That is the only comparison I can draw as to the Minister's method of dealing with figures. In the end, he admits that there is a case for coming to the relief of the agricultural community but he does not see his way to do it. The Executive Council, who are responsible for this economic war and who admit that they have inflicted extreme hardship on the agricultural community, now come along and admit, through the Minister for Agriculture, that they are unable to deal with the situation and ask us to make suggestions as to how to deal with it.
We did not suggest that he should start this economic war. The responsibility of finding a remedy, and of relieving those he has impoverished, so as to enable them to meet their liabilities, is upon him. Deputy Corry, who spoke on this motion, was, of course, full of sympathy for the farmers. As far as sympathy goes it pours out from every pore of Deputy Corry, from the top of his head to his toes. In fact, it is pouring out everywhere only from the Deputy's pocket. When Deputy Dillon brought forward an amendment to one of the Bills, asking that the members of the Oireachtas should contribute their share towards the relief of those involved in the economic war, Deputy Corry did not say much about it. He went on the same lines as the Minister. No matter what figures the Deputy quotes they are facts. Any figures he quotes he turns, by his magic wand, into facts, but in this case he left the position as it was before. The Minister for Industry and Commerce confined his remarks to answering certain things which were said by Deputy MacDermot, as well as to some things that Deputy MacDermot did not say at all. Deputy MacDermot tried several times to keep the Minister on the rails, but he kept so far away that it is not necessary to answer what he said.
The Minister referred to the heavy duties that had been imposed. That had nothing to do with the motion. He also referred to the policy of surrender. I do not see anything in the motion calling on the Executive to surrender. I will read the motion to the House, and I ask any member of the Executive Council, or of the Government, to point out the word in it calling for surrender. (Motion read). There is not one word about surrender there. It must be in the imagination of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
What this motion asks is that the Executive Council, which is responsible to the country, should come to the relief of the men in the front-line trenches. What it really asks is that the generals should not desert the men they left in the front-line trenches; that they should not run away like cowards but fight. They like talking in military terms and to pose as Napoleons of the economic war. I should like to see them acting like Napoleon. Napoleon never deserted the men in the trenches. He stood by them and provided the sinews of war. He did not desert them and leave them to take care of themselves when he got them into the front lines. One of Napoleon's dictums has become a proverb that during a war soldiers march on their stomachs. Does the Executive Council agree with that? Do the members of the Executive Council agree with Napoleon's dictum or do they hold that in this economic war there is no necessity for having a stomach at all, that it is a superfluous appendage; that the soldiers can live on slogans, can wear hair shirts and have tight belts, provided the generals wear broad belts and fine cloths? Is that the position the Executive Council takes up? If it is the sooner they get away from it the better. Does the Executive Council realise that agriculture is the basic industry of this State, and that if they destroy the basic industry, instead of building up other industries, they are really pulling down the pillars of the State? If they pull down the pillars they are not playing at being Napoleons at all. By pulling down the pillars of their own State they are deliberately committing national economic suicide, in the hope of destroying all the Imperial Philistines in the Commonwealth.
The motion deals with rates and annuities. The claim for the remission of these burdens is based upon something more than the circumstances arising out of the economic war. The claim with regard to the rates on land is based upon something more permanent than the circumstances of the economic war. It is based on something more permanent and more lasting than the fact that our competitors in Great Britain and Northern Ireland have been derated. It is based on something more solid than the broken crockery of Fianna Fáil promises. It is based on the solid rock of economic justice, that farmers are entitled to derating, even if the position was altogether different from what it is. If they were as prosperous as they are depressed they would be still entitled to derating as a matter of social justice.
I do not want to go into the question, because it is too complex, and I would scarcely be in order in doing so on this motion, but I will refer to a few salient facts in connection with the agitation for derating. The first time this claim took concrete shape was in 1927, when the County Council of Cavan passed a resolution calling attention to the fact that the system of rating for public services was a violation of the principle of social justice, as far as farmers were concerned. The resolution was forwarded to the then Minister for Local Government, who seemed sympathetically to consider it, by asking for the further views of the county council. A further statement was forwarded to the Minister but, by that time, he had transferred to another Department, and his successors took no further notice of it. The matter dropped for some years until derating was granted in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, when an agitation sprang up to deal with the farmers here, as they had been dealt with elsewhere. The late Government that always boasted of keeping to the middle of the road, when confronted with the issue, tottered more or less and took one side of the road. Fianna Fáil came along and promised that they would do justice to the farmer if and when they became elected and became the Government of the country. We see now what they have done when they got elected on those promises. I do not know what material those promises were made of, but it seems to be very fragile. I only know that if their promises were as elastic as their consciences the farmers would have got more fair play on this question. They told us, of course, about Christian principles. I do not know how they can reconcile this conduct, and their treatment of this question of justice, with Christian principle. I do not like to say a hard word. I hate the word hypocrisy, but perhaps some Deputy will be good enough to suggest an appropriate word to designate a Government that excludes the virtue of justice from its code of Christian principle.
With regard to annuities, I do admit that there is no claim for the remission of annuities except such as is based on the circumstances of this economic war. The circumstances of the economic war are sufficient justification for the remission of both rates and annuities, as the Minister for Agriculture admitted, and it is not for us to tell him how he is to find the money. The responsibility is upon the front benches of the Government Party to find how they are to get the money to relieve the farmers from bankruptcy and poverty. What is the position with regard to the annuities? Not only are the farmers compelled, if they export anything from this country, to pay the amount of the annuities—somewhere about £3,000,000—but they are compelled to pay other sums, which amount in all to five and a half million pounds. Not only are they losing five and a half million pounds, that is, provided Britain succeeds in collecting it, but they are losing ten per cent. preference upon all their exports. Calculated upon £30,000,000 agricultural exports that would amount to another £3,000,000; so that the farmers are really losing eight and a half million pounds, or five and a half million pounds in excess of the £3,000,000 annuities. If Britain succeeds in collecting the amount that is what they will lose. Of course we are told by the Fianna Fáil side that Britain is not succeeding, and will not succeed. Let us examine the position. Everybody admits that if Britain succeeds in collecting this sum they have won the war. If Britain does not succeed, I think it is plain to everybody, no matter how dense they may be, that we have lost the war. If we succeed in defeating her, then it means that we lose our whole export trade of £30,000,000. It means that we lose £30,000,000 to deprive Britain of five and a half million pounds. If we lose £30,000,000 while Britain loses five and a half million pounds, are we winning the war? Does the Executive Council say that we are winning the war? Britain, according to President de Valera, can afford 66 times as much as we can. If we lose five or six pounds for every one Britain loses are we winning the war? When we lose five pounds Britain would require to lose 66 times five, or £330, before we would be equal. I do not see, when we are losing five pounds to Britain's one, instead of five to Britain's £330, how we are going to win this war. We take John Bull to be very dense. There are some people in the country who think that John Bull is so dense that he does not understand this. He understands it as well as any Deputy in this House; he understands it as well as any farmer down the country; he understands it much better than the Minister.
