The Minister for Finance is not here. I do not know whether this motion is to be left to a free vote of the House or whether it is to be made a Party question. I should like to know. The Minister for Finance was the chief opponent of this motion on the last occasion when it was before the House. Though his opposition may have been strong enough his arguments were very halting indeed. I will deal with a few points raised in the Minister's speech. He said:—"there is a very great difference between those men and the resigned members of the R.I.C." We quite agree. The members of the R.I.C. who resigned certainly made sacrifices. I do not want to cast any aspersions on them. There was a Committee of Inquiry held when allotting their pensions and matters were raised which I do not like to refer to here.
I do not agree that the members of the R.I.C. showed as much courage in resigning as the Connaught Rangers did in their mutiny in India in order to prevent British atrocities in this country as far as they could do so. The Minister for Finance also said that these men did no more than the civilian population in Ireland did during the Black and Tan regimé. Of course that is a childish argument. The great majority of the people here were on the same side. They might have run a little risk. They might have made some financial sacrifices but they kept their farms and businesses and whatever positions they had. The men who mutinied in India risked their lives and knew they were risking them. They knew that they would be at least imprisoned and dismissed from the Army. Soldiering was the trade of many of them and they knew no other. They had nothing to turn to. They lost all pension rights. There was no promise to them of reward no matter who won here. The Minister for Finance said that no appeal was made to them. Perhaps that is all the more credit to them for acting spontaneously through patriotic motives. It was well known that the Connaught Rangers all through their history had national sentiments. They acted without hope of reward. They were, the Minister said, no factors in the matter of solving the Irish problem at that time or in getting freedom or an instalment of freedom for this State. I quote from the "Freeman's Journal" of July 6th, 1920, which states:—"The ‘Westminster Gazette' says ‘The mutiny of the Connaught Rangers in India seems to be a localised affair and we hope it will not spread or cause a break in the tradition of service to the Empire built up by Irish regiments, but it is a sign of the widespread feeling amongst Irishmen against the present policy of the Government.'" So that it was taken by the "Westminster Gazette" as a sign and a signal of the feeling of Irishmen. Evidently the "Westminster Gazette" took it that these men were some factor in the matter of the Irish revolutionary movement.
The Minister also says "there has been a certain difficulty in ascertaining the facts as to the services of the Connaught Rangers." That is just our case. The Minister mentioned six who had service of over seven years, I think. My colleague, Deputy Kerlin, who did the spade work in this inquiry, and who did all the documentation for me, is, I regret, not present. Deputy Kerlin discovered twelve men with services of over seven years. It is therefore all the more reason why there should be a Committee of Inquiry into the cases of these men, such as is suggested in this motion. "A considerable number of these men were given work for certain periods," says the Minister. It would be very interesting to get detailed information as to the work that was given to these men, to whom it was given, and for what duration.
Looking through the list I find that there were 23 of them in the National Army, two got clerical appointments, and nine joined the Civic Guards. Those in the National Army, of course, with the exception, I think, of three, have now joined the unemployed. The letters are rather instructive as to the conditions under which these men were living a few years ago, when the motion was first brought in, and when we got the documents which were necessary to deal with the case. Some of them got three weeks' employment. Does the Minister think that that is a sufficient reward for a man who lost his gratuity, who spent three years in jail, as a number and not as a human being, who comes home in broken health and with nothing to turn to? As I say, some of them got three weeks' employment. The Minister said that there are numerous complaints of ex-British soldiers being in great distress. We regret that any Irishman should be in distress, but Britain's failure to help those who served her is no excuse why we should neglect those who helped us in our hour of need. We have an example, of course, of the treatment of Irishmen who joined the British Army in the "Ballad of Patrick Sheehan," but that is of no use to us now. It is rather callous of us to neglect these men as we have neglected them.
I shall just go through a few cases which will illustrate the condition of these men: John Moorhouse, Newbridge, Co. Kildare, wife and three children, unemployed and practically starving, also served in National Army. John Flannery, Dublin, with thirteen years' service in the British Army, unemployed; dependents, aged invalid mother and widowed sister. Patrick Donohue, Cork, broken down completely in health as a result of wounds received in World War, not fit for work, and lost his disability pension. J. Fallon, Drogheda, 12 years in the British Army, spent two years in prison, has widowed mother in bad health dependent on him, unemployed and in destitute circumstances. Patrick Dyer, Ballymote, two years' imprisonment, wife and three children in bad circumstances, suffered severely from malaria. Thomas Devine, Longford, sentenced to death for part in mutiny, commuted to penal servitude for life, imprisoned for 2½ years, unemployed and living with aged father; at the time of mutiny had been granted £1 per week wound pension and was waiting to be drafted home, but lost this by taking part in the mutiny, and afterwards got wound pension of about 7/6.
On the last occasion I quoted the case of James Davis, Dublin, who took part in the mutiny at Jullundur and was sentenced to two years' penal servitude; escaped from Woking Prison in England in 1921, and within a week joined the I.R.A. (Second Northern Division) in the North under the late Charlie Daly; took part in engagements against the Specials in the Sperrin Mountains, was taken prisoner in December, 1921, sentenced to five years' and sent to Peterhead; was released from there in January, 1926, having completed his sentence; had nineteen years', service in the British Army, and also three years' naval service; was entitled to a pension of not less than 30/- a week, but this he sacrificed; practically unemployed since release from prison. John Oliver, a Galway man, sentenced to death, commuted to penal servitude for life, imprisoned for two and a half years; fifteen and a half years' service in British Army, unemployed and in bad health; spent many months in Galway Hospital and in County Home; when last heard of was living on 4/- a week outdoor relief. The last case I will quote is that of M. Kearns, Dublin, who was sentenced to three years' penal servitude and imprisoned for 21 months; six years in British Army, had aged mother dependent on him; unemployed. Regarding this man, I may say that this House can do nothing for him now. He died in the South Dublin Union in August last, and were it not for the Christian charity of an undertaker he would have been buried in a pauper's grave.
These are some of the cases to which I have drawn attention and the Minister says that there are six men who might have claims. If they have claims now how is it that they had not claims in 1923? Why does the Minister say that he will consider the claims of six out of 53 survivors of the mutiny? I have the names of eleven men whose service in the British Army ranged from 10 to 17 years. The Minister's figures differ from those with which I have been supplied. I think it is very ungenerous of the Minister to suggest such treatment as this, namely, that he will consider the case for employment only of six out of 53 men. These men have not, of course, much influence. They will not influence elections very much but they certainly have a claim on us. It was not always thought by the Minister's colleagues that these men were no factors in the case. I have letters here from several of the Minister's colleagues written to these men expressing a different view-point.
There is one letter here signed "Risteard Ua Maolchatha" from Oglaigh na h-Eireann, General Headquarters, Dublin, 20th December, 1922. It was in reference to securing the release of the men who were then in British prisons. One sentence refers to the men of the Connaught Rangers. He referred to those who stood so nobly as one man when their assistance was of such use to the country. That is a different view to that expressed by the Minister. There is then a letter from Cumann na nGaedheal, from 5 Parnell Square, Dublin, dated 4th November, 1924, in which it is stated: "It is unnecessary to add that of all the terrible incidents of the recent struggle for independence the dramatic sacrifice of the Connaught Rangers has most struck the imagination and sympathies of our people, and if your members have a suggestion to make in writing of their situation or needs it will receive our most careful attention with a view to action." It is signed "S.O hAodha, Ard-Rúnaí." Apparently Cumann na nGaedheal at that time had the idea that these men had done something for their country. Deputy Dr. Myles Keogh wrote saying that he would do anything he could for these men and expressed recognition of the action that they had taken. There are letters from several other T.D.s which I might read but I will content myself with reading only one more. It states:—
With reference to a query regarding my attitude towards those of you who laid down your arms in India to further the cause of Irish independence, I beg to state that should I be elected in this fight in North City I will do everything humanly possible for you. I fully realise the responsibility you took upon yourselves when you laid down your arms, thousands of miles away from your people, and faced the bullets, if need be, in support of your convictions. I maintain you should be treated as if you were members of the I.R.A. from the time you first started your opposition to British rule in Ireland and pensioned accordingly, or, failing that, I will demand the same rights for you as were given to R.I.C. men who resigned during the Black and Tan régime. Hoping to have your support in this election, and assuring you that your service to Ireland in her hour of trial should not go unheeded.
Mise, do chara,
SEAN MILROY.
The writer is now leader of the Government Party in the Seanad. He had some idea then—I do not know whether it was during the election or whether it was a permanent idea— that these men had done something for Ireland. Perhaps the Minister would tell us whether this motion is to be left to a free vote of the House or whether the Whips are to be put on.
