Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 1934

Vol. 18 No. 28

Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 1934—Report.

I move:—

Section 1. To delete in line 20 the figures and words "30th day of November, 1934," inserted in Committee, and to substitute therefor the figures and words "31st day of July, 1935."

At our last meeting I asked the permission of the House to have the Report Stage of this Bill postponed for a week, because I believed that some particular matters in it had not been fully discussed. That was agreed to. It is rather natural that I should take a special interest in this particular Bill though my advice has never been asked on all these subjects. Very often it might be better if people who knew something about these things were asked for their advice. The amendment that was inserted on the Committee Stage of this Bill seemed very simple. It limited the duration of the Bill to the end of November instead of covering the full period to the end of July, 1935. Although it may seem very simple to do that, it seems to me to be a rather serious business because anything that has to do with the Army, especially here with us—anything that is likely to bring about conflict or discussion or to create a feeling of animosity—is extremely dangerous at the present time. We know that from our own experience here in the past. We know it also from the experience of other countries where things are in a still more desperate position.

I think that the supporters of the amendment are of the same opinion as I am: that a permanent Army Bill should be introduced as soon as possible. That, I have no doubt, was the object of the motion that they brought forward, but while I say that I feel that they have not sufficient understanding of what a permanent Defence Forces Bill means and what a serious matter it is. They pressed the Minister to promise that he would bring in the permanent measure by the end of November. I presume that their object in having an amendment inserted to this Bill in Committee was that the permanent Bill might be brought in as soon as possible. Although it is very important to get that done, to get finished with it and finished for ever, it is still more important that a measure of that character, when it is introduced, should be in a perfectly good state. That is a point that, I think, escaped the attention of the Senators who supported the amendment made to the Bill that we are discussing. They seem to imagine that a permanent Army measure is something like an ordinary Bill. That is not so at all. They pressed the Minister to declare exactly the time that he would be prepared to bring in the permanent Bill. In fact, I think, some of the Senators who spoke said that if he would give that promise they would not continue their objection to the present Bill.

The Minister did not see that he could go so far as they asked him to go. He promised that he would do so at the first opportunity. I think he said—I am quoting from memory— that he hoped to be able to bring it in before the end of this year. The objectors to this Bill were not satisfied with that, but pressed the Minister to state definitely when he would be able to bring in the permanent Bill. The Minister is, perhaps, not very experienced and is, therefore, very honest, because other Ministers that I have known here have shown that they were quite ready to promise anything in order to get a Bill in which they were interested passed. If the Minister had adopted the universal practice of Ministers, of promising that he would have it done by a certain date and when that date arrived said it had not been possible to carry out the undertaking given earlier, he would have got this Bill through. The Minister is too honest to do that. He explained what the difficulties were, and stated that he could not give a definite promise. The result is that we are meeting here to-day to consider the Report Stage of the Bill. The Minister did point out that the Bill had left his Department. I presume that it has now passed into another Department for examination, into the control of barristers and lawyers of all sorts. I think that anybody who has had any experience of lawyers will know that you cannot be sure of getting anything from them at a particular time. The two Senators who spoke to the amendment inserted to this Bill will, I am sure, agree with me in that. Shakespeare wrote of "the law's delays." Almost everybody has had experience of the delays caused by lawyers.

I ask the House to consider what the Bill before us is. I will give the House some figures. The measure that is in force at present consists of 167 pages, 246 sections and eight schedules. The permanent measure would probably be much bigger. The Act that controls and governs the army in England consists of 198 pages. To that we have to add the rules of procedure which covers 154 pages, while 35 pages are devoted to the Reserve Forces in that country. That measure is called in England "the Manual of Military Law." If we are to judge by the Bill that is in force here at present or by the Act that is in force in England, it is quite likely that our permanent Army Act will consist of at least 387 pages. I think that once a band of lawyers get hold of a measure covering 387 pages they will take some time to consider it. This is to be a whole new code of procedure, keeping the Army apart from the civil population, which is to be applied solely to the Army with all the details considered necessary to regulate the conduct and behaviour of officers, N.C.O.'s and men. All that is to be included in our permanent Army Act. I am not astonished at all at the Minister saying that he could not give a definite promise that such a measure would be introduced by a certain date. It would be impossible for him to tell how long the lawyers would take to consider it. It is very important that all its details should be well thought out before introducing it into the Oireachtas. Therefore, I ask the House to accept the amendment which I have moved. We know that the previous Bill took a long time to produce. Senator Blythe had some experience of that, and he knows that it was amended on many occasions. These things are very complex and for that reason I put down the amendment.

I second. I think the action of the majority Party in this House, in continuing to offer opposition to the passing of this Bill, is not very creditable. The attitude adopted towards this measure is one of the things that gives reasonable ground for the charges that were made, that this was a hostile assembly. We had this Bill coming up annually for a number of years and it was passed on every occasion. Everyone who understands the nature of the Bill agrees that no useful purpose is being served by compelling the Minister to come every three months to ask the House to pass an Army Bill. That would be a most unreasonable attitude for this House to take up, and for that reason the House should agree to accept the amendment. When the former Government was in power no attempt was ever made by any Party to take the line that has been taken towards this measure. An Army Bill was passed every year, practically without opposition. It passed as a matter of course. I do not see any reason why this measure should not be treated in the same way. There is something to be said in favour of a permanent Army Bill being introduced. We have been waiting on it a long time. It is reasonable to expect that it should be introduced but if the Minister says that such a Bill is a very comprehensive measure, and needs a good deal of thought, as I expect it would, there is no justification for not accepting the words of the Minister. I repeat that it is a most unreasonable attitude for this House to take up to compel the Minister to come here for such a Bill four times a year. That is what it will amount to, because the Minister would have to come back for a renewal every three months. This Bill was passed for years without opposition and was carried over from year to year.

I do not think the Seanad should consider this matter in vacuo, the way Senator Farren suggests. The position is simply this: that the Seanad is asked to give a renewal for 12 months to a body of legislation which it cannot under the rules of procedure amend. The only way that the Seanad can consider this legislation in detail is by some such process as has been adopted. If a new permanent Bill is introduced every detail of it will be before the Seanad and will be open to amendment, if the House decides to amend it. That is the principal thing to be said in favour of urging a permanent Bill. A temporary Bill, if it is renewed from year to year, and if the terms of legislation embodied in it are satisfactory, is quite as good as a permanent Bill. There is little to choose between them. Here we have a Bill which was first passed without much consideration, and which is liable to contain gaps and provisions that are not satisfactory. As Senator Farren says, the Army Bill was renewed from year to year without discussion, but it was renewed when there was nothing occurring which would bring forcibly before the Seanad the fact that legislation containing provisions which were dangerous in their character, to say the very least, at any rate required serious consideration. It seems to me that the action that has been taken by the Government within the last six or eight months very definitely suggests that the powers contained in this legislation, which the Seanad is now asked to continue, should be examined with the utmost care. We cannot examine them under the procedure on which we are operating now. We could examine them if the Minister introduced this Bill with some amendments. For the first two or three years after the Army Act of 1923 there were continuing Bills with amendments which the Seanad could examine.

The Minister carefully brings in this Bill without amendments, so as to preclude the Seanad from examining it. It is urgent that this Bill should be examined and it is right that the Seanad should do everything it can to hasten the time when it will be open to examination. I do not want to go over ground that has been already covered, but there seems to me to have been a complete reversal of policy in a most important matter and on a most fundamental aspect by the Government. The Army as it exists was organised originally, if you like, with something of a political complexion. It arose during the civil war and probably most of those in it were politicians. But, the whole policy of the previous Government was to cut the Army off from politics, to make it a body in which politics did not count, were not considered. That policy was so successful that when a change of Government took place, and when the present Minister, who was in arms against the officers and the Army, was placed at their head, there was no reaction of any sort, and nothing occurred in the conduct of any officer or, as far as I know, of any man in the Army, which would give the present Government any grounds for complaint. The policy carried on in this legislation up to that point, to make the Army absolutely non-political and absolutely constitutional, was successful. That was the only policy that could be justified. It is the only policy the Seanad should stand for, because a political Army is a danger to the State as a whole, and a danger even to the Party with which it might be associated. There was great success in the policy that was carried on under this legislation.

Now it seems to me we are to have a reversal of that policy. We have politics deliberately introduced into the Army. That is a thing the Seanad must take account of. I do not think any reasonable man can look at the deliberate selection of men to control those in the Volunteer Force from amongst the ranks of one political Party as anything else but the introduction of politics into the Army. I do not want to go over that ground now. It is a very serious thing indeed. Here we have a new Force created, which is going to be very much more numerous than the regular Army, if the regular Army is to be continued at all. The Volunteer Force is going to be the principal Army, as far as I can understand. Sixteen officers were appointed to organise it, and to choose every recruit. It was admitted by the Minister that in every area there is one of these political officers, and that no man can be recruited into the force without passing the test of one of these political officers. It seems to me that that is a very serious thing, and that the Seanad should take every step possible to get this legislation reconsidered.

I put down a series of amendments, and while I would not like to stand over every line of them, because I had not the assistance to enable them to be properly drafted, I think they were reasonable, and that their general tenor was such as the Minister might have accepted. If the Minister had accepted them, as far as I am concerned, I would have had no objection to letting him have the Bill. But he brought in a Bill without any amendment. The amendments aimed at stopping the bringing into the Army of men who had not regular army training, or of active politicians, and avoiding the possibility of active party politicians being put in any possible place in the Army.

When Senator Farren talked of what was done here in the past I would point out that there was no change of policy, and no dangerous legislation. The Senator has asked us to consider a practical question as if it were merely a theoretical one. That question was gone over before. Senator Moore talked about the size of the Bill. It is fairly considerable but, as he says, the Minister has been engaged in dealing with it for some time, and it has reached the point that it has passed from his Department. The Minister could tell the Seanad if it is being knocked into shape. It is not a Bill that is going to lead to great disputes, say, with the Department of Finance, and it is not one that will involve a great deal of inter-departmental discussion. Therefore, it seems to me the Bill could be ready for introduction in the Dáil in a relatively short time. If it was actually introduced in the Dáil we would then know when we would have it, and such delay as might occur before it reached this House and finally became law, would not be of much consequence. But we have no idea when we will have it.

Having listened to the replies of the Minister, my personal opinion is that if pressure is not put on in this way the Bill will not be seen for a very long time. It is only by this type of pressure the Minister can be induced to produce the measure. There is this much to be said: that it would require an extraordinary emergency to justify the Seanad refusing to pass the Bill for some period. Still, the fact that it is for a short period, and that the matter will come up for review, does disincline the Minister to go as far as he might otherwise go, or as rapidly with this new policy of putting politicians into officers' uniform and commissioning them.

The speech which we have just heard does not justify or even seek to justify the very serious proposal contained in the amendment under discussion. I have always taken the most serious view of any proposals to interfere with the Army Act, because such proposals tend to bring the regular Army into the arena of politics. I agree with Senator Blythe that the regular Army sworn to be loyal to the State should have no inducement whatever to take part in the discussions that take place between rival Parties in this House or in the Dáil.

Or anywhere else.

Or anywhere else. Perhaps members of the Seanad would bear with me while I try to put before them the amount of wisdom and political experience which lies behind the annual Army Act. There was a time when men valued freedom and when they fought for freedom, and when they had experience of the evils of arbitrary power, and the first thing they did to guard themselves against any abuse of power was to make, first, the voting of money an annual measure and secondly, the legislation of the standing Army an annual Bill. Their object was to get control of the purse and to prevent the permanent continuance of a standing Army. These were two points in a great revolution that happened to a very great people. I hope it will not be used against me hereafter when I say that the English at that time were a very great people. These were two things they did. The Army Act was made an annual Act. The Finance Act was made an annual Act. What did Senator Blythe do when he proposed his motion—a motion to limit the operation of the Army Act to three months? I pass by the insult which that is to any Ministry, particularly a Ministry which has demonstrated that it has the full confidence of the people of this country. I pass that by as unworthy of comment, and I come to the second consideration. I do think that the Army should be kept out of the sphere of politics, that they should have no inducement even to think of party politics. Their tenure of office by virtue of the action of these guardians of liberty is reduced to 12 months. Here Senator Blythe proposes to reduce their tenure to three months. That brings the soldier immediately into the arena of party politics.

Senator Blythe asked how. I ask Senator Blythe has he considered what would be the effect of failure to pass this measure? The first effect would be—that is, if the Government were not more prudent than Senator Blythe and if they did not pocket the insult and accept his amendment limiting the Act to three months, if they were not more prudent than this Seanad—that discipline in the Army from the moment this Bill expired would vanish and the Army would be dissolved. Secondly, there would be no power to pay the Army. In that respect, I think I must venture to differ from what I understood Senator Johnson to say on the last occasion. Money certainly is voted for the Army, but for a legal Army, an Army acting under the authority of a statute. There would be no power to pay for this existing Army unless the Act is in existence. Now these things are absolutely plain.

No, they are not.

Senator Blythe says they are not. I presume he has got legal opinion but I should like to tell my friend that although a little learning is a dangerous thing, a little law is worse.

Hear, hear!

That is how these amateurs in constitutional questions lead the country to destruction without knowing it. I always trust the man who knows where he is going but I never can trust a man who moves along in regions where he is absolutely blind. What argument has he put forward? He says he wants a reconsideration of the question of appointing 15 or 16 gentlemen as recruiting officers in various counties. Is that a sufficient argument? I believe Senator Blythe is in favour of a Volunteer force. I believe that at one time, when he was Vice-President of the Government, he endeavoured to establish a Volunteer force, a perfectly laudable thing to do, but he was not successful. In trying to establish that Volunteer force he adopted the same measure as is adopted by the present Government.

No politicians.

I am talking about the form. I will talk about the politicians afterwards. His formula was this: He found that under the Army Act he could not establish a Volunteer force without legislation. But by a very adroit and a very brilliant piece of manoeuvring—whoever did it, it was rather good—he took them into the regular Army and at once seconded them to the Reserve. That is the very procedure I understand that is adopted at the present moment. Senator Blythe says: "Do not introduce politicians." I ask Senators calmly to consider this question for one moment. Eighteen officers in various parts of the country have got commissions and have been taken over as officers for the purpose of recruiting. They are only 18 out of 456 or whatever number of officers there is. They are not the persons in control of the recruits. They are successful as recruiting officers but they have no control of the recruits, so far as I know, when they are recruited. There is a sort of half suggestion thrown out that these men are not acting according to their oaths, that they were politicians and that they will act as politicians. There is no foundation at all for that because they have nothing to do with the recruits and there is no suggestion that recruits are drawn from any particular Party.

Question!

In fact if Senator Miss Browne or any other Senator were to suggest that, I, from my observations throughout the country, am in a position to contradict her. However, there is no suggestion that the recruits are not taken on their merits. Therefore, there is no case whatever made for the drastic course suggested here which may have repercussions in a dangerous time which cannot easily be foreseen. I would say to Senators that they should consider the amendment which has been proposed by an old military officer who understands the position. It is not a proposal emanating from the Government; it is a proposal directed to your judgment and good sense. It is in no sense a Party proposal. I am urging you to accept Senator Colonel Moore's amendment on the highest grounds of statesmanship to avoid possible dangers in a very dangerous time. I do not wish to show the slightest feeling in this matter. It would be possible for me to indulge in rounded periods on a great theme of this kind but I shall not. I simply put my knowledge of constitutional law and practice and of constitutional history at your disposal, as simply and plainly as I can, and I ask you to accept the amendment which has been proposed by Senator Colonel Moore.

I must say that I would feel entirely in sympathy with Senator Farren if the Bill which is before us now were similar to that which has come before this House on many occasions.

It is the same.

The identical same.

Is there not a provision in it for the new force?

No, Sir.

It is the identical measure that has come before this House previously. There is no amendment whatever.

But in different circumstances.

The different circumstances are that there is a different Government.

As Senator Comyn has pointed out, the Army Act has been brought before Parliament in another country yearly in order to have the situation and the military position discussed. On this Bill we are taking the opportunity of discussing the formation of a new force.

Our whole criticism is founded on the fact that a new force is being constituted. Personally, I do not see the necessity for that force. That is really where I stand. There is no doubt about it that there is no necessity to form the force in a hurry. One of the things to which we could point, both under this Government and the last Government, is that they have been very careful to appoint to various positions only such persons as have proved that they are qualified to fill them. Even candidates for the position of rural postmen have to show their competence in a great many ways. They have to go before an examining board. Surely when you are going to appoint new officers to the Army, it is very essential that they should have passed some test, that they should at least show that they are qualified in every way. Our present Army officers are so qualified. I think under these circumstances the only way in which we can bring the departure in the case of the new force, prominently before the minds of Senators here, is to hold up this Army Bill. As Senators know very well, it is not because it is the Army Bill that we are holding it up. We are holding it up as the only means possible of emphasising our objection to what we consider is an innovation. Undoubtedly, as Senator Blythe admits, originally the Army was officered by men who had to be taken on in an emergency and who were, perhaps, of a certain political complexion. There is no reason now why consideration and time should not be given to these appointments, and, above all, that a test should be applied to them, which, in my judgment, would raise the general standing of our Army.

Did I understand Senator Comyn to say that the officers were not acting as recruiting officers?

I said these officers were acting as recruiting officers, and that they were distinguished soldiers all of them.

That is very much worse. What the Senator has said now is very much worse than what was said before. He said they are acting as recruiting officers. I do not like to repeat this every time I stand up in the House, but I have absolute proof, and could get thousands of people to back up my statement, that the people coming into this force are all of one particular complexion, and that the members of it are taking part in politics. Recently I heard of one of those volunteers in uniform standing outside a polling booth with a Fianna Fáil representative, and evidently on duty there, asking people their names as they entered. I saw that myself last week, but I have evidence of dozens of other cases that I could put before the House. There is another instance of which I could give evidence also, and that is a case in which an officer, who was recruiting, used these words—they were taken down by a number of persons who were present—"I want decent men for this Army and I leave the murderers to Cronin." Was that proper language for a regular Army officer to use?

What the soldier said is not evidence.

I could prove these words were used and if that is not evidence of introducing politics into the Army, I do not know what is. I think there is very good reason why we should stick to our attitude in regard to this Bill. The circumstances now are totally different from what they were when a Bill like this was introduced in other years by the late Government.

I suggest, whatever was done whether rightly or wrongly some years ago, some say it was right and others say it was the reverse, could hardly be remedied now by either the acceptance or rejection of this amendment. Whatever has been done was done under legislation at present in force, introduced by the late Government, and passed through the Oireachtas without discussion because an emergency measure was necessary at the time. It seems of comparatively little importance whether the new Bill is introduced and passed within six or nine or twelve months. Any Government could, within the framework of Army legislation, I am afraid, if they so desired, manipulate the Army for political purposes. I think both Governments have played a little fast and loose with Army legislation. I, personally, and the Labour Party generally, took very strong exception to, and opposed certain manipulation of legislation that took place in order to form the first Reserve Force. I also think that legislation was rather loosely played with in forming the new Defence Force. But all this has been done under existing legislation, and in accordance with the type of procedure we have been accustomed to since the State was set up. I think the less discussion of this kind there is here or elsewhere the better for the Army and consequently for the country. The loyalty of the Army was never more needed than at the present time.

I cannot conceive the Army ever being used except for the preservation of internal order. If there was a raid from outside by a substantial air force—and that is very probably the form in which it would come— our Army, without the assistance of a navy, or anything worthy of the name of an air force, could do little better than scuttle for cover just like the rest of the population. We want to preserve that Army loyal and free from politics for the main purpose for which it exists to-day. Too many army politicians are going to be a menace rather than a safeguard. That is evidenced by the butcheries that occurred in Germany in the week past, where a political army was brought into being. I suggest as one of the reasons why we should try and adopt this amendment or some compromise of it at the moment, that it is absolutely necessary to keep the Army out of the sphere of political discussion. I am afraid Ministers, both of the past and the present Government, are too disposed to make speeches to soldiers. The soldier ought to know his duty and be prepared to exercise it without being spoken to by politicians. There is an attempt, of course, to treat soldiers as if they were schoolchildren. They cannot answer back and they must, in accordance with loyal discipline, cheer the Minister at the end of his harangue. The Army is also dragged about for too many purposes, including the annual insult to the memory of Wolfe Tone. For a number of years a procession of two armies has gone to Bodenstown each professing undying devotion to Wolfe Tone and unutterable contempt for each other. The Communist Party took a hand in the business this time. One can hardly blame them because they saw the political significance of it. The Army were used for this purpose and blows were exchanged over the grave of Wolfe Tone. So reverential and charitable were they that they proceeded to give an exhibition of hating each other like devils for the glory and the love of God. The Army has to listen every year, and to form inferences, if not to receive actual suggestions that the political party in power are the apostolic successors of Wolfe Tone while all those who dare to oppose them are traitors. If the discipline of the Army is to maintained, I suggest we should have less ministerial speeches to it no matter what Party is in power and less circus parading throughout the country.

The Bill under which the Army is controlled, at the present time is in operation for the last ten or twelve years. It is suggested that in order to make it of a permanent character to the extent that it can be made permanent—because I hope we will always have an Annual Army Bill—that the Dáil and the Seanad would have to sit almost continuously between now and the end of November in order to pass it. I suggest if a new Bill is passed between now and the 30th November it is not going to receive the consideration it should receive, and it will be as slipshod and ill-considered a measure as the present one. What will happen if this amendment is not accepted? We shall have another Bill extending the period for a little further. I suggest to the Opposition that they should be more helpful in this matter, notwithstanding their feelings and conviction in regard to it. I think the Minister might, also, have been a little more helpful in the discussion on the last occasion rather than being so reluctant to give anything in the nature of a fairly definite promise. We should at least try to free this matter from Party politics and Party consideration. I think we have an opportunity of giving an exhibition of the honesty of our views in this respect to-day. I suggest, therefore, to the Opposition that if they cannot see their way to give an extension to the 31st July next year, that they should consider an extension to the 31st March, the end of the financial year. If that is agreed to I suggest it should be done with the good grace and not regarded as a Party advantage or anything of that kind. It is a commonsense political arrangement and no one should claim political advantage from it and nothing of that nature should be said or done in connection with the armed forces of the State. Judging by certain patriots the protection of this Army may be required sooner than people expect; and to have questions of the organisation of the Army the subject of conflict and discussion within the next few months would be very unwise. I would suggest to the Opposition that if they cannot accept the amendment as it stands that they should agree to an amendment extending the existing date to the 31st March and that that should be accepted with good grace by the other side.

As one who could not support the Opposition amendment on the last occasion, I do not see my way to vote for this amendment either. It is a matter of what is a reasonable time. The Minister promised this Bill and I think he should have it at the end of the financial year. I support the suggestion of the last speaker.

I have no intention of intervening in this discussion, but there are one or two remarks I should like to make in connection with the very reasonable and well-reasoned speech which we have heard from Senator O'Farrell. I think it was one of the most sensible speeches that has fallen from any member of his group for some time past. Politics, if applied to the Army, is bound to have a demoralising effect, and if the action of certain super-patriots is allowed to become operative, the position of our Army would become very bad indeed. If such a dire contingency as Senator O'Farrell indicated should arise and that the Army was to be used as the auxiliaries of the super-patriots to whom the Senator referred, it is precisely because of the policy pursued and the effect produced by those super-patriots.

We are not discussing the Army now; we are discussing what is behind the policy of the Minister. There is no Party or section in this House that takes greater pride in the creation of the Army, its growth and the status which it has achieved than the Party to which I belong. The Army was the creation of our Party. It was not created as a political force, though undoubtedly it was created at a time when those who stood for the State had to man the Army. To that extent, and to that extent alone, could it be suggested that there was any political complexion attaching to the Army, as then created. Why has the Minister—this is the gravamen of the whole matter—in the endeavour to create the Reserve Force, gone out of his way to bring undoubted and avowed politicians — politicians not merely in the sense of taking a Party view in internal politics but politicians definitely antagonistic to the existence of the State itself—into the Army. What is behind the manning of the Army in that way? It is because these things have caused perturbation to those who value this State and who value the Army as an Army, and not as a political annexe, that we have insisted on having these matters discussed. I wonder if there were a change of Government to-morrow, and the Minister who succeeded the present Minister proceeded to form a Reserve Force from members of the Blueshirt organisation, would that be considered politics? If I can draw any analogy at all, that is precisely what the Minister has been doing. I think that that is regrettable and that it is a policy which should be reversed.

Some Senators seem to forget that the Army Act is the authority whereby discipline is maintained in the Army—that it is the only legal authority for the establishment of a formal Army. It has been the practice to have this authority repeated year after year. I presume that if the Dáil, as the body which has sole authority over the Executive, decided that they would not entrust the Executive with the powers given in the Army Act then the Ministry would have to resign and there would be a change of Government. If the Seanad showed its disavowal of the Ministry's action and expressed no confidence in the Ministry's authority over the Army, no such consequence would follow. The Seanad inserted an amendment in the last Army Act reducing the period during which it would be operative. It is again seeking to reduce the period, the object being to force into discussion twice or three times within the year the question whether the Executive should have power to establish an army or, having established an army, whether the code of discipline should continue. Surely, to repeat that kind of discussion at the instigation of the Seanad three times within the year is not going to be beneficial to the ideal that the Army shall be non-political and non-Party. The fact that this question is being discussed two or three times in the year must have a loosening effect on the Army in so far as soldiers of the Army read these discussions. This course of action is intimating to the Army and the public that the Oireachtas is not prepared to entrust the Executive with the powers to establish an Army. That is going to be adopted, if the Minister repeats his statement on the last occasion, in opposition to the Dáil's intention.

I think we ought to bear in mind that the Dáil has passed the Bill in a form which extends the period to the end of July and the Seanad is now going to send the Bill back with a formal intimation that they will not entrust the authority over the Army to the present Executive unless and until they bring in a new disciplinary code. That kind of play with this subject is very harmful indeed. I think that it is very desirable that the Ministry should be pressed to bring in a Bill of a permanent character, even if it is a Bill which has to be renewed periodically, but to try to compel the Minister to do that by shortening the period during which the Oireachtas will entrust the Ministry with that disciplinary authority to four or five months twice within the year is going to be very harmful. Is the Seanad prepared to follow up the logic of its present action? It intimates that it must have a permanent Bill presented before the 30th November. If the Ministry is not able, or does not for any reason bring in the Bill by that time, what will be the position of the Seanad? Will it refuse to pass a new Bill to extend the period, or what will it do? The Seanad should realise that it is acting in a futile way. Not only is its action futile so far as its own powers are concerned, but it is very harmful so far as the Army is concerned. So far as this House is affected, there is no reason why, at any time before the end of November, it should not by motion discuss the inactivity of the Government or its faulty administration or any other question in relation to the Army. If the Seanad is not prepared to assert, despite any action by the Dáil, that it will not entrust the Government with authority to establish the Army, then it should concede the demand that the full period be provided for in this Bill. This cat-and-mouse game is not going to do good either to the Army or to the Seanad.

Senator Johnson must know very well that what is proposed to be done by this House on amendments to the Bill could not be done by motion. We all know how futile motions are in this House—or even in the Dáil. Motions are discussed, a division is taken on them, or they are withdrawn by leave, and nothing further happens. Nothing but the introduction of a new Army Bill will give this House the opportunity which, I think, it ought to have of discussing the present attitude of the Government to the Army. Personally, I should vote for Senator Colonel Moore's amendment if I had an assurance from the Minister that it was his view and the view of the Government that the Army had the constitutional position that Senator Comyn has pointed out. That was absolutely correct. The Army is the servant of the people. It is not the servant of any Party, and the declarations we have had—one of them in this House and others outside—by responsible persons, that the Army is there to carry out what is called the "national policy of the Government" is constitutionally incorrect. That is not the function of the Army. If I had an undertaking from the Minister that his view of the position of the Army was as outlined by Senator Comyn, I should gladly vote for Senator Colonel Moore's amendment. As it is, I think that perhaps the period to the end of November is a little too short. Our object previously was to get the Bill introduced before the end of November, so that we might be sure of an opportunity to discuss the present attitude of the Government towards the Army. We fixed upon the end of November at the last meeting. That may be too short and I suggest that we fix the end of the year as a compromise. I assure the Seanad that this is a matter of vast constitutional importance and that there is far more in it than most of us are aware.

I thought that we had discussed this matter pretty well on all the other occasions on which this Bill was before the Seanad. It is quite clear that there is opposition to the passing of this Bill for two separate and distinct reasons. One group, represented by Senator Brown, wants to see the legislation upon which the whole Army organisation is based brought forward here for discussion. I am as anxious as Senator Brown or anybody else could possibly be to have the permanent Army Bill introduced and passed as quickly as possible. If the permanent Army Bill were passed, it would enable the Defence Department to do things much more expeditiously and in a neater form than they are able to do them at the moment. As I told the Seanad before, one of the first things I did when I took over the Department of Defence was to constitute a committee in that Department to get the Army Bill out. The committee were working hard on it for about 18 months. A few months ago the draft heads of the Bill left my Department. I have brought with me here to-day the draft heads of the Bill as they left the Department of Defence. On these heads alone there are to be drafted eventually by the Parliamentary draftsman about 250 sections and several schedules. It is, undoubtedly, a big job from the draftsman's point of view. The draftsman is particularly careful—all lawyers are— where delicate matters arise concerning the adjustment of the balance between the military and civilian population, courtmartial laws, the rights of the soldier and the rights of the officers and the rights of the civilian authority over them. From the draftsman's point of view, this is going to be a tedious Bill. Of that I have no doubt. Apart from the fact that the Bill itself will be a long and a tedious job from the draftsman's point of view, we have the fact that the Government are pressing forward all sorts of legislation which, from a public point of view, is very urgently required. So much is the Government pressed with work of this nature that it is going to be the middle of September, so far as I can see, before the Oireachtas will adjourn for the summer holidays. Up to that date, the draftsman is going to be busy with the preparation of Bills, the drafting of amendments and all that sort of business. Then he and his staff will have to get a holiday. I cannot imagine his getting down even to examine this Bill, if there were no other urgent Government measures to be brought before him, before the beginning of the year.

I told the Seanad before that I was as anxious as anybody else to see the permanent Army measure introduced and that I brought the matter forward in my own Department as quickly as could be. The measure has now passed out of my Department. Even before the Seanad took the matter up I had been pressing for time in the different Departments concerned to have that measure drafted quickly— that is, that the Bill should be brought forward quickly in order that it might be discussed by the Oireachtas. I recognise that many Senators and many members of the Dáil would like to have that particular measure brought forward for discussion. I feel that way about it myself, but there is more than that in the particular attitude that the Seanad has taken up. I believe myself that Senator Blythe is taking advantage of Senators, of their desire to see the Bill, in order to create a situation which is going to cause trouble in the country. You have certain types of men in every country who, when they cannot win their objectives by certain means, are prepared to throw everything into the melting pot. Any bloodshed or revolution or anything like that that might add to it is all to the good, because in some way the fates might play into their hands, and that what they could not get by ordinary constitutional means might come to them out of revolution and bloodshed.

Senator Blythe has had a history which is unparalleled, as far as I know, by that of any other man in this country. He urged, and was principally responsible for, the starting of three wars and took part in none of them. Before the Black-and-Tan war he was urging the young men "to sweat and to starve to buy guns in order that they might shoot to kill." These were his exact words. They were "to train their bodies and to steel their minds so that they might not shrink from slaughter." There were other exhortations of his of a like character, but when it came to the point he did not do it himself. Neither did he do it in the civil war, and at the moment he is engaged in organising another revolution in which he hopes his dupes will take part and that he himself will be safe. He is asking the Seanad to play into his hands. Now anybody who wants to keep the Army affairs of this country out of politics, any one who genuinely wants that, has my sincere sympathy. I myself was opposed to the Treaty. Notwithstanding the fact that the Dáil Ministry of that time, the Ministry elected by the Dáil, were in favour of the Treaty, I submitted to them until the Civil War started, and for long after a large number of the people of the country thought that no allegiance and no service should be given to them. I refused to attend a general Army convention simply because I thought that the armed forces, even though they were not as regularly organised as they are in the normal country, should be under the Government elected by the people. I maintained that position so far as my own division was concerned, in spite of much opposition, until after the Four Courts was attacked and attacked—I want to emphaise this—without the authority of the people. After the people had given a mandate for peace the Government of the Republic was overthrown without their authority and, as a matter of fact, against their expressed wishes. It was only when the then Ministry refused to summon the Dáil, to call the representatives of the people together in order to discuss terms of peace, that I finally withdrew my allegiance from the Ministry who were in charge. This amendment of Senator Blythe's, passed on the Committee Stage, is an indication that if certain things are not done the Seanad is going to refuse to pass the Army Bill.

If it does not mean that, then it is utterly futile. As I said on the last occasion, if Senators really believe a lot of the arguments they used they should do their utmost to take from the Government any powers they have over the Army or over anything else. This is a threat. Any ordinary man in the country will look upon this as a threat by the Seanad: that if their wishes are not acceded to, and that if a permanent Army Bill is not produced and passed, they are not going to give the Government any powers to control the Army in a legal fashion. Unless Senators have made up their minds to do that, I cannot see anything but utter futility in passing the amendment that was put into the Bill on the Committee Stage.

I want to say one word more about the Army and politics. There were 20 officers brought in by me into the regular Army. They were given regular Army commissions and, after taking a course in the Military College, they were assigned to the duty of assisting——

How long were they in the Military College?

Two months.

Cathaoirleach

I do not think that the Senator should interrupt the Minister.

As a matter of fact, the two months they spent in the Military College represents a very much longer period than that which 50 per cent. of the officers of the standing Army ever spent in the Military College. At least 50 per cent. of the officers in the standing Army did not spend even two months in the Military College.

They were on training courses.

The others were on training courses, too.

Of a queer sort.

The right sort.

For the duty that they are going to do.

For the duty they are going to do.

Which is political.

It is not political. I want to say one word more. Senator Blythe made a certain allegation: that what I wanted was a political Army. I first of all outlined what my attitude was on a certain occasion which, I think, is an indication at any rate that I would go to the last extreme in order to get the Army affairs of the nation under the control of the representatives of the people. Senator Blythe has alleged that because 20 officers were brought in that it is a plot of mine to organise a political Army. Now, what were the facts of the situation when we took over? The nationalist population of the country had been split in two. About half the nation disagreed with the attitude that was taken up by the National Army. In 1932, at least half the population was antagonistic to it. I believe myself that the men who joined the National Army, the vast majority of them, had fundamentally the same national principles as I had, and they disagreed as to the means by which those principles could be vindicated. When we took over control here in the Free State I did my utmost to take up the work that I had been defeated in in 1922 and that was to organise every young man who wanted to serve his country in arms under the control of the representatives of the people. For that purpose I asked 20 men to come into the Army and help the Army to do that work. It is open to anyone to see that the real object in starting the Volunteer force was that the Army of which they would be an integral part would be really representative of all the people, and that it would have the confidence of the people; not that it would be a political force, but that the combined forces of the regular Army and the Volunteers would be a really national force.

In everything that I have said to the officers in public and private in connection with it I have stressed the fact that I want the Army to pledge allegiance to the Government elected by the people, and while there may be a few exceptions, such as you find in every organisation that ever was started, I think that the vast majority of the volunteers who have come forword will be loyal to the Oath of Allegiance which they took and that they will serve any Government elected by the people. Senator Blythe, however, would not want the Army to serve any Government elected by the people. I remember that in one particular article which he addressed to the soldiers he advised the Army to be the judges as to whether the Government were doing right or wrong, as to whether the Government were acting constitutionally or not. He advised them that if any Government came in—this was in an article that he wrote in 1931—it was the Army's job to see that they acted constitutionally, that the Government would have to be good boys in the opinion of the Army, and that otherwise the Army would not be bound to give them allegiance. That is the gentleman who objects to politics being introduced into the Army. It is really a matter for the Seanad to decide whether or not it is going to insist on the amendment introduced at the last sitting. If the House wants to do so it can. There is no reason for doing so. Anything any reasonable man wants done with the Army Bill, to push on its introduction to the Oireachtas as quickly as possible is being done, and no matter what threats the Seanad makes it cannot be speeded up any further, without grave dislocation of public business. I have every hope that before the expiration of the Bill that I am now asking for, permanent legislation will be introduced and passed.

There seems to be a strange misunderstanding about this matter amongst some Senators, seeing that the Bill at present in force is the Bill which was drawn up by the last Government. Strange as it seems some Senators are now trying to force this Government to bring a new Bill to do away with the previous one. That seems to be an extraordinary state of affairs. The Army Bill that was passed for the last eight years was drawn up by the previous Government, and it will remain in force until it is changed by permanent legislation. It seems odd that Senators should try to hold up this Bill in order to get one to replace it at once. It will be time enough to criticise when someone comes along with proposals to supplant the old Bill. As regards those who are accused of being political people, who are raising the volunteers, I cannot say much about them but, as far as I know they all belonged to the old I.R.A. and the Irish Volunteers, and fought from 1916 until peace was declared. It seems to me they are very proper people indeed to do some recruiting now, seeing that they recruited in those days. It is time to decide this matter one way or the other.

What is before the House now? Is it to change the date to the 31st March or to the 31st July?

Cathaoirleach

The amendment in the name of Senator Colonel Moore is to insert 31st July.

Is it possible to agree on 31st March, as was suggested by Senator O'Farrell?

Cathaoirleach

If there is no other suggestion I shall put the amendment.

Some Senators would vote for March 31, which might be an appropriate date, if the mover of the amendment agreed to that. If he does not I have nothing further to say. It is a question whether he genuinely requires reasonable accommodation or just wants a display. If the Senator does not agree to March 31 I will drop my suggestion.

I think July 31 a reasonable date.

I am not suggesting that it is not. If it can be shown that there is any chance of having the Bill by March 31, or that there was any progress made, I do not see any harm in agreeing to that.

Cathaoirleach

And that would be the end of the financial year also.

The Bill brought in some months ago only proposed to extend the period to March 31. The Seanad shortened the period.

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided:—Tá, 15; Níl, 23.

  • Comyn, Michael, K.C.
  • Dowdall, J.C.
  • Duffy, Michael.
  • Farren, Thomas.
  • Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
  • Johnson, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Raphael P.
  • Linehan, Thomas.
  • Moore, Colonel.
  • O'Farrell, John T.
  • O'Neill, L.
  • Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
  • Quirke, William.
  • Robinson, David L.
  • Robinson, Séumas.

Níl

  • Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
  • Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
  • Browne, Miss Kathleen.
  • Counihan, John C.
  • Crosbie, George.
  • Dillon, James.
  • Douglas, James G.
  • Duggan, E.J.
  • Fanning, Michael.
  • Garahan, Hugh.
  • Griffith, Sir John Purser.
  • Keane, Sir John.
  • Kennedy, Cornelius.
  • MacKean, James.
  • Milroy, Seán.
  • Moran, James.
  • O'Connor, Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, M.F.
  • O'Sullivan, Dr. William.
  • Staines, Michael.
  • Toal, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators S. Robinson and D. Robinson; Níl: Senators Blythe and Milroy.
Amendment declared lost.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"— put and agreed to.
Top
Share