Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas

Dáil Éireann - Volume 29 - 02 May, 1929

Bank of Ireland Bill, 1929. - Land Purchase Annuities.

Mr. de Valera: Before I move the motion in my name, I wonder whether we can get agreements on this proposal. It just occurred to me as I was looking through all the documents necessary for this case whether it might not be better that we should divide this debate into two parts, say, devote three or four hours to it to-day, and then leave an interval which would enable members to verify for themselves quotations and references to documents. I fear it would be quite impossible for any member of the House, unless there is some interval, to refer to the documents. I am pretty certain that before the case is completed, it will run over references to the Land Acts, references, for example, to documents like the Transfer of Functions Order and a number of other documents of that kind. I think it would be most unfair to members, having documents referred to in a single debate like this, to expect them without having had an opportunity of consulting the documents for themselves to come to a decision on the matter. I would suggest that instead of the arrangement of going through the whole case and having a vote on it to-night that we should divide it into two parts, have two or three speeches on each side, and after that to postpone the motion until this day week and finish it then.

The President: Personally I would much prefer if the debate could be finished to-day. I do not know whether there is any trouble about the documents in question. They have been available for the past five or six months, and we could have produced them if asked. I personally prefer that in a discussion on these matters there should not be a second day. These second days bring in [1298] extrancous matter as a rule, and do not throw any light on them

Mr. de Valera: I take it, then, there is no hope of agreement with the President on that?

The President: I, certainly on the case that has been made by Deputy de Valera, cannot see that there is justification for a second day. I am at a loss to know what documents there are which have not been available for the last five or six months.

Mr. de Valera: The documents are available and the Land Acts are available, but I wonder how many members here would be satisfied to hear references simply to them without consulting them. After all, this is a question which involves millions of money. I will refer later, for example, to what percentage of our revenue and so on it amounts to. I think it would be ridiculous for this House to hear the case and decide a matter of this magnitude in a single sitting. The whole financial settlement involves a yearly drain on this country of a sum which is about one-fifth of our total revenue. I think it is only fair to members of the House who, I am sure, have read all sorts of arguments pro and con, who are actually going to sit in judgment on a matter of this kind, that they should have an opportunity of thoroughly understanding the case before giving a vote on it. That is my reason for asking that we should, first of all, have the case fully stated. There will be doubts raised. There will be a counter case put up. Probably all the members who have to decide on it will have to examine the points raised for themselves if they are going to give an intelligent judgment on it. It is not because we are only to have six or seven hours on it. It is not going to be like what happened when the Land Act of 1923 was passed. It was introduced. I understand, on the Fourth Stage of the Bill, just slipped in without any explanation.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan): The Land Act of 1923 was introduced on the Fourth Stage?

Mr. de Valera: No, the section which involves this payment.

[1299] Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan): Personally I do not see any necessity whatever for this adjournment. I think the sooner this debate comes off the better. The sooner the air is cleared the better. The issue has been put before the country by the Party opposite for the last two or three years. Presumably they know their case, or is the position that you are coming to hear the case put up here in order to see what you will have to say against it?

Mr. de Valera rose.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan): The Deputy had an opportunity of speaking and I presume he will get an opportunity when I have finished. Is it the position that the Deputy does not know his case? Is it the position that the gentlemen who have been putting this issue before the people for the last two years do not know their case? that they want to hear what we have to say and they are going to manufacture arguments afterwards. If that is so, it is a most extraordinary state of affairs. The Deputy can presume that the Deputies of this House have taken some trouble to study this matter. It has been very much before the public. He need not be so much concerned about it, and at this stage after two years the members of this House ought to be, at least, in a position to debate the subject and come to a decision on it. I suggest the reason that this adjournment was suggested is to enable the Deputy himself to make up a case which he is now forced to make up.

Mr. de Valera: I expect that is a good sample of the sort of argument we will hear from the Minister when he is asked to reply to the case. It is a misrepresentation of my position. I simply realise that there is involved in this a sum of five millions, not in this particular motion, but associated with it in the ultimate financial settlement. Five millions ought not to be voted away by members of the House unless they have a full opportunity [1300] of understanding the case. I do not believe all the members of this House have had that opportunity.

Minister for Agriculture: Speak for yourself and for your Party.

Mr. de Valera: The Minister evidently spoke for others besides himself. When answering he was speaking on behalf of other members of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle: Do not let us get excited at 3.30.

Mr. de Valera: We are prepared to go ahead. In any case, there was no suggestion that the case as far as I was personally going to make it, was not going to be made, none whatever. My suggestion was that this matter which, for the first time in this House, was going to be adequately discussed, would be so discussed that every member who was going to vote on it would vote with an informed judgment upon it. I do not think that the opportunity that can be given here to-day is likely to be an opportunity of that kind. However, if there is not agreement we can go ahead. But I would ask the members who have got to vote on this motion to remember what they are doing, and that a sum of money involved——

Mr. Hogan: Is this in order? It is an exhortation to other members to remember what they are doing.

An Ceann Comhairle: Let us be clear. This is a motion put down for private members' time. It was put down a considerable time ago, and it is now being taken in Government time under an arrangement made at least some weeks ago. The question involved in the motion is merely a question of the transfer of the land annuities—no wider question. Deputy de Valera has made a particular suggestion which would. I think, need agreement on the other side of the House. If there is not agreement, I think no good purpose can be served by continuing to discuss the suggestion. The motion should be moved now in accordance with the original arrangement. I suggest, therefore, [1301] that Deputy de Valera moves the motion.

Mr. de Valera: The motion which I move is:

“That the Dáil is of opinion that the land annuities now being paid into ‘The Purchase Annuities Fund’ for transmission to Great Britain should henceforth be paid into the Central Fund, and that the Executive Council should immediately take the appropriate steps to that end.”

There is a reference to “The Purchase Annuities Fund,” and that reference takes us back to the Land Act of 1923. I will quote Section 12 for the Deputies, as they may not have it in front of them. Section 12, sub-section (2) reads:—

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Provisional Government (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1922, all sums collected after the 31st day of March, 1923, in respect of purchase annuities in repayment of advances made or to be made in Saorstát Eireann in pursuance of purchase agreements under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, or any later Land Purchase Act other than this Act shall so far as not already paid into the Exchequer be paid into a fund entitled “The Purchase Annuities Fund” to be established under the control of the Minister for Finance, and there shall from time to time be paid thereout by the Minister for Finance to the appropriate authority for the credit of the Land Purchase Account or the Irish Land Purchase Fund as the case may be an amount equivalent to the purchase annuities accruing due in respect to the aforesaid advances.

For the purposes of this section purchase annuities shall be deemed to include interest payable in respect of an advance as aforesaid.

Under that section, you have established this Purchase Annuities Fund into which the annuities were to be paid, and they were to be paid there so that “from time to time [1302] they should be paid thereout by the Minister for Finance to the appropriate authority for the credit of the Land Purchase Account or the Irish Land Purchase Fund, as the case may be, an amount equivalent,” etc. There are two other funds referred to there. It is just as well perhaps that we should understand what these funds are from the very start. We have, first of all, the Land Purchase Account. The Land Purchase Account was an account which was established under the Act of 1891, and it was administered by the Land Commission up to the time in which the Transfer of Functions Order took effect. I will refer to that Transfer of Functions Order in a few moments. The next fund that is mentioned is the Irish Land Purchase Fund. That was a fund set up under the 1903 Act, and it was controlled by the National Debt Commissioners in London. So that this section of the Land Act sets up this fund into which at the present moment these annuities are being paid, and it authorises the Minister for Finance to pay out of this fund, from time to time to the appropriate authority of the Land Purchase Fund, which is now in London, an amount equivalent to the purchase annuities accruing due in respect of the advances made under the Land Acts from 1891 to 1903. I hope any references to these Funds will be understood. As I say, at the moment the position is in virtue of this section of the Land Act, the land annuities which are collected in Ireland, and which, under the Treaty for a period, were paid into the Exchequer of the Provisional Government, are now being paid into this fund and transmitted to Britain.

The object of this motion is to get the Dáil to declare that that should cease, and that these annuities should no longer be paid into that fund, that they should be paid into the Central Fund as other revenues of the State and controlled as other revenues of the State are controlled. In effect this motion amounts to getting from the Dáil an expression of opinion that this section of the Land Act of 1923 ought to be repeated. I [1303] say it is competent for you to repeal it, and I hope that when it is considered your judgment will be that it ought to be repealed, and that this sum of money which is yearly being sent out of the country gratuitously, because I hold there is no contract that binds you to send it, ought to be retained. It is being sent out by your own act as a free gift to the British. This State is not in a position to make any such free gifts. This money is required for our own needs, and it should come into our own Exchequer and be paid out of it only as other revenues are paid out for the services of the State.

Under this section there is reference also to what is called the Transfer of Functions Order. Deputies will remember that there was an Article—I think it was Article 17— of the Treaty which provided for certain transitional arrangements for the Government of what was called Southern Ireland during the period that was to elapse from the signing of the Treaty until the Free State came into statutory existence, with a Constitution and so on, fully organised. Article 17 of the Treaty is as follows:—“By way of provisional arrangement for the administration of Southern Ireland.”

That term “Southern Ireland,” of course, shows us at once that the Act of 1920 must somehow or other have been regarded as being in operation, because it was only under the Act of 1920 that the term “Southern Ireland” had any meaning at all. The Article reads:—

By way of provisional arrangement for the administration of Southern Ireland during the interval which must elapse between the date hereof and the constitution of a Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State in accordance therewith, steps shall be taken forthwith for summoning a meeting of members of Parliament elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland since the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and for constituting a Provisional Government, and the [1304] British Government shall take the steps necessary to transfer to such Provisional Government the powers and machinery requisite for the discharge of its duties, provided that every member of such Provisional Government shall have signified in writing his or her acceptance of this instrument. But this arrangement shall not continue in force beyond the expiration of twelve months from the date hereof.

As I say, by that Article a Provisional Government was to be set up for the administration of Southern Ireland, and the British Government was to transfer to that Government the powers and machinery necessary for carrying on government during the transition period, and in order that there should be a definite limit to that transition period a bound of not more than twelve months was set.

On 31st March, 1922, the British passed an Act called the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, the effect of which was to give the force of British law to the Articles of the Treaty. Besides giving the force of law to the Articles of the Treaty, it also provided that for the purpose of giving effect to Article 17 of these Articles of Agreement, referred to as the Treaty, Orders in Council could be made transferring to the Provisional Government established thereunder the powers and machinery therein referred to. As the Act is a short one, it might be better perhaps to read the whole of Section 2, which explains itself as readily as I could explain it and in shorter form.

For the purpose of giving effect to Article 17 of the said Agreement, Orders in Council may be made transferring to the Provisional Government established under that Article the powers and machinery therein referred to, and as soon as may be and not later than four months after the passing of this Act the Parliament of Southern Ireland shall be dissolved....

I will not comment on phrases like that that occur in a number of cases, but later I shall draw attention to [1305] their significance as showing what was the state of the law in Ireland during that period.

.... and such steps shall be taken as may be necessary for holding, in accordance with the law now in force with respect to the franchise, number of members, and method of election and holding of elections to that Parliament, an election of members for the constituencies which would have been entitled to elect members to that Parliament, and the members so elected shall constitute the House of the Parliament to which the Provisional Government shall be responsible....

Mind, it is “the House of the Parliament.”

.... and that Parliament shall, as respects matters within the jurisdiction of the Provisional Government have power to make laws in like manner as the Parliament of the Irish Free State when constituted. Any Order in Council under this section may contain such incidental, consequential, or supplemental provisions as may appear to be necessary or proper for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provisions of this section.

As you see, this Act did two things: it gave the force of law to the Articles of Agreement, and it provided for Orders in Council which would transfer the necessary powers and machinery. On the following day one of these Orders in Council was issued—on the 1st April. As I have pointed out, these Orders were simply to transfer the functions, powers and machinery, so that this transitional Provisional Government which was to be provided for from the date of the passing of the Treaty until such time as the Irish Free State should come into full being, with its Constitution, etc., should be able to function.

The section of the 1923 Land Act refers to this Transfer of Functions Order and says, that notwithstanding anything in this Order the money should be paid into the Purchase Annuities Fund. Why was it [1306] necessary to refer to this Order at all? To my mind, the only necessity for referring to it was that up to that time the money had been paid, in virtue of this Order, into the Provisional Exchequer. The Act made a variation in the procedure which had originated with this Order in Council, and which continued on even after these Orders in Council, which were made only to cover a transitory period, might be regarded as having gone out of force.

In any case, at the time the 1923 Act was passed the procedure was that these land annuities were paid into the Exchequer. The particular section of these Orders that refers to the payment of the annuities is Section 4. The validity of this Order I repeat is based on the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act.

Section 4 says:

All sums collected by the Provisional Government after the date of transfer on account of

(a) purchase annuities payable in respect of land situated in Southern Ireland, including any existing arrears thereof;

(b) sums due on account of existing loans made to authorities and persons in Southern Ireland out of the Local Loans Fund, the Development Fund, the Road Improvement Grant or Road Fund, or other similar public fund shall be paid into the Exchequer.

In that section, item (a) is the one that is of importance for this particular question. It says that these land annuities shall be paid into the Exchequer of the Provisional Government, and it was in virtue, therefore, of that particular section that the annuities were first paid into the Exchequer, and that you have reference to that fact in the section of the Act which I am asking the House to express the opinion should be repealed.

Now we come to another document called “Heads of the Ultimate Financial Settlement between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State.” That was a document signed on the 19th March, 1926. It is signed by Winston [1307] S. Churchill on the one side and Earnan de Blaghd on the other. Amongst the heads of settlement is this:—

(1) “The Government of the Irish Free State undertake to pay to the British Government at agreed intervals the full amount of the annuities accruing due from time to time under the Irish Land Acts, 1891-1909 without any deduction whatsoever whether on account of income tax or otherwise.

(2) “The Government of the Irish Free State agree to pay to the British Government prior to March 31st, 1926, the sum of approximately £550,000 being the amount hitherto withheld by them in respect of income tax on annuities payable under the above-mentioned Acts.

(3) “The British Government accept liability for the provision out of moneys provided by Parliament of the cost of the interest and sinking fund on bonus and excess stock under the above-mentioned Acts, subject to a contribution by the Irish Free State Government of the sum of £160,000 in the year 1926-27 and at the rate of £134,500 per annum thereafter.”

Now the first part of our case is that this document is not, so far as binding this State is concerned, worth the paper it is written on. No Minister can assign national property away by his own signature. This has never got statutory sanction, and every sum paid out in virtue of that agreement without co-lateral statutory sanction is being paid out without the proper authority. We therefore say that this is not a binding contract between the Irish Free State and the British Government, and we hold that any case that is made for the transmission of annuities on the basis of that document is a case that cannot stand.

The position with respect to our financial obligations, if there are any to Great Britain, begins with the Article of the Agreement of 1921. It sets out that:—

[1308] “The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the service of the public debt of the United Kingdom as existing at the date hereof, and towards the payment of war pensions as existing at that date, in such proportion as may be fair and equitable, having regard to any just claims on the part of Ireland by way of set-off or counter-claim, the amount of such sums being determined in default of agreement by the arbitration of one or more independent persons being citizens of the British Empire.”

There is another Article also dealing with Finance, Article 10. That Article is:

“The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of the Police Force, and other Public Servants, who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of Government effected in pursuance thereof.

“Provided that this agreement shall not apply to members of the Auxiliary Police Force, or to persons recruited in Great Britain for the Royal Irish Constabulary during the two years next preceding the date hereof. The British Government will assume responsibility for such compensation or pensions as may be payable to any of these excepted persons.”

If you examine the Articles of Agreement you will find that these are the only two Articles that refer in any way to the question of Finance or to any financial obligation as far as this country is concerned. Article 5 was the principal Article. That committed the Irish Free State to accept such liability for the service of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as existing at the date of the instrument—such proportion as might be considered fair and equitable when the sets-off and counter-claims were taken into account. And those who asked the Dáil of the Republic to accept the Treaty held that under that Article [1309] Ireland would in fact not have to pay anything, that the counter-claims which could be put forward were such that they would completely overbalance any claim made, and that if there was to be justice Ireland would not be paying any sum of money to England but the reverse.

Now that Article of the Treaty was held in abeyance for a number of years. There were references in various documents to what was called the ultimate financial settlement, and everybody who read them must have understood that the ultimate financial settlement was the financial settlement referred to in Article 5 and nothing else. It will be remembered that in December, 1925, there was an agreement which the people of the country, at any rate, were led to regard as the ultimate financial settlement. They were told that their obligations under that Article had been cancelled, that it had ended in Ireland being asked to pay nothing more than “a big nought,” that a good bargain had been struck, and everybody who was anxious lest there should be any obligation or burden placed upon Ireland as a result of the ultimate financial settlement could rest easy henceforth, that this good bargain had relieved them of all cause for uneasiness.

That particular agreement was signed on the 3rd December, 1925. It was signed on behalf of the British Government by five members of that Government, on behalf of the Government of the Irish Free State by three members. and on behalf of Northern Ireland by James Craig and Charles H. Blackmore, Secretary to the Cabinet of Northern Ireland. Now, we are to remember that this was an agreement by which the present division of Ireland was accepted that the States of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland became established or rather that the boundaries of these States became finally fixed. It was said by those who were afraid at the time that the country would not stand for that settlement, that at least they had made a good financial [1310] bargain if they had made a very bad political one. Section 2 of the Agreement says: “That the Irish Free State is hereby released from the obligations under Article 5 of the said Articles of Agreement to assume the liability therein mentioned.” Within three months from the signing of that document and the publication to the people of Ireland, as well as to the Dáil, that there were no financial obligations under Article 5, we find a secret document was signed. That document was signed secretly by the present Minister for Finance, negotiated in secret and kept a secret from the 19th of March until November. Why was it kept secret? The other pact or agreement that I have mentioned was submitted to the Parliament here, and there was the submission of a similar agreement in the British Parliament. But this financial agreement was not brought before the Dáil, and one does not want to have, let us say, the desire of the Minister for Agriculture to make suggestions as to motives——

Mr. Hogan: Fire ahead.

Mr. de Valera—to realise that this document was kept a secret because the Minister for Finance was afraid, so soon after having stated that there was no obligation but a nought, to face the Dáil and to face the country with an agreement which burdened the Free State with a sum of something like £5,000,000 a year. It was kept secret from March to November. Why? When it was brought back and when the Minister for Finance was asked to explain it, he treated the Dáil and the Seanad with disdain and refused to do so. The members of the Seanad asked that a committee might be set up to investigate this matter. That committee was refused, and it was refused again, I say, because the Minister for Finance could not explain this document. It has not been explained to this date. Not a single reason has been given which would hold water as to why the people of this State should pay this £5,000,000 [1311] a year. You will not have given in this debate either a reason why that money should be paid out. Surely, the attitude of the Minister for Finance and the attitude of the members of this House should be, that before we give money away out of this country to any foreign country, we should have a definite contract before us by which we are obliged to give that money. Let us have that contract. Let us see the contract under which we are obliged to pay out that money.

By Article 5 of the Treaty we assume liability for the service of the public debt of the United Kingdom—such portion as may be apportioned to us on a fair and equitable basis when the counter-claims have been taken into account. When that document was signed those who signed it must have had before their minds what was the nature of the obligation they were undertaking. They must have had before their minds what was the public debt of the United Kingdom on the day on which they signed it. What was that public debt? We have evidence in several documents that the public debt on that date included the liability of the British Exchequer to meet the dividends and other charges on stock which they had issued under the Land Acts from 1891 to 1909. That is definite. It has been argued, “Oh, the public debt is not the same as the national debt.” What is it then? Is it narrower than the national debt?

Mr. Hogan: It is exactly the same.

Mr. de Valera: If it is exactly the same, then the Minister for Agriculture is prepared for the first time to define that term.

Mr. Hogan: Yes.

Mr. de Valera: The Minister for Agriculture is prepared to do what the Minister for Finance was not prepared to do. Very well. We can do something now. We are getting to close quarters anyhow. But even the Minister for Agriculture cannot say that it could not be interpreted as having a wider meaning. [1312] He certainly cannot say that it has a narrower one, so that even those who would claim that the public debt is not the same as the national debt cannot claim, at any rate, that it is not a term of wider meaning. Most people, I think, would agree with the Minister for Agriculture that it represented the same thing. But one might be a bit suspicious, at any rate, when a well-known term such as the national debt was avoided by the British in these Articles of Agreement.

Anybody who knew the technical term, and saw that it was avoided in an instrument of this kind, might at least have his suspicions aroused, and if he examined the matter he could convince himself, at any rate, that the public debt was, if not the same, a wider term than national debt. Certainly nobody will dare to contend that it is a term of narrower meaning. Let us say then, for argument's sake, that it is the same. It amounts to this anyhow— the common understanding of it would mean that it was the public financial obligations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as they stood at that time, as they existed on the 6th December, 1921, not as they existed before or after. Let us examine the liability for the service of the land stock. Was it or was it not at that date a liability that could properly be classed as part of the public debt—part of the public financial obligation of the United Kingdom? Read the terms of the Land Acts. Think that this stock was issued to the stockholders by the British Treasury, and it was accepted as a British security.

When a person bought land stock he did not ask himself out of what particular Government fund it came. He merely said: “I have British Government stock, and to pay me my dividend and interest on that stock is an obligation on the Exchequer of the Government of the United Kingdom.” The payment is a public debt, and any person who signed these Articles of Agreement [1313] on 6th December must have had in mind the fact that he was undertaking a share of that public debt unless the counter-claims and sets-off were sufficient to over-balance the account. He must have had in mind that he was undertaking a possible liability to meet the service of the stock.

It has been pretended a good many times that the liability for meeting that stock lies with the tenant-purchasers of Ireland. The Minister for Agriculture went to Clonmel and told the people there it would be embezzlement to keep these land annuities in the Exchequer of the Free State. The Minister for Justice went somewhere else. Perhaps it would be just as well to state where he went.

Mr. Hogan: Go ahead. Let us have it all. Do not spare us.

Mr. de Valera: It is nicer to get the actual place where the Minister spoke. He said at Castlebar that it was an entirely dishonest policy for Fianna Fáil to be spreading this doctrine, that the people who advanced the money for Irish land purchase were not entitled to be paid.

Mr. Fitzgerald - Kenney: Hear, hear!

Mr. de Valera: “Hear, hear!” we all say. But what do we say “Hear, hear,” to? To the fact that the people who advanced the money for land purchase should be paid? I take it what the Minister meant and what he intended the people to understand was that the present stockholders were entitled to be paid. By all means they are entitled to be paid by the people who owe them the money, and the people who owe them the money are the British Government. By all means let the British Government honour their obligations and pay their debts. We should do as we are entitled to do, keep this money in our own Treasury, because the obligation to pay its own land stock is the obligation of the British Treasury. Mr. Snowden, perhaps——

Mr. Hogan: I knew we would get him in.

[1314] Mr. de Valera: You will get him. Some people might be afraid. All we have got to say is “It is not our business, anyhow.”

Mr. Hogan: He is an Englishman, and he ought to know.

Mr. de Valera: It is the business of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom—the United Kingdom now of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—to pay this money. Let nobody be deceived with the idea that our motion here or our campaign aims in any way to keep from the stockholders the dividends they are entitled to get from the British Government. We have no interest in that particular matter, and therefore it is completely beside the question. What is of importance in this question is to recognise that the paying of these dividends was the obligation on 6th December, 1921, of the Treasury at that time, as the British Government would have it, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. When our representatives and the representatives of Great Britain put their signatures to these Articles of Agreement, that was the only meaning that could be given to the terms of the contract which the signatures imply. From the date on which that Treaty was signed—on 6th December, 1921—until 3rd December, 1925, when this agreement was signed which relieved Ireland of any obligations under the Articles, this State was under the obligation of meeting whatever share of the service of the stock might be assigned to it as a result of Article 5. But we are now relieved of all responsibility for the service of that debt. Therefore we are relieved as from the date of the signing of that agreement and its confirmation here and in Great Britain of any obligation under that Article, and, therefore, there is no obligation on the part of this State to meet any portion whatever of the dividends of the Irish land stock or of any British stock.

I hope that, so far, I have been understood. The point I have made up to this is that as regards the service of the land stock, by which I [1315] mean the payment of the dividends as a portion of the public debt, we had undertaken a liability for a share of that, up to 3rd December, 1925, if the counter claim did not offset it. But when this pact of 3rd December, 1925, was duly ratified, any obligation on our part to meet the service of that stock disappeared. Assume that it was a national debt in the narrow sense of the term. Assume the public debt was put in by the British through inadvertence, because they did not know the technical term for their own debt, and they deliberately went aside and chose a wider one. Assume they did not want to make their net as wide as possible at that time. We are not, however, so foolish as to think that they did not want to do anything like that and that it was mere inadvertence on their part to put that term in. Even suppose we were innocent enough to believe all that and to believe that their draftsman did not know the proper technical term to use and that they meant by it strictly the national debt, was the payment of this land stock dividend to the bondholders an obligation we undertook on 6th December, 1921? I say it was obviously, for the reason I have given already, that it was guaranteed land stock, that the stockholders did not care what accounts the British Government had or how it hoped to recoup itself. That was not the business of the stockholders. The obligation to the stockholders was a British obligation and as such was naturally included in the national debt. We have evidence of that fact in the Act of 1920. If one reads the schedule in that Act one will find reference to Irish land stock there. I will read it for the House in a moment so that Deputies can form their own judgment upon it. The reference makes it clear that the British themselves regarded the service of the land stock as part of the public debt. If Deputies are not satisfied with the terms of the Land Acts which make it clear, in my opinion, if they are not satisfied with the [1316] commonsense view that the contract for the service of the debt can only be between those who issued the stock and the stockholders, if nothing will satisfy Deputies completely and absolutely but pointing to the letter of the law on the matter, they have it in the Act of 1920.

In two sections, particularly Section 26, of the Act of 1920, you have reference to these annuities and to what is to become of them. Sub-section (2) of Section 26 says:—

“In each year a sum equal to the amount payable in that year in respect of purchase annuities shall be paid into the Irish Land Purchase fund or account, or other appropriate fund or account, out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.”

That is a definite statement, a definite putting of the obligation for meeting the interest on land stock on the Treasury of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. That obligation was directly on it on the day on which the Treaty was signed. Therefore, anybody signing those Articles of Agreement, and asking himself what were the definite obligations constituting the public debt of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on that date, knew that there was here an undertaking, a definite liability, to pay for the service of those stocks out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was an immediate, definite, and direct obligation, and not merely by way of subsidiary funds, but a direct obligation on the Treasury “out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.” These were not the moneys that were to come from the land purchase annuities in Ireland, from the people who paid them in Ireland, but they were to come directly out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. Therefore on the date on which the Treaty was signed, without any question whatever, we have it in black and white in a British statute the statement [1317] that that service was an obligation on the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Without yea or nay it was, therefore, a part of the public debt. That is one of the sections to which I have referred as proving the point, but I have also referred also to the Schedule.

You remember how Mr. Lloyd George, when he brought in this Act of 1920, boasted of his generosity in making a free gift to the Irish people of land annuities. By this Act the land annuities collectable here in Ireland were to be paid into the Exchequers of Southern Ireland and of Northern Ireland. This was to be a free gift to the Irish people. Those of you who remember the Financial Relations Commission of 1896 and the Primrose Committee which was set up in preparation for the 1914 Home Rule Act, will remember that it was adjudged, in one case by Englishmen mostly, that Ireland had been overtaxed for many years to the extent of an annual sum of two and three-quarter millions. It was suggested in the Primrose Committee that restitution should be made for that annual over-taxation of Ireland by giving Ireland a sum approximately of three millions a year. That sum was preferably to be given back by way of some terminable annuity, so that Ireland would get back, over a period of years, roughly the amounts taken away in over-taxation. The people of Ireland would get that back. Mr. Lloyd George chose the land annuities accordingly as the appropriate way of paying that money back. Of course, he would not call it a paying back of money of which we had been robbed during the greater part of a century. In true British fashion, he called it a gift. This was to be a generous gift to the Irish people—this paying back of money that had been taken away.

In the Act of 1920 it was proposed to give as a free gift, as he called it, to the people of Northern and Southern Ireland these land annuities. They were to be paid into the Exchequers of these two particular States and would remain property [1318] to be used for the public service of those States. That was the reason why you had Section 26 (2) in the Act. Instead of drawing the money and recouping themselves for the sums which the British Exchequer was bound to pay for the service of the debt from land annuities which they collected in Ireland, the British Government was going not to ask for this recoupment at all, and the Exchequer of the United Kingdom was going to pay out that sum without getting recoupment from anywhere. The Sixth Schedule is in connection with Section 23, and by it Ireland was in each year to make a contribution towards the Imperial liabilities and expenditure mentioned in that Schedule. The first sub-section of Section 23 says:

“Ireland shall in each year make a contribution towards the Imperial liabilities and expenditure mentioned in the Sixth Schedule to this Act.”

That Schedule enumerates what these Imperial liabilities and expenditure are. It starts off by referring to National Debt charges, and proceeds in the first instance to enumerate these. It enumerates them in two sub-sections. In the first sub-section it says:

“The charge in respect of the funded and unfunded debt of the United Kingdom, inclusive of terminable annuities paid out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt and inclusive of the cost of the management of the said funded and unfunded debt.”

The other sub-section says:

“All other charges on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom for the repayment of borrowed money, or to fulfil a guarantee other than charges in respect of local loans stock and any guaranteed stock raised for the purpose of land purchase in Ireland.”

The reason it had to omit, as part of the Imperial liabilities and expenditure for which Ireland is liable, the reason there was expressly omitted from that list the charges in respect of local loans stock, and [1319] any guaranteed stock raised for the purpose of land purchase in Ireland, was because these had been specifically given by the Act to Ireland, and it would be a ridiculous thing to give these to Ireland in one section and at the same time impose upon Ireland charges in connection with them that would take them away. Therefore you have here these expressly excluded from the list of the national debt charges for which Ireland would be responsible. The fact that they were referred to in this list shows that they were regarded as national debt charges, and proves once more, a fact of which I have given other evidence, that at the moment of the signing of the Treaty, these were included in the public debt of the United Kingdom, and they were therefore liabilities for which we might be charged under Article 5 of the Treaty if the counterclaims and sets-off were not sufficient to counterbalance them. Therefore, when you come down to the pact of 1925, you have all the obligations with respect to the service of land stock wiped out by that later agreement. Nobody can say, in view of that, that by keeping the annuities here we are in any way inflicting a hardship on the stockholders. It is not our business. It is a direct charge on Great Britain, and nobody can say that we are not in any way fulfilling any contract we entered into. We are neither repudiating our contract by retaining the annuities, nor are we in any way whatever doing an injustice to any stockholder. The stockholders have a right to receive their interest from the Government that contracted with them when it borrowed money from them, and we have a right to keep these annuities here.

As I said at the beginning, nobody has pointed out where we have undertaken any contractual liability. Gratuitously, we hand these annuities over to England. Let Ministers point out where it is if it exists. Let them point out any justification whatsoever, except the [1320] Acts of this Parliament here, the particular Acts by which the Minister for Finance is authorised to pay out that account. That is not a contractual liability. In so far as it is a liability at all, it is a liability which this Dáil must be presumed to have taken gratuitously, but did it? What were the circumstances under which this Act was passed? The Act was passed in 1923. What were the conditions then? You were still waiting at that time for the ultimate financial settlement. You did not know at that time what would be your obligations under it, what would be the sum with which you might be charged. It had not been decided and just as the Transfer of Functions Order was accepted, the money was sent over as the continuance of the previous practice. The annuities had been sent over to England before, and it was continued on. You were waiting for your liability to be apportioned. That was the position when the Transfer of Functions Order was passed. That was the condition in 1923 also.

One must say that the Dáil would have been wiser in the case of the Transfer of Functions Order, and again in 1923, to hold what they had got. It is a good maxim that possession is nine points of the law. These annuities were here. They were your right, and you would have been wiser in holding on to them instead of looking for recoupment afterwards or a return of the moneys you had handed over. You would have been much wiser to hold on to them and not be asking that they should be given back if the judgment was that you did not owe them at all, but, apparently, the Dáil at that time was not prepared to take that stand. The circumstances perhaps were such that they did not feel that that was the best stand to take. They handed over these annuities. They expected that the financial settlement would deal with them. I blame the Dáil or the Provisional Government not so much for handing them over under the Transfer of Functions Order or for passing this section of the 1923 Act so much as for paying them [1321] for one day after the pact of 1925 was signed. I hold that there was no justification for handing them over at any time, that they were part of the United Kingdom national debt, and that if we acted wisely we would have retained them here pending a decision on this question. We did not do that. We handed them over. Why should we hand them over for one day longer after 1925? Why should not we say when we got this nought in 1925: “We have already handed over to you so many millions of money which was ours in annuities and we expect to get it back?”

There have been I am sure, in various sums, up to thirty millions of Irish money handed over to England since the Free State came into being. In the land annuities alone we are handing over three millions a year. Why should we do that unless there is a contractual obligation to do it? Nobody in this House has yet shown us that there is a contractual obligation to do it. Are we so rich that we can afford to send out of this country a sum of money that is a quarter of our revenue? You all saw the other day where Mr. Snowden quoted Mr. Bonar Law as saying that if England were to pay the thirty-seven millions to the United States that it undertook to pay it would put England in bondage for a generation. Now, thirty-seven millions a year is only 4.6 per cent of their revenue.

What is £3,000,000 a year in our revenue? What is £5,000,000 a year of our revenue? £5,000,000 a year of our revenue, which we are sending out here, if you compare it to the revenue of this State, is twenty per cent. of it. If the English feel that £37,000,000 is a burden on them, that 4.6 per cent. is a burden on them, what a burden twenty per cent. upon this country must be. That is the burden we are foolishly taking on our backs and forcing the people of this country to pay without any contractual obligation, as I have said. A few days ago when the Minister for Finance was introducing his Budget, he said, “We cannot think of derating. Derating.” he said, “would mean [1322] £2,000,000 a year. Where can we get it?” I have here the typed copy of the speech he gave us. Speaking of this derating, he said it would only come to £2,000,000! the exact figure is not far from £2,000,000. It is a little over £2,000,000. He said, “It is quite impossible for us to think of it.” The farmers, our competitors in the North of Ireland, may be derated. The competitors of our farmers in England may be derated. Our farmers will have still to take the burden of rates and compete at a disadvantage with these rivals of theirs in the North and in Britain. There cannot be any help for them. Why? Because the revenues of this State would not stand it. But that derating is only £2,000,000 a year, and we are gratuitously paying, without a contractual obligation to do so, half as much again, £3,000,000 on the head of land annuities alone. If we only examine this question of land annuities carefully and see what are our contractual obligations under it, we will begin to discover that there are other items of the so-called ultimate financial settlement that we are not liable for either. So the question involved here is not merely a question of £3,000,000 of land annuities. I do not want to bring them up in this connection, because I do not want to complicate the arguments, which are not absolutely parallel, and would only make for confusion. I am keeping solely to the land annuities, and I say the amount is half as much again as the sum required for derating.

The Minister, when talking of this derating proposal, said it would be preposterous for the Minister for Finance to suggest it at the present time. In respect of agriculture, land derating would cost £1,900,000; in respect of farm buildings, it would cost £150,000; altogether a sum of £2,050,000. The annuities will do that, and half as much again. If you keep the items I think you are entitled to keep, you can start an enterprise as big as the Shannon scheme every year, and finance it completely. The Minister for Agriculture, when down in Clonmel, asked the people of Clonmel how are [1323] we going to get £30,000,000 more for land purchase? You have sent to the British Government, since this State was established, more than would be sufficient to buy out all the remaining land. From twenty to thirty millions have gone out of this country gratuitously as I said, without any obligation on our part to do it. We are not realising what this amount of money is. In order to realise it, I put before you the amount sent out for the last four or five years. We need not go to England to get a guarantee for our land stock; the money if kept here would purchase it in cash. Each year with these annuities, and the other sums we are liable for under this financial settlement, we can start an enterprise as big as the Shannon Scheme. Realise that, up to the present, there has been only £4,000,000 spent on the Shannon Scheme, and you are sending out more than that sum each year unnecessarily to Britain. Do you think you are acting fairly to this country in voting away that money when there is no contractual obligation to do it? You are giving it as a free gift, as I said.

To go back to the Minister for Finance, when talking about this, he said “we cannot do it.” It would require for agricultural land and buildings £2,050,000. If we were to derate in respect of industrial establishments in addition and freight transport it would mean a total of £2,231,000, still short of the annuities, so with the annuities you would have over and above several hundreds of thousands of pounds after you had derated all agricultural land, agricultural buildings, industrial establishments and all freight transport. He said you cannot do it. He tried to picture to you what it would mean and he gave a long list of the taxes that it would be necessary to impose if he were to do it. Will you please think of that argument of his in this way. The money you are paying out every year, if you do not pay it out, with it you could remit taxes as heavy as the Minister proposed to impose? [1324] The Minister said if we wanted to derate and to meet it, it would involve seven items of new or increased taxation, a shilling in income tax, so everyone can remember you could carry on the present services, if you had this money paid over to England in your Exchequer, and you could remit a shilling on income tax, a farthing a pound on sugar and threepence a pound on tea. That does not come in by way of remission it was an additional tax he was proposing to place. However, the argument stands. There was a shilling on income tax, a farthing a pound on sugar, threepence a pound on tea, fourpence a gallon on petrol and paraffin, five per cent. on boots and five per cent. on such apparel as is now subject to fifteen per cent., and sixpence per pound on tobacco. These are the items, and he said: “Deputies will recognise that no Minister for Finance could bring any such list like that to the Dáil for adoption and expect it to meet with an enthusiastic reception.” He did bring an equivalent tax in that 1923 Act, and in its continuance he has brought in very much more than that. He has brought in a sum here which covers that list, and covers more, and I hope you will give it the enthusiastic reception which the Minister for Finance expected he would get if he brought in the list of taxes he mentioned. Remember these taxes are going on because the funds that should be in the Exchequer are not in it. As I said there is no contractual obligation whatever to pay them. Why then are we gratuitously taking this burden upon ourselves? Can we not have the ordinary common sense to say that we are not in a position to keep on making these gifts? We cannot afford to undertake this burden. England is not entitled to it.

I have argued this case on the narrowest lines possible. I have not talked in this case of how the land of Ireland got into the hands of the landlords from whom it was purchased. I have not argued, as I could have argued, that if there were no instruments of this kind whatever [1325] that if England took over the obligation and bought out these landlords she was simply redeeming her own promises to those who were her servants in the past. She gave these grants of Irish land to her soldiers and others who were in her service in the past. If she bought them out and gave them other equivalents, if she changed the values of the land of Ireland she had given them into money, she would be doing nothing more than fulfilling her own obligations to her own people. Why not let her do that and say our obligations are to our people, to keep the money which is our right here, and that before it be given away we should see in black and white, expressly, in a form that we could not deny, the contractual obligation to do so? As far as we are concerned, on this side of the House anyhow, we say that the ultimate financial settlement has no binding force. We say, even if it had, it imposes obligations on this State that we cannot stand over. If it were a binding document we would say it was due to our people to re-open that settlement. We, on this side of the House, would do that, but we are not at all in that position. The position is this, that there are no obligations, and that the paying over of this money to England is a gratuitous act on our part. The motion I ask you to assent to is this, that the particular section of the Act which gave authority to the Minister for Finance to pay away this money should be repealed. That is, in effect, what it means. The express terms of the motion are:—

“That the Dáil is of opinion that the land annuities now being paid into ‘The Purchase Annuities Fund’ for transmission to Great Britain should henceforth be paid into the Central Fund, and that the Executive Council should immediately take the appropriate steps to that end.”

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan) Deputy de Valera has [1326] made two points, or has tried to. One of them is that the only authority for paying the Land Commission annuities to the National Debt Commissioners or to the Bank of England is Section 12 of the Act of 1923. His second point is that, in any event, by virtue of the agreement of December, 1925, cancelling all obligations under Article 5 of the Treaty, Land Stock being public debt, there is no longer any obligation to pay these annuities because they are for the service of the public debt. These are the two points. They are not nearly so complicated as the Deputy would wish to make them. Every possible effort has been made for the last two or three years to complicate this question. The Acts which are in force, the Acts which are not in force, and the Acts which never were in force or never will be in force, have been pressed into service; but the position is, in fact, quite simple, and it has taken considerable ingenuity to complicate it in the way in which it has been complicated up to the present.

Let us examine the first point: That the only authority which we have got for paying Land Commission annuities over to the British Treasury is Section 12 of the Act of 1923, with the implication that if that section were repealed we would be entitled, in fact we would be bound, to retain the annuities in this country, as we would have no legal authority for paying them elsewhere. Let us examine that. I do not believe that it is news to Deputy de Valera, or to any other Deputies who are interested in this matter, that the Land Act of 1923 is not the only Land Act. There were numerous Land Acts in this country before 1923. We need not go back further than the Act of '81, which contains certain land purchase provisions. There was the Act of 1881 and the Act of 1885. There were other amending Acts. There was the Act of 1891, the Act of 1903, the Act of 1909, and the Act of 1923. All these Acts are the law of this country, and the Deputy knows that perfectly well. I doubt if there is a Deputy so innocent [1327] as to think that the Treaty repeals, say, the Land Act of 1881. I doubt if there is a Deputy so innocent as to think that the Treaty repeals the Land Acts of 1903 or 1909.

I listened to a debate on the Land Commission a few days ago. I listened to the same sort of debate a year previously. A number of Deputies on the benches opposite were very interested to find out why the proceedings under the 1903 or 1909 Acts could not be expedited, why all the holdings under these Acts were not being vested, and vested quickly. They must have known then that these Acts were in operation, little as they know about the law of land. I must say Deputy de Valera succeeded in making a great number of inaccurate statements and in muddling himself to an extraordinary degree. They must know that the Land Act of 1903 was not repealed, that the Land Act of 1909 was not repealed, that, in fact, advances were made up to recently under the Land Acts of 1903 and 1909, and that there is no clause, either in the Treaty or in the Constitution, which either impliedly or directly repeals any of these Acts, and that these Acts are the law of the land. What is the law? The Deputy might say that other laws, the laws of property, the laws of contract, the laws of torts were repealed. I remember that, with a great show of innocence. Deputy Lemass, in another place, made the same point. He asked if these annuities are not paid under Article 5 of the Treaty what authority have we for paying them. He professed to believe that the Treaty suddenly repealed all the laws of property, all the laws of contract, and all the Land Acts which were made the law of this country. I do not believe that he is so innocent. If he is, I wish to disillusion him. These laws are in operation. They are the laws of this State, and have been taken over through the Treaty and through the Constitution.

What is the position under these Acts? Deputy de Valera went to a great deal of trouble to show that there was no connection whatever [1328] between the annuitant, the farmer who gets the land, and the man who issues the stock. Well, there is a most definite connection and a most definite contract, and I will tell him what it is. Take, say, the Act of 1903. I do not wish to over-complicate this question, and, as I said before, there is no necessity. The finances of the Acts of 1903 and 1909 are to be read together. The finances of the Act of 1881 and the arrangements were practically the same, except that in one case stock was issued to the owner and in the other case cash was issued. Take the 1903 Act, because it is a typical Act, and because under that Act practically three-fourths of the land of Ireland was sold, and because it was under that Act this £300,000 that we could do so much with if we could only embezzle it is being paid. What is the position under that Act? The Act sets out first that there shall be a land purchase fund or account —because the word is different in the 1881 Act—set up, that out of that fund shall be paid dividends and the sinking fund in respect of stock issued. Another section goes on to say that into that fund shall be paid the annuities.

Mr. Lemass: Will you quote the section?

Mr. Hogan: Certainly. It is clearly laid down under the Acts that into that fund shall be paid annuities through the Land Commission, and that out of that fund shall be paid the interest and sinking fund. The tenant purchaser signs an agreement under the 1903 Act under which he definitely agrees to pay a certain annuity corresponding to the interest and sinking fund on the advance which he gets, which advance is equal to a certain proportion of land stock. Under that agreement, there is direct connection established definitely between the tenant purchaser, the Land Commission, the National Debt Commissioners and the stockholder. There is definite authority under these Acts, first of all, for the payment of [1329] the annuities into a certain fund in the Land Commission. The payment of these annuities out of that fund into the Land Purchase Fund or Account under the control of the National Debt Commissioners, and the payment by the Commissioners of the interest and sinking fund on land stock out of this fund is definitely laid down in each of the Land Acts. In addition to that, under the Land Acts there is a Guarantee Fund, and, finally, certain provisions in respect of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. I do not want to go in detail into the position with regard to the complexities of the Guarantee Fund. I have a list of the funds that make up that fund here. It is sufficient to say that the Guarantee Fund is largely financed out of an Irish grant in aid of rates and certain educational services. It is expressly provided that that fund shall make good any shortage of annuities due to the failure of the tenant purchaser to pay them. It is provided, however, in this way: that if there is a shortage in the Land Purchase Fund it shall be made up first from the Consolidated Fund, and that the payment made from the Consolidated Fund shall be made good out of this Guarantee Fund, which, in effect, means out of the rates of the country. Therefore, so far as the land purchase annuities and the interest and sinking fund on land stocks are concerned, the position is beyond all doubt. In fact it is this: the first liability for the payment of that interest and sinking fund is expressly provided by the Act to be the annuity of the tenant farmer who gets the advance; in the event of his failing, Irish rates and taxes; and in the event of Irish rates and taxes failing, then the advance is to be made out of the Consolidated Fund, out of the taxation, if you like, of the United Kingdom, but that advance is to be a temporary advance and is to be made good to that fund, or the taxpayer, whenever the Guarantee Fund is in funds again.

There is no question whatever about that position. Deputy de [1330] Valera, or any other Deputy on the opposite Benches, need not go very far, or to many lawyers, to establish that that is the law of the country—the law in connection with the annuities. That establishes a definite connection between the tenant purchaser and the buyer of land stock. When a man invested in land stock of course he knew there was sufficient security—probably that is the reason he purchased. He must be presumed to know the arrangements that were made expressly for the financing of that stock, and the arrangements were that the interest and sinking fund were to be paid (1) out of the annuities, (2) out of the Guarantee Fund, and (3) only after both had failed, and then only as a temporary expedient, by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, and their debt was to be made good to them. The Land Commission was bound by statute in the year 1922 to pay the annuities over to the Land Purchase Fund or Account.

Mr. MacEntee: What statute is that?

Mr. Hogan: 1923. The account is the account kept by the National Debt Commissioners. Section 12 says that the annuities were paid in the first instance to the Minister for Finance and that he transferred them. If Section 12 had never been passed, the law in operation before the Act of 1923 was passed was still the law of the land. The Act of 1923 does not repeal the previous Land Acts, but it does alter their financial position so far as it purports to alter them. If it were never passed, the financial provisions of these Acts would be law, and taking the Transfer of Functions Order and the previous Land Acts, if the case were as Deputy de Valera thinks, the position would be that the Land Commission would be transferring the money to the Land Purchase Fund or Account instead of the Minister for Finance. And that would be the saving of the country!

I was rather interested to hear this argument. It was the first time it was put up, or that I heard it. The [1331] argument that passed muster for the last year or so through the country was that clearly we were freed from all liability under Article 5 but for the stupidity of the Minister for Finance and the bad legal advice we got. As to the other argument Deputy de Valera has advanced with great care now, if it has been put forward before, I confess I never heard it. It was kept quiet; we have heard it now for the first time. Am I to take it that the reason he has changed his position is that he realises now that he has no case on the other point? I ask some of the lawyers on the Fianna Fáil Benches, before I come to the other point, to tell me do they really believe that if the Land Act of 1923 was never passed, and was not the law of the land, the previous Land Acts of 1903 and 1909 were not in operation, and if they believe that they were not, will they say when they were repealed? These are simple questions: I hope they are quite clear, and I should like an answer to them. I shall put them again: If Section 12 of the Land Act of 1923 were not the law to-day, would the financial provisions of the Acts of 1903 and 1909 be still the law, and, if not, when were they repealed? Is there complete authority under these Acts of 1903, 1909 and 1891, and, in fact, is not the Minister for Finance and the Land Commission bound to pay over these annuities to the Land Purchase Fund? Remember, we are not now on the merits, but on the law.

I have been hearing for the last year that the Land Commission annuities are neither legally nor morally due. Now, it has come down to this: that it is Section 12 of the Land Act of 1923, and only that section, which gives the Minister for Finance any legal authority to pay the Land Commission annuities over. I am told that from the passage of the 1923 Act the moneys had been paid into the Exchequer. Under the Transfer of Functions Order, which came into operation, not on the 1st March, 1922, but on the 1st March, 1923, there is provision that they [1332] shall be paid into the appropriate fund or account. The appropriate fund or account is the Land Purchase Fund or Account under the 1891, the 1903 and the 1909 Acts. That is there in the Transfer of Functions Order.

Now, coming to the second point, it can be stated simply. Land stock, we are told, is a public debt. Article 5 of the Treaty set out that Ireland was to take responsibility for a fair share of the public debt, after allowance is made for a certain set-off. Under a certain agreement made in December, 1925, it was set out that all liabilities of the Irish Free State under Article 5 were cancelled, and that agreement was given the force of law. It is argued from that, therefore, that the land stock was public debt, and that as the only liability for public debt was under Article 5, there is no longer any legal authority for paying either interest or sinking fund in the shape of annuities to the British Government. With regard to one point Deputy de Valera can be quite easy in his mind. It has never been denied that public debt and national debt are the same thing. Everybody knows that. They have the same term; the Deputy opposite is merely pushing an open door. He might have saved himself a lot of trouble. We can approach the question as to whether land stock is a public debt or not from two directions. The definition of public debt is well known, and it is set out in various decided cases and various authoritative text-books. Take the public debt of the United Kingdom. Public debt is a debt the interest for which the Exchequer of the United Kingdom has a direct obligation without any security or any remedy against other parties, and it is payable out of taxation or is a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. That is a well established definition of public debt.

Mr. Lemass: By whom?

Mr. Hogan: It is a definition of public debt which can be verified by consulting authorities such as Lord Halsbury and various decided cases [1333] and various statutes. The Deputy can make his mind easy. I shall give statute law for it. Public debt as a term is very simple. It is a debt due by the public taxpayer. Public debt is defined, as I say, authoritatively as a debt in respect of which the taxpayer is liable, and in respect of which he has no remedy over, and in respect of which he has no security. That is public debt.

Now the question arises, was land stock public debt. On that definition it was not. There was no debt at any time to the public in respect of land stock. At no time since land stock was first issued and since local loan stock was first issued was there any debt payable or paid by the public in respect of them. Since land stock was first issued and up to this date, and as a result of the arrangement come to, the case must always be the same. The interest on the land stock was in fact first paid either by annuitants or by the Guarantee Fund. There was never at any time any charge upon the Consolidated Fund, or upon the taxpayer, in respect of land stock. Land stock did not become a public debt, and could not, until both the annuitants and the Guarantee Fund had repudiated the obligation. But in case there might be any doubt in anyone's mind about it, the thing is settled definitely by statute. It is settled in respect of Local Loan stock, which is rather a similar stock, and there is a certain clause in the Local Loans Act, 1887, which was transferred bodily to the Land Acts of 1903, and which also applies to the Land Act of 1909. “For the purpose of calculating the annual sums payable to the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland for the management of the National Debt, the stock shall be considered as part of the National Debt inscribed in the books of the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland, but the annual sums so payable shall be paid as part of the expenses of the Land Commission.”

There are some lawyers on the other side. Here is a direct statutory provision that for a certain purpose land stock shall be regarded as [1334] public debt. What is that purpose? For the purpose of paying certain moneys to the National Debt Commissioners in order to find the interest; but these moneys shall be paid by the Land Commission. There is one invariable rule of interpretation to which there is no exception, which every lawyer knows, that where something is declared to be something else for a certain purpose, it is only that something else for that certain purpose, and it is a direct indication that it is not that something else for no other purpose. There is no question about it in law; that makes it perfectly clear that only for the purpose of paying interest and sinking fund to the National Debt Commissioners is land stock National Debt.

Mr. Derrig: Would the Minister for Agriculture tell us from what Act he is quoting?

Mr. Hogan: I am quoting from the Act of 1903, Section 32. This is taken from the Local Loans Act. I want to have a definite answer to that point also. Can there be any doubt of this legal maxim of interpretation that the expression of one thing excludes everything else, and that when something is declared to be something else for a special purpose that that is a clear indication that it cannot be that something else for any other purpose? If that is so, if this is National Debt there was no occasion whatever for this provision, the various Acts for setting up the National Debt Commissioners apply. There was no need for this provision. It was because it was not a National Debt that this provision was inserted. Why was it inserted?

The National Debt Commissioners were established many years ago to deal with what was at the time the National Debt. In the course of time other stocks came to be issued also —land stock and local loan stocks and other stocks—and it was considered that the annual payments of the interest and the sinking fund on not only National Debt, but on stocks which were not national, should be made by one body, the National [1335] Debt Commissioners, and this applies not merely to land stock but to local loan stock, and it was provided that for the purpose of paying interest and sinking fund on the stock by the National Debt Commissioners it should be regarded as National Debt. That is a clear indication that for no other purpose is it National Debt, and that in fact it is not National Debt.

But a similar provision applied to the 1909 Act. We can put all this beyond doubt. I can only quote authorities. I can only quote statutes. We can disagree about them. But there is one way of putting all this beyond all doubt. This matter could have been put beyond all doubt two, three, or four years ago quite simply. The agreement cancelling our obligations under Article 5 of the Treaty was confirmed in 1925, and made the law of this State in 1925. The Ultimate Financial Settlement was not made the law of this State since 1925. No Act was passed since 1925 altering, amending, or affecting the Act which cancelled our obligations under Article 5. Therefore, the law to-day remains exactly the same as when we passed the agreement cancelling Article 5. Why has not anybody taken action and got the opinion of the courts as to whether this land stock is public debt or not? There has been a campaign raging through the country. The cost of such an injunction would not be much. Any citizen or any taxpayer can take an action for an injunction against the Minister for Finance preventing him from illegally paying money over to England. Why has not that action been taken? Is it conceivable that if Deputy de Valera believes a single word he has uttered here to-day that he would have let the last three or four years pass and not have actions taken restraining the Minister for Finance? What is the reason? There is only one, and the Deputies on the opposite benches know it. They recognise quite well that all their talk is so much balderdash, and they realise [1336] that it would not stand one hour's examination in court before a judge.

Mr. Carney: Neither would yours.

Mr. MacEntee: It did not.

Mr. Hogan: Do not get me off the track. I would like to discuss that with you, but I cannot do it now. This is only a small point, but it may be news to some Deputies that as regards the stock under the Land Acts under 1881 and up to 1885 there is no guarantee in the Exchequer for the stock at all. There was no guarantee. The Consolidated Fund is under no obligation whatever in regard to the sinking fund for the 1903 and the 1909 Acts. The British Exchequer does not even come in as a third party, so that as far as any portion of the annuities is concerned, even on the Deputy's own showing there is no case made. Even if you do not like my definition of public debt and if you do not accept this meaning of the term I ask you, do you accept what I have just quoted, the principle that when one thing is expressed directly everything else is excluded. as a principle of interpretations of the Local Loans Act. Remember that the 1885 Act was financed largely out of the Local Loans Stock. That particular section in the Act dealing with the Local Loans Stock and the sections in the 1903 and 1909 Acts setting out that the Land Stock shall only be regarded as public debt for a certain purpose do not form a clear statutory indication that it is a public debt for any other purpose.

Mr. Lemass: It does not state that at all.

Mr. Hogan: It says that for the purpose of calculating the annual sums payable to the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland for the maintenance of the National Debt, the stock shall be considered as part of the National Debt.

Dr. Ryan: It does not say “only.”

Mr. Hogan: My statement was that there is a section here which specifically states that the stock shall be regarded for one purpose.

[1337] Dr. Ryan: It does not say only.

Mr. Hogan: And that one purpose is the public debt.

Dr. Ryan: It does not say only.

Mr. Hogan: We will have it from the lawyers. Deputy Ryan should stick to the agricultural side for the moment. I would be glad to hear this from the lawyers, and I would like to hear Deputy Ruttledge on the matter. I put it to him here: is it not absolutely clear that that is the indication that it is not a public debt for any other purpose? Let him answer that purpose. I would like to hear him or any other lawyer on the matter. I submit that makes it absolutely clear. Finally, if there is any doubt about it, if the Deputy has any case, why does he not place it before the judges? Why all this delay? Why all this campaign through the country? The Deputy is not shy. He has taken action in court often. Any time the Deputy saw the slightest advantage to be made he went into court. Why does he not do it now?

Mr. de Valera: We are in the right court.

Mr. Hogan: There can only be one answer. The Deputies on the other side do not believe a word of what they are saying. If they believed a single word of what they are saying they would go before the courts that are paid to interpret the law and before which anyone can appear. No one can dare say the courts are not impartial. The Deputy would there establish his case very definitely if he had a case. Deputy Lemass laughs, but he knows thoroughly well that the courts are impartial.

Mr. O'Kelly: Go to law with the devil and hold the courts in hell. Is that what you want?

Mr. Lemass: And have them suppressing the courts when they give an unfavourable decision.

Mr. Hogan: I do not mind Deputy O'Kelly, who gets hysterical on the slightest provocation, but it is different with Deputy Lemass. I want [1338] an answer from him on that. This hugger-mugger is going on too long. Why do they not go before the courts? They are there for the purpose specifically of interpreting the law. The Deputy did not go before the courts, because he did not believe a single word of what he has been saying. His present position is such that he is endeavouring to cover it up with all sorts of pettifogging arguments. It was necessary in order to establish this case to work in the 1920 Act. There are, I know, Deputies on the opposite benches who are capable of a lot, but I do not believe that they are so utterly stupid as to believe some things they say about that Act. The first statement made by Deputy de Valera about that Act was that there was a reference to Southern Ireland in the Treaty, and that that expression “Southern Ireland” was taken from the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and that the Government of Ireland Act must be regarded as the law. Really, the innocence of that surpasseth all understanding, coming as it does from a Deputy who can split hairs better than any Deputy in this House or any man in the country, from a Deputy who can indulge in all sorts of subtleties. That little piece of innocence is really too much, it is too touching. The Deputy knows perfectly well that the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, provided in a particular section that I have here, Section 73, that it shall come into operation by stages, and it sets out the appointed dates. Equally he knows that the Act so far as some of its sections were concerned, was the law, because appointed days were named for them. The Deputy heard no later than yesterday in the Dáil reference to the penal provisions of the Penal Laws. So far as some sections were concerned, they were not the law. The Deputy knows that perfectly well.

Mr. MacEntee: Prove that.

Mr. Hogan: Section 73 of the Act of 1920 sets out as follows:—

“This Act shall, except as expressly provided, come into operation on the appointed day, and [1339] the appointed day for the purposes of this Act shall be the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this Act is passed, or such other day not more than seven months earlier or later, as may be fixed by Order of his Majesty in Council, either generally or with reference to any particular provision of this Act and different days may be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act, but the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland shall be summoned to meet not later than four months after the said Tuesday, and the appointed day for holding elections for the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland shall be fixed accordingly.”

Mr. MacEntee: Where is the proof?

Mr. Hogan: “The appointed day for holding elections of Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland shall be fixed accordingly.” That is to say, fifteen months. That is the latest day as may be “fixed by Order of His Majesty in Council, and the appointed day for holding elections...shall be fixed accordingly.”

Mr. MacEntee: And if such a day be not appointed, what happens?

Mr. Hogan: I will tell you. Section 73 contemplates that various sections of the Act shall be brought into operation if it is the wish to fix the appointed day. It seems to contemplate if there are certain portions of this Act which have not been brought into operation, because of no appointed day, it contemplates that these portions shall come into operation on some day in March, 1922. It is clear under that section that there were various appointed days named. There were appointed days named for the setting up for the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, and appointed days were named in connection with the Judiciary. The appointed day in dealing with the particular sections dealing with freedom [1340] of conscience was named, and there were other appointed days, but no appointed day was ever named at any time for the financial position of the 1920 Act. The Deputy knows that well. No appointed day was ever made for the financial provisions of the 1920 Act. In fact it was not until November, 1921, that an appointed day was named for the financial provisions of the 1920 Act applying to Northern Ireland. No appointed day was ever named for Southern Ireland.

The section which the Deputy quoted with so much care never was the law of this country, and certainly was not the law of this country on the 6th December, 1921, and was not the law on the date of the signing of the Agreement in connection with the financial matters under Article 5. It is arguable that for a period between the middle and the end of March the Act of 1920 was law. That is arguable, but it does not affect the question of the financial provisions of the Government of Ireland Act. It is absolutely clear that it was not the law on the 6th December, 1921, because no appointed day was ever named for bringing them into operation. Therefore, the 1920 Act does not apply at all. It can only be quoted to sustain the merits of the case, and the Deputy spent a considerable time dealing with the merits of the case.

Supposing the 1920 Act were law, what would be the position? It is quite simple. Under the 1920 Act there were certain financial provisions. These provisions were as follows:—(1) All the principal taxes were to be reserved so far as their imposition and collection were concerned. The British Parliament were to impose and collect all our principal taxes—customs, excise, income tax, super-tax, corporation profits tax and, in fact, three-quarters of our taxes. (2) In addition to these reserved taxes there were certain reserved services, including the police for a short time, the Land Commission, Post Office, Registry of Titles, and certain other services. (3) There were certain Imperial [1341] liabilities. These Imperial liabilities included charges for the services of the National Debt and charges in respect of the King, the civil list, the Dominions Office, the army and the navy. It was provided that out of these taxes—and practically all our principal taxes would be imposed and collected by the British Parliament, and we would have no control over them—there should be retained (1) the cost of all reserved services, and (2) a contribution which was set out at ten millions in respect of Imperial services, namely, services such as the National Debt, the King, the army, navy, civil list, the Dominions Office, and so on. It was provided further that that contribution could be modified by a Joint Exchequer Board, on which there would be a majority of English nominees. These were the financial provisions of the 1920 Act. It was provided, finally, that Ireland might retain the Land Commission annuities. Let us assume that the Land Commission annuities amount to three millions a year. The position, therefore, was that all fiscal control was to be taken from the hands of the Irish people. Under the Act the administration of certain important Irish services, which we were paying for, was to be taken, such as the Land Commission. Such services were to be taken out of the hands of the Irish Government.

Dr. Ryan: The Land Commission?

Mr. Hogan: Yes. It was a reserved service under the Act. A contribution of a maximum of ten millions was to be made towards Imperial services, services for which we have no liability now, good, bad or indifferent. In consideration of that Ireland was to retain a sum of three millions. The very same purpose could be effected by making the contribution seven millions instead of ten. The only answer to that point is that the Joint Exchequer Board might modify in our favour. They might, but they certainly would not modify it sufficiently to reduce our liability to nothing.

Mr. de Valera: One would scarcely [1342] expect the English Minister for Agriculture to plead the Irish case in his Parliament.

Mr. Hogan: I did not quite hear the Deputy.

Mr. de Valera: There are few English Ministers who would plead a case against their own country in the same way as the Minister for Agriculture is doing now.

Mr. Hogan: Perhaps the Deputy is finding the case I am making a bit too effective. I am pleading a case that he will not be able to answer. It is only lately, and for his own purpose, that the Deputy became so much in love with the 1920 Act. Of course, he would take any Act if he thought it would give us the slightest trouble. I am not, as the Deputy says, pleading the case of the English farmers. I am dealing with financial provisions which we succeeded in maintaining and establishing in spite of the Deputy, and I am comparing with them the financial provisions of the 1920 Act. I am showing that under the 1920 Act all control would be taken out of our hands. We were liable to a contribution of ten millions for Imperial services, and in consideration of that we were to retain three millions. Our only hope of salvation was a Joint Exchequer Board, on which there was a majority of English nominees. According to Deputy de Valera, these were terms which were really meritorious and better terms than we have now. The simple answer about the 1920 Act is that when we are dealing with the law the 1920 Act does not apply. The financial provisions of that Act were never in operation on the 6th December, 1921. No appointed day was ever named for them. They do not affect the law in any way, and hence the only use that can be made of the 1920 Act is to show that if we had accepted it we would not have got better terms. If the Deputy thinks the terms of the 1920 Act better terms, then that is a matter for himself.

At the time the Treaty was under discussion people advocated it, [1343] amongst other reasons, on the ground that we would have to pay nothing in respect of the public debt of Great Britain. The people who advocated it on that ground were absolutely right. We have not paid and we are not paying a single penny in respect of the public debt of the United Kingdom. We are not paying one single copper. If the Deputy has any doubt on the matter I have pointed out a way in which he can verify it. He stated when we were discussing the Land Act of 1923, the ultimate financial settlement, or the agreement in 1925 cancelling Article 5, no one ever thought we would have to pay land annuities. I will disillusion him. There was never at that time any real question about the payment of land annuities. There was no question in the Dáil or in the country about the payment of annuities in 1923, even at the time when the gentleman who started this particular ramp was in the Dáil, the gentleman who signed the Treaty—Mr. Gavan Duffy. There was not a word in 1924. Everyone assumed that the Land Commission annuities were due in respect of land stock, and the annuitants had an obligation to pay the interest on the money lent. During the discussion of the agreement cancelling Article 5 there was never any question of withholding Land Commission annuities. How did this arise? The genesis is rather interesting. I do not mind poor old Senator Moore and other people of that sort. He is capable of a lot of foolishness. This became a real pressing question when it was taken up by the body now calling themselves Republicans and who look down upon the Deputies on the Fianna Fáil Benches.

It was taken up first seriously by an organ called “An Phoblacht” and the minute it was taken up by that organ Deputy de Valera had to take it up also. That is unfortunately the position that he is in. Any body of ruffians who shout for a Republic louder than he in the country will be his masters. That is the unfortunate position he is in. [1344] He is denied the only authority that can be given by the people. As I say, when any body of ruffians shouts for a Republic louder than he, he must toe the line. They made the law. He came along then and did it in a typical fashion. He is a master of double phrase. He will say something out of which one person may take one thing and another person may take another. For instance, I was told that I was wrong in suggesting that he ever intended that the tenant farmers should not pay their annuities. Let us see. The Deputy's first statement was in an interview with a representative of the “Manchester Guardian” in which he said that annuities should be withheld and not paid by the tenant farmers and that there should instead be a land tax.

Mr. de Valera: I did not say anything of the kind. Will you quote me?

Mr. Hogan: Yes, luckily I have it here, because that is another trick of yours.

Mr. de Valera: Then let us hear what I did say.

Mr. Hogan: Yes, here it is:—

“Our farmers certainly ought to pay something for the privilege of using the land, but what, perhaps, they pay should not be annuities calculated to compensate the landlord for his legal claim to rent, but rather a land tax which could be graduated more justly and scaled down in accordance with the farmers' ability to pay.”

Mr. de Valera: You might read the context.

Mr. Hogan: I will, but I am not going to read the whole statement.

Mr. de Valera: Read the context.

Mr. Hogan: Yes. I am not going to read the whole context.

“Still I do not assert that those who advance the money which the British Treasury used to buy out the landlords should not be repaid. But the question by [1345] whom the money should be repaid has still to be settled. I am not for repudiation of debts.”

Of course not.

“A future Republican Government could not ignore all the acts of its predecessor, but the financial settlement which Cosgrave has made with England is too absurd and will have to be reopened.”

The important point is this. I have been criticised for stating that the policy of persons opposite is to try and induce the farmers to support them in the hope that they will have to pay no annuities, and for having stated that this entirely dishonest campaign is really directed towards conveying to the farmers that if this campaign succeeds they will not have to pay anything. I want to justify that out of the mouth of Deputy de Valera. He began by saying that the farmers should not pay annuities but should pay a land tax.

Mr. de Valera: I never made such a statement.

Mr. Hogan:

“Our farmers certainly ought to pay something for the privilege of using the land, but what, perhaps, they pay should not be annuities calculated to compensate the landlord for his legal claim to rent but rather a land tax which could be graduated more justly and scaled down in accordance with the farmers' ability to pay.” Will the Deputy deny that?

Mr. de Valera: My statement is clear. I was talking about general policy, and my words do not bear the interpretation which you are putting on them. At no time did I suggest that the tenants should not pay their annuities.

Mr. Hogan: It is very lucky that I have this quotation, as it is an old trick of the Deputy. I am not appealing to the Deputy to say what he meant. God knows what he meant. I am merely reading out what he said and leaving it to the country to judge. This is what he said:—

[1346] “Our farmers certainly ought to pay something for the privilege of using the land, but what, perhaps, they pay should not be annuities calculated to compensate the landlord for his legal claim to rent but rather a land tax which could be graduated more justly and scaled down in accordance with the farmers' ability to pay.”

The farmer is not a fool. He takes the tip all right. We all know what the farmer will read out of that. He will say: “That is all right.”

Mr. Gorey: “Good old Dev.”

Mr. Hogan: Yes; a nod is as good as a wink. On the other hand, if anyone dares to suggest that repudiation is involved, Deputy de Valera will say “I never meant it.” I have extracts here, and I think I will give him a few more of them.

Mr. Lemass: They are very excellent as red herrings.

Mr. Hogan: You do not like them.

Mr. Lemass: Red herrings, that is all they are.

Mr. MacEntee: Stick to the motion if you are not afraid.

Mr. Hogan: I can claim credit for driving the Deputy at a later date into the open. He tried to hedge. Here is an extract quoted from a statement of his in the “Irish Times”—it is a report of the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis, and I suppose it also appeared in the “Irish Independent”—in which he said that annuities were due to the State and were the property of the community as a whole. Deputy de Valera also stated that “the policy of Fianna Fáil was that the annuities should be paid into the Central Fund.” He had come on at that time.

“The annuities were due to the State and were the property of the community as a whole. When that money came into the Central Fund, belonging as it did to the community, it would be a question for the Government and the Dáil to decide the manner in which it should be spent, with special reference [1347] to the claims of agriculture.”

Mr. Gorey: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hogan: In other words, gentlemen, if we succeed in getting away with this ramp we may collect the annuities with one hand but we will give them back with the other.

Mr. Fahy: We might de-rate.

Mr. de Valera: If they are all as good as that we will be glad to hear them.

Mr. Hogan: Practically every one of these statements is on these lines. I have never yet read a statement from the Deputy on land annuities in which he has not stated: “Of course, when we get the annuities we will pay special attention to agriculture.” In other words, he will give them back.

Mr. Fahy: Is that a legal interpretation?

Mr. Hogan: That is Deputy de Valera's way of doing it. He has another habit which is very typical. He always sings vicariously. When he wants the real gospel preached he sends down to the country some of the least important Deputies. They give the real dope. No humming or hawing about them. The advantage is that, if they get away with it and get the votes of the people, so much the better for Deputy de Valera. If, on the other hand, they make a mistake and it is just a little bit too tough, he can let them down. I can als