I beg to second the motion. There is a great feeling of insecurity amongst farmers in the Saorstát, especially because of what happened in County Wexford, since the 1933 Act was passed. Seven hard-working, industrious farmers in that county, some of them having as little as 27 acres, received notice from the Land Commission that their land was required for distribution, notwithstanding the fact that other land in the district was offered to the Land Commission and that they refused to take it. People in the county which I represent do not know where they stand at the moment, since that notice was served on these seven farmers. They were men who always worked their land in a proper way. They tilled a big proportion of it, and gave a big amount of employment. We had the case of one man who held 90 acres, a man named William Devereux, a man with whom I had the pleasure of going to school. He is a neighbour of mine. I know him from boyhood, and I knew his father before him. This man gave employment to six agricultural labourers and a domestic servant, and he had temporary men employed at busy seasons of the year. Farmers are sometimes asked, when served with notices of this kind, why they do not pay up, but this man had his rent and rates paid up to date. He paid also his share of the British tariffs that were imposed as a result of the dispute between the British Government and our Government. While he was a big feeder of stock, he believed in mixed farming, and he made a success of it until this dispute arose in 1932 between our Government and the British Government. The farmers of this country have been taxed almost out of existence by the system which the British Government adopted to collect the £3,000,000 which they say the farmers of this country had agreed to pay them, and also the £2,000,000 that, under the Treaty settlement, was to be paid for pensions. Notwithstanding the fact that the farmers have to pay that £5,000,000 to the British Government, we had our President declaring that he would half the annuities and would collect a further £2,000,000 from them. That means that the Free State farmers, since the commencement of the economic war, have been liable for £7,000,000 per annum. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to boast that the one bright spot on earth was the Free State, as he was able to collect from the farmers here £500,000 per annum more than was due to him. It is nearly time for the Government to get away from this rainbow chasing, and either settle the economic war or release the farmer in some other way from the liability to pay tariffs.
We were promised before the 1932 and 1933 Elections that alternative markets would be provided for the farmers' produce, and that England would not be able to collect this money. Nobody would be better pleased than I if we could get out of the payment of these moneys, but what has happened? The British Government not only collected what they say the farmers had guaranteed to pay, but they have collected £2,500,000 more that the farmers never agreed to pay. On top of that, our Government asks the farmers to pay £2,000,000 more per annum. That is £7,500,000 the farmers have to provide. Then the farmer is told, if he does not pay and asks where he can find the money, that he must get out. We are told further, that there is an alternative, and that every man should live up to the new policy of Fianna Fáil by growing a big amount of wheat and a big amount of beet. They had a couple of successful seasons with their tillage policy, but what has happened this year? The majority of farmers in the constituency which the Minister for Agriculture and I represent have only been able to get from five to eight barrels to the acre. How can these men pay these extra charges under conditions of that kind? Let it be the fault of the British Government or of the Free State Government, it is not fair, or anything like fair, to put the whole burden on the farmers. The Government should step in and help the farmer by asking him to pay only what he is able to pay, and that is very little at the moment.
We hear a great deal about growing beet, but in some districts the growing of beet is not known. My information is that the average yield of beet this year will be eight tons to the acre. After paying freights, the price to the farmer will be about 30/- per ton or £12 per acre. After the farmer has met other charges he will not have £1 per acre. I should like to ask the Minister how long this state of affairs is to continue. Where are the alternative markets that were promised to the people? We know that a certain amount of cattle are being sent to continental markets, but that is due entirely to the British tariffs. If the British tariffs were removed the gentlemen who buy these cattle would not be needed here. No farmer can afford to raise a beast for two years and then pay a tariff of £4 5s. 0d. on it before he is allowed to sell it in the British market. The home market will not compensate him because, as everybody knows, when you have a surplus of any commodity it is the export price that rules. The sooner the Government makes up its mind to settle the economic war, the better for the country, for agriculture is the principal industry of this country. If agriculture fails, the country fails. Some Fianna Fáil Deputies may tell us that we are cattle ranchers and that the bullock must go, but it is as easy to be a wheat rancher as it is to be a cattle rancher. If this country could grow sufficient wheat to support itself, the very thing that has happened in wheat-growing countries would happen here. We would have machinery to cut, thresh and handle the corn and two or three men would be able to deal with hundreds of acres.
No security of employment is given by saying that we shall grow wheat because, even if we could grow sufficient to supply our own needs, the wheat ranch would be more dangerous than the cattle ranch from the point of view of unemployment. We do not want any kind of ranch. The farmer who has 50, 60, 70 or 80 acres and who goes in for mixed farming gives employment for 356 days of the year, while the man who goes in for wheat-growing gives employment only for about 40 days of the year. It should also be remembered that we cannot continue growing wheat. Men who have had experience of sowing wheat in the same land two years in succession know that it has been a failure on the second occasion.
The sooner the Government secure for the farmer a free entry into the market where he can compete on equal terms with the produce of other countries, the sooner the farmer will be in the position to pay agricultural labourers a living wage. I know as well as anybody in the country the condition of the agricultural labourers. I know they have a very bad time. I know that a few shillings brought into a man's wife at the week-end is of very little use. We are told that the labourer in 1931 was only getting 2¼d. per hour, but what is the difference between the purchasing power of the wages which he then received and the purchasing power of his wages to-day? The price of flour, tea, sugar and other necessaries of life have been considerably increased. To my mind, the sooner the Government waken up and settle this dispute the better. It is necessary, also, that they should amend the 1933 Land Act, and the even more rigorous Act passed this year. No farmer in the country feels secure in his holding, because of the policy of the Government. The action of the Government in regard to the seven farmers in Wexford, whose case I have mentioned, has caused a feeling of insecurity amongst all other farmers in the Free State. In the old Land League days we had our members fighting in the British Parliament, and they got the land for the people. They got fixity of tenure, free sale and fair rent. The policy of the present Government has destroyed all that. As Deputy Bennett told the House, if a farm is put up for sale to-day, there is not a man to bid for it, because there is no security. Deputy Donnelly may laugh, but Deputy Donnelly has not to depend for his living on a farm. He always got his living by his brains. He did not want a farm. It is as plain as the nose on your face that the farmer will not be in a position to pay the labourer a living wage until the economic war is settled. The labourer is to be pitied as well as the farmer. He is paid a bad wage, but in most cases the farmer is worse off than he is. So that, as soon as the Government sees its way to settle this economic war, the country will be prosperous. You never can make this country prosperous by bankrupting its chief industry, agriculture. No matter what your wage is, the farmer is not in a position to improve his place, because he does not know who he is improving it for.