Edition Bobbett1. Texts by Elizabeth F. Bobbett: 1.4.1. Oral statements, Evidence to the Commission on Vocational Organisation

1940 Elizabeth Bobbett: Oral evidence before the Commission on Vocational Organisation, 24.10.1940

Source: National Library of Ireland (NLI), Mss. 929, 2635-2656, Vol. 8

Commission on vocational organisation, Thursday, 24th October, 1940, 12 (noon)

Evidence of: The Irish Farmers’ Federation. Witnesses: Mr. John J. O’Kennedy (past president), Mr. John J. McArdle, Miss Elizabeth F. Bobbett (secretary).

16071. Chairman: I thank you for your memorandum and for coming to give evidence. Your Federation was established in 1937 after consultation with farmers’ organisations. Is it a federation of associations or does it take in individual farmers as members? Miss Bobbett: Both.

16072. Chairman: Your membership in individual members is 14’500? Yes.

16073. How many associations have you in your Federation? There are three, the County Dublin Farmers’ Association, The Association of Milk Producers (Dublin Sales Area) and the Cavan Farmers’ Trade Union.

16074. Have you got the beet growers? No, we tried on several occasions to get them to co-operate but they would not do so.

16075. Or the Irish Live Stock Association? No; we have not approached them.

16076. You have not got beet growers or grain growers? No; we asked them on several occasions to come into consultation and associate with us but they have refused to meet us or to co-operate with us.

16077. What about the livestock people? They are included in our membership.

16078. Is their Association in your Federation? We have never asked their Association to join us.

16079. Mr. Crampton: Is it possible that some of the individual members of other organisations are members of your Federation? Yes, we have a tremendous amount of the beet growers, but as an association the beet growers did not wish to co-operate with us. From the correspondence I have, it can be seen that we have tried over and over again in the friendliest manner, yet they have not co-operated with us.

16080. Chairman. Exactly what type of farmer do you cater for? We have every branch of agriculture and all types of farmers, and we are working in twenty counties. There are small and big farmers, embracing all lines of agriculture.

16081. Before 1937 was there any farmers’ federation? In 1931, 1932 and 1933, and about that time there was a farmers’ organisation called the United Farmers’ Protection Association. They were dealing chiefly with the matter of agricultural frozen loans in the banks and they endeavoured to have a small committee set up to deal with those cases. They gave evidence before the Banking Commission. After that the members of the United Farmers’ Protection Association said they would now enlarge their organisation and try to have a central council for agriculture. It was the members of the UFPA who first started the Irish Farmers’ Federation. Mr. Ernest Browne of Clare was one of the chief founders of it and we got in touch with all the different organisations in twelve counties and we invited them up to several conferences. We found it was the wish of those farmers that we should have a central council and therefore we organised the Irish Farmers’ Federation on trade union lines and got the different organisations to come in and have representation on it. We knew that for them to form their own council would be the best way of uniting the Irish agricultural community. The IFF did not claim any greater dignity than any other association but wished to be the means of grouping together all the other farmers’ associations in the country so that they could have the Federation as their voice. We have succeeded in raising an interest in this, in twenty counties.

16082. Mr. Crampton: Is there any definition of a farmer member? The definition is: “Anyone owning or using land in Ireland”. Any agricultural labourer who conforms to the rules can be a member.

16083. Mr. Crampton: You have no written definition? “Anyone owning or using land in Ireland”.

16084. Mr. Lowe: In fact, how many agricultural labourers are members? In the Western counties we have quite a number.

16085. Mr. Duffy: What contribution do the members pay? The contribution to the National Executive is based on a rate of not less than one shilling per member per annum, but the counties have their own rules and can arrange their own county subscriptions.

16086. Mr. Larkin: Have you not got a set of rules registered? We have.

16087. Mr. Larkin: Can we not get a supply of them? Yes, I have not got them here but can send them to your Secretary.

16088. Chairman. Does your Federation deal directly with members or merely with the local associations? Mostly with the local associations.

16089. It is, then, a Federation of Associations? Yes.

16090. Have you an office in Dublin? No; we have an office in Wicklow.

16091. How is the Governing Body constituted? It is elected by the different counties who send their representatives to the National Executive.

16092. What happens in the case of a county which has not got a farmers’ association? The counties we are dealing with have a branch of one association or another.

16093. Have you any association with Clann na Talmhan? We have an agreement with them but they are not associated with us. We have met them on several occasions and also the Kerry Farmers’ Association and the Roscommon Farmers’ Association and they are willing to co-operate in our efforts for the benefit of agriculture, but they are not affiliated to us.

16094. Why do they not affiliate with you? One of the reasons why Clann na Talmhan did not do so was that they seek Parliamentary representation and we do not. We are not a political body

16095. Is it hard to organise farmers? It is very difficult.

16096. Would you explain to us the constitution of your governing body? It consists of two representatives from each county on the National Executive.

16097. That would be a very large body: it means you would have 52 members on your executive? Each county likes to have as much say as the next. We have about 48 members. The Executive generally meets monthly. Mr. O’Kennedy: A small committee would be appointed from the Central Executive in the case of certain matters.

16098. Chairman: Have you such a committee? Mr. O’Kennedy: Yes, when the necessity arises. The personnel is not elected for a definite period but in the event of any difficult question arising that requires very mature consideration, as far as possible, the numbers would be cut down to the minimum; taking into account due representation for the various interests.

16099. You have rules? Yes.

16100. For violation of those rules you would expel, fine or suspend a member? Yes.

16101. How can you do that when you have not any direct control? Miss Bobbett: According to the rules, we are entitled to bring them before the National Executive and under the trade union Acts they can be expelled.

16102. Chairman: Supposing you brought up a member of the County Cavan Farmers’ Association and expelled him, he would still continue to be a member of that Association? Mr. O’Kennedy: I suggest, my Lord, that that question would not arise. Naturally, the Executive is the supreme authority for the Federation, but it would not like to usurp the functions of the local associations. If the County Cavan Farmers’ Association took particular action against a member and recommended it to the National Executive -

16103. Chairman: It would have no need to recommend; the County Cavan Farmers’ Association to expel him and then he ceases to be a member of yours? Quite so, but as the Executive of the Federation, we would not take action against an individual of one of the Associations which federate with us.

16104. Would you take action against an association itself? Possibly, and very probably, yes; definitely yes, I would say.

16105. It is because of the trade union Acts that you can expel a member? You are a trade union? Miss Bobbett: Yes.

16106. Why did you adopt that? People do not generally regard you in the light of a trade union? They decided at that time that it was the best way to get farmers to organise as it would be non-political.

16107. Because you think that a trade union is the safest thing there is in this country at present? By being registered we are governed by an Act of Parliament and it gave us certain facilities. Mr. Duffy: And because they are democratic bodies.

16108. Chairman: Could you not come in as a friendly society? Mr. Larkin: It would be as a friendly society that they are registered.

16109. Chairman: It is of interest to us to see that the Trade Union Acts supply the most suitable form of organisation for people who wish to be non-political. Your idea was really to be non-political? Miss Bobbett: Yes.

16110. Mr. Lowe: Would it be fair to say that it was because of the privileges you enjoy under the Trade Union Acts that you came in in that way? Yes.

16111. Chairman: According to the rules, you are not registered under the Friendly Society Acts, but under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935? Was there a trade union Act in 1935? Mr. Duffy: There was a one-clause Act which extended the right of a trade union to hold property. Mr. Larkin: The Society is a Friendly Society. It is the same Act. Previous to 1935 such bodies could not hold more than half an acre of land.

16112. Chairman: Would you explain to the Commission your activities and your needs and then your method of action? Miss Bobbett: The first important thing was to get the farmers to organise and to realise the uneconomic state of their industry at the present time. They would have to organise and get down to a basis of securing production costs for their produce. We found that we would have to get a central body and some unity amongst the counties, as one county would be satisfied with certain lines and the next county would not. Therefore, we needed unity. We organised by holding meetings and, sometimes, demonstrations and we were able to get certain facilities for members through being an organisation. We have achieved some benefits. We have been able to make settlements over arrears of annuities and have saved people from being evicted and their holdings being taken over. Through representation through county councils in some of the counties, we have been able to keep down excessive expenditure on rates where it was beyond the possibilities of the tax-payers to meet those expenses. Also, we have been able through negotiation to stay proceedings of the banks here who were pressing farmers very hard in regard to frozen loans. At the present moment we are in communication with the Irish Banks Standing Committee and we are drafting a scheme which will meet this question of frozen loans.

16113. Chairman. Have you got into touch with the Agricultural Credit Corporation? Not yet, because we have found that they are not of very much benefit to the farmers. We find that the farmer who wants money from the Agricultural Credit Corporation would nearly need to be in a position not to want to borrow money before he could get it. The first question that body asks is whether the farmer has paid annuities and rates and if that has not been done up to a certain date he need not bother to look for any relief from them.

16114. Would you develop that? If one has not got the annuities paid up to a certain date or if one is in arrears with rates, there is no use in trying to look for relief from the Agricultural Credit Corporation.

16115. Mr. Duffy: How would they treat you if you had a big overdraft in the bank? I do not think that they would treat us at all at present, nor for many years past. Mr. McArdle: A man would need to be a solicitor to answer the questions they ask and in many cases it would be easier to obtain the money from the bank.

16116. Chairman: Is that definitely the feeling of your Federation? Mr. McArdle: It is the feeling all over the country. Personally I had a case with them and changed from the Corporation to the bank, as the bank was easier to deal with.

16117. Chairman: In its rate? In its conditions. One would need at least two solvent securities for the Agricultural Credit Corporation and one would pay back about six per cent interest, whereas the bank would let one off more easily than that.

16118. Mr. Duffy: But the bank will not give you a long term loan? If I am a customer in the bank and deal honestly with them, the bank manager will give me a good deal, but the Agricultural Credit Corporation treats me as a complete stranger. Chairman: The bank keeps renewing the loan.

16119. Mr. Larkin: The bank could call in the money when they please, but the ACC gives you a real life terms of years? They give us a real life of misery.

16120. That is what we want to know from you. Have you got any documents in your possession or could you supply the Commission with evidence as to that? Miss Bobbett: I have not the documents here but could supply evidence. Mr. O’Kennedy: The best way in which I could convey to you the view of the general farmer in regard to the ACC is by saying that the ACC insists that he make a good general confession, and the average farmer resents making that in any but the one particular place.

16121. Professor O’Rahilly: Is it not the real trouble that a lot of the farmers are so burdened with debts from the time of the land ramp that no one can help them? The banks and the corporation find that that is so: the people who need help are so burdened that they can do nothing for them? Mr. McArdle: That is correct.

16122. Chairman: Does your Federation take any part in local representation, as regards representation on the local county councils? No, we have not so far.

16123. Mr. Larkin: Do you not pronounce upon the qualifications of a candidate? Did you not come out in favour of Mr. Patrick Cogan? Not as a Federation. The County Wicklow farmers formed a committee amongst themselves and put forward Mr. Cogan but did not implicate the Federation.

16124. Mr. Larkin: In no place have you taken part in political action? No.

16125. Chairman: Does not the farming community elect the county council? Miss Bobbett: They do.

16126. Therefore, it is up to the farmers to reduce the rates? But there have not been county council elections, I think, since the Farmers’ Federation was formed. Mr. McArdle: At the present time the county councils have no power because, if they want to cut down the rates to a certain standard they get an order from the Local Government Department saying that they must do such and such a thing. That has happened in a number of councils when they have had to increase the rate in spite of themselves.

16127. Chairman: Then, the farmers are not satisfied with the present system of local administration? Mr. McArdle: The Department of Local Government now just orders. If the county council does not do what the Department orders they have to walk out and let in a commissioner.

16128. Mr. Duffy: When you speak of reducing rates, that must be in relation to something: in other words, you must have formed an opinion that there are expenses incurred by the county council which are not justified. Is that your view? Yes, definitely.

16129. What kind of expenditure incurred by county councils do you take exception to? That would vary in the different counties.

16130. What county do you come from? Laoighis. And where would you say the wasteful expenditure is there? In a good many places – in the first place, on the roads. Anyone travelling on the roads knows that. Personally, I travel nearly every day on them and I would say that we have almost the worst roads in Ireland, except the No. 1 roads, which are good. Practically nothing is ever done with the other roads.

16131. Mr. Duffy: What expenditure are you objecting to? A certain amount of money is spent on road-work, and the work is not done.

16132. A big proportion of that money is recouped from the Road Fund? About 40 per cent of it in regard to No. 1 roads and the length of such roads is very small in proportion to the number of other roads.

16133. Is it your case that the county council is spending money on the roads without getting a proper return? Yes, as the roads are not being done and the money is being spent. We have a county surveyor and two or three assistants all drawing big salaries and no work being done.

16134. Mr. Wilson: The by-roads are not being attended to? That is so.

16135. Mr. Duffy: There is a grant for relief work, too? The money is being spent and the county surveyor and his assistant are supposed to go round and see the state of the roads and see that the work is done. That is not done.

16136. Mr. Larkin: Have you not got a Commissioner who would have power to suspend such an official? Yes.

16137. Mr. Duffy: The Commissioner is inefficient, in that case? There is no complaint definitely against the Commissioner, who is trying to do his best; but there is also a machine there and he cannot go against the machine.

16138. He has the county council? Definitely he has, but if we have a machine running, the Commissioner cannot change it. Mr. Duffy: But that is what he is there for. Mr. Larkin: Why was he put in?

16139. Chairman: Because the county council was supposed to have gone wrong and not to have done their work. There was dissatisfaction with certain other persons who were the County Council and therefore the Government in its wisdom or otherwise put in a commissioner. You say now that this man is failing to carry out his obvious duty? Mr. McArdle: You can put it that way if you like, but what I am saying is that the roads are not being attended to and the money is being spent.

16140. You object to that situation? The roads are worse than an ordinary cart road on a farm. We have public roads in that state and still money is being spent on the roads and a person using a car must pay tax and insurance.

16141. Mr. Duffy: What is the amount levied for the upkeep of the roads in your county? I do not know.

16142. I am anxious to know exactly the point where exception is taken to the expenditure by the county council? You could put it in general in this way, that the whole system of government, local and general, necessitates such a number of officials that it is too much out of proportion to the capacity of the rate-paying community to keep it there.

16143. Rev. Dr. Irwin: And to the service rendered? Mr. McArdle: It is a principle in theology that you should not be taxed beyond your capacity to pay.

16144. Chairman: Whatever about theology, I will admit that it is good commonsense in any case? Mr. O’Kennedy: Before you depart from that question, I would like to give a very brief answer. I think that the question was asked, from what do we draw our comparisons?

16145. Mr. Duffy: Not quite. The case has been made by Miss Bobbett that your organisation did intervene in certain cases and succeeded in having reductions made in rates and, therefore, I assume that you are taking exception to the amount of rates levied. I was anxious to know to what services you are opposed? I will try to answer that in this way – we are not opposed to any services that are reasonable and for which we could afford to pay but I would like to draw the attention of everybody to the fact that the last normal year is the year on which most comparisons are based, that is, the year 1913/14. I put it to everybody here present that at that time farming was not a very attractive vocation and, comparing that time with the present time in regard to local services, the cost of local services has gone up on an average, in most counties, by from 250 to 300 per cent. The sources of revenue of the farmer are not more, or very little more prolific to-day than they were in 1914. That is the net position as far as we are concerned.

16146. Mr. Larkin: Your case is that the cost of local services has gone up since 1914 by 250 per cent? The expenses of local services have gone up from 250 to 300 per cent, on the average.

16147. But your produce has not increased in value from the 1913/1914 standard? Certainly not in that proportion. Mr. Wilson: The index figure is 144.

16148. Mr. Larkin: I know what the index figure is. I am only asking the witness, who is an expert, and a member of the Federation of Farmers, to give us the farmers’ position? Mr. O’Kennedy: I will try to answer that. I put it to you, that the sources of revenue of the agricultural community are butter, beef, mutton, bacon, oats, barley.

16149. Mr. Wilson: Milk? I use the word “butter” rather than milk.

16150. Chairman: A lot of the farmers are selling milk? A very small proportion. I want to have this definitely conveyed here too – that there is very little use in considering a particular item that does not represent one per cent of the activities of the farming community, let it be beet or tobacco. There is very little use in giving consideration to one per cent and leaving the other 99 per cent as they were. Let us take the different items. In regard to butter, the position of the farmer who supplies milk to make butter is no better than it was in 1914.

16151. Mr. Larkin: He is getting a guaranteed price, is he not, at least in the counties of Meath, Wicklow and Dublin? That is for milk for the milk trade. I am referring to the activity of the butter producer from Cork to Donegal.

16152. Chairman: Are you dealing now with the creameries and the co-operative societies? Yes, I am dealing with butter production which is carried on in every farm in Ireland.

16153. Chairman: The farmers supply the milk for the butter but the butter production is carried on in the creamery? Mr. Duffy: It is carried on on the farms too. Mr. O’Kennedy: There is no use in dealing with milk merely as a matter concerning one per cent of the community, such as the milk that is supplied to the city. All other milk is either butter produced in the home or sent to a creamery to be converted into butter.

16154. Chairman: Do you mean to say that the creameries only give the same price for milk as in 1914? Yes, my lord, and the funny thing is that they are giving to-day, net to the producer, just a little less than they gave him this day twelve months, before the war started. The net returns to the producer supplying milk to the creameries are slightly less than they were before the war broke out.

16155. Mr. Larkin: What county do you speak for? For the creamery producing areas, all of them.

16156. Mr. Larkin: Give us the exact prices. This is very useful? Chairman: You could send that in, if you wish. Mr. O’Kennedy: I cannot exactly give you the price net per gallon because it varies in very small degrees from, shall I say, five pence to sixpence, 5,2d, 5,25d to 6d, but I will give you this part of it – the export price for butter was 126s 0d per cwt. before the present war started. The export price of butter is still 126s 0d. The manufacturing costs of the butter in the creameries have considerably increased with the result that certain bounties have been added by the home Government to the exported butter. They have been slightly increased but the increase is not sufficient to cover the increased cost of manufacturing, with the result that the net return to the producer of milk are slightly less than they were immediately before the present war.

16157. Mr. Duffy: You made a comparison a moment ago with 1914? Yes.

16158. There is a very substantial increase over the 1913/1914 price? For butter.

16159. You are concerned, of course, with the price of milk if you send to a creamery? It is the price of butter that governs the price of milk.

16160. Not entirely; if there is a subsidy, no. But, would you not say that in 1913/1914 the farmer got roughly 3d a gallon for milk? I would not. I would say he got 4½d plus one penny a gallon for separated milk, that was 5½ d. That was in the Summer period.

16161. In 1914? In 1914 and at the same time I would think that there was not a difference of ½d a gallon as against to-day.

16162. Mr. Larkin: His lordship suggested that if you have any figures in this matter you might send them in to the Secretary? Mr. O’Kennedy: Take mutton. The price of sheep is not greater or very little greater to-day than it was in 1914. In 1914 I got 36s 0d for lambs and to-day I sold similar lambs at 34s 0d. As regards beef, I would imagine that the increase would be not more than about 20 per cent. As regards oats, selling at 1s 0d a stone they would be somewhat similar to the price in 1914. As regards bacon, the price has increased by about 20 per cent, but bacon, generally speaking, is not altogether produced on home-grown produce and the price of the raw material which is purchased from the millers - Mr. Larkin: Which is imported. Mr. O’Kennedy: - has very considerably increased. I would imagine that what cost 9s 0d in 1914 would cost 14s 0d today or thereabouts. That would represent an increase of about 50 per cent. The price of bacon varies. Figures go up and down very much and it is very difficult to get an exact figure but I would imagine that the increase in the price of bacon would certainly not be more than 20 to 30 per cent. Barley and wheat have considerably increased in price but the proportion of market available for barley at that price is very limited and as a national proposition, if all farmers engaged in it, would be useless. The price for wheat has certainly considerably increased but the difficulties are that on an average year the returns on the average land would be very poor and, therefore, for that particular reason it is not a line of activity that the farming community are very anxious to pursue. For instance, this year we have had a marvellous season from the point of view of growing and harvesting wheat but when was it that we had one nearly as good? Certainly, it was a successful proposition this year but for the past two or three years, for the average farmer, it was definitely unsuccessful.

16163. Mr. Odlum: In what way? Do you mean the quality of the grain or the amount produced per acre? The amount produced.

16164. Having a good season or bad season does not make any difference to the farmer. He is in a position to get rid of his wheat, whatever the quality? It does make a tremendous difference.

16165. In wheat produced? As regards the quality; I take it that if a farmer produced a good sample of wheat, say, bushelling 63, if he had only five barrels bushelling 63 it would be much better than 10 barrels bushelling 48-50. In some districts wheat-growing certainly is a desirable asset but I might also add that those particular areas in which it is a desirable asset are the very areas that are able to weather the worst conditions in agriculture at any time.

16166. Mr. Odlum: The weather conditions should not make such a very large difference to the yield per acre. It makes a very large difference to the quality of the grain but you have got a guaranteed market for your wheat irrespective of the quality of grain? Quite so. I would agree with that up to a point, but if you have not good weather conditions, in the average areas in Ireland the wheat will not ripen sufficiently and, as a result, a farmer will not have half the barrels to the acre. Mr. Wilson: And furthermore, the weather has a great deal to do with the getting in of the crop and last year was an exceptionally hard year. Mr. Odlum: Mr. O’Kennedy was just saying that it was a very good year. Mr. Wilson: The Winter was a very hard one. Mr. Odlum: You mean the previous Winter. Mr. Wilson: The previous Winter.

16167. Chairman: The point you are making is to show that while rates have gone up by 250 per cent, farmers’ receipts have not gone up, on the whole, by more than 20 per cent? That is my point.

16168. Chairman: Of course, some farmers might do well on beet? Quite so.

16169. But, on the whole, that is the position. I would like to ask a few questions about your relation to other farmers’ organisations. You claim to be the representative farmers’ body that should speak for farmers over the whole country? Yes, my lord.

16170. Is that claim recognised? I do not know that it is recognised.

16171. Have you any relation with the co-operative societies, the Royal Dublin Society or Muintir na Tíre? No, my lord, but we did seek the co-operation of those associations to which you refer for the purpose of formulating a programme for the farmers of Ireland but the others did not come in to co-operate. At no time, as far as I am aware, were the Irish Farmers’ Federation anxious to usurp all authority for the farmers in Ireland. What they were really anxious to do was to federate the activities of all farmers and, that being so, they did call together representatives of any and every type of the farming community with which they could make contact. If we do not represent the farming community then who does? We take, for instance, the Beet Growers’ Association. It just caters for one particular branch of the farming community.

16172. Mr. Larkin: How many would apply themselves to the production of beet? I do not know. Mr. Larkin: Take the figures of the organisation that produces the sugar. They gave 14’800 as the number who have guaranteed to produce sugar. Chairman: It is much more. The Beet Growers’ Association membership is much higher than that. Mr. Odlum: Over 30,000. Mr. Duffy: May I put this to you – that it would be wrong to say that they are concerned only with one aspect of production, the Beet Growers Association in fact deals on behalf of barley growers and wheat growers with millers and Guinnesses and other people who are their customers? Agreed, but in the meantime, I would like to deal with one aspect of the question; 30,000 has been suggested, our figures are 14,800, but what percentage of the land of the particular farmers in question is devoted to the activity which causes them to be members of that Association?

16173. Chairman: The other question could be put to you – what percentage of the land is represented by the number in your Association? I am afraid it would be very difficult, if you start to divide that up, to apportion it? I do not propose to, my lord, but I want to put this to you that that membership of that association which is certainly a very desirable and very efficient association - Mr. Larkin: It is compulsory. Mr. O’Kennedy: That is the point. And for what percentage of their activities is it compulsory? For a very small percentage of the whole.

16174. Mr. Duffy: Does not the fact stand out, that there are approximately half a million people, between farmers and farm workers, engaged in producing food and agricultural pro-half million? That is so.

16175. Chairman: We notice that you censured the Beet Growers Association for not getting an adequate price for their beet? Where did you notice that, my lord? Chairman: From press cuttings. Miss Bobbett: Members of the Beet Growers Association, who are members of the Farmers Federation, brought up at one of our meetings that they were not getting a sufficient price for their beet. Mr. O’Kennedy: May I ask you when that censuring took place? Chairman: That will be supplied to you. The Fact is not denied.

16176. Reverend Father Hayes: I would like to refer to the fact that nobody has mentioned the agricultural labourer. At least, not since I came into the room. Chairman: They claim to have agricultural labourers as their members. How many of the 14,000 would be agricultural labourers? Mr. O’Kennedy: I would imagine about 1,000 and I put it to you in this way that particularly any of the permanent men who have been on the land and who are just as much portion of the farm as the farmers themselves, would be members. Reverend Father Hayes: In a number of the productive groups that you have mentioned the labourer finds no place at all, as far as I know, and he is certainly as important a man as the farmer. I see no hope whatsoever for rural life of any kind unless the two go together.

16177. Mr. Duffy: May I ask this question, whether your organisation was consulted in relation to the appointment of members of the Agricultural Wages Board? Miss Bobbett: No. We sent forward a list of names asking for representation on the Agricultural Wages Board and they would not grant it to us. We were never granted representation.

16178. Was any person whose names you submitted in fact appointed? No.

16179. Amongst the names of those submitted for appointment to the Agricultural Wages Board did you include farm labourers? I cannot just remember. Yes, there were.

16180. You submitted names of farmers and of farm labourers? Yes.

16181. Chairman: On this question of your relation to the community – did your body promote a strike? Mr. O’Kennedy: Yes, my lord.

16182. And that was a refusal to produce food for the community? No, my lord.

16183. What was the point? It was a withholding for a short time. Withholding of food from the community? For a short time.

16184. Until the community yielded to your demands? Not exactly, my lord, but to focus public attention on the position of farming, That position is well-known and there are many statistics to prove it. I think that everybody here will probably be aware of the fact that it is very difficult “to beat the book.” In any book you take up to read about the farming community you will find whether the farming community are holding their own to-day, that the people are fleeing from it to other vocations. It is very nice to take a beautiful view of all this if one is not directly concerned. It is like Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. But, to bring this matter quickly before the public, we decided that it was necessary to take drastic action to focus public attention on it and that was the reason for the strike. Perhaps it might be just as well to clear the air here. It was generally referred to as a milk strike. It was not a milk strike but it suited to have it turned into a milk strike, into a local milk strike, for the purpose of alienating the sympathy of the farming community throughout the country from it.

16185. Mr. Duffy: It suited whom to do that? It suited, I would imagine, the authorities that took the necessary steps to suppress the notice calling attention to that strike and the aims and objects of that strike.

16186. Chairman: Did your federation approve of the destruction of food as part of the conduct of that strike? I do not know, my lord. I would not imagine that our Association would approve of the destruction of food.

16187. But the milk going to Dublin was split? But, my lord, in any kind of reforms that have gone on anywhere throughout the country certain things have happened which the promoters were not in a position to control.

16188. Chairman: Or repudiate? As regards the repudiation, my lord, when one is placed in a particular position and one’s followers carry out certain action, whether good or bad, during war times, so to speak, or while the war is on, -

16189. You regard yourself as at war with the community? I am using that metaphorically.16190. But definitely you had a war mentality towards the Irish people? I would not agree there because the very people who were responsible for that war with the Irish people, as you put it, were the very first people to go into the ranks of those who were prepared to defend the rights of the Irish people. I am afraid I used the word “war” rather indiscreetly.

16191. Chairman: You made a statement that some people tried to make this out a milk strike but in your manifesto, you see, the heading is, “Irish Farmers’ Federation”; under that: “County Dublin Farmers’ Association” “Manifesto”; and at the end: “NB Our fullest support has already been pledged to the Associated Milk Producers”? Did they leave that at the bottom? It was a thing that should have been at the top. I put it to you, why did they leave it at the bottom if it was a thing that should have been put at the top? Chairman: Really, I do not know. It appears over the names of J. D. Dickie, Chairman, J. J. McGrane, Vice-Chairman, Cornelius F. McLoughlin, Director of Organisation, and T. Ignatius Arthurs, Secretary. Mr. Wilson: That is County Dublin.

16192. Chairman: But this is headed “Irish Farmers’ Federation”. Was not milk included in the strike? Mr. McArdle: Milk as well as everything else was to be withheld for the time being.

16193. Mr. Larkin: Who were the people that you were fighting against? We were principally fighting the Department of Agriculture which refused on several occasions to meet us and deal with us.

16194. Chairman: On whom did your strike impose hardship? On ourselves as well as on everybody else.

16195. Mainly on the poor, would it not be? Not necessarily.

16196. Is it not a case that if producers of food go on strike they do not hit the rich very much; they hit the poor, and, through the sufferings of the poor, they get the Government to yield? Is it not exactly similar to a policy of aerial bombardment? Not necessarily, my lord, because, as a matter of fact, during that strike I met very rich people indeed from the City here, 40 miles down the country looking for a couple of pounds of butter and eggs.

16197. I said it is not the rich who suffer? They could not get the stuff here either they had to suffer just as the poor suffered. Mr. Larkin: They could take out their motor car and go down to Portarlington for it. The people in Waterford Street could not do that.

16198. Chairman: Therefore, it is on the sufferings of the poor you are trading? Mr. McArdle: Not necessarily. Mr. O’Kennedy: Do you suggest, my lord, that it was our intention when starting out on that strike to inflict hardship on the poor?

16199. Chairman: I definitely suggest that that kind of action, of a with-holding of food, intends of its very nature to bring pressure on the Government by causing suffering to the poor and I maintain that it is a course of action which involves very serious social responsibility and if everybody took it up it would lead to anarchy of the worst kind? I should not agree, my lord, but what should happen is that we should have such social justice in this world that such action would not be necessary. But have we?

16200. The question is whether grievances of your kind justify any kind of action, whether because you have grievances with the Department you are entitled to cause hardship on the poor of Dublin? But if you have grievances and if you use any and every means at your disposal -

16201. Chairman: But are you entitled to use any and every means at your disposal? Within reason, I should have added.

16202. Chairman: And the moral law? And the moral law.

16203. Prof. O’Rahilly: At any rate, you would have preferred having your case heard by an impartial tribunal? Of course. Mr. McArdle: It was only when everything else failed that that was the last resource.

16204. Mr. Larkin: Did you ever hear of the term “boycott”? Mr. O’Kennedy: Yes.

16205. Were the men who brought that word into use justified? I would imagine so. Chairman: Who were they fighting? Mr. Larkin: The same people exactly that these men are fighting today – the owners of private property. Chairman: I wonder are the Farmers’ Federation out against the owners of private property Mr. Larkin: They might not be conscious of it. The community were in favour of the farmers getting a decent price for their labours.

16206. Reverend Father Hayes: Mr. Larkin is suggesting that you are against private property? Mr. O’Kennedy: Against certain vested interests. Mr. Larkin: I accept your correction. You do not own your land. You are in the hands of the banks. You are in the hands of other people. You are only the same as the farm labourer – allowed to exist under certain conditions.

16207. Chairman: I wonder does the Federation accept the position that they are not owners of their land and that they are against the principle of private property? Mr. McArdle: They are certainly not against the principle of private property but it is a fact that in all Departmental communications with the farming community they have been termed “holders and occupiers” – no longer owners.

16208. Mr. Duffy: At law is it not a fact that you have absolutely no right of ownership? Certainly. Chairman: I doubt that. Mr. Duffy: I suggest that no other interpretation can be placed on the present Land Acts except the simple one that the Government can turn around to-morrow and tell a farmer, if he does not do as they ask him that he can get out. Chairman: I do not think that even that is contrary to the idea of property. There is no such thing as an absolute right of private property that is not subject to the control of the State. I do not know that the Christian Churches have ever accepted that doctrine of private property. That general idea of private property is only a perversion of the idea of private property that is put up by people in order to knock down and create propaganda.

16209. Reverend Father Hayes: During that period did the other farmers of the country support that strike, Mr. O’Kennedy, or did they send milk up to Dublin? Mr. O’Kennedy: It is rather difficult to answer that question because the area was so large. Certainly some did not collaborate with the strike.

16210. I suppose you might say that about 80 per cent did not collaborate with the strike of the farmers of Ireland? Mr. McArdle: I would say that about 80 per cent did sympathise with it.

16211. Chairman: Of the people of the country Miss Bobbett: Yes.

16212. Chairman: How long did it last? Mr. McArdle: About a fortnight.

16213. Chairman: It is of interest to see what are the activities of an organisation and what they lead to? Mr. O’Kennedy: Shall I say, my lord, that it is a fact that any association, if it believes that it has justice on its side, and that organisation becomes strong, I am referring to any organisation, let it be national or international, and the just demands of that organisation are ignored, that association or organisation develops into something very bad in the long run, provided it has justice on its side.

16214. Chairman: Your point is that an account of the ignoring of your demands your own Association became depraved? Not quite, my lord.

16215. Chairman: I do not see any other meaning. You say it becomes ‘very bad’. Do you mean that you became so irritated that your members decided to take the law into their own hands? That has always happened in the history of the world and will continue to happen.

16216. Professor O’Rahilly: Do you not advocate that there should be some social method of examining your fair claims as the primary producers of this country and that you would be prepared to abide by that if you got a hearing? That is the position.

16217. Professor O’Rahilly: And you deplore the necessity for having to do such other things to draw attention to what the community should voluntarily rectify? Absolutely.

16218. Chairman: We are not living under a dictatorship. You have the press and you have the Dail? We have been refused the press, my lord.

16219. Mr. Larkin: But you do not own the press and you do not expect, if you do not own the press, to use it? Chairman: Everybody had the press. Mr. McArdle: They refused to publish everything we said. Mr. O’Kennedy: The manifesto of the Federation was refused publication. That is what I was referring to a while ago. Anything in connection with these particular activities was suppressed.

16220. Mr. Larkin: All your submissions were ignored? Mr. McArdle: They were all turned down. None of them was published. Mr. Larkin: Professor O’Rahilly suggests there should be some form of representative body where you would be heard, at least.

16221. Rev. Fr. Hayes: Would you see any danger in a farmers’ political party? Mr. O’Kennedy: His Lordship, has pointed out that there is a tendency with any kind of association that is not heard or does not get the things it wants to become depraved. Apparently that has been the history of political parties of every type both in this country and in most other countries. Professor O’Rahilly: And of the land question in Ireland.

16222. Rev. Fr. Hayes: Do you mean that any organisation becomes depraved when it enters politics?

16223. Mr. Larkin: I do not think he means depraved. Rt. Rev. Dr. Harvey: Would you use the word desperate? Mr. O’Kennedy: I have used the word desperate but his Lordship turned it into “depraved”. Chairman: You should withdraw that, I think. I did not do anything of the kind. You said it becomes “very bad”. Mr. O’Kennedy: What I meant was desperate. Mr. Larkin: Or anti-social. Mr. O’Kennedy: I apologise, my Lord. Professor O’Rahilly: The sense of injustice if allowed to rankle will drive men to extravagance and will be very hard to control, as happened in the old land war in Ireland. Chairman: I am afraid that is a very poor justification. Professor O’Rahilly: He says it will happen.

16224. Chairman: That is the justification you put forward for this producers’ strike? Mr. O’Kennedy: Yes, my lord. Evidence concluded.