I want to thank Senators for allowing me to get my sea legs before they proceed to tackle me on the problems of defence. I think a more opportune time will present itself when the premanent Army Bill comes before the House. Let me say that I am anxious that the Army would be recruited to the strength that will be required to defend the country in any emergency that may arise. It would appear to me that the question of policy is fairly well accepted and, therefore, there is no great difficulty in training a force to meet the requirements of that policy.
On the question of the F.C.A., Senator Hawkins says that we should have more reliance on it. Well, a person like myself might, perhaps, be inclined to have too much reliance on it, because it would be to me the nucleus of a very powerful series of columns all over the country, and, being a column commander of a sort in the past that met with some success, I might be inclined to go too far that way. Therefore, I have to be careful and see that I do not let my feelings run away with my brain and responsibility. I am satisfied that the F.C.A. if properly developed, can play a very important part in the defence of the country. That question has been argued at various times. Of course, it is absolutely essential to have a very efficient and highly trained Army in existence to make the best use of the F.C.A. and so that you would get the greatest benefit out of it. It is also true to say that it would be a very great incentive if, as has been suggested by Senator Orpen, combined operations could be carried out in the way of manoeuvres with the two bodies fitting into each other.
At the moment we have Regular Army officers and N.C.O.s in charge of the F.C.A. all over the country. It is the intention to move in that direction as quickly as possible. For that reason, we are training now to meet a certain objective. There is an object in training to-day, and for that reason it would not be fair or reasonable to divert the Army from training for tattoos. In peace times, when you have a large body of men, tattoos can be very spectacular, but training for them is not of the type or value that you require for the defence of the country. I regret to say that the times in which we live are far different from what they were when the defence and siege of Clonmel took place. As one might say, they fought with kid gloves in those days as compared with the present time.
I agree that the Army should be seen more frequently. I am glad that the Dáil and Seanad have taken that view, because I remember the time when parliamentarians were insisting that the less you saw of the Army the better: that it should be pressed into the background, that the civil authority was supreme, and that the Army should not be pushed too far forward since it might lead to certain other developments. However, I suppose, being a constitutionalist as well as a soldier, I will see to it that the balance is kept fairly well. I will try to give expression, during my term of office, to the views expressed here.
There are many things which, I think, the people should know, but still, in my opinion, it would not be in the interests of the country to discuss them too openly or too freely. We have difficulties. The world is very unsettled, and it is very hard to get our requirements either in men or materials. I will just put it that way. It is not a question of money. As far as this Government is concerned, and as far as I, as the Minister responsible to the Dáil and Seanad am concerned— and responsible, too, to the people of the country for the country's defence —I will see to it that the people will get the best value possible for the money they pay for a very costly form of insurance—and it is an insurance. I am satisfied from what I have seen of the Army since I became Minister— as well, of course, as before that— that, as I said in the Dáil, the Army, if an emergency were to arise, will be able to give a very fine display, that it will, please God, surprise any country that would attempt to interfere with our independence or try to force its view on our people, a view which our people or Parliament do not want.