I should like to ask the Minister if he will consider amending Section 4 in order to bring in those men of the Connaught Rangers, who took part in the mutiny in India, and whose cases, in the opinion of many on these benches, have not yet been adequately considered. It is up to the present Government, in my opinion, to see that these men, whose cases have not been properly dealt with, will not be overlooked.
In Committee on Finance. - Army Pensions Bill, 1932—Committee.
Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I raised this matter with the previous Government in conjunction with another Deputy, and I should like if the Minister would give some consideration to it. The case of these men is very well known, and there is no need repeating what Deputies said on that occasion. I think this is an appropriate time to raise the matter and I hope the Minister will be able to give an assurance that the case of these men will be properly and adequately considered.
I will undertake to look into the matter. Deputies, of course, are aware that this is a wounds and disabilities Pensions Bill, and that we can only bring such cases into it. If it is agreed to extend it to Indian mutineers they can only be compensated in respect of disability arising out of service, and to look after the dependants of those who were killed. I promise to look into the matter, and if we accept it, to deal with it on the Report Stage.
The amendment on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy MacEoin is out of order for two reasons: that it widens the scope of the Bill and would involve an additional charge.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
There are on the Order Paper several amendments to Section 5 in the name of Deputy Mulcahy. It might be contended, and contended on good ground, that amendment 2 is out of order as being a direct negative. I am not quite convinced on that point. Therefore, I am allowing the Deputy to move it. The Deputy will have the option of moving amendment 2. The decision on that, in my view, will embrace the variations covered by amendments 3 to 10 inclusive.
The ruling of the Ceann Comhairle on this is very important. The Ceann Comhairle is prepared to rule that amendment No. 2 is in order. That amendment is a very wide-reaching one. The other amendments, 4 to 10, inclusive, are much narrower in their scope. Surely it is conceivable that there may be members of the House who would like to vote against amendment 2, and yet would feel inclined to vote for amendments 4, 5, or 6. I put the matter in this way: I can well understand a person having accepted the principle of the Bill refusing to vote against amendment 2. Yet I can imagine various Deputies, for instance, the Minister for Justice or the Attorney-General, voting for amendment 5. I can imagine a person voting against amendment 2 on the grounds that he does not want to destroy the principle that pensions will be given to those who entered into revolt against the State. Yet, I can imagine a person connected with the Press or having the interests of the Press at heart —the President for instance—voting for amendment 7. My difficulty with your ruling is that it seems to me that you have laid it down as a principle that when an amendment, wide in scope, is defeated, that rules out narrower amendments afterwards. That has a very serious effect as a precedent so far as all other Bills are concerned. I can well imagine that while a person might not be willing to give £100 he might be willing to give £20. It is conceivable that there are members of the House who would vote against amendment No. 5, and would feel bound to vote for amendments 4, 6, and the others up to 10. On these grounds, I would ask you, sir, to consider your ruling. The mere fact that you accept amendment 2 rules out other amendments, which themselves are in order.
As the Deputy who has just sat down has said, amendment 2 is a very wide amendment. It is so wide as to be almost a negative. The principle approved by this House is to give pensions or gratuties to members of certain named organisations and amendment 2 seeks to deprive of such pensions persons who were in the terms of amendment No. 2 "in revolt" during a certain period. I think that amendment 2 covers all the other classes. Having allowed the wider amendment to be debated there is no necessity to debate the others, which segregate into certain classes those who were "in revolt." That is to say you are aiming to eliminate certain people who were in revolt—endeavouring to fix responsibility which it would be impossible to fix in these particular cases, that is to fix responsibility on individuals. Taking it that the House has approved the principle of giving pensions to people who were in revolt and relating that, for instance, to Section 5 of the Bill which requires such persons or classes to have been "on duty," and to the fact that Section 6 proposes to establish a Board to judge applicants' cases, I am of opinion that the decision on amendment No. 2 will cover amendments 3 to 10 inclusive.
May I point out in reference to your ruling that I can well understand that if amendment 2 were accepted then, of course, amendments 4, 5, 6, and 7 could be ruled out because there the greater would include the less. But if the House refuses to accept the amendment, surely it should be given the opportunity of giving an instruction to the Committee as to how it should carry out its work, even in details. As I understand your ruling it means that because the House has accepted the principle of the Bill it cannot make any modification as to the conduct of these people because as you have clearly pointed out yourself amendment 2 is very wide, such as to affect the whole principle of the Bill and to be almost a direct negative. Surely the fact that you may not accept a direct negative is no reason why an instruction should not be given to the Committee referred to in Section 6 as to how it will deal with persons guilty, or alleged to be guilty, of certain conduct. Therefore, it seems to me that your ruling would deprive the House of the opportunity of giving the necessary instruction to the Committee.
I would like to add this, founding my remarks on the phrase that you, sir, have used. The amendment referring to people in revolt covers the other sections that are referred to in amendments 3 to 10. Does the phrase "in revolt" necessarily include all the things that are referred to in amendments 3 to 10? Take the case of a man who was in revolt, say illegally robbing a bank— it is referred to in amendment 10 in this way "while illegally taking moneys from any bank." I think it must be ruled that the phrase "in revolt" necessarily covers people who took money from a bank before it can be ruled that a discussion on people "in revolt" rules out a discussion on people who illegally took money from a bank. You have yourself referred to the section which sets up the Board. Surely it is within the competence of the House, indeed it is the duty of the House, to lay down the terms of reference, if the House is so pleased, for that Board, and that the House, while generally accepting the principle of not ruling out people because they have been in revolt, may still say that although people were in revolt if they illegally took money from a bank, they should not, therefore, be given pensions.
It seems to me that a general ruling from the Chair that an amendment which is wide enough should necessarily include certain other amendments will if decided, positively or negatively, rule out discussion upon other amendments. But unless the larger amendment necessarily includes the lesser I suggest it is not right to have discussion on amendment 2 operating as a closure on discussion that the House would like to have on those categories of people covered by the words "in revolt."
Two points have been raised: First, as to the conduct of people, and second, as to the interpretation of the term "in revolt." It is not the duty of the Ceann Comhairle to interpret. My statement was that I considered the position, on No. 2, covered the operations that amendments 2 to 10 aimed at covering. The whole debate can take place on amendment 2, which would cover all operations. Otherwise we would be sitting here to do the work which the Board has to do. The Board is appointed for purposes under the Bill. The term "on duty" would cover the term suggested by Deputy McGilligan as to the irregular robbing of banks. I have come to the definite conclusion that it is on 2 we are to cover all the points from 2 to 10, and that there should be one division.
As this has a wider application than to this Bill, I think it might be further considered. The Board has to determine what is covered by the phrase "on duty." Surely it is for the House to determine for the Board what the meaning of acts done on duty is. I suggest the House has a right to lay down special terms of reference by which the Board will be able to determine every case of whether acts were done on duty. The right of the House is engaged. It has no power to decide on amendment 2 what is set out in amendments 2 to 10. To get back to the original proposition. Must the House decide only on one point; that is, whether men considered for pensions have been in revolt? The Board may be willing to rule for people to get pensions because they were in revolt, but nevertheless they may rule out people for certain kinds of actions mentioned in amendments 3 to 10.
I consider that the term "in revolt" covers all these classes and can be debated on amendment 2. It would be very difficult for the House to have a decision leading to a definite matter and then to segregate all these matters and go into every particular case.
The House is establishing a board. Has it no right, under the Bill, without a breach of the principle approved on Second Reading, to lay down for the Board certain regulations that will rule in carrying out its duties?
May I suggest that the House has the right of deciding upon what you say, namely, laying down an instruction. If they have the right I suggest your ruling is depriving them of that right that they have. That is my difficulty. If the right is there, as you clearly point out, then this decision in your ruling deprives the House of that particular right. It is for the House to exercise it. The ruling here may affect amendments to any Bill brought in of a complicated nature.
The House has approved of the principle that certain persons should be allowed pensions or gratuties. I take it that these different categories mentioned in amendments 3 to 10 are covered by the term "in revolt," and that a debate on amendment No. 2 should decide those other amendments. That is my decision.
I think the terms "in revolt" and "on duty" are quite distinct things. "In revolt" is a thing easy to understand, but "on duty" is not so easy. It is for the House to decide what "on duty" means. If this House does not define it no board or court can define it. The Commission will merely be a rambling commission, and it will not be able to decide what is the correct meaning of the words "on duty." In regard to the general term "in revolt," people understand that it means persons engaged in revolt, men who bore arms against the State.
A person may be in revolt. He may have been a member of various bodies at the beginning of the Free State, or at its inception, and, being in revolt, he may have done certain things. The House may approve of giving a pension to a person in revolt, but may not approve of giving pensions to persons who, in addition to being in revolt, committed certain crimes. That is the essence of the matter.
I rule that a decision on No. 2 covers all the other amendments, 2 to 10 inclusive. Does the Deputy move his amendment?
Amendment No. 2 is not moved, and amendment No. 3 is not moved, but amendments 4, 5 and 6 will be moved.
In that case then I shall give to the Deputy a new option. The debate to be taken on amendment 4, and the decision on No. 4 will cover amendments 4 to 10 inclusive.
I submit very seriously that the House, in granting pensions to an organisation against the State, is entitled to draw distinction as to those going to be tolerated as coming within a reasonable sphere, or a reasonable kind of revolt, and that it is entitled to decide, if it wishes to do so, and to show distinction between an act which results in the killing of a member of the Oireachtas, or taking money from a bank, or setting a railway engine running along a railway line, destroying railway property, or putting a bomb into a cinema and blowing it up. I submit the House should be fully entitled to consider the granting of pensions to persons "in revolt," and to discuss and to discriminate between them and persons who took part in these particular kinds of actions that I have described.
Can we have your ruling, a Chinn Comhairle, put in a general fashion as to how the discussion of an amendment ruling out people who attempted to kill a member of the Oireachtas Government, can be related to a discussion of an illegal attempt to take moneys from a bank?
No. 4 amendment appears to differentiate between those in revolt, and men who have done, while in revolt, certain things which did not necessarily follow from such revolt. The House will either agree to that amendment or not. If the House does agree I take it as deciding that these actions be not taken cognisance of, and that pensions for those in revolt are agreed to in accordance with this Bill, without going into all the different categories set out in amendments 5—10. I am of opinion that the whole question may be debated on No. 4 amendment, and that it may be taken as covering all other deeds those guilty of which the Deputy wishes to exclude from the Bill.
I wish to point out that amendments 4 to 10 are inclusive, and that the usual practice, when there are amendments to one section, say to Section 5, is that the question is put to the House as to whether that section stands.
Is that the practice?
It has been the practice.
There is no such practice.
Would the Ceann Comhairle rule on that?
It is not a matter of ruling. It has not been the practice, as a matter of fact.
I am against applying a guillotine motion to these resolutions. I think you will agree, sir, that a man having very strong views on the taking of human life in a time of trouble and revolt might, by no means, have such strong views on the question of taking money, or as it was put, expropriating money from banks. I can quite understand how a person might wish to exclude one from that category and wish to include another. None of these amendments is any more general than another. I suggest that all these amendments stand on the same level, so far as their universality is concerned. They are all equally embracing in that sense, and deal with different matters. It is practically ruling out the possibility of distinct and separate amendments on one section of the Bill. That is practically the precedent that is now being laid down, I submit, with all due respect to your ruling, sir.
It has been ruled, I think, in the case of the previous amendment, that when a Deputy moves a wide amendment, and when the House rejects that amendment, a Deputy will not be allowed to move any other amendment less wide. I do not know that there is any precedent for that. The ruling now is that if the Deputy moves an amendment endeavouring to make a distinction from the general rule, and if that particular distinction does not commend itself to the House, a Deputy is not to be at liberty to move that the House should make another distinction. That would have an extraordinary effect on Committee proceedings. I want to suggest that when a Deputy moves one amendment, making an exception to the general rule accepted by the House, if it is ruled that when the House refuses to make that one exception, it cannot be asked to make another, Committee proceedings will be radically different to what they have been hitherto.
It is not the intention in this particular case to lay down rules for all Bills. The Chair is entitled to say that. The Deputy was given the option of moving amendment No. 2 and did not avail himself of it. There is now the option of moving amendment No. 4. The House has approved of the principle of giving pensions or gratuities to men who were in revolt. I hold that the decision on amendment No. 4 will decide whether the House desires to narrow that decision or not, and that such decision can be taken as covering six subsequent amendments.
Mr. Hayes
As you say, sir, the Ceann Comhairle has a right to make the statement that the ruling does not cover other Bills, but a ruling given must be based on this principle, that it must be capable of application to all Bills unless there is something in this Bill to differentiate it from others. The amendments must be ruled upon according to the principle applied to all Bills. I did not want to interfere on the point of order, but the second ruling seems to involve that if a Deputy on the Committee Stage moves to make an exception to the general rule, and if that is defeated, he can move to make no other exception. May I submit that, undoubtedly, in this particular Bill, if the House was foolish enough a certain trend of discussion might arise which would be undesirable. The possibility of undesirable discussion should not, I submit, influence the Chair to give a ruling which would have the effect of restricting the rights of Deputies on a Bill, and make a precedent for other Bills. It can be left to the commonsense of Deputies to debate this matter in a proper way. To say that an exception made in amendment 4, if defeated, will govern all other exceptions is to make a completely new principle.
It is quite interesting to hear Deputy Hayes talking to the Chair.
Mr. Hayes
Is this a point of order?
It is a point of order. I want a ruling so that the House shall be entitled to come to a decision and to have that decision effective. A definition of the duties of the Chair has been properly given by you, sir. The House is entitled to come to a decision. If some silly Deputy wants to make 101 amendments in a section surely the House could not come to a decision. The House has a right to come to a decision and I suggest that, a ruling having been given, we can get on with the debate.
One thing rather puzzles me so far as the ruling is concerned—it may be a stretch of the imagination—covering amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, and possibly 8. I draw a distinction between amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7 and amendment 8 because there is a question of human life. There is a segregation in respect of the various amendments, first attacking a member of the House; secondly, attacking judges, and then going to the editors of newspapers. The House was invited to express its view on what "war" covered in respect to these items. We have various types of war. Take property. The House would be asked to give a decision, say, on the wanton destruction of public property, the property of public companies, or the property of private persons. Was that a matter which the House thought would entitle a person injured in such an experiment to get a pension? Again, if you take another departure from the strict rules of law, involving bank managers and the taking of something from banks not your own, under stress of law or by force, that is a separate item. These are certainly different subjects for consideration. One might have one which would take in public officials, which in ecclesiastical matters have a standing superior to that of the ordinary individual. You have, then, from the point of view of the democrat interference with the Press. Some protagonists of democracy hold that that is a thing which should not be countenanced by anyone. There is a question of human life, a question of public property, a question of property belonging to public companies, and to private parties, and then there is the question of going to banks. To my mind all these are different principles and would fall for different judgment by the House. In his lucid explanation the Minister rather stressed the view that the House was entitled to come to a decision. That is what we are pressing for.
It came to a decision.
It came to a decision on a special point.
If it were necessary to have this passed by 8 o'clock to-night I could well understand why the guillotine motion should be introduced. What we are anxious for is that the House on the different sections should be allowed to give free opinion on each of these categories. The idea, because there are a number of amendments, that seven-eighths of them are to be ruled out, as the Minister for Defence suggests, reduces the whole Committee proceedings—if the point raised by the Minister is followed —to a farce.
It is not on my suggestion that these amendments are being ruled out of order. If we were forced to take these amendments one after the other, I should be better pleased— that is, if we were forced to do it in that way. I should much prefer that Deputy Mulcahy had agreed to my suggestion to do what would be the generous thing, if he has any generosity left; that is, to put the past behind and try and rectify some of the mistakes. But if we cannot have the discussion stopped, I am prepared to go through every item and discuss the amendments up to 8 o'clock in the morning.
I am not denying that the Minister is quite willing to discuss the amendments. But there is a bigger question raised. That is the ruling given by the Chair, which we are asking to have reconsidered. The question of the Minister's willingness to discuss the amendments is quite irrelevant. The question is whether, on Committee Stage, the Chair can rule out heterogeneous amendments—that when a decision is taken on one amendment, it should be made applicable to all. That is the general question of order and not the wishes of a Minister.
This is not a question of generosity; it is a question of duty. In pressing this point of order, we are only performing our duty to the House. If you, a Chinn Comhairle, rule that a decision on amendment No. 4 will govern the other amendments, this House, composed of persons who try to do their duty, is put into the position of saying that because they decide to allow pensions to fellows who threatened the lives of members of Parliament, they must tolerate the shooting of Mr. Denis McGrath, Manager of the "Cork Examiner," on the 21st January, 1923, he being severely wounded. Not only that, but they must tolerate and give pensions to those responsible for the smashing up of the waterworks system of Portlaoighise and other towns and countenance the taking of a railway engine driver at Tralee, and the shooting of that engine driver because he would not carry out orders to destroy his engine. Bearing in mind my responsibilities to this House, it would be very wrong if I did not raise my voice and point out to you, a Chinn Comhairle, that your ruling places the House in a position in which it ought not to be placed.
Might I put this question in another guise, a Chinn Comhairle, before you give your ruling? There is a regulation which prevents a Bill, brought forward and defeated, being brought forward again within a certain time. By way of analogy, if I brought in a Bill to give some sort of preferential treatment to a person who attempted to kill a member of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann, and if that Bill were defeated, would I be estopped from bringing in a Bill to provide pensions for persons who had attempted to destroy private property?
That is a hypothetical question.
That is the conclusion that follows from your ruling.
It is not my function to draw conclusions.
I take it that the Chair would react very strongly against the suggestion that my defeat on a Bill to provide pensions for persons who had attempted to assassinate members of the Saorstát Government would prevent me from bringing in a Bill to provide pensions for folk who had attempted to destroy railway property?
The anxiety of the Opposition seems to be not to set up a precedent. At the same time, the Opposition asks the Chair to reconsider its decision, which would be setting up a rather dangerous precedent. Discussion is not to be curtailed in any way on this matter except that a decision on all the questions will be taken on amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
Why?
I think that is giving the Opposition a good deal more latitude than they ever afforded on any matter while they were in office. In addition, I suggest that it is rather late in the day for Deputy Mulcahy or Deputy Cosgrave to decide that there are certain things which should not be done during war time.
The Deputy knows a good deal about that.
You will know a good deal more before this debate is over.
On a general point of order, Deputy Clery has stated that members of the Opposition should not be given less favourable treatment than they gave to their opponents.
I did not say that.
Mr. Hayes
I think, a Chinn Comhairle, that that statement involves you, as a member of the Government Party, and that a Deputy should not be allowed to make it. You are ruling from the Chair and Deputy Clery should not make the statement that the Chair is ruling on behalf of the Government.
I said no such thing. I said they were getting much more latitude than they ever afforded.
Mr. Hayes
This is a very important question. If Deputy Clery says that the Opposition is getting more latitude from the Chair than they ever afforded, what does he mean?
Not from the Chair.
What did he mean?
I mean what I said.
Taking into consideration all the points raised, I shall allow two votes. Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 are all modifications of amendment No. 4. They are merely variations, and the debate on No. 4 and the decision on it must be taken to cover 5, 6, 7 and 8. I am prepared to allow a separate vote on the two amendments dealing with offences against property—namely, amendments 9 and 10.
To be quite clear, am I to understand that not merely is there not to be a separate debate allowed on amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, but that there will not be a separate decision allowed on these amendments? This House will not be allowed to have a separate debate because they are cognate, and they will not be allowed to decide on the amendments separately?
Not only are they cognate but they are actually slight variations of the same thing, and a decision on No. 4 should certainly govern 5, 6, 7 and 8.
There can be only one decision.
Yes, on amendments 4 to 8, inclusive.
It is, therefore, the same to kill a member of the Oireachtas as to kill an engine driver?
Or to kill a prisoner.
We have got away from the point of order.
You were asking for it.
The Minister is annoyed. That is the whole trouble.
SECTION 5.
Sub-section (2) In this Part of this Act—
the expression "pre-truce military service" means military service during any part of the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1916, and ending on the 11th day of July, 1921; the expression "post-truce military service" means military service during any part of the period beginning on the 12th day of July, 1921, and ending on the 30th day of September, 1923;
the word "killed" includes (in addition to the matters included therein by the Acts of 1923 and 1927) death as an immediate result of refusing to take nourishment while detained in prison and death by violence while a prisoner.
I move amendment 4:
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the previous foregoing sub-section, no person shall be deemed to have been engaged in military service while shooting or otherwise killing or while attempting to shoot or otherwise to kill any member of the Provisional Parliament or of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann; nor while destroying or attempting to destroy any property, the property of a member of the Provisional Parliament or of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann.
This is an amendment which could very easily have been taken separately, discussed briefly and decided. Like the letters addressed to the Chairman of this House and the Chairman of the Labour Party a few days before Seán Hales, a member of this House, was assassinated and the Vice-Chairman wounded in an attempt to kill him, this amendment speaks for itself. The members of this House since they came into it in 1922 have borne very serious and crushing responsibilities. The same type of opposition given to the setting up of this Parliament in 1922 is still threatened outside by an organisation bearing the same name, by an organisation having arms and by an organisation from whom no attempt is made to take these arms. To my mind, it is essential that in any armed revolt, when the representatives of the people in Parliament have to take decisions for the protection, safety and development of the country, they should enjoy free exercise of judgment; that this House as a whole shall not have its mind bludgeoned nor constrained by threats of assassination to take action that it does not consider is proper action from the point of view of safe-guarding the people and in the interests of the whole people. And I submit that in countenancing pensions for persons unfortunately wounded and unfortunately killed in the rebellion against the Provisional Parliament and subsequently against the Government of the Saorstát that this House should not countenance in any way as military action the taking of the lives of individual members of the Oireachtas, or failing to be able to get at these persons, to go as was done and destroy their homes which were at that time the only shelter of their womenfolk or children.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
This House does know that one of its members was assassinated and that an attempt was made to kill the Vice-Chairman. The House does know that not being able to get at Deputy McGarry at the time they burned his house and they took the house of Deputy Cole and they burned it. They burned Senator Moore's house and the house of Senator Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde and the house of Michael Doyle, one of the Deputies of the Farmers' Party in Wexford.
And many others besides.
I mention some of those that come most readily to our minds. I submit to this House and Parliament that in the circumstances in which it finds itself to-day, and particularly in view of the absence of any kind of reasonable reply on the part of the Minister on the occasion of the Second Reading, that the House should pass this amendment; and that the House should declare that while it thinks fit to pension persons in respect of injuries received in the revolt, that it does not include in that category persons who went out and assassinated unarmed members of this Assembly; or failing being able to attack the members of the Oireachtas individually who went and burned and destroyed their homes.
I would like the Minister or any Deputy, particularly I would like that the present Minister for Justice or the present Attorney-General who may be more sensitive in these matters than the Minister, to say why this House in looking back over the past years should tolerate the granting of pensions to persons injured in an attack on any judges of our courts. These judges quite as much and perhaps in some ways more than individual members of the Oireachtas take a very critical and very laborious responsibility. They have to hold the scales of justice against the criminal. They have to hold the scales of equity against other persons. In the early part of 1922, as was drawn to the attention of this House on 20th October, the District Courts, Circuit Courts and other Courts that were being set up under the Provisional Government and under the Government of Saorstát Eireann, were described by Padraig Ruitleis having assumed the Ministry for Home Affairs and by Eamon de Valera having resumed the Presidency, as "re-establishing in this country the old British Courts owing allegiance to the King of Great Britain." I am aware that some persons threw a cloak of authority around these statements. I think there must be a viciousness present to even cloak that viciousness to some extent by assuming authority. But that gave no excuse for men to turn around and set out as was set out to assassinate and kill men who were in the position of judges, great or small, in this country, holding, in the interests detachably of the people as a whole, the scales as between criminals and the people of the country and holding the scales of equity between the persons that sought equity. The Garda Síochána were set up here in very difficult times as an unarmed force and I think the House would stain its honour and would prejudice its people for the future in tolerating any piece of legislation that would include pensions for persons who had attacked the unarmed members of the Gárda Síochána.
I turn now to the Press. I have already spoken of the threat of death to Martin Fitzgerald. I have already mentioned the shooting of Denis McGrath of the "Cork Examiner" in January, 1922. If this House has any sense of its responsibility it will not expose the Press of this country to what is implied in the refusal to accept amendment No. 7. As far as the general injuries to civilians is concerned, I have already referred to some of the ways in which civilians were dealt with, from the case of old Doctor O'Higgins to the case of the engine-driver in Tralee, and I will just give a sample of the way in which on 6th March, 1923, within three miles of the centre of the City of Dublin a deliberate attempt was made to wreck a train filled with workers from Howth and Sutton. Similar things happened in many parts of the country. I do submit that it is doing what Deputies on the far side have done so very often and attempted in so many cases that meant something to the people of this country. They are degrading the idea of military service when they ask to have included in a Pensions Bill men who are engaged in some of these acts.
When I spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill I turned one cheek and on the day of the Financial Resolution I turned the other. But Deputy Mulcahy wants to come along. I think he is so foolish that he thinks we are going to run away from this debate; that, because we did our utmost to avoid bringing up the past and creating more bitterness, we were in some way afraid to deal with these things that have happened in the past. I know that Deputy Mulcahy is nine-tenths of a fool and one part martyr. He is like the boy who stood on the burning deck, sitting over there now. The Cumann na nGaedheal people always got him to do the dirty work and when it was finished they kicked him out. I am sorry for him.
I did not want to enlarge this debate or to go back over some of the things that happened in 1922. The Deputy was foolish enough to believe that all the documents were burned. That was a very foolish mistake on his part. He got quite a considerable amount of the stuff burned, but the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley, and Deputy Mulcahy's attempt to destroy all traces of what he did, and of what he instigated others to do, in 1922 failed miserably. I have here some very interesting documents. I did not want to quote them. I had some idea when we were coming into office that if we searched for certain documents we would find out the truth of what happened in the past, but I did not search for them. I wish to forget all about them, and it was only when it became evident that Deputy Mulcahy was going to try to blacken men who fought with us by raking up documents and statements of things that occurred back in 1922 that I decided to see what might have escaped to show what sort of man Deputy Mulcahy was, and what reliance the people of this or any other country were to place on any of his statements.
Deputy Mulcahy talks here about the destruction of civilian property. Did Deputy Mulcahy, in any of the Pensions Bills introduced by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, put into them any clause which would prohibit from getting a pension a man who destroyed civilian property in 1922 or a man who attempted to kill members of this Oireachtas in 1922? No, he did not. Did he insert a clause which would prohibit a man who attempted to kill a representative of any other Parliament from getting a pension? Not likely. Did he insert a clause which would prevent a man who committed rape drawing a pension? Not likely. Did he insert a clause which would prohibit men who blew up unarmed prisoners from getting a pension? Not likely. Did he insert a clause that men who contemplated poisoning wells were to be prohibited from getting a pension? Not likely. Did he insert a clause that men who beat defenceless women and tarred their hair were to be prohibited from getting a pension? Not likely.
Under the Military Service Pensions Act, men were to be granted pensions when a Military Service Board said that they committed acts "while performing their duty as members of the Irish Volunteers or the Irish Citizen Army." The 1927 Act was something the same as the present Act, and we have here in this Bill provision for the setting up of a Military Registration Board which will adjudicate on the question of service and, while I have no duty to defend everything that ever happened in this or in any other country, I certainly will stand up for this, that any man who was killed or who was wounded or who got disease while carrying out his duty, according to the instructions of his superior officers in the I.R.A., is entitled to a pension, no matter what he was instructed to do.
Deputy Mulcahy knows that many things were done in 1922 and 1920 which people in cold blood would not do. That is true and, surely to goodness, he should understand the background of the men of 1922. They did not go half as far as he wanted people to go in other days. They were carrying on the same fight. Because Deputy Mulcahy deserted to the British side is no reason why they should hold back from the methods which he had taught them. I know that Deputy Mulcahy was not the originator of many of the things. He had not the brains to devise a whole lot of plans, but he always took responsibility for them. He was put up as the dummy. I do not believe, for instance, that he was the deviser of the plan for all the executions in 1922. That was done by other men. The plan was devised, but he did the dirty work and took responsibility for it, and, just as they kicked him out after 1922, and deserted him, they got him to introduce these amendments to-night and have deserted him. They have always left him to do the dirty work. As I said, he is nine-tenths a fool—
Is that a case for shooting members of the Oireachtas?
Did Deputy Mulcahy insert, in any of his Bills, a provision that any man who attempted to shoot a member of the Oireachtas, or a representative of the people, was to be debarred from getting a pension? He did not.
There was no necessity.
Deputy Mulcahy knows that if such a section were included some of the pensioners, unless they were as big tellers of untruths as he is, would be debarred, and, of course——
Does the Minister suggest that people were shot because they were members of the Oireachtas?
Because they were members of the Oireachtas?
Yes?
Because they were members of the Oireachtas did not save them, and, talking about people being shot, I went down through this document——
On a point of order. We are dealing here——
This is not a point of order. I will give way when I am finished.
Is the Deputy raising a point of order?
I am raising a point of order, yes, and it is, that the Minister is very far from the amendments that are before the House.
Oh, I see. I am not a bit surprised that the Deputy is anxious that I should get away from the line I was going on.
I am trying to make the Minister useful.
I was interested in reading down these proposed amendments to Section 5 to see that while men who were members of the Dáil were protected, while judges were protected and everybody else protected, the ordinary, plain soldier was not protected. You could shoot any soldier you liked in the Free State Army and, still, Deputy Mulcahy and his people would entitle you to a pension. I fought against members of the Free State Army, and I think as much of the life of the meanest and lowest of them as I did of Deputy Mulcahy's. Why should I get a pension, supposing I was wounded during the Black-and-Tan or Civil War, and if it could be proved that I shot Private Tom Murphy from Cork or some place else? But although Deputy Mulcahy was also a soldier, he claims immunity. I would not get a pension if I fired at him although he wore a uniform.
I claim that the soldier's attitude should not be "Oh, instead of shooting a soldier, let us shoot a judge or a civilian or some other person, because, hang it, a soldier is as good as any one of them."
The soldier's attitude is not the attitude taken by Deputy Mulcahy, anyway. The soldier's attitude is that if a man is the victor he behaves like a victor, and, if he is vanquished, he behaves like a man who has been vanquished. A soldier's attitude would not describe Deputy Mulcahy's attitude during the past nine or ten years. When he happened to be the victor, he displayed all the traits of the bully—nothing magnanimous, nothing generous. When a man was down, he kicked him, and I think that Deputy Mulcahy, and others in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, should remember that we are here discussing the provision of pensions for the dependents of those who were executed, and in some of the cases executed under most diabolical conditions. Deputy Mulcahy, for instance, in any of his Bills did not insert a clause that any man who gave drink to a firing squad—so much drink as to make them unable to carry out their duties in an ordinary humane way—may be debarred from getting a pension. In other parts of the Bill we will probably examine Deputy Mulcahy's bona fides—what reliance exactly can be placed on any word of his. There is one particular case where the late Deputy O'Higgins was concerned, in which he found that he could not trust Deputy Mulcahy one inch.
Is that an excuse for shooting members of the Oireachtas?
You might be excused for putting some of them across your knee, anyway. There is no one going to waste any bullets on Deputy Mulcahy. We all hope that he will live long so that he will reap the full contempt of the Irish people. I would shoot anybody whom I found shooting Deputy Mulcahy, or shortening his life by one day.
Dundalk!
I think, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, that the House should reject these amendments, that the Registration Board will carry out its work and will see that only people who are doing their duty and carrying out the orders of their superior officers will be entitled to pensions. They will proceed under the same rules and regulations practically that the Committees of Reference which investigated service proceeded under in the Acts of 1923 and 1927. The Act of 1923, as I said before, says that any man who was wounded while performing his duty as a member of the Irish Volunteers or Irish Citizen Army is entitled to a pension if he is wounded or contracts a disease on service, and his dependents were entitled to an allowance if he had been killed. But as regards anybody getting a pension who breaks the laws of the country there is a section in the 1923 Act which provides for the forfeiture of pensions and allowances under certain circumstances. The section reads:
If any officer or soldier to whom a wound pension has been granted under this Act is, during the continuance of such pension, convicted of any crime or offence by a court of competent jurisdiction in Saorstát Eireann and is sentenced by that court for that crime or offence to imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term exceeding three months or to penal servitude for any term, the wound pension granted to such officer or soldier, and also any further pension granted to him on account of his being a married man, shall be forfeited as from the date of such conviction.
That clause is incorporated in the present Bill—that clause from the Pensions Act of 1923. Then there are penalties for false declarations and other matters like that. I think it is a pretty water-tight Bill as it stands, and that only people who are entitled to pensions will get them. I claim that, for the sake of the peace of this country in future, men who were wounded in the civil war on either side and men who were wounded in the Black-and-Tan war should be looked after, and that the dependants of those who were killed—people who were innocent of any connection (some of them, of course, urged their sons to go out and fight), but even so, if they are now destitute and if they were dependent upon those who were killed, I think that the State should come forward and grant an allowance to keep mothers and fathers in their old age, or to keep the wives and families of the deceased.
A Leas-Chinn Comhairle: Might I, as a man of peace, be permitted to intervene in an atmosphere of war, just to say what I think about the whole position? Now sir, I have abstained from voting on the two divisions—the only two, I think, which took place—on this Bill, because, as I indicated on the introduction of the measure, I felt that there were many persons in this country who took part in the war activities of 1916 and who suffered material losses, who are not being provided for, but that on the other hand, provision was about to be made for many persons who took up arms against the properly constituted State of this country. Now, sir, it boils down to this in my view. The people were asked—the ordinary common people of this country were asked —in 1922 to choose freely for themselves a Government. The country decided to return to this House a certain number of representatives. A number of the Deputies elected refused to take their seats.
They were not permitted.
They did not take their places.
War was declared on them.
They did not take their places. It does not alter the position. At any rate the majority of the people of this country decided on returning to this House a certain number of public representatives, which formed the majority of this House—the majority of the elected representatives of the people of Saorstát Eireann. That cannot be denied. Now let us get down to the brass tacks of the whole position. The Minister for Defence began, rather unhappily, I think, by alluding to Deputy Mulcahy and likening him unto "the boy stood on the burning deck," failing, perhaps, to look over his own shoulder and at either side of him to discover that there were two Casabiancas in the House, because the Minister was alone on the Front Bench when he made that reference to Deputy Mulcahy. Now we have it established that we have two Casabiancas in Dáil Eireann. Now, sir, I had hoped to continue this attitude of splendid isolation in relation to this measure, but having listened to the harangue, the outburst of the Minister for Defence has certainly helped me to change my attitude in relation to this measure. That a responsible Minister in any Government should in any country stand up and defend the action of men who took up arms against the properly established and constituted State of the country, is to me a surprise. I should say it would come as a surprise to every seriously minded citizen in Saorstát Eireann to think that a responsible Minister should have—let me say, and I say it advisedly, and I am weighing my words in saying it—the audacity to stand up in this House and defend the action of those men who went out with malice aforethought and, according to the Minister, shot down members of this Oireachtas and who forsooth, because they had the authority of some officer or some other superior person to do these foul deeds, we must because of that bring them under the ægis of this measure and grant them pensions. For what? For what, in my view, was nothing short of assassination, and I would like to have every honest-minded person say what he thinks of this measure, and I do not propose, on this occasion, to leave this amendment to pass without voting on it. As I say, I wanted to preserve my attitude of splendid isolation, but owing to the speech of the Minister for Defence I feel constrained to vote for this amendment put down in the name of Deputy Mulcahy. Now, sir, I do not want to import any bitterness into this discussion. I feel that the two big Parties in this House might conduct such debates as we have listened to on this occasion, and on other occasions, in some other Chamber, or in some other place, other than by dragging them into the debates of this House. Now, sir, I have personal knowledge of some of the events which it is sought to translate into heroics by reason of the introduction of this Bill. I have knowledge, as one engaged in newspaper production for many years, of a group of people, possibly acting under authority—authority in quotation marks—some person who had a personal animus or spite against the proprietors of a newspaper. I have personal experience of seeing two newspaper offices wrecked, 1, the "Examiner" office in Cork, and 2, the "Cork Constitution" office, also located in the City of Cork. The "Cork Constitution" office never survived that attack; the "Examiner" happily did, and it was due to the loyalty of the staff, and due to the co-operation of other staffs in the City of Cork that that paper was enabled to continue publication. Now, sir, can I be told, can some of the persons put out of employment owing to the activity of these scoundrels be told, that a State such as this—a Government such as this—properly constituted and set up by the people, is to reward that class of activity? Perhaps at some future date some other Government, possibly more advanced, possibly with a greater tendency towards the left than the present Government, will bring in another Bill asking us, and asking the Irish people, asking the Irish taxpayer, to compensate the persons who murdered Superintendent Curtin, who murdered young O'Brien in the Tipperary hills.
We have not that here yet.
We have not yet. I am not at all satisfied, and I feel that the people of this country are not satisfied, and will not be satisfied with all that is contained in this measure. Now, surely, when Deputy Mulcahy asks that certain persons should be excluded from the operation of this Bill, those persons being indicated in his amendment, when he asks that no person shall be deemed to have been engaged in military service while shooting or otherwise killing, or while attempting to shoot or otherwise kill any member of the Provisional Parliament, or of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann, or while destroying, or attempting to destroy any property, the property of a member of the Provisional Parliament, or Oireachtas, of Saorstát Eireann, he is not certainly asking too much of any Government with any sense of responsibility, or any sense of reasonableness. Now, sir, in the final analysis who is it foots the bill and who is it footed the bill for most of this destruction of property? The ordinary common people of the country. Who suffered as a result of the activities of those irregular soldiers who broke up the railway lines and railway services of this country? The railway workers. The railway workers suffered, and I have very grave doubts that the railways would be in such a bad economic position to-day were it not for the activities, and the very dangerous activities that were indulged in about that period. We have got to recognise one fact, at any rate, and we have only one choice to make. Do we, or do we not, even at this stage, recognise that Fianna Fáil is the Government? I do. I recognise President de Valera as head of this State; he has been placed there by the votes of the people; but if I were to suggest that because I did not feel myself in agreement with President de Valera's policy, or with the policy of his Government, if I were to suggest to disgruntled people in the country that because I am opposed to President de Valera's policy I should go out on the hustings and advocate that he and his Ministers should be shot, because when it has all boiled down that is what this Bill means. It means you are about to compensate people who took up arms against the properly established State —a State established through the medium of the ballot box, and not through the medium of the bullet or of the gun. I feel, sir, it would be cowardice on my part if I allowed this occasion to pass, seeing I intended to vote in this matter, not that I give a fig for the measure as a whole, because I find it has not included the persons who should be included—the persons who suffered serious damage and serious loss as a result of the activities of these people, and as good Irishmen as any of the men on the Front Benches opposite. Therefore, I intend to support this motion of Deputy Mulcahy, though I abstained from the previous division on this Bill.
In his speech Deputy Mulcahy said that we wanted to give pensions to men who degraded the ideal of military service and degraded the ideals for which so many people stood in the past. Now, I pointed out that Deputy Mulcahy has not, in the past, moved to insert clauses in the Bill prohibiting certain people from getting a pension if they had done certain deeds, and that was no oversight on his part, it was done for very good reasons. For instance, he did not have any clause, and remember that this Bill is an Act to extend and amend the Acts of 1927 and 1923, and if the Deputy had wished he could have made these amendments which he is moving to this Act to apply to certain people in 1922. He could have made it cover cases in which his Party when a Government already gave pensions. For instance, he could have made it cover this case, a case reported by the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins to the Chairman of the Army Inquiry. Mr. O'Higgins said:
Passing to the consideration of a specific case, I invite the attention of your Committee to an outrage which occurred at Kenmare (I think) about the 2nd June, 1923. At about 1 o'clock at night, three men called to the residence of Dr. So-and-So. After some parley the door was opened to them. They dragged his two daughters, clad only in their night attire, out into the grounds surrounding the house. After flogging one of the girls with a Sam Brown belt, on hearing a whistle blown loudly within the house, they decamped hurriedly, rubbing wagon grease in the hair of both the girls before departing.
Has this anything to do with military service?
It has just as much as the documents read by the Deputy on the last day. We are just examining the Deputy's bona fides.
On a point of order, I suggest that this has nothing to do with the granting of pensions under the previous Act for wounds or disability. It has nothing to do with the passing of an Act which deals with the granting of pensions for wounds or disability.
I was allowing the Minister to develop his argument and endeavouring to see the relevancy of it.
It is quite relevant. Deputy Mulcahy criticised the Bill on the grounds that it did not prohibit certain classes of people from getting pensions.
Is it the Minister's point soldiers who did these things are in receipt of pensions?
Yes.
Wounds pensions or disability pensions?
For goodness sake, if the Deputy could not behave and carry himself like a victor, let him show a little bit of Irish spirit and show that he can take a defeat anyway. That is not asking too much.
I understand the Minister is quoting from some document put before a Committee which sat in 1924. Is it in order to introduce documents that have nothing to do with military wounds or disability pensions?
I understand the Minister is making the case that a Bill had been introduced and passed through the House which gave pensions to certain people who, it is alleged, carried out certain operations which were not commendable in any sense. I understand he is making the point, with certain relevance, that if Deputy Mulcahy objected to pensions being given to certain people under this Bill, surely he should have the same opinion in regard to these other people.
I am just asking whether it is in order.
Deputies will be interested in seeing why Deputy Mulcahy wants to prevent this being read.
I spoke in the interests of order in the House.
I was reading an extract from the letter of Kevin O'Higgins to the court of inquiry at which Deputy Mulcahy was one of the principal people involved. It described the beating of two young girls down in Kerry and the rubbing of grease into their hair.
After flogging the girls with a Sam Browne belt, on hearing a whistle blown loudly within the house, they decamped hurriedly after rubbing wagon grease into the hair of both girls before departing. Within a week of this outrage, I was visited by Mr. X, Mr. Y and Superintendent Z of the Civic Guard. Mr. X and the Superintendent expressed themselves completely satisfied that this brutal outrage had been committed by Major-General A, Captain James B and Captain Edward C, all of the Kerry Command.
Mr. O'Higgins immediately spoke to the Minister for Defence and the President about this matter. The President was ex-President Cosgrave. He was fully cognisant of this. He is very wroth to-day that any person who ever laid a finger on civilian property should be entitled to get a pension. In part of the letter Mr. O'Higgins said that Mr. X was now convinced that it was the work of the officer of the Kerry Command and the two officers named above. The Judge Advocate-General forwarded the proceedings of the Inquiry on to the Minister for Defence in the first week of July, recommending an immediate court-martial of the persons concerned. "There was no court-martial," said Mr. O'Higgins. He did not drop the matter there. He took the matter up with the President and with Dr. McNeill, and he actually went as far as to write to the President, the then President Cosgrave, and declared that he would not be a member of the Executive Council unless the thing went through. I shall read the letter afterwards.
Mr. O'Higgins then raised the question of his letter of the 17th August to the President, and "asked what action had been taken or would be taken with regard to the Kenmare case. The Minister for Defence stated that when he came to consider the file in this case he found that it was inextricably bound up with a previous breach of discipline, and while he was examining fully into this, the military situation gradually improved, until it became a moot point whether it could be claimed that a state of war or armed revolt existed."
On a point of order have you, A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, been able to make up your mind that this is relevant to the matter under discussion?
Does the Deputy suggest that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has not been able to make up his mind?
I have given a ruling to this extent. I think the Minister might curtail the reading of some of the letters. I have given the ruling that Deputy Mulcahy's amendment aimed at excluding certain people, who, because of their actions, he thinks are not entitled to pensions. That is the aim of Deputy Mulcahy's amendment.
Yes.
The Minister is pointing out that under previous legislation certain people did get pensions and he is indicating some of the actions in which these people who did get pensions indulged. There is a certain relevancy in that.
He is quoting certain statements. Would it be in order to take other documents that are relevant to that particular case and read them to the House, and deal with all the circumstances of the case that was put up against these statements?
I have already asked the Minister if the people mentioned in the documents are in receipt of pensions. I have accepted the Minister's word that that is so. It is on that I am basing the relevancy of the reading of the documents, but I would suggest to the Minister that he might curtail it.
On your ruling, that would mean bringing in all the rebutting statements in respect of the case the Minister has made. Can we now ask that all the documents rebutting these statements should be brought here?
Not necessarily.
You have only one side of the case. Can I have a ruling?
We listened on the last day to what was described in the papers as the reading of documents for an hour and a half. I have only read one document yet. If Deputy Mulcahy has not very much brains he has certainly a very good memory. He butted in just before I came to a very interesting quotation.
Deputy Mulcahy has asked whether it would be in order to produce rebutting statements. If Deputy Mulcahy has any such statements he will be in order in submitting them to the House.
Is it not absurd ——
It is absurd.
——that a long drawn out case which has been the subject of inquiry should be discussed here in the elaborate detail in which the Minister is now proposing to discuss it, not having any relevance to wounds pensions or disability pensions?
I submit that Deputy Mulcahy should not ask me for any decision as to the absurdity of some of the documents read in this House.
As I say, Deputy Mulcahy shows that he has a good memory. He interrupted me at the point where the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins was describing how he had, without avail, tried to persuade Deputy Mulcahy to deal with these officers against whom there was all the evidence of the brutal outrage of which I read. He went on to say this: "Informations were not sworn and no prosecutions took place. Six months later the Minister for Defence submitted the names of Captain B. and Captain C. for renewal of commissions and positions under the reorganisation scheme." Not alone were they not prosecuted or prohibited from drawing pensions, but actually, with the full knowledge of their deeds in the possession of the Minister, were offered to the Executive Council for new Commissions, and it was interesting to see that the reason he stated was that he "found that that case was inextricably bound up with a previous breach of discipline." What was that previous breach of discipline? What pal of the Minister was implicated in that other breach? Why was it that he could not proceed against these gentlemen because of that other breach? That would be interesting to find out.
In view of the importance of these statements, might I ask the Minister if any other reason was given for the failure to prosecute these men? The House has been given so much information that seems to reflect such fearful discredit on the late Government that it seems to me to require some reasonable explanation.
The only reasonable explanation I can give——
Let us have the whole file.
The Chair has no power to order their production.
Deputy Mulcahy read file after file here the other day and there was not a single interruption.
They were relevant.
I turned one cheek to Deputy Mulcahy on that occasion and I turned the other cheek to him to-day. I did not want to resurrect these matters, but I said I would have to go into the defence of the men who fought and fell by my side, and show up the men who were maligning them. If it were only myself that was concerned I would not give a snap of my fingers for anything that Deputy Mulcahy or anybody on the other side might say. The less they think of me, the more I think of myself; but when they start to malign the men who fought and fell by my side it is my duty to show how much or how little reliance can be placed on the words of Deputy Mulcahy and the others on his side. I have shown from the lips of men who sat side by side with him for years and knew him intimately that Deputy Mulcahy, with this knowledge in his possession, stood up for giving pensions to men who had behaved in this brutal way. Knowing that men dragged out two young girls, beat them with belts and rubbed grease in their hair—one of the lowest crimes, I think, ever committed in this country by any set of people—knowing of these crimes, he refused to have the perpetrators of them court-martialled, allowed them to get pensions, and actually offered them for re-Commission in the Army. And the only reason—to answer Deputy MacDermot's question—that I can see is that given by Deputy Mulcahy to the late Kevin O'Higgins, that that case was "inextricably bound up with another case of a breach of discipline." I suppose that—to put it on the best footing—it would not be in the public interest or for the public good that that other case should come out. If they were tried for the one case, they might spill the beans on another perhaps even more terrible and horrible outrage with which some of the Minister's pals were mixed up, or perhaps even the Minister himself. That is the only reason I can see for it.
The late Deputy O'Higgins, in bringing forward these cases to the Executive Council, felt very keenly about the matter—so keenly that on 17th August, 1923, he wrote as follows to President Cosgrave. Remember that Deputy Cosgrave here to-day protested that anybody who laid a finger on civilian property should not get a pension. He was fully aware of all the facts of this case, and the following letter from the late Kevin O'Higgins, written on 17th August, 1923, to President Cosgrave will prove it:—
"I am reluctant to add to your present worries and anxieties, but simply as a matter of self-respect I feel bound to define my position with regard to the Kenmare scandal. If this case is not dealt with in a perfectly clean, straight way I could not agree to join a future Government and I think it fairer and decenter to say that now than wait until such time as the matter might arise in a practical way.
I cannot accept the position that any political exigencies could excuse us in condoning an outrage of that kind, if it be shown that officers of our Army were implicated. I happen to have seen and gone carefully into the evidence and I regret that steps were not taken to verify one very important statement, that is that Lieut. C (who left for Dublin on leave the morning after the outrage) had scrape marks on his face.
I do not want you to misunderstand the object of this note. I do not wish to seem to be shaking a stick over any one's head. On the contrary, I am writing to you now to avoid the appearance or suggestion of springing any surprise packet. I realise that there are many things wrong in the Army, as elsewhere, which it will take time and patience to set right, but this thing is in a class of itself, and I, for one, could not stand for any omission to sift it thoroughly and apply ample disciplinary measures to whomsoever is found guilty. The decent disciplined officers in the Army, and those who are neither decent nor disciplined, are watching this case closely, realising that it is going to ring the death-knell of discipline or banditry.
Will the Minister pass that letter over for the official record?
We did not see many of your files.
I want to say this, in fairness to Deputy MacEoin and others like him, that the late Kevin O'Higgins was simply pointing out that if the undesirable elements in the Army were not brought to book it would bring discredit on the decent element. It certainly shows that the decent officers in the Army were as much opposed to these disgraceful acts being allowed to happen as others were ready to commit them, and did commit them with the personal knowledge of Deputy Mulcahy.
That is questionable.
To repeat the words of the late Mr. O'Higgins: "The decent disciplined officers in the Army, and those who are neither decent nor disciplined, are watching this case closely, realising that it is going to ring the death-knell of discipline or banditry."
He went on to say:—"You may feel that on the question of acceptance of refusal of a post in the next Government it would be more proper for me to wait until I was asked, and that I am taking something for granted in assuming that I would be asked."
The Minister has not said whether he is passing over that letter to be recorded in the official records of the House.
The Deputy may be assured that it will be recorded. The letter continues:
I appreciate that aspect, but after considering the whole matter very carefully I decided that it would be more frank to state my position now, than to wait and allow you to address an invitation to me later in ignorance of my intentions.
I realise also that I ought not to assume too readily that the case would be burked or shelved. I am aware, however, of what occurred after the preliminary inquiry at which Major General X presided. Those who had given evidence pointing to Major General A were placed under arrest on a six months old charge and the Minister for Defence has informed us that their court-martial is pending. Now these officers may or may not have been implicated in the burning of an Irregular's house last March. Whether they were or not has nothing whatever to do with the outrage on the McCarthy girls. Why is the matter raised now after many months? The deduction that it is intended to discount their evidence in the other case is irresistible.
That letter was signed by Kevin O'Higgins, and it was sent to President Cosgrave. It is dated 17th August, 1923. That letter goes further. It shows the attitude of the gentlemen on the opposite side, who now object to any man getting a pension should he have laid a little finger on civilian property on the instructions of his superior officers, believing that he was doing what was right. The Deputy over there knew very well that three officers had dragged those two girls out at night, had beaten them with a Sam Browne belt and rubbed grease into their hair; and not alone did he allow them to get pensions without any protest, and not alone did he not court-martial them for this outrage, but he actually court-martialled others who might give evidence against them in order to put them out of the way. Then he came to the Executive Council and offered them new commissions in the Army. This is the sort of gentleman who, here to-night and for two nights past, I allowed to slander men who fought with me, to slander men who fought without pay in the way they considered best for the country, and who carried on after Deputy Mulcahy deserted. They stuck to the flag which he asked them to fight for and encouraged them to fight for for so many years.
As I have stated, I did not want to go into this matter at all. I appealed twice to the Deputy and I gave him the greatest possible opportunity. I did not say to him "I am appealing to you because I have something here which will show you up." I gave him every opportunity of withdrawing his opposition to this Bill. I appealed to him on the grounds of generosity and out of consideration for the fact that he had his hands in the woundings and in the deaths and in the bereavements. I appealed to him in his generosity to allow these people who are now destitute to be dealt with. I gave him the opportunity of putting it on that plane, but he did not do it. I was forced into doing this. It was not in my own defence, because I do not care a rap what the people opposite think of me. I certainly think that twice was enough to allow Deputy Mulcahy to slander the dead. That is the reason that I have given these facts to-night. They were dragged out of me and I gave the Deputy every opportunity of avoiding this.
One fact emerges from the documents that have been read by the Minister for Defence, and that is that the loss this country has sustained by the death of Kevin O'Higgins can hardly be exaggerated. I rose, however, not to say that, but just to say two things. One is that if a case like this has to be dug up— I do not say that the Minister for Defence was not justified, owing to the exigencies of the debate, in digging it up—I suggest that it should be the established practice that every possible paper connected with the case should be circulated among the members of this House afterwards so that full facts and not half facts would be known.
Do you want any more?
The second thing I rose to say was that at an earlier stage of this Bill I sought to justify myself in voting in favour of it by putting a question to the Minister for Defence. In point of fact I did not vote at all. I would have liked to have voted in favour of it on general principles of appeasement. The question I put to the Minister was whether we could now take it as the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party that this State, the institutions of this State, should henceforth proceed undisturbed by armed interference, and that the will of the majority of the people of this country should be allowed to prevail. I failed to elicit any acceptance of that principle from the Minister for Defence, but as I see the President of the Executive Council here now I take the opportunity of making the same appeal once more.
I thought that if the Deputy was not satisfied with my answer on another occasion he would have asked me a further question in order to elucidate the position and make it quite clear. I was under the impression that I had answered him to his satisfaction. The Deputy does not know the history of this country or he would not have thought it necessary to ask that question.
I should be glad at any time to sit for an examination with the Minister for Defence so far as Irish history is concerned.
The Deputy would not have the files.
It is not what a man does not know that makes him a fool; it is what he does not know but thinks he knows——
I must ask the Minister——
A short lesson in Irish history might not be out of place in the case of Deputy MacDermot.
It would not be out of order, anyway.
If Deputy MacDermot knew the history of the last twelve years—the true history—he would not have thought it necessary to ask the question he did ask because the members of the Party on these benches have all along stood exactly for what the Deputy now asks us. They stood for it in the past, in 1922, and all along the line.
For the will of the majority?
Yes, for the will of the majority.
I allowed Deputy MacDermot to ask a question and I allowed the Minister for Defence to proceed a certain distance. It must be remembered that obviously we cannot reopen all this question on these amendments. I am sure Deputy MacDermot is aware that such a big question cannot be reopened on the amendments.
But the question was never answered.
In 1918 a Government was set up and we did our utmost to prevent that Government from being destroyed by some of the people who are now sitting opposite and they acted without the people of the country being consulted.
If the question cannot be asked obviously it cannot be answered.
I ask the indulgence of the Chair to say that I am not trying to cast any reproaches on the past actions of the Fianna Fáil Party. That is not my object at all. I am not trying to imply anything. My anxiety is only for the present and for the future.
I realise that, but a better opportunity must be got to discuss that, not on these amendments. They are sufficiently wide.
The Minister appears to have worked off a spleen against some one or two officers whom he has called X, Y, B. I submit that he has attempted in doing that to do something which is not relevant at all to this matter and that it is only to obscure what is before the House. The Minister speaks about my slandering men with whom he fought. I ask Deputies to throw their minds back on what exactly I did do on the Second Reading of the Bill. I simply traced that there were certain persons who assumed a certain authority and who issued certain instructions as a result of which general action was taken. I asked the House to bear in mind that in dealing with this Bill they were dealing with a situation that arose in that particular way, and that outside this House to-day a similar situation to some extent exists. Nothing but that, documented in round terms and outlining the self-assumed authority that was behind that. I am asking the House now, in looking back, and in the very unsatisfactory position in which the House finds itself in the light of the attitude to Deputy MacDermot's question which I have already referred to on the Money Resolution, in this particular Bill to safeguard the future, if you like, by saying in respect of what was done in the past that "no person shall be deemed to have been engaged in military service while shooting or otherwise killing or while attempting to shoot or otherwise to kill any member of the Provisional Parliament or of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann; nor while destroying or attempting to destroy any property, the property of a member of the Provisional Parliament or of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann"; that it shall not be regarded as military service to have been engaged in "shooting or otherwise killing or while attempting to shoot or otherwise to kill any judge of any court or any official engaged in the administration of the public service, nor while destroying or attempting to destroy any property, the property of any judge of any court or of any official engaged in the administration of the public service"; that it shall not be regarded as military service for the purpose of this Bill to have been engaged in "shooting or otherwise killing or while attempting to shoot or otherwise to kill any member of the Gárda Síochána nor while destroying or attempting to destroy any property the property of any member of the Gárda Síochána"; that it shall not be regarded for the purposes of the Bill as having been military service to have been engaged in "shooting or otherwise killing or while attempting to shoot or otherwise to kill any proprietor, director, editor, sub-editor or leader writer of any newspaper or periodical nor while destroying or attempting to destroy any property, the property of any proprietor, director, editor, sub-editor or leader writer of any newspaper or periodical"; that it shall not be regarded as military service for the purpose of the Bill to have been engaged in "killing or wounding or attempting to kill or to wound any civilian or while destroying or attempting to destroy property, the property of any civilian." I have simply indicated work of that particular kind that was ordered and which was actually carried out, and that this House ought to exclude, in my opinion, these actions from what would be regarded as military service for the purpose of pensions in the Bill.
The Deputy did not say that he was going to exclude people under this or former Acts if they beat girls or did any of the other diverse acts. He should remember that a lot of the actions which he is attempting to prohibit here were taken in desperation to meet a desperate case which he presented. He shot soldiers who surrendered and who were entitled to a soldier's treatment. The Deputy shot prisoners who had surrendered to him, to the disgust of every decent man in the army and in the country—shot them months after for crimes of which they knew nothing. He shot four boys.
I cannot see the relevancy of this to the amendments.
They were shot under the authority of the House.
Under the authority of the Deputy.
Of this House.
Not the unanimous authority of the House.
There were some people in this House who assumed responsibility.
Speak for yourself.
Under the authority of 30 out of 120 members.
I cannot allow this. It is not relevant to the amendment. I cannot allow a discussion of that kind to be carried on.
I had no intention to go back into the past. I tried to prevent it, but if Deputy Mulcahy was allowed for several hours, while we sat silently listening to him, to slander people, we should get an opportunity to reply. I do not want to do any more than that. I do not want to go into the past any more than is necessary to refute certain slanders.
I think the word slander is hardly fair.
That is his vocabulary.
I think, sir, you should not allow that to take place.
I cannot prevent the Minister from saying that he considers a slander certain statements made by Deputy Mulcahy and I do not think it is out of order.
I understood him not to say that he considered them a slander, but that they were a slander.
So they were. The Deputy when Minister for Defence murdered certain people.
I am not going to have that discussed.
I shall go ahead and deal with the question that Deputy Mulcahy raised.
Not only not to have it discussed, but the question arises as to the use of the word. I understood the Minister described the executions which took place in a formal way, as the result of decisions taken by this House, as murder.
They were decisions taken when half the Deputies were on the run or in jail.
On a point of order. Is it in order to call any member a murderer?
A Deputy
It has been done.
I have not heard any member being described as a murderer.
Might I say, as a member of the House at the time, that the executions were carried out before the House was made aware of them?
We will leave that. As I say, some of the actions taken by men throughout the country were taken in desperation to prevent, if they could, further executions of unarmed prisoners who surrendered and, particularly, the shooting of boys of fifteen or sixteen years of age as a cover for certain other shootings.
Did I understand Deputy Corish to say that he did not stand for the maintenance of the authority of this House at the time?
I stated distinctly, and I repeat it, that the executions were carried out before the House knew anything about them. I defy contradiction of that.
Therefore you imply——
Do not mind what is implied. I am talking about the facts.
You imply then that you were not prepared to maintain the authority of this House?
Deputy Corish does not suggest that executions were carried out before the Government came to the House, put certain resolutions before it, and got authority for the setting up of military courts to deal with the matter?
If Deputy Corish suggested that the Deputy opposite and the people with him had acted altogether without any authority from the Irish people in starting the civil war, he would have been correct because that was exactly the position. Not alone did the people of this country not sanction the civil war, but they elected representatives 99 per cent. of whom were pledged to maintain peace. The people returned 99 per cent. of their representatives pledged to a policy of internal peace and before they could stop it, before anybody could stop it, they were presented with war.
Question.
That is exactly what happened. Of course a lot of men, the Army and other people, knew nothing about it. Deputy Mulcahy wants the people to turn this down because he thinks that we do not stand for ordered Government in this country. We always stood for ordered Government in this country. I repeat we always stood for ordered Government in this country. That dignified silence suits you better than school-girlish giggling. We always stood for ordered Government. We fought for it and are prepared to fight for it in the future: that any Government freely elected by the Irish people should rule here no matter what a minority in the country, or any majority in any other country, says. That is our principle. Until the civil war started I was taking my orders as a member of the Irish Republican Army from the then Dáil Minister for Defence for the Republic, Deputy Mulcahy, but I refused to obey the order he gave me to attack my fellowmen, which order he was simply passing on from the British.
On a point of order. Is it in order to say that any person in this House acted on the instructions of the British?
Would it be in order now for an officer of the State to refuse to obey an order of the Minister for Defence?
I do not think it is in order for any one to say that an order was taken from any State outside this State by an officer of this State. I do not think that statement should be made.
As I was saying, an election was held following out the terms of the Pact signed by Eamon de Valera and Michael Collins on 20th May, 1922, and unanimously ratified by Dáil Eireann, and ratified two days later by the Ard Fheis of Sinn Fein: "That a National Coalition Panel for this third Dáil, representing both parties in the Dáil, and in the Sinn Fein organisation, be sent forward on the ground that the national position"——
What has this got to do with the amendment?
Deputy MacDermot says that he will vote for the Bill if we can prove that we stood for ordered Government.
What the Minister is introducing is totally irrelevant to my question. I do not want to hear anything about the Pact, but I want to know what the Government's attitude is to be in the future as regards securing free elections for the people of this country and securing the predominance of the will of the majority?
I do not want to hear anything about the Pact election.
Shall we say that I think the Government's policy in the future shall be——
I have not allowed Deputy MacDermot's question to be answered.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 68.
Tá
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davis, Michael.
- Desmond, William.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis John.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Keating, John.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Kiersey, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McDonogh, Fred.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hara, Patrick.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mrs. Mary
- Vaughan, Daniel.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Bryan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer
- Carty, Frank.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Curran, Patrick Joseph.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo. V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Gormley, Francis.
- Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
- Goulding, John.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- 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'Reilly, Thomas J.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Conlon; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Amendment declared lost.
That decides amendments No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Do I understand that the previous ruling was that amendments 9 and 10 were to be taken together; that they would not be allowed to be discussed and voted upon separately?
I understand that was the ruling.
I move amendments 9 and 10.
9. Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the previous foregoing sub-section no person shall be deemed to have been engaged in military service while destroying or attempting to destroy any public property or any property, the property of any public company or of any firm."
10. Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the previous foregoing sub-section no person shall be deemed to have been engaged in military service while illegally taking moneys from any bank or from any public office or from any private person."
I submit again that in deciding to grant pensions to persons who suffered disability wounds or disease contracted in the revolt against the State the House ought, in its own interest, and in the interests of the country, draw a line at some point. In the documents I put before the House on the Second Reading, one of which stated that a number of persons were to be killed and others to have their houses destroyed, a note was attached that "factories are not to be interfered with." There was, in fact, a record of destruction of property and a record taking of moneys that I submit was entirely vicious and outside any reasonable kind of revolt. It was unnecessary and simply nothing but destruction. Earlier in the year 1922 the Press reported that on the 13th February three banks were raided—two in Sligo and one in Croom—and that £10,000 was taken from these banks. On 10th May the Press reported that ten branches of the Bank of Ireland were raided by armed men and over £46,000 taken away. In all the good-will atmosphere that was embodied in the resumed Christmas message of 1922 it was nevertheless possible at that time, as reported in the Press, on the 27th by means of a mine explosion to blow up a furniture repairing depot and a shop in Dawson Street, belonging to a person not then a member of this House, but who subsequently became a member. I submit to the House that the blowing up of a piano repairing establishment in this city, or of a musical warehouse, could not, in any sense, be regarded as military service by which this Bill would give pensions to persons who injured their hands while handling the mine that blew up that house.
I have already spoken of the destruction of railways in many ways, such as when an engine was let loose on the Great Northern Railway line and crashed into a passenger train at Raheny, as reported on the 7th January; where members of the Dublin Metropolitan Guards were held up on January 26th and robbed of £700, intended to pay the police. I submit that was not military service. The destruction of a train at Westport, the wrecking of a train at Macmine, the wrecking of a train at Ballymote, all of which took place in January, is not work that this House, for the purposes of this Bill, should regard as military service. The setting of a train alight, the setting of a train in motion at Killala and hurling the engine into the sea on the 15th February is not military service, nor in any sense the natural part of revolt. I submit that this House should not include them as persons who should be regarded as on military service, and entitled to pensions for their wounds, nor those who cut off the water supply at Portlaoghise and other towns in the neighbourhood, on 1st March, nor those who made an attempt to derail a train between Dalkey and Killiney on 19th March. There was a regular campaign of sabotage on cinemas and theatres during the month of March in the city of Dublin, and a train between Sligo and Leitrim was wrecked. The residences of Sir William Mahon and Lord Clonbrock were burned in Roscommon, and in Galway there was a raid for money and goods by armed men on 17th May. As the Bill stands these are instances that could be regarded as military action and the persons who were engaged could receive from the Minister wound or disability pensions in respect of their wounds.
Although Deputy MacDermot has again asked the Minister, and the President, I submit that the House is still in the position that there is outside an armed organisation—a tolerated organisation—threatening the position of Parliamentary institutions in this country. As Deputies have stated, if that were not so, and that the general attitude towards our institutions here, and towards this House was different, this House might simply give pensions in cases of wounds and disease to persons who had been in revolt, no matter what the circumstances were. In the circumstances in which this institution finds itself to-day I submit that it ought not to tolerate the granting of pensions to persons who, although they claim they were on military service, were carrying out the acts indicated in the amendments.
Of course, the Deputy forgets that under the Bills that were passed the acts to which he alludes were not excluded; that actually they might have been given pensions for doing practically all the acts that he talks about. Similar acts were done under his orders in the Black-and-Tan war. Not alone did I burn up one train; I burned about sixteen trains.
Then the Minister regards this House as being in the same position as the British Government.
I burned up sixteen trains by the Deputy's orders and I was clapped on the back for doing it. We did not burn them with petrol; we burned them with whiskey. While the Deputy wants to exclude people from this Bill——
I would like if the Minister would elaborate his recent statement that he burned up trains on my orders with whiskey.
Would the Minister move to report progress?
I will move to report progress in a few minutes.
The Minister will move to report progress now.
I move that progress be reported.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.