I take it that it will be generally understood that on this motion a discussion may take place on the matters that were raised in the Dáil yesterday, and if the Dáil so desires, on the general policy of the Executive Council in the conduct of Army affairs. I shall not attempt to discuss the general policy, certainly not in detail, but I feel that it is incumbent upon me to say something about the situation as outlined at the sitting of the Dáil yesterday, and on the policy of the Executive Council regarding Army affairs in the past and possibly on Army affairs in the future. The form of this motion gives, perhaps, a fuller opportunity of saying what one would wish to say, than any other motion that might be moved would give. The motion is that the President of the Executive Council shall also undertake the duties of Minister for Defence. If one desired to be acrimonious and destructive in criticism, I think it would be easy to frame an indictment of the Ministry in regard to Army affairs, and to show that the motion to make the President the future Minister for Defence should not be agreed to, in view of the disclosures in the speech of the Minister for Home Affairs yesterday, whom for this purpose we might call the Vice-President of the Executive Council. It is clear from that speech that the body over which the new Minister for Defence has presided has not been harmonious, has not been of one mind in regard to army administration. Apparently its members have been at very active enmity one with another. If there is any truth, and I suspect there is, in the indictment that the Minister for Home Affairs made yesterday, much of the responsibility lies with the Minister who is now nominated to be future Minister for military affairs. I think though that perhaps one should deal first with the smaller matter, with the more acute question that arose on the night of Tuesday, and the morning of Wednesday. I think that there should be some clarification of the position regarding Deputy McGrath and the events in Parnell Street. There were two reports read by the Minister yesterday. The first document was reported to have been presented by the Minister for Defence to the Executive Council, and in that report it was stated that Deputy McGrath appeared at 10 o'clock. There was a distinct denial of that, and the denial was corroborated by Deputy McCarthy. I want to know who made that report. Was it a compilation of the Minister for Defence at the time from reports received, or was it the actual nature of the report which had been prepared by one of the officers in charge? If it was a compilation of the Minister, how did it come to say that Deputy McGrath appeared on the scene at 10 o'clock?
The second report was signed by Major-General Hogan, and appears to me, looking at it as impartially as one can, to contain a certain amount of animus, and not of the nature of a report of a military officer. I think some explanation is called for as to why, in such a report, references were made to Deputy McGrath in the terms in which they were. Then we have the matter leading up to the searching of these premises. The Minister for Defence, Deputy Mulcahy, justifies the position by saying that he and his officers were legally bound to make the arrest of men under his command and under his authority who had mutinied, and had been engaged in a conspiracy, and had stolen guns and ammunition. Deputy Mulcahy says that that was their duty under the law, and that the Adjutant-General was carrying out his duties with his, Deputy Mulcahy's, consent, acting as Minister for Defence. It is well to be informed that the Army has come to the stage when there is so much punctilio in carrying out their duties within the law. That has not always been so. The law has been stretched, and forgotten frequently, and we have been told here by Deputy Mulcahy and by other Ministers that legal formalities must, in certain circumstances, be foregone and passed by.
Now we have arrived at a stage apparently when the very letter of the law must be put into operation. I wonder whether one can say, trying to look upon this whole matter fairly, from a detached standpoint, that this whole thing was exceptional—that may seem to prejudge the case—that this very careful recognition of legal rights and legal authority and legal duties has been applied to these particular cases in these circumstances. But if the case that is made by Deputy Mulcahy is a good one, it seems to me he has failed in his duty inasmuch as he accepted the responsibility for making terms with the mutineers. Had there been the same amount of punctiliousness as this a week ago, regarding the enforcement of the law, I do not think Deputy Mulcahy could have retained his position as Minister for Defence. And when the offer of parole under certain conditions was agreed to by him, when the suggestions were made in the correspondence which was read that up to Thursday night, 6 o'clock, would be given to the mutinous officers —and if the allegations are true, thieves, I am not hesitating in words in this matter—if Deputy Mulcahy accepted part of the responsibility for making these offers to the mutinous officers, then he ought not to have stood over the action of the Adjutant-General in attempting to arrest these officers in the circumstances.
It seems to me that if the proceedings of the Dáil last Wednesday, which by tacit assent approved the course adopted by the Ministry, did not receive the approval of the Minister for Defence, then that was the time for his resignation, and the matter would have been clarified.
The Minister to-day has read a document notifying that the Chief of Staff is not prepared to hand in his resignation. I am inclined to think that that officer has much to be said for him. I cannot understand the state of mind of the Ministry in calling for resignations, except by the assumption that the Ministry has been habituated to a state of mind which thinks of the Army Council as somewhat independent in authority. It seems to me that the Executive Council, in deciding to ask for the resignations of military officers from particular posts, not in asking them to resign their commissions, was in itself a kind of admission that these officers were in a position of independence—or semi-independence—of the Executive Council, and did actually occupy a place which many of us feared they would, and uttered warnings about, viz., that the Army Council was being placed in a position of autonomy and independence.
The Minister for Defence, one would expect, would transfer officers from one post to another if he did not desire that the officers should be deprived of their commissions, but that they should be taken from their particular office. It does not seem to be a case where officers should be asked to resign from office, but that they should have been transferred from one post to another. I suggest to the Dáil that the very phraseology used by the Minister for Home Affairs yesterday suggests that not on one side only has the Army got into a position of superiority, but on two sides it has been thought to be in a position of superiority, one of those sides being the Executive Council itself. It may not have been deliberate, and it may not have been conscious, but it is a reflection of the sub-conscious state of mind at least that these high Army officers who had been appointed to specific posts within the Army had to be asked to resign rather than that they should have been transferred. That has not been the course taken in regard to other officers in the Army. They have been reduced in rank, they have been transferred to one post and another, and that has been by direction of their superior officers, by direction of the Minister for Defence, who is ultimately responsible; and I think it would have been more in accordance with one's view of the right relations between the Executive Council, the Minister for Defence, and the Army Council that these officers would have been removed from their office and placed somewhere else rather than that they should be en bloc asked to resign.
There is very much point in the claim of Deputy Mulcahy that the risk taken by the Executive Council in removing three officers of such importance could be done at this stage. It is the highest possible testimony, whether intended or not, to the administration of the Army by the late Minister for Defence and by those acting under him, if it is believed that the Army will withstand such a shock and remain true and loyal. Then, I say, that is the highest possible commendation to the administration of that Army under its late heads. I hope that faith will be justified, and I hope that the prophecy of the Minister for Defence will come true. I hope, too, that through the Army, the rank and file, as well as amongst the officers, there has developed that sense of discipline and loyalty to the State that will not allow these events to shake them.
As to the general conduct of Army affairs under the authority of the Executive Council, of which the proposed new Minister is chairman, we have it from Deputy McGrath that for fifteen or sixteen months—these are his words as reported—he had been trying to settle this matter, and we had it from the President also last week that Deputy McGrath had done everything that was possible. It appears from all that has been revealed that there have been controversies within the Executive Council of great seriousness in regard to the Army, but it is only after the pot has boiled over, in the phrase of the Minister, that this searching inquiry is ordered.
Now, the Dáil has a right to be told why that searching inquiry was not ordered long ago, and as to what was the position of Deputy McGrath, though Minister for Industry and Commerce, in relation to the Minister for Defence. We should have a little more light upon these matters before being asked to assent to the appointment of the President as Minister for Defence. I am afraid that without expecting perfection and without expecting too much in the way of administration, that the Executive Council has not conducted affairs relating to the Army with a sufficient regard for its responsibilities, and I am afraid that the Executive Council, in the sequel, has shown that it has left too much to the Army and incidentally too much to the the Army Council. I hope that before the Ministers and Secretaries Bill leaves the Seanad that an amendment will be moved to the clause in it which places the Army Council in a position of exceptional authority as compared with any other Departmental head. One wonders, for instance, how so careless a proceeding which seems to have involved us in so great a difficulty could have been allowed as to appoint and make the announcement that General Eoin O'Duffy had been appointed to the Chief Command on the 8th of March, and that his office and authority became operative on the 10th. Then we learned that his duties were only defined yesterday or the day before. If there were, as there seems to have been, a knowledge of friction within the army, and that it was found necessary to appoint General Eoin O'Duffy to a position of supreme command, surely the terms of that appointment should have been made known to him immediately, and they should have been gazetted immediately. But a week or ten days— even longer—elapsed, and the Chief Executive Command did not know what his powers were, and other officers of the Army felt that they could not obey that officer, or that they did not need to consult him, and he could not enforce his authority. That, I say, is an incident which seems to reveal a slipshod method of conducting business within the Executive Council, especially in a service which requires so much precision and care. The failure to be so careful is an indictment of the Executive Council, and the President is chiefly responsible —I mean, ultimately responsible. The story told by the Minister for Home Affairs indicates that there has been allowed to grow up within the Army two distinct bodies or associations or groups, one of which seems to have been opposing the other, one of which seems to have been in a position to exercise authority, and the other which seems to have been desirous of resisting that authority. That allegation or suggestion is denied. The late Minister for Defence, who was in the best position to know, repudiates any such suggestion or allegation respecting those who have formed the Army Council, and the main body of the officers of the Army. The fact that there was a body of opinion on one side, at any rate, was revealed by the document read to the Dáil last week.
They spoke of themselves as representing an Executive Council of the I.R.A., having distinct political purposes and intentions. Deputy McGrath announces that he has been engaged for 15 or 16 months trying to settle this. We ought to know a little more than we have been told of what has been happening, at least we should have a broad statement of the position. I have no desire to probe into details, charges and counter-charges, suggestions and innuendoes. I do not think this is the place; I do not think any place is the place to enter into any such thing. But at least we ought to be told as much as the party meeting was told; we ought to have a little more light thrown upon the situation than we have been granted, so as to allow us to feel that we are safe in assenting to the appointment of the President as Minister for Defence. The position is undoubtedly a serious one, and I do not want to aggravate it in the slightest, but there is not only the Army to be considered. Both Deputy Mulcahy by his statement, and the Minister for Home Affairs and the Executive Council by their action, combined to assure us that we need not fear the loyalty of the main body of the Army. But the ordinary citizen requires to be reassured. The Dáil has its responsibility and it requires to be reassured. We require to have some more information, and we require to know whether the action of the Army Council, or the action of the Minister for Defence working through the Army Council, in relation to Deputy McGrath had any other significance than has been indicated here in the discussion. I am sure that it is the purpose of the Executive Council to insist that the Army as a body shall be impartial in its obedience to the political authority of the State. I am sure, too, that they will exercise every means to achieve that general impartiality. I think that they will not forget that they are not dealing with an Army which has gradually grown and developed; but that it is the immediate successor of, and contains still a great majority of men who were before they went into the Army active politicians serving a national cause. I think they will not forget that efficiency of the most perfect kind may be too dearly bought, if the psychological influence is forgotten, and that they will recognise the necessity for having officers and Chief Commands who will evoke from the junior officers and the rank and file that loyalty because of the purpose for which the Army was originally established.
There is one other word I want to say; it is in regard to the inquiry which was promised and the names of the Committee to conduct the Inquiry which are announced. Deputy Hewat made a suggestion, not knowing the form the Committee would take. He made the suggestion that such an Inquiry as was promised ought not to be conducted solely by a Cabinet Committee or by people serving one particular section of the House. It seems to me that that suggestion ought to be taken account of, and that the circumstances are such that some one or more members of any such Committee ought to be men who have not been closely associated with the political party which is at present in control of the Government of the country. There would be much more confidence, and I say this with the fullest respect and regard for at least two of the members of the Committee whom I know, in the work of that Committee if at least one is a man who has not been intimately associated with the work of the Party out of which the army grew and which has been responsible for the Army's administration. I am not speaking on behalf of the Labour Party when I am putting that suggestion forward. I am not asking that any member from this side of the House should be appointed, but I think the suggestion of Deputy Hewat was a sound one and a wise one, and it ought to be favourably considered by the Minister.
