Very well. One would have thought, and we were all told, that in dealing with the division of land special consideration would be given to the smaller farmers, that migration would to a large extent mean the breaking up of the ranches, very numerous some years ago and still very numerous, to relieve the congestion in the poorer parts. But what was done? I asked a question here some short time ago, to find out how many people were taken out in the form of migration. I was led aside. The Minister told me he could not give figures for different counties as that would give rise to animosity, ill-feeling and jealousy. The figures should be available to any Deputy on that question. I cannot understand why there is reticence in giving figures for each county. There is something sinister at the bottom of it, but I will not pursue it at the moment any further than that.
When it comes to migration, the poorest parts of this country are—I will not say completely—but very seriously neglected. It is true that figures are given of a total acreage of land divided and shown as going towards the relief of congestion, but these figures in many parts of the country refer not to any improvement of the condition of the people but refer to the complete elimination of the population of that area. Wherever an acreage of land divided by the Land Commission is given, it includes not new land taken from the ranchers in the well-to-do part of the county, but farms bought off small farmers in the locality and distributed again to the adjoining holdings. That may appear in one respect as of advantage. It is, so far as it increases an area of land which a small farmer has secured and therefore makes his holding more economic, but it also reduces the population of the area by one family. There is no improvement so far as land division is concerned. No new land is being made available, but one farm is eliminated, one more home gone.
I will go further. There is on foot— not perhaps deliberately, I am not in a position to say that, but it is on foot and is as obvious to me as that I am speaking from this bench to-night— there is in existence as a result of general policy—again I will not say it is part of deliberate policy—a plan by which certain counties are ear-marked for complete elimination so far as population is concerned. The Land Commission is no longer interested in migrating people from a poor farm to better land but they are very interested in buying up the lands of these people and putting them under forests. Forests may be a grand thing and over long periods may contain much wealth for the State if we can wait long enough for it, but I dare any man to say that the trees, however beautiful, or attractive they may be to the incoming tourists can ever replace the shrill cry of little children. They are closing the homes, the churches and the schools. That is what the policy of Governments in the past has been. I know one half of a county which has never received a migrationary grant but where all the land is now being bought over through the Forestry Section of the Land Commission for forests. It is a national advantage, no doubt, over a long period but what award are the men getting who are being driven out? £4 a week, maximum. We are driving them out of their homes without a shilling in their pockets with which they can ever start again. Is it any wonder that our people are going? Is it any wonder that we see the homes in ruins, the churches half-populated and the schools closed? This is not general, but I am speaking of areas which contained high populations of industrious, hardy people in the past, people who were intelligent and tuned to hard work, who have since been driven out. I cannot say that the Government is not responsible—though not deliberately—by applying their general policy. The general policy did not take into consideration the special economic needs of different districts as Balfour did 50 years ago when he established the Congested Districts Board. He was prepared to provide ameliorative conditions to meet the people's needs, but his plan was swept aside. Nothing was substituted.
We established a general policy for agriculture which was a great improvement and we introduced—again it was a sound policy from the national point of view—a policy of providing our own needs in wheat and such things as we had to purchase previously from the United States and Canada and other countries at a great disadvantage in the matter of exchange. We guaranteed farmers whose land was suitable good, economic prices, fixed by arbitration between the farmers and the Government which was going to pay the subsidy. The price of wheat went up beyond what it would have gone to if we were to buy the same products from outside. But what about the poor land and what about the poor farmer whose land was not capable of growing wheat? All that happened was that he had to pay more. Similarly, in the case of beet, and this, too, was a great national asset. The farmer who was in a position to produce beet gained, and an economic price for his goods was established but the poor people with the land unsuitable for growing the beet got no benefit and had to pay more. The people had to emigrate because their conditions were so reduced that they could not stand any more.
I am mentioning these things not in any spirit of hostility. The general motive was good and from the national point of view was successful, but it lacked that individual attention, that appreciation of particular needs of each district and each section of the community which is the form of attention the people should receive from their own Government. It is the kind of attention that a father would apply to his own children. He has to look after each one, as far as he can, individually. Up to the present, Governments are completely neglecting these areas. We set out with the idea that we were going to have a grand State and that we would build industries side by side with agriculture ensuring economic conditions for everybody who produced but in doing that we made a general policy which was applicable to the biggest farmer with the largest holding in the country as it was to the poorest farmer with the smallest holding. The result was as we see it now. Look at the figures of our emigration. What type of farmers have left this county?
The farmers of under £30 valuation. They are no longer, under present conditions, able to survive here. With such high costs, and not being able to participate in the high prices that other farmers can secure for their produce, they have had to give in. They are on the run and in their stead are coming the forest trees—ideal from the national point of view of 30 to 50 years hence—but what are the people we are driving out now to do? They are being driven out without a shilling to take with them except the £4 an acre for their land, and they are coerced into accepting that because once the forests go into an area, that area is doomed so far as farming is concerned. The adjoining farmers can this year or next year have no alternative but to offer their lands to the Land Commission because for varying causes the land can no longer produce. There is now in existence a measure of coercion that is cruel, but it is the result of the general policy based on the advice of our experts. Our experts say that timber is useful to grow, that it is a great national asset, but they say this without regard to the consequences of the enforced emigration of our people and on goes this scheme.
These are some of the things which I think could be remedied and some of the things which I believe have been effective in bringing about the present flow of emigration. Perhaps a survey of these things would lead us to understand that by some form of moderate approach to the problem, this desolation could be remedied.
It must always be remembered that our chief source of wealth is agriculture and that those who are trained in agriculture, who have the heritage and the background, our agricultural workers are the real asset. There are many ways by which scientifically the production from our land can be improved. It is one production in respect of which we can be sure of a free market, without any protection, bounty or bonus in relation to it. Why not try then to develop this land of ours rather than turn it into forest land for the next 30 years? Why not utilise these resources to the full so that we can maintain our people and encourage them to remain at home? Even the poorest land can be immensely improved now through the medium of suitable soil testing and the application of manure.
In this connection, we had a magnificent scheme of land rehabilitation. That was an excellent scheme indeed, and I do not think we could spend too much money on land improvement, but, in its operation, the scheme, while it was excellent and profitable for the farmers with the good land in its application to the poor land, the land with a poor degree of soil, where the introduction of heavy drainage was of no value whatever in so far as the soil was not deep enough to absorb the moisture overhead because it was held back by the non-porous subsoil, was a complete failure. It was brought in in a few places, but after a short time the Government withdrew and the scheme is now in abeyance in these areas; but the people in these areas still have to pay for the improvement of the land and the manuring of the land of the better-off farmers and the holders of the better soils, while they themselves are left derelict, which again shows the absurdity and the criminality of applying a general principle without regard to the special needs of particular areas.
We are dealing here with a problem which is solving itself in a sad way. People have grown tired of waiting in anticipation of things to come for their betterment. They have watched the failure to produce results over the years and now they are solving the problem by taking their overcoats under their arms, as the song told of the people long ago, and making off for another country. It is an extraordinary indictment of a native Government that that is allowed to go on—that the wealth, national and economic, represented by a people trained to hard living over the years, a people accustomed to living and surviving under terrible conditions, should be driven out through the neglect of a native Government. It is really criminal that that should happen in this State.
There are representatives of districts like my own in this House who belong to different parties. Let us speak up; let us demand that the needs of our special areas be looked after as carefully as are the needs of the better off areas, the areas which can grow wheat with success and profit, to the extent that fancy salesmen in Dublin and big merchants were last year encouraged to buy land on rent down the country and engage in a business of which they knew nothing. Why not try to provide a living for those who know their business, for those who have survived hardships, for those who are industrious and hardworking and are the best people in the world? Why not give them a chance? Why not come together side by side in face of this problem in relation to these areas from which our people are going? This is all happening under our eyes and surely we ought to make an effort to save what is still left of a hardworking and energetic race. We talk about the revival of Irish. That has involved a long struggle and there was a time when Irish was not allowed to be spoken. It was only under duress and threat of terrible punishment that our people were forced to forget it and to learn another language. Irish practically disappeared, but there still remained a remnant of Irish speakers in Connemara, in parts of Donegal and parts of the South. It was back there that we had to go to get the remnants of traditional Irish speakers when we wanted to revive the language.
The same thing is happening to-day in regard to our agricultural community. We are driving them out and watching them fleeing the land. Occasionally, we say something by way of sorrowful comment, but what are we doing to stop it? While these young men are still left in the countryside—not the big farmer or the rancher, but the hardworking industrious farmer who brought up his family in very severe conditions— it would be wise to take the opportunity of keeping them here. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in the position of having to hunt after them as we had to hunt after the people in a few areas in Connemara, Donegal and Kerry when we sought to revive the language.