I desire to ask the President whether it is proposed to make any statement in regard to the recent negotiations with the British Government.
Negotiations with the British Government. - Statement by the President
I do not know whether the word "negotiations" would be quite the term to apply to the recent discussions and I do not know that I would be justified in giving a purely ex parte account of these discussions. I think it would be no harm to bring the minds of Deputies back to the manner in which the present position was created, at least the manner in which it was created by the advent of the present Government to office. In the elections I indicated that the policy of our Party if elected would be, firstly, to remove the Article of the Constitution which makes the signing of the Oath obligatory on members entering the Dáil—and I gave an explanation of our view on that—and, secondly, to retain the land annuities in the State Treasury. I added to that that there is no contractual obligation binding us to hand these annuities over to Britain. The British Government is neither legally nor justly entitled to receive them. That is the signed and published opinion of several prominent lawyers. That was our attitude in going to the people. Since we came into office, with the responsibility which it involves, we have given more detailed study to these matters than was possible when we were in Opposition and the more we study them, the more we are satisfied that the position we took up in regard to them was sound both in law and in justice. As regards the Oath, it is not necessary for me to relate all over again in detail what our view was as to our rights. I stressed during the Oath debate this fact, that in our opinion and as we were advised, the removal of the Oath, Article 17 of the Constitution, was in no sense a violation of the Treaty. That being so, what we were to do with it was a domestic affair—something we had a right to do without asking the view of any other people or any other Government about it. We proceeded, therefore, to do what we had a right to do without consulting anybody. When our attitude in that matter was made clear, the Secretary of the Dominions in the British Government made inquiries. To those inquiries, we politely stated what our view was and what we proposed to do. The result of that was what I regard as an unwarranted outburst— I may have been wrong in my view of it—in the British Parliament by the Secretary of the Dominions. Notes passed which have been circulated to members of the House. In the first place, there was the note of our High Commissioner in London giving the substance of his reply to Mr. Thomas's inquiry. The second note was the dispatch from Mr. Thomas indicating the attitude of the British Government on these matters. The next note was the reply from our Government indicating our position. Matters remained like that for a while. As I thought it well to make clear that our statement—that we sincerely wished for the most cordial relations between our people and the people of Great Britain—was not a mere phrase, I thought it my duty to suggest that we might have some friendly discussions, the object being that our respective points of view might be made clear. As a result of that, Mr. Thomas, Secretary of the Dominions, accompanied by Lord Hailsham, the Secretary for War, came over here and we had conversations extending over an hour or two hours. In these conversations, I made clear what, in my opinion, would be the best way to set about establishing on a sure foundation peaceful and friendly relations between the peoples of the two islands. I felt that it was wise I should do that at the beginning. These were not formal negotiations. They were friendly discussions at which the points of view of the respective parties might be exchanged. I made clear that, in my opinion—and it is my opinion—if there are to be lasting and friendly relations between the peoples of the two countries, they can be founded only upon justice and a respect for the rights of both peoples— that any attempt to dominate our people or to force them beyond what they were willing to do themselves was to work in the wrong direction and that the whole of history had proven that it was to work in the wrong direction. I made suggestions that I had made previously to other British statesmen with whom I was brought in contact. As their answer at the time to me was that they did not think any British Government would have the courage to take the course I suggested, I said—although I spoke in that manner to Mr. Thomas and Lord Hailsham and later to their colleagues in London—that I feared that the present British Government would not, any more than past Governments, have the courage to face the position and really get down to make a proper peace between the two peoples. However, that was simply to indicate what was our point of view—the point of view of anybody who was sincerely anxious to bring about cordial relations between the peoples of the two countries. Naturally, the next matter was to deal with the immediate issues in hands. As regards the Oath, I said that our position was unchanged, that we believed we were doing something which we were entitled to do and which was not, in fact, a violation of the Treaty and that we intended to proceed to put that measure into execution as soon as we were able to do so. With regard to the land annuities, we are in a different position. It could not be denied that two points of view had been expressed with regard to that. I argued the point of view that I am prepared to argue here in the Dáil—our side of the case. I showed why it was that, in our opinion, the British Government were not entitled legally to receive these moneys. The British took a different point of view and, as no agreement could be reached between us, the British Government made the offer that the legal questions involved should be referred to arbitration and suggested that a tribunal of the nature envisaged in the report of the 1930 Imperial Conference would be suitable. Before that offer was put down in express terms, I had indicated that it was a very big step for a small country like ours to take— to submit a matter of that kind to any international tribunal. I said that the experiences of the past did not favour submission by a small country like ours of a matter of that kind to any tribunal. I said that our position in the British Commonwealth was peculiar—that whilst other States of the British Commonwealth were attached to Britain as the mother country, Ireland, in the British Commonwealth, did not occupy any such position, and that our people would naturally feel that there would be a bias against Ireland in any such court—not any wilful desire to do injustice to Ireland, but that there would be, in a case of that kind, a natural bias against Ireland and considerable difficulty to any members of the tribunal who belonged to the States of the British Commonwealth to appreciate the historical and other background of the whole of the present position so far as Ireland was concerned. I said that in justice to our people I could not take the responsibility of accepting a tribunal of that sort. I said that we were going very far indeed in being prepared to submit the matter to a tribunal of the general character indicated in that Report, subject to there being no restriction on the personnel of the court.
We are going to pick our representatives and they can do the same from any country in the world. If we are going to have arbitration, instead of force, then, surely, no obstacle ought to be raised as to the general choice of personnel. It will be only fair to both parties, and I believe that our attitude here has set a headline for all those who wish for a peaceful adjustment of disputes.
Accordingly I despatched, on behalf of the Government, to the British Government, the following reply. It is addressed to the Secretary for the Dominions:—
Sir,
The proposal of the British Government for arbitration on the question of the land annuities has been considered by the Government of the Irish Free State.
The Government of the Irish Free State accepts the principle of arbitration, and agrees that a tribunal of the general character outlined in the report of the Imperial Conference of 1930 would be suitable, but is unable to agree to the restriction of the personnel of the tribunal solely to citizens of the States of the British Commonwealth.
The Government of the Irish Free State is of opinion that, in justice to the people of the Irish Free State, the matters to be submitted to the Tribunal for determination must include not merely the land annuities, but also the items of the other annual payments to the British Government by the Government of the Irish Free State, except those made in pursuance of agreements formally ratified by the Parliaments of both States.
I may further add that in the view of my Government any agreement reached, between the Governments on these matters, must be submitted to both Houses of the Oireachtas for their approval.
Now, perhaps, my views of the powers of a Government to commit a country may not agree with the views that are held by some members on the benches opposite. The reason for putting that last paragraph in is this: If the Government agree to arbitration and that in fact the difference goes to be settled by arbitration then once the award was made there would be no redress for the country, no way in which the representatives of the people, or the people themselves, could get redress except by absolute repudiation of the award, and that is not in fact conceivable—it is something that one cannot for a moment contemplate. Therefore when this matter is to be submitted to arbitration it is only fair that the representatives of the people should have before them, before it is actually submitted, the matters to be arbitrated on and the exact terms of submission for arbitration. It was because this last paragraph is there that I said to the Leader of the Opposition this morning that before any final step, in regard to this matter, was taken the House would have ample opportunity to discuss the whole matter. Where arbitration is concerned, I regard the preliminary steps as steps of negotiation, and as there would be no question of ratification after the award I felt it was only fair, and that it is the right procedure, for the Government to bring the proposal, in its final form, before the Dáil before effect could be given to it.
I have, I think, explained to the House, in general terms, what has taken place. I am informed, not officially—I am told it is in the papers —that Mr. Thomas is not going to accept these proposals. Well, we have done our part, and it is extraordinary to think of the British Prime Minister, presiding at Lausanne, and pointing out how these inter-Governmental payments are crushing the countries of Europe, and to see a colleague of his, in the British House of Commons, insisting not merely upon his pound of flesh, but insisting, definitely, that they themselves shall determine exactly how much.
We are prepared to let this matter go before an independent arbitral tribunal. I do not think that anybody, whether in this country or outside, can hold we are acting unfairly when we say that our choice of the personnel shall not be limited to any nation or any special group of nations. I say it astonished me to see two British Ministers speaking in such different tones, as the Prime Minister and Mr. Thomas, and I want the House, and any other people who may take an interest in this to remember that our annual payments to Britain amounting to five-and-one-third million pounds, represent a greater export of the revenues of our people than, practically, that of any other country in the world. That was admitted, I think, in the British House of Commons, by British Ministers.
The estimate that was made of the relative capacity of Great Britain, and this country, to bear financial burdens was 66 to 1. That is, Britain can bear, approximately, 66 times as heavy a financial burden as we can bear without feeling the burden any more. 66 times 5 is 330 million. If Britain was exporting 330 million pounds a year, then her position would be comparable to the position we find ourselves in as a result of this export of our revenue. Since this Free State was established we paid to Britain a total sum of over £51,000,000. Take even £50,000,000, multiply that by 66, and you have the colossal total of payments of £3,300,000,000. That is the payment England would be making if the burden she was bearing were comparable to ours. We cannot afford in this country to lightly part with these moneys, and we do not propose, as long as we are the Government, lightly to part with them. We mean to hold them until Britain establishes her right to get them and establishes that right before a court in which, as I said at the London conference, there can be no suggestion that there is any loading of the dice. I repeat the phrase—Mr. Thomas I believe has repeated it—I repeat it in public—in which there should be no appearance of loading the dice against Ireland.
I do not think I should detain the House at this stage any further. I have not had an opportunity of reading Mr. Thomas's statement. Neither probably has any member on the Opposition Benches had an opportunity of reading it. In any case we should like to wait to read it in the Official Report. I promise the House that an opportunity will be afforded for the discussion of this matter as soon as possible after the Eucharistic Congress is concluded.
I would like, on a point of information, if the President would read the last paragraph of his message about arbitration again.
I wish to point out that the last paragraph has reference not merely to the methods of submission but to the whole question of arbitration. I had better continue the explanation. My view is this: That all a Government can do—all that a really democratic Government can do—when a matter is going to be submitted to arbitration and when it is prepared to stand for that policy, is to go through the negotiations part of it, the preliminary part of it, and arrange the tribunal to which the matters will be offered for submission. It is in duty bound to lay the whole matter before the representatives of the people at any rate in order that they should give their final judgment as to whether or not they will commit the interests of the people in a matter by submitting it to a court.
The paragraph is as follows:—
"I must further add that in the view of my Government"—because I am not so certain that is the view of the British Government—"any agreement reached between the two Governments on these matters"—that is, on the matters of details—"must be submitted to both Houses of the Oireachtas for their approval."
Including, I take it, the award?
No, no. I want to be quite clear on that. There is no redress, in my opinion, once the award has been made. The country is irrevocably committed once the award is made. If it wants to change it, it will have to be done by a Treaty, and I say that we have not, and nobody has proved that we have—the best legal opinion, the best lawyers even in Britain itself hold with us on that matter—
On what matter?
On the matter of whether we are interfering with the Treaty or not.
Deputies
Order!
I am going to regulate my own speech myself.
I have a perfect right to ask a question.
I have been asked a question concerning the award. I think, from my previous statement, it should be clear to everybody that once the award is made there is no redress.
And that it binds us?
And that the Legislature beforehand should have an opportunity of saying whether or not they would allow the matter to go before any such court. If our policy of submitting it to arbitration in the manner suggested should not commend itself to the House, then the House will have an opportunity of turning down the whole proposal before it becomes effective, and that, in my opinion, is the only effective way in which responsibility can be placed on Governments and the representatives of the people.
I again ask, is the country to be bound by the award?
That was not the question as I understood it. The question, as I understood it, was whether the award would come before the Dáil for ratification, so to speak, which would be ridiculous. Of course the country will be bound by the award if the representatives of the people submit the whole matter to arbitration. Of course, there is no other way out of it. And it is because it is such a serious step that States are very slow to submit matters of any kind to arbitration. It is not by any means an easy thing to get States to submit matters between themselves to arbitration, and in taking this step, under all the circumstances, we are taking a step which, for a country like ours, requires considerable courage to take. We are setting a proper headline for everybody who thinks that matters that can be tried by a court should be tried by a court —we are setting them a headline to have a decision in that way instead of by force.
If there is a General Election, and if the Government is changed, is the country committed to the award?
Exactly. The former Government did not go to the country or to the Dáil and they tried to commit the people.
The former Government, notwithstanding the opposition in arms, went to the country in 1922 and in 1923 and twice in 1927. The former Government went four times to the people of this country.
That was your opinion.
We had 30 minutes and there are three minutes left.
Three minutes is enough to make the British case.
Deputy Cosgrave should forget that he is a politician.
I cannot forget that I am dealing with a group of politicians and not statesmen. That is the unfortunate position we are in. I asked for a statement with regard to the negotiations and the information given to us was that the dice was loaded against this country by Mr. Thomas. I suggest the dice is loaded against this country by the Government.
The President rose.
Cries of Order.
The President is entitled to speak on a point of personal explanation.
I did not say that the dice was loaded by Mr. Thomas.
Very good. Let us have the statement then.
Mr. Thomas reported me as having said in conversation that the dice was or would be loaded against Ireland in the manner in which he proposed to deal with the matter, and that I did not propose it should be done.
The decision and the responsibility for this rests on the Government. The negotiation, or the Conference which is to take place at Ottawa is a matter of first importance to this country and on the Government rests the responsibility for whatever advantages or disadvantages may accrue from it.
Do not forget the "damn good bargain."
Both my colleague, Deputy Dillon, and myself understood that last paragraph as meaning that the award would have to be submitted to this House. That may have been stupidity on our part.
The House is fully in agreement with the Independent Party!
I suggest that perhaps Mr. Thomas might have been under the same error.
I agree with the President that this matter should not be discussed now. I do not think it is going to do any good to do so, but I would ask the President if he would provide an opportunity for having a fuller discussion of the whole matter.
If the House would leave to me the time that I think would be most appropriate in the National interests to do so, I would be very happy to consult it. I do not know that the House is going to do that. I promise the House that on the first occasion it can be done in the public interest I will do it.
I agree that this is a matter in which the House must be guided by the Government. The Government knows the facts and the House does not. Knowing the facts, the responsibility is on the Government and, as far as I am concerned, I will be prepared to leave it to the President to say which day he would consider most suitable for a discussion of the matter.
If that is the view of the House I promise to take the House into confidence on the first occasion that it can be done.
Pending the proposed arbitration, would the President be in a position to give the House an assurance that there will be no attempt at present to enforce collection of these annuities?
I would like to point out to the House that there are members on the opposite benches doing infinite harm to the country, by making suggestions such as Deputy Wolfe has made to-day. Our position on the land annuities has been made quite clear to the farmers and to others.
When?
All the time. From the first to the last speech that I made on the land annuities question I have insisted on the responsibility of the farmers to the State to pay the annuities. Any suggestion to the contrary is doing neither good to the farmer nor to the country, and in fact, is going to put the farmers, if they listen to it, into a very, very difficult position.
The Dáil adjourned at 2.35 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Tuesday, 28th June.