I desire to raise this particular case of a claim for compensation made by Madame MacBride in view of what I consider the unreasonable and unjust attitude taken up by the Minister for Finance. In the first place, I do not see why a claim of this kind should be considered outside the scope of this particular Compensation Committee or any of the Compensation Committees which dealt with the claims for property seized or destroyed during the Anglo-Irish struggle. Personally, I am not acquainted with the terms of reference of this particular Compensation (Ireland) Committee, as it is called. I think there should be some machinery whereby compensation could be obtained in this particular case. The actual facts of the case are as given in a letter by Madame MacBride in which she says: "During the Anglo-Irish war in 1920 my motor car was seized by the English. My son was driving it, and the offence was that he was driving Countess Markievicz, T.D., who was on the run at the time. My son was kept in jail for three weeks, and was afterwards released without trial or explanation. The car was seized by the Black-and-Tans. It was a seven-seater Standard, worth £200, and essential to me, as I was very ill at the time, after being six months in jail in Holloway, and by the doctor's orders I was living in a cottage in the Wicklow Mountains, only possible if one had a car. After the Truce, Mr. Cope had promised that the car or its equivalent would be returned. Mr. Duggan also promised the car would be returned, but after the shelling of the Four Courts and my son's internment I could get nothing done. I applied to the Claims Commission in Ely Place, who, after investigating the matter, admitted my claim, and after great delay recommended me for £125 compensation. Mr. Blythe struck my claim off the list of claims recommended, for the alleged reason that Madame MacBride was responsible for destruction. Last week the Commission sent me an official letter saying my claim was not within the terms of reference."
Further down she says: "Mr. Blythe also opposed a claim for damage done to my house at 73 Stephen's Green by Free State soldiers, but eventually I won this in open court before Judge Drumgoole. Judge Drumgoole said it was quite evident my sympathies were not with the Government, but that did not prove that I had done any destruction or anything which would invalidate my claim to compensation. Unfortunately, the Claims Commission works in secret and not in open court or I would have my award paid for the car." In reply to a supplementary question as to whether there were any other cases where a recommendation was made for an ex gratia payment by this Compensation Committee, and whether he had acted on a recommendation in any of these cases, the Minister for Finance replied that he had. When I asked him what was the essential difference between Madame MacBride's case and the other case in which he acted upon the Committee's recommendation, he said that Madame MacBride's case was not one of hardship and that the others were. I do not agree with that statement.
Perhaps Madame MacBride has been able to exist without the actual payment for this car. But there are hundreds of other people who received payment of their claims in respect of property, whether seized or destroyed, who could have done without that money. They would not have actual starvation if they did not receive compensation. I do not think that the Minister should use that as a reason why the claim should not be paid. I am quite sure that there are thousands of other people who received adequate compensation in respect of motor cars which were seized both by the British forces and by the Republican forces during the Anglo-Irish trouble. In fact, when the Minister puts forward this plea of no hardship he is changing his ground on the matter, and I am quite sure that this plea of no hardship is only being put forward just to cover up the case, because the Minister adopted, as far as I can see, quite a different attitude on this matter before.
As Madame MacBride pointed out, he struck her name off the list of claims for the alleged reason that she was supposed to be one of those responsible for destruction during the civil war. Madame MacBride gave me a letter which was sent on to her by Senator Yeats, who was looking after this question for her a year or two ago. I do not usually quote Senator Yeats, but I suppose under the circumstances I will be forgiven. He says: "In connection with your claim, Mr. Blythe writes to me as follows," and he gives the actual words of Mr. Blythe in inverted commas. The actual words are: "In regard to the action in the case of Madame Gonne MacBride's compensation claim I can only say that the decision in this matter was taken advisedly and will not be altered. As Madame Gonne MacBride was one of those responsible for the destruction which placed such a financial burden on this country, I felt bound to refuse her compensation."
That apparently is the actual or supposed reason why the Minister has turned down this particular claim. I consider that that attitude, as displayed in that quotation, is most unreasonable and unjust. Madame Gonne MacBride should be entitled to adequate compensation in respect of that car which was seized by the British forces in 1920. When the car was seized it was actually being used for national work, and Madame Gonne MacBride should be as much entitled to compensation as those other people who have received adequate and, in some cases, over-generous compensation for property that was destroyed during the Anglo-Irish trouble.
Even if we were to look at this case from the Cumann na nGaedheal point of view, surely the fact that Madame MacBride was a Republican and was sympathetic to the Republican forces during the civil war should not debar her from receiving compensation for a motor car that was seized by the British forces during the Anglo-Irish trouble. In fact, this question of destruction and responsibility for destruction that has been raised before is just a smoke-screen. I think that the statement of the Minister in connection with Madame Gonne MacBride is unfounded and most unfair. To my mind it would appear that the reason for the refusal to deal with this claim has simply resulted from political spite and political prejudice against Madame Gonne MacBride, and especially on account of her activities during the past couple of years in connection with political prisoners. That is all I have to say in the matter. I ask the Minister whether, in view of what are undoubtedly altered political circumstances in the country, he would not reconsider a case like this.
