As one of the rank and file of the Dáil, I would like to congratulate the Government, and particularly the Minister for Agriculture, on the introduction of this important Bill. I think that, with the exception, perhaps, of the Education Bill, no Bill of such tremendous significance to the nation has come before us.
LAND BILL, 1923—(SECOND STAGE RESUMED.)
Motion made and question again proposed: "That this Bill be now read a Second Time."
Which Education Bill?
I wonder do we here in this Dáil, not to say the man in the street, realise what is taking place? A question that has agitated our people for hundreds of years is about to be brought to what, I think, is a happy climax. After years and years of suffering and hardship for our people, we are at length seeing a measure of land purchase for Irishmen brought in to be legalised by Irishmen. It is a terrible thing to throw our minds back and to think that seventy or eighty odd years ago the population of Ireland was practically double what it is to-day. I venture to say that one of the main reasons that forced our people to emigrate in hundreds of thousands from a fruitful land was, unhappily, the question of Irish land. I, for one, hope to see this Bill carried into law in a short time. If there are, or if some of my colleagues in the Dáil think that there are, some spots in the Bill, I would say to them that even the sun has spots. It may happen that these spots may be erased altogether, or perhaps diminished considerably in size. I hold no brief for any section—neither for the landlord nor the man who wishes to acquire land—and I have no land myself. The only thing I can say is that I am not an admirer of landlords, and, like my friend Deputy Wilson, I would repeat fiat justitia. I think that if this Government, and, if you like, this Dáil, were out for popularity alone, they could, perhaps, do a very popular thing with some of our people by ignoring altogether a certain class, but I think that in any well-ordered country such a thing is impossible. Again I can only repeat, like my friend Deputy Wilson, fiat justitia. The price and the various figures have been very eloquently gone into by various Deputies, and not being a financial expert nor one very much in love with figures, I am not going to touch on that topic. I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture, and I, for one, recognise that this is a bold and honest attempt to try and settle one of the greatest difficulties that our nation has been faced with. Listening the other evening to the speeches of some of the Deputies, they seemed to me, if I followed the course of their arguments aright, to suggest that a certain class in this country had no rights. I have just said that in any well-ordered community there must be some kind of order. What I wish to convey, perhaps, would be better illustrated by a little story I heard some time ago. A landlord, not in Ireland, was walking through his estate, and he came across two poachers, to whom he said, “These are my lands.” The two poachers asked him from whom he got the land. He said from his father. The poachers then asked, “From whom did your father get the land?” and the reply was, “ From my grandfather.” The discussion went on until they came to the present owner's great-grandfather's great-grandfather. Eventually the poachers asked from whom he got the land, and the owner's reply was, “He fought for it.” One of the poachers then said, “Take off your coat now and fight me.”
Will the Minister for Home Affairs take notice of this speech?
That would seem to be the trend of some of the Deputies' remarks, if I interpreted them aright, the other day. I suggest that if we are to progress and advance in Ireland we must have order and common-sense. We cannot be idealistic in some things. We must come down to bedrock, and we cannot follow the example of what the poacher ultimately said to the landlord. I think we have had enough of fighting and of heartbreaking events in Ireland. There are some other points in connection with the Bill that I would like to mention. There is the question of who are you going to put into these holdings when they are acquired by the Government. Of course we cannot discriminate, perhaps, as to who will be put on the land, but one thing I think the Government should do, and that is, make the people who are installed in these holdings cultivate the soil. With all respect, I submit to my friends in the Farmers' Party that there should be a little more originality in the kind of crops grown in Ireland. One point struck me when I was thinking about this Bill, and that was that crops very suitable for agricultural pursuits would be many of them medicinal plants.
Scutch grass.
That, as far as I know, is not used in medicine.
It is.
Am I to be interrupted by the enfant terrible? I have made this suggestion to my agricultural and horticultural friends. Of course the ordinary crops will continue to be grown, but we should have a little originality and try some other crops which would undoubtedly repay the owners, such as the growing of medicinal plants. Another point is that of mining interests. The mining interests are, I understand, vested in the Government of the country. The mining laws in Ireland are, I understand, very complex and intricate, and I would, with all respect, in the interests of the nation, make a suggestion to the Chief Legal Adviser of the Government. If that be possible these laws on mining should be overhauled and made less complex. I only wish again to congratulate the Government, and especially the Minister for Agriculture, because, as a plain Irishman who knows little about the land, I believe that this Land Bill, which I hope to see very soon passed into law, will be the means of bringing to the mind of the man in the street, if they want any realisation of the matter, the magnificent and stupendous change that has come over our country, that we in Ireland, sitting here in an Irish Parliament in the capital of our country, are able to do things.
So very much has been said about the Land Bill that I do not intend to add anything to what is already stated. But there is one point I am very anxious to bring before the Dáil, and that is in reference to the matter raised by Deputy Johnson as to the support given by the Farmers' Party to the enforcement of Law Temporary Provisions Bill, and particularly to the Clause dealing with the recovery of debt. Speaking for myself, and the party to which I belong, I say we supported that Bill and we stand by the principle of that particular Clause still. We defend the collection and the paying of debts, which is the law of every State, and which is in accord with the moral law, and we stood for that in the Act that is passed, and we stand for it still. We never attempted the nonpayment of rent, and we do not do so now, but as tenants we claim the reduction to which we are entitled, and we claim that tenants were entitled to hold their rents until they got these reasonable reductions, and in cases where they did get it, and it was not in very many cases, the rents have been paid up, particularly in the County Louth and in other counties in Ireland. With regard to the Clause relating to arrears in the Land Bill, this clause will hardly be necessary if the Bill is delayed for a couple of months. On the present lines of procedure the Bill will take some time in the Dáil, and some time will be taken on it in the Seanad, amounting in all to, probably, three months. By that time the arrears will have been collected by the bailiffs, assisted by the military forces, which are now going through the country. So I suggest to the Minister for Agriculture that there will be no necessity for this arrears clause in the Land Bill at all.
To a landless man like myself, who never expects to get more than six feet in Glasnevin, the course of this debate has been very peculiar. In fact, the discussion has been of that nature that it made me come to the conclusion, although my perusal of the Bill has not been exhaustive, that this Bill must really be like Cæsar's wife—very largely above suspicion. Because, for instance, in the most vigorous attempt at criticism that was made by Deputy Wilson, he tried to disguise himself as a critic of the Bill, but without effect, for he had really nothing but good to say of the Bill. I take, again, the criticism of Deputy Doyle. He spoke of prices, and then he launched into an attack which was not criticism of this Bill, but which was against something not at all germane to the Bill and had nothing to do with the Bill.
Clause 16.
This Bill is not law yet; he was speaking of operations that were existing, and said something suggesting threatened opposition to this Bill if the present law was not immediately modified. Remember this was a complaint against the iniquity of the present law, and for that reason there is threatened opposition to a measure which proposes to do away with this very iniquitous law. It seems to me very curious logic. As regards price, I think the staunchest upholder of the rights of the tenants will not deny that this Bill gives greater reductions than have been given by any previous land measure or any measure dealing with land matters in the past. That is a matter of actual fact. The tenants who purchased under the 1885 Act bought at an average of nearly eighteen years' purchase of their land; those who bought under the Land Act of 1891 bought at seventeen years' purchase; and those to whom this Bill applies are asked to buy at a little over 13½ years' purchase. Just remember this: Deputy Wilson tried to make the Dáil believe that 13½ years would add up to 20 years. I do not know who taught him his arithmetic, but certainly his arguments were not ones that lead to convincing conclusion.
Now, there was one source from which I expected very vigorous criticism and a very searching analysis of the Bill. I was quite disappointed. Deputy Johnson, instead of analysing the Bill, waived it airily aside, and said let us talk of something else, and he gave us a dissertation which I can only describe as the teaching of a mystic Christianity which we heard enunciated the other night in the Mansion House. It is true that it is a pity the State cannot take the land and hand it over gratuitously to the present occupiers.
You agree that that is a pity?
I say it is a pity. It is a pity that the limitations of the situation with which the country is confronted do not permit that. It is a pity that we have to pay rent for the houses that we inhabit, but it is one of the peculiar little drawbacks of life which I am afraid will continue to figure in the economy of the State for a considerable time to come. Then Deputy Doyle says that the present conditions warrant much more liberal terms than the tenants secured on previous occasions. It would be splendid if terms more liberal than those of the present Bill could be given, but I think the limitations of the possibilities of the State must be considered. I do think the main points to be achieved are these, and I think they are the vital points. One is the security of ownership to the occupier at an annuity that he can bear with comfort, and which will enable him to carry on his holding as an economic holding. Remember it will be no small task upon the part of this Government to finance such an operation as this. It will be an operation of a very serious and large nature, but it may be possible to successfully operate the Bill, and to introduce amendments which give larger terms or a shorter number of years of purchase; but it may also be possible, and let us bear it well in mind, that such operation may be at the expense of the life of the Bill. It is one thing to finance fair play and fair terms all round, but it is another thing to finance something approximating to confiscation. And let those who have to deal with this matter, and who are interested, consider not so much what is in their minds as to the greatest things they could get, but rather what are the greatest things that the State can give them. You may be attempting too much to prevent even a fair measure of justice being meted out. The resources of the State are not inexhaustible. The land of Ireland is limited, and when the present untenanted lands have been portioned out, I presume we will see vastly increased production of the crops of the country necessary for the increased population to consume, or for the markets in foreign countries to consume. The amount of territory distributable in the country is limited, and you must remember that the State will have to engage upon every enterprise which will absorb the non-agricultural population which cannot find work on the land. Therefore, when you are considering such large measures as this, that goes to the root of one of the vital phases of national life, you have to consider them in relation to the general national economic policy, which will be sound and far-seeing in determining what the demands of the State will be in years to come. I presume, therefore, there has been so little real adverse criticism so far, that it is all reserved for the Committee Stage, and all that we can say at this stage is to acknowledge the courage of the Government for tackling this question in the way they have done, and attempting to bring, as Deputy Dr. White has said, within measurable distance of conclusion and settlement one of those problems that has tortured and harassed the entire life of the Irish nation for many generations.
I wish to give my views on this important question of the land settlement. I certainly must feel a bit small when I think of the many great men who represented the district which I now represent, from the days of Philpot Curran in the Irish Parliament down to a few years ago, when in the British Parliament the last to represent us was our present Governor-General. I happen to be the senior member now, and all I can rely on is honesty of purpose. I intend to make an honest effort to help to end this strife, which has been the curse of our country for generations. The land question need not be used now, as in other days, as a means by which the national difficulties of Ireland are to be solved. We have freedom, if we use it, for such a purpose, and need not enslave ourselves. The divisions which I represent have given many champions to Irish liberty; so, too, have they given champions to the power and tyranny of landlordism. I thought that power and tyranny might have changed into good will. I saw a Deputy standing up in the Dáil on the introduction of this Bill, the first who did so, pleading for the few remaining Ponsonby evicted tenants still out of their holdings. I hope these tenants will soon be restored and put back on their land, as well as all other deserving tenants. I hope also that provision will be made for deserving labourers and small holders. The Deputy was moved with pity because he read about the sufferings on that estate. There has been a change, and it is a good sign of the times. Perhaps Lord Barrymore has changed from his principle of not selling his land. If I did not weep for the Ponsonby tenants I worked for them when a boy with the boys and men of my parish with a view to lessening their sufferings when for three years they were kept in their miserable huts by the interference of Lord Barrymore. I thought that Lord Midleton, the Duke of Devonshire, and Lord Barrymore too, had changed, and that they might be going to close amicably this class of fight, which for centuries has been a millstone on Irish progress. All industries in this country reflect the success that attends agriculture. If writs are to be sent broadcast through the country it looks as if we are going to have a renewal of the old land war, and I think all will admit that recently we have had enough of war, but where, I ask, is it all going to end? No one knows better than Lord Barrymore that farming is not paying, and that farmers in many places, particularly in the County Cork, have not been able for the last three years to make their rents out of the land. Lord Barrymore knows that as well as any farmer, for he, too, has had to suffer or rather contend against the sudden slump in prices, the absence of fairs being held regularly, the high rates that have to be paid, and the levies of different kinds that have to be met. The outlook for agriculture in the future is very dark. As compared with their neighbours, unpurchased tenants have been paying excessive rents for a number of years, and it is not to the interest of the State that the tenant should be harassed on the eve of peace. I would appeal to landlords and tenants to do what they can for peace within reason, and to settle this burning question of arrears. It is no use appealing to some landlords, but I am sure there are some reasonable, men amongst them who would not wish to have the country plunged into chaos, and who want to live in this country in a spirit of friendship and co-operation with the general body of the people. It is possible some poor landlords will be badly hit, but now is the time for landlords like Lord Barrymore, the Duke of Devonshire and Lord Midleton, in my native county, to show their magnanimity towards their poorer brethren, and likewise of landlords in other counties whose rentals were reduced very little in comparison to less influential and less favoured members. There should be a mutual understanding, a little give and take, between both parties to bridge over their differences and end this land war. Such a settlement would tend to wipe out the bitter memories of the past. We have had wars enough, and we do not want any more. We want to create a good feeling for every creed and class and clan, as Thomas Davis taught, and to bear a love for all who desire to live here for the good of Ireland. As Parnell said, Ireland cannot afford to lose a single Irishman. I like to practise what I preach, and I have tried to be fair to all classes. As a representative on the public boards of my district, I did my best to cultivate a friendly feeling in the negotiations that went on to secure the measure of land purchase successfully carried through with my own landlord, who put aside the agent lest he might impede the sale. The tenant purchasers on that estate would have more respect than ever for their former landlord had he desired to live amongst them. I should not love landlordism, because the second generations before me, at both sides of my family, were unjustly and cruelly evicted and not for the nonpayment of rent. The Farmers' Party do not want to aggravate this delicate situation, because not only are they the representatives of their class, but they ardently desire that nothing should be allowed to interfere with the accomplishment of a peaceful settlement. We desire for the future peace, prosperity and stability, and to stand for the credit of our country, whose honour we desire to uphold. Some of the representatives on these benches have done their part in every national movement for more years than some of us can remember. Shortsighted people sometimes say that we are narrow-minded, that we are flighty intellectuals and will never be broadminded. What we want at the present time is to be practical and clear minded. Our economic situation needs caution The time is not opportune for agitators and dreamers. I hope the day will come, if not in the near future, when the farmers of Ireland will get the chance of proving that they can be statesmen as well as the Farmer Soldiers of South Africa, or the Farmer Generals of the United States who became Presidents We welcome this Bill as a good draft and a good foundation which, with improvements and amendments will, I hope, pass into law and give greater scope for more enduring good for the people of the nation than any of the Acts passed in the British Parliament. I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture on his ability and the honest effort he has made to settle this question. I hope his success as an Irish statesman in this settlement will be greater than that of any of the English statesmen whose names are associated with measures for the solution of the Irish Land Question.
I was not over impressed with the attempt made by Deputy Dr. White, speaking earlier in the debate to-day, to prove that the landlord in this matter had certain rights. I was rather more inclined to the view taken yesterday by Deputy Johnson. If we have read our history aright, I think most of us will agree that in the majority of cases these lands, which are now to be transferred, were acquired as a result either of plunder or conquest. I do not believe that anybody will say that such an action was right at the time that it occurred, and I have yet to learn that the lapse of time justifies something which is in itself unjust. It may not, perhaps, be a practical proposition now to bring back, as the Minister for Home Affairs suggested, the descendants of O'Donnell or O'Rourke, and plant them on these lands, but I think it is going too far when the Minister for Agriculture suggests that it is only doing justice to the descendants of those plunderers and robbers when he proposes to recognise certain legal rights which they have acquired in the course of time, and I have no doubt that the proposals which are in this Bill, and in the treatment which was meted out to former landlords who were bought out by the State, may be regarded as generous. I suppose from that, arguing on those lines would be doing what the Minister for Home Affairs would describe as getting off our feet, and perhaps I should leave it at that. I think that whatever views we may have as to the rights of the landlords, we have to recognise the fact that for the past twenty or thirty years, perhaps longer, the demand of the vast majority of tenant farmers, and their ideal, was to be made proprietors of their holdings —peasant proprietorship—and my own view of the matter is that, whether we may hold different views as to the rights of the matter or not, it would be best to recognise that fact, do what we can to put these people's demands into practice, and wait for other times until those who hold different views are able to convince all the people, or the majority of the people, that the different views should be put into practical effect. One of the chief provisions of this Bill is to relieve congestion, and in so far as it sets out to do that, and in so far as it does that, it has my support, knowing as I do, and as any of us who come from the Western portions of Ireland must know, the evils which have arisen and the evils which exist as a result of congestion. If a man earns his living by the land he should have so much of the land placed at his disposal as will enable him to live and rear his family comfortably or with a fair measure of comfort, on the produce of the land, in addition to providing this annuity, which must be paid to the State, and which should not, as Deputy Johnson said, be the first charge on the holding. There are various opinions as to what an economic holding is. Perhaps in the circumstances it is best that it should be left as it is in the Bill, without actually defining the figure or fixing a rigid limit. In the last Bill, I think it was a 1909 Bill, a figure of £10 valuation was definitely fixed as being the limit over which any holding was economic. I believe that there are very many holdings over that valuation which could not be described as economic holdings in the sense in which I understand what is meant by an economic holding. If it were suggested that the figure should be raised the difficulty would arise as to perhaps what the figure should be. If we assume, and we have no right to assume otherwise, that the Land Commission will deal with this matter and judge it in a proper way, having regard to all these circumstances, it is perhaps best that the figure should be left to their judgment. However, I would like to put a minimum figure below which it would not be possible for them to go. The question of the migration of existing tenants to large ranches will present very many great difficulties, and I agree that it is one on which all people interested in the land should support and help those who are trying to solve that very difficult problem. It will require very careful handling. The suggestion which I made before on one occasion is, I think, worthy of consideration, that is the question of migrating these people in colonies rather than individually. One of the principal objections which migrants have to leaving their own districts is that they are leaving their neighbours and friends, and if it were possible to take a large number of them and migrate them to a certain ranch it would get over these difficulties to some extent. Now, there is the question of evicted tenants. Provision is made for restoring evicted tenants, but a limit of 25 years is set, that is 25 years before the passing of the Irish Land Act. If people were evicted before that time they have no claim under the provisions of this Bill. That is a provision which I cannot understand or appreciate. I do not see why, if the Land Commission are satisfied that people were evicted from the land even before that time, that their families should not now have a right to consideration when these lands from which they were evicted were being distributed. We know that very many of the evictions and clearances—clearances to which the existence of the present ranches in a great many parts of the country are due—took place long before the date specified in the Bill, during the period following the famine and during the fifties and sixties. I think there is no reason why, if the descendants of the families which were cleared in these times can establish the fact that they had held portions of these lands in these times and were cleared out of them, why they should not have a claim under this clause to restoration in these ranches. Regarding the division of these ranches, there is one particular provision that I would like to see introduced into the Bill. I agree with my friends of the Farmers' Party that if our chief industry in the country is to prosper and progress as it should, we must have more agricultural education. Provision must be made for that, just as it is made in other countries, especially Denmark. This education should not be entirely of a theoretical type and merely book education. It should be rather of the practical and experimental kind, and if that is to be the case I think advantage should be taken of this division of land to set aside in each district a small portion of land which would serve as a demonstration or educational plot. These plots might be attached either to the National schools or the County Agricultural or Technical Schools—plots which would be used, say, for horticultural demonstration or practical agricultural education. I think that is a matter the Minister might consider. The point will be made, no doubt, that all the land available will be required for the relief of congestion; but the portion which would be required for this purpose would be so comparatively small, and its usefulness so comparatively great, that I think it would render a better service in the particular direction which I mention. Nothing has been said, as far as I can discover—of course, land law is an extremely technical thing, and I think that we might all be prepared to admit that at best we are only amateurs at this kind of thing—and I can discover nothing in the Bill about accommodation land attached to towns, or what exactly will be the position of townparks, and whether it will be possible to buy these out, or what will be the position of towns situated in rural districts. Under the old Acts some provision was made for the purchase of town properties. Towns like Castlerea, Athenry, and other towns in the West of Ireland, were bought out under the provisions of the Land Act. I do not know what is the provision in this Act, if any, and I would like if the Minister would clear up our minds on that particular point. On the question of arrears, I was not impressed by the attempt made by my friend Deputy Rooney to explain away his action in voting for a measure which they find now has recoiled on their own heads, because it was not without warning as to what was likely to happen that that vote was cast. I think it was the Minister for Home Affairs, speaking yesterday, who made the statement that in none of the cases in which decrees were executed by the aid of the military was any offer made of payment according to the provisions of this Bill. I would like to put a question to the Minister, or the Minister for Home Affairs, and I would put it in this way, that if an offer is made in all these cases where writs have been issued and where decrees are pending, if the tenants are prepared to offer the rents in accordance with the provisions laid down in this Bill —that is, I think, a reduction of 25 per cent.—is the Minister prepared in that case to call off the writs and the executions? I do not know what his power in that matter is, but I take it that the Minister for Home Affairs, speaking yesterday, rather hinted that if such an offer were made the writs should not be proceeded with. I want to be quite straight about that. If the offer is made by the tenants, what is going to happen? In a question which I put down a few days ago, and which was answered this morning, I was rather trying to get some light on a state of affairs which seems to be agitating a certain portion of the Minister's constituency and mine in County Galway. I have a Press report before me, and I would like to give the Minister this opportunity of clearing up this matter which is causing such confusion down there. The secretary of this meeting of unpurchased tenants held in Tuam, according to the report, "read a letter received from the Minister for Agriculture stating that the Government could not interfere with decrees for rents awarded by the County Court Judges, but that military forces would not assist in the execution of the decrees." I would like the Minister to clear this up and tell us definitely what exactly was the justification for the secretary reading such a letter and alleging that it came from the Minister.
I think I told the Deputy definitely my position in the matter about two hours ago.
I think the Minister stated that he would refer to it in the debate.
I said that I would refer to the whole question of arrears on the debate, but I told the Deputy definitely my position in regard to interfering between plaintiff and defendant in the execution of decrees.
Very well, I will leave it at that. I accept the Minister's statement that no such letter was sent as is alleged.
I will read the letter that was sent.
The reading of that letter will, no doubt, clear away some of that confusion to which I refer. With regard to the question of the creation of bogus tenancies, I think that provision is made in the Bill whereby any tenancy created since, I think, September, 1922, may not be recognised as a tenancy. I think it should go back beyond that date. I think that untenanted lands which, during the past two or three years, were given over to tenants to avoid or evade the provisions of a Bill which they knew would come along, should not be recognised for the purpose of evading the provisions of the Bill, and power should be taken to apply the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that such bogus tenancies were created.
There is a motion down which should arise at 6 o'clock, and I would like to know whether it is intended to take that motion then or whether it is proposed to finish the Land Bill now.
I intended to make a statement about the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the Fiscal System, and I would like to make it before taking up the motion on the Order Paper.
According to the Standing Orders, if we are going to have Private Members' Business taken at six o'clock, we should have the debate adjourned.
I am in the hands of the Dáil, but in view of the fact that it is ten minutes to six now, we seem to have no alternative except to adjourn.
Standing Orders provide that this motion be taken at six o'clock, and I will give Deputy Gorey an opportunity of moving the adjournment of the debate so that he will be the first person to speak when it is resumed.
My objection is that when the Bill was put up yesterday there was a lot of new matter introduced, and this matter is so important that it should be dealt with immediately.
That is a different matter altogether.
I suggest that Deputy Gorey be allowed to make his speech until the time for private members' business is reached.
Would there be any prospect of finishing this debate by 7 o'clock and then taking up the private motion?
We ought to stick to Standing Orders.
Very well, I take it that Deputy Gorey moves the adjournment until the first day of next week upon which the Dáil sits.
I formally move the adjournment.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle at this stage took the Chair.