It is certainly beyond any doubt that that was the arrangement arrived at in 1922. Since then people with, apparently, short memories have been attempting to put a different construction upon the agreement, and to suggest that in certain classes of cases the principle of each side paying for the damage committed by its own troops and adherents should not be maintained and acted upon. It is in connection with that matter which has arisen that I am crossing to London this evening. Many despatches have passed between both Governments on the subject. Sometime ago the Minister for Finance himself crossed to London and had a conference there with some British Ministers. The most that perhaps I can say on the subject at the moment is that that principle is being maintained, the principle embodied in the agreement arrived at in January or February, 1922. That principle is being strictly maintained by the Executive Council, and will be maintained.
Now, there are certain classes of damage which do not come within the scope of the Wood Renton Commission or the Shaw Commission, as it was known, and which are none the less a very real grievance to the people concerned—damage occasioned by commandeering, damage occasioned by deterioration through neglect or otherwise of property that was commandeered, inconvenience and loss occasioned by the occupation of houses and so on. Damage of that kind does not come within the scope of the Commission which is now sitting, or within the scope of any claim that could properly be laid before the courts. Generally it may be taken that claims which would not come within the scope of the Malicious Injury Acts could not be brought before the existing Commission, that is which would not come within the scope of the Malicious Injury Acts had the damage in every case been committed, say, by a civilian or a body of civilians.
It is a hardship that as yet there is no recognised compensation for loot. It is a hardship that whereas if a man's goods were brought out to his backyard and burned, as did occasionally happen in these good old days, there would be compensation. But if they were thrown in a lorry and driven away there would be none. That is an anomaly, and it is something that would require treatment in the future. But Deputies will appreciate the difficulties in dealing with cases of loot or of alleged loot. The law in the past, or the existing law, makes no provision for cases of common robbery or theft or loot. The taking away of property is not covered, but injury or destruction to property is covered by the law.
I take it that the guiding principle there was simply the practical difficulty of proof. It is not impossible that you would have stories of masked men coming in and taking £500 in notes out of a teapot. You do not know whether they did or not, and your belief, or disbelief, in the story will depend very much on what you think of the narrator. As I say, the law did not make provision in the past for the mere removal of property as distinct from its destruction. There have been rather prolonged negotiations on the subject. There should be established here by agreement some kind of court, tribunal, or committee which would deal with those, undoubtedly, genuine and pressing cases which are not covered by the existing Commissions—cases of property taken and not returned, or returned in a very deteriorated condition, cases of houses commandeered and occupied for a long time without compensation, and cases of loss to traders owing to restrictions imposed by the powers of the military under regulations which prevailed here at the time. The members of the motor trade suffered very considerable losses. Certain other establishments, such as printing places, were closed down and cases of that kind are not covered by the existing Commission which is dealing only with injury to, or destruction of, property. The expression has been used that we were hoping to have established here a branch of the War Compensation Court. That might easily create a false impression, and it is not a set of words that ought to be adhered to in this connection. The War Compensation Court has a very definite meaning. It is a tribunal established in England to meet cases of loss inflicted on civilians in England, due to the action taken by the military authorities there, in the conditions which prevailed in the course of the European war. The military, as of course happens in every country in time of war, were given very arbitrary and comprehensive powers which they had to use in disregard of the rights of the civilian population. That Court was established to meet cases of that kind. It had its own terms of reference, which would not be at all applicable to the conditions which I have been touching on, the conditions of this country, and the kind of cases that remain to be dealt with arising out of the conditions that existed here. Therefore, I think, neither by the members of the Executive Council nor by other members of the Dáil, ought the phrase become stereotyped that we want to establish here a branch of the War Compensation Court.
We want to establish by agreement some court, committee or tribunal which will deal with cases of loss and injury that are not covered by the terms of reference of the existing Commission. That might be done by an extension, by agreement, of the terms of reference of the existing Commission, or it may be done otherwise, but it is certainly a matter which ought to be done, and done in the near future, having regard to the considerable number of cases of genuine loss and hardship that still remain and have not yet been adequately dealt with. The main thing I want to make clear is this, that no principle has been, or will be, recognised by the Executive Council other than this, that throughout the years in which there was conflict arising out of the fact that there was one administration here based on force, and endeavouring to maintain itself by force, and another administration here based on the results of the election of 1918, based on the popular will, injuries accruing, damage to property accruing, as the result of the conflict of these two administrations, and whatever forces they could muster, have to be met; there is no fairer principle by which that could be met and no fairer principle which we would be willing to consider other than this, that the damage committed by the adherents of a particular side must be met by that Government. That is the principle on which we stood in the early months of 1922, and that is the principle on which we still stand.