Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 1 May 1925

Vol. 11 No. 7

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS. - LOSSES OF LIVESTOCK IN SAORSTAT.—MOTION BY DEPUTY BAXTER—(RESUMED).

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I was speaking for about five minutes on Wednesday evening when the debate had to be adjourned. I was endeavouring to impress upon the Minister and the Government generally the very grave need which has arisen owing to loss amongst livestock and to make some suitable provision for dealing with the crisis occasioned. I was about to say that it would be wrong, highly improper, perhaps suicidal, to minimise the distress which exists. To-day, I feel, in addition, bound to say that it would be criminal perhaps to exaggerate the position or to distort the facts in any way, or to endeavour to do anything in that way, for the sake of propaganda, to make the position appear worse than what it is. Our credit is so intimately connected with the health of our livestock and our income is so largely derived from our sales abroad, that I ask the House, the Press and the public to have a rational appreciation of the facts. In am informed that at the present time the publicity which this thing has received has occasioned a sort of distrust amongst persons who import stores into England from Ireland, and that people are not inclined to buy Irish cattle at the same rate as heretofore. That point of view was put before me recently. Of course, I was at all times conscious that it is quite an improper thing to exaggerate conditions.

I had given some statistics on Wednesday evening. I had stated that several people whom I had named had suffered losses, taking them at random. One man named Pat Tubridy, of Kilkee, County Clare, lost fifteen yearlings, five two-year-olds and a bull. I can pick out others who sustained very serious losses. These figures have been with me for some time and I am certain they are accurate as to the date on which they were compiled and as regards the localities they deal with. I do not pretend that with all this mass of figures I am putting anything exhaustive before the House or that it represents or draws a complete or full picture of the situation. I have heard of two districts in West Clare, Lisheen and Rahona, where a number of persons lost a total of 229 yearlings, 28 two-year-olds, and 18 cows. The position is then, without exaggeration, very serious in these areas. The Minister and the Government can, perhaps, claim that none of the speakers so far have put forward suggestions for amelioration—nothing concrete, nothing definite, nothing crystallised, except perhaps the suggestion made by Deputy Johnson, which I propose to deal with in a moment.

Deputy Johnson's suggestion was, I think, to regulate the export of milch cows and, perhaps, to restrict in a varying degree the export of store cattle. To that suggestion I, for one, could not for a moment agree. The losses amongst milch cows have been heavy in certain districts. Let us think in local terms, and let us segregate the fact that national terms are distinct. The losses have been serious in certain areas, perhaps ruinous to the persons involved, but it does not mean to say that the losses amongst cows throughout the country have been appalling. You might have about one and a quarter million milch cows in Ireland. Even if we had 20, 30, 40 or 50 thousand of a loss, that percentage does not call for such extreme or radical measures as Deputy Johnson proposes. What would the effects be in the first instance, of adopting this policy? You would, perhaps, bring down the price of cows if you absolutely bar export or if you put a strict prohibition on it. You would certainly bring it down, but where is the gain to the nation at large? In addition, it cannot be demonstrated that the gain would be material to the persons interested, who, having sustained losses, would be obliged to go into the market to purchase stock. With this total of about 1,200,000 cows in the country at present, there is no need for such panicky measures. It would lower, I repeat, our national income, inasmuch as no money would come in when we are not exporting any milch cows. In addition, our ordinary internal trade would be very seriously affected; prices would go down as between man and man, and remember, there is no such thing as famine prices prevailing at present for milch cows; they are sold at comparatively reasonable prices. Deputy Johnson's suggestion is altogether impracticable, and would, in my opinion, be absolutely ruinous to our livestock trade, would confer no benefit on the persons whom he seeks to benefit, or would give very little benefit. It is a penny wise pound foolish system. I want his suggestion to be disregarded. It could have no effect and can have no toleration or support, at least from this side of the House.

The question of this loss has another implication which I have not touched on, and that is in connection with our national and public services. How can you get from people who have lost their all and who, unfortunately, live in the poor counties where the land is unfertile, congested areas where a large number of mouths have to be fed, money to maintain local services? The man who has lost two-thirds, three-fourths, or all of his cattle is potentially or actually a bankrupt unless he obtains relief; you cannot wring money from such a man. Yet, what is the position to-day in large areas? This question of agricultural credit is so much connected, so inter-related, with all phases of our national life that I cannot refrain from touching upon this question of local administration. The position, as I see it, is this. The loss of stock is only one part of the distress from which we are suffering. In years gone by serious losses were sustained, but that did not affect the capacity to some extent of the farmers to pay, because they had some reserves. They drew on these reserves; they restocked their land, or they spent this money in keeping up their homes. Perhaps they lowered their standard of comfort, but, in any case, they did not face the country, crying, as it were, for bread. What has happened in the last four or five years? It is well to face the facts; it is as well to be honest with ourselves and with the situation. Four or five years ago, the gentleman who is at present senior Deputy for Clare, giving way to an impulse, which I may perhaps term the call of the blood, made a celebrated speech. At that time, under the auspices of Sinn Fein, the new councils were "elected," if I may use such a word with propriety, which is questionable. At all events they were permitted by the indifference or the criminal folly of the people to assume the reins of office. That was not confined to one county, it happened in each county, and the result has been manifested in each county. You have had inflated public expenditure, expenditure far in excess of local needs, far in excess ordinarily of the capacity of the people to pay, even in the best times. You have had wanton, reckless waste, and this at a time when, owing to the slump in livestock subsequent to the Great War, the value of agricultual produce and the capacity of the farmers to pay had declined by fifty per cent. In the year 1921. at the time when the Second Dáil, that most unfortunate of institutions, came into being—I say unfortunate, for they, too, contributed to it by their factious conduct; they gave us a civil war, and that contributed potently to agricultural distress—a slump occurred in a few weeks. The nation lost half of its capital capacity in livestock and produce; prices fell fifty per cent.

There is no doubt whatever about that; it is a matter of common knowledge, and it is as well known to the Ministry as it is to me. In other words, if half the livestock of the country had died at the time, and if the prices existing up to then had been maintained, we would have been in no worse position; we might to an appreciable extent have been in a better one, because had the prices continued high, we could, over a certain number of years, have retrieved our position. All economical principles were more or less flung to the wind and disregarded during the time that has since elapsed. We have had then contributing to this agricultural distress high expenditure. It is well to remember that the land over that period was not sterile; that productivity remained fairly high; that while the price of his produce remained low the cost of living for the agriculturist was high; the fact remains, and will, I suppose, continue to remain, that the lowest charge on the land is the maintenance of the workers thereon. Taking that view-point then, we find that the farmer had to sell his produce at a relatively small price; that he had to pay out still on the inflated scale; that local and national services had still to be maintained; that every form of parasite in the country had a call prior to the farmer on what the farmer produced; that even the tout and the thief got a share of the wealth that he produced, and that practically no share was left to him. That is the position. Payments are demanded, which the agriculturist cannot give, for those services which he does not need, but which he is compelled to pay for to satisfy the demands of visionaries and men of that ilk, and it is because of this that he has been reduced to the horrible position in which we find him at present. When I raised the question of distress in Co. Clare some months ago, the Minister for Agriculture sought to emphasise the fact that expensive county councils were permitted by us to function. But we have had no option in the matter. We did not support a policy that approximated to revolutionary activities. In many cases I believe that these men were prepared to seize power, by force if necessary——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I think that the Deputy is travelling very wide of the terms of the resolution.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I am endeavouring to show what the causes of the present agricultural distress have been. That is one of the grievances, I will not say the fundamental one, that must be logically remedied if we are to continue, and that in the very near future, inasmuch as the public services require such a large portion of the farmers' income, that to-day a term of common reproach could be extended, both to the rackrenting landlord and the Sinn Fein county councils. It is time, I submit, that we faced the situation honestly and bravely. The condition of things with which we have to deal is very serious. You have public services maintained at a scale not commensurate with their work.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy will get an opportunity outside of this to discuss this matter. He ought to confine himself to the terms of the motion now.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I will submit to your ruling. But coming down to the position at the moment, what is it? It is that the need for a loan, it must be admitted on all hands, is urgent and imperative on the administration. Of course, I know there are great practical difficulties when dealing with this question. To whom shall the loan be given? In what areas? Under what conditions shall it be given? I put forward as a tentative suggestion to the Dáil that, of course, a certain limit must be placed on the money advanced to any one individual man, and the rate of interest and the period for which the loan is to continue must, of necessity, be determined, more or less, by areas; but it would be difficult to lay down hard and fast principles for dealing with the matter. Where holdings are very small, and where the losses have been exceedingly severe, it will be necessary, I think, to advance loans for perhaps a ten years' period, and during the first three years, while this loan continues, no interest should be collected, but it should accumulate until collected at the end of the third year.

There is no use in discussing it. This will impose a most serious burden on the Exchequer, but it has got to be faced. Every sense of humanity, every sense of justice cries out against the continuance of a policy of acute economic distress along the Atlantic belt. You may think that, perhaps, in many cases, in these small holdings, a loan of £50 for a ten-year period might save the situation. I do not suppose that, in any case, more than £120 to £150 would be required as a loan, and I think £150 would be exceptional. Then you may have to give loans as low as £10 or £15. The smaller the loan, I should imagine, taking it as a general principle, the more needy are the circumstances of the applicant. The interest, too, must be determined, and whether you wish to charge the current market rates to them. I submit that in the cases of the smaller people, the poorer men, a reduction in the interest should be given, and where the Government has to borrow money itself at 5 or 5½ per cent. they should give to to these people at 3 or 3½ per cent., and let the Exchequer bear the difference. I do not know that the number of cases and that the amount of money involved will be extraordinarily high. It is the one thing I can see that is going to restore the economic stability and bring about something like an approach to fair agricultural conditions in the West. I say restore, for the economic position has gone already. That, and that alone, can and must be the determining factor to guide the Minister and the Government.

We, on these benches, ask the support of the Deputies, in every quarter of the House, to insist that a proper scheme is formulated. I am prepared to give any experience I have had in the good work involved in such a scheme. I want the Government to deal sympathetically with these people. Perhaps they owe them, for the follies of the past four or five years, some justice, something in the nature of restitution. I ask them to deal very sympathetically with this matter and to enter carefully into the spirit with which we, on the Farmers' Benches, are making this appeal for justice and for aid for our afflicted constituents.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I would like to support this motion standing in the name of Deputy Baxter. I am glad to say that there is not any distress, of any great consequence, in my constituency, on the ground of loss of cattle and sheep from disease. But, I understand there has been, and I know, to my own knowledge, that there is very acute distress existing in other parts of the country on account of these losses. I do know that in a bordering constituency considerable losses have occurred. I would say to the Minister that this is not an ordinary appeal. It is not the type of appeal that is likely to occur from year to year. I think it is, in the words of Deputy Johnson, more in the nature of an unusual catastrophe, comparable to something of a type of earthquake, or something of that kind. We had the wettest summer, followed probably by the wettest winter, in thirty years, and cattle and sheep standing on the land perished from wet and cold, and the severe strain which they had to bear through standing out in the rain in the fields.

My information is that by no means all the losses which happened this winter amongst cattle and sheep are due to fluke. A great many of the losses have been due to the fluke, but I also know that a great many cattle have died owing to the wet winter and the lack of proper sustenance, due in many cases to the extremely bad hay which was saved during last summer. I know, in my constituency, that, though there have been no severe losses, there has been a great number of isolated losses owing to the cattle being in poor condition, and I would say that though no outstandingly severe losses have occurred, considerable losses have occurred in isolated cases. I would say that the mortality rate amongst cattle and sheep is considerably higher than it has been in past years. The losses that have taken place in places like Clare have affected store cattle in my county. There is a scarcity of store cattle, with the result that the prices of store cattle have gone up considerably, and those in my county who are engaged in grazing and feeding the more advanced cattle find it difficult to make ends meet, or to make a profit on the margin left them after they had bought those cattle at their present prices. Connected with this matter of aid to those who have suffered these great losses is the question of drainage. I think that a permanent amelioration of the position cannot be effected unless we have some comprehensive system of drainage, dealing with the water-logged lands all over the country. I think it is undoubtedly a fact that in recent years, possibly owing to the operation of the Land Acts, drainage conditions in many parts of the country are considerably deteriorated.

The main water-courses are clogged; the beds of the river are silted, and the water remains on the land when there is no outlet, with the result that acres of land are water-logged. This, as the Minister knows, is a proper bed for the mite or insect which propagates this disease. Without wet and water-logged land, I understand that it is almost impossible for the microbe which propagates the disease to exist. Part of the cycle of its existence is, I understand, spent in a snail which only exists in water-logged soil. I would say to the Minister then that it is very important that drainage schemes of a more comprehensive nature should be taken up by the Government. I am not suggesting that the Government should undertake the drainage of the whole country, but some considerable help from the Government and some form of organisation will be necessary so that farmers may be brought together and, I may almost say, forced to undertake drainage operations. It is true that as the law stands, two or three recalcitrant farmers who do not wish to be progressive or to help their neighbours can hold up a drainage scheme, even though all the other farmers in the district are anxious to bring it into force. I say that this is an exceptional catastrophe, and it has to be met by exceptional measures, and by something which will deal with it quickly and which will remedy the distress existing. There are few people harder hit by the distress than the small farmers. They have no unemployment insurance scheme to fall back on, so it is more than probable that there are many small farmers who having lost almost everything are living on the verge of starvation on the little crops which they manage to propagate in their gardens. I have always been an advocate of establishing some system of credits to meet the necessities of small farmers. I do not say that that would meet the distress now, as it would require more urgent and direct methods to remedy it, but, generally, for the purpose of relieving distress among small farmers, I think that something should be done by the Ministry to bring into force the recommendations contained in the report of the Agricultural Commission with regard to a credit system. The poorer a man is and the greater the necessity for credit, the more difficult it is for him to get credit. When a man has lost his stock and goes to a bank he will not get a loan, whereas if a man is prospering and has a good many cattle and sheep and wants a loan to advance his business, he will find that the banks will consider his case favourably and will probably grant him a loan. Where, however, a man is down and out, and where the prospects of early repayment of a loan are poor, he cannot obtain it. The banks, perhaps rightly so, maintain that it is not their business or in the interest of depositors to make loans, the payment of which would be uncertain, certainly as regards time, with the result that those in distress find it almost impossible to obtain loans. The Minister may say, and perhaps rightly so, that it is the duty of farmers to provide this credit. I agree to a certain extent that the farmers ought to organise and form credit societies, but I think it is not possible for farmers alone to support those in distress, and I think they would have to get some backing, some support or guarantees from the Government.

In France there are co-operative credit societies which are financed in their initial stage at the instigation of the Government by the Bank of France. I am not going to suggest to the Minister what form of credit he should establish, but I say that the need is urgent for the establishment of some form of credit to meet the needs of small farmers for their current expenditure. At present they can obtain loans from the Board of Works for buildings or drainage, but there is no system by which they can obtain money for current expenditure for the promotion of their ordinary business on their farms. That is a matter that ought to be taken up by the Government, and if it is, I would say that it is a matter to which the farmers' organisations would give their heartiest support. There is another matter connected with this distress which has been mentioned already, and that is the difficulty which the Government will find in obtaining their Land Commission annuities, and also that local authorities will find great difficulty in getting their rates. I will not elaborate on the excessive rates which at present are being asked for in many parts of the country, but taking into account the condition of distress which exists, I think it is very unlikely that the local bodies or the Land Commission will be able to collect the amounts due to them in these districts. I hope, and I feel sure, that the Minister has some constructive suggestion to make. The necessity is urgent and exceptional. We do not ask for doles or gifts of money for these people, but we ask that they be given sufficient time for the repayment of loans, or some system of that kind, which will give them a chance of raising themselves out of the unfortunate position in which they are placed, and which will relieve them from the sad, distressful frame of mind, from which they must suffer owing to the extraordinary losses which they met this winter.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

Deputy Baxter stated his case very clearly. I do not want to minimise the problem. I have been receiving reports from officials of my Department for the last four months in connection with this matter, and I and those officials themselves find it extraordinarily difficult to get an exact measure of the problem. At the beginning, the point of view of the farmers' executives was that there were no losses. The farmers were hiding their losses. Later on, however, they were admitted in one form or another. One official would be told by a farmer that he lost so much, while another official would be told that he lost so much more. That is quite natural, but that makes it difficult to measure this problem. I have reports from all the officers who are dealing with this matter, and in addition, I have my own personal observation and my own outside sources of information.

I propose to give the House what I consider to be the measure of this problem. The following are the counties affected:—Counties Cavan, Clare, Galway, Kerry, Kildare, Leitrim, Mayo, Monaghan, Roscommon, Sligo, Tirconaill, and Wexford. Outside these counties I do not think that the disease existed to any great extent. I should say that Leitrim is probably in all the circumstances in the worst plight and, of the other counties, probably Galway. Taking all the reports and getting the best opinions I can get, I am satisfied that, taking these counties as a whole, not more than five per cent. of the cattle died from fluke or any other cause. I know that in special districts in these counties, more than five per cent. were affected and died. In some districts the number was 25 per cent., and in others perhaps fifty per cent., and in individual cases, perhaps, seventy-five per cent. I am quite ready to accept the figures given by Deputy Crowley yesterday. Taking those counties, and omitting the other counties, not more than five per cent. of the cattle died. There are about four million cattle—one million cows, one million calves, and two million cattle over one year. These are rough figures. There are about 160,000 cattle in an average county—say, about 150,000. Five per cent. of that would be between 75,000 and 100,000 cattle. I say that is the maximum figure for cows, calves, yearlings, and cattle of all ages. If you divide that between cows, calves, and other cattle, you will get for each county about 1,000 cows, and about 3,000 or 4,000 calves, and 3,000 or 4,000 other cattle. Having regard to all the information I can get from all sources, I can quite appreciate the difficulty of individual Deputies, like Deputy Baxter, who have to depend on their own experience, and who have not the advantages or the experience of the officials of the Department who are at work in each county, and who get a proper picture. I am satisfied from reports I have received that the figure I have given is the outside figure, and that there has not been more than a five per cent. loss in the twelve counties in question. In order to under stand what that means exactly, Deputies will have to realise that in an ordinary year there is a loss of two per cent. on cattle, and added to that normal loss there is another two per cent. in addition. Five per cent. may appear small to people who remember experiences around their own neighbourhoods. I have come from Galway, where probably half the sheep in Ireland are. There are 3,000,000 sheep in the country, and there would be well over 1,000,000 in County Galway. I know the district affected between Athenry and Tuam, and I know what occurred there.

I put it to Deputies who come from Galway, and who are impressed with the losses in sheep in that county, that the loss in sheep was not 100,000, or anything like it, in Galway. Probably there are about 1,100,000 sheep in the county, the total for Ireland being about 3,000,000, and in the twelve counties I have named there would be about 2,000,000. Five per cent. of the total sheep in Ireland would be 150,000. I think it is perfectly clear that that number of sheep did not die, and the losses in Galway did not amount to 50,000. You would want to go well over that before you could say that anything like five per cent. of the sheep of the country died. I cannot give accurate figures as regards sheep, but I think I am exaggerating with regard to cattle. The fact is that both with regard to sheep and cattle you had about two per cent. added to the normal two per cent. of losses. That is the exact position, and that is the national aspect of the question.

I put the position from that point of view, having regard to Deputy Johnson's suggestion, that the export of cows, calves, or sheep should be stopped, and I also put that point of view because of the statements that have been made by various Deputies that something like an earthquake, in fact a national disaster, was represented by these losses. It is a gross exaggeration of language to describe it as a national disaster. There is no doubt whatever that the normal yearly losses through contagious abortion are much greater than the abnormal losses we suffered this year from fluke. Deputy Baxter shakes his head. Am I right in saying that practically every dairy herd in the south within a period of five years, suffers for one or two years from contagious abortion, which runs through half the herd? I think that no farmer from a creamery district will deny that. That occurs every ten years at least, and each herd suffers from it one or two years, that is they lose half the calves, and each calf would represent a loss of £3 or £4. The cow is a stripper, and is worth £5 or £6 less. There is consequential loss to a man whose cows calve in spring, and who has lost his spring calver, and on the other hand a man who has made arrangements for autumn calvers has his policy disorganised. I am satisfied that the normal losses from contagious abortion in this country are considerably more than the abnormal losses caused by fluke this year. Remember, I do not want to minimise this question. I have admitted that there is a problem, and it is a poor consolation to a man who has lost 30 or 35 per cent. of his cattle, to say that is not a national disaster. But it is a disaster to the individual, or to numbers of individuals, or to a particular district.

That is quite reasonable, but whether you agree or do not agree that the loss this year is less than the normal loss caused by contagious abortion, there is at least no doubt that the abnormal loss this year is of no account, from the point of view of the country as a whole, as compared with the loss that occurs year after year by underfeeding. I would like Farmer Deputies to examine the figures. Assuming we sell most of our cattle between two and three years old and assume that we sell between 800,000 and 1,000,000 cattle of that age each year, I say, looking at that two or three years old beast from the time he was a calf to the time he was a yearling and up to two years old, there is at least a loss of £5 a head incurred through bad feeding and wrong treatment. I do not think there is a farmer who has considered the question but will agree with that. That loss is not caused because farmers have not the money. While we all admit that the farmer is going through a time of very great hardship, it should be clear that the loss is caused, not by any of the considerations which Deputy Hogan mentioned, not even by the Second Dáil, not by any poverty amongst the farmers, and not by anything which they could not avoid. It is caused by direct ill-treatment. Fifty per cent. of it is caused by want of proper shelter and houses. Housing of the simplest kind will do. That loss of £5 per animal accrues not to one farmer, but to the combination of farmers who handled the animal from the time he was calved until the time he reaches the English buyer at two or three years old. That loss amounts to £5,000,000 per year. We are impressed tremendously by the loss this year, because it is a personal loss, a concrete loss which you could see and experience. But those other tremendous losses occur every year and we make no demur. They do not impress us in the least. I mention that to give the Dáil the real measure of the problem. This is not a national disaster. The loss, measured in pounds, shillings and pence, is nothing to the losses occurring yearly. It is an extremely serious matter for districts and individual farmers in them. In County Leitrim, where you have a number of small farmers, it is serious. There you have small farmers living on poorish land and certainly not normally well off. I said about five per cent. of the cattle died from all causes. I will not give figures, although I was tempted to give them, to show how many of them had fluke parasites in their livers. Probably well over fifty or sixty per cent. had. I say definitely that fifty per cent. of the cattle that died and fifty per cent. of the sheep that died were lost, not because of fluke, but because of bad treatment.

Mr. J. COSGRAVE

Were they all examined by the inspectors and veterinary surgeons?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

They were not. I asked Deputy Crowley what they had died from. Every farmer knows that what I state is correct.

Mr. COSGRAVE

Hundreds of sheep died in Galway that were not examined by any veterinary surgeons.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I do not suggest that the Department has a record of examination of every sheep that died. You can only examine samples and draw your deductions from your experience. All I am stating is that of the cattle and sheep that died 50 per cent. died not from fluke, but from underfeeding. That applies, of course, to cattle that died with actual fluke parasites in their liver. Cattle, normally treated, will eject the parasite. The position is that in a normal winter, as a matter of course, cattle and livestock generally are grossly underfed. I tried to give the measure of that loss a moment ago. That is the position; they are grossly underfed and badly treated. This year was a wet one. You had plenty of hay, but it was of poor quality. Add to that the circumstance, that in a normal year cattle are badly fed, and you have some idea of the condition of cattle this year. I do not say the farmers are responsible for the wet weather or bad hay. I do not think Deputies on the Farmers' benches should assume that everything said about farmers, either directly or indirectly, goes either for or against them. We all represent the farmers here. While it is admitted that the hay this year was bad, that the season was bad, that the keep was bad, and that farmers were poor, still there is no denying that in normal times livestock are badly treated in this country and big losses ensue owing to that. Added to that, you had the particular conditions of this year, and "hence those tears." It is wrong to say that dealers will not buy cattle at the fairs now. That is untrue; fairs for the past three months have been particularly good. Cattle are 30/- a head better than they were last year.

Mr. GOREY

I did not make the statement that generally fairs are not good. I said that in North Kerry fairs like the fair of Listowel were bad, and that the cattle-buyers did not buy with any confidence. That was especially the case a few months ago; it may not be so marked now.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I was not quoting the Deputy.

Mr. GOREY

I referred to the matter.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I know you did. There was an impression given the last time this matter was debated that, on account of this panic, cattle-buyers were not operating. I did not accuse the Deputy of giving such an impression. I want to tell the House that prices on the whole are 30/- a head better than last year. I have figures for recent fairs in several counties in Ireland here. Taking the average, cattle were 30/- dearer than last year and sheep were about the same price as last year. The increase is, of course, not quite so much in the case of calves.

Mr. COSGRAVE

What fairs?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I am talking of the fair of Ballinasloe, which is in the middle of the affected district in Galway, and of the fair of Loughrea.

Mr. COSGRAVE

You did not mention Loughrea some time ago; you said Athenry.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I said the district between Athenry and Tuam, roughly speaking. In big fairs, like those of Sligo, Ballinasloe, and Loughrea, where stores are bought, cattle are actually 30/- a head dearer this year than last year. Sheep are about the same price. It is not correct to say that land cannot be let this year. Land is being let this year at a slightly reduced price. There are a good many causes for this reduction in price, but the reduction is mainly due to the shortage of cattle and the high prices of them. Dealers were not operating for the last three weeks, because cattle were too dear. The Scotch were not buying for the last three weeks, and there was consequently a slight drop in cattle. I think the slight fall in price of grass is due to the fact that cattle are so dear, and that people are not buying them. That is the position generally.

I admit there is a problem which should be dealt with, if it can be dealt with. Most Deputies have very fairly admitted that making a loan simpliciter is not the way to deal with the problem. There are more ways of dealing with it than by loan. I am satisfied that it would be impossible to deal with this problem by way of a loan simpliciter or a loan administered centrally. The experience I have had in endeavouring to get accurate information makes it clear that it would be almost impossible to administer a loan centrally. Deputies can envisage the position themselves. Suppose you had £20,000 available for one county. That would buy 700 or 800 sheep and a few hundred cattle. There are 150,000 cattle in a county in the normal way and from 100,000 to 1,000,000 sheep. In some counties there would be more sheep than cattle. For cattle you would have £400,000 for 20 counties. £20,000 for one county would only buy 700 or 800 cattle and 400 or 500 sheep. Imagine the difficulty of any Government department trying to discriminate between thousands of applicants for a loan. It would be absolutely impossible. There would be five times as many applicants as you could make loans to. You would have to examine each case and rule out the man who lost stock, and who, because his circumstances were good, could replace them himself. Again, you would have to make certain that the applicant did lose the stock he mentioned. Then, after making the loan, you would have to see that it was used for the purpose for which it was given. To do all this, you would require a department as big as the Department of Agriculture. The same difficulties would arise if you tried to administer it in each county centrally; if the County Committee of Agriculture administered it. If any relief is to be administered in these counties, it should be administered by people with an intimate knowledge of the particular district. After we had decided that something should be done, these considerations drove us to the conclusion that we cannot deal with the situation by loan, which it would be impossible to administer. Our proposal is that the Department of Agriculture organise immediately credit societies on the same lines as societies which exist in the country. They will organise them in those counties, and the Treasury will make a deposit of £1 for every £1 put in by the local people.

Mr. GOREY

If they have nothing to put in, you will give them nothing.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I need not tell Deputy Gorey that I anticipated that remark. I will come to that point if he permits me. I want to develop the matter slightly. The Treasury will deposit £1 for every £1 deposited locally. These loans will be for restocking, and the rate of interest to be charged by the Treasury will be low. There need be no delay. We can organise these societies immediately. There are certain details that will have to be settled, but they can best be settled after hearing the experience of the organisers who will organise these societies. These organisers can start immediately. The proposal to lodge a considerable sum of money, at a low rate of interest, is to give these societies a momentum at the start, which will keep them running, so that in five or six years hence, when this fluke plague has abated and has been forgotten, these societies will be able to do really useful work in their districts.

Deputy Gorey said: "What about the people who have no money?" We are not in a position to examine everybody's bank balance, but we have some evidence which would justify us in thinking that there is not quite so much in that point as Deputy Gorey would suggest. I have a list before me of societies of this kind which are already in existence. I would like to give Deputies some particulars in regard to them. They are in the very poorest districts. Yet, in the poorest parts of the congested districts, these loan societies at the present moment are in a very healthy condition. Considerable deposits and considerable loans are made and I want to ask Deputies if, after three bad years and after all the disastrous ravages caused by the Second Dáil, these societies are in a fairly flourishing condition in the poorest districts of the areas known as the congested districts, is it not some evidence that the farmers can co operate with us in the way we suggest? It was said by Deputies on the Farmers' Benches that they realised that doles from the Government were not just the right way to deal with this matter. It was said, in anticipation of my saying the farmers should help themselves, they were prepared to help themselves but they wanted some Government co-operation. We offer that co-operation. We say we will organise these societies, inspect them and audit them, and do it immediately. The Treasury will lodge £1 for every £1 lodged by local depositors and that money will be given at a low rate of interest. You will have, then, certain men in each district administering this fund and administering their own funds pari passu with Government funds. That is the best guarantee that the money will be well spent. You are not doing a good turn to the farmer who has lost stock by giving him a loan, even at a reasonable rate of interest, if he is not the right type of man. By doing that, you are not doing a good turn to the State or to the farmer. I do not say that this is the ideal way to deal with the situation.

But it is a situation that is difficult to deal with. This will ensure that the farmers who are administering, not only their own money but the Government money, will see that the money is expended in the most productive way, and that it is given in the amounts which suit the particular circumstances and the best interests of the particular borrower.

Mr. WILSON

Is the Minister restricting this system to the twelve affected counties? Will he not give this to——

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

To Wicklow—no.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

The fluke will be immediately discovered in Wicklow.

Mr. WILSON

I am sorry we are not affected.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I have here a list of societies which do not exactly bear out the terribly pessimistic tales we have been told. In County Leitrim there is a society with deposits of £112 at the moment. In Monaghan there is another society with a fair amount in deposits. A Kilkenny society has capital of £3,000, in deposits, and loans outstanding amounting to £1,000.

Mr. GOREY

Where is this?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

Ballyragget Agricultural Society, Ballyragget, Co. Kilkenny.

Mr. GOREY

What bearing has that on the matter?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I desire just to give a list of these societies, and the Deputy will have to bear with me. Dromod Society, in County Leitrim, has a capital of £862, and loans outstanding amount to £662. That is an extremely poor district. Carrickmacross, capital, £560; loans outstanding, £621. Westport, County Mayo, capital, £544; loans outstanding, £487. In County Longford the Columkille Credit Society, in a very poor district, has a capital of £27,000, and loans outstanding are £7,853. These are practically all deposits. There are practically no shares.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Are capital and deposits the same thing?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

Practically. There will be a certain amount of profits. In County Leitrim, there is a society with a capital of £937, practically all deposits, and loans outstanding, £806. The Castlecomer Agricultural Credit Society has a capital of £1,970; loans outstanding, £2,043. In County Mayo there is a society with a capital of £323, and loans outstanding £301. That is an extremely poor district. In County Donegal, a society with a capital of £139; loans outstanding, £188. The Crossmolina Society, County Mayo, has a capital of £175; loans outstanding, £242. A small society like that is the ideal society for a very poor district, with small loans and small capital. The Mohill, County Leitrim, Society has a capital of £886; and total loans outstanding, £597. I have a further list of societies. I find that in the poorest districts of the area known as the congested districts these societies are in a fairly flourishing condition. If that is so in the poorest districts of Mayo, Leitrim, Donegal, etc., I do not see why they could not organise credit societies with a deposit from the Government at a low rate of interest of £1 for every £1 put up by the depositors.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

How many of these societies are there approximately?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

About sixty. I am sure there are a lot more, but these are in a fairly useful condition.

Mr. WILSON

What is the low rate of interest?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

That can be settled. I do not like to endeavour to rush the Department of Finance on that point. It will be at a low rate of interest. I realise, as well as Deputy Connor Hogan and others, the condition the farmers must be in as a result of the last three years. There is no use in simply putting up the fact that farmers are not as prosperous as they would be if we had good times as an objection to every attempt to better their lot. It will not do. We must keep to the net point. This is the proposal of the Government. It is no use saying it cannot be done, because it can be done. It is done in the poorest districts of the area known as the congested districts. That is a complete answer and there should be no sarcasm.

Mr. M. DOYLE

Could the Minister say when these societies were established? It might have been possible to establish such societies heretofore, but they cannot be established in a moment. These societies are of long standing. The Minister, if he wished, could enumerate even a greater number of societies than he has read out which have failed in past years. In my own county at one time there were several of these societies in a flourishing condition which were capitalised by the Government and also by deposits. They are all a dead-letter now and there is not one in existence. It will be very hard to get capital from outside as suggested by the Minister.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

There are about four times as many gone out of existence. There are a great many co-operative and other institutions gone out of existence for a great many reasons, but about 60 in the poorest districts have not. We will not go into the reasons. My suspicion is that the existing societies were run efficiently. They were organised a long time ago; the deposits are there and not withdrawn. The fact that they were organised a great many years ago does not alter the fact that the deposits are there and not withdrawn. While admitting that money is scarce, I say that that fact is at least some evidence that the farmers could co-operate with us in organising these credit societies, when they get the very special help that the Government will lodge £1 at a very low rate of interest for every £1 which the depositors lodge, and will see to the audit and inspection of the societies. That suggestion should be considered carefully before it is condemned. Deputies have practically admitted that this cannot be dealt with by way of loan. You could not do it. This will not deal with the big farmer, only with the very poor farmer, even if successful. If the problem cannot be dealt with by loan, then this is my solution of the difficulty. For the reasons I have given, I think it is sound, not only from the point of view of the particular problem which we have this year but I think the results of organising substantial, healthy, efficiently run credit societies in these districts will constitute a lasting benefit to these districts when the fluke problem is forgotten.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

On Wednesday last Deputy Johnson expressed on behalf of those who sit with him, general support of the motion put down by Deputy Baxter. In his absence, it is only fair to refer to the suggestion which was made by Deputy Connor Hogan this afternoon. He referred to Deputy Johnson's statement as impracticable and ruinous to the livestock trade, and said that it was a panic proposal. We should remember the circumstances in which Deputy Johnson's suggestion was thrown out. It was purely a conditional suggestion made after listening to the speech of Deputy Crowley, giving certain facts with regard to the losses sustained in his particular area, and which he asserted was characteristic of the greater part of many counties in Ireland. That assertion was allowed to go without contradiction by those who would be expected to know the conditions. Deputy Johnson did suggest that if the facts were as stated, drastic measures would have to be taken, and that one of the measures might possibly be the restriction of the export of milch cows. That does not seem to me to be such a particularly panic suggestion, if the conditions were such as we were led to believe at the time. If loans were given and a vast number of people went into the market to restock holdings with cattle, it is obvious that the prices would run up very high. In such a case, and if the circumstances were such as suggested, we must all admit that the first thing that would have to be looked to, would be the restocking of the farms depleted by disease. We have had official figures from the Minister, and looking at the matter from that point of view, it would seem that the position is not at all as bad as we were led to believe. There is, therefore, no necessity for any such suggestion as was then made.

Speaking on the Minister's suggestion. I agree that the difficulty which would be met in dealing with this by loans coming from the central authority would be enormous, and could not, in my opinion, operate successfully. Speaking for myself, representing a large number of farmers, possibly as large as is represented by Deputies in the Farmers' Party, I think the suggestion of the Government is about as good a one as could be made in the circumstances. In view of the depression that exists in agriculture and the special circumstances of the losses farmers have met with in these counties, I think the Government should give a higher proportion than 50 per cent. by way of loans. Instead of giving £1 for £1, they should give £2 or 30/- for each £1 put down locally. At the beginning it will be very difficult to find the necessary money, but an arrangement which could be readjusted later might be made, so that the greater share would now come from the Government. I think some adjustment might be made to meet the depression that now exists. I commend the idea very strongly of using what has otherwise been in the nature of a national calamity to set up a scheme that would be of great national benefit.

I look upon credit societies, when properly worked, as being of the greatest advantage to the small farming community. I know that in many cases they have been very successful. Where they have failed, I believe that it was owing to want of attention on the part of particular farmers and want of business efficiency. It is not because there were special circumstances in the cases where they have been successful, but because of the efficiency and the earnestness of those working them. There is no reason why they should not be equally successful in every other part of the country. I feel satisfied that if the scheme is taken up earnestly, as I hope it will be, and efficiently worked, it will be an advantage not only for the present, but also for the future. Owing to the present situation I think the Government ought to increase the proportion of the grant to be made to credit societies, and that an adjustment could be made in future years when, as we all hope, the agricultural community will be in a better position to meet their obligations.

Mr. JOHN CONLAN

I think it will be agreed that Deputy Baxter's motion has been very opportune, inasmuch as it brought the Government to recognise the gravity of this question and to see that it is their duty to come to the rescue of the many thousands of farmers, especially the small farmers, who have been affected by two disastrous harvests in succession, and in the present season, by the spread of fluke disease. In my own county, I do not believe that any considerable proportion of cattle were lost from disease, but it is undoubtedly a fact that sheep have been badly affected, especially sheep brought from the Minister's part of the country. As Deputy Wilson can testify, Wicklow sheep have hardly been affected at all.

As regards the plan outlined by the Minister, I think he is over sanguine in expecting that £1 for £1 will be put up by the people in the local loan societies. In some areas of the country those societies do not exist at all. I do not know if one exists in County Kildare.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I do not think so.

Mr. CONLAN

Not as far as I know.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

They are largely in the congested districts.

Mr. CONLAN

In my constituency they have had such a bad and a bitter experience of co-operation through the failure of co-operative societies that I think it will be hard to induce them to co-operate in this way. I suppose the Minister has weighed his plan and that it is more or less waste of time speaking about an alternative one.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

What is the Deputy's alternative?

Mr. CONLAN

I was going to mention one or two that may deserve attention. You would hardly think it possible that in a wealthy country like the United States it was necessary to come to the assistance of farmers, but the fact is so. I have an extract from an American paper which states that Congress has established intermediate credit banks, with practically unlimited funds, to be used in re-discounting, at the present rate of 4½ per cent., any note, draft, bill of exchange, or other such obligation, the proceeds of which have been advanced or used in the first instance for any agricultural purposes or for the raising, breeding, fattening, or marketing of live stock.

There is a provision that the original note must have been discounted at a rate not more than 6 per cent., so that it is practically giving a bonus of 1½ per cent. to the bank on the transaction. A friend of mine in County Kildare—Mr. Laurence Heffernan—to whom credit must be given, was, I believe, the first man to put any proposal of this nature before the Farmers' Party. He advocates that weanling bullocks, heifers, and new lambs should be purchased by the Government officials and hired out for six months or longer to farmers who have lost their stock through disease, or forced to part with them through poverty, the purchase money to be repaid on the sale of the animal, after due notice to the Department, with 5 per cent. interest. I believe there is a precedent bearing on this proposal, as under a former Government, when reinstating evicted tenants, advances were made for the purchase of stock on the advice of Departmental officials.

There is no doubt that the situation is an extremely grave one, and that farmers are heavily in debt, that shopkeepers complain that they cannot collect their accounts, or a large percentage of them, and that the banks have practically shut down credit. During the boom that followed the great war, if anything, the banks were too liberal in advancing money.

The PRESIDENT

Did you tell them that?

Mr. GOREY

We did.

Mr. CONLAN

They have gone too far in the other direction now. I heard a Deputy saying that it was more or less easy to get an advance from a bank if a man had a good farm and if it was well stocked. I believe that is not the case, but that they demand extraordinary security for even moderate advances. That is greatly hampering the farmers, inasmuch as it is not giving them the means to tide over the present disastrous seasons and establish their industry upon a proper basis.

PADRAIC O MAILLE

Deputy Conlan used an expression that seemed to indicate that unsound sheep were purchased in Galway by Kildare farmers. If sheep bought in Galway, or any of the western counties, die in the County Kildare during the winter, it is due to flooding in that county rather than to any disease.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

They will have to buy Galway sheep anyway.

Mr. GOREY

Yes, but we do not want to buy Galway fluky sheep.

Mr. M. DOYLE

The Minister's scheme may be an admirable scheme if, as one of the Deputies said, it could be carried out—I mean on the deposit side. In normal times, when money was flush in the country, it would certainly be carried out, but at the present time of depression I am afraid it would be very hard to finance that side of it. I think the Minister should try to put up a little more than the amount stated or a little more than he asks the depositors to put up. I also want to know from the Minister if the rate of interest will be alike for the money given by the Government and that put down by the depositors.

I am afraid that if a low rate of interest is offered to the depositors you will get very little money. Many people will not risk their money in such a society unless there is some inducement offered over and above the ordinary rate of interest. The Minister alluded to the great number of cattle that died from underfeeding. That may apply to cattle generally, but in some districts, and especially in Wexford, where sheep died, I do not think the mortality was due to underfeeding. They were well cared for and better cared for owing to the severe weather than in former years. Still, in numerous districts the herds were completely wiped out. In a case I know of, forty or fifty sheep in a flock, nearly every one died, or had to be sold at unremunerative prices. But that is only the loss at the moment. In this district a great fat-lamb trade was carried on from this period. There are no lambs or sheep this year, and that will be a very great hardship on the people who relied on that trade to make ends meet between this and the harvest.

Mr. SEUMAS DOLAN

As the Minister has admitted great mortality amongst cattle in Leitrim, I do not propose to make a case on these lines, except to say that I also agree with Deputy O'Connell that the proposed amount to be allocated by the Government is scarcely sufficient. At least it is not sufficient for bad districts or bad counties, and I would make a plea for special consideration for a county like Leitrim, where, undoubtedly, there is at present great poverty, and there will be very severe distress if there is not considerable assistance given. We have gone to great trouble and taken great pains, and it has been done very conscientiously, to make an estimate of the loss in twelve parishes. The inquiry is proceeding in other parishes, but I have here before me the actual census of the losses that occurred in twelve parishes in Leitrim. For the twelve parishes there was a total of 4,817 cattle—that includes cows, bullocks, yearlings, down to calves.

Mr. BAXTER

Is that North or South Leitrim?

Mr. DOLAN

It is South Leitrim. The district round Mohill and Ballymore, Dromod and Drumshambo.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

Would it be half Leitrim?

Mr. BAXTER

It would be the best end of Leitrim.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

Five per cent. of the cattle of Leitrim would be 8,000 cattle, so our figures are not far apart. You have 4,000 for that district and I should say it is half the fluke district.

Mr. DOLAN

I hope the figures are correct, but it would strike an ordinary person there is more than five per cent. and a greater loss than five per cent. in the Country Leitrim.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

Of course five per cent. is a big loss.

Mr. DOLAN

I could give figures of individuals but, perhaps, that would be misleading. I know one man who lost forty head, another who lost thirteen, and another who lost seventeen. The man who lost seventeen had altogether only eighteen head of cattle, so that he had only one cow left. That is a very serious state of affairs.

Mr. BAXTER

More than five per cent. of a loss to him.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

Of course I am not trying to minimise for a moment what a loss of five per cent. is. It is a big loss, but I think it is an accurate figure.

Mr. DOLAN

I am satisfied from the Minister's statement that he is prepared to meet the situation in the best way possible, but I would urge there has been a case made for more generous treatment. There has been a case made for the Government to step in and give greater assistance in counties like Leitrim where, I believe, the percentage of loss would be much higher than in other places, so I would ask for special attention to the conditions that obtain there. Of course, it is a well known fact and the Minister has mentioned it, that Leitrim is wholly scheduled as congested. They are all small holders and small farmers and there is not much tillage. They have been dependent for a livelihood on the sale of young stock and the loss of the old stock means bankruptcy for many of these people. That is a very serious state of affairs, so I hope special consideration will be given to the condition of that county.

Mr. GOREY

In order to bring the discussion to an end, I put it to the Minister that if he is prepared to accept fifty-fifty in cases where it is deserved, in special cases as mentioned, he should take the opportunity of giving two pounds for one, where special needs exist, as suggested, because there are cases where that would be absolutely necessary. If you tie yourself up to fifty-fifty you will find yourself in the position of not being able to assist at all. You must have an elastic scale to come to people's assistance where it is necessary that you should. If the Minister would put up that proposition it would be accepted.

Mr. BAXTER

When the Minister talks about 5 per cent. loss I do not accept his figures as a correct representation of the loss. While we might accept it, taking the country or the areas mentioned as a whole—the loss for a county or a number of counties might be 5 per cent.—that is no consolation to the man who lost 95 per cent.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

I agree.

Mr. BAXTER

What we have to remember is that a great many individuals lost 95 per cent., some lost 5 per cent., and some 2 per cent., but the people we are most concerned about is the people who lost from 50 to 90 per cent. of their cattle. The people who lost 5 per cent. and higher may have lost 5 per cent in other years. That is not the problem. If the losses were not from 50 to 90 per cent. I do not think this plea would be put forward at all. The situation could be faced and met by some other means. With regard to the proposition put up by the Minister, I recognise how difficult it is to apply a solution and how difficult it is to get anything like a correct return of the losses in any district by an individual. I recognise that at times the Government themselves have not established a very good principle in dealing with some similar problems of that kind. They got people from some parts of the country—and we may have something to say about it later on—under the impression that they have only got to make a plea about certain conditions and the Government will come to their aid and give them something for nothing. That is one of the things I do not stand for. We do not want the situation met by such means as that. That is not the spirit to inculcate in the country. We have to tackle it some other way. With regard to making loans to individuals, I see very great difficulty in getting correct returns and knowing exactly how individuals stand; what their wealth is, what their financial standing is, and all the rest of it, and the inquiries that will have to be made preparatory to giving assistance like that would be very great and would cause very great delay.

With regard to the proposition put up by the Minister, I look at it like this:—Go into a district where the mortality amongst cattle is high, such as Leitrim, where you lost in a parish 400 cattle. The value perhaps on an average is, say, £10 a head. That meant £4,000 of a loss to the people of that district, without putting a very high price on the cattle. A small parish of four or five hundred inhabitants sustained a loss of £4,000. I put it to the Minister, would he expect an organiser, if he went to a meeting there, and said to the farmers, "We will aid you pound for pound," to get much capital put down? Take a man who has not lost anything. Say he has an account in a joint stock bank, and it is suggested to him to withdraw that to get a higher rate of interest in an agricultural bank backed up by a Government proposition of pound for pound. He says, "Oh, yes, that is going to buy cattle for someone else; I leave my money where it is." The Minister for Agriculture knows that is the truth, and that that is the situation that the organiser will be confronted with. I am afraid that will not meet the situation, and that if the situation is to be met by the Government, they will have to do a great deal more, and that they will have to offer £2 for one or £5 for one in many districts, and even then in the depressed conditions and the political conditions that prevail, they will find it difficult to succeed, and these things must be taken in account. Fortune did not decide what political point of view a man held when losing his cattle. That occurred amongst Government supporters, amongst our supporters and supporters of other people. What will the position be when we bring such people together to put their money into one society and to lend it out? Who is to be on the Committee? Who is to decide who is to get the money, and how much they are to get? All these factors have to be taken into account, and they do not make the problem more easy to solve, but they are part of the problem that the country is confronted with. I say in principle what the Minister has suggested is sound. If these societies existed, we might not have had to come here with this proposition. I believe the Minister's proposition will not solve the problem. I am not prepared to accept it as a solution of the problem. If the Minister is serious, he will have to go much further and endeavour to impress upon the Minister for Finance that the problem cannot be met by the proposition he has put forward. I urge the Minister, while I do not want to press this motion to a division, go into consultation again with the Minister for Finance, and try to do more to meet the cost of this scheme or else it will not succeed. I will ask leave to withdraw the motion.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE

The proposition put forward is the best we can do. Of course we have been listening to the Deputy, and the Minister for Finance has been listening to him, and I daresay the Minister for Finance keeps an open mind upon the matter, not only in regard to this proposition, but in regard to every other, and no more in regard to this proposition than to any circumstances. Circumstances alter cases, and if it is found necessary to do a thing differently under different conditions the Minister for Finance would be prepared to consider it. That would apply both to this and to any other proposition. This is the proposition I make, and it is the only proposition I am in a position to make now.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.