That is a question of fact. On Tuesday afternoon, the day before this occurred, I was in this House, and I thought it my duty to see if there was any shadow of doubt that the Government were not seised of the facts. I got into telephonic communication with the Minister for Justice who, I assumed, and still assume, is the correct protector of these premises. The Minister for Justice came to the other end of the telephone and I told him the facts, that I proposed to admit on the following day two visitors wearing blue shirts, as I had been requested by Senator Miss Browne to do so, and that relying on my constitutional position, and if I may say so, our domestic position, under the Standing Orders, I meant to allow that these two persons should be admitted and had so ordered. These are the facts. You may take it if you like that the Minister for Defence has forgotten the matter, but these are the facts. That being so, I think it is my duty to show you that no condonation of breaches of, or abrogation of the rights of this Seanad has at any time occurred, either during my tenure of office or that of my predecessor.
I very much regret that the Minister has not seen fit to withdraw from the position that he has taken up. He talks about a certain committee having been appointed by him and by the Ceann Comhairle. That is the head and fount of his offence: that he ignored us, and the head and fount of his offending now is that he continues to ignore us and, forsooth, that he has a committee of assistance who will protect in an adequate way our privileges until we shall sit down meekly and submit to what that committee may decide as to our rights and our privileges as an integral part of this Oireachtas, as a part of the Oireachtas without which no legislation can be conducted. If I may say so, this is a House that I think is as much concerned with the peace and order of our land as the other House, and that it is no less jealous of the advance and the constitutional rights of the people of this country. As I have said, I regret that the Minister has sought to justify his action, in face of the Constitution and of the Standing Orders, on the alleged ground that the privileges of this House have been abandoned by non-user of such privileges and have been abrogated by condonation of breaches of them. Even if there had been condonation, it would not be possible for the privileges of a House of Parliament to be abrogated thereby, because such privileges are inherent and continuous. They assuredly could not be held to be so abrogated during the brief period of eleven years during which this House has been in existence.
Before coming to the particular case, I should like to say in general that the privileges of this House have throughout been jealously guarded by my predecessor and myself. From time to time there have been attempted encroachments upon such privileges, but Lord Glenavy and I have always tactfully, I hope, but firmly insisted on our rights as an integral part of the Oireachtas, with the result that the position taken up by the other side has invariably been abandoned. Hence it happens that throughout these eleven years the question of privilege has been raised only twice in this House. On the one occasion, the breach complained of was promptly remedied by an adequate apology. The other occasion I shall refer to in a moment. So much for the general aspect of the question.
In regard to the particular aspect, I gather that the Minister's argument is that the presence of a military guard in and about Leinster House is a fact of long standing, and that the existence of such a guard, responsible to him and not to me nor to this House, might itself be regarded as a breach of privilege, which we have hitherto condoned and of which the present instance is only an extension. This, of course, is not the case at all.
Practically from the beginning, there has been a military guard in and about these buildings. It was then essential, in view of the fact that the members of the Oireachtas were meeting in the face of threats of arson and murder. It is perhaps not so necessary to-day, but even in those perilous days it was never contended that such a military guard had any right whatever to take action directly contrary to the orders of the Cathaoirleach. Had such a proposition ever been advanced, it would at once have been challenged and I am convinced that the Cathaoirleach and Senators of those days would have seen to it that such a contention was unconditionally withdrawn. The military guard is here for our protection, and its presence is unobjectionable and constitutes no breach of privilege so long as the acts of that guard, and the orders given to it, do not run contrary to my orders.
On the 17th December, 1930, Senator Comyn raised this question of the military guard and asked for a ruling that the fact of his having been stopped by the guard for purposes of identification was a breach of privilege. I stated on that occasion that had there in fact been a breach of privilege I should have felt bound to request the House to take action in the matter, but that I could not subscribe to the view that a breach of privilege had been committed. With regard to the defence of Leinster House and what the Minister has stated, all that I can say is that that is the first I heard of it. My concurrence was never sought. In my opinion any act of such a body, set up without Parliamentary authority, is as much subject to the rights and privileges of this House as the act of an individual.
I am not sure whether it is seriously contended that the absence of any action on my part following the communication sent by the Minister for Defence on the 20th July last to the Ceann Comhairle of the other House constitutes condonation of a breach of privilege. How could it? I was only aware of the existence of such an order on last Tuesday, when I heard casually that the Ceann Comhairle had issued such an order. I wrote to him for information on the matter. The first of the actual facts that I knew about the whole thing was on the day before the question was raised in the House —on the Tuesday. Then I ask you in all calmness and in all sincerity whether my action in getting in touch with the Government was not dictated solely by the desire to prevent anything occurring that could embarrass the Government in this knotty problem? I approached the person whom I believed to be the responsible person, and whom I still believe ought to be the responsible person, the Minister for Justice. The Minister for Justice replied that it was the Minister for Defence that was doing these things and that he would communicate with him. I take it that he did communicate with the Minister for Defence. The Minister for Defence has now come before you and you have heard him in defence: that there had been a condonation of matters of which I had no knowledge, and which I could not possibly have had knowledge. It is alleged, forsooth, that I had abrogated the authority of this House and had surrendered its right to a Committee appointed by the Minister for Defence. I have not done so. I shall never do so, and I believe that while this House is in existence for the defence of constitutional rights in this State that it will never consent to do so.