Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jun 1934

Vol. 18 No. 26

Public Business. - Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 1934—Committee.

The Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 to 1934, shall continue in force until the 31st day of July, 1935, and shall then expire.

Mr. Blythe

I move the amendment in my name on the Order Paper:

Section 1. To delete in line 20 the figures and words "31st day of July, 1935," and to substitute therefor the figures and words "31st day of October, 1934."

I move this amendment, limiting the duration of the continuing legislation, because the specific amendments which I had wished to move cannot be put before the House under Standing Orders. The Minister, however, stated that new legislation is being prepared, that its preparation has gone a considerable distance—in fact, I think he said that it had passed out of his Department—and, presumably, therefore, it will be introduced, or can be introduced if the Minister desires to introduce it, within a relatively short time. On the other hand, one knows that, so far as the time spent on the drafting and the consideration of Bills is concerned, the delay may be prolonged. I feel that the Seanad ought not to continue the legislation as it stands for a period of 12 months. I do not want to go over the ground again. I have already pointed out to the Seanad that the legislation, as it stands, enables very great and dangerous abuses to take place. There are indications that the powers given to the Government in the legislation proposed to be continued by this Bill are being used in a manner that is menacing the rights and liberties of the people. I think that the Seanad ought not to continue this legislation for 12 months and, at the end of that period, discover that the permanent legislation which, unlike this legislation, can be dealt with in detail, is still under consideration, while the Government has, meantime, taken steps which might be very undesirable but could not be undone. I think we should limit the period of this Bill to three months and, before the expiry of that time, the Minister will at least have introduced his permanent legislation in the Dáil. We shall then know that the Bill is coming before us. Once we have that knowledge, the Bill can be continued for a longer period. I should not mind the period of continuance if the new legislation, which we could discuss, and amend if necessary, was actually before the Oireachtas.

Mr. Brown

I agree with Senator Blythe on the necessity of having the new legislation introduced as soon as possible. I think that the House would be quite justified in putting a limit on the continuance of the present Bill unless it were absolutely certain that this new legislation would be introduced within the period of continuance. It may be that the 31st October gives too short a period. It may be that the period from the time when the House would meet in October until the end of November would not enable the Government to get the new legislation through the two Houses. That, I think, would be a fair objection to the date that the Senator has put in his amendment. I think that the period of continuance ought to be sufficient to make quite certain that the Government, in the ordinary course and without delaying unduly in any way, would be able to get their legislation through the Oireachtas. I suggest to Senator Blythe that he ought to extend the period so that it would be certain that the Government would be able to get their new legislation through within the continuance period. There is nothing to prevent the Government introducing their Bill in October. I understand that the Bill is ready. I think that the Minister has stated that the Bill is ready, so far as his Department is concerned. There is nothing to prevent him from introducing it in October. If they have an honest intention of doing that, then we shall have an opportunity, within the continuance period fixed by this Bill, of discussing amendments which are most important, having regard to what Senator Blythe has said. In these circumstances, I ask Senator Blythe to amend his amendment by putting in a somewhat later date. I suggest that the earliest date should be the end of the year.

Sir John Keane

I should go further and ask Senator Blythe to be satisfied with an assurance from the Minister. I do not like this Bill to be dealt with in hand-to-mouth fashion. If the Minister gives us an assurance, I am satisfied that he will, so far as humanly practicable, carry out that assurance. I should be satisfied with an assurance from the Minister.

Mr. Brown

I should also be satisfied with an assurance if I knew that it would bind the Government.

Mr. Milroy

I want to ask for information which has a very important bearing upon this Bill and upon the attitude which the House will take in regard to this amendment. The Irish Press of March 26 contains a report of a speech delivered by President de Valera in Mullingar. Referring to the Defence Forces, the President made this very important and significant statement: “These forces are pledged to support the national policy, as formulated by the elected Government of the people.” I ask the Minister to tell us explicitly and definitely what are the exact terms of the pledge administered to these forces, when that pledge was administered and if there is any statutory authority to administer a pledge to the Defence Forces to support the policy of the elected Government. If such a pledge has been administered, then we have a political army and we have every reason to think seriously and at very considerable length before we give a continuance of the authority embodied in the Defence Forces Act. If, as stated by the President, this pledge has been administered, then we have a political, party army. If such a pledge has not been administered, then we may take it that the President was talking through his hat and stating something that was not a fact. I think it is incredible that the head of the Executive Council would deliver himself of such a statement if it were not a fact. (Interruption). I should like to repeat my interrogation to the Minister. This is not a matter for levity. I think that the Minister should inform us definitely and explicitly what are the terms of the pledge administered to the Defence Forces pledging them to support the policy, not the authority, but the policy of the Executive Council. The second point is: when that pledge was administered, and the third, what is the statutory authority for administering a pledge binding the Defence Forces to support the policy of one Party in the State.

Miss Browne

I stated several times here, and I wish to repeat it now in order to strengthen what Senator Blythe has said, that there is evidence on every side, plain to everybody who has eyes and ears, that this is a political army. All their activities are political. They are openly taking part in political meetings, and, so far as I know, they are all adherents, active adherents, of the policy of the present Government. I do not wish to go over these matters again, but merely to state that that is quite definite and clear to everybody. From the experience that we have had, I want to say that I would not be satisfied with a mere assurance from the Minister for Defence.

Mr. Blythe

I think the difficulty lies in this: that we have absolutely no assurance and no indication of a specific character as to when this new Bill will be introduced. I would like to put it to the Seanad that what ought to be done to-day is to pass the amendment on the Order Paper. If, by this day week, the Minister is able to come back and, speaking not only on his own behalf but on behalf of the Government, and tell us when the permanent legislation will be introduced, we will then be in a position to consider the matter further. Personally, I think the position simply is that rather than let the whole matter of Army legislation be fully discussed here in the Seanad, after the Minister gets his 12 months' Bill, we will have no further legislation for the 12 months.

Mr. Johnson

I would like this Bill to have been phrased in such a way that the limiting Act would coincide with the end of the financial year; with the period within which the Government have been granted certain moneys for the upkeep of the Army. I have frequently said, and I am going to repeat it to-day, that the original Temporary Provisions Act dealing with the Defence Forces was passed in this House without any criticism at all of a detailed nature. It was introduced by General Mulcahy as Minister. He stated several times, in the course of his introductory speech, that "this was a temporary Bill put forward for a period of 12 months. He realised that it should be discussed in detail and he had thought in fact of having it extended for only a six months' period, but in deference to certain representations which had been made to him he had consented to put in 12 months." The explanation given at the time for passing the Bill through all its stages in this House in one day was that circumstances necessitated the passing of the Bill. The Second Reading was passed, and immediately a motion to suspend the Standing Orders was agreed to. The later Stages of the Bill were then passed immediately without any further discussion whatever. That was a Bill containing 246 sections and eight schedules, occupying 234 pages in the book containing the Acts passed that year.

The Act has been continued year by year since. It has been extended without any question, and has been the law under which the Army has been maintained and disciplined. Now it is suggested that there should be some cat-and-mouse game played with the Minister simply because there is certain criticism about a new force that has been set up—a new force on exactly the same lines as a previous Volunteer Force was set up, thereby stretching, as I thought then and still think, the authority of this Act in a way that it should not have been stretched. That precedent was set and that example given by a Ministry of which Senator Blythe was a leading member.

The suggestion now is that this Bill should only continue until 31st October next. Presumably, the intention is that by that time both Houses will have enacted a new Bill and, presumably, the new Bill will contain as many sections and schedules as the existing measure. Therefore, one must assume that in addition to what other business there may be before the Oireachtas, and making allowance for the Summer Recess, both Houses will have gone through a new Bill of that elaborate nature before the end of October. It may be that the Minister will follow the example of his predecessors and get it through without any discussion at all, but I do not think he ought to try to. Consequently, I think that this Bill, if it is to be amended in regard to its period, should be amended so as to coincide with the end of the financial year. I hope that the Dáil will not encourage this House to play the cat and mouse with Bills of this kind.

I am wondering what would be the effect of the passing of this amendment and the non-passage in the interim that elapsed at the end of October of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act. The first section of the Act is curiously phrased. It says that: "This Act shall continue in force until other provisions shall have been made by law for the defence of Saorstát Eireann and shall not in any case continue in force after a period of one year from the date of the passing hereof." That date has been altered periodically. I take it that the position on, say, the 1st November, if this amendment were passed and no new measure had been enacted, would be that there would be an Army in being, but that the Executive Council would have no authority to set up such an Army. A Senator near me says that there would be no money to pay it. That is where, I think, he is making a mistake. There would be money to pay an Army. If the precedent of all the previous years in regard to the Appropriation Act is followed there would be money to pay the Army. I wonder if Senators who are inclined to support this amendment have given any consideration to the possibility that you would have a Government with large sums of money to support the Army, the Army being, in fact, there, but with no legal authority in the hands of the Ministry to maintain that Army. You would have then a state of things that would not be very conducive to orderly development. With the duty imposed upon the Ministry, whatever the Ministry might be, to maintain order and the defences of the country, it would be obligatory on them to use the money that the Dáil would have voted, and to maintain the Army without legal authority. I think that the Seanad should face that as a possibility, and that it would be very inadvisable to run the risk of that eventuality. I think that the procedure in regard to this Act and in regard to any other measures where moneys are voted to be spent within a year—the period during which such a service should be legalised—should be that it would coincide with the financial period embodied in a particular measure.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Connolly)

I do not want to anticipate the lines of the reply to be made by the Minister concerned with this measure, but I would like to mention that in the years when we were in Opposition this Bill came along annually for continuation. On several occasions during those years I and several other Senators raised the question with regard to the introduction of a permanent Army Bill. On each occasion we were told that the matter was under consideration; that the Government hoped to introduce it soon and so forth. It is interesting to find Senator Blythe's anxiety about this Bill and his intention, if possible, to hold up the operation of the Bill. Already he has succeeded in limiting its duration to three months, and now he proposes to repeat that. I would like to know why Senator Blythe's interest and anxiety did not arise during the ten years that elapsed from the first introduction of the Temporary Provisions Bill. If he is so concerned about the introduction of a permanent Bill, why was not that anxiety of his displayed during the time he was a leading member of the Ministry then concerned with the Administration? As it happens the permanent measure has been under consideration. It has been completed, I understand, by the Department of Defence and is now with the Department of Finance. The intention is to have it introduced at the earliest possible moment. I am reasonably satisfied that the Bill will be before the House before the end of 1934, not to speak of the end of the financial year. However, the Minister for Defence is in a better position to deal with that than I am.

It is interesting and illuminating to find this undue anxiety on the part of Senator Blythe. Senator Blythe, Senator Brown and Senator Sir John Keane say that they are disinclined to hold up this Bill but would like to have an assurance from the Minister concerned. I have no doubt he will be able to reassure them on that. It was also illuminating to learn, as Senator Johnson explained, the method that was adopted when this Temporary Provisions Act was passed originally. It was interesting to learn that it was put through almost without discussion. Most of the Stages were passed through without any discussion at all. It is symptomatic of the times we are living in and of the atmosphere that has developed in the Seanad that Senators have become suddenly alert and aware of so many things that they accepted without question during the period of the previous Administration.

Miss Browne

We never had a political Army.

Mr. Connolly

Senator Milroy has raised a question which I have no doubt the Minister will deal with adequately, but I would like to stress this point: that I do not think a member of the Seanad is justified in bringing forward Press reports and using them as evidence against any Minister.

Mr. Milroy

Not even the Irish Press?

Mr. Connolly

Not even the Irish Press. I would be very long sorry to be responsible for every statement that is reported in the Dublin newspapers or in the papers elsewhere. I think that should be clear to everybody in the House who realises what modern journalism is. You get short excerpts of statements which, taken out of their context, mean an entirely different thing. However, I do not propose to anticipate the Minister in dealing with that matter. So far as I understood the procedure here is exactly the same as prescribed in the Act before we came into office. I think it is unfair to ask the Seanad to take the attitude they are asked to take, and I think it is hardly decent for a former Minister who for ten years supported a continuing Bill, coming up annually, now, when the same Bill comes up before the Seanad, to wish to limit its operation to three months hence.

Mr. Blythe

It is perfectly true that this Bill was continued for ten years and when it was felt that there was a necessity for a review of its provisions in a new, or in a permanent Bill containing a great many new provisions to replace it, it was introduced. Especially in the early years there was extremely good reason for that, perhaps, but at the latter end of the period the reasons were less strict. So far as I am concerned, I would not urge the limitation of the period, or, in any way, hurry the introduction of a permanent Bill if I felt assured there was not going to be a continuance of the policy of creating a political force, either alongside, or in substitution for the existing Army. During the ten years period the whole effort of the Government was to make the Army, which had originally begun as a national, and as necessarily a political force, in the sense that its members practically all took one political view, non-party; the whole effort of the Government was to ensure that the Army would become entirely non-political and entirely non-party. In all directions steps were taken to secure that end. The success of the first Government in securing that the Army should be entirely non-political was surely demonstrated when a change of Government took place, and since. It seems to me there could be nothing more important, for the interests of the country, and the safety of the people, than that the Army should be entirely non-party. I do not mean that individuals in the Army should not have their own views, but I do mean that the Army should be non-party in the sense that its action should be strictly disciplined and constitutional. My interest was, in the first instance, to introduce a few amendments into the existing legislation, and as that was impossible, to take all the steps that could be taken to ensure that new legislation would be introduced as speedily as possibly, and to secure that steps that have gone some distance, and that are menacing in themselves, should not be continued any further.

I think it was an extraordinary thing that when this new Volunteer Force, which was to attain to very big numbers was started, the entire control of it, in the sense of the selection of recruits or membership of it, should be put into hands of political gentlemen specially commissioned into the Army for the purpose. I would not have seen the slightest objection to the Government bringing in a certain number of people with one political point of view, even though it would not be good for the Army to bring in men who had not the requisite training. But if they only brought in a few, to make it easier to get recruits with certain political views, then I should not have seen much in that. That the whole recruiting of the Army should be put into the hands of those men seemed to me, apart from what one might hear from any other source as to the Government's intention, a most ominous thing. There is no doubt that the whole tone of this new party is strongly political and strongly party. I mentioned the other day that when a Blueshirt was attacked by a mob of 200 people near O'Connell Street, two members of that mob were members of this new force. I have seen with my own eyes one man in uniform mingling with the crowd—I did not see him strike anybody—but mingling with the crowd trying to break up a meeting. I have no doubt at all that the thing is being organised along lines, and on a discipline that will hold party allegiance in this force. I do not know what may come ultimately of that, but I think it is the greatest possible danger to the country. We have no assurance at all, considering what is going on, that the story one hears of Ernie O'Malley being brought back as Chief of Staff may be more than nonsense. But stories of that kind are going round and when the Government have gone so far there is no evidence that they will not go further, and that there will be another 16 men more in a few years, and 16 others later on. That may mean that we will have the whole control of the armed forces handed over to men whose outlook is not professional or constitutional, but party and political, and it is because of that I think the Seanad should take some steps a little out of the ordinary practice. I feel, from the attitude of the Minister in this thing, and in regard to other matters, that if he is simply left to himself, he will not introduce legislation here that might be discussed and that might be amended in such a way as to ensure that the Army did not proceed along the lines I fear it is going to proceed.

Senator Johnson talked about the possibility of the Government carrying on the Army without any authority, if new legislation could not be got through this House before the end of October. If the Government did introduce new legislation into the Dáil I have no doubt the Seanad would give them another continuance Bill, without a word of discussion, that would enable them to have new legislation fully discussed and brought into operation without jumping any ditches at all. I think that what is really of concern is for the Seanad to mark disapproval of any tendency that may exist to create an Army political machine and, also, to secure discussion as to the powers of the Government with regard to Army matters by limiting the duration of this Bill so that we might not be again faced with the same position as before. If the Department of Defence has a new Bill it ought to face up to it as other Departments do.

I do not want to refer to the Military Tribunal. But the fact that it is operating, and seems likely to operate, and that the Constitution (Amendment) Act, unless by other methods, is not likely to be put out of operation by the Government, makes it very important that we should secure that there are not going to be mere politicians commissioned, and, perhaps, put into any position—even membership of that Tribunal. The possibility that that might happen being present, is a factor that would have certain undesirable results.

Mr. Bagwell

I recognise the gravity of the question under discussion. It is a very serious matter and I think some amendment is justified in the creation of this Volunteer Reserve Force. I do not myself see, for that reason, that there is any inconsistency in Senator Blythe's attitude now as compared with previous years, because the situation is quite a new one. But on the other hand I recognise that the constitutional position of the armed forces of the State is so important, and so serious, that there should be no reason of any kind, in practice, in the continuing of this constitutional position or its control. For these reasons I cannot bring myself to vote for the amendment in its present form because I think the date is too near. If the date were extended I would be prepared to vote for the amendment but not if the date is put to the end of October. I think the subject is too serious a one to fix an early date.

Miss Browne

Senator Blythe told us he saw a volunteer in uniform taking part in the disturbance at a political meeting. I informed the Minister for Defence that that Volunteer was summoned, before a District Court, for riotous and disorderly behaviour, and that he failed to appear and that no warrant was issued for his arrest. The Minister refused to answer as to whether a warrant would be issued but I know no warrant was issued in the meantime.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Aiken)

When I was introducing the Second Reading of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill on the 14th of March of this year I made the following statement:—

"This is the annual Army Bill. It comes before the Oireachtas each year. I had hoped at this time last year to introduce a Bill this year which would be a complete amendment of the existing Army Act. Unfortunately the Bill had not reached the stage at which it could be introduced. I hope, however, before the expiration of the period provided by this Bill, to introduce a Bill amending the whole Army Act."

The fact of the matter is that Senator Blythe is quite well aware that while the last Government promised continually from 1923 to 1931 to introduce a permanent Army Bill, no steps were taken to carry out that declaration. One of the first things I did when we settled down in office was to call the General Staff and the legal officers together, to get after the construction and preparation of a complete amendment of the present Army Act. As Senator Johnson pointed out, an Army Act is quite a long and a voluminous piece of legislation. The work has been going on steadily since. I have been pressing for it for 18 months, and it has reached the stage when it has left my Department. I cannot attempt to promise anything more than I did on March 14th. I hope, however, before the expiration of the period provided by this Bill to introduce a Bill amending the whole Army Act.

The Department of Defence has done its share to date, but the introduction of the new Bill into the Dáil depends upon the pressure on other Government Departments. I cannot, and neither can the Executive Council, give any definite promise that the Bill will be introduced before Christmas, or before the end of the year. I hope to get the Bill introduced into the Dáil and to get it through as quickly as I can.

Senator Blythe is not just quite so innocuous as he appears to be. For a number of years he has been steadily trying to sow the seeds of dissension, while pretending to be a man of peace and all the rest of it. If the present Government were going to act, as he claims they might act in the next 12 months, they should have shown some evidence of it in the last two years. They have had all the powers of the Army Act at their disposal for the last two years. I think any fair-minded man who goes into the records of both Governments will say that the present Government has hesitated to use its full powers very much more than the last Administration did. Senator Blythe spoke here about a rumour which he said is circulating, and which I suspect he is one of the principal agents in starting, that a certain gentleman is to come over here to replace the Chief of Staff. He says that it is necessary to introduce a certain amendment to the Act to prevent that being done, the plea being that the Act as it stands gives power to dispense with the services of a number of officers and to replace them by others. When Senator Blythe gave notice that he was going to move an amendment, I took the trouble of having the records looked up to see how the previous Government acted, and compared their actions with my own actions as Minister for Defence since I took over charge of the Department. I find that in the years 1929, 1930 and 1931 we had three large sheets containing lists of officers who resigned voluntarily, who were compelled to resign, who were dismissed, or whose services were dispensed with, while in our period of over two years, less than half a sheet contained the list of officers whom I either compelled to resign, who resigned voluntarily, or who were dismissed. Even during the normal years 1929 to 1931 I think the rate of retiral of officers under the last Government was about four times greater than it was under this Government. It is necessary for a Government to have in its hands certain powers for the dismissal of officers. The Government has such powers in regard to the Civil Service. There might easily and reasonably be complaint if there was any evidence that the Government was exercising these powers unfairly, either in regard to the Civil Service or anything else. No such evidence is forthcoming.

I must say, as far as I am concerned, that the Army has behaved magnificently. I took over charge of it on being appointed to do so by the Government. We had been on opposite sides in the civil war. I find generally through the Army that the officers are prepared to obey any Government elected by the people, and are prepared to give that Government a fair crack of the whip. On my part I tried to give to the officers who were there a fair crack of the whip also. I am saying all this to show that Senator Blythe's reasons as to why a Bill should be introduced before October 31st, are absolutely without foundation. If he were proposing the amendment with a view to getting permanent legislation introduced, in order to implement the promises of both Governments, I would have sympathy with it. That is not his real reason, because he made no effort, even while acting Minister for Defence on many occasions, to bring forward a Bill. To-day the Senator gave as one of his reasons that if the Army Bill was continued for more than three months very great and dangerous abuses might take place; and also that the powers which the Army Act confers on the Government might be used in a manner menacing to the rights and liberties of the people.

If the Seanad thinks there is any danger of the Government using the powers which the Army Act confers upon them, or that very great and dangerous abuses might take place, or in a way that is menacing to the rights and liberties of the people, then the proper course for the Seanad to take would be to refuse to pass the Army Act altogether, even for three months, or even for one day. I cannot see what virtue there is in taking these powers from the Government at the end of three months, rather than at the end of 12 months. If it is necessary to disarm the Government of these powers, and to create a revolutionary situation that should be done at once—forthwith. If the Government is not fit to have these powers in its hands for 12 months, it certainly is not fit to have them for three months. I did not catch Senator Milroy's quotation from the President's speech. As far as I heard it, the Senator said the President stated that the Army was pledged to support the national policy of the elected Government. The fact of the matter is, that all members of the Army, volunteers, regular army soldiers or reserves, take the ordinary Army oath to the Constitution. I take it the oath to the Constitution is to obey the orders of the Government elected, and that that is a promise on the part of the soldiers to support the Government in whatever policy is decided according to law. If Senator Milroy can give any other interpretation I should like to hear it.

Mr. Milroy

I certainly will.

Mr. Aiken

There has to be some body to carry out national policy. That body is the Executive elected by the people. Soldiers in the Army take an oath to obey the orders of the elected representatives of the people. As far as I am concerned, as to certain allegations against Volunteers, if it is proved to my satisfaction that any Volunteer has behaved in a disorderly manner, or takes hand, act or part in maltreating his neighbours, or in breaking up public meetings, he will not be in the Army for one day. The young men of the country were asked to come forward in order to strengthen national discipline. They are to obey any Government elected by the people, and if any of them dishonours his uniform, by behaving in an undisciplined way, certainly that uniform will be taken from him as quickly as I can take it from him. There is no use in slinging around allegations here in the Seanad or anywhere else. If any sort of reliable evidence comes forward I will inquire into it and act upon it if it is found to be reliable.

Miss Browne

It was not suspicion in that case. It is a fact.

Mr. Aiken

Senator Blythe repeated here to-day a most unfair attack, in my opinion, on the gentlemen who composed the Military Tribunal. If there was an attack on these particular officers by someone who had no responsibility for putting them into the office they hold, then it might be forgiven, but Senator Blythe was one of those responsible for asking these five gentlemen to undertake the onerous and unpopular job of sitting as members of the Military Tribunal, and I think he should be the last to cast any aspersions on their honour. As far as I am concerned, and as far as the Government is concerned, they have carried out their duties in a fair and in an impartial manner.

Mr. Brown

Nothing that I have heard from the Minister, especially what I have heard as to the annual promise given, has altered the opinion which I had, that it was absolutely necessary that this permanent Army Bill should arrive in this House, and that it should have an opportunity of discussing it in the next session; that is before the end of this year. I am still of the opinion that the date, October 31, is too short. I take it the House will not meet until October 1st. That will only give a month for getting what must be a heavy Bill through the Dáil and up to this House. That is too short, and I suggest to Senator Blythe that he might agree to an extension of the time. Personally, I would rather see the date the 31st December. That would ensure its being dealt with and would give the country an opportunity of knowing what is going to be done. I would press Senator Blythe to agree to that amendment. I think it would give us all the security which we can reasonably ask for.

Mr. Milroy

I want to refer to the comments of the two Ministers present in reference to the matter I quoted. The Minister for Lands and Forestry seems to desire to depreciate the value of this report as evidence. He said that occasionally excerpts from speeches as reported give no real idea of the full text. This is not an excerpt. It appears to be a verbatim report.

Mr. Connolly

It is a newspaper report.

Mr. Milroy

It is a report published in "Truth in the News," evidently done by an enthusiastic Press supporter of the present Executive Council. It is not because I wish to twist this into any kind of political argument but because I think the words contained here have a significance of which the Legislature ought to take cognisance——

Mr. Connolly

Is it in order for us to discuss a statement by a person, not a member of the House, taken from a newspaper report, of which we have no other evidence? I should like to hear your ruling, a Cathaoirligh, on the question of order.

Cathaoirleach

It has been customary in this House to allow newspaper reports to be quoted and they have often been so used.

Mr. Connolly

I have no objection to that. The only question is that in so far as it lay within the power of the two Ministers here, the matter has already been dealt with and I suggest that we cannot do anything more about it.

Cathaoirleach

I think Senator Milroy is justified in saying that the position is rather unsatisfactory.

Mr. Milroy

The matter is so important that I would ask the Minister who thinks that the President has not been accurately reported to take a note of the date, bring this matter before the President, and ask him, if he has been inaccurately reported, to publish a correction of it. The Minister for Defence, however, seemed to think that this might be taken as an accurate report and a perfectly justifiable statement by the head of the Executive Council, as to the function of the Defence Forces. He says that the pledge or the oath to which I refer, is the pledge that was taken by the Defence Forces in the time of his predecessors. The Minister for Defence thinks it is an undertaking to support the general policy enunciated by the Government.

Mr. Connolly

I do not think the Minister said the general policy.

Mr. Milroy

"These forces are pledged to support the national policy as formulated by the elected Government of the people." If the words had been that "the Forces are pledged to support national authority," I would say that it was a perfectly sound constitutional position to take up, but when it is stated by the President, and reiterated here by the Minister for Defence, that it is allowable for the Government to consider the Defence Forces as one of their political adjuncts, one of the means by which they can give effect to their political policy, we are up against a situation which is not only unprecedented but which is fraught with dire menace to the State. I challenge any Minister to get up and say in support of the Minister for Defence that that is a correct and legitimate view to take. The only possible way out of the difficulty is, as the Minister for Lands and Forestry suggested, to say that the President was not correctly reported. If that is so I presume there is a representative of this particular organ here to-day and I hope steps will be taken to correct this false report of the speech of the President and that the Minister will let us know exactly what is the outlook of the Government in regard to the function of Defence Forces.

If the Minister for Defence is to be taken as speaking correctly, there is no such pledge as that referred to by the President and the President was simply talking through his hat. It is regrettable to find the Minister for Defence even in this roundabout way making such an allegation against the head of the Executive, but at any rate, when matters of this serious import are being discussed, I think it is extremely important that Ministers should make up their minds what viewpoint they are going to take and stand over it, so that the head of the Executive Council will not go down to the country, make a statement, and then get one of his underling Ministers to repudiate its accuracy here in this House. In any case, it is sufficiently important to have attention drawn to it. If it meant nothing except that the President was trying to delude his followers, even then there is sufficient justification for introducing such an amendment as this.

Mr. Johnson

I am unable to understand the case put forward by Senator Milroy. I read in the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, the form of oath or declaration to be made by a soldier. The latter part of it reads:—

And I further solemnly swear (or declare) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to our country and faithfully serve and defend her against all her enemies whomsoever and that I will submit myself to discipline and obey without question the orders of the officers appointed over me according to law.

I read also:—

The command in chief of, and all executive and administrative powers in relation to, the Forces including the power to delegate authority to such persons as may be thought fit shall be vested in the Executive Council...

Therefore according to that statement the Executive Council, the elected Government of the people, is the body which gives the orders which the soldiers are pledged to obey.

Mr. Milroy

Orders to support their authority, not to carry out their policy.

Mr. Johnson

The Executive Council is the body to give the orders.

Mr. Milroy

To support the authority of the Executive.

Mr. Johnson

When you are dealing with the elected Government and the Executive Council, you are dealing with a body that is acting under an authority given to it by the Oireachtas.

Mr. Milroy

No one knows more thoroughly than Senator Johnson the difference between the authority of the Government and the policy which a particular Party Government carries out.

Mr. Blythe

As several Senators think that the period set out in the amendment is a little too short, and as the previous period allowed was four months, I would be prepared to agree to four months instead of three in this amendment. That would make the date the 30th November instead of 31st October.

Cathaoirleach

If the Senator wishes to amend the amendment in that way I shall allow him to do so.

Mr. Blythe

Yes. I move the amendment as amended.

Mr. Connolly

I should like to point out that the new date suggested, the 30th November, does not really mean so much to us. The business before the Oireachtas is sufficient to keep it going until August and whilst the Executive Council, those of us who are responsible, are quite willing to carry on during the whole summer, the 30th November will not facilitate the object that Senator Brown has in view. I merely want to point out that difference, from the ordinary practical point of view. If the House sits until August the question is when will it again assemble and how long will it take to put through such a heavy, complicated piece of legislation as Senators have in mind? How long will it take to put it through the Dáil and again through this House? I think on principle the Bill should be passed now and I propose to resist the amendment to that extent.

Cathaoirleach

The amendment will now read:—

To delete in line 20 the figures and words "31st day of July, 1935" and to substitute therefor the figures and words "30th day of November, 1934."

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 12.

Tá

• Bagwell, John.
• Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
• Browne, Miss Kathleen.
• Costello, Mrs.
• Counihan, John C.
• Crosbie, George.
• Dillon, James.
• Duggan, E.J.
• Fanning, Michael.
• Garahan, Hugh.
• Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
• Griffith, Sir John Purser.
• Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
• Milroy, Seán.
• Moran, James.
• O'Connor, Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, M.F.
• O'Rourke, Brian.
• Toal, Thomas.
• Wilson, Richard.

Níl

• Bellingham, Sir Edward.
• Comyn, Michael, K.C.
• Connolly, Joseph.
• Johnson, Thomas.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Linehan, Thomas.
• Moore, Colonel.
• O'Neill, L.
• Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
• Quirke, William.
• Robinson, Davil L.
• Robinson, Séumas.

Tellers:— Tá: Senators Blythe and Milroy; Níl: Senators Seamus Robinson and David Robinson.

Amendment declared carried.

Section, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Section 2 and Title agreed to.

Bill, as amended, reported to the House.

Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 27th June, 1934.

Mr. Connolly

I presume that we shall be able to take the remaining Stages of the Bill next Wednesday, as the date is important.

Cathaoirleach

I hope so. I shall be anxious to facilitate you.