Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Jul 1924

Vol. 3 No. 15

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - INDEMNITY BILL, 1924.—REPORT STAGE.

The amendment on the Paper in my name is slightly inaccurate, and I would ask permission to change the year, so that it would read as follows:—Section 1, sub-section (4). To delete in line 29 the words "11th day of June, 1924," and to substitute therefor the words "1st day of March, 1922." As it appears on the Paper it is "1919," and I ask permission to change that.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

There is something peculiar about that, Senator, because is not this an amendment that you moved in Committee?

It is somewhat similar, but it is not the exact date.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Had you amended it when you gave it in?

I gave in a verbal notice of the amendment for Report Stage.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I understand. You then gave it as 1922. I am sure the House will give you permission to move it in that form.

This amendment deals with the sub-section which is concerned with the voiding of judgments already given by the courts, but the period during which these judgments could be voided would be from 11th June, 1924, until the passing of the Bill. That is a very short period, and my proposition is to go somewhat further back to cover other judgments that were given previously and which would be on the same footing as the judgments given after the 11th June, 1924. If my amendment is not accepted, or an amendment with similar objects, it will be the disagreeable duty of the Government to enforce certain of those judgments which are not just or equitable in themselves, but which are legally correct. From the remarks of the President in the debate on yesterday, I can infer that he meant I wanted to curtail the power of the Ministry, whereas the opposite is the fact. This amendment gives increased power to the Minister dealing with this Bill to bring up judgments that are already given, and if the cases in which they were passed fulfilled the conditions in the earlier part of Section 1, they can be voided and compensation paid to any person who has been injuriously affected thereby.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

What do you mean by "compensation paid"? Who is to pay it?

There is provision in this Bill for compensation.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You mean in the case in which judgment is set aside?

Yes, I would imagine so.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Where does that appear?

In Section 6. As regards the matter of judgments being voided, especially when there is compensation to be paid, it is not a very revolutionary proceeding, considering that we had at a very recent meeting of the Seanad agreed to the voiding of a judgment of the House of Lords without any compensation.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That was not your fault, Senator.

My object in bringing forward this amendment is to cover a well-known case in the County Cork, where judgment has been given and where the Executive Government, if they enforce the judgments of the courts, will have to incur a very disagreeable duty in carrying out a judgment which the public at large know is unjust and inequitable, although it may be legally correct. I do hope, therefore, that this amendment will be accepted, and I put it forward for the purpose of assisting the Government.

I second the amendment.

I am not quite clear on the question of a date. One date was proposed in Committee, there is another one down to-day, and Senator Linehan wishes now to substitute a third.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think it would be wise if the Senator would expound this a little more fully, because most of the Senators are probably in a fog about it. I know I am myself. If you turn to Section 1 of the Bill you will see that the dates in it are the same dates that you want to have inserted in sub-section 4.

These are the dates on which the action would occur.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Oh, no. "No action shall be instituted in any court of law in respect of any act, matter, or thing done after the 21st day of January, 1919, and before the 28th day of June, 1922."

That is quite all right, but what I am referring to is the date of the judgment, not the date when the deed was done. This sub-section, which voids judgments given at a certain period, does not take any account of similar judgments given prior to the 11th June, 1924. My object is to bring in a further period prior to that, and to place in the hands of the Executive Council the power of voiding such judgments given if, in their opinion, they are unjust.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That was very violently resisted yesterday by the President as going far beyond anything the Government contemplated or intended.

I think the President misunderstood my remark, because if you read the paper this morning you will see that he thought my object was to go back to some period prior to 1919, whereas, of course, there was no such thing as any judgment affecting these cases. I fear I cannot further elucidate the matter, and I leave it to the Seanad. I fear when the Government goes to execute some of these judgments they will be very sorry they did not accept my amendment.

I think this is a clear case of the futility of taking the Report Stage immediately after the Committee Stage, when the Orders of the Day cannot be circulated. Ministers do not know what additional amendments have been put down, and, therefore, we cannot get all the facts.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

With regard to that, the President is quite aware of this amendment. I have received an intimation just now that he is on the way across to deal with it.

There, again, that illustrates my point—the extreme speed with which the President is coming. He cannot keep up with it, and I personally do not blame him. I think in that case we should postpone it until he comes. I was going to suggest that we should postpone the Report Stage until next week.

I thoroughly agree with that.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

We will leave it over for the present.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

As the President is here now we will resume discussion on Senator Linehan's amendment. The Senator thinks that the President misunderstood him yesterday when speaking on this amendment, and he says that he is really bringing it forward in the interests of the Government. He hopes, therefore, that the President will view it in a more favourable light to-day than he did yesterday.

I have not anything further to add to what I said yesterday on the subject. I have been in conference with Senator Linehan on this matter, and he has not been able to shake my opinion on it. In my opinion the insertion of this amendment would practically make inoperative the security that we propose to give to persons who are being penalised. In the case of the British indemnity that we gave, we dated that for the date of the passing of the Bill, although at the time, I think there was only one post within the area of our jurisdiction which was occupied by British troops, and I do not suppose that a single one of them was affected by it. We gave it generously, covering the whole of them up to the last date. The insertion of this amendment, as far as I can understand it, would bring in all those cases—the complaints of persons who, acting under orders, took certain property. The case put forward by Senator Linehan, as I understand it, is an agricultural case, and from the information he has given me the eviction took place in 1893. Well during the period when Dáil Eireann was functioning under difficulties, from its inception about 1919 down to the Truce—I am speaking now from recollection and subject to correction, but I do not think I am making any mistake whatever—the Ministry of Home Affairs at the time refused absolutely to deal with cases in which there were agricultural disputes for any period earlier than 10 years before the setting up of Dáil Eireann.

That would bring us into the year 1909. In this case the dispute, as I understand it, occurred in 1893. It was not without consideration of the size of the problem that we were dealing with that we refused to bring in cases for a longer period than 10 years. In this case, if there were reasons for its insertion, those reasons are not to be found in any authority that we assumed during that period, and if this particular case were to be allowed in why not others, and there may have been many others. In these circumstances, I do not think I would be justified in accepting on behalf of the Government an amendment which would benefit one particular case, and which might involve a large number of persons in decrees and leave them open for liability. In the circumstances of the case, we would not be justified in leaving them under such a liability. Whatever responsibility there was at the time, it rested upon Dáil Eireann and upon the Executive appointed by Dáil Eireann. Whatever views may be held upon that, and I know there are many who dispute its right and authority and so on, the circumstances have placed us in the position of seeing that those who acted under our authority should not now be made to suffer for what was our responsibility at the time. We accept the fullest responsibility for it, and in some cases some of our friends paid a very high price for assuming that responsibility. Now a time comes when we have got to protect the persons who acted in good faith during that period, and in these cases where property was taken or other acts were performed, we are giving them that protection. A very large number of cases are listed for hearing. I do not know what the effect of this amendment would be, but a very large number of these cases could be gone on with, and therefore the protection which we pretend to give in this case would be discounted. On that account I am afraid, that on behalf of the Government I could not accept the amendment.

I am in entire agreement with the President as far as seeing that these people who acted in good faith in these times will not suffer any loss, and that they should be relieved of any liability that they incurred. The case I am referring to is the case of an evicted holding. The tenant was evicted in the year 1893, and from that period up to 1916 the evicted holding had to be held by a force of constabulary, who were in residence on the farm. The Volunteers of that district decided that it would help to terminate the British rule in this country by bringing back the evicted tenant from America.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Seems farfetched !

And placing him on the farm. That was done by persons who were qualified under the first section of this Act as persons employed "in any capacity whatsoever or in any service, military or civil." They acted in good faith in doing that, and my object in moving this amendment is to see that they in no way suffer for their action in that respect. They did it with the object to help to end the struggle that was then going on, and I cannot imagine any greater means of doing so than the reinstatement of an evicted tenant in his holding, especially when that holding had to be held by a force of constabulary during the whole period of twenty years. Judgment has now been given in that case against the evicted tenant, and I presume it will be the duty of the Executive Government to execute that judgment. I am moving this amendment with the object of giving the Government an opportunity to look into the facts of this case and to ascertain whether this was done under the conditions specified under Section 1 of this Bill. I have here the names of the military officers who carried out this proceeding. They were Lieutenant Tumbleton and Commandant Leahy, of Midleton. Under this Act the Minister can investigate this case, and see whether this action was done for the public good or merely for the benefit of an individual. I leave the matter there. I am sorry that the President could not see his way to accept the amendment. I have done my part in trying to bring about an amicable arrangement, so that the Government would not be put to the necessity of enforcing this most unpopular judgment.

I do not know, even if we agreed to insert this amendment, that this particular case would fall under Section 1 of this Act. I have been fairly candid on this question. It was not our intention in connection with this Act to validate every irregular action that was committed during that period. I know quite a number of them. I recollect in one case where officers exceeded their duty and they were pulled up by the Minister for Defence for doing so. There was a charge of £1,000 made for collecting £3,000 in rates, and as I was responsible for Local Government at the time I drew the attention of the Minister for Defence to the matter, and pointed out that it was an exorbitant charge which could not be justified. The excuse made by the officers was that by reason of their collection of £3,000 a sum of £30,000 came in later, and they claimed that they were entitled to this £1,000 in payment of the £30,000 which were subsequently collected. In that case, as Minister for Local Government, I put a charge on my estimate for £750, and I said we will only ask the officers to pay back the balance of £250. It was not paid back, but it is not my intention to validate that seizure, for which these men should have been prosecuted in our own courts. From what I have heard from Senator Linehan, the officers he refers to did not act under orders and were not justified in giving the orders they gave, nor were they justified in the action they took in that case. Even if this amendment were inserted in the place where it is proposed to insert it, I do not think there is authority given in the main section, which proposes to validate certain acts done, to validate this particular act. Even if the amendment were put in, I do not think it will effect the purpose the Senator has in view.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Indemnity Bill ordered for Fifth Stage.
Top
Share