I feel that I am somewhat at a disadvantage in trying to deal with all the points that were raised, as we have had a very long and somewhat rambling discussion on this whole subject. I appreciate what Senator Johnson said just now, but I am afraid that however much I agree with him on principle, and however much I dislike the trend that frequently operates in this country as regards the development of antagonisms and the rest, I have to remember that there are very definite reasons for such antagonisms. I have tried, by abstention from debate, by being logical in so far as my mentality would allow, and by treating everything on its merits in this House, to approach matters on their merits. We are dealing here with a proposal in connection with an agreement which has been reached on a partial exchange of commodities between two countries. If in dealing with that, I have to refer to certain things that one might say belong to historical background, I am only doing it so that something like a full perspective of the whole issue may be clear to members of the House and to the public generally. I will be as brief as possible. This trade agreement is the type of trade agreement that operates between normal countries, between countries that have no wars, economic or otherwise. In entering into a trade agreement with another country the negotiators have to remember that the country with which they are going to deal is out to get the best possible bargain it can; and in turn, they are out to get the best possible bargain for their particular country. In so far as this represents a specific agreement between two countries — rather I should say between a nation and an empire — then I think it is all to the good, because it emphasises and lays stress on the fact that it is possible, in spite of all that Mr. Thomas said, to have negotiations between this country and Great Britain. The agreement specifically, in so far as it is humanly possible, is on a 50-50 basis. Certain commodities of which we have a surplus are being exchanged for certain commodities which we need, and it is stressed that this agreement was made entirely without prejudice to any of the rights which we have already put before not only our own people but the British people and the world in general.
I certainly — and I make no apology for my attitude — will not agree to yield on the main political issues — what I call national issues as between this country and Great Britain. We know that the British market is a most valuable market. The whole world knows that. We know that it is our most convenient market and we are anxious to get the maximum of trade from it. We are going to get the maximum trade from that market but we must get it with a recognition of our rights and a recognition of our national dignity. We have to recognise, and we have recognised the fact, that if you are held up against a wall and your pocket rifled, or that if a burglar comes along and holds you up at the point of a gun that he has superior force and occasionally you have to yield or go under.
That is the position this country has been held in. That is the position which the British still hope to hold. Let us be quite frank about that. It is our job to make the best of the position. Senator Johnson does not like the term "economic war." Neither do I. I do not like the word "war" at all if we can get away from it. We have our opinions on that. There has been a major feud between this country and Great Britain, and as far as the British are concerned the imperial policy demands that we should be held down and put "where we belong" in their estimation. Senator Blythe and other Senators realised that many years ago, and I do not think they have had any experience in the intervening period that would change their view on that issue. I would like, before stressing any other aspect, to emphasise that in making this agreement, or in making any agreement with Great Britain, we do not deny that we might have to yield, but we are not yielding one iota of what we believe to be our fundamental right, and what we believe to be our position. We cannot yield that, because, as Senator Johnson said, we have a definite mandate from the people.
Senator Baxter made a very moving appeal with regard to all co-operating from the point of view of national progress and co-operating in a national way. I made that appeal from the beginning of the economic conflict between Britain and this country early in 1932. I am not going to rake up all that transpired. We know how that was met. I will summarise it in one phrase by saying that the main political support, the main propaganda support that Britain got in the early stages of this conflict was supplied by the Oireachtas, by the Opposition in this House and in the other House. Senator Baxter referred to the attitude that was adopted when Mr. Snowden made his declaration on behalf of Great Britain, that they were not going to pay a certain £3,000,000. All the Parties in Britain rallied to Mr. Snowden. What was the attitude here? Mr. Thomas, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Mr. Churchill and all the rest could not make as moving an appeal in defence of the British attitude as was made in this country by the Opposition. I am a believer in unity. I believe in co-ordination of all effort in this country, but you can only get co-ordination if people are willing to stand by their rights as a principle, and not on the basis of yielding, as yielding took place in the past. Senator Baxter concluded on a note of hope for future relationships between the two countries. Let me make this quite clear; the present Government has no antipathy to the British people. Neither has it any antipathy to the British Government. We are anxious and willing to be friendly, and we believe that in the natural order of things there should be friendship between the two countries. The President of the Executive Council has stressed that in all his statements. But that friendship can only be based as a friendship of equality — as friendship between two Governments. One could hold a right and could hold out for what he believed to be right. Remember that in the annuities discussion we have not yielded to them on the legal or the moral issue, and I think there we have been backed up by a very substantial volume of opinion on the other side. I do not agree with some speakers who suggested that we had a bad legal case. On the contrary, the leading jurists in Britain have held that by virtue of the fact that the Agreement of 1923 was neither ratified nor confirmed by the Oireachtas that Agreement is null and void.
That brings me to the whole question of the agreement. There are certain Senators in the House who have vivid recollections of the discussion that took place on the annuities debate. Our present Cathaoirleach, to his credit be it said, raised this issue in this House and wanted to have a frank discussion. Senator Blythe, who was then Minister for Finance, and who sits here now, refused to allow such a discussion to take place. He indicated that he would not attend. I have not all his exact words, but he said:
"As a matter of fact I would not attend at the Committee if it had been appointed... No papers would be submitted by the Government and no information would be given to the Committee."
Sometimes when reflecting on Senator Blythe's talk some years ago about dictatorships and the rest, I wondered how he once interpreted that attitude in this House. We heard Senators refer to this agreement of ours as a secret agreement. It was only made within the last ten or 14 days, yet it was before the Dáil last week and it is here now. I know perhaps better than most people Senator Blythe's beginnings in this matter. I have known him for many years. I have very definite recollections of his attitude in 1923. Senator Blythe's attitude then was that the only cure for anyone who did not agree with the Government was to get out of the country, because there would be no living here. That was the mentality of Senator Blythe then, and it is nauseating to come here to listen to the type of appeal he makes now. Personally I was ordered out of the employment of a certain concern in this city at the order of Senator Blythe, simply because I had the hardihood to sit as chairman of the reorganised Sinn Fein in 1923. That is the mentality of the man who is now pleading with his tongue in his cheek. I would not like this Seanad to disappear without mentioning that matter. What are the facts about the secret agreement? He, more than anyone, was responsible for the last Executive not making it public; he, more than anyone, was responsible for not bringing it to the Dáil, and he, more than anyone else, was responsible for the Seanad being refused an opportunity to discuss it. To the credit of the Seanad at the time, it was only on the casting vote of Lord Glenavy that an inquiry was not held. My only regret is that the present Cathaoirleach, who was then a rank-and-file Senator, like ourselves, did not insist in making public the terrible position that the country was being launched into. I say decidedly now that the day that the economic conflict or war, or whatever it is called, started was the day that Senator Blythe prevented the Oireachtas discussing the 1923 agreement.
We were the inheritors of this position. We have no regrets whatever for our attitude in our inheritance. We decided we would not pay these moneys. That is our position to-day. The present Government will go out of office before yielding on this issue. We are not unconscious of the difficulties of the farmers. We have not been unconscious of them. We have taken every step possible within the reasonable economy of this country to enable the country as a whole to weather this storm. We have had to weather storms before. Some Senator referred to the conscription crisis. Many of us remember 1916. Senator Blythe remembers 1916. Many of us remember the Black and Tan period. We all remember these things, and the country did not yield then. I am satisfied that the big bulk of the people will not thank anyone for expressing a desire to yield on their behalf now. What is more, I am satisfied that the people are determined and would give an increased mandate to-morrow for a continuance of the right to withhold these annuities and the other moneys. I do not want to labour the question and to go back to the whole of the 1923 position, but there is one quotation I would like to give, and it arises out of what was discussed in the Dáil. Deputy Costello referred there to the fact that President Cosgrave in 1923 had made the position clear about the annuity payments. This is what happened. Having explained that the question was brought on without notice, Deputy Cosgrave said:
"This Estimate is one which is concerned solely with accounting transactions as to which no controversy can arise, and I hope that Deputies will accept the Estimate and enable us to make the payment. The Estimate deals with purchase annuities under the existing Land Acts. The law provides that these annuities be collected by the Government of Saorstát Eireann."
Senator Wilson will remember that he then intervened in the debate. He was then Deputy Wilson and he raised a very vital question, whether only the annuities collected were being paid, or whether there was anything from the Central Fund. Deputy Cosgrave then became less vague and referred to the recent negotiations which took place in England. He said:—
"We came to a provisional arrangement which binds us, or in which we accepted liability for the payment of a certain sum pending a settlement—"
Mark you, " a settlement."
"regarding the major question.
That sum in all amounts to £160,000 over and above the amounts we will get in annuities. We considered at the time it was a fair bargain."
This is the important part:
"It does not prejudice us or make weaker our case and it leaves open the question of the ultimate settlement of the difference between the actual sum collected of the Land Commission annuities payable to us here and the actual outgoings in order to provide interest on the land stock and sinking fund."
I do not want to labour the question unduly. But we have had close on four years' talk with regard to the responsibility for continuance of the economic conflict and we have to get at the root of it. The root of it was in the alleged agreement which Mr. Blythe would not allow to be published or used in evidence in court without having portion of the document covered up. If those are not the facts of the case, I should like to know what the facts are.
I do not think that the other points raised call for reply. I understand and sympathise with Senator Wilson's viewpoint. He is quite right in saying, as Senator Johnson has emphasised, that there is a political issue involved. The agreement, in short, aims at the disposal of a certain surplus commodity which we have and which we are in a position to exchange for certain commodities which the British want to sell to us. Whether that can be improved upon later and whether we can further extend it, is a matter for future consideration. I should like, again, to stress that we have no enmity in this matter. Some people imagine that Ministers sit down brooding and squirming against Britain and everything British. We have something else to do. We have a duty in this matter. That is, not to sell out to the British as a sale was effected before. If the people want a Government which will sell out to them they can get it, but they are not going to get us to do it. That is my attitude, the attitude of the Executive Council, of the Government Party and of the people behind the Party. We are anxious to go as far as possible in the development of trade relations with Britain and every other country. People talk as if agriculture had no problem in any other country. I have quoted here figures and reports as to prices from the United States, New Zealand, South Africa and many other countries. We all know the conditions in these countries but some Senators deliberately forget them when they come in here. From the experience I have had of other countries and from what I know is going on in these countries now, I can say that this country has, relatively speaking, weathered the storm. It has weathered it well considering that, on top of a complete collapse of agricultural prices, we were faced with the bullying attitude of the British Government. It has always been the policy of the British to bully us when it suited them and to attack us at the most disadvantageous time. We had to stand up to them before and we did so under more trying conditions than exist to-day.
We are probably more conscious than anybody in the Seanad of the disabilities under which agriculturists are labouring. We have been paying more attention to agriculture than did any previous Government in this country. We have been taking stock of all the elements of the agricultural industry, and we have been doing our best to enable our people not only to survive the economic war, but to survive the complete depression in agriculture. That is our line of policy. It is in pursuance of that policy that this agreement is brought forward to-day, and I feel it is a step in the right direction. It has been welcomed by people engaged in the industry mainly concerned — the cattle industry — and I believe it will go a long way to relieve the position in the one commodity in which we have a surplus — cattle. With that in mind, I asked the Seanad to pass the Second Reading of this Bill.
