Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Oct 1932

Vol. 44 No. 2

Army Pensions Bill, 1932—Second Stage.

The principle of this Bill is pretty clear. It is to provide wounds pensions, disability pensions and dependent pensions, as an extension of the Army Pensions Bills of 1923 and 1927. The Army Pensions Bills of 1923 and 1927 provided wounds pensions and disability pensions for men who were wounded during the Black-and-Tan war and for members of the National Army who were wounded during the civil war, and their dependents. This Bill will provide for those who fought on the Republican side in the civil war the same classes of pension as were provided for those who fought during the Black-and-Tan war and during the civil war in the National Army. The Bill bears its meaning on the face of it and it does not require very much explanation. In order to secure that no one except a person properly entitled shall get a pension, every applicant will have to go before a Military Service Registration Board and will have to prove, in the first instance, that he has really had service which entitles him to a pension. Then having been certified as having the necessary service, he will have to go before the Army Pensions Board and will have to stand an examination there as to the extent of the disability from which he suffers.,

If a person gets a certificate from the Army Pensions Board that he suffers disablement to the extent of 20 per cent. in the case of wounds, and to the extent of 80 per cent. in the case of disability, due to disease, he will be entitled to a pension on the scale set out in the schedules attached to the Bill. We have altered the scales from those that were set out in the 1923 and 1927 Pensions Acts. Instead of making a difference between officers and men, and of, say, giving £200 maximum to an officer and, say, £100 maximum to another rank, we are treating all on the same standard, that is, three-quarters of the maximum. We are treating all as volunteers. If a person was married before he received wounds, or before a certain date in the case of disability, he will become entitled to a marriage pension. If he dies while in receipt of a marriage pension his widow will be entitled to a certain allowance. There are a number of cases where men were wounded in the past. Their wounds were slight, but they had to undergo hospital treatment. Some of them suffered a great deal for a while, but they are not now suffering disablement to the extent of 20 per cent. In those cases we provide under Section 10 for a gratuity.

Section 12 contemplates allowances to dependents and widows. In cases where there are not widows but other dependents, of men who have died from wounds or disease before certain dates, they will come under this. Under sub-section (4) of Section 12 there is provision for men who married after a certain date after they were wounded or after a certain date in the case of disease. Where a man dies the widow will be entitled to a gratuity of £112 10s., that is three-quarters of the old rate in those cases.

The payment of pensions will not commence from the date of the receipt of the wound, but as from the first of April of this year. It would be too heavy a burden to go back and pay men pensions from say 1916, 1921 or 1922. The pensions, when granted, will date as from 1st April this year. The section that sets that out is in keeping with the whole spirit of the Bill which is to relieve future distress amongst men who suffered or amongst their dependents. Everyone knows that throughout the country a lot of bitterness has been created because certain men were badly wounded or neglected, and also because their dependents are not being properly looked after.

The paragraphs which follow Section 15 provide for a time limit for making applications, that is 12 months from the passage of this Bill. We consider that 12 months is a fair time to allow dependents to make application, or if a man has been injured in the past then he has plenty of time within 12 months to make his application. Sections 18 and 19 deal with the finality of awards, and give the Minister power, in certain cases within a few years after a final award has been made, to re-open the award when he thinks that the disablement of an applicant has increased to a fairly large extent. It is stated in Section 20 that certain sections of the 1923 and 1927 Acts are applicable to this Bill. The sections of the 1923 and 1927 Acts refer to hospital treatment. They give the Minister power to provide hospital treatment for men who have applied for pensions as well as artificial limbs. They prevent men assigning their pensions away, and deal with forfeiture in certain cases. They also provide for travelling expenses, and in a case say where a man in receipt of a marriage pension is not looking after his wife, then the Minister can direct that the pension be paid directly to his wife. All regulations made in connection with this Bill will have to be laid before the House.

Part 3 of the Bill deals with the amendment of previous Acts. The previous Acts were loose in some respects, and the Public Accounts Committee reported from time to time that they should be amended. We are amending them in this Bill. To give an instance. In one section of the 1927 Act, if a man had a pension and he owed a debt to the Minister for Defence, a sum equivalent to the debt could be withheld from his pension. We are extending that so that if he owes a debt to any other Minister or any other Department of State his pension can be withheld. A number of Deputies will know from their own experience that great hardship has occurred in a number of cases where awards were marked final under the 1923 and 1927 Acts. You had members of the National Army and members of the Volunteers in the Black and Tan period going before the Pension Board and the Board making up its mind that disablement had not reached the maximum. They marked the pension final award. In such cases there is no power residing in the Minister or in anybody else to re-open the award even though subsequent disablement increased very much. Some men got pensions on the basis of 50 per cent. disablement, and although later on their disablement increased to 100 per cent. nothing could be done for them. We are taking power in this Bill to re-open such final awards in all cases where the applicant proves to the Minister that his disability increased to a certain considerable extent, that is, in excess of 10 per cent. or there-abouts.

There are a few other sections in the Bill which follow the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. Section 26 will compel all applicants under the 1923 and 1927 Acts to apply now for whatever pension they think they are entitled to, and if they fail to do that their cases cannot be considered after 12 months. I explained at the outset that the rates of pension are three-quarters of the maximum payable to officers under the 1923 and 1927 Acts. That applies to the rate given to a man himself and to his wife in the case of marriage, as well as to allowances granted to dependents. It is not estimated that more than £25,000 will be needed to meet the requirements of this Bill in this year. In the first year a number of gratuities will be paid that will not recur in the future. Personally, I do not think that even next year there will be more than £30,000 spent, and I believe it will be very much less. At present about £47,000 is spent on wounds and disablement pensions. I think the sum payable under this Bill will be very much less. The sum is not a very great one to ask the Dáil for, but the need of the people who will come under this Bill for pensions is very great. I believe it will be good national work to set about alleviating the distress of people who are entitled to pensions and gratuities under this Bill. It will, in a large measure, help to abolish the memory of past dissensions, and it will create a lot of happiness in a great number of homes throughout the country.

The Minister made reference to previous Pensions Bills and indicated the period to which they referred. The previous Pensions Bills referred, in addition, to 1916—the Rising period. The Minister has said very little with regard to the persons for whom this Bill is intended. I think something requires to be said on that. The Government Press of the 19th October dealt with the matter. In a sub-leader headed "A People's Tribute," they said:

The Pensions Bill, the text of which was made available for the public yesterday, will come as a boon to many patriotic homes throughout Ireland—homes that have given both breadwinners and sons and daughters to the struggle for independence. But the importance of the Bill is not this so much as the principle which it establishes. It records the decision of the Irish people that those who have striven in arms for liberty not only from 1916 to 1921, but in the subsequent defence of the Republic are truly our great citizens. It records, too, that it was not a part or a province of Ireland which was battling for national Government in that whole period, but the Irish nation. In other countries those who have fallen for freedom were held up to their own generation and are held up to the generations which followed as ideal types of men and women. In America families whose forebears were associated with the ridding of that great Continent of British domination are to-day, for that reason, held in particular respect. That is true of other nations such as Belgium and the countries of South America. In this country, our soldiers of freedom have often gone without recognition not only in their own day, but by succeeding generations. A few who are in the public eye are known, the many are nameless and forgotten. The Pensions Bill, published yesterday, seeks to end an ingratitude of which the nation has been up to now guilty. Many refused to avail themselves of similar acts of the late Government on the grounds that it was not being faithful to the ideal for which the lives had been given and the wounds proudly borne. All those can feel to-day that it is a people's tribute and not a tribute of any party or section that they are being asked to accept for the noble service with which their names will always be associated.

That is an addendum from the Government Press to the Minister's speech in introducing this Bill. The Bill proposes to give pensions greater by approximately one-half to those who, the Minister says, fought on the Republican side during the civil war, than were given by this House to the rank and file of those who, in the Army, fought for the preservation of the national institutions. In my opinion, the Bill requires to be somewhat documented in order to correlate its terms, the persons to whom it is to be applied and this House, as the Parliament of the nation.

The Treaty between this country and Great Britain was approved on the 7th January, 1922. The Provisional Government was formally established on the 14th January. The British authorities formally handed over the reins of Government to the Irish Provisional Government on the 16th January. On the 16th June there was a General Election for the purpose of setting up the Provisional Parliament. At that election, 128 members were elected to fill that Parliament and, of these, 36 were persons who repudiated the institution that was being set up and actually absented themselves from the work; 36 out of 128 represents a percentage of 28. In the meantime formal military operations were undertaken by the assault on the Four Courts on 27th June, and by the subsequent fighting in O'Connell Street, ending on the 3rd July, in which 52 persons were killed and 190 wounded. The head of the Provisional Government, General Collins, was killed on 22nd August, and Parliament opened on the 9th September. Three months after formal military operations had been undertaken—namely, 27th September—the Parliament was asked to give the military authorities power to set up military courts in respect of certain offences relating to arms and power to execute the sentence of death. In the meantime—on the 16th September, 1922—a body met calling itself the Irish Republican Army Executive, which then consisted of 16 members, including Messrs. Tom Derrig, Seamus Robinson, Seán Moylan, Michael Kilroy, P.J. Ruttledge and Frank Aiken. At that meeting on the 16th September, 1922, an Army Council was set up, consisting of 5 members and including Mr. Tom Derrig and Mr. Frank Aiken. On the 26th October the following official communique, as it was called, was issued. It is headed Dáil Eireann, Official Communique (English translation):

Dáil Eireann, the Parliament and Government of the Republic, met yesterday in secret session, the former Deputy Speaker presiding. A Clerk of the House was appointed and the following resolution passed:—(1) Whereas the Speaker (Ceann Comhairle) and the other appointed Executive Officers, in disregard of their duties and in open disobedience to the mandamus of the Supreme Court have refused to summon Dáil Eireann, the duly elected Parliament and Government of the Republic. And whereas, notwithstanding their oaths and public pledges to maintain the Republic, these officers abetted by other members of Dáil Eireann have in this and diverse other ways endeavoured illegally and unconstitutionally to subvert the Republic and its Government, Dáil Eireann, and with foreign aid have joined in traitorous conspiracy and armed revolt with that intent, pretending to establish a so-called Free State and a Provisional (Partition) Parliament, the creatures and sub-ordinates of an alien legislature and purposing thus to destroy the independent sovereignty of the nation and the integrity of its ancient territory. Therefore, we the faithful Deputies of Dáil Eireann assemble to maintain the Republic and to secure the continuity of independent Government for the whole of Ireland in the name of all loyal citizens of the Republic and by the express wish of the soldiers fighting in its defence call upon the former President, Eamon de Valera, to resume the Presidency and to nominate a Council of State and Executive Ministers to assist him in carrying on the Government until such time as the Parliament of the Republic is allowed freely to assemble or the people are allowed by a free election to decide how they shall be governed.

(2) That Eamon de Valera be hereby appointed President of the Republic and Chief Executive of the State.

(3) That the following nominated by the President be hereby appointed a Council of the State:—

The President, Austin Stack, T.D.; Robert Barton, T.D.; Count Plunkett, T.D.; J.J. O'Kelly, T.D.; L. Ginnell, T.D.; Seán T. O'Kelly, T.D.; Seán O'Mahony, T.D.; Mrs. O'Callaghan, T.D.; Mary MacSwiney, T.D.; P.J. Ruttledge, T.D.; Seán Moylan, T.D.; M. P. Colivet, T.D.

(4) That pending the next meeting of the Dáil we hereby empower the Council of State to sanction such Ministers and Executive Officers of State as the President may nominate and may have the Council's approval.

Dublin, 26th October, 1922.

The Press at the time contained the information that on 31st October, long before any executions were carried out, the Irregular Acting Assistant Chief of Staff writing to the Command Adjutant proposed for Mr. de Valera's decision "The issuing of a proclamation declaring the Provisional Government illegal and that after a certain date anyone attending their Parliament was liable to suffer a traitor's fate."

Dated the 3rd November, 1922, the following proclamation was issued:

GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND.

PROCLAMATION.

(Translation in English).

Whereas an unconstitutional and usurping Junta, set up at the dictation of the British Government and calling itself the "Provisional Government of Ireland," is and has been pledging the credit of the nation without the sanction of Dáil Eireann, the Parliament and Government of the Republic, and contracting debts and liabilities in various ways, including the purchase of military supplies and war material, and is further seeking to create vested interests by filling vacant offices and making appointments to new offices;

And whereas the so-called Provisional Government has been proclaimed an illegal body by the Government of the Republic;

Therefore, it is hereby proclaimed and notified to all whom it may concern that all such debts contracted or to be contracted, and appointments made, or to be made, by the said Provisional Government without the sanction of Dáil Eireann, the Parliament and Government of the Republic, are, and shall be illegal, null and void, and will not be recognised by the State.

(Signed) Aibhistin de Staic,

Minister for Finance.

Eamon de Valera,

President.

On 13th November, 1922, Eamon de Valera, as President, addressed the following letter to each member of the Army Council and to the O.C. Northern Command:—

A Chara,

I have nominated the following Cabinet: Finance, Austin Stack; Home Affairs, P.J. Ruttledge; Defence, Liam Mellows; Local Government, S.T. O'Kelly (Donal O'Callaghan to be substitute Minister); Economic Affairs, Robert Barton (Seán Moylan to be substitute Minister, with M.P. Colivet in reserve).

In regard to Defence, the Chief of Staff agrees that for the present the best plan would be that his name and mine should appear on any official document relating to the Department of Defence. The President can look after Foreign Affairs.

Had Mr. Childers not been arrested it was my intention that he should be Secretary of the Cabinet and Director of Publicity. I should like that he be regarded as nominally filling these positions. Substitutes can be selected by the Cabinet.

In order that there may be as little delay as possible in fully establishing the Government, I would like, unless there are very serious objections, to have your formal approval of the nominations immediately.

Mise,

Eamon de Valera,

President.

The following Proclamation was issued, dated 17th November, 1922:—

DÁIL EIREANN.

GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND.

PROCLAMATION.

(English translation.)

Whereas in consequence of representations made by the British Government to the Government of the Republic of Ireland in the course of the war waged by the British Government against the Republic, a truce was, on the 11th day of July, 1921, arranged between the Irish Republican Army and the Army of His Britannic Majesty, and thereupon negotiations for a Treaty between Ireland and Great Britain were entered into, and delegates appointed by the Government of the Republic of Ireland went into conference with representatives of the British Government, and an instrument entitled "Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland" was signed in London on the 6th day of December, 1921;

And whereas on the 7th day of January, 1922, Dáil Eireann, under the influence of duress and the threat of renewed war by Great Britain, passed a resolution purporting to approve of said instrument;

And whereas the said instrument implied a surrender of the sovereignty of Ireland and could not be, and is not, binding on the Republic of Ireland; and could not be, and was not ratified or approved in the form of law by Dáil Eireann, the Government of the Republic;

And whereas any such purported approval was ultra vires, and accordingly null and void and of no effect;

And whereas in the month of June, 1922, certain persons in Ireland known as the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland, purporting to derive their authority under the said instrument, and at the instance of and coerced by the Government of Great Britain, rose in rebellion against the Republic;

And whereas the Government of Great Britain furnished and has since continued to furnish these rebels and their adherents with arms, equipment, and expert military aid;

And whereas it is expedient and necessary for the safety of the Republic and the independence of Ireland, that the said Articles of Agreement, which were never binding on the Republic, or on the people of Ireland, should be formally repudiated;

It is hereby decreed and declared that the resolution passed by Dáil Eireann on the 7th day of January, 1922, purporting to approve of the instrument entitled "Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland," dated the 6th day of December, 1921, be, and the same is hereby rescinded and revoked, and that any Act, matter or thing purporting to be done thereunder is void and of no effect;

And it is hereby further decreed that the persons known as, and styling themselves the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland, and their adherents, are, and shall be deemed always to have been, an illegal body, and that each and every such person is guilty of rebellion against the Republic;

Signed on behalf of and with the authority of the Government of the Republic,

Pádraig O Ruithleis,

Minister for Home Affairs.

Eamon de Valera, President.

7th November, 1922.

On the following day the following additional Proclamation was issued:—

DAIL EIREANN.

GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND.

PROCLAMATION.

(English Translation).

Whereas by decree of Dail Eireann, No. 5, First Session, A.D. 1920, Courts of Justice and Equity were established, and by the same decree the Ministry were empowered to establish Courts having criminal jurisdiction;

And whereas by decree dated the 19th day of September, 1920, a Land Settlement Commission was established;

And whereas certain persons calling themselves a Provisional Government have entered into a conspiracy with other enemies of the Republic to divide this ancient nation and dismember its territory and to subvert the Republic which they were sworn to defend, and in furtherance of such conspiracy have made an alliance with the British Government and with arms, munitions of war, and money supplied by their British Allies have fomented a rebellion against the Republic;

And whereas in the course of said rebellion the so-called Provisional Government and their associates are endeavoring to re-establish in this country the old British Courts owing allegiance to the King of Great Britain;

And whereas they now purport to set up in twenty-six counties of Ireland a system of District Courts acting under the authority of the King of Great Britain, and intended to supersede the Courts of the Republic;

And whereas these British Courts, whether in their old form or their new disguise, are an illegal usurpation of authority, an infringement of the sovereign independence of the Irish people, and a danger to the Republic;

It is decreed by the Government of the Republic that all British Courts purporting to exercise jurisdiction within the territory of the Republic, whether known by the name of the King's Courts or District Courts, be, and the same are hereby suppressed;

And it is decreed that any person purporting to exercise jurisdiction in a Court hereby suppressed, or instituting, defending, or appearing in any action or proceeding in such a Court without licence from the Minister for Home Affairs of the Republic, or otherwise encouraging, aiding or abetting the exercise of jurisdiction by any of the Courts hereby suppressed shall be deemed to be an enemy of the Republic;

And it is further decreed that no judgment, decree or order of any of the Courts hereby suppressed shall have force or effect in Ireland unless such judgment, decree or order is first submitted and approved by a proper officer of the Republic.

Padraig O Ruithleis,

Minister for Home Affairs;

Eamon de Valera,

President.

Dated this 18th day of November, 1922.

Five days afterwards, on 23rd November, 1922, the Chief of Staff who, in accordance with Eamon de Valera's letter of 13th November, 1922, to each member of the Army Council, was dealing jointly with Mr. de Valera in matters of defence, issued the following order to O.C.s of all Battalions:—

To O.C.s all Battalions.

(1) Since the formation of the Republican Government proclamations have been and will be issued from time to time as occasion requires it. It is the duty of the Army to see that these are enforced in every area.

(2) Attached are persons affected by proclamations dated 17th and 18th November, 1922. On and after 1st December, 1922, you will effectively enforce these proclamations in your area. Having fully acquainted yourselves of the situation with reference to these proclamations in your Battalion area, you will issue detailed instructions to the Company O.C., this to ensure general control and united action.

(3) The death penalty will not be inflicted to enforce these proclamations except in cases where permission has already been given by G.H.Q. orders.

(4) Report on difficulty, if any, in enforcing whole or part of these proclamations.

That order was issued by the Chief of Staff on 23rd November, 1922, five days after the previous proclamation. This is the list of persons who, according to that order, were affected:—

The following persons or classes of persons are affected by proclamation dated 17/11/22, proclaiming the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland an illegal body and they in their adherence rebels against the Republic.

(1) All members of the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland.

(2) All members (T.D.s) who are supporting the said Government.

(3) All members of the Free State Army.

(4) The Civic Guard.

(5) The C.I.D.

(6) All officials of the said Provisional Government or any of its Departments.

(7) All persons whether paid or unpaid who are actively assisting or co-operating with the Provisional Government either directly or indirectly.

The following persons or classes of persons are affected by proclamation dated 18/11/22, suppressing enemy courts:—

(1) All enemy Court Judges (High Court and County Court) who are presently acting.

(2) All District Justices appointed by the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland.

(3) Any other persons who purport to exercise jurisdiction under the authority of the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland.

(4) The Civic Guard.

(5) All officials of these enemy Courts, including Registrars, Clerks, Court Messengers, Process Servers and Summons Servers.

(6) All persons who recognise said Courts or institute, defend or appear in suits or actions before said Courts unless they have obtained a permit from the Minister for Home Affairs, Irish Republican Government.

(7) Solicitors who institute or defend proceedings recognising the authority or jurisdiction of such Courts without a permit from the Minister for Home Affairs, Irish Republican Government.

(8) Counsel, barristers and solicitors who appear in suits or actions before said Courts where permits have not been already obtained in such Courts or actions from the Minister for Home Affairs, Irish Republican Government.

(9) Any other person or persons who assist, co-operate with or recognise such enemy Courts without a permit from the Minister for Home Affairs, Irish Republican Government.

All these persons are affected by the proclamations of 17th and 18th November, 1922. The "War News, Poblacht na hEireann," No. 101, was issued on 25th November, 1922, and in it is printed a list of The Murder Members. This is what it contains:—

In view of the secret slaughter on Friday week last of four young Republican soldiers and yesterday of Staff-Captain Childers, I.R.A., after their so-called "trials" by the Secret Murder Courts set up by Richard Mulcahy with the approval of the Kildare Street Partition Parliament we now remind the public of the names of the men who voted in favour of "President" Cosgrave's motion approving the principle of the setting up of these "Courts." The names in their own official Parliamentary Report of 27th September are as follow:—

W.T. Cosgrave, Walter Cole, John Dineen, Sean Hayes, J.J. Walsh, P.J. Ward, Desmond Fitzgerald, Michael Derham, Richard Mulcahy, Michael Staines, Daniel McCarthy, E. Alton, Gerald Fitzgibbon, Eoin MacNeill, Padraig O Maille, George Nicholls, Dr. James Crowley, Richard Wilson, James N. Dolan, William Hayes, Sean McEoin, James Murphy, Ernest Blythe, Dr. J. Byrne, D. Vaughan, F. Bulfin, William Sears, Dr. M. Hayes, D.J. Gorey, Sean Milroy, Michael Hennessy, Liam de Roiste, Patrick McGoldrick, Darrel Figgis, John Rooney, Sean McGarry, Philip Cosgrave, Joseph McGrath, Dr. Myles Keogh, Sir James Craig, W. Thrift, Prof. W. Magennis, Joseph Whelahan, Pierce Beasley, Christopher Byrne, Kevin O'Higgins, Frank McGuinness, Eamon Duggan, Peter Hughes, Thomas O'Donnell, Dr. V. White, James Burke, Michael Doyle, T. Carter, Andrew Lavin, Alec McCabe.

The copy I hold in my hand is a copy sent to Deputy J.J. Walsh with his name marked on it as No. 1. Underlined are the following words: "But history will not be slow in this case, and the awakening will come very rapidly. Let there be no doubt about it ... England's bidding. ... No person who is in any way responsible for this act must be allowed to evade responsibility. Renegade soldiers. ... And there is only one means by which the Nation can cleanse itself—the casting out and just punishment of these and all other Irishmen who make their country a by-word through a cowardly subservience to the English enemy."

On 30th November, 1922, a further instruction was sent to the O.C.s all Battalions by the Chief of Staff who, under Mr. de Valera's letter of 13th November, was co-operating with him in all defence matters. It is headed "Enemy Murder Bill."

To O.C.s all Battalions:—

(1) All members of "Provisional Parliament" who were present and voted for Murder Bill will be shot at sight. Attached find list of names.

(2) Houses of members of Murder Bill, Murder Gang and active supporters of the P.G.—

that is, the Provisional Government

—who are known to support the Murder Bill decision will be destroyed.

(3) All Free State Army Officers who approve of Murder Bill and are aggressive and active against our forces will be shot at sight, also all ex-British Army Officers and men who joined the Free State Army since 6th December, 1921.

(4) Individual action on paragraphs 2-3 will be ordered by the Brigade O.C.

(5) To be duplicated and transmitted to the O.C. all Units.

That was an order from the Chief of Staff and there was a footnote on it which said: "On day of first execution an order to shoot at sight members of the Provisional Government was issued in Dublin, 1-2 Brigades, since an opportunity was not got to put same into effect."

A list of members of the Provisional Parliament who voted for the "Murder Bill" was attached to this instruction and they were ordered to be shot at sight. The list is as follows:—

W.T. Cosgrave, Walter Cole, John Dineen, Sean Hayes, J.J. Walsh, P. J. Ward, Desmond Fitzgerald, Séumas Derham, Richard Mulcahy, Michael Staines, Daniel McCarthy, E. Alton, Gerald FitzGibbon, Eoin McNeill, Pádraig O Maille, George Nicholls, James Crowley, Richard Wilson, James N. Dolan, William Hayes, Seán McKeon, James Murphy, Ernest Blythe, S.R.J. Byrne, D. Vaughan, T. Carter, Andrew Lavin, Alec McCabe, F. Bulfin, William Sears, Richard Hayes (Doctor), D.J. Gorey, Seán Milroy, Michael Hennessy, Liam de Roiste, Patrick McGolderick, Darrell Figgis, John Rooney, Seán McGarry, Philip Cosgrave, Joseph McGrath, Dr. Myles Keogh, Sir James Craig, W. Thrift, Prof. W. Magennis, Joseph Whelehan, Piaras Beasley, Christopher Byrne, Kevin O'Higgins, Frank McGennis, Eamon Duggan, Peter Hughes, Thomas O'Donnell, Doctor V. White, James Bourke, Michael Doyle.

All these were the persons who under Section 1 of the instructions were to be shot at sight. There was a further modification or addition to the order by instructions to this effect:—

Six residences will be destroyed for each volunteer executed; four Imperial element, the D.L. type, and two of aggressive Free State supporters. Houses to be selected by the Brigade O.C.; owners are to be verbally informed of reasons for destruction.

Government proclamations: Orders issued by Chief of Staff as regards action to be taken against personnel affected by these proclamations are altered to the following extent:—

The following will be shot at sight:—

(a) All members who voted for enemy Murder Bill.

(b) Officers of all ranks.

(c) Members of Seanad in List A.

(d) Members of Murder Gang.

(e) Official—civilians who order prisoners to be fired on.

(f) Those who tortured Republican prisoners.

(g) Those who fire on prisoners.

(h) Enemy legal advisers connected with Courtsmartial.

(i) Members of "Firing Parties" who execute our prisoners.

(j) High Court, County and District Judges and State Solicitors.

(k) Officials employed at Head-quarters of Ministries.

(l) Aggressive Free State supporters.

(m) Members of C.I.D.

(n) Proprietors, directors, editors, sub-editors and leader writers of hostile Press in Ireland in cases where these are known to be hostile.

The residences and, where mentioned, the offices of the following shall be destroyed:—(N.B.—Factories are not to be interfered with):—

(1) Houses of persons mentioned in (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and the offices of (k), (l), (m), (n).

(2) Residences of all Senators.

(3) Imperialists (ex-D.L. type).

(4) Officials connected with Enemy Government administration not provided for heretofore.

(5) Counsellors, barristers, solicitors, etc., who appear in suits or actions before Enemy Court without a permit from Ministry of Home Affairs, Irish Republican Government.

The property to be burned must be the property of the persons named.

On the 4th December in another issue of the "Poblacht na hEireann War News," No. 107, there is a letter signed Eamon de Valera, in which the "Manchester Guardian," Manchester, England, is told that "the Irish electorate did not decide for the Free State last December." There are in that issue two letters or warnings issued. One is to the Speaker of this House and the other is to the Chairman of the Irish Parliamentary Labour Party.

The "Speaker" and Labour.

A warning from the I.R.A. Chief of Staff.

The letters given below which have been sent from the General Headquarters of the Irish Republican Army speak for themselves.

To: Mr. Johnson, Chairman Irish Parliamentary Labour Party.

Sir,

I am sending you herewith copy of letter I have sent to the Speaker of the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland.

You as spokesman have given the approval of your Party to the present policy of the so-called Provisional Government. We are satisfied that your attitude does not reflect the overwhelming opinion of Labour in this country. You must know, however, that your action gave sanction to the executions and to the continuance of the "mad dog" policy. We would therefore impress upon you the necessity for realising your responsibility in this matter. The continued participation of your Party in the proceedings of this Illegal Parliament can only be construed by us as intentional co-operation with enemy forces in the murder of our soldiers, a great proportion of whom are drawn from the ranks of Labour.

Chief of Staff (for Army Council).

The second letter is:

To "the Speaker" of the Provisional Parliament of Southern Ireland.

Sir,

The illegal body over which you preside has declared war on the soldiers of the Republic and suppressed the legitimate Parliament of the Irish nation.

As your Parliament and Army headquarters well know, we on our side have, at all times, adhered to the recognised rules of warfare. In the early days of this war we took hundreds of your forces prisoners, but accorded to them all the rights of Prisoners of War and over and above treated them as fellow-countrymen and former comrades. Many of your soldiers have been released by us three times, although captured with arms on each occasion. But the prisoners you have taken you have treated barbarously and when helpless have tortured, wounded, and murdered them. We have definite proof that many of your senior officers, including members of your Parliament, have been guilty of most brutal crimes towards the I.R.A. prisoners and have reduced your soldiers to a state of savagery in some areas.

Finally you are now pretending to try I.R.A. prisoners before your make-belief Courts. You have already done to death five after such mock ceremonials. You now presume to murder and transport the soldiers who have brought Ireland's victory when you, traitors, surrendered the Republic twelve months ago.

Next to the members of your "Provisional Government" every member of your Body who voted for this resolution by which you pretend to make legal the murder of soldiers is equally guilty. We, therefore, give you and each member of your Body due notice that unless your Army recognises the rules of warfare in the future we shall adopt very drastic measures to protect our forces. (Signed)

Chief of Staff (for Army Council.)

That letter was directed to the Chairman of this Parliament, which at that time consisted of 128 members, of which 36 persons who had been elected by the people did not recognise it. The remaining 92 were dealing with the business here.

On the 9th December a further issue of the "War News," No. 111, reported the assassination of Seán Hales and the attempted assassination of An Leas-Cheann Comhairle of this Assembly. It read:—

SEAN HALES.

On Thursday, December 7th, Seán Hales, Commandant in the Free State Army and member of the Free State "Parliament," was shot dead in the streets of Dublin. At the same time, Padraig O Maille, another member, was wounded. Commandant Hales fought bravely against the British Empire during the first War of Independence as an Officer of the Irish Republican Army. He survived that war to meet his death in the cause of the British Empire, a cause which is not worth the sacrifice of one Irishman's life. For this cause Seán Hales voted away his country's independence, on the 7th January last, later consummating his treacherous act by deserting his old comrades in arms to join the British arms and equipped levies of the so-called Free State. He was a high officer in this Army when in July last, on the orders of England, it shattered the last chances of national unity by attacking the forces of the Republic and plunging the country into the cruellest of civil wars. Since June, Seán Hales continued to fight against these forces which included his own brother, Commandant Thomas Hales, now in a Free State prison, while day by day the Free State military authorities were piling up a record for savagery and tyranny unequalled in any country in the world. Two fellow members of Hales (Harry Boland and James Devins), who with him had been elected in May to a National Coalition Parliament with a mandate for peace, have been murdered in cold blood, 30 other members of the same Parliament are either imprisoned or being hunted down, defamed, maligned, persecuted; prisoners were being tortured or shot out of hand. Continuing as a member of the Provisional Parliament which had usurped this National Coalition, Seán Hales, on September 27th, participated in the most appalling crime by voting for the setting up of murder courts, which have already done to death secretly eight Irishmen, one of them a member of the Dáil which Hales dishonoured. The men who are engaged in carrying out this diabolical work for England have been solemnly warned that they cannot do these things with impunity. The vengeance of an outraged people is at hand. We again warn them and appeal to them—for England is not worth it—and they are merely devising their own traitorous and shameful doom.

The record of P.O Maille is in nearly every respect the same as that of Seán Hales.

A letterpress refers to this action of the shooting of Seán Hales as a just extermination of one of their own treacherous band. In a further issue of "Poblacht na hEireann, War News," 122, issued on 28th December, the following Christmas greeting is issued:— The President's Christmas message——

I understand that the House is considering the Army Pensions Bill. That inevitably goes back to 1922. Whether that entails the whole history of the civil war I have grave doubts, and I would ask the Deputy to consider that. If every document connected with 1922 is to be gone into on both sides of this House I cannot see an end to this discussion within a week.

The Deputy might bring the quotation of such documents into relation to the Bill before him.

I am not giving in any way the history of the civil war, but I am producing documents which show who were acting and the background of authority that was behind those persons for whom pensions are proposed in this Bill, and the relationship of those who were responsible for these actions with this House. I have kept myself strictly to documentation such as was necessary to relate this Bill here to the authority of this House and the persons for whom pensions are intended to be provided under this Act. The message is headed "President's Christmas Message." The following Christmas message was addressed by President de Valera to the soldiers and citizens of the Republic:

GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC.

Greetings to every soldier and citizen of the Republic as we consecrate ourselves in youth to the achievement of the independence of our country and pray for our comrades who have fallen in the fight let us now thank our Almighty God so as to enlighten us that we may do His will and obtain His blessing on all our efforts to bring to our harassed people the liberty, peace and happiness they need and desire.

On behalf of the Government and the Army command.

(Signed) Eamon de Valera.

Christmas, 1922.

I have indicated the authority and the instructions under which an attack was made on this institution, instructions being explicity issued by the person called Chief-of-Staff, who was co-operating with the person called the President, to shoot at sight a certain listed number of persons belonging to this House a fortnight before the message of peace and goodwill was issued in the name of the soldiers that were carrying out this work, the soldiers that were instructed to find and to shoot Seán McGarry. Not being able to find the Deputy, the soldiers went to his house, and this is the official version given in "War News," No. 116 published in reply to other Press accounts of what happened there. It says:

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BURNINGS.

Regarding the Press reports of the burnings of the house of Seán McGarry the accounts are grossly exaggerated. The following are the facts:

At McGarry's a next door neighbour interfered and considerably delayed our men. The women in the house were told to take themselves and their children outside several times. They became hysterical. Our men proceeded to set the house alight and naturally believed that the women had taken the children out as they had ample time to do so. One of our men returned to the house to see that all was right and found the house was in flames and the occupants all out.

That is the official report of how the soldiers acting under instructions of the Chief-of-Staff when they could not get the Deputy they were instructed to shoot, at night, sought out his house where his wife and family were and burned the house, burning to death one of his children and partially burning another. Four days after that the following letter was issued by the Acting O.C. of the Dublin Brigade to Mr. Martin Fitzgerald, 91 to 93 Abbey Street, a member of the Oireachtas:

In spite of repeated warnings you have refused to obey Orders issued to you on several occasions by Command H.Q. and G.H.Q., I.R.A. You were clearly told either to (a) hand your paper over to Free State Provisional Government to be run by them as a Free State organ or (b), to be a free Press. You have refused to do either and have instead persisted in your campaign of misrepresentation against the I.R.A.

You are therefore ordered to leave Ireland before 12 o'clock noon on the 8th December, 1922. The penalty for refusal to obey this order or for being found in Ireland after 12 o'clock noon on the 8th December, is death.

(Signed) J.F.

Acting O.C., Dublin Brigade.

The letter is taken from the "Freeman's Journal" of 9th December, showing you how a member of the Oireachtas stood by his responsibilities as a representative of the people. As the Presidential message of goodwill was printed on 28th December, 1922, in "Poblacht na h-Eireann War News," the New Year started by an attack on the house of Mr. Walter Cole, the Deputy who was down under sentence to be shot at sight. On 14th January President Cosgrave's home was destroyed by burning. On 13th February Kevin O'Higgins's old father Dr. T. F. O'Higgins was shot dead in his own house, and I give these simply, not as a history of the Civil War, but as instances showing the attacks that were made on the representative Parliament of the people here by persons for whom it is now proposed this Parliament should provide pensions. I indicated that the representation given by the people to the persons who made themselves responsible for these attacks on the country's institutions and on the State was thirty-six persons in a house of 128, or 28 per cent. Early in April the Chief-of-Staff was fatally wounded in the Knockmealdown Mountains and quite a number of other prominent associates of his were captured.

Eamon de Valera issued a "Cease Fire Order" on the 27th April, 1923. Four months after that there was another election in the Free State and at that time a House of 153 was elected and 44 persons were elected which was analagous to 36 that were elected to the previous one, that is, they were persons who repudiated the authority of this House, and who had thrown a cloak of authority around the military attack that had up to April, 1923, been made on it, that is the Irish electorate returned to Parliament 109 persons. By a majority of 109 to 44 they returned a group to this Parliament to carry on those institutions. That is the commentary of the electorate on the authority that started the attack on those institutions and the commentary of the electorate on the authority of those institutions, by operating the means at its disposal to bring that attack to a standstill. Now we are asked in days when the tale of that military organisation, when the present President and the present Min ister for Defence and the present Minister for Lands and Fisheries and the present Minister for Education, threw a cloak of authority around the attack, in days when the tale of that military organisation still exists in the country, still holds arms, still organises, still trains, still declares that this institution has to be wiped out, this House is asked to provide pensions for the persons who have made that attack on this as a State institution, and who are continuing that attack. This State has suffered many attacks, has stood up to them in a way which must make many who faced the situation in 1922 look back and realise that it has stood up most wonderfully to the attacks that have been made against it. Similar attacks are being organised and are threatened outside. In those circumstances we submit that you cannot tolerate for a moment the acceptance of the principle that is enshrined in this Bill.

A Chinn Comhairle, I have only a few words to say after having listened to that speech, which is evidently the product of a diseased mind. I do not think anybody who had not a diseased mind could in present circumstances, and with the existing goodwill that there now is throughout the country, deliver himself of such a speech as we have now heard. In my opinion the ex-Minister has no other idea in view than to make an effort, no matter by what means, to try and prove if he can that there are people in this country who are just as unscrupulous or just as bad as he was. It seems to be the only effort he is anxious to make. I submit, a Chinn Comhairle, that in justice to the House and to the country the matters mentioned by the ex-Minister are not in order at all, and can only be put into debate for one purpose, and that is to try and raise up again the bitterness and bad feeling that existed years ago, when there was a civil war in this country, the beginning of which and the fault of which we could, if we wished, go into at length, and lay the blame on certain individuals. The ex-Minister has a weakness for documents—for certain documents. They have a weakness for declaring documents and a weakness for keeping documents secret for a long period. They divulged documents when it suited their purpose, and they kept much more important documents than the one he has now read out secret for a period of years, documents much more important to the Irish people than those he has now read out. The ex-Minister I think is of this opinion, that the time is now ripe to make a last effort to create bitterness again amongst the people of this country. I do not believe that the people on the benches behind the ex-Minister or the people on the Independent benches, are at all anxious to have that atmosphere again created. He talked and read documents about people that were to be shot at sight when there was a war on, people who were carrying on the war, parties on different sides. In warfare amongst decent civilised people there is a certain recognised code, and if people are to be shot during warfare because they are fighting against you I submit it is a decenter way of treating your enemy than by poisoning him.

A Deputy

What about the ordinary citizens?

That is the very thing. The ordinary citizens might have been poisoned too, and I suggest that all those things should have been thought of by the ex-Minister when he began to read out long statements about people who were to be shot at sight. Even from his point of view it would be much better nowadays and show much better spirit, if he left those documents hidden with the other skeletons which he has in his cupboard. I think, a Chinn Comhairle, if the debate is to proceed on the lines on which it has been started by the ex-Minister it will be a very bad thing not only for the members of this House, but for the country too. A Deputy has interrupted. We all could throw interruptions across the House. We could point out the nasty things that were done by parties on both sides. We could name men who were to be shot at sight. We could name men who were shot when they were helpless prisoners by a supposed Government, as it was then. We could name several nasty things. We could be just as nasty as the ex-Minister, and our intentions in mentioning these things could be just as good and as well-founded and as well-meant as are his intentions, but I submit that now is not the time for that. There are people in the country who, because of their actions in the national movement, because they took the stand that Ireland should receive her full national rights, were not considered by the late Government to be entitled to pensions under their regime—people who suffered from wounds, mothers who had lost their children in the old days of the fight, and mothers who lost their sons in the late struggle, and who were destitute because these people were their only means of support. Can any Deputy on the opposite benches, looking at the lists and realising the persons to whom pensions were given by the late Government, say that it is wrong for a Government, no matter by what Party it is constituted, to give pensions, something to live on, to people who lost their only means of support in the struggle for Irish freedom? Whether the lads who died were wrongly led or not, surely the relatives, looking at it even from that point of view, should not be victimised because a Party spirit is in existence in this country? I think that every Deputy on the Independent benches will look at it in that decent light instead of trying to raise up again all the spectres and all the skeletons of that civil war as this ex-Minister has tried to do, and that they will approach the matter from the humane standpoint. That is the proper spirit in which it should be approached.

If we were to go on the argument of the ex-Minister, we have no right to be here, and the Government now in office have no right to rule. We should all be outlaws still. I suggest to the ex-Minister that he had ten years in which to punish the men, and, mind you, he did it right well. There was many a morning on which he had his men out at dawn to carry out certain things, which he legalised, because he was in power, and because he had a little majority to do so. He had ten years to do that. Let him try to forget the days of his glory. They will not come again for a long time. Let him try to look at the thing from the humane standpoint. If he does, and if he does not try to prove that there are some men as bad as himself in this State, I think his action will be much more appreciated by the Deputies of this House.

I would like Deputies, if they have faults to find with this Bill, to approach it from the proper standpoint, and not from the standpoint that because somebody thought some other person a renegade ten years ago, they should start from the ugly background of a bitter or biassed point of view. There are destitute people in the country who are entitled to some support from this State because of the attitude they took, and because of the attitude their relatives took in this struggle, and I submit that the Government is only doing its duty in introducing the Bill, and that the Opposition will only be doing their duty in supporting this measure. If there are certain weak points in the measure, because of which it could probably be abused to some extent, let them point out how it is possible to prevent that happening, and not oppose it from the standpoint of the ex-Minister.

As one who has taken neither one side nor the other in the Civil War, I would not like to remain silent while this Bill is passing through the House. I can approach this matter as a humanitarian. I feel that there are some things in the Bill of which I can easily approve. For instance, I feel that it would be a source of satisfaction to many good citizens of this State if some of the dependants of those who fell during 1916 were compensated in some way. At the same time, there are provisions made in the Bill for persons outside those, and, in that, I disagree with the Minister. I have said that it would cause a good deal of satisfaction to many good citizens if those persons who suffered, and, particularly, those who have lost their breadwinners, and mothers who have lost their sons during that period, were compensated in some way.

That has been done.

Yes, but, at the same time, there were many men who gave very good service during 1916, and who, in my view, took the wrong turn subsequently, and if these men lost their lives——

These persons have not been debarred in any way under the previous Acts. There are people in receipt of pensions in respect of wounds received in a previous period who were actually fighting against the State in 1922.

I approached the Minister for Defence in the previous Government with a claim by the parents of a boy, their only son, who was killed by the Black-and-Tans, and the total amount of compensation offered to those people was £25. I leave that to the ex-Minister's consideration.

I just wanted to say that I approached this matter in the way I have mentioned, but I do feel, at the same time, that the evidence produced from the documents quoted here to-night by Deputy Mulcahy is rather convincing. What has evolved from the reading of these documents, which, I presume, are authoritative— the authority of the documents has not been questioned—is that an attack was to be made on the representatives of the people in this House—not an ordinary attack, but that they were to be shot at sight. I would like to hear something from the members of the present Government, whether they be front benchers or back benchers, to show that that spirit is now relegated to the past. It is all very fine for Deputy Cleary to talk about not reviving skeletons and old and bitter memories. I agree with Deputy Cleary, or any other member of the House who suggests that it is not right to be harking back to the tragic occurrences of 1921 and 1922, but, at the same time, I would like some assurance as a representative of the ordinary common people of this country, that that spirit is dead and gone. We have no evidence that it is dead and gone, but we have evidence every week in official publications that that spirit is not dead and gone. We have even veiled threats at the present moment that many people who do not vote in the way the Government votes may some time or another be shot at sight. I would like to have some assurance from the leaders of the present Government, or even from the back benchers, that the spirit I have mentioned is dead and gone. We have no repudiation whatever of these threats that are being made week after week by, shall I call it, the Republican Press.

We have nothing at all from the Government that that is not their view. We have protestations, of course, that they intend to go along the usual constitutional lines, but there is no contradiction of the statements to which I refer. My own view of the matter is that I would like to see persons who have dependants, and those with 100 per cent. or 20 per cent. debility wounds compensated in some way. But we must have regard to the finances of the country. The Minister estimates that if this Bill passes into law it will cost something like £25,000 this year, and there is the possibility that it will run to £30,000 next year. I daresay there will be a diminution in the cost, because of the occurrence of death, but it is a huge sum of money. Every day we hear from the Government Benches, and from every quarter, cries for economy in the public services, and while we have "cuts" in the Civil Service and threats of "cuts" in the salaries of other public servants, we have here a further huge expenditure list. I feel that the amount suggested by the Minister is rather high and that something should be done if this is a case where some little economy might be practised. I daresay the Government will be able to pass this measure, and while I have an amount of sympathy with persons who lost relatives, there must be a difference made between persons who went out in cold blood and assassinated—for which I do not stand, and will never stand—and others. There must be some difference made between assassins who went out to murder Kevin O'Higgins and the men who went out honestly believing they were fighting for their country. I have no sympathy whatever, and never shall have, for the assassin and the murderer. I hope if anything occurs as a result of this Bill, if it passes, that we are not going to subsidise or to help in any way the assassins of Kevin O'Higgins and the other men who went before him.

When the Minister is replying I would like him to make it clear whether cases that some of us consider were inadequately dealt with during the regime of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government will be re-considered. Deputy Mulcahy stated that the cases of Republicans were dealt with as well as those who supported his Party when they were the Government. I can recall the case of the eldest son of a widow who was shot while on active service in 1921, and where a final settlement of £30 was made. I am anxious to know from the present Minister if he considers that such a case was adequately dealt with, and if it will be re-considered. In my opinion it was a scandalous thing that such a small sum of money was offered as compensation to a widow for the loss of her son. He gave his young life in the service of his country when men were very badly needed. I am aware that that son had no scruple about going on active service when required. There is another class of case to which I would like to call the Minister's attention so that, when replying, he might say what he considers might be done. There are quite a number of young men in mental homes throughout the country and, as far as I am aware, there is no provision in the Bill for compensating their parents. Will an amendment be accepted so that such cases could be dealt with? It is only right that they should be dealt with. I know of a case in Mayo where the son of a widow is in a mental home and the circumstances are the same as if he was lost on active service. No compensation has been paid. I am sure that every decent-minded man will admit that such a woman is entitled to compensation for the loss of her son. The Minister should consider the question of having mental cases of the class to which I refer placed in private mental homes where they could get special care and attention. Some of these might be restored to health if they were isolated.

The principle of this Bill, I take it, is that pensions should be paid to persons who suffered disability owing to their action in arms in endeavouring to prevent this State and this Parliament from being set up, or owing to their endeavour in arms to destroy the State after it had been set up, and further to provide for the dependants of persons who lost their lives in either of these attempts. In the light of our circumstances it might appear that that particular principle would be wholly unacceptable to this Parliament. As a matter of fact that, sir, is not the case I would like to put forward. I have had an opportunity of considering this in relation to some persons who were my own acquaintances or friends, and considering it while being relieved of what I might call day to day political difficulties. It seems to me that the principle—although it might appear at first flush, wholly unacceptable to this House— might, in certain circumstances not only be acceptable but might be very desirable. If we could get into the position once and for all that the civil war was a thing of the past, and that the casualties of the civil war on either side could be provided for in so far as this kind of legislation can ever provide for these casualties, that would be an excellent thing for us. In the nature of things there are wounds and sores that this kind of legislation, and that no kind of legislation we could conceive could deal with. But, in so far as people are suffering poverty from wounds received in a cause in which they sincerely believed, and more particularly in so far as innocent dependants are suffering from the deaths of those who were their breadwinners, I think it is quite desirable that this House should do, in certain circumstances, all that it possibly can to relieve them.

It seems to me the necessary circumstances are these: That the civil war should be a thing of the past, which we would, so to speak, endeavour to liquidate, and that the threat to the State should be also a thing of the past. I do not agree with Deputy Anthony that £25,000 or £30,000, or if it were as big as £35,000 or £40,000, is very large. For my part I would consider the amount of money in the Bill quite small if we were in what we might call politically smooth water—if the State were accepted, and if we saw Ministers themselves accepting it—no one would begrudge money spent then towards remedying the difficulties under which certain survivors of the civil war, or certain dependants and casualties of the civil war were suffering. But that situation has not arisen. If that situation did arise, if there was no longer any armed menace to the State, if there was acceptance of the State, whether cordial acceptance or simply acquiescence it might be desirable, not only for a Government like the present—which contains people who actively assisted the persons who are now being dealt with in this Bill— but for any Government in this State that they should make the effort now being made in this Bill. In the position we find ourselves and in all our circumstances, it is difficult to argue for this Bill. I am in the position of one who would like to argue for it, but in a condition in which the civil war is not really over, and while at the moment preparations are being made for another civil war, it seems to be an extraordinary thing that we should proceed in this Bill to give these compensations. For my own part I feel that if the other circumstances were here, if the Minister himself and those for whom he speaks were accepting the State and if the State were removed from any threat of arms against it, and if the civil war were regarded as an unhappy incident, the victims of which on any side might be suitably relieved, it would be an excellent Bill. We are not in that position, however, and therefore I think it is a bad Bill and ought not to be.

Deputy Hayes is still under the delusion, I think, that he and his Party are the State. There were certain kings in history who suffered at one time from that delusion, and got a shock. Deputy Hayes and his Party have not yet recovered from the shock of removal from office.

Mr. Hayes

The kings lost their heads, did they not?

Deputy Hayes lost his long ago.

Mr. Hayes

Is the Minister threatening me?

I think the Deputy wants to be threatened, but we will not do it. If he wants to say anything he likes, he is free to do it. The more he opens his mouth, the worse it is for himself and his Party. We are not going to keep him or anybody else from creeping into a hole and not having to defend their position. We will ring round the empty platforms and invite them to go up and say what they have to say.

Deputy Mulcahy made one of his usual silly speeches. It is a good job that he did not claim to be stating the history of the civil war. Otherwise one might have to recall to him at length the vital factors in the civil war he forgot to mention. I would like to remind Deputy Hayes that the men for whom we are claiming pensions here are not the men who set out to destroy the State or to prevent it from coming into operation. They were the men who fought, as they thought best for Ireland, to maintain the State which Deputy Hayes and his Party destroyed without any sanction from the Irish people. They were the men also who fought from 1916 to set up here an independent State free from any form of foreign domination whatsoever. We want also to deal with the dependants of those who were killed in that fight.

I hope for the sake of good feeling in this country that the Party opposite will not vote against this Bill. If they do oppose this Bill it will arouse very many bitter memories. It was bad enough to do some of the things which they did, but it will be much worse, now that a proposition is put up to undo the harm or to relieve some of the hardship they caused to innocent people, for them to vote for a continuance of that hardship. I trust that for the good of the country they will refuse to do that, and that they will allow this Bill to go through without opposition.

I should like to refer to what Deputy Kilroy said. He asked would certain cases that had been considered in the past be given any opportunity of being reconsidered. All cases in which the Minister thinks there is a good prima facie case for a re-opening will be considered. Volunteers who are in mental homes are treated as men suffering from a disability if their present condition arises out of service. In that way, even under the present Acts, they are entitled to an allowance and the usual way of making it to their dependants or their legal representatives will be followed through. I trust that this Bill will get the unanimous consent of the House. As I say, it covers cases of hardship arising out of the Black-and-Tan War, out of 1916, and also out of the Republican side in the civil war. I should prefer, and it would be much better for this country, that all sides that suffered wounds in the civil war, and the dependants of those who were killed, should be looked after. It will help greatly to cover up the sores that arise out of that disastrous division. I have always maintained that that division and the civil war which followed from it was not the wish of the people opposite, but it was because the British set themselves to start that civil war here, and unfortunately they succeeded. If we can cover up the distress that was caused by that, it will be one step further towards a real national unity here in the country and that is what we all want to see. I trust that the good sense of all Parties in the House will discountenance any opposition and allow the Bill to go through unanimously.

May I ask the Minister one question? I am exceedingly moved by the appeal for appeasement that he has made in order to justify this Bill. I should like to feel that it does not commit one to any shaking of the fundamental principles —in other words, that we can rely on the Fianna Fáil Party to accept it as their definite policy that they will always defend against armed interference the institutions accepted by the majority in this country.

Deputy MacDermot can always rely on Fianna Fáil and the members of their Party doing what they think best for Ireland and the Irish people.

It would help this House if the Minister would say does he differentiate between the persons who opposed this institution in arms in 1922 and the persons who, under the same name, are armed and organised outside, and who, week in and week out, advise the use of arms to destroy this institution in 1932. Does he make any distinction between the 1922 people and the 1932 people so far as the persons calling themselves the Irish Republican Army are concerned?

All our Bill asks the House to do is to give sanction to wounds pensions for those shot during 1916 to 1923.

That was well done before.

I think the best thing I can do is to say no more.

And so well was it done that the Minister, in his introductory speech, said nothing about 1916. I submit to this House that——

Is the Deputy asking a question? I called upon the Minister to conclude. It is usual to allow a Deputy to ask a question after the Minister's concluding speech, but not to make a second speech.

I am asking a question.

The ex-Minister got a pension for promoting a mutiny.

The Minister appealed for a unanimous vote. I submit it is the practice, where a unanimous vote is asked for, that those asking the vote, should, by question and answer, give an opportunity of seeing whether Deputies can accede to the Minister's request. For my part the answer the Minister made to Deputy MacDermot convinces me that I cannot vote for this Bill.

Is the Minister in a position to state if this will be the last Bill of this kind? This is not a laughing matter at all. I have an open mind upon this question, but I certainly am convinced of one thing, if I am to judge by the weekly Press. Is it within the Minister's knowledge that there is a movement on foot for another revolution?

By the White Army!

It may be the white or the blue or the red army. But I want to know is this a final Bill?

Perhaps I can explain to Deputy Anthony——

No, no. The question is—"That this Bill be now read a second time."

The House divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 49.

Aiken, Frank.Allen, Denis.Bartley, Gerald.Beegan, Patrick.Boland, Gerald.Boland, Patrick.Bourke, Daniel.Brady, Seán.Breen, Daniel.Briscoe, Robert.Browne, William Frazer.Carty, Frank.Clery, Mícheál.Colbert, James.Cooney, Eamonn.Corish, Richard.Corry, Martin John.Crowley, Fred. Hugh.Curran, Patrick Joseph.Davin, William.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon.Everett, James.Flinn, Hugo. V.Flynn, John.Flynn, Stephen.Fogarty, Andrew.Gibbons, Seán.Gormley, Francis.Gorry, Patrick Joseph.Goulding, John.Harris, Thomas.Hayes, Seán.Hogan, Patrick (Clare).

Humphreys, Francis.Jordan, Stephen.Kelly, James Patrick.Keyes, Raphael Patrick.Kilroy, Michael.Kissane, Eamonn.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick John.Lynch, James B.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacEntee, Seán.Maguire, Ben.Maguire, Conor Alexander.Moane, Edward.Moore, Séamus.Moylan, Seán.Murphy, Patrick Stephen.Murphy, Timothy Joseph.Norton, William.O'Grady, Seán.O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.O'Reilly, Matthew.O'Rourke, Daniel.Powell, Thomas P.Rice, Edward.Ryan, James.Ryan, Robert.Sexton, Martin.Sheehy, Timothy.Sheridan, Michael.Smith, Patrick.Traynor, Oscar.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

Beckett, James Walter.Bennett, George Cecil.Blythe, Ernest.Brasier, Brooke.Broderick, William Jos.Brodrick, Seán.Burke, Patrick.Byrne, John Joseph.Coburn, James.Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.Conlon, Martin.Cosgrave, William T.Davis, Michael.Desmond, William.Dockrell, Henry Morgan.Doherty, Eugene.Doyle, Peadar Seán.Duggan, Edmund John.Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Gorey, Denis John.Hayes, Michael.Hennessy, Thomas.Hennigan, John.

Keating, John.Keogh, Myles.Kiersey, John.McDonogh, Fred.McGilligan, Patrick.Mongan, Joseph W.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, James Edward.Nally, Martin.O'Brien, Eugene P.O'Connor, Batt.O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.O'Hara, Patrick.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Mahony, The.O'Neill, Eamonn.O'Reilly, John Joseph.O'Sullivan, Gearóid.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Reidy, James.Reynolds, Mrs. Mary.Roddy, Martin.Vaughan, Daniel.Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26th October.
Top
Share