DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.—Class III. (Hansard, 4 February 1915)

§ Mr. BOOTH
I am very glad to see a representative of the Irish Office present. I wish to ask whether any compensation has yet been paid to the inhabitants of the Corporation tenements in Dublin whose houses were invaded by the Dublin Police and whose property suffered wreckage. It will be remembered that the Chief Secretary admitted, on behalf of the Irish Executive, that there had been excesses in Dublin on the day to which I refer. He promised to make inquiry, and see whether compensation could be given. I have asked from time to time whether any compensation had been paid, and the Chief Secretary has stated that he was doing his best to trace the delinquents, whom he would deal with in a disciplinary manner. Apparently he was not quite sure whether they were Dublin men or county men. On one of the days when the House was not in the mood to ask questions I had put on the Paper a question with a view to ascertaining what was the attitude of the Chief Commissioner who was asked to retire in connection with this matter. It seemed to me that his attitude was entirely antagonistic. I want to ask whether the new Chief Commissioner will himself inquire into this occurrence. I have no confidence in the inquiry which took place, and which I understand was fruitless. I desire to know whether the new Commissioner has himself appointed—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I must remind the hon. Member that this is a Supplementary Estimate, and that on Supplementary Estimates Members are not permitted to raise questions belonging to the main Estimates for a year.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I understand that this Supplementary Estimate is asked for because of the incident to which I am referring. That, I think, is admitted. I want to know whether any portion of this money is for that purpose, because the Chief Secretary admitted that these people had suffered at the hands of the 182 police. I understand that the superintendent who was in charge at the time when these mistakes were made has actually been promoted, so that he comes in for some of the money we are now voting, while the poor people who suffered at the hands of his own company are still asking for compensation for the property which the police threw into the street. I would like some explanation on that point.

§ Mr. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland)
This Estimate is entirely made up of two items: First, an increase necessitated in the pay of the police owing to an Act passed last Session; and, secondly, compassionate grants in respect of persons killed and injured in July last. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman refers to.

§ Mr. BOOTH
One of the points.

§ Mr. RUSSELL
£800 has been paid on account of that unhappy occurrence.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I am much obliged.

§ Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL
There seems to be a direct conflict between the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Russell) as to what the Estimate is for. I understood the hon. Member to ask whether it included an item of compensation in regard to certain persons whose property was injured in Corporation Buildings at the time of the strike in Dublin. I understood him to say that he had made inquiry and found that the Estimate did include something on that head. It turns out now that it does not include anything of the kind, and, as far as I can see, the question the hon. Member has asked remains entirely unanswered.

§ Mr. BOOTH
If that is so, I would like to press for an answer. Does any of the £800, of which I have heard, go to those people who suffered at the hands of the police?

§ Mr. RUSSELL
£800 has been paid to those who suffered from the incident at Bachelor's Walk. The other unhappy occurrence is a totally different thing, and there is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate in connection with that.