§ 12. Mr. O'DOWD
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a demand has recently been made on the Sligo County Council by the Inspector-General, 588 Royal Irish Constabulary, for the sum of £341 10s., said to be due on account of extra police stationed in the districts of Sligo, Ballymote, and Tubbercurry, and that, in the particulars of demand furnished by the police, it is stated that, with the exception of one head constable and twenty-two constables stationed in Sligo from the 27th February to the 31st March, 1918, those stationed in the districts of Ballymote and Tubbercurry were in those places one day only; and whether, taking all the circumstances into account and in view of the burdens already imposed on the ratepayers of this peaceable county, he will have inquiries made with the view of having this demand withdrawn?
§ 40. Mr. SCANLAN
asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the County Council of Sligo protesting against the charge of £170 15s. made against the county in respect of extra police in Sligo; and whether he will order the said charge to be remitted and any additional cost incurred to be borne by the Government of Ireland?
§ Mr. SHORTT
The resolution referred to has not been received. A demand for £170 15s., not £341 10s. as stated in the question of the hon. Member for South Sligo, was recently made on the county council of Sligo for the services of extra police employed in the county during the half-year ended 31st March, 1918.
In addition to the head constable and twenty-two men referred to as employed in Sligo from the 28th February to 31st March, sixteen constables were employed at Tubbercurry from the 28th February to the 16th March, and sixteen constables at Ballymote from the 28th February to the 31st March. These detachments were brought into the county in connection with a serious outbreak of cattle-driving, with which the ordinary county force was inadequate to cope, and there is no reason why the statutory demand made for their services should be withdrawn.
§ Mr. O'DOWD
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1904 a similar claim of £3,000 was made precisely in the same way, and was that—