There is not a word about the ordinary pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the Treaty. There was not a word about them in the agreement of December, 1925, which amended the Treaty, and not a word about them until the Ultimate Financial Settlement, dated the 16th of March, 1926, which the Minister for Finance signed in secret and which was not published for the people of this country until eight months afterwards. For six or eight months the Minister for Finance dare not face the people of this country with this precious document after the President had told the people of this country they had wiped out all the financial obligations to Great Britain. Under head 11 of this Ultimate Financial Settlement the Minister for Finance of his own volition and in his own discretion agreed to saddle the country with an obligation in respect of these pensions. By the terms of the eleventh head of the agreement which I have just cited the Irish Free State Government agreed to repay to the British Government 75 per cent. of the pensions and compensation allowances payable to ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary under the Constabulary Acts. The first thing to note about this eleventh head of this Ultimate Financial Settlement is that its terms of Article X. of the from the terms of Article X. of the Treaty. The exact terms of Article X. are as follows:—
"The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of Police Forces and other Public Servants who are discharged by or who retire in consequence of the change of government effected in pursuance hereof."
It is quite clear that Article X. of the Treaty referred to and was applicable only to such members of the police forces as might be actually serving at the moment when that Force was taken over by the Government of the Irish Free State.
The eleventh head of the Ultimate Financial Settlement which I read to you was, as every member of the House can see, much more comprehensive and covered not only the members of the Irish Police Force who retired or who were discharged, or who might retire or who might be discharged in consequence of the change of government, but all ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, irrespective of the date of their retirement or discharge, and whose pensions were payable, not under the Treaty, not in accordance with Article X., but under the Constabulary Acts, which are not mentioned in the Treaty at all. What justification has the Minister to offer to the House for including in the Ultimate Financial Settlement the provision which relates to the pensions of all ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who had retired prior to the Treaty? That was an obligation which Great Britain had already accepted, and which she was bound to honour, and I ask what justification can the Minister offer to this House for what was Great Britain's sole responsibility in this matter? Irrespective of whether you are in favour of the Treaty or not, there is no doubt about it that Great Britain had sole responsibility for these pensions; they were not mentioned in the Treaty, and I ask the Minister what justification he can advance for having accepted that responsibility and for shouldering the people with a burden which was not cast upon them by the Treaty?
On one occasion, when I raised this matter previously the Minister relied upon Article XII. of the Transfer of Functions Order 315 of 1922. That is the British Transfer of Functions Order of 1922. Now in dealing with that I would like to refer first of all to Paragraph X. of that Order, which is as follows:—
Nothing in this Order shall transfer to the Provisional Government the Royal Irish Constabulary or the administration or control of that Force.
Paragraph XII., which is the one on which the Minister relied on a previous occasion, is as follows:—
Any property, assets, rights and liabilities connected with the functions transferred under this Order shall, if connected solely with these functions, be transferred to the Provisional Government, and if connected partly with these functions and partly with other functions shall be apportioned in such manner as may be agreed between the Governments concerned.
It is quite clear that this paragraph, under which not only would the property, rights and assets be transferred, but the liabilities connected with the pensions under this Order would also be transferred, only relates to these services transferred to the Provisional Government. There was no subsequent order nullifying the effect of Paragraph X and thereby transferring the Royal Irish Constabulary or the control of that Force.
The Minister, therefore, cannot rely upon the Transfer of Functions Order in any way. There is no doubt but that it clearly excludes any liability for the ordinary pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and yet the Minister in the kindness of his heart, filled with an appreciation presumably of the service which "this splendid body of men" as they used to be described, rendered to the people of this country during the years when the battering ram was an instrument of British rule in this country, has accepted the responsibility for paying their pensions.
In all the years since its establishment what service have the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, those who continued to remain loyal members of that Force, rendered to this country that its members should receive such signal recognition from the Minister? In the debate upon the preceding Estimate he told us with reference to men who had served this country, those citizens who had upheld and sustained the Army of this country during its contest with the British Forces, including the R.I.C. in 1920 and 1921, that the State could not accept any responsibility for the obligations they had undertaken, and could not, in any way, recoup them for the expenses they had incurred.
Yet the Minister, who says it is impossible for the Government of the Irish Free State to render that meed of thanksgiving to its own, to those who were loyal and patriotic citizens of this country, accepted responsibility for the ordinary pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary, for the pensions of the men who never allowed any call of country, claim of pity or of mercy to deter them from carrying out the policy of their British paymasters. When they were serving that Force homes were not inviolate, altars were not sacred—we heard of the ministers of religion being arrested on the very altar by these men. We know how some of them acted as the bloodhounds of the murder gang in this country. We have heard how they have acted as instruments of evicting landlords in this country during the days of the Land League. It is for men like these, and pensions for men like these, that the Minister for Finance, who reduced the old age pensions for Irishmen and Irishwomen who had served this country all their lifetime, accepted responsibility when he signed that agreement, that disgraceful agreement, known as the Ultimate Financial Settlement. I say that the Minister cannot justify the payment of these pensions to this House, and if for no other reason than that this Estimate makes provision to recoup Great Britain for the money which she spends in paying these ordinary pensions, I think that the House should reject the Estimate.
And now I come to the other class of pensions included in the Estimate. They account, I think, for the larger portion of the £1,152,000 which is to be provided for this purpose. Before I pass to them, I would like to remind the House that when the Old Age Pensions Bill, introduced by Deputy Ward, was before the Dáil and when that Bill passed its Second Reading by the votes of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Labour Party, and—not only some Independents—but some members of the Minister's own Party, the Minister and the President of the Executive Council refused to accept responsibility for carrying that Bill through its further stages on the ground that it would impose an additional burden of £350,000 upon the taxpayers of the country. That burden of £350,000 would have been expended to make it a little easier for old men and women of 70 years of age who had served this country all their lives to secure a pension at the end of their days, would have removed certain irksome conditions relating to these pensions, and would have increased considerably the pensions to some of these aged people.
The Minister refused to find the money to provide for these increased pensions, and the Minister who refused to find that money has come to the House to-night and is asking us to provide £1,152,000 to provide for the ordinary and disbandment pensions of ex-R.I.C. men.
I have shown that as far as the Treaty is concerned, these ordinary pensions do not come within its scope at all, and that the Minister has assumed responsibility for these, not by reason of any obligation the Treaty imposed on him, but of his own volition, and out of his own kindness and generosity to those who served the British cause loyally and well in this country. What now is the position in regard to the disbandment pensions? If he were to have any responsibility for these disbandment pensions at all, that responsibility would arise under Article X of the Treaty. I would again direct the careful attention of the House to Article X. Article X is as follows:—
The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those created by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of the police forces, and other public servants who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of government effected in pursuance thereof.
I will paraphrase the Article a little and delete all qualifying words so that its purport may be clearly seen. It will then read:—
The Government agrees to pay fair compensation to members of the police forces who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence on the change of government.
"Who are discharged by it or who retire"—these are very important words. It is plain that they relate to the one set of persons, and that as they relate to the one set of persons they also envisage these persons under one and the same condition, and that is in the service, and in the service only, of the Irish Free State.
A study of the Treaty as a whole makes it clear that the Treaty contemplated that the so-called Government of the United Kingdom, as one of the parties to the instrument, was to hand over as a going concern to the other party, that is, the Government of the Irish Free State, and in this case possibly the Provisional Government of Ireland as it was called, the whole machinery of government in the country, lock, stock and barrel.
That is the first and fundamental condition in the agreement. That is a condition precedent to the operation of every other provision in the contract. All the others are secondary and consequential on the fulfilment of that condition only. If the primary and fundamental condition is not fulfilled in every respect, in relation to any department or service of the Government administration in this country, then such department or service cannot come within the scope of the secondary and consequential provisions, and accordingly they cannot in any circumstances apply to it. Quite obviously the Government of the Irish Free State could not discharge any public servant unless the service in which he was engaged had come under its control by transfer or otherwise. If a man does not enter your service you cannot discharge him from it. I do not think that even the Minister will attempt to answer that argument.
If it ever had been contemplated that the provisions of Article X would apply, irrespective of whether the service had been transferred to the Government of the Free State or not, I suggest that a different form of words would have been used in the Article. The Article, as I have shown, reads, "who are discharged by it or who retire"—retire from its service. If it had meant that this Article was to apply irrespective of whether the officers entered the service of the Government of the Free State, then the Article would have to read, and I should have to read it, as "who are discharged or who retire." Since the phrasing of the Article is "who are discharged by it or who retire," since that particular form of phrasing is employed, the Article has to be really read as, "who are discharged by it from its service and who voluntarily retire from its service." That certainly does involve a prior handing over of the service, for just as the Free State could not accept responsibility for a public servant discharged from the service of another State by that State, neither can it accept responsibility for a public servant who retires from the service of another State, and, what is more incontestable still, it cannot accept responsibility for a public servant who is forced by that other State to retire from its own, that State's, service.
Bearing these facts in mind, let us investigate the position of the R.I.C. in 1922, and see whether it fulfilled the conditions which would bring its members within the scope of Article X of the Treaty. Let me repeat again what these conditions are—first of all, that the Royal Irish Constabulary as a service must have been handed over to the control of the Provisional Government of this country; secondly, that unless it was so handed over the Provisional Government and its successor, the Free State Government, had no responsibility for the disbandment of that force, and was not entitled to assume under Article X any responsibility for the payment of the disbandment pensions of that force. I have already read to the House Article X of the Transfer of Functions Order, No. 315, 1922. I shall read it again:
Nothing in this Order shall transfer to the Provisional Government the Royal Irish Constabulary or the administration or control of that force.
There is no subsequent order annulling that reservation and transferring the Royal Irish Constabulary at any time to the control of the Provisional or any subsequent Irish Government. Until it was disbanded in August, 1922, when according to the Minister for Agriculture, he and his colleagues started civil war in this country, the force remained completely and unreservedly under the control of the Government of Great Britain.
I am sure that from the British point of view there were very good reasons for not transferring that force. If the House will cast its mind back Deputies may remember the peculiar circumstances which then prevailed in this country. We had responsible members of the Provisional Government proclaiming in Great Britain that they were prepared to observe loyally the bond which they had entered into with the then British Government. On the other hand, we had emissaries of members of that Government going through the length and breadth of Ireland, meeting groups of the I.R.A. here, groups of the I.R.B. there, members of Sinn Féin clubs in one district, and speaking at quasi-public meetings in another, all proclaiming that the moment the British forces evacuated the country the mask was going to be off and the Republic of Ireland would be solemnly proclaimed as the lawful Government in this country. The Provisional Government were speaking with two voices in this matter, one voice for their Irish dupes, and another voice for their British friends. But that did not deceive the astute gentlemen who had control of Great Britain at that time and they were not taking any chances. Although they knew that the R.I.C. had been a loyal and faithful force to them, and served them well and truly, nevertheless they thought that that fidelity, faith and zeal were largely a question as to who was keeping the salt box. The R.I.C. had always been faithful, we were told, to their salt, and if the salt box should pass from the keeping of the then British Chancellor of the Exchequer into the keeping, say, of the Minister for Finance in the Provisional Government for Ireland no one in Great Britain could tell what dreadful things might happen in this country. After all, they had the recollection of the Treaty of Limerick to guide them and they thought possibly that what had been sauce for the goose in 1690 might be sauce for the gander in 1922. Therefore, they were taking no chances, and they kept the British forces here to pursue and carry out, and make effective British policy in this country; until they found another body of men who were prepared to put this country under British control in another way.
As long as we were all united it was necessary that the R.I.C. should be maintained here under British control. But the moment the Minister for Agriculture, the war maker, had started the civil war, the moment the forces of the Provisional Government did what Macready refused to do— attacked the Four Courts and started civil war; the moment they divided the Irish people by the blood feud; then the British had no more need for the R.I.C. and they were disbanded by an Act of the British Parliament passed on 4th August, 1922.
In case there might be any thought in the mind of any Deputy that it was the Provisional Government who disbanded the R.I.C., I should like to read the first part of Section I. of the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1922, Chapter 55 (1) which is as follows: "The R.I.C. shall be disbanded on such date, not being later than the 31st day of August, 1922, as may be fixed by the Lord Lieutenant and on or before that date every officer and constable of that force shall retire from the force as and when required by the Lord Lieutenant and shall on his retirement be entitled to receive such compensation as may be awarded him by the Treasury"—not by the Minister for Finance of the Provisional Government, but by the British Treasury—"in accordance with the rules contained in Part I. of the Schedule to this Act."
First of all, in regard to this Act, I should like the House to note that it was passed by the Imperial Parliament, not even by the Parliament of Southern Ireland and not by the Parliament of the Provisional Government, if there were such a Parliament in existence; certainly not by the Second Dáil and not by the Dáil which was elected in 1923. Secondly, this Act compulsorily retired every officer and constable in the force. They were left no discretion in the matter, no option or election. The section definitely decrees that every officer and constable shall retire from the force as and when required by the Lord Lieutenant. That is all there is to it. They had to go when they were told to go, and they were told to go under these circumstances and under these conditions. And when they were told, under such circumstances and under such conditions, they were discharged, but discharged not by the Government of the Irish Free State, but by the British Government.
I think I have made perfectly clear to the House the circumstances under which the R.I.C. were disbanded. Let us get back now to Article X. of the Treaty. Article X. of the Treaty states:—
"The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation to members of the police forces who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change in government."
It is quite clear that when the words, "who are discharged by it," were inserted in that Article, only two positions were contemplated—the first position being that of a public servant who was discharged from its service by the new Government, and the second position that of a public servant who would voluntarily retire from the service of the new Government. Forced retirement from the service of any Government is in effect a discharge by that Government. In the case of the R.I.C., all the men were discharged by the British Government. It is explicit in the words of the Article that they could not possibly, in view of the fact that they were discharged by the British Government, come within the terms of Article X of the Treaty. I admit possibly that an argument, which would not be a sound one, might be put up that if an officer was not actually discharged from this service if he remained in the service of Great Britain, and by reason of the change of Government was afterwards found to be a redundant officer and retired from that service of his own volition. I admit that the Minister might put up an argument like that, but I do not think it would be a sound one. In this case, however, there is no question of that. In this case the officers and men of the R.I.C. were definitely told that they should retire on the order of the Lord Lieutenant. They had to get out. The whole force was disbanded, and had to go. Thus they were discharged by the British Government. That is the position?
I submit I have shown quite clearly to the House that there is no obligation under the Treaty to pay £1,152,000 that it is proposed to vote under sub-head M of this Estimate, for the purpose of repaying to the British Government the moneys they have expended in respect to ordinary and disbandment pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary. What then is the position. £1,152,000 is to be taken from our people, wrung from the toil of our workers and small farmers. Widows will have to pinch and scrape in order to provide that money; children may have to go hungry in order to provide it, and they may have to go without boots to school or without a rag on their backs. Shopkeepers who at the present moment are unable to make ends meet will have to find some part of that £1,152,000. But they need not find it if the members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party place their responsibilities and duties to the people above their loyalty to the Minister, and refuse to honour this misconceived agreement into which he has entered.
After all, if you are in favour of the Treaty, surely you are entitled to stand, in dealing with England, for the letter of your bond. There is nothing in that bond or agreement, nothing in Article X. that imposes upon you the obligation of finding that £1,152,000 to pay the ordinary and disbandment pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary. If you are here as responsible Deputies, sitting as the true representatives of the people who sent you to this House, you must put the interest of the people first. We know very well how the farmers have been crying out for relief. We provided a miserable three-quarters of a million for them. We know that so far as the great mass of the farmers are concerned that will afford no real relief.
[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]
Here you have £1,152,000 to add to that; that additional sum would almost completely de-rate the agricultural land in Ireland. It is in the power of such Deputies as Deputy Gorey, Deputy Dr. Hennessy, Deputy G. Wolfe, and Deputy Bennett to keep that money here in this country and to devote it to the complete de-rating of agricultural land in this country. As to whether this money goes wrongfully out of the country or stays in it they have it in their power to say, and I challenge them, after the case that has been put up to them, to go into the Lobby and vote for unjust and wrongful payment of this £1,152,000 of the Irish taxpayers' money over to the British Government.
