I move that the Bill be read a Second Time. This is the annual Army Bill, and I was hoping that, instead of introducing a Bill simply to extend the present Army Act for another year, I would have a completely new Army Bill before the Dáil. I hope, if we can get time in the Parliamentary draftsman's office, to have that Bill introduced within a few months. It is ready in our Department, but it is a matter of getting the Parliamentary draftsman to go over it and put it into form for circulation to the Dáil. The Army has already been discussed on the additional Estimate for which we asked a few weeks ago, and it will come under discussion when the annual Estimate comes up in another few weeks. I do not think there is anything to discuss in it to-day.
Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1934—Second Stage.
On this Bill to-day, one thing strikes one particularly, and that is, that the Minister for Defence follows the time-honoured precedent of his predecessors by saying that he has a fervent hope of introducing legislation of a permanent nature which would make this annual renewing Bill unnecessary. One hopes that he will be a little more successful in realising that hope than his predecessors were. So far as the defence forces of this country are concerned, I think I would voice the sentiments of Deputies on all sides of the House when I say that the National Army is one of which this country is justly proud. The organisation of a permanent defence force is a highly technical question, and, so far as I am aware, most Deputies in this House are highly satisfied with the general discipline and the deportment of that force, but under this Bill we seem to be revising the powers under which the Minister has embarked on the recruitment and organisation of a new force in this country, and in that connection one is inclined to ask oneself the simple question: What do we want the new force for?
I read with admiration in the paper this morning a speech delivered by President de Valera in Trinity College last night. He was speaking on the occasion of Lord Cecil's address on disarmament and he said that he had come to the conclusion that there was nothing more wanted in the world to-day than peace — international peace, internal peace and de-militarisation. Somebody once said that Ireland was a country in which it does not very much matter what you do so long as you say the right thing. One is tempted to think of that when President de Valera pays an eloquent tribute to de-militarisation while he is investing a very large sum of the national revenue in militarising hundreds and thousands of young fellows who have been lucky enough to grow up in this country unacquainted with the use of firearms. We are now embarking, under the defence forces powers conferred on the Minister, on the task of teaching every young fellow in this country, of good character and qualified to become a member of this force, the art of using firearms and one comes back to the original question: Why are we doing it and what good can we hope to do by it? I recall, when this Bill was before the House last year, Deputy Tom Kelly intervening with a question and in column 507, volume 46 of the Official Debates. Deputy Kelly is reported in the following terms:
"Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread and growing feeling among the people of Ireland that we do not want any Army and will he take steps to consider, before he brings the next Bill before the Dáil, the advisability of doing away with the Army as quickly as he can?"
Deputy Kelly is going to get a disappointment. We are not only not going to adopt this rather preposterous suggestion but we are going to build up another larger army. We know that really what was at the back of President de Valera's mind in embarking on that scheme was to provide a force in which the I.R.A. of to-day could serve the elected Government of the country and save their faces at the same time. The Minister for Defence has spoken of providing a platform on which men parted by the stress of civil war can come together again. Let me say with all sincerity that there is no expense and no trouble that I would think excessive if we could find such a platform. Almost any scheme which would provide common ground for men separated by the stress of civil war in the past would be commended to me by that consideration regardless of any other, but what are the facts? I do not know how authoritative An Phoblacht is. I would be very glad to be corrected if I do the leaders of the Irish Republican Army, which at present flourishes in the land, an injustice, but I understand that An Phoblacht is their official organ. Mr. Gilmore comes out there last week and says:
"The small farmers would overwhelm the ranchers if they were released to take possession of the ranches. Stripped of his ranch, the rancher is disarmed; stripped of their banks, the bankers are disarmed; deprived of their Press, the Imperialists would be silenced and disarmed, their threat would be gone, but Fianna Fáil dare not take this road for here are tasks that could only be carried through in a working-class revolution."
I want to say again that no expense, no trouble will be too much if we can find common ground on which to reunite all sections of our people on the fundamental principle of the sovereign right of the Irish people to decide what Government we will have in this country. But is it common sense to be providing platforms for people who take the view that the only solution of our national ills is a working-class revolution? I am not as familiar with these gentlemen's outlook as is the Minister for Defence. He may discount what they say when they cry out for a Communist revolution. He may know that no particular significance should be attached to that cry. But to the ordinary man who is taking Mr. Gilmore and others of his colleagues at their face value, at the value which they set upon themselves, it would seem that they declare that the only acceptable solution of the present difficulties in this country is the Communist revolution.
We are told that we ought to spend, I think it is £280,000 annually, in building up a force to provide common ground for them to come together with their fellow-countrymen from whom they were parted by the civil war. Suppose we assume that that excellent purpose could be served by building up such a defence force; suppose we assume that all this stuff in An Phoblacht is to be discounted and that these I.R.A. men are anxious to accept the principle of the sovereignty of the Irish people to decide by their votes what form of government we shall have in this country and that they would be willing to join forces under the control of the elected Government of the people. Suppose we accept all that, then we have to ask ourselves how is it that out of the Army to which the Minister for Defence delights to pay a tribute, out of the Army to which the President delights to pay a tribute, we could not find 20 regular officers to undertake the organisation of this new force?
We must either believe that the men whom the Minister for Defence wants to get, the I.R.A. men, are bona fide or that they are not. If they are bona fide our National Army is an Army which yields allegiance to the elected Government of the Irish people. They are not politicians. Therefore, any man who is prepared to co-operate in a bona fide way in the scheme which is in the Minister's mind cannot have any objection to associating with his own fellow officers in the force.
The Minister pointed out how grateful and gratifying a sign it was to see a number of young Irishmen who had been out in arms against the officers of the National Army going up to the appropriate barracks, making their declaration of allegiance to the State, accepting their commissions at the hands of the Minister for Defence, and entering into association with their erstwhile antagonists in the civil war. The Minister for Defence went on to admit that none of these 20 men has had recent military experience. They have been engaged on civilian work of one kind or another for a long time. The Minister will agree with me that he has far more than 20 well trained men amongst the regular officers who could have undertaken this task of training this army. Yet the Minister will say that this new force is non-political and that this new force is designed to provide a platform for any decent young man, no matter what platform he belongs to, to come forward and serve the State. Side by side with this declaration the Minister appoints 20 men who are well known to be violent protagonists of his own Party. One of these young men—and let me mention no names, because it may have been due to an indiscretion, at least it is evidence of an indiscretion, if not something worse—went round just before he was commissioned making trenchant speeches. All of these men, or I should say, perhaps, nearly all of them, have taken a very active part in party politics within the last 12 months. Let me correct that statement so far as to say this—that all those who were resident in the country 12 months ago took an active part in politics during that period. And these are the officers of a force which is non-political.
The Minister's explanation of that, I imagine, would be that the members of the I.R.A. would find a very serious difficulty serving under regular officers of the Army. Now, either the I.R.A. mean business or they do not. Either they mean to bury the past and serve in good faith with those who were their antagonists in the past or they do not. If they do, they ought to consider it an honour to serve under a commissioned officer of the National Forces. If they do not, then the whole purpose of this new national force falls to the ground and we are going to have set up in this country something entirely different from what the Minister has represented. In the light of these facts I think the House should give very careful consideration to the departure which is being embarked upon. I can see no prospect whatever of the new force serving the purpose which the Minister for Defence and the President have in mind.
I have seen on every hoarding in the country warnings issued by responsible I.R.A. leaders to the young men of the country not to be fooled by the Minister for Defence, to avoid and boycott this new force which they describe as an attempt to turn every honest Republican in the country into an Imperialist. These facts all suggest to me that the purpose that the President and the Minister for Defence have in mind is not going to be served by the creation of this new force.
What is going to happen? We are going to gather into a military force every young man in the country who is of decent character. When I say military force I mean a force that is military in the only really dangerous sense and that it is a force that is armed, a force that teaches its members how to use arms. We are going to take a generation of young men who do not remember 1918 to 1921, who have no recollection of the unhappy period of the civil war—we are going to take a generation of young men who are practically uninfluenced by all that unhappy period in our history and we are going to turn them into a militarised, armed body of youths for no useful purpose whatever.
Surely the greatest disaster that can overcome this country is the familiarising of every young fellow in the country with the use of arms. Surely every responsible man in the country realises how pregnant with danger is such action. At this time when disarmament is a problem which is perplexing the whole world and when the problem of abolishing and driving out of the minds of young people militaristic ideas and ideals is perplexing the people of the whole world, surely it is an act of extreme madness on our part to set about creating that problem here in this country. Any movement which would organise the youth of this country without putting arms in their hands would seem to me a commendable and a useful movement. Any movement designed to organise the young people of this country in the use of arms seems to me a great disservice to this country. I believe that every responsible person in this country agrees with me in this contention. In my opinion, in putting arms into the hands of a body of young men who never carried them before we are sowing the wind and we will reap the whirlwind. The tragedy of the situation is this, that I am convinced that Deputies on the opposite benches know that in their hearts just as well as I do, but they have not the courage to say so. They let this thing happen and they let the situation develop and, in eight or ten years, we will have a problem in this country such as is perplexing the best minds in Europe at present, and it will be all of our own making.
One wonders if there is any use addressing this remonstrance to the Minister. He has set his hand to the task now and I suppose he will not go back. But there is a way out even yet, if the Minister wants to take it. There is no reason on God's earth why this body he proposes to create should be an armed force. He can organise it on athletic lines, on lines of general physical culture, without familiarising its younger members with the use of lethal weapons. If he has any regard for the future of the country, he will take that line. If he does not do it he is going to create in our midst a sort of semi-armed camp which is going to bring about infinite trouble and infinite demoralisation all over the country in time. I would urge him with all the emphasis at my disposal to do two things: (1) to abandon the idea of organising this new force as an armed force; (2) to correct the impression, which has undoubtedly made headway in this country, that this is a political force, by choosing, at least for the present, officers drawn from the regular Army to direct its operations. There can be no objection whatever if those particular twenty gentlemen who are at present being nominated captains go into the National Army and serve a period in order to gain the necessary experience and the necessary skill in matters of organisation which are requisite for the organisation of a force of this kind. It would be a reassurance to everybody in the country that those 20 gentlemen are bona fide desirous of burying the past, of accepting their appointments as military officers, eschewing all politics for the future and ready to serve the State as regular officers of the State defence force. After their period of training with their fellow officers at the Curragh, the Minister may decide that some of them might profitably be employed in the organisation of this force and that others might very profitably be employed in the activities of the regular Army. That would be a matter for his own discretion.
In the meantime, we would have in control of this force 20 highly-trained men; 20 men, who, the Minister will remember, were engaged against him in arms during the civil war and who, when he was appointed Minister for Defence, loyally accepted the decision of the Irish people and have loyally served him as the Irish people's representative ever since he came into that office. That action was favourably commented on recently by the President. I think it was something of which this country can be very proud.
I think it was a magnificent achievement, not only for the officers of the Army, but also for the Government that organised that Army. I think it was a good thing that the outgoing Government of Cumann na nGaedheal put into the hands of the incoming Government of Fianna Fáil an Army with that splendid tradition, that splendid morale, that splendid outlook. I think it was something that the nation may justly be proud of, that in ten years we had built up a defence force with so splendid a tradition, so splendid a morale, so splendid an outlook. I think it would be no excessive tribute to those high qualities in that Irish Army if the Minister for Defence had committed to the care of 20 officers trained from that Army the organisation of this new force.
I think it would not have been a great demand to make on the 20 gentlemen whom he has chosen for the new defence force to ask them to condescend to take their place in the ranks of that National Army beside their fellow-officers; to serve beside their fellow-officers and to hold themselves at the disposal of the Minister for Defence for whatever future activity he may appoint for them. If that course were followed, I believe that the success of this organisation would be much more probable. If the organisation is based on an unarmed scheme, I believe it ought to be able to serve every purpose that is present in the mind of the Minister and of the President by way of reconcilement, and it would eliminate from it an element of great danger for the future of this country. I urge most strongly on the Minister, before he goes further in the development of this force, to adopt those suggestions. If he does, I think he will find that they will both serve the purpose he has in mind and serve the best interests of the country which he is desirous to serve.
I wish to make a few brief remarks on this Bill. If the Minister is instrumental in bringing about the happy feelings which existed up to the Civil War, if he brings our comrades again together, I think that he deserves the gratitude of everybody in this country. Deputy Dillon stated that foreign nations are perplexed at present with the problem of reducing armaments and armies. To my mind that is all eye-wash. As far as I can see and understand in my own humble way, all the nations of the world are arming at present for a great world conflict. Whether I am right or wrong in that opinion, I do not know, but I think it is a most necessary thing to have the youth of this country trained in arms. In my travels in South Africa I have seen the youth of that country, both young boys and young girls, riding across the veldt to local schools. They were trained there in the use of arms, but they were under proper control. Any game that was to be found in the country was shot by them in the mornings when they were on their way to school. Those youngsters were good riders and deadly shots. They could pick a fly out of the bonnet of anybody, and, God knows, there are many bees in the bonnets of the politicians and warriors that we have in this country at the present moment, and it would be well if those bees in the bonnets of our politicians, statesmen and soldiers were subdued. I think that it would be all for the benefit of the country. I think that this proposal will be for the benefit of the youth of Ireland. It will give them a grand physical and military training and, if there is any danger of an invasion of the country, not alone the youth of Ireland, but the oldest members of the community will be willing and able to jump into the breach in our hour of trial and emergency.
I think that this scheme of the Minister for Defence is a good one because everybody knows that outside of the army control there is a considerable number of rifles, machine guns and revolvers at the present moment, and I think that it is the idea of the Minister to bring in all those people who are anxious for trouble and who are anxious to show their prowess, not in the political arena, but in other arenas. I think that if the Minister is instrumental in bringing in all those parties under the control of the proper authority he deserves the gratitude of the Irish people, and, as far as I am concerned, I am going to support this Bill.
I might almost say that I am rather amused that the Minister who, regularly and unfailingly, got up to criticise me, when I was in office, in bringing in this renewing Bill, should now proceed to do the very same thing for which he criticised me. I do not blame him for that, except that I think he should have been a little wiser before the event instead of being wise after it. There are one or two things about the Army which I have always viewed with a certain amount of concern. Men who joined the Army, whether from the beginning or who came in since through the stepping-off ground of the cadets, have certain rights in the way of expectation of promotion and so on. There are men in the Army now who have been there from the very beginning and who are still only lieutenants or captains. Very often that happens in armies on account of the fact that the men themselves have not been suitable for promotion, but in our Army the situation was different. In the beginning, the men were, roughly, more or less about the one age, and instead of the natural going out of men when they reached a certain age limit, our case is that we have men in the higher ranks of about the same age as those in the lower ranks. Naturally, the prospects of promotion of those in the lower ranks are considerably disimproved by that condition. Some steps were taken to try to rectify that situation, as the Minister is aware, but he has taken steps now which, to my mind, are directly contrary to justice. If a man is not fit for promotion, he should not be promoted; but if he is fit for promotion, then the natural flow and sequence should take place.
There are men in the service at the moment, men who are cadets, second lieutenants, first lieutenants and so on, who had a hope of rising in rank according as vacancies occurred so long as their merits justified such promotion. The Minister has gone out of his way arbitrarily to inflict an injustice on the men of the lower ranks by going to the ends of the earth in order to take men, some of whom are already over age, and place them over the heads of the cadets and men in the junior ranks who have already had long service in the Army. The Minister may say that that was a good act on his part and that he had friends in distant parts of the world whom he wanted to pay out of public funds. Personally, I would disapprove of that, but what he is actually doing is that he is definitely injuring men in the lower ranks of the officer class. That, in my opinion, is a real injustice.
The Minister has started what is called this new Army. Going along the roads to-day, I saw painted on the roads: "Boycott the Militia. Join the I.R.A." The police are well aware as to who the people are who disfigure the roads in that way. I presume that the Government, notwithstanding its appalling record during the last two years, will take appropriate action against the people who are guilty of scrawling along the roads in that fashion. They must take such action. We are now going to expend a large sum of money in creating this new Army, or this political Army, or whatever you like to call it, and the supporters of the Government, or those who are claimed to be their supporters, are actively engaged in trying to make that expenditure a mere waste of money. As I say, I presume that action will be taken against those people. The Minister, time and again, got up here, when he was in opposition, and, no matter how I reduced the cost of the Army, he and the members of his Party consistently said that the economies should have been bigger. They always reminded me of the Emperor of Abyssinia, who wanted to see a railway train, and who, when the train was drawn up before him at a certain place, looked at it and said: "I thought it was bigger." That was their consistent attitude when they were in opposition. As I pointed out some time ago, the direct expenditure on the Army, in the last few years we were in office, was a little over £1,100,000. The cry of Fianna Fáil at that time, when the general taxation of the country was much lower, and when the general prosperity of the country was very much higher, was that it was a wanton extravagance and that we were seriously injuring the country by that expenditure on our armed forces. They are now increasing the cost of the Army themselves. Time and again they said that we had to expend that much on the Army merely because we were anti-nationalist and Imperial and all the rest of the things they used to call us, and that the Army had to be maintained only because of contingent revolutionary conditions in this country which would disappear immediately when they got into power. Now, when they have got into power, they find that they must make the Army cost the people more. In the case of this Department, just as in the case of every other sphere of Government activity, they have reversed the promises they made.
Personally, I think that, when we went out of office, the cost of the Army had been reduced to the minimum it could be maintained at; but certainly, under this new Administration by whose action the country has become so impoverished and is being driven towards bankruptcy, this is a time, probably, for even greater efforts towards economy in this particular Department than during our régime. On the contrary, however, for reasons which the Government has never had the consistency or honesty to tell us here, there is now to be an increased expenditure on this Department. I was not here when the Minister was speaking, but I remember that, annually, be used the cry that we were importing our ammunition and that, therefore we were completely at the mercy of the ancient and historic enemy of the Irish people, if and when there should be a condition of war. I believe that now some steps are being taken for the making of certain types of ammunition in this country.
I should like to know if it is going to be as economical from the point of view of costs as the previous method of importing munitions. I should like the Minister also to explain whether, after taking this step, if we were completely blockaded we should be able to produce our own armaments in this country. Of course anybody with any sort of intelligence at all—I do not include the Minister in that category— would know that this country is not able to produce the raw materials for munitions and that therefore it must import them. That being so, the argument that was put up here on a previous occasion as to the dependence of this country on external sources during a blockade of our coast if we were at war was absolute humbug. To use an old cliché, every avenue should be explored for the purpose of saving money for the people of the country, but I can see quite clearly here that the Army is going to cost us more than previously. In a number of directions the Minister, in defiance of all wisdom, is going out of his way to make the Army more expensive and to give us less value for our money. In regard to the new Army which he has created, something might be said for it but, personally, I do not see the specific advantage of a force recruited in that form as against the “B” Reserve which we created and that still exists.
I think that it was fundamentally wrong in recruiting the new force to advert to the past. We are always being told that the sooner the past is forgotten the better; yet in this new Army special arrangements are being made for men with old service. The Army has to fulfil a certain function, to fulfil a useful purpose, and that should be the aim to have in mind when one is recruiting or when one is building up an Army. If there are people who by reason of their services deserve something from the State, for having, say, tried to overthrow the State, then obviously the proper form would be to give something in the way of pensions to these people, but to bring in people who have no qualifications for the work that they presumably are to perform except that they were personae gratae with the members of the present Government ten or 12 years ago, is to my mind perfectly scandalous. This new body should be a body recruited from men who are eminently suitable for the work which they have to perform. That should be the guiding principle in selecting these men. To go back and recruit men who have clearly passed the age at which they would be recruited into any armed force and to make special arrangements for them— what does it mean? It is merely a camouflaged pension scheme. Personally I should prefer to see the thing done in a straightforward way by giving them the appropriate pension that the Government thinks they should have, rather than that they should be brought into an army and be actually a hindrance to the fulfilment of the functions that presumably the Army will fulfil.
The country is going to have an army recruited on several lines—One body selected because they had early service and another to serve some useful purpose in the present and the future. When you have such an army mingling together in that way, it very often happens, as in life generally, that there is a levelling force which works down to the lowest common denominator instead of up to the highest. This proposal of the Government is going to make for general inefficiency in that body. If we are to have such a body we should certainly try to see that we get the best that is to be had. I am personally convinced that it would be much better to have given whatever the Government proposes to give to these henchmen of the Government in the way of a gratuity or a pension, to have the new body an efficient body and not to have it cluttered up with a lot of people who have no qualifications except some little debt which is due to them by the Party opposite.
In regard to the Bill itself, one can hardly vote against it, because one knows perfectly well that the continuance and the existence of the Army depend on the passing of the Bill. I do not know what the Minister said about a permanent Bill, or as to when he proposes to introduce it. I was personally very careful to give no specific undertaking when I was in office as to when that Bill would be forthcoming, because I knew it would be a long, complicated Bill, that would take a considerable time to get into draft and that would need careful consideration by the Government. I do think, however, that a certain amount of apology was due from the Minister, seeing that he had thrown his weight about here so often when the last Government was in office, but instead we have that sincerest form of insult produced, an imitation of what was done in our time. I do think that these men who have been recruited into the Army should be recruited as Irish citizens, that they should give service to the country instead of having their country giving service to them in the way of gratuities for previous service to the persons who form the Government at the present moment.
The reason I intervene in this debate is because of the astounding speech of Deputy Kent, to which I listened a few moments ago. I had always looked upon Deputy Kent as a man of peace until I heard his rather belicose pronouncement a few moments ago. I hope we shall never see the day in this country when our school boys and girls will go to school armed with shot guns and rifles, that might usefully be turned, on occasion, against the schoolmasters. I do hope that we shall never reach that stage in this country at any rate. When I read in the Press quite recently that even the presence of blue shirts caused a strike in some schools, I was just wondering—and I commend the thought to Deputy Kent—what the presence of guns, perhaps a few machine guns, would mean if they were introduced into the national schools in the country. Turning to the serious side of the matter, I consider this a very serious position for the Irish people. I find that in the year 1933-34 the Estimate for the Defence Forces amounted to £1,253,334. The Estimate for 1934-35 for this country, which at the moment is undergoing a severe economic depression, is £1,476,731, or an increase of £233,397. While I have advocated for many years back in this House that we should at some stage or another introduce, in relation to the maintenance of military forces, something of a more permanent character, on this occasion, seeing that there is a huge increase, a relatively huge increase, in the amount to be voted for the Army, I want to be taken as registering my objection to the Vote, whether there is a division on it or not. I feel in all the circumstances—the very severe economic depression that exists in our cities and towns, and the appalling depression that exists in agriculture—that this sum of £233,397 which is in excess of the Vote of last year, could be more usefully expended in coming to the relief of agriculture or in some other way that would help to relieve the economic depression through which our people are passing. I, in common with many other ordinary citizen of the State, am prompted to ask the question: what do we want this new Army for?
What is it going to achieve? If I could feel with the Minister that it would be a means of bringing together many of those who were in conflict and in opposite camps during the civil war I would support it. My endeavours during a long period of years have been towards bringing about that state of affairs, but I do not see the slightest chance that it will achieve that object. We have already heard here in this House quotations read out by Deputy Dillon—and many of us have ourselves read Press paragraphs and inspired articles emanating from another force, namely, the I.R.A.— which are aimed indirectly at preventing members of the I.R.A., and those whom they may hope at some time to rope into their organisation, from joining the new force set up by the Minister for Defence. Again, we have the fact that the officers are recruited not from the regular Army, in which the present Minister for Defence in common with the previous Minister for Defence takes a very definite pride, but from persons who were in open arms against the established Government of this State during the civil war. In that connection, I think we should not lose sight of the statement made by President de Valera in this House no later than a couple of weeks ago, when he expressed grave doubts—not in those actual words, mind you; I do not want to misquote him; but the words are there to be read by anybody in the official report and in the ordinary daily Press of the country—as to what was really the legitimate Army during the civil war period. Now that is a statement coming from the head of the State—the State built up by ten years' hard endeavour and hard work; built up at the risk of the lives of many Ministers and indeed of many members of this House. That splendid organisation, the National Army, was handed over in full working order, a loyal Army to the present Minister as it was a loyal Army to the previous Minister; a loyal Army to this administration as it had been a loyal Army to the previous administration. That is the slap in the teeth—to use the expression that has become familiar in this House from its use by the Minister for Industry and Commerce—given to this National Army, in spite of its tradition and all the bouquets that have been flung at it by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Aiken, and by the previous Minister for Defence. That is the appreciation that is paid to that Army—a slap in the teeth, to use the phrase now made familiar by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Now, I am a lover of peace and subscribe to nearly every word that was used the other night in the presence of President de Valera, when the President himself expressed the hope that at some time or another we would have in this world full disarmament, if it were possible. That was seconded and agreed to by the former Minister for Defence, but on that occasion a member of the Seanad suggested that, while it was all right to talk and to give lip service to peace amongest nations abroad, if we looked over our own shoulders we might be better engaged in cultivating peace at home. Those are not the exact words, but a brief summary. One is naturally driven to put the question a second time: whom or what is this army going to fight? Have we not already in sufficient numbers an Army that was formed under the previous régime? What is the necessity for bringing about the establishment of this new Army?
As Deputy Dillon pointed out a moment ago, it will mean that you will eventually train a number of young boys who, up to the establishment of that Army, were not familiar with the use of arms. They are now to be trained how to shoot, by competent instructors. Whom or what are they going to shoot? Let us again come down to brass tacks and see what use, in the name of God, this Army would be—even if it were twice as numerous as the Minister for Defence has indicated—against an invading force? They could just hold them up for a few hours, the same as the little army in Belgium did when the European War broke out. Our greatest security lies in having no Army at all. The greatest security that this country could have is to scrap all armies. Unlike Deputy Kent, who, I believe, was more jocose than serious when he made his rather warlike speech, I believe the best contribution we could make towards our own security would be to abolish even the National Army, though I do not want to suggest it at the moment. I feel that the National Army has very useful functions to perform, in addition to our police force if and when required. On the other hand, can any sane man in this House tell me—I probably will lay myself open to some very smart repartee but there are some sane people outside the House; more sane people, relatively and proportionately, than are to be found on the Government Benches opposite—what object this new force is going to achieve? The Minister for Defence will possibly accuse me of being a non-militarist, with out having been a soldier, etc., but the question that he and every sane man in this House must face up to is this: what use would our 20,000 or 50,000 or even 100,000 of an Army in this country be against an invading force? Five or six decent battleships would blow the whole lot of us to smithereens in a few minutes. That is true, and it is not liked.
I would make this suggestion with all due seriousness to the Labour Party. Labour parties throughout the world are pacifists, and in the final analysis what occurs in every war is that it is the working-class people who make the food for cannon. It is the working-class people who suffer. Let me remind the Minister that in the great conflict here in 1916, and from that on, even to the civil war, it was the working-class people who suffered. The other gentlemen held high office, and were snugly ensconced as Intelligence Officers. Many of them lacked any kind of intelligence, but it does not matter. They were safe, and it was the poor Pasty Murphys, and the Johnny MacCarthys, and the poor humble labourers and workers in the country, who suffered. They have got no pensions, either under President Cosgrave's régime or the present one. I doubt that very many of them will get pensions under the Minister's own pension Bill which he introduced here last session. I would ask the members of the official Labour Party in this House to vote with me on this matter of armies, for the reason I have just advanced—apart from the other reasons altogether—that if there is any trouble in this country, whether it comes from an invading force or whether it is internal trouble, the people who suffer most are the working-classes.
For that reason I want to register my vote against this Bill. This is the first occasion on which I have done it, or which I propose to do it, as a pacifist, as one who does not believe in war, but who, perhaps, if put to it, would make as good a defence as some of the soldiers. I can use a gun as well as any man—but always under licence. My name has been registered with the Minister for Justice as holding a gun licence for more years than I care to remember at the present moment. I would put this to the Labour Party in particular, that it is the people whom they are supposed to represent who will suffer most in any conflict that comes about in this country. It is they who have suffered in the past, and for that reason I am registering my protest against this Bill.
We have had some very interesting speeches on this Vote to-day. We had Deputy Dillon, whose principal objection was that 20 new army officers had been appointed. Deputy Dillon, apparently, thinks that while 500 or 600 army officers can be drawn from one particular side, the drawing of 20 officers from the other side was a terrible outrage. Deputy Dillon quietly folded a big blanket around his head in 1917 and took it off in 1927—or was it 1931?—and he now turns round and talks about those men not having the necessary experience and skill. Those 20 men are men who beat the best army that England could produce in the field, and beat them repeatedly, from 1917 to 1921. They have had that experience. Deputy Dillon, who professes such a terrible respect now for the National Army, made the extraordinary statement in this House, when he was a member of another Party, that he would neither take off his hat to the "Soldiers' Song" nor kow-tow to the Tricolour. That is the respect he had then for that Army, for the National Anthem, and for the flag of this country. Since he has been enrolled in the fold, I believe he has taken off his hat to the "Soldiers' Song," and I believe that he has even learned a few verses——
And the Government is taking off its hat to the National Army.
I do not know whether he learned them all or not, but he did learn a few verses, I believe, for public orations. Anyone living in this country to-day and seeing the trend of affairs in this country must realise that there is an absolute necessity to endeavour to draw together all the national forces in this country, and particularly the young men who are being misled on one side or the other. I never had much respect for politics or for politicians, but there has undoubtedly crept into Irish politics—whether it came in with the MacDermots and the Dillons I do not know, but unfortunately it came in just at the point at which they came in —during the last two years, the same dirty filth and mud slinging—the kind of stuff that made us blush for shame the other night when the President of this State had to get up and make a statement here—that could be read only in the newspapers of the time when we had the Molly Maguires and the other mob here on the warpath against one another. The same dirty filth, and the same filthy methods are now creeping back.
And you blame Deputy MacDermot for that!
If there is an effort being made to pull the young men of this country together to serve this country, I say that the Minister for Defence is doing very useful work. I have met old comrades of mine who were parted from me in the civil war and who are now in the National Army and despite all that Deputy Desmond Fitzgerald said here to-day about the Army, their statement to me is: "There is one thing we are certain of anyway—we are being treated like human beings since the new Minister for Defence came in; and we are not having any more of Desmond Fitzgerald." I am still more surprised at Deputy Anthony. He asks what good or what use is the Army and suggests that it could do nothing for 24 hours. I remember the period when Deputy Anthony did not hold that view, when Deputy Anthony thought that even a wooden gun on Parnell Bridge in Cork was sufficient to beat back the Germans, and when Deputy Anthony used to come out every night in a uniform and with a big military stride and with a long timber musket on his shoulder, pace up and down Parnell Bridge asking "What German dares invade Parnell Bridge while I am here?" The Deputy Anthony who at that time thought that a timber gun— not even an old shot gun—was sufficient to beat the Germans, now thinks that our Army is not sufficient to beat anything. He has undoubtedly changed his views immensely.
That was exploded long ago.
That is the non-militant Deputy Anthony we have to-day as compared with the military gentleman I saw when I, a poor young fellow, used to come into Cork with a load of oats, striding up and down Parnell Bridge in such an attitude that I thought the horse would shy at him. Of course, we are living in different times and different days but I am glad that the Farmers' Party in this House has given its blessing to the idea of pulling the young men of this country together, because if ever there is an invasion threatened in this country or if ever this country is threatened by any foreign enemy, it is not the regular Army we shall have to depend upon but on the patriotism of the young men of this country—of the same young men who banded themselves together from 1918 to 1921 and beat a bigger force than will ever again come against us. I believe that the formation of this force, no matter what pessimism there may be on the opposite benches, will do an enormous lot to pull together the young men who, undoubtedly, to-day are being dragged into two different camps in this country and to get them into one solid force, determined on one thing alone—serving their country in her hour of need. We undoubtedly want an Army in this country; we want an Army in this country to defend what we have already got and, please God, to finish the job our comrades died for.
I agree with Deputy Anthony that some form or show of opposition should be put up to this Bill, not in the sense of abolishing the Army but, to quote the words of the last speaker, to defend the little we have got now. If Ministers come into this House looking for more money and still more money when the national income is declining, we will very soon want no Army to defend what is left, because there will be nothing left to defend. A sum of about £300,000 more for the Army is being asked for this year over and above what was asked for last year, and all indications that any intelligent man can see anywhere point to the fact that this country is going down economically. Yesterday and for many days, the whole Oireachtas has been engaged in discussing a Bill to cut salaries. Why? Because the country cannot pay them, and now you are going to increase the outlay of the country on the Army. It is quite true, as Deputy Anthony says, the Army is not of the size that any invading nation would take seriously, but for the purposes for which we want an army our Army is big enough.
I agree with Deputy Corry that if the formation of this new Volunteer Force would bring together old comrades, we should be prepared to go the whole way not only in paying this £300,000 extra, but £1,000,000 extra or even £10,000,000 more if it would achieve that object. How will it? It will not. I do not want to go into the political side of the matter, because I am only opposing it on the ground that this country cannot afford to pay for the luxury of a larger Army now in the light of our bank returns and our trade returns, which are going down, while our unemployment figures are going up. In addition, the price of everything we have to sell is going down.
Look at this matter from your own point of view, and let the conditions governing your own private business be the conditions that ought to govern the country at the present time. You can only see one thing ahead of you— ruin and bankruptcy. What applies to the individual applies to the nation. Is it not time that those in control of the destinies of the nation took stock and said: "We must economise"? Instead of that we are confronted with another proposal, which will be put forward later, to give sanction to an increase of £2,000,000 in the Estimates this year over last year's Estimates. As a supporter of that we have a Deputy, a man who some five or six years ago wrote this pamphlet I have in my hand, on how to reduce taxation and to abolish income tax. He wrote that when he was out of office. That man got into office on the specious plea that he was going to bring about economies all round. When such men come into office they show themselves greater spendthrifts, and spendthrifts on matters that are not essential to the economic life of the country—greater spendthrifts and greater wasters than their predecessors.
If we are in an economic fight let us have one fight at a time. Let us mobilise our economic strength instead of wasting our economic strength on a force that is absolutely useless for the purpose of offence or defence. If a Minister came up with a proposal to continue the Army for another year on its present basis there would be no need for discussion at all in the matter. But inherent in this Bill is a proposal to increase the expenditure on the Army. We have a proposal to increase expenditure at the same time that the country is going down economically and financially. That is the time a proposal is put up to spend more money on an unproductive service like the Army. A sum of £70,000 is going to be added to the cost of the Gárda Síochána since last year. Where is the money to come from? It is in that sense that I am opposing this Bill.
Before I sit down I want to repeat that in my opinion any effort, even if it were to increase the Army Vote or the Police Vote or any service whatsoever, even at a cost of £10,000,000, would be money well spent if it brought together old comrades in the fight for independence, comrades who are now estranged and bitter enemies. If such a proposal were put up I would support it even if it cost ten millions provided I were convinced that it would achieve its object. But this will not achieve that object, and it is imposing a burden on a country that is going down. Instead of being asked to put up two million pounds less than last year the country is being asked to put up two million more than last year. While we are not within £20,000,000 of being as well able to face our responsibilities this year as we were last year we are asked to spend more money on the Army. The thing is nothing short of insanity in the present state of the country. Like Deputy Anthony, if there is a division on this Bill, I will be delighted to vote against it.
When Deputy Kent was speaking last year on the Army Estimate he said:
"I consider that the huge sum of £1,253,314 for the keeping up of an Army is a waste of public money which this country cannot afford at present. It is an outrageous burden on the taxpayers when we consider that farmers are groaning under the burden of taxation..."
A few lines lower down he said that the Army, as it then was, so far as he could see, was of no use to the State. I will leave it to him to reconcile that speech with the speech he made to-day. I am afraid the Deputy has since wandered into bad company.
On a point of explanation, so far as this Volunteer Army is concerned, I may develop what I said. This force will be the means of bringing old comrades together again. It will be the means of blotting out the hatreds and the ill-will engendered in the civil war. I consider that the Minister is worthy of the gratitude and the goodwill of the Irish people for having established this force.
I say hear, hear to that every time, if the Deputy can prove that it will achieve those things.
Give it a chance.
The bringing together of people in this country who have been separated by bitter conflict is an object with which we all sympathise, though I will not go so far as to say that it would be worth an expenditure of ten million pounds.
It would be worth twenty million pounds.
Slandering a colleague who served in the Republican movement will not be worth twenty millions.
Then it was not Deputy Cooney who was slandered.
Deputies must keep order.
It is not clear to me why such reconciliation——
Deputy Belton said——
The Deputy has been called to order for interrupting. The warning will not be repeated.
It is not clear to me why such reconciliation could only be achieved by the creation of a new military force. Surely there are peaceful activities far more important and far more fruitful for all classes of the community in which Irish citizens might join in working together.
We have heard from Deputy Corry that certain undesirable tendencies are revealing themselves amongst the youth of the country at the present moment. I will only say one word as to that. In a speech made yesterday in England I notice that Mr. Baldwin, in advocating democracy, pointed out that England was perhaps distinguished from other countries by the fact that the ordinary citizen, when he saw crime being committed, was prepared to rush forward at the risk of death or serious personal injury to assist the police. He gave a series of examples during recent years in England where that had occurred. That is the spirit that I agree is associated with democracy, and that is the spirit that I would wish to see developed in this country. When Deputy Corry talks of dangerous tendencies developing amongst the youth of the country he might remember that as far as our Party is concerned, at any rate, the spirit to which I have alluded to the very spirot that we have been trying to develop.
In explanation I want to say that I alluded first to what was the cause of that spirit, and I said it was an undesirable thing—to put it as mildly as I could—to hear the filthy personal statements that had been made by Deputies and by leaders of the Deputies of the Party opposite during the last two years. That is what has caused that spirit in this country.
I do not think there is anything to be gained by exploring that particular avenue. At any rate, I think Deputy Corry will give me a clean record as far as that particular subject is concerned.
Certainly.
The point I wish to make is this: We are all anxious to develop more civic spirit in this country; we are all anxious to assuage the bitterness of the past; and we are all anxious to bring the citizens of this country together as much as possible. But I deny that it is by playing up to militarist instincts that that can best be achieved.
The recruitment of this force is something that has been decided upon already, and I suppose it is no use flogging a dead horse. We have not yet heard any suggestion as to its utility, beyond the suggestion that it will take care of a certain number of young men who might otherwise be doing something more undesirable. The President did, indeed, in reply to the point which was repeated by Deputy Anthony to-day, the point that even the enlarged Army would not be sufficient to repel the invading forces of any powerful nation, say, that while the Army could not do that, it could after the invader had established himself make the position of the invader extremely uncomfortable by conducting a guerilla warfare similar to what was conducted in 1919-1921. I must say that I feel a shudder pass through me at any one contemplating our returning ever to such a state of things as prevailed in this country from 1919 to 1921.
But it is worth pointing out that the size of the army that it is appropriate for a country to have depends very largely on that country's foreign policy. If one were to take seriously the utterances about foreign policy of the greater number of speakers and supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party, I must admit that we would indeed need in this country a far larger professional Army than we have and, in addition to that, conscription for the entire population in time of war. The greatest security— and I say this with full seriousness— that this country can possibly have against invasion from anywhere is membership of the British Commonwealth.
The reason that that is such a great security is that, if any interference with us by physical force were attempted so long as we are members of the British Commonwealth, there is not a single one of the overseas members, such as Canada, South Africa and Australia, that would not be on our side. If the invasion contemplated was one from Great Britain, that is something that Great Britain could not do without breaking up the entire Commonwealth, so long as we are members of it. But when responsible politicians in this country advocate, not only our becoming a republic, but advocate by implication, by the general tone of their speeches, and by the spirit that they evoke in their followers, that we should be in a state of perpetual hostility to the people across the water in England, do they realise the enormous danger of a military character with which they are proposing to confront this nation in future? They propose to expose us as a small nation of three millions to possible warfare in days to come with a nation of over forty millions across the sea and we will have nothing whatever to protect us against the renewal of the sorrows of Irish history except such little forces as we can muster in this little State of ours.
One word as to the operation of the new defence force. I regret its creation; I cannot see its utility. It has made a bad start in the matter of the officers who have been selected to run it. It is not too late for the Minister to undo some of the harm he has done. It is not too late for him to divert, say, 50 per cent. of the officers appointed in connection with the new defence force to the regular Army and to replace them in the new defence force by existing officers of the regular Army. Then we could with some confidence tell our friends and supporters throughout the country that the Government was making a serious effort to establish a nonpartisan force. I will tell the Minister this. I have been expressing the opinion myself to colleagues and friends throughout the country that the Opposition should do nothing and say nothing to cause this to be a partisan force. I take the view that we should give the Minister the benefit of every doubt we can as to this being an honest attempt to establish a nonpartisan force. I should like, if the Minister will do what is necessary to disarm suspicious which, so far, have proved to be impossible for me at any rate to conjure away—I should like to see our supporters go into the new defence force just as much as the supporters of any other Party. But, if that is to be done, the Minister must give those of us who would like to assist him in this matter a sporting chance. I suggest that the first thing he should do is to make such rearrangement of the officers connected with the regular Army and with this new defence force as will enable us to assure with confidence those who trust us that this enterprise of the Minister for Defence is not simply an attempt to create something that will be politically useful to his own Party.
Deputy MacDermot made one very dangerous statement and I would appeal to him not to repeat it. He said that Fianna Fáil advocates a perpetual state of hostility to England. Neither Fianna Fáil nor any other Party in this country at any time ever advocated perpetual hostility to England.
I think the Minister will recollect that I used the words "by implication." I am quite well aware that President de Valera and other Ministers have disclaimed the desire for hostility with England— quite well aware of it—but the general tenor and tone of Fianna Fáil speeches throughout the country have been quite otherwise.
I want to point out to the Deputy that this is one of the unfair things which England has always said about this country—it is one of the slanders—and if he uses any form of words that can by any manner of means be stretched to fit in with that British slander he will find that he will be quoted very often by them. If they do not quote this particular instance, if he does not watch out and repeat that sort of stuff, they will take care to quote it themselves in justification for what they have done. This country never had any quarrel with England unless England interfered with us. If England gives us what we want —that is, if she gives the Irish people the right to run our own affairs in our own way—we will have no more quarrel with her. I believe that Irishmen of all Parties in the House should point that out clearly to everybody. I do not want to say anything more about it at the moment.
Deputies Dillon, Fitzgerald and MacDermot criticised our appointing 20 newly-commissioned officers to take charge of recruitment of the volunteers, or, as they put it, to take charge of the new force. I want to point out that there is only one force, that is the National Defence Force, and that we are adding to that force a number of volunteer regiments to be recruited. In order to recruit those volunteer regiments we added 20 officers to the staff of the regular Army. Those officers, together with other officers of the regular Army, went out throughout the country to organise and recruit these volunteer regiments. These particular 20 officers will not be controlling the force. A number of them are captains. They, in turn, are controlled by the executive officers of the military districts concerned, who are commandants. These commandants are controlled by the higher ranks of the Army, and so on and so forth. I cannot see any legitimate reason for criticising the Government for bringing in these 20 officers. I think that the vast majority of the people in the country are delighted to see this being done, and I think that Deputy Dillon is pursuing a bad line of criticism of the Government's policy when he is on that particular line, and I would advise him to take some other line of criticism.
Another criticism used by Deputies was that we were doing a great disservice to the country by taking in fresh young men who never had any idea of or training for, war or arms before, and training them as soldiers. I do not think we are doing any disservice to the country by this. I should like to see world peace and national peace established, as much as any man. I should like to see world problems and national problems settled by reason and argument rather than by force, but we all must realise that we are not in a situation when any reasonable man can look forward with any sort of hope to the time when international problems are going to be settled by reason and argument, or even to the time when internal problems are going to be settled by reason and argument, unless you have behind the people who want problems to be settled in that way a force that can compel such problems to be settled by reason and argument. One of the things behind the League of Nations was that those who got together in that body had some sort of agreement between themselves that if one nation or unit forming the League broke out, and took warlike steps before they were justified, or before they were approved by the League, the League would step in and bring that unit to heel. The reason that the League of Nations failed, and that we had this war between Japan and China, was that the League did not stand up to that. We realise that there is a large number of nations of the world which could beat us; but we realise also that if the Irish people are put to it, and if some foreign nation unjustifiably interferes with our affairs here, or attempts to land a force to cursh the Irish people, there is sufficient spirit in the Irish people to fight to the last ditch rather than submit to them. A knowledge of that fact by foreign countries, and of the fact that the Irish people have not only the spirit to fight, but the training to fight efficiently, will make foreign countries think twice or three times or, perhaps, four times, before they interfere in an unwarranted way with our affairs. I do not believe that it is a disservice to the country to organise this Volunteer Force. I believe it is a great service to the country, and one which future generations, looking back, will believe to have been a wonderful service to the nation.
We are going to organise and train these young men as soldiers. We are not going to educate them into going around looking for rows and trailing their coats. We are bringing them under the elected representatives of the people, pledged to uphold the Government elected by the people. These young men will be not alone a source of strength in the country's efforts to secure recognition of its international rights, but they will be a source of strength to whatever Government is here in getting acceptance of democratic principles by everybody in the country. They will be a disciplined example to all the young men in their neighbourhood of how young people should behave towards their Government. They will be volunteers, trained as soldiers, and ready to obey.
Deputy Fitzgerald and, I think, Deputy Dillon, said that by bringing in these 20 new officers we were cutting across the expectations of promotion which the present junior officers in the Army have. The only thing that I can say is that if this Volunteer Force had not been started we would not have wanted these officers and that, therefore, at the present time, the junior officers in the Army have as good a chance of promotion as they had before. Deputy Fitzgerald also alluded to the fact that we were not producing our own munitions. I am sorry to have to admit that we are not, but I hope that, as soon as we can, we will be able to do so. Since we came into office I did everything I could to speed up the making of munitions here and I hope to be able to announce progress in that direction before long. Deputy Fitzgerald also said that he did not see any advantage in the Volunteers over the "B" Reserve. That is strange, because during the last year he was Minister for Defence he tried to organise a volunteer scheme. He did it at a great deal of expense and the whole thing was a flop. I am delighted to be able to say that the efforts we have made to organise the Volunteer Force are meeting with success in all parts of the country where the area administrative officers have gone, and that, notwithstanding the fact that Deputy Dillon and An Phoblacht have combined to knock the scheme, we have been successful and are getting men of all parties into it; not alone into the ranks but into the committees.
Deputy Fitzgerald said that the Volunteer scheme was in some way a camouflaged pension scheme. That is simply a senseless remark from Deputy Fitzgerald, seeing that these men are not paid. Deputy Fitzgerald also said that the mixing of the three lines would lead to inefficiency. The three lines will not be mixed, except in the local halls. When the first line troops are up for training they will be called up in their own companies, in their own battalions, with their own officers, and they will have nothing to do with the second or third line. There will be no mixing. For local training purposes, however, and for local sports and recreational purposes, they will be all members of the local sluagh and under the command of the local sluagh commandant, but that is not a war organisation. It is an organisation for training and recreational purposes. Deputy Belton, in his own words, had to make some show of opposition to the Bill, and he made it. He said he was prepared to spend ten million pounds, however, if it brought old comrades together. I think we have not alone that problem of getting old comrades together, but we have the problem of making sure that the same thing will not happen in future as happened heretofore, and that the soldiers we have will keep together.
And to make new comrades.
There is that problem, to get them together and keep them together, leaving out altogether the question of the international situation and the need for the Government to have a disciplined force. From that point of view, bringing together old comrades and getting in young people, the force will be well worth the money we are spending on it or ten times that amount.
Is that the spirit in which the Minister will work this force?
That is the spirit in which it has been worked up to the present.
And will continue to be worked?
And will continue to be worked. Deputy MacDermot said that the greatest security anyone could have against invasion is membership of the British Commonwealth. I do not know. We certainly did not find that membership of the British Commonwealth saved us from the invasion of the Black and Tans. I certainly would not like to have to rely on the help and support of the Dominions, or on the hope that they were going to stand by us if the same thing happened again.
Surely the Minister will remember that at that time he was fighting for a Republic.
Surely there were a lot of people like Deputy MacDermot at that time saying that they would be content with Dominion Home Rule and I did not see the British coming forward to offer it to them. Instead the British slogan was: "Shoot, do not argue." We want, if they ever get into that berserker rage in future, to be able to take on the argument. There is one argument I admit that has to be faced in connection with this force and that is the argument of the expense. A sum of £233,000 more than last year is to be expended in the coming year on Army services but a large proportion of that will be capital expenditure which will not be repeated in future. As I have said, there are three basic and very big reasons for starting the force and every one of them is sufficient to justify the expenditure of the amount which we propose to expend, or even, as Deputy Belton has said, the expenditure of ten times that amount.
When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?
The Bill has to be passed before the 31st inst. and I suggest that we take the Committee Stage now. We want to get the Bill up to the Seanad.
There is just the possibility that a number of questions may have to be raised. If there is any necessity for rushing the Bill perhaps the Minister would take it on the first day we meet next week.
Very well. We shall take all the remaining stages on the first day next week.