I will explain exactly my position to the Senator as I go along. I speak of the total population as reported to the statistical enumerators and recorded in the statistical returns. One could go into very more detail and explain that if the richer counties were populated in the same ratio as the poorer counties, taking the test of valuation, there would be an increase of 105,000 agricultural horses in the country; 1,000,000 cattle of all kinds, including 573,000 more cows and heifers; 176,000 of from one to two-year-olds; 385,000 under one year, and a deficiency of 110,000 cattle of two years old and upwards. That, I think, answers the query of the Senator. In addition to that, if the richer counties were maintaining as high a cattle population as the poorer counties in proportion to valuation, there would be another 1,300,000 sheep, 316,000 additional pigs, and 12,000,000 additional poultry. I have not in this calculation, because it does not appear in the report, taken into account the quality of the produce of the various classes of stock or the size, and no doubt that would make a considerable difference in the market value of the various elements. The comparison is sufficiently alarming from the point of view I am dealing with it.
It may be worth while taking a note of the fact that the poorer counties have a valuation of 9/- per acre and the richer counties a valuation of 13/9 per acre. I have pointed out already that in all those poorer lands there is a disproportionately high agricultural population, and, consequently, notwithstanding the greater wealth production obtained from that land, the relative position of the agriculturist there is less desirable than that of the agriculturist on the richer land. I am emphasising this because it seems to me that it points distinctly to a line of policy that ought to be followed. It points distinctly to the necessity for utilising the richer lands in the production of a great deal more wealth than they are at present being used for— that we may use our national effort upon the more productive seams of wealth production.
For twenty-eight odd years there has been in existence a Department of Agriculture. The Department has been for all that time engaged in the work of improvement through education and better organisation. The present Ministry is engaged in the same work, and has in fact made no drastic change in the policy of the old Department. It is interesting to take account of the effect of that voluntary effort of education and test it by its results. Between the period of 1901 and 1928 we find that tillage crops have declined by 222,000 acres. We find in comparing those years that there has been a decrease in the number of horses of 1,700 and of sheep of 718,000, and a decline in the agricultural population of 250,000. The decline in the agricultural population has been equalised, if one may speak merely in terms of figures, by the increase in the cattle population of all kinds by an almost equal number, 257,000. Pigs increased 168,000, and poultry, which is the one item in which there seems to be a distinct advance, increased by 2,700,000.
I want to comment that while the policy regarding livestock had those results the policy of the Department in regard to crop cultivation has had less beneficent results. Let us examine that. The average yield per acre, taking the five years period from 1901 to 1905, is given as 1,412 starch pounds and for the comparative period from 1922 to 1926 it is down to 1,266 starch pounds. That is a sign of the decline in the yield per acre of the agricultural crops. It is very likely though that the pasture value has distinctly improved in that period of decline, but as to that there are no statistics, one can only judge by observations. Of the total yield of all crops including hay, corn roots and green crops, the decline in that period was from 2,212,000 starch pounds to 2,177,000 starch pounds, or a decline of 35,000 starch pounds. One is not pinning oneself to any particular figure but one is forced to the conclusion that the policy of the Department, the policy that is being continued, has not been sufficient to revive the productive activities of this country in such a way as to lead to a greatly increased production. It is my conviction that something more than educational propaganda on tillage, something more positive as a stimulus, is needed to get the results that are desirable. If I may be allowed to quote another few figures to have them on record I think it will be an advantage. It is perhaps always useful to take a specific area and examine it. I have taken the figures relating to the county of Mayo, and compared the agricultural wealth and related that wealth to the population from, say, the beginning of the Land League agitation.
Take the year 1881 and compare it with the year 1926. I think, examining this country, it will give a picture of the tendency in the agricultural economy which prevails all over the country. There has been in that period no change in the number of horses in the county. It is practically equal. There has been an increase in the number of cattle by 18 per cent. I am speaking of all kinds of cattle. The population of sheep is the same in the two years. The pig population also is about the same, but poultry have increased by 143 per cent. The agricultural population declined by 29 per cent. I want to relate that to the general national position, and to ask the House to consider the effect of that change in the economy of the county of Mayo. There has been an increase in the agricultural wealth per head of the population in County Mayo to this extent in those years— as to horses, an increase of 43 per cent; cattle, 67; sheep, 39; pigs, 37; and poultry, 245 per cent. Apart from any question of price, for prices are variable and are not determinable by the people of this country, the net result of that increased wealth to the people of County Mayo during the whole period depends to a very great extent on this, that there has been a decline in the number of people maintained out of the agricultural revenue in that county.
What then, are we to conclude, becomes of the agricultural population that has declined? They have, as we all know, emigration as a means of relieving the agricultural communities is being stopped, or at any rate, restricted. We have to assume that for the future the outlet is going to be to the towns of this country. We may succeed in improving the prices of the products exported by better organisation, by better marketing methods, and by improving the quality. We may succeed in maintaining the prices in rivalry with competing countries, which will add to the revenue of the agricultural community, but if the policy of the country is to encourage the farmer having his increased revenue and to make the most of it by spending it in the markets where he can buy the cheapest goods—that is to say, if he is to be encouraged to spend his increased revenue in purchasing the articles he requires in England, where he sells his stocks— the outlet for the sons of the farmers is still further restricted. What is to happen? They are to make a living in the towns of this country.
If they are not producing wealth, if they are not actually producing exchangeable commodities, they are going to be still a burden on the agricultural producer, and his relative position is not going to improve in accordance with what would be expected to follow an improvement in market prices. Therefore we are forced, in my opinion, to the conclusion that, concurrently with any improvement in organisation methods and in quality of produce, and so on, unless there is going to be a positive activity on the part of the State to develop industrial production, the agricultural community will not benefit in the least by a continuance of the present policy of the Department or the Department's Minister. The position as I see it is that agricultural wealth production is not really improving. There has been an improvement in 1928 as compared with 1925-'26-'27. But as compared with 1924, there has been a distinct retrogression. One item which seems to be steadily improving for these five years, both in the quantity of the produce exported and its value, is poultry, but otherwise there has been a decline for 1928 in the chief products of agriculture in Ireland as compared with 1924.
I am advocating that the Minister for Agriculture is bound, if he has regard for the country's general welfare as compared with the welfare of agriculture detached from the community, to find the means of increasing the gross wealth of production drawn from the soil. That is to say, there has to be an increase of tillage by the initiative of the Minister's Department in some way. It is not, unfortunately, true that reliance upon educational methods is going to result in that desired objective. Some other method than mere educational propaganda is required, as is proved by the history of the Department in the past. Looking upon the general situation and the condition of the country as a whole, I think one ought to take into account the social change that has resulted from the political change since the war. I believe that the different changes will ultimately result in very great benefit both materially and culturally, and in every desired way. But I think it is no harm to face the fact that temporarily, at any rate, in respect of a considerable section of the urban population the immediate result of that change in social conditions has been a distinct loss.
Men of leisure and wealth, no matter how they got their wealth, who lived in a local society, probably spent much money in such a way as to give a moderately decent livelihood to a considerable number of workmen and women, and undertook social work, in the way of luxury services, of one kind or another. That, to a great extent, has passed away. What has taken its place? Presumably the source of the wealth of all these gentle folk, if I might call them so, has been retained by the producer. The farmer. it is presumed, is better off by the change, by reason of the fact that he is a tenant paying an annuity instead of rent, or that he is the direct owner of his farm as distinct from being a holder of land from the landlord. But when those who were dependent on the spending of the gentle folk are now dependent on the spending of the farmer folk, and the farmer folk are encouraged in every way to spend their earnings upon imported commodities of a cheap type, the home service is to that extent deteriorated, and the maintenace fund has to be called upon, without the service which ought to be given in exchange. So that there is in fact a distinct loss as far as that goes, and I think it is the duty of public men, Ministers, politicians and others to find out the best way to replace that service, and to ensure that the people who have been deprived of their livelihood by a change in political conditions shall not suffer continuously, but that they shall find some other means of employment. The same argument does definitely apply to a large extent to the withdrawal of British troops.
Now, all this leads me to the conclusion that the situation requires, first, that the organised community, which is represented by the State, must accept responsibility for maintaining in something like civilised decency, at least, to provide bread and milk, or oatmeal and milk, or food, clothing and shelter of the most meagre, but certainly health-giving standard, for every child in the community, and I think that ought to be recognised as a first charge on national wealth production. Unfortunately, we are being forced to the conclusion that the various Departments are acting in water-tight compartments, and are not working with a due sense of the national responsibility that devolves upon them. By national responsibility I mean responsiblity for the care and maintenance of those who have been deprived of an opportunity of earning a living. If we accept that as a social responsibility, which in my understanding of the term is what nationalism must mean, then it is distinctly our duty, and I think primarily the duty of the Ministers of the State, to initiate such economic movements as will bring the opportunity to work to those who are at present idle; to initiate such economic movements as will intensify the amount of national wealth production. I am forced to this conclusion, having examined the matter with as much care as possible, that even though the present national wealth production were equitably distributed, and it is not equitably distributed to-day, it is not enough to give every citizen a reasonably civilised standard of life. Therefore, the objective of the economic activities of the State, co-ordinated as it should be by the Ministry, is to intensify wealth production, not only agriculturally but industrially.
I am one of those who is prepared to give credit for a good deal of very valuable work that has been done since the initiation of the Free State. I think, for instance, that the most valuable work that has been done, both by the present Minister for Agriculture and his predecessors, was the work which they undertook actively, not merely by means of educational propaganda, but when they used a certain amount of compulsion they achieved the greatest success. Almost all those enterprises, shall I say, that are being boosted, to use a slang term, as having produced beneficent results had an element first of State initiative, and second, a certain amount of compulsion. They have undoubtedly led to valuable results, and I want to urge that the Ministry is bound, by virtue of its responsibility in this matter, to undertake of its own initiative a more definite organisation of those forces which are engaged in economic activities, to encourage, stimulate, and almost compel the various element of employers, agriculturalists, distributors and others to organise themselves into responsible bodies, which will be held responsible by the Government, and which will have definite duties thrust upon them. This is a line of development which will be subject, no doubt, to a great deal of criticism and dissent, but I am convinced that unless there is a very swift and radical change in the economic conditions, it will not be possible to maintain in this country the present population of three millions. If they are to be maintained in this country we shall have a continuously growing proportion of poverty-stricken beings; if a radical change is not entered upon, the tendency will be for the population to continue to decline, and I am sure Ministers will be at one in this, that it is imperative to maintain in this country an increasing population of well-fed, well-clothed, and well educated human beings.
I am making this criticism because it seems to me that not sufficient friendly comments have been made upon the tendencies of present economic activities. The returns have shown that certain improvements have taken place with regard to those industries which have been benefited by protective tariffs. I think sufficient has not been done in that direction. I think much more initiative and much more sense of social responsibility has to be shown than mere reliance on protective tariffs as a means of stimulating industrial activities. I think it is a radical mistake to imagine that the initiation of tariff proposals must come from interested parties, and that the Tariff Commission is bound by inference to exclude from its consideration any alternative other than a tariff for stimulating and protecting an Irish industry. I am, therefore, proposing to close on this point, that to stimulate national wealth production, it is necessary to acknowledge that there is a much more definite duty cast upon the central Government than has hitherto been considered desirable; that to advise and assist the Government in coming to a conclusion on economic policies, there should be continuous inquiry by a body which is capable of examining in every way the pros and cons of any economic question; that that inquiry should be by an authoritative body, that it should have powers of close examination, and should have powers to initiate proposals of its own regarding the best methods of proceeding for the benefit of agricultural and industrial production.
I ask Minister and I ask the Seanad particularly, to take into account these tendencies I have indicated, drawn from the agricultural statistics. Important as may be said to be the benefits derived from improved quality and improved marketing methods, the advantage to be derived from those improved methods depends almost wholly upon the relative conditions in which they are marketed, compared with the competing countries of Denmark, Australia, South Africa and Canada, and while we may be improving and therefore making up lee-way we are not necessarily always going to be continually benefited. Concurrently with that improvement there is steady pressure downwards on the part of the buying and consuming population in Great Britain, and reliance upon a mere improvement in market prices through an improved marketing organisation is not enough, unless you have a very great improvement in the total quantity produced.