Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Feb 1930

Vol. 13 No. 11

Formation of Volunteer Reserve.

The Debate was resumed on the following motion by Senator Johnson:

"That the Seanad disapproves of the procedure adopted by the Minister for Defence in the formation of a Volunteer Reserve as being an abuse of the power of the Minister and an encroachment upon the authority of the Oireachtas."

Mr. O'Farrell

I support this motion simply and solely because of the irregular and illegal manner in which the new Volunteer Reserve has been called into being. I do not wish to be taken as being in favour of the suggestion that we should have no defence forces at all, because I believe the time has not yet arrived when we, any more than any other State, can abolish our Army, but it is difficult to understand why the Minister felt it necessary to resort to an administrative subterfuge in order to add this Volunteer Reserve to the defence forces of the country. Judging by numerous expressions of opinion, both inside and outside the Oireachtas, it seems pretty clear that almost all shades of opinion were in favour of a Volunteer Army rather than a large standing Army. There was, therefore, no reason to assume that there would be any serious opposition to a Bill authorising the Minister to set up a Reserve such as that he has set up without the authority of the Oireachtas. Even granting that there might be a couple of months delay in the passing of a Bill through the Oireachtas, there was no reason for anxiety, for there was no urgency whatever about the matter. However, instead of bringing forward a Bill to give him the necessary powers, he proceeds in a most irregular and unseemly manner to bring the Oireachtas into contempt, so that by an extraordinary manipulation of an Act of Parliament he gives himself powers which he must have known the Act did not give him or intend to give him, however it might have been worded. By a process of legal surgery which completely sets aside the spirit of the Defence Forces Act of 1923, he has erected an inverted pyramid with its base high up in the air, the base being the new volunteer Reserve. He has shown by what he has done the extent to which a Minister, by the aid of clever lawyers, can make Parliament look ridiculous by extorting from a certain Act of Parliament powers which Parliament never intended to confer on the Minister or anybody else.

Section 210 of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, provides for the formation of a Reserve, and it clearly defines the manner in which that Reserve should be composed. It reads:—

"It shall be lawful for the Executive Council to raise and maintain a reserve force (hereinafter referred to as the Reserve) for the Forces consisting of such number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men as may from time to time be provided by the Oireachtas."

The Oireachtas made no provision, financial or otherwise, for this reserve, as it is now set up. Section 212 says: "The Reserve shall consist of—1. The Reserve of Officers; 2. The Reserve of Men." Section 213 deals with the reserve of officers and it lays it down that the Reserve of Officers "shall consist of officers of the Forces who have retired therefrom; (2) Officers belonging to the Reserve of Officers shall be liable to be recalled to service in the Forces under such conditions as may be prescribed," and so on. Section 214 says: "The Reserve of Men shall consist of non-commissioned officers and men who having served in the Forces have been transferred to the Reserve in pursuance of Part II., Chapter V., of this Act." The whole spirit of the Act of 1923 goes to show that the reserve which that Act contemplated was to be a reserve of men who had actually served in the National Army either as officers. non-commissioned officers or men. It is true that under one section— 146, I think, of that Act—

"The Minister may, from time to time by general or special regulations, vary the conditions of service, so as to permit a soldier of the Forces in any service, with the assent of the Minister, either—(a) To enter the Reserve at once for the residue unexpired of the term of his original enlistment; or (b) To extend his army service for all or any part of the residue unexpired of such term."

It provides for the shortening of the period during which a man may spend in the army before he may be permitted to go into the Reserve, but it clearly contemplates that he shall have served in the army. The Minister complies with this, what might be termed empty formula, by getting a man to sign the ordinary attestation form swearing him in as a member of the National Army to serve for a period of three years, and he then fills in another form applying to be transferred at once to the Volunteer Reserve. The application is granted and he can, thereby, say with perfect truth, at least from a theoretical point of view, that he has served in the National Army and is now in the Volunteer Reserve, while of course, in strict and actual commonsense fact he has never been a soldier. Paragraph 1 of the Defence Forces Regulations dated the 18th October, 1929, says: "There shall be established within the Reserve a class which shall be known as the Volunteer Reserve." The wording clearly shows that the Minister looks on this as a sort of parenthetical reserve within the reserve contemplated by legislation. In paragraph 8 of Section 2 it is stated that "(i) Men desirous of entering the Volunteer Reserve will be enlisted for a period of three years in the Forces." A subsequent paragraph—paragraph 1, in page 15 of the regulations says: "You will engage to serve the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann for such term as is agreed on attestation," thereby, implying that a man may enter for a lesser period than three years or a greater period.

There is a good deal of uncertainty about the actual period during which a man may belong to this reserve. Paragraph 8 (iii) says:—"A soldier of the Forces who in completing his attestation form declares that he desires immediate transfer to the Volunteer Reserve may, at any time after the commencement of his service, be removed from the Forces and transferred to the Volunteer Reserve." This is a considerable straining of the term of service in the Forces. A man cannot claim to have served in the Forces who has merely signed an attestation form and in three minutes' time is transferred to the Volunteer Reserve. The attestation form is a rather elaborate document. Paragraph 17 says:—"Are you willing to serve as follows: (a) In Oglaigh na h-Eireann until removed therefrom and transferred to the Volunteer Reserve, and in the Volunteer Reserve for the residue unexpired of a period of three years?" It goes through the farce of asking a man if he is prepared to serve in the National Army until such time as he is transferred to the Volunteer Reserve Force. He signs that. Then he swears an oath.

I ..................... do solemnly swear (or declare) that I have this day freely and voluntarily enlisted as a soldier in Oglaigh na hEireann.

The concluding portion of the oath makes him swear:—

I will not while I am a soldier in Oglaigh na hEireann join or be a member of or subscribe to any political society or organisation whatsoever or any secret society whatsoever.

After being a member of the National Army for about two or three minutes, during which he is not to be a member of any political society or any secret society, the note at the foot of the page says:—

The provisions of the above Oath cease to apply to a soldier when he has been transferred to the Reserve. A member of the Volunteer Reserve will therefore be entitled to engage in any lawful political activities except when in case of imminent national danger or great emergency the Reserve has been called out on permanent service.

This is the subterfuge resorted to in order to set up the Volunteer Reserve. At page 22 there is a form in which the soldier applies for a transfer:—

I ...................... having this day duly enlisted as a soldier in Oglaigh na hEireann for a period of three years do hereby make application for immediate transfer to the Volunteer Reserve for the residue unexpired of such enlistment....

There is another form to be signed by the Attesting Officer as follows:—

I hereby certify that No. ............ Rank .......... Name .............. being a soldier of the Forces has been transferred to the Volunteer Reserve with effect from the ....... day of............

This is an example of the preciseness and respect for Acts of the Oireachtas that is set to the young recruit who is to be a citizen soldier, and who would naturally be expected to have some respect for the Parliamentary institutions of the State which he may have to defend with his life. But if he has any intelligence at all, as it is assumed he will have if he is accepted, he must see the elaborate resorts that have to be adopted in order to get round, or outside, an Act of the Parliament of that State. I think it is a really lamentable example to set a young recruit. It is the enactment of a melancholy farce to resort to devices of this sort, seeing that the obvious, the easy, and the honest course was to come to the Oireachtas and get the necessary powers. I do not know where the Minister proposes to get money to pay for this Volunteer Reserve.

Mrs. Wyse Power

In the Estimates.

Mr. O'Farrell

The Estimates for 1929-30 did not make any provision for this Reserve. There is provision for Army Reserves, Class A and Class B, and for a Reserve of Officers, but there is no provision for financing a Reserve such as that now set up, except by the most extraordinary stretching of the wording of the Act of Parliament. As I said, I do not know why the Minister should have thought it necessary to resort to this peculiar proceeding, because I cannot contemplate any serious opposition, in view of the manner in which Deputies and Senators have committed themselves to the principle of a volunteer reserve. It is a very serious matter from the point of view of the safety of the State, and from the point of view of the supremacy of Parliament, that any Government should seek to set up an armed force for which it has not the most clear and explicit Parliamentary authority. That is really the key-note of the whole matter. It is amazing to me to find how recklessly law is sought to be exploited, and the little attention that is paid to legality, on certain occasions, by people who should know better.

A leading member of the Opposition dealing with this matter in the other House, began by saying: "I do not intend to say anything concerning the legality of these methods, because I am not concerned with their legality." That is an amazing statement for a Parliamentarian to make; one who is responsible for making the laws, to say to all the world that he is really not concerned with the observance of the laws, and, above all, with the observance of these laws in a matter such as the armed forces of the country. If disregard of the manner in which laws are observed——

Colonel Moore

On a point of order, is a Senator entitled to criticise what a Deputy said in the other House, seeing that the Deputy is not here to defend himself?

Mr. Milroy

Arising out of that, may I point out that Deputies have often criticised members of this House who were not present to defend themselves?

Cathaoirleach

I do not think that is a point of order.

Mr. O'Farrell

I am not criticising any particular Deputy, but I am criticising a type of mentality that seems to be prevalent at present—if the end is good then hang the means. Take any means you like, but, above all, do not show any regard, do not be meticulous about such little things as legalities. We live under a reckless rule of thumb party, and consequently why should we apply legal tests, even in such an important matter as the setting up of the defence forces of the country! There seems to be a fairly general tendency in that respect to brand anyone who asks for the strict observance of the law as being pernickety or eccentric. It reminds me of a postcard I saw in a shop window some time ago depicting an incident on the famous West Clare railway. A train is shown drawn up outside a station, with the driver on the foot-plate waiting for the signal. A porter comes up with a brush under his arm and asks the driver: "Why don't you pull into the station?" The driver replies: "Can't you see the signal is against me?" The porter replies: "Ah, begorra, 'tis particular you are getting." It is in something of the same spirit that Acts of Parliament are being treated. We must not show ourselves the least meticulous as to how they are going to be observed, provided we can by any distortion or manipulation do something which the spirit of the Act never intended we should do. I can understand the courts being at times in difficulties because of the peculiar wording of Acts of Parliament, and trying to make sense out of a particular section in which there is very little real sense because of defective drafting. But a Minister faced with a position of that kind has a remedy, an easy remedy, because it does not take long to get an Act through, as even the most fiercely contested goes through the Oireachtas in a few months.

I heard it advanced unofficially on behalf of the Minister that he did not seek to introduce legislation in order to save the dignity of the Oireachtas because of the piffle that would be talked about the Army in getting a Bill which would give the necessary powers through. The Minister did not say that himself, but a member of this House said it on his behalf. I do not say he asked that member to say it. That may be the reason, but I do not think it is a justifiable one, and I think the Minister must, from previous statements made by himself, admit that he did not believe the Act gave him power to set up a Volunteer Reserve. He looked about to see whether there were any means by which he could convince himself that it did. It was only by a considerable straining of the meaning of the Act, aided by able lawyers whose business it was to strain it sufficiently for the purpose, that he introduced this method. While I question the legality of the manner in which the Reserve was set up I do not propose to criticise it, because if we are to have an Army, I suppose unpaid forces are probably as good as any others in a sense, although I cannot see that we are going to gain a tremendous amount from hosts of trained warriors, because at times they are just as likely to turn their arms against each other as against a common enemy, particularly a Volunteer Reserve that can belong to political organisations, secret societies and so forth, and that may find their allegiance to the Forces sometimes in conflict with their allegiance to political organisations. But I say the Minister is deserving of the disapproval and the censure of the Oireachtas for the irregular manner in which he has proceeded to set up armed forces for which he had no authority from the Oireachtas.

Colonel Moore

The Senator who has just spoken made a double statement. He first talked of a member of the other House who is not present to defend himself, and who stated that he did not intend to criticise the legality of this proceeding, but before he sat down the Senator wound up by stating that he himself did not intend to criticise the legality of the Act.

Mr. O'Farrell

If I said that I said something that I did not intend to say or mean. I did not question the wisdom of the step.

Colonel Moore

As a matter of fact the Senator was quite right in what he said, because the Minister in what he did took care to keep himself within the wording of the law. In all constitutional countries that I know of, in England, France, and other places, the Army Bill, or a Bill dealing with armed forces is brought in, in which the number of men that are to be employed is very carefully laid down. I have constantly read of great disputes in the French Parliament as to the number of men that should be enlisted. In the House of Commons it was a long fight against the Crown by the Commons to prevent the enlistment of more men than should be enlisted for fear they might interfere with the liberties of Parliament. In the Free State Constitution that provision is omitted. It states that forces may be enlisted, but it does not set out the exact number. Probably that was not thought of at the time. The Minister takes advantage of that and produces a Bill under which any number of men can be recruited. There is no law against it, and therefore it is technically legal, but it is constitutionally wrong. There is a great deal of difference between a constitutional act and a legal act, just as there is a great deal of difference between right and wrong. The Minister seizes on the point in our Constitution where a word or two should have been inserted. It would be better in that respect if the Constitution were changed.

I am not criticising the number of men enlisted, but when it is proposed to set up an armed force of a body of Volunteers you have to consider what sort of success you are likely to have. The Minister does not seem to have considered that at all, because after several months of endeavour, having sent out recruiters all over Dublin, and into Trinity College, and the other University, at the end of a few months of constant labour I am told about 300 volunteers are the result. I am told that 80 of these were enlisted in Trinity College. When we ask why they were enlisted, and why Trinity College is able to produce a very considerable number of the total, we find, according to a paper published in Trinity College, that it was to enable the Irish people and the Volunteers to support the British in case of war. When that statement is put forward you cannot expect that the Volunteers will be extremely popular. It may have been totally different long ago, but in these times you cannot expect such Volunteers to be popular. As a matter of fact, the force has not been popular; it has been a dead failure. Why? Because there is not a popular feeling in favour of it. I was connected at one time with an illegal organisation and had a good deal to say to its formation.

Dr. Gogarty

The Connaught Rangers.

Colonel Moore

I had no difficulty at any time in raising men. I often enlisted more men in half-an-hour than the Minister has succeeded in raising in three months, because popular feeling was behind me. It is not behind the Minister. I think it is a great mistake to put forward things that are not wanted in this country; to put forward a body of Volunteers a great number of whom are declared to be in favour of helping the British, perhaps to come over and conquer this country again. That might arise. However, the Minister does not trouble himself about that. He has long passed away from the period when I first knew him, and when I proposed him as a Deputy and started him. He has passed away from these matters, and has changed his opinion. Apparently he is now enlisting Volunteers to fight for the British in case they come over here again. In any case, he leaves that open and the Trinity College people can say what they like and get their own people to join under any proposition they wish. When one wishes to do things like that I have a strong opposition to their being done by secret and sinister means, hiding all these things and screwing around the corner of some words in the Constitution, which apparently makes them technically right.

Why did the Minister not come forward to the Dáil with the proposition and like an honest man say: "I want Volunteers. Volunteers have been always popular in this country and I wish to start them"? That would be the straightforward way. He would not do that. Ministers are always trying to be secret, to do everything by sidelines in finance and other things, but always behind curtains, with tricks, and dodges, and deceits. That is the way we are governed—nothing but secrecy about everything, and tricks and dodges—and it is for that reason that I oppose this Bill. If it was brought forward before the Dáil in a straightforward manner I would have voted for it.

Cathaoirleach

It is not a Bill; it is a motion.

Colonel Moore

I do not particularly care, now, whether you establish a Volunteer Force or not. It has probably been done to enable a body of people of Ministers' own political opinion to be scattered round the country, so that Ministers will get their support.

Mr. Connolly

I wish to mention one or two points that occurred to me in connection with the Volunteer Force. As far as we are concerned I would like it to be understood that in the main we are entirely in favour of a Volunteer Force in this country, provided always that the Volunteers are created as an Army, or as a Reserve army for the defence of Ireland specifically. We do not want to fear—and we think there is grave reason to fear—that this Volunteer Force may be used in various ways, either operating on behalf of the British in any international crisis, or used in civil disturbances, for strikebreaking or such other purposes. The method by which this Volunteer Force has been created, as Senator Johnson and Senator O'Farrell have argued, has been, in my opinion, quite illegal. Undoubtedly it is straining the section of the Act dealing with the Reserves to the limit. It is going beyond the limit to say that under this system, where men are sworn in for a period of three years, they can be automatically transferred after a period of three minutes, and become Volunteers. There is a rumour or suggestion—in fact a very definite statement was made to me—that a certain attitude was taken up with regard to recruitment in Trinity College. I hope the Minister will be able to deny it. I do not believe in making Party capital out of these things, but I would like it to be definitely recorded as a denial from the Minister that such statement is untrue. The statement was that a guarantee was given to the Trinity College section that they would not be asked to fight against Ulster. I do not know whether that is true or not or whether there was any qualification or any special privilege given the Trinity force, as distinct from the other Volunteers. I would like a statement on that from the Minister.

There is one thing that I think is likely to defeat the purpose of the recruitment of Volunteers, and that, in my judgment, has already contributed to that, and that is the tendency on the part of the Executive Council or of the Government Party to induce members of the existing Army to come into the political arena, to resign their commissions or retire on very substantial pensions and take part in political activities as party politicians. Personally, I feel, and I think most Senators will agree with me, that that is not desirable in the present phase of things, that it is not likely to encourage recruitment for the Volunteers if ex-officers of the standing Army, who may become officers in the Volunteer Reserve, are taken out of the Army, or are induced to leave it with substantial pensions, and are thrown in to fight the very constituencies where the fight is going to be keen. I think under those circumstances that a political reaction will take place in the case of possible recruits for the Volunteers that will be highly undesirable, and I think if the Volunteers are going to be recruited, and successfully recruited, as far as possible all political elements should be eliminated. That will certainly not be done if we are going to have in politics very prominent officers of the Army who will be potential officers in the Volunteer Reserve.

I think that the tendency towards a Volunteer Reserve Army is a very desirable one. I feel that a standing army is always an undesirable thing. I feel that every citizen of a country should be ready to take his stand in the defence of the country, that a mercenary force such as a standing army should not be necessary in this country, and that a skeleton officer reserve force is the ideal, or the nearest thing that one can get for the purpose required. The main issue that is operating in the minds of the people who are potential recruits for the Volunteers is how they are going to be used. Are they going to be used in any sense in a political way? Are they going to be used in defence of British rights as a members of the Commonwealth of the Dominions? I think that these things have been the main stumbling blocks in the way of the success of recruitment for the Volunteers. I do not think that the public have been satisfied that this force has been organised in such a way as to satisfy the national aspirations of the people, and I think that therein lies its failure. It may be that the main recruitment for the force was carried out whilst the Minister was not here at all. I think that the Minister, during the inauguration of this force and in its early stages, was absent from the country, but I would ask him these few questions with regard to the whole position. I agree with the proposer of the motion that the normal and the reasonable thing would have been for a Bill to have been introduced to legalise and put in proper form the whole organisation of this Reserve, and I have sympathy with the motion in its attempt to legalise the method which was employed.

Mr. Milroy

I would not like the impression to go abroad that the Minister is speaking alone in this matter here when he rises to reply. I have not risen with the intention of anticipating his reply, but with the intention of making it clear that the opinions already expressed do not represent the unanimous views of this assembly. When Senator Johnson initiated the discussion on his motion last December the circumstances attending the initation of that discussion were somewhat unfavourable, and it was difficult for those present either to follow the trend of his observations or to weigh the value of his arguments. However, since then we have had ample time to read, mark and inwardly digest what the Senator said on that occasion, and as one who read the Senator's observations in the Official Report with the closest scrutiny, the most meticulous care, I must say that the whole thing seems to me to be an elaborate example of much ado about nothing. If it gives any impression at all it is an impression of how fallible the judgment of Senator Johnson can be on certain occasions.

I think that very few additional points have been raised to-day. Senator O'Farrell seemed to think that an absence of argument could be compensated for by copious quotations from official documents. He used such devastating terms as "distortion and manipulation" of the powers of a certain Act. Senator Moore introduced no new point. He told us what an excellent recruiter he had been on a certain occasion. I have no doubt he was, and I am not going to take away from him any little credit that he can claim to have for recruiting for any army that he may have been attached to. Senator Connolly had merely a few timid questionings that he wished to put to the Minister, but he advanced no real challenge to the Act itself.

Senator Johnson's speech, I think, contains all the considered criticism that we need deal with, and he certainly surprised me. He used language which, if the circumstances warranted the use of that language, would certainly be severe almost to the point of exaggeration. He accused the Minister of stretching and twisting the provisions of a particular section. He said: "The Minister has illegitimately and unreasonably used the powers given to him under Section 146." That was very strong language for Senator Johnson to use. The whole point as to whether that language is warranted or not, and as a matter of fact, I think, the whole point of Senator Johnson's contention, ranges round this question of whether Section 146 does really give the Minister power to do what he has done or not. If it gives him that power it is simply childish, I think, to talk about twisting and stretching the provisions of this section and illegitimately and unreasonably using its powers.

Either the section gives the Minister these powers or it does not give him these powers. If it gives him these powers, then why quarrel with the Minister for exercising the powers that the Oireachtas has conferred upon him? I presume that the Minister will be able to state very explicitly what his position in that regard is. I do know that at one time Senator Johnson was not very clear or very definite in his mind that such powers were not embodied in the Act. Dealing with this in the Dáil on the 6th May, 1926, he said: "I do not know whether it will be necessary to have legislation to meet it" (the question of the Reserve). So that at that time clearly Senator Johnson was not convinced in his mind that the powers which the Minister has been exercising were precluded from his sphere by the provisions of the enactment. But even as a layman, as one not competent to speak with any great degree of knowledge of the intricacies of the law, the wording in portion of this section quoted by Senator Johnson, is to me clear, definite, and unquestionable.

The section says: "The Minister may from time to time, by general or special regulation, vary the conditions of service, so as to permit a soldier of the Forces in any service, with the assent of the Minister, either (a) to enter the Reserve at once for the residue unexpired of the term of his original enlistment ..." That seems to me the whole turning point of this matter; that is, if the section confers the power upon the Minister to do these things, then I say that it is simply idle and childish, and an unwarranted waste of the time of the House to contest it. Then there was the extent to which Senator Johnson could challenge the legality of the procedure, and he has done so, in my opinion, in an argument exceedingly faulty and unconvincing, and in language altogether unsuited to the calm consideration of the matter. He and other speakers seemed to convey the impression that this action has been taken without the knowledge of the Oireachtas, that the whole thing has been sprung upon the Oireachtas, without any previous intimation that such a step was in contemplation, and that such a step was likely to be taken. Senator Moore used the words "secret and sinister" as describing the procedure in relation to this matter, and similar imputations have been made in the course of this discussion. I do not know whether it was unconscious or not, but it seemed to me calculated to convey the impression that the real judgment and the real wishes of the Oireachtas had been overridden, and that a military autocracy was doing these things.

Now, as a matter of fact, not once but on several occasions this matter has been dealt with in the Dáil, specifically and definitely by Ministers. The Minister for Finance referred to it on the 21st April, 1927, in his Budget statement; the Minister for Defence referred to it on the 16th December, 1927, on the Defence Forces Bill, and on the 25th November, 1928, on the Army Vote; Deputy Kerlin referred to it on the last-mentioned date, and seemed impatient for the formation—I presume he spoke for his Party—of some such body as has been set up; and last, but by no means least, in the matter of the pertinence of the quotations on the Army Vote on the 31st November, 1928, the Minister for Defence said: "When I am satisfied that I have the legal power, I propose to start the Volunteer Reserve." That was in 1928. I presume that he has satisfied himself; I presume that he indicated by that that he was consulting those who were the proper people to advise him upon the legal aspect of the matter. Senator Johnson may take umbrage from the fact that he was not the person selected to advise the Minister for Defence on this matter. I do not think that Senator Johnson would be the proper person to give such advice. Senator Johnson appears, so to speak, to assign to himself the position of indispensable mentor of this whole State, and he assumes that if he withdraws his watchful eye or his guiding hand from any of its movements the State is bound to fall into ways of mischief. Of course, that is an illusion. The ejection of that illusion from the Senator's mind would add to his capacity for helping this State, and to the assistance which he has given to this State since its inauguration.

I do not know if Senators recollect who seconded Senator Johnson's motion. I hardly believe that Senator Johnson is happy when he thinks of the seconder of his motion. Senator Comyn, who seconded it, seems to have assigned to himself the role of persistent seconder of Senator Johnson's motions, with the result that, if there is no other reason for their rejection, Senator Comyn's seconding of them is generally bound to secure their rejection. I do not think that Senator Johnson will rejoice in the prospect of this senatorial old man of the sea clinging to the necks of his motions, and he will probably make arrangements that in future his motions, if they are to be seconded at all, will certainly not be seconded by Senator Comyn.

Mr. Connolly

Are these personal remarks in order?

Cathaoirleach

They are hardly personal remarks; but in any case the Seanad can take them for what they are worth.

Mr. Milroy

Senator Comyn really reduced this matter to a farce. Instead of discussing whether this particular procedure that had been adopted was in accordance with the statute or not, he proceeded to tell us of personal freedom and the safeguards of personal freedom being absolutely unknown, and that the enrolment of standing armies had led to the downfall of liberty in every country except England.

Mr. Comyn

I said where it was not controlled by Parliament.

Mr. Milroy

Senator Comyn, or at least the Party with which he is now associated, endeavoured to establish a standing army that was not controlled by Parliament, and it nearly led to the downfall of liberty in this country. Of course, Senator Comyn ought to be a great authority on this matter. I understand—he will correct me if I am wrong—that he was a member of the O.T.C. in Trinity College before the outbreak of the Great War. Had it not been for the fact that his martial ardour evaporated when the war drums beat to battle possibly he might have gone down to history as the unknown general who broke the Hindenburg Line. There was no point in Senator Comyn's intervention. It was a speech that seemed to be delivered without his having considered what was the wording of Senator Johnson's motion; it was a speech that threw no light upon the subject, and I am afraid that none of the other speeches we have heard to-day have done so.

Great solicitude and great regret have been expressed by some gentlemen here to-day over what they allege to have been the failure of recruiting for the Volunteer Reserve. How much help have they given to make it a success? How much help have the organs of publicity with which they are identified given to make it a success? The fact is known to anyone who has been watching events for the last few months that not only have they given no help but they have done everything in their power to prevent it from being a success. I think it is a pity, in the case of a force which has been established in the interests of the State, with the desire to safeguard and defend the rights of the citizens and the status of the State, that certain sections of the community should first have tried to defeat the creation of that force, and that afterwards the spokesman of that section should appear in the National Assembly and pretend they regretted that it had not been a greater success than it is. Whether a measure of success has attended it or not I do not know, but I know this, that if it is unsuccessful it will not be as a consequence of the futile efforts of these gentlemen and their associates; it will be a non-success if there is in this country an absence of real citizenship which recognises its rights and is prepared to assert and defend them. That, I take it, is the purpose of this force, and it is because that is its purpose that, despite all that has been said in criticism of it, I believe it is not going to fail, that I stand here in defence of the action the Minister has taken.

Senator Johnson's motion may have served one useful purpose. Certain propagandists have been at work trying to broadcast the idea that something illegal has been done, something not warranted by a statute of the Oireachtas. If this discussion clears up that mistake and gives the Minister a chance to make it clear and definite that all that has been done is quite within his competence as Minister for Defence, quite within the meaning, the letter, and the spirit of the Act, then I think that possibly, and perhaps unintentionally, Senator Johnson will have rendered a service to the State.

Dr. Gogarty

One would expect that there would be some volunteer reserve unless the standing army was for ever to be kept at an excessive strength. Senator Johnson's motion concerns the procedure adopted, not the question of the advantage to the country of a reserve, and inasmuch as the Minister gave two years' notice that he was seeking advice as to the legality of establishing such a force, he is highly to be congratulated in having got through the work without allowing it to become the object of hairsplitting and of questions of legality. There is a type of mentality which resists the civilising agencies that are represented in other nations at present, but it does not resist them by saying that they may potentially be turned into policemen, but by making little points on questions of procedure. And while rather misleading and lulling aspirations of peace are in the air this country is to be congratulated on definitely forming a military organisation, because without a military organisation, no matter what its strength, the rights which a country has got would gradually be whittled away.

No one for a moment pretends that some of the many armies of the Indian princes could have put up a resistance to England for five minutes, but immediately the Indian princes got rid of their armies in order to lesson the strain on their exchequers, certain arbitrary rules were strained, legality entered into it, and they lost privileges, and in some cases they lost millions of money through confiscation. When they applied to the Minister who was concerned with the finances of India, and when they objected to acts of barefaced confiscation, they were told tersely that it was a matter of ethics and that they had better apply to the Political Secretary.

Now, the very sentiments which certain imperial nations express can be turned into defences for them by the smaller and lesser principalities and nations which have standing armies, however small, or military organisations, because before you ultimately and completely exterminate rights you must go against your own expressed aspirations, otherwise your preaching controls your practice. It is highly important for this country to have an army, and more important to have an avenue by which that army can be if necessary diminished. As regards the fear of it being turned into an engine to fight for Great Britain in future years under various circumstances that will arise, it will fight for its own interests, and those interests may be largely bound up with the interests of Great Britain. We are selling our cattle to England, and the heart will go with the treasure. After all, it might not be a very bad thing to fight for Great Britain if the circumstances demanded it, rather than to stand alone and be invaded, or be paraded to the world as one of those conscientious objectors to fighting, conscientious objectors to the creation of a volunteer reserve or, what is much worse, by possible peaceful penetration of people who will screw the ways and means out of our pockets by high interest. One director of the Bank of England could conquer this country by a stroke of the pen, because politics are now changing into economics, and it is only in a small cul-de-sac like this that you will hear difficulties and points made when there should be none, particularly small legal difficulties being made when a thing is as clear as daylight. It is necessary for the physique of the country to have some reserve and some sort of training, and I think that the Minister was quite correct in putting this completed scheme before us.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Fitzgerald)

Senator O'Farrell spoke about certain types of mentality. One type I would like rather mildly to deprecate is the type that throws out epithets with that blandness and lightheartedness that I noticed here this afternoon, but that when it comes to substantiate these remarks fails utterly to do so. That may be because in this country it seems to me that, whereas ordinary ethics would seem to attribute illegalities to a Minister which would require more proof than in the case of the ordinary person, here it seems that a moment of petulance justifies anything against a Minister. That, no doubt, is due to the fact that so many of our people suffer from this, that for many generations we have not had any sense of responsibility towards a National Government.

Senator Johnson said that I acted illegitimately and unreasonably. To act illegitimately means to act against the law. Previous to that he was making the statement, when interrupted by Senator O'Farrell, that "it is probably quite true that the Minister has power." He did not quite finish the sentence. What I take it the Senator meant to say, was that I had the power. He said that I acted illegitimately. His resolution asks the Seanad "to disapprove of the procedure adopted by the Minister for Defence in the formation of a Volunteer Reserve as being an abuse of the power of the Minister and an encroachment upon the authority of the Oireachtas." What would be an abuse of the Minister's power? Surely it would be if he exercised an authority that he did not possess, or used the power he possesses for a wrong purpose— that is to say, for a purpose against the general well-being. No Senator has suggested that any power the Minister possesses has been abused, or used for a wrong purpose. The suggestion merely is that I used that power unreasonably.

Senator O'Farrell said that I acted in an irregular and illegal manner, that I set up the Volunteers without the authority of the Oireachtas, that I did it in an irregular and unseemly manner to injure and to bring the Oireachtas into contempt, and that in doing so I gave myself powers that the Act did not give me. Towards the end of his remarks—I could not take a note of everything the Senator said —he admitted that I had those powers. Senator Johnson, when he came to substantiate the remarks he made, that I had acted illegally, quoted certain things which seem to me to bear quite a contrary connotation. A number of people seem to think that because I expressed a doubt as to my legal powers that it meant I was pretty well satisfied that I did not possess those powers. Quite the contrary is the case. I always try to exercise the caution that a certain popular phrase attributes to angels. Therefore, until I am satisfied and know that I have power, I necessarily assume that I have not got it. In this matter, as in other matters, unless it is perfectly clear and obvious to me that I possess a power, I consult the proper adviser. I take his advice and not Senator Johnson's.

The Senator said that it was provided that a person may be enlisted to serve as a soldier for twelve years or less as fixed by the Minister. It will be noticed that the Oireachtas limited the length of time but it did not limit the shortness of the time. It left that to the discretion of the Minister. Senator Johnson went on to say that in the code "the original enlistment shall be for the whole of the term of his original enlistment in army service; or for such portion of the term of his original enlistment as may be, from time to time, fixed by the Minister and specified in the attestation papers in Army Service, and for the residue of the said service in the Reserve." What does that prove, if it proves anything? It proves that the Oireachtas, with its eyes open, gave power to the Minister to limit the time of actual service in the Army, no matter how short the period. It gave a discretion to the Minister to limit the time. How anyone could suggest that the quotation Senator Johnson gave purported to say that the Oireachtas ordered the Minister that he should not allow a man to serve too short a period in the Army I cannot see. What is the fact? I consulted the proper authority as to whether these powers existed or not. I was advised that they did, and nobody who has spoken has attempted to say otherwise than that the powers did exist. The argument was that I distorted and twisted the Act, that I acted irregularly and in an unseemly manner, that I resorted to an administrative subterfuge. The position is that either I had the power or I had not. If I had the power the question comes to this, was it in the national interest that it should be used or that it should not?

Senator Johnson seems to me to undertake to tell what was in the minds of various Senators and Deputies when passing the original Defence Forces Act. I cannot pretend to do that. The reasons that prompted their action may have been as many and as various as there were Senators and Deputies. Neither I nor anybody else, including Senator Johnson, could say what was in their minds. As to the legal side of this, I do not think any Senator has attempted to say that I had not legal powers. If I had legal power, what then constitutes an abuse of it? I should say the use of it for some purpose against the national interest, but no one has attempted to say that any attempt was made to use that power against the national interest, or that I attempted to usurp the power of the Oireachtas. First of all the Oireachtas gives power to a Minister. The power resides in the Minister to be used for the national well-being. It might be said that this Act, having been passed some years ago and circumstances having changed, that it was perfectly evident to anyone that the Oireachtas had changed its mind, and that therefore I should have given the Oireachtas an opportunity of indicaing that.

Senator Milroy referred to various statements. On 21st April, 1927, the Minister for Finance stated definitely in relation to his Budget proposals, that it was our intention to establish a territorial force. Deputy Johnson, as he was then, did not object. He forehold that it would be impossible for us to run an army on the sum estimated by the Minister for Finance, but he did not object in any way to the proposal to establish a territorial force. In November, 1927, I myself indicated clearly that we had in view the formation of a Reserve. I made that statement in the Dáil. Deputy O'Connell, who is a member of the Party to which Senator Johnson belongs, did not in any way indicate that he objected to the formation of a Volunteer Reserve. The Fianna Fáil Party in the Dáil always spoke in favour of a volunteer reserve, although with that consistency that one may always expect from them, when it came to the point, they voted against it. Every indication given in the Dáil by us, and every responsible statement that we made in the Dáil and in the Seanad, indicated that our desire was for the formation of a Volunteer Reserve, or that the formation of such a Reserve was a likely possibility?

Mr. Johnson

Could the Minister quote any reference to that effect?

Mr. Fitzgerald

On the Second Stage of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1929, I indicated quite clearly, when speaking in the Seanad on 13th March, 1929, that it was our intention to start a Volunteer Reserve. I stated: "Most Senators know that during last year we reduced considerably the standing Army, making it the framework which was to be filled in by other organisations, such as the A and B Reserves and the Volunteer Reserve." Here the suggestion is that I have taken an entirely new departure in the Army without consulting the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas gave me power to do a certain thing, provided it is for the national good. In the early stages we had not the A Reserve. That came into being without legislation. A couple of years ago we started the B Reserve. I did not come to the Oireachtas for legislation. In due time, when I felt that the Army was ready to undertake an additional branch, I started the Volunteer Reserve. Senator O'Farrell was wrong in nearly every definite statement that he made. He said that no financial provision had been made, quite overlooking the fact, if my memory serves me right, that in the original Estimates last year provision was made for the O.T.C. The Senator referred to the O.T.C. as part of a body for which no financial provision had been made.

Mr. Johnson

But there was no reference to the Volunteer Reserve.

Mr. Fitzgerald

No. I think that if the Senator reads Senator O'Farrell's remarks he will find that his statement applies equally to the O.T.C.

Mr. O'Farrell

I was talking solely of the Volunteer Reserve.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I think that when the Senator reads his remarks he will find that the statement I have just made is correct—that his remarks apply equally to the O.T.C. The Senator, apparently, was unaware of the fact that a Supplementary Estimate has been introduced in the Dáil and passed. It was a perfectly legal act I did. No one, I think, can say that in bringing the Volunteer Reserve Force into existence I was acting against the national well-being. Neither do I think anybody could assert that my action was an abuse of the power I possess. Senator Johnson, as I understand it, having admitted that I had the power, went on to say that I acted illegitimately. That is loose phrasing. Possibly he got somewhat petulant at being interrupted, and unfortunately petulance in this country very often expresses itself in abuse of Ministers.

Senator O'Farrell admitted that it was pretty clear that all shades of opinion were in favour of a Volunteer Reserve. He also said that the Oireachtas had made no provision for it, financial or otherwise. Senator O'Farrell also said that men joining the Volunteer Reserve signed the ordinary attestation form. They do not. They sign a special one. The Senator implied that a man may attest for less than three years. That is not so. The Senator seemed to be unaware that the regulations are laid on the Table of both Houses. He also said that he did not believe that the Act gives me the powers that I say it does. He based his case on the use of the word "serve" and admitted, I think that the word "serve" can be interpreted as he said I was interpreting it.

Then Senator Moore comes along. He said that I was technically and legally right but constitutionally wrong. It was somewhat difficult to follow the Senator's remarks, but as far as I could understand them what he said was something like this: that as far as the Consitution of this State is concerned it was made by us, but that when you want to know something that is really constitutional you go to England or France. Although a thing may be perfectly legal here because our Constitution and our mode of law permit it, from the Senator's point of view it is constitutionally wrong because his English and French friends would not have it so, and therefore it is, in essence, constitutionally wrong. The Senator also said that the Volunteer Reserve—he included the O.T.C. in his references and spoke of Trinity College—has not been a success. Well it depends on what you mean by success. It has been successful beyond my expectation to the extent of three times.

Colonel Moore

How many did the Minister get?

Mr. Fitzgerald

I cannot recall the figure at the moment, but it was twice as many as the Senator suggested.

Colonel Moore

That was not much.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Senator referred to the O.T.C. in Trinity College. He said that an extraordinarily big percentage of the new organisation are members of Trinity College. The number of members in the organisation is about 700, and of these 85 are members of Trinity College, which I think is a very fair and appropriate proportion. I am very glad to see these 85 young men in the Volunteer Reserve. The Senator also suggested —from this one gathered that he reads certain obscure organs that do not come my way very often and quoted them as if they were authoritative—that the object of the Volunteer Reserve was to support the British in case of war, and that consequently you cannot expect it to be very popular. Why? Because some organ which I believe to have a very limited circulation suggests on its own authority and not on any authoritative authority that the sole purpose of the Volunteers is to be used in support of the British in case of war. Having consistently preached that as a fact, he then complains that that is the story that is going around, and that you cannot expect the Volunteers to be popular. The Volunteers are more popular, even during the short period of their existence, than I ever expected them to be. The only body that has attempted to throw any doubt in that is the Party to which the Senator belongs, and he says they are a dead failure. That remark has no relation to the realities of the case.

The Senator also dealt with a period of past history, and on that he was also a bit wrong. He said that he was once connected with an illegal organisation but that popular feeling was behind him in it. He referred to his knowing myself at that time. We did know each other. We were both associated with an organisation which I thought at that time was not illegal. At a given moment it looked as if it was unpopular. When it became perfectly clear that it was about to be made illegal Senator Colonel Moore left it and associated himself with an organisation which looked popular for the moment and which had every guarantee of not being made illegal. That organisation existed solely for the purpose of serving the British authorities here.

Colonel Moore

That is a mis-statement.

Mr. Fitzgerald

In my simplicity I remained in the original organisation. These are things I did not care usually to refer to. In 1913-14 Senator Colonel Moore and I were both members of the Irish Volunteers. Then when the Great War came, and it was apparent that the British Government were going to be severe on us another rival organisation—the National Volunteers—was formed, and the Senator joined that second organisation, which existed, as far as anyone could see, for the purpose of recruiting for the British Army. That organisation was never declared illegal, and to join it the Senator left the organisation to which he and I belonged, and of which I remained a member.

Colonel Moore

As a matter of fact, a certain number on both sides enlisted in the British Army. I always opposed enlistments in the British Army. It was no part of the business of the National Volunteers or the Irish Volunteers to enlist in the British Army.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Senator has misunderstood my statement. I said we both belonged to a particular organisation and when it became apparent the organisation was to be made illegal the Senator left it and joined another organisation which there was no fear would be made illegal.

Colonel Moore

There was no idea of making either illegal when I joined. A small party of which the Minister was then a member, about one in a hundred, separated themselves from the larger organisation.

Cathaoirleach

I think personalities might be avoided in the discussion of this question.

Mr. O'Farrell

I suggest that both the Minister and the Senator are standing arguments against Volunteers.

Mr. Fitzgerald

This is not a matter I came here to discuss, but in my desire for accuracy I had to deal with it when the Senator got up and said that he had popular feeling behind him, and that I had passed away from the party of which I was a member when he knew me first. I want to say the passing away from that party was done by the Senator and not by me. The Senator then went on to say that we were apparently enlisting Volunteers to fight for the British. A childish remark of that sort is beneath taking notice of.

Senator Connolly asked are these volunteers for the defence of Ireland. These volunteers, as every document connected with them states clearly, are enlisted in the service of the State and for the well-being of the people who live in this State, and for nothing else. The Senator said they might be used in several ways on behalf of the British or in the case of civil disturbance. They will only be used when the Government existing in this country by virtue of the will of the Irish people shall decide the purpose for which they shall be used. If the Government of this country, speaking in the name of the people, wished the Volunteers to be used on behalf of the British, then they should be used on behalf of the British if that is the will of the people here. In the case of civil disturbance on a large scale amounting to a position of civil war the standing army will be called on first, then the A Reserve, next the B Reserve, and the Volunteer Reserve last.

Mr. Johnson

How does the Minister know that? His successor may have a different view.

Mr. Fitzgerald

It is the order that exists at the moment, and I expect that is the ordinary intelligent way to anticipate events. Volunteers may understand that they can only be called upon in the event of the standing army and A Reserve plus B Reserve being found inadequate to deal with the existing situation. Senator Connolly suggested a certain attitude was taken with regard to recruiting in Trinity College, and that assurances were given they would not be asked to fight against Ulster. Nobody with any intelligence would put forward such a proposition. People who lived in the North and who ran out of it are always talking about fighting Ulster, but not so the ordinary intelligent young men who join the O.T.C. If people wanted to make that a condition of joining the Volunteer Reserve I would say their mental capacity unfitted them for membership.

Mr. Connolly

I want to protest against the innuendo that I ran out of Ulster.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I did not name anyone. He also went on to talk about members of the army taking part in politics. That brings us to the declaration made by Volunteers and referred to by Senator Johnson. What is the position? You have a Volunteer Reserve. The members of the Volunteer Reserve are ordinary citizens pursuing their ordinary avocations and merely attending drill. I do not think any intelligent person would suggest that during that period men should be excluded from participation in ordinary politics in the country. When a man joins the Volunteer Reserve he does undertake at a given time and in given circumstances, which I submit are of their nature extremely exceptional, to be subject to discipline, and it is in the interests of that discipline that he be precluded from participating actively in politics. When a man joins he makes a declaration, and on that declaration he is exempted from it during his ordinary membership of the Reserve and it will be only applied when a time of emergency has arisen. If anyone can suggest a better way to meet that I would like to know it. It must apply during a moment of emergency. You do not want in a moment of emergency to present a man with conditions that were not presented when he joined. He makes a declaration and he is exempted from the declaration but it will apply when he is called upon for active service.

That is the position with regard to the declaration, and consequently any member of the Reserve is free to participate in politics on any side he likes. I do not think I would be justified in proposing anything to the contrary. If I were to say that every member of the Reserve was to hold himself aloof from politics I would hardly be treating him fairly. I think there are members not merely of the Government Party but members of other parties in the Reserve. At least, there is one man I know in the Reserve whose politics are not those of the Government, and his occupation is largely associated with politics.

Mr. Comyn

The only one you have any information of is someone who is an opponent of yours.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Senator according to the best traditions of his Party is wrong. The person I refer to is an old friend of mine of long standing. I knew him before I knew Senator Moore, and I think he is also an old friend of Senator Johnson. What I wish to say is that I must protest most strongly against the suggestion that I have acted illegally, and as to the suggestion that I used my powers against the interests of the country, I strongly protest against that as it is contrary to the fact.

Mr. Johnson

I think the Minister has taken a long time to deal with small and unimportant points. The greater part of his speech has dealt with points of terminology and grammar. The essence of my complaint in the motion is "That the Senand disapproves of the procedure adopted by the Minister for Defence in the formation of a Volunteer Reserve as being an abuse of the power of the Minister and an encroachment upon the authority of the Oireachtas." Nothing that he has said removes the conviction in my mind that that statement is true. Anyone who has read the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act with an unbiased mind would come to the conclusion that what is inherent in the Act is that the Reserve that is to be formed under the authority of the Act is a Reserve of men who have served and trained in the Army. I am not going to deal with all the smaller points that have been raised. I am not attacking the establishment of the Reserve. I have raised no question as to the political views of the members of the Reserve. I am not going to say a word as to the wisdom or unwisdom of that Reserve. If there is to be a trained army in the country I think it is the best form in which an army should be enlisted. The important thing is to keep, and notwithstanding the admonition of Senator Milroy I hope I shall continue to keep, an eye on the encroachments on the authority of the Oireachtas. If we are going to maintain the position of the Seanad in the first instance, and the Dáil and Seanad together in the second instance, in relation to the executive authority, we must, above everything else, have control over arming the citizens. Anybody who has made a study of constitutional development in any country knows that the essence of executive power, and the possibility of tyranny being used by executive power, resides in authority over the armed forces, and if the Parliament of the country has any meaning at all above every other meaning, it is that it shall retain control of authority in respect of the arming of the citizens.

It is hardly necessary to remind the House again that this Act of 250 odd clauses and numerous schedules was passed in both Houses in 1923 without any discussion whatsoever in either House. The Minister says that he has been legally advised on the matter. As a layman I am not going to say that the lawyers are wrong when they told him he has power to do this thing, but I believe he has twisted the terms of the sections of that Act in the formation of the Volunteer Reserve. The Bill speaks of having served in the Forces. Men who have served in the Forces may be transferred to the Volunteer Reserve. Does any Senator believe for one moment that that phrase implies that a man may join the Forces, become a soldier and at the same moment be transferred? The thing is preposterous. No such intention was in the Bill, notwithstanding what the lawyers might say about the powers which are said to be in the Bill, and which the lawyers have told him he may use for this purpose.

The precedent that is created here may be followed. Another Ministry may come along and say "We want to train boys over fourteen in the schools and we will call them a Boy Scouts Reserve." They can do that by this precedent without coming to Parliament at all. Is that a desirable thing? Whether it is desirable or not that should be done, it is not right or proper that it should be done without the specific sanction of the Oireachtas. Let us assume for a moment that Senator Mrs. Clarke is Minister for Defence in the next Ministry, and she says in deference to equality of sex she will arm a corps of Amazons without coming to Parliament for authority to do so!

I say that method of procedure is surely stretching the meaning of the Act, and it is an abuse of the powers of the Minister and an encroachment on the powers and authority of the Oireachtas. The Minister has quoted a number of statements in the Dáil and in the Seanad that such a Reserve would in due time be established, and that that was part of the policy of the Minister. It was never stated that it was going to be established simply by an extension of the existing Reserve in the manner that is now being accomplished. But supposing it was said, there was no doubt whatever that the idea of a Volunteer Reserve has been made public time and again, and as Senator O'Farrell has said, it has been approved, that is all the more reason why there should be specific authority given by the Oireachtas. I hope the House will agree with me that it is not enough to say the Minister told the Dáil, and Opposition members of the Dáil approved, and that was sufficient. When the authority of the Oireachtas is talked about this House also has to give its consent, and it is not sufficient to say authority was given and sanction approved by the fact that nobody objected when the Minister said such a thing was in contemplation. There is nothing to be said from my point of view on the question of whether the Reserve has been a success or failure. If it had been a most outstanding success or a most inglorious failure my objection would have been the same, and I plead with the Seanad, if the Dáil does not take a stand in this and on every other occasion, to safeguard the liberties of the people from the possibilities of abuse by an executive, because it is in that function that I think the Seanad will justify itself to the people and to the Constitution. I think it is desirable that on this occasion the matter should be ventilated, and I think it is desirable that the Seanad should approve of the motion I have moved.

Motion put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 13.

Tá

• Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
• Michael Comyn, K.C.
• Thomas Farren.
• Thomas Foran.
• Thomas Johnson.
• Seán E. MacEllin.
• Joseph Connolly.
• Michael Duffy.
• Colonel Moore.
• John T. O'Farrell.
• Séumas Robinson.

Níl

• Miss Kathleen Browne.
• Alfred Byrne.
• The Countess of Desart.
• Michael Fanning.
• Dr. O. St. J. Gogarty.
• The Earl of Granard.
• Henry S. Guinness.
• Cornelius Kennedy.
• Patrick W. Kenny.
• Seán Milroy.
• Sir Walter Nugent.
• M. F. O'Hanlon.
• James J. Parkinson.

Motion declared lost.

Mr. Johnson

May I draw the attention of the House to the possibility of the Dáil agreeing with the message sent down with regard to the Game Preservation Bill? As it is desirable that the work of the proposed Committee should be gone through as quickly as possible, would it be in order to forestall the decision of the Dáil and appoint such a Committee at once?

Cathaoirleach

I do not think so.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 12th March.