The Minister for Agriculture cannot be present to-night, but as he has intervened already in the debate, I take it we might continue, as the mover of the motion is here.
Agreed.
Co-operative and Experimental Farms—Motions (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion and amendment:—
"That in the opinion of Seanad Éireann the Government should encourage and facilitate the establishment of a small number of co-operative farms, or co-operative farm units as an experiment, with a view to the extension of either or both of these systems of farming if found to be satisfactory."—(Senator Robert M. Burke, Senator James Tunney, Senator James J. McCrea.)
Amendment:
"To delete all words after the word farms' and substitute the following words: ‘for experimental and demonstration purposes with a view to the improvement of agricultural methods in general'."—(Senator Martin O'Dwyer.)
I have no objection to talking without the Minister, because had he been here I have a feeling that the motion would eventually be withdrawn. I do not believe it was ever intended to press it. It was suggested to me last night that we ought to leave this discussion to the men who have land. I did not fall in with that, as it would be equivalent to suggesting that the man who had no boots and went barefooted should not think or talk about boots. This is a question well worth discussing and as I have no personal axe to grind I can be impartial. If I refer to Senator Burke or any other Senator whose name is attached to the motion, I do it merely because they have identified themselves with this proposal and must be prepared to defend it or give further information if we ask for it.
I do not suggest that Senator Burke comes in here with a hammer and sickle in his attaché case. I do not suggest that he has a red flag wrapped around him. I know that he is the most inoffensive person here. I know that he is the mildest mannered man—I will not finish that quotation. He has never said or done anything offensive and because of that he is very popular and because of that he is very dangerous. He can very easily get people to agree with things that are not worthy of support. This motion is a most dangerous proposition and there was no justification for it. He said yesterday that he had tried the system on his farm for 16½ years. He tried it with such success that nobody in County Galway has the slightest intention of following his example. If he wants a demonstration of its efficacy surely he has a demonstration there. Why does he want the State to come in and set up co-operative farms, financed presumably by the State and cause a further complication of the problem that we have been discussing earlier? Who is going to audit the co-operative accounts and look after them? Are we to add another series of boards to the Electricity Supply Board, and all the other organisations that we are not able to control at the moment? I was surprised when I saw—not Senator Burke's name because I knew he had been trying this out—but Senator Tunney's name and Senator McCrae's. If they are recommending this as a good thing I wonder how far they are prepared to go themselves in adopting this principle. I do not know whether they have farms or not. If they have, without any State interference at all, they can try it out. Nobody has to coerce them into doing it if they believe in it. If they do not believe in it, who has the right to coerce, say, Senator Baxter into it? Senator Baxter spoke on what a good Christian Senator Burke was. He paid tributes to Senator Burke as a good Christian; he said nothing about him as a good farmer. I was surprised that Senator Baxter should above all things praise Christianity without being prepared to follow because if there is anyone whom I know to be a good Christian at heart it is Senator Baxter. But he was not going to be so much of a good Christian as to follow Senator Burke.
I do not want to be nasty and I do not mean to be nasty, but I suggest that there is one of Dickens's characters who comes to mind when I hear talk of humility. There is no Christianity in this experiment of Senator Burke's. Senator Burke has not made a moral claim for it. He has made no claim for his system except six good reasons. I took them down and four of them amounted to saying the same thing in different words: that the men worked harder, that there was greater output per man and per man hour and a greater yield per acre, in other words, that it was a good whip. He said that the profits and the losses were shared. There is nothing new in sharing profits. Any man who paid wages shared. profits and he even had to share when there were no profits. To call this a co-operative farm is a misnomer.
The losses were also shared.
Is it a co-operative farm? Do the seven men own the farm between them? Can any one of them sell his share in the farm? How are the profits estimated? What is allowed to the owner for rent, use of buildings and machinery, cattle and so on? Surely there must be some costings of that sort. Can any man of the seven decide to sell the farm in spite of Senator Burke? The men are only working under a master. What are they working for? The best up to this has been the agricultural worker's wage, plus a £10 bonus. Spread the bonus over a year and it represents 1¼d. an hour over what the meanest farmer in the country is compelled to pay by the State as the lowest possible wage. A magnificent achievement after 16 years.
Senator Burke said that there were several sorts of co-operation and that this was the one he had tried. I heard of common ownership between a farmer and a labourer that was, on a limited scale, very like what Senator Burke is doing. The farmer said: "We will get a cow between us; we will buy it between us and own it 50-50. You will own the front and I will own the back and you can feed it and I will milk it." That is the sort of co-operative farming that is going on and I do not think the State should try experiments of that sort. If you want experiments try them on your own farm. Every farm is an experimental farm and every farm is a demonstration farm. You have only to look over the hedge or the gate to get a demonstration of what the farmer is doing and how he is doing it and you can guess whether it is worth doing or not.
If you want the State to come in to teach farmers and labourers their business and set up co-operative farms for the labourers can you not be consistent and say that the State should set up co-operative cinemas, hotels and dog tracks? If the State once starts to set up co-operative things there is not any limit. At the moment I do not want a farm but I might take a share, if the State gave it to me free, in one of the more profitable ventures like dog racing. I do not know much about dog racing and I know little about farming.
Senator Burke did not tell us enough. He has 250 acres which he works on a co-operative basis. Does he pay land annuities and are they deducted from the earnings of the farm? If so, this means that the seven labourers are buying out the fee simple of his farm for Senator Burke without knowing it. Has he other land which he does not run on a co-operative basis? If this is good for 250 acres would it not be better for 2,500 acres and better still if we ran the whole country as one co-operative farm with one commissar in charge. I think there was a gentleman called Cincinnatus who was taken from his plough to become a dictator. Senator Burke did not even leave the plough but he thought he would be a dictator, not for 16 days, but for all time over all the farms in the country. When I hear so much talk from farmers I wonder who runs the farms? I wonder are some of the farms run by Radar because I meet farmers in the Dáil and Seanad. I read of some farmers at company meetings. I hear of farmers at the Royal Dublin Society, and I read of them at banquets, but seldom on the farm. When I do meet them they are wringing their hands and saying the farm does not pay. I wonder then where they get the free tickets on the railways to come up to all the shows they come to.
This system is, as Senator Ó Buachalla said, at best a form of profit-sharing. We do not know enough about it and, not knowing enough, we could not recommend it. It is not the duty of the State to set up more experimental farms and I do not see how they would pick the labourers to run the farms co-operatively. It has not even the merit of being new. That is the fantastic thing about it all. Today, in 1950, Senator Burke is advocating the co-operative farm. In 1830 what was called a co-operative farm was set up in Ralahine in County Clare by a gentleman named Vandeleur. I have more details about Vandeleur's experiment than I have about Senator Burke's, but as far as I know anything about Senator Burke's it runs on a line with Vandeleur's and whether the purpose of setting them up was the same I do not know.
Vandeleur was living in very troubled times. He was afraid of the White Boys, and of some body called the Terry Alts. I do not know whether there were any Terry Alts in Tuam when Senator Burke decided he would try the experiment of co-operative farming. Maybe, it is only a coincidence, that the Fianna Fáil Party had just assumed Government and he thought another revolution was coming. Vandeleur thought he would safeguard himself by putting the labourers into a co-operative farm, and to convince him he should make up his mind they shot his agent, shot him dead. The agent the day before was out supervising the labourers. They had a bucket of cold water into which they dipped a mug now and again to drink when they were sweating. He kicked the bucket over to stop them drinking. I do not know whether that is the origin of the phrase or not, but he "kicked the bucket" himself on the following night. Vandeleur saw that this was getting dangerous, let us, he said, make a co-operative farm of it, and he brought a man named Craig over here to run the co-operative farm. The labourers were to get a share of the profits. Vandeleur charged a rent against his machinery, against his farm, and against his cattle. He had to be paid in coin. He drew £900 a year, probably £1,000 a year—and money was money at that time—out of the farm. What did the others get? They got less than Senator Burke is paying his men. They got eightpence a day for working in the summer time from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and in the winter from dawn to dark. The women got fivepence a day. Senator Burke says his men are living in houses provided by him. I assume something is deducted from their earnings for rent. Vandeleur also made the men live on the farm in houses provided by him. He arranged their marriages for them. A Deputy was recently asked to find a wife. Vandeleur looked after his people. He made sure that they got wives or husbands of his choice. Nobody was allowed to smoke, nobody was to drink, nobody was to gamble, and nobody was to call anybody else by a nickname.
Everything went swimmingly in this fashion until Vandeleur went to Dublin, and on a throw of a card, gambled the farm away, and the people who had been working on it were thrown out on the road as they did not own the farm. I wonder if any dispute arises in Tuam who would own the farm? I am not saying that out of any personal antagonism, but when anybody gets up to suggest a plan for the country I want to know more about it than I do. It is also a coincidence that this thing started as a co-operative farm. When it collapsed Mr Craig wrote the history of it and it became known as "The Just Commune". I wonder is the Second Irish Commune in Tuam? Are the Government to facilitate putting one in every county?
I know practically nothing about farming, and I do not propose to attempt to deal with the practicability of what is called co-operative farming, but it seems to me that Senator Burke put forward a scheme with a certain idealism behind it, in a perfectly sincere and thoughtful manner. It is rather a tragedy that some of the members of the House have thought it wise to treat it in a frivolous or semi-frivolous manner.
There is nothing frivolous in what I said. I did not intend it to be. Would you consider it frivolous if I suggested we should apply the same principle to the drapery trade?
I believe it has been applied to the drapery trade. I certainly would not have any objection to the Senator putting down a motion and giving his reasons. I would not feel the tiniest bit hurt. Whether the last speaker's remarks were to be treated as frivolous or not, my remarks were not intended solely for him, though I think some of his remarks were frivolous. I want to be frank. There were other references made, I am not going to mention names, which did not seem to me to treat the proposal in the way, I think, it should be treated. I am only giving my opinion. I think the great mistake Senator Burke has made, is not that he has endeavoured to give publicity to the idea of co-operation amongst workers on farms, but that he has asked that the State should encourage and facilitate. Now, it seems to me that the essence of the co-operation, in the sense I understand co-operation, is that it is free, that it is of free will. The minute the State comes in either to interfere, to encourage, or to give privileges it ceases to be entirely free. I think it is highly desirable that we should have more co-operation amongst free men. I am in favour of closer political co-operation. This is not a new idea. I said it in the House many years ago.
I am in favour of much closer co-operation amongst businessmen in the same business, but as soon as you introduce an element of compulsion into it, it ceases to be co-operative, in the sense in which I understand it, and the danger to my mind of proposing that in the state of Irish opinion the State should provide any facilities or give certain privileges would be that this form of farming, whether idealistically framed or whether it is better than Senator Burke has described, would have become the enemy of the private owner because it would be getting privileges. In other words, I think it would be a very good thing, whether on the lines of Senator Burke or on other lines, if people in this country could feel that they have a perfectly free choice if they chose to co-operate together, to join together in their mutual interest. They should have general encouragement and sympathy, and if the idea spreads, let it spread as their idea. By all means, I would like to encourage Senator Burke to go forward and preach his gospel, but do not ask the State to come in, because if you do you risk failure.
There is no law against it.
There is no law against it. There should be no law against it. There should be nothing to discourage it nor do I think, at this stage, there should be special facilities. The first remarks I made, were due to the fact that it seemed to me that some of the speeches, I was not referring solely or especially to the speech of the last speaker, that some of the speeches seemed to be of a rather cynical nature against what I thought to be a valuable contribution to the life of the country. I do not at all agree. I am not at all sure it will work, but surely when it is put before us in the spirit in which it has been, we ought to hope for its success and to encourage it, as long as it is on the basis of complete freedom.
I did not originally intend to intervene in this debate, but I do so because it seems to me that the idea put before us has definite value, and I would not like it to go out from this House that there was not a great deal of sympathy for it even, although, in the form in which the motion was phrased, we could not possibly pass it.
In this motion and the two amendments before the House, I would like to deal first of all with Senator Counihan's suggestion that experimental farms should be established. The Senator pointed out that he put down this motion as a sort of counterblast to destroy the thunder of Senator Burke. The only thing I want to say about it is, surely we have enough of that particular experiment and demonstration farm already. Unless it was going to be a demonstration farm run by a farmer on the lines whereby a certain amount of capital would be given to a particular farmer, and he would be given a certain sort of directive or advice from the Department of Agriculture, or its technicians, that would enable individual farmers in every county, or if you like in every parish, to benefit by it, I do not see how it could be effective. We are hearing something about the parish plan but a man would require to be given enough capital to enable him to set an actual headline. That would be the only type of experimental farm I would favour, because so long as you have an experimental farm where the State is prepared to put in money without limit, the average agriculturist will say that it is not being seriously run as a farm.
I think I could give the same answer to the amendment in the name of Senator O'Dwyer, but at any rate it must be admitted that in Senator O'Dwyer's case, it was put down seriously and not as a manæuvre. It seems from his attitude that Senator Counihan saw something in Senator Burke's motion that aimed at the ownership and that it was in his mind that it was the first wedge in the right of private ownership. On the motion, I might say I am in agreement with Senator Douglas, but I think there was a technique used by some members of this House, possibly following an example set by a higher level. The standard of debate is a matter of opinion and it seemed to me that it followed the well understood pattern of the old days of the Irish Parliamentary Party on the principle that if you ridicule a thing whether it is right or wrong you will succeed in killing it.
I may tell the Senator that that scheme was in Ireland long before the Irish Parliamentary Party. It goes back over 2,000 years.
When I hear some of the histrionic displays to which we are treated I think it is a pity that those making them did not live in the days of Grattan and Flood.
And they would be all dead now.
I do not agree with the motion. Senator O'Farrell commenced his remarks by saying that he had no personal animosity to Senator Burke and it then ran through my mind that while it was not personal animosity, it was this old question of division in a Party which we can understand, when we realise that there are two Labour Parties. I came to the conclusion that was the cause of it, and I saw in this afternoon's paper some statement that something was to be done to bring about unity in trade unions. It is not my business to criticise that, beyond saying that unity is desirable in any movement, but, in this case, it will not be helped by the sort of thing we had from Senator O'Farrell, by way of criticism of a motion put down by one of his fellows.
My principal objection to the motion is this: I agree with the Minister when he referred to the fact that many of our people have beliefs deeply rooted in the three Fs—free sale, fair rent and fixity of tenure. That is quite true, and I am sure that anyone who understands the rural people of any part of Ireland will agree that any of them worth their salt do make an effort to hold on to their land, and while many of them may not always use it as scientifically as Senator Burke would like, still they have a measure of independence and a spiritual value in that independence that it would be a pity to take away from them.
The Land League did something, surely, for this country. While I agree totally with the outlook that it would be a pity to destroy that right of private ownership or of pride in the individual ownership of land, I have often thought of the matter when I had opportunities of seeing conditions in agriculture outside this country, where they have no fixity of tenure. Passing on the train through England, where they have the landlord system, you can see the effect of it in the fields. The landlord stipulates, I believe, that the farmer-tenant must keep the hedges properly and see that the drains are maintained in good order, and I have often wondered whether it is not one bad effect of this fixity of tenure, free sale and fair rent that farmers in this country who have absolute ownership will let the briars grow out in the field. It is a pity that that should be so. The farmers in England would not do it under their system of land tenancy, but even if our farmers let the briars grow out in the fields, it is a grand thing that they have the right to do it and I would be the last to try to stop them from letting the briars grow out in the fields if they want to do it.
I am sure the motion was put down seriously and honestly by Senator Burke and I do not think that any attention should be paid to statements striving to create the implication that Senator Burke was a Communist or a border-line case. Those implications went too far. At the present time, there is so much money being spent on propaganda all over the world that the day is long gone when by calling a man a Communist you simply meant that he believes in communal ownership. If a man is dubbed a Communist or a border-line case, it means that he is out to overthrow a particular system of government as we understand it in Western Europe, and to establish in its place a system whereby you have dictatorship in the name of democracy.
I do not think that there was a definite ground in the case of Senator Burke for making any uncharitable remarks. I do not think there was any definite reason for that criticism in the case of Senator Burke because he was applying in practice a simple system of communal effort. I would not say it was communal ownership. I tried to intervene in the early stages of the debate—the Chair decided I would not be allowed to do so—to inquire who was the vested owner of this land and who was responsible for such services as insurance and whether the workers were self-insured or whether they paid into a fund for the purpose. I was honestly and genuinely looking for information and I suggest to Senator Burke that he might reply to these points.
The fundamental objection I have to the system is that, even if it were much more profitable than the system of individual ownership, there are greater things in this world than efficiency. The only claim made for it is that it seems to work efficiently, but I am sure that Senator Burke will agree that there are certain other values. His case was that he was able to pay the farm wage, plus certain other services. It amounted, I think, to about 9/- a week in excess of the agricultural wage. The Senator also mentioned something about the right to own one cow or to have the use of one cow. I do not know whether that was costed in the extra 9/- or not, but surely the Senator will agree with me that there are many people living on smaller farms—he gave the example of a farm of so many acres employing seven men—and more people living there is better conditions.
Mr. Burke
A good many people misunderstood that. I think I omitted to emphasise that it was statute acres. Many people may have thought I referred to Irish acres. In addition, much of it is poor, boggy, wet and rocky land.
There are many people on wet, boggy and rushy land——
Did the Senator say Russian?
——in County Leitrim, where there is an average poor law valuation of less than £10, living as well and, as I say, much better, than the men to whom he refers. I do not think it is a system our people would adopt, because, in the majority of cases, our people who are farmers will make an effort to hold on to the land, no matter what happens. That is perhaps due to our past history and to the fight our people had to make to stay on the land. Because of the hardships then endured, it is not easy for them to surrender a right won after such a fight in favour of a system of co-operative farming.
Senator Baxter was right when he said it was rather an experiment with human nature, because it is not in human nature to co-operate to that degree. If this system were applied generally, we would have a position in which the vested owners of farms would alienate that ownership to a group. Any owner doing that would realise that he was alienating his right of ownership and would naturally begin to inquire in his mind whether he was doing justice to himself and his family. I do not think it would be a practical proposition, and it would be very wrong for the State to interfere at all in such an experiment. There is no law to prevent any group of people trying it out. Senator Burke needed no support from the Government and if any other group of people in Galway, Kerry, Cork or Donegal want to do so, there is nothing to prevent them and nothing will be done by the Legislature to prevent them; but it is very wrong to suggest that, because this system is barely as successful as the operations of individual farmers on their own farms, land for the relief of congestion should be used to promote this system. Senator Burke will know that many of our people, particularly in the west, are land hungry and he knows the race there is, when estates are to be divided by the Land Commission, by small holders to get parcels of land in the hope of making their farms more economic and it therefore would be very wrong for this House to decide that even experiments should be made with land acquired by the Land Commission on the basis of Senator Burke's idea.
While it is a grand thing that somebody has experimented as he has, I do not think it would be a success. It is not such a crashing success as to warrant the House asking the Land Commission to experiment in this fashion with land which is designed for the relief of congestion or the creation of new farms in congested districts. It has not been such a crashing success as to justify the Land Commission in making any such experiment. I am prepared to concede that Senator Burke thought he was right and that he put down his motion and made his case quite sincerely and that is why I thought the method of trying to destroy it by ridicule should not be adopted.
The Minister in his reply used the motion to set out what he proposed to do as an alternative and he discussed the land rehabilitation project and the parish plan. If I heard him correctly, he claimed to be successful and suggested that the fact that he was successful, or would be successful, seemed to be a source of anything but joy to people on his right. The only people to whom he seemed to refer were Senator O'Dwyer and myself. Senator O'Dwyer put down an amendment and everybody who knows him will know that he put it down in all sincerity and that he discussed the matter with all sincerity. It was a pity the Minister should bring political venom in regarding everything in his Department. Every farmer here is prepared to wish the Minister success in so far as they believe him right and his land rehabilitation right. I wish him success, but that does not mean that I alienate my right of criticism. Because anyone seems to criticise him or hold a different angle on a particular matter, he regards it as hostility. He is over two years in power in the Department of Agriculture. He has talked a lot about land rehabilitation and now we are hearing about the parish plan.
Is not the Senator wandering very far?
I agree, but in so far as the Minister referred to this, I submit, with all respect, that I may reply. He made a statement which carried an implication that because he was a success there were certain people sorry to see him a success. That is what I am replying to. If the Cathaoirleach were in the Chair, he would remember having heard the Minister make that statement. Senator Ó Buachalla referred to it yesterday evening also, but I do not think it was intended for Senator Ó Buachalla. I agree I am wandering, but I have the right, I hope, to reply to a statement made by the Minister when he was intervening on this motion.
So long as it is pertinent, Senator, to the matter under discussion.
I am sure the Minister was not wrong and therefore I could not be wrong.
We are not going to discuss land rehabilitation now.
The debate covered that field yesterday evening.
But the motion does not, Senator.
I was replying to the statement made by the Minister. He insinuated that there were people who wished him ill and anything but good luck and success in his efforts. I claim that the land rehabilitation which he seems to think Senator O'Dwyer or myself would be hostile to is nothing more than a development of the Farm Improvements Scheme which is in operation and is well and truly tried. I claim that that scheme, just like the parish plan to which the Minister referred yesterday evening, was first advocated in County Leitrim—and I think it was there the Minister got the idea—by the late Fr. Confrey, a well-known figure, who was thought to be behind time but actually was before his time.
The Senator will now come back to the motion.
I have dealt with the motion so far as Senator Burke is concerned. I am not in favour of it, as if it were sponsored by the State it would tend to upset the right of individual ownership, which should be safeguarded, and people would resent such interference. It would be desirable to have better co-operation in agriculture. That could be got by more public-spirited co-operation in local communities for the ownership and management of machinery and in other services which could be organised in local areas.
Many of the co-operative societies have become big businesses and it is doubtful if they have not slightly deviated from the idea of co-operation, in so far as they are run on big business lines, with the possible difference that they are not liable for taxation in the same way as a public or private company. The real answer to co-operative farming is for the co-operative societies to provide more facilities for their members and for the community with which they are doing business. It is only on those lines that there can be better co-operation. I do not think it can be achieved along the lines in Senator Burke's motion.
I do not think it redounds to the credit of this House that Senator Burke, a man who has set an example that has been admired by thousands, should be subjected to the vituperation and ill-informed criticism to which he has been subjected since the beginning of this debate. Senator Burke can console himself with the fact that, measured by any standard of values, human or spiritual, he will compare very favourably with the best of his critics. The Minister himself set a rather bad example. He accused Senator Counihan of living in the days of Queen Anne, but I think it could be said that the Minister himself seems to live in the days of Isaac Butt. What has Senator Burke proposed? In the course of his elaboration of the motion, he suggested that where two or more farmers living adjacent to each other were desirous of working their farms co-operatively, they should be encouraged and facilitated. It is all right to market co-operatively, it is perfectly good business to buy co-operatively and to act co-operatively in other respects, but to work two or three farms co-operatively is supposed to be immoral and communistic. I never heard such humbug.
On a point of order, there is no statement of the kind that has been made by Senator J.T. O'Farrell in the motion. The motion asks "that the Government should encourage and facilitate the establishment of a small number of co-operative farms". It does not say they should facilitate existing farms, but that they should set them up.
That is not a point of order. The mover of the motion indicated the different types of co-operation he suggested. He repudiated compulsion of any sort or kind. He stated that the farmers concerned might continue to own individually their farms but work them co-operatively, so that whenever they felt that co-operation was not satisfactory or did not suit them, they could withdraw. What is wrong about that?
Where is the legislation needed?
Will the Senator please control himself?
The Senator asked a question and I am answering it.
I am not asking the Senator.
The Senator is asking the empty air.
He gave six incontestable examples of improvements that could be effected by this method. What is wrong, revolutionary or antisocial about a motion of this kind? One would imagine, listening to the Minister, that he had never heard where voluntary co-operation had succeeded. He seems to be like the Orange politician, Colonel Saunders, to whom he referred, who was always asleep except when Irish Home Rule arose. He seems to have been asleep and unaware of world progress in this matter. If Deputy Burke had suggested free love, the abolition of religion or the liquidation of everyone who opposed him, he could not have caused such horror as the Minister and some members of the House simulated.
It was melodramatic to talk in this connection about the fight the farmers of Ireland made for their land. One would imagine that we did not know the history of Ireland. We all know it. Surely that does not mean that it is criminal to suggest that farmers, in order to get more out of the land, should act co-operatively and that the State might give them asistance in that connection. We give the farmers £4,000,000 a year by way of relief of rates. We are to spend £40,000,000 on a land project to make the land richer and more fertile. Apparently, it is all right and moral to give such help to each individual farmer but highly immoral to give it to three or four working together, in which case, it would appear, Communism of the worst type is brought into operation.
What is the Senator's proposal but a development of Muintir na Tire and the parish plan and the various other things that encourage farmers to co-operate in their efforts and to be more scientific?
I do not like the attitude of the Minister, who often assumes pitying contempt for anybody who puts up a point of view with which he does not agree. We are not children and do not like to be treated as such. The proposer of this resolution was not treated fairly or decently in respect to it. If the attitude displayed by the Minister represents his real attitude towards this idea, I am afraid we will not get the value we should get in return for the millions of pounds that are to be spent on the land. I wonder what the representatives of E.C.A. would say if they saw the Minister holding up his hands in holy horror at the very suggestion of co-operation.
I lived on a farm until I was 20 years of age, and I say that one of the misfortunes of farmers has been exaggerated individualism. It is bred in the farmer that he is an individual. Individualism is a fine characteristic if it is not carried to extremes. The farmer has never combined with his fellow-farmer either in agriculture or politics. The result is that he has been exploited by politicians of every Party and has not been able to take advantage to the fullest extent of modern labour-saving devices that would make his life easier and enable him to get more out of the land. He reaches out for doles and concessions of all kinds which he could reject with contempt if he exploited his resources fully.
We have broken the land of Ireland into entirely uneconomic patches. No single piece of land that is allotted by the Land Commission is capable of keeping an average family in comfort. The farmer on that land is not in a position to purchase modern machinery. He could only procure such machinery by joining in co-operation with his neighbours for the purpose of purchasing expensive machinery which would enable him and his neighbours to cultivate the land and to organise rotation of crops. That is the type of development that the motion suggests. Nobody wants to take a man's land from him. It is perfectly ridiculous to suggest such a thing.
If I am rightly informed, the men who were working on the co-operative farm in Tuam were ordinary agricultural labourers whom Senator Burke would have employed in the ordinary way, and would have paid a day's wages when they worked and then sent them to look after their own affairs and to do the best they could and let them remain idle when he did not require their services. Instead of that, he brought them in on his land, built houses for all of them, gave them a voice in the running and management of the farm. We hear a lot in recent times about giving the worker a share in the management of industry. That is regarded by many employers as absolutely revolutionary but it is regarded by many Governments and reformers as being exceedingly desirable because of the sense of responsibility which it develops and because it places at the disposal of the employer the genius that is often found latent in a man in a humble position. It gives the worker greater interest in life and makes him feel that he is not merely a wage slave, that his opinion is valued and that, if he has any good ideas, they can be exploited to his own and his employer's advantage.
That is precisely the idea that Senator Burke has carried out in full measure. He has given these men comfortable homes. He has formed them into a management committee where he has only one vote, the same as they. They meet periodically to decide in regard to various operations on the farm. He makes himself an allowance for his work as he does for his men. Allowance is made for seeds, manures and so on and, at the end of the season, the accounts are made up and the profits are divided in equal measure amongst all. I know for a positive fact that a man who could live luxuriously lives in the humblest farm and gives the best example of Christianity.
Have the men a share in ownership?
It is disgraceful that people should abuse a man who has set such a good example and suggest that he was doing something to benefit himself. He need not mind. He will be honoured and revered when those who criticise him will have been forgotten. I hope he will continue with the good work, which is an example that could well be followed by thousands of other farmers.
I had not intended to take part in the debate but, on the question of farming, a woman ought to be heard because the important part that women play in farming is always overlooked. From my reading of the motion and having listened to Senator Burke's exposition, it seems to me that the suggestion is that the experiment that has been made at Toghermore should be extended to other parts of Ireland, with Government assistance. To my mind, there are two difficulties in that. The success of the experiment at Toghermore depended entirely on the character and on the work of Senator Burke himself.
I would like to pay tribute to Senator Burke. I have great admiration and respect for him. I do not like to say anything that would make him blush but, certainly, he gave a wonderful example to the people of his class and I think we ought to appreciate that. The success of the experiment depended, to my mind, on Senator Burke. The trouble is that there are not many Senator Burkes and therefore there is not much hope of the success which his experiment has attained in places where there are not Senator Burkes. We are all the poorer because Senator Burke is unique. He has brought the idea of the Government into it, but the success of his profit and loss sharing experiment depended on the fact that the Government had not a single thing to do with it—it was all his initiative and enthusiasm.
I think the people who talked about wages in connection with the experiment did not do Senator Burke justice. He gave people what was more than money—homes. At this time when so many people are homeless to possess a home and house is wealth untold and Senator Burke gave them homes and houses. I am very glad of the opportunity of paying a tribute to him, but at the same time I could not vote for or support the motion because I think it is up against something very fundamental in our Irish nature, the feeling of individual ownership of land. The individual ownership of land does not exclude co-operation. Co-operation has always been a part of our life.
I remember when I was a young girl we used send word to the people that we were cutting turf on the mountain and all the farmers on the mountainside would each bring down a cart of turf. We would have dinners and teas going all day long and in the evening a dance in the barn. That was co-operation, grand co-operation. I think that the extension of that form of excellent co-operation is most essential to the development of scientific farming. No matter how much one feels depressed at the present aspect of things in Ireland, if movements like the young farmers clubs, Macre na Feirme, and the Irish Countrywomen's Association spread you can have heart and hope.
One of the things we must cherish is the farmhouse, the individual ownership of the farm and the feeling for the farm, the feeling that the family works as a unit on the farm and the special part the woman of the house, the farmer's wife, must play. I have often said that what we need is a bigger and better supply of farmers' wives, well trained women who bring all that a woman can bring to the farms. They have done it instinctively and the farmhouses have preserved the ancestral virtues such as hard work, economy and those things on which the future of our nation depends. We look around and see people who only spend their time looking at the clock to see when their work will be finished. They have no pride in their work and spend their nights dancing, smoking, doing foolish things and making amusement one of the principal things in life. They do not realise that the only happiness we have in life is work; we must find happiness in work or not at all. People who work on farms have preserved these virtues and it would be a sad thing if that were lost, in fact, I think it would be fatal to our country.
I am one of those who were brought up in the Land League days. In fact I might claim that I am perhaps the only person in Ireland to be a member of the Ladies' Land League. I was about three years old at the time—everybody knows my age so I do not mind saying it. My father was very ardent in the Land League. One of my recollections is—and it was one of the glories of the Land League—that the Catholics of Derry and the Protestants fought together. Orangemen did not exist in that part of the country. They were all good friends and comrades. There was a Land League hut on our ground so we were brought up in the Land League tradition. Anna Parnell stayed in our house and my mother was President of the local branch of the Ladies' Land League. They gave me a doll to keep me quite because I wanted to intervene in the debate. It is rather amusing to think that my mother had been a pupil of the Sacred Heart Convent in Armagh and the nuns had very old fashioned ideas about the woman's part. She was supposed to keep in the kitchen and the nursery and when they heard that my mother was in politics the Reverend Mother sent her a most indignant letter. I wonder what the Reverend Mother would have thought if she knew that I would be in the Seanad talking on behalf of the women of Ireland.
We have had a most useful discussion and those who criticised Senator Burke enlivened the debate. I am very glad of the opportunity of paying a tribute to Senator Burke even though I could not possibly support the motion.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Order fixing date for Committee Stage a fortnight ahead for the Air Navigation and Transport Bill discharged. Ordered that the Committee Stage be fixed for Wednesday, 8th March, 1950.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 8th March.