Vol. 15 No. 24
I beg to move:
Section 1, sub-section (1). To delete paragraph (f).
Senators will observe that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) deal with customs duties and (d) and (e) with excise duties. Paragraphs (f) and (g) deal with stamp duties and I am seeking to delete those paragraphs.
Do you propose to take amendments 1 and 2 together?
The same argument will apply to both. Amendment 2, which I will also move, is as follows:
Section 1, sub-section (1). To delete paragraph (g).
My proposal is to have both paragraphs deleted from the section. The Executive Council, in those paragraphs, seek power to impose a stamp duty on, in the case of paragraph (f), any particular description of document or transaction. I would like to ascertain, if it is possible to do so, on what class of document is this particular stamp duty to be imposed. Will it affect the transfer of shares from a British company, or the transfer of land? Is it intended to affect the business of insurance companies? This power is set out in the Bill and it may mean a lot of things. I think it is the duty of the Minister in charge of the Bill to explain this matter to the Seanad. It is in the public interest to have some explanation as to what is meant by these two paragraphs in this very strong Bill. I am opposed to this stamp duty and to giving such wide powers to the Executive Council.
It will be obvious to members of the House that there are certain operations carried on in this country by foreign companies, mainly dealing with financial transactions—insurance business and such like. This Bill gives us power to impose tariffs on imported goods and, as was explained on the Second Reading, to act in the interests of our home producers in respect of any commodity. In regard to such matters as might be considered purely of financial interest—I refer now to the money that is taken out of this country through insurance companies, and other similar activities —it is felt that this is the only method, or a possible method, whereby we can exercise a restricting influence on various interests in this country very much on a parallel with the method we apply when we are using a tariff to restrict imports of commodities. It is not intended to use this power so as to cause hardship to those people in this country who are involved, but it is felt that the power ought to be in the hands of the Executive Council so as to enable them to exercise control over such companies and activities as might be deemed injurious to the country. It is a method of protection that we may feel it necessary to use and we want the power to do so. Senators will understand that this is one of the only methods whereby, short of prohibition, short of putting an embargo on insurance companies, we can, in any way, attempt to control the activities of foreign interests operating here. We want that control. This might be looked upon in, a way, as a tariff on such activities and as on a par with the tariffs we impose against manufacturers and traders on the other side.
I move amendment 2, as read by me.
This is more or less consequential.
I protest equally against the deletion of this sub-section. In my judgment, the carrying of the last recommendation defeats the whole purpose of the Bill. It definitely will not be accepted. Of course we will oppose this one and put it to a division. It defeats one of the main purposes of this Bill and simply obstructs us.
The main object in moving these recommendations is that we think the Dáil should have an opportunity to discuss them as they are of such vital importance for the country.
They had an opportunity.
They had no opportunity in the other House in Committee by reason of the peculiar class of guillotine which was in operation. There was no Committee Stage in the Dáil and I think it is not right that the representatives of the people in the Dáil should not have an opportunity of considering the various sections in a Bill of this sort. It is mainly on these grounds, and not from an obstructionist point of view at all, that these recommendations are made —to bring it back to the Dáil and to give people there the opportunity of at least explaining their reason on every side and dealing with the matter from the public point of view.
What was the object of everybody remaining silent when they could have got up and made their speeches on the amendment? They held their tongues, every one of them, and went straight into a division on it.
I move recommendation No. 3:
Section 1, sub-section (2). After the word "order" in line 20, to insert the words "and any order amending, altering or varying such order."
This is purely a drafting amendment and was put down for the purpose of making it quite clear that an order which amended or altered an existing order would itself die, at the same time as its father. I am now satisfied on the wording of the sub-section that that is fairly clear as it is, and I ask leave of the House therefore to withdraw the recommendation.
I move recommendation 4:—
Section 1, sub-section (3). After the word "sub-section" in lines 28-29 to insert the words "or which shall have been revoked by an order made under this section."
The object of this sub-section is to prevent an order, which has expired because it was in existence for eight months, being continued or renewed and it effects that object. But as the sub-section stands it would have been possible on an order there made to revoke an order say within five, six or seven months, and then to renew it in exactly the same form. I have no doubt that never was the intention of the section, but I think that the meaning should be made quite clear, and I am glad to say that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has told me that he is willing to accept this recommendation with a couple of purely verbal alterations, one being in the tense of the verb, and the other slightly consequential. May I read the section as it will stand with the amendment and the slight alterations of the Minister? "No order made by the Executive Council under this section which ceases to have statutory effect by reason of the expiration of the period of eight months mentioned in the foregoing sub-section, or which is revoked by an order made under this section"—the proposed alteration by the Minister is to insert the word "is" instead of "has been," which is better grammar and better drafting —"or which is revoked by an order made under this section shall be capable of being continued or renewed by any other order made (whether before or after such cesser or revocation) under this section." I am quite satisfied to move the recommendation in that form.
We gave a good deal of attention to the particular recommendation submitted in the names of Senators Brown and Douglas, and we were satisfied to accept it with the minor alterations as explained by Senator Brown. There is no intention and has been no intention to give what one might call a renewal of lease of power within the Act itself. It is perfectly obvious that long before the period of eight months has elapsed, both Houses of the Oireachtas will be meeting. We are agreeable to the recommendation on the terms as intimated by Senator Brown.
I beg to move Recommendation No. 5.
Section 1. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) If at any time after the making of an order by the Executive Council pursuant to the provisions of this Act, Dáil Eireann shall stand adjourned for a period then exceeding seven days and if a majority of the members of Dáil Eireann by notice in writing addressed to the Chairman of Dáil Eireann so require, the said Chairman shall forthwith summon Dáil Eireann."
The Bill as it stands gives the Executive absolute and quite uncontrolled powers over all matters with which is Bill is concerned—practically the whole economic condition of the country. As I said on Second Reading I think that is a thing to which we ought not to agree, that it was a very dangerous power to put into the hands of any Executive. Accordingly this Recommendation has been set down by Senator Douglas and myself. As to the principle of this Recommendation I am happy to say again that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs accepts it. He wishes to have the recommendation altered in such a way as to make it reasonable. The principle is accepted and the only alterations that the Minister asks for are these. He asks that the period of adjournment, which in the Recommendation is seven days, should be made ten days, not I think for any purpose of making it longer but to agree with the time mentioned lower down.
As altered, the Recommendation reads:—
Section 1. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) If when an order under this section is made or at any time thereafter and before such order is confirmed by Act of the Oireachtas or is revoked under this section or ceases to have statutory effect, Dáil Eireann stands adjourned for a period of more than ten days and if during such adjournment a majority of the members of Dáil Eireann by notice in writing given to the Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Eireann require Dáil Eireann to be summoned, the said Ceann Comhairle shall summon Dáil Eireann to meet on a day named by him not being more than twenty-one days after the receipt by the said Ceann Comhairle of such notice nor less than ten days after the issue of such summons.
The Minister objected to "forthwith," and I think his objection is reasonable inasmuch as the recommendation would only work during a long adjournment of the Dáil. Take such an adjournment as the present one, when it might be impossible for the Ceann Comhairle to get a full attendance of Deputies at a specially summoned meeting. I agree that that is a reasonable objection. Every Deputy should have an opportunity of attending such a meeting but some might be absent for a period. They might be abroad or might be in America. It might not be possible to have a full attendance if the Ceann Comhairle had to call the House together forthwith. The alteration suggests that the Dáil might be called together on a day named by the Ceann Comhairle, not being more than twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice nor less than ten days after the issue of such summons. Ten days is taken as a reasonable minimum for having the House fully summoned, and twenty-one days is the maximum within which the Ceann Comhairle could get the House. Senator Douglas agrees with me that the recommendation is reasonable. The Senator was responsible for the original recommendation. We are prepared to accept the alteration if the House is willing to do so. If so, I propose to withdraw my original recommendation and to accept the one given me in its place. I take it that the House will allow me to withdraw my recommendation and to move the new one.
I agree with the amended recommendation proposed by Senator Brown. I think the other one implied that the Ceann Comhairle might never take a holiday. I suggest that there should be added the name of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle or the Acting Chairman.
I think that would depend on the Standing Orders. Probably there is provision in the Dáil, as there is in our Standing Orders, for dealing with that matter.
If so, I am not insisting upon my suggestion. I think something like it would be necessary to ensure that the object of the recommendation would be carried out, and it would be well to have it.
I am glad the Minister has agreed to accept the altered recommendation. I want to state clearly the position of the Labour Party on this measure. We are supporting this Bill, because we believe it is necessary for the protection of the people and the country to give these powers to the Government. Under no other consideration could we possibly agree to support a measure that places such extraordinary powers in the hands of the Executive Council. As a matter of fact, this Bill gives the Government power over practically everything that comes under their control, without consulting Parliament. As a Labour Party we would, in normal circumstances, have to fight this Bill line by line, as we fought other Bills that proposed to place control of the lives and fortunes of the people in the hands of the Executive Council. Recognising that this is not a provocative measure, that it is not an offensive measure, but purely a defensive one, and recognising that the Government introduced it on these lines we are supporting it. It is put forward to protect the people of this country against any action that may be taken against their interests in another place. We want it to be distinctly understood that we think that is the intention of the Government and that that is why we are supporting the Bill. I give the Government this much credit, that I do not think they desire to grasp the extraordinary powers placed in their hands—powers over the lives and destines of the people—and had no other option when the challenge was thrown down, but to take such measures as are necessary to protect the interests of our people. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to accept the principle of the recommendation put forward by Senator Brown, because it gives power by which, at any time, a majority of the Dáil can demand that a meeting be called for the purpose of considering any order that will be made under the Bill. We are supporting this Bill and we will continue to support every line of it, because of the fact that we believe it is necessary to pass it, in order to defend our rights in this important matter.
On account of the point of view that Senator Farren has put forward I think it should be stated again that the great objection that some of us have to this Bill is that it is not going to protect the people, but is going to add to the misery of the people, brought on by the deliberate action of Fianna Fáil. Tariffs have been put on the necessaries of life and that is going to increase the miseries of the people. I entirely disagree with the point of view expressed by Senator Farren.
I have not very much to say on this as it has been explained by Senator Brown. The only reason we are accepting the recommendation is that we felt, perhaps more than any Party in the House, or, as much as any other Party, that we do not want to get away from democratic control of the affairs of the State. I would like to think that that feeling was as emphatic in other ranks in this House as it is in ours. The reason for the extra days in the recommendation has been explained by Senator Brown. The position is that many of the members of the Dáil may be away during the long recess, and that it might be difficult to get them. Obviously, if a measure came on, and if there was an acute division of opinion —and it would, inevitably, have to be a very vital matter to justify having 50 per cent. of the members of the House called together by the Ceann Comhairle—in the circumstances it would be very desirable that every available Deputy should be summoned. The recommendation is to ensure that as far as possible every Deputy entitled to be present is summoned. It is for that reason we are asking that it should be left to the Ceann Comhairle to decide on any period between ten days and twenty-one days. We have accepted this recommendation because we believe, and have always held, that control over the Executive should as far as possible be exercised. At the same time, as Senator Farren has explained, we are meeting an emergency which has been forced upon us, and we have got to have adequate powers to be in a position to meet it.
I must confess that I am disappointed to-day to find that in spite of the efforts of the Executive to ensure that the Oireachtas would have control over us, that two important paragraphs have been in the meantime deleted out of this Bill. The first, I believe, was an attempt to crab the powers of the Ministry in what I believe to be an essential function. You as a House are quite prepared here to allow us to put on tariffs to any extent, but not to put on stamp duties to any restrictive limits on what I look upon as the most menacing interests that are operating in our midst. As regards the points made by Senator Miss Browne, I think these properly belong to the Second Reading debate and I will not take up your time dealing with them.
And the speech of the Minister is now a Second Reading speech.
Everybody would be prepared naturally to back the Government of the country, but this is not a crisis which was imposed on the country; it is a crisis which was invited. We are asked to back the Government not in defence of the people, but in their breach of the Treaty. Half the country minus the Labour Party are pro-Treaty. The Government have got themselves into an impasse and they expect us to back them and take them out of it by committing a breach of the Treaty. What the Government have been doing is tantamount to a breach of the Treaty. If the Government put up any fair issue to us we will support them, but we object to being twitted as being unpatriotic when we are resisting an effort to break the Treaty.
Is the Senator in order?
Senator Dr. Gogarty is not in order.
It would appear from the various speeches which we have got from the Opposition that there are still a number of people in this country who have not been reading the daily newspapers.
Is this going to be a Second Reading speech?
I am afraid I cannot tell you until I have heard the Senator.
That is something for us to remember in the future. The fact is that Ireland is at war and the first blow in that war has been struck at our people by England.
The first blow has been struck at Ireland not by the British Government, but by our own Government.
Ireland is at war again; Ireland's flag is being carried into battle by President de Valera, and it is the duty of every Irishman worthy of the name to rally behind this flag and to support it.
Is the Senator proposing a recommendation? Is the Senator in order?
So long as the Senator keeps to the question of tariffs I will allow him to proceed, but when he wanders from tariffs I cannot allow him. If the Senator keeps to the Bill he can proceed.
I want to remind the members of the Opposition that they are fast losing touch with the people. If they think they represent a small section of the people they are making a mistake. The masses of the people are behind President de Valera in this fight.
That will do, Senator. The Senator must get behind the tariffs.
Here we are being faced with tariffs by England on every article we produce. What are we to do? Are we to take that lying down? I say the Opposition in this case are taking up the attitude of holding a man's hands behind his back while somebody else beats him in the face. That is what the Opposition are now doing here. It is up to the Government to defend the people of this country and that is the motive of the Bill before the House. The people who are not prepared to fall in with the masses of the people of this country, the people who are not prepared to defend the country against any outside aggression in this hour ought to go out and hoist their own flag. They ought to go out and hoist the Union Jack——
I want to remind the Senator that we are on the question of tariffs.
Let them put up the Union Jack, and if Senator Milroy likes he can put alongside of that the black flag of piracy about which he spoke here the last day——
The Senator is again out of order.
Might I ask the Senator to repeat what he said? We did not catch it here. I would like to know exactly what he did say.
No. I do not want to hear any more on that matter. I will now put the recommendation, as amended.
I move: "That notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Standing Order 85, the Report Stage of the Emergency Imposition of Duties Bill, 1932, be taken to-day."
I second that.
I would like to deal with two points, that were in fact, not clearly stated in the earlier stages of the Bill. I do not think that was deliberate. I want to stress the desirability in international affairs and in all public dealings of a continuity of policy between successive Governments. In regard to the Tribunal I made the point which was challenged, that the late Government agreed in effect at the Imperial Conference to a tribunal of the type that the British Government has accepted. The President challenged that and it was not possible for me under the rules of debate to offer a satisfactory explanation.
Is it possible on the Report Stage?
Surely on the Report Stage of the Bill we can deal with the general principle?
It would be better on the Fifth Stage.
Surely the dispute as to the Tribunal is involved in this Bill? It was argued repeatedly on the Second Reading and on the Fifth Stage; it is arguable as the essence of the Bill deals with this matter.
This is the Fourth Stage.
Sir John Keane apparently understood that this is the Fifth Stage.
Yes, I thought it was the Final Stage. I apologise. I do not want to take up the time of the House.
It is not necessary for me to repeat what I have already said. I will continue my arguments from where I brought them. There seems to be some doubt in the President's mind as to what the late Government agreed to. I am now reading from the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1930 which was accepted by all Parties and which I would emphasise was ratified by Dáil Eireann. During the debate in Dáil Eireann there was no exception whatever taken to the nature or character of the Commonwealth Tribunal.
I will read the essential passage.
As to the competence of the tribunal, no doubt was entertained that this should be limited to differences between Governments. The Conference was also of the opinion that the differences should only be such as are justiciable.
I confess that I do not know exactly what "justiciable" is and I confess that this present dispute has got very wide and vague, but I would suggest to the House that, on the more narrow question of the annuities so far as we have heard the arguments, the points are justiciable. The passage goes on:—
As to the composition of the tribunal it was agreed—
agreed by the representatives of this country and also by Dáil Eireann—
(1) That the tribunal should be constituted ad hoc in the case of each dispute to be settled; (2) there shall be five members, one being the Chairman; neither the Chairman nor the members of the tribunal shall be drawn from outside the British Commonwealth of Nations.
And then further on—I do not think it is material to the point I wish to make:—
The members so chosen by each party shall select another person as chairman of the tribunal as to whom they shall have complete freedom of choice.
That does not mean freedom of choice outside the Empire because that is covered distinctly by the previous paragraph that there shall be five members, one being chairman and they shall all be drawn from within the British Commonwealth. That being so, it does seem most unfortunate that when our previous Government were pledged to a tribunal—one, in fact, which the British Government have offered—we should be plunged into this terrible economic conflict. Cannot something be done before it is too late? Could not the Government even go and say: "We will appoint two members. Will you appoint two members and let us see if we cannot find a fair person within the Commonwealth?" I think that the President and Senator Connolly also said that they repudiated the suggestion that there was no fair-minded person within the Commonwealth. I can mention certain people who, I feel certain, would be acceptable to the Government. I do not know whether they would be acceptable to the other side but that does not matter—but can we not go to that length, to the length of saying "We will at any rate set up the body and see if we cannot find a chairman within the Commonwealth?" It does seem bankruptcy of statesmanship—and I say that the responsibility is on this Government— not at least to go to that length. instead of plunging this country into the chaos which is impending and imposing on the people least able to bear them the hardships which are certain to follow.
There is only one other point that I wish to make. It is not exactly pleasant but it is one's duty to stand up here and try to be fair. There are certain members on the opposite benches who consider that when one is trying to be fair, one is prejudiced against one's own country. After all, surely one is entitled to one's opinion and I cannot allow to pass unchallenged the statement that the first step in what they call this war was the Emergency Duties Bill passed by the British Government. What are the facts? To begin at the beginning, the late Government signed an agreement —whether they were competent to sign the agreement does not matter—to pay certain sums of money, and, for some ten years, they did pay that money. The Government changes, and its successors come in and say: "We will not pay; we will not argue about it. We simply hold the money and you can come and prove your case." In view of that I say that the challenge was thrown down by our Government, who, deliberately and without preliminaries, refused to pay a debt which their predecessors had honoured, and I do not think it is fair—however patriotic a thing in the eyes of some people it may be to see only one side—that the duties imposed by the British Government are the first step towards this unfortunate position with which we are now faced.
I think I can answer what the last Senator said with regard to the Imperial Conference. This question was raised in the House of Commons, and it was suggested, to start with, that it was laid down that this scheme of arbitration should be accepted. That was at once taken up by Mr. Lansbury, and Mr. Thomas admitted afterwards that there was no such agreement. I will read it—this is a report of the speech taken from the original:—
I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that the right honourable gentleman has admitted our case in regard to what happened at the Imperial Conference. The essential thing to remember is that there was disagreement as to the setting up of this tribunal, and the Statute of Westminster was passed in this country and in other Dominions without any tribunal. If agreement could have been found to refer all disputes within the Commonwealth of Nations to a Commonwealth tribunal the method of appointing it would have appeared in the Statute of Westminster and it would have been ratified by the Dominion Parliaments and ourselves. On his own showing to-night this Parliament never ratified even a voluntary agreement, and, therefore, it is not fair to continually bring it up as if the Irish Free State was repudiating something to which they had agreed. They agreed to a perfectly voluntary arrangement if the parties could agree. That was our case, and the right honourable gentleman to-night has conceded it. If honourable members will read the Official Report to-morrow, they will find that the right honourable gentleman has told the House that it is not obligatory, and was not accepted as obligatory, that differences between the Dominions must go to a Dominion tribunal, I am glad that that matter has been cleared out of the way.
Later on Mr. Thomas was asked if, in the case of a dispute between Australia and South Africa, he would use these methods he is employing here to insist that it should be done through a Commonwealth tribunal, and Mr. Thomas said: "No, I would not. It could not be done," whereupon Mr. Lansbury said: "That knocks the bottom out of your case," and so it does. He would only treat this country in the way in which he has treated it, but he would not treat Australia or South Africa in that way. I pass by those things and come to the point made by the Senator as to this Government having made agreements. No such agreement was ever made by this Government to pay these annuities. A statement was made in 1923, signed by a certain Mr. Hills. It does not state who Mr. Hills is, nor does it state whether he signed on behalf of the British Government. It says nothing. He simply signs a statement of that sort. Another gentleman from over here signed the same thing, but he does not say that he is Minister for Finance. He does not say that he is signing on behalf of the Free State or anything of the sort. He puts his name to it, and we are left to wonder what authority he has to do so. That is in the first place. In the second place, that particular agreement was kept secret for eight years—not a word said about it anywhere. After that there was another one, called the Ultimate Financial Settlement, which was signed by one of each. Those two happened to be Ministers, but they did not state that they were Ministers or that they were signing on behalf of the Free State Government or of the British Government—neither one nor the other. They simply put their names to it.
What open quibbling!
That is in contrast with what happened in all the other cases—in the Treaty, in the 1925 agreement, where all the members who signed stated who they were, whether Ministers of Agriculture or whatever they represented, and that they were signing on behalf of the Free State Government or of the British Government respectively. They are two totally different things. Those two documents were never put before the Dáil or passed by the Oireachtas and they remain there in that stage. It just happened that to do so is contrary to the Constitution. If the Senator will read Articles 35, 36 and 37 of the Constitution, he will find that there is no binding power whatsoever on a signature by a Minister or anyone else until a prior agreement has been made in the Dáil. Not only that, but there was a discussion in the Dáil, only three weeks before this particular thing was signed, in which it was stated definitely at that time—it was proposed by Deputy Cosgrave—that no Act, or no promise or agreement, made by any Party, by the Government of any foreign country, should be of the least validity unless and until it had been accepted by the Dáil. I do not think it is necessary to go any further into the matter and will therefore conclude.
I should like to say that I join with Senator Sir John Keane in regretting that, before the Government plunged this country into this economic war, they did not take the obvious and patriotic and statesmanlike method of approaching this question of the land annuities. We shall never agree that these annuities are not justly due to the people who lent the money. I feel that in this situation a unique opportunity presented itself, and that is, that our Government could have gone to the British Government and could have said that a very large number of Irish farmers, owing to the extreme depression, are not able to pay the land annuities. Our Government could have proposed to the British Government to meet them to discuss the matter in a friendly way with regard to some adjustment of the matter. That would have been the patriotic and statesmanlike thing to do, and it should have been done before the Government deliberately went and plunged this country into the state in which it is at present, and which is apt to end in chaos, and a result of which is that we do not know where we are or what may happen. I wish to make a final protest against this Bill as a retaliatory measure which is making what is bad already, worse.
I am not very much concerned with the fine points of detail entered into by the President and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, but I am concerned with the effect that this Bill will have on the trade of our country. I want to examine the thing in the light of common sense, in which light it will be looked on by the plain business men of this country. An offer has been made by the British Government to leave this to arbitration. That offer has been refused.
It has not been refused. It has been accepted.
It has been accepted. But then the quibble comes in.
There is no quibble. I object to the use of the word "quibble" in this connection.
I think the word "quibble" should be withdrawn.
Very well, then, I withdraw the expression. Let us say that they have agreed up to a certain point, but that our Government says that the Chairman must be from outside the British Commonwealth of Nations.
No. That is wrong.
The British Government say that the Chairman must be from within the Commonwealth of Nations.
That is a different thing.
That is the big stick, I suppose. My contention is that it is not worth while arguing about it, and I want to support the suggestions of Senator Miss Browne and Senator Sir John Keane that there should be some way out of the impasse, and that this Bill is no way out of it. I do not for a moment say that the British Government have acted fairly or rightly in precipitating this crisis. But, who is going to suffer by this crisis? We are concerned with the citizens of our own country and with how this Bill, and the economic war resulting from it, is going to affect them. We are being asked to rally round the Government. For what? Are our rights or our liberties being assailed by this action of the British Government?
Yes.
I say, no. They have not been assailed, except that we want to prevent the British legislating for their own country—just what this Bill wants to do for our country. That is the only way in which the liberties of this country, as I say, have been assailed. I am more concerned, however, to make an appeal to the Government to come to some arrangement about it. I want to point out a few facts concerning the country to the farming representatives in this Seanad, and to ask them to remember the foot-and-mouth year of 1911 and to consider the effect that that embargo, which was held against us for four months by the British Government on the agricultural industry, had on the country. This Bill of the British Government is, in effect, an embargo. It means the putting on of £5 per head on a big percentage of our cattle. It means the putting on of practically £3 10s. per head on every beast sold in Dublin market. It means the putting on of about 6/- per head on every sheep sold in Dublin market and of 12/- per head on every pig sold in that market. In Dublin market, from the 1st August till Christmas, we sell about £150,000 worth of live stock per week. That will mean to the farmers of this country who sell in that market £30,000 a week in the way of tax to the British Government, for I say that every penny, after a fortnight or three weeks, on at least the beef, mutton and bacon of this country will be paid by the producer in this country. The British farmers may have to pay a little on stores we export to Britain, but the meat producer in this country will have to pay every farthing of it.
We have been told that we will be able, possibly, to develop other markets. I have been a representative of the live stock trade of this country for 30 years. I have occupied an executive position on their associations for 30 years. During that time we have tried to explore the Continent for other markets for our live-stock, and we have found out that there is no other market. We have found out that there is no other market, particularly for live-stock, and, I might say, for any other agricultural produce, except in Britain. I think the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will take my opinion on that question just as well as the opinions of the majority of his advisers, after the experience I have had; and I am sure that my colleague Senator O'Connor will verify that statement. What are we going to do with our live-stock? The present tax will be ruinous to the farmers in the matter of selling. We cannot dispose of our live-stock. Where is the farmer to get money to pay for his labour bill and to meet his other demands? For the past fortnight or three weeks I understand that there have been shoals of income-tax demands sent out and also six-day notices from the Land Commission to pay land annuities. Where is the money to come from to pay anything? What are we going to do with our surplus live-stock?
Eat them.
At the present time there is plenty to eat but where will we sell the surplus stock?
There are a lot of people who do not get anything to eat.
Who is going to pay for it? Where is the money to pay for it at the present time? We grow more potatoes than we want. Potatoes at present are being sold at 4/- per cwt., which is under the cost of production. Mutton and lamb are being sold at 6d. per lb. on foot and beef at 8d. These prices are below the cost of production. Even selling them at these prices, we will still have a surplus of £25,000,000 worth which we export after producing sufficient for the country. What are we going to do with the surplus? Even if Great Britain puts £10 per head on our cattle we will have to send them there—we have no other place to send them to. For that reason, I say the matter should be settled up and the farmers' representatives in the Dáil and Seanad should press their views on the Government and get them to find a way out of this economic war and not lead the country to ruin, because nothing but absolute ruin is staring the farmers in the face.
I do not like to let this occasion pass without saying a few words. I am not going into the pros and cons of the case as to whether or not the annuities should be paid. I have been in touch with people all over the country day in and day out and week after week and I know the position the people are in. They could not sell anything for the last couple of months, even before this tariff was put on. There has been a sort of boycott all over Great Britain since this matter was mooted first. Prices have been going down day after day. Now that both parties have agreed to arbitration, the matter is narrowed down as to who the arbitrator should be. Surely that is a matter that should be easily settled? There seems very little commonsense in having an economic war started because you cannot find a referee who will be suitable. The question of an alternative market has been mentioned here. Time and again I have heard it put up whether the Government had found an alternative market. The members of the present Government will ask what the previous Government had done to get other markets. The previous Government did not rush into the position that the present Government have rushed into. The late Government I am sure would never have rushed into this blindfolded. They would have looked for an alternative market somewhere instead of leading the people into a fool's paradise. I read a couple of letters in the Press to-day about the demands which are being made for annuities. The Government expect that the farmers are going to pay these taxes and also are going to pay the annuities as well. Is that reasonable? Where are they to find the money? It is all very well for Senator Foran and other members of the Labour Party to make a bit of a laugh of it. It is not a laughing matter for the men working on farms, if the farmers have not the money on a Saturday night to pay them. Everyone knows that this is a busy time on farms, getting in and making up hay and corn and that farmers have to give employment. Even if they have stock, and have no market for them, where are they going to get the money for the men? I say it is unreasonable for the Government to have started this economic war. I say that were it not for the position that the British were put in we would not have had this economic war. Before the Government refused to pay these annuities, surely if they were sensible people, they would have looked ahead and would have made some provision for some other market, if there is any market to be found, which I doubt very much. Now that they have not done so, I sincerely hope and trust that they will consider the necessity of giving a moratorium for one or two years, because whether they give it or not they cannot get any money as the money is not there. People may have stock, but they cannot dispose of them. How are they going to get money? I sincerely hope that commonsense will prevail and that something will be done to bring this crisis to an end before the country is destroyed.
It was not my intention to intervene in this debate, but the last speaker has forced me into it. He accused me of trying to make a laugh of this. If I succeed in making a laugh I think I am doing much more good for the country than he and a lot of other people like him who are whingeing and crying.
There is room enough for everybody to do good.
You will do no good by crying and telling the people of England that all the resources of the Irish people are gone and that we are beggared.
I am telling the truth.
I do not agree with it. I think the resources of the country are quite capable of rising above the big stick raised in England, and for that reason I am prepared to help the present Government, who are trying in their own way to relieve the burden of taxation on the common people of this country. Taxation in this State is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £8 per head. If we are relieved of this £5,000,000 it will be a great relief to the great bulk of the people, and I do not care how it is done. We have been told for generations that England has robbed this country. If she is prepared even now to make some restitution, then it is nearly time. We may not all agree with the means now being adopted, but the object is a very laudable one—help yourself.
Senator Sir John Keane talked about the continuity of policy of Governments. I wonder had he in mind the people who are accused of causing the war, the Germans? These people were saddled with thousands of millions in the way of war debts. Have they paid them? The British Prime Minister went abroad the other day, and he is now lauded all over the world for relieving the Germans of their liabilities. We are no more able to pay this than the Germans are able to pay the war debts.
There is no parallel, absolutely no comparison.
There is a comparison. This country has been at war with England, not for twelve years, but for centuries.
Seven hundred years.
We have been the sufferers all through. If we can do anything even now to help our people, we are perfectly justified in doing it. We are not going to get anywhere with the helpless, whingeing attitude of some people in this country. I hope that the position visualised by Senator Kennedy will come about and the common people will then be properly fed. It may be at the expense of other people in the State, if you like—I do not know whether this is the best way to do it or not—but so long as it is done I do not care. I want to see the ill-fed, ill-clothed and ill-housed people placed in a better position than they are in to-day. I do not mind if it is this or any other Government that does that, so long as it is done.
I do not believe the resources of this country are at an end because the people in England think fit to put a tariff on certain of our commodities. I believe we can rise above all that if we only co-operate. We are not going to get anywhere by telling the English people that they are 100 per cent. right in their claims and we are 100 per cent. wrong. That is the wrong way to deal with this important situation. Without exactly falling into line with some of the suggestions put forward here to-day, I think the time has come when we should all co-operate in order to see how best we can avoid a calamity in this country, and there will be a calamity. Let us not go abroad preaching misery and pointing out that we are on the wrong side all the time. Encouragement should be given to our people to carry on, to hope and not to despair.
I can well understand the efforts of Senator Foran and other members of the Labour Party to befog the situation and to try to make the people of this country believe that the present crisis arises through England being the aggressor and not by reason of the fact that the position to-day is entirely due to the withholding of annuities which were based on an agreement made as far back as 1902. If you want the true history of the land annuities you will have to go back to 1902. In that year the land question in this country was settled. It was settled by representatives of the landlords and the tenants meeting in conference and making an agreement which was translated into an Act of Parliament. The agreement was on the basis that the landlords would be bought out by getting their net income. England was to act as the honest broker. England was to find the money. The representatives of the Irish people in the British Parliament one after the other pledged the security, not only of the tenant farmers of Ireland, but of every ratepayer in Ireland, that these annuities would be paid. Now we are asked to repudiate that bargain.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs told us on Monday the probable policy of the Government for the cure of unemployment. It is, or it may be, three hours' work per day per man. I am confident that that policy will appeal to many supporters of the present Government—the work-shy patriots. I am equally confident that it will appeal to many members of the present Ministry. The members of the present Government believe in words and not in work. They have issued more high falutin' manifestos, hysterical appeals and elaborate explanations during the last three months than their predecessors did during the last ten years. The Cosgrave administration did not stand for three hours' work per day per man. They did twelve hours' work per day. They did not aim at a stunt a day in order to distract the populace. They left the hysterical fulminations to their opponents.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs told us also that we are on the eve of a revolution. The late Government told us that the situation possessed certain dangers and they took steps to deal with them, and when they did so there was a howl from the then Opposition. I should like to know from the Minister what steps, beyond engaging in a suicidal trade war with England, his Government is contemplating in connection with the impending revolution? The President, the Minister for Defence and, I think, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, told us that as a result of an economic war with Britain there would be made available for the poor of the cities an abundance of cheap food. If the results of such a war be so wholly beneficial, why should it not be made a permanent feature of the Government's economic policy?
All the Ministerial arguments seem to tend to one conclusion, and that is that we would all wax fat on an economic war with Britain. The Minister for Defence declared that we could lap up £26,000,000 worth of food in addition to our present consumption without a hiccough. He pictured the unfortunate denizens of the slums turned into Fatty Arbuckles under the benign ministrations of a Fianna Fáil Government. I should like to inquire, if it is not high treason to do so, what is going to happen the farmers while the people of the cities and towns are sinking into this state of helpless obesity. Is it to be the function of the farmer to convert without reward every cadaverous townsman into an ungainly, stomachic alderman? If not, where is the money to come from to compensate the farmer?
On a point of order, is the Senator to be allowed to read his speech?
The Senator is not reading his speech.
Perhaps Senator Robinson does not like it. I think I am entitled to ask the question I have asked, despite the frowns of Fianna Fáil Senators. Complaint was made on the last day of the attitude of the Opposition in the other House on this and other matters. We were told that the Opposition was unfair. I suggest it is unfair only because of the unequal distribution of ability. The Government are not able to meet the Opposition. They recognise their intellectual inferiority. They take refuge in flight rather than meet the arguments advanced by their opponents. Then they whine about unfair opposition. Only the Almighty could repair the unfairness of the Opposition. We who preach peace rather than war are denounced virulently by amiable converts to Fianna Fáil as traitors. We are described as pro-British and anti-Irish.
Was the Senator preaching peace when he went round amongst the Volunteers with me a few years ago in Donegal?
That is extraneous matter.
Would Senator Colonel Moore like to hear anything he said just at that time? If the Seanad will permit me, I will read a letter written by Senator Colonel Moore which indicates what he thought about the Party with which he is now associated. This letter was addressed to the Editor of the Irish Independent four months after the Treaty was signed. It is headed “Mexican Methods Coming,” and it says:—
Sir,—Nine years ago Sir E. Carson organised an armed force to coerce the Irish nation and oppose its will. In October of the same year the Irish people responded by the foundation of the Irish Volunteer Organisation, which, growing in strength every year, has not only overcome the military dictatorship then attempted but has laid the foundation of Irish independence.
In 1922, the Irish nation finds itself confronted once more by another military dictatorship even more insidious and dangerous than the first—
Remember, this letter was written four months after the Treaty was signed and when attempts were being made to prevent the country accepting it—
because it has been initiated by a former trusted leader and carried out by men whom he has persuaded that a stable Republic can be the offspring of a military autocracy.
I ask Senators to attend to the paragraph which I am going to read now, and I suggest that orthodox Fianna Fáil Senators should take hold of their seats:
A year ago, such a statement would have seemed impossible and would have been resented by every Sinn Féiner, but readers who have followed late events require no further instruction than to be reminded of Mr. de Valera's threats to wade through the blood of his fellow-countrymen, with special reference to the present Ministers, if the Treaty is accepted by the people. At Kingstown—
The Senator's enthusiasm for Gaelic had not developed sufficiently at that time to call it Dun Laoghaire—
on 6th April, he threatened Mexican politics in like circumstances. The Mexican politics to which he refers have been for several years a series of civil wars, with armies under partisan leaders—sometimes three or four at a time—struggling for the Presidency; the assassination of those who were momentarily successful; the wholesale slaughter of their followers and the destruction of towns and villages to which the cruelties of the Black and Tans were as mole-hills to Croagh Patrick. These sayings sound like ravings, but they are in consonance with the resolutions of his followers who have set up an independent army. Attacks have been made on public meetings by officers in uniform; roads have been blocked and rails removed (Balla) at the most dangerous bridges. Houses have been raided and women driven from room to room at night at the muzzles of revolvers. This happened to my own household and, I believe, to many others. Wholesale arrests have been made illegally by irresponsible people and various persons have been shot; in fact, the country is well on the road to Mexico.
The Senator goes on to suggest the formation of a defence force and appeals to British ex-soldiers for support. He asks them to send their names to him in care of the Editor of the Irish Times.
The Senator is trying to prove that I was in favour of peace in those times, as I always was.
Yes, but when we preach peace, instead of war, we are denounced as traitors, as being pro-British, anti-Irish and all the rest. We preach peace with Britain for one reason and one reason only—because it is in the interests of Ireland. A bargain and a good bargain can be made at present and we prefer to take what we can get rather than lose three times the amount in senseless economic conflict.
Why did you not do it in the last ten years?
If we were pro-British, instead of being pro-Irish, we would cheer on the Government in its present mad escapade. But we, traitors and enemies of Ireland, are asked to stand firm behind the Government! At present, we have a bifurcated Government. One branch of it is at Merrion Street engaged in waging economic war on Britain, while another branch of it is at Ottawa to negotiate a trade arrangement with Britain. Behind which branch are we to stand firm—the Dublin war-lords or the Ottawa peace makers, behind the anti-British section or behind that section which is presumably engaged in an attempt to consolidate trade relations with the British Empire? A Government whose policy is three hours per week per man——
Per day.
That is a little better but not much. A Government whose policy is three hours' work per day, per man; which hopes to overfeed the population by cutting off exports; which sends a delegation to Ottawa to arrange a trade treaty with Britain while waging economic war on Britain from Dublin—a Government which is capable of these Quixotic follies should not be enthroned in Merrion Street; it should be immured in Grangegorman during His Majesty's pleasure.
I desire to draw attention to some of the real dangers which we, commercial and industrial people, foresee in connection with this measure. One of the reasons which induce me to refer to these matters is furnished by a paragraph which appears in to-day's Irish Independent. This paragraph says:
Cement also may be specially taxed.
With cement specially taxed, the cost of building will go up.
Supplies may in future come from the Continent.
"May," there, I suppose, means "will."
No definite steps have yet been taken to erect the cement factories mentioned for the Saorstát. The electrical goods which the country will need are likely to be purchased from Germany. British electrical goods are marked down, it is understood, for heavy taxation.
In my own industry, we have been endeavouring to take advantage of the Shannon electrical scheme and we have transformed our plant into electrical plant. We are installing a number of motors and other equipments. Here is an indication of what may happen to us. We have done this on prices which would pay us while the prices which we may have to pay may not suit us at all. It may be an extremely bad investment, although we were doing our best to help on the big electrical scheme of the nation. The paragraph goes on to say
The list prepared by the Government is known to be extensive and may contain some surprises. It was understood last night that all beers and liquors and any other classes of drink imported from Great Britain or Northern Ireland will be heavily taxed.
I am not going to prophesy as to what the Government will do in that respect but it is only fair to draw attention to what is stated in the public Press as to what is proposed to be done. As regards our own industry—the making of whiskey—with which I have been connected for years and years, we fought a battle to get our place on the British market and we have met very kindly treatment indeed at the hands of the British authorities. Our Scotch competitors have, again and again, tried to have full Dominion duties placed upon the spirits of the Irish Free State. The British Customs authorities have refused to do that, stating that the trade of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland in this respect is tied up. We have never yet had penalties placed upon us nor have we been treated as an outside Dominion. Our Scotch competitors are very keen to get the whole of the British market and if the Irish Government put a duty on Scotch spirits which come in here—it is a small matter; the duty on all sorts of spirits is, I think, about £50,000 or £60,000 a year—a countervailing duty will be placed on the spirits we export into Great Britain. We have impressed that at all times on our Government and they agreed that no taxation would be placed on Scotch or British spirits. If such a duty were imposed on our exports, prices are so cut at present that I believe we would have to cut off the whole of our business in Great Britain and close our office there.
Take the other great industry—that of Messrs Guinness. We know that they carry on an enormous business in Great Britain. It is carried on in face of the greatest competition by the Scotch and British brewers.
It is successful against that competition because of its magnificent quality. The products that we send out of that nature do earn their place in the British market by their quality, but price considerations must come in also and if the small quantity of beer —it is not worth talking about because our people in this State in that matter at any rate, consume their own products—but if the Government were foolish enough and I do not believe they are, to put a tax on that small quantity, the whole of the exports of that huge firm as well as those of some smaller breweries which have a fine export business at the present time, would be driven out of that market. That comes back again to our farmers because as much Irish agricultural produce as it is possible for us to use is used in the manufacture of these products. Practically the whole of the barley of Ireland is used by Messrs. Guinness and the other breweries. If that export business of theirs is injured in any way down goes the consumption of Irish grown grain as certain as we are here. We have heard from Senators here of the dangers we are in and the certainty of losses on our cattle trade and our agricultural produce. Here are some of the dangers which are in front of our manufacturers, dangers which must react to the detriment of the unfortunate agriculturist. The Government are entering into a most terribly difficult matter. Here are expressions of public opinion as to how our manufacturers will be hit. I have shown you how these taxes will hit my own firm and we have been trying to do our best to assist Irish enterprise.
I was astonished to hear Senator Foran talking so happily of war. From my personal acquaintance with him I know of no man who is more reasonable in settling difficulties than that same Senator. I was astounded to hear him coming out with such a statement as that he rejoiced at another war. I am sure that is what we might call a bit of public speech, because there is no man with whom I would sooner sit down at the council table to settle difficulties than with the same Senator. I doubt very much if the people down the country have an iota of an idea of the difficulties of what they are entering on. I should not like the idea to get abroad that people who are objecting to this, who are pointing out its dangers, who are taking every step that can be taken to avoid such a horrible state of affairs, are fighting against the interests of the country. Every word we say is prompted by the consideration that we feel positively certain that these things to which I have referred will bring ruin and danger and every kind of abomination to this country.
I think it would be criminal folly of the worst kind for any of us, no matter what our Party affiliations, to pretend that we are not now about to enter upon one of the most crucial wars in which this country has ever been engaged. I must say that I am appalled at the criminal levity with which certain sections here and there are entering upon this terrific struggle. Surely to goodness in this twentieth century there ought to be no rejoicing, no laughter, no light-headedness upon entering a war of any kind! This war, to my mind in any case, is infinitely more terrific than the Black and Tan struggle. You had there all the panoply of war. You had all the grand excitement and the glory which is said to surround certain aspects of war. You had only a very small section of the people involved, but in this war all sections of people, everybody who has anything to sell, everybody who has anything to buy, is right up against it. It comes home to every single fireside. It is no consolation, except consolation of a very lurid kind, to know that suffering will also take place on the other side of the Channel. What I want to do is to add a word of appeal to all here to help the friends of peace on the other side. The Labour Party in Great Britain, true to their traditions, have opposed their own Government, the strongest Government numerically of modern times, in the interests of peace, and they have not been denounced as traitors. We do not look upon them as traitors to England but as the best friends England has because of the stand they have taken. I appeal to everybody here for peace sake, and for the sake of humanity, that they should try to avoid saying or doing anything in the coming weeks that would prevent the reopening of negotiations or make the position more impossible or more difficult than it is.
It is no index at all of what we are going to suffer to read in the paper of resolutions from phantom organisations consisting of four or five people. To-day there is developing in this country and on the other side of the Channel the mentality that swept all the countries of Europe on to the outbreak of the European war. Everybody is either a devil or an angel. If you do not support the cry of war you are a traitor and you must be shouted down. On the other hand, those who object to these methods look upon those who want to urge war as devils incarnate. You are going to have war at home because of these differences and you are going to have war with Britain in addition. On the other side of the Channel the same mentality will prevail; anybody who dares to speak of peace or compromise or a solution or anything that must in the long run settle the struggle, must be denounced as a pacifist, just as pacifists were imprisoned in England during the war, denounced and driven from public life. Yet a few years after the war was over, the leader of the pacifists was made Prime Minister of England by the deluded millions who hounded him out of public life when the war dogs were up. There will be nobody listened to, I am convinced, during the coming weeks except those who say: "Carry on the struggle and intensify it in every possible way." It is going to be a terrible, monotonous struggle, a soul-killing affair. There will be no charges of cavalry, no sudden bursts and glorious fights in the battlefield; it will be a lingering, gnawing fight of exhaustion of the type that wears out a nation without audible sound.
To think that, by admitting this is going to be a terrible thing, one is showing a sign of weakness is all humbug and all bunkum. We are more sure to win in the struggle when we know what the difficulties are and realise them in advance. It is no use to enter such a struggle whistling to keep up our courage. We are going into a grim struggle and let us face it grimly. Simply talking and pretending that everything in the garden is going to be lovely, that everybody will be better off than they previously were, is all humbug. A few weeks ago we passed legislation to subsidise to some extent the sellers of butter, to make the butter consumer pay something here in order that we might sell our surplus stocks cheaper to Great Britain. To-day we are asked to cut away from that policy in regard to our exports. We were either fools a few weeks ago or we are lunatics to-day. The Government are to conduct this affair and they ask us all to stand behind them. The principle of this Bill has been passed by the House, but I appeal to them that, if they wish to get the country around them, they should show all the consideration that is necessary for the people who think they are mistaken.
You will never convince people by bludgeoning, and Ministers have to show more restraint than the Opposition. They will realise that, for they were in opposition themselves. As a trade union official, I know I have to put up with all sorts of abuse and misrepresentation from my members at times. But I make allowance for their lack of knowledge. I cannot turn round and frighten them out and tell them they must obey. I try to get behind them and quietly disarm their forces, and to get them round to my point of view. That would be the better way than letting a lot of back benchers out to try and frighten everybody who disagrees with the Government policy.
I think it would be the greatest calamity if we found people in Great Britain, and people here, absolutely united behind their respective Governments in this matter. There would be no hope for humanity, if the people were found absolutely united in Great Britain, and here, if this is to be a fight to a finish. The whole hopes of the situation are that there are people here who believe this question can be settled on a basis of justice to both sides, and who refuse to say there is no hope of anything but a fight to a finish. We are throwing into the balance about 95 per cent. of our export trade, as against about 6 per cent. of Britain's export trade. We are putting a frightful stake down, and the whole welfare of our people is wrapped up in it. I cannot see that the question of taxes or tariffs is going to be of very much consequence. They cannot last long, at least the trade between the two countries cannot last long, if it is merely retaliation by one side or the other raising taxes higher and higher. What will happen is that the trade between Great Britain and Ireland will cease, and we will have to go elsewhere to buy and sell. Various developments will come out of that. I can see new developments in a few months; the necessity of the Government consulting all parties and setting up a supreme economic council to deal with a situation, or a national Government in a national emergency. We cannot be divided in sympathy with one another if this is to be a fight to a finish. There will have to be united action and counsel in regard to the various developments of the struggle.
I hope the Government will, also, consider the question of the displacement of labour and that if unemployment increases, and there is going to be any advantage got out of tariffs it must not all go to the farmers. The farmers may be hit but there will be casualties among others and their interests should not be overlooked. I hope that the fool statements that we will have more food than we know what to do with will not mislead anybody. "The food is here to-day, why not use it?" That is the sort of statement calculated to make one despair. It shows the failure of certain people to realise the seriousness of the situation. The Government are getting this power, and I hope that Providence will direct them to use it to the best advantage, and that they will do nothing calculated to provoke a further struggle, lest they find themselves in the same position the nations who entered into the Great War found themselves in, namely, that when that war was over it was almost impossible to distinguish between the vanquished and the vanquishers.
I would like to express my agreement with what has been just said by Senator O'Farrell. I expressed my views, with regard to the previous policy of the Government which may have led up to this, on the last occasion, and I do not propose to repeat them now. The debate to-day has been carried on on the assumption that this Bill is going to be used immediately and deliberately for the purpose of retaliation and that whatever war there has been at the moment, is going to be immediately aggravated. That is the assumption on both sides. I agree with Senator O'Farrell that that assumption is a dangerous one and absolutely injurious to this country.
I would like to draw attention to the speeches made, on the last occasion, by the President and Senator Connolly. They assured us, obviously with sincerity, that they considered the powers that were being given them under this Bill were not intended to be used for the purpose of getting some satisfaction by hitting somebody on the other side, and starting a specific retaliatory war, but they considered they required these powers in order to endeavour to minimise the suffering, that would follow the present policy, to the people of this country. So far as they do that they are entitled to the support of everybody, irrespective of whether they are members of this, that or any other Party. I believe to that extent they are going to get it but I think you will find in the situation that may come even if it is as bad as some of us think, or not so bad, everyone here will try to carry on and to minimise the amount of suffering for themselves and other people.
An enormous amount of responsibility is going to be placed upon the Ministry. Senator Jameson referred to rumours and showed some of the immediate dangers. Possibly every one of us here could refer to other rumours, and point out some of the dangers. I believe every person, who has any specific or definite knowledge of any trade, will be perfectly willing irrespective of Party politics to place his information at the disposal of the Government, to enable them, in the powers that they may use under this Bill, to use them in a way that will injure this country the least. I withdraw nothing of what I said of the evil and the folly of going into an economic war. But we have to face the facts as they stand. It seems to me our first duty, and the first duty of the Government, is, as Senator O'Farrell said, to look for opportunities to put an end to these difficulties; and our second duty is to endeavour to see that nothing unduly provocative is carried on, and that everything is done by the Government, and by everybody else, to see that there is as little suffering as possible.
I intended intervening at an earlier stage of the debate, but honestly I was afraid to do so and for this reason: that I might be provoked into making any suggestion that I would afterwards regret. I am very sorry to find the spirit exhibited, I am afraid I must say on all sides, in this debate. I look upon this as one of the most serious crises that has happened in this country, at least during my experience, and it is a pretty long one. I have been mixed up in Irish politics, very closely and intimately, for the last 50 years, and I do resent insinuations, perhaps honestly, but I think not fairly, against people who have formed an honest opinion, that they are helping the British garrison. I have been one of the Irish garrison here for the last fifty years and I challenge anyone to contradict the statement. I have taken an humble part in the fight for freedom. I regret that there should be even a suggestion that people here are supporting the British in opposition to the Irish view-point. I am convinced that this is a great crisis for our country, one that is going to cause destruction to the poor and helpless. I am conscientiously convinced that the Government have not taken the right steps in this crisis. That is my reason for taking the part I have taken. If I was convinced that the Government took the right steps in this fight, no Party ties or anything else would prevent me from taking my stand behind the leaders of the Government. I conscientiously believe that we are on the wrong line, and I agree with Senator O'Farrell that, even at this stage, an effort should be made to save the situation. I hope that we are not so bankrupt a people that we have not someone big enough and honest enough amongst us to make some stand in the interests of peace, before our country is plunged into something worse than what we went through in the days of the Black and Tans, because our helpless people will be in a terrible position.
As one who has been in business for over 50 years, I know what I am talking about, and what the position will be. We have been told that there is plenty of food in the country. Admitted. I ask anyone with the interests of Ireland at heart: what will be the position of the poor, of those in labourers' cottages, or in tenements, people with families of, perhaps, eight or ten children even if there is food available, if they have no money to purchase clothing or to pay rent? Food is not everything. The poor people are going to suffer in this crisis, unless some effort is made to bring the conflicting interests together, even at this late stage, and save the situation. What are farmers, labourers and poor people to turn to if they have not markets for their cattle, pork, fowls, eggs and butter? If they are deprived of the markets they have—and it looks that way— the country will be in a hopeless condition. I might mention that as I was leaving home this morning I was informed that when a small consignment of eggs was sent to the local station for shipment a demand was made that a cheque, certified by the bank, for twenty per cent. of the invoiced price of the consignment should be sent up. Senators can imagine how hard it would be, on poor cottiers, and on those who live partly by the sale of eggs for the support of their families to pay a demand of twenty per cent. What would be left to support their families? I do not intend to go into the merits of the case as I consider there has been already far too much talk about this matter. It is a frightful position for this country to be placed in, and I only intervene to appeal, on the lines suggested by Senator O'Farrell, to have some effort made to bridge over the crisis. I hope that some such step will be taken.
I have been deeply pained by some of the speeches that were made on this Bill in this House, especially at the last meeting. Senator O'Farrell's speech to-day was like a fresh breeze in a very warm and cloudy atmosphere. Many people look upon this war just as they look upon a strike. This is not a strike. It is a war, terrible war, but, war or strike, it must end some day, and the sooner the better for everybody. I am a man of peace, but I prefer military measures that we hear so much about to economic war.
Nonsense.
It is not nonsense. If I am to die I would much prefer to die of clean wounds than to die in an atmosphere of misery and starvation, or to look at my children starving. That is what an economic war means and it should not be forgotten. This Bill is not a bit of use to this country in retaliation for what England has done. I admit that England was wrong in putting tariffs on our produce. England is going to suffer, but we are going to suffer more. Under the Bill tariffs are to be imposed by the Government to prohibit the import of practically everything we get from England. But we have got to sell our produce. We do not grow money here. We send out a certain amount of goods, cattle, sheep, butter, eggs and other things and we get money for them. We cannot continue buying goods very long if we are not able to pay for them. There is no use in telling me that a market will be cut off—a market for 96 per cent. of our produce. By imposing tariffs England cuts off that market. We are told not to buy British goods, not to buy English coal, to buy German coal; not to buy British underwear, but to buy it from Czecho-Slovakia, Poland and Holland. What money are these countries sending to Ireland? How long would that arrangement last? It is going to last only so long as we are able to pay for their goods. Great Britain takes 96 per cent. of our exports, while her exports to us only represent 4 per cent. of her total trade. Who is going to win in an economic war? Of course, I will be accused of backing up England when I mention these things. I never backed up England, and I do not want to do it now. I will back up the poor unfortunate people of both countries who are going to suffer. Farmers and people in the cattle trade—in which I am not greatly interested—give employment. How can they give employment if they cannot carry on their trade?
We will tariff British coal and buy German coal, and whom are we hitting? The miners of South Wales, many of whom are Irish or of Irish descent. These are the people who will suffer. So far as the English Government is concerned, it does not give a snap of its fingers for this thing and will suffer only the comparatively small amount of unemployment which will be caused by this economic war. In the course of this discussion some Senator mentioned about England starting it. It is the usual thing. All the wars of the world that caused so much suffering, misery, death and desolation have given rise to the same question. When the war is over the usual question is: "Who fired the first shot?" It goes back almost to the time of Adam and Eve. It goes back to Cain and Abel. Now it does not matter who fired the first shot. God Almighty in Heaven knows who is responsible and He will hold them responsible, but it is no use wasting time about the question of who fired the first shot. As a matter of fact it is not the man who fires the first shot who starts a war. Wars are started not by shots or bullets but by tongues.
The two people responsible for this war are President de Valera and Mr. J.H. Thomas. When President de Valera got the Press of the world around him in a room in Merrion Street he said: "We will abolish the Oath and withhold the land annuities." Mr. Thomas and Mr. Churchill as well, on the following day made the most ill-considered statement I ever read in my life, coming from people in their position. In reality, it was a case of the President of the Free State riding a high horse and the other two gentlemen pulling the lion's tail. The lion did not frighten us; they understood Ireland very poorly if they thought the lion would frighten us. But when this dispute goes on between the two countries the people of this country and the people of England, Scotland and Wales must suffer. We were told by the President the other day that one of the great advantages of this economic war will be that everybody in this country, even the people who never had enough to eat before, will get plenty to eat now.
I would like to protest; I do not think that is an accurate account at all of what the President said.
I do not want to misquote him.
Well, the Senator has misquoted him, and he is suffering from enough libels already.
What he said was that the people who had not enough to eat before would have enough to eat now. That is my recollection.
Perhaps it would be better not to quote without giving the exact words.
There is plenty of food at present in the country and yet there are people without enough food. To-day a Senator said that potatoes were being sold at 4/- a cwt. That is no price for them at this time of the year. I saw loads of cabbage sold last month for 2/- a load; the ordinary price during the month is 10/- or 12/- a load and notwithstanding that there are people in Dublin without cabbage to eat because the price at which they could get it was too high.
The poor people paid 2d. a head for it.
I know that. As a matter of fact instead of going on with this sort of nonsense, the decent thing for us is to go and proclaim our Republic, cut adrift from England and from the world altogether, get down to growing our own stuff and feeding and clothing ourselves and doing everything else for ourselves. We have got to realise that we cannot import goods except we have an export trade. Our imports cannot go on unless we have exports.
On this very solemn question before the country I think it is proper that anybody who can make any contribution towards its solution should not be silent. The attitude of the Labour Party from the very beginning of the land annuities question is well known. Their position, taken up at the conference held some three years ago, was a denial of the claim of England to those annuities, but an admission of the fact as a bargain had been made by the Government, that in the interests of the welfare of the country, continuity of procedure was advisable in regard to any incoming Government's attitude on any question. The attitude of the Labour Party then was that this question should be open as part of the whole financial relations between Ireland and England. We hold that position still. I do believe that there have been large sums of money wrenched from this country both by the suppression of its industrial efforts in the past and by rack-renting extending over very many years. As a result of these we believe that England owes us very much more than three million or five million pounds a year. What is more, if the Irish people are prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder in voicing those demands, and if they abandon the attitude that has been given expression to for the last few weeks in the Press and on platforms and in both Houses of the Oireachtas, I believe their claim can and will be recognised. I believe that England to-day is not so unjust or so unfair as to continue the perpetration of an economic war, painful in its effects and destructive in its progress to the morale, the character and the well-being of the whole economic situation in both countries. An amount of recriminations and an amount of flippant irrelevancies have been doled out to this House as a remedy for this serious position and as a contribution to its solution. I say that certainly some of the things that have been said here are no credit to those responsible for them.
The question at issue seems, boiled down, to be a very small matter indeed. It is true that a big principle is involved. That is the principle of the selection of the Committee or tribunal if you like which is to arbitrate on this matter. That question has, I think, been fairly dealt with by the representatives of the Government of this country when they stated that they are not desirous that representatives of the Dominions should be excluded from membership of the tribunal. There is a great difference between that attitude and the attitude the Government are supposed to have adopted. The Government are supposed by their opponents to have adopted the attitude that they would exclude members of the Dominions from the chairmanship of this tribunal. They have never suggested that there should be a complete exclusion of Dominion citizens from this tribunal but they object and justly object that the tribunal should be limited to membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations. There should be a world choice, if you like, as to the man who would be responsible for the great task of presiding as chairman over such a tribunal. Their claim is just and fair, and, so far as I have read the opinions of the Imperial Conference, it was never suggested, except as a tentative measure, that the chairman should be confined to members of the British Dominions.
You have not read the report.
In regard to the annuities, it has been suggested that we must go back to 1902 before we are in a position to judge the responsibility of the Irish people for the annuities. Many a chapter has been printed on the pages of Irish history since 1902. The 1902 settlement was in existence when the War of 1916 was launched and I wonder if those who launched that war, or took part in that war, the revolution in this country in 1916, were then of the opinion that the land annuities or the land bonds, or whatever you like to call them, were a just imposition on the people of Ireland. Was it not really one of the platforms of their fight in 1916, and ever since, up to the time that political jealousies and animosities made it otherwise, to get rid of this imposition on the Irish people?
Not at all, never.
To get rid of the imposition on agriculture that dwarfed the growth, dwarfed prosperity and caused most, if not all, of the emigration of the best blood of our people from this country. I would ask those who talk so boldly now about the payment of annuities was not that one of the strong claims they put forward to the Irish people—to get rid of the economic stranglehold that England held on them at the time and continues to hold now? We stand by these people, recognising that 85 per cent. of our people live directly or indirectly by agricultural work; we stand by these farmers who possess the land, in their claim to get rid of this frightful incubus that is hanging around their necks, and that reflects itself in the miserable wage which they can afford to give to their workers throughout the country. We will stand by them, and I hope that the farmers will stand together, notwithstanding what is being said in this House as to the violation of treaties, breaking of contracts and honest brokers.
We have heard England called an "honest broker." I seldom heard that in this House when Land Acts of various kinds were passed. I have never heard from the representatives of the Opposition, until the last six months, that England was the honest broker she is now supposed to be. It is an extraordinary thing that, when trouble arises between this country and England, there are sections still who—with a perfect sense, I believe, of fairness and justice, so far as their vision goes—stand up and say that this country should always be the country to give in. I say that that attitude on the part of those people who have taken it up is the biggest difficulty the present Government have to face in arriving at a solution of this problem, and I say that it is an unfair position to put them into. They helped the first Government of the country, and we, as Labour representatives, helped them, too, because we then thought it was the best thing that could be got. We believe now, and those who criticise the present Government also believe, that a good bargain can be made. They say that the present Government is in a better position to make a bargain than they were. I would ask them if they had any notion of launching themselves into that position with the object of making such a bargain? If they recognise that the present Government is in a position to make a good bargain, it is their duty, instead of criticising them in the way they have criticised them, to stand behind them and to help them to drive that bargain home to its best conclusion.
We realise that there is a big struggle before the country and we realise that those of the working classes will probably be the greatest sufferers in this struggle, but if it is a struggle for Ireland, and I believe it is, and if we have to embark upon it, it will be one of the first times in our history that our eyes have been opened to the possibilities of the resources of this country, to the possibilities of having an industrial side to our nation, to the possibilities of getting out of the position of having all our eggs in the one basket, in which, if the basket is broken, or disaster overtakes the messenger, all is lost, and our lop-sided industrial system will get a shock that will put it on its feet. Although the workers may be the greatest sufferers as they always have been when a war arises, we can say for the workers that we do not believe they will whine. Suffering is the badge of their tribe. They have suffered and the suffering of recent years has possibly been as great as it has been in many years of our country's history. With 80,000 unemployed and possibly much more than that at the present moment, these people are inured to suffering and they will not shirk suffering. I believe that if they are convinced, as time will convince them, that their suffering is in the cause of the general welfare, in the cause of the greatest good of the greatest number, they will not be the first to throw in the sponge.
We deplore the launching of this fight, and we deplore the condition of mind of politicians who cannot agree, around the conference table, and before this struggle, to a settlement of this very vital question. A settlement will have to be arrived at some day. Will the settlement come only when passions are embittered, when sufferings have been endured for months, or for, perhaps, longer? To find two nations, side by side, that should live as brothers and co-operate with each other in the great cause of civilisation, in the strangle-hold of an economic war in this twentieth century is a situation that the ordinary citizen cannot understand. Is it politics gone mad that, on the question of one individual, who will possibly be little more than a figurehead, war should be launched and that sufferings should be endured? I would plead with those in a responsible position to make a final effort to have these differences adjusted before the suffering comes, but I would say, at the same time, that, if the fight is forced on them, I believe they will have the ranks of Labour behind them in their struggle.
I am more or less reluctant to enter into this debate when so many speeches have already been made and when the pros and cons of the situation and the views of the different speakers have been very clearly put forward. Senator O'Farrell has made a statement in regard to this controversy here, the sentiments of which appeal very much to me.
That is, that as far as my point of view is concerned, I do not believe in the kind of war statements that are more or less being put forward of making this fight one to the bitter end. I believe that it is quite possible, if there was any spirit of forbearance or mutual confidence in one another, and if certain bits of pride—which are bound to occur in such disputes—were to be put away, that quite an honourable arrangement could be come to by which it would be possible to make this case a perfect settlement without the economic war that is threatened. Anyone who lives in the country, and who has to deal with the cattle industry and the live-stock trade generally, as I have, has a dread of what the consequences of this economic war will be —and, indeed, of what they are at the present moment. Even this very week, and this very day, it is quite obvious that the country will have to suffer and that it is heading directly for bankruptcy if the conditions do not change. It cannot go on. We cannot live, if things go on as they are going. At present, the people are frightened of even offering cattle for sale. It is more or less to be said in favour of the position that it has happened at a particular time of the year when people are not in a very great state of hunger and that they can afford to keep their cattle in the hope that a settlement will take place. That is all that can be said. With all the earnestness at my command, I appeal to the Government to use every endeavour to bring about a settlement honourable to both parties. If they do that, they will be conferring one of the greatest benefits that could be conferred on this country. It is practically impossible to emphasise the great danger and misery and the trouble that are looming ahead. Even in County Kildare there is already a threat of some of our big establishments being closed down and unemployment is taking place to a very large extent. This uneasiness, or fear, is likely to take a very strong course, and it is possible that unless there is some reassurance given, and that the people of the country can realise that there is not going to be an upheaval or a disturbance of the kind that is foreshadowed, the people who are giving large employment will find it impossible to hold on—between the rates and taxes and income tax and all the rest of it. People in these large establishments, such as the National Stud and other kindred institutions for horse breeding, and the people responsible for the Horse Show at Ballsbridge, of which we are all so proud, will find it impossible to carry on and it will result in a serious loss to Ireland. In consequence of this, I appeal to the Government to explore every possible channel to bring these things to a settlement.
There has never been in my memory —and I have a long experience—anything approaching this in the way of a calamity to the country, if it is to be presevered in; and it will lead to a loss that will take generations to recover from. There is no possibility of these people getting any chance of being reassured of getting into the stride of industry again, unless some arrangement is come to. I hope, and I believe, that there is intelligence enough in our Government—they are not short of ability—to bring this matter to a conclusion that will be satisfactory to everybody. Everyone agrees that a settlement is essential, and will be glad to co-operate in bringing about such a settlement. The situation and the danger that is looming before the country is more serious than words can express.
I did not expect that we would have had a réchauffé of all the arguments and debating points made, considering the debate that took place on Monday. I would like to point out as I go along, as quietly and calmly as possible, the position in view of the statements made. I would like to take up the various points raised by various Senators on the matters that occurred to them as being deserving of discussion here. I had to remind the House on last Monday, following the course of the debate, that this fight was not precipitated by us—that a 20 per cent. tariff was imposed because we decided that until Britain had proved her claim, legally and morally, to the land annuities, we would not pay. The money was accordingly withheld. It was kept, and it is being kept, in a suspense account, pending a decision of that. We want to be clear on that issue first. To listen to the speeches in this House, and to listen to the speeches in the other House, one would have imagined that the Government in power here had, over night, assumed dictatorial powers and told the people that they had decided to withhold these annuities. That is not so.
Says you!
If the gurglings of that gentleman in the back seat do not cease I will refuse to continue. I sat here listening to the most dreary piffle and the most obnoxious type of speech from the gentleman in question. I did not interrupt him nor has any member of my Party interrupted him. And I claim the same rights. One realises that one has to listen to Senators like Senator Milroy.
Senator Douglas struck what I might say was a hopeful note in the course of this debate. He pointed out that if the Government felt, in all the circumstances, that they required certain powers, then the duty devolved on the Oireachtas to give them those powers. We went a long way to-day, not only as a gesture, but as a matter of principle, to make it possible, by the acceptance of the recommendations which I accepted to-day, to clearly indicate that we wanted no autocratic powers. It was made clear that the Oireachtas had full control over the Executive, within certain limits, during the recess. Senator Douglas intimated that in the conflict such powers as we claimed were necessary in view of the imposition of the tariffs imposed by the British administration. I want to protest, however, against the whole atmosphere that is continuously being thrown into this whole subject—that we are aggressors in this. That is not the truth. The question of the land annuities was definitely, and without question, an issue at the last election, just the same as the Oath was an issue. It has been a continued line of policy with us that these land annuities should not be paid. We did not claim that we could withhold them indefinitely, but we did say—and we say to-day—that until England proves her claim before a fair tribunal, or in a fair court, we are not going to give up this money which is essential to the well-being of our people.
We heard a good deal to-day about the position of the poor. It is one of the regrettable things that in this House above all places one cannot keep an issue clean-cut. Senators deliberately obscure the issues. It may not be consciously; it may be their type of mind; but, deliberately or otherwise, issues are obscured and red herrings are drawn across the trail. We are fully conscious of our responsibilities to the poor, and when we speak of the poor we mean all the poor there are, for instance, the poor small farmer. He may not be in a state of starvation; he may have food for his children; he may even be able to clothe his children and send them to school, but relatively he is poor. This £3,000,000 is one of the big causes that is keeping him poor, and the economy established by the last administration is the other main cause that is keeping him poor. I say here, deliberately that there was no consciousness of social philosophy behind any activity of the last Government. We do not need to come into this House to be taught what we ought to do in regard to the poor. When we come into this House, when we put up proposals which are deliberately designed for the plain people—and they are in the main poor in this country— we think that we should get support to try and carry such ameliorative measures as will make the people of the country at least less poor than they are now.
I should like to ask the Seanad if they consider it the duty of the Government to yield, and to yield, and to yield all the time. Is it a highwayman's threat we are going to be subjected to every time we want to do it? Was there any doubt in the minds of the last Government that they were entitled to hold these annuities? Senator Sir John Keane has made certain references. I do not want to impart any bitterness into this dispute. This is a national issue. It is a question of whether the people can afford to pay the tribute that is being exacted from us at the present time at the dictation of Mr. Thomas and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. Can we afford to pay it? Are we liable to pay it? What has been our approach? We will take up Senator Sir John Keane on his issue. If there was a clear legal indication that the Free State was liable to pay this £3,000,000, I want to ask again, and I am almost tired asking, why was the 1923 document marked secret? Why was Deputy Blythe not in a position to face the Dáil and the people of the country openly with that agreement? Remember that was only disclosed within the first few weeks after we came into power. Now that is fundamental. Senator Milroy may shake his head. There is no getting behind that fact.
Which fact?
That it was marked secret and kept secret, and that it is on our files.
Talk sense.
It is sense, and it is true. I want to convey to the House that we definitely have on our files appeals from Deputy Blythe and from the Government asking them on no account to publish it. If Senator Milroy is in any doubt whatever about it, let him come round to the office and we will show him the files.
Keep the files. Why did you not mention that in the Dáil?
It was mentioned in the Dáil.
I would ask the Minister not to be addressing the Senator.
That was mentioned in the Dáil. It was challenged in the Dáil and the challenge was not accepted. Senator Milroy probably was not in Dublin at that time. We want to know why that document was kept secret. We want to know why, on coming into power, a secret document, which is the only argument that Mr. Thomas attempted to base his case on, was presented to us as the reason why the land annuities must be paid. So far so good. Senator Sir John Keane says that we are creating the impression that no fair-minded people are to be found in the Commonwealth. Nothing of the sort; we have no such illusion. I want to point out that when the recommendation from the Imperial Conference was reached it was clear and definite that the statesmen who devised that machinery declared themselves against rigidity and affirmed that they were only making a recommendation about the tribunal in order to facilitate resort to it. We have been a member of the League of Nations. We have taken part in its conferences. None of the Opposition ever suggested that we had no right to go there. They themselves defended measures here on behalf of the League of Nations and everything else. No, it must be as Mr. Thomas says, and because President de Valera says we claim a right to go outside the Commonwealth for a tribunal, then the President is a blackguard and Mr. Thomas is a gentleman, and Senator Milroy and his friends commend that.
Senator MacLoughlin intimates that a good bargain can be reached and a good bargain can be achieved. Why did he not go further and tell us the nature of the bargain? Why did he not when for ten years he was in close association with the late administration, suggest how that good bargain should be made? Deputy McGilligan, formerly Minister for External Affairs and Minister for Industry and Commerce, one of the only brilliant men in the last administration, admittedly a brilliant man, one of the ablest men this country ever had, one of the best brains it ever had, was at all these conferences. Why did he not make this good settlement during all the period he has been operating? Was it because he might have been looked upon as a victory for Ireland? Was it because he did not want to offend the statesmen on the other side? Was it this awful spirit that Ireland must show submission to the great John Bull on all occasions? I want to know, when this bargain is talked about—it has been talked about in the other House; the former Minister for Agriculture referred to the great bargain that we could get—what is it? Why was it not got?
Senator Jameson, for whom I have the greatest respect as an industrialist and as an Irishman, who, I know, wants to see this country doing well, talks about the displacement of trade and the ruin that is going to be begotten of this trouble. What we want in this country is peace. What is more, the one Government that could have established peace was the Government that came in. The fact cannot be disputed that we have had peace, and peace without an Emergency Act, such as the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act. We want peace, but at what point are we to draw the line? Mr. Thomas puts a pistol at our head and says: "You must submit to what I say. You must submit to the tribunal I give you." The next step would be that Mr. Thomas would name the whole tribunal. The next step might be that Mr. Thomas might put up a proposition about the exaction from this country of a contribution to the army and navy. Anything might happen if you get on the run like that. Senator Jameson will appreciate, as a business man, that you must draw the line somewhere.
There is a more vital thing in it than that. There is the question of the whole national position and the whole international position. If it is thought that we can go down on that, that there is no point at which we must draw the line and stand up for our rights, then the idea of calling this an Irish Free State is absurd. I quite reconcile myself to the view that we are a subject people or to the mentality that says we are a subject people, that we are not able to govern ourselves, that we are not in a position to do it; but I cannot see eye to eye with the person who wants it both ways. Either we are a free people or we are not. Either we have the right to exercise judgement over the well-being, the welfare of our people and the government of our people and to decide what is the right thing to do, or there is no sense in having this or the other House and we had better have the Union again and decide to send our representatives back to Westminster. In my opinion, that is the logical way of thinking. I want to say that without any feeling of bitterness or bad manners.
It has been suggested that every effort should be made to secure peace. It has been suggested that we should go all out in order to have this dispute settled at any price. Short of complete surrender to the Thomas dictum, we have gone to the very limit of what could be done. I said here last Monday, and I say it again to-day, that President de Valera went across representing the Executive Council in order to see if any way out could be found. I will also say that Prime Minister MacDonald, who has just arrived from Lausanne where he had preached peace for the world and had held out his hands to America in order to be released from his obligations, met President de Valera with a non possumus attitude. Short of surrender, can anyone suggest what more could be done? At what point are we to draw the line?
Many points were raised by Senator Counihan, Senator Miss Browne and Senator Staines. Taking them all in all, I think those points have been covered by what I have said. Senator Toal explains the terrible drawback, the aftermath, of the imposition of a 20 per cent. tariff. We appreciate that. We know it and we know the position of labourers in this country. We are anxious for their welfare and we will make up our minds that in this crisis, if drastic measures have to be taken for the economy of the country, there will be a fair deal all round; there will be nobody profiteering and other people going hungry. We will take every care that, in so far as lies in our power, and with the co-operation of all parties, the people will be fed.
We do not welcome this thing. We are far more worried about it, perhaps, than some of the people who are sitting here and who can forget it when they go out. We have a full sense of our responsibilities. We want to urge and to maintain that this is part of our programme and part of our mandate and we do not intend, in the operation of the powers that this Bill gives us, to do anything more than protect our own people. There is no spirit of vindictiveness going to operate in anything done under this measure; but there will be a spirit of self-respect and self-preservation and a spirit of no surrender on the vital principles that we stand for. That is not an antagonistic attitude. It is a matter purely of defensive tactics. We are going to pursue these tactics in the carrying out of this measure.
I thought all this matter was covered last Monday, but it would seem that the speeches to-day were more or less a repetition of what was then said. Some of to-day's speeches have been helpful, but most of those who spoke in opposition have not been helpful. We have to take the position as we find it and act accordingly. I can assure the House that so far as any spirit of vindictiveness or war fever or war mentality is concerned, no such thing is behind our operations at the present time. We feel that the people are involved in a big issue. We are going to ask the people in this House and outside it to stand together with us. We want all to stand together so that we may win a decision in connection with the principle involved and also the money that is involved.
I merely rise to enter an emphatic protest against the statements of some of the gentlemen who are supporting the Government in this matter. They have suggested that those of us who differ from the Government must necessarily be acting in the interest of another country. It would be just as reasonable for us to inquire: Who is really going to make a profit if this war is to be carried on? Do we not all know it will be Holland, Denmark or Canada? Would it not be quite as fitting for us to say that the Government supporters in this issue are acting in the interests of these countries and not in the interest of Ireland as it would be for them to say that we are acting in the interest of England? They know perfectly well that that is not true. I firmly believe there is not a Senator in this House who is not in every way anxious for the progress of Ireland and who takes very little interest in the progress of any other country. The sooner we all realise that the better it will be for the country and for the deliberations of our assembly here.
There are one or two little things I would like to say. Personally, I am a man of peace. Poison-mad, pig-headed fighting never appealed to me. Before we go into any quarrel we are entitled to point out, those of us who are old and who have, perhaps, experience, the terrible things that may occur. If this course is persisted in we are entitled to point to the probable consequences. Has it occurred to any of you that the object of our country is eventually to get the North to come in with us? Is it likely to encourage the North to join up with us when they find that the agricultural produce in the Six Counties commands a better price than ours does? We have been told that the English people will pay all the 20 per cent. that is put on by way of tariff.
On Thursday last a number of Cork merchants chartered a ship. They loaded her down to the gunwale with Irish produce. They sent her across the Channel, and she was to get to Liverpool by a certain time so that Customs officers would be present to accept the cargo. I regret very much what happened, because every one of the merchants who sent goods by that boat are friends of mine. Unfortunately, the boat missed the tide. I now understand that these merchants are contemplating launching an action against the steamship company. I have not the slightest interest in that company, because it is an English company. The merchants are contemplating an action for the damage caused to them by reason of the fact that they will have to pay the duties on the stuff going into England. I want peace. At the same time, if, rightly or wrongly, we are involved in war, I feel that we ought to say to the Government that merely telling the country that everybody will be fed and that food will be cheap is a very dangerous game. We ought to remember what happened in Russia. I am not an authority on what happened in Russia. I am merely quoting what I admit is a very unreliable authority—the newspapers of the day. The Russian Government ordered all their farmers to produce to the capacity of their farms but stated that anything beyond what they required for themselves would be commandeered by the Government for the rest of the community. We all know what happened. The greatest famine of modern times was the result. It is wrong for the Government to impress upon our farmers that food will be going for nothing. The Government have not offered a single suggestion as to where a new market can be found for anything. Personally, I do not think they have such a project to put before us.
It appears that we shall have to go to Germany for our coal. We shall have to pay for that. If we get £80 for butter which would be normally worth £100 on the English market, we shall have to pay for the coal we import from Germany with that £80, because I believe we will not be able to export any of our produce to Germany. Remember, German money is 25 per cent. more valuable than the money here, so that we shall have to pay Germany £100 for £50 worth of coal. That is not a pleasant prospect. There is another point of which we may lose sight. That is, that the coal we get may not suit a large number of the factories in this country. I have been told that it will probably, if not certainly, mean the closing down of Ford's factory. I have no hesitation in telling the House of that. I do not feel that I am, in the least, giving England encouragement to carry on the fight. The Englishman knows more of the strength of his position, or the weakness of our position, than I can tell him. We have to look at the matter from our own point of view. I am afraid that food will be cheap but there is only one way to remedy that situation. That is, to urge on our people to produce all the food that they possibly can. Our minds are, of course, upset by the fact that this is a sort of war. But we were always open to this risk—that the markets of the world might have sunk by 20 per cent. In those circumstances—regrettable as they would be—would we put up our hands and say we were beaten? I personally would not. I believe that we have got to carry on. We have got to put heart and strength into the people, as far as possible. I firmly believe that if the Government has to embark on this project—which I thoroughly disapprove of—their best method would be not to discourage the production of food but to impress upon everybody that it is necessary for themselves as well as for the rest of the community that they should work as hard as possible. They should try and divert the labour of the people from the roads to the reclamation of land. There is, I believe, a substitute which can be produced here for maize. It is not a perfect substitute but by the use of it the importation of maize could be greatly reduced. It is also quite on the cards that by the production of further vegetables the importation of wheat might be somewhat reduced. At all events, it seems to me that the course the Government are taking in talking of feeding the hungry, and all that sort of thing, is very wrong. If they have to fight this matter through, their one hope is to encourage people to grow more, because we all know that, after the first week or two, we will have to continue in the old market at a reduction of 20 per cent. About that, I think, there is very little doubt.
Not twenty per cent.
I shall say fifteen per cent.
What about prejudice?
I am leaving prejudice aside because that is not a thing that is tangible. It is very serious, I believe, but one cannot put a market value on it. I believe that it is in that direction the Government should utilise its energies in the campaign they have embarked upon—a campaign which, I must emphatically say, I sincerely regret.
I want to make an emphatic protest at the absence from the House of any Government spokesman at this stage of the Bill. After indulging in various personal attacks on Senators and thinking, no doubt, that he was giving expression to the authoritative views of the Government, Senator Connolly walked out and left the Government unrepresented in this Assembly by any responsible member.
There are a couple of responsible members here.
This the first time I heard that the Government personnel had been expanded to take in a few of the back benchers of the Fianna Fáil Party.
We feel quite competent.
It is comforting to know—when Senator Connolly evacuated his position I suppose he was rather apprehensive as to what the reply to his personal references to me would be—that Fianna Fáil speak with a single mind in this House.
It is somewhat different elsewhere. We are faced with a situation where the whole fate and existence of this country is going to be thrown into jeopardy, where it is regarded as a light matter that this should be done and that anyone who attempts to voice an expression of deprecation of the policy that has led to this, is being branded as a spokesman of British interests. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs went out of his way to try to indict me as such in this House to-day. I can tell Senator Connolly and the Party that he stands for that when there was a challenge between this nation and Britain I was in the ranks with a rifle. I do not know where Senator Connolly was. He took a part in the picturesque aftermath. That is the only part I know he ever took in any serious crisis in the fate of this State. Speaking on Monday when this Bill was being circulated, I said that we should have had a medical certificate as to the mental state of members of the Executive Council. I thought that that was regarded as a piece of rhetoric or a rhetorical statement but, however, Senator Connolly proves the necessity for some such document. He said that the Government have a full sense of their responsibility. That may be so but I should like this House and the Oireachtas to have a full sense of their irresponsibility and their lack of understanding.
What is the real need of this country at the present time? We are faced with this perplexing situation, that at a moment when the various peoples of the world realise that their economic stability is dependent upon the security of markets, the Government has sent a delegation to Ottawa trying to secure some continuation of the markets we have. While that delegation is there, those who represent the Government or the Free State at home seem to have embarked upon a definite and determined effort to try to destroy the one market we have for our export trade. If that is the policy of the present Government, they certainly selected a fitting representative to convey to the Dominions representatives in Ottawa what the policy and the outlook of the present Government are. The leader of that delegation to Ottawa is Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly. These are the words, the weighty words of wisdom, to secure the advance of our inter-Dominion trade, delivered by Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly in the Dáil on 16th July, 1931:
"What interests have we in common with Australia, Canada, New Zealand or South Africa? Considered economically, some of them are our greatest competitors in the produce market. Our interests, speaking not at all politically, are very far apart from those of those Dominions or Colonies with which we have co-equal status. We have very little common interest with any of them. It would probably be better for us economically to be dissociated from them and be as far apart from them as possible."
That is the statesman who has been sent abroad to try to express the Free State policy to the other members of the Commonwealth.
One reason why I am sorry that Senator Connolly deserted his post is that I have also an extract from Senator Connolly's pronouncements about the same time that is very pertinent to this matter. This is what Senator Connolly said:
"I hold we jeopardise our moral position by our activities in connection with Imperial and Commonwealth Conferences. We give away our position by having anything to do with the Imperial forces that combine to make up the British Empire."
I do not know whether the moral position about which the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was so concerned has been seriously shaken by the wild, loose adventure of his colleague Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly. It certainly will be interesting to the people in Ottawa when they read of Deputy O'Kelly's declaration that we want a bigger share of Empire trade, which I think he made the other day, to look back on his pronouncement in the Dáil on 16th July, last year. This may seem to be bringing in something that is not very relevant but the reason I mention it at all is this, that there are bigger issues behind this Bill which we are dealing with to-day than those which are embodied in the Bill itself. It stands as representative of a certain policy that has been deliberately embarked upon by the present Government, not of building up the nation. We have heard all these fine, flowing words about what is to be done for the welfare of the poor. I say the people who exercise the functions of government in the Saorstát are using the poor as pawns in the political game. They are trying to drive back this country into a state of war and destruction and for what reason? Simply to justify the foolish lunatic stand taken by their leader ten or eleven years ago, we are asked to rally behind that policy. We are asked to close our ranks to rally behind the Government that is bringing this country to a condition of more dire peril and greater danger than it has ever been faced with since the Act of Union was passed.
May I ask a question —can we afford to continue the payment of five millions out of this country?
Is that a point of order?
Can we afford to pay five million a year and survive?
That is what the lawyers call a leading question. To reply to that would open up a very big argument upon the whole merits of the case.
[The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.]
Answer the straight question.
Sure. I am not afraid of your question at all. Your representatives are basing their present claim on the ground that you cannot afford to pay.
I am asking a question; can we afford to pay and survive?
The Senator informed us at an early stage that he and his colleagues represented the Government. I say that if they based their claim upon the grounds that the country could not afford to pay, they might have some chance of getting away with it. But they never made that claim. I make this challenge to anyone who claims to be an authority on this question: The land annuities were never State revenue; the land annuities were never transferred to Saorstát Eireann by the Act of 1920 and the land annuities were never part of the English public debt. I say, if you are basing your claim upon the legal ground, you have not a leg to stand upon, and the only ground, upon which your case might be arguable, is this: that world conditions have so depressed agricultural conditions in Saorstát Eireann that the standards by which the land annuities were originally fixed have ceased to be operative and that a review of these is necessary. That, and that alone, is the ground upon which you could hope for any reconsideration of the case. But that is a basis of claim which has never been put forward. You have claimed on legal grounds and, now, Senator MacEllin throws aside the claim on legal grounds and asks: can we afford it?
Most certainly not. I asked a question and I wanted an answer "yes or no."
Is it in order for one Senator to put questions to another across the floor?
Senators must address the Chair.
My reply is this: that Senator MacEllin has put forward, as the basis of action for his Government, a plea which is letting down his own Government. I cannot see that there is any use in my following out the line of Senator MacEllin's question. I do not intend to detain the House at much greater length, but before I finish I would like to strike this note. We find ourselves in the position of sending this Bill back to the Dáil for further consideration——
I was under the impression that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was scheduled to wind up this debate. He is not here. Is the debate, like Tennyson's brook, to go on for ever?
I am allowing the Senator in possession to continue.
I too thought the Minister was going to wind up the debate. Before this Bill leaves the Seanad, and goes back to the Dáil, I want to say that the whole faith and fortunes of this State are at the moment in jeopardy. Are the people of this State, as a whole, going to remain still while their interests are made playthings and toys of politicians? Are they, like so many hypnotised rabbits, going to drift to destruction with a chance of finding themselves in a morass of chaos and confusion and disaster without a single word of protest? The people in this State are a sovereign people. They have, and will have, the last word to say in this matter. When Senator Connolly spoke of a mandate that his party got from the people I say they never got any mandate for this or any other kind of war. If they got any mandate at all it was a mandate to carry on the ordinary functions of administration and government. They have produced a situation so deadly in its menace to this country that I think no citizen of the State can contemplate the future of Ireland without the deepest and gravest apprehension. That is what is felt abroad about it. That is their contribution to the welfare of this State. That is what they ask us to rally to, and to close up our ranks and to stand behind the men who produced that condition wantonly and deliberately. I say the citizen who gives his support to that policy is acting falsely to the best interests of Ireland, and it is to strike this note that I stood up here to-day. We, who are opposed, in the present crisis, to the policy of the Government, are not opposing the Government or their policy in the interests of England. We stand for Ireland's rights and real interests and we are prepared to discuss this matter with the people at any time the present Government cares to take the issue to the people.
