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.