When I was speaking last night and Deputy Cosgrave introduced a certain element of unnecessary heat and obstruction into the debate, I had dealt with the question as to when an agreement is not to be referred to as a secret agreement. I had further dealt with the proposition as to when a British agent is not to be described as a British agent. I now come to the question as to when a moratorium is not to pass as a moratorium. In his speech yesterday—and it rather indicates the muddle-headed attitude of the Party opposite in regard to this proposal, or, possibly, a very equivocal attitude towards a notice of motion which is down in the name of two private Deputies — Deputy O'Sullivan said that this proposal was not a moratorium. Deputy O'Sullivan, I believe, enjoys a certain reputation as a philosopher, knows the meaning of words, is capable of correctly evaluating them, is endowed with certain gifts of expression. Yet having read and, possibly, having in fact assisted in drafting, a motion in these terms: "That as the British tariffs on Saorstát agricultural produce" do certain things, "the Executive Council should take appropriate steps to suspend the collection of annuities during the period of the operation of these tariffs"— having put down a motion of that sort and urged the House to accept it, Deputy O'Sullivan, in the course of his speech, disclaimed this as a moratorium. I do not profess to be a lexicographer, but I did look up some authorities, and I find that the word "moratorium" is referred to as "A modern coinage; specifically an act, decree, or ordinance of the legislature giving authority to delay or defer or suspend the payment of a debt or obligation." This motion proposes that the Executive Council should take appropriate steps to suspend the collection of the annuities during the period of the operation of these tariffs. But Deputy O'Sullivan has emphasised that the motion in question is not a moratorium. I have been wondering why it was that he came to that conclusion. A moratorium is an act, ordinance or decree of the legislature giving authority to defer, or delay, or suspend payment of a debt or an obligation. This motion proposes that the Executive Council should take appropriate steps, probably by way of an ordinance, or a decree, or an Act of the legislature, to suspend the collection of annuities during the period of the operation of these tariffs. It is proposed to suspend the payment of a certain thing. If this motion is not a moratorium in the mind of Deputy O'Sullivan, it can only be excluded from a definition of a moratorium by the fact that he does not hold that these annuities are an obligation at all; that the Free State farmer has any obligation to pay these annuities over to the State. I think that I am right in taking that point of view of Deputy O'Sullivan's mental attitude, because in the course of his speech he said: "We do not see what title in justice the Government has to collect these annuities."
That drives me back to the point at which I was interrupted last night, when I said that it was quite obvious that in regard to the land annuities and the collection thereof the late Cumann na nGaedheal Executive regarded themselves merely as the British agents in this country. I do not see how we can come to any other conclusion.
If it is true that in 1923, when the then Minister for Finance was moving a certain Estimate in this House, said that, "as provided by law the annuities were payable to Great Britain"; the point in that connection, which I think is of vital interest to the people, and upon which some information should be given by those who were members of the late Government is: did they, before coming to the conclusion that these annuities were properly payable by law to Great Britain, obtain any legal opinion on the matter? In a statement on the Land Bill of 1923 Deputy Cosgrave made that point, that the annuities were payable by law to Great Britain. I again challenge him: was the matter examined at all, or did they act on a mistaken and erroneous view of the law without having consulted adequate authorities? Why was it necessary, first of all, to have an agreement in 1923, this secret agreement, and why was it necessary to put a section into the Land Act of 1923 providing that the moneys should be paid over if, as Deputy Cosgrave said, under the law in this State, as it stood at that time, we were bound to pay the annuities over to Great Britain? If this agreement did not involve a change in the law, why was it necessary for Deputy Cosgrave to refer to it all?
Dealing again with this agency question which has arisen in the course of the debate, which arises particularly out of the statements made by Deputy O'Sullivan, Deputy Morrissey, Deputy Hogan, and all those who have spoken in support of the Opposition view, that we have no title in law to collect these annuities if we do not collect them to pay them over to Great Britain, how is it that the British Government, in the present controversy, rely only on the agreements of 1923 and 1926? It shows the inconsistency between both sides — those who are claiming the annuities on the other side of the water and those who are urging on this side of the Channel that they should be paid. While the British rely on the agreements of 1923 and 1926 to make good their claim, the White Paper issued by the late Government in relation to this question disclaims that the agreements of 1923 and 1926 have anything at all to do with the matter.