Solon, headed by Daly and armed with bayonets, made an attempt to rush the Magazine where the arms were stored. An extra guard had been mounted, however, and the mutineers were dispersed by rifle fire. Two of their number, Private Sears and Smyth, being killed and one wounded. Were it not for the efforts of the Catholic chaplain there would have been more bloodshed. Shortly afterwards reinforcements arrived from other regiments, and the mutineers' quarters were surrounded and all the men put under arrest. The same thing happened at Jullundur, where the C/O. had gained time by parleying with the men while awaiting reinforcements.
These men were tried six weeks later by Field General Courts Martial. Private Daly was sentenced to death and duly executed. About fifteen others were sentenced to death, but in their case the sentences were commuted to penal servitude for life. About fifty others were sentenced to periods of penal servitude, varying from two to twenty-one years. Private John Miranda died while in prison at Dagshai. Treatment while in prison in India was very severe. The confinement and the excessive heat were too much for this man, who was already in delicate health. All the surviving prisoners were brought back to England, and the majority were imprisoned in Maidstone, which has memories for some Deputies on both sides of this House. According to all accounts they received very bad treatment, and the health of practically every man suffered in consequence. One prisoner, James O'Connell, of Finglas, who gave an interview on his release, stated that:
"When he and his comrades first arrived in Maidstone they were severely punished. He was kept for three months in close confinement, and for fifteen days on bread and water, and the other prisoners were subjected to similar rigorous punishment."
The prisoners took part in two hunger strikes for better treatment. The bigger of these took place about the time the Treaty was signed, and the Governor of the prison induced the men to abandon the strike, informing them that their release was only a matter of a few weeks in consequence of the new situation. The men, however, were not released until early in 1923, having spent nearly three years in prison. I understand that the Free State Government made representations to the British Government some time before the men were released. One of the men, Patrick Shallow, died four weeks after his release in the Waterford Workhouse as the result of the ill-treatment he had undergone. The fact of this man coming home to die in the workhouse was a cruel commentary on the gratitude displayed by a so-called Irish Government for his action in India.
Great publicity was given to the men's case when they were released and the expressions of sympathy were heard on all sides. The Free State Government took no action to help the men in any way. Many of the men were in bad health as the result of their hunger-strikes and prison hardships, and all of them, with their families and dependants, were in extremely straitened circumstances.
There was a belief among the men that the Free State Government would make some provision for themselves and their relatives, or give some compensation for what they lost in the matter of pensions or gratuities. They were disappointed. Nothing was done for them and their claims were gradually lost sight of. An agitation was carried on by a few men who lived in Dublin and neighbourhood and a committee was formed. The men claimed that they should be treated on somewhat similar lines to those members of the R.I.C. who resigned for national reasons and were afterwards awarded pensions and gratuities. Deputy Alfred Byrne raised the matter in the Dáil in June, 1924, and asked whether it was the Government's intention to make provision for these men. President Cosgrave replied that the matter had not been considered but that if he were supplied with details of distress amongst these men he would see what could be done.
The Secretary of the Connaught Rangers' Committee wrote to President Cosgrave in August, 1924, asking him to receive a deputation but he declined to do so. His secretary, however, wrote asking for definite proposals as to the claims of the Connaught Rangers. The Minister for Finance set up a Committee in 1925 to look into the matter. There is no account available as to who constituted that Committee, which was apparently a departmental one, and there is no record as to the Committee's terms of reference. The Committee would not interview any of the men nor receive a deputation. It would only receive representations put forward in writing. That was decidedly unfair to the men concerned as they had very little organisation and most of them were not of the type that could put down a good case in writing. At any rate, they could not set it out in any convincing manner. No genuine efforts were apparently made to get at the facts of the case and the appointment of the Committee seems to have been merely a method of side-tracking the question.
The Secretary of the Connaught Rangers' Committee was informed by the Department of Finance on 3rd November, 1925, that, from the report presented by the Departmental Committee, it did not appear that the circumstances were such as would sustain any claim for compensation from the Government and that, after careful consideration, the Minister for Finance was not prepared to recommend any payment from Government funds. Promises were given to obtain employment for the men on public works, but only a few men were provided for in this way, and even then the employment lasted only for a few weeks and did not give these few men any opportunity of getting on their feet again. Repeated representations were made to the Department of Finance but a deaf ear was turned to all appeals. The part played by this Departmental Committee is important. The position should be made quite clear as the cloak of secrecy about the whole affair is, I think, undesirable. Deputy Kerlin and myself on a few occasions raised this matter and the Minister for Finance was asked for details as to this particular Committee, as to its constitution, terms of reference, and as to the evidence the Committee had before them, and, further, on what they based their report. The Minister evaded giving the information asked for.
The House is entitled to this information, and I make a special request to the Minister to furnish it during this debate. I would also like to ask, from how many members of the Connaught Rangers were representations received and why did not the Committee interview these men if they desired to get at the full facts of their claims? Apparently, the Committee was not intended to deal seriously with the matter. It was formed, so far as can be judged, to side-track the issue. The dice were loaded against these men from the outset. They started without resources or organisation, and had very little chance of proving their claims. On the second last occasion on which Deputy Kerlin raised the matter here the Minister for Finance stated that the Committee which considered the matter held the view that patriotism was an afterthought, and that the men had no claim.
He was quite wrong in that statement, and the Minister had to withdraw it when he found his mistake. At that time, and ever since, the members of the Connaught Rangers felt very bitter over it. When dealing with this particular question the Minister stated that some members of the Committee had been of the opinion that patriotism was not the reason for the mutiny, but that the majority of the members thought otherwise. Can the Minister state who the former members were, and what grounds they had for their opinion? The Minister also mentioned some document, other than the report of the Committee, as having come under his notice. What was the nature of that document, from whom did it emanate, and what influence had it on the decision to reject these men's claims? It is only fair to these men, in view of the insinuations which the Minister made, and which he subsequently withdrew, against them that all these facts should be made public.
As far as the actual cost of a scheme to deal with the claims of these men is concerned, we must remember that the number involved is comparatively small. It is not necessary to go into details here as the Committee, when appointed, would make an approximation. We would have to deal with the 50 or 60 men who were imprisoned and, perhaps, not with that many. I have not got particulars of the present whereabouts of all of these men, but it would appear that the vast majority of those who are still in the country are unemployed and destitute. About 10 or 12 men have been completely lost touch with, and have probably emigrated. Some of these men had long service in the British Army, and as a result of their action they have lost appreciable service pensions. The number of men with long service is, however, limited. There would be about a dozen, with service ranging from 12 to 19 years. No one will deny that these men made considerable sacrifices, and are entitled to something in the nature of a pension. My own opinion is that in regard to the remainder, a reasonable gratuity based on the particular circumstances of each man's case would prove acceptable, and would be a satisfactory solution of the problem. There might perhaps be something to be said in favour of making more generous provision for those whose health has been permanently injured as a result of imprisonment.
Deputies should remember that if these men had not mutinied, the majority of them would probably be in different financial circumstances to-day. Most of them would have remained on in the British Army and would have qualified for service pensions. The others would have received certain emoluments and bounties to help them start again in civilian life. Their position would have been entirely different from that in which they found themselves on their release from prison. Their wives and families were destitute and they themselves were penniless. The manner in which these men have been treated, and the attitude of the Government towards them should not be approved by any party in this House. These men have been shamefully neglected, and it is time that we assumed some responsibility for them.
If I might make an estimate I think that anything between £5,000 and £10,000 would meet the case. The actual monetary loss suffered by each mutineer consisted of pay and allowances, including dependents' allowance during the period of imprisonment. The men spent close on three years in prison and during that time their families were not supported in the matter of dependents' allowance—that allowance having been stopped by the British Government. In addition the men forfeited a war bounty or special payment given for services during war time by the British Government. This would be from £30 to £80 per man. These facts should be taken into account and we ask the House and we must ask ourselves is this State going to treat these men less fairly than they would be treated had they ignored the National call in 1920, and if they had not done what they thought was right for Ireland? Are we actually going to help the British Government in penalising them for their action? The position is harder when, from time to time, these men come across comrades of theirs who remained in the British Army. These latter men got pensions and they have been suitably provided for. Such men sneer at the unfortunate individuals who have been cast off by one Government and ignored by another and left to end their days in the workhouse.
I might refer for a moment to the circumstances of the mutiny. We know that a very high kind of courage and a very high form of patriotism were required in the case of those men who mutinied. In India they were surrounded by British regiments and they had undoubtedly memories of or had known of other mutinies which took place in India on two previous occasions when the mutineers were blown from the cannon's mouth. These men took the chance of a similar fate befalling them. The fact that they took action far away from Ireland and surrounded by those thousands of British troops makes their action all the more meritorious from the Irish point of view. I quite see that a British Officer would have got a different point of view. Those who might not see eye to eye with them in their action should at least concede that faith unfaithful kept them falsely true. They were true to Ireland despite their having entered the services of another land. They helped at any rate to a considerable extent to make outsiders realise the situation in Ireland.
When you take into account the dissatisfaction created amongst the Irish regiments at the time, there is no judging how much this incident counted with the British Cabinet in their deliberations about Ireland. It is difficult to say what part they played in bringing the British Government to realise the position in Ireland. The fact that these men have been neglected is a scandal, and one that should be remedied even now at the eleventh hour. Some of them have already died in the workhouses. I have a reference here to two of them, Patrick Kelly and Michael Kearns. There was another within the last month who went into the county home. I forget the name, but I read of it in the daily papers within the last month. I quote from a cutting I have here. dated 6th January, 1930, which reads:
"The death has taken place at the county home hospital, Manorhamilton, of Patrick Kelly, formerly a sergeant-major in the Connaught Rangers. He served in the Great War. When the Connaught Rangers mutinied in India as a protest against the Black-and-Tan regime in Ireland, he took a prominent part and was sentenced to penal servitude for life. He was transferred to an English convict prison, where his health gave way as a result of his war services. Owing to his part in the mutiny he was deprived of a pension."
Another is dated 9/8/1930, and it is from the "Evening Herald," and reads:—"Connaught Rangers Mutiny. Sir, I regret to state that another of the unfortunate mutineers of the Connaught Rangers has died in poverty in the South Dublin Union. Michael Kearns, who was imprisoned in Portland, Maidstone, and Manchester for mutiny in India, and whose health suffered through rigorous imprisonment, died on Tuesday, 6th August, in the South Dublin Union. His relatives, in order that he should not receive a pauper's grave, have added to their poverty by incurring the expenses of a Christian burial. Perhaps some charitable society might interest themselves. They live at 20 Middle North Court Avenue, Church Road, Dublin." Well, these are the two latest. I might read a score of letters that I have got from these men, but it would take too much time. I have also here letters from Deputies who have expressed sympathy and promised to see that they would get justice.
In support of their claims I might take a few extracts from the summary of evidence in connection with the trial and general courtmartial of Private Daly and others at Dagshai on 23rd August, 1920. I have the full text of the evidence here, but I will content myself by giving extracts in connection with the trial. The witness, Major W.N. Alexander, said "I pointed out that their action in not parading, which they stated was a protest against the employment of British troops in Ireland, would not have the slightest effect on the policy of the British Government, and I also pointed out to them the serious results which this action would entail on themselves. A man named Daly stood in front of this parade; he informed me that similar action would be taken simultaneously by every regiment in the Army and that the news would be published in every paper in the United Kingdom. Whatever influence what I have said may have had on the less determined of the mutineers was promptly wiped out by this man." I do not think anybody will deny that he did his bit for Ireland. The witness, Captain L.C. Badham, said: "The right hand man was carrying a Sinn Féin flag... I saw a Sinn Féin flag stuck in the ground outside the Company Bungalow. Private Feely said to me ‘You are not going to shoot down any more innocent unarmed Irishmen' or words to that effect." The witness, Sergeant-Major White, said: "Private Daly, who seemed to be the spokesman, stated in my presence that they would not soldier any more until the British dogs had been removed from Ireland."
Quarter-Master-Sergeant Glenn, referring to a meeting of the mutineers, said they were all wearing Sinn Féin colours made up in rosettes. Corporal Kelly said "Private Daly stood up and said to me ‘Did you see the Sinn Féin flag over our Bungalow? That shows it was our headquarters, and if Major Alexander wishes to speak to us he had better come down here and do so... I saw a small party all of whom were wearing rebel badges or rosettes. Private Evers' said to me ‘You should be wearing one of these badges; we have ordered 100 in the bazaar and all the N.C.O.'s of the Company and band will have to wear them to-morrow.'" Lieutenant Walsh said: "Private Oliver said the men had no complaints against their officers, but his reason for being there was on account of the state of Ireland."
I think these extracts from the courtmartial evidence are sufficient to show that patriotism was the reason for the revolt or the mutiny. Regarding the treatment meted out to them, I might just quote a few of the many letters I have got. I have one extract from the "Irish Independent" on 7/4/'25 with reference to Mrs. Daly, of Tyrrellspass, mother of the man executed in India. There is something in the report about a Cumann na nGaedheal meeting, and as part of it might be controversial I shall not refer to it. The report reads: "Legislation, Mr. Shaw stated, was going to be introduced to give a pension to the Connaught Rangers." That was the statement made by Deputy Shaw.
