The statements have been made here on many occasions. I will give the Deputy the reference later if he cares. At any rate, here is one letter that shows there was no arrangement of the sort. It has often been held out as an excuse for making these payments. It shows, in fact, that the disbandment of the R.I.C. was a purely British decision. This is a letter from the late Kevin O'Higgins, who was then Minister for Justice and was one of the Committee which drew up the document entitled "Heads of Working Arrangements for Implementing the Treaty." It is addressed to the Minister for Finance and it states:—
The disbandment of the R.I.C. was, so far as I am aware, a purely British decision dictated, of course, by the necessities of the position. I have no doubt whatever that it was insisted upon by the R.I.C. themselves. The mention of it in the Heads of the Agreement was merely the statement of a fact which I believe was actually in operation at the time. There was never any suggestion by the British of handing over the R.I.C. to the Provisional Government. Their disbandment was a foregone conclusion. Possibly the reference in the Heads of the Agreement is for the purpose of stressing the fact that the early disappearance of the individuals and the uniform was a desideratum and would render the Truce more secure.
That is initialled "C. O'H.", and the date is 21/12/22.
So that we are bound neither by a legal obligation nor by an honourable understanding to pay these moneys. In view of the power of this House and the duty which Ministers owe to this House and to the people I say that there can be no honourable understanding if the terms of that understanding are withheld from the people and from this House. The Deputy has said, or at any rate I think has tried to suggest, that there is somewhere a legal obligation on us to pay. The only documents which would require us to make these payments are the documents of 1923 and 1926. We challenge the validity of those documents and we say that they are not binding upon us in law or in equity.
The text and terms of the 1923 agreement were concealed from the Oireachtas and from the people for nine years. There can be no doubt whatsoever about that. We have had a Minister of State in communications addressed to the British Government stating that it would be politically inadvisable to publish these documents. In regard to them we have a further statement made in this House by Mr. Hogan the then Minister for Lands and Fisheries on the 26th March, 1925. The reference is Vol. 10, cols. 1538-9, in which he says:—"We can at once clear our minds on this question of agreements. The Dáil of course, as everyone here knows, is supreme. The Dáil can agree or disagree. There is no question of an agreement in the past." And then he makes the statement more comprehensive. He goes as far back as the establishment of the first Dáil. "There is no question," he said, "of an agreement in the past, or in 1920, 1921 or 1922. The Minister for Finance is perfectly entitled to state the facts, but I doubt if there is anyone in the Dáil who does not know that the Dáil is supreme, is sovereign and can at this stage act as it thinks fit on this matter."
I do not think there can be a more categorical denial of the existence of the 1923 agreement as a binding agreement than is contained in that statement. And yet that 1923 agreement is the only instrument in existence that would compel us to make these payments. I think that in view of the Resolution adopted in this House on the 26th February, 1926, no member of the Opposition will any longer contend that the 1926 agreement is a binding one either. On the 25th February, 1926, Deputy Professor Magennis proposed this Resolution consequent upon a letter which the then President of the Executive Council had written I believe to, of all journals in the world, the Morning Post.
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 authorisation and specific mandate from the representatives of the people.
Undoubtedly any Deputy speaking from the Opposition benches dealing with a matter of this sort must be in great difficulty. He has not the exact information at his disposal which would enable him to present his case in all its force, but no one will deny that the President of the Executive Council at least knows what is taking place. And knowing that these negotiations were at that time actually in contemplation, knowing that, and knowing also the feeling in the Dáil on this matter, not merely on the Opposition benches, not merely amongst the members of the Labour Party, not merely amongst the Independents, but knowing the feeling in his own benches on the matter, the then President of the Executive Council did not dare to allow that Resolution to go in that form before the House, and he introduced an amendment which would seem designed to allay the fears of his own followers, and to give the House assurance which it did require that these negotiations were not contemplated nor being carried on. The terms of the amendment moved by the then President are as follows:
"To delete all the words after the word ‘Dáil' in the first line and to substitute therefor the words ‘recognising that Saorstát Eireann cannot be committed to or bound by any agreement with an external Government without the prior sanction and consent of the Dáil, has no desire to limit the Executive Council in the exercise of its functions or in the discharge of its duty to defend and promote the interests of the State and its people'."
The agreement of 1926 was signed in March of 1926. This Resolution was passed on the 26th February, 1926, and again I ask the attention of the House to its terms: "That the Dáil recognising that Saorstát Eireann cannot be committed to or bound by any Agreement with an external Government without the prior sanction and consent of the Dáil, has no desire to limit the Executive Council in the exercise of its functions or in the discharge of its duties to defend and promote the interests of the State and its people.""Cannot be committed to or bound by any Agreement with an external Government without the prior sanction and consent of the Dáil."
Was the prior sanction of the Dáil given to the agreement of March, 1926? We have been told from the benches opposite that these Agreements are valid and binding. Now that the terms of that Resolution proposed by the head of the Government in 1926 have been recalled to their minds can the Opposition sustain that contention a moment longer? Is it not quite clear that we are no longer bound in honour or in law, so far as this House is concerned, to fulfill this Agreement, and in view of the burdens which they impose upon our people it is our duty as a Government to resist the imposition of that burden, and, if we can, to secure an unqualified release on the part of the British Government from any obligation which it might impose upon us. When we are doing that, are we not entitled to the support of every element in this House and in the country? Deputy McGilligan last night for his own purpose referred to the factor of 66/1, and that factor can be rightfully applied in this connection, that a payment of one million pounds by our people is equivalent to a payment of £66,000 per annum by the British. The payment of £5,000,000 under the 1923 and 1926 Agreements is equivalent to an annual payment of £330,000,000 by the British Government, and we saw the stand which a Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain made in respect of a payment of £2,000,000, when he threatened to break up an international conference — a critical international conference—and by standing fast won his point, and came home to be lauded as a hero and statesman by the British people. They asked us if any loss we may sustain during this period and during the continuance of this dispute is commensurate with the benefits and advantages which we will secure if we win. The men who talk like that cannot see beyond their noses. As regards the total amount involved in the payment of the Land Annuities for the period that they have yet to run, it is not less than £140,000,000. After that there is the amount involved in respect of R.I.C. pensions and the other items which we are now challenging, and the total is brought up to the sum of £160,000,000 or £170,000,000. That is what we are fighting for—for the retention of that. It is more than nine times, so far as I can see, the total value of our whole cattle trade with Great Britain.
As matters stand it is almost four times the total value of our whole trade of every sort with Great Britain. It is much more than was involved in the land war. Our people were able to fight the land war not for one year but for over a generation, and we are asking them now to help us to fight to bring that land war to a victorious conclusion, so that never more will English Governments, and the representatives of the English Crown in this country as the landlords were, wrung from the toiling Irish people rent for Irish soil. That is what is involved in this dispute, and I believe that we can carry it through. I believe that we can carry it through, because, whatever may be the temporary inconvenience inflicted by this dispute upon our people, there is one fact that cannot be denied. That is that so long as Britain, the seat of an island Empire, is over populated by many millions of people, and dependent on overseas sources for her foodstuffs, she can never kill and can never permit to be killed, the cattle trade of this country. Because that trade is her only safeguard and her only assurance in time of war. While Britain ultimately cannot do without our cattle trade, there are many of her manufactures exported here upon very profitable terms, exported to this country at prices from 20 to 25 per cent. higher than she is compelled to sell them in Continental and other markets, and there are many items of that valuable trade which we can do without. We can dispense with her coal; we can dispense with her steel; we can dispense with her cement; we can dispense with a hundred articles that she supplies to us, but there is one thing that we supply to her which she cannot dispense with, and that is the essential foodstuffs which she must rely upon to feed her people in time of war.
