I move amendment No. (1)—"To insert immediately after Sub-section (2) a new Sub-section, as follows:—

(3) Every officer and soldier who is discharged from the forces as medically unfit for further service, and who is suffering from a disablement, due to a wound received on or after the 1st day of April, 1922, but less in degree than any of the disablements mentioned in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act, may be granted a gratuity of such amount, not exceeding, in the case of an officer, £100, or in the case of a soldier, £60, as the Minister, having regard to all the circumstances of such officer or soldier, shall, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine."

The Bill as it stands would exclude a case in which the degree of total disability is less than twenty per cent. The object of the amendment is therefore to ensure that the Minister would have power to deal with such cases by means of a gratuity.

This Amendment is moved in accordance with the promise made by the Minister in an earlier stage to insert the words "or of the Irish Citizen Army" after the words "Irish Volunteers." The Minister consented to the inclusion of the Citizen Army, and I notice that the names of Eamon Ó Dúgain is coupled with the names of Cathal O'Shannon, Liam O'Briain and myself. I think that is satisfactory evidence that the amendment will be accepted.

I have down an amendment in identical terms and I am glad to see the other names coupled with mine. I would be equally pleased to see the same names coupled with mine in respect of any other amendments.

I move Amendment 3—In sub-section (1) line 20 to insert immediately after the words "wound pension" the words "or gratuity." This amendment is consequential.

I move Amendment 4—In sub-section (2), line 26, to insert immediately after the words "if any" the words "or the amount of the gratuity."

I move Amendment 5, which is also consequential—In sub-section (2) line 30, to insert immediately after the words "Irish Volunteers" the words "or the Irish Citizen Army (as the case may be)."

I move Amendment No. 6. In Sub-section (1), line 31, to insert immediately after the word "Volunteers," the words "or of the Irish Citizen Army."

I move Amendment No. 7. In Sub-section (2), line 50 to insert immediately after the words "Irish Volunteers" the words "or the Irish Citizen Army (as the case may be)."

I move Amendment No. 8:—To add a new Sub-section as follows: (4) "In this Section the word `killed' shall include death as an immediate result of refusing to take nourishment while detained in prison, and death by violence while a prisoner.

The object of this amendment is to provide for cases in which prisoners died of hunger strike, and for cases in which prisoners met their death at the hands of the British Government either as the result of certain legal formalities, or, in certain other cases, where no legal formalities were gone through.

I do not want to be merely verbally critical, but I would like the Minister who moved the amendment to give some interpretation, or to state what is his intention in respect of the use of the word "immediate?"

The object of inserting the word "immediate" is that in three years a claim might arise in respect of some person who had been on hunger-strike and who afterwards died of natural causes.

The Minister has explained what it does not mean. I would like to know what it does mean.

I think its meaning is perfectly obvious.

I have handed in an addendum to this amendment, and I would like to know if it is in order.

If this amendment is to be inserted we can take the amendment of which Deputy Johnson has given notice afterwards. So that Deputies may be in possession of both proposals I will read the amendment which Deputy Johnson has handed in:—"To add at the end of Amendment No. 8, `and death which in the opinion of the Minister is directly attributable to injuries sustained or disease contracted or seriously aggravated while a prisoner, provided such death occur not later than six months after release from prison."

The Amendment in my name, which has just been read, is intended to cover such a case as that to which I referred a few moments ago, where a man died directly as the result of injuries or disease while a prisoner, such imprisonment being a direct consequence of his acts as a soldier. There may be other cases—I do not know of them—besides that of William Partridge. It is quite likely there are, and it is so clearly a case for allowance to the widow and children that power ought to be given in the Bill for the Minister to make such allowance. As was pointed out, to my gratification, the Resolution we have agreed to does cover such a case, but inasmuch as the Bill does not cover such a case, I would urge the Minister to accept this Amendment either in its present form or some modified form which would carry out the intention. I think the form of drafting is satisfactory, but if the intention of the Amendment is accepted, then I have no objection to any modification of the drafting.

I would suggest that it would be better if that word "immediate" were changed to the word "direct"—a word that occurs in Deputy Johnson's Amendment. I really think that the case he mentioned, and two or three other cases that occur to our memories will be amply covered by a form of words that would include death as a direct result. The case of Partridge was a direct result. There are several other direct results that nevertheless could not be considered as immediate results.

Deputy Figgis has not read the end of the amendment—"direct result of refusing to take nourishment."

I am prepared to consider this proposed amendment, but I am not prepared to accept it right away. You must consider the very large number of persons who were during the years 1916, 1917, 1918 and 1919, down to 1921, thrown into internment camps. To commit yourself to compensation in all these cases in which claims are made for disease contracted in these circumstances, or to include anything like that in the Bill, would be open to the same objection that we had to the question of persons claiming to have suffered in health as a result of military service. It might very well involve us in a large number of claims and in fairly big financial expenditure that we do not contemplate and have not contemplated in considering this Bill. All I can undertake to do is to consider the amendment with a view to seeing later whether an amendment on the Report Stage somewhat on those lines cannot be introduced.

I hope the Minister, in reconsidering this matter, will remember that there is a time mentioned in this proposed amendment. If he takes that into consideration, I think he will find that the number of cases will not be so large as he contemplates. As a matter of fact, I think there were cases of deaths just a little over the period set out in the proposed amendment. I remember one case myself in which death occurred seven months after release from prison in 1916, and that was the result of illness contracted in prison. If he takes into consideration the time mentioned, he will find it will be quite possible to deal with all the cases involved.

On the understanding that the matter will be reconsidered, with a view to such modification as the Minister may find necessary, I beg to withdraw this amendment with the leave of the Dáil.

I would like to move, with the object of eliciting the Minister's intention more clearly, that on line 32 after the word "received," we should insert "or illness contracted"; and on line 34, after the word "service" we should insert the words "or as a direct consequence of active service."

I am afraid we should have defined "wounds" when we were passing the Resolution. I considered the Money Resolution which authorises the expenditure on this Bill very carefully. The word "deceased" opens the way for the amendment which Deputy Johnson has already proposed and which has just been withdrawn. "Illness contracted" I do say is outside the scope of the Money Resolution.

Are we not dealing with definitions—if we say the word "soldier" means "cook"?

It would not if we did.

Can we not make our own definitions in our own Acts? If when we are dealing with the meaning of the word "wound" we say it means a mental or physical affliction, then the financial resolution would have to be interpreted in the light of the definition embodied in the Act.

Unfortunately for Deputy Johnson I am taking the other view, which is that the Bill, and the amendments to the Bill, will have to be interpreted in the light of the Money Resolution, so I am afraid we cannot define "wound" in a special way unless we did so when we were passing the Money Resolution. In point of fact, this particular amendment, which it is now endeavoured to propose, was pretty well discussed on the Money Resolution, and I allowed that discussion very freely because it was apparently plain to everybody that an amendment could not be introduced in the Bill unless the Minister consented to withdraw the Money Resolution and have it amended.

What is the meaning then of having a section of definitions if we are to take the dictionary meaning in all cases?

I am not able to answer hypothetical questions, but on this question of the meaning of the Money Resolution I am quite clear. The first amendment is out of order. As regards the second amendment, I think that was altogether due to the word "illness."

I think it is independent of the first amendment.

I will allow the Deputy to explain it without proposing it at the moment.

The Clause as it stand reads "The word `wound' means any wound or injury received by an officer or soldier in the course of his duty while on active service." The injury may be received while the man, as a direct consequence of service, was, for instance, in hospital or in prison. The Minister in making his allowance may say that until he is discharged he is on active service. I am doubtful whether a man would be considered to be on active service if he were a prisoner. I think there may be other injuries, or perhaps wounds, received as a consequence of active service and yet not while actually engaged in warfare. If the Minister assures us that a soldier is on active service since May, 1916 until he has been dismissed from the Army, then I admit I have no case. I submit there may be damage received as a consequence of active service by virtue of the fact that he was a soldier, which ought to bring such a soldier within the provisions of this Act.

The actual expression "active service" is defined in this way in the Bill as applied to an officer or soldier: "whenever such officer or soldier is attached to or forms part of a force which is engaged in operations against the enemy, or is engaged in military operations in a place wholly or partly occupied by the enemy, and in this definition the word `enemy' includes all armed mutineers, armed rebels, armed rioters and pirates."

Actually going as far back as 1916, a man who was in prison or internment at that particular time, in the hands of the British, may be accepted as being on active service. As far as our subsequent operations are concerned, active service will mean where a man is actually engaged on duties that are, as a result of his being a member of the Volunteers or of his being on military service at the time, under the terms of that definition. I do not anticipate any difficulty, and I do not understand what the Deputy's difficulty is, except the point where a man was on active service in 1917, we will say if he was a member of the Volunteers then, though there was not very much doing, or if a man was on active service while in prison. If he was in prison as a result of activities carried out by him as a volunteer, then he is on active service, but there will be little difficulty in our declaring or certifying that a man was on active service in any particular type of case that I can imagine.

I think the definition of "active service" covers the argument I used. So long as a man may be a prisoner or may be on certain work which is not apparently active, if he is attached to and forms part of the Forces engaged in operations then that meets my case, and I withdraw my amendment.