It is a rather interesting thing to be taunted with sitting silent while Deputies on the opposite benches are speaking. We had that experience for many years. We had to speak on very important questions, and generally one Minister was sitting here paying no attention whatever to what was being said. Apparently the Deputies on the opposite benches were very glad to stand up. There was no hesitation about it. They wanted this debate to-night. They would not wait until to-morrow, when there would be the ordinary opportunity when the measure that the Government is bringing in, in relation to the present crisis, will be before the House. Why then should we not give them an opportunity of saying the things they want to say? They wanted to give a lead; to tell the country we were down and out, and in a miserable position; to tell the people that they were misled, and to ask the people to despair, because a nation near-by wishes to bully them, to take away their rights, and to dictate the court by which they are to take away these rights. Some of the Deputies opposite said that this is a mere petty matter, merely a matter of pounds, shillings and pence. It is rather unfortunate that human beings have somehow to work out their material existence on an economic basis of one kind or another in pounds, shillings and pence. Yet we are told that pounds, shillings and pence are mere matters. I think it was a Deputy on the opposite benches who spoke of the Deputies there as being realists all the time, while we were the people who were talking about airy sentiment. It would be all very well, said Deputy Blythe, if this were a national question. Is it of no importance to the people to be robbed every year of £5,000,000 which they have to find? Is is of no importance to the people to be robbed every year of £5,000,000 that they think is theirs? £5,000,000 a year means something to our people, and the people who should best appreciate it are the gentlemen on the opposite benches if there is anything like realism or truth in their pretences that they are the realists. Of course, they are trying to put the Government in the wrong and pretend that it has led the people blindly into this position. We have done nothing of the kind. This position, as was admitted, was bound to occur, or something like it was bound to occur, if we were really determined to stand by our rights. Was it to be thought that Britain which is getting quite easily five and three quarter or five and a third million pounds directly from us would give it up, if they thought that by bullying us a little we would abandon our rights and continue to pay without demurring as we have paid in the past?
Let us see what exactly has happened. For years sums have been paid to the British Government, which, in our opinion, and in the opinion of those who have examined it, were not legally or morally due to Britain. The various sums we have paid for the period of years since the Free State was established have amounted to over £51,000,000. This is not a new measure. We debated it throughout the election time, and showed what that drain of money meant to our people. We pointed out to them that the total cost of the Shannon Works scheme—great as that enterprise was—that the construction part of it did not cost us more than we are paying every year on the head of these payments. We are handing over, therefore, to Britain, as the result of the policy of the present Opposition, sums every year the amount of which is equal to the sum that was paid for the construction works of the Shannon scheme. Is that a light matter? Is it something we ought to continue to put up with when there is a remedy for it and when that money, we feel, is not due? I have frequently pointed out during the debate on this matter in the country that, as the relative capacity of Britain to ourselves for bearing burdens was estimated by the British Treasury, as being 66 to 1 our total payments during the period of ten years to Britain have been equivalent to a payment by Britain of the colossal sum of £3,400,000,000. If Great Britain had paid £3,400,000,000, and if they felt that that sum was not legally due by them, do you think that there would be any party in Britain who would act as the present Opposition here is acting? £3,400,000,000 is the equivalent that Britain would have had to pay if she were to pay the sum that we have to pay. Take it the other way—per year. Britain's capacity again is 66 to 1. That is their own estimate of it. A payment of £5,000,000 by us is equivalent to an annual payment of £330,000,000. If Britain were annually paying away to another country the sum of £330,000,000 would there be any party in Britain to stand up and say: "This is not a national question. It is a mere matter of pounds shillings and pence" if you please? When there was a question of £2,000,000 for Britain itself— £2,000,000 for the country whose annual revenue is £770,000,000—Mr. Snowden went over to France, or rather I think it was to Belgium, and fought there for that £2,000,000, and was acclaimed a national hero when he came back. If he had gone over and tried to fight for £330,000,000 instead of £2,000,000, would there have been some party in the British House of Commons to stand up and say that he was not fighting for a national principle, that he should not make a national fight of it, and that it was a matter of mere pounds, shillings and pence?
I have said at the start that there was no person in this country who did not realise that, if we were serious in this matter, we would have to face a situation such as we are facing. I certainly realised it. And in order that there might be no doubt whatever about it, we put it down in our election programme in very definite terms as one of the things we intended to do. We said that we intended to remove the Oath—and the Oath is gone—Seanad or no Seanad. We said we were going to hold the land annuities until Britain proved in a fair court her right to them. And we are going to hold the land annuities. Who has acted provocatively in this matter? We are accused on the opposite benches of acting provocatively because we did not continue the work, which they had initiated, of making payments which we did not think were due from us. The Irish people are under no misapprehension about our attitude on that matter. We told them at the election time that if they wanted seriously to hold these annuities, they would have, as a nation, to do what a private individual would do under similar circumstances. What would a private individual would do under that he was paying sums which were not legally due from him? Would he continue paying them or would he bring the matter to a crisis, and in what way would he bring it to a crisis? He would bring it to a crisis by saying: "I will not pay until you prove your case to receive these moneys." And we have said that. Of course, the gentlemen on the opposite benches, who have no objection to paying it, do not understand an attitude like that. We should pay, I suppose they would say, "without prejudice." Well, I would say this. There are £51,000,000 gone—gone, in my opinion, without any just reason for paying them. Britain has received it. I would like to see us in the position of trying to get that £51,000,000 paid back, and I for one am not going to add to that bill to be got back. The proper and the right thing to do is to hold these moneys. We are holding them, and, to show our bona fides, we are putting them in a suspense account. Despite the efforts of some of the gentlemen on the opposite benches, who are asking the farmers not to pay, we have faced the disagreeable course of demanding payments of these moneys and putting them into the suspense account in order that, if it should be found by any chance that these moneys were due from us, then the money would be there to pay our debt. We are keeping the money there. Why do we collect it? Because the money is due to the community as a whole. It is due to the State. We have always explained that it was due to the State. Gentlemen on the opposite benches want to make it appear that if it was not due to Britain then it was due to nobody. That is not the position and it never was the position. It is due by the individual farmers to the State, to the community as a whole, on whose credit partly the moneys were originally advanced. We have not acted provocatively in this. We have said to the British, "We do not believe this money is due from us; we are prepared to have the matter settled by arbitration; but we are not, in going to arbitration, to be told that we must make our selection from a particular set that may be arranged by another Government—the other party to the dispute."
As I said, in the last despatch to Mr. Thomas, the very essence of arbitration is freedom of choice of nominees by the separate parties. Our choice, it does not matter how nominated, must be a free choice. Somebody on the benches opposite said that geographical address does not matter. Is it not extraordinary how we find Irishmen who always think a thing does not matter if it refers to themselves, and never ask: Why should it matter to the British? Why should a geographical address matter so much to the British? If it should not matter to us, it should not matter to them. We simply say: "Let the court be of the general character indicated in the 1930 Conference Report." The only thing we want is that we shall not be restricted in the choice of our nominees. It would be hard enough to get them outside the countries. As Deputies know well, we have not the power abroad that the British Government have. We have not the influence abroad that they have. We have not the various ways, directly and indirectly, of securing bias in our favour. We are relatively a small country, which British propaganda has misrepresented. We are a country that has been particularly misrepresented in this matter, and even with the whole world to choose from, if we are to get people of the character indicated there, it will be hard enough to get people who will be able to resist such influence as may well be brought to bear upon them. We have, then, in these circumstances, insisted that we must have freedom of choice.
The Feetham Commission was spoken about. I think there is no Irishman who will ever forget that Commission or who will ever again have any confidence in a court of that character. With that experience before us, we are not, in a matter of such importance to our people, going to restrict our field of choice. It has been suggested: "Oh, if you only went on the plea that you could not pay, then it would be a different matter." If you engineered a scheme by which the annuities were not collected, if you went about and suggested to the farmers not to pay, then you could go over, it is suggested, to the British, and make an ad misericordiam appeal.
The truth is, it is difficult, almost impossible, for our farmers to pay. We have seen the position with regard to arrears. We know the several processes and appeals that have had to be resorted to to compel them to pay. We know they paid only after they had tightened their belts, on many occasions, and deprived themselves and their families, very often, of the necessaries of life. They have struggled under exceptionally trying circumstances to meet these payments. Because they did that and made these sacrifices, and because the community as a whole has insisted upon these sacrifices being made, they are told they should not make them at all by the very people who say that this money must be paid. It is suggested to them that they should not make that payment at all and that we should make an ad misericordiam appeal to the British to relieve us of these debts. If they were proved to be legally due, there might be something to be said for that, but why resort to an ad misericordiam appeal if we have a moral right to retain them? Why should we do that? It would probably be true to say we would have a better foundation in this country for making such an appeal than countries who are to-day looking for relief of their debts. We are not making it, simply because there is a ground for getting it as a matter of right and not as a matter of grace.
The British suggest that they would listen to us and that their attitude would be sympathetic if we made an ad misericordiam appeal. We are not asking them to show any sympathy whatever, but simply to give us our rights in this matter. We are asking for a fair court. We are asking to get the same choice as we are willing to give the other side. If they say to us that geographical addresses do not matter, we say back to them: “It ought not to matter for you either.” Let us have fair play. The moneys are there. We collected them; they will be there if the matter is to go to arbitration. It is suggested that the farmers or the community will have to pay both ways. The community will not have to pay both ways. Under the policy of the previous administration the farmers were paying. The community were paying five-and-three-quarter millions, all told, of which five-and-one-third went directly to Great Britain. They were paying that sum out. The community, as a whole, will not have to pay that twice, because if Britain collects it one way she will not get it the other. We are not going to pay twice.
It is suggested that we are trying to work up an economic war. We are not, but we realise, and our people, who elected us by a majority, and the people who are behind us, the people who would again elect us by a ma-jority——
