Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Apr 1933

Vol. 47 No. 1

Private Deputies' Business. - Agricultural Rates and Annuities.

Debate resumed on motion:

That in the opinion of the Dáil the Executive Council should take steps to relieve the agricultural community from rates and annuities during the continuance of the economic war—(Deputy O'Donovan).

Mr. J.M. Burke

When the timely intervention of the clock cut short this debate some time in the Dark Ages I had remarked that the members of the Executive Council, with one or two exceptions, had very little knowledge or experience of agriculture. It was written once of a well-known and notable Irish politician, who had settled across the Channel, that he sometimes saw this country on the map of the world. I have no doubt that some Ministers, in the course of their duties, see fields now and again on the ordnance map, but, honestly, I would not entrust them with the management of Mrs. Wigg's cabbage patch. I am sure that most of them could not tell me, or could not distinguish between bonnckeeon and mackanthau how, and that they surely could not differentiate between praiseach bhuidhe and starters. They neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, but they lay down rules and regulations with an assurance that would put Liebeg, Baldwin and Wibberly into the halfpenny place. I am inclined to think that the Executive Council, possibly under the influence of the Minister for Agriculture, who is a medicine man, are adopting towards the farmer a system of treatment which was in high favour with physicians. It was called the antiphlogistic treatment. It consisted of purging, starving and bleeding. I remember reading the diary of an old Italian leech in which he notes: "I treated Ludovicus for 12 days, during which time I consistently starved, bled and purged him, and still the fellow died." A most ungrateful and most unappreciative patient. In the same way the Government has cleaned the pockets of the farmer. They have bled him white; they have put him on starvation diet, and still he is grumbling and grousing and growling. The only answer of the Government is: "Away with him; away with him; crucify him on the cross of economic folly."

I am very sorry that the House is to-night without the stately presence of Deputy Hugo Flinn. On the last occasion he solemnly told Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney that he was elected not as a prophet, but as a Deputy. Having delivered himself of this great message to humanity, he proceeded forthwith to predict the immediate death and dissolution of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and he consigned them to an unglorious grave, unwept, unhonoured and unsung, unhouseled, disappointed and unaneled. In the course of his speech he used on several occasions the phrase, "A nation's ransom." Oh, the blessed word "Mesopotamia." He evidently has a copyright of that expression. More than once I heard him use it in Cork. It is evidently clinging on to him. It is like asthma. He tries to get it off his chest, but he cannot. As he is not here, I shall part with him with this remark:

In all his humours, whether grave or mellow,

He is such a touchy, testy clever fellow;

There's so much skill and so much spleen about him,

There is no living with him or without him.

I should like to add by way of prayer, "May perpetual lime-light shine upon him."

Then there was brought into action to assail Deputy O'Donovan one of the Government "Long-Toms." I refer to my colleague and my friend, Deputy Tom Hales. Deputy Anthony described his speech as high falutin'. Deputy Dillon would probably call it "ballyhoo" and I have no doubt that the ex-Mayor of New York, Mr. James Walker, would call it "boloney." I call it poetry. Deputy Hales is a dreamer. He lives in a past that was never present, and he is thinking of a future that never will be past. He was very much exercised by some unknown person who was laying the axe at the root of some mysterious tree. I have been thinking since what the tree was. I wonder could it be the tree whose forbidden fruit brought death into the world and all our woes; or was it the dreaded Upas tree; or was it one of those trees of liberty that flourished so mightily during the French Revolution amid red flags, red caps, the Carmagnole, Ca Ira, and Fouquier Tinville justice and all these things? But after deep consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the fact is that the Deputy is up a gum tree, that he is too proud to climb down, and that he is afraid somebody may cut it from under him. The spirit of prophecy being in the air the Deputy caught the prevailing infection and forecasted that we should win the economic war. I hope that events will justify his forecast. I do hope that when we emerge triumphantly from the struggle we shall not be in the position of the litigant who won a Chancery action and thereby lost all his property. I beg the House to approach this motion of Deputy O'Donovan's in a spirit of sweet reasonableness, to put aside passion and politics and prejudice, and to face up to facts and realities. Some people will say that the country was never better off. Of the man who says that I can only say in the words of the Gospel that "the truth is not in him." The country blooms a garden and a grave, but I am afraid that, as regards a large part of it, it is mainly a grave as far as agriculture is concerned. I am against the policy of dole and dope of bread and circuses. I consider that bounties on exports are vicious, but in a national crisis and in the emergency which has now arisen, it is necessary, in my humble opinion, if you want to save the key industry of this country to take measures which in ordinary circumstances would not be justified. I think it is up to this House to do everything in reason to help the farmers to tide over their present difficulties. Can anybody gainsay that the farming population at the present time is deplorably badly off? The other day the respected Chairman of the Dublin County Council pointed out how badly off they were. They refused even to strike a rate. The same story comes from every part of the country. There must be some foundation for a story which is so widespread, and which is coming from every single district throughout the whole of the Free State. The farmers of West Cork are about as hard working and as thrifty and as honest a lot of people as can be found in any country throughout the world. They have always honoured their bonds; up to this they have paid their annuities regularly; they have always paid their rates, but at the present time it is a well-known fact that they are in such a position that not only can they not pay their rates and annuities but they cannot even meet their ordinary obligations. As was pointed out here on a previous occasion some of them are afraid to come to town lest they should meet their creditors.

Mr. Eamonn Donnelly

There are other people in the country as well as farmers. Do not confine the subject to them.

Mr. Burke

I am in entire agreement with the Deputy. There are other people hit as badly as the farmers, but a great many of them are hit because the farmers are hit, because farming is of such importance in this country that once the farmer suffers every other section of the community either directly or indirectly suffers in consequence. Everybody sees that— everyone who is willing to see the truth and admit it. Of course if a man has made up his mind not to see it there is no good in arguing with him. There is no good in arguing with a prophet. It is a stupid thing to argue with him.

Mr. Donnelly

We heard that before.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Burke is entitled to make his speech without interruptions.

Mr. Burke

I am going to say only one word about interruptions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy had better allow me to speak about the interruptions.

Mr. Burke

What I am going to say about interruptions generally is that I pay no attention to them. I will not argue with a prophet. I am speaking generally now. A prophet is very provocative but I would not argue with him; it is mid-summer madness to argue with a cabogue, a bosthoon and a boolimskeeah rolled into one. I am not referring to anybody in particular; I am only laying down a general rule. I am not a bit upset by those interruptions. I agree with the Deputy, as I have said, that other people in the country are hit, but it is in consequence of what the farmers are suffering at present. I do not care what caused it; I do not care whether it is due to world-wide circumstances; I do not care whether it is due to universal depression or to the economic war; that is a matter upon which we can all form our own opinions, but one thing is quite certain and that is that farmers were never in such an appalling condition since the year of the famine. It is up to this House in view of the importance of the farming industry in this country to come to the assistance of the farmers in every reasonable way they can, and I am sure that they will do so.

Mr. MacDermot

I support this motion on the grounds both of expediency and of justice. I would like to start by drawing attention to the fact that just before this House adjourned we had discussions on the Economies Bill and on unemployment, in which the Labour Party took a very active part. I would like to express the hope that on this motion they will show for the farmers of the country some of the zealous consideration that they were ready to bestow on those who were hit by the Economies Bill, and upon the sufferers from unemployment largely due in my opinion to this so-called economic war. I support this motion on the grounds of expediency, because I believe in facing facts. I do not believe that the annuities next December will be paid.

Mr. Donnelly

Why?

Mr. MacDermot

And I do not believe that the greater part of the rates will be paid during the year that lies before us.

Mr. Donnelly

Why?

Mr. MacDermot

Because I do not believe that the people will be able to pay them. The Fianna Fáil Party have some ground for mistrusting their own judgement about such matters as this, because for a very long time they persisted in saying that they would be able to collect from the farmers the whole of the land annuities, even after the economic war had broken out. The President of the Executive Council made speeches in various parts of the country, after winning the 1932 General Election, in which he insisted that the land annuities must still continue to be paid, and that it was a patriotic duty to pay them. In spite of many prophecies to the contrary the Fianna Fáil Government persisted in thinking for some time, or professed to think that the land annuities would be paid in full. Have they been paid in full? If they have not been paid in full is it due to any sinister activities on the part of opponents of the Fianna Fáil Government?

Mr. Donnelly

It is.

Mr. MacDermot

If it is due to sinister activities on the part of opponents of the Fianna Fáil Government how comes it that some counties in which payments were worst were counties practically solid for Fianna Fáil? How comes it that such a county as Kerry is the most behindhand county in Ireland in paying land annuities?

Mr. Donnelly

What about Roscommon?

Mr. MacDermot

If the Deputy would allow me to make my own speech in my own way I think it would be an advantage to all concerned. I say that the President of the Executive Council and the Fianna Fáil Government, as a whole, were deceived in thinking that people would be in a position, or would be willing, to pay the full land annuities after the economic war had once begun. They had to go back on everything they said. There was a time when the Fianna Fáil Party used to say that not to collect the land annuities, or any proportion of the land annuities would be an entirely unjust way of dealing with the matter; that the just way would be through a remission of rates, for the reason that that would give relief to all farmers affected by the economic war, whether they were farmers who had to pay land annuities or not. Now they have completely departed from that principle, and when called upon to explain their lack of interest in the injustice, to the, perhaps, somewhat limited class, still a class of farmers who have not to pay land annuities, but pay, perhaps, some other form of rent, or who may be freeholders, their only reply is that that is only a small class and that that small class did not matter.

Mr. Donnelly

We never advocated non-payment.

Mr. MacDermot

Can I be protected from those continual interruptions?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have cautioned Deputies before that the proceedings here cannot be conducted if there are these interruptions. Every Deputy is entitled to speak. The Deputy who interrupts will be allowed to speak afterwards. He should wait until then.

Mr. MacDermot

My point is that the Fianna Fáil Government miscalculated the situation completely and were brought by force of circumstances, to release the farmers from paying half the land annuities, not because they believed that was a just way to deal with the situation, but because it was forced upon them, owing to the fact that the farmers were not paying, were obviously not going to pay, and that their own supporters were the foremost of the farmers determined not to pay, or unable to pay. Is it not possible that they may be making a similar miscalculation at present? They profess to believe that the rates can and will be paid. They profess to believe that next November and December the instalments of the land annuities then due at the lower rate will be paid. I venture to predict that the bulk of that money will not be paid. I say that, having resolutely for the past year, in spite of great pressure to the contrary, refused to advise not to pay those who can pay. I have always resolutely refused to do that, in spite of great pressure. Nevertheless I feel that it is only sensible to realise facts, and that it is a duty to point out that, so far as one can judge from going through the country, and looking at the condition of the people, looking at traders' books, hearing what farmers have to say about the situation, it is very unlikely the bulk of the rates can be paid or that next November and December the land annuities can be paid.

If I am right in that I say that expediency requires us to take cognisance of that situation at once, for two reasons. First of all it is up to the Minister for Finance to have accurate knowledge of the financial situation and to budget accordingly. It is desirable that the Minister for Finance should see the facts as they are, and not live in a fool's paradise. The other ground of expediency is this, that we do not want to compel men to be criminals. We do not want to create more disrespect for law than there is already, in a class of the community that are in danger of being turned into law-breakers by the present situation, and by the attempt to exact payments which cannot be made from a class of the community normally most averse to law-breaking, and most desirous that peace, order and decency should be maintained in this country. I am afraid the whole standard of respect for law in this country is going to be lowered, and lowered for a long time to come, unless the Government are aware of the true facts, and take measures accordingly. So much for expediency.

Now what about justice. Before I proceed to the main matter as regards justice, I wish to allude again to the fact that, as between the various classes of farmers, there is considerable injustice at present being inflicted by the Government's method of procedure, and that ought not to be forgotten. Deputy Corry alluded to this question a few weeks ago, and said that the only people left out of the relief schemes, so to speak, were the people who had their pockets bulging with loot, and for them he had no consideration. The people who would be affected by relief through the rates would be, in the main, people whose pockets were bulging with loot. I want to express complete dissent from that statement, and not only as regards small men but as regards big men too. I do not know whether Deputy Corry and others are aware, as I am aware, of the number of large land-holders who remain in this country because they love it, and because they love the places in which they were born and brought up, and not because they make any money out of being here. I know many people within my own range of personal acquaintance who financially would be far better off if they walked out of their Irish estates and went across the water to live——

Mr. Donnelly

Why do they not go?

Mr. MacDermot

——and never paid any more attention——

Mr. Donnelly

Why do they not go?

Mr. MacDermot

I think something has been already said by the Chair regarding interruptions. There are many large land-holders who remain in this country because they love Ireland, and because in addition to loving Ireland, they love the places in which they were born and brought up. They have investments overseas, and a certain amount of unfortunately rapidly diminishing capital which enables them to give employment here which the Labour Party and others ought to be pleased they give. By driving these people out you diminish employment. I know there is a class of mentality unfortunately, in this country, in certain parts, and especially in the Fianna Fáil ranks, that cannot endure to see people with any sort of capital saved that enables them to give employment. All I can say is that that is a narrow, selfish Bolshevist outlook, very far from having any connection with true democratic feeling, or true regard for the welfare of the people of Ireland.

Mr. T. Kelly

I do not think any of the Fianna Fáil Party believe that.

Mr. MacDermot

So much for the question of injustice to farmers with pockets bulging with loot. But, as regards injustice to the general farming community, I do not think any honest person can deny that the policy of the Government has inflicted infinitely more loss on the farmers of the country as a whole than any relief by way of bounties or reduction of the land annuities that the Government have given. The Government's policy has definitely inflicted frightful suffering on the farmers. Now the Government, especially through the medium of Deputy Hugo Flinn, have defended themselves by saying that they are more far-seeing than anybody else in the country: that they have thought out an original economic policy of their own, that they have, with their profounder minds and acuter vision, wakened up to facts that were concealed from the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and from the country as a whole. The first thing that occurs to me about that is this: I do not believe the Government's economic policy was evolved as the result of economic thought at all. I do not believe that they wrapped wet towels round about their heads, thought out problems about economics and came to conclusions as to the course to pursue on that basis. The economic policy of the Government flows from their political policy and nothing else, and their political policy flowed from the desire to get into office. When I heard the Labour Party say, as they said the other day, that the Government are just a set of departmental heads—that they ought to have an economic general staff because they are not capable of thinking out economic problems for themselves as a Government—I could not help feeling that it was a great pity the Labour Party did not make that discovery sooner: before they put the Government into office to embark upon the appalling economic gamble that this Government have embarked upon. However, let us hope "better late than never" and that even now the Labour Party may do something to turn the Government back from the courses on which they have embarked.

At the present moment negotiations are going on in England—I understand that in one case they have concluded— for trade agreements with various foreign countries: with Denmark, the Argentine and others. I understand that in the case of Denmark they are as good as concluded. When Deputy Hugo Flinn points to the injury that has been done to Irish agricultural exports in recent years by competition from such countries one cannot help feeling that the real lesson to be drawn from such facts as he points to is that the Government ought to have taken the obvious course of going to Ottawa in a position to make such economic arrangements with Great Britain as would have changed the situation to our advantage and to the disadvantage of such countries as the Argentine and Denmark. It would have been perfectly possible for them to have made common cause themselves with the English farmer instead of having the situation that has arisen now when the English farmer is becoming anxious to see our stuff kept out and when the English Government is making arrangements with Denmark and the Argentine to take British exports that we perhaps will no longer take. One cannot help feeling that it is absolutely unreasonable and disastrous that our Government did not take such steps as would turn the course of British economic policy in a different direction and secure for the Irish agricultural producer in the British market a better standing and better prices there than he ever had before. I honestly believe that could have been done except for politics, and when I use the word "politics" I mean it in its worst sense.

The Government may maintain that no question of injustice to the farmer can arise inasmuch as at the general election the farmer assisted in returning them to office. In the first place I suppose the answer to that is: that on legal technicalities with regard to the land annuities or even with regard to the mandatory character of the Oath a democratic electorate in this country, or any other country, is not capable of weighing such matters carefully and coming to a measured decision on them. The general attitude of the electorate who voted for Fianna Fáil was this, I suppose: that in what was represented as a patriotic conflict against England they were prepared to take the word of President de Valera as to what was just and what was not—that he was in the right. But, over and above that, it was represented to the electorate over and over again at the last general election that if they returned a Fianna Fáil Government to office this time it would mean final victory. What exactly was meant by final victory, I do not know, but I presume final victory was intended to include a victory in the economic war —that England would strike her colours. Within a few weeks of the general election in my own constituency the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs came down and told the people he was happy to inform them that he already saw signs on the horizon of a settlement of the economic war as a result of the verdict given in favour of Fianna Fáil. If he saw those signs I did not see them. I did not see them then, and still less do I see them now. So far as I can ascertain absolutely no steps whatever have been taken since the general election for settling with England or bringing the economic war to an end, and to that extent at any rate I suggest that the farming electorate were deceived just as in the 1932 election they were deceived into thinking that we could repudiate the Oath and repudiate the payment of the land annuities and that still England would take no retaliatory action. In view of the fact that the situation was put before the electorate in that way I suggest that it is not open to the Government to plead that there can be no injustice to the farmer inasmuch as the farmers supported them in the general election.

Now a question that is very material to ask and consider is this: how long is this economic war going to last? I am afraid that we have got to the stage where it ought not really to be called an economic war any longer. It is something that is no longer dynamic but static. We have got a sort of wasting disease fixed on us and apparently fixed on us permanently. What is the thing that is really at the root of the economic war? We have got to get at that if we are going to decide how long it is likely to last and what it really amounts to. It cannot be too often repeated—it is relevant to such a motion as this—that the thing that is really at the bottom of the economic war is our constitutional relationship with Great Britain. British Ministers in their speeches have indicated over and over again that as far as finance is concerned they are open to a reasonable deal. The main question is the sanctity of agreements and the attitude that we choose to take with regard to the constitutional relationship of this country to the British Commonwealth. People go on talking and writing as if some sort of financial arbitration, some sort of financial negotiations purely restricted to questions of finance, could bring this matter to an end. They obviously cannot bring this matter to an end.

The main question is simply this: Are we prepared to recognise that the Treaty is morally binding on us until such time as it has been revised by consent of both sides? If we are prepared to take that view there is no difficulty, certainly no insuperable difficulty, about the financial position. If we are not prepared to take that view, if we take the line that the President of the Executive Council took the other day in Arbour Hill, that the guiding principle of Irish statesmanship should be the proclamation of a Republic, a line which seems to me in complete contradiction with the acceptance of our motion in the last session, to the effect that the unity of Ireland on the basis of goodwill should be the guiding principle of Irish statesmanship and that nothing should be allowed to interfere with that——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does the Deputy not think that that is going pretty far from the motion?

Mr. MacDermot

Perhaps so. I shall abbreviate my remarks. I am just about to conclude. I felt that I could not conclude on the motion without pointing out that until a rational attitude is arrived at on the subject of our constitutional relationship with Great Britain there seems to be no chance whatever of a settlement of the economic war or of a cure for the fatal disease from which Irish farming is at present suffering. As far as I am concerned I have absolutely no sentimental feeling on the subject of whether or not we ought to belong to the British Commonwealth, but so long as the prosperity of Irish agriculture and consequently the prosperity of Ireland depends on that relationship with the Commonwealth, still more so long as the prospect of the unity of Ireland depends on that relationship with the Commonwealth, then I am wholeheartedly in favour of maintaining it.

Mr. Lemass

The speech which we have just heard from the Leader of the Centre Party is one of the most illuminating delivered in the House for a long time in so far as it revealed not merely the attitude and the policy of the individual who spoke, but presumably the attitude and the policy of his Party, something which was hitherto shrouded in mystery. We are glad to get this revelation. We are now much wiser in regard to the philosophy and political outlook of a not inconsiderable body of the members of the House. The peculiar point of view expressed is one that I hope the sub-leader of the Party will develop because it seems to me it is one that he is particularly fitted to. Apparently Deputy MacDermot starts from this point of view, that everybody who disagrees with him either does not understand the questions involved or else has been misled concerning them. He referred to the general election and he explained in a few sentences the success which the Fianna Fáil Party achieved in that election. The farmers of the country were too ignorant to understand the issues at stake, they they could not follow the legal argument involved in the annuities dispute, they did not appreciate the significance of the Oath or the legal arguments in regard to the Constitution and in their ignorance they voted for Fianna Fáil! Even if they were capable of understanding these questions they were misled and that explains the majority on these benches.

Mr. MacDermot

I did not say the farmers could not appreciate the significance of the Oath. I said they could not be expected to understand the question whether or not the Oath was mandatory in the Treaty, which was a legal question.

Mr. Lemass

The Fianna Fáil Party got ten votes for every one vote cast for the Centre Party, but apparently only the one man who voted for the Centre Party understood these questions. That particular man looked in appearance no different from the other ten. He followed the same occupation. He worked the land, paid his annuities, paid his rates, went to the same church and read the same newspapers. For some peculiar reason he was able to understand these questions. He could appreciate the significance of the Oath and the Constitution. He could understand the legal arguments involved in the annuities dispute; he could not be misled; therefore, he came out to support the candidates of the Centre Party and pitied, on his way back from the polling booth, the ten misguided voters who went out to vote for Fianna Fáil. I suggest to Deputy MacDermot, even if each individual farmer in the country is not quite as intelligent, quite as capable of grasping legal arguments as he is, that we must conclude that the general level of opinion, the general average of common sense in the country is not quite so low as he would represent. In any case, whether the farmers of the country or the workers of the country are as ignorant as he says they are, are as capable of being as easily misled as he says, they are nevertheless the people of the country and so long as democracy is to be the principle upon which our system of government is based they are the people who are going to decide and they have decided.

The Deputy's whole speech up to this point was based upon the sufferings that the Government's policy has inflicted on these people. He said they could not pay their annuities, that they could not pay rates, that they were never in worse circumstances than they are at the moment. The Deputy may contend that the Irish farmer does not appreciate the legal significance of the Oath or the Constitution or that he cannot understand the legal questions involved in the annuities dispute, but the Deputy cannot convince the House that the Irish farmer does not know when he is badly off. If he is badly off, if he has been rendered destitute by Government policy, the Irish farmer knows that. It was with a full knowledge of that, a full knowledge of the truth in relation to his own conditions, that he went out and voted, and even though he may not be able to appreciate everything the Deputy appreciates, he was able to take due stock of the economic conditions prevailing in his neighbourhood and the economic reactions upon himself of Government policy. He took due stock of the prospects held out to him by Deputy MacDermot and his colleagues and the other Parties contesting the election, and deliberately he chose to support the policy of the Government and to support it with considerable emphasis. That is a fact that has got to be appreciated. It is not the intricacy of the legal arguments in regard to the land annuities or the legal arguments that might be advanced about the Oath and the Constitution that really matter. It is the effect of Government policy in the past and the prospects of Government policy in the future, and the majority of voters in this country, with the knowledge they possessed, the very intimate and personal knowledge they possessed in relation to both these things, recorded their votes three months ago in support of the Government's policy, and if the Deputy has any doubt as to what they would do to-morrow, I for one would be glad to give them another chance.

Let us consider the rest of the case upon which the Deputy has based the policy of his Party. I think we shall find it equally fallacious. He said of course that the economic policy of the Government flowed from its political policy. I do not think that is true; in fact I think that the reverse is true— that the political policy flows from the economic policy. The majority of Fianna Fáil Deputies or indeed anybody who, at any time in Irish history, attempted to change political conditions here did so with the main idea of improving the economic conditions existing here. If the Deputy gives a little more examination than he appears to have done to this question, I think he will find that is the case and that it is true not only in relation to the Fianna Fáil Party but in relation to every political Party in the world— that their political policy and outlook are influenced by the economic aims. The Deputy's conclusions as to the consequences of the economic war also require a little explanation. The farmers of this country are not in a prosperous condition at the moment, any more than the farmers of Great Britain, Germany or the United States. Not merely the farmers but industrialists and workers of all classes in this and other countries are not as prosperous as they would like to be or as prosperous as they might be under different conditions! It has got to be demonstrated to us, however, that by settling the economic war in the manner in which the Deputy suggests, the economic conditions of the farmer are going to be improved.

Before the Deputy counsels surrender, counsels the acceptance of the English interpretation of whatever agreements, open or secret, or whatever clauses of the Treaty are involved, I think he should demonstrate to us that such substantial economic advantages are likely to follow for the farmer, assuming his outlook to be entirely materialistic, that he should try to influence the Government in that direction. He has not shown it. He has assumed that a settlement of the economic war on his basis, that is, the restoration of the position that existed this time last year, is going to improve the economic condition of the farmers but that requires proof. I submit that it is something which cannot be taken for granted. The farmers of Northern Ireland do not appear to be very pleased with the condition in which they find themselves. There is no economic war on there and, presumably, there is some reason, therefore, other than an economic war, which has produced, or helped to produce, the economic conditions that exist amongst the farmers.

Mr. MacDermot

The Minister's failure to make a trade agreement is one.

Mr. Lemass

But the farmers of Northern Ireland have the best trade agreement possible with Great Britain. If Deputy Ryan and myself had come home from Ottawa and had been able to say to the Dáil: "We have secured for the farmers of the Free State precisely the same advantages in the British market as the farmers of Northern Ireland enjoy" we would have been acclaimed as statesmen of the first order, by Deputies on those benches.

Mr. MacDermot

Did they not have that except as regards de-rating?

Mr. Lemass

But they have not got it now.

Mr. MacDermot

No. My point is this, that the Minister could have vastly improved the situation not only for the Free State farmers but indeed for the Northern Ireland farmers, if he had accomplished what he might have accomplished at Ottawa.

Mr. Lemass

That, again, is an assertion which has not been proved. The most we could have done would have been to put the farmers of the Free State in as good a position as the farmers of Northern Ireland are in.

Mr. MacDermot

No.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is right. We could not because, in order to have achieved that position, we would, as he suggested, have had to surrender on the question of the land annuities, to pay the land annuities to Great Britain which the Northern Ireland farmer does not do. The Northern Ireland farmer does not pay the land annuities to Great Britain. The annuities are retained there and used to finance the derating of agricultural land there and yet, with that advantage, the Northern Ireland farmer does not seem to be quite pleased with his position. If Press reports are anything to go by, he is distinctly displeased and some allege that the position is much worse than that of the farmer in Southern Ireland in certain respects.

Mr. Dillon

It is a wonder they do not emigrate.

Mr. Lemass

Quite a number of them are coming.

Mr. Dillon

They will get killed in the rush at the Border.

Mr. Lemass

Let us try to get this discussion on a basis of intelligence. I know that that will be a bit of a difficulty for Deputy Dillon, but he can do his best. Assuming that we got for the farmers of the Free State every advantage in the British market that the farmers of Northern Ireland possess at the moment, we could at most have put our farmers in the same position as the farmers of Northern Ireland and in fact we would put them in a slightly worse position because the farmers of Northern Ireland would continue to enjoy the benefits resulting from the retention of the land annuities there, whereas we would be paying them to Great Britain. To get back to the original point, I want it demonstrated that a settlement of the economic war, on the basis of the restoration of the pre-war conditions, is going to improve the economic conditions of the farmer, so improve them in the present that he should in return for that immediate benefit sacrifice whatever prospects there are for the future arising out of the policy of this Government. That has not been demonstrated. The Deputy did not attempt to demonstrate it. He just spoke as if it were an acknowledged fact. It is not merely not acknowledged but it is actually denied, and I say to the Deputy that the farmers of this country would in no way be better off, and would in many ways be much worse off if we were to try to achieve peace on these terms.

The Deputy said that we cannot achieve peace on these terms. The Deputy said that this whole question is not merely a matter of finance and not merely a question of the payment to Great Britain or the retention in this country of a sum of money but that it is also a constitutional question and one affecting our political status. I wonder why the Deputy did not tell us his authority for that assertion.

Mr. MacDermot

I said that several speeches of British Ministers had indicated that and I may mention, amongst others, Sir Thomas Inskip, the Attorney-General, whose speech created a lot of attention.

Mr. Corry

Is that your Bible?

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy's assertion is correct, however, the position is this, that these duties on our exports are being maintained, and these penal measures against us have been adopted, not for the purpose of enforcing the British interpretation of whatever agreements relate to the land annuities but for the purpose of enforcing in this country the acceptance of those political conditions which the British Government want to see. In that case, the Deputy is quite right in saying that we should stop calling this an economic war. It is the old fight that has been going on for hundreds of years. If the British policy has been designed, and the various tariffs imposed, for the purpose of compelling the people of this country to agree to a political status which they do not want, then, we have a much clearer position than we had heretofore and, on that issue, I should like very much to have the opportunity of meeting Deputy MacDermot or any of his colleagues before the people of the country in another general election.

Mr. MacDermot

Is that supposed to be my contention? That is not my contention.

Mr. Lemass

Then, what is the Deputy's contention?

Mr. MacDermot

If I am allowed to interrupt—I am sorry I did not make myself clear—I will state it. My contention is this, that the English are absolutely uninterested as to whether we declare a Republic or not to-morrow, but, so long as we do take that attitude with regard to the Treaty and with regard to the Republic, they have no motive for making concessions to us which seem to them, in themselves, generous, and unreasonably generous, except on the understanding that we are all going to be friends and colleagues in the future.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy asserts— again I do not know what his authority is—that the English do not care whether we establish a Republic or not, but he said, however, that, if we agree not to do so, if we agree to accept the political status that they have marked out for us, we might get from them certain concessions on the financial issues. The Deputy's line of thought is so completely divorced from my own——

Mr. MacDermot

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lemass

——and from that of the majority of the people of this country, even members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, that it is very difficult to understand it. He, of course, considers that anything given by Great Britain to us must be a concession. It is a financial concession that we are to get, and, in order to get it, we are to agree to abandon what we may regard as our political rights. That is his line of reasoning. If we had gone into this business for the purpose of getting concessions, I am quite prepared to admit that we have mismanaged the whole thing, but we never approached it from that point of view. There was no question of concession in the matter at all. We came to the conclusion that, in law and in right, we were entitled to retain in this country certain sums of money formerly paid out of it and we asserted that right and it is the assertion of that right, we have been told, that led to the situation that now exists. I have no doubt whatever that we can end that situation by abandoning that right and ceasing to assert it, but the Deputy tells us we cannot. The Deputy tells us that, because of developments that have taken place since, it is no longer a matter of a legal right to certain moneys but a matter of political status and constitutional procedure and that we are being penalised by these tariffs and by the other steps taken by the British Government for the purpose of making the majority here prepared to accept a political status less than that which they think they are entitled to enjoy. That is obviously what it means. The Deputy can shake his head if he likes, but that is what it means and he cannot get away from it. If the people of this country are prepared to accept a political status less than we now have, or less than what we wish to achieve, then we can go to Great Britain seeking this concession. If we do that and beg properly and nicely, and humbly; if we go to them touching our hats, bending at the right angle, I have no doubt we would gain a considerable amount. The Deputy's contention is that if we are not satisfied with our present status and if we will not be content without something higher——

Mr. MacDermot

A Twenty-Six County Republic.

Mr. Lemass

——then we will have to face the prospect of this economic war against us. That means that we are to be subjected to this treatment for the purpose of getting us to agree to maintain and to accept a status less than we want, or less than is our right.

Mr. MacDermot

We are being treated as a foreign country which we profess we want to be.

Mr. Lemass

I should like to examine that statement, also. Perhaps the Deputy would tell us on what authority he speaks when he says that if we were to declare a Republic we would be treated as a foreign country. Where did he get that statement from? Was it from Great Britain or is it that we are being treated as a foreign country at the moment? If we were to declare a Republic, and, as a foreign country, were to secure from Great Britain the same treatment that it has given to Denmark and the Argentine there would be no necessity for these bounties. The position would be very greatly improved with regard to our exports into the British market. We are not getting the same treatment as these foreign countries get. If Deputy MacDermot assures us that the establishment of a Republic would get us the same treatment from Great Britain which she gives to other countries we would get a unanimous vote from this House in favour of such a course.

Mr. MacDermot

Those countries did not repudiate their obligations.

Mr. Lemass

If the whole purpose of the Deputy is to lessen the duties which we have to pay to Great Britain in reaching the British market, or that our goods should go free into the British markets, we could work towards that end by establishing a Republic for the Twenty-Six Counties to-morrow if we were assured that we would get the same treatment from Great Britain as Denmark or the Argentine or the French or the Republics of the Baltic get. We cannot get that assurance. Perhaps Deputy MacDermot would direct his energies to that end and see what he can get by way of promises from British Ministers, whose sole desire is to please the Irish people, and to lead them back to the paths of reason.

We are to take up a reasonable attitude upon our status question; that is what the Deputy wants; that is what the British want. All through our war with Great Britain in the past the demand of the Irish people for political freedom, or self-government or any of the things that agitated our people, were denied on the ground that they were illogical. We never could appear to be logical. If we had been logical we would, of course, have realised the great advantage we derived from the British connection. If we were logical we would have recognised that we were part of a far-flung Empire, and that that brought us our share of the benefits derived from British culture and British industry. That is reasonableness as expounded by the Deputy and those of his mentality, and those with whom they associate in Great Britain. That is the rational outlook as it appears to British Ministers, and to those in this country who, in the past, fancied they were empowered to interpret British policy to the Irish people. But we held that point of view was irrational and we say so still. We can discover, as we have discovered at present, that there is a sounder logic, and a wider basis of commonsense and that the remedy, even from the narrow material point of view, lies in production and wealth and the employment of our people and the increasing of national income. That sound logic and better commonsense are what we are trying to follow to-day. The old rational policy did not seem to work so well here.

I do not know whether Deputy MacDermot still asserts that the last hundred years has been a century of progress for us. If so, I do not know by what means he measures progress. Our population has gone down. We were the only country in the world inhabitated by a white race whose population had declined. Our industrial development had stopped, and the few remnants of industry that we were left were disappearing. Our cattle and tillage and agricultural production of all kinds were going down. But we had a unique position in regard to emigration statistics. We were sending out a much larger proportion of our population every year than any other country in Europe. That was the only point in which we excelled, that was the only result of the rational policy to which Deputy MacDermot is trying to get us to come back. We deserted that policy some time ago and we have reversed it.

Mr. MacDermot

That has all been the result of the policy of the Irish Nationalist Party, and that is the policy that I want you to come back to.

Mr. Lemass

I am afraid I am more thoroughly fogged now than ever. The policy of the Irish Nationalist Party is what the Deputy wants us to come back to. That Party attended the British Parliament and urged certain minor reforms upon the British Government without success for a number of years. I am not quite clear how that is going to benefit us. We decided to reverse the old economic policy and despite the adverse circumstances of the past year the decision to reverse that policy has been shown to be justified. We succeeded in doing last year what was not done for the last fifty years. The area under tillage increased. Many farmers are badly off but some things have happened which indicate a complete reversal of preexisting conditions. Last year the population of the country increased and industrial development went ahead. We may not be satisfied at the rate of progress but we have moved forward where we previously had been moving backward.

Mr. MacDermot

What about unemployment?

Mr. Lemass

It exists, and it is largely a legacy which we inherited from the old policy. If the Deputy knows any other policy for ending unemployment except by giving work to the unemployed let him tell us what it is. I do not know it. The only way of giving work is to employ people to produce the tools, the machinery, the clothes, the houses we require. Those who want that done must reconcile themselves to the economic policy in operation now because there is no other policy by which to get the unemployed people to work. Other policies have been tried. We have long and bitter experience of the policy the Deputy advocates. It has been in operation here. We can judge it by its results over a number of years. We can judge it by its results under the most favourable possible conditions. We have seen it operated by men who were undoubtedly able men and backed by financial resources of considerable size and under circumstances when world conditions were altogether different from now; and yet the results produced here were wholly bad. We are reversing that policy, and we are reversing it under circumstances of considerable difficulty. Those of us who were looking forward to the day when an Irish Government would set out to develop Irish industry, reorganise agriculture, and develop the resources of the country generally for the benefit of the people, never contemplated having to do it under circumstances like the present—circumstances of world-wide depression and during an economic war with Great Britain. Despite these abnormal conditions and these special difficulties which have brought down countries that were highly industrialised for over a century and that possessed vast resources—brought them down until they had to abandon the very things they held most dear— we are getting results here. We have seen the British Government abandon its traditional policy of Free Trade and divorce the pound from gold. We have seen the American State adopting various and extraordinary measures to enable it to weather the storm. We have seen countries which were regarded industrially and economically, as the soundest in the world, having to take all sorts of emergency measures to try to alleviate the hardships brought upon their people by the present world-wide economic depression. It is in these circumstances that we are trying to bring about the economic revolution here, and the fact that we have succeeded in a very great degree is the surest indication that our policy is sound and that when, by the development of international action, better conditions shall exist in other countries, we will get here the conditions we contemplated and under which everybody who is willing and able to work will have work for him to do.

I submit to the Deputy that he will be doing much more to help in adjusting the material conditions here, which concern him so much, by making constructive suggestions in relation to the policy that we are operating and by trying to help us along the road we are going instead of by talking what seems to me to be completely unintelligible nonsense about the economic results of the British tariffs.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I did not hear all the Minister's speech. His last words were something about talking rot about our political status, but what I did hear the Minister say was obviously rot about our political status. What is the difference between our present status and any other status the Minister can conceive of? This State is sovereign and independent and if the Minister thinks that, say, Spain achieved a higher status by becoming a Republic than by being a monarchy, he completely misunderstands the word "status." The Minister says that the present economic war is for the purpose of compelling us to a political status that we do not want. As far as I can understand the various statements from England, it is nothing of the sort. The economic war was imposed because this Government refused to hand over certain moneys that it was assumed they were to pay. Certain responsible men have stated that it was merely a matter of money. The Minister tries to make out that the implication of the words was that they were trying to use this weapon to force us to be satisfied with a certain form of government here.

Mr. Lemass

I did not attempt to quote any British Minister. I was talking of what Deputy MacDermot said.

Mr. MacDermot

I repudiate it just as fervently as Deputy Fitzgerald.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I am talking of what the Minister said. It is the sort of stuff which the Minister puts out for his supporters. The British statements have made it clear, whether they mean it or not, that they are not so very much concerned with the actual matter of money that was held to be due to be sent over, but they have said that they cannot tolerate a position whereby they make an agreement with another country, and that country, without in any way seeking their agreement to a change in it, wantonly repudiates that agreement. That is the British position on which the Minister tries to misrepresent.

The Minister then says that he understands that the Northern farmers are not so happy in their present condition. The civil servants are not very happy about the "cut," and neither are the unemployed very happy about their present position. I have no doubt that a great number of the unemployed would be very happy to become civil servants even with the "cut," but the Minister says that because the Northern farmers are suffering that, therefore, he takes it as proof that they are in no way better off than our farmers are.

With reference to an agreement with England, the Minister will admit that the agreement that is talked about is one that would remove the tariffs operating against us in Ireland. One item, with regard to cattle, would mean that if our farmers are now in the same position as the Northern farmers are, our farmers would be much better off. That would not mean that the Government would give up its bounties, but as far as the agreement would go, it would affect the price of cattle. With regard to two year old cattle it would mean that the farmer would get £6 more per head. The Minister, when he talks about the farmers in the North not being happy, is merely trying to mislead the people in this country. He knows perfectly well that the farmers here, with regard to every beast over two years old sold to England, would be £6 better off minus the 35/- given in the way of bounty out of taxation. The Minister asks us to prove that the agreement would be an improvement on the present situation. What happened here? There was an agreement that we would send over certain moneys to England. This Government repudiated that, with the result that the British Government have proceeded to impose a tax direct upon our farmers by, in effect, seizing upon their goods in British ports. This Government has created that position. When it did that the Minister talks and demands that we shall demonstrate certain things. The Government had a clear duty and that was to take every possible measure to put an end to the condition whereby the British Government were not only claiming but taking from our farmers moneys that our own Government denied the British Government was due to get. It was the Government's business to prove clearly that no agreement could be come to and that it meant that it would leave us paying this. It is the Government's business to make it clear to the people of this country that there is no possible means of getting agreement with the British except on the terms of the full payment of the moneys claimed to be due. We are satisfied— and if not it is the Government's business to prove that we are wrong— that an agreement would be possible with England which would produce not merely the pre-economic war conditions, but which would remove the tariffs at present operating against our farmers and which would not at the same time impose the paying over to England annually of the same amount of money.

Mr. Briscoe

When did the Deputy find that out?

Mr. Fitzgerald

If that is not so, it can be quite clearly proved that we are wrong by the Government carrying out its obvious duty and making it abundantly clear to the people that no such agreement is possible. This Government has never attempted to do anything of the sort. We have a clear case. Our economic position here is something totally different from what it was two years ago. Outside nations clearly recognise that the world economic depression is a very serious problem. It is a factor which has to be faced by every country and in those circumstances our liability to pay is a thing which would have to be taken into account. The last time the Government delegation went to London they were talking about thousands of millions of pounds in gold ounces. They did not base any case at all upon our inability to pay. They referred to this thing that the Minister has just assumed about our right to retain the land annuities. The very legislation brought in by this Government was an admission that the Government knows we have not a right to retain the land annuities on legal grounds. But we have a moral right to propose to the British Government that they should be prepared to forego the full claim that they have against us on the grounds of our inability to pay. This Government has never attempted to do any such thing.

Mr. Corry

Why did your Government not do it?

Mr. Briscoe

Did your Government attempt to do it?

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Deputy must recollect that the economic position in our time was quite different.

Mr. Briscoe

Did your Government ever attempt to do it?

Mr. Fitzgerald

Certainly.

Mr. Briscoe

You did not succeed. You kept on paying five million pounds a year.

Mr. Fitzgerald

We negotiated with the British when the Deputy's Party were assuring the people that we were being committed to a payment of £19,000,000. We came back and we did not have to pay that alleged debt of £19,000,000.

Mr. Briscoe

What about the £280,000 the British turned you down on?

Mr. Fitzgerald

What about it?

Mr. Briscoe

They did not give it to you.

Mr. Fitzgerald

We always got all we ever put up a case for. Ministers over there know that in every case where we negotiated with the British the major part of the gain was on our side and not on theirs. We negotiated with the British time and again on financial matters and every time there was an improvement in the financial position of this country.

Mr. Briscoe

Perhaps the Deputy will give us one illustration?

Mr. Fitzgerald

Take, as an example, double income-tax. Does the Deputy deny that?

Mr. Briscoe

I do.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Perhaps the Deputy will get the Minister for Finance to deny it.

Mr. Briscoe

Does the Deputy suggest that double income-tax was a net gain to this country?

Mr. Fitzgerald

Certainly.

Mr. Briscoe

Is the Deputy not aware that refunds made to this country are continually diminishing while, on the other hand, the payments to England are continually increasing by reason of the taxes paid by English concerns doing business in this country? Obviously, the Deputy does not understand the matter.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The whole point is whether this country benefits by the double income-tax arrangement or whether it would be poorer if that arrangement did not exist. I doubt if any Minister of the Government will state otherwise than that the double income-tax arrangement represents a gain to this country.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy would be well advised to put down a question on the matter and he will find out the position quickly enough.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Minister has suggested that it is up to us to act. The Government has failed calamitously in its duty. There is only one way to prove it and that is, by the body which has power to negotiate, entering into negotiations. If, as a result of the negotiations, they find themselves in a position to say: "We have taken every possible step and we find the British Government immovable and we only have a choice between the present position with the tariffs or the pre-retention of the land annuities position," then we might discuss whether or not the previous position was better than the present position. I say that the Government is failing to do its duty. It is refusing to do its job. It merely turns to us and says: "Prove that an improvement can be made." There is no one in a position to prove that except this Government, and it should have the courage to take the proper steps.

Not only can the tariffs be abolished but they can be abolished without imposing on our people the whole amount that was previously paid. The Minister declares that we are penalised through the medium of tariffs in order to make the majority of the people agree to a political status less than the country is entitled to enjoy. I do not know what the Minister means by that. Does he suggest that we are entitled to enjoy a political status under which we will be in a position to make agreements with other countries, that we will insist on other countries fulfilling their agreements, but whenever it suits us we will turn round and refuse to recognise our agreements? What is the political status the British Government are trying to deprive us of?

Mr. Briscoe

Freedom.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I think it was the Minister who said that it would be much better if the British treated us as a foreign country.

Mr. Lemass

It was Deputy MacDermot who referred to that.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister has misquoted Deputy MacDermot; his misquotations are not alone famous but notorious.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Minister says that things would be splendid if the British treated us as a foreign country, like the Argentine. The British people have money to the extent of £500,000,000 invested in the Argentine and upon that sum interest has to be paid. The Argentinians have to recognise that that £500,000,000, while invested in their country, belongs to Britain. The land annuities in this country represent, roughly, £70,000,000. The British people invested that money in this country by lending it to the Irish farmers to enable them to buy out their land. The Argentine is indebted to England and it pays interest upon a sum of £500,000,000. Even if we are a foreign country or a member of the British Commonwealth we must recognise that the British people have invested money in our country. They lent it to the Irish people for the purpose of buying land or other concerns and we are bound to repay that money, just the same as the Argentinians. If the Argentinians were to turn around to-morrow and say to the British "You have £500,000,000 invested here but it is an awful burden on us to have to pay interest upon it," I doubt if the British Government would treat the Argentinians as favourably as they do now.

The real analogy is the Argentinian analogy. When we talk about the enormous burden upon our people, let us consider the position of other countries. We have not any war reparations operating against us. We are in an analogous position with the Argentine. The British and some Irish people advanced to this country a sum of £70,000,000. They claim that that capital belongs to them and they are due that amount, or the interest upon it. When you talk about the appalling burden on us, think of the appalling burden upon the Argentine. The Argentine is bound to pay to this base, brutal and bloody English people the interest upon the money invested.

Mr. Lemass

What is the British capital in the Argentine?

Mr. Fitzgerald

Is the Deputy not aware that the Argentine railways and businesses are financed by British capital?

Mr. Lemass

But the Argentinians own their railways.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 27th April, 1933.