Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Nov 1932

Vol. 44 No. 15

Proposed Suspension of Collection of Land Annuities.

Debate resumed on Motion:
"That as the British Tariffs on Saorstát agricultural produce impose on farmers a burden at least equivalent to their Land Commission Annuities the Dáil is of opinion that the Executive Council should take appropriate steps to suspend the collection of annuities during the period of the operation of these tariffs."—Deputy Cosgrave.

When I was speaking last night and Deputy Cosgrave introduced a certain element of unnecessary heat and obstruction into the debate, I had dealt with the question as to when an agreement is not to be referred to as a secret agreement. I had further dealt with the proposition as to when a British agent is not to be described as a British agent. I now come to the question as to when a moratorium is not to pass as a moratorium. In his speech yesterday—and it rather indicates the muddle-headed attitude of the Party opposite in regard to this proposal, or, possibly, a very equivocal attitude towards a notice of motion which is down in the name of two private Deputies — Deputy O'Sullivan said that this proposal was not a moratorium. Deputy O'Sullivan, I believe, enjoys a certain reputation as a philosopher, knows the meaning of words, is capable of correctly evaluating them, is endowed with certain gifts of expression. Yet having read and, possibly, having in fact assisted in drafting, a motion in these terms: "That as the British tariffs on Saorstát agricultural produce" do certain things, "the Executive Council should take appropriate steps to suspend the collection of annuities during the period of the operation of these tariffs"— having put down a motion of that sort and urged the House to accept it, Deputy O'Sullivan, in the course of his speech, disclaimed this as a moratorium. I do not profess to be a lexicographer, but I did look up some authorities, and I find that the word "moratorium" is referred to as "A modern coinage; specifically an act, decree, or ordinance of the legislature giving authority to delay or defer or suspend the payment of a debt or obligation." This motion proposes that the Executive Council should take appropriate steps to suspend the collection of the annuities during the period of the operation of these tariffs. But Deputy O'Sullivan has emphasised that the motion in question is not a moratorium. I have been wondering why it was that he came to that conclusion. A moratorium is an act, ordinance or decree of the legislature giving authority to defer, or delay, or suspend payment of a debt or an obligation. This motion proposes that the Executive Council should take appropriate steps, probably by way of an ordinance, or a decree, or an Act of the legislature, to suspend the collection of annuities during the period of the operation of these tariffs. It is proposed to suspend the payment of a certain thing. If this motion is not a moratorium in the mind of Deputy O'Sullivan, it can only be excluded from a definition of a moratorium by the fact that he does not hold that these annuities are an obligation at all; that the Free State farmer has any obligation to pay these annuities over to the State. I think that I am right in taking that point of view of Deputy O'Sullivan's mental attitude, because in the course of his speech he said: "We do not see what title in justice the Government has to collect these annuities."

That drives me back to the point at which I was interrupted last night, when I said that it was quite obvious that in regard to the land annuities and the collection thereof the late Cumann na nGaedheal Executive regarded themselves merely as the British agents in this country. I do not see how we can come to any other conclusion.

If it is true that in 1923, when the then Minister for Finance was moving a certain Estimate in this House, said that, "as provided by law the annuities were payable to Great Britain"; the point in that connection, which I think is of vital interest to the people, and upon which some information should be given by those who were members of the late Government is: did they, before coming to the conclusion that these annuities were properly payable by law to Great Britain, obtain any legal opinion on the matter? In a statement on the Land Bill of 1923 Deputy Cosgrave made that point, that the annuities were payable by law to Great Britain. I again challenge him: was the matter examined at all, or did they act on a mistaken and erroneous view of the law without having consulted adequate authorities? Why was it necessary, first of all, to have an agreement in 1923, this secret agreement, and why was it necessary to put a section into the Land Act of 1923 providing that the moneys should be paid over if, as Deputy Cosgrave said, under the law in this State, as it stood at that time, we were bound to pay the annuities over to Great Britain? If this agreement did not involve a change in the law, why was it necessary for Deputy Cosgrave to refer to it all?

Dealing again with this agency question which has arisen in the course of the debate, which arises particularly out of the statements made by Deputy O'Sullivan, Deputy Morrissey, Deputy Hogan, and all those who have spoken in support of the Opposition view, that we have no title in law to collect these annuities if we do not collect them to pay them over to Great Britain, how is it that the British Government, in the present controversy, rely only on the agreements of 1923 and 1926? It shows the inconsistency between both sides — those who are claiming the annuities on the other side of the water and those who are urging on this side of the Channel that they should be paid. While the British rely on the agreements of 1923 and 1926 to make good their claim, the White Paper issued by the late Government in relation to this question disclaims that the agreements of 1923 and 1926 have anything at all to do with the matter.

On a point of order. I hold that the Minister's speech is irrelevant to the subject-matter of the motion before the House. In ordinary fair play I ask him to try to confine himself to the motion and give others an opportunity of speaking.

Others who know more about the matter.

The Minister dealt with the agency question yesterday and briefly referred to it to-day. He then proceeded to deal with the question of a moratorium. It would be more orderly for the Minister to confine himself to the subject-matter of the motion; that is, a suspension of payment or collection of annuities.

The main argument put forward in support of this motion is that we have no legal or moral title to collect the annuities. That is the basis of the whole case. If we have no legal or moral title to collect and retain the annuities here, if they are not payable to us, why did the legal advisers of Cumann na nGaedheal allow Deputy Cosgrave to bring forward this motion? Why did they not do as they used to advise us to do— test the matter in the Courts? During the last two months the papers were filled with bold declarations by people throughout the country, people with very little to lose. They declared that they were going to stand on their legal rights in this matter and if we attempted to collect the annuities they would have the matter tested in the Courts.

A gentleman who has made a very recent and not very distinguished appearance in Irish politics stated at a meeting that he was taking counsel's opinion on this matter and that as soon as certain people were fortified with that they would challenge the action of the Executive Council in the Courts of this State and they would see that the annuities were retained by the people to whom they belonged, the tenant farmers. If the whole matter could be so easily settled by one action why was that action not taken? If the people on the Opposition Benches believe that the State is not entitled to collect and retain these annuities, why do they not challenge our action in the Courts? They were very vocal about their intentions in that regard six weeks or two months ago. They have become very silent since, because an examination of the law has shown that there is no justification for the argument, which has been put forward in this House in support of the motion, that we have no title to collect the annuities.

Deputy Hogan said that if the moneys were not collected and paid over to the stockholders, we had no title to collect them. The annuities in Northern Ireland are collected and retained there; they are not paid over to the stockholders.

On a point of order. When did Deputy Professor O'Sullivan say that in the course of this debate?

I said Deputy Hogan. Possibly Deputy O'Hanlon, who is so anxious to speak to-day, was not in the House when Deputy Hogan was speaking last night.

If the Minister was aware of what I have to say on this matter, he would not obstruct the proceedings.

Why is it, if the Government cannot collect the annuities unless they collect them for the purpose of paying them to the stockholders, that the annuities are collected in Northern Ireland, are not paid over to the stockholders but are retained for the use of the Northern Ireland Exchequer?

On the question of stockholders, Deputy Hogan knows as well as I do that a very large proportion of Irish land stock, possibly the greater part of that land stock, is held not by private individuals in Great Britain, but by British Government Departments. When the National Debt Commissioners pay interest on that stock, they pay it not to British citizens, but to other Departments of the British Government. So far as that argument goes there is no essential difference between collecting annuities and paying them to the individual stockholders and collecting them and paying them to the British Government, because in any event the great bulk of the payment goes to the British Exchequer in the end.

In regard to the case which the Government has made for retaining these annuities for the use and benefit of the Irish people, which, according to the Opposition, is a vital element in their right to collect them, since the Irish Free State case was published in full there has been no attempt to criticise seriously the grounds of our claim to retain those annuities. There has been no such attempt here or on the other side of the water. Instead, since the correspondence was published, we have had two leading lawyers in Great Britain, Professor Berridale Keith and Lord Parmoor, stating there was substance in our claim that we are entitled to retain the moneys. There has been further confirmation of that from Lord Hailsham to the effect that agreements are not binding until they have been ratified by the Legislature. The very fact that these admissions have been made strikes away at once any foundation there might be for the statement made on the Opposition Benches that if we do not collect these annuities in order to pay them to Great Britain we are not entitled to collect them from the Irish farmers at all.

I do not wish to interrupt the Minister, although I know he is an artist at wasting time; but I would like to point out that this is not a question of the legality of retaining annuities. The whole point at issue is that the annuities should not be collected at the moment.

The trouble is that Deputies freely argued that point yesterday and the Minister, having discussed it now for a quarter of an hour, should get down to the subject-matter of the motion before the House.

I have said all I want to say on this whole matter, and I will leave it at that.

The policy of the Government as outlined by President de Valera yesterday is, to say the most of it, very vague indeed. The point I wish to deal with is this: What are the intentions of the Government with regard to proceedings for the immediate recovery of all outstanding annuities? Regarding this matter, I received the following telegram last night:—

At a large and representative meeting of the Farmers' and Ratepayers' League at Rathdrum to-day it was unanimously resolved to request the withdrawal of all proceedings for the immediate recovery of annuities as it is quite impossible to pay them. We expect you to take immediate action.

Anyone who understands the situation prevailing in County Wicklow must realise that the farmers there have been hit especially severely by the collapse of the sheep trade. The two Government Deputies who represent County Wicklow must be aware how very serious is the situation there, and I hope they will urge the Government to give full consideration to this very grave matter, especially as it has been brought about by the action and inactions of the Party now in power.

In spite of the very long debate that has taken place on this motion, and in spite of the widely divergent views expressed in that debate, one thing appears to be clear. That is, that amongst the two main Parties in this House there is agreement that relief of some sort or kind is necessary and urgent. At the outset, I should like to say that the members of this Party concur to the fullest extent with that view. The point arises then as to the various methods of relief advocated.

Deputy Cosgrave's motion proposes to give relief to all. The alternative suggested by the President in the course of his statement yesterday was to give relief to those who needed it and who are in a position to prove their need. That seems to me to be the better course. I have come to that conclusion because I am aware — I do not think that anybody in this House will deny it — that there are quite a number of well-to-do people in a position to discharge their obligations to the fullest extent. I consider that it would be a hardship on deserving people if relief were given on an indiscriminate basis. Nobody will deny that at present there is a campaign against the payment of land annuities for political reasons. Nobody will deny that there is a campaign to destroy the public services of the country on the basis of a no-rates agitation. No colleague of mine from the County Cork will deny that that course is being advocated publicly there at present and that it is succeeding to a considerable extent. One finds it very hard to reconcile the treachery of a campaign of that kind with the slush that is talked in this House about the hardships of the poor caused by the present position. The poor have strange friends these times. The people who would close the hospitals by refusing to find the necessary funds to keep them open, who would strangle work on the roads by refusing to find the wherewithal to pay for it, and who would tell those in receipt of outdoor relief that they could go and starve, are the new-found advocates of the poor. These are the people who hold up their hands in horror at the hardships imposed upon the poor. This Party fully agrees that a sound case has been made for relief for a very large section of deserving people who are unable to meet their liabilities. We are keenly conscious of that need and, in my opinion, and the opinion of my colleagues, the method by which the President hopes to give that relief is the better one. On the question of the permanent relief outlined in the President's statement yesterday, I should not like to offer an opinion now. I hope that we shall get an opportunity of considering that matter very fully. I think that it is a question which calls for very full consideration before it is decided.

I regret I was not here yesterday when a particularly filthy attack was made on this Party by a colleague of mine in the representation of West Cork. It is not possible to be always in this House. One was tempted to leave to discharge the other duties that fall to a Deputy outside this Chamber, because of the fact that everything that could be said on the question of the land annuities had been said in some shape or form in the presence of those of us who have been here for a considerable time. I should like to say in explanation of my absence—it will be some comfort to my colleague, Deputy Wolfe, to know it — I was not in the portion of the House to which some of my colleagues go to seek inspiration for their speeches. I was not in the portion of the House where the motive power for the eloquence and filth which is poured out subsequently here is provided. Deputy Wolfe could not finish a statement of that kind without reference to Judas and the thirty pieces of silver. It is peculiarly appropriate that he, above all members of this House, should make a reference of that kind. I was wondering if there were not in his heart the murmurings of an uneasy conscience, if he was not looking into the mirror of memory and if he was not weighing up again the price he himself obtained for a week's arduous work in Cork in defending the murderers of the Lord Mayor of Cork——

It is possible for a Deputy to attack a Party and make very bitter political charges against that Party while still keeping within the rules of order, but a personal attack on a Deputy is a very different thing.

Mr. Murphy

May I suggest that the whole speech made yesterday was directed at the Labour Party and, through the Labour Party, at myself particularly?

How do you know?

We never heard his name mentioned.

Would the Deputy find out where Deputy Jasper Wolfe is now?

The Deputy should address the Chair.

Mr. Murphy

I put it to you, a Chinn Comhairle, that, having submitted yesterday to being the target for all this filth, at least one of the members of the group attacked is entitled to say a word in reply.

I understand that Deputy Wolfe is engaged in the courts at present.

Mr. Murphy

I was wondering whether it was the memory of that occasion and the number of pieces of silver that changed hands for a case that was very eloquently argued that was awakening memories in the mind of Deputy Wolfe and inviting him to make the filthy comparisons he made here yesterday. There were other cases, too. The Deputy spoke about the honest labourer beginning to realise where he was being led. He is beginning to realise where he is being led by some people. I tell Deputy Wolfe now, as I shall tell him in West Cork when the occasion arises, that neither the dope he serves out in certain depots in West Cork at election times nor the dope which he supplies in this House will prevent the honest labourer from realising where he is being led. Every labourer and small farmer is anxious for relief from the burdens that press upon him at present and for relief from the stigma and slander of the presence of a man of that kind in this House.

We heard here yesterday complaints about the destitution of the people in the country. One could not help feeling that there were people in this House who were gloating over that destitution, when one knows that it has been publicly advocated in the country that employers should dismiss every man they can dismiss in order to create the right political atmosphere. I want to know if it is suggested by the mover of this motion — a Deputy who always argues his case as it should be argued and for whom I have the highest respect—that certain people in the country dismissing their employees for purely political reasons deserve the same consideration from the State in regard to a motion of this kind as the people who are right up against it and who are endeavouring and struggling bravely to carry on.

Do I now understand that Deputy Murphy of the Labour Party is advocating class legislation with regard to the land annuities — that certain people are to get relief and that certain people are not to get relief?

Mr. Murphy

I know, sir, that it is an incontestable fact that certain people at the present juncture are going around visiting the towns of the country. They have visited certain firms in these towns, spoken to the managers, and asked them to "dismiss all the men you can; it is going to create the right atmosphere for us."

Has the Deputy any proof of that?

Oh, oh!!

Mr. Murphy

I have no desire to mitigate by any words of mine here the fact that hardships prevail at the present time and that relief is necessary. I suggest, however, that that relief should not be given indiscriminately, but that it should be given in relation to the degree of hardship obtaining and to the degree of necessity existing for that relief. A Deputy in this House is chairman of a certain organisation in my constituency. At a meeting of that organisation in the backroom of a hotel some time ago, the non-payment of the annuities and rates was agreed upon. I invite the Deputy to get up here and defend that policy and I invite him to go down to his constituency and at a public meeting there to defend that policy——

Advocated by whom?

Let him alone.

Mr. Murphy

The resolution was passed at a meeting in Clonakilty of an organisation of which Deputy O'Donovan is chairman.

That is a lie and I ask the Deputy to withdraw it. I am not the chairman of the Clonakilty branch of the Farmers' Union.

Mr. Murphy

I have seen in the local papers more times than I can recollect the reports of meetings of that organisation presided over by Deputy O'Donovan.

When Deputy O'Donovan has stated that he is not chairman of that association his word must be accepted.

It is only one more of Deputy Murphy's misleading statements.

Mr. Murphy

Will Deputy O'Donovan deny here that he was chairman of this association within the past twelve months?

I was never chairman of the Clonakilty Farmers' Union.

Does it exist?

Mr. Murphy

At any rate, the resolution was passed and Deputy O'Donovan will not deny that it was passed. It is hard for the Deputy to explain what was the driving force behind the resolution. It is hard for Deputy Wolfe, his political master, and for Deputy O'Donovan to explain to the House how a resolution of that kind was passed advocating the stoppage of the public services for the relief of the poor. The poor know their friends and they know that in standing for relief properly graded they are also standing for the widest possible relief for the taxpayers of this country.

May I remind the Deputy that there are three or four other Deputies to speak and it is now 4 o'clock?

Mr. Murphy

I will be glad to give way in three or four minutes in which time I will be able to put the attitude of the Labour Party and I believe that the Labour Party in a matter of that kind can well await the verdict of history. When the history of this period will come to be written, the eruptions of certain individuals who to-day display themselves in Irish politics will be forgotten but that verdict will remain on record.

Before coming to the main motion before the House, I should like to make a passing reference to the speech delivered by Deputy Kennedy yesterday. I would, in the ordinary way, disregard that Deputy's remarks were it not for the speech I have just heard from Deputy Murphy. Deputy Kennedy stated here last evening that a meeting was held in Mullingar on 11th September at which public addresses were delivered and that a private session was held afterwards. He stated that the result of that meeting was that the people in the County Westmeath refused to pay their rates and annuities. As one of the speakers at that meeting in Mullingar, I deny absolutely that I enunciated such a doctrine. My attitude towards this resolution will prove exactly not only what my attitude is to-day but what it was when I spoke in Mullingar. The canard started here had been previously referred to in Navan by the Minister for Agriculture. I denied that canard in the place where it appeared. What annoyed Deputy Kennedy was this: that in Mullingar on 11th September there was a meeting called by circular to be held in the county hall there, and so many people turned up at that meeting that the hall was not found large enough to hold them, and it had to be turned into an open-air meeting. That was an open-air meeting of the agriculturists of Westmeath which the county hall would not hold. That meeting was the beginning of the awakening of the agriculturists of Westmeath to the situation in which they find themselves to-day, Sufficient for that.

I never advocated the non-payment of annuities. Neither did I request or advise the people of the country not to pay their just and lawful debts whether to the State or to the private individual. I may now put my position in a few words. I cannot support the motion before the House for two reasons: First of all, because it makes no reference whatever to the question of tariffs that have been imposed by this Government, and, secondly, because it enunciates the doctrine for which I have never stood —the repudiation of debts, whether land annuities or anything else.

This motion goes too far in one direction and not far enough in the other direction. It states that because the duties imposed by Great Britain on agricultural produce are as much as, or possibly in excess of the amount of the land annuities, that the land annuities should not be collected. There is not a word in it about the tariffs that are a much heavier burden on the agriculturists, the business community and the workers of this country. I refer to the tariffs that have been imposed by the present Government. Unfortunately for the late Government, they were started by them.

The Irish-made carpets in the Lobbies of this House have been worn out by a small number of avaricious self-seekers lobbying the Ministers here to impose tariffs for their own self-interest — a set of profiteers, battening on the decay of our principal industry. These economic vampires are slowly draining the life-blood out of agriculture in this country, and not alone out of agriculture but out of——

Does the Deputy maintain that a debate on tariffs imposed by this Government bears any relation to the motion before the House?

I am explaining to the House that I am opposing the motion because, in the first place, it does not go far enough and that, in the second place, it goes too far.

What about the stepping-stone?

I said not alone has agriculture been affected by the tariffs imposed but the business community and the workers have also been affected. I would advise the present Government to beware of those gentlemen who were lobbying here to get tariffs for their own benefit. They will do with the Fianna Fáil Government what they did with the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. They will desert them as well as they deserted the others, and wait for some other people to bleed when they come into office in this country.

As regards the alternative that has been put up by the Government to the proposals in this resolution, so far as has been announced in this House it appears to me to be a step in the right direction. It has been stated — I do not know with what degree of truth, but I hope it is true — that the Labour Party exercised an influence in bringing about this step. All I can say is that if they did they have been very wise advisers. As to the proposals that the President suggested would be made in the future, I await these proposals in the form of a Bill. I await them with interest, but until such time as I see these proposals before the House I will reserve my judgment as to whether they fit the situation or not.

The farmers whom I represent — and some people scoff at the idea of my representing farmers — are organised farmers. They were not organised to-day or yesterday. They have been organised for years. The small farmers of County Cavan are organised, honest citizens of the State, whether you go to Government records or traitors' records. They never announced or enunciated the doctrine that they should get out of payment of their lawful debts. I am here as their spokesman, not to repudiate their liability to the State. They want time to pay, and are willing to pay if they get time, always provided that there is a Government in power that will increase their capacity to pay. I do not say that the farmer is overburdened by paying rates or annuities or taxes. The farmer does not want to get out of his liabilities, but he wants the Government in office to foster his industry and to increase his capacity to pay. If it is necessary for the running of this State to double the rates and taxes so long as he is in a position to pay he does not care what the consequences are. There is another very strong reason why I should repudiate the second part of this resolution. As I said, it enunciates a doctrine to which I do not subscribe. I hope, and I have been living in that hope for some years, that the time will come when the agriculturists of this country will take their proper place in controlling the Government, and setting a headline as to the economic conditions of this country in the future. Am I going to support a resolution that would sap the moral fibre of those men whom I hope to see in authority in this country in the future? Am I to corrupt them by suggesting that they should not pay their lawful debts? It would be a very unwise thing for the future of this country if the farmers and workers of the country — who, so far as one can see by the debates in this House, are merely pawns in the game; subjects on the dissecting table, victims of the vampires who are sucking their blood from one end of the year to the other— were so corrupted. I want to see them take their proper place in the State, but I want to see them take their place as honourable men, fit to control the destinies of this country. I do not want to encroach further on the time of the House. It is a very extraordinary thing that the people should be amused by that remark. I have not been speaking ten minutes, on a matter of most vital importance to three-fourths of the citizens of this State, leaving the profiteers and the others out, and yet I am laughed at because I suggest that I should not encroach further on the time of the House. I am going to conclude very soon.

"Thank God," said one of them. And your heart bleeding for the poor farmers.

I did not begin my advocacy of the farmers' case when I came into this House. I spent the best part of my life at it before I came in, and I have done more for the farmers than any other member in this House. You can put that in your pipe and smoke it. I want to tell you, as an illustration of the condition of the country at the present time, I had in my office not ten days ago a fine specimen of an Irish farmer, brawny and brainy, typical of the race, who came in to ask me to sign a recommendation for his daughter to take up a menial position in an institution in this country. Before I signed that recommendation I asked this man "Is it possible that you could not get a better position for your daughter than this which you seek?" I may tell you his daughter was a fine young woman of nineteen years of age. What did he say? He said: "I had hopes there was a better future in store for her, but the present position of the farmers of this country is such that I have got to make some sort of provision for my family in the future, because I see no hope of anything coming their way."

I do not think this should be allowed to go on. Deputy O'Donovan must still speak, and I must finish by 4.30.

If some artist had been there and depicted this man on canvas, he would illustrate exactly the conditions of the farming community in this country and their hopelessness for the future.

Is Deputy O'Donovan to wind up the debate?

No, I want to get three or four minutes to speak.

I understood the Vote was to be taken at 4.30.

I am now going to deal with the motion. I am supporting the motion, but before I come to it I want to refer to a remark made by Deputy Murphy of West Cork. Deputy Murphy said I advocated the non-payment of rates and annuities. I deny that, sir. If Deputy Murphy could only be as fair to me as he tries to be to himself he would go and quote from a speech of mine which I made in Clonakilty at a Clonakilty Farmers' Union, where I advised people to pay their rates. I say I am more in sympathy with the poor than Deputy Murphy ever was, because Deputy Murphy never contributes much to the rates, to the labour bill, or to anything else that is of any benefit to this State. Deputy Murphy has taken advantage here this evening of attacking me, and attacking our other colleague for West Cork, Deputy Wolfe. It is only typical of him, not only here but on the County Council and on every Board he represents.

That is not true.

I think it is only right to say that that is a most unfair statement.

To quote a crude and, maybe, rude expression and I will leave it at this: "You can only expect from a pig a grunt." I will now deal with the motion.

The last remark of the Deputy in reference to a fellow Deputy is not in order.

I withdraw it. The reason I am supporting the motion is this: the inability of the farmers to pay at the moment. The farmers are faced with a situation that they have the land annuities, they have bank bills, they have shop debts, they have rates, and they have the labour bill to meet owing to the policy of the Government. They are unable to meet any of these payments.

Owing to your policy.

We had it circulated a fortnight ago the amount of rates that had been collected in each county, and there is not 20 per cent of the rates in. As one who knows, and speaking with authority, I say every ratepayer, who could pay the first moiety of his rates, has paid it and the other 80 per cent. are unable to pay at the moment. Hence it is I support this motion, "that the collection of annuities be suspended until such time as the tariffs that are imposed will be obliterated." I would like to speak at length on this, but in fairness to Deputy Cosgrave, who moved the motion, I finish up with these remarks.

The farmers never undertook to pay two Governments, and two Governments are now collecting. The farmers subscribed under the Land Purchase Code to pay only to one. They are paying more now by reason of the British tariffs than they undertook to pay to the Land Commission when purchasing their holdings. The sum assessed on the farmers is £5,000,000. What is the amount of the Land Commission annuities? £3,000,000 under the pre-1923 Acts and £1,000,000 under the 1923 Act. For the £4,000,000 land annuities for which they are liable they are being taxed to the extent of £5,000,000. Would Deputy O'Hanlon, who takes a great interest in the farmers, justify that imposition on the farmers? They are unable to pay £1,000,000 per annum over and above the agreements they signed. Last evening here we heard Deputy Ruttledge. I made a charge against him last evening and of which I have proof here. I do not see him here now but he is probably within short distance. Here is the proof:

Seventh year of the Republic. War News No. 114. 3rd Sept., 1922.

Now, therefore, all citizens of the Republic are hereby enjoined to refuse payment of income tax, Land Commission Annuities, annuities or other rents or payments to the Congested Districts Board and generally to refuse payment of all moneys demanded by any Department acting with, or under the authority of, the British Government either directly or through its servants and agents, the so-called Provisional Government of Southern Ireland, or any other body purporting to exercise authority derived from the British Parliament."

This is signed Padraig O Ruithleis. There is no such Irish name as O Ruithleis. It is just what you expect from people who sign names to documents — names they are not entitled to use. What are the facts?

On the 31st January, 1922, the total arrears outstanding in respect of pre-1923 Acts was £190,000. On the 31st January, 1923, that is, after the Proclamation signed by Deputy Ruttledge — now Minister for Lands and Fisheries — the total arrears due in respect of pre-1923 Acts was £642,939. We had not taken over the Land Commission at that time. It was not taken over until the 1st April, 1923, and we took it over with these arrears, less what was paid off during the two months. What were the arrears on the 31st January, 1932? £665,415. What is the difference — the whole increase on the arrears was some £20,000 in ten years. What is the sum collected — probably £35,000,000 or £36,000,000?

It is a slander, a vilification and a shame, to say that the farmers of this country have evaded their debts. They have not evaded them. No country can show such a record as that and the Minister yesterday evening in reading out those figures misled the House, or at any rate, allowed the House to be under a misapprehension regarding the arrears that were due. What are the facts? Over one hundred thousand pounds of the arrears due ten years ago, due after the publication of the proclamation which I have read have been collected — as £139,320 out of the £665,415 arrears is in respect of the Land Act, 1923, the annuities collectable entailing an extra million pounds.

It is said that we want the farmers to default. We are endeavouring by this motion to save them from default. It is unfair and unjust to collect from them a sum in excess of what they signed to pay. I am against repudiation. I admit at once, in connection with the final adjustments that must take place in connection with this matter if this remission is to take place, that those adjustments must be made by the State which occasioned all this trouble, by the Government opposite, which with the assistance of the Labour Party, is responsible. And whatever suffering, and injustice, and trouble there is in this country at the present moment, it is on their backs, and in their hearts the responsibility lies.

Mr. Thomas is cheering you.

No one in England or outside can charge the farmers of this country with default. Not alone in this country, but outside, the figures which I have quoted—the facts as they are— are a vindication of their honour. Parnell, Redmond, Dillon, Davitt and Healy—all assured the critics of Irish land purchase that the farmers would not default. Their assurances have been justified. The British tariffs were imposed when farmers were paying Land Commission annuities. The farmers who paid last June were paying Land Commission annuities due in November, which were again collected by means of tariffs, on 15th July and from the 15th July up to date. What are the facts? They are being charged from 15th July last £1 5s. for every £1 they owed in Land Commission annuities. The man who owed £4 is paying £5. Are the Government not satisfied with that 5/-? No. What is the new proposal? Nobody ever listened to such a lop-sided, ridiculous proposition. I hear the Labour Party have something to do with it. I am not surprised. I believe myself the back benchers of the Fianna Fáil Party are really responsible for it. What does it mean? Annuities due in November and December, 1932, and in May and June, 1933, are in the case of persons declared unable to pay and who get a certificate from the Land Commission to that effect — are to have these annuities funded at 4½ per cent — that is more than they have undertaken to pay.

What else is going to happen? They are going to get a perpetual remission on their annuities. Who introduced the word perpetual? Who has the right to say that this State has a right to the land of the people — the land which the people bought and fought for? They are not going to give it up to anyone. What will be the effect? A substantial perpetual reduction is going to be given. How much will it mean? Much less than 75 per cent.— because the cost of the interest and sinking fund on the 1923 Act, which has to be paid by the State, costs over £1,000,000 and a 25 per cent. collection would only pay that amount. Therefore you must collect at least 25 per cent. of the annuities, and the most you could possibly give is 75 per cent. remission. You are not going to do that. Fifty per cent. I presume. The sum and substance of that proposal is that the Government wants £1,000,000 of the farmers' money. What is the case?

If the British are going to collect £5,000,000 and the State say £2,000,000, the farmers are to pay £7,000,000 when they only owe four. I say that is little short of robbery and you cannot legalise robbery. You can if you like. You have power to annul the Decalogue, but you have no right to do it. You are encroaching on the people's rights and privileges, and you are shaking the confidence of this country, and you have brought disaster and difficulties to this country. The Vice-President knows this well, and he can smile because he knows nothing whatever about farmers' difficulties or troubles.

And you do.

Yes, I do, and the advice which is being given by the President, who, also, is not a farmer, and knows nothing about business, is bad advice. "Do not sell, do not glut the British market, leave just a small quantity as the competition will be enormous for it." What is the result? We have stocks of cattle piled up in this country.

It so happens that we are faced now in this motion with the prospect and the possibility of doing something honest for those people whom you have deprived of their natural market, and the means of selling their goods. I put it to the House that, no more honest motion than this has ever, in the set of circumstances which prevail here, been put before the House. I cannot understand how any person reading that motion could take any other meaning out of it than that it meant remission, and remission for the time during which the tariffs are on. Further, no man will dare go before an agricultural community, or an agricultural constituency, and tell the people there that, he believes they are able to pay what the British are collecting and what you are endeavouring to get from them.

On a point of information, I should like to ask a question. Am I to understand from certain remarks made by Deputy Murphy that in any proposed legislation which the Government may introduce either now or in the near future, dealing with the partial remission of annuities, that there is going to be a distinction shown as between certain members of the community? In other words, are farmers who are supposed to give advice not to pay annuities, going to be excluded from the ambit of the Bill, or is there going to be class legislation? As one representing working men, honest, hard-working men, and farmers as well, am I to understand that there is going to be class legislation introduced into this House in connection with the question of the annuities?

A discussion on forthcoming legislation is hardly in order in considering the matter before us.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 74.

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brasier, Brooke.
  • Broderick, William Jos.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis John.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Keating, John.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Kiersey, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • McDonogh, Fred.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Brien, Eugene P.
  • O'Connor, Batt.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Hara, Patrick.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Reilly, John Joseph.
  • O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mrs. Mary.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Shaw, Patrick Walter.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Vaughan, Daniel.
  • White, John.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Bryan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cleary, Mícheál.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Curran, Patrick Joseph.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas J.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Gormley, Francis.
  • Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Question declared lost.
Top
Share