I beg to move:—
"That the Dáil learns with alarm and disapproval, from the communication of the President to an English newspaper, that secret negotiations with external Governments have been carried on of late, if not at his instance with his knowledge and consent, directed to cap the London Agreement with an economic treaty; and the Dáil condemns and forbids the commitment of this State to changes of its fiscal policy and surrender of its fiscal freedom by covenants entered into on its behalf by Ministers of the Executive Council without previous authorization and specific mandate from the representatives of the people."
This motion obviously consists of two parts. The first part deals with facts, and the second with constitutional doctrine. The facts are: the now notorious letter of the President to the "Morning Post," the revelations arising out of it as made by the "Morning Post," and the interview, or what purports to be an interview, with one of the daily papers. The constitutional doctrine asserts certain principles which ought to regulate the conduct of affairs in a State such as this, whose ideal is to have responsible representative government. As regards that portion of the resolution, the amendment of Deputy Johnson is practically identical in purpose and idea, and I should have no difficulty whatever in accepting that amendment, not in substitution for the entire motion which I move, but for the second portion of it. I could not accept it for the entirety of the motion because the special value of the earlier part lies in this, that it gives the President an opportunity for making clear to the satisfaction of the nation what his real position in this matter is, if it differs from what it appears to be from a consideration of Press reports. Whether the President will believe me or not, I take this opportunity of declaring that if he can make his position right, there is no member of the Dáil or of the public who will be better pleased than I. I ask the Dáil to declare that it has learned of this transaction with alarm and disapproval, that is to say, that it shares the feelings of people outside this House. The "Derry Journal," for example, which implicates impressions and feelings so far north, in its issue of Monday, February 22nd, says:—"Whatever action the Dáil may take on the now famous letter to the `Morning Post' may we assert that that document is condemned, resented and repudiated all over the country." Now, I am not by any means the only person who was alarmed. Never since the infamous Pigott letter appeared in the London "Times" was there any communication in a London newspaper which has excited so much interest and comment as the President's notorious letter.
Both London newspapers, "The Times" and the "Morning Post,""The Times" in that day and "The Morning Post" in our day, were the notorious enemies of Irish national claims, and they were the determined upholders of the policy that would frustrate the realisation of Ireland's hopes of self-government. The one extraordinary point of difference, I may say in passing, lies in this, that whereas in those days no one accepted the letter signed with the name of Parnell as authentic—every genuine Nationalist regarded it as an audacious forgery— it shows how far the President's stock has fallen in the political market that no one on reading this letter declared: "Some enemy has done this thing." It was accepted as his. The public marvelled at the egregious folly of the performance, but they never doubted for a moment that the performance was his. One body was alarmed—the term it used, was "anxiety," but I take it that anxiety is a form of alarm—and a report of it was given both in the "Irish Times" and in the "Irish Independent." I should say that the Irish Press, including the "Irish Times," which is regarded in some circles, rightly or wrongly, as now the official organ of the Government, preserved an extraordinary silence from the moment of the publication of the "Morning Post" letter, and the "Morning Post's" revelations thereon. I take it that they found on reflection that the most friendly service they could do to the Party whose cause they espoused was to give to it the charity of silence. But in the "Irish Times" at any rate room was found for this report of a meeting of the Federation of Irish Industries, of which Senator Sir Nugent Everard is president. A meeting of that body was summoned to consider what is called "The situation created by President Cosgrave's letter":—
"102 Grafton Street,
Dublin,
"19th February, 1926.
"A Chara,—Your communication to the Editor of the `Morning Post,' published in that journal on the 15th inst., and the many Press comments on same, have been under consideration by my Executive. I am directed to convey to you that a feeling of anxiety has developed amongst our members, who are taking advantage of the existing tariffs to extend their manufactures in the Free State, lest the inferences drawn by the `Morning Post' from your letter and interviews should indicate the intentions of the Government. My Executive feels that, while the suggestion that our tariffs should be abandoned is unthinkable, a statement that nothing more should be read into your letter than what it actually contains would greatly help to allay the existing uneasiness, and, perhaps, prevent the stoppage of some industrial developments under consideration at the moment.—Mise le meas,
"THOMAS S. LAWLER,
"Organiser."
The following is the President's reply:—
"A Chara,
"I am directed by the President to refer to your letter of to-day's date and to say that he has no hesitation in confirming your understanding that nothing more is to be read into his letter published in the `Morning Post' on the 15th instant than what that letter actually contains.
"Mise le meas,
"P. BANIM."
The "Independent" report is headed by a passage intended to allay anxiety and to re-assure those who are suffering from the existing uneasiness. In the spirit of the genuine optimist, the sentence is composed:—
"President Cosgrave makes it clear that unwarranted inferences have been drawn from his letter to the `Morning Post."'
He makes it clear. How, I wonder? What has he said? The Secretary of the Irish Industries Federation, in a way that is childlike and bland, invites the President to say that nothing more should be read into his letter than it actually contained, and the President's reply is: "You are quite right. Do not read anything into my letter more than my letter contains." And that is declared to make it clear that certain revelations made by the "Morning Post" in consequence of the President's letter are unwarranted. It will be noted that what Irish Industries, Incorporated, referred to was "that the inferences drawn by the `Morning Post' from your letter and interviews should indicate the intentions of the Government." So that though we are warned not to read any more into the letter than the letter contains, nothing whatever is said with regard to the interviews, or the interpretation of the inferences that might reasonably be drawn from these. That, to say the least of it, is not quite candid. Remember that Burke on one occasion spoke of a man as "determined to die in the last dyke of prevarication." The President is determined to die in the last dyke of evasion.
What does the letter actually contain? No more than what is to be read into it. How much is to be read out of it, if nothing is to be read into it? I will read this egregious letter, a most extraordinary communication from a leading man in Irish political affairs, the President of the Executive Council, to an English newspaper whose reputation is known to every Deputy as the most vindictive opponent of all that this House, by its very existence, stands for and is symbolical of. Its opposition to Irish liberty was, and is, always characterised by malignity. It loaded with vituperation even the English statesmen of its own party who took the nobler course and determined to end the war with this country. Even now, after the President has written this letter to it, having first betrayed him by giving a full and detailed account of all its transactions with him, it proceeds to exercise its malevolence in a later issue of the same week.
To the Editor of the "Morning Post."
"Sir,—May I express my appreciation of the efforts made by the `Morning Post' to facilitate a more comprehensive agreement between this Government and those of Belfast and Westminster. The work of your special correspondent in endeavouring to smooth away difficulties which still remain after the London Conference of December last has been of great advantage. But we value it all the more because it is a tangible evidence of English good-will towards us in this time when we are striving to promote the interests of our own people in conjunction with those of Northern Ireland and England.
The sympathy and practical assistance of the `Morning Post' has, believe me, encouraged us in our efforts to reconcile the interests of the parties concerned.—Yours, etc.,
"Liam T. MacCosgair,
"President."
I am not quite sure, with regard to the last paragraph, as to the exact reference in the word "us." Is this the Royal "we" into which the President has slipped inadvertently, assuming the Royal Prerogative, because he is acting royally, committing his country without its prior knowledge and consent, or does "us" mean his colleagues in the Executive Council who, according to the Constitution, have joint responsibility with him? At any rate, there is the letter, a letter expressing appreciation of efforts made to facilitate a more comprehensive agreement. Naturally the national reader asks: "A more comprehensive agreement than what?" Of course, the President will tell you what he meant, because I presume he knows what he meant. The "Morning Post," however, has told us in regard to what it understood it was receiving this compliment. But, after all, I think it is a reasonable proposition that if two men conspire to promote the same end and one of them is silent as to what his purpose and his method have been and the other is willing to reveal it, after receiving compliments in public as regards his conduct in the affair, one may very well accept the account that he gives by way of revelation.
Before I read the explanation which the "Morning Post" is good enough to give us, I might stop to express my wonder why the President committed himself to the writing of such a letter to the editor of such a paper particularly.
I happen to know that Mr. Joseph Devlin and Sir James Craig were asked by the same authority to give a letter of similar tenor, using the President's as a model, but they were too old birds to be caught with chaff, and were too wily and too wise in political matters to succumb to the blandishments of the "Morning Post." And only the President of the Dáil is left here in the pillory. The President writes this letter. What is it in effect? At least 99 per cent. of the public believe that the account given by the special agent of the "Morning Post," no matter how much the President may choose to deny his revelations, may be accepted as an accurate history. That letter is nothing but a certificate to the special correspondent of the "Morning Post." Why did the President give this certificate, and why did he repent so soon after having given it? Why was he conscious—conscious after this fevered waking up, as the poet says, always a day too late—when he came to reply to an Irish body, the Federation of Irish Industries, that this was a case that called for an evasive answer? Why not have had the wisdom to provoke no necessity to have queries put that required evasive answers? Was this a smoke-screen that the President was trying to spread to hide from the public how long ago these negotiations began and that they were a natural sequel and, indeed, a continuation of the infamous London Pact? Was that the purpose of the letter, or was he subjected to some pressure which he could not or dare not resist? Perhaps he will tell us which of these is the explanation.
We have the "Morning Post" account of the transaction, first from the special correspondent, and secondly from the Editor. I marvel no less at the ability of the President to remain silent if he has read, as he must have read, the leading article of this paper—it appears in the issue in which his letter appears—than I marvel at his having written the letter at all. It is too long to read the whole of this, and I would ask you, Sir, to believe that when I read extracts that they are not garbled. In any case, if by inadvertence full justice is not done in the reading because it is a curtailed extract that I give, there will be ample room for it to be corrected and replied to. I shall do my best to make the extracts fairly represent the tenor of the document.
"One of the weaknesses of the Free State position," it is explained here, "was that there was no platform whence Ministers"—that means Irish Ministers—"could speak to the British electorate." That is following the position which had been created in December last. "The `Morning Post' at once adjusted that difficulty." It provided a platform from which the Irish Ministers could do what was so necessary: address the British public. To get right with the British public was much more important of course than to get right with the Irish public "The `Morning Post' at once adjusted that difficulty. Statements explaining the official attitude of the Free State were published in these columns from the President of the Executive Council. Mr. Cosgrave: the Vice-President. Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, and the Minister for External Affairs. Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald. At the same time the Free State Ministers appreciated the editorial attitude of the `Morning Post'—an attitude of frank recognition of all the difficulties involved and insistence on the fact that any settlement to be mutually advantageous and permanently satisfactory must be based on economic considerations rather than on mere political protestations."
You will see later, from the leading article of the paper, how we poor fools, who believed in national ideals and who valued liberty before material considerations, are lectured and shown that after all these are vain things as compared with having a good market for your produce and a good financial credit to back you in your transactions. The flesh-pots of Egypt policy is now recommended insolently.
"But when Mr. Baldwin met Sir James Craig and Mr. Cosgrave in conference in London early in December it was not possible to embrace in the settlement an agreement on all the points at issue between the North and South." No, it was not, nor were all the terms of the settlement put into the document that purported to give the settlement. It may be remembered that on the occasion of the debate on the great betrayal I asked the question: Are there any secret arrangements which will be divulged later on in instalments? "It was not possible to embrace in the settlement an agreement on all the points at issue between the North and South. Primarily there were two questions which could be settled only later in a less tense atmosphere—(1) the rapprochement between the Ulster Government and the Northern Nationalists; and (2) the readjustment of the tariff arrangements between England, the Free State and the North.”
These, I remark again in passing, are referred to in the leading article as the "three countries." Already the "Morning Post" gloried in the fact that the ceded Six Counties will never again belong to Ireland. Ireland is only a geographical expression, not a political expression, according to the doctrines of this paper which is thanked for its service to Ireland. "Until the Nationalist communities just on the Northern side of the boundary had accepted the fact that, willy-nilly, they were now citizens of Ulster, with privileges and possibilities as such, it was practically impossible for Sir James Craig and Mr. Cosgrave to proceed further on the lines of the agreement initiated at the London conference." It was not possible "to proceed further on the lines of the agreement initiated at the London conference" until the Ulster representatives had been pressed and bamboozled into going into the Belfast Parliament. It is explained here that Sir James Craig in the Reform Club and President Cosgrave in the Dáil both carried out their part of the compact by calling on the Ulster members to go into the Belfast Parliament. I remember with what horror and indignation I heard the President's words here when he practically told my people, the Ulster people, to make the best of the situation: Now go into the Ulster Parliament and fight for yourselves—these people who have been supported by Secret Service money from the South to enable them to prolong their opposition to that very policy.
"It was at this stage," explains Mr. Bradstreet, the representative of the "Morning Post,""that an honest broker could usefully intervene." Anyone familiar with the English language of, say, the comic dramatists of the Restoration period will have his memory awakened by the term "honest broker," and will think of a coarser and cruder term. "Manifestly it is impossible yet to publish complete details." I take it that the President will publish more complete details. "But it is permissible to say that the three Governments were ready to cap the London Agreement with an economic Treaty." Now, sir, that is what I have invited the Dáil to express its alarm and disapproval of—the revelation of negotiations directed to cap the London Agreement with an economic Treaty. I know the President will adopt his usual tactics, a lot of bluster and personal abuse, and that we shall have violent tirades against the Irregulars who weakened the Irish position so much that it was impossible for Irish Ministers to stand up against British Ministers any longer. "But it is permissible to say that the three Governments were ready to cap the London Agreement with an economic Treaty." Has that ever been contradicted on our behalf by the chief of the Irish Government? That, sir, by a sinister coincidence, is in the line immediately above the "frame" in which the President's letter of appreciation is inserted. You may say it is dastardly on the part of this paper, but there is the fact that the statement was made that "it is permissible to say that the three Governments were ready to cap the London Agreement with an economic Treaty," and that has not been contradicted. I give the President the opportunity now to contradict it in this House and let it go to the Irish people that this is a malignant slander upon the President.
Unfortunately, the President, if he proceeds to make these denials, will have to reckon with an Irish paper. Therefore, I am not leading him into any trap in asking him to contradict that without begging his advertence to another revelation. The "Irish Independent" sent its Political Correspondent—at any rate he went—to interview the Executive Council. Very naturally the "Irish Independent" was alarmed. Again, I am not the only person whose nerves were so jumpy and irregular as to be affected by a revelation of this magnitude. Here is what the "Irish Independent" said in a leading article, following upon which its able Political Correspondent interviewed, or professes to have interviewed, members of the Government:
"In recent years the Nationalists of Ireland have had no more bitter enemy in the ranks of the British Press than the `Morning Post.' When the Free State was fighting for its existence, that journal heaped abuse and vituperation upon the Government. It comes, therefore, as a surprise to us to learn from yesterday's issue that the `Morning Post' and Mr. Cosgrave have been exchanging bouquets."
I prefer to be the recipient of the President's bouquet than the recipient of the bouquet of the "Morning Post," and I think you, a Chinn Chomhairle, and the House, will agree with me when I have given the details of the various flowers and perfumes that constitute it. Here is what the Political Correspondent has to say. He evidently saw the Minister for Finance. I have always lauded the Minister for Finance for his truthfulness, and so long as he and I—may it be long!—are in this House, I shall continue to do so —that is, as long as he makes it possible:
"The modification of the tariff barrier referred to by the `Morning Post,' I can state on Ministerial authority, refers to a possible reciprocal arrangement between this country and Great Britain and Northern Ireland relating to the exportation of motor cars and parts, and nothing else."
Unless that is true and absolutely true, it is audacious in the last degree. I have no hesitation in accepting it as true. The correspondent makes the statement "on Ministerial authority." At any rate, the statement has never been challenged by any Minister. No letter, beginning "A chara" and ending "Mise, le meas," has been written to say that there is no warrant or justification for the claim that the Political Correspondent of the "Irish Independent" has Ministerial authority for what he says. He is as childlike and bland in his own way as the Secretary of the Federation of Irish Industries, because he says the modification of the tariff barrier "refers to a possible reciprocal arrangement regarding the exportation and importation of motor cars and parts, and—nothing else.”“Nothing else”! When I read that. I recalled one of the farcical scenes in the “Belle of New York,” where a choleric and duel-fighting count goes round looking for the man who has provoked him, and to each man whom he inquiries from, he remarks, “I merely wanted to kill him; that is all.” There is exactly the same line of thought here. It deals only with “the exportation and importation of motor cars and parts”—“and nothing else!”
"It does not involve in any way the abolition of the Customs barrier between ourselves and the Six-County area."
The writer having noticed that this is somewhat inconsistent with his previous statement, hastens to add:
"As that instrument is now generally understood."
It is merely proposed to take down the barrier to such and such an extent, but it must not be regarded as an interference with the Customs barrier. Not at all!
"The position in this respect remains the same as when Mr. Blythe answered Mr. Sears on the subject on the 5th instant in the Dáil."
Remark that my friend Deputy Sears also had some anxiety and uneasiness in these matters. He asked the Minister for Finance about them, and the Minister for Finance told him the absolute truth—as the Minister for Finance understood the truth and within the measure of his information at the time.
"The Minister then said it was not the intention of the Government in any way to meet the wishes of those who called for the abolition of the Customs barrier."
But that was the 5th. This issue of the "Morning Post" is dated February 15th. Although there is the fiction of collective responsibility in the Executive Council, I am prepared to believe that the Minister for Finance knew nothing at all about those interesting developments on February 5th. In any case, whether he did or not, the answer he gave Deputy Sears is, so far as it goes, an absolutely truthful reply.
"It was, he said, obvious that no negotiations for the abolition of the Customs barrier could take place while the Northern Government had its present status."
Of course, no negotiations that would be fruitful, that would issue in any binding results, need be carried out with a subordinate Parliament when manifestly it was with the Imperial Parliament they were to be carried out, and—as the "Morning Post" revealed—they were carried out.
"Accordingly the statement that such negotiations were taking place was entirely without foundation."
Had I made that statement, sir, we would have heard a great deal about metaphysics.
Certain exchanges of views, however, appear to have taken place in connection with the motor duties question.
There were no "negotiations." There were "exchanges of views." When do "exchanges of views" become "negotiations"? And when are "negotiations" only "exchanges of views"? It is very much like the question: "At what hour of what night does a pup become a dog? When precisely does a kid become a goat?" The distinction is very fine. That is the distinctio formalis cum fundamento in re. There were no “negotiations.” There were “certain exchanges of views” in connection with the motor duties question.
A scheme has, however, taken shape, and, if accepted in principle, only requires to be worked out by experts of both Governments to see exactly how both sides will be affected.
"If accepted in principle.” Whether that came from the Ministerial mind or whether it is a gratuitous addition on the part of the Political Correspondent, I am unable to decide. However, you will see presently that the “Morning Post” has something to say about that, too. It would appear that items of the coming Budget manage to leak out, for we have a cross-caption in very big type, “Luxury Taxes.” Here is a sop for the Minister for Finance, even if the President has been fooling—if I may use the word—or playing with concessions on tariff points. “What you lose in one matter, you can make up in another. Take off the duties on incoming British cars and charge a luxury tax upon the cars that are in the Twenty-six Counties.” That is as much as to say, “We will make the Irish pay.” I pointed out before that, so long as the duties are on the British cars, in the case of many of the bigger firms, a considerable proportion of the tax is allowed to the local agent here to enable him to face the competition of cheaper cars. Therefore, a luxury tax if imposed will increase our taxation at home. The “Independent” proceeds:—
There is, I understand, a very good reason for stating that a motor car, if the import duty were removed, would be regarded as a luxury and would have imposed on it an annual tax of perhaps £3 or £5... There are important forces outside the councils of the Government which hold that, as the Saorstát and Great Britain are so closely economically knit, they should work as closely together in economic affairs as the position of both can allow.
That is an echo from the leading article of the "Morning Post."
"For this reason, it is urged a `most-favoured-nation' policy should exist between the two countries, which, it is held, would have considerable advantage for both."
That is a striking conclusion to arrive at. That is the policy advocated in this English paper. It is the policy of Mr. Amery, the Secretary for the Dominions. I wonder is there any significance in the fact that, before the infamous London Pact was entered into, our President had the advantage of cruising in the yacht of Lord Beaverbrook, the chosen agent of Mr. Amery, for propagating his imperial-preference ideas. Mr. Amery and Lord Beaverbrook happen to be from Canada—companions in arms, political. Most of us are aware of the campaign inaugurated by Mr. Amery and propagated on his behalf by Lord Beaverbrook. And the settled policy of the "Morning Post" has been to promote that fiscal policy throughout the Commonwealth of Nations, into which the Twenty-six County State has entered. The President has commended the "Morning Post" representative for facilitating a more comprehensive agreement. The "Morning Post" representative says that that "more comprehensive agreement" was one more comprehensive than the agreement entered into and known as "The London Agreement" or "The London Pact."
